content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{State of the art on imputation in quantitative proteomics}
Table \ref{tab:biblio} gives an overview of the recent literature on imputation methods in quantitative proteomics. Imputation methods are abbreviated as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{BPCA:} Bayesian principal component analysis
\item \textbf{CAM:} Convex analysis of mixtures
\item \textbf{FCS:} Fully conditional specification
\item \textbf{FRMF:} Fused regularisation matrix factorisation
\item \textbf{kNN:} k-nearest neighbours
\item \textbf{LLS:} Local least-squares
\item \textbf{LOD1:} Half of the global minimum
\item \textbf{LOD2:} Half of the peptide minimum
\item \textbf{LSA:} Least-squares adaptive
\item \textbf{MBI:} Model-based imputation
\item \textbf{MCMC:} Monte-Carlo Markov chains
\item \textbf{MI:} Multiple imputation
\item \textbf{mice:} Multiple imputation using chained equations
\item \textbf{MinDet:} Deterministic minimum
\item \textbf{MinProb:} Probabilistic minimum
\item \textbf{MLE:} Maximum likelihood estimation
\item \textbf{NIPALS:} Non-linear estimation by iterative partial least squares
\item \textbf{PCA:} Principal component analysis
\item \textbf{PPCA:} Probabilistic principal component analysis
\item \textbf{pwKNN:} Protein-wise k-nearest neighbours
\item \textbf{QRLIC:} Quantile regression imputation of left-censored
\item \textbf{SLSA:} Structured least squares algorithm
\item \textbf{SVD:} Singular value decomposition
\item \textbf{SVT:} Singular value thresholding
\item \textbf{swKNN:} Sample-wise k-nearest neighbours
\item \textbf{REM:} Regularised expectation maximisation
\item \textbf{RF:} Random forests
\item \textbf{RTI:} Random tail imputation
\end{itemize}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\makebox[\textheight][c]{\resizebox{1.6\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textsc{Authors}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Methods}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Datasets}} \\ \hline
\cite{karpievitchNormalizationMissingValue2012} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} MLE &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Simulated dataset:}\\ 10 samples, 2 groups, 1400 proteins\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{choiMSstatsPackageStatistical2014} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} Accelerated Failure Time model &
\\ \hline
\cite{webb-robertsonReviewEvaluationDiscussion2015} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:}\\ Single-Value Approaches (LOD1, LOD2, RTI)\\ Local Similarity Approaches (KNN, LLS, LSA, REM, MBI)\\ Global-Structure Approaches (PPCA and BPCA)\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real datasets:} \\ Mouse plasma + Shewanella oneidensis, 60 samples, 1518 peptides\\ Human Plasma, 71 samples, 48 vs 23 T2D, 6729 peptides\\ Mouse Lung, 32 samples, 6295 peptides\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{tyanovaPerseusComputationalPlatform2016} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} Gaussian distribution, constant &
\\ \hline
\cite{lazarAccountingMultipleNatures2016} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} kNN, SVD, MLE, MinDet, MinProb &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Simulated dataset:} \cite{karpievitchNormalizationMissingValue2012}\\ 1000 peptides, 20 replicates\\ \textbf{Real dataset:} \cite{zhangProteomicProfilesHuman2014}\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{yinMultipleImputationAnalysis2016} &
\textbf{Multiple imputation:} MCMC + FCS &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real dataset:} \\ Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort\\ 861 plasma proteins, 135 samples\\ MCAR amputation on the 261 entirely observed proteins\\ Application to 544 partially unobserved proteins (40\% missing values)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{wieczorekDAPARProStaRSoftware2017} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} kNN, MLE, BPCA, Quantile regression &
\\ \hline
\cite{changPANDAviewEasytouseTool2018} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} kNN\\ \textbf{Multiple imputation:} mice\end{tabular} &
\\ \hline
\cite{liGMSimputeGeneralizedTwostep2020} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} \\ Two-step lasso method, kNN, TR-kNN, RF, DanteR, Min\end{tabular} &
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}}}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\makebox[\textheight][c]{\resizebox{1.6\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textsc{Authors}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Methods}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Datasets}} \\ \hline
\cite{goeminneMSqRobTakesMissing2020} &
Hurdle model. &
\textbf{Real dataset:} Paulovich et al. 2010 \\ \hline
\cite{gianettoPeptidelevelMultipleImputation2020} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Multiple imputation:} \\ MI, PCA, MLE, kNN, IGCDA, RF, SLSA\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Simulated dataset:} Ramus et al. 2016 \\ \hline
\cite{liuProperImputationMissing2020} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} \\ BPCA, kNN, MinProb, MLE, QRLIC, SVD, DetMin\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real datasets:} 1-4 groups, 9-56 samples, 1847-6932 proteins\\ Available on PRIDE repositories\\ \\ \textbf{Simulated datasets:} Based on the real datasets\\ 3 groups, 27-60 samples, 2800-3500 proteins\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{jinComparativeStudyEvaluating2021} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} \\ left-censored methods, kNN, LLS, RF, SVD, BPCA\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real datasets:}\\ (E.coli + Yeast) + UPS, 7 groups, 56 samples\\ Immune cell dataset, 3 vs 4 samples\\ Amputation of complete cases\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{shenComparativeAssessmentOutlook2021} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} \\ swKNN, pwKNN, Min/2, Mean, PPCA, NIPALS, SVD, \\ SVT, FRMF, CAM\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real dataset:}\\ Herrington et al. 2018\\ Amputation of complete cases from real datasets\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{songMissingValueImputation2021} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} Xgboost, mean, kNN, BPCA, LLS, RF &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real datasets:}\\ Kinases expression of human colon \\ and rectal cancer cell line : 65 samples, 235 kinases\\ Proteome about the interstitial lung disease : 11 samples, \\ random draw of 500 completely observed proteins\\ Ovarian cancer proteome dataset : 25 samples, \\ random draw of 400 completely observed proteins\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}}
\caption{State of the art on imputation methods used in quantitative proteomics and type of data used.}
\label{tab:biblio}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Aggregation of peptides' intensities}
The methodology implemented in the \texttt{mi4p} \texttt{R} package can be applied to peptide-level quantification data as well as protein-level quantification data. However, we were interested in evaluating our method on a peptide-level dataset and inferring results at a protein level, as it is common practice in proteomics. Therefore, for intensity aggregation, we chose to sum all unique peptides' intensities for each protein. We then adjusted our pipeline as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Out-filtration of non-unique peptides from the peptide-level quantification dataset.
\item Normalisation of the $\textrm{log2}$-transformed peptide intensities.
\item Multiple imputation of $\textrm{log2}$-transformed peptide intensities.
\item Aggregation by summing all peptides intensities (non-$\textrm{log2}$-transformed) from a given protein in each imputed dataset.
\item $\textrm{log2}$-transformation of protein intensities.
\item Estimation of variance-covariance matrix.
\item Projection of the estimated variance-covariance matrix.
\item Moderated $t$-testing on the combined protein-level dataset
\end{enumerate}
\section{Indicators of performance} \label{sec:Perf}
Let $TP$, $TN$, $FP$ and $FN$ respectively denote the numbers of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives.
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Sensitivity} = \frac{TP}{TP + FN}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Specificity} = \frac{TN}{TN + FP}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Precision} = \frac{TP}{TP + FP}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
F\mathrm{-Score} = \frac{TP}{TP + \frac{1}{2} \times (FP + FN)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{MCC} = \frac{TP \times TN - FP \times FN}{\sqrt{\left(TP+FP\right)\left(TP+FN\right)\left(TN+FP\right)\left(TN+FP\right)}}
\end{equation}
\section{Results on the first set of simulations}
\subsection{Simulation design}
We considered an experimental design where the distributions of the two groups to be compared scarcely overlap. This design led to a fixed effect one-way ANOVA model, which can be written as:
\begin{equation}
y_{ij} = \mu + \delta_{ij} + \epsilon_{ij}
\end{equation}
with $\mu = 100$, $\delta_{ij} = 100$ if $1 \leq i \leq 10$ and $j=2$ and $\delta_{ij} = 0$ otherwise and $\epsilon_{ijk} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Here, $y_{ij}$ represents the log-transformed abundance of peptide $i$ in the $j$-th sample.
Thus, we generated $100$ datasets by considering $200$ individuals and $10$ variables, divided into $2$ groups of $5$ variables, using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first 10 rows of the data frame, set as differentially expressed, draw the first 5 observations (first group) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 1. Then draw the remaining 5 observations (second group) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 200 and a standard deviation of 1.
\item For the remaining 190 rows, set as non-differentially expressed, draw the first 5 observations as well as the last 5 observations from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 1.
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\subsection{Performance evaluation}
This subsection provides the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow compared to the \texttt{DAPAR} workflow on the first set of simulations. The performance is described using the indicators detailed in Section \ref{sec:Perf}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{Bplot_Se-Sp-P-F-MCC.png}}
\caption{Distribution of the difference of performance between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} workflows on the first set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{fig:Sim1:Bplot}
\end{figure}
The following tables provide results expressed as the mean of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets $\pm$ the mean of the standard deviations of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets. Results are based on adjusted p-values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure \citep{benjaminiControllingFalseDiscovery1995} and a false discovery rate of 1\%.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.9 $\pm$ 5.7 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.1 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96 $\pm$ 5.7 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3.1 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.8 $\pm$ 1 & 189.2 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 92.9 $\pm$ 7.6 & 96.2 $\pm$ 4.2 & 96.1 $\pm$ 4.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.9 $\pm$ 6.1 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.2 $\pm$ 1.3 & 188.8 $\pm$ 1.3 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 90.3 $\pm$ 9.3 & 94.6 $\pm$ 5.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 5.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.3 $\pm$ 6.8 & 97.5 $\pm$ 3.7 & 97.4 $\pm$ 3.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.3 & 188.7 $\pm$ 1.3 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.7 & 89.6 $\pm$ 9.4 & 94.2 $\pm$ 5.4 & 94.2 $\pm$ 5.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 1 & 189.4 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 95.3 $\pm$ 7.4 & 97.4 $\pm$ 4.2 & 97.4 $\pm$ 4.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 2.2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 187.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 98.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & 83.1 $\pm$ 10.9 & 90.4 $\pm$ 6.6 & 90.5 $\pm$ 6.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 188.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 89.8 $\pm$ 11.4 & 94.2 $\pm$ 6.7 & 94.3 $\pm$ 6.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.9 $\pm$ 2.1 & 186.8 $\pm$ 2.2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 98.5 $\pm$ 1.1 & 79.7 $\pm$ 12.5 & 88.2 $\pm$ 7.9 & 88.3 $\pm$ 7.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 188 $\pm$ 2.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.2 $\pm$ 1 & 88.3 $\pm$ 12 & 93.3 $\pm$ 7.2 & 93.4 $\pm$ 7 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 5.4 & 98 $\pm$ 2.9 & 98 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 5.4 & 98 $\pm$ 2.9 & 98 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.4 & 98.7 $\pm$ 2.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.4 & 98.7 $\pm$ 2.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.2 $\pm$ 4.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.2 $\pm$ 4.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.2 $\pm$ 5.8 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.2 $\pm$ 5.8 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 9.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.9 $\pm$ 1 & 189.1 $\pm$ 1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 97.7 $\pm$ 4.7 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.5 & 92.7 $\pm$ 7.8 & 94.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 94.8 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.9 $\pm$ 1 & 189.1 $\pm$ 1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 97.7 $\pm$ 4.7 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.5 & 92.7 $\pm$ 7.8 & 94.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 94.8 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using $k$-nearest neighbours.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impKNN:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.8 $\pm$ 2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.4 $\pm$ 3.7 & 99 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.3 & 99.3 $\pm$ 2.9 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.3 $\pm$ 4 & 98.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 98.7 $\pm$ 2.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.6 $\pm$ 2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.6 $\pm$ 3.7 & 99 $\pm$ 2.1 & 99 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 96.9 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.9 $\pm$ 4.1 & 97.3 $\pm$ 3.4 & 97.2 $\pm$ 3.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 4.1 & 98.9 $\pm$ 2.1 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.3 & 189.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 95.5 $\pm$ 6.9 & 100 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.2 $\pm$ 2.6 & 97.2 $\pm$ 4 & 97.1 $\pm$ 4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.2 $\pm$ 4.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.2 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 190 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & 91.7 $\pm$ 8.8 & 100 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 95.3 $\pm$ 4.9 & 95.3 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 6.4 & 97.1 $\pm$ 3.5 & 97.1 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8.9 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 190 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.1 $\pm$ 1 & 89.1 $\pm$ 10.3 & 100 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 93.9 $\pm$ 6.1 & 93.9 $\pm$ 5.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.2 $\pm$ 1.1 & 188.8 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 90.3 $\pm$ 8 & 94.7 $\pm$ 4.6 & 94.6 $\pm$ 4.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8.9 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 190 $\pm$ 0 & 1.1 $\pm$ 1.1 & 89.3 $\pm$ 11.1 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 94 $\pm$ 6.7 & 94.1 $\pm$ 6.4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using Bayesian linear regression.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impNORM:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 6 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 6 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 6.8 & 97.1 $\pm$ 3.7 & 97 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 6.8 & 97.1 $\pm$ 3.7 & 97 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1 $\pm$ 1.1 & 189 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.6 & 91.8 $\pm$ 8.3 & 95.5 $\pm$ 4.7 & 95.5 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1 $\pm$ 1.1 & 189 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.6 & 91.8 $\pm$ 8.3 & 95.5 $\pm$ 4.7 & 95.5 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 188.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 90.1 $\pm$ 8.9 & 94.5 $\pm$ 5.1 & 94.5 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 188.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 90.1 $\pm$ 8.9 & 94.5 $\pm$ 5.1 & 94.5 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 188 $\pm$ 1.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99 $\pm$ 0.8 & 85.1 $\pm$ 9.8 & 91.6 $\pm$ 5.9 & 91.6 $\pm$ 5.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 188 $\pm$ 1.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99 $\pm$ 0.8 & 85.4 $\pm$ 9.8 & 91.8 $\pm$ 5.9 & 91.8 $\pm$ 5.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.5 $\pm$ 1.6 & 187.2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 98.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 81 $\pm$ 10.5 & 89.1 $\pm$ 6.4 & 89.2 $\pm$ 6.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.6 $\pm$ 1.6 & 186.8 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 98.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 80.5 $\pm$ 10.5 & 88.8 $\pm$ 6.4 & 88.9 $\pm$ 6.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using principal component analysis.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impPCA:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96 $\pm$ 6 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96 $\pm$ 6 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96 $\pm$ 5.3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 2.8 & 97.8 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96 $\pm$ 5.3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 2.8 & 97.8 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 6.7 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.7 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.9 $\pm$ 6.4 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.6 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.2 $\pm$ 5.3 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.8 $\pm$ 5.5 & 98.2 $\pm$ 3 & 98.1 $\pm$ 3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 5.4 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96 $\pm$ 5.4 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.5 $\pm$ 5 & 98.6 $\pm$ 2.7 & 98.6 $\pm$ 2.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.1 $\pm$ 1.3 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.5 $\pm$ 4.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.7 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using random forests.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impRF:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Results on the second set of simulations}
\subsection{Simulation design}
Secondly, we considered an experimental design, where the distributions of the two groups to be compared might highly overlap. Hence, we based it on the random hierarchical ANOVA model by \cite{lazarAccountingMultipleNatures2016}, derived from \cite{karpievitchNormalizationMissingValue2012}. The simulation design follows the following model:
\begin{equation}
y_{ij} = P_{i} + G_{ik} + \epsilon_{ijk}
\end{equation}
where $y_{ij}$ is the log-transformed abundance of peptide $i$ in the $j$-th sample, $P_{i}$ is the mean value of peptide $i$, $G_{ik}$ is the mean difference between the condition groups, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ is the random error term, which stands for the peptide-wise variance.
We generated 100 datasets by considering 1000 individuals and 20 variables, divided into 2 groups of 10 variables, using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Generate the peptide-wise effect $P_{i}$ by drawing 1000 observations from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5.
\item Generate the group effect $G_{ik}$ by drawing 200 observations (for the 200 individuals set as differentially expressed) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 and 800 observations fixed to 0.
\item Build the first group dataset by replicating 10 times the sum of $P_{i}$ and the random error term, drawn from a Gaussian distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5.
\item Build the second group dataset by replicating 10 times the sum of $P_{i}$, $G_{ik}$ and the random error term drawn from a Gaussian distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5.
\item Bind both datasets to get the complete dataset.
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\subsection{Performance evaluation}
This subsection provides the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow compared to the \texttt{DAPAR} workflow on the second set of simulations. The performance is described using the indicators detailed in Section \ref{sec:Perf}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{Bplot_L16bis_Se-Sp-P-F-MCC.png}}
\caption{Distribution of the difference of performance between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} workflows on the second set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{fig:L16bis:Bplot}
\end{figure}
The following tables provide results expressed as the mean of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets $\pm$ the mean of the standard deviations of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets. Results are based on adjusted p-values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure \citep{benjaminiControllingFalseDiscovery1995} and a false discovery rate of 1\%.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.8 $\pm$ 11.4 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.5 & 119.2 $\pm$ 11.4 & 40.4 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.6 & 56.9 $\pm$ 5.9 & 58.2 $\pm$ 4.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 166.9 $\pm$ 5 & 6.3 $\pm$ 2.7 & 793.7 $\pm$ 2.7 & 33.1 $\pm$ 5 & 83.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.4 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 87.4 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.8 $\pm$ 12.1 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 119.2 $\pm$ 12.1 & 40.4 $\pm$ 6.1 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.3 $\pm$ 1.9 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 58 $\pm$ 4.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 164.2 $\pm$ 6.1 & 6.1 $\pm$ 3.5 & 793.9 $\pm$ 3.5 & 35.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 82.1 $\pm$ 3 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.5 $\pm$ 1.9 & 88.7 $\pm$ 1.5 & 86.6 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 78.8 $\pm$ 11.9 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.6 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.6 & 121.2 $\pm$ 11.9 & 39.4 $\pm$ 5.9 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.8 & 55.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 57.1 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 160.7 $\pm$ 7.8 & 5.6 $\pm$ 3.8 & 794.4 $\pm$ 3.8 & 39.3 $\pm$ 7.8 & 80.4 $\pm$ 3.9 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 96.7 $\pm$ 2.1 & 87.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & 85.6 $\pm$ 2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.3 $\pm$ 11.4 & 3.3 $\pm$ 1.9 & 796.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & 119.7 $\pm$ 11.4 & 40.1 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.1 $\pm$ 2.1 & 56.4 $\pm$ 5.8 & 57.3 $\pm$ 4.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 159 $\pm$ 8.8 & 6.7 $\pm$ 5.1 & 793.3 $\pm$ 5.1 & 41 $\pm$ 8.8 & 79.5 $\pm$ 4.4 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & 96.2 $\pm$ 2.7 & 86.9 $\pm$ 2.1 & 84.7 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 81.3 $\pm$ 11.6 & 4 $\pm$ 2.1 & 796 $\pm$ 2.1 & 118.7 $\pm$ 11.6 & 40.7 $\pm$ 5.8 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 56.8 $\pm$ 5.9 & 57.4 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 158 $\pm$ 9.8 & 7.2 $\pm$ 5.4 & 792.8 $\pm$ 5.4 & 42 $\pm$ 9.8 & 79 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.1 $\pm$ 0.7 & 95.8 $\pm$ 2.9 & 86.5 $\pm$ 2.3 & 84.2 $\pm$ 2.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 82.5 $\pm$ 12.3 & 4.7 $\pm$ 2.7 & 795.3 $\pm$ 2.7 & 117.5 $\pm$ 12.3 & 41.2 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & 94.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 57.2 $\pm$ 6 & 57.5 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 154.5 $\pm$ 10.4 & 6.9 $\pm$ 6.2 & 793.1 $\pm$ 6.2 & 45.5 $\pm$ 10.4 & 77.3 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.1 $\pm$ 0.8 & 96 $\pm$ 3.3 & 85.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 83.1 $\pm$ 2.4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & 1.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 798.2 $\pm$ 1.4 & 119.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & 40.2 $\pm$ 6 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.3 & 58.1 $\pm$ 4.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 167.9 $\pm$ 4.8 & 6.6 $\pm$ 2.5 & 793.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 32 $\pm$ 4.8 & 84 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.2 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89.7 $\pm$ 1.4 & 87.6 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.6 $\pm$ 12.4 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.7 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.7 & 120.4 $\pm$ 12.4 & 39.8 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.9 & 56.2 $\pm$ 6.5 & 57.7 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 169.6 $\pm$ 4.3 & 6.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 793.3 $\pm$ 2.8 & 30.4 $\pm$ 4.3 & 84.8 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.2 $\pm$ 1.5 & 90.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.1 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 78.2 $\pm$ 13.5 & 2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 798 $\pm$ 1.7 & 121.8 $\pm$ 13.5 & 39.1 $\pm$ 6.8 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.7 $\pm$ 1.8 & 55.5 $\pm$ 7.1 & 57.1 $\pm$ 5.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 170.8 $\pm$ 4.3 & 6.3 $\pm$ 2.8 & 793.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 29.2 $\pm$ 4.3 & 85.4 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 90.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.7 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79 $\pm$ 14.1 & 2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 798 $\pm$ 1.7 & 121 $\pm$ 14.1 & 39.5 $\pm$ 7 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 55.9 $\pm$ 7.3 & 57.4 $\pm$ 5.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 171.6 $\pm$ 4.5 & 6.2 $\pm$ 3.1 & 793.8 $\pm$ 3.1 & 28.4 $\pm$ 4.5 & 85.8 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.5 $\pm$ 1.7 & 90.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 77.2 $\pm$ 16.8 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 122.8 $\pm$ 16.8 & 38.6 $\pm$ 8.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & 54.7 $\pm$ 9.8 & 56.4 $\pm$ 7.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 171.1 $\pm$ 4.7 & 5.7 $\pm$ 2.7 & 794.3 $\pm$ 2.7 & 28.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 85.5 $\pm$ 2.3 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.8 $\pm$ 1.5 & 90.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 74.4 $\pm$ 16.8 & 1.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 798.2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 125.6 $\pm$ 16.8 & 37.2 $\pm$ 8.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & 53.3 $\pm$ 9.8 & 55.3 $\pm$ 7.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 170.3 $\pm$ 4.9 & 5.9 $\pm$ 2.9 & 794.1 $\pm$ 2.9 & 29.7 $\pm$ 4.9 & 85.1 $\pm$ 2.5 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.7 $\pm$ 1.6 & 90.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88.6 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using $k$-nearest neighbours method.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impKNN:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.7 $\pm$ 11.9 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 119.3 $\pm$ 11.9 & 40.4 $\pm$ 6 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 58.2 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 165.7 $\pm$ 5 & 5.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 794.6 $\pm$ 2.4 & 34.3 $\pm$ 5 & 82.8 $\pm$ 2.5 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.9 $\pm$ 1.3 & 89.3 $\pm$ 1.5 & 87.3 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.5 $\pm$ 12.5 & 2.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 797.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 119.5 $\pm$ 12.5 & 40.3 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 56.6 $\pm$ 6.4 & 57.9 $\pm$ 4.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 157.3 $\pm$ 5.5 & 2.5 $\pm$ 1.7 & 797.5 $\pm$ 1.7 & 42.6 $\pm$ 5.5 & 78.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.5 $\pm$ 1 & 87.4 $\pm$ 1.7 & 85.5 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.6 $\pm$ 12.8 & 2.7 $\pm$ 2 & 797.3 $\pm$ 2 & 120.4 $\pm$ 12.8 & 39.8 $\pm$ 6.4 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.9 $\pm$ 2.1 & 56.1 $\pm$ 6.5 & 57.3 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 156.2 $\pm$ 5.7 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.6 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.6 & 43.8 $\pm$ 5.7 & 78.1 $\pm$ 2.8 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.5 $\pm$ 1 & 87.1 $\pm$ 1.8 & 85.2 $\pm$ 1.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.6 $\pm$ 15 & 3.2 $\pm$ 2.4 & 796.8 $\pm$ 2.4 & 119.4 $\pm$ 15 & 40.3 $\pm$ 7.5 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 2.5 & 56.3 $\pm$ 8.3 & 57.3 $\pm$ 6.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 150.7 $\pm$ 6.7 & 1.6 $\pm$ 1.2 & 798.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 49.3 $\pm$ 6.7 & 75.3 $\pm$ 3.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.9 $\pm$ 0.8 & 85.5 $\pm$ 2.2 & 83.6 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.5 $\pm$ 15.3 & 3.9 $\pm$ 2.6 & 796.1 $\pm$ 2.6 & 119.5 $\pm$ 15.3 & 40.3 $\pm$ 7.6 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95.5 $\pm$ 2.7 & 56.2 $\pm$ 8.1 & 57 $\pm$ 6.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 144 $\pm$ 6.9 & 0.9 $\pm$ 1 & 799.1 $\pm$ 1 & 56 $\pm$ 6.9 & 72 $\pm$ 3.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 83.4 $\pm$ 2.3 & 81.7 $\pm$ 2.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.7 $\pm$ 17.6 & 4.6 $\pm$ 3.2 & 795.4 $\pm$ 3.2 & 120.3 $\pm$ 17.6 & 39.9 $\pm$ 8.8 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.8 $\pm$ 2.8 & 55.5 $\pm$ 9.5 & 56.3 $\pm$ 7.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 137.2 $\pm$ 6.7 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 62.8 $\pm$ 6.7 & 68.6 $\pm$ 3.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 81.2 $\pm$ 2.4 & 79.5 $\pm$ 2.3 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using Bayesian linear regression.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impNORM:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.6 $\pm$ 11.8 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.5 & 119.4 $\pm$ 11.8 & 40.3 $\pm$ 5.9 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 58.1 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 168.1 $\pm$ 4.8 & 6.8 $\pm$ 2.7 & 793.2 $\pm$ 2.7 & 31.9 $\pm$ 4.8 & 84 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.1 $\pm$ 1.5 & 89.7 $\pm$ 1.5 & 87.6 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.9 $\pm$ 12.6 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 119.1 $\pm$ 12.6 & 40.4 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.2 $\pm$ 2 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.5 & 58 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 170 $\pm$ 4.6 & 7.6 $\pm$ 2.9 & 792.5 $\pm$ 2.9 & 30 $\pm$ 4.6 & 85 $\pm$ 2.3 & 99.1 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 1.6 & 90 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.9 $\pm$ 13 & 2.8 $\pm$ 1.9 & 797.2 $\pm$ 1.9 & 120.1 $\pm$ 13 & 40 $\pm$ 6.5 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.8 $\pm$ 2 & 56.2 $\pm$ 6.6 & 57.4 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 172.1 $\pm$ 4.6 & 8.2 $\pm$ 3 & 791.8 $\pm$ 3 & 27.9 $\pm$ 4.6 & 86.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 99 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 90.5 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.5 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 81.8 $\pm$ 12.9 & 3.6 $\pm$ 2.5 & 796.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 118.2 $\pm$ 12.9 & 40.9 $\pm$ 6.4 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95.9 $\pm$ 2.5 & 57 $\pm$ 6.5 & 57.8 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 174.2 $\pm$ 4 & 9.4 $\pm$ 3.6 & 790.6 $\pm$ 3.6 & 25.8 $\pm$ 4 & 87.1 $\pm$ 2 & 98.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 94.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 90.8 $\pm$ 1.3 & 88.8 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 82.1 $\pm$ 15.4 & 4.4 $\pm$ 2.6 & 795.6 $\pm$ 2.6 & 117.9 $\pm$ 15.4 & 41 $\pm$ 7.7 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95.1 $\pm$ 2.7 & 56.8 $\pm$ 8 & 57.4 $\pm$ 6.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 175.6 $\pm$ 4.1 & 11.3 $\pm$ 4.1 & 788.7 $\pm$ 4.1 & 24.4 $\pm$ 4.1 & 87.8 $\pm$ 2.1 & 98.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 94 $\pm$ 2 & 90.8 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88.7 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 83.3 $\pm$ 14.6 & 5.3 $\pm$ 2.9 & 794.7 $\pm$ 2.9 & 116.7 $\pm$ 14.6 & 41.6 $\pm$ 7.3 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.1 $\pm$ 2.8 & 57.3 $\pm$ 7.3 & 57.5 $\pm$ 5.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 176.3 $\pm$ 4.5 & 13 $\pm$ 3.8 & 787 $\pm$ 3.8 & 23.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & 88.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 98.4 $\pm$ 0.5 & 93.2 $\pm$ 1.9 & 90.6 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88.4 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using principal component analysis.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impPCA:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.8 $\pm$ 11.7 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.5 & 119.2 $\pm$ 11.7 & 40.4 $\pm$ 5.8 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 56.9 $\pm$ 6 & 58.2 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 168 $\pm$ 4.7 & 6.8 $\pm$ 2.7 & 793.2 $\pm$ 2.7 & 32 $\pm$ 4.7 & 84 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 87.6 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.7 $\pm$ 12.7 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.9 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.9 & 119.3 $\pm$ 12.7 & 40.3 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.2 $\pm$ 2 & 56.7 $\pm$ 6.5 & 57.9 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 169.9 $\pm$ 4.4 & 7.5 $\pm$ 3 & 792.5 $\pm$ 3 & 30.1 $\pm$ 4.4 & 85 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99.1 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 1.6 & 90 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.9 $\pm$ 12.5 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 120.1 $\pm$ 12.5 & 40 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.8 $\pm$ 2 & 56.3 $\pm$ 6.4 & 57.5 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 171.6 $\pm$ 4.6 & 8.1 $\pm$ 3.1 & 792 $\pm$ 3.1 & 28.4 $\pm$ 4.6 & 85.8 $\pm$ 2.3 & 99 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.5 $\pm$ 1.6 & 90.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88.4 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 81.4 $\pm$ 13.8 & 3.5 $\pm$ 2.4 & 796.5 $\pm$ 2.4 & 118.6 $\pm$ 13.8 & 40.7 $\pm$ 6.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96 $\pm$ 2.4 & 56.8 $\pm$ 7.1 & 57.6 $\pm$ 5.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 173.5 $\pm$ 4 & 9.3 $\pm$ 3.8 & 790.7 $\pm$ 3.8 & 26.5 $\pm$ 4 & 86.8 $\pm$ 2 & 98.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 94.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 90.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.6 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 82.1 $\pm$ 13.5 & 4.4 $\pm$ 2.6 & 795.6 $\pm$ 2.6 & 117.9 $\pm$ 13.5 & 41.1 $\pm$ 6.8 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95 $\pm$ 2.6 & 57 $\pm$ 6.9 & 57.5 $\pm$ 5.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 174.4 $\pm$ 4.1 & 10.9 $\pm$ 3.9 & 789.1 $\pm$ 3.9 & 25.6 $\pm$ 4.1 & 87.2 $\pm$ 2 & 98.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 94.1 $\pm$ 2 & 90.5 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.4 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 82.2 $\pm$ 16 & 5 $\pm$ 2.9 & 795 $\pm$ 2.9 & 117.8 $\pm$ 16 & 41.1 $\pm$ 8 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.4 $\pm$ 2.8 & 56.8 $\pm$ 8.5 & 57.2 $\pm$ 6.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 174.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & 12.4 $\pm$ 4 & 787.6 $\pm$ 4 & 25.3 $\pm$ 4.5 & 87.3 $\pm$ 2.2 & 98.5 $\pm$ 0.5 & 93.4 $\pm$ 1.9 & 90.3 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using random forests.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impRF:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Results on the third set of simulations}
\subsection{Simulation design}
Finally, we considered an experimental design similar to the second one, but with random effects $P_{i}$ and $G_{ik}$. The 100 datasets were generated as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first group, replicate 10 times (for the 10 variables in this group) a draw from a mixture of 2 Gaussian distributions. The first one has the following parameters: a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $P_{i}$). The second one has the following parameters: a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $\epsilon_{ij}$).
\item For the second group replicate 10 times (for the 10 variables in this group) a draw from a mixture of the following 3 distributions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The first one is a Gaussian distribution with the following parameters: a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $P_{i}$).
\item The second one is the mixture of a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 for the 200 first rows (set as differentially expressed) and a zero vector for the remaining 800 rows (set as not differentially expressed). This mixture illustrates the $G_{ik}$ term in the previous model.
\item The third distribution has the following parameters: a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $\epsilon_{ij}$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\subsection{Performance evaluation}
This subsection provides the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow compared to the \texttt{DAPAR} workflow on the first set of simulations. The performance is described using the indicators detailed in Section \ref{sec:Perf}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{Bplot_L16_Se-Sp-P-F-MCC.png}}
\caption{Distribution of the difference of performance between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} workflows on the third set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{fig:L16:Bplot}
\end{figure}
The following tables provide results expressed as the mean of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets $\pm$ the mean of the standard deviations of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets. Results are based on adjusted p-values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure \citep{benjaminiControllingFalseDiscovery1995} and a false discovery rate of 1\%.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.6 $\pm$ 10.7 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174.4 $\pm$ 10.7 & 12.8 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.3 $\pm$ 2.4 & 22.2 $\pm$ 8.4 & 31.2 $\pm$ 7.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 91 $\pm$ 10.6 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 109 $\pm$ 10.6 & 45.5 $\pm$ 5.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 61.8 $\pm$ 4.9 & 61.9 $\pm$ 4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.6 $\pm$ 10.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.4 $\pm$ 10.2 & 12.8 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.4 & 22.3 $\pm$ 7.9 & 31.4 $\pm$ 6.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 83 $\pm$ 13.6 & 2.1 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 117 $\pm$ 13.6 & 41.5 $\pm$ 6.8 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.9 & 57.9 $\pm$ 6.7 & 59 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.9 $\pm$ 10.8 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.1 $\pm$ 10.8 & 13 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.1 $\pm$ 14 & 22.5 $\pm$ 8.6 & 31.1 $\pm$ 8.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 80.2 $\pm$ 18.2 & 2.3 $\pm$ 2.1 & 797.7 $\pm$ 2.1 & 119.8 $\pm$ 18.2 & 40.1 $\pm$ 9.1 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.5 $\pm$ 2 & 56.2 $\pm$ 9.2 & 57.6 $\pm$ 6.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 26.6 $\pm$ 11.5 & 0.8 $\pm$ 1 & 799.2 $\pm$ 1 & 173.4 $\pm$ 11.5 & 13.3 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.5 $\pm$ 10.3 & 23 $\pm$ 9 & 31.5 $\pm$ 8.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 71.9 $\pm$ 22.7 & 2.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 797.9 $\pm$ 2.3 & 128.1 $\pm$ 22.7 & 35.9 $\pm$ 11.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 2.3 & 51.4 $\pm$ 12.3 & 54 $\pm$ 9.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 28.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & 1.1 $\pm$ 1.3 & 798.9 $\pm$ 1.3 & 171.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & 14.2 $\pm$ 6.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 95.4 $\pm$ 10.4 & 24.3 $\pm$ 9.3 & 32.3 $\pm$ 8.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 67.1 $\pm$ 22.4 & 1.9 $\pm$ 2.3 & 798.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 132.9 $\pm$ 22.4 & 33.6 $\pm$ 11.2 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.8 $\pm$ 2.3 & 48.8 $\pm$ 12.4 & 52 $\pm$ 9.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 26.9 $\pm$ 12.4 & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.4 & 798.7 $\pm$ 1.4 & 173.1 $\pm$ 12.4 & 13.4 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.2 $\pm$ 4 & 23 $\pm$ 9.7 & 31.1 $\pm$ 8.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 61.2 $\pm$ 24 & 2 $\pm$ 2.8 & 798 $\pm$ 2.8 & 138.8 $\pm$ 24 & 30.6 $\pm$ 12 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 97.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 45.2 $\pm$ 13.6 & 49.2 $\pm$ 10 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulation imputed using maximum likelihood estimation}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 26 $\pm$ 10.4 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174 $\pm$ 10.4 & 13 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.3 & 22.5 $\pm$ 8.1 & 31.5 $\pm$ 7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 95.8 $\pm$ 9.8 & 3.1 $\pm$ 1.9 & 796.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 104.2 $\pm$ 9.8 & 47.9 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 64 $\pm$ 4.4 & 63.6 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.4 $\pm$ 11.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.6 $\pm$ 11.1 & 12.7 $\pm$ 5.5 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.5 & 22.1 $\pm$ 8.7 & 31.1 $\pm$ 7.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 98 $\pm$ 9.9 & 2.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.1 $\pm$ 1.8 & 102 $\pm$ 9.9 & 49 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.7 & 65 $\pm$ 4.4 & 64.6 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.5 $\pm$ 10.6 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.5 $\pm$ 10.6 & 12.3 $\pm$ 5.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.8 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.4 $\pm$ 8.4 & 30.2 $\pm$ 7.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 101.1 $\pm$ 9.5 & 3.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 796.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 98.9 $\pm$ 9.5 & 50.6 $\pm$ 4.8 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97 $\pm$ 1.6 & 66.3 $\pm$ 4.1 & 65.6 $\pm$ 3.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.1 $\pm$ 12.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.9 $\pm$ 12.2 & 12.5 $\pm$ 6.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.4 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.7 $\pm$ 9.7 & 30.4 $\pm$ 9.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 103.8 $\pm$ 10.9 & 2.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 797.4 $\pm$ 1.4 & 96.2 $\pm$ 10.9 & 51.9 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.3 & 67.6 $\pm$ 4.7 & 66.8 $\pm$ 4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.7 $\pm$ 13.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 175.3 $\pm$ 13.2 & 12.3 $\pm$ 6.6 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.6 $\pm$ 17.1 & 21.3 $\pm$ 10.4 & 29.9 $\pm$ 10.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 106.2 $\pm$ 11.9 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 797.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 93.8 $\pm$ 11.9 & 53.1 $\pm$ 5.9 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 68.6 $\pm$ 5 & 67.7 $\pm$ 4.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.7 $\pm$ 12.3 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.3 $\pm$ 12.3 & 12.3 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.8 $\pm$ 10.3 & 21.4 $\pm$ 9.7 & 30.1 $\pm$ 8.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 105.4 $\pm$ 11.1 & 2.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 797.1 $\pm$ 1.9 & 94.6 $\pm$ 11.1 & 52.7 $\pm$ 5.5 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.4 $\pm$ 1.6 & 68.2 $\pm$ 4.7 & 67.3 $\pm$ 4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulations imputed using $k$-nearest neighbours method.}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impKNN:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.8 $\pm$ 10.6 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174.2 $\pm$ 10.6 & 12.9 $\pm$ 5.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.3 $\pm$ 2.5 & 22.4 $\pm$ 8.4 & 31.3 $\pm$ 7.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 87.9 $\pm$ 9.5 & 2.2 $\pm$ 1.6 & 797.8 $\pm$ 1.6 & 112.1 $\pm$ 9.5 & 43.9 $\pm$ 4.8 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.7 & 60.4 $\pm$ 4.5 & 60.9 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.6 $\pm$ 10.7 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.4 $\pm$ 10.7 & 12.8 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 22.3 $\pm$ 8.4 & 31.3 $\pm$ 7.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 63.1 $\pm$ 10.4 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 136.9 $\pm$ 10.4 & 31.5 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.2 $\pm$ 1.1 & 47.6 $\pm$ 6.1 & 51.4 $\pm$ 4.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.4 $\pm$ 11.5 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 175.6 $\pm$ 11.5 & 12.2 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.2 $\pm$ 9.2 & 29.9 $\pm$ 8.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 37.2 $\pm$ 11.3 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.3 & 799.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 162.8 $\pm$ 11.3 & 18.6 $\pm$ 5.6 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 31 $\pm$ 8.1 & 38.8 $\pm$ 6.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.9 $\pm$ 12.4 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.1 $\pm$ 12.4 & 12.5 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.7 $\pm$ 14 & 21.6 $\pm$ 9.7 & 30.1 $\pm$ 9.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 17.6 $\pm$ 11.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 800 $\pm$ 0.2 & 182.4 $\pm$ 11.7 & 8.8 $\pm$ 5.8 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 92.9 $\pm$ 25.6 & 15.6 $\pm$ 9.8 & 24.5 $\pm$ 11.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 23.3 $\pm$ 12.4 & 0.7 $\pm$ 1 & 799.3 $\pm$ 1 & 176.7 $\pm$ 12.4 & 11.6 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.3 $\pm$ 10.5 & 20.2 $\pm$ 9.8 & 28.9 $\pm$ 9.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 6.4 $\pm$ 6.9 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 800 $\pm$ 0 & 193.6 $\pm$ 6.9 & 3.2 $\pm$ 3.5 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 74 $\pm$ 44.1 & 6 $\pm$ 6.3 & 12.8 $\pm$ 9.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.1 $\pm$ 11.8 & 0.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 799.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 175.8 $\pm$ 11.8 & 12.1 $\pm$ 5.9 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 97.4 $\pm$ 3.5 & 21 $\pm$ 9.3 & 29.7 $\pm$ 8.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 1.7 $\pm$ 3.2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 800 $\pm$ 0 & 198.3 $\pm$ 3.2 & 0.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 43 $\pm$ 49.8 & 1.7 $\pm$ 3 & 5 $\pm$ 6.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulation imputed using Bayesian linear regression.}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impNORM:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.8 $\pm$ 10.2 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174.2 $\pm$ 10.2 & 12.9 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.3 $\pm$ 2.4 & 22.4 $\pm$ 8 & 31.4 $\pm$ 7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 95.7 $\pm$ 9.9 & 3.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 796.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 104.3 $\pm$ 9.9 & 47.9 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 63.9 $\pm$ 4.4 & 63.5 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.9 $\pm$ 10.4 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 175.2 $\pm$ 10.4 & 12.4 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.2 $\pm$ 2.5 & 21.7 $\pm$ 8.3 & 30.6 $\pm$ 7.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 97.7 $\pm$ 9.5 & 3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797 $\pm$ 1.8 & 102.3 $\pm$ 9.5 & 48.8 $\pm$ 4.7 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97 $\pm$ 1.7 & 64.8 $\pm$ 4.2 & 64.4 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.5 $\pm$ 10.6 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.5 $\pm$ 10.6 & 12.3 $\pm$ 5.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.8 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.4 $\pm$ 8.4 & 30.2 $\pm$ 7.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 101.1 $\pm$ 9.5 & 3.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 796.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 98.9 $\pm$ 9.5 & 50.6 $\pm$ 4.8 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97 $\pm$ 1.6 & 66.3 $\pm$ 4.1 & 65.6 $\pm$ 3.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.2 $\pm$ 12.4 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.8 $\pm$ 12.4 & 12.1 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.7 $\pm$ 14 & 21 $\pm$ 9.7 & 29.6 $\pm$ 9.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 104.6 $\pm$ 10.1 & 3.4 $\pm$ 2.1 & 796.6 $\pm$ 2.1 & 95.4 $\pm$ 10.1 & 52.3 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 67.8 $\pm$ 4.3 & 66.8 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 23.6 $\pm$ 12.2 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 176.4 $\pm$ 12.2 & 11.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 94.7 $\pm$ 17.1 & 20.5 $\pm$ 9.7 & 29 $\pm$ 9.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 110 $\pm$ 10.1 & 3.7 $\pm$ 2.1 & 796.3 $\pm$ 2.1 & 90 $\pm$ 10.1 & 55 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 70 $\pm$ 4.2 & 68.7 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.7 $\pm$ 11.3 & 0.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 799.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 175.3 $\pm$ 11.3 & 12.3 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 97.2 $\pm$ 3.6 & 21.4 $\pm$ 8.9 & 30.2 $\pm$ 7.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 113.6 $\pm$ 9.3 & 4.4 $\pm$ 2.3 & 795.6 $\pm$ 2.3 & 86.4 $\pm$ 9.3 & 56.8 $\pm$ 4.6 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 71.3 $\pm$ 3.6 & 69.7 $\pm$ 3.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulation imputed using principal component analysis.}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impPCA:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.7 $\pm$ 10.2 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.3 $\pm$ 10.2 & 12.8 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.3 & 22.3 $\pm$ 8 & 31.3 $\pm$ 7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 95.8 $\pm$ 9.8 & 3.1 $\pm$ 1.9 & 796.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 104.2 $\pm$ 9.8 & 47.9 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 63.9 $\pm$ 4.4 & 63.6 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.2 $\pm$ 10.5 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.8 $\pm$ 10.5 & 12.6 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 21.9 $\pm$ 8.2 & 31 $\pm$ 7.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 97.7 $\pm$ 9.8 & 3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797 $\pm$ 1.8 & 102.3 $\pm$ 9.8 & 48.8 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.7 & 64.8 $\pm$ 4.3 & 64.4 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.4 $\pm$ 11.4 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 175.6 $\pm$ 11.4 & 12.2 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.2 $\pm$ 17.1 & 21.2 $\pm$ 9.1 & 29.9 $\pm$ 9.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 102.2 $\pm$ 9.9 & 2.9 $\pm$ 1.7 & 797.1 $\pm$ 1.7 & 97.8 $\pm$ 9.9 & 51.1 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.3 $\pm$ 1.6 & 66.9 $\pm$ 4.3 & 66.1 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.4 $\pm$ 12.7 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174.6 $\pm$ 12.7 & 12.7 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.4 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.9 $\pm$ 10 & 30.5 $\pm$ 9.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 105.7 $\pm$ 10.1 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.6 & 797.3 $\pm$ 1.6 & 94.3 $\pm$ 10.1 & 52.8 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.5 $\pm$ 1.4 & 68.4 $\pm$ 4.3 & 67.5 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.1 $\pm$ 12.5 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.9 $\pm$ 12.5 & 12.5 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.6 $\pm$ 17.1 & 21.7 $\pm$ 9.8 & 30.4 $\pm$ 9.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 110.8 $\pm$ 10.2 & 3 $\pm$ 1.9 & 797 $\pm$ 1.9 & 89.2 $\pm$ 10.2 & 55.4 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 70.5 $\pm$ 4.1 & 69.3 $\pm$ 3.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 26.7 $\pm$ 12.1 & 0.7 $\pm$ 1 & 799.3 $\pm$ 1 & 173.3 $\pm$ 12.1 & 13.3 $\pm$ 6 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.2 & 23 $\pm$ 9.5 & 31.6 $\pm$ 8.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 113.9 $\pm$ 9.8 & 3.4 $\pm$ 2 & 796.6 $\pm$ 2 & 86.1 $\pm$ 9.8 & 57 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 71.7 $\pm$ 3.9 & 70.2 $\pm$ 3.4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulation imputed using random forests.}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impRF:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Real datasets generation}
\subsection{Complex total cell lysates (\textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} and \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana}) spiked UPS1 standard protein mixtures}
We consider a first real dataset from \cite{mullerBenchmarkingSamplePreparation2016}. The experiment involved six peptide mixtures, composed of a constant yeast (\textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae}) background, into which increasing amounts of UPS1 standard proteins mixtures (Sigma) were spiked at 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 25 fmol, respectively.
In a second well-calibrated dataset, yeast was replaced by a more complex total lysate of \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} in which UPS1 was spiked in 7 different amounts, namely 0.05, 0.25, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5, 5 and 10 fmol. For each mixture, technical triplicates were constituted.
The \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} dataset was acquired on a nanoLC-MS/MS coupling composed of nanoAcquity UPLC device (Waters) coupled to a Q-Exactive Plus mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) as extensively described in \cite{mullerBenchmarkingSamplePreparation2016}. The \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} dataset was acquired on a nanoLC-MS/MS coupling composed of nanoAcquity UPLC device (Waters) coupled to a Q-Exactive HF-X mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) as described hereafter.
\subsection{Data preprocessing}
For the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} and \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} datasets, Maxquant software was used to identify peptides and derive extracted ion chromatograms. Peaks were assigned with the Andromeda search engine with full trypsin specificity. The database used for the searches was concatenated in house with the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} entries extracted from the UniProtKB-SwissProt database (16 April 2015, 7806 entries) or the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} entries (09 April 2019, 15 818 entries) and those of the UPS1 proteins (48 entries). The minimum peptide length required was seven amino acids and a maximum of one missed cleavage was allowed. Default mass tolerances parameters were used. The maximum false discovery rate was 1\% at peptide and protein levels with the use of a decoy strategy.
For the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment, data were extracted both with and without Match Between Runs and 2 pre-filtering criteria were applied prior to statistical analysis: only peptides with at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition on one hand and 2 out of 3 on the other hand were kept. Thus, 4 datasets derived from the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 were considered.
For the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, the same filtering criteria were applied, but only on data extracted with Match Between Runs, leading to 2 datasets considered.
\subsection{Supplemental methods for \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} dataset}
Peptide separation was performed on an ACQUITY UPLC BEH130 C18 column (250 mm × 75 µm with 1.7 µm diameter particles) and a Symmetry C18 precolumn (20 mm ×180 µm with 5 µm diameter particles; Waters). The solvent system consisted of 0.1\% FA in water (solvent A) and 0.1\% FA in ACN (solvent B). The samples were loaded into the enrichment column over 3 min at 5 µL/min with 99\% of solvent A and 1\% of solvent B. The peptides were eluted at 400 nL/min with the following gradient of solvent B: from 3 to 20\% over 63 min, 20 to 40\% over 19 min, and 40 to 90\% over 1 min.
The MS capillary voltage was set to 2 kV at 250 °C. The system was operated in a data-dependent acquisition mode with automatic switching between MS (mass range 375–1500 m/z with R = 120 000, automatic gain control fixed at 3 × 106 ions, and a maximum injection time set at 60 ms) and MS/MS (mass range 200–2000 m/z with R = 15 000, automatic gain control fixed at 1× 105, and the maximal injection time set to 60 ms) modes. The twenty most abundant peptides were selected on each MS spectrum for further isolation and higher energy collision dissociation fragmentation, excluding unassigned and monocharged ions. The dynamic exclusion time was set to 40s.
\section{Results on real datasets}
This section provides the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow compared to the \texttt{DAPAR} workflow on the real datasets considered. The performance is described using the indicators detailed in Section \ref{sec:Perf}. Results are based on adjusted p-values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure \citep{benjaminiControllingFalseDiscovery1995} and a false discovery rate of 1\%. Missing values were imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.
\subsection{\textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 132 & 3677 & 10507 & 5 & 96.4 & 74.1 & 3.5 & 6.7 & 15.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 129 & 2095 & 12089 & 8 & 94.2 & 85.2 & 5.8 & 10.9 & 21.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 135 & 3466 & 10718 & 2 & 98.5 & 75.6 & 3.7 & 7.2 & 16.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 133 & 1974 & 12210 & 4 & 97.1 & 86.1 & 6.3 & 11.9 & 22.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 134 & 2495 & 11689 & 3 & 97.8 & 82.4 & 5.1 & 9.7 & 20.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 132 & 1233 & 12951 & 5 & 96.4 & 91.3 & 9.7 & 17.6 & 29.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 132 & 2118 & 12066 & 5 & 96.4 & 85.1 & 5.9 & 11.1 & 21.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 129 & 792 & 13392 & 8 & 94.2 & 94.4 & 14 & 24.4 & 35.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 125 & 473 & 13711 & 12 & 91.2 & 96.7 & 20.9 & 34 & 42.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 93 & 145 & 14039 & 44 & 67.9 & 99 & 39.1 & 49.6 & 50.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 122 & 1100 & 13084 & 15 & 89.1 & 92.2 & 10 & 18 & 28.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 85 & 383 & 13801 & 52 & 62 & 97.3 & 18.2 & 28.1 & 32.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 1 quantified value in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 372 & 226 & 15522 & 196 & 65.5 & 98.6 & 62.2 & 63.8 & 62.5 \\\cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 348 & 179 & 15569 & 220 & 61.3 & 98.9 & 66 & 63.6 & 62.3 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 1 quantified value in each condition and focusing only on the comparison 5fmol vs. 10fmol.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:6vs7:1of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 74 & 2989 & 8880 & 3 & 96.1 & 74.8 & 2.4 & 4.7 & 13 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 74 & 2989 & 8880 & 3 & 96.1 & 74.8 & 2.4 & 4.7 & 13 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 76 & 2837 & 9032 & 1 & 98.7 & 76.1 & 2.6 & 5.1 & 13.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 76 & 2837 & 9032 & 1 & 98.7 & 76.1 & 2.6 & 5.1 & 13.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 76 & 1905 & 9964 & 1 & 98.7 & 83.9 & 3.8 & 7.4 & 17.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 76 & 1905 & 9964 & 1 & 98.7 & 83.9 & 3.8 & 7.4 & 17.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 75 & 1411 & 10458 & 2 & 97.4 & 88.1 & 5 & 9.6 & 20.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 75 & 1411 & 10458 & 2 & 97.4 & 88.1 & 5 & 9.6 & 20.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 70 & 232 & 11637 & 7 & 90.9 & 98 & 23.2 & 36.9 & 45.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 70 & 232 & 11637 & 7 & 90.9 & 98 & 23.2 & 36.9 & 45.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 67 & 686 & 11183 & 10 & 87 & 94.2 & 8.9 & 16.1 & 26.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 67 & 686 & 11183 & 10 & 87 & 94.2 & 8.9 & 16.1 & 26.7 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 2 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:2of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 16 & 1567 & 6173 & 1 & 94.1 & 79.8 & 1 & 2 & 8.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 16 & 1567 & 6173 & 1 & 94.1 & 79.8 & 1 & 2 & 8.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 16 & 1461 & 6279 & 1 & 94.1 & 81.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 16 & 1461 & 6279 & 1 & 94.1 & 81.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 15 & 895 & 6845 & 2 & 88.2 & 88.4 & 1.6 & 3.2 & 11.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 15 & 895 & 6845 & 2 & 88.2 & 88.4 & 1.6 & 3.2 & 11.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 16 & 880 & 6860 & 1 & 94.1 & 88.6 & 1.8 & 3.5 & 12.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 16 & 880 & 6860 & 1 & 94.1 & 88.6 & 1.8 & 3.5 & 12.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 13 & 139 & 7601 & 4 & 76.5 & 98.2 & 8.6 & 15.4 & 25.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 13 & 139 & 7601 & 4 & 76.5 & 98.2 & 8.6 & 15.4 & 25.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 11 & 419 & 7321 & 6 & 64.7 & 94.6 & 2.6 & 4.9 & 12.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 11 & 419 & 7321 & 6 & 64.7 & 94.6 & 2.6 & 4.9 & 12.1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, extracted without Match Between Runs and filtered with at least 1 quantified value in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:noMBR:1of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 8 & 1234 & 4119 & 1 & 88.9 & 76.9 & 0.6 & 1.3 & 6.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8 & 1234 & 4119 & 1 & 88.9 & 76.9 & 0.6 & 1.3 & 6.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 8 & 1150 & 4203 & 1 & 88.9 & 78.5 & 0.7 & 1.4 & 6.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8 & 1150 & 4203 & 1 & 88.9 & 78.5 & 0.7 & 1.4 & 6.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 8 & 742 & 4611 & 1 & 88.9 & 86.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 8.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8 & 742 & 4611 & 1 & 88.9 & 86.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 8.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 8 & 536 & 4817 & 1 & 88.9 & 90 & 1.5 & 2.9 & 10.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8 & 536 & 4817 & 1 & 88.9 & 90 & 1.5 & 2.9 & 10.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 6 & 83 & 5270 & 3 & 66.7 & 98.4 & 6.7 & 12.2 & 20.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 6 & 83 & 5270 & 3 & 66.7 & 98.4 & 6.7 & 12.2 & 20.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 6 & 274 & 5079 & 3 & 66.7 & 94.9 & 2.1 & 4.2 & 11.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 6 & 274 & 5079 & 3 & 66.7 & 94.9 & 2.1 & 4.2 & 11.3 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, extracted without Match Between Runs and filtered with at least 2 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:noMBR:2of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 1040 & 1557 & 0 & 100 & 60 & 3.8 & 7.3 & 15.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 753 & 1844 & 0 & 100 & 71 & 5.2 & 9.8 & 19.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 1072 & 1525 & 0 & 100 & 58.7 & 3.7 & 7.1 & 14.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 797 & 1800 & 0 & 100 & 69.3 & 4.9 & 9.3 & 18.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 40 & 848 & 1749 & 1 & 97.6 & 67.3 & 4.5 & 8.6 & 17 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 40 & 585 & 2012 & 1 & 97.6 & 77.5 & 6.4 & 12 & 21.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 409 & 2188 & 0 & 100 & 84.3 & 9.1 & 16.7 & 27.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 142 & 2455 & 0 & 100 & 94.5 & 22.4 & 36.6 & 46 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 208 & 2389 & 0 & 100 & 92 & 16.5 & 28.3 & 38.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 40 & 69 & 2528 & 1 & 97.6 & 97.3 & 36.7 & 53.3 & 59 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 475 & 2122 & 0 & 100 & 81.7 & 7.9 & 14.7 & 25.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 37 & 203 & 2394 & 4 & 90.2 & 92.2 & 15.4 & 26.3 & 35.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset at the protein-level, filtered with at least 1 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:1of3:impMLE:Aggreg:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\subsection{\textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 25fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 188 & 439 & 18067 & 4 & 97.9 & 97.6 & 30 & 45.9 & 53.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 183 & 144 & 18362 & 9 & 95.3 & 99.2 & 56 & 70.5 & 72.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 186 & 246 & 18260 & 6 & 96.9 & 98.7 & 43.1 & 59.6 & 64.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 183 & 71 & 18435 & 9 & 95.3 & 99.6 & 72 & 82.1 & 82.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 185 & 161 & 18345 & 7 & 96.4 & 99.1 & 53.5 & 68.8 & 71.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 179 & 39 & 18467 & 13 & 93.2 & 99.8 & 82.1 & 87.3 & 87.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 182 & 108 & 18398 & 10 & 94.8 & 99.4 & 62.8 & 75.5 & 76.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 156 & 23 & 18483 & 36 & 81.2 & 99.9 & 87.2 & 84.1 & 84 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 148 & 109 & 18397 & 44 & 77.1 & 99.4 & 57.6 & 65.9 & 66.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 86 & 27 & 18479 & 106 & 44.8 & 99.9 & 76.1 & 56.4 & 58.1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 1 quantified value in each condition.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 25fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 131 & 146 & 16316 & 4 & 97 & 99.1 & 47.3 & 63.6 & 67.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 131 & 146 & 16316 & 4 & 97 & 99.1 & 47.3 & 63.6 & 67.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 130 & 59 & 16403 & 5 & 96.3 & 99.6 & 68.8 & 80.2 & 81.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 130 & 59 & 16403 & 5 & 96.3 & 99.6 & 68.8 & 80.2 & 81.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 130 & 30 & 16432 & 5 & 96.3 & 99.8 & 81.2 & 88.1 & 88.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 130 & 30 & 16432 & 5 & 96.3 & 99.8 & 81.2 & 88.1 & 88.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 127 & 19 & 16443 & 8 & 94.1 & 99.9 & 87 & 90.4 & 90.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 127 & 19 & 16443 & 8 & 94.1 & 99.9 & 87 & 90.4 & 90.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 96 & 18 & 16444 & 39 & 71.1 & 99.9 & 84.2 & 77.1 & 77.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 96 & 18 & 16444 & 39 & 71.1 & 99.9 & 84.2 & 77.1 & 77.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 2 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:2of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 25fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 42 & 90 & 2285 & 0 & 100 & 96.2 & 31.8 & 48.3 & 55.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 42 & 24 & 2351 & 0 & 100 & 99 & 63.6 & 77.8 & 79.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 42 & 65 & 2310 & 0 & 100 & 97.3 & 39.3 & 56.4 & 61.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 13 & 2362 & 1 & 97.6 & 99.5 & 75.9 & 85.4 & 85.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 27 & 2348 & 1 & 97.6 & 98.9 & 60.3 & 74.5 & 76.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 8 & 2367 & 1 & 97.6 & 99.7 & 83.7 & 90.1 & 90.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 42 & 19 & 2356 & 0 & 100 & 99.2 & 68.9 & 81.6 & 82.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 7 & 2368 & 1 & 97.6 & 99.7 & 85.4 & 91.1 & 91.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 39 & 23 & 2352 & 3 & 92.9 & 99 & 62.9 & 75 & 75.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 38 & 7 & 2368 & 4 & 90.5 & 99.7 & 84.4 & 87.4 & 87.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 dataset, at the protein-level and filtered with at least 1 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:impMLE:Aggreg:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section*{Abstract}
\textbf{Motivation:} Imputing missing values is common practice in label-free quantitative proteomics. Imputation aims at replacing a missing value with a user-defined one. However, the imputation itself may not be optimally considered downstream of the imputation process, as imputed datasets are often considered as if they had always been complete. Hence, the uncertainty due to the imputation is not adequately taken into account. We provide a rigorous multiple imputation strategy, leading to a less biased estimation of the parameters' variability thanks to Rubin’s rules. The imputation-based peptide’s intensities’ variance estimator is then moderated using Bayesian hierarchical models. This estimator is finally included in moderated $t$-test statistics to provide differential analyses results. This workflow can be used both at peptide and protein-level in quantification datasets. For protein-level results based on peptide-level quantification data, an aggregation step is also included.\\
\textbf{Results:} Our methodology, named \texttt{mi4p}, was compared to the state-of-the-art \texttt{limma} workflow implemented in the \texttt{DAPAR} \texttt{R} package, both on simulated and real datasets. We observed a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, while the overall performance of \texttt{mi4p} outperforms \texttt{DAPAR} in terms of $F$-Score.\\
\textbf{Availability:} The methodology here described is implemented under the \texttt{R} environment and can be found on GitHub: \texttt{https://github.com/mariechion/mi4p}. The \texttt{R} scripts which led to the results presented here can also be found on this repository. The real datasets are available on ProteomeXchange under the dataset identifiers PXD003841 and PXD027800.
\section{Introduction}
Dealing with incomplete data is one of the main challenges as far as statistical analysis is concerned. Different strategies can be used to tackle this issue. The simplest way consists of deleting from the dataset the observations for which there are too many missing values, leading to a complete-case dataset. However, it causes information loss, might create bias and could ultimately result in poorly informative datasets.
Another way to cope with missing data is to use methods that account for the missing information. For the last decades, researchers advocated the use of a single technique called imputation. Imputing missing values consists of replacing a missing value with a value derived using a user-defined formula (such as the mean, the median or a value provided by an expert, thus considering the user's knowledge). Hence it makes it possible to perform the analysis as if the data were complete. More particularly, the vector of parameters of interest can be then estimated.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-1,0.4) rectangle (-0.8,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (-0.8,0.4) rectangle (-0.6,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-0.6,0.4) rectangle (-0.4,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (-0.4,0.4) rectangle (-0.2,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-0.2,0.4) rectangle (0,0.6);
\draw[thick] (-1,0.4)--(0,0.4)--(0,0.6)--(-1,0.6)--(-1,0.4);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.7,0.4) rectangle (1.9,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (1.9,0.4) rectangle (2.1,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.1,0.4) rectangle (2.3,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.3,0.4) rectangle (2.5,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.5,0.4) rectangle (2.7,0.6);
\draw[thick] (1.7,0.4)--(2.7,0.4)--(2.7,0.6)--(1.7,0.6)--(1.7,0.4);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4,0.4) rectangle (4.2,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.2,0.4) rectangle (4.4,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.4,0.4) rectangle (4.6,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.6,0.4) rectangle (4.8,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.8,0.4) rectangle (5,0.6);
\draw[thick] (4,0.4)--(5,0.4)--(5,0.6)--(4,0.6)--(4,0.4);
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (-1,0.75)--(0,0.75);
\draw[decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},thick] (0,0.35)--(-1,0.35);
\draw (-0.5,0.925) node{\color{colN}\bf \small N observations};
\draw (-0.5,0) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (1.7,0.75)--(2.7,0.75);
\draw[decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},thick] (2.7,0.35)--(1.7,0.35);
\draw (2.2,0.925) node{\color{colN}\bf \small N observations};
\draw (2.2,0) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw[thick,<->] (4.025,0.25)--(4.975,0.25);
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (4.025,0.75)--(4.975,0.75);
\draw (4.5,0.925) node{\color{colI} \bf \small I parameters};
\draw (4.5,0) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw (0.7,0.5) node[above]{\scriptsize Single} node[below]{\scriptsize imputation};
\draw (3.4,0.5) node[above]{\scriptsize Estimation};
\draw[thick,->] (0.25,0.5)--(1.25,0.5);
\draw[thick,->] (3,0.5)--(3.8,0.5);
\draw (-0.5,-0.5) node{\small \bf (1)} (2.2,-0.5) node{\small \bf (2)}
(4.5,-0.5) node{\small \bf (3)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{{\bf Single imputation.} {\bf(1)} Initial dataset with missing values. It is supposed to be made of \textcolor{colN}{\bf N} observations that are split into {\bf I} groups. {\bf(2)} Single imputation provides an imputed dataset. {\bf(3)} The vector of parameters of interest is estimated based on the single imputed dataset.}
\label{fig:SI}
\end{figure}
Single imputation means completing the dataset once and considering the imputed dataset as if it was never incomplete, see Figure~\ref{fig:SI}. However, single imputation has the major disadvantage of discarding the variability from the missing data and the imputation process. It may also lead to a biased estimator of the vector of parameters of interest.
Multiple imputation described by \cite{LittleRubin} closes this loophole by generating several imputed datasets. These datasets are then used to build a combined estimator of the vector of parameters of interest, by usually using the mean of the estimates among all the imputed datasets, see Figure~\ref{figMI}. This combined estimator is known as the first Rubin's rule. The second Rubin's rule states a formula to estimate the variance of the combined estimator, decomposing it as the sum of the intra-imputation variance component and the between-imputation component. The rule of thumb suggested by \cite{White} takes the number of imputed datasets as the percentage of missing values in the original dataset. Recent work focused on better estimating the Fraction of Missing Information \citep{Pan2018} or improving that rule \citep{vonHippel2018}. Note that Rubin's rules cannot be used in order to get a combined imputed dataset but instead provide an estimator of the vector of parameters of interest and an estimator of its covariance matrix both based on multiple imputation, see Figure~\ref{figMI}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-1,0.4) rectangle (-0.8,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (-0.8,0.4) rectangle (-0.6,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-0.6,0.4) rectangle (-0.4,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (-0.4,0.4) rectangle (-0.2,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-0.2,0.4) rectangle (0,0.6);
\draw[thick] (-1,0.4)--(0,0.4)--(0,0.6)--(-1,0.6)--(-1,0.4);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.8,0.7) rectangle (2.0,0.9);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.0,0.7) rectangle (2.2,0.9);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.2,0.7) rectangle (2.4,0.9);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.4,0.7) rectangle (2.6,0.9);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.6,0.7) rectangle (2.8,0.9);
\draw[thick] (1.8,0.7)--(2.8,0.7)--(2.8,0.9)--(1.8,0.9)--(1.8,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.7,0.5) rectangle (1.9,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (1.9,0.5) rectangle (2.1,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.1,0.5) rectangle (2.3,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.3,0.5) rectangle (2.5,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.5,0.5) rectangle (2.7,0.7);
\draw[dashed,thick] (1.7,0.5)--(2.7,0.5)--(2.7,0.7)--(1.7,0.7)--(1.7,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.6,0.3) rectangle (1.8,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (1.8,0.3) rectangle (2.0,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.0,0.3) rectangle (2.2,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.2,0.3) rectangle (2.4,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.4,0.3) rectangle (2.6,0.5);
\draw[dashed,thick] (1.6,0.3)--(2.6,0.3)--(2.6,0.5)--(1.6,0.5)--(1.6,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.5,0.1) rectangle (1.7,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (1.7,0.1) rectangle (1.9,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.9,0.1) rectangle (2.1,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.1,0.1) rectangle (2.3,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.3,0.1) rectangle (2.5,0.3);
\draw[thick] (1.5,0.1)--(2.5,0.1)--(2.5,0.3)--(1.5,0.3)--(1.5,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.1,1) rectangle (4.3,1.2);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.3,1) rectangle (4.5,1.2);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.5,1) rectangle (4.7,1.2);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.7,1) rectangle (4.9,1.2);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.9,1) rectangle (5.1,1.2);
\draw[thick] (4.1,1)--(5.1,1)--(5.1,1.2)--(4.1,1.2)--(4.1,1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.1,-0.7) rectangle (4.3,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.3,-0.7) rectangle (4.5,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.5,-0.7) rectangle (4.7,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.7,-0.7) rectangle (4.9,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.9,-0.7) rectangle (5.1,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.1,-0.5) rectangle (4.3,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.3,-0.5) rectangle (4.5,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.5,-0.5) rectangle (4.7,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.7,-0.5) rectangle (4.9,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.9,-0.5) rectangle (5.1,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.1,-0.3) rectangle (4.3,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.3,-0.3) rectangle (4.5,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.5,-0.3) rectangle (4.7,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.7,-0.3) rectangle (4.9,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.9,-0.3) rectangle (5.1,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.1,-0.1) rectangle (4.3,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.3,-0.1) rectangle (4.5,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.5,-0.1) rectangle (4.7,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.7,-0.1) rectangle (4.9,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.9,-0.1) rectangle (5.1,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.1,0.1) rectangle (4.3,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.3,0.1) rectangle (4.5,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.5,0.1) rectangle (4.7,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.7,0.1) rectangle (4.9,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.9,0.1) rectangle (5.1,0.3);
\draw[thick] (4.1,-0.7)--(5.1,-0.7)--(5.1,0.3)--(4.1,0.3)--(4.1,-0.7);
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (-1,0.75)--(0,0.75);
\draw[decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},thick] (0,0.35)--(-1,0.35);
\draw (-0.5,1) node{\color{colN}\bf \small N observations};
\draw (-0.5,0) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (1.8,1)--(2.8,1);
\draw[decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},thick] (2.5,0.05)--(1.5,0.05);
\draw (2.3,1.2) node{\color{colN}\bf \small N observations};
\draw (2,-0.3) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw[thick,colD,<->] (2.7,0.1)--(3,0.7);
\draw (3.1,0.4) node{\color{colD}\bf \small D};
\draw (3.2,0.2) node{\color{colD}\bf \small draws};
\draw (4.6,0.65) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw (5.5,-0.15) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I };
\draw[thick,<->] (5.1,0.9)--(4.1,0.9);
\draw[thick,<->] (4.1,0.45)--(5.1,0.45);
\draw[thick,<->] (5.3,0.3)--(5.3,-0.7);
\draw (0.725,0.7) node{\scriptsize Multiple}
(0.75,0.3) node{\scriptsize imputation} ;
\draw (-0.5,-0.7) node{\small \bf (1)} (2.2,-0.7) node{\small \bf (2)}
(5.9,1.1) node{\small \bf (3a)} (5.9,-0.1) node{\small \bf (3b)};
\draw[thick,->] (0.25,0.5)--(1.25,0.5);
\draw[thick,->] (3.4,0.55)--(4,1.1);
\draw[thick,->] (3.4,0.45)--(4,-0.1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{{\bf Multiple imputation strategy.} {\bf(1)} Initial dataset with missing values. It is supposed to have \textcolor{colN}{\bf N} observations that are split into \textcolor{colI}{\bf I} groups. {\bf(2)} Multiple imputation provides \textcolor{colD}{\bf D}~estimators for the vector of parameters of interest. {\bf(3a)} The \textcolor{colD}{\bf D}~estimators are combined using the first Rubin's rule to get the combined estimator. {\bf(3a)} The estimator of the variance-covariance matrix of the combined estimator is provided by the second Rubin's rule.}
\label{figMI}
\end{figure}
Dealing with missing values is also one of the main struggles in label-free quantitative proteomics. Intensities of thousands of peptides are obtained by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, using extracted ion chromatograms. Several reasons may cause missing peptides' intensities. Either the considered peptide is missing in the given biological sample, and the intensity is then missing not at random (MNAR), or it was missed during the acquisition process and, the intensity is then missing at random (MAR).
In state-of-the-art software for statistical analysis in label-free quantitative proteomics, single imputation is the most commonly used method to deal with missing values. In the \texttt{MSstats} \texttt{R} package (available on Bioconductor), \cite{MSstats} distinguish missing completely at random values and missing values due to low intensities. The user can then choose to impute the censored value using a threshold value or an Accelerated Failure Time model. The Perseus software by \cite{Perseus} offers three methods for single imputation: either imputing by "NaN", impute by a user-defined constant or impute according to a Gaussian distribution in order to simulate intensities, which are lower than the limit of detection. Recently, \cite{Goeminne2020} implemented a single imputation method based on a hurdle model in their \texttt{MSqRob} \texttt{R} package \citep{Goeminne2018}. As far as machine learning is concerned, \cite{XGboost} suggested a method for imputing missing values in label-free mass spectrometry-based proteomics datasets, called \texttt{XGboost}.
The ProStaR software based on the \verb+DAPAR+ \texttt{R} package and developed by \cite{DAPAR} splits missing values into two categories, whether they are Missing in an Entire Condition (MEC) or Partially Observed Values (POV) \citep{Lazar}. The software allows single imputation, using either a small quantile from the distribution of the considered biological sample, the $k$-Nearest Neighbours (kNN) algorithm or the Structured Least Squares Adaptative algorithm or by choosing a fixed value. The PANDA-view software developed by \cite{PANDA} also enables the use of the kNN algorithm or a fixed value. Moreover, both software programs give the possibility to impute the dataset several times before combining the imputed datasets in order to get a final dataset without any missing values. PANDA-view relies on the \texttt{mice} \texttt{R} package by \cite{mice}, whereas ProStaR accounts for the nature of missing values and imputes them with the \texttt{imp4p} \texttt{R} package implemented by \cite{imp4p}. However, both software programs consider the final dataset as if it had always been complete. The uncertainty due to multiple imputation is not properly taken into account downstream of the imputation step.
In the following, we will conduct the multiple imputation process to its end, as described by \cite{LittleRubin} and use the imputed datasets to provide a combined estimator of the vector of parameters of interest as well as a combined estimator of its variance-covariance matrix estimator. We will then project this matrix to get a unidimensional variance estimator before moderating it using the empirical Bayes procedure defined in the seminal paper of \cite{Smyth} and later developed by \cite{Phipson}. It is well known that such a moderating step highly improves the following statistical analyses such as significance testing of confidence interval estimation, both at the peptide level \citep{Suomi2015, Goeminne2015} or the protein level \citep{Goeminne2015, Goeminne2016}.
\section{Materials}
\subsection{Simulated datasets}
We evaluated our methodology on three types of simulated datasets. First, we considered an experimental design where the distributions of the two groups to be compared scarcely overlap. This design led to a fixed effect one-way analysis of variance model (ANOVA), which can be written as:
\begin{equation}
y_{ij} = \mu + \delta_{ij} + \epsilon_{ij}
\end{equation}
with $\mu = 100$, $\delta_{ij} = 100$ if $1 \leq i \leq 10$ and $j=2$ and $\delta_{ij} = 0$ otherwise and $\epsilon_{ijk} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Here, $y_{ij}$ represents the log-transformed abundance of peptide $i$ in the $j$-th sample.
Thus, we generated $100$ datasets by considering $200$ individuals and $10$ variables, divided into $2$ groups of $5$ variables, using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first 10 rows of the data frame, set as differentially expressed, draw the first 5 observations (first group) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 1. Then draw the remaining 5 observations (second group) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 200 and a standard deviation of 1.
\item For the remaining 190 rows, set as non-differentially expressed, draw the first 5 observations as well as the last 5 observations from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 1.
\end{enumerate}
Secondly, we considered an experimental design, where the distributions of the two groups to be compared might highly overlap. Hence, we based it on the random hierarchical ANOVA model by \cite{Lazar}, derived from \cite{Karpievitch2012}. The simulation design follows the following model:
\begin{equation}
y_{ij} = P_{i} + G_{ik} + \epsilon_{ij\textcolor{Purple}{\bf k}}
\end{equation}
where $y_{ij}$ is the log-transformed abundance of peptide $i$ in the $j$-th sample, $P_{i}$ is the mean value of peptide $i$, $G_{ik}$ is the mean differences between the condition groups, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ is the random error terms, which stands for the peptide-wise variance.
We generated 100 datasets by considering 1000 individuals and 20 variables, divided into 2 groups of 10 variables, using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Generate the peptide-wise effect $P_{i}$ by drawing 1000 observations from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5.
\item Generate the group effect $G_{ik}$ by drawing 200 observations (for the 200 individuals set as differentially expressed) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 and 800 observations fixed to 0.
\item Build the first group dataset by replicating 10 times the sum of $P_{i}$ and the random error term, drawn from a Gaussian distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5.
\item Build the second group dataset by replicating 10 times the sum of $P_{i}$, $G_{ik}$ and the random error term drawn from a Gaussian distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5.
\item Bind both datasets to get the complete dataset.
\end{enumerate}
Finally, we considered an experimental design similar to the second one, but with random effects $P_{i}$ and $G_{ik}$. The 100 datasets were generated as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first group, replicate 10 times (for the 10 variables in this group) a draw from a mixture of 2 Gaussian distributions. The first one has the following parameters: a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $P_{i}$). The second one has the following parameters: a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $\epsilon_{ij}$).
\item For the second group replicate 10 times (for the 10 variables in this group) a draw from a mixture of the following 3 distributions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The first one is a Gaussian distribution with the following parameters: a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $P_{i}$).
\item The second one is the mixture of a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 for the 200 first rows (set as differentially expressed) and a zero vector for the remaining 800 rows (set as not differentially expressed). This mixture illustrates the $G_{ik}$ term in the previous model.
\item The third distribution has the following parameters: a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $\epsilon_{ij}$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
All simulated datasets were then amputed to produce MCAR missing values in the following proportions: 1\%, 5\%, 10\%, 15\%, 20\% and 25\%.
\subsection{Real datasets}
We challenged our methodology on several real datasets coming from two different experiments described hereafter.
We consider a first real dataset from \cite{Muller}. The experiment involved six peptide mixtures, composed of a constant yeast (\textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae}) background, into which increasing amounts of UPS1 standard proteins mixtures (Sigma) were spiked at 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 25 fmol, respectively.
In a second well-calibrated dataset, yeast was replaced by a more complex total lysate of \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} in which UPS1 was spiked in 7 different amounts, namely 0.05, 0.25, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5, 5 and 10 fmol. For each mixture, technical triplicates were constituted.
The \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} dataset was acquired on a nanoLC-MS/MS coupling composed of nanoAcquity UPLC device (Waters) coupled to a Q-Exactive Plus mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) as extensively described in \cite{Muller}. The \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} dataset was acquired on a nanoLC-MS/MS coupling composed of nanoAcquity UPLC device (Waters) coupled to a Q-Exactive HF-X mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) as described in Supplementary data, Section S7.3.
For the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} and \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} datasets, Maxquant software was used to identify peptides and derive extracted ion chromatograms. Peaks were assigned with the Andromeda search engine with full trypsin specificity. The database used for the searches was concatenated in-house with the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} entries extracted from the UniProtKB-SwissProt database (16 April 2015, 7806 entries) or the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} entries (09 April 2019, 15 818 entries) and those of the UPS1 proteins (48 entries). The maximum false discovery rate was 1\% at peptide and protein levels using a target-decoy strategy.
For the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment, data were extracted both with and without Match Between Runs and 2 pre-filtering criteria were applied before statistical analysis: only peptides with, on the one hand, at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition and, on the other hand at least 2 out of 3, were kept. Thus, 4 datasets derived from the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 were considered.
The same filtering criteria were applied for the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, but only on data extracted with Match Between Runs, leading to 2 datasets being considered.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Normalization}
Normalising peptides' or proteins' intensities aims at reducing batch effects, sample-level variations and therefore better comparing intensities across studied biological samples \cite{Wang2021}. In this work, quantile normalisation (as described by \cite{Bolstad2003}) was performed using the \texttt{normalize.quantiles} function from the \texttt{preprocessCore} \texttt{R} package \citep{Bolstad2021}.
\subsection{Multiple imputation methods} \label{section:MI}
Several methods for imputing missing values in mass spectrometry-based proteomics datasets were developed in the last decade. However, the recent benchmarks of imputation algorithms do not reach a consensus (as shown in Supplementary data, Table S1.1). This is mainly due to the complex nature of the underlying missing values mechanism. In this work, we chose to focus on some of the most commonly used methods \ref{Tab:imp}.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Implementation} & \textbf{References} \\ \hline
k Nearest Neighbours & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}impute.knn\\ (impute R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Hastie et al. (2021)\\ Hastie et al. (1999)\\ Troyanskaya et al. (2001)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Maximum Likelihood\\ Estimation\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}impute.mle\\ (imp4p R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Giai-Gianetto (2020)\\ Schafer (1997)\\ Van Buuren (2011)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Bayesian Linear \\ Regression\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}mice\\ (mice R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Van Buuren (2021)\\Rubin (1987)\\ Schafer (1997)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Principal Component\\ Analysis\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}impute.pca\\ (imp4p R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Giai-Gianetto (2020)\\ Josse \& Husson (2013)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
Random Forests & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}impute.RF\\ (imp4p R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Giai-Gianetto (2020)\\ Stekhoven \& Buehlmann (2012)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Overview of the imputation methods used in the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow.}
\label{Tab:imp}
\end{table}
\end{center}
The $k$-Nearest Neighbours method imputes missing values by averaging the $k$-nearest observations of the given missing value in terms of Euclidean distance. This method was described by \cite{Hastie1999} and \cite{Troyanskaya} and implemented in \cite{Hastie2021}.
The Maximum Likelihood Estimation method imputed missing values using the EM algorithm proposed by \cite{Schafer} and implemented by \cite{imp4p}.
The Bayesian linear regression method imputes missing values using the normal model and following the method described by \cite{Rubin1987} and implemented by \cite{mice}.
The Principal Component Analysis imputes missing values using the algorithm proposed by \cite{Josse2013} and implemented by \cite{imp4p}.
The Random Forests method imputes missing values using the algorithm proposed by \cite{MissForest} and implemented by \cite{imp4p}.
\subsection{Estimation}
The objective of multiple imputation is to estimate from $\textcolor{colD}{D}$ drawn datasets the vector of parameters of interest and its variance-covariance matrix. Notably, accounting for multiple-imputation-based variability is possible thanks to Rubin's rules, which provide an accurate estimation of these parameters.\par
Let us consider a $\textcolor{colD}{D}$-time imputed dataset with $\textcolor{colP}{P}$ individuals (corresponding to $\textcolor{colP}{P}$ peptides or proteins) and $\textcolor{colN}{N}$ observations (corresponding to $\textcolor{colN}{N}$ biological samples), divided between $\textcolor{colI}{I}$ groups (corresponding to $\textcolor{colI}{I}$ conditions to be compared). Let $\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P}}$ be the vector of parameters of interest, such as :
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P}} = \left(\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P},1}, \dots, \beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P},I}\right)
\end{equation}
The first Rubin's rule provides the combined estimator of $\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P}}$:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} = \frac{1}{\textcolor{colD}{D}}\sum_{\textcolor{colD}{d}}^{\textcolor{colD}{D}}\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}}$ is the estimator of $\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P}}$ in the $\textcolor{colD}{d}$-imputed dataset.\par
The second Rubin's rule gives the combined estimator of the variance-covariance matrix for each estimated vector of parameters of interest for peptide $\textcolor{colP}{p}$ through the $\textcolor{colD}{D}$ imputed datasets such as:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Sigma}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} = \frac{1}{\textcolor{colD}{D}} \sum_{\textcolor{colD}{d}=1}^{\textcolor{colD}{D}} W_{\textcolor{colD}{d}} + \frac{\textcolor{colD}{D}+1}{\textcolor{colD}{D}(\textcolor{colD}{D}-1)} \sum_{\textcolor{colD}{d}=1}^{\textcolor{colD}{D}} (\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}} - \hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}})^T(\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}} - \hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}})
\end{equation}
where $W_{\textcolor{colD}{d}}$ denotes the variance-covariance matrix of $\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}}$, {\it i.e.} the variability of the vector of parameters of interest as estimated in the $\textcolor{colD}{d}$-th imputed dataset.
\subsection{Projection}
State-of-the-art tests, including Student's $t$-test, Welch's $t$-test and moderated $t$-test, rely on the variance estimation. Here, the variability induced by multiple imputation is described by a variance-covariance matrix. Therefore, a projection step is required to get a unidimensional variance parameter. In our work, we chose to perform projection using the following formula :
\begin{equation}
\hat{s}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} = \max_k\left({\hat{\Sigma}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},(k,k)}\mathbf{X}^t\mathbf{X}}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\Sigma}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},(k,k)}$ is the $k$-th diagonal element of the matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}$ and $\mathbf{X}$ is the design matrix.
\subsection{Testing}
In our work, we focus our methodology on the moderated $t$-test introduced by \cite{Smyth}. This testing technique relies on the empirical Bayes procedure, commonly used in microarray data analysis, and to a more recent extent for differential analysis in quantitative proteomics \cite{DAPAR}. The moderated $t$-test procedure relies on the following Bayesian hierarchical model:
\begin{align}
\hat{s}^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} \mid \sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} \sim \frac{\sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}}{d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}} \times \chi_{d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}}^2 \quad\mbox{ and }\quad
\frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}} \sim \frac{1}{d_0 \times s_{0}^2} \times \chi_{d_0}^2
\end{align}
where $\sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}$ is the peptide-wise variance, $d_0$ and $s_0$ are hyperparameters to be estimated \citep{Phipson}. From there, a so-called moderated variance estimator $\hat{s}^2_{{\textcolor{colP}{p}}[mod]}$ of the variance $\sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}$ is derived:
\begin{equation}
\hat{s}^2_{{\textcolor{colP}{p}}[mod]} = \frac{d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} \times \hat{s}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}^2 + d_0 \times s^2_0}{d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} + d_0}
\end{equation}
This estimator is then computed in the test statistic associated to the null hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_0: \beta_{\textcolor{colP}{p}\textcolor{colI}{i}} = 0$ (see Equation \ref{TestStatistic}). Therefore, the results of this testing procedure account both for the specific structure of the data and the uncertainty caused by the multiple imputation step.
\begin{equation} \label{TestStatistic}
T_{\textcolor{colP}{p}\textcolor{colI}{i}[mod]}= \frac{\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}\textcolor{colI}{i}}}{\hat{s}^2_{{\textcolor{colP}{p}}[mod]}\sqrt{(X^TX)^{-1}_{k,k}}}
\end{equation}
with $(X^T\Omega_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}X)^{-1}_{k,k}$ the $k$-th diagonal element in the matrix $(X^T\Omega_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}X)^{-1}$.
Under the $\mathcal{H}_0$ hypothesis, $T_{\textcolor{colP}{p}\textcolor{colI}{i}[mod]}$ follows a Student distribution with $d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}+d_0$ degrees of freedom.
As many tests as the number of peptides considered are performed. Hence, the proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses has to be controlled. Here, the False Discovery Rate control procedure from \cite{FDR:BH} was performed using the \texttt{cp4p} \texttt{R} package by \cite{cp4p}.
\subsection{Aggregation}
The methodology implemented in the \texttt{mi4p} \texttt{R} package can be applied to peptide-level quantification data as well as protein-level quantification data. However, we were interested in evaluating our method on a peptide-level dataset and inferring results at a protein level, as it is common practice in proteomics. Therefore, for intensity aggregation, we chose to sum all unique peptides' intensities for each protein. The detailed pipeline for intensity aggregation is described in Supplementary data in Section~S2.
\subsection{Measures of performance}
We compared our methodology to the \texttt{limma} testing pipeline implemented in the state-of-the-art \texttt{ProStaR} software, through the \texttt{DAPAR} \texttt{R} package. To assess the performances of both methods, we used the following measures: sensitivity (also known as true positive rate or recall), specificity (also known as true negative rate), precision (also known as positive predictive value), $F$-score and Matthews correlation coefficient. In our work, we define a true positive (respectively negative) as a peptide/protein that is correctly considered as (not) differentially expressed by the testing procedure. Similarly, we define a false positive (respectively negative) as a peptide/protein that is falsely considered as (not) differentially expressed by the testing procedure. The expressions of the previously mentioned performance indicators are given in Supplementary data in Section~S3.
\section{Results and Discussion}
We highlight here results obtained using the maximum likelihood estimation imputation method. Results from other imputation methods on simulated data can be found in Supplementary data (Tables~S4.3 to~S4.6, S5.8 to~S5.11 and~S6.13 to S6.16). For each experiment, simulated or real, the performances of each method are based on adjusted $p$-values, with a 5\% significance level and using a 1\% Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate.
\subsection{Simulated datasets}
Figure \ref{fig:Bplot:Sim1} describes the evolution of the distribution of differences in sensitivity and specificity between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} depending on the proportion of missing values in the first set of simulations. For a small proportion of missing values (1\%), where the imputation process induces little variability, performances in terms of sensitivity, specificity and $F$-Score are equivalent between both methods. No improvement nor deterioration was observed for sensitivity, as it remains at 100\% regardless of the missing value proportion. Specificity and $F$-Score are improved with the \texttt{mi4p} workflow above 5\% missing values. The same observations can be drawn for precision and Matthews coefficient correlation (see Figure~S4.1 in Supplementary data). Detailed results can be found in Table~S4.2.\par
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{Bplot_Se-Sp-F.png}
\caption{Distributions of differences in sensitivity, specificity and F-score for the first set of simulations.}
\label{fig:Bplot:Sim1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{Bplot_L16bis_Se-Sp-F.png}
\caption{Distributions of differences in sensitivity, specificity and F-score for the second set of simulations.}
\label{fig:Bplot:SimL16}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:Bplot:SimL16} describes the evolution of the distribution of differences in sensitivity and specificity between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} depending on the proportion of missing values in the second set of simulations. For all proportions of missing values, we observe a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. A slight loss in specificity (remaining above 99\%) provides a greater gain in terms of sensitivity. The mean $F$-score across the 100 datasets is also increased with the \texttt{mi4p} workflow than with the \texttt{DAPAR} one. The Matthews correlation coefficient highlights the gain in performances (as illustrated in Supplementary data, Figure~S5.2).
Extending the simulation model from fixed effects to random effects using the last set of simulations provides similar results, as shown in Supplementary data (Figure~S6.3 and Tables~S6.12 to~S6.16).
\subsection{Real datasets}
The trade-off suggested by the simulation study is confirmed by the results obtained on the real datasets. In the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, a decrease of 70\% in the number of false positives is observed, improving the specificity and precision (Table~S8.23 in Supplementary data). However, this costs in the number of true positives (see Table \ref{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp:comp}), decreasing of sensitivity. The same trend is observed in the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment; the number of false positives is decreased by 50\% (see Table~\ref{Table:A+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp:comp} and Table S8.17), thus improving specificity and precision at the cost of sensitivity. The loss in sensitivity is bigger in the highest points of the range in both experiments. The structure of the calibrated datasets used here can explain these observations. Indeed, the quantitative dataset considered takes into account all samples from all conditions, while the testing procedure focuses on one-vs-one comparisons. Two issues can be raised:
\begin{itemize}
\item The data preprocessing step can lead to more data filtering than necessary. For instance, we chose to use the filtering criterion such that rows with at least one quantified value in each condition were kept. The more conditions are considered, the more stringent the rule is, possibly leading to a poorer dataset (with fewer observations) for the conditions of interest.
\item The imputation process is done on the whole dataset, as well as the estimation step. Then, while projecting the variance-covariance matrix, the estimated variance (later used in the test statistic) is the same for all comparisons. Thus, if one is interested in comparing conditions with fewer missing values, the variance estimator will be penalised by the presence of conditions with more missing values in the initial dataset.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\vs. 25fmol\end{tabular}} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} & \textbf{F-Score} \\ \hline
\textbf{0.5fmol} & -2.7\% & -67.2\% & -2.7\% & +1.6\% & +53.6\% \\ \hline
\textbf{1fmol} & -1.6\% & -71.1\% & -0.5\% & +0.9\% & +37.8\% \\ \hline
\textbf{2.5fmol} & -3.2\% & -75.8\% & -3.3\% & +0.7\% & +26.9\% \\ \hline
\textbf{5fmol} & -14.3\% & -78.7\% & -14.3\% & +0.5\% & +11.4\% \\ \hline
\textbf{10fmol} & -41.9\% & -75.2\% & -41.9\% & +0.5\% & -14.4\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the \texttt{mi4p} methodology expressed in percentage with respect to \texttt{DAPAR} workflow, on \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, with Match Between Runs and at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition. Missing values (6\%) were imputed using the maximum likelihood estimation method.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp:comp}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\vs. 10fmol\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} &
\textbf{F-Score} \\ \hline
\textbf{0.05fmol} & -2.3\% & -43\% & -2.3\% & +15\% & +62.7\% \\ \hline
\textbf{0.25fmol} & -1.5\% & -43\% & -1.4\% & +13.9\% & +65.3\% \\ \hline
\textbf{0.5fmol} & -1.5\% & -50.6\% & -1.4\% & +10.8\% & +81.4\% \\ \hline
\textbf{1.25fmol} & -2.3\% & -62.6\% & -2.3\% & +10.9\% & +119.8\% \\ \hline
\textbf{2.5fmol} & -25.6\% & -69.3\% & -25.5\% & +2.4\% & +45.9\% \\ \hline
\textbf{5fmol} & -30.3\% & -65.2\% & -30.4\% & +5.5\% & +56.1\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the \texttt{mi4p} methodology expressed in percentage with respect to \texttt{DAPAR} workflow, on \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment, with at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition. Missing values (6\%) were imputed using the maximum likelihood estimation method.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp:comp}
\end{table}
This phenomenon is illustrated in Table~S8.18, where solely the two highest points of the range have been compared, only using the quantitative data from those two conditions. More peptides have been taken into account for the statistical analysis. This strategy leads to better scores for precision, $F$-score and Matthews correlation coefficient compared to the previous framework.
As far as data extracted without the Match Between Runs algorithm are concerned, the results were equivalent in both methods considered in the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment (as illustrated in Tables~S8.20 and S8.21). Furthermore, the same observations can be drawn from datasets filtered with the criterion of a minimum of 2 out of 3 observed values in each group for the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment (Tables~S8.19 and S8.21) as well as for the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment (Table~S8.24). These observations translate a loss of global information in the dataset, as filtering criteria lead to fewer peptides considered with fewer missing values per peptide.
The \texttt{mi4p} methodology also provides better results at the protein-level (after aggregation) in terms of specificity, precision, $F$-score and Matthews correlation coefficient, with a minor loss in sensitivity (Table~S8.25). In particular, a decrease of 63.2\% to 80\% in the number of false positives is observed with a lower loss on the number of true positives and on sensitivity (up to 2.6\%) for the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, as illustrated in Table~\ref{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:Aggreg:impMLE:adjp:comp}. As far as the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment is concerned, the same trend is observed (Table~S8.22). Indeed, the number of false positives is decreased by 31\% to 66.8\%, with a maximum loss in the number of true positives of 9.8\%, as illustrated in Table~\ref{Table:A+UPS:1of3:Aggreg:impMLE:adjp:comp}.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\vs. 10fmol\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} &
\textbf{F-Score} \\ \hline
\textbf{0.05fmol} & 0\% & -27.6\% & 0\% & +18.3\% & +34.2\% \\ \hline
\textbf{0.25fmol} & 0\% & -25.7\% & 0\% & +18.1\% & +31\% \\ \hline
\textbf{0.5fmol} & 0\% & -31\% & 0\% & +15.2\% & +39.5\% \\ \hline
\textbf{1.25fmol} & 0\% & -65.3\% & 0\% & +12.1 & +119.2\% \\ \hline
\textbf{2.5fmol} & -2.4\% & -66.8\% & -2.4\% & +5.8\% & +88.3\% \\ \hline
\textbf{5fmol} & -9.8\% & -57.3\% & -9.8\% & +12.9\% & +78.9\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the \texttt{mi4p} methodology (with the aggregation step) expressed in percentage with respect to \texttt{DAPAR} workflow, on Arabidopsis + UPS1 experiment, with at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition. Missing values were imputed using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:1of3:Aggreg:impMLE:adjp:comp}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ vs. 25fmol\end{tabular}} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} & \textbf{F-Score} \\ \hline
\textbf{0.5fmol} & 0\% & -73.3\% & 0\% & +2.9\% & +61.1\% \\ \hline
\textbf{1fmol} & -2.4\% & -80\% & -2.4\% & +2.3\% & +51.4\% \\ \hline
\textbf{2.5fmol} & 0\% & -70.4\% & 0\% & +0.8\% & +20.9\% \\ \hline
\textbf{5fmol} & -2.4\% & -63.2\% & -2.4\% & +0.5\% & +11.6\% \\ \hline
\textbf{10fmol} & -2.6\% & -69.6\% & -2.6\% & +0.7\% & +16.5\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the \texttt{mi4p} methodology (with the aggregation step) expressed in percentage with respect to \texttt{DAPAR} workflow, on Yeast + UPS1 experiment, with at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition. Missing values were imputed using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:Aggreg:impMLE:adjp:comp}
\end{table}
\newpage
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we presented as a key step of a workflow a rigorous multiple imputation method by estimating both the parameters of interest and their variability. We considered this variability downstream of the statistical analysis by including it in the moderated $t$-test statistic. The methodology was implemented in the \texttt{R} statistical language through a package called \texttt{mi4p}. Its performance was compared on both simulated and real datasets to the state-of-the-art methodologies, such as the package \texttt{DAPAR}, using confusion matrix-based indicators. The results showed a trade-off between those indicators. In real datasets, the methodology reduces the number of false positives in exchange for a minor reduction of the number of true positives. The results are similar among all imputation methods considered, especially when the proportion of missing values is small. Our methodology with an additional aggregation step provides better results with a minor loss in sensitivity and can be of interest for proteomicists who will benefit from results at the protein level while using peptide-level quantification data.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors wish to thank Leslie Muller and Nicolas Pythoud for providing the real proteomics datasets used in this work, as well as Thomas Burger and Quentin Giai-Gianetto for their help on the \texttt{DAPAR} and \texttt{imp4p} \texttt{R} packages. The real datasets were deposited with the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifiers PXD003841 and PXD027800 \citep{Deutsch2017}.
\section*{Funding}
This work was funded through a PhD grant (2018-2021) awarded to MC and received by FB and CC from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) through the Labex IRMIA [ANR-11-LABX-0055\_IRMIA].
\section*{Abstract}
\textbf{Motivation:} Imputing missing values is common practice in label-free quantitative proteomics. Imputation aims at replacing a missing value with a user-defined one. However, the imputation itself may not be optimally considered downstream of the imputation process, as imputed datasets are often considered as if they had always been complete. Hence, the uncertainty due to the imputation is not adequately taken into account. We provide a rigorous multiple imputation strategy, leading to a less biased estimation of the parameters' variability thanks to Rubin’s rules. The imputation-based peptide’s intensities’ variance estimator is then moderated using Bayesian hierarchical models. This estimator is finally included in moderated $t$-test statistics to provide differential analyses results. This workflow can be used both at peptide and protein-level in quantification datasets. For protein-level results based on peptide-level quantification data, an aggregation step is also included.\\
\textbf{Results:} Our methodology, named \texttt{mi4p}, was compared to the state-of-the-art \texttt{limma} workflow implemented in the \texttt{DAPAR} \texttt{R} package, both on simulated and real datasets. We observed a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, while the overall performance of \texttt{mi4p} outperforms \texttt{DAPAR} in terms of $F$-Score.\\
\textbf{Availability:} The methodology here described is implemented under the \texttt{R} environment and can be found on GitHub: \texttt{https://github.com/mariechion/mi4p}. The \texttt{R} scripts which led to the results presented here can also be found on this repository. The real datasets are available on ProteomeXchange under the dataset identifiers PXD003841 and PXD027800.
\section{Introduction}
Dealing with incomplete data is one of the main challenges as far as statistical analysis is concerned. Different strategies can be used to tackle this issue. The simplest way consists of deleting from the dataset the observations for which there are too many missing values, leading to a complete-case dataset. However, it causes information loss, might create bias and could ultimately result in poorly informative datasets.
Another way to cope with missing data is to use methods that account for the missing information. For the last decades, researchers advocated the use of a single technique called imputation. Imputing missing values consists of replacing a missing value with a value derived using a user-defined formula (such as the mean, the median or a value provided by an expert, thus considering the user's knowledge). Hence it makes it possible to perform the analysis as if the data were complete. More particularly, the vector of parameters of interest can be then estimated.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-1,0.4) rectangle (-0.8,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (-0.8,0.4) rectangle (-0.6,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-0.6,0.4) rectangle (-0.4,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (-0.4,0.4) rectangle (-0.2,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-0.2,0.4) rectangle (0,0.6);
\draw[thick] (-1,0.4)--(0,0.4)--(0,0.6)--(-1,0.6)--(-1,0.4);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.7,0.4) rectangle (1.9,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (1.9,0.4) rectangle (2.1,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.1,0.4) rectangle (2.3,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.3,0.4) rectangle (2.5,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.5,0.4) rectangle (2.7,0.6);
\draw[thick] (1.7,0.4)--(2.7,0.4)--(2.7,0.6)--(1.7,0.6)--(1.7,0.4);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4,0.4) rectangle (4.2,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.2,0.4) rectangle (4.4,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.4,0.4) rectangle (4.6,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.6,0.4) rectangle (4.8,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.8,0.4) rectangle (5,0.6);
\draw[thick] (4,0.4)--(5,0.4)--(5,0.6)--(4,0.6)--(4,0.4);
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (-1,0.75)--(0,0.75);
\draw[decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},thick] (0,0.35)--(-1,0.35);
\draw (-0.5,0.925) node{\color{colN}\bf \small N observations};
\draw (-0.5,0) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (1.7,0.75)--(2.7,0.75);
\draw[decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},thick] (2.7,0.35)--(1.7,0.35);
\draw (2.2,0.925) node{\color{colN}\bf \small N observations};
\draw (2.2,0) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw[thick,<->] (4.025,0.25)--(4.975,0.25);
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (4.025,0.75)--(4.975,0.75);
\draw (4.5,0.925) node{\color{colI} \bf \small I parameters};
\draw (4.5,0) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw (0.7,0.5) node[above]{\scriptsize Single} node[below]{\scriptsize imputation};
\draw (3.4,0.5) node[above]{\scriptsize Estimation};
\draw[thick,->] (0.25,0.5)--(1.25,0.5);
\draw[thick,->] (3,0.5)--(3.8,0.5);
\draw (-0.5,-0.5) node{\small \bf (1)} (2.2,-0.5) node{\small \bf (2)}
(4.5,-0.5) node{\small \bf (3)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{{\bf Single imputation.} {\bf(1)} Initial dataset with missing values. It is supposed to be made of \textcolor{colN}{\bf N} observations that are split into {\bf I} groups. {\bf(2)} Single imputation provides an imputed dataset. {\bf(3)} The vector of parameters of interest is estimated based on the single imputed dataset.}
\label{fig:SI}
\end{figure}
Single imputation means completing the dataset once and considering the imputed dataset as if it was never incomplete, see Figure~\ref{fig:SI}. However, single imputation has the major disadvantage of discarding the variability from the missing data and the imputation process. It may also lead to a biased estimator of the vector of parameters of interest.
Multiple imputation described by \cite{LittleRubin} closes this loophole by generating several imputed datasets. These datasets are then used to build a combined estimator of the vector of parameters of interest, by usually using the mean of the estimates among all the imputed datasets, see Figure~\ref{figMI}. This combined estimator is known as the first Rubin's rule. The second Rubin's rule states a formula to estimate the variance of the combined estimator, decomposing it as the sum of the intra-imputation variance component and the between-imputation component. The rule of thumb suggested by \cite{White} takes the number of imputed datasets as the percentage of missing values in the original dataset. Recent work focused on better estimating the Fraction of Missing Information \citep{Pan2018} or improving that rule \citep{vonHippel2018}. Note that Rubin's rules cannot be used in order to get a combined imputed dataset but instead provide an estimator of the vector of parameters of interest and an estimator of its covariance matrix both based on multiple imputation, see Figure~\ref{figMI}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-1,0.4) rectangle (-0.8,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (-0.8,0.4) rectangle (-0.6,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-0.6,0.4) rectangle (-0.4,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (-0.4,0.4) rectangle (-0.2,0.6);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (-0.2,0.4) rectangle (0,0.6);
\draw[thick] (-1,0.4)--(0,0.4)--(0,0.6)--(-1,0.6)--(-1,0.4);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.8,0.7) rectangle (2.0,0.9);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.0,0.7) rectangle (2.2,0.9);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.2,0.7) rectangle (2.4,0.9);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.4,0.7) rectangle (2.6,0.9);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.6,0.7) rectangle (2.8,0.9);
\draw[thick] (1.8,0.7)--(2.8,0.7)--(2.8,0.9)--(1.8,0.9)--(1.8,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.7,0.5) rectangle (1.9,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (1.9,0.5) rectangle (2.1,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.1,0.5) rectangle (2.3,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.3,0.5) rectangle (2.5,0.7);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.5,0.5) rectangle (2.7,0.7);
\draw[dashed,thick] (1.7,0.5)--(2.7,0.5)--(2.7,0.7)--(1.7,0.7)--(1.7,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.6,0.3) rectangle (1.8,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (1.8,0.3) rectangle (2.0,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.0,0.3) rectangle (2.2,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.2,0.3) rectangle (2.4,0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.4,0.3) rectangle (2.6,0.5);
\draw[dashed,thick] (1.6,0.3)--(2.6,0.3)--(2.6,0.5)--(1.6,0.5)--(1.6,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.5,0.1) rectangle (1.7,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (1.7,0.1) rectangle (1.9,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (1.9,0.1) rectangle (2.1,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (2.1,0.1) rectangle (2.3,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (2.3,0.1) rectangle (2.5,0.3);
\draw[thick] (1.5,0.1)--(2.5,0.1)--(2.5,0.3)--(1.5,0.3)--(1.5,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.1,1) rectangle (4.3,1.2);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.3,1) rectangle (4.5,1.2);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.5,1) rectangle (4.7,1.2);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.7,1) rectangle (4.9,1.2);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.9,1) rectangle (5.1,1.2);
\draw[thick] (4.1,1)--(5.1,1)--(5.1,1.2)--(4.1,1.2)--(4.1,1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.1,-0.7) rectangle (4.3,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.3,-0.7) rectangle (4.5,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.5,-0.7) rectangle (4.7,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.7,-0.7) rectangle (4.9,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.9,-0.7) rectangle (5.1,-0.5);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.1,-0.5) rectangle (4.3,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.3,-0.5) rectangle (4.5,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.5,-0.5) rectangle (4.7,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.7,-0.5) rectangle (4.9,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.9,-0.5) rectangle (5.1,-0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.1,-0.3) rectangle (4.3,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.3,-0.3) rectangle (4.5,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.5,-0.3) rectangle (4.7,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.7,-0.3) rectangle (4.9,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.9,-0.3) rectangle (5.1,-0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.1,-0.1) rectangle (4.3,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.3,-0.1) rectangle (4.5,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.5,-0.1) rectangle (4.7,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.7,-0.1) rectangle (4.9,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.9,-0.1) rectangle (5.1,0.1);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.1,0.1) rectangle (4.3,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.3,0.1) rectangle (4.5,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.5,0.1) rectangle (4.7,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col2] (4.7,0.1) rectangle (4.9,0.3);
\draw[dotted,fill=col1] (4.9,0.1) rectangle (5.1,0.3);
\draw[thick] (4.1,-0.7)--(5.1,-0.7)--(5.1,0.3)--(4.1,0.3)--(4.1,-0.7);
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (-1,0.75)--(0,0.75);
\draw[decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},thick] (0,0.35)--(-1,0.35);
\draw (-0.5,1) node{\color{colN}\bf \small N observations};
\draw (-0.5,0) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw[thick,colN,<->] (1.8,1)--(2.8,1);
\draw[decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},thick] (2.5,0.05)--(1.5,0.05);
\draw (2.3,1.2) node{\color{colN}\bf \small N observations};
\draw (2,-0.3) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw[thick,colD,<->] (2.7,0.1)--(3,0.7);
\draw (3.1,0.4) node{\color{colD}\bf \small D};
\draw (3.2,0.2) node{\color{colD}\bf \small draws};
\draw (4.6,0.65) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I groups};
\draw (5.5,-0.15) node{\color{colI}\bf \small I };
\draw[thick,<->] (5.1,0.9)--(4.1,0.9);
\draw[thick,<->] (4.1,0.45)--(5.1,0.45);
\draw[thick,<->] (5.3,0.3)--(5.3,-0.7);
\draw (0.725,0.7) node{\scriptsize Multiple}
(0.75,0.3) node{\scriptsize imputation} ;
\draw (-0.5,-0.7) node{\small \bf (1)} (2.2,-0.7) node{\small \bf (2)}
(5.9,1.1) node{\small \bf (3a)} (5.9,-0.1) node{\small \bf (3b)};
\draw[thick,->] (0.25,0.5)--(1.25,0.5);
\draw[thick,->] (3.4,0.55)--(4,1.1);
\draw[thick,->] (3.4,0.45)--(4,-0.1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{{\bf Multiple imputation strategy.} {\bf(1)} Initial dataset with missing values. It is supposed to have \textcolor{colN}{\bf N} observations that are split into \textcolor{colI}{\bf I} groups. {\bf(2)} Multiple imputation provides \textcolor{colD}{\bf D}~estimators for the vector of parameters of interest. {\bf(3a)} The \textcolor{colD}{\bf D}~estimators are combined using the first Rubin's rule to get the combined estimator. {\bf(3a)} The estimator of the variance-covariance matrix of the combined estimator is provided by the second Rubin's rule.}
\label{figMI}
\end{figure}
Dealing with missing values is also one of the main struggles in label-free quantitative proteomics. Intensities of thousands of peptides are obtained by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, using extracted ion chromatograms. Several reasons may cause missing peptides' intensities. Either the considered peptide is missing in the given biological sample, and the intensity is then missing not at random (MNAR), or it was missed during the acquisition process and, the intensity is then missing at random (MAR).
In state-of-the-art software for statistical analysis in label-free quantitative proteomics, single imputation is the most commonly used method to deal with missing values. In the \texttt{MSstats} \texttt{R} package (available on Bioconductor), \cite{MSstats} distinguish missing completely at random values and missing values due to low intensities. The user can then choose to impute the censored value using a threshold value or an Accelerated Failure Time model. The Perseus software by \cite{Perseus} offers three methods for single imputation: either imputing by "NaN", impute by a user-defined constant or impute according to a Gaussian distribution in order to simulate intensities, which are lower than the limit of detection. Recently, \cite{Goeminne2020} implemented a single imputation method based on a hurdle model in their \texttt{MSqRob} \texttt{R} package \citep{Goeminne2018}. As far as machine learning is concerned, \cite{XGboost} suggested a method for imputing missing values in label-free mass spectrometry-based proteomics datasets, called \texttt{XGboost}.
The ProStaR software based on the \verb+DAPAR+ \texttt{R} package and developed by \cite{DAPAR} splits missing values into two categories, whether they are Missing in an Entire Condition (MEC) or Partially Observed Values (POV) \citep{Lazar}. The software allows single imputation, using either a small quantile from the distribution of the considered biological sample, the $k$-Nearest Neighbours (kNN) algorithm or the Structured Least Squares Adaptative algorithm or by choosing a fixed value. The PANDA-view software developed by \cite{PANDA} also enables the use of the kNN algorithm or a fixed value. Moreover, both software programs give the possibility to impute the dataset several times before combining the imputed datasets in order to get a final dataset without any missing values. PANDA-view relies on the \texttt{mice} \texttt{R} package by \cite{mice}, whereas ProStaR accounts for the nature of missing values and imputes them with the \texttt{imp4p} \texttt{R} package implemented by \cite{imp4p}. However, both software programs consider the final dataset as if it had always been complete. The uncertainty due to multiple imputation is not properly taken into account downstream of the imputation step.
In the following, we will conduct the multiple imputation process to its end, as described by \cite{LittleRubin} and use the imputed datasets to provide a combined estimator of the vector of parameters of interest as well as a combined estimator of its variance-covariance matrix estimator. We will then project this matrix to get a unidimensional variance estimator before moderating it using the empirical Bayes procedure defined in the seminal paper of \cite{Smyth} and later developed by \cite{Phipson}. It is well known that such a moderating step highly improves the following statistical analyses such as significance testing of confidence interval estimation, both at the peptide level \citep{Suomi2015, Goeminne2015} or the protein level \citep{Goeminne2015, Goeminne2016}.
\section{Materials}
\subsection{Simulated datasets}
We evaluated our methodology on three types of simulated datasets. First, we considered an experimental design where the distributions of the two groups to be compared scarcely overlap. This design led to a fixed effect one-way analysis of variance model (ANOVA), which can be written as:
\begin{equation}
y_{ij} = \mu + \delta_{ij} + \epsilon_{ij}
\end{equation}
with $\mu = 100$, $\delta_{ij} = 100$ if $1 \leq i \leq 10$ and $j=2$ and $\delta_{ij} = 0$ otherwise and $\epsilon_{ijk} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Here, $y_{ij}$ represents the log-transformed abundance of peptide $i$ in the $j$-th sample.
Thus, we generated $100$ datasets by considering $200$ individuals and $10$ variables, divided into $2$ groups of $5$ variables, using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first 10 rows of the data frame, set as differentially expressed, draw the first 5 observations (first group) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 1. Then draw the remaining 5 observations (second group) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 200 and a standard deviation of 1.
\item For the remaining 190 rows, set as non-differentially expressed, draw the first 5 observations as well as the last 5 observations from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 1.
\end{enumerate}
Secondly, we considered an experimental design, where the distributions of the two groups to be compared might highly overlap. Hence, we based it on the random hierarchical ANOVA model by \cite{Lazar}, derived from \cite{Karpievitch2012}. The simulation design follows the following model:
\begin{equation}
y_{ij} = P_{i} + G_{ik} + \epsilon_{ij\textcolor{Purple}{\bf k}}
\end{equation}
where $y_{ij}$ is the log-transformed abundance of peptide $i$ in the $j$-th sample, $P_{i}$ is the mean value of peptide $i$, $G_{ik}$ is the mean differences between the condition groups, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ is the random error terms, which stands for the peptide-wise variance.
We generated 100 datasets by considering 1000 individuals and 20 variables, divided into 2 groups of 10 variables, using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Generate the peptide-wise effect $P_{i}$ by drawing 1000 observations from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5.
\item Generate the group effect $G_{ik}$ by drawing 200 observations (for the 200 individuals set as differentially expressed) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 and 800 observations fixed to 0.
\item Build the first group dataset by replicating 10 times the sum of $P_{i}$ and the random error term, drawn from a Gaussian distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5.
\item Build the second group dataset by replicating 10 times the sum of $P_{i}$, $G_{ik}$ and the random error term drawn from a Gaussian distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5.
\item Bind both datasets to get the complete dataset.
\end{enumerate}
Finally, we considered an experimental design similar to the second one, but with random effects $P_{i}$ and $G_{ik}$. The 100 datasets were generated as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first group, replicate 10 times (for the 10 variables in this group) a draw from a mixture of 2 Gaussian distributions. The first one has the following parameters: a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $P_{i}$). The second one has the following parameters: a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $\epsilon_{ij}$).
\item For the second group replicate 10 times (for the 10 variables in this group) a draw from a mixture of the following 3 distributions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The first one is a Gaussian distribution with the following parameters: a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $P_{i}$).
\item The second one is the mixture of a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 for the 200 first rows (set as differentially expressed) and a zero vector for the remaining 800 rows (set as not differentially expressed). This mixture illustrates the $G_{ik}$ term in the previous model.
\item The third distribution has the following parameters: a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $\epsilon_{ij}$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
All simulated datasets were then amputed to produce MCAR missing values in the following proportions: 1\%, 5\%, 10\%, 15\%, 20\% and 25\%.
\subsection{Real datasets}
We challenged our methodology on several real datasets coming from two different experiments described hereafter.
We consider a first real dataset from \cite{Muller}. The experiment involved six peptide mixtures, composed of a constant yeast (\textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae}) background, into which increasing amounts of UPS1 standard proteins mixtures (Sigma) were spiked at 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 25 fmol, respectively.
In a second well-calibrated dataset, yeast was replaced by a more complex total lysate of \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} in which UPS1 was spiked in 7 different amounts, namely 0.05, 0.25, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5, 5 and 10 fmol. For each mixture, technical triplicates were constituted.
The \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} dataset was acquired on a nanoLC-MS/MS coupling composed of nanoAcquity UPLC device (Waters) coupled to a Q-Exactive Plus mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) as extensively described in \cite{Muller}. The \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} dataset was acquired on a nanoLC-MS/MS coupling composed of nanoAcquity UPLC device (Waters) coupled to a Q-Exactive HF-X mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) as described in Supplementary data, Section S7.3.
For the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} and \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} datasets, Maxquant software was used to identify peptides and derive extracted ion chromatograms. Peaks were assigned with the Andromeda search engine with full trypsin specificity. The database used for the searches was concatenated in-house with the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} entries extracted from the UniProtKB-SwissProt database (16 April 2015, 7806 entries) or the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} entries (09 April 2019, 15 818 entries) and those of the UPS1 proteins (48 entries). The maximum false discovery rate was 1\% at peptide and protein levels using a target-decoy strategy.
For the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment, data were extracted both with and without Match Between Runs and 2 pre-filtering criteria were applied before statistical analysis: only peptides with, on the one hand, at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition and, on the other hand at least 2 out of 3, were kept. Thus, 4 datasets derived from the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 were considered.
The same filtering criteria were applied for the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, but only on data extracted with Match Between Runs, leading to 2 datasets being considered.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Normalization}
Normalising peptides' or proteins' intensities aims at reducing batch effects, sample-level variations and therefore better comparing intensities across studied biological samples \cite{Wang2021}. In this work, quantile normalisation (as described by \cite{Bolstad2003}) was performed using the \texttt{normalize.quantiles} function from the \texttt{preprocessCore} \texttt{R} package \citep{Bolstad2021}.
\subsection{Multiple imputation methods} \label{section:MI}
Several methods for imputing missing values in mass spectrometry-based proteomics datasets were developed in the last decade. However, the recent benchmarks of imputation algorithms do not reach a consensus (as shown in Supplementary data, Table S1.1). This is mainly due to the complex nature of the underlying missing values mechanism. In this work, we chose to focus on some of the most commonly used methods \ref{Tab:imp}.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Implementation} & \textbf{References} \\ \hline
k Nearest Neighbours & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}impute.knn\\ (impute R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Hastie et al. (2021)\\ Hastie et al. (1999)\\ Troyanskaya et al. (2001)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Maximum Likelihood\\ Estimation\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}impute.mle\\ (imp4p R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Giai-Gianetto (2020)\\ Schafer (1997)\\ Van Buuren (2011)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Bayesian Linear \\ Regression\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}mice\\ (mice R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Van Buuren (2021)\\Rubin (1987)\\ Schafer (1997)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Principal Component\\ Analysis\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}impute.pca\\ (imp4p R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Giai-Gianetto (2020)\\ Josse \& Husson (2013)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
Random Forests & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}impute.RF\\ (imp4p R package)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Giai-Gianetto (2020)\\ Stekhoven \& Buehlmann (2012)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Overview of the imputation methods used in the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow.}
\label{Tab:imp}
\end{table}
\end{center}
The $k$-Nearest Neighbours method imputes missing values by averaging the $k$-nearest observations of the given missing value in terms of Euclidean distance. This method was described by \cite{Hastie1999} and \cite{Troyanskaya} and implemented in \cite{Hastie2021}.
The Maximum Likelihood Estimation method imputed missing values using the EM algorithm proposed by \cite{Schafer} and implemented by \cite{imp4p}.
The Bayesian linear regression method imputes missing values using the normal model and following the method described by \cite{Rubin1987} and implemented by \cite{mice}.
The Principal Component Analysis imputes missing values using the algorithm proposed by \cite{Josse2013} and implemented by \cite{imp4p}.
The Random Forests method imputes missing values using the algorithm proposed by \cite{MissForest} and implemented by \cite{imp4p}.
\subsection{Estimation}
The objective of multiple imputation is to estimate from $\textcolor{colD}{D}$ drawn datasets the vector of parameters of interest and its variance-covariance matrix. Notably, accounting for multiple-imputation-based variability is possible thanks to Rubin's rules, which provide an accurate estimation of these parameters.\par
Let us consider a $\textcolor{colD}{D}$-time imputed dataset with $\textcolor{colP}{P}$ individuals (corresponding to $\textcolor{colP}{P}$ peptides or proteins) and $\textcolor{colN}{N}$ observations (corresponding to $\textcolor{colN}{N}$ biological samples), divided between $\textcolor{colI}{I}$ groups (corresponding to $\textcolor{colI}{I}$ conditions to be compared). Let $\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P}}$ be the vector of parameters of interest, such as :
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P}} = \left(\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P},1}, \dots, \beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P},I}\right)
\end{equation}
The first Rubin's rule provides the combined estimator of $\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P}}$:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} = \frac{1}{\textcolor{colD}{D}}\sum_{\textcolor{colD}{d}}^{\textcolor{colD}{D}}\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}}$ is the estimator of $\beta_{\textcolor{colP}{P}}$ in the $\textcolor{colD}{d}$-imputed dataset.\par
The second Rubin's rule gives the combined estimator of the variance-covariance matrix for each estimated vector of parameters of interest for peptide $\textcolor{colP}{p}$ through the $\textcolor{colD}{D}$ imputed datasets such as:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Sigma}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} = \frac{1}{\textcolor{colD}{D}} \sum_{\textcolor{colD}{d}=1}^{\textcolor{colD}{D}} W_{\textcolor{colD}{d}} + \frac{\textcolor{colD}{D}+1}{\textcolor{colD}{D}(\textcolor{colD}{D}-1)} \sum_{\textcolor{colD}{d}=1}^{\textcolor{colD}{D}} (\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}} - \hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}})^T(\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}} - \hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}})
\end{equation}
where $W_{\textcolor{colD}{d}}$ denotes the variance-covariance matrix of $\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},\textcolor{colD}{d}}$, {\it i.e.} the variability of the vector of parameters of interest as estimated in the $\textcolor{colD}{d}$-th imputed dataset.
\subsection{Projection}
State-of-the-art tests, including Student's $t$-test, Welch's $t$-test and moderated $t$-test, rely on the variance estimation. Here, the variability induced by multiple imputation is described by a variance-covariance matrix. Therefore, a projection step is required to get a unidimensional variance parameter. In our work, we chose to perform projection using the following formula :
\begin{equation}
\hat{s}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} = \max_k\left({\hat{\Sigma}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},(k,k)}\mathbf{X}^t\mathbf{X}}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\Sigma}_{\textcolor{colP}{p},(k,k)}$ is the $k$-th diagonal element of the matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}$ and $\mathbf{X}$ is the design matrix.
\subsection{Testing}
In our work, we focus our methodology on the moderated $t$-test introduced by \cite{Smyth}. This testing technique relies on the empirical Bayes procedure, commonly used in microarray data analysis, and to a more recent extent for differential analysis in quantitative proteomics \cite{DAPAR}. The moderated $t$-test procedure relies on the following Bayesian hierarchical model:
\begin{align}
\hat{s}^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} \mid \sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} \sim \frac{\sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}}{d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}} \times \chi_{d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}}^2 \quad\mbox{ and }\quad
\frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}} \sim \frac{1}{d_0 \times s_{0}^2} \times \chi_{d_0}^2
\end{align}
where $\sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}$ is the peptide-wise variance, $d_0$ and $s_0$ are hyperparameters to be estimated \citep{Phipson}. From there, a so-called moderated variance estimator $\hat{s}^2_{{\textcolor{colP}{p}}[mod]}$ of the variance $\sigma^2_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}$ is derived:
\begin{equation}
\hat{s}^2_{{\textcolor{colP}{p}}[mod]} = \frac{d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} \times \hat{s}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}^2 + d_0 \times s^2_0}{d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}} + d_0}
\end{equation}
This estimator is then computed in the test statistic associated to the null hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_0: \beta_{\textcolor{colP}{p}\textcolor{colI}{i}} = 0$ (see Equation \ref{TestStatistic}). Therefore, the results of this testing procedure account both for the specific structure of the data and the uncertainty caused by the multiple imputation step.
\begin{equation} \label{TestStatistic}
T_{\textcolor{colP}{p}\textcolor{colI}{i}[mod]}= \frac{\hat{\beta}_{\textcolor{colP}{p}\textcolor{colI}{i}}}{\hat{s}^2_{{\textcolor{colP}{p}}[mod]}\sqrt{(X^TX)^{-1}_{k,k}}}
\end{equation}
with $(X^T\Omega_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}X)^{-1}_{k,k}$ the $k$-th diagonal element in the matrix $(X^T\Omega_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}X)^{-1}$.
Under the $\mathcal{H}_0$ hypothesis, $T_{\textcolor{colP}{p}\textcolor{colI}{i}[mod]}$ follows a Student distribution with $d_{\textcolor{colP}{p}}+d_0$ degrees of freedom.
As many tests as the number of peptides considered are performed. Hence, the proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses has to be controlled. Here, the False Discovery Rate control procedure from \cite{FDR:BH} was performed using the \texttt{cp4p} \texttt{R} package by \cite{cp4p}.
\subsection{Aggregation}
The methodology implemented in the \texttt{mi4p} \texttt{R} package can be applied to peptide-level quantification data as well as protein-level quantification data. However, we were interested in evaluating our method on a peptide-level dataset and inferring results at a protein level, as it is common practice in proteomics. Therefore, for intensity aggregation, we chose to sum all unique peptides' intensities for each protein. The detailed pipeline for intensity aggregation is described in Supplementary data in Section~S2.
\subsection{Measures of performance}
We compared our methodology to the \texttt{limma} testing pipeline implemented in the state-of-the-art \texttt{ProStaR} software, through the \texttt{DAPAR} \texttt{R} package. To assess the performances of both methods, we used the following measures: sensitivity (also known as true positive rate or recall), specificity (also known as true negative rate), precision (also known as positive predictive value), $F$-score and Matthews correlation coefficient. In our work, we define a true positive (respectively negative) as a peptide/protein that is correctly considered as (not) differentially expressed by the testing procedure. Similarly, we define a false positive (respectively negative) as a peptide/protein that is falsely considered as (not) differentially expressed by the testing procedure. The expressions of the previously mentioned performance indicators are given in Supplementary data in Section~S3.
\section{Results and Discussion}
We highlight here results obtained using the maximum likelihood estimation imputation method. Results from other imputation methods on simulated data can be found in Supplementary data (Tables~S4.3 to~S4.6, S5.8 to~S5.11 and~S6.13 to S6.16). For each experiment, simulated or real, the performances of each method are based on adjusted $p$-values, with a 5\% significance level and using a 1\% Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate.
\subsection{Simulated datasets}
Figure \ref{fig:Bplot:Sim1} describes the evolution of the distribution of differences in sensitivity and specificity between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} depending on the proportion of missing values in the first set of simulations. For a small proportion of missing values (1\%), where the imputation process induces little variability, performances in terms of sensitivity, specificity and $F$-Score are equivalent between both methods. No improvement nor deterioration was observed for sensitivity, as it remains at 100\% regardless of the missing value proportion. Specificity and $F$-Score are improved with the \texttt{mi4p} workflow above 5\% missing values. The same observations can be drawn for precision and Matthews coefficient correlation (see Figure~S4.1 in Supplementary data). Detailed results can be found in Table~S4.2.\par
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{Bplot_Se-Sp-F.png}
\caption{Distributions of differences in sensitivity, specificity and F-score for the first set of simulations.}
\label{fig:Bplot:Sim1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{Bplot_L16bis_Se-Sp-F.png}
\caption{Distributions of differences in sensitivity, specificity and F-score for the second set of simulations.}
\label{fig:Bplot:SimL16}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:Bplot:SimL16} describes the evolution of the distribution of differences in sensitivity and specificity between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} depending on the proportion of missing values in the second set of simulations. For all proportions of missing values, we observe a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. A slight loss in specificity (remaining above 99\%) provides a greater gain in terms of sensitivity. The mean $F$-score across the 100 datasets is also increased with the \texttt{mi4p} workflow than with the \texttt{DAPAR} one. The Matthews correlation coefficient highlights the gain in performances (as illustrated in Supplementary data, Figure~S5.2).
Extending the simulation model from fixed effects to random effects using the last set of simulations provides similar results, as shown in Supplementary data (Figure~S6.3 and Tables~S6.12 to~S6.16).
\subsection{Real datasets}
The trade-off suggested by the simulation study is confirmed by the results obtained on the real datasets. In the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, a decrease of 70\% in the number of false positives is observed, improving the specificity and precision (Table~S8.23 in Supplementary data). However, this costs in the number of true positives (see Table \ref{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp:comp}), decreasing of sensitivity. The same trend is observed in the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment; the number of false positives is decreased by 50\% (see Table~\ref{Table:A+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp:comp} and Table S8.17), thus improving specificity and precision at the cost of sensitivity. The loss in sensitivity is bigger in the highest points of the range in both experiments. The structure of the calibrated datasets used here can explain these observations. Indeed, the quantitative dataset considered takes into account all samples from all conditions, while the testing procedure focuses on one-vs-one comparisons. Two issues can be raised:
\begin{itemize}
\item The data preprocessing step can lead to more data filtering than necessary. For instance, we chose to use the filtering criterion such that rows with at least one quantified value in each condition were kept. The more conditions are considered, the more stringent the rule is, possibly leading to a poorer dataset (with fewer observations) for the conditions of interest.
\item The imputation process is done on the whole dataset, as well as the estimation step. Then, while projecting the variance-covariance matrix, the estimated variance (later used in the test statistic) is the same for all comparisons. Thus, if one is interested in comparing conditions with fewer missing values, the variance estimator will be penalised by the presence of conditions with more missing values in the initial dataset.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\vs. 25fmol\end{tabular}} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} & \textbf{F-Score} \\ \hline
\textbf{0.5fmol} & -2.7\% & -67.2\% & -2.7\% & +1.6\% & +53.6\% \\ \hline
\textbf{1fmol} & -1.6\% & -71.1\% & -0.5\% & +0.9\% & +37.8\% \\ \hline
\textbf{2.5fmol} & -3.2\% & -75.8\% & -3.3\% & +0.7\% & +26.9\% \\ \hline
\textbf{5fmol} & -14.3\% & -78.7\% & -14.3\% & +0.5\% & +11.4\% \\ \hline
\textbf{10fmol} & -41.9\% & -75.2\% & -41.9\% & +0.5\% & -14.4\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the \texttt{mi4p} methodology expressed in percentage with respect to \texttt{DAPAR} workflow, on \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, with Match Between Runs and at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition. Missing values (6\%) were imputed using the maximum likelihood estimation method.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp:comp}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\vs. 10fmol\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} &
\textbf{F-Score} \\ \hline
\textbf{0.05fmol} & -2.3\% & -43\% & -2.3\% & +15\% & +62.7\% \\ \hline
\textbf{0.25fmol} & -1.5\% & -43\% & -1.4\% & +13.9\% & +65.3\% \\ \hline
\textbf{0.5fmol} & -1.5\% & -50.6\% & -1.4\% & +10.8\% & +81.4\% \\ \hline
\textbf{1.25fmol} & -2.3\% & -62.6\% & -2.3\% & +10.9\% & +119.8\% \\ \hline
\textbf{2.5fmol} & -25.6\% & -69.3\% & -25.5\% & +2.4\% & +45.9\% \\ \hline
\textbf{5fmol} & -30.3\% & -65.2\% & -30.4\% & +5.5\% & +56.1\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the \texttt{mi4p} methodology expressed in percentage with respect to \texttt{DAPAR} workflow, on \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment, with at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition. Missing values (6\%) were imputed using the maximum likelihood estimation method.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp:comp}
\end{table}
This phenomenon is illustrated in Table~S8.18, where solely the two highest points of the range have been compared, only using the quantitative data from those two conditions. More peptides have been taken into account for the statistical analysis. This strategy leads to better scores for precision, $F$-score and Matthews correlation coefficient compared to the previous framework.
As far as data extracted without the Match Between Runs algorithm are concerned, the results were equivalent in both methods considered in the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment (as illustrated in Tables~S8.20 and S8.21). Furthermore, the same observations can be drawn from datasets filtered with the criterion of a minimum of 2 out of 3 observed values in each group for the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment (Tables~S8.19 and S8.21) as well as for the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment (Table~S8.24). These observations translate a loss of global information in the dataset, as filtering criteria lead to fewer peptides considered with fewer missing values per peptide.
The \texttt{mi4p} methodology also provides better results at the protein-level (after aggregation) in terms of specificity, precision, $F$-score and Matthews correlation coefficient, with a minor loss in sensitivity (Table~S8.25). In particular, a decrease of 63.2\% to 80\% in the number of false positives is observed with a lower loss on the number of true positives and on sensitivity (up to 2.6\%) for the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, as illustrated in Table~\ref{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:Aggreg:impMLE:adjp:comp}. As far as the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment is concerned, the same trend is observed (Table~S8.22). Indeed, the number of false positives is decreased by 31\% to 66.8\%, with a maximum loss in the number of true positives of 9.8\%, as illustrated in Table~\ref{Table:A+UPS:1of3:Aggreg:impMLE:adjp:comp}.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\vs. 10fmol\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} &
\textbf{F-Score} \\ \hline
\textbf{0.05fmol} & 0\% & -27.6\% & 0\% & +18.3\% & +34.2\% \\ \hline
\textbf{0.25fmol} & 0\% & -25.7\% & 0\% & +18.1\% & +31\% \\ \hline
\textbf{0.5fmol} & 0\% & -31\% & 0\% & +15.2\% & +39.5\% \\ \hline
\textbf{1.25fmol} & 0\% & -65.3\% & 0\% & +12.1 & +119.2\% \\ \hline
\textbf{2.5fmol} & -2.4\% & -66.8\% & -2.4\% & +5.8\% & +88.3\% \\ \hline
\textbf{5fmol} & -9.8\% & -57.3\% & -9.8\% & +12.9\% & +78.9\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the \texttt{mi4p} methodology (with the aggregation step) expressed in percentage with respect to \texttt{DAPAR} workflow, on Arabidopsis + UPS1 experiment, with at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition. Missing values were imputed using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:1of3:Aggreg:impMLE:adjp:comp}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ vs. 25fmol\end{tabular}} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} & \textbf{F-Score} \\ \hline
\textbf{0.5fmol} & 0\% & -73.3\% & 0\% & +2.9\% & +61.1\% \\ \hline
\textbf{1fmol} & -2.4\% & -80\% & -2.4\% & +2.3\% & +51.4\% \\ \hline
\textbf{2.5fmol} & 0\% & -70.4\% & 0\% & +0.8\% & +20.9\% \\ \hline
\textbf{5fmol} & -2.4\% & -63.2\% & -2.4\% & +0.5\% & +11.6\% \\ \hline
\textbf{10fmol} & -2.6\% & -69.6\% & -2.6\% & +0.7\% & +16.5\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the \texttt{mi4p} methodology (with the aggregation step) expressed in percentage with respect to \texttt{DAPAR} workflow, on Yeast + UPS1 experiment, with at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition. Missing values were imputed using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:Aggreg:impMLE:adjp:comp}
\end{table}
\newpage
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we presented as a key step of a workflow a rigorous multiple imputation method by estimating both the parameters of interest and their variability. We considered this variability downstream of the statistical analysis by including it in the moderated $t$-test statistic. The methodology was implemented in the \texttt{R} statistical language through a package called \texttt{mi4p}. Its performance was compared on both simulated and real datasets to the state-of-the-art methodologies, such as the package \texttt{DAPAR}, using confusion matrix-based indicators. The results showed a trade-off between those indicators. In real datasets, the methodology reduces the number of false positives in exchange for a minor reduction of the number of true positives. The results are similar among all imputation methods considered, especially when the proportion of missing values is small. Our methodology with an additional aggregation step provides better results with a minor loss in sensitivity and can be of interest for proteomicists who will benefit from results at the protein level while using peptide-level quantification data.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors wish to thank Leslie Muller and Nicolas Pythoud for providing the real proteomics datasets used in this work, as well as Thomas Burger and Quentin Giai-Gianetto for their help on the \texttt{DAPAR} and \texttt{imp4p} \texttt{R} packages. The real datasets were deposited with the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifiers PXD003841 and PXD027800 \citep{Deutsch2017}.
\section*{Funding}
This work was funded through a PhD grant (2018-2021) awarded to MC and received by FB and CC from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) through the Labex IRMIA [ANR-11-LABX-0055\_IRMIA].
\section{State of the art on imputation in quantitative proteomics}
Table \ref{tab:biblio} gives an overview of the recent literature on imputation methods in quantitative proteomics. Imputation methods are abbreviated as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{BPCA:} Bayesian principal component analysis
\item \textbf{CAM:} Convex analysis of mixtures
\item \textbf{FCS:} Fully conditional specification
\item \textbf{FRMF:} Fused regularisation matrix factorisation
\item \textbf{kNN:} k-nearest neighbours
\item \textbf{LLS:} Local least-squares
\item \textbf{LOD1:} Half of the global minimum
\item \textbf{LOD2:} Half of the peptide minimum
\item \textbf{LSA:} Least-squares adaptive
\item \textbf{MBI:} Model-based imputation
\item \textbf{MCMC:} Monte-Carlo Markov chains
\item \textbf{MI:} Multiple imputation
\item \textbf{mice:} Multiple imputation using chained equations
\item \textbf{MinDet:} Deterministic minimum
\item \textbf{MinProb:} Probabilistic minimum
\item \textbf{MLE:} Maximum likelihood estimation
\item \textbf{NIPALS:} Non-linear estimation by iterative partial least squares
\item \textbf{PCA:} Principal component analysis
\item \textbf{PPCA:} Probabilistic principal component analysis
\item \textbf{pwKNN:} Protein-wise k-nearest neighbours
\item \textbf{QRLIC:} Quantile regression imputation of left-censored
\item \textbf{SLSA:} Structured least squares algorithm
\item \textbf{SVD:} Singular value decomposition
\item \textbf{SVT:} Singular value thresholding
\item \textbf{swKNN:} Sample-wise k-nearest neighbours
\item \textbf{REM:} Regularised expectation maximisation
\item \textbf{RF:} Random forests
\item \textbf{RTI:} Random tail imputation
\end{itemize}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\makebox[\textheight][c]{\resizebox{1.6\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textsc{Authors}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Methods}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Datasets}} \\ \hline
\cite{karpievitchNormalizationMissingValue2012} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} MLE &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Simulated dataset:}\\ 10 samples, 2 groups, 1400 proteins\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{choiMSstatsPackageStatistical2014} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} Accelerated Failure Time model &
\\ \hline
\cite{webb-robertsonReviewEvaluationDiscussion2015} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:}\\ Single-Value Approaches (LOD1, LOD2, RTI)\\ Local Similarity Approaches (KNN, LLS, LSA, REM, MBI)\\ Global-Structure Approaches (PPCA and BPCA)\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real datasets:} \\ Mouse plasma + Shewanella oneidensis, 60 samples, 1518 peptides\\ Human Plasma, 71 samples, 48 vs 23 T2D, 6729 peptides\\ Mouse Lung, 32 samples, 6295 peptides\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{tyanovaPerseusComputationalPlatform2016} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} Gaussian distribution, constant &
\\ \hline
\cite{lazarAccountingMultipleNatures2016} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} kNN, SVD, MLE, MinDet, MinProb &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Simulated dataset:} \cite{karpievitchNormalizationMissingValue2012}\\ 1000 peptides, 20 replicates\\ \textbf{Real dataset:} \cite{zhangProteomicProfilesHuman2014}\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{yinMultipleImputationAnalysis2016} &
\textbf{Multiple imputation:} MCMC + FCS &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real dataset:} \\ Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort\\ 861 plasma proteins, 135 samples\\ MCAR amputation on the 261 entirely observed proteins\\ Application to 544 partially unobserved proteins (40\% missing values)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{wieczorekDAPARProStaRSoftware2017} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} kNN, MLE, BPCA, Quantile regression &
\\ \hline
\cite{changPANDAviewEasytouseTool2018} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} kNN\\ \textbf{Multiple imputation:} mice\end{tabular} &
\\ \hline
\cite{liGMSimputeGeneralizedTwostep2020} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} \\ Two-step lasso method, kNN, TR-kNN, RF, DanteR, Min\end{tabular} &
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}}}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\makebox[\textheight][c]{\resizebox{1.6\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textsc{Authors}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Methods}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Datasets}} \\ \hline
\cite{goeminneMSqRobTakesMissing2020} &
Hurdle model. &
\textbf{Real dataset:} Paulovich et al. 2010 \\ \hline
\cite{gianettoPeptidelevelMultipleImputation2020} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Multiple imputation:} \\ MI, PCA, MLE, kNN, IGCDA, RF, SLSA\end{tabular} &
\textbf{Simulated dataset:} Ramus et al. 2016 \\ \hline
\cite{liuProperImputationMissing2020} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} \\ BPCA, kNN, MinProb, MLE, QRLIC, SVD, DetMin\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real datasets:} 1-4 groups, 9-56 samples, 1847-6932 proteins\\ Available on PRIDE repositories\\ \\ \textbf{Simulated datasets:} Based on the real datasets\\ 3 groups, 27-60 samples, 2800-3500 proteins\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{jinComparativeStudyEvaluating2021} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} \\ left-censored methods, kNN, LLS, RF, SVD, BPCA\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real datasets:}\\ (E.coli + Yeast) + UPS, 7 groups, 56 samples\\ Immune cell dataset, 3 vs 4 samples\\ Amputation of complete cases\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{shenComparativeAssessmentOutlook2021} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Single imputation:} \\ swKNN, pwKNN, Min/2, Mean, PPCA, NIPALS, SVD, \\ SVT, FRMF, CAM\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real dataset:}\\ Herrington et al. 2018\\ Amputation of complete cases from real datasets\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{songMissingValueImputation2021} &
\textbf{Single imputation:} Xgboost, mean, kNN, BPCA, LLS, RF &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Real datasets:}\\ Kinases expression of human colon \\ and rectal cancer cell line : 65 samples, 235 kinases\\ Proteome about the interstitial lung disease : 11 samples, \\ random draw of 500 completely observed proteins\\ Ovarian cancer proteome dataset : 25 samples, \\ random draw of 400 completely observed proteins\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}}
\caption{State of the art on imputation methods used in quantitative proteomics and type of data used.}
\label{tab:biblio}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Aggregation of peptides' intensities}
The methodology implemented in the \texttt{mi4p} \texttt{R} package can be applied to peptide-level quantification data as well as protein-level quantification data. However, we were interested in evaluating our method on a peptide-level dataset and inferring results at a protein level, as it is common practice in proteomics. Therefore, for intensity aggregation, we chose to sum all unique peptides' intensities for each protein. We then adjusted our pipeline as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Out-filtration of non-unique peptides from the peptide-level quantification dataset.
\item Normalisation of the $\textrm{log2}$-transformed peptide intensities.
\item Multiple imputation of $\textrm{log2}$-transformed peptide intensities.
\item Aggregation by summing all peptides intensities (non-$\textrm{log2}$-transformed) from a given protein in each imputed dataset.
\item $\textrm{log2}$-transformation of protein intensities.
\item Estimation of variance-covariance matrix.
\item Projection of the estimated variance-covariance matrix.
\item Moderated $t$-testing on the combined protein-level dataset
\end{enumerate}
\section{Indicators of performance} \label{sec:Perf}
Let $TP$, $TN$, $FP$ and $FN$ respectively denote the numbers of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives.
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Sensitivity} = \frac{TP}{TP + FN}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Specificity} = \frac{TN}{TN + FP}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Precision} = \frac{TP}{TP + FP}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
F\mathrm{-Score} = \frac{TP}{TP + \frac{1}{2} \times (FP + FN)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{MCC} = \frac{TP \times TN - FP \times FN}{\sqrt{\left(TP+FP\right)\left(TP+FN\right)\left(TN+FP\right)\left(TN+FP\right)}}
\end{equation}
\section{Results on the first set of simulations}
\subsection{Simulation design}
We considered an experimental design where the distributions of the two groups to be compared scarcely overlap. This design led to a fixed effect one-way ANOVA model, which can be written as:
\begin{equation}
y_{ij} = \mu + \delta_{ij} + \epsilon_{ij}
\end{equation}
with $\mu = 100$, $\delta_{ij} = 100$ if $1 \leq i \leq 10$ and $j=2$ and $\delta_{ij} = 0$ otherwise and $\epsilon_{ijk} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Here, $y_{ij}$ represents the log-transformed abundance of peptide $i$ in the $j$-th sample.
Thus, we generated $100$ datasets by considering $200$ individuals and $10$ variables, divided into $2$ groups of $5$ variables, using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first 10 rows of the data frame, set as differentially expressed, draw the first 5 observations (first group) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 1. Then draw the remaining 5 observations (second group) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 200 and a standard deviation of 1.
\item For the remaining 190 rows, set as non-differentially expressed, draw the first 5 observations as well as the last 5 observations from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 1.
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\subsection{Performance evaluation}
This subsection provides the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow compared to the \texttt{DAPAR} workflow on the first set of simulations. The performance is described using the indicators detailed in Section \ref{sec:Perf}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{Bplot_Se-Sp-P-F-MCC.png}}
\caption{Distribution of the difference of performance between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} workflows on the first set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{fig:Sim1:Bplot}
\end{figure}
The following tables provide results expressed as the mean of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets $\pm$ the mean of the standard deviations of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets. Results are based on adjusted p-values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure \citep{benjaminiControllingFalseDiscovery1995} and a false discovery rate of 1\%.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.9 $\pm$ 5.7 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.1 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96 $\pm$ 5.7 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3.1 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.8 $\pm$ 1 & 189.2 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 92.9 $\pm$ 7.6 & 96.2 $\pm$ 4.2 & 96.1 $\pm$ 4.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.9 $\pm$ 6.1 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.2 $\pm$ 1.3 & 188.8 $\pm$ 1.3 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 90.3 $\pm$ 9.3 & 94.6 $\pm$ 5.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 5.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.3 $\pm$ 6.8 & 97.5 $\pm$ 3.7 & 97.4 $\pm$ 3.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.3 & 188.7 $\pm$ 1.3 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.7 & 89.6 $\pm$ 9.4 & 94.2 $\pm$ 5.4 & 94.2 $\pm$ 5.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 1 & 189.4 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 95.3 $\pm$ 7.4 & 97.4 $\pm$ 4.2 & 97.4 $\pm$ 4.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 2.2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 187.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 98.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & 83.1 $\pm$ 10.9 & 90.4 $\pm$ 6.6 & 90.5 $\pm$ 6.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 188.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 89.8 $\pm$ 11.4 & 94.2 $\pm$ 6.7 & 94.3 $\pm$ 6.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.9 $\pm$ 2.1 & 186.8 $\pm$ 2.2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 98.5 $\pm$ 1.1 & 79.7 $\pm$ 12.5 & 88.2 $\pm$ 7.9 & 88.3 $\pm$ 7.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 188 $\pm$ 2.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.2 $\pm$ 1 & 88.3 $\pm$ 12 & 93.3 $\pm$ 7.2 & 93.4 $\pm$ 7 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 5.4 & 98 $\pm$ 2.9 & 98 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 5.4 & 98 $\pm$ 2.9 & 98 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.4 & 98.7 $\pm$ 2.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.4 & 98.7 $\pm$ 2.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.2 $\pm$ 4.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.2 $\pm$ 4.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.2 $\pm$ 5.8 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.2 $\pm$ 5.8 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 9.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.9 $\pm$ 1 & 189.1 $\pm$ 1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 97.7 $\pm$ 4.7 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.5 & 92.7 $\pm$ 7.8 & 94.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 94.8 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.9 $\pm$ 1 & 189.1 $\pm$ 1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 97.7 $\pm$ 4.7 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.5 & 92.7 $\pm$ 7.8 & 94.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 94.8 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using $k$-nearest neighbours.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impKNN:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.8 $\pm$ 2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.4 $\pm$ 3.7 & 99 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.3 & 99.3 $\pm$ 2.9 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.3 $\pm$ 4 & 98.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 98.7 $\pm$ 2.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.6 $\pm$ 2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.6 $\pm$ 3.7 & 99 $\pm$ 2.1 & 99 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 96.9 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.9 $\pm$ 4.1 & 97.3 $\pm$ 3.4 & 97.2 $\pm$ 3.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 189.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 4.1 & 98.9 $\pm$ 2.1 & 98.8 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.3 & 189.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 95.5 $\pm$ 6.9 & 100 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.2 $\pm$ 2.6 & 97.2 $\pm$ 4 & 97.1 $\pm$ 4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.2 $\pm$ 4.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.6 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.2 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 190 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & 91.7 $\pm$ 8.8 & 100 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 95.3 $\pm$ 4.9 & 95.3 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 6.4 & 97.1 $\pm$ 3.5 & 97.1 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8.9 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 190 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.1 $\pm$ 1 & 89.1 $\pm$ 10.3 & 100 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 93.9 $\pm$ 6.1 & 93.9 $\pm$ 5.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.2 $\pm$ 1.1 & 188.8 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 90.3 $\pm$ 8 & 94.7 $\pm$ 4.6 & 94.6 $\pm$ 4.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8.9 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 190 $\pm$ 0 & 1.1 $\pm$ 1.1 & 89.3 $\pm$ 11.1 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 94 $\pm$ 6.7 & 94.1 $\pm$ 6.4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using Bayesian linear regression.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impNORM:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 6 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 6 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 6.8 & 97.1 $\pm$ 3.7 & 97 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 6.8 & 97.1 $\pm$ 3.7 & 97 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1 $\pm$ 1.1 & 189 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.6 & 91.8 $\pm$ 8.3 & 95.5 $\pm$ 4.7 & 95.5 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1 $\pm$ 1.1 & 189 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.6 & 91.8 $\pm$ 8.3 & 95.5 $\pm$ 4.7 & 95.5 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 188.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 90.1 $\pm$ 8.9 & 94.5 $\pm$ 5.1 & 94.5 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 188.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 90.1 $\pm$ 8.9 & 94.5 $\pm$ 5.1 & 94.5 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 188 $\pm$ 1.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99 $\pm$ 0.8 & 85.1 $\pm$ 9.8 & 91.6 $\pm$ 5.9 & 91.6 $\pm$ 5.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 188 $\pm$ 1.5 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99 $\pm$ 0.8 & 85.4 $\pm$ 9.8 & 91.8 $\pm$ 5.9 & 91.8 $\pm$ 5.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.5 $\pm$ 1.6 & 187.2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 98.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 81 $\pm$ 10.5 & 89.1 $\pm$ 6.4 & 89.2 $\pm$ 6.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 2.6 $\pm$ 1.6 & 186.8 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 98.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 80.5 $\pm$ 10.5 & 88.8 $\pm$ 6.4 & 88.9 $\pm$ 6.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using principal component analysis.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impPCA:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96 $\pm$ 6 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96 $\pm$ 6 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3.3 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96 $\pm$ 5.3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 2.8 & 97.8 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96 $\pm$ 5.3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 2.8 & 97.8 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 6.7 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.7 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.9 $\pm$ 6.4 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.6 & 97.6 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.2 $\pm$ 5.3 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 189.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.8 $\pm$ 5.5 & 98.2 $\pm$ 3 & 98.1 $\pm$ 3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 5.4 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3 & 97.9 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 10 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96 $\pm$ 5.4 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 3.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 10 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 1 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.5 $\pm$ 5 & 98.6 $\pm$ 2.7 & 98.6 $\pm$ 2.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 9.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 189.1 $\pm$ 1.3 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 99.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.5 $\pm$ 4.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.7 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the first set of simulations imputed using random forests.}
\label{Table:Sim1:impRF:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Results on the second set of simulations}
\subsection{Simulation design}
Secondly, we considered an experimental design, where the distributions of the two groups to be compared might highly overlap. Hence, we based it on the random hierarchical ANOVA model by \cite{lazarAccountingMultipleNatures2016}, derived from \cite{karpievitchNormalizationMissingValue2012}. The simulation design follows the following model:
\begin{equation}
y_{ij} = P_{i} + G_{ik} + \epsilon_{ijk}
\end{equation}
where $y_{ij}$ is the log-transformed abundance of peptide $i$ in the $j$-th sample, $P_{i}$ is the mean value of peptide $i$, $G_{ik}$ is the mean difference between the condition groups, and $\epsilon_{ij}$ is the random error term, which stands for the peptide-wise variance.
We generated 100 datasets by considering 1000 individuals and 20 variables, divided into 2 groups of 10 variables, using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Generate the peptide-wise effect $P_{i}$ by drawing 1000 observations from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5.
\item Generate the group effect $G_{ik}$ by drawing 200 observations (for the 200 individuals set as differentially expressed) from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 and 800 observations fixed to 0.
\item Build the first group dataset by replicating 10 times the sum of $P_{i}$ and the random error term, drawn from a Gaussian distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5.
\item Build the second group dataset by replicating 10 times the sum of $P_{i}$, $G_{ik}$ and the random error term drawn from a Gaussian distribution of mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5.
\item Bind both datasets to get the complete dataset.
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\subsection{Performance evaluation}
This subsection provides the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow compared to the \texttt{DAPAR} workflow on the second set of simulations. The performance is described using the indicators detailed in Section \ref{sec:Perf}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{Bplot_L16bis_Se-Sp-P-F-MCC.png}}
\caption{Distribution of the difference of performance between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} workflows on the second set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{fig:L16bis:Bplot}
\end{figure}
The following tables provide results expressed as the mean of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets $\pm$ the mean of the standard deviations of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets. Results are based on adjusted p-values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure \citep{benjaminiControllingFalseDiscovery1995} and a false discovery rate of 1\%.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.8 $\pm$ 11.4 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.5 & 119.2 $\pm$ 11.4 & 40.4 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.6 & 56.9 $\pm$ 5.9 & 58.2 $\pm$ 4.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 166.9 $\pm$ 5 & 6.3 $\pm$ 2.7 & 793.7 $\pm$ 2.7 & 33.1 $\pm$ 5 & 83.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.4 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 87.4 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.8 $\pm$ 12.1 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 119.2 $\pm$ 12.1 & 40.4 $\pm$ 6.1 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.3 $\pm$ 1.9 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 58 $\pm$ 4.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 164.2 $\pm$ 6.1 & 6.1 $\pm$ 3.5 & 793.9 $\pm$ 3.5 & 35.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 82.1 $\pm$ 3 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.5 $\pm$ 1.9 & 88.7 $\pm$ 1.5 & 86.6 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 78.8 $\pm$ 11.9 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.6 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.6 & 121.2 $\pm$ 11.9 & 39.4 $\pm$ 5.9 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.8 & 55.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 57.1 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 160.7 $\pm$ 7.8 & 5.6 $\pm$ 3.8 & 794.4 $\pm$ 3.8 & 39.3 $\pm$ 7.8 & 80.4 $\pm$ 3.9 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 96.7 $\pm$ 2.1 & 87.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & 85.6 $\pm$ 2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.3 $\pm$ 11.4 & 3.3 $\pm$ 1.9 & 796.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & 119.7 $\pm$ 11.4 & 40.1 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.1 $\pm$ 2.1 & 56.4 $\pm$ 5.8 & 57.3 $\pm$ 4.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 159 $\pm$ 8.8 & 6.7 $\pm$ 5.1 & 793.3 $\pm$ 5.1 & 41 $\pm$ 8.8 & 79.5 $\pm$ 4.4 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & 96.2 $\pm$ 2.7 & 86.9 $\pm$ 2.1 & 84.7 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 81.3 $\pm$ 11.6 & 4 $\pm$ 2.1 & 796 $\pm$ 2.1 & 118.7 $\pm$ 11.6 & 40.7 $\pm$ 5.8 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 56.8 $\pm$ 5.9 & 57.4 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 158 $\pm$ 9.8 & 7.2 $\pm$ 5.4 & 792.8 $\pm$ 5.4 & 42 $\pm$ 9.8 & 79 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.1 $\pm$ 0.7 & 95.8 $\pm$ 2.9 & 86.5 $\pm$ 2.3 & 84.2 $\pm$ 2.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 82.5 $\pm$ 12.3 & 4.7 $\pm$ 2.7 & 795.3 $\pm$ 2.7 & 117.5 $\pm$ 12.3 & 41.2 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & 94.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 57.2 $\pm$ 6 & 57.5 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 154.5 $\pm$ 10.4 & 6.9 $\pm$ 6.2 & 793.1 $\pm$ 6.2 & 45.5 $\pm$ 10.4 & 77.3 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.1 $\pm$ 0.8 & 96 $\pm$ 3.3 & 85.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 83.1 $\pm$ 2.4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & 1.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 798.2 $\pm$ 1.4 & 119.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & 40.2 $\pm$ 6 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.3 & 58.1 $\pm$ 4.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 167.9 $\pm$ 4.8 & 6.6 $\pm$ 2.5 & 793.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 32 $\pm$ 4.8 & 84 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.2 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89.7 $\pm$ 1.4 & 87.6 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.6 $\pm$ 12.4 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.7 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.7 & 120.4 $\pm$ 12.4 & 39.8 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.9 & 56.2 $\pm$ 6.5 & 57.7 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 169.6 $\pm$ 4.3 & 6.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 793.3 $\pm$ 2.8 & 30.4 $\pm$ 4.3 & 84.8 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.2 $\pm$ 1.5 & 90.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.1 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 78.2 $\pm$ 13.5 & 2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 798 $\pm$ 1.7 & 121.8 $\pm$ 13.5 & 39.1 $\pm$ 6.8 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.7 $\pm$ 1.8 & 55.5 $\pm$ 7.1 & 57.1 $\pm$ 5.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 170.8 $\pm$ 4.3 & 6.3 $\pm$ 2.8 & 793.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 29.2 $\pm$ 4.3 & 85.4 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 90.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.7 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79 $\pm$ 14.1 & 2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 798 $\pm$ 1.7 & 121 $\pm$ 14.1 & 39.5 $\pm$ 7 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 55.9 $\pm$ 7.3 & 57.4 $\pm$ 5.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 171.6 $\pm$ 4.5 & 6.2 $\pm$ 3.1 & 793.8 $\pm$ 3.1 & 28.4 $\pm$ 4.5 & 85.8 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.5 $\pm$ 1.7 & 90.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 77.2 $\pm$ 16.8 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 122.8 $\pm$ 16.8 & 38.6 $\pm$ 8.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & 54.7 $\pm$ 9.8 & 56.4 $\pm$ 7.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 171.1 $\pm$ 4.7 & 5.7 $\pm$ 2.7 & 794.3 $\pm$ 2.7 & 28.9 $\pm$ 4.7 & 85.5 $\pm$ 2.3 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.8 $\pm$ 1.5 & 90.8 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 74.4 $\pm$ 16.8 & 1.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 798.2 $\pm$ 1.7 & 125.6 $\pm$ 16.8 & 37.2 $\pm$ 8.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & 53.3 $\pm$ 9.8 & 55.3 $\pm$ 7.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 170.3 $\pm$ 4.9 & 5.9 $\pm$ 2.9 & 794.1 $\pm$ 2.9 & 29.7 $\pm$ 4.9 & 85.1 $\pm$ 2.5 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.4 & 96.7 $\pm$ 1.6 & 90.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88.6 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using $k$-nearest neighbours method.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impKNN:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.7 $\pm$ 11.9 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 119.3 $\pm$ 11.9 & 40.4 $\pm$ 6 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 58.2 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 165.7 $\pm$ 5 & 5.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 794.6 $\pm$ 2.4 & 34.3 $\pm$ 5 & 82.8 $\pm$ 2.5 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.9 $\pm$ 1.3 & 89.3 $\pm$ 1.5 & 87.3 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.5 $\pm$ 12.5 & 2.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 797.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 119.5 $\pm$ 12.5 & 40.3 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 56.6 $\pm$ 6.4 & 57.9 $\pm$ 4.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 157.3 $\pm$ 5.5 & 2.5 $\pm$ 1.7 & 797.5 $\pm$ 1.7 & 42.6 $\pm$ 5.5 & 78.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.5 $\pm$ 1 & 87.4 $\pm$ 1.7 & 85.5 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.6 $\pm$ 12.8 & 2.7 $\pm$ 2 & 797.3 $\pm$ 2 & 120.4 $\pm$ 12.8 & 39.8 $\pm$ 6.4 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.9 $\pm$ 2.1 & 56.1 $\pm$ 6.5 & 57.3 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 156.2 $\pm$ 5.7 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.6 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.6 & 43.8 $\pm$ 5.7 & 78.1 $\pm$ 2.8 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 98.5 $\pm$ 1 & 87.1 $\pm$ 1.8 & 85.2 $\pm$ 1.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.6 $\pm$ 15 & 3.2 $\pm$ 2.4 & 796.8 $\pm$ 2.4 & 119.4 $\pm$ 15 & 40.3 $\pm$ 7.5 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 2.5 & 56.3 $\pm$ 8.3 & 57.3 $\pm$ 6.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 150.7 $\pm$ 6.7 & 1.6 $\pm$ 1.2 & 798.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 49.3 $\pm$ 6.7 & 75.3 $\pm$ 3.4 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.9 $\pm$ 0.8 & 85.5 $\pm$ 2.2 & 83.6 $\pm$ 2.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.5 $\pm$ 15.3 & 3.9 $\pm$ 2.6 & 796.1 $\pm$ 2.6 & 119.5 $\pm$ 15.3 & 40.3 $\pm$ 7.6 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95.5 $\pm$ 2.7 & 56.2 $\pm$ 8.1 & 57 $\pm$ 6.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 144 $\pm$ 6.9 & 0.9 $\pm$ 1 & 799.1 $\pm$ 1 & 56 $\pm$ 6.9 & 72 $\pm$ 3.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 83.4 $\pm$ 2.3 & 81.7 $\pm$ 2.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.7 $\pm$ 17.6 & 4.6 $\pm$ 3.2 & 795.4 $\pm$ 3.2 & 120.3 $\pm$ 17.6 & 39.9 $\pm$ 8.8 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.8 $\pm$ 2.8 & 55.5 $\pm$ 9.5 & 56.3 $\pm$ 7.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 137.2 $\pm$ 6.7 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 62.8 $\pm$ 6.7 & 68.6 $\pm$ 3.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 81.2 $\pm$ 2.4 & 79.5 $\pm$ 2.3 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using Bayesian linear regression.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impNORM:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.6 $\pm$ 11.8 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.5 & 119.4 $\pm$ 11.8 & 40.3 $\pm$ 5.9 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 58.1 $\pm$ 4.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 168.1 $\pm$ 4.8 & 6.8 $\pm$ 2.7 & 793.2 $\pm$ 2.7 & 31.9 $\pm$ 4.8 & 84 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.1 $\pm$ 1.5 & 89.7 $\pm$ 1.5 & 87.6 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.9 $\pm$ 12.6 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.8 & 119.1 $\pm$ 12.6 & 40.4 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.2 $\pm$ 2 & 56.8 $\pm$ 6.5 & 58 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 170 $\pm$ 4.6 & 7.6 $\pm$ 2.9 & 792.5 $\pm$ 2.9 & 30 $\pm$ 4.6 & 85 $\pm$ 2.3 & 99.1 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 1.6 & 90 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.9 $\pm$ 13 & 2.8 $\pm$ 1.9 & 797.2 $\pm$ 1.9 & 120.1 $\pm$ 13 & 40 $\pm$ 6.5 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.8 $\pm$ 2 & 56.2 $\pm$ 6.6 & 57.4 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 172.1 $\pm$ 4.6 & 8.2 $\pm$ 3 & 791.8 $\pm$ 3 & 27.9 $\pm$ 4.6 & 86.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 99 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 90.5 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.5 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 81.8 $\pm$ 12.9 & 3.6 $\pm$ 2.5 & 796.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 118.2 $\pm$ 12.9 & 40.9 $\pm$ 6.4 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95.9 $\pm$ 2.5 & 57 $\pm$ 6.5 & 57.8 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 174.2 $\pm$ 4 & 9.4 $\pm$ 3.6 & 790.6 $\pm$ 3.6 & 25.8 $\pm$ 4 & 87.1 $\pm$ 2 & 98.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 94.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 90.8 $\pm$ 1.3 & 88.8 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 82.1 $\pm$ 15.4 & 4.4 $\pm$ 2.6 & 795.6 $\pm$ 2.6 & 117.9 $\pm$ 15.4 & 41 $\pm$ 7.7 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95.1 $\pm$ 2.7 & 56.8 $\pm$ 8 & 57.4 $\pm$ 6.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 175.6 $\pm$ 4.1 & 11.3 $\pm$ 4.1 & 788.7 $\pm$ 4.1 & 24.4 $\pm$ 4.1 & 87.8 $\pm$ 2.1 & 98.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 94 $\pm$ 2 & 90.8 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88.7 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 83.3 $\pm$ 14.6 & 5.3 $\pm$ 2.9 & 794.7 $\pm$ 2.9 & 116.7 $\pm$ 14.6 & 41.6 $\pm$ 7.3 & 99.3 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.1 $\pm$ 2.8 & 57.3 $\pm$ 7.3 & 57.5 $\pm$ 5.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 176.3 $\pm$ 4.5 & 13 $\pm$ 3.8 & 787 $\pm$ 3.8 & 23.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & 88.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 98.4 $\pm$ 0.5 & 93.2 $\pm$ 1.9 & 90.6 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88.4 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using principal component analysis.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impPCA:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}} & \textbf{Method} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.8 $\pm$ 11.7 & 1.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 798.1 $\pm$ 1.5 & 119.2 $\pm$ 11.7 & 40.4 $\pm$ 5.8 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 56.9 $\pm$ 6 & 58.2 $\pm$ 4.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 168 $\pm$ 4.7 & 6.8 $\pm$ 2.7 & 793.2 $\pm$ 2.7 & 32 $\pm$ 4.7 & 84 $\pm$ 2.4 & 99.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 89.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 87.6 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 80.7 $\pm$ 12.7 & 2.4 $\pm$ 1.9 & 797.6 $\pm$ 1.9 & 119.3 $\pm$ 12.7 & 40.3 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.2 $\pm$ 2 & 56.7 $\pm$ 6.5 & 57.9 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 169.9 $\pm$ 4.4 & 7.5 $\pm$ 3 & 792.5 $\pm$ 3 & 30.1 $\pm$ 4.4 & 85 $\pm$ 2.2 & 99.1 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.8 $\pm$ 1.6 & 90 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88 $\pm$ 1.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 79.9 $\pm$ 12.5 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 120.1 $\pm$ 12.5 & 40 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.8 $\pm$ 2 & 56.3 $\pm$ 6.4 & 57.5 $\pm$ 5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 171.6 $\pm$ 4.6 & 8.1 $\pm$ 3.1 & 792 $\pm$ 3.1 & 28.4 $\pm$ 4.6 & 85.8 $\pm$ 2.3 & 99 $\pm$ 0.4 & 95.5 $\pm$ 1.6 & 90.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88.4 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 81.4 $\pm$ 13.8 & 3.5 $\pm$ 2.4 & 796.5 $\pm$ 2.4 & 118.6 $\pm$ 13.8 & 40.7 $\pm$ 6.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96 $\pm$ 2.4 & 56.8 $\pm$ 7.1 & 57.6 $\pm$ 5.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 173.5 $\pm$ 4 & 9.3 $\pm$ 3.8 & 790.7 $\pm$ 3.8 & 26.5 $\pm$ 4 & 86.8 $\pm$ 2 & 98.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 94.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 90.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.6 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 82.1 $\pm$ 13.5 & 4.4 $\pm$ 2.6 & 795.6 $\pm$ 2.6 & 117.9 $\pm$ 13.5 & 41.1 $\pm$ 6.8 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & 95 $\pm$ 2.6 & 57 $\pm$ 6.9 & 57.5 $\pm$ 5.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 174.4 $\pm$ 4.1 & 10.9 $\pm$ 3.9 & 789.1 $\pm$ 3.9 & 25.6 $\pm$ 4.1 & 87.2 $\pm$ 2 & 98.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 94.1 $\pm$ 2 & 90.5 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.4 $\pm$ 1.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 82.2 $\pm$ 16 & 5 $\pm$ 2.9 & 795 $\pm$ 2.9 & 117.8 $\pm$ 16 & 41.1 $\pm$ 8 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.4 $\pm$ 2.8 & 56.8 $\pm$ 8.5 & 57.2 $\pm$ 6.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 174.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & 12.4 $\pm$ 4 & 787.6 $\pm$ 4 & 25.3 $\pm$ 4.5 & 87.3 $\pm$ 2.2 & 98.5 $\pm$ 0.5 & 93.4 $\pm$ 1.9 & 90.3 $\pm$ 1.5 & 88 $\pm$ 1.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the second set of simulations imputed using random forests.}
\label{Table:L16bis:impRF:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Results on the third set of simulations}
\subsection{Simulation design}
Finally, we considered an experimental design similar to the second one, but with random effects $P_{i}$ and $G_{ik}$. The 100 datasets were generated as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the first group, replicate 10 times (for the 10 variables in this group) a draw from a mixture of 2 Gaussian distributions. The first one has the following parameters: a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $P_{i}$). The second one has the following parameters: a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $\epsilon_{ij}$).
\item For the second group replicate 10 times (for the 10 variables in this group) a draw from a mixture of the following 3 distributions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The first one is a Gaussian distribution with the following parameters: a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $P_{i}$).
\item The second one is the mixture of a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 for the 200 first rows (set as differentially expressed) and a zero vector for the remaining 800 rows (set as not differentially expressed). This mixture illustrates the $G_{ik}$ term in the previous model.
\item The third distribution has the following parameters: a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 (corresponds to $\epsilon_{ij}$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\subsection{Performance evaluation}
This subsection provides the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow compared to the \texttt{DAPAR} workflow on the first set of simulations. The performance is described using the indicators detailed in Section \ref{sec:Perf}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{Bplot_L16_Se-Sp-P-F-MCC.png}}
\caption{Distribution of the difference of performance between \texttt{mi4p} and \texttt{DAPAR} workflows on the third set of simulations imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.}
\label{fig:L16:Bplot}
\end{figure}
The following tables provide results expressed as the mean of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets $\pm$ the mean of the standard deviations of the given indicator over the 100 simulated datasets. Results are based on adjusted p-values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure \citep{benjaminiControllingFalseDiscovery1995} and a false discovery rate of 1\%.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.6 $\pm$ 10.7 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174.4 $\pm$ 10.7 & 12.8 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.3 $\pm$ 2.4 & 22.2 $\pm$ 8.4 & 31.2 $\pm$ 7.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 91 $\pm$ 10.6 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 109 $\pm$ 10.6 & 45.5 $\pm$ 5.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 61.8 $\pm$ 4.9 & 61.9 $\pm$ 4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.6 $\pm$ 10.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.4 $\pm$ 10.2 & 12.8 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.4 & 22.3 $\pm$ 7.9 & 31.4 $\pm$ 6.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 83 $\pm$ 13.6 & 2.1 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 117 $\pm$ 13.6 & 41.5 $\pm$ 6.8 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.9 & 57.9 $\pm$ 6.7 & 59 $\pm$ 5.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.9 $\pm$ 10.8 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.1 $\pm$ 10.8 & 13 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.1 $\pm$ 14 & 22.5 $\pm$ 8.6 & 31.1 $\pm$ 8.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 80.2 $\pm$ 18.2 & 2.3 $\pm$ 2.1 & 797.7 $\pm$ 2.1 & 119.8 $\pm$ 18.2 & 40.1 $\pm$ 9.1 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.5 $\pm$ 2 & 56.2 $\pm$ 9.2 & 57.6 $\pm$ 6.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 26.6 $\pm$ 11.5 & 0.8 $\pm$ 1 & 799.2 $\pm$ 1 & 173.4 $\pm$ 11.5 & 13.3 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.5 $\pm$ 10.3 & 23 $\pm$ 9 & 31.5 $\pm$ 8.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 71.9 $\pm$ 22.7 & 2.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 797.9 $\pm$ 2.3 & 128.1 $\pm$ 22.7 & 35.9 $\pm$ 11.3 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.7 $\pm$ 2.3 & 51.4 $\pm$ 12.3 & 54 $\pm$ 9.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 28.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & 1.1 $\pm$ 1.3 & 798.9 $\pm$ 1.3 & 171.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & 14.2 $\pm$ 6.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 95.4 $\pm$ 10.4 & 24.3 $\pm$ 9.3 & 32.3 $\pm$ 8.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 67.1 $\pm$ 22.4 & 1.9 $\pm$ 2.3 & 798.1 $\pm$ 2.3 & 132.9 $\pm$ 22.4 & 33.6 $\pm$ 11.2 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.8 $\pm$ 2.3 & 48.8 $\pm$ 12.4 & 52 $\pm$ 9.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 26.9 $\pm$ 12.4 & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.4 & 798.7 $\pm$ 1.4 & 173.1 $\pm$ 12.4 & 13.4 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.2 $\pm$ 4 & 23 $\pm$ 9.7 & 31.1 $\pm$ 8.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 61.2 $\pm$ 24 & 2 $\pm$ 2.8 & 798 $\pm$ 2.8 & 138.8 $\pm$ 24 & 30.6 $\pm$ 12 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 97.7 $\pm$ 2.8 & 45.2 $\pm$ 13.6 & 49.2 $\pm$ 10 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulation imputed using maximum likelihood estimation}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 26 $\pm$ 10.4 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174 $\pm$ 10.4 & 13 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.3 & 22.5 $\pm$ 8.1 & 31.5 $\pm$ 7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 95.8 $\pm$ 9.8 & 3.1 $\pm$ 1.9 & 796.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 104.2 $\pm$ 9.8 & 47.9 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 64 $\pm$ 4.4 & 63.6 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.4 $\pm$ 11.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.6 $\pm$ 11.1 & 12.7 $\pm$ 5.5 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.5 & 22.1 $\pm$ 8.7 & 31.1 $\pm$ 7.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 98 $\pm$ 9.9 & 2.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797.1 $\pm$ 1.8 & 102 $\pm$ 9.9 & 49 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.7 & 65 $\pm$ 4.4 & 64.6 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.5 $\pm$ 10.6 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.5 $\pm$ 10.6 & 12.3 $\pm$ 5.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.8 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.4 $\pm$ 8.4 & 30.2 $\pm$ 7.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 101.1 $\pm$ 9.5 & 3.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 796.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 98.9 $\pm$ 9.5 & 50.6 $\pm$ 4.8 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97 $\pm$ 1.6 & 66.3 $\pm$ 4.1 & 65.6 $\pm$ 3.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.1 $\pm$ 12.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.9 $\pm$ 12.2 & 12.5 $\pm$ 6.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.4 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.7 $\pm$ 9.7 & 30.4 $\pm$ 9.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 103.8 $\pm$ 10.9 & 2.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 797.4 $\pm$ 1.4 & 96.2 $\pm$ 10.9 & 51.9 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.3 & 67.6 $\pm$ 4.7 & 66.8 $\pm$ 4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.7 $\pm$ 13.2 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 175.3 $\pm$ 13.2 & 12.3 $\pm$ 6.6 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.6 $\pm$ 17.1 & 21.3 $\pm$ 10.4 & 29.9 $\pm$ 10.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 106.2 $\pm$ 11.9 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.7 & 797.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 93.8 $\pm$ 11.9 & 53.1 $\pm$ 5.9 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 68.6 $\pm$ 5 & 67.7 $\pm$ 4.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.7 $\pm$ 12.3 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.3 $\pm$ 12.3 & 12.3 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.8 $\pm$ 10.3 & 21.4 $\pm$ 9.7 & 30.1 $\pm$ 8.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 105.4 $\pm$ 11.1 & 2.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 797.1 $\pm$ 1.9 & 94.6 $\pm$ 11.1 & 52.7 $\pm$ 5.5 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.4 $\pm$ 1.6 & 68.2 $\pm$ 4.7 & 67.3 $\pm$ 4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulations imputed using $k$-nearest neighbours method.}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impKNN:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.8 $\pm$ 10.6 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174.2 $\pm$ 10.6 & 12.9 $\pm$ 5.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.3 $\pm$ 2.5 & 22.4 $\pm$ 8.4 & 31.3 $\pm$ 7.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 87.9 $\pm$ 9.5 & 2.2 $\pm$ 1.6 & 797.8 $\pm$ 1.6 & 112.1 $\pm$ 9.5 & 43.9 $\pm$ 4.8 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.6 $\pm$ 1.7 & 60.4 $\pm$ 4.5 & 60.9 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.6 $\pm$ 10.7 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.4 $\pm$ 10.7 & 12.8 $\pm$ 5.4 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & 22.3 $\pm$ 8.4 & 31.3 $\pm$ 7.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 63.1 $\pm$ 10.4 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 136.9 $\pm$ 10.4 & 31.5 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99.2 $\pm$ 1.1 & 47.6 $\pm$ 6.1 & 51.4 $\pm$ 4.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.4 $\pm$ 11.5 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 175.6 $\pm$ 11.5 & 12.2 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.2 $\pm$ 9.2 & 29.9 $\pm$ 8.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 37.2 $\pm$ 11.3 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.3 & 799.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & 162.8 $\pm$ 11.3 & 18.6 $\pm$ 5.6 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 31 $\pm$ 8.1 & 38.8 $\pm$ 6.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.9 $\pm$ 12.4 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.1 $\pm$ 12.4 & 12.5 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.7 $\pm$ 14 & 21.6 $\pm$ 9.7 & 30.1 $\pm$ 9.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 17.6 $\pm$ 11.7 & 0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 800 $\pm$ 0.2 & 182.4 $\pm$ 11.7 & 8.8 $\pm$ 5.8 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 92.9 $\pm$ 25.6 & 15.6 $\pm$ 9.8 & 24.5 $\pm$ 11.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 23.3 $\pm$ 12.4 & 0.7 $\pm$ 1 & 799.3 $\pm$ 1 & 176.7 $\pm$ 12.4 & 11.6 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.3 $\pm$ 10.5 & 20.2 $\pm$ 9.8 & 28.9 $\pm$ 9.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 6.4 $\pm$ 6.9 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 800 $\pm$ 0 & 193.6 $\pm$ 6.9 & 3.2 $\pm$ 3.5 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 74 $\pm$ 44.1 & 6 $\pm$ 6.3 & 12.8 $\pm$ 9.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.1 $\pm$ 11.8 & 0.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 799.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 175.8 $\pm$ 11.8 & 12.1 $\pm$ 5.9 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 97.4 $\pm$ 3.5 & 21 $\pm$ 9.3 & 29.7 $\pm$ 8.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 1.7 $\pm$ 3.2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 800 $\pm$ 0 & 198.3 $\pm$ 3.2 & 0.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 43 $\pm$ 49.8 & 1.7 $\pm$ 3 & 5 $\pm$ 6.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulation imputed using Bayesian linear regression.}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impNORM:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.8 $\pm$ 10.2 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174.2 $\pm$ 10.2 & 12.9 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.3 $\pm$ 2.4 & 22.4 $\pm$ 8 & 31.4 $\pm$ 7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 95.7 $\pm$ 9.9 & 3.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 796.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 104.3 $\pm$ 9.9 & 47.9 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 63.9 $\pm$ 4.4 & 63.5 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.9 $\pm$ 10.4 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 175.2 $\pm$ 10.4 & 12.4 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.2 $\pm$ 2.5 & 21.7 $\pm$ 8.3 & 30.6 $\pm$ 7.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 97.7 $\pm$ 9.5 & 3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797 $\pm$ 1.8 & 102.3 $\pm$ 9.5 & 48.8 $\pm$ 4.7 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97 $\pm$ 1.7 & 64.8 $\pm$ 4.2 & 64.4 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.5 $\pm$ 10.6 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.5 $\pm$ 10.6 & 12.3 $\pm$ 5.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.8 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.4 $\pm$ 8.4 & 30.2 $\pm$ 7.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 101.1 $\pm$ 9.5 & 3.2 $\pm$ 1.8 & 796.8 $\pm$ 1.8 & 98.9 $\pm$ 9.5 & 50.6 $\pm$ 4.8 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97 $\pm$ 1.6 & 66.3 $\pm$ 4.1 & 65.6 $\pm$ 3.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.2 $\pm$ 12.4 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 175.8 $\pm$ 12.4 & 12.1 $\pm$ 6.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.7 $\pm$ 14 & 21 $\pm$ 9.7 & 29.6 $\pm$ 9.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 104.6 $\pm$ 10.1 & 3.4 $\pm$ 2.1 & 796.6 $\pm$ 2.1 & 95.4 $\pm$ 10.1 & 52.3 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 67.8 $\pm$ 4.3 & 66.8 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 23.6 $\pm$ 12.2 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 799.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 176.4 $\pm$ 12.2 & 11.8 $\pm$ 6.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 94.7 $\pm$ 17.1 & 20.5 $\pm$ 9.7 & 29 $\pm$ 9.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 110 $\pm$ 10.1 & 3.7 $\pm$ 2.1 & 796.3 $\pm$ 2.1 & 90 $\pm$ 10.1 & 55 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.8 $\pm$ 1.7 & 70 $\pm$ 4.2 & 68.7 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.7 $\pm$ 11.3 & 0.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 799.2 $\pm$ 1.2 & 175.3 $\pm$ 11.3 & 12.3 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 97.2 $\pm$ 3.6 & 21.4 $\pm$ 8.9 & 30.2 $\pm$ 7.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 113.6 $\pm$ 9.3 & 4.4 $\pm$ 2.3 & 795.6 $\pm$ 2.3 & 86.4 $\pm$ 9.3 & 56.8 $\pm$ 4.6 & 99.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & 96.3 $\pm$ 1.7 & 71.3 $\pm$ 3.6 & 69.7 $\pm$ 3.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulation imputed using principal component analysis.}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impPCA:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{\%MV}}& \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.7 $\pm$ 10.2 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.3 $\pm$ 10.2 & 12.8 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.5 $\pm$ 2.3 & 22.3 $\pm$ 8 & 31.3 $\pm$ 7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 95.8 $\pm$ 9.8 & 3.1 $\pm$ 1.9 & 796.9 $\pm$ 1.9 & 104.2 $\pm$ 9.8 & 47.9 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 96.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 63.9 $\pm$ 4.4 & 63.6 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.2 $\pm$ 10.5 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.8 $\pm$ 10.5 & 12.6 $\pm$ 5.2 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 98.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 21.9 $\pm$ 8.2 & 31 $\pm$ 7.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 97.7 $\pm$ 9.8 & 3 $\pm$ 1.8 & 797 $\pm$ 1.8 & 102.3 $\pm$ 9.8 & 48.8 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.7 & 64.8 $\pm$ 4.3 & 64.4 $\pm$ 3.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 24.4 $\pm$ 11.4 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 175.6 $\pm$ 11.4 & 12.2 $\pm$ 5.7 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.2 $\pm$ 17.1 & 21.2 $\pm$ 9.1 & 29.9 $\pm$ 9.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 102.2 $\pm$ 9.9 & 2.9 $\pm$ 1.7 & 797.1 $\pm$ 1.7 & 97.8 $\pm$ 9.9 & 51.1 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.3 $\pm$ 1.6 & 66.9 $\pm$ 4.3 & 66.1 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{15\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.4 $\pm$ 12.7 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & 174.6 $\pm$ 12.7 & 12.7 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 96.4 $\pm$ 14.1 & 21.9 $\pm$ 10 & 30.5 $\pm$ 9.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 105.7 $\pm$ 10.1 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.6 & 797.3 $\pm$ 1.6 & 94.3 $\pm$ 10.1 & 52.8 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.5 $\pm$ 1.4 & 68.4 $\pm$ 4.3 & 67.5 $\pm$ 3.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 25.1 $\pm$ 12.5 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 799.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 174.9 $\pm$ 12.5 & 12.5 $\pm$ 6.3 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 95.6 $\pm$ 17.1 & 21.7 $\pm$ 9.8 & 30.4 $\pm$ 9.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 110.8 $\pm$ 10.2 & 3 $\pm$ 1.9 & 797 $\pm$ 1.9 & 89.2 $\pm$ 10.2 & 55.4 $\pm$ 5.1 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 97.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 70.5 $\pm$ 4.1 & 69.3 $\pm$ 3.5 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{25\%}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 26.7 $\pm$ 12.1 & 0.7 $\pm$ 1 & 799.3 $\pm$ 1 & 173.3 $\pm$ 12.1 & 13.3 $\pm$ 6 & 99.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 97.8 $\pm$ 3.2 & 23 $\pm$ 9.5 & 31.6 $\pm$ 8.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 113.9 $\pm$ 9.8 & 3.4 $\pm$ 2 & 796.6 $\pm$ 2 & 86.1 $\pm$ 9.8 & 57 $\pm$ 4.9 & 99.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 71.7 $\pm$ 3.9 & 70.2 $\pm$ 3.4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the third set of simulation imputed using random forests.}
\label{Table:L16Sim:impRF:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Real datasets generation}
\subsection{Complex total cell lysates (\textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} and \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana}) spiked UPS1 standard protein mixtures}
We consider a first real dataset from \cite{mullerBenchmarkingSamplePreparation2016}. The experiment involved six peptide mixtures, composed of a constant yeast (\textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae}) background, into which increasing amounts of UPS1 standard proteins mixtures (Sigma) were spiked at 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 25 fmol, respectively.
In a second well-calibrated dataset, yeast was replaced by a more complex total lysate of \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} in which UPS1 was spiked in 7 different amounts, namely 0.05, 0.25, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5, 5 and 10 fmol. For each mixture, technical triplicates were constituted.
The \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} dataset was acquired on a nanoLC-MS/MS coupling composed of nanoAcquity UPLC device (Waters) coupled to a Q-Exactive Plus mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) as extensively described in \cite{mullerBenchmarkingSamplePreparation2016}. The \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} dataset was acquired on a nanoLC-MS/MS coupling composed of nanoAcquity UPLC device (Waters) coupled to a Q-Exactive HF-X mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) as described hereafter.
\subsection{Data preprocessing}
For the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} and \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} datasets, Maxquant software was used to identify peptides and derive extracted ion chromatograms. Peaks were assigned with the Andromeda search engine with full trypsin specificity. The database used for the searches was concatenated in house with the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} entries extracted from the UniProtKB-SwissProt database (16 April 2015, 7806 entries) or the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} entries (09 April 2019, 15 818 entries) and those of the UPS1 proteins (48 entries). The minimum peptide length required was seven amino acids and a maximum of one missed cleavage was allowed. Default mass tolerances parameters were used. The maximum false discovery rate was 1\% at peptide and protein levels with the use of a decoy strategy.
For the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment, data were extracted both with and without Match Between Runs and 2 pre-filtering criteria were applied prior to statistical analysis: only peptides with at least 1 out of 3 quantified values in each condition on one hand and 2 out of 3 on the other hand were kept. Thus, 4 datasets derived from the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 were considered.
For the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment, the same filtering criteria were applied, but only on data extracted with Match Between Runs, leading to 2 datasets considered.
\subsection{Supplemental methods for \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} dataset}
Peptide separation was performed on an ACQUITY UPLC BEH130 C18 column (250 mm × 75 µm with 1.7 µm diameter particles) and a Symmetry C18 precolumn (20 mm ×180 µm with 5 µm diameter particles; Waters). The solvent system consisted of 0.1\% FA in water (solvent A) and 0.1\% FA in ACN (solvent B). The samples were loaded into the enrichment column over 3 min at 5 µL/min with 99\% of solvent A and 1\% of solvent B. The peptides were eluted at 400 nL/min with the following gradient of solvent B: from 3 to 20\% over 63 min, 20 to 40\% over 19 min, and 40 to 90\% over 1 min.
The MS capillary voltage was set to 2 kV at 250 °C. The system was operated in a data-dependent acquisition mode with automatic switching between MS (mass range 375–1500 m/z with R = 120 000, automatic gain control fixed at 3 × 106 ions, and a maximum injection time set at 60 ms) and MS/MS (mass range 200–2000 m/z with R = 15 000, automatic gain control fixed at 1× 105, and the maximal injection time set to 60 ms) modes. The twenty most abundant peptides were selected on each MS spectrum for further isolation and higher energy collision dissociation fragmentation, excluding unassigned and monocharged ions. The dynamic exclusion time was set to 40s.
\section{Results on real datasets}
This section provides the evaluation of the \texttt{mi4p} workflow compared to the \texttt{DAPAR} workflow on the real datasets considered. The performance is described using the indicators detailed in Section \ref{sec:Perf}. Results are based on adjusted p-values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure \citep{benjaminiControllingFalseDiscovery1995} and a false discovery rate of 1\%. Missing values were imputed using maximum likelihood estimation.
\subsection{\textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 experiment}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 132 & 3677 & 10507 & 5 & 96.4 & 74.1 & 3.5 & 6.7 & 15.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 129 & 2095 & 12089 & 8 & 94.2 & 85.2 & 5.8 & 10.9 & 21.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 135 & 3466 & 10718 & 2 & 98.5 & 75.6 & 3.7 & 7.2 & 16.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 133 & 1974 & 12210 & 4 & 97.1 & 86.1 & 6.3 & 11.9 & 22.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 134 & 2495 & 11689 & 3 & 97.8 & 82.4 & 5.1 & 9.7 & 20.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 132 & 1233 & 12951 & 5 & 96.4 & 91.3 & 9.7 & 17.6 & 29.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 132 & 2118 & 12066 & 5 & 96.4 & 85.1 & 5.9 & 11.1 & 21.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 129 & 792 & 13392 & 8 & 94.2 & 94.4 & 14 & 24.4 & 35.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 125 & 473 & 13711 & 12 & 91.2 & 96.7 & 20.9 & 34 & 42.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 93 & 145 & 14039 & 44 & 67.9 & 99 & 39.1 & 49.6 & 50.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 122 & 1100 & 13084 & 15 & 89.1 & 92.2 & 10 & 18 & 28.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 85 & 383 & 13801 & 52 & 62 & 97.3 & 18.2 & 28.1 & 32.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 1 quantified value in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 372 & 226 & 15522 & 196 & 65.5 & 98.6 & 62.2 & 63.8 & 62.5 \\\cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 348 & 179 & 15569 & 220 & 61.3 & 98.9 & 66 & 63.6 & 62.3 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 1 quantified value in each condition and focusing only on the comparison 5fmol vs. 10fmol.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:6vs7:1of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 74 & 2989 & 8880 & 3 & 96.1 & 74.8 & 2.4 & 4.7 & 13 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 74 & 2989 & 8880 & 3 & 96.1 & 74.8 & 2.4 & 4.7 & 13 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 76 & 2837 & 9032 & 1 & 98.7 & 76.1 & 2.6 & 5.1 & 13.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 76 & 2837 & 9032 & 1 & 98.7 & 76.1 & 2.6 & 5.1 & 13.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 76 & 1905 & 9964 & 1 & 98.7 & 83.9 & 3.8 & 7.4 & 17.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 76 & 1905 & 9964 & 1 & 98.7 & 83.9 & 3.8 & 7.4 & 17.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 75 & 1411 & 10458 & 2 & 97.4 & 88.1 & 5 & 9.6 & 20.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 75 & 1411 & 10458 & 2 & 97.4 & 88.1 & 5 & 9.6 & 20.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 70 & 232 & 11637 & 7 & 90.9 & 98 & 23.2 & 36.9 & 45.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 70 & 232 & 11637 & 7 & 90.9 & 98 & 23.2 & 36.9 & 45.3 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 67 & 686 & 11183 & 10 & 87 & 94.2 & 8.9 & 16.1 & 26.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 67 & 686 & 11183 & 10 & 87 & 94.2 & 8.9 & 16.1 & 26.7 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 2 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:2of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 16 & 1567 & 6173 & 1 & 94.1 & 79.8 & 1 & 2 & 8.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 16 & 1567 & 6173 & 1 & 94.1 & 79.8 & 1 & 2 & 8.6 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 16 & 1461 & 6279 & 1 & 94.1 & 81.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 16 & 1461 & 6279 & 1 & 94.1 & 81.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 15 & 895 & 6845 & 2 & 88.2 & 88.4 & 1.6 & 3.2 & 11.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 15 & 895 & 6845 & 2 & 88.2 & 88.4 & 1.6 & 3.2 & 11.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 16 & 880 & 6860 & 1 & 94.1 & 88.6 & 1.8 & 3.5 & 12.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 16 & 880 & 6860 & 1 & 94.1 & 88.6 & 1.8 & 3.5 & 12.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 13 & 139 & 7601 & 4 & 76.5 & 98.2 & 8.6 & 15.4 & 25.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 13 & 139 & 7601 & 4 & 76.5 & 98.2 & 8.6 & 15.4 & 25.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 11 & 419 & 7321 & 6 & 64.7 & 94.6 & 2.6 & 4.9 & 12.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 11 & 419 & 7321 & 6 & 64.7 & 94.6 & 2.6 & 4.9 & 12.1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, extracted without Match Between Runs and filtered with at least 1 quantified value in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:noMBR:1of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 8 & 1234 & 4119 & 1 & 88.9 & 76.9 & 0.6 & 1.3 & 6.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8 & 1234 & 4119 & 1 & 88.9 & 76.9 & 0.6 & 1.3 & 6.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 8 & 1150 & 4203 & 1 & 88.9 & 78.5 & 0.7 & 1.4 & 6.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8 & 1150 & 4203 & 1 & 88.9 & 78.5 & 0.7 & 1.4 & 6.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 8 & 742 & 4611 & 1 & 88.9 & 86.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 8.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8 & 742 & 4611 & 1 & 88.9 & 86.1 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 8.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 8 & 536 & 4817 & 1 & 88.9 & 90 & 1.5 & 2.9 & 10.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 8 & 536 & 4817 & 1 & 88.9 & 90 & 1.5 & 2.9 & 10.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 6 & 83 & 5270 & 3 & 66.7 & 98.4 & 6.7 & 12.2 & 20.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 6 & 83 & 5270 & 3 & 66.7 & 98.4 & 6.7 & 12.2 & 20.9 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 6 & 274 & 5079 & 3 & 66.7 & 94.9 & 2.1 & 4.2 & 11.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 6 & 274 & 5079 & 3 & 66.7 & 94.9 & 2.1 & 4.2 & 11.3 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset, extracted without Match Between Runs and filtered with at least 2 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:noMBR:2of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 10fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.05fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 1040 & 1557 & 0 & 100 & 60 & 3.8 & 7.3 & 15.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 753 & 1844 & 0 & 100 & 71 & 5.2 & 9.8 & 19.1 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 1072 & 1525 & 0 & 100 & 58.7 & 3.7 & 7.1 & 14.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 797 & 1800 & 0 & 100 & 69.3 & 4.9 & 9.3 & 18.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 40 & 848 & 1749 & 1 & 97.6 & 67.3 & 4.5 & 8.6 & 17 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 40 & 585 & 2012 & 1 & 97.6 & 77.5 & 6.4 & 12 & 21.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1.25fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 409 & 2188 & 0 & 100 & 84.3 & 9.1 & 16.7 & 27.7 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 142 & 2455 & 0 & 100 & 94.5 & 22.4 & 36.6 & 46 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 208 & 2389 & 0 & 100 & 92 & 16.5 & 28.3 & 38.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 40 & 69 & 2528 & 1 & 97.6 & 97.3 & 36.7 & 53.3 & 59 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 475 & 2122 & 0 & 100 & 81.7 & 7.9 & 14.7 & 25.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 37 & 203 & 2394 & 4 & 90.2 & 92.2 & 15.4 & 26.3 & 35.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} + UPS1 dataset at the protein-level, filtered with at least 1 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:A+UPS:1of3:impMLE:Aggreg:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\subsection{\textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 experiment}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 25fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 188 & 439 & 18067 & 4 & 97.9 & 97.6 & 30 & 45.9 & 53.5 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 183 & 144 & 18362 & 9 & 95.3 & 99.2 & 56 & 70.5 & 72.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 186 & 246 & 18260 & 6 & 96.9 & 98.7 & 43.1 & 59.6 & 64.1 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 183 & 71 & 18435 & 9 & 95.3 & 99.6 & 72 & 82.1 & 82.7 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 185 & 161 & 18345 & 7 & 96.4 & 99.1 & 53.5 & 68.8 & 71.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 179 & 39 & 18467 & 13 & 93.2 & 99.8 & 82.1 & 87.3 & 87.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 182 & 108 & 18398 & 10 & 94.8 & 99.4 & 62.8 & 75.5 & 76.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 156 & 23 & 18483 & 36 & 81.2 & 99.9 & 87.2 & 84.1 & 84 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 148 & 109 & 18397 & 44 & 77.1 & 99.4 & 57.6 & 65.9 & 66.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 86 & 27 & 18479 & 106 & 44.8 & 99.9 & 76.1 & 56.4 & 58.1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 1 quantified value in each condition.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 25fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 131 & 146 & 16316 & 4 & 97 & 99.1 & 47.3 & 63.6 & 67.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 131 & 146 & 16316 & 4 & 97 & 99.1 & 47.3 & 63.6 & 67.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 130 & 59 & 16403 & 5 & 96.3 & 99.6 & 68.8 & 80.2 & 81.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 130 & 59 & 16403 & 5 & 96.3 & 99.6 & 68.8 & 80.2 & 81.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 130 & 30 & 16432 & 5 & 96.3 & 99.8 & 81.2 & 88.1 & 88.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 130 & 30 & 16432 & 5 & 96.3 & 99.8 & 81.2 & 88.1 & 88.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 127 & 19 & 16443 & 8 & 94.1 & 99.9 & 87 & 90.4 & 90.4 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 127 & 19 & 16443 & 8 & 94.1 & 99.9 & 87 & 90.4 & 90.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 96 & 18 & 16444 & 39 & 71.1 & 99.9 & 84.2 & 77.1 & 77.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 96 & 18 & 16444 & 39 & 71.1 & 99.9 & 84.2 & 77.1 & 77.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 dataset, filtered with at least 2 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:2of3:impMLE:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Condition\\ (vs 25fmol)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Method} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{positives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{True}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{False}\\\textbf{negatives}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Sensitivity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Specificity}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Precision}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{F-score}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{MCC}\\\textbf{(\%)}\end{tabular}\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{0.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 42 & 90 & 2285 & 0 & 100 & 96.2 & 31.8 & 48.3 & 55.3 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 42 & 24 & 2351 & 0 & 100 & 99 & 63.6 & 77.8 & 79.4 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 42 & 65 & 2310 & 0 & 100 & 97.3 & 39.3 & 56.4 & 61.8 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 13 & 2362 & 1 & 97.6 & 99.5 & 75.9 & 85.4 & 85.8 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2.5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 41 & 27 & 2348 & 1 & 97.6 & 98.9 & 60.3 & 74.5 & 76.2 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 8 & 2367 & 1 & 97.6 & 99.7 & 83.7 & 90.1 & 90.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{5fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 42 & 19 & 2356 & 0 & 100 & 99.2 & 68.9 & 81.6 & 82.6 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 41 & 7 & 2368 & 1 & 97.6 & 99.7 & 85.4 & 91.1 & 91.2 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10fmol}} & \textbf{DAPAR} & 39 & 23 & 2352 & 3 & 92.9 & 99 & 62.9 & 75 & 75.9 \\ \cline{2-11}
& \textbf{MI4P} & 38 & 7 & 2368 & 4 & 90.5 & 99.7 & 84.4 & 87.4 & 87.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance evaluation on the \textit{Saccharomyces cerevisiae} + UPS1 dataset, at the protein-level and filtered with at least 1 quantified values in each condition.}
\label{Table:Y+UPS:1of3:impMLE:Aggreg:adjp}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
|
\section{introduction}
Studies have shown that cryptography concepts are hard to understand for developers, and the complexity of crypto APIs has rendered their secure usage very difficult \cite{nadi2016jumping} \cite{hazhirpasand2020java}.
There exist static analysis tools, but developers are reluctant to employ them due to a lack of familiarity, restrictions in organizational policies, or high rates of false positives \cite{Tymchuk2018, Corrodi2018}.
Researchers have recently developed new APIs to ease the adoption of cryptography \cite{kafader2021}, yet online Q\&A forums are among the main information sources used to resolve developer issues.
Closer inspection of online forums such as Stack Overflow provides a shortcut to identifying the frequent challenges that developers face in this domain.
Therefore,
in this study, we address the following research question: \emph{What types of crypto challenges do developers face in cryptography?\xspace}
We extract the common problems that developers recently encounter when dealing with various areas of cryptography.
The findings provide significant help for developers in general, and software team leaders, tutors and crypto library designers in particular, to raise their awareness of common misunderstandings, or to highlight areas with a steep learning curve.
Unlike other studies, we only focus on crypto-related challenges of developers.
To cover various types of crypto-challenges, we need to identify different groups of questions that are similar in terms of context.
Particularly, manual grouping of such a large number of questions (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace 91 954) is a demanding task.
We therefore used the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) generative statistical model, and found three main topics in 91 954 crypto-related posts on Stack Overflow\xspace.
We then used stratified sampling to study 383 posts randomly from the three topics to identify the most common problematic issues for developers.
The results showed that developers commonly failed to implement a cryptographic scenario due to two reasons, namely the complexity of crypto APIs, and their lack of familiarity with fundamental concepts such as digital certificates, public-key cryptography, and hashing algorithms.
Our findings show that hurdles for developers in cryptography are not yet resolved, and due to its impact on security, this domain urgently needs dedicated research effort.
We are conducting a survey with developers who actively helped the Stack Overflow community in this domain to understand potential remedies to this problem.
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:related}
Sifat \emph{et al.}\xspace investigated three online sources, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace Crypto Stack Exchange, Security Stack Exchange, and Quora, to identify complications with respect to implementing security in data transmission \cite{jahan2017exploratory}.
Their findings suggest that the most discussed technique is transport layer security (TLS), and the Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack is the main concern of developers.
In another study, Yang \emph{et al.}\xspace conducted a large-scale analysis of security-related questions on Stack Overflow\xspace \cite{yang2016security}.
They identified five main categories, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace web security, mobile security, cryptography, software security, and system security but they did not look into the challenges of each topic.
A recent study conducted by Meng \emph{et al.}\xspace has recognized the challenges of writing secure Java code on Stack Overflow\xspace \cite{meng2018secure}.
Their examinations provide compelling evidence that security implications of coding options in Java, \emph{e.g.,}\xspace CSRF tokens, are not well-perceived by a large number of developers.
Nandi \emph{et al.}\xspace conducted an empirical study on the frequent crypto obstacles with which Java developers commonly face \cite{nadi2016jumping}.
They triangulated data from a survey, 100 randomly selected Java GitHub repositories, and the top 100 Java cryptography questions asked on Stack Overflow.
Their analyses depicted nine main crypto topics, suggesting that developers face difficulties using cryptography.
This issue has adversely affected developer performance and software security \cite{fischer2019stack}.
A recent study showed that developers blindly use the provided vulnerable code snippets found on Stack Overflow\xspace \cite{fischer2017stack}.
They mentioned that 15.4\% of the 1.3 million Android applications contained security-related code snippets from Stack Overflow\xspace.
The previous studies solely focused on security or crypto implications of a particular language or in general security-related concerns.
In contrast, we specifically analyzed crypto-related questions of any kind irrespective of any programming languages or particular part of cryptography.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:method}
We first explain the data gathering procedure and then describe how we clean the data, and briefly introduce the LDA topic modeling.
\subsection{Data Extraction}
\label{subsec:dataext}
To collect crypto-related posts on Stack Overflow\xspace, we assumed that the attached tags to a question mainly reflect the question's topic.
We first used the ``cryptography'' tag, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace \emph{base tag}, to fetch crypto-related posts, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace 11\,130 posts, with the help of the Data Explorer platform (Stack Exchange).
We found 2\,184 tags (\emph{candidate tags}) that occurred in posts together with the ``cryptography'' tag.
However, not all candidate tags were crypto-related \emph{e.g.,}\xspace C\#.
To find relevant posts with the base tag, we used two metrics to determine which of the candidate tags are exclusively related to the base tag.
We introduced the first metric as \emph{affinity} to determine the degree to which a candidate tag (T) is exclusively associated with the base tag (BT).
For each \emph{T}, we used the \emph{posts with tags} function, for brevity pwt(), to calculate the number of posts whose tags contain both \emph{T} and \emph{BT} .
We used pwt() to obtain the number of posts whose tags contain \emph{T}.
Given these two values, we compute \emph{affinity(T,BT) = $|$pwt(T,BT)$|$ / $|$pwt(T)$|$}, whose result ranges from zero to one.
The smaller the value of the first metric, the weaker the association between \emph{T} and \emph{BT}.
For example, the ``C++'' and ``encryption'' tags each appeared 639\,897 and 29\,737 times respectively in the entire Stack Overflow\xspace.
The ``C++'' tag appeared together with BT 540 times and ``encryption'' was used 3535 times with BT.
The value of affinity for the ``C++'' tag is 0.0008 and 0.1188 for the ``encryption'' tag, values which demonstrate a strong affinity for ``encryption'' and BT.
However, higher values of affinity for some candidate tags do not necessarily indicate tags that are closely related to cryptography.
For example, the ``s60-3rd-edition'' tag appeared once with the base tag and in total 11 times in Stack Overflow\xspace.
The value of affinity for this candidate tag is 0.09, which is close to the value of the ``encryption'' tag, even though it appeared only once with the base tag.
To resolve this issue, we introduced a second metric, \emph{coverage(T,BT) = $|$pwt(T,BT)$|$ / $|$pwt(BT)$|$}.
The second metric indicates the coverage of the BT posts by T.
As an example, the value (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace 0.00008) of coverage for the ``s60-3rd-edition'' tag proves that the candidate tag does not exclusively cover the base tag while
the ``C++'' tag covers 0.04 of the cryptography-related questions.
Two authors of this paper examined various combinations of thresholds for the two metrics, and manually reviewed the resulting tags.
We noticed that the thresholds to collect \emph{only crypto-related tags} from the candidate tags (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace 2 184) are the ones above the affinity: 0.025 and coverage: 0.005.
There are 40 crypto-related tags that fall within the selected threshold domain.
The list of crypto-related tags as well as their frequencies are available online.\footnote{\url{http://185.94.98.132/~crypto/paper\_data/tags.csv}}
Next, we again used Stack Exchange Data Explorer to extract posts containing each of the selected tags (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace 40 tags) but not the base tag, and recorded them in CSV files, which are available online.\footnote{\url{http://185.94.98.132/~crypto/paper\_data/}}
\subsection{Data clustering via Topic Modeling}
We combined the title and body of a post in order to create a document.
We removed duplicate post IDs in multiple CSV files, and finally obtained 91\,954 unique documents, without considering when the posts were created.
Evidently, each of the documents contained a large number of unnecessary text elements that could produce noise in the output of a topic modeling algorithm.
We preprocessed the documents in the following steps:
(1) we removed all the code blocks enclosed by the ``<code>'' tag,
(2) we removed all the HTML elements with the help of the Beautiful Soup library,\footnote{https://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/}
(3) we removed newlines and non-alphanumeric characters,
(4) we used the NLTK package to eliminate English stop words from the documents, and finally
(5) we used the Snowball stemmer to normalize the text by transforming words into their root forms, \emph{e.g.,}\xspace playing converts to play.
We found 269\,795 stemmed words in total.
Finally, we used the CountVectorizer class in Scikit-learn to transform the words into a vector of term/token counts to feed into a machine learning algorithm.
We used Scikit-learn,\footnote{https://scikit-learn.org/} a popular machine learning library in Python that provides a range of supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms.
Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) is an unsupervised learning algorithm based on a generative probabilistic model that considers each topic as a set of words and each document as a set of topic probabilities \cite{blei2003latent}.
LDA has been used to discover latent topics in documents in a large number of prior studies \cite{bangash2019developers} \cite{yang2016security} \cite{rosen2016mobile}.
Before training a model, LDA requires a number of important parameters to be specified.
LDA asks for a fixed \textit{number of topics} and then maps all the documents to the topics.
The \textit{Alpha} parameter describes document-topic density, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace higher alpha means documents consist of more topics, and generates a more precise topic distribution per document.
The \textit{Beta} parameter describes topic-word density, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace higher beta means topics entail most of the words, and generates a more specific word distribution per topic.
The optimal values of hyperparameters cannot be directly estimated from the data, and, more importantly, the right choice of parameters considerably improves the performance of a machine learning model \cite{osman2017hyperparameter}.
We therefore used the GridSearchCV function in Scikit-learn to perform hyperparameter tuning to generate candidates from an array of values for the three aforementioned parameters, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace \textit{Alpha}, \textit{Beta}, and the \textit{number of topics}.
As research has shown that choosing the proper number of topics is not simple in a model, an iterative approach can be employed \cite{zhao2015heuristic} to render various models with different numbers of topics, and choose the number of topics for which the model has the least perplexity.
Perplexity is a measure used to specify the statistical goodness of fit of a topic model~\cite{blei2003latent}.
We therefore specified the number of topics from 1 to 25.
We also used the conditional hyperparameter tuning for Alpha, which means a hyperparameter may need to be tuned depending on the value of another hyperparameter \cite{luo2016review}.
We set \textit{alpha} = 50 / \textit{number of topics} and \textit{beta} = 0.01, following guidelines of previous research \cite{griffiths2004finding}.
Optimizing for perplexity, however, may not always result in humanly interpretable topics \cite{chang2009reading}.
To facilitate the manual interpretation of the topics, we used a popular visualization package, named pyLDAvis\footnote{https://github.com/bmabey/pyLDAvis}, in Python.
The two authors of this paper separately checked the resulting top keywords of the topics, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace from 1 to 25, and the associated pyLDAvis visualizations to ensure that the given number of topics is semantically aligned with human judgment.
\subsection{Data analysis}
\label{sec:dataan}
We computed the required sample size for 91\,954 documents with a confidence level of 95\% and a margin of error of 5\%, which is 383 documents.
We then used stratified sampling to divide the whole population into smaller groups, called strata.
In this step, we considered each topic as one stratum, and randomly selected the documents proportionally from the different strata.
We then used thematic analysis, a qualitative research method for finding topics in text \cite{braun2006using}, to extract the frequent topics from the documents.
Two authors of the paper carefully reviewed the title, question body, and answer body of each document.
Each author then improved the extracted topics by labeling the posts iteratively.
We then calculated Cohen’s kappa, a commonly used measure of inter-rater agreement \cite{cohen1960coefficient}, between the two reviewers.
Finally, the two reviewers compared their final labelling results, and re-analyzed the particular posts in a session where they disagreed in order to discuss and arrive at a consensus.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\label{sec:rdiscussion}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth,trim=4 4 4 4,clip]{figures/topics.pdf}}
\caption{The results of manual analysis for the three topics}
\label{fig:tags2}
\end{figure*}
Our hyperparameter tuning demonstrated that the best number of topics is three.
Similarly, after analyzing pyLDAvis's visualizations and top keywords for 1 to 25 topics, the two reviewers also achieved a consensus on three as the number of topics.
The pyLDAvis interactive visualization for the three topics is available online.\footnote{\url{http://185.94.98.132/~crypto/paper_data/lda.html}}
The reviewers named the topics by considering the general themes of top keywords returned by LDA (See \autoref{tab:topics}).
We determined that the first topic is about digital certificates and configuration issues, the second one is about programming issues concerning encryption and decryption, and the third concerns passwords/hashes and basic crypto-related algorithms.
As an influential indicator of topic relevancy, we realized that the frequencies of the candidate tags used in the three topics are aligned with the general themes of the topics.\footnote{\url{http://185.94.98.132/~crypto/paper_data/tags-topics.csv}}
For instance, we observed that the AES, DES, Encryption, and RSA tags are mostly used in programming issues, the Hash, SHA, SHA256, MD5, XOR, and Salt tags are more frequent in the password/hash topic, and finally, the Digital-signature, Keystore, OpenSSL, Private-key, Public-key, Smartcard, and X509certificate tags are more common in the digital certificate topic.
With respect to stratified sampling, we considered the number of documents in each stratum (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace each topic) as 139, 124, and 119 documents from the first topic to the third one respectively.
The selected documents were created in the last 5 years on Stack Overflow\xspace.
Extracting the themes, the reviewers achieved 79\% Kappa score, which demonstrates a substantial agreement between the two reviewers.
\begin{table}[]
\scriptsize
\caption {The three topics and their top keywords} \label{tab:topics}
\begin{tabular}{p{2.5cm}lll} \hline
\textbf{Topic} & \textbf{Top keywords} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Digital certificate and\\ configuration problems\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}use, certif, file, server, key, openssl, client,\\ work, tri, need, sign, user, error,applic, creat,\\ code, secur, app, encrypt, ssl, store, instal,\\ like, connect, problem, want, way, run, request\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Programming issues\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}key, encrypt, use, decrypt, code, data, file,\\ string, tri, public, work, ae, im, byte, need,\\ java, generat, messag, encod, privat, rsa,\\ cipher, algorithm, block, like, implement, \\ error, problem, function, text\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Password/hashes and\\ basic crypto algorithms\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}hash, use, valu, password, function,like,\\ array, string, need, code, number, key, want,\\ way, store,data, tabl, im, salt, tri, differ,\\ time, algorithm, work, md5, user, make, \\ generat, object, implement
\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Topic One}
\textbf{Digital certificate and configuration problems.} The manual analysis for the first topic depicts that developers discussed two main areas, namely certificate/OpenSSL (63\%) and SSH (37\%).
For instance, the discussions were related to OpenSSL configuration, signing and verifying a signature, and generating PEM files using OpenSSL.
There were also questions concerning how to generate self-signed certificates, access a certificate store, create a Certificate Signing Request (CSR), establish https and secure connections, and configure certificate-based authentication in ASP.NET.
In the SSH-related questions, the majority of the users had difficulty setting SSH with no password, checking the right permission for SSH keys, using SSH programmatically, and connecting to SSH servers of other platforms (\emph{e.g.,}\xspace Amazon).
\subsubsection{Topic Two} \textbf{Programming issues.} As for the programming issues topic, we observed that the three most frequently discussed programming languages were Java (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace 44), C/C++ (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace 31), and C\# (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace 19).
In 31\% of the posts developers discussed issues related to the AES algorithm such as different encryption modes (\emph{e.g.,}\xspace CBC and ECB) and key sizes (\emph{e.g.,}\xspace 128, 192, and 256-bit).
In addition to symmetric encryption, 47\% of the posts were related to working with asymmetric encryption (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace RSA).
The challenges were mostly concerned with different padding modes (\emph{e.g.,}\xspace OAEP), how to calculate or understand the raw modulus and exponent numbers, and how to generate and work with different key file encodings in RSA (\emph{e.g.,}\xspace DER-encoded format, PEM, or XML).
Moreover, another evident problem was dealing with different RSA key formats, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace Public Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS).
The users commonly asked how to convert PKCS\#8 to PKCS\#1 or other standards, and how to programmatically generate or use different key standards in various crypto libraries (\emph{e.g.,}\xspace Bouncy Castle).
There were users who had problems with illegal block size errors, often misunderstanding the suitable usage of RSA, \emph{e.g.,}\xspace encrypting a long text.
Nevertheless, the discussions were resolved by proper responses that suggested incorporating AES and RSA into the encryption/decryption scenario.
Another type of question was about the issues in Microsoft CryptoAPI (12\%). Developers reported issues on working with OpenSSL or using RSA keys from other sources, \emph{e.g.,}\xspace importing keys from OpenSSL into Crypto API, converting RSA keys to be used by Bouncy Castle, verifying an OpenSSL DSA signature using CryptoAPI, having extra fields in generated keys by PHP OpenSSL, and signing a message with pyOpenSSL in Python and verifying it with CryptoAPI.
Moreover, there were questions (10\%) associated with how to either implement a scenario, \emph{e.g.,}\xspace encryption of a string with RSA public key with Swift on iOS, or deal with problems while working with more than one crypto library or programming language, \emph{e.g.,}\xspace encryption of a string with RSA in JavaScript and decryption in Java, or decryption of a string in Java which is already encrypted using AES-256 in iOS.
\subsubsection{Topic Three} \textbf{Password/hashes and basic crypto algorithms.} Our findings for the password/hash topic suggest that users primarily discussed problems associated with either passwords (86\%) or basic crypto algorithms (14\%).
Different facets of producing secured passwords were the topic of most discussions.
First and foremost, users were uncertain which hashing algorithms (\emph{e.g.,}\xspace MD5, SHA-1) can provide a higher level of reliability and how password length contributes to the strength of the resulting hash.
Users lacked the required knowledge as to what salt is and how salt can maximize the security of a hash.
In addition to pointing out the pros and cons of static salt vs random salt, respondents encouraged users to use salted passwords in order to render the brute-force or the rainbow table attack prohibitively expensive.
Developers were doubtful about which crypto functions, \emph{i.e.,}\xspace bcrypt(), PBKDF2(), or Scrypt(), are more secure and faster, and what key differences distinguish the three functions from other hashing algorithms, \emph{e.g.,}\xspace MD5, SHA-256.
As regards the basic crypto algorithms, users contributed to responses concerning how to produce or find prime numbers, how to use the BigInteger class for RSA modular exponentiation, how to produce unique URL safe hash or IDs, and how to solve a Caesar Cipher or substitution ciphers.
Lastly, a few users discussed how to program an authentication module in web programming frameworks such as Laravel, or CakePHP.
\subsubsection{Topic difficulty and popularity}
We checked the popularity and difficulty level of each topic so as to determine which questions attracted more attention or received acceptable answers with a longer time span, which the same approach was used in the previous study \cite{yang2016security}.
We used four factors to measure the popularity of a topic, namely
the average number of views of documents, the average number of comments, the average number of favorites, and the average score of documents.
The four factors can be found in the CSV files,\footnote{\url{http://185.94.98.132/~crypto/paper_data/}} namely CommentCount, FavouriteCount, Score, and ViewCount.
We considered the average number of ViewCount as the foremost factor to judge the popularity of a topic, the question's score and the number of FavouriteCount as the second most important factors, and the average number of comments as the last factor.
To find the most difficult topic, we used two factors, namely
the average time it takes for a document to obtain an accepted answer, and the ratio of the average number of answers in documents to the average number of the views.
We avoided recently posted questions from affecting the analysis by only including those that are older than six months.
We infer that questions related to the usage of digital certificates, and configuration problems are the most popular (highest average ViewCount and FavouriteCount), and questions related to hashing and passwords are also viewed as popular based on the other two factors (\emph{i.e.,}\xspace average CommentCount and Score).
From the difficulty standpoint, we notice that the programming issues topic is the most difficult topic as it had a greater average response time, and its proportion of average answers to average views is the lowest.
\subsubsection{Summary} The challenges in each theme were studied in detail to demonstrate how developers struggle to use or comprehend various areas of cryptography.
According to our findings, we believe that there are two foremost reasons with which developers mainly encounter problems in cryptography.
The first leading cause is a distinct lack of knowledge to discern \emph{why} or \emph{what} they need to use to accomplish a crypto task.
We observed ample evidence where developers lacked the confidence to choose the best algorithm or parameter, for instance, the right and safest padding option in AES.
Consequently, developers may use boilerplate code snippets from the provided answers, in spite of the answers' reliability and security.
In the second factor, although the fundamental concepts are the same, the implementation approach of a crypto concept in various crypto libraries is influential to developer performance.
Compelling evidence in findings urges that working with more than a crypto library due to using various architectures or platforms in a project creates confusion for developers regarding \emph{how} a particular problem can be resolved.
They commonly have trouble in creating keys with one library and import them into another library or verifying a signature in a different crypto library.
Furthermore, adequate explanations and the existence of useful examples in documentations can alleviate the difficulty of using cryptography.
\section{Threats to validity}
\label{sec:threat}
In this study, we concentrate on one major platform where developers discuss crypto topics.
This may not be sufficient as there are many other platforms, such as crypto Stack Exchange, which can provide more data to analyze.
We measured topic difficulty and popularity based on metrics used in the previous study.
Nevertheless, these observations may not be sufficient to determine what type of crypto questions are more challenging than others.
Users may not always feel responsible for selecting a reasonable answer as an acceptable answer.
Therefore, not having an accepted answer does not necessarily determine if the question is challenging for others.
\section{conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We conducted a large-scale study on crypto issues discussed on Stack Overflow to find out what crypto challenges users commonly face in various areas of cryptography.
Findings suggest that developers still have a distinct lack of knowledge of fundamental concepts, such as OpenSSL, asymmetric and password hashing, and the complexity of crypto libraries weakened developer performance to correctly realize a crypto scenario. We call for dedicated studies to investigate the usability of crypto APIs.
We are conducting a survey with users who actively helped the Stack Overflow community in this domain to understand the potential remedies.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation for the project
``Agile Software Assistance'' (SNSF project No. 200020-181973, Feb. 1, 2019 - April 30, 2022).
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Gravitational lensing can reveal information not only about the object being lensed but about the mass distribution of the lens itself. However, it is known that realistic gravitational lenses are complex and are difficult to model analytically. A typical approach involves perturbing the spherically symmetric Schwarzschild lens by a quadrupole moment, parameterized by a simple mass model (see discussion in \cite{Schneider-Ehlers-Falco:1992}). Although we use gravitational lensing observations to make important conjectures about mass distributions in the universe, the mass models that are typically employed for this purpose (e.g., \cite{Keeton2001}) are rather too simplistic and often poorly describe astrophysical reality. The perturbative approach cannot easily capture more subtle features of the mass distribution of the lens, and a reliable wave-theoretical reconstruction of the actual, observed lens images is not always possible. Modeling the contributions of the higher moments is even less intuitive and is usually done relying on semianalytical or entirely numerical analysis.
Alternatively, gravitational potentials of compact extended lenses may be expressed in terms of spherical harmonics and related multipole moments of the external gravitational field of the lens (see discussion \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles}).
To explore astrophysical lenses in the most general case, we recently developed a new approach to study extended gravitational lenses \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. For that, we considered the propagation of high-frequency electromagnetic (EM) waves in the vicinity of an extended gravitating body. Using the Mie theory \cite{Mie:1908,Born-Wolf:1999}, we solved the Maxwell equations on the background of a static gravitational field, while working within the first post-Newtonian approximation of the general theory of relativity.
The new solution describes the EM field deposited on the image plane located in various regions of interest, including those of strong and weak interference and that of geometric optics. We have shown that deviations from spherical symmetry in the lensing object's gravitational field is evident only in the strong interference region, where it leads to caustics of various orders appearing in the lens's point spread function (PSF) \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics}. In the other two regions, the optical properties of the lens are consistent with those of a monopole lens \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017,Turyshev-Toth:2019-extend,Turyshev-Toth:2020-image,Turyshev-Toth:2020-extend,Toth-Turyshev:2020,Turyshev-Toth:2021-all-regions}. Thus, to capture the most interesting behavior in lensing by a body with arbitrary mass distribution, we need to consider the strong interference region.
Further generalizing the newly developed wave-optical treatment, we extended the description of gravitational lensing to a generic mass distribution \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. For that, we modeled the external static gravitational field of an extended object in the most general case, taking the potential in the form of an infinite series of symmetric trace-free (STF) mass multipole moments. Such a representation of the gravitational potential in terms of the STF Cartesian tensors is equivalent to that expressed in the form of spherical harmonics. The advantage of using the STF formalism is that it allows us to derive the gravitational phase shift for arbitrary mass distributions, not restricted to, e.g., axial symmetry. This generalizes our previous results \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging,Turyshev-Toth:2021-all-regions,Turyshev-Toth:2021-quartic}. Using our results, we are able to model not only the caustics associated with the PSF, but also convolve the result with the PSF of an imaging telescope, leading to an accurate wave-theoretical model of the image seen by such an instrument. In short, we can model the Einstein ring, Einstein cross, or more complex lensed images accurately, with an appropriate wave-optical treatment.
In Ref.~\cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}, we have shown that at each STF multipole order, only two parameters are required to describe the effect of an extended lens. This is simpler than expected and it applies even to objects without any symmetries. Although it is common to account only for the lens plane components of the lensing potential (see \cite{Schneider-Ehlers-Falco:1992} for details), we were able to develop insight for such a thin lens approximation working rigorously from the first principles. That result suggested that observations from a single vantage point are limited to only two combinations of the transverse-traceless STF tensor moments of a gravity field, thus precluding reconstruction of the full 3-dimensional mass distribution. Nonetheless, if the parameters of the projection can be determined with some accuracy, important information of potential astrophysical significance can be obtained about the lens.
Recognizing the value of this development, there is a need to consider its possible practical applications. Some of the important questions include: What is the number of moments needed to achieve the best modeling accuracy? To what extent is it possible to determine the shape and distribution of matter within the lens from examining images produced by it? Our paper aims to provide guidance by presenting specific, idealized examples of gravitational lenses and investigating some of their properties. The choice of the bodies emphasizes the fact that results obtained here are generic and are valid for any extended body with arbitrary sets of multipole moments, as discussed in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}.
This paper is organized as follows:
In Section \ref{sec:opt-prop} we consider gravitational lensing by extended compact bodies with arbitrary mass distributions while expressing their external gravitational potentials via infinite sets of the STF tensor multipole moments. We summarize a wave-optical solution that was obtained in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments} to describe light propagation under such conditions. In Section \ref{sec:lens-Plat} we study lensing by several simple geometric shapes that are treated as gravitational lenses. Specifically we consider lensing by a sphere, a cylinder, a right circular cone, an ellipsoid, a cuboid and a trirectangular tetrahedron. In Section~\ref{sec:appl} we show how progressively including higher moments leads to being able to recover important symmetry properties of the mass distribution of the extended lensing object. In Section~\ref{sec:end} we discuss results and outline the next steps in our investigation.
\section{Optical properties of an extended lens}
\label{sec:opt-prop}
We consider an isolated extended object acting as a gravitational lens \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. To characterize the gravitational field of a generic lens, following \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017,Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles}, we use a static harmonic metric in the first post-Newtonian approximation of the general theory of relativity. The line element for this metric in lens-centric spherical coordinates $(r,\theta,\phi)$, to the accuracy sufficient to describe light propagation in a weak gravitational field \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2013}, may be given as
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2&=&\Big(1+c^{-2}U+{\cal O}(c^{-4})\Big)^{-2}c^2dt^2-
\Big(1+c^{-2}U+{\cal O}(c^{-4})\Big)^2\big(dr^2+r^2\big(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2\big)\big),~~~
\label{eq:metric-gen}
\end{eqnarray}
where the Newtonian potential, $U$, generated by the mass density $\rho({\vec r})$ characterizing the source, is given as usual:
\begin{eqnarray}
U({\vec r})=G\int\frac{\rho({\vec r}')d^3{\vec r}'}{|{\vec r}-{\vec r}'|}.
\label{eq:w-PN}
\end{eqnarray}
With the preliminaries above, we study the propagation of a high-frequency plane EM wave (i.e., neglecting terms $\propto(kr)^{-1}$, where $k=2\pi/\lambda$ is the wavenumber and $\lambda$ is the wavelength) in the vicinity of the lens. The lens's Schwarzschild radius is $r_g=2GM/c^2$, where $M$ is its mass. We assume that the wave is emitted by a point source, which is located at a large distance $r_0$ from the lens, so $r_g/r_0\ll 1$. We consider that this field is observed in an image plane also located at a large distance $r$ from the lens, such that $r_g/r\ll1$.
\subsection{The EM field on the image plane}
Following closely the notations in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}, we represent the trajectory of an incident light ray as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{r}(t)&=&\vec{r}_{0}+\vec{k}c(t-t_0)+{\cal O}(r_g),
\label{eq:x-Newt0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec k$ is a unit wave vector in the direction of propagation of the incident light ray and $\vec r_0$ represents the source position. We use ${\vec b}=[[{\vec k}\times{\vec r}_0]\times{\vec k}]$ as the vector impact parameter corresponding to the unperturbed light ray's trajectory.
We use the affine parameter $\tau=\tau(t)$ to characterize the light ray's path (see details in Appendix~B in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017}):
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau &=&({\vec k}\cdot {\vec x})=({\vec k}\cdot {\vec r}_{0})+c(t-t_0).
\label{eq:x-Newt*=0}
\end{eqnarray}
We use a lens-centric cylindrical coordinate system $(\rho,\phi,z)$ with its $z$-coordinate oriented along the wavevector $\vec k$, a unit vector in the unperturbed direction of the propagation of the incident wave; thus, we have $\tau=z$. The value of $\tau$ starts as negative at the originating point of the light ray ($\alpha\simeq\pi$), reaches zero at the point of closest approach to the lens (characterized by $\alpha=\pi/2$) and progresses through increasing positive values after departing the vicinity of the lens ($\alpha\simeq 0$). With the help of this parameter, we can rewrite (\ref{eq:x-Newt0}) as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\vec r}(\tau)&=&{\vec b}+{\vec k} \tau+{\cal O}(r_g),
\qquad {\rm with} \qquad
||{\vec r}(\tau)|| \equiv r(\tau) =\sqrt{b^2+\tau^2}+{\cal O}(r_g).
\label{eq:b0}
\end{eqnarray}
We also introduce a light ray's impact parameter, $\vec b$, and coordinates on the image plane, $\vec x$, located in the strong interference region of the lens at distance $z$ from the lens \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017,Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. Thus, we then have:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec k&=&(0,0,1),
\label{eq:note-k}\\
{\vec b}&=&b(\cos\phi_\xi,\sin \phi_\xi,0)=b\, \vec m,
\label{eq:note-b}\\
{\vec x}&=&\rho(\cos\phi,\sin \phi,0)=\rho \, \vec n.
\label{eq:note-x}
\end{eqnarray}
Using this parametrization, we solved the gravitational Mie problem (see discussion in \cite{Born-Wolf:1999,Turyshev-Toth:2017}) to the required order ($\rho\lesssim r_g\ll r$) and found that the EM field is given by \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-all-regions}:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{aligned}
{E}_\rho& \\
{H}_\rho& \\
\end{aligned} \right) =\left( \begin{aligned}
{H}_\phi& \\
-{E}_\phi& \\
\end{aligned} \right) &=&
\frac{E_0}{r_0}e^{i\Omega(t)}
A(\vec x)
\left( \begin{aligned}
\cos\phi& \\
\sin\phi& \\
\end{aligned} \right)+{\cal O}(r_g^2,\rho^2/z^2),
\label{eq:DB-sol-rho}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega(t)=\big(k(r_0+r)-\omega t\big)$. The remaining components of the EM field are small, $({E}_z, {H}_z)= {\cal O}({\rho}/{z})$.
The amplification factor of the EM field, $A(\rho,\phi)\equiv A(\vec x)$, is given as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
A(\vec x) =
\frac{k}{ir}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int d^2\vec b \,\exp\Big[ik\Big(\frac{1}{2 r}({\vec b} - \vec x)^2+
\frac{2}{c^2}\int^{\tau}_{\tau_0} U({\vec b},\tau') d\tau'
\Big)\Big],
\label{eq:amp-A}
\end{eqnarray}
where the phase of the integral of (\ref{eq:amp-A}) is known as the Fermat potential of gravitational lensing \cite{Schneider-Ehlers-Falco:1992}. The first term in the phase of (\ref{eq:amp-A}) is the phase shift associated with the geometric delay. The remainder of the expression represents the gravitational delay accumulated by the EM wave as it travels through the phase shift accumulated by EM wave as it travels from the source to the image plane on the background on the gravitational potential $U$.
\subsection{Computing the eikonal phase for a generic gravitational field}
\label{sec:eik-phase-axsym}
Considering a generic case, it was shown \cite{Thorne:1980,Blanchet-Damour:1986,Blanchet-Damour:1989,Kopeikin:1997,Mathis-LePoncinLafitte:2007,Soffel-Han:2019} that the scalar gravitational potential (\ref{eq:w-PN}) may be given equivalently in the following form:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
U(\vec r)&=& GM\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\frac{(2\ell-1)!!}{\ell !}{\cal T}_L\frac{\hat n_L}{r^{\ell+1}},
\label{eq:pot_w_0STF}
\end{eqnarray}
where $r=|{\vec r}|$, $M$ is the mass of the body and ${\cal T}_L\equiv {\cal T}^{<a_1...a_\ell>}$ are the body's normalized Newtonian STF mass multipole moments, given as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
M&=&\int d^3{\vec r'}\, \rho({\vec r'}),\qquad
{\cal T}^{<a_1...a_\ell>}=
\int d^3{\vec x'}\, \rho({\vec r'})\, x'{}^{<a_1...a_\ell>},
\label{eq:mom}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x^{<a_1...a_\ell>}=x^{<a_1}x^{a_2...}x^{a_\ell>}\equiv \hat x^L$, while the angle brackets $<...>$ and $\hat{x}$ denote the STF operator \cite{Hamermesh1962}, also $x^a$ here is $a$-th component of the 3-dimensional vector with its unit vector defined as usual $n^a=x^a/r$, thus $\hat n_L$ is the STF combination of $\ell$ unit vectors $n^{<a_1...a_\ell>}\equiv \hat n_L$. Without loss of generality, we set the origin of the coordinate system at the body's center-of-mass, which allows us to eliminate the dipole moment ${\cal T}^a$ from the expansion (\ref{eq:pot_w_0STF}).
The first few terms of (\ref{eq:pot_w_0STF}) are given as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
U(\vec r)&=&G\Big\{\frac{M}{r}+ \frac{3{\cal T}^{<ij>}}{2r^5}x^ix^j +\frac{5{\cal T}^{<ijk>}}{2r^7}x^ix^jx^k+\frac{35{\cal T}^{<ijkl>}}{8r^9}x^ix^jx^kx^l+{\cal O}(r^{-6})\Big\}.
\label{eq:pot_w_0STF2}
\end{eqnarray}
This Cartesian multipole expansion of the Newtonian gravitational potential (\ref{eq:pot_w_0STF})--(\ref{eq:pot_w_0STF2}) is equivalent to expansion in terms of spherical harmonics (e.g., see discussion in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}). However, the use of the STF mass moment tensors simplifies the task of solving the light propagation equations in the post-Newtonian formalism of the general theory of relativity \cite{Kopeikin:1997,Mathis-LePoncinLafitte:2007,Soffel-Han:2019}.
Using the light trajectory parametrization $\vec r=\vec r(\vec b,\tau)$ from (\ref{eq:b0}), we obtain the following expression for the gravitational phase shift (i.e., the second term in the phase of (\ref{eq:amp-A}), see derivation details in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}):
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi(\vec b) &=&\frac{2k}{c^2}\int^{\tau}_{\tau_0} U({\vec b},\tau') d\tau'=
kr_g\ln 4k^2rr_0 -2kr_g\Big(\ln kb-\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty
\frac{(2\ell-2)!!}{\ell! \,b^\ell} \sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}\cos[\ell(\phi_\xi-\phi_\ell)] \Big)+{\cal O}(r_g^2),~~~~
\label{eq:eik-ph-shift_tpm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $t^+_\ell$ and $t^\times_\ell$ are the transverse trace-free (TT) components of the ${\cal T}^{<a_1....a_\ell>}$ tensor and the angle $\phi_\ell$ is given by
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos[\ell\phi_\ell]=\frac{t^+_\ell}{\sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}},\qquad
\sin[\ell\phi_\ell]=\frac{t^\times_\ell}{\sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}}.
\label{eq:tt52a7}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the TT operation is understood with respect to the direction of the wave-vector $\vec k$ (\ref{eq:note-k}). Thus, any TT-projected quantity will be in the plane set by the vector of the impact parameter (\ref{eq:note-b}) (see discussion in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}).
In \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}, we computed several low order terms in (\ref{eq:eik-ph-shift_tpm}), namely for $\ell=2,3,4$. We use parameterizations for the vectors $\vec k$ and $\vec m$ as given by (\ref{eq:note-k})--(\ref{eq:note-b}). Thus, the lowest order $t^+_\ell$ and $t^\times_\ell$ are given as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
t^+_2&=&{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} ({\cal T}_{11}-{\cal T}_{22}), \qquad\qquad\qquad\quad~~
t^\times_2 ~~=~~ {\cal T}_{12},
\label{eq:eik-tt2}\\
t^+_3&=&{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}({\cal T}_{111}-3{\cal T}_{122}),
\qquad\qquad\qquad~
t^\times_3 ~~=~~ {\textstyle\frac{1}{4}} (3{\cal T}_{112}-{\cal T}_{222}),
\label{eq:eik-tt3}\\
t^+_4&=&{\textstyle\frac{1}{8}}({\cal T}_{1111}+{\cal T}_{2222}-6{\cal T}_{1122}) , \qquad \, t^\times_4 ~~=~~ {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} ({\cal T}_{1112}-{\cal T}_{1222}).
\label{eq:eik-tt4}
\end{eqnarray}
We observe that at each order, the gravitational phase shift is determined by just the two degrees of freedom of the corresponding TT-projected STF multipole moment, $t^{+}_\ell $ and $t^{\times}_\ell$. In other words, at each STF order $\ell$, the amplitude $(t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell)^\frac{1}{2}$, and the rotation angle $\ell\phi_\ell$ of the gravitational phase shift (\ref{eq:eik-ph-shift_tpm})--(\ref{eq:tt52a7}) are set by only two combinations of the TT-projected STF mass multipole moments, $t^{+}_\ell$ and $t^{\times}_\ell$ (see details in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}). We observe that the longitudinal components of the gravitational potential (i.e., those that are orthogonal to the line of sight direction taken to be along the $\vec k$ vector) of the lensing mass distribution are not accessible. Through astronomical observations we observe only the TT-projected STF multipole moments of any mass distribution.
\subsection{Optical properties of the extended lens}
At this point we have all the necessary ingredients to consider imaging of point sources with extended lenses. This is important, as such images explicitly reveal the structure of the gravitational lens by producing a caustic of a particular shape \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics} as opposed to imaging of extended sources that will result in Einstein rings \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2020-extend}.
\subsubsection{Image formation of point sources with extended lenses}
To consider the image formation properties of an extended lens we need to establish its PSF. We do that by substituting the results (\ref{eq:eik-ph-shift_tpm})--(\ref{eq:tt52a7}) in (\ref{eq:amp-A}). We get
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
A(\vec x) ~~=~~ e^{ikr_g\ln 4k^2rr_0}
\frac{k}{ir}\frac{1}{2\pi}\iint d^2\vec b \,\exp\Big[ik\Big(\frac{1}{2 \tilde r}({\vec b} - \vec x)^2-
2r_g\Big(\ln kb-\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty
\frac{(2\ell-2)!!}{\ell! \,b^\ell} \sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}\cos[\ell(\phi_\xi-\phi_\ell)] \Big)\Big)\Big].
\label{eq:amp-A+}
\end{eqnarray}
In general, this integral must be treated numerically. However, there are two important observations:
\begin{inparaenum}[1)]
\item As the contribution of the $\ell$-th multipole moment scales as $1/b^\ell$, at some distance from the lens, the overall lensing potential approaches that of a monopole.
\item For a weakly aspherical lens, multipole moments are small, making it possible to evaluate (\ref{eq:amp-A+}) using the method of stationary phase with respect to the radial variable, $b$, as we did in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-all-regions}.
\end{inparaenum}
Specifically, we express the integration variables in the double integral (\ref{eq:amp-A+}) using the polar coordinates $(b,\phi_\xi)$ and evaluate the radial integral from a finite value $R$ that characterizes the extent of the lens. Essentially, this means that we treat the lens as an opaque object, considering only light with impact parameter $b>R$.
Under the conditions summarized above, we found that we can evaluate the radial integral in (\ref{eq:amp-A+}) using the method of stationary phase (see \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017,Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-all-regions}), which leads to the following form for the amplification factor:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
A(\vec x) ~~=~~
\sqrt{2\pi kr_g}e^{i\sigma_0}e^{ik(r_0+r+r_g\ln 4k^2rr_0)}B(\vec x),
\label{eq:amp-A2-STF}
\end{eqnarray}
where $B(\vec x)$ is the generalized complex amplitude of the EM field in case of an arbitrary, weakly aspherical lens:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
B(\vec x) ~~=~~
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_\xi \exp\Big[-ik\Big(\sqrt{\frac{2r_g}{\tilde r}}\rho\cos(\phi_\xi-\phi)-
2r_g\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty
\frac{(2\ell-2)!!}{\ell! \,(\sqrt{2r_g\tilde r})^\ell} \sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}\cos[\ell(\phi_\xi-\phi_\ell)]\Big)\Big].
\label{eq:B2-STF}
\end{eqnarray}
Using (\ref{eq:B2-STF}), we form the PSF of a generic lens (see details in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}) that is given as the square of the complex amplitude, namely
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm PSF}({\vec x})&=&|B({\vec x})|^2.
\label{eq:psf=}
\end{eqnarray}
This PSF can be used for the practical modeling of gravitational lenses, especially for imaging of faint sources \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging}.
In \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics} we considered the PSFs formed in the presence of various multiples of an axisymmetric lens. Result (\ref{eq:psf=}) with $B(\vec x)$ from (\ref{eq:B2-STF}) generalizes it to an arbitrary mass distribution. We can see that at each order $\ell$ the caustic formed on the image plane will be characterized by only two parameters: its magnitude $Q_\ell=\frac{(2\ell-2)!!}{\ell! \,({2r_g\tilde r})^{\ell/2}} \big({t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}\big)^\frac{1}{2}$ and the rotation angle $\phi_\ell$ given by (\ref{eq:tt52a7}), thus resembling the case of axisymmetric lenses \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics}. Below we consider the implications of such a simplification on lensing observations.
\subsubsection{Observing images of point sources with extended lenses}
As it is known \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging}, the PSF is the image of a point source that is formed by an extended lens. For any extended lens with deviations from spherical symmetry such an image will come in the form of a combination of various caustics that represent various multipolar deformations \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics}. However, in typical astronomical observations, the caustics are not directly observed. Astronomical telescopes are used to look at the lens, instead of studying the potentially very large image projected by the distant gravitational lens in the image plane.
In practice, in astronomical observations a telescope is usually positioned inside the caustic region formed on the image plane. The telescope looks back toward the lens and sees either Einstein ring (i.e., $\ell=0$, if the lens is spherically-symmetric) or Einstein cross (i.e., $\ell=2$, if, in addition to a monopole, a small quadrupole moment is present) or other, more elaborate petal structures characteristic of multipoles of higher order $\ell$ (see discussion in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics} and Fig.~\ref{fig:montage}). Here we summarize the tools developed to describe such observations.
With the knowledge of the PSF of the extended gravitational lens, we consider the EM field as it is seen through an imaging telescope. To do this, we treat the imaging telescope as a thin lens and perform a Fourier transform of the EM field (\ref{eq:DB-sol-rho}) characterized by the complex amplitude $A(\vec x)$, from (\ref{eq:amp-A2-STF})--(\ref{eq:B2-STF}). For that, we use the standard approach (e.g., \cite{Born-Wolf:1999,Goodman:2017}; see also details on the specific application in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2020-photom,Turyshev-Toth:2020-image,Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging}), and we introduce ${\vec x}_i$, representing a point on the focal plane of the optical telescope:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\{{\vec x}_i\}&\equiv& (x_i,y_i,0)=\rho_i\big(\cos\phi_i,\sin\phi_i,0\big).
\label{eq:coord}
\end{eqnarray}
Following \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging,Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}, we obtain the amplification factor, $I({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$ of the optical system consisting of the lens and the imaging telescope (i.e., the convolution of the PSF of a lens with that of an optical telescope), that in the case of a generic extended lens with arbitrary symmetry takes the form
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
I({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)=|{\cal A}({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)|^2,
\label{eq:Pv}
\end{eqnarray}
where $I({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$ is the intensity distribution corresponding to the image of a point source as seen by the imaging telescope (see \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging} for details) and ${\cal A}({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$ is the normalized Fourier transform of the amplitude $B(\vec x)$ from (\ref{eq:B2-STF}):
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}({\vec x},{\vec x}_i) ~=~
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_\xi \,
\Big(\frac{
2J_1(u(\phi_\xi,\phi_i)\frac{1}{2}d)}{u(\phi_\xi,\phi_i) \frac{1}{2}d}\Big)
\exp\Big[-ik\Big(\sqrt{\frac{2r_g}{ r}} \rho\cos(\phi_\xi-\phi)-
2r_g\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty
\frac{(2\ell-2)!!}{\ell! \,(\sqrt{2r_g\tilde r})^\ell} \sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}\cos[\ell(\phi_\xi-\phi_\ell)]\Big)\Big],
\label{eq:BinscER}
\end{eqnarray}
with $d$ being the telescope's aperture and $u(\phi_\xi,\phi_i)$ is given by
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
u(\phi_\xi,\phi_i)=\sqrt{\alpha^2+2\alpha\eta_i\cos\big(\phi_\xi-\phi_i\big)+\eta_i^2}, \qquad {\rm where}\qquad \alpha=k\sqrt\frac{2r_g}{r}, \qquad \eta_i=k\frac{\rho_i}{f},
\label{eq:eps}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ and $\eta_i$ are the spatial frequencies set by the lens's monopole and that by the imaging telescope, correspondingly; and $(\rho_i,\phi_i)$ are the coordinates of the image sensor, while $f$ is the focal length of the telescope.
Expressions (\ref{eq:psf=}) and (\ref{eq:Pv}) are the PSF$(\vec x)$ of the extended lens and the intensity of light, $I({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$, observed at the image sensor of an imaging telescope. The optical properties are guided by (\ref{eq:B2-STF}) and (\ref{eq:BinscER}), correspondingly. Based on our prior research \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles}, we know that at each order $\ell$ the PSF will exhibit a unique caustic \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics} with the cusps yielding bright images to be observed by the telescope \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging}. This result allows for physically consistent modeling of realistic gravitational lenses. Using the intensity of light observed in the image plane, $I({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$, given by (\ref{eq:Pv}) with ${\cal A}({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$ from (\ref{eq:BinscER}) we can study imaging with an extended lens associated with a generic gravitational potential.
\subsection{Gravitational phase shift of axisymmetric lenses}
Our analysis below relies on the work that we have done in studying axisymmetric lenses. The gravitational potential of such objects may be expressed via an infinite set of zonal harmonics, $J_\ell, \ell\geq 2$, \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles}, yielding the resulting gravitational phase shift (\ref{eq:eik-ph-shift_tpm}) in the following form:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{\tt al}_b(\vec b,\vec s) ~~=~~
-kr_g\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty\frac{J_\ell}{\ell}\Big(\frac{R}{b}\Big)^\ell \sin^\ell\beta_s\cos[\ell(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)],
\label{eq:eik-ph-axi*}
\end{eqnarray}
where parametrization of $\vec b$ is from (\ref{eq:note-b}), while $\beta_s$ and $\phi_s$ are angles representing the axis of symmetry, $\vec s$, of the lens:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\vec s}&=&(\sin\beta_s\cos\phi_s,\sin\beta_s\sin\phi_s,\cos\beta_s).
\label{eq:note}
\end{eqnarray}
The expression for the gravitational phase delay given by (\ref{eq:eik-ph-axi*}), and its impact on the optical properties of an axisymmetric lens were studied extensively in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics,Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging,Turyshev-Toth:2021-quartic}. Specifically, in Ref.~\cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics}, we established the fact that the properties of the caustics are determined by two parameters, $\alpha$ from (\ref{eq:eps}) and $\beta^{\tt al}_\ell$ that is given as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta^{\tt al}_\ell ~~=~~ 2kr_g \frac{J_\ell}{\ell}\Big(\frac{R_\odot }{\sqrt{2r_g\tilde r}}\Big)^\ell\sin^\ell\beta_s.
\label{eq:zerJ}
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, the amplitude of the $\ell$-th caustic, $\rho_\ell$, is given as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_\ell = \ell^2\frac{\beta^{\tt al}_\ell}{\alpha}= \ell\sqrt{2r_g \tilde r} J_\ell \Big(\frac{R_\odot }{\sqrt{2r_g \tilde r}}\Big)^\ell\sin^\ell\beta_s.
\label{eq:mag}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.91]{basemont}
\caption{\label{fig:montage} Examples of axisymmetric lenses. Top row: Density plot of the PSF of the unperturbed monopole lens; monopole perturbed by quadrupole (characterized by $J_2\ne 0$); monopole perturbed by octupole ($J_3\ne 0$); by hexadecapole ($J_4\ne 0$); and a combination of $J_2$, $J_3$ and $J_4$ perturbations. These density plots represent a cross-section of the light field that is projected by the lens.
Bottom row: The same set of axisymmetric lenses, but with the PSF convolved with that of a thin lens telescope placed at the optical axis, yielding the corresponding telescopic view of light from a point source, as deflected by the lens, including the Einstein-ring for the monopole lens, the Einstein-cross for the quadrupole case and higher-order cases for $J_3$ and $J_4$. The width of the Einstein ring annulus and the size of the light spots produced by the higher-order multipoles are artifacts of the diffraction-limited resolution of the imaging telescope, determined by its aperture and the wavelength of the light. }
\end{figure}
We present this solution for axisymmetric lenses because the results that we discuss below for generic lenses show the same structure as Eq.~(\ref{eq:eik-ph-axi*}). Thus, the insight that we developed in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics} while studying the optical properties of axisymmetric lenses with (\ref{eq:eik-ph-axi*}) is directly applicable to the case of compact, extended lenses with arbitrary internal mass distributions. Fig.~\ref{fig:montage} shows the PSF and corresponding telescopic images for several low order zonal harmonics. In particular, we call attention to how the presence of multipole moments breaks up the Einstein-ring into multiple segments. When the impact parameter is large, the relative contribution of the multipole moments is suppressed and the Einstein-ring is recovered. In contrast, when the imaging telescope moves away from the optical axis, the segments are displaced; as the telescope moves outside the caustic region of the PSF, the segments merge into the primary and secondary images that characterize the monopole lens when viewed from an off-axis telescope location.
\subsection{Gravitational phase shift of generic lenses}
\label{sec:phase shift}
Using the intensity of light observed in the image plane, $I({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$, given by (\ref{eq:Pv}) with ${\cal A}({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$ from (\ref{eq:BinscER}) we can study imaging with an extended gravitational lens that has a generic internal structure and mass distribution. As we see, both expressions, PSF$(\vec x)$ and $I({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$, depend on the gravitational phase shift (\ref{eq:eik-ph-shift_tpm}) that is accumulated by the EM wave as it travels in the vicinity of a compact massive body. In fact, the properties of a particular mass distribution within that lens are encoded in this gravitational phase shift. Thus, in order for us to evaluate the possibility of extracting the information on the properties of a particular lens, we need to examine images formed by various lenses.
For that, we use (\ref{eq:eik-ph-shift_tpm}), the gravitational eikonal phase shift expressed via the STF multipole moments that, to ${\cal O}(r_g^2)$, was obtained in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. Our quantity of interest, the eikonal gravitational phase shift $2\xi_b(\vec b,\vec s)$, is obtained by dropping the monopole term from (\ref{eq:eik-ph-shift_tpm}), or by presenting it as $\varphi(\vec b) =kr_g\ln 4k^2rr_0-2kr_g\ln kb+2\xi_b(\vec b,\vec s)$, which yields the following result:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_b(\vec b)&=& -kr_g\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty
\frac{(-1)^\ell}{\ell!} {\cal T}^{<a_1...a_\ell>}
\hat \partial_{<a_1}... \hat\partial_{a_\ell>}\ln kb \equiv
kr_g\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty
\frac{(2\ell-2)!!}{\ell! \,b^\ell} \sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}\cos[\ell(\phi_\xi-\phi_\ell)],
\label{eq:eik-ph2-TT}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat\partial_a$ in the first from of this expression is the derivative with respect to the vector of the impact parameter, namely $\hat\partial_a=\partial/\partial b^a$, see \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments} for the details of how to compute derivatives $\hat \partial_{<a_1}... \hat\partial_{a_\ell>}\ln kb$ that at each order $\ell$ form a TT-projection operator on the plane orthogonal to $\vec k$.
Using the second expression from (\ref{eq:eik-ph2-TT}), we see that at each order $\ell$, we have a caustic similar to that resulting from (\ref{eq:eik-ph-axi*}), but the amplitude of the $\ell$-th caustic in the general case, $\rho_\ell$, is given as
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_\ell=2kr_g
\frac{(2\ell-2)!!}{\ell! \,(\sqrt{2r_g\tilde r})^\ell} \sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}
\qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
\rho_\ell = \ell^2\frac{\beta_\ell}{\alpha}=
\frac{\ell^2(2\ell-2)!!}{\ell! \,(\sqrt{2r_g\tilde r})^{\ell-1}} \sqrt{t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}.
\label{eq:mag-gen}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, at each STF order $\ell$, the gravitational phase shift (\ref{eq:eik-ph2-TT}) yields familiar caustics but in this case the caustics are both scaled and rotated. This is in agreement with the fact that there are only two remaining degrees of freedom that are available as a result of the TT-projection on the lens plane. Clearly, applying result (\ref{eq:mag-gen}) to the case of axisymmetric lenses with axis of rotation from (\ref{eq:note}), we recover the result (\ref{eq:mag}).
Although both expressions in (\ref{eq:eik-ph2-TT}) are equivalent, technically it is more straightforward to work with the first one.\footnote{This is because of the fact that we first compute the moments of the STF mass moments ${\cal T}^{<a_1...a_\ell>}$ in a body-fixed coordinates and then rotate the tensor moments to inertial coordinates (see Sec.~\ref{sec:rotate} for details). The tensor notation in the first form of the expressions (\ref{eq:eik-ph2-TT}) (and its expanded form (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*})--(\ref{eq:eik-ph24*}) for $\ell=2,3,4$) allows us to do that in a more apparent way.}
Furthermore, for our purposes, is sufficient to consider only the lowest order STF mass moments. Accordingly, using the first of the two identical expressions in (\ref{eq:eik-ph2-TT}), the gravitational eikonal phase shifts for the quadrupole ($\ell=2$), octupole ($\ell=3$) and hexadecapole ($\ell=4$) STF multipole mass moments take the form (see details in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}):
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)
&=& kr_g
\frac{1}{2b^2} {\cal T}^{<ab>}
\Big\{2m^a m^b+k^ak^b-\delta^{ab}\Big\},
\label{eq:eik-ph22p*}\\
\xi^{[3]}_b(\vec b)
&=& kr_g
\frac{1}{6b^3} {\cal T}^{<abc>}
\Big\{8m^a m^b m^c -2m^a (\delta^{bc}-k^bk^c)-2m^b(\delta^{ac}-k^ak^c)- 2m^c(\delta^{ab}-k^ak^b)\Big\},
\label{eq:eik-ph23*}\\
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)&=& kr_g
\frac{1}{4b^4} {\cal T}^{<abcd>}
\Big\{8m^a m^b m^c m^d+
{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}} \Big(\delta^{bc}-k^bk^c\Big)\Big(\delta^{ad}-k^ak^d\Big)+
{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}} \Big(\delta^{ac}-k^ak^c\Big)\Big(\delta^{bd}-k^bk^d\Big)+
\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 20pt +\,
{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}} \Big(\delta^{ab}-k^ak^b\Big)\Big(\delta^{cd}-k^ck^d\Big)-
{\textstyle\frac{4}{3}} \Big(m^am^b\big(\delta^{cd}-k^ck^d\big)+
m^am^c\big(\delta^{bd}-k^bk^d\big)+
m^am^d\big(\delta^{bc}-k^bk^c\big)+
\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 20pt +\,
m^bm^c\big(\delta^{ad}-k^ak^d\big)+m^b m^d\big(\delta^{ac}-k^ak^c\big)+m^c m^d\big(\delta^{ab}-k^ak^b\big)\Big)\Big\},
\label{eq:eik-ph24*}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec k$ and $\vec m$ are from (\ref{eq:note-k}) and (\ref{eq:note-b}), correspondingly. According to \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}, we recognize that the expressions in curly brackets in (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*})--(\ref{eq:eik-ph24*}) are the TT-projection operators on the plane perpendicular to $\vec k$. Following the approach presented in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments} one can easily present these equations in the form of the second form of the expression in (\ref{eq:eik-ph2-TT}).
Below we will explore the fact established in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments} stating that any extended mass distribution will result in gravitational shift that has the structure which is nearly identical to (\ref{eq:eik-ph-axi*}). This is the result that all the STF multiple moments are TT-projected on the lens plane. The procedure allows only for two degrees of freedom.
\subsection{Computing the lowest STF moments}
\label{sec:rotate}
To implement our objectives, we first introduce the STF moments in a particular body-centric coordinate system that is convenient for calculations. For that we reserve a special notation ${\cal T}_0^L$, while using the usual definition (\ref{eq:mom}):
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{L}=\int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x})\, x^L, \qquad {\rm where} \qquad L\in [1,\ell].
\label{eq:Iab}
\end{eqnarray}
As we shall see below, this definition for STF moments ${\cal T}_0^L$ in a technically convenient coordinate system is related to that ${\cal T}^L$ from (\ref{eq:mom}) in an arbitrary coordinates by a simple rotation.
The coordinate combinations needed to compute the lowest Cartesian STF multipole moments \cite{Soffel-Han:2019} are given as:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
r^2\hat n_{ij}&=&{\rm STF}_{ij}\Big( x^i x^j\Big)=
x^i x^j- {\textstyle\frac{1}{3}} r^2\delta^{ij},
\label{eq:sft2}\\
r^3\hat n_{ijk}&=&{\rm STF}_{ijk}\Big( x^i x^j x^k\Big)=
x^i x^j x^k- {\textstyle\frac{1}{5}} r^2\Big(\delta^{ij}x^k+\delta^{jk}x^i+\delta^{ki}x^j\Big),
\label{eq:sft3}\\
r^4\hat n_{ijkl}&=&{\rm STF}_{ijkl}\Big( x^i x^jx^kx^l\Big)=
x^ix^jx^kx^l-\nonumber\\
&-&
{\textstyle\frac{1}{7}} r^2
\Big(x^ix^j\delta^{kl}+x^ix^k\delta^{jl}+x^ix^l\delta^{jk}+x^jx^k\delta^{il}+x^jx^l\delta^{ik}+x^kx^l\delta^{ij}\Big)+
{\textstyle\frac{1}{35}} r^4
\Big(\delta^{ij}\delta^{kl}+\delta^{ik}\delta^{jl}+\delta^{il}\delta^{jk}\Big).~~~
\label{eq:sft4}
\end{eqnarray}
To consider lensing by bodies of known shapes, we use their STF multipole moments. Note that, technically, these moments are easier to compute in their center-of-gravity coordinate system. Thus, we will distinguish two sets of moments: those computed in a particular coordinate system that simplifies the calculations, ${\cal T}_0^L$, introduced in (\ref{eq:Iab}), and those rotated to the arbitrary frame ${\cal T}^L$, used in (\ref{eq:mom}). Physically, these two are identical. Rotating these moments to the chosen coordinate system generally involves the three Euler angles.
We start by taking the reference orientation so that the principal axes coincide with the basis vectors $(e_j)_{j=1,2,3}$. The Euler angles are based on the fact that any general rotation $\bf R$ can be written in terms of three angles and so that $\bf R$ is the composition of three rotations:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf R}(\phi_s,\beta_s,\psi)={\bf R}_3(\psi){\bf R}_1(\beta_s){\bf R}_3(\phi_s)=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\psi& \sin\psi& 0\\
-\sin\psi& \cos\psi& 0 \\
0 & 0& 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1& 0& 0\\
0& \cos\beta_s& \sin\beta_s \\
0 & -\sin\beta_s& \cos\beta_s
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\phi_s& \sin\phi_s& 0\\
-\sin\phi_s& \cos\phi_s& 0 \\
0 & 0& 1
\end{pmatrix}\equiv R^{ij},
\label{eq:rot}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf R}_3(\psi)$ is a right-handed rotation of angle $\psi$ around the $x^3$ axis, ${\bf R}_1(\beta_s)$ is a right-handed rotation of angle $\beta_s$ about the $x^1$ axis, and ${\bf R}_3(\phi_s)$ a right-handed rotation of angle $\phi_s$ about the $x^3$ axis. (Note that conventionally, the set of $(\phi,\theta,\psi)$ angles are used to denote the Euler angles. We choose to denote these angles as $(\phi_s,\beta_s,\psi)$ for consistency with our prior research, e.g.,
\cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics,Turyshev-Toth:2021-imaging,Turyshev-Toth:2021-all-regions,Turyshev-Toth:2021-quartic,Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}.)
\begin{comment}
Expression (\ref{eq:rot}) yields the well-known general formula:
{}
\begin{equation}
{\bf R}(\phi_s,\beta_s,\psi)=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\psi\cos\phi_s-\cos\beta_s\sin\phi_s\sin\psi&
\cos\psi\sin\phi_s+\cos\beta_s\cos\phi_s\sin\psi &
\sin\psi\sin\beta_s\\
-\sin\psi\cos\phi_s-\cos\beta_s\sin\phi_s\cos\psi&
-\sin\psi\sin\phi_s+\cos\beta_s\cos\phi_s\cos\psi&
\cos\psi\sin\beta_s\\
\sin\beta_s\sin\phi_s & -\sin\beta_s \cos\phi_s& \cos\beta_s
\end{pmatrix}
\equiv R^{ij}.
\label{eq:rot2}
\end{equation}
\end{comment}
To rotate the STF multipole moments, ${\cal T}_0^L$, from the body coordinate frame to the chosen coordinate frame and to obtain ${\cal T}^L$, we must rotate these tensors:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}^{ij}={R}^i_p R^j_q {\cal T}_0^{pq},
\qquad
{\cal T}^{ijk}={R}^i_p R^j_qR^k_s {\cal T}_0^{pqs}
\qquad
{\cal T}^{ijkl}={R}^i_p R^j_q R^k_s R^l_w {\cal T}_0^{pqsw},
\label{eq:rot3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ {\cal T}^{ij}$, $ {\cal T}^{ijk}$ and $ {\cal T}^{ijkl}$ are the lowest STF multipole tensors transformed to arbitrary inertial coordinates and ${R}^i_j \equiv {\bf R}^T$ being a transpose of ${\bf R}$ from (\ref{eq:rot}). (As such a rotation from body-fixed to an inertial orientation involves all the components of the tensor $ {\cal T}^{ij}$, using the first expression in (\ref{eq:eik-ph2-TT}) which is written in a tensor form, technically is more convenient, which explains the choice of (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*})--(\ref{eq:eik-ph24*})).
\begin{figure}
\vskip 5pt
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{cylinder}
\caption{\label{fig:cylinder}The cylinder, parameterized by its radius ($r$) and height ($h$).}
\end{minipage}
\hskip 10pt
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.53\linewidth]{rightcone}
\caption{\label{fig:rightcone}The right circular cone and its parametrization.}
\end{minipage}
\vskip 16pt
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\vskip -16pt
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{ellipsoid}
\caption{\label{fig:ellipsoid}The generic ellipsoid and its parameterization.}
\end{minipage}
\hskip 10pt
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.60\linewidth]{cuboid}
\caption{\label{fig:cuboid}The generic cuboid characterized by its width ($a$), depth ($b$) and height ($c$).}
\end{minipage}
\vskip 16pt
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{tetra}
\caption{\label{fig:tetra}The trirectangular tetrahedron.}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Lensing with bodies of various shapes}
\label{sec:lens-Plat}
To demonstrate the practical utility of our results, we consider gravitational lensing by some classic geometric objects with uniform mass density, such as the ellipsoid, the cuboid, the cylinder and the right circular cone, shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:ellipsoid}--\ref{fig:tetra}, correspondingly. Clearly, these are not the lenses that we find in any astronomical observations. However, these exotic body shapes allow us to demonstrate that even these bodies may not be unambiguously distinguished from each other at the level of a particular STF moment. Ultimately, our results suggest that there is missing information about the body mass distribution that is not revealed via gravitational lensing \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. This is due to the fact that the longitudinal STF mass multipole moments of a gravitational field are not observable. The choice of the simple geometric forms shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:ellipsoid}--\ref{fig:tetra} allows us to clearly demonstrate this important point.
This work allows us to devise a strategy that may be employed in the presence of auxiliary information to determine the mass distribution of an extended gravitational lens. For that purpose, our attention is focused on the intensity distribution $I({\vec x},{\vec x}_i)$ at the focal plane of a telescope given by (\ref{eq:Pv}). This is the actual observable that is available through an astronomical instrument: the number of arclets formed along the circumference of the Einstein ring, the symmetries of the distribution of these arclets, their image morphology and the relative brightness of the various peaks. We will pay attention to these characteristics as we study the images formed by various lenses.
Below, we will use expressions (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*})--(\ref{eq:eik-ph24*}) to study lensing by bodies of various exotic shapes. Such an analysis allows us to emphasize the ambiguity in establishing the precise mass distribution of an extended gravitational lens. We invite the reader not to be intimidated by the lengths of some of the expressions that we obtained. Their lengths notwithstanding, they are directly actionable formulas that can almost be described as calculator-friendly. Notably, they represent an accurate wave-theoretical description of the light field that is intercepted by an observing telescope, and as such, they can be used to model directly the light that is deposited on the image sensor of such an instrument. The accuracy and effectiveness of the approach that we demonstrate here through specific examples may offer a new tool when modeling realistic astrophysical lenses of great complexity.
\subsection{Solid and hollow spheres}
First, we consider a solid sphere of radius $R$ and mass $M$. Using the definition (\ref{eq:Iab}) with (\ref{eq:sft2}) we see that the STF quadrupole mass moment tensor of a sphere vanishes, namely ${\cal T}^{ij}=0.$ Similarly, the STF quadrupole moment tensor of a hollow sphere of radius $R$ and mass $M$ yielding ${\cal T}^{ij}=0$, as expected. It is easy to verify that all higher STF mass moments of solid and hollow spheres also vanish, ${\cal T}^L=0, \ell\geq 1$. Thus, the gravitational potential (\ref{eq:pot_w_0STF2}) and consequently, the gravitational lensing behavior of these two types of objects---solid and hollow spheres---are identical to those of a monopole or a point mass \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017}, in accordance with Newton's shell theorem. The optical properties of such monopole gravitational lenses are well established and were extensively discussed in the literature, e.g., \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017,Turyshev-Toth:2019-extend,Turyshev-Toth:2020-image,Turyshev-Toth:2020-extend}.
\subsection{Solid cylinder}
\label{sec:cyl}
We use the definition for the STF moments (\ref{eq:Iab}), STF coordinate combinations from (\ref{eq:sft2})--(\ref{eq:sft4}) and compute the moments of a solid cylinder with uniform matter distribution with radius $r$, height $h$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:cylinder}).
First, we use a coordinate system positioned at its base and compute the monopole moment of such cylinder which constitutes the cylinder's mass $M$:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{0}\equiv M=\int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x})=\rho \int_0^h dz \int_0^{r}r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_s'=\rho \, \pi r^2 h
\qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
\rho=\frac{M}{\pi r^2 h}.
\label{eq:I0-cyl}
\end{eqnarray}
With the result for the density $\rho$, we now compute the components of the dipole moment ${\cal T}_0^{i}$:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big\{
{\cal T}_0^{1}, {\cal T}_0^{2}, {\cal T}_0^{3}\Big\}&=&\frac{M}{ \pi r^2 h}\int_0^h dz \int_0^{r}r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_s' \, \Big\{r'\cos\phi_s',r'\sin\phi_s',z-z_0\Big\}=\Big\{0,0,M \Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}h-z_0\Big)\Big\}.
\label{eq:I1-c1cc}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the center of mass of a cylinder is on the $z$-axis at the position of $z_0={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}h$. Again, with this choice of $z_0$, all the components of the dipole moment vanish, ${\cal T}_0^i=0$.
With this result for $z_0={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}h$, using (\ref{eq:sft2}), we compute the STF quadrupole mass moment of a cylinder with uniform matter distribution in the coordinate system positioned at its center of mass:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ij}= \frac{1}{12}M\Big(r^2-{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}h^2\Big)
\begin{bmatrix}
1& 0& 0\\
0& 1& 0 \\
0 & 0& -2
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{sec:cyl2}
\end{eqnarray}
To generalize this expression, we rotate ${\cal T}_0^{ij}$ from (\ref{sec:cyl2}) to an arbitrary coordinate system using the quadrupole transformation rule from (\ref{eq:rot3}), given as
$ {\cal T}^{ij}={R}^i_p R^j_q {\cal T}_0^{pq},$ and substitute the result it into (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*}). This allows us to derive an expression for the gravitational phase shift introduced by a quadrupole moment of a uniform massive cylinder:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)&=&kr_g\frac{1}{8 b^2}\Big(r^2-{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}h^2\Big)\sin^2\beta_s\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)].
\label{eq:eik-cyl+}
\end{eqnarray}
It is interesting that when $h=\sqrt{3}r$, the quadrupole contribution of the cylinder vanishes and it behaves like a sphere (neglecting contributions from higher multipole moments).
The STF octupole moment moment of a cylinder is computed using (\ref{eq:sft3}), which reveals the fact that ${\cal T}_0^{ijk}=0$, thus, $\xi^{[3]}_b(\vec b)=0$.
Finally, we compute the STF hexadecapole mass moment of a cylinder using (\ref{eq:sft4}) in its center-of-mass coordinate system, which results in
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ijkl}= \frac{M\Big(r^2(r^2-h^2)+{\textstyle\frac{1}{10}}h^4\Big)}{280}
{\small
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
3 & 0 & 0\\
0 &1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -4
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -4\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
-4 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 3 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -4
\end{pmatrix}&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -4\\\
0 & -4 & 0\
\end{pmatrix} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -4\\\
0 & 0 & 0\\\
-4 & 0 & 0\
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\\
0 & 0 & -4\\\
0 & -4 & 0\
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
-4 & 0 & 0\\\
0 & -4 & 0\\\
0 & 0 & 8\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}.
}
\label{eq:Q4cyl}
\end{eqnarray}
To generalize this expression, we rotate the STF hexadecapole tensor (\ref{eq:Q4cyl}) to an arbitrary coordinate system by applying the rule from (\ref{eq:rot3}) given as $ {\cal T}^{ijkl}=R^i_pR^j_qR^k_sR^l_w{\cal T}_0^{pqsw}.$ Substituting the result in (\ref{eq:eik-ph24*}), we obtain the following expression for the gravitational phase shift due to the STF hexadecapole mass moment of the cylinder:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)&=& kr_g
\frac{r^2(r^2-h^2)+{\textstyle\frac{1}{10}}h^4}{32 \,b^4}
\sin^4\beta_s \cos[4 (\phi_\xi -\phi_s )],
\label{eq:eik-phs-4cyl}
\end{eqnarray}
which, due to the axial symmetry of the cylinder, is independent on the angle $\psi$, as expected. Clearly, there are higher non-vanishing STF mass multipoles present, but not only are they small, their contribution, being scaled as $1/b^\ell$, is much suppressed.
\subsection{Right circular cone}
\label{sec:cone}
We consider a right circular cone with radius $r$, height $h$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:rightcone}), and mass $M$ and compute its STF moments in the coordinate system at its center of gravity. Again, we use the definition for the STF moments (\ref{eq:Iab}), the STF coordinate combinations from (\ref{eq:sft2})--(\ref{eq:sft4}), and compute these moments for a cone with uniform density using a coordinate system positioned at its base. First, we compute the monopole moment for the mass of the cone:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{0}\equiv M=\int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x})=\rho \int_0^h dz \int_0^{(r/h)z}r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_s'=\rho {\textstyle\frac{1}{3}} \pi r^2 h
\qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
\rho=\frac{M}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}} \pi r^2 h}.
\label{eq:I0-c}
\end{eqnarray}
With this result, for the density of the mass distribution with the cone, we compute the dipole moment:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big\{{\cal T}_0^{1},
{\cal T}_0^{2}, {\cal T}_0^{3}\Big\}&=&\frac{M}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}} \pi r^2 h}\int_0^h dz \int_0^{(r/h)z}r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_s' \, \Big\{r' \cos\phi_s', r' \sin\phi_s',z-z_0\Big\}=\Big\{0,0,M\Big({\textstyle\frac{3}{4}}h-z_0\Big)\Big\}.
\label{eq:I1-c1}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the center of mass of a cone is on the $z$-axis at the position of $z_0={\textstyle\frac{3}{4}}h$. With this choice of $z_0$, all the components of the dipole moment vanish, ${\cal T}_0^i=0$. Next, using this result for $z_0$ and expression (\ref{eq:sft2}), we compute the STF quadrupole mass moment of a right circular cone in the coordinate system at its center of mass:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ij}= \int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x}){\rm STF}_{ij}\big( x^i x^j\big)= \frac{1}{20}M\Big(r^2-{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}h^2\Big)
\begin{bmatrix}
1& 0& 0\\
0& 1& 0 \\
0 & 0& -2
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{sec:cone2}
\end{eqnarray}
To generalize this expression, we rotate ${\cal T}_0^{ij}$ from (\ref{sec:cone2}) to an arbitrary coordinate system by using the rule $ {\cal T}^{ij}={R}^i_p R^j_q {\cal T}_0^{pq} $
from (\ref{eq:rot3}) and substitute the result it into (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*}). This allows us to derive expression for the gravitational phase shift introduced by gravitational lensing on a quadrupole moment of a regular uniform massive cone:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)&=&kr_g\frac{3}{40}\frac{1}{b^2}\Big(r^2-{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}h^2\Big)\sin^2\beta_s\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)].
\label{eq:eik-cone+}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this result is similar to that of an axisymmetric ellipsoid (\ref{eq:eik-ax-ellip2}) or a cylinder (\ref{eq:eik-cyl+}).
Also, if $h=2r$, the quadrupole moment (\ref{sec:cone2}) vanishes along with the corresponding eikonal phase shift (\ref{eq:eik-cone+}).
We then compute the STF octupole moment of a right circular cone using (\ref{eq:sft3}), which yields the following result:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ijk}= \int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x}){\rm STF}_{ijk}\big( x^i x^j x^k\big)=\frac{3}{400}M\Big(r^2+{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}}h^2\Big)h
{\small
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
1
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix}
&
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
1
\end{pmatrix}&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
1\\
0
\end{pmatrix} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
1\\
0
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
-2
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}.
}
\label{eq:I3-Qc}
\end{eqnarray}
Again, to generalize the results, we rotate the STF octupole tensor (\ref{eq:I3-Qc}) to an arbitrary coordinate system by applying transformation rule from (\ref{eq:rot3}):
${\cal T}^{ijk}=R^i_pR^j_qR^k_s{\cal T}_0^{pqs}.$ After that, we substitute the result in (\ref{eq:eik-ph23*}) and obtain the following expression for the gravitational phase shift introduced by the octupole of a right circular cone:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[3]}_b(\vec b)&=& -kr_g
\frac{\big(r^2+{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}}h^2\big)h}{80b^3}
\sin^3\beta_s \sin[3 (\phi_\xi -\phi_s )],
\label{eq:eik-phs-cone}
\end{eqnarray}
which, due to the axial symmetry, is independent on the angle $\psi$, as expected.
Although the right circular cone is axisymmetric, it has no reflection symmetry with respect to the plane of its rotational symmetry (i.e., no ``north--south'' symmetry), which makes this shape particularly interesting as it results in the presence of odd harmonics. When we look at the octupole moment of this object (\ref{eq:I3-Qc}) in the STF representation (\ref{eq:eik-phs-cone}), which we repeat here for convenience, the gravitational phase shift takes the form (\ref{eq:eik-phs-cone}). We indeed find that $\xi^{[2]}$ vanishes when $h=2r$, whereas $\xi^{[3]}$ vanishes only for $h=0$.
Finally, we compute the STF hexadecapole mass moment of a right circular cone using (\ref{eq:sft4}), which yields:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ijkl} &=& \int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x}){\rm STF}_{ijkl}\big( x^i x^j x^l x^k\big)= \nonumber\\[-20pt]
&&\hskip 20pt
=\,\frac{3M\big(160r^4-72 r^2h^2+13h^4\big)}{313600}
{\small
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
3 & 0 & 0\\
0 &1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -4
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -4\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
-4 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 3 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -4
\end{pmatrix}&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -4\\\
0 & -4 & 0\
\end{pmatrix} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -4\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
-4 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -4\\
0 & -4 & 0
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
-4 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -4 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 8
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}.
}
\label{eq:Q4cone}
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we rotate the STF hexadecapole tensor (\ref{eq:Q4cone}) to an arbitrary coordinate system by relying on (\ref{eq:rot3}):
${\cal T}^{ijkl}=R^i_pR^j_qR^k_sR^l_w{\cal T}_0^{pqsw}.$
Then, by substituting the result in (\ref{eq:eik-ph24*}), we obtain the following expression for the gravitational phase shift introduced by the STF hexadecapole mass moment of a right circular cone:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)&=& kr_g
\frac{3\big(160r^4-72 r^2h^2+13h^4\big)}{35840 \,b^4}
\sin^4\beta_s \cos[4 (\phi_\xi -\phi_s )],
\label{eq:eik-phs-4cone}
\end{eqnarray}
which, again, due to the axial symmetry of the cone is independent on the angle $\psi$, as expected.
Higher-order moments, which are not calculated here, also contribute of course, but their contribution vanishes rapidly with increasing values of the impact parameter. Therefore, the approximations presented here, in particular the visualizations remain valid so long as $b\gtrsim (r,h)$.
One immediate conclusion from this analysis is that, if we consider only the quadrupole moment, an ambiguity is present in specifying the lens's shape. Inclusion of the next order moment reduces that ambiguity but does not completely eliminate it. Furthermore, we would need to include several moments and operate in the strong lensing regime (in the vicinity of the beginning of the focal region along the optical axis, where the impact parameter is the smallest) to have good constraints on the shape and mass distribution of the lens. We will further discuss this point below when considering bodies of other shapes.
\subsection{Solid ellipsoid}
\label{sec:ellipsoid}
\label{app:stf-ellips}
We now consider an ellipsoid with uniform density distribution. Using a Cartesian coordinate system in which the origin is the center of the ellipsoid and the coordinate axes are its axes, the implicit equation of the ellipsoid has the standard form,
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big(\frac{x}{a}\Big)^2 +\Big(\frac{y}{b}\Big)^2+\Big(\frac{z}{c}\Big)^2 = 1,
\label{eq:ell}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a, b, c $ are positive real numbers.
Next, we use the definition for the STF moments (\ref{eq:Iab}) and expressions (\ref{eq:sft2})--(\ref{eq:sft4}), to compute the STF mass moments of an ellipsoid with a uniform density using coordinate system positioned at its center of mass:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{0}=M=\int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x})=\rho \int_{-a}^a
dx \int_{-b\sqrt{1-(x/a)^2}}^{b\sqrt{1-(x/a)^2}}dy\int_{-c\sqrt{1-(x/a)^2-(y/b)^2}}^{c\sqrt{1-(x/a)^2-(y/b)^2}}dz.
\label{eq:I0*}
\end{eqnarray}
To compute this triple integral, we change variables as $\{x,y,z\}=\{ax',by',cz'\}$ and have the following result:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{0}=M=\int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x})=\rho \,abc \int_{-1}^1
dx' \int_{-\sqrt{1-x'^2}}^{\sqrt{1-x'^2}}dy'\int_{-\sqrt{1-x'^2-y'^2}}^{\sqrt{1-x'^2-y'^2}}dz'=\frac{4\pi}{3} \rho \,abc \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
\rho=\frac{3}{4\pi}\frac{M}{abc}.
\label{eq:I20*}
\end{eqnarray}
Computing the dipole moment is straightforward:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{i}=\int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x})x^i=\frac{3M}{4\pi} \int_{-1}^1
dx' \int_{-\sqrt{1-x'^2}}^{\sqrt{1-x'^2}}dy'\int_{-\sqrt{1-x'^2-y'^2}}^{\sqrt{1-x'^2-y'^2}}dz'\Big\{ax',by',cz'\Big\}=0.
\label{eq:I1*}
\end{eqnarray}
We see that the dipole moment vanishes in the center-of-mass reference frame, ${\cal T}_0^i=0$.
To compute the quadrupole, we use the relevant STF expression for coordinate combination given by (\ref{eq:sft2}). As a result, with this, the STF quadrupole moment tensor of a solid ellipsoid with a uniform density distribution, semi-axes $a, b, c$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipsoid}) and mass $M$ is computed to have the following form:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ij} = \int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x}){\rm STF}_{ij}\big( x^i x^j\big)=\frac{M}{15}
\begin{bmatrix}
2a^2-b^2-c^2& 0& 0\\
0& 2b^2-a^2-c^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0& 2c^2-a^2-b^2
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:ellipse0}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this expression is given in a specific coordinate frame with primary components of the moment of inertia. To generalize result (\ref{eq:ellipse0}) and to develop an expression for the gravitational phase shift due to an ellipsoid, we first rotate ${\cal T}_0^{ij}$ from (\ref{eq:ellipse0}) to assume a generic orientation with respect to the incident direction of the EM wave propagation, given by $\vec k$. After that, we rotate ${\cal T}_0^{ij} $ using (\ref{eq:rot3}) and substitute the result in (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*}), while using the parametrization for $\vec b$ and $\vec k$ from (\ref{eq:note-k})--(\ref{eq:note-x}). To conduct this transformation, we study rotations of STF tensors and derive expressions to describe arbitrary orientations of a body with respect to the chosen coordinate system. As a result, the gravitational phase shift due to an ellipsoid has the from:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)&=&kr_g\frac{1}{10b^2_0}\Big\{\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[\Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2+b^2\big)-c^2\Big)\sin^2\beta_s+
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)
(1+\cos^2\beta_s)\cos2\psi\Big]+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 34pt +\,\sin[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\big(a^2-b^2\big)\sin2\psi\cos\beta_s\Big\},
\label{eq:eik-ellip0}
\end{eqnarray}
where we already see the familiar harmonic structure of the astroid caustic. Specifically, this result exhibits the form that we seen in the case of axially-symmetric mass distributions, e.g., \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles,Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics}, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)=kr_g\frac{Q_{\tt e2}}{10b^2_0}\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s-\phi_{\tt e2})],
\label{eq:eik-ellip}
\end{eqnarray}
where we introduced the magnitude, $Q_{\tt e2}$, and phase, $\phi_{\tt e2}$, for a generic ellipsoid:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{\tt e2}&=&
\Big\{\Big[\sin^2\beta_s\, \Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2+b^2\big)-c^2\Big)+
(1+\cos^2\beta_s)\cos2\psi\, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)\Big]^2+
\Big[\cos\beta_s\sin2\psi\Big(a^2-b^2\Big)\Big]^2\Big\}^\frac{1}{2},
\label{eq:eik-defcc2-a1}\\
\cos2\phi_{\tt e2}&=&\frac{\sin^2\beta_s\, \Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2+b^2\big)-c^2\Big)+
(1+\cos^2\beta_s)\cos2\psi\, {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)}{Q_{\tt e2}},\qquad \sin2\phi_{\tt e2}=\frac{\cos\beta_s\sin2\psi\Big(a^2-b^2\Big)}{Q_{\tt e2}},~~~~
\label{eq:eik-defcc2-b1}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\phi_s, \beta_s,\psi$ being the three Euler angles for an arbitrary rotation. Also, note that for the ellipsoid, to avoid conflicting notation with the size of one of the semi-axes, we use $b_0$ to denote the impact parameter in the denominator.
In the case of axial symmetry, when $a=b$, expressions (\ref{eq:eik-defcc2-a1})--(\ref{eq:eik-defcc2-b1}) reduce to $Q_{\tt e2}=(a^2-c^2)\sin^2\beta_s$ and $\phi_{\tt e2}=0$. This can also be confirmed by substituting $a=b$ into expression (\ref{eq:ellipse0}), which then reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}^{ij}_{0\, \rm axisym} = \frac{(a^2-c^2)}{5}M
\begin{bmatrix}
{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}& 0& 0\\
0& {\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}& 0 \\
0 & 0& -{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}
\end{bmatrix}\simeq\frac{2}{5}Ma^2\Big(\frac{a-c}{a}\Big)
\begin{bmatrix}
{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}& 0& 0\\
0& {\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}& 0 \\
0 & 0& -{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}
\end{bmatrix},
\label{sec:el-ax}
\end{eqnarray}
which is consistent with the STF moment of a spheroid (ellipsoid of revolution) \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. To demonstrate this, we use (\ref{eq:rot3}) to rotate ${\cal T}_0^{ij} $ from (\ref{sec:el-ax}) to the needed coordinate frame using (\ref{eq:rot3}). Then, we substitute the result into (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*}) (or, equivalently, in (\ref{eq:eik-ellip})) and derive an expression for the gravitational phase shift introduced by lensing on a spheroid:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)&=&
-kr_gJ_2\frac{a^2}{2b^2}\sin^2\beta_s\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)],
\label{eq:eik-ax-ellip2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the normalized dimensionless quadrupole is $J_2=-{\textstyle\frac{2}{5}}(a-c)/a$, as usual and $b$ now is the impact parameter. This result is known from \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles}, were we studied the case of a lens with axial symmetry.
Next, using the combination (\ref{eq:sft3}), we compute the octupole moment of an ellipsoid to see that all components of the STF octupole mass moment vanish ${\cal T}_0^{ijk}=0$ and, thus, $\xi^{[3]}_b(\vec b)=0$.
Therefore, the next non-vanishing moment is the hexadecapole. With combination (\ref{eq:sft4}), we compute the hexadecapole moment of an ellipsoid in the coordinate system at its center of mass, which results in
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ijkl}= \int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x}){\rm STF}_{ijkl}\big( x^i x^jx^k x^l\big)=
{\small
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\tt A} & 0 & 0\\
0 &{\tt AB} & 0\\
0 & 0 & {\tt AC}
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & {\tt AB} & 0\\
{\tt AB} & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & {\tt AC}\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
{\tt AC} & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & {\tt AB} & 0\\
{\tt AB} & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
{\tt AB} & 0 & 0\\
0 & {\tt B} & 0\\
0 & 0 & {\tt BC}
\end{pmatrix}&
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & {\tt BC}\\\
0 & {\tt BC} & 0\
\end{pmatrix} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & {\tt AC}\\\
0 & 0 & 0\\\
{\tt AC}& 0 & 0\
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\\
0 & 0 & {\tt BC}\\\
0 & {\tt BC} & 0\
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
{\tt AC} & 0 & 0\\\
0 & {\tt BC} & 0\\\
0 & 0 & {\tt C} \
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix},
}
\label{eq:Q4ellipse0}
\end{eqnarray}
where the 6 non-vanishing components $\{\tt A, B, C, AB, AC, BC\}$ have the following form:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\tt A}&=&\frac{3M}{1225}\Big(8a^2\big(a^2-b^2-c^2\big)+3b^4+2b^2c^2+3c^4\Big), \qquad
{\tt AB}=-\frac{3M}{1225}\Big(4\big(a^4+b^4\big)-9a^2b^2-c^4+c^2\big(a^2+b^2\big)\Big),\\
{\tt B}&=&\frac{3M}{1225}\Big(8b^2\big(b^2-a^2-c^2\big)+3a^4+2a^2c^2+3c^4\Big), \qquad
{\tt AC}=-\frac{3M}{1225}\Big(4\big(a^4+c^4\big)-9a^2c^2-b^4+b^2\big(a^2+c^2\big)\Big), \\
{\tt C}&=&\frac{3M}{1225}\Big(8c^2\big(c^2-a^2-b^2\big)+3a^4+2a^2b^2+3b^4\Big), \qquad
{\tt BC}=-\frac{3M}{1225}\Big(4\big(b^4+c^4\big)-9b^2c^2-a^4+a^2\big(b^2+c^2\big)\Big).
\label{eq:Q4ellipseABC}
\end{eqnarray}
To generalize the result, we rotate the STF hexadecapole tensor (\ref{eq:Q4ellipse0})--(\ref{eq:Q4ellipseABC}) to an arbitrary coordinate system by applying the transformation rule from (\ref{eq:rot3}), given as ${\cal T}^{<ijkl>}=R^i_pR^j_qR^k_lR^l_n{\cal T}_0^{<pqln>}.$ Then, we substitute the result in (\ref{eq:eik-ph24*}) and obtain the following expression for the eikonal gravitational phase shift introduced by the hexadecapole moment of an ellipsoid with uniform mass density distribution:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)&=&
\frac{3\,kr_g}{140\,b^4_0}
\Big\{\cos[4 (\phi_\xi -\phi_s)]\Big[{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(a^2-b^2)^2\Big(\big(\cos^2\beta_s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}(1+\cos^2\beta_s)^2\big)\cos4\psi+{\textstyle\frac{3}{4}}\sin^4\beta_s\Big)+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 45pt
+\,\big(a^2-c^2\big)\big(b^2-c^2\big)\sin^4\beta_s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)\big(a^2+b^2-2c^2\big)\cos2\psi\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)\sin^2\beta_s \Big]+\nonumber\\
&+&
\sin[4 (\phi_\xi -\phi_s)]\big(a^2-b^2\big)\Big(\big(a^2+b^2-2c^2\big)\sin^2\beta_s+\big(a^2-b^2\big)\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)\cos2\psi\Big)\sin2\psi\cos\beta_s \Big\}.
\label{eq:eik-ellipsoid4}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the eikonal gravitational phase shift introduced by the hexadecapole of an ellipsoid with uniform density (\ref{eq:eik-ellipsoid4}) takes the familiar harmonic structure:
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)=kr_g \frac{3\,Q_{\tt e4}}{140\,b^4_0} \cos[4(\phi_\xi-\phi_s-\phi_{\tt e4})],
\label{eq:eik-ellip=}
\end{eqnarray}
where the magnitude, $Q_{\tt e4}$, and phase, $\phi_{\tt e4}$, can readily be read-off directly from (\ref{eq:eik-ellipsoid4}).
\subsection{Solid cuboid}
\label{sec:cuboid}
\label{app:stf-cuboid}
Now we consider the STF moments of a solid homogeneous rectangular block of width $a$, depth $b$, height $c$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:cuboid}).
We use the definition for the STF moments (\ref{eq:Iab}) and expressions (\ref{eq:sft2})--(\ref{eq:sft4}), to compute STF mass moments of a cuboid with a uniform density using a coordinate system positioned at its center of mass:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{0}=M=\int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x})=\rho \int_{-a/2}^{a/2} dx \int_{-b/2}^{b/2}dy\int_{-c/2}^{c/2}dz = \rho \,abc \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
\rho=\frac{M}{abc}.
\label{eq:I20cu*}
\end{eqnarray}
Computation of the dipole moment is straightforward and is done in the manner similar to (\ref{eq:I1*}). By doing so, we can easily verify that in the center-of-mass coordinates frame the dipole moment of a cuboid vanishes, ${\cal T}_0^i=0$.
To compute the quadrupole, we again use the corresponding STF expression for the coordinate combination given by (\ref{eq:sft2}). As a result, the STF quadrupole moment of a solid homogeneous rectangular block of width $a$, depth $b$, height $c$ and mass $M$ in a body coordinate frame at is center of mass and oriented along the coordinate axes, has the form
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ij} = \int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x}){\rm STF}_{ij}\big( x^i x^j\big)=\frac{M}{36}
\begin{bmatrix}
2a^2-b^2-c^2& 0& 0\\
0& 2b^2-a^2-c^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0& 2c^2-a^2-b^2
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:cuboid0}
\end{eqnarray}
It is a bit unexpected but, except for the numerical coefficient, this expression for the STF quadrupole mass moment of a cuboid (\ref{eq:cuboid0}) is identical to that of the ellipsoid given by (\ref{eq:ellipse0}). For a generic cuboid, we obtain an expression for the gravitational eikonal phase shift by substituting the components ${\cal T}_0^{ij}$ from (\ref{eq:cuboid0}) into (\ref{eq:rot3}) and then into (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*}).
With this result and using (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*}) and (\ref{eq:rot3}), we have the following result for the gravitational eikonal phase shift
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)&=&kr_g\frac{1}{24 b^2_0}\Big\{\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[\Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2+b^2\big)-c^2\Big)\sin^2\beta_s+
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)
(1+\cos^2\beta_s)\cos2\psi\Big]+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 35pt +\,\sin[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\big(a^2-b^2\big)\sin2\psi\cos\beta_s\Big\},
\label{eq:eik-cuboid1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we already see the familiar harmonic structure of the astroid caustic. Note that the structure of this expression, except for the amplitude, is identical to that derived for an ellipsoid (\ref{eq:eik-ellip0}). This result may be given again in the familiar form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)=kr_g\frac{Q_{\tt e2}}{24 b^2_0}\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s-\phi_{\tt e2})],
\label{eq:eik-cuboid0}
\end{eqnarray}
where the magnitude, $Q_{\tt e2}$, and phase, $\phi_{\tt e2}$, are given by (\ref{eq:eik-defcc2-a1})--(\ref{eq:eik-defcc2-b1}) and we again use $b_0$ to denote the impact parameter, as in (\ref{eq:eik-ellip}). In (\ref{eq:eik-cuboid0}) we recognize the familiar zonal harmonic form of the quadrupole moment, with the axis rotated by $(\phi_s+\phi_{\tt e2})$. Comparing this result (\ref{eq:eik-cuboid0}) to that of an ellipsoid given by (\ref{eq:eik-ellip}), we see that, as expected, the eikonal phase shift induced by a generic cuboid behaves similarly.
Thus, the caustic in the PSF of the gravitating lens of an ellipsoid is a function of two parameters, the magnitude $Q_{e2}$ and rotation angle $(\phi_s+\phi_{\tt e2})$ that are given by (\ref{eq:eik-defcc2-a1})--(\ref{eq:eik-defcc2-b1}).
Note that the STF mass octupole moment of a cuboid vanishes, ${\cal T}_0^{ijk}=0$, thus $\xi^{[3]}_b(\vec b)=0$.
Therefore, the next non-vanishing term in the external gravitational potential produced by a cuboid will be that due to the hexadecapole.
With the combination (\ref{eq:sft4}), we compute the hexadecapole moment of a cuboid in the coordinate system at its center of mass, which results in a structure identical to that of an ellipsoid, (\ref{eq:Q4ellipse0}), with the 6 non-vanishing components $\{\tt A, B, C, AB, AC, BC\}$ given as:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\tt A}&=&\frac{M}{8400}\Big(24a^4-40a^2\big(b^2+c^2\big)+9b^4+10b^2c^2+9c^4\Big), \qquad
{\tt AB}=-\frac{M}{8400}\Big(12\big(a^4+b^4\big)-45a^2b^2+5c^2\big(a^2+b^2\big)-3c^4\Big),\\
{\tt B}&=&\frac{M}{8400}\Big(24b^4-40b^2\big(a^2+c^2\big)+9a^4+10a^2c^2+9c^4\Big), \qquad
{\tt AC}=-\frac{M}{8400}\Big(12\big(a^4+c^4\big)-45a^2c^2+5b^2\big(a^2+c^2\big)-3b^4\Big),\\
{\tt C}&=&\frac{M}{8400}\Big(24c^4-40c^2\big(a^2+b^2\big)+9a^4+10a^2b^2+9b^4\Big), \qquad
{\tt BC}=-\frac{M}{8400}\Big(12\big(b^4+c^4\big)-45b^2c^2+5a^2\big(b^2+c^2\big)-3a^4\Big).
\label{eq:Q4cuboidABC}
\end{eqnarray}
To generalize this result, we rotate the STF hexadecapole tensor (\ref{eq:Q4ellipse0})--(\ref{eq:Q4ellipseABC}) to an arbitrary coordinate system by applying the transformation rule from (\ref{eq:rot3}), given as
${\cal T}^{<ijkl>}=R^i_pR^j_qR^k_lR^l_n{\cal T}_0^{<pqln>}.$ Then, we substitute the result in (\ref{eq:eik-ph24*}) and obtain the following expression for the eikonal gravitational phase shift introduced by the hexadecapole of an ellipsoid:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)&=&
\frac{kr_g}{960\,b^4_0}
\Big\{\cos[4 (\phi_\xi -\phi_s)]\Big[{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)\big(3a^2+3b^2-10c^2\big)\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)\sin^2\beta_s\cos2\psi+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip -50pt
+\,{\textstyle\frac{1}{8}}\Big(9\big(a^4+b^4\big)+10a^2b^2+24c^4-40c^2\big(a^2+b^2\big)\Big)\sin^4\beta_s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{8}}\big(3a^4-10a^2b^2+3b^4\big)\Big(4\cos^2\beta_s+\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)^2\Big)\cos4\psi\Big]+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip -50pt +\,
\sin[4 (\phi_\xi -\phi_s)]\Big(\big(a^2-b^2\big)\big(3a^2+3b^2-10c^2\big)\sin^2\beta_s+\big(3a^4-10a^2b^2+3b^4\big)\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)\cos2\psi\Big)\sin2\psi\cos\beta_s\Big\}.
\label{eq:eik-cuboid4}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, as in the case of an ellipsoid, the eikonal gravitational phase shift introduced by the hexadecapole of a cuboid with uniform density takes the familiar harmonic structure
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)=kr_g \frac{Q_{\tt cu4}}{960\,b^4_0} \cos[4(\phi_\xi-\phi_s-\phi_{\tt cu4})],
\label{eq:eik-cuboid}
\end{eqnarray}
where the magnitude, $Q_{\tt cu4}$, and phase, $\phi_{\tt cu4}$, can be readily read off directly from (\ref{eq:eik-cuboid4}).
We can thus can see that, although the quadrupole moments of the ellipsoid and cuboid introduce very similar structures of the eikonal phase shift, at the level of the hexadecapole their contributions are different.
\subsection{Trirectangular tetrahedron}
\label{sec:tri-tetra}
\label{sec:terta}
The level of degeneracy between shapes such as the cuboid and the ellipsoid, or the cylinder vs. the right circular cone, may perhaps be explained by the fact that all these shapes have either rotational or ``north--south'' symmetry, or both. For this reason, we also opted to investigate a shape that has neither. We picked for this purpose the trirectangular tetrahedron. Despite its lack of basic symmetries, this shape is nonetheless simple enough to be investigated analytically, thus advancing our investigation of observables available in gravitational lensing.
To compute the STF moments of a trirectangular tetrahedron with uniform density, we use the definition for the STF moments (\ref{eq:Iab}) and expressions (\ref{eq:sft2})--(\ref{eq:sft4}). To define the tetrahedron we used the intercept form formula which is $x/a+y/b+z/c=1$, where $a,b,c$ are $x,y,z$ intercepts. Then, the mass is computed to be
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{0}\equiv M=\int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x})=\rho \int_0^a dx \int_0^{b(1-x/a)}dy \int_0^{c(1-x/a-y/b)} dz=\rho {\textstyle\frac{1}{6}} abc
\qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
\rho=\frac{M}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}} abc}.
\label{eq:I0-tet}
\end{eqnarray}
With this, we compute the dipole moment:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big\{{\cal T}_0^{1},{\cal T}_0^{2},{\cal T}_0^{3}\Big\}&=&\frac{M}{{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}} abc} \int_0^a dx \int_0^{b(1-x/a)}dy \int_0^{c(1-x/a-y/b)} dz\Big\{x-x_0,y-y_0,z-z_0\Big\}=
M\Big\{{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}a-x_0,{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}b-y_0,{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}c-z_0\Big\}.
\label{eq:I1-tet1}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the center of gravity of a trirectangular tetrahedron is at the point with coordinates $\vec x_0=\{{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}a,{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}b,{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}c\}$. With this choice of $\vec x_0$, all the components of the dipole moment vanish, ${\cal T}_0^i=0$.
Using a coordinate system positioned at the center of mass of a solid trirectangular tetrahedron with width $a$, depth $b$, hight $c$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:tetra}), and mass $M$, we compute its STF quadrupole moment in a body coordinate frame at is center of mass and oriented along the coordinate axes:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ij}= \int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x}){\rm STF}_{ij}\big( (x^i-x_0^i) (x^j-x_0^j)\big)=\frac{M}{80}
\begin{bmatrix}
2a^2-b^2-c^2& -ab& -ac\\
-ab& 2b^2-a^2-c^2& -bc \\
-ac & -bc& 2c^2-a^2-b^2
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:tetra2}
\end{eqnarray}
For a generic tetrahedron, we obtain an expression for the gravitational eikonal phase shift by substituting the components ${\cal T}_0^{ij}$ from (\ref{eq:tetra2}) into (\ref{eq:rot3}) and then into (\ref{eq:eik-ph22p*}). As a result, we have the following eikonal phase shift:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)&=&kr_g\frac{3}{160 b^2_0}\Big\{\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[\Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2+b^2\big)-c^2\Big)\sin^2\beta_s+
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)(1+\cos^2\beta_s)\cos2\psi\Big]+
\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 40pt+ \,
\sin[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\big(a^2-b^2\big)\sin2\psi\cos\beta_s\Big\}+\nonumber\\
&+&kr_g\frac{3}{160 b^2_0}\Big\{\cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[
{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}ab\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)\sin2\psi-{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}c\big(a\sin\psi+b\cos\psi\big)\sin2\beta_s\Big]+
\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 40pt+ \,
\sin[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}c \big(a\cos\psi-b\sin\psi\big)\sin\beta_s-{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}ab\cos2\psi\cos\beta_s\Big]\Big\},
\label{eq:eik-tetra2}
\end{eqnarray}
where again we used $b_0$ to denote the impact parameter, which is nearly identical to the ellipsoid with (\ref{eq:eik-defcc2-a1})--(\ref{eq:eik-defcc2-b1}). Note that the structure of the first two lines of this expression is identical to that of (\ref{eq:eik-cuboid1}) and is due to diagonal components of the quadrupole SRF tensor (\ref{eq:tetra2}). The last two lines of this expression are due to non-diagonal components that are present because of the broken north--south symmetry. In any event, expression (\ref{eq:eik-tetra2}) may be cast in the familiar harmonic structure:
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[2]}_b(\vec b)&=&kr_g \frac{3\,Q_{\tt t2}}{160\,b^2_0} \cos[2(\phi_\xi-\phi_s-\phi_{\tt t2})],
\label{eq:eik-tetra2=}
\end{eqnarray}
where the magnitude, $Q_{\tt t4}$, and phase, $\phi_{\tt t4}$, can readily be read off directly from (\ref{eq:eik-tetra2}).
We have computed the STF octupole mass moments of the trirectangular tetrahedron. Using coordinate system positioned at the center of mass of a solid trirectangular tetrahedron, we compute its STF octupole moment in a body coordinate frame at is center of mass and oriented along the coordinate axes:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_0^{ijk}&=& \int d^3{\vec x} \, \rho({\vec x}){\rm STF}_{ij}\big( (x^i-x_0^i) (x^j-x_0^j)(x^k-x_0^k)\big)=\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{M}{2400}
{\small
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
3a(2a^2+b^2+c^2)\\
-b(4a^2+3b^2-c^2)\\
-c(4a^2-b^2+3c^2)
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
-b(4a^2+3b^2-c^2)\\
-a(3a^2+4b^2-c^2)\\
5abc
\end{pmatrix}
&
\begin{pmatrix}
-c(4a^2-b^2+3c^2)\\
5abc\\
-a(3a^2-b^2+4c^2)
\end{pmatrix}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
-b(4a^2+3b^2-c^2)\\
-a(3a^2+4b^2-c^2)\\
5abc
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
-a(3a^2+4b^2-c^2)\\
3b(a^2+2b^2+c^2)\\
c(a^2-4b^2-3c^2)
\end{pmatrix}&
\begin{pmatrix}
5abc\\
c(a^2-4b^2-2c^2)\\
b(a^2-3b^2-4c^2)
\end{pmatrix} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
-c(4a^2-b^2+4c^2)\\
5abc\\
-a(3a^2-b^2+4c^2)
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
5abc\\
c(a^2-4b^2-3c^2)\\
b(a^2-3b^2-4c^2)
\end{pmatrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
-a(3a^2-b^2+4c^2)\\
b(a^2-3b^2-4c^2)\\
3c(a^2+b^2+c^2)
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}.
}
\label{eq:tetra3}
\end{eqnarray}
For a generic tetrahedron, we obtain an expression for the gravitational eikonal phase shift by substituting the components ${\cal T}_0^{ijk}$ from (\ref{eq:tetra3}) into (\ref{eq:rot3}) and then into (\ref{eq:eik-ph23*}). Again, to generalize the results, we rotate the STF octupole tensor (\ref{eq:tetra3}) to an arbitrary coordinate system by using the rule from (\ref{eq:rot3}):
${\cal T}^{ijk}=R^i_pR^j_qR^k_s{\cal T}_0^{pqs}.$
After that, we substitute the result in (\ref{eq:eik-ph23*}) and obtain the following expression for the gravitational phase shift introduced by the octupole of a trirectangular tetrahedron:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[3]}_b(\vec b)&=&\frac{kr_g}{2400\,b^3_0}\Big\{\cos[3(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[\Big(a\big(3a^2-b^2+4c^2\big)\cos\psi+b\big(a^2-3b^2-4c^2\big)\sin\psi\Big)\sin^2\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&+\,5c\Big(ab\cos2\psi-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)\sin2\psi\Big)\sin2\beta_s-
b\big(a^2+2b^2+c^2\big)\big(\sin^2\psi-3\cos^2\beta_s\cos^2\psi\big)\sin\psi+
\nonumber\\
&&\hskip -40pt
+\,a\big(2a^2+b^2+c^2\big)\big(\cos^2\psi-3\cos^2\beta_s\sin^2\psi\big)\cos\psi +a\big(3a^2+4b^2-c^2\big)\Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}\big(\cos\psi+3\cos3\psi\big)\cos^2\beta_s-\cos\psi\sin^2\psi\Big)+\nonumber\\
&&+\,
b\big(4a^2+3b^2-c^2\big)\Big(\cos^2\psi\sin\psi-{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}\big(\sin\psi-3\sin3\psi\big)\cos^2\beta_s\Big)\Big]+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip -40pt+ \,
\sin[3(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[{\textstyle\frac{5}{2}}c\big(a^2+b^2+2c^2\big)\sin^3\beta_s+
5c\Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}c\big(a^2-b^2\big)\cos2\psi+5ab\sin2\psi \Big)\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)\sin\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&
+\,\Big(b\big(3b^2-a^2+4c^2\big)\cos\psi+a\big(3a^2-b^2+4c^2\big)\sin\psi\Big){\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\sin2\beta_s\sin\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip -40pt
+\,\Big(b\big(a^2+2b^2+c^2\big)\big(3\sin^2\psi-\cos^2\beta_s\cos^2\psi\big)\cos\psi+a\big(2a^2+b^2+c^2\big)\big(3\cos^2\psi-\cos^2\beta_s\sin\psi\big)\sin\psi\Big)\cos\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&+\,{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}a\big(3a^2+4b^2-c^2\big)\big(4\cos^2\beta_s\cos^2\psi\sin\psi+3\sin3\psi-\sin\psi\big)\cos\beta_s-\nonumber\\
&&-
\,{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}b\big(4a^2+3b^2-c^2\big)\big(\cos\psi+3\cos3\psi-4\cos^2\beta_s\cos\psi\sin^2\psi\big)\cos\beta_s\Big]\Big\},
\label{eq:eik-tetra3}
\end{eqnarray}
where the harmonic structure of the result is obvious. In fact, (\ref{eq:eik-tetra3}) may be cast in the familiar form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[3]}_b(\vec b)=kr_g \frac{Q_{\tt t3}}{2400\,b^3_0} \cos[3(\phi_\xi-\phi_s-\phi_{\tt t3})],
\label{eq:eik-tetra3=}
\end{eqnarray}
where the magnitude, $Q_{\tt t3}$, and phase, $\phi_{\tt t3}$, can readily be read-off directly from (\ref{eq:eik-tetra3}).
We have computed the STF hexadecapole of a tetrahedron to verify that all of its $3\times3\times3\times3=81$ components are non-vanishing, making the results rather lengthy. Because of this, we will not present the hexadecapole moment of the trirectangular tetrahedron here, but show only the gravitational phase shift. Again, to generalize this expression, we rotate the STF hexadecapole tensor to an arbitrary coordinate system using the rule ${\cal T}^{ijkl}=R^i_pR^j_qR^k_sR^l_w{\cal T}_0^{pqsw}$
from (\ref{eq:rot3}) and obtain the following expression for the gravitational phase shift introduced by the STF hexadecapole mass moment of a trirectangular tetrahedron:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)&=&\frac{kr_g}{35840 \,b_0^4} \Big\{\cos[4(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[{\textstyle\frac{1}{8}}\Big(117\big(a^4+b^4\big)+74a^2b^2+312c^4-296c^2\big(a^2+b^2\big)\Big)\sin^4\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 35pt+ \,
\Big(bc\big(a^2-39b^2+52c^2\big)\cos\psi-ac\big(39a^2-b^2-52c^2\big)\sin\psi\Big)\cos\beta_s\sin^3\beta_s+
\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 0pt+ \,
\Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)\big(39(a^2+b^2)-74c^2\big)\cos2\psi+ab\big(13(a^2+b^2)+2c^2\big)\sin2\psi\Big)\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)\sin^2\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 0pt+ \,
{\textstyle\frac{1}{8}}\Big(bc\big(a^2+13b^2\big)\cos3\psi-ac\big(13a^2+b^2\big)\sin3\psi\Big)\big(14\sin2\beta_s+\sin4\beta_s\big)+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 0pt+ \,
{\textstyle\frac{1}{8}}\Big(\big(39(a^4+b^4)-74a^2b^2\big)\cos4\psi+52ab\big(a^2-b^2\big)\sin4\psi\Big)\big(1+6\cos^2\beta_s+\cos^4\beta_s\big)
\Big]+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip -20pt+ \,
\sin[4(\phi_\xi-\phi_s)]\Big[\Big(ac\big(39a^2-b^2-52c^2\big)\cos\psi+bc\big(a^2-39b^2+52c^2\big)\sin\psi\Big)\sin^3\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 0pt+ \,
\Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(a^2-b^2\big)\big(39(a^2+b^2)-74c^2\big)\sin2\psi-ab\big(13(a^2+b^2)+2c^2\big)\cos2\psi\Big)\sin2\beta_s\sin\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 0pt+
\,\Big(ac\big(13a^2+b^2\big)\cos3\psi+bc\big(a^2+13b^2\big)\sin3\phi\Big)\big(1+3\cos^2\beta_s\big)\sin\beta_s+\nonumber\\
&&\hskip 0pt+ \,
\Big({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\big(39(a^4+b^4)-74a^2b^2\big)\sin4\psi-26ab(a^2-b^2)\cos4\psi\Big)\big(1+\cos^2\beta_s\big)\cos\beta_s
\Big]\Big\},
\label{eq:eik-tetra4}
\end{eqnarray}
where one can easily see the harmonic structure of the gravitational shift due to the hexadecapole STF moment. As before, expression (\ref{eq:eik-tetra4}) may be cast in the familiar harmonic structure:
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{[4]}_b(\vec b)&=&kr_g \frac{Q_{\tt t4}}{35840\,b^4_0} \cos[4(\phi_\xi-\phi_s-\phi_{\tt t4})],
\label{eq:eik-tetra4=}
\end{eqnarray}
where the magnitude, $Q_{\tt t4}$, and phase, $\phi_{\tt t4}$, can readily be read-off directly from (\ref{eq:eik-tetra4}).
Therefore, the gravitational phase shifts introduced by the quadrupole (\ref{eq:eik-tetra2}), octupole (\ref{eq:eik-tetra3}) and hexadecapole (\ref{eq:eik-tetra4}) of the trirectangular tetrahedron obey the same harmonic structure as for other solids where again only two parameters control the magnitude and rotational angle of the resulted caustics. These two parameters depend on the dimensions of the tetrahedron (i.e., $a,b,c$) and its orientation with respect to the observer (i.e., the three Euler angles, $(\phi_s,\beta_s,\psi)$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:rot})).
\section{Reconstructing the lens from imaging point sources}
\label{sec:appl}
We demonstrated how gravitational lensing by extended compact lenses leads to results that resemble lensing by axisymmetric gravitating bodies whose gravitational field can be represented by a set of zonal harmonics \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. In the case of lenses with arbitrary symmetry, an additional parameter characterizing a rotation appears at each each multipole order. To explore this, we considered lensing by the lower-order mass multipoles of several simple geometric shapes of uniform mass density. This choice, of course, is not intended to imply that there are actual astrophysical lenses that are shaped like a cuboid or a right circular cone. Rather, these cases serve as representative worked examples, showing how, once the tensor moments of inertia of the lens are known, the rest is straightforward: the corresponding lens can be modeled, its PSF and the resulting caustics can be calculated, and the PSF can be convolved with that of an imaging telescope with ease, in a process that is almost mechanical. This simplicity is achieved because the complex three-dimensional structure of the lens is projected onto the thin lens plane. Unfortunately it also implies that we can learn only so much about a particular lens by studying its caustics or the images that it projects, as seen from a single vantage point such as the solar system. That situation would improve if we were able to have observations done by multiple apertures separated by large baselines.
\subsection{Compact formalism}
To investigate if it is possible to distinguish between physically different gravitational lenses by studying the images that they form given a known source, such as a point source, consistently with Eq.~(84) in \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}, we introduce a convenient shorthand notation, $\tau_\ell =(2\ell-2)!!\big({t^{+2}_\ell +t^{\times2}_\ell}\big)^\frac{1}{2}/\ell!R^\ell=(2\ell-2)!!\,\sqrt{C_{\ell\ell}^2+S_{\ell\ell}^2}$, where $R$ is the size of the lens and $C_{\ell\ell}$ and $S_{\ell\ell}$ are the appropriate spherical harmonics of its mass distribution (see \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments} for details). This notation allows us to write (\ref{eq:amp-A+}) in a compact form:
{}
\begin{eqnarray}
A(\vec x) &=&e^{ikr_g\ln 4k^2rr_0}
\frac{k}{ir}\frac{1}{2\pi}\iint d^2\vec b \,\exp\Big[ik\Big(\frac{1}{2 \tilde r}({\vec b} - \vec x)^2-
2r_g\Big(\ln kb-\sum_{\ell=2}^\infty
\Big(\frac{R}{b}\Big)^\ell\tau_\ell\cos[\ell(\phi_\xi-\phi_\ell)] \Big)\Big)\Big],
\label{eq:amp-A++}
\end{eqnarray}
which also allows us to express (\ref{eq:B2-STF}) using a pair of parameters $\tau_\ell$ and $\phi_\ell$ characterizing the contribution of each multipole. An observation of the PSF (given by (\ref{eq:psf=})) or alternatively, an image of a compact (point) source as seen through the lens of an imaging telescope, given by (\ref{eq:BinscER}), allows us to estimate the values of $r_g$ (characterizing the monopole mass), $\tau_\ell$ and $\phi_\ell$ (characterizing contribution of each $\ell$-th multipole).
As a general rule, if an image of a known source is recovered to multipole order $n$ ($2\le\ell\le n$), then by using a suitable numerical optimization method we can recover not just $r_g$, but an additional $2(n-1)$ degrees of freedom in the form of the $\tau_\ell$ and $\phi_\ell$ parameters. This is clearly less information than the full three-dimensional multipole representation of the lens, in the form of $2\ell+1$ degrees of freedom (spherical harmonic coefficients) at each multipole order $\ell$ or the corresponding $2\ell+1$ independent terms in a 3-dimensional STF tensor of rank $\ell$. The question then naturally arises: How much information can be recovered about the mass distribution of a lens? This question can have direct astrophysical significance, as studying lensed images can help reveal information about the mass distribution of the lensing object (e.g., a foreground galaxy or galaxy cluster).
\subsection{Quadrupole lenses}
\label{sec:J2}
Quadrupole lenses yield astroid caustics that may differ in size or phase of rotation, but otherwise they are identical. They have the same fourfold symmetry. The Einstein cross corresponding to a compact, pointlike source, if viewed from a location alongside its optical axis, will exhibit the same symmetry: four spots or arclets of light, equal in shape and intensity, spaced 90$^\circ$ apart. Therefore, if all that can be observed is the effect of the quadrupole moment, nothing is revealed about the internal mass distribution of the lens. (Similar observation on the limited utility of the images produced with quadrupole lenses for a lens's characterization was made in \cite{Walls-Williams:2018}). This is the case when the shape or orientation of the lens is such that the octupole and higher moments are suppressed, or if the impact parameter is too large for these moments to play a significant role.
This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:montage34}. This figure shows all five of the idealized shapes that we considered, modeled up to the quadrupole moment, using a parametrization that yielded projections of comparable size. As we can see, the images have no distinguishing features. There is no way to tell if an astroid was produced by a cylinder or a tetrahedron. Differences in size can be attributed, e.g., to the magnitude of the quadrupole moment, the size of the impact parameter in relation to the dimensions of the object, or the angle $\beta_s$, revealing nothing about the internal structure of the object in question.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.91]{montage34}
\vskip -10pt
\caption{\label{fig:montage34}The quadrupole-only ($J_3=J_4=0$) case, discussed in Section~\ref{sec:J2}: PSF (top row), telescopic view (middle row), and a three-dimensional isometric representation (bottom row; to show relative signal amplitudes) of the telescopic view of light projected by the five shapes that we investigated: The ellipsoid, the cuboid, the cylinder, the cone and the tetrahedron. Parameter choices are arbitrary, picked to offer images of comparable size. As only the $J_2$ contribution is shown, the astroids of the PSF differ only in size (the chosen sizes for the shapes were not fine-tuned by us to produce identical sized astroids); they lack distinguishing features. Correspondingly, the telescopic images all share the same basic fourfold symmetry: four identical arcs spaced 90$^\circ$ apart. The smaller the astroid, the wider the arcs; the limiting case when the astroid shrinks to a spit is the full Einstein-ring of the monopole lens.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Octupole contribution and ``north--south'' asymmetry}
\label{sec:J3}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.91]{montage4}
\vskip -10pt
\caption{\label{fig:montage4}Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:montage34}, but with both the quadrupole and octupole moments shown (as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:J3}), only the hexadecapole suppressed ($J_4=0$). Note that while the ellipsoid, cuboid, and cylinder images remain unchanged, both the cone and the tetrahedron show distinguishing features that break the symmetry of the astroid caustic. The corresponding Einstein crosses in the telescopic view no longer feature four identical arcs of light, but they still retain an axis of symmetry.}
\end{figure}
As we have seen, the cone and tetrahedron lack the ``north--south`` symmetry that characterizes the cuboid, ellipsoid, and cylinder and is indicated by the presence of an octupole moment. This suggests that if the presence of the octupole moment is detected in a gravitational lensing image, we may conclude that the lens lacks ``north--south'' symmetry. In Fig.~\ref{fig:montage4}, we show all five shapes again, up to the octupole moment. The presence of this moment noticeably distorts the astroid caustic. This has an observable impact on the corresponding telescopic images. Whereas quadrupole-only images are characterized by four identical arclets of light, in the presence of the octupole the arclets are unequal in size. However, note that a symmetry is still clearly obvious: in the images representing the cone (fourth column) and tetrahedron (fifth column), the resulting Einstein-crosses, as depicted, both have a horizontal axis of symmetry.
This breaking of the fourfold symmetry of the quadrupole, indicative of the presence of an octupole moment, may be sufficient to distinguish astrophysical lenses that have ``north--south'' symmetry (e.g., a spiral galaxy) from other, irregular lenses. This may also lead to an improved ability to tease out mass distribution properties of a lens.
\subsection{The hexadecapole and axial symmetry}
\label{sec:J4}
Finally, we look at lensing by our chosen objects using their moments up to, and including, the hexadecapole moment. The result is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:montage5}. What these images reveal is that when the PSF moments can be reconstructed up to the hexadecapole level, important symmetry properties of the lens may be recoverable.
Of the five shapes investigated, only the cylinder (middle column in Fig. ~\ref{fig:montage5}) retains the unbroken fourfold symmetry. This symmetry is retained despite the presence of the hexadecapole moment. While it introduces additional structure to the arclets that form the Einstein cross, the four arclets in the telescopic view remain identical.
The ellipsoid (first column) and cuboid (second column) lack axial symmetry, but have ``north--south'' symmetry. Consequently, the resulting images each have two axes of symmetry. The astroid is elongated, and in the Einstein cross, additional structure appears in the arclets, but the arclets are still spaced 90$^\circ$ apart, and opposing arclets are still identical copies of each other.
The cone (fourth column) shows a more elaborate structure. Its axial symmetry is evident in the shape of the caustic. The resulting telescope image has an axis of symmetry.
However, the trirectangular tetrahedron, which lacks both axial and ``north--south'', yields an irregular, distorted astroid shape. The corresponding Einstein cross has no axis of symmetry and four arclets that are not identical.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.91]{montage5}
\vskip -10pt
\caption{\label{fig:montage5}As in Fig.~\ref{fig:montage34} but with all moments up to the hexadecapole present (as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:J4}). The hexadecapole contribution yields a noticeable elongation of the astroid PSF of the ellipsoid and cuboid. These shapes lack axial symmetry. In contrast, the cylinder is axially symmetric and the corresponding PSF and Einstein cross (middle column) retain the fourfold symmetry. The axially symmetric cone (fourth column) yields an Einstein cross that has an axis of symmetry; no such symmetry is present in the Einstein cross of the tetrahedron, which has neither axial nor ``north--south'' symmetry.}
\end{figure}
To what extent are these results artifacts of our parameter choices, in particular the orientation of the shapes that we chose for this demonstration? Fig.~\ref{fig:montage45} depicts the same five shapes, but rotated by $\psi=\pi/4$ in (\ref{eq:rot}). As we can see, this rotation indeed changes both the PSFs and the resulting telescopic images. However, the essential properties that we described above remain. In particular, the cylinder (middle column) retains its fourfold symmetry; the ellipsoid and cuboid still feature two perpendicular axes of symmetry; the cone still has one symmetry axis, whereas the tetrahedron remains the most irregular.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.91]{montage45}
\vskip -10pt
\caption{\label{fig:montage45}As Fig.~\ref{fig:montage5}, but rotated by $\psi=\pi/4$ in accordance with Eq.~(\ref{eq:rot}). While this changes the orientation and size of the resulting projections and telescopic images, their essential differences remain evident.}
\end{figure}
Lastly, we also introduced a rotation by $\beta_{\rm s}=\pi/4$. Once again, the sizes and orientations of the resulting images changed, but they retained the same essential differences in their symmetry properties.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.91]{montageb45}
\vskip -10pt
\caption{\label{fig:montageb45}As in Fig.~\ref{fig:montage45} but rotated this time by $\beta_{\rm s}=\pi/4$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Reconstructing the lens from strong lensing observations}
The results presented in the preceding subsections are worth pondering. Investigating only the STF quadrupole moments might have led us to the premature conclusion that due to the degeneracy inherent to the TT projection (see \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}), some shapes may not be distinguishable at all. However, this is not the case, and that is readily demonstrated by the hexadecapole moment of a cuboid and related phase shift (\ref{eq:eik-cuboid4}).
In Table~\ref{tb:shapes} we offer an overview of the various lenses investigated and the resulting properties of the corresponding multipoles. What is remarkable is that despite the inherent loss of information as a result of the TT projection, key symmetry properties of the lens remain observable in the lensed images, so the mass distribution of the lens can at least be partially reconstructed.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tb:shapes}Comparison of the STF multipole parameters characterizing the shapes that we investigated. Qualitative distinction of most shapes is possible if the presence or absence of a multipole moment and the corresponding phase angle can be determined unambiguously.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|}
~ & $J_2\ne 0$ & $J_3\ne 0$ & $\phi_3\ne\phi_2$ & $J_4\ne 0$ & $\phi_4\ne\phi_2$ \\\hline\hline
sphere & ~ & ~ & ~ & ~ & ~ \\
cube & ~ & ~ & ~ & x & ~ \\
cylinder & x & ~ & ~ & x & ~ \\
ellipsoid & x & ~ & ~ & x & x \\
cuboid & x & ~ & ~ & x & x \\
cone & x & x & ~ & x & ~ \\
tetrahedron & x & x & x & x & x \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -10pt
\end{table}
This may have real, useful astronomical consequences. The lens associated with strong lensing images may be a foreground object, such as a galaxy. The distribution of visible matter in such a lens may be well known from observation, but much of the lensing mass is presumed to be invisible dark matter. What is its distribution? When visible matter has rotational symmetry, e.g., in a spiral galaxy well modeled by a bulge-and-disk representation, does the corresponding halo of dark matter have the same axial symmetry? Correspondingly, if the lens is an irregular galaxy, should we expect a detectable presence of the $J_3$ moment in lensed images, indicating that the dark matter halo has the same lack of symmetry? Or would dark matter have its own profile, e.g., a spherically symmetric halo \cite{NFW1996} even when visible matter shows irregular distribution?
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
\label{sec:end}
Descriptions of the gravitational field must deal with the nonlinear nature of the general theory of relativity. Many approximations were developed for this purpose \cite{MTW,Will_book93}. A weak field and slow motion approximation (WFSM) \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2013} is often used to describe observations (e.g., see \cite{Will_book93,Turyshev:2012nw,Turyshev-GRACE-FO:2014} and reference therein). Once the WFSM approximation is introduced, the next step is how to describe the source of the gravitational field. The situation is quite simple when dealing with point sources \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017}; extended sources require a proper description \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2019-extend,Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles}.
When dealing with extended objects, their external gravitational potential is often expressed in terms of the spherical harmonics \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles}. When the body has axial symmetry, its gravitational potential is represented purely by zonal harmonics, $J_{2n}, n\in \{ 1,..N\}$. However, even in this case, finding analytical solutions is challenging and only a few of such solutions are known and only for the lowest harmonics, namely for $J_2$ and $J_4$ \cite{Klioner:1991SvA,Will_book93}. An alternative formalism uses STF tensors to represent multipole moments. This representation is mathematically equivalent to spherical harmonics, and allows for the description of light propagation by accounting for multipoles of any order \cite{Thorne:1980,Blanchet-Damour:1986,Blanchet-Damour:1989,Kopeikin:1997,Mathis-LePoncinLafitte:2007,Soffel-Han:2019}.
We used STF multipole moments to treat gravitational lensing within a wave-optical framework for axisymmetric bodies \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-multipoles, Turyshev-Toth:2021-caustics,Turyshev-Toth:2021-all-regions} as well as bodies with arbitrary mass distributions \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. The STF approach offers a technical advantage by allowing for a closed form solution while integrating the equations of light propagation in the vicinity of a generic lens. As a result, we were able to develop a wave-optical treatment of gravitational lenses of the most generic structure and internal mass distribution \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2021-STF-moments}. Our powerful approach permits us to not only reconstruct the caustic structure of the lens PSF, but also accurately predict the wavelength-dependent view seen by an observing telescope, including the Einstein-ring of the monopole lens, the Einstein-cross of the quadrupole lens, and more complex cases involving multiple spots and arclets of light that are formed by the lens.
To demonstrate the utility of our approach and to emphasize the physics of the related phenomena, we considered a select set of unusual gravitational lenses in the form of common geometric shapes including the ellipsoid, the cuboid, the cylinder, the right circular cone, and the tetrahedron. We also show how one technically computes the STF multipole mass moments. Specifically, for the least symmetric of these objects, the cone and the tetrahedron, we derived expressions for their octupole moments, and for the cube, cylinder, the right circular cone we computed the hexadecapole moments. We used these results in conjunction with our existing numerical codes to calculate the corresponding PSF and simulated views of lensing as seen through a thin lens imaging telescope.
These modeled objects have different symmetry properties. Some are axially symmetric, some are not. Some have ``north-south'' symmetry, some do not. In that, they resemble various classes of astronomical objects. Although much information is lost when a gravitational lens is studied through the images it projects to an observer at a single vantage point, remarkably, the fundamental symmetry properties of the lens may be recoverable if the presence and phase angle of the $J_3$ and $J_4$ moments can be unambiguously determined. This can help establish better constraints on the dynamics of dark matter halos that surround astronomical objects such as galaxies and galaxy clusters that act as strong gravitational lenses.
We find it remarkable that the mere presence of these moments and phases alone already conveys useful information about the lens.
These results suggest a straightforward approach for recovering the mass distribution of the lens. If a lensed image of a distant source is obtained, a possible path may involve progressively fitting $J_2$; $J_2$, $J_3$ and $\phi_3-\phi_2$; $J_2$, $J_3$, $J_4$, $\phi_3-\phi_2$ and $\phi_4-\phi_2$; and perhaps higher-order moments as well. Even when the uncertainties are substantial, if, for instance, it is possible to determine unambiguously that $J_3\ne 0$ or $\phi_4\ne\phi_2$, this can lead to the conclusion that the mass distribution of the lens lacks ``north-south'' symmetry or axisymmetry. Better fits can of course further constrain the mass model.
At this point, we only considered lensing from a vantage point that is situated on the optical axis: i.e., the axis connecting the center-of-mass of the lens with the point source. Clearly, astrophysical lenses are rarely seen from this special vantage point: when the observation is made from an off-axis position (but still within the caustic region of the multipole PSF) the resulting dipole moment must also be considered, extending the parameter space.
In practice, lens modeling requires both source and deflector models. By treating subcomponents as pointlike, analytic expressions may be obtained for model source flux and position parameters, reducing the parameter search space dimensionality. Image centroids may not correspond to source centroids for non-pointlike subcomponents; a correction for this may be reliably derived within our formalism. In this context, our approach may be used to train and evaluate software for the automatic detection of gravitational arcs and multiple images, as well as for the determination of the mass distribution of the lenses and ultimately to recover cosmological parameters through statistical and geometrical tests, etc.
In the case of the solar gravitational lens (SGL) \cite{Turyshev-Toth:2017,Turyshev-Toth:2019-extend,Turyshev-Toth:2020-image,Turyshev-Toth:2020-extend,Toth-Turyshev:2020}, all relevant information about the structure of the Sun is well known, allowing for the development of a very realistic model of the extended SGL. This information is now being used in our ongoing analysis of the optical properties of the SGL, especially in the context of a prospective space mission for imaging and spectroscopy of an Earth-like exoplanet \cite{Turyshev-etal:2020-PhaseII}.
Concluding, we emphasize that the results presented here are new and may be used to study gravitational lensing with a wide range of realistic astrophysical lenses, including many cases that previously could only be modeled by geometric optics and/or ray tracing. This work is ongoing; results, when available, will be published elsewhere.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work in part was performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
VTT acknowledges the generous support of Plamen Vasilev and other Patreon patrons.
\section*{Data Availability}
No data was generated and/or analysed to produce this article.
\label{lastpage}
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
{\bf Gradient Vanishing in Attention block:} Since transformer is a pixel-wise process, the distribution of the input is more important than that for CNN. For CNN, the deviation caused by the value exceeding the expected range will be diluted in patches. The statistical assumption that the input is normal distributed supports the gradient stability of Softmax. However, there are always some values that exceed the expected value range, causing the gradient vanishing. This situation becomes worse in the attention mechanisms. The input of Softmax represents to the relationships of embedding (patches), and the distribution of the input should be variant for different images. That means in the attention mechanisms, there are always a part of the input stuck in the saturation area as shown in Figure \ref{fig2}, leading to the gradient vanishing and a long training.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig/2}
\caption{Distribution of ${Q} \cdot {K} / d_{model}$ extracted from the transformer blocks. As we speculate, the value of ${Q} \cdot {K}/ d_{model}$ is indeed not strictly normally distributed, and it might fall into the saturation area of Softmax.}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
{\bf Motivations:} We are interested in the observation from the transformer-based models that the formation of attention corresponding to the objects often seems to lag behind that corresponding to the boundary, as shown in the first row of Figure \ref{fig1}. Attention can be formed on the boundary in the early stages of training, but slowly appear on objects only in the mid-late stages. However, object should be a more preferred position to put attention on, since there are no inductive bias such as translation equivariance and locality \cite{1}, and objects should be more important than boundary for transformer. By investigating the value of $Q\cdot K$, we find that the value corresponding to the object is larger than boundary, and is more likely to fall into the saturation area of Softmax. Therefore, we speculate that, object is indeed more important, but it is difficult to form attention on object, since the value of $Q\cdot K$ is too large and falls into the saturation area. In contrast, the $Q\cdot K$ value of boundary is moderate, so attention can be formed smoothly. We believe that this situation is one of the reasons why transformer needs a long training.
In this work, we suggest that replacing the exponential function by periodic functions, and we delve into some potential periodic alternatives of Softmax from the view of value and gradient. Through experiments on a simply designed demo referenced to LeViT, our method is proved to be able to alleviate the gradient problem and perform better compared to Softmax and its variants.
To summarize, the main contributions of this paper are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Explore the gradient performance of Softmax in the transformer block, and prove that the input of Softmax is not normal distributed and the gradient vanishing does happens;
\item Introducing a series of periodic alternatives for Softmax in attention mechanisms, which compress the input into the unsaturation area by periodic functions to escape the gradient vanishing;
\item Explore the impact of pre-normalization for Softmax and our methods and make an observation that pre-normalization is just a conditional solution but not always a good choice;
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig/3}
\caption{The original designed attention block are proposed in \cite{2}. Our work is trying to replace the Softmax with a series of periodic alternatives.}\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\section{Related works}\label{sec:related}
There are few studies on alternatives of Softmax, since Softmax is mostly used to output classification results, and we can avoid the gradient vanishing by using a joint gradient analytical solution of Softmax and Cross-Entropy. But in the attention mechanism, Softmax is used alone, so the gradient vanishing problem appears. There are other works devoted to enhancing the input feature of Softmax by normalization \cite{3,4,5,6,7}. However, they are all focused on the representation of features, but not addressing the gradient vanishing problem.
{\bf Taylor softmax:} Vincent et al. \cite{8} used second order Taylor series approximation for $e^{x}$ as $1+x+0.5 \cdot x^{2}$ and derive the Taylor softmax as follows:
$$
S_{j}=\frac{1+x_{j}+0.5 \cdot x_{j}^{2}}{\sum_{i}^{d} 1+x_{i}+0.5 \cdot x_{i}^{2}}, x_{j} \subseteq\left(x_{1}, x_{2} \ldots, x_{j}, \ldots x_{d}\right)
$$
where $d$ is the dimension of the input of Taylor softmax. Since the quadratic function changes smoothly, Taylor softmax can generate more soft classification results to alleviate overfitting. However, when used without Cross-Entropy, Taylor softmax will cause gradient vanishing too, because of the saturation area.
{\bf Soft-margin softmax:} Liang et al. \cite{9} introduced a distance margin into Softmax to strengthen the inter-class compactness and inter-class separability between learned features. The Soft-margin (SM) softmax can be described as follows:
$$
S_{j}=\frac{e^{x_{j}-1}}{e^{x_{j}-1}+\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} e_{i}}, x_{j} \subseteq\left(x_{1}, x_{2} \ldots, x_{j}, \ldots x_{d}\right)
$$
where $m$ is manually set and when $m$ is set to zero, the SM-Softmax becomes identical to the original Softmax. SM-Softmax can be considered as a shifted version of Softmax. Similar to Taylor softmax, SM-Softmax and its variant, Ensemble Soft-Margin Softmax \cite{10}, are proposed to encourage the discriminability of features, and the gradient vanishing problem is still not addressed.
{\bf SM-Taylor softmax:} Kunal et al. \cite{11} explored higher order Taylor series approximation of $e^{x}$ to come up with an $n^{ {th }}$ order Taylor softmax where:
$$
f^{n}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n} \frac{x^{i}}{i !}
$$
They proved that $f^{n}(x)$ is always positive definite if n is even. Additionally, they combined the strengths of Taylor softmax and Soft-margin softmax, and proposed the SM-Taylor softmax as follows:
$$
S_{j}=\frac{f^{n}\left(x_{j}\right)}{\sum_{i}^{d} f^{n}\left(x_{i}\right)}, x_{j} \subseteq\left(x_{1}, x_{2} \ldots, x_{j}, \ldots x_{d}\right)
$$
However, it is still a method to enhance features, but not a solution to the gradient problem.
\section{Formulation}
For convenience, we denote input, inter-value and scores by $x_{j}$, $f(x)$ and $S_{j}$. In this section, we try to build some periodic functions as the alternatives of Softmax. In addition, there are five aspects to determine whether a function is a favorable alternative: (1) value stability; (2) gradient stability; (3) saturation area; (4) zero-region gradient; (5) information submerged. Furthermore, when judging the gradient-related properties of the functions, we only consider aspects related to $f(x)$ instead of the other elements contained by the input. Since the scores are mapped by $f(x_j)/\sum_{i}^{d} f(x_{j})$, the correlation between the gradient and the other elements is unavoidable for the periodic functions. The plots of $\operatorname{extre}(\partial S_{j} / \partial x_{j})-\sum_{i}^{d} f(x_{j})$ and more discussion on how the other elements in the input influence the gradient of $x_{j}$ are provided in \ref{a1}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig/4}
\caption{Gradient of Softmax and periodic alternatives proposed. $M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} f(x)$, and $d$ represents to the dimension of input. Cos-max and Sin2-max have a bad zero-region performance, and there is a saturation area and jump points in Siren-max. Except for them, other periodic alternatives are well performed in zero-region and they are all unsaturated and stable.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
According to the research in the Taylor Softmax function proposed by Vincent et al. \cite{8}, and the higher order Taylor Softmax proposed by Kunal et al. \cite{11}, it is reasonable to map the input with a monotonic function, since the input can adapt to a suitable value range as parameters update. Therefore, we suggest to use a periodic function $f(x)$ to compress the input, so as to avoid approximating the small input to a fixed value (to keep them positive), and also avoid the output being too large to have an appropriate gradient.
\subsection{Softmax}
What Softmax does is mapping the input $x$ to an inter-value $f(x)$, $f(x)=e^{x}$, and mapping the inter-value to scores $S_{j}$. The exponential function keeps the negative input positive, but also makes the positive input extremely high. For a large input $x_{j}$, $e^{x_{j}}$ is too large and dominates $S_{j}$, which means $S_{j} \approx 1$, $\partial S_{j} / \partial x_{j}=0$; and for a small input $x_{j}$, $\partial e^{x_{j}} / \partial x_{j}=0$, and since $\partial S_{j} / \partial x_{j}=(\partial S_{j} / \partial e^{x_{j}}) \cdot(\partial e^{x_{j}} / \partial x_{j})$, $\partial S_{j} / \partial x_{j}=0$. Therefore, the major cause of gradient vanishing in Softmax is that we need to compress the value $f(x)$ with unknown upper and lower into $(0,+\infty)$. To do this, there has to be a saturation area for large and small value.
Before the discussion of the alternatives of Softmax, it is necessary to clarify the advantages of Softmax. First of all, the output of Softmax is positive definite. And due to exponential function, the difference between inputs will be magnified, that means Softmax can show the difference between inputs well, which is a good characteristic for attention mechanisms. Besides, according to the definition:
$$
\begin{gathered}
S_{\text {softmax }_{j}}=e^{x_{j}} / \sum_{i}^{d} e^{x_{i}}, x_{j} \subseteq\left(x_{1}, x_{2} \ldots, x_{j}, \ldots x_{d}\right) \\
\partial S_{j} / \partial x_{j}=M \cdot e^{x_{j}} /\left(M+e^{x_{j}}\right)^{2}, M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} e^{x_{i}} \\
\frac{\partial^{2} S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}^{2}}=M \cdot e^{x_{j}} \cdot\left(e^{x_{j}}+M\right)^{-2}-2 \cdot M \cdot e^{2 x_{j}} \cdot\left(e^{x_{j}}+M\right)^{-3}
\end{gathered}
$$
Let $\partial^{2} S_{j} / \partial x_{j}^{2}=0$, we have:
$$
\begin{gathered}
M \cdot e^{x_{j} }\cdot\left(e^{x_{j}}+M\right)^{-2}-2 \cdot M \cdot e^{2 x_{j}\cdot\left(e^{x_{j}}+M\right)^{-3}=0} \\
e^{x_{j}}=\mathrm{M} \\
\qquad \text { Extre }\left(\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}\right)=M \cdot M /(M+M)^{2}=1 / 4
\end{gathered}
$$
which means the max gradient of Softmax is 0.25, so it will not cause gradient explosions. Additionally, in spite of the saturation problem, no matter how large the other elements of input are, a sufficiently large value can always get an appropriate gradient.
\subsection{Sin-max-constant / Cos-max:}
When it comes to periodic functions, there is a good reason to use sine function since it is widely used and derivable. Therefore, we set the $f(x)=1+\sin (x)$ to keep the function positive definite following the suggestion in \cite{12}, and Sin-max-constant is defined as follows:
$$S_{\sin\max_{j}}=\frac{1+\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}{d+M+\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}, M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} \sin \left(x_{i}\right)$$
where $d$ represents to the dimension of input. Sin-max compress $x$ into $(0,2)$ and for $\sin(x)$, there is no saturation area.
However, let $x \sim N(0,1)$, then $E(M) \approx-\sin \left(x_{j}\right)$, we have:
$$
E(S_{\sin\max_{j}})=\frac{1+\sin (x_{j})}{d}=\frac{1}{d}+\frac{\sin (x_{j})}{d}, d \gg \sin (x_{j})
$$
$$
E(S_{\sin\max_{j}}) \approx \frac{1}{d}
$$
which means as the dimension of $x$ increases, the influence of $x$ will be weakened by the constant term, causing $x$ to be overwhelmed and cannot be mapped to $S$ correctly. Besides, consider from the view of gradient:
$$
\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}=\frac{(M+d-1) \cdot \cos \left(x_{j}\right)}{\left(M+d+\sin \left(x_{j}\right)\right)^{2}}
$$
$$
E\left(\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}\right)=\frac{\left(-\sin \left(x_{j}\right)+d-1\right) \cdot \cos \left(x_{j}\right)}{d^{2}}
$$
Similar to the $E(S\sin\max_{j})$, as the dimension of $x$ increases, the gradient of Sin-max will drop to zero, and gradient vanish will occur in the entire value range. The main reason for these defects is the constant term 1 in $f(x)$.
We try to remove the constant term in $f(x)$, and the expression becomes to:
$$
S_{\sin\max_{j}}=\frac{\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}{M+\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}, M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} \sin \left(x_{i}\right)
$$
Now let $x \sim N(0,1)$, then $E\left(M+\sin \left(x_{i}\right)\right)=0$, we have:
$$E(S_{\sin\max_{j}})=\frac{\sin(x_{j})}{0} \rightarrow \pm \infty$$
which means the value of $S_{{\sin\max}_{j}}$ is unstable, causing the network to have a great risk of
breaking down. And for gradient, since $E(M+\sin (x_{j}))=0$ and $E(M)=-\sin(x_{j})$, we have:
$$
\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}=\frac{M \cdot \cos \left(x_{j}\right)}{\left(M+\sin \left(x_{j}\right)\right)^{2}}
$$
$$
E\left(\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}\right)=\frac{-0.5 \cdot \sin \left(2 \cdot x_{j}\right)}{0} \rightarrow \pm \infty
$$
which is also unstable because $f(x)$ is not positive definite.
The reason why $f(x)=1+\cos (x)$ is not good is similar to Sin-max-constant where the difference within $x$ will be submerged due to the constant term as the dimension growing. Let $f(x)=\cos (x)$, and $x \sim N(0,1)$, we can define Cos-max as:
$$
\begin{gathered}
S_{\cos\max_{j}}=\frac{\cos \left(x_{j}\right)}{M+\cos \left(x_{j}\right)}, M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} \cos \left(x_{i}\right) \\
\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}=\frac{-M \cdot \sin \left(x_{j}\right)}{\left(M+\cos \left(x_{j}\right)\right)^{2}}
\end{gathered}
$$
Assume that $\mathrm{x}$ strictly belongs to $[-1,1]$, then Cos-max can be considered as the Sin-max shifted to a positive definite range. However, a gradient vanishing problem will appear when $x$ clusters in the zero-region. Besides, from the view of gradient stability, we have:
$$
\frac{\partial^{2} S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}^{2}}=-M \cdot \cos \left(x_{j}\right) \cdot\left(M+\cos \left(x_{j}\right)\right)^{-2}+2 \cdot M \cdot \sin \left(x_{j}\right) \cdot\left(M+\cos \left(x_{j}\right)\right)^{-3}
$$
Let $\partial^{2} S_{j} / \partial x_{j}^{2}=0$, we have:
$$
\cos \left(x_{j}\right)-2 \cdot \sin \left(x_{j}\right) \cdot\left(M+\cos \left(x_{j}\right)\right)^{-1}=0
$$
$$
-4+\left(M^{2}+1\right) \cdot \cos ^{2}\left(x_{j}\right)+2 \cdot M \cdot \cos^{3}\left(x_{j}\right)+\cos ^{4}\left(x_{j}\right)=0
$$
According to the solving provided in \ref{a5}, we can have:
$$
\operatorname{Extre}\left(\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}\right)_{M} \in(-\infty,+\infty)
$$
As $\mathrm{M}$ increases, Extreme $\left(\partial S_{j} / \partial x_{j}\right)$ approaches $\pm \infty$, which means Cos-max is gradient unstable, causing the network to have a great risk of breaking down like Sin-max.
\subsection{Sin2-max-shifted}
To ensure that $f(x)$ is positive definite, and no extra constant term is introduced, $\sin ^{2} x$ is a reasonable choice. So we can define Sin2-max as:
$$
S_{\sin2\max_j}=\frac{\sin ^{2}\left(x_{j}\right)}{M+\sin ^{2}\left(x_{j}\right)}, M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} \sin ^{2}\left(x_{i}\right) $$
$$
\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}=\frac{M \cdot \sin \left(2 \cdot x_{j}\right)}{\left(M+\sin ^{2}\left(x_{j}\right)\right)^{2}}
$$
Note that although $\sin ^{2}(x)=1 / 2-\cos (2 \cdot x) / 2, f_{\sin 2 \max }(x)=1 / 2-f_{\cos\max}(2 \cdot x) / 2$, Sin2-max is not just a scaled double-frequency version of Cos-max owing to the constant terms. Therefore, the numerical and gradient characteristics of Sin2-max and Cos-max are different.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig4}, the possible problem of Sin2-max is that, assuming $x \sim N(0,1)$, most of $x$ clusters in the region close to 0 so most of the gradients close to 0, which makes the parameters difficult to update. To solve this `conditional' problem, we can shift $\sin ^{2}(x)$ to the non-zero region by adding a phase $\varphi$ to $x$.
Let $\partial^{2} S_{j} / \partial x_{j}^{2}=0 .$ We have:
$$
\cos \left(2 \cdot x_{j}\right)=-\frac{1}{2} \cdot\left(2 \cdot M+1 \pm \sqrt{8+(2 \cdot M+1)^{2}}\right)
$$
$$
x_{j} \text { for } \max \left(\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}\right)=\frac{1}{2} \operatorname{arcos}\left(-\frac{1}{2} \cdot\left(2 \cdot M+1 \pm \sqrt{8+(2 \cdot M+1)^{2}}\right)\right)
$$
Unfortunately, $x_{j}$ for $\max \left(\partial S_{j} / \partial x_{j}\right)$ will change with $M$, so we have to find an approximate
solution. Besides, with $M$ change, the gradient will oscillate in the range of $(0,+\infty)$, causing gradient explosion or vanishing in the entire value range. Since $\sin \left(2 \cdot x_{j}\right)$ and $\sin ^{2}\left(x_{j}\right)$ has a same cycle of period $\pi$, the period of $\partial S_{j} / \partial x_{j}$ is $\pi$. We set $\varphi=\pi / 4$ to make the gradient stable. So we get Sin2-max-shifted as follows:
$$
S_{\sin2\text{max-shifted}_{j}}=\frac{\sin ^{2}\left(x_{j}+0.25 \cdot \pi\right)}{M+\sin ^{2}\left(x_{i}+0.25 \cdot \pi\right)}, M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} \sin ^{2}\left(x_{i}+0.25 \cdot \pi\right)
$$
$$
\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}=\frac{M \cdot \sin \left(2 \cdot x_{j}+0.5 \cdot \pi\right)}{\left(M+\sin ^{2}\left(x_{i}+0.25 \cdot \pi\right)\right)^{2}}
$$
\subsection{Sin-Softmax}
From another view, instead of replacing the exponential function, compressing the input into the unsaturation area is also a reasonable choice. To keep the gradient of input in zero region away from 0, we choose sine but not cosine. We define Sin-Softmax as follows:
$$
S_{\text {sin-softmax}_{j}}=\frac{e^{\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}}{M+e^{\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}}, M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} e^{\sin \left(x_{i}\right)}
$$
$$
\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}=\frac{M \cdot e^{\sin \left(x_{j}\right)} \cdot \cos \left(x_{j}\right)}{\left(M+e^{\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}\right)^{2}}
$$
Sin-Softmax can be considered as a periodic-normalized version of Softmax, which is also similar to the periodic activation function proposed in SirenNet \cite{13}. The best part of Sin-Softmax is that, the input is compressed into the well performed region of Softmax by periodic function, so the value and gradient are both stable, as show in Figure \ref{fig4} and \ref{a1}. Additionally, $S_j$ is positive definite owing to the exponential function, and the gradient in the zero-near region is also well performed. However, the possible defect of Sin-Softmax is that, the largest score can only be $e^{2}$ times the smallest, since for $x_{j} \in R:$
$$
\sin \left(x_{j}\right) \in(-1,+1), e^{\sin \left(x_{j}\right)} \in\left(\frac{1}{e}, e\right)
$$
which might cause oblivion of the most contributing value covered in a large number of low contributing values, as the dimension of the score maps (or the number of embeddings) increasing.
\subsection{Siren-max}
Inspired by SirenNet \cite{13} where sine is used as the activation function, we define a $f(x)$ with benefic gradient properties by:
$$
f(x)=\frac{\sin (x)}{1-\sin (x)}
$$
Since $f(x) \in[-0.5,+\infty)$, to make $S_{j}$ positive definite, we add $0.5$ to $f(x)$ and define Siren-max as follows:
$$
S_{\text {siren-max }_{j}}=\frac{1+\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}{2-2 * \sin \left(x_{j}\right)} /\left(M+\frac{1+\sin \left(x_{j}\right)}{2-2 * \sin \left(x_{j}\right)}\right), M=\sum_{i \neq j}^{d} \frac{1+\sin \left(x_{i}\right)}{2-2 * \sin \left(x_{i}\right)}
$$
$$
\frac{\partial S_{j}}{\partial x_{j}}=\frac{4 \cdot M \cdot \cos \left(x_{j}\right)}{\left(2 \cdot M-2 \cdot M \cdot \sin \left(x_{j}\right)+1+\sin \left(x_{j}\right)\right)^{2}}
$$
Note that, the upper bound of $f(x)$ is infinity, so adding a constant term to it will not cause the difference between $x$ being submerged like Sin-max-constant. As shown in Figure \ref{fig4}, there is no saturation area in Siren-max and it is well performed in zero-near region. The possible defect is that, the gradient has periodic jump points which might make training unstable.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{A summary of Softmax and the periodic alternatives. Note that the judgment is based on the assumption that the input is standard normal distributed, and \ding{56}/\ding{51} means that when input exceed the expected value range, which always happens in attention mechanisms, the indicators go bad.}\label{tb1}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lp{2cm}<\centering p{2cm}<\centering p{2cm}<\centering p{2cm}<\centering p{2cm}<\centering}
\toprule
& \textbf{Value stability?} & \textbf{Gradient stability?} & \textbf{No saturation area?} & \textbf{Zero-region gradient good?} & \textbf{Info Submerged?}\\
\midrule
\textbf{Softmax} & \cmark & \cmark & \textcolor{red}{\ding{56}}/\ding{51} & \cmark & \cmark \\\textbf{Sin-max-constant} & {\textcolor{red}{\ding{56}}} & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark & {\textcolor{red}{\ding{56}}} \\\textbf{Cos-max} & \textcolor{red}{\ding{56}}/\ding{51} & \textcolor{red}{\ding{56}}/\ding{51} & \cmark & {\textcolor{red}{\ding{56}}} & \cmark \\\textbf{Sin2-max} & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark & {\textcolor{red}{\ding{56}}} & \cmark \\\textbf{Sin2-max-shifted} & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark \\\textbf{Sin-Softmax} & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark \\
\textbf{Siren-max} & \cmark & \textcolor{red}{\ding{56}}/\ding{51} & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark
\\\bottomrule \end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\subsection{Pre-normalization}
Note that the pre-normalization discussed is not parameterized like Batch-norm \cite{14}, Layer-norm \cite{15} or Group-norm \cite{16}. We denote the pre-normalization by normalizing the elements of $Q \cdot K$ in row. Considering the saturation problem, normalizing the input is also a reasonable operation. However, since the distribution of attention score maps is different for variant images, the normalization can hardly compress the maps into a specified value range precisely. Besides, the function $f(x_{j})={normlized}\left(x_{j}\right)$ also might be saturated, and the saturation area shifts with $\mathrm{E}(x_{j})$ and $\operatorname{Var}(x_{j})$. Therefore, the gradient situation of ${normlized}(x_{j})$ is similar to that of Softmax, which may cause gradient vanishing too. As a result, although pre-normalization can roughly gather the values in a specified range, but on the contrary, it may bring new gradient problems. More discussion and the gradient plots of normalization, pre-normalized version of Softmax and periodic alternatives are provide in \ref{a2}.
\section{Experiments}
To eliminate the unexpected effects of various tricks, the experiments are operated on a simply designed demo referenced to LeViT \cite{1}, as shown in Figure \ref{fig5}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig/5}
\caption{The structure of the demo trained in experiments. Except for the number of attention blocks and the number of neurons of the classification head, the other parts remain unchanged in the experiment.}\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
In experiments, there is an observation that most of the gradient of Softmax are very small, and only a small part of updates can be successfully back-propagated, even in the early stages of training, as shown in Figure \ref{fig6}. This phenomenon proves our point that the $Q\cdot K$ value, which are used to generate the attention scores, are related to the input images content and are not strictly normal distributed. Therefore, even if divided by $\sqrt{d}$ following the original designed transformer block, the value still might fall into the saturation area of Softmax, making updates difficult. In our method, there is no saturation area in the functions, so the gradient is satisfactory at each training stage, which promotes the updating of parameters. More 3D graphs of gradients extracted from experiment are provide in \ref{a3}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig/6}
\caption{3D graph of the gradient extracted from attention blocks under Softmax and Sin-Softmax. The input of Softmax represents the correlation of embedding (patches), and the distribution of correlation should be variant for different images. As a result, the distribution of $K$, $Q$ will gradually deviate from the normal distribution, as will the input of Softmax. Since a part of the input might fall into the saturation area, gradient vanishing occurs. And our methods successfully address this problem by introducing the period functions to generate attention scores. More 3D gradient graphs of our methods are provided in \ref{a3}.}\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure \ref{fig1} and Figure \ref{fig7}, due to the gradient vanishing problem, Softmax might cause difficulty in the formation of attention, especially in the early stages of training. We observe that attention is formed more smoothly on the boundary, and on the contrary, the attention corresponding to the objects can only be formed in the later stages of training. A possible reason is that the scores of the boundary between object and content are moderate, so the gradient flows smoothly. While, the scores of the objects are larger and might fall into the saturation area of Softmax, causing the gradient vanishing and the formation of attention being locked. While under the periodic alternatives, the attention is updated unrestrained on the image, which strengthens our arguments.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig/7}
\caption{Visualization of the attention extracted from transformer blocks. In softmax, attention is more likely to be trapped on the boundary, since the $QK$ value of the boundary is moderate and not easy to fall into the saturation area. By contrast, our method eliminates the saturation area, and attention can be updated smoothly on the objects too.}\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Comparison with Softmax under same model with increasing depth. We also report pre-normalization version result of each functions. Note that, since the trainings under Sin-max-constant, Cos-max, Sin2-max breaks down in the early stages, we omit their results here. In addition, the depth represents to the number of attention blocks stacked, and the rest structures of demo remain unchanged.}\label{tb2}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Structure = Demo\\ Dataset = Cifar-100\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Depth = 1}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Depth = 2}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Depth = 4}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Depth = 8}} \\
\cline{2-9}
& & norm & & norm & & norm & & norm \\ \midrule
\textbf{Softmax} & 52.67 & 53.80 & 58.21 & 59.57 & 67.01 & 68.75 & 81.12 & 82.31 \\
\textbf{Sin2-max-shifted} & 53.90 & 53.16 & 60.37 & 59.84 & 71.48 & 72.38 & 84.81 & 83.20 \\
\textbf{Sin-Softmax} & \textbf{54.64} & 54.27 & \textbf{60.40} & 60.18 & 72.39 & 72.84 & \textbf{85.14} & 84.63 \\
\textbf{Siren-max} & \textbackslash{} & 55.19 & \textbackslash{} & 59.62 & \textbackslash{} & \textbf{73.25} & \textbackslash{} & 84.70 \\\bottomrule
\multicolumn{9}{c}{\textbf{* \textbackslash ~means training breaks down in the early stages}}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The gradient performance in the zero-region is crucial for training, and the early breaking down of training under Cos-max and Sin2-max can be ascribed to this. Besides, the stability of gradient is also very important. Since there are jump points within the range of input, the training under Siren-max breaks down too. In addition, since the input is submerged in the constant terms, the training under Sin-max-constant diverges.
Encouragingly, Sin2-max-shifted, Sin-Softmax exceed Softmax in the result just as we speculate, and norm-Siren-max is also surprisingly well performed. The result are shown in Table \ref{tb2}. The major drawbacks of Cos-max and Sin-max-constant are gradient performance in zero-region and information submergence respectively, which cannot be optimized by pre-normalization. As for Siren-max, pre-normalization optimizes the distribution of input and helps Siren-max avoid the gradient jump points, resulting in a satisfactory performance. Softmax can also be improved since pre-normalization helps the input escape from the saturation area to some degree. However, Sin2-max-shifted and Sin-Softmax are not subject to input distribution, so they cannot get benefits from pre-normalization. On the contrary, since pre-normalization will bring unexpected gradient problems, the performance of norm-Sin2-max-shifted and norm-Sin-Softmax decrease slightly. The plots and complete results of the experiment are provided in \ref{a4}.
\section{Conclusion}
Through the visualization of attention and gradient extracted from transformer blocks, we prove that in the attention mechanism, Softmax does lead to the gradient vanishing problem and makes training difficult. To address the problem, we propose a series of periodic alternatives of Softmax, and the experimental results prove that Sin-Softmax, Sin2-max-shifted, and norm-Siren-max are better performed than Softmax in attention mechanism. Additionally, we make an observation that pre-normalization is just a conditional solution but not always a good choice.
In the periodic alternatives, embedding requiring more attention does not necessarily require a larger $Q\cdot K$ value, which makes the generation of $Q$, $K$ more free, and it is hard to say whether this will lead to unexpected problems. This change might affect the representation of the model, and we will explore how this change happens in further works.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth ]{fig/d-fig-fine-coarse.png}
\caption{A human pose can be abstracted step by step to obtain a series of poses from fine to coarse scale, by grouping joints in close proximity together and replacing the group with a single joint.}
\label{fig:fine-coarse}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
Human motion prediction plays a critical role in many fields, such as human-computer interaction, autonomous driving, and video completion. Simple periodic motion patterns can be tackled by traditional methods such as hidden Markov model \cite{brand2000style}, linear dynamic system \cite{pavlovic2000learning}, restricted Boltzmann machine \cite{taylor2007modeling}, Gaussian process latent variable models \cite{wang2005gaussian} and random forests \cite{lehrmann2014efficient}, while more complex motion is intractable for these methods. The latest approaches are almost all data-driven methods with deep learning. However, considering the stochasticity and aperiodicity of human motion, it still remains a challenging task to predict accurate future motion in long term giving observed arbitrary poses. The main difficulty is how to model the spatiotemporal dependencies of human poses.
Lots of prior efforts with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)~\cite{yang2020sta,liu2020trajectorycnn}, Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) ~\cite{fragkiadaki2015recurrent,martinez2017human,song2017end,tang2018long,sang2020human,guo2019human,chan2020gas,al2020attention}, and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)
~\cite{zheng2020towards,gui2018adversarial,ke2019learning,hernandez2019human,cui2021efficient,wang2019early,kundu2019bihmp}, have been made for tackling the challenging task. However, they neglect the inner-frame kinematic dependencies between body joints. Although they have achieved success in some cases, the prediction accuracy depends on the size of convolution filters and the stability of the frame-by-frame prediction.
Nowadays, Graph Convolution Networks (GCNs) have been widely used in various fields as well as in the task of human motion prediction \cite{mao2019learning,li2020dynamic,cui2020learning,li2020multi,liu2020disentangling,zhang2020context,Shi_2019_CVPR}, which work very well for non-grid graph-structured data especially for skeleton-based 3D human pose sequences.
Recently, Mao \etal~\cite{mao2019learning} jointly model spatial structure by GCNs with learnable connectivity and temporal information via discrete cosine transformation (DCT) to predict human motion.
Li \etal~\cite{li2020dynamic} propose a dynamic multi-scale graph neural network within an encoder-decoder framework to extract deep features at multiple scales.
Although these two works exhibit promising results on benchmark datasets, there is still space to be explored for more high-quality human motion prediction.
In this paper, we propose a Multi-Scale Residual Graph Convolution Network (MSR-GCN), as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:msgcn}, for 3D human motion prediction. By treating a human pose as a fully connected graph whose vertices are the pose joints, we employ graph convolution networks to dynamically learn the relations between all pairs of joints flexibly regardless of the physical distance between them. But GCN alone cannot capture the hierarchical structure of human pose~\cite{mao2019learning}. That is, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fine-coarse}, one can abstract a human pose by grouping joints in close proximity together and representing the group by just one joint, yielding a coarser pose. Since a group of joints usually come from the same body part, gradually abstracting body parts in this way can significantly stabilize the motion pattern of the body. We find that the motion in the coarser level is more stable for which the pose prediction is easier. It is promising to predict the poses in the coarsest level firstly, and then go up to finer levels gradually.
Based on the above analysis, we compensate GCN with the capacity of modeling hierarchical and contextual information of human pose by designing multiple GCNs with a multi-scale architecture. A group of the GCNs forms a descending path to extract features from fine to coarse scale, followed by another group of GCNs that extract multi-scale features inversely along an ascending path. Based on these features, we predict poses at all scales and impose intermediate supervision for more representative features.
We also add residual connections between the input and the output poses as suggested by~\cite{mao2019learning}, making the whole framework learn residuals instead of the target poses directly.
Note that Li \etal~\cite{li2020dynamic} have also observed this natural hierarchical structure of human pose, but they aim to extract rich features with the help of the multi-scale joint abstraction and then decode the future poses from the multi-scale features with a recurrent decoder. In contrast, the encoder and decoder in our method are organized in a U-Net-like multi-scale manner equipped with intermediate losses, differing from the multiscale strategy in ~\cite{li2020dynamic}.
In short, our main technical contributions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a novel multi-scale residual graph convolution network for human pose prediction in an end-to-end manner, which consists of multiple GCNs organized in a multi-scale architecture.
\item The well-designed descending and ascending GCN blocks can extract features in both fine-to-coarse and coarse-to-fine manners.
\item The intermediate supervision imposed at each scale enforces to learn more representative features, benefiting high-quality future prediction.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related work}
{\bf Human motion prediction}. Many deep learning based methods have been proposed to handle human motion prediction. Existing CNN-based works like~\cite{yang2020sta,liu2020trajectorycnn} treat a pose sequence as a two-dimensional matrix where one axis is the spatial axis and another one indicates the temporal axis, then spatiotemporal convolutional filters can be used to the pose data like what has been done for an image. However, pose data, in essence, is very different from images, lacking repeated elements that give a high response to the same filter, thus reducing the effectiveness of the convolutions.
Although RNN-based methods like~\cite{fragkiadaki2015recurrent,martinez2017human,song2017end,tang2018long,sang2020human,guo2019human,chan2020gas,al2020attention} have advantages in dealing with time-related tasks, the discontinuity and error accumulation problems often happen because of the frame-by-frame prediction manner. Also, the training of RNN models is easy to collapse with gradient explosion or disappearing. What's more, these networks neglect the inner-frame kinematic dependencies between body joints.
Generative adversarial networks \cite{zheng2020towards,gui2018adversarial,ke2019learning,hernandez2019human,cui2021efficient,wang2019early,kundu2019bihmp} are deemed to generate realistic data whose pattern is similar to the training data. Nevertheless, they are vulnerable and require skillful training.
Transformer-based networks like~\cite{cai2020learning, aksan2020spatio} are supposed to be capable of capturing long-range temporal dependencies directly but usually have quite high computing costs.
{\bf Graph Convolution Networks (GCNs)} are suitable for tasks with non-grid and graph-structural data, \eg, biological gene, point cloud, human social network \cite{yan2018spatial}, and human motion prediction for the graph-structure nature of the human skeleton.
They have been successfully applied to many applications like visual recognition~\cite{hua2013collaborative, hong2020graph, Hu:TIP2021, Hu:arXiv2021, Long:ICCV2015, Long:IJCV2016, Long:CVPR2017, Hua:TPAMI2018}, object detection~\cite{wang2020joint, Islam:CVPR2020}, action localization~\cite{zeng2019graph, Islam:AAAI2021}, trajectory prediction~\cite{Shi:CVPR2021}, and image captioning~\cite{Dong:MM2021}.
In particular, since graph convolution is more inclined to capture spatial information, Si \etal~\cite{si2019attention} combines it with LSTM to enhance its capability of modeling temporal dependencies between human skeleton joints. Works of \cite{mao2019learning,li2019actional,cui2020learning} allow graph convolution network to learn relations between any pair of human joints. Mao \etal~\cite{mao2019learning} design a fully connected GCN to adaptively learn the necessary connectivity for the motion prediction task and apply discrete cosine transformation (DCT) to handle temporal information. Cui \etal~\cite{cui2020learning} enhance the role of natural connectivity of human joints among all the edges of the fully connected graph. Li \etal~\cite{li2020dynamic} propose a graph neural network with a multi-scale graph computational unit where features are extracted at a single individual scale and then fused across scales.
Differently, we use GCNs at different scales to extract features for these scales separately.
\section{Methodology}
Human pose prediction is a task to produce future pose sequence given the currently observed frames. Supposing the historical poses are $X_{1:T_{h}} = [X_{1},...,X_{T_{h}}] \in{\mathbb{R}^{J\times D \times T_{h}}}$ with $T_{h}$ frames, among which $X_{t}$ depicts a single 3D human pose with $J$ joints in the $D$-dimensional space (here $D$ is 3) at time $t$. Similarly, the future pose sequence with $T_{f}$ frames is defined as $X_{T_{h}+1:T_{h}+T_{f}}$. We need a model $\mathcal{F}_{predict}(\cdot)$ to predict the future unknown pose sequence $\hat{X}_{T_{h}+1:T_{h}+T_{f}}$ giving $X_{1:T_{h}}$ that approximates the ground truth $X_{T_{h}+1:T_{h}+T_{f}}$ as much as possible. We fulfill this task by proposing a novel Multi-Scale Residual Graph Convolution Network called MSR-GCN, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:msgcn}.
In the following, the basic GCN model for pose prediction is introduced firstly, then the multi-scale architecture used to obtain superior prediction accuracy is shown.
\subsection{Basic GCNs}
Firstly, we reformulate our prediction objective by rearranging the input and output pose sequences. Instead of performing prediction based on $X_{1:T_{h}}$, we replicate the last pose $X_{T_h}$ for $T_f$ times, obtaining a sequence of length $T=T_h+T_f$. We then use this sequence as the input to predict the future pose sequence comprising of $\hat{X}_{1:T_{h}}$ and $\hat{X}_{T_{h}+1:T_{h}+T_{f}}$. According to ~\cite{mao2019learning}, this prediction task can be translated to compute a residual vector between $\hat{X}_{1:T}$ and the ground truth ${X}_{1:T}$, which we also find very effective to improve the prediction accuracy.
For pose prediction, it has been proven very useful to model the spatial structure of the poses~\cite{mao2019learning,cui2020learning}. This is because the spatial dependencies between human joints exhibit inherent and consistent characteristics over the whole action period, which is of great importance for human pose prediction. The dependencies that can be utilized are not confined to joints with kinematic links such as between elbow and wrist, but any pair of joints can affect each other. For example, when a person walks, the hands vibrate periodically, so it is essential to explore the dependencies of two hands for their predictions. GCN~\cite{kipf2016semi} is good at discovering these relationships by viewing a pose as a fully-connected graph with $K$ nodes, where $K=J\times D$, and an adjacency matrix $\textbf{A}\in{\mathbb{R}^{K\times K}}$ which represents the strength of edges of the graph is learned by the GCN.
A GCN is usually composed of a set of graph convolutional layers that are sequentially stacked together. Formally, let $\textbf{H}^l\in{\mathbb{R}^{K\times F^l}}$ be the input to a graph convolutional layer, $\textbf{A}^l\in{\mathbb{R}^{K\times K}}$ the adjacency matrix, and $\textbf{W}^l\in{\mathbb{R}^{F^l\times F^{l+1}}}$ the trainable parameters, the output of the graph convolutional layer is:
\begin{equation}
\textbf{H}^{l+1} = \sigma(\textbf{A}^l\textbf{H}^l\textbf{W}^l),
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{H}^{l+1}\in{\mathbb{R}^{K\times F^{l+1}}}$, and $\sigma(\cdot)$ is an activation function.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/d-fig-gcn-v3.pdf}
\caption{The basic GCN model for pose prediction comprising a start GCN, 6 residual GCNs, and an end GCN. The start GCN maps the input from pose space to feature space, the residual GCNs are used to extract features in the feature space, and finally, the end GCN maps the features back to the poses. A residual connection is added between the input and output poses, making the whole network learn residuals rather than the target poses directly.}
\label{fig:gcn}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig/d-fig-msgcn-v3.pdf}
\caption{The architecture of the proposed MSR-GCN comprising one start GCN, four descending GCNs ($D0,D1,D2,D3$), four ascending GCNs ($A0,A1,A2,A3$), and four end GCNs ($E0,E1,E2,E3$). The start GCN takes the black poses at scale 0 as input. Then descending and ascending GCNs are stacked sequentially to extract features for each scale twice. The combined features at each scale are finally fed into the corresponding end GCN for decoding. Residual connections are added after every end GCN that add the ground truth poses to the output of each GCN, making the network learn residuals rather than the target poses directly.}
\label{fig:msgcn}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure*}
To map the input pose sequence to the target pose sequence, we design one start GCN, one end GCN, and 6 residual GCNs, the architecture of which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:gcn}. The start GCN has 2 graph convolutional layers, projecting the input pose sequence from the space of $\mathbb{R}^{K\times T}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{K\times F}$, with $F=256$ in this paper. Following are 6 residual GCNs each containing 2 graph convolutional layers which accept features in space $\mathbb{R}^{K\times F}$ and also output features in the same space. Finally, the end GCN, also containing 2 graph convolutional layers, projects the features in space $\mathbb{R}^{K\times F}$ to the target pose sequence in space $\mathbb{R}^{K\times T}$. The whole network learns the residual vector between the input and target pose sequences by adding a global skip connection as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:gcn}.
Note that the above pose prediction network with basic GCNs is similar to the method proposed in ~\cite{mao2019learning} except for the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) and inverse DCT for data representation transformation. In this paper, we abandon the DCT transformations since directly computing global residuals between padded input poses and the target poses without translating to DCT coefficients is effective enough and computationally more efficient. In the following, we show how the basic architecture in Figure~\ref{fig:gcn} can be further improved by taking advantage of the multi-scale properties of human pose~\cite{li2020dynamic}.
\subsection{Multi-scale Residual GCNs}
Intuitively, a human pose can be simplified step by step to obtain a set of fine-to-coarse poses. With the increase of the coarse-scale, the motion of the pose becomes more stable, which usually means the pose prediction in this scale is easier than a finer scale. This motivates us to propose a Multi-scale Residual Graph Convolution Network (MSR-GCN), in which we perform prediction at the coarsest level firstly, and then go up to higher levels step by step. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:msgcn}, our MSR-GCN is composed of four kinds of GCNs: one start GCN, a set of descending and ascending GCN blocks, and a set of end or decoding GCNs.
Before introducing MSR-GCN, let us describe how we abstract a human pose. As shown in the leftmost picture of Figure~\ref{fig:fine-coarse}, the finest pose has 22 joints. We abstract the finest pose recursively to obtain 3 poses with 12, 7, and 4 joints respectively. The subplots in the second row of Figure~\ref{fig:fine-coarse} (from left to right) depict how to combine the joints at the finer level, while those in the first row show the obtained poses at the next levels correspondingly.
Note that we also tried other grouping manners, but found this scheme yields the most stable motion at the coarsest level (see comparisons in Section ~\ref{sec:ablationgroupingmanner}).
\textbf{Start GCN} is composed of 2 convolutional layers, mapping the input poses into the feature space. The pose space is $\mathbb{R}^{K\times T}$ as defined above, and the feature space is $\mathbb{R}^{K\times F}$ with $F=256$. We use the finest-scale pose sequence as the input to the start GCN while the pose sequences at other scales are only used at end GCNs to calculate residuals.
\textbf{Descending and ascending GCN blocks.} Since we have abstracted the human pose in four levels, we use four descending and four ascending GCN blocks, namely $D0,D1,D2,D3$ and $A3,A2,A1,A0$, to extract features at the four scales. Each of these blocks loops a residual GCN 6 times, and each GCN has 2 graph convolutional layers. The eight GCN blocks are sequentially stacked together. Along the whole descending and ascending path, the feature dimension $F$ is always kept as 256, but the pose dimension $K$ changes between adjacent descending or ascending blocks. For example, $D0$ extracts features in space $\mathbb{R}^{K_0\times F}$ with $K_0 = 22\times 3=66$, while $K_1=36$, $K_2=21$ and $K_3=12$ for $D1$, $D2$ and $D3$. We use a downsampling layer to transform the features outputted by $D0$ into the space of $\mathbb{R}^{K_1\times F}$. The descending blocks gradually reduce the pose dimension which is then gradually increased by the ascending blocks with upsampling layers. We concatenate the features extracted by a descending GCN block and the corresponding ascending GCN block together and deliver them to the end GCNs for decoding.
\textbf{End GCNs} are used for decoding the concatenated features extracted by descending and ascending blocks to poses. Like start GCN, an end GCN is also composed of 2 graph convolutional layers. But instead of just one start GCN, we design 4 end GCNs, namely $E0,E1,E2,E3$, to decode combined features at four different scales, respectively.
Intermediate supervisions by computing the L2 distances between the decoded poses and their ground truth at all scales are used to train the whole network, which is a commonly adopted strategy in many works~\cite{wei2016convolutional,zhang2020multi}. Ablation experiments show that with the intermediate supervisions, better prediction accuracy can be obtained, which we conjecture is due to the reason that it helps extract more representative features in coarser levels and enforce the whole network to learn the prediction from coarse to fine scale. The output of ``E0" is the predicted target pose sequence.
\textbf{Residual Connections.} Besides the residual connections in descending and ascending GCNs, we add a residual connection after each end GCN. That is to say, we add the input pose sequence (at different scales) to the output of the end GCN. In this way, the MSR-GCN learns the residual vector between the input and ground truth at all levels.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
We choose Adam as the optimizer with the initial learning rate of 2e-4, which decays by 0.98 every two epochs and train the network on an NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU card.
\section{Experiments}
To verify the effectiveness of MSR-GCN, we run experiments on two standard benchmark motion capture datasets, including Human3.6M (H3.6M) and CMU Mocap dataset. Here we first introduce the two datasets, the evaluation metric and the baselines we compare with, then present experimental results and ablation analysis.
\begin{table*}[]
\begin{center}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{4.5pt}
\scriptsize
\caption{Comparisons for short-term prediction on 15 action categories of H3.6M and the averages. The best results are highlighted in bold.}
\label{tab:h36m_short1}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hline
scenarios & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{walking} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{eating} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{smoking} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{discussion} \\ \hline
millisecond (ms) & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\ \hline
Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human} & 29.36 & 50.82 & \ \ 76.03 & \ \ 81.51 & 16.84 & \ \ 30.60 & \ \ 56.92 & \ \ 68.65 & 22.96 & 42.64 & \ \ 70.14 & \ \ 82.68 & 32.94 & 61.18 & \ \ 90.92 & \ \ 96.19 \\
DMGNN~\cite{li2020dynamic} & 17.32 & 30.67 & \ \ 54.56 & \ \ 65.20 & 10.96 & \ \ 21.39 & \ \ 36.18 & \ \ 43.88 & \ \ 8.97 & 17.62 & \ \ 32.05 & \ \ 40.30 & 17.33 & 34.78 & \ \ 61.03 & \ \ 69.80 \\
Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} & 12.29 & 23.03 & \ \ 39.77 & \ \ 46.12 & \textbf{\ \ 8.36} & \textbf{\ \ 16.90} & \ \ 33.19 & \ \ 40.70 & \textbf{\ \ 7.94} & \textbf{16.24} & \ \ 31.90 & \ \ 38.90 & 12.50 & 27.40 & \ \ 58.51 & \ \ 71.68 \\
MSR-GCN & \textbf{12.16} & \textbf{22.65} & \textbf{\ \ 38.64} & \textbf{\ \ 45.24} & \ \ 8.39 & \ \ 17.05 & \textbf{\ \ 33.03} & \textbf{\ \ 40.43} & \ \ 8.02 & 16.27 & \textbf{\ \ 31.32} & \textbf{\ \ 38.15} & \textbf{11.98} & \textbf{26.76} & \textbf{\ \ 57.08} & \textbf{\ \ 69.74} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hline
scenarios & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{directions} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{greeting} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{phoning} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{posing} \\ \hline
millisecond (ms) & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\ \hline
Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human} & 35.36 & 57.27 & \ \ 76.30 & \ \ 87.67 & 34.46 & \ \ 63.36 & 124.60 & 142.50 & 37.96 & 69.32 & 115.00 & 126.73 & 36.10 & 69.12 & 130.46 & 157.08 \\
DMGNN ~\cite{li2020dynamic} & 13.14 & 24.62 & \ \ 64.68 & \ \ 81.86 & 23.30 & \ \ 50.32 & 107.30 & 132.10 & 12.47 & 25.77 & \ \ 48.08 & \ \ 58.29 & 15.27 & 29.27 & \ \ 71.54 & \ \ 96.65 \\
Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} & \ \ 8.97 & 19.87 & \ \ 43.35 & \textbf{\ \ 53.74} & 18.65 & \ \ 38.68 & \ \ 77.74 & \ \ 93.39 & 10.24 & 21.02 & \ \ 42.54 & \ \ 52.30 & 13.66 & 29.89 & \textbf{\ \ 66.62} & \textbf{\ \ 84.05} \\
MSR-GCN & \textbf{\ \ 8.61} & \textbf{19.65} & \textbf{\ \ 43.28} & \ \ 53.82 & \textbf{16.48} & \textbf{\ \ 36.95} & \textbf{\ \ 77.32} & \textbf{\ \ 93.38} & \textbf{10.10} & \textbf{20.74} & \textbf{\ \ 41.51} & \textbf{\ \ 51.26} & \textbf{12.79} & \textbf{29.38} & \ \ 66.95 & \ \ 85.01 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hline
scenarios & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{purchases} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{sitting} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{sittingdown} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{takingphoto} \\ \hline
millisecond (ms) & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\ \hline
Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human} & 36.33 & 60.30 & \ \ 86.53 & \ \ 95.92 & 42.55 & \ \ 81.40 & 134.70 & 151.78 & 47.28 & 85.95 & 145.75 & 168.86 & 26.10 & 47.61 & \ \ 81.40 & \ \ 94.73 \\
DMGNN~\cite{li2020dynamic} & 21.35 & 38.71 & \ \ 75.67 & \ \ 92.74 & 11.92 & \ \ 25.11 & \ \ 44.59 & \ \ 50.20 & 14.95 & 32.88 & \ \ 77.06 & \ \ 93.00 & 13.61 & 28.95 & \ \ 45.99 & \ \ 58.76 \\
Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} & 15.60 & 32.78 & \textbf{\ \ 65.72} & \textbf{\ \ 79.25} & 10.62 & \textbf{\ \ 21.90} & \ \ 46.33 & \ \ 57.91 & 16.14 & \textbf{31.12} & \textbf{\ \ 61.47} & \textbf{\ \ 75.46} & \textbf{\ \ 9.88} & \textbf{20.89} & \ \ 44.95 & \ \ 56.58 \\
MSR-GCN & \textbf{14.75} & \textbf{32.39} & \ \ 66.13 & \ \ 79.64 & \textbf{10.53} & \ \ 21.99 & \textbf{\ \ 46.26} & \textbf{\ \ 57.80} & \textbf{16.10} & 31.63 & \ \ 62.45 & \ \ 76.84 & \ \ 9.89 & 21.01 & \textbf{\ \ 44.56} & \textbf{\ \ 56.30} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hline
scenarios & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{waiting} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{walkingdog} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{walkingtogether} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Average} \\ \hline
millisecond (ms) & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\ \hline
Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human} & 30.62 & 57.82 & 106.22 & 121.45 & 64.18 & 102.10 & 141.07 & 164.35 & 26.79 & 50.07 & \ \ 80.16 & \ \ 92.23 & 34.66 & 61.97 & 101.08 & 115.49 \\
DMGNN~\cite{li2020dynamic} & 12.20 & 24.17 & \ \ 59.62 & \ \ 77.54 & 47.09 & \ \ 93.33 & 160.13 & 171.20 & 14.34 & 26.67 & \ \ 50.08 & \ \ 63.22 & 16.95 & 33.62 & \ \ 65.90 & \ \ 79.65 \\
Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} & 11.43 & 23.99 & \ \ 50.06 & \ \ 61.48 & 23.39 & \ \ 46.17 & \ \ 83.47 & \ \ 95.96 & 10.47 & 21.04 & \ \ 38.47 & \ \ 45.19 & 12.68 & 26.06 & \ \ 52.27 & \ \ 63.51 \\
MSR-GCN & \textbf{10.68} & \textbf{23.06} & \textbf{\ \ 48.25} & \textbf{\ \ 59.23} & \textbf{20.65} & \textbf{\ \ 42.88} & \textbf{\ \ 80.35} & \textbf{\ \ 93.31} & \textbf{10.56} & \textbf{20.92} & \textbf{\ \ 37.40} & \textbf{\ \ 43.85} & \textbf{12.11} & \textbf{25.56} & \textbf{\ \ 51.64} & \textbf{\ \ 62.93} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\normalsize
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[]
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8.5pt}
\scriptsize
\caption{Comparisons for long-term prediction on 5 action categories of H3.6M and the averages. The best results are highlighted in bold.}
\label{tab:h36m_long}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\hline
scenarios & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{walking} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Eating} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Smoking} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Discussion} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Directions} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{average} \\ \hline
millisecond (ms) & 560 & 1000 & 560 & 1000 & 560 & 1000 & 560 & 1000 & 560 & 1000 & 560 & 1000 \\ \hline
Residual sup.\cite{martinez2017human} & 81.73 & 100.68 & 79.87 & 100.20 & 94.83 & 137.44 & 121.30 & 161.70 & 110.05 & 152.48 & 97.56 & 130.50 \\
DMGNN \cite{li2020dynamic} & 73.36 & 95.82 & 58.11 & 86.66 & 50.85 & 72.15 & \textbf{81.90} & 138.32 & 110.06 & 115.75 & 74.85 & 101.74 \\
Traj-GCN \cite{mao2019learning} & 54.05 & \textbf{59.75} & 53.39 & 77.75 & 50.74 & 72.62 & 91.61 & 121.53 & \textbf{71.01} & 101.79 & 64.16 & 86.69 \\
MSR-GCN & \textbf{52.72} & 63.04 & \textbf{52.54} & \textbf{77.11} & \textbf{49.45} & \textbf{71.64} & 88.59 & \textbf{117.59} & 71.18 & \textbf{100.59} & \textbf{62.89} & \textbf{86.00} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\normalsize
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[]
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{5pt}
\scriptsize
\caption{Comparisons for short-term prediction on 8 action categories of the CMU Mocap dataset. The best results are highlighted in bold.}
\label{tab:mocap_short}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hline
scenarios & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{basketball} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{basketball signal} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{directing traffic} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{jumping} \\ \hline
millisecond (ms) & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\ \hline
Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human} & 15.45 & 26.88 & 43.51 & \ \ 49.23 & 20.17 & 32.98 & 42.75 & 44.65 & 20.52 & 40.58 & \ \ 75.38 & \ \ 90.36 & 26.85 & 48.07 & 93.50 & 108.90 \\
DMGNN~\cite{li2020dynamic} & 15.57 & 28.72 & 59.01 & \ \ 73.05 & \ \ 5.03 & \ \ 9.28 & 20.21 & 26.23 & 10.21 & 20.90 & \ \ 41.55 & \ \ 52.28 & 31.97 & 54.32 & 96.66 & 119.92 \\
Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} & 11.68 & 21.26 & 40.99 & \ \ 50.78 & \ \ 3.33 & \ \ 6.25 & 13.58 & 17.98 & \ \ 6.92 & 13.69 & \ \ 30.30 & \ \ 39.97 & 17.18 & 32.37 & 60.12 & \ \ 72.55 \\
MSR-GCN & \textbf{10.28} & \textbf{18.94} & \textbf{37.68} & \textbf{\ \ 47.03} & \textbf{\ \ 3.03} & \textbf{\ \ 5.68} & \textbf{12.35} & \textbf{16.26} & \textbf{\ \ 5.92} & \textbf{12.09} & \textbf{\ \ 28.36} & \textbf{\ \ 38.04} & \textbf{14.99} & \textbf{28.66} & \textbf{55.86} & \textbf{\ \ 69.05} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hline
scenarios & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{running} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{soccer} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{walking} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{washwindow} \\ \hline
millisecond (ms) & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 \\ \hline
Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human} & 25.76 & 48.91 & 88.19 & 100.80 & 17.75 & 31.30 & 52.55 & 61.40 & 44.35 & 76.66 & 126.83 & 151.43 & 22.84 & 44.71 & 86.78 & 104.68 \\
DMGNN~\cite{li2020dynamic} & 17.42 & 26.82 & 38.27 &\ \ 40.08 & 14.86 & 25.29 & 52.21 & 65.42 & \ \ 9.57 & 15.53 & \ \ 26.03 & \ \ 30.37 & \ \ 7.93 & 14.68 & 33.34 & \ \ 44.24 \\
Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} & 14.53 & 24.20 & 37.44 & \ \ 41.10 & 13.33 & 24.00 & 43.77 & 53.20 & \ \ 6.62 & 10.74 & \textbf{\ \ 17.40} & \textbf{\ \ 20.35} & \ \ 5.96 & 11.62 & \textbf{24.77} & \textbf{\ \ 31.63} \\
MSR-GCN & \textbf{12.84} & \textbf{20.42} & \textbf{30.58} & \textbf{\ \ 34.42} & \textbf{10.92} & \textbf{19.50} & \textbf{37.05} & \textbf{46.38} & \textbf{\ \ 6.31} & \textbf{10.30} & \ \ 17.64 & \ \ 21.12 & \textbf{\ \ 5.49} & \textbf{11.07} & 25.05 & \ \ 32.51 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\normalsize
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\scriptsize
\caption{Comparisons for long-term prediction at 1000ms on 8 action categories of the CMU Mocap dataset.}
\label{tab:mocap_long}
\begin{tabular}{c|p{25pt}|p{25pt}|p{25.5pt}|p{28.5pt}}
\hline
scenarios & basket & bas\_sig & dir\_tra & jumping \\ \hline
Residual sup.\cite{martinez2017human} & \textbf{\ \ 72.83} & \ \ 60.57 & 153.12 & 162.84 \\
DMGNN \cite{li2020dynamic} & 138.62 & \ \ 52.04 & 111.23 & 224.63 \\
Traj-GCN \cite{mao2019learning} & \ \ 97.99 & \ \ 54.00 & 114.16 & 127.41 \\
MSR-GCN & \ \ 86.96 & \textbf{\ \ 47.91} & \textbf{111.04} & \textbf{124.79} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|p{24pt}|p{25pt}|p{25pt}|p{23pt}}
\hline
scenarios & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{running} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{soccer} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{walking} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{washwin} \\ \hline
Residual sup.\cite{martinez2017human} & 158.19 & 107.37 & 194.33 & 202.73 \\
DMGNN \cite{li2020dynamic} & \textbf{\ \ 46.40} & 111.90 & \ \ 67.01 & \ \ 82.84 \\
Traj-GCN \cite{mao2019learning} & \ \ 51.73 & 108.26 & \textbf{\ \ 34.41} & \textbf{\ \ 66.95} \\
MSR-GCN & \ \ 48.03 & \textbf{\ \ 99.32} & \ \ 39.70 & \ \ 71.30 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\normalsize
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{table}
\subsection{Datasets Setup}
The \textbf{H3.6M} dataset~\cite{ionescu2013human3} consists of seven subjects S1, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, and S11, and each one contains 15 action categories. We transform the original data from exponential mapping (expmap) format to the 3D joint coordinate space, downsample the original pose sequence by 2 along the time axis, and choose $22$ body joints from the original $32$ joints of a single pose. Like \cite{martinez2017human, li2020dynamic,mao2019learning}, we use the data of S5 and S11 as test and validation dataset respectively, and the rest data is used for training. We use four scales in descending and ascending section, which contains 22, 12, 7, and 4 joints respectively.
The \textbf{CMU Mocap} dataset is another commonly used dataset for human pose prediction, which includes 8 action categories. A single pose has 38 body joints in the original dataset, among which we choose 25 and abstract to 12, 7, and 4 joints. Other details are similar to H3.6M.
\subsection{Comparison Settings}
\textbf{Metrics.} Mean Per Joint Position Error (MPJPE) in millimeter is the most widely used evaluation metric. Supposing the predicted pose sequence is $\hat{X}_{1:T}$ and the corresponding ground truth is $X_{1:T}$, then the MPJPE loss is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_\text{MPJPE} = \frac{1}{J \times T} \sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{j=1}^{J} {\left \| \hat{p}_{j, t} - p_{j, t} \right \|}^{2},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{p}_{j, t} \in{\mathbb{R}^{3}}$ represents the predicted $j$-th joint position in frame $t$, and $p_{j, t}$ is the corresponding ground truth.
\textbf{Baselines.} We compare our approach with three state-of-the-art baselines, {\em i.e.}, denoted as Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human}, DMGNN~\cite{li2020dynamic}, and Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning}, respectively. The~\cite{martinez2017human} is based on RNN, and the rest two are based on GCNs. Specifically, ~\cite{li2020dynamic} builds a dynamic multi-scale graph convolution neural network, and~\cite{mao2019learning} transforms the original data from 3D coordinate space to frequency space.
\textbf{Random test batch \vs full test set.} All the compared three works~\cite{martinez2017human,li2020dynamic,mao2019learning} evaluate their methods on just one randomly selected single batch data of size 8 for each action category. We argue that such little test data is not enough to accurately evaluate the performance of the compared approaches. This has also been questioned in \cite{pavllo2019modeling}. To alleviate this problem, we modify their published codes and retrain the networks to use the whole test dataset in 3D coordinate space to evaluate the MPJPE. Experimental results with the same evaluation manner from prior works can also be found in the supplemental material.
\textbf{Unifying input and output length.} Methods of~\cite{martinez2017human,li2020dynamic} require 50 historical observed poses to predict 25 future poses, while~\cite{mao2019learning} predicts 25 future poses by just 10 poses. All the experiments in this paper follow the way of~\cite{mao2019learning}.
\subsection{Results}
To validate the prediction performance of MSR-GCN, we show the quantitative and qualitative results of MSR-GCN for 400ms short-term ({\em i.e.}, 10 frames) and 1000ms long-term ({\em i.e.}, 25 frames) predictions on H3.6M and CMU Mocap, and compare MSR-GCN with the state-of-the-art methods.
\textbf{Results on H3.6M.} The quantitative comparisons for both short-term and long-term prediction results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:h36m_short1} and Table~\ref{tab:h36m_long} respectively. Apparently, the three GCN-based approaches are much better than the RNN-based method Residual sup.~\cite{martinez2017human}, which validates the effectiveness of GCNs for human motion prediction. Among the three GCN-based methods, Traj-GCN is better than DMGNN, while MSR-GCN is better than Traj-GCN, overall. For a more intuitive comparison, we plot the average prediction error over all kinds of actions at different forecast times in Figure~\ref{fig:other-hist}, which clearly shows that MSR-GCN outperforms the compared three methods. Figure~\ref{fig:pose-other} shows an example of the predicted poses for different methods. In this example, with the increase of the forecast time, the result of MSR-GCN becomes better than those of the others.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig/comp_hist_2.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of average prediction error over all action categories at different forecast times on the H3.6M dataset.}
\label{fig:other-hist}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Results on CMU Mocap.} The same comparisons are conducted on the CMU Mocap dataset, as shown in Table \ref{tab:mocap_short} and Table \ref{tab:mocap_long}. MSR-GCN gets the best average performance at all short-term forecast times. For long-term prediction, \ie, predicting the frame up to 1000ms, MSR-GCN achieves the best results on four kinds of actions. For other actions, the prediction errors of our method are always the second best and are very close to the best ones.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/d-pose-other.png}
\caption{Visualization of predicted poses of different methods on a sample of the H3.6M dataset.}
\label{fig:pose-other}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Performance gains analysis and reasoning.} The above results show that MSR-GCN outperforms the compared methods. Here, we explain in detail the reasons and sources of performance gains.
Firstly, during experiments, we find that inferring residuals between input and target poses is much easier than predicting the target poses. The average errors on the CMU dataset in Table~\ref{tab:GR} show that global residual (GR) leads to noticeable performance gains for both Traj-GCN and our method (MSR-GCN). Nevertheless, ours without GR still clearly outperforms other baselines without GR (Traj-GCN w/o residual and DMGNN), showing the significance of our model design.
\begin{table}[]
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}{
\caption{Effects of the global residual on the CMU Mocap dataset.}
\label{tab:GR}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
DMGNN~\cite{li2020dynamic} & \makecell{Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} w/o GR} & Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} & \makecell{Ours w/o GR} & Ours \\
\hline
53.05 & 49.82 & 39.75 & 46.92 & \textbf{37.28}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{table}
Secondly, we compare our method with Traj-GCN, Traj-GCN w/o DCT, and a single-scale version of our method named MSR-GCN-1L on the CMU dataset. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:structure}, the performance gain led by DCT is 0.55, while that of our multi-scale strategy is 3.15, manifesting the effectiveness of our multi-scale architecture.
\begin{table}[]
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2mm}{
\caption{Comparison between the multi-scale architecture of MSR-GCN and the DCT components of Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} on CMU dataset.}
\label{tab:structure}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
\makecell{Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} w/o DCT} & Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} & MSR-GCN-1L & MSR-GCN \\
\hline
40.30 & 39.75 & 40.43 & 37.28\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{table}
Thirdly, we examine the performance gain of MSR-GCN over Traj-GCN for each joint, finding that larger performance gains are achieved for joints of limbs, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:performance_gain_joint} where deeper red color means higher performance gain. Since joints on the limbs usually have higher motion frequency, the figure indicates that our method can better handle high-frequency motions.
More analysis can be found in the supplemental material.
\begin{figure}[]
\begin{center}
\scriptsize{
\hspace{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\columnwidth]{fig/h36m_joint_4.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\columnwidth]{fig/h36m_orred_bar_3.pdf}
\hspace{0.4cm}
\hspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\columnwidth]{fig/cmu_joint_4.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\columnwidth]{fig/cmu_orred_bar_3.pdf}\\
}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Average performance gain over Traj-GCN~\cite{mao2019learning} of joints on H36M (left) and CMU (right).}
\label{fig:performance_gain_joint}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
\begin{table*}[]
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{4.5pt}
\scriptsize
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{Ablation studies on the number of scale levels, intermediate losses, residual GCNs \vs residual fully connected layers, and different grouping manners. Results are obtained on the CMU Mocap dataset. On average, all the designs of our model contribute to its accuracy.}
\label{tab:ablation_table}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc|ccccc|ccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{running} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{soccer} \\ \hline
& s1 & s2 & s3 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{s4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{inter-loss} & GCB & FCL & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 \\ \hline
MSR-GCN & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \checkmark & & \textbf{12.84} & \textbf{20.42} & \textbf{30.58} & \textbf{34.42} & \ \ \textbf{48.03} & \textbf{10.92} & \textbf{19.50} & \textbf{37.05} & \textbf{46.38} & \textbf{99.32} \\
MSR-GCN w/o inter-loss&\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \checkmark & & 13.20 & 21.20 & 32.69 & 36.02 & \ \ 51.65 & 11.03 & 19.81 & 38.93 & 48.84 & 101.36 \\
MSR-GCN-3L&\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \checkmark & & 13.60 & 22.79 & 35.87 & 39.58 & \ \ 49.60 & 11.02 & 19.84 & 38.49 & 48.26 & 107.17 \\
MSR-GCN-2L&\checkmark & \checkmark & & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \checkmark & & 14.30 & 23.37 & 38.95 & 45.11 & \ \ 73.26 & 10.93 & 19.62 & 38.44 & 48.30 & 106.35 \\
MSR-GCN-1L&\checkmark & & & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \checkmark & & 14.24 & 24.21 & 39.06 & 43.60 & \ \ 74.52 & 11.55 & 21.37 & 43.26 & 55.00 & 123.69 \\
MSR-FCL&\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & & \checkmark & 13.33 & 24.29 & 43.58 & 50.01 & \ \ 61.90 & 12.16 & 22.83 & 46.49 & 59.04 & 132.47 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc|ccccc|ccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{walking} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{jumping} \\ \hline
& s1 & s2 & s3 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{s4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{inter-loss} & GCB & FCL & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 & 80 & 160 & 320 & 400 & 1000 \\ \hline
MSR-GCN &\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \checkmark & & \ \ \textbf{6.31} & \textbf{10.30} & 17.64 & 21.12 & \ \ 39.70 & 14.99 & 28.66 & \textbf{55.86} & \textbf{69.05} & \textbf{124.79} \\
MSR-GCN w/o inter-loss&\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \checkmark & & \ \ 6.36 & 10.33 & \textbf{17.05} & \textbf{20.04} & \ \ \textbf{34.67} & \textbf{14.65} & \textbf{28.22} & 56.43 & 70.07 & 125.69 \\
MSR-GCN-3L&\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \checkmark & &\ \ 6.62 & 10.91 & 18.10 & 21.19 & \ \ 42.72 & 14.98 & 28.89 & 57.69 & 71.60 & 128.62 \\
MSR-GCN-2L &\checkmark & \checkmark & & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \checkmark & & \ \ 7.87 & 13.41 & 23.16 & 27.63 & \ \ 52.31 & 15.21 & 29.67 & 59.85 & 74.31 & 128.10 \\
MSR-GCN-1L&\checkmark & & & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \checkmark & & \ \ 6.73 & 11.09 & 17.94 & 20.95 & \ \ 37.21 & 15.49 & 29.73 & 58.94 & 73.10 & 131.72 \\
MSR-FCL & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\checkmark} & & \checkmark & \ \ 7.19 & 12.58 & 23.15 & 28.00 & \ \ 52.77 & 15.14 & 29.89 & 61.31 & 76.49 & 139.01 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\normalsize
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{table*}
The influences of several key elements of our proposed model, such as the number of the scale levels, the intermediate supervision losses, the residual GCNs, and the multi-scale grouping manner, are investigated on the CMU Mocap dataset to provide a deeper understanding of our approach. Specifically, we modify MSR-GCN to obtain five ablation variants of it: (1) MSR-GCN w/o inter-loss: the MSR-GCN without intermediate supervision losses, (2) MSR-GCN-3L: the MSR-GCN with three pose scales (note that the original MSR-GCN has four scales), (3) and (4) MSR-GCN-2L, and MSR-GCN-1L with two scales and one scale respectively, (5) MSR-FCL: replace the residual GCNs by residual fully connected layers.
\textbf{Effects of multi-scale architecture.} To study the effectiveness of the multi-scale mechanism of the proposed architecture, we conduct experiments on the three-scale, two-scale and one-scale variants of MSR-GCN. The comparison results are shown in Table \ref{tab:ablation_table}. Please see the rows corresponding to MSR-GCN, MSR-GCN-3L, MSR-GCN-2L, and MSR-GCN-1L. In most cases, MSR-GCN is the best, followed by MSR-GCN-3L, MSR-GCN-2L, and MSR-GCN-1L. As an example, for the action of running, the prediction error of the four variants at time 320ms are 30.58, 35.87, 38.95, and 39.06, respectively. These experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our multi-scale architecture.
\textbf{Effects of intermediate supervisions.} The effects of intermediate losses are analyzed by removing the ``End GCNs'' of the second, the third, and the fourth scale from MSR-GCN. Please see the two rows corresponding MSR-GCN and MSR-GCN w/o inter-loss in Table~\ref{tab:ablation_table} to compare the two variants. In most cases, MSR-GCN is better than MSR-GCN w/o inter-loss, which demonstrates the necessity of the intermediate supervisions. Although some exceptions happen on ``walking'' and ``jumping'', the differences between the two variants are very small.
\textbf{Effects of residual GCNs.} We replace all the residual GCNs with plain networks comprising residual fully connected layers (FCL) to analyze the effects of the residual GCNs. Please see the rows corresponding to MSR-GCN and MSR-FCL of Table~\ref{tab:ablation_table}. The experimental results show that MSR-GCN is better than MSR-FCL by a large margin. This strongly validates the importance of GCNs for high-quality pose prediction.
\textbf{Effects of different multi-scale grouping manners. \label{sec:ablationgroupingmanner}} In default, we group the human joints in the way shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fine-coarse} for skeletons of H3.6M. The default grouping manner for CMU can be found in the supplemental material. In Table~\ref{tab:grouping_manners}, we test the performance of our method with different grouping strategies on CMU, including 25-10-5-3 which means there are 25 joints for the finest-scale skeleton and 3 joints for the coarsest scale (please refer to the supplemental material for the manually specified joint groups), and three random groupings of the default 25-12-7-4. As shown, our default grouping produces better average results.
\begin{table}[]
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.85mm}{
\caption{Comparison of average errors of different grouping manners on the CMU dataset.}
\label{tab:grouping_manners}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Grouping} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{25-12-7-4} & 25-10-5-3 \\ \cline{2-6}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ Specified (default)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Random 1} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Random 2} & Random 3 & Specified \\ \hline
Avg. Error $\downarrow$ & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{37.28}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{41.15} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{45.77} & 47.04 & 40.99 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/ablation_hist_2.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of average errors over all kinds of actions of different ablation variants at different forecast times on CMU.}
\label{fig:ablation_final}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure}
More visualizations are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ablation_final} and Figure~\ref{fig:pose-ablation}. In Figure~\ref{fig:ablation_final}, we show the average prediction errors over all kinds of actions of different ablation variants at different forecast times on the CMU dataset. As can be seen, MSR-GCN is always better than its variants. In Figure~\ref{fig:pose-ablation}, we show an example of the predicted poses of different ablation variants, which clearly demonstrate that MSR-GCN is much better than MSR-GCN-2L, MSR-GCN-1L, and MSR-FCL, verifying the necessity of both the building blocks of GCNs and the multi-scale architecture.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig/d-pose-ablation.png}
\caption{Visualization of predicted poses of different ablation variants on a sample of the CMU Mocap dataset.}
\label{fig:pose-ablation}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we build a multi-scale residual graph convolution network to effectively predict future human motion from observed histories. Losses are added to all the scales to provide intermediate supervision. We use a short observed historical pose sequence of 10 frames as input to predict 25 frames in the future. We test and compare the proposed method with previous state-of-the-art approaches on the whole test dataset. Our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on two standard benchmark datasets. We will further explore the multi-scale grouping manners in the future.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
This research is sponsored in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62072191, 61802453, 61972160), in part by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2019A1515010860, 2021A1515012301), and in part by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (D2190670).
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Background and Motivation}
\IEEEPARstart{N}{ext}-generation wireless networks (such as beyond 5G (B5G) and 6G) have been envisioned as a key enabler for many emerging applications, such as connected intelligence, smart cities and industry, connected vehicles and remote health-caring. These applications demand high-quality wireless connectivity as well as high-accuracy and robust sensing capability. Among many visionary assumptions about the B5G/6G networks, a common theme is that {\emph{sensing}} will play a significant role more than ever before, particularly for location/environment-aware scenarios \cite{8869705}. It is foreseeable that future networks will go beyond classical communication and provide a sensing functionality to measure or even to image the surrounding environment. This sensing functionality and the forthcoming ability of the network to collect sensory data from the environment, is seen as an enabler for learning and building intelligence in future smart cities. Therefore, it is natural to connect both operations in B5G/6G networks, which motivates the recent research theme of {\emph{Integrated Sensing and Communications (ISAC)}}\cite{cui2021integrating}.
Sensing and communication (S\&C) process information in different ways. Sensing collects and extracts information from noisy observations, while communication focuses on transferring information via specifically tailored signals and then recovers it from the noisy reception. The ultimate goal of ISAC is to unify these two operations and to pursue direct tradeoffs between them as well as mutual performance gains. On one hand, ISAC is expected to considerably improve spectral and energy efficiencies, while reducing both hardware and signaling costs, since it attempts to merge sensing and communication into a single system, which previously competed over various types of resources. On the other hand, ISAC also pursues deeper integration where the two functionalities are no longer viewed as separate end-goals but are co-designed for mutual benefits, i.e., communication-assisted sensing and sensing-assisted communication. Profiting from the above attributes, the usage of ISAC is not restricted to cellular networks, but has been extended to a wide variety of applications, such as Wi-Fi networks \cite{maCUSR2019,9367442}, unmanned aerial vechile (UAV) networks \cite{9293257}, and military communications \cite{5545182}.
\subsection{Historical View of ISAC}
Although only recently gaining growing attention from both academia and industry, ISAC dates back to as early as the 1960s. ISAC, in its oldest form, was implemented in \cite{mealey1963method} over a missile range instrumentation radar via pulse interval modulation (PIM), where information was embedded into a group of radar pulses. Such systems are defined by different names, e.g., Radar-Communications (RadCom) \cite{sturm2011waveform}, Joint Communication and Radar (JCR) \cite{9392306}, Joint Radar and Communication (JRC) \cite{8999605}, and Dual-functional Radar-Communications (DFRC) \cite{8999605}. The sensing functionality in these systems mainly refers to {\emph{radar sensing}}, which has long been a mainstream in ISAC. In fact, as a major representative of sensing technologies, radar's development has been profoundly affected by wireless communications, and vice versa.
\subsubsection{The Birth of Radar}
Since its birth in the first half of the 20th century, radar systems have been deployed worldwide, carrying out various sensing tasks, such as geophysical monitoring, air traffic control, weather observation, and surveillance for defence and security. The term {\emph{RADAR}} was first used by the US Navy as an acronym for ``RAdio Detection And Ranging" in 1939 \cite{lapedes1974mcgraw}. During the two World Wars, radar was independently and secretly created by different nations, and was soon put into use in the war to provide early warning of incoming threats.
Driven by mechanical motors, a classical rotary radar searches for targets in the space via periodically rotating its antenna(s). Such radars, however, face several critical challenges, e.g., the lack of multi-functionality and flexibility, as well as being relatively easy to jam and interfer. In view of this, the phased-array, a.k.a. the electronically-scanned array technique, was born at the right moment \cite{fenn2000development}. Instead of mechanically rotating its antennas, phased-array systems generate spatial beams of signals that can be electronically steered to different directions. This type of radar was applied for the first time to assist the landing of aircrafts in World War II, by Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez \cite{walker1988alvarez}. In later times of the war, a long-range early warning phased-array radar, named ``FuMG 41/42 Mammut'' (or ``Mammut'' in short), was developed by the German company GEMA, capable of detecting targets flying at an altitude of 8 km at a range of 300 km\cite{9079101}.
\subsubsection{How Radar and Communication Inspire Each Other}
``Mammut'' might not only be the first phased-array radar system, but also the first multi-antenna system, which inspired the invention of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) communication systems. In 1994, the first patent on MIMO communication was granted to Paulraj and Kailath \cite{paulraj1994increasing}, which led to the new eras of 3G, 4G, and 5G wireless networks \cite{Foschini1998,telatar1999capacity}. Triggered by MIMO communication techniques, collocated MIMO radar was proposed ten years later at the 2004 IEEE Radar Conference by the MIT Lincoln Lab \cite{1316398}. In MIMO radar, each antenna transmits individual waveforms instead of phase-shifted counterparts of a benchmark waveform \cite{8930009}. This leads to enlarged virtual aperture, which improves the flexibility and the sensing performance compared to phased-array radars. Concepts such as {\emph{degrees-of-freedom (DoFs)}} and {\emph{diversity}}, which were ``borrowed'' from MIMO communication theory, became corner stones of the MIMO radar theoretical foundation \cite{4350230,4408448}.
The research on radar and communication began to merge in the early 1990s-2000s. In the 1990s, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) of the US initiated the Advanced Multifunction Radio Frequency (RF) Concept (AMRFC) Program, aiming to design integrated RF front-ends by partitioning multiple antennas into different functional modules, for e.g., radar, communications, and electronic warfares \cite{858893,1406306}, respectively. The ISAC research that emerged in the 1990s-2000s was largely motivated by the AMRFC and its follow-up projects, such as the Integrated Topside (InTop) program sponsored by the ONR \cite{6127573}. During that period, various ISAC schemes were proposed by the radar community, where the general idea was to embed communication information into commonly employed radar waveforms. For instance, the pioneering work of \cite{roberton2003integrated} proposed to combine chirp signals with PSK modulations, which was the first ISAC waveform design to exploit chirp signals. Since then, many researches began to focus on modulating communication data by leveraging radar waveforms (such as chirp signals and frequency/phase-coded waveforms) as carriers \cite{saddik2007ultra,jamil2008integrated,han2013joint,garmatyuk2011multifunctional}.
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), one of the key techniques in wireless networks including 4G and 5G, has been found to be useful in radar sensing as well in the early 2010s \cite{sturm2011waveform}. In particular, in OFDM radar, the impact of random communication data can be straightforwardly mitigated, and the delay and Doppler processing are decoupled, which can be simply performed by the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and its inverse (IFFT) \cite{sturm2011waveform}. The two types of schemes based on chirp and OFDM signals, are examples for ``sensing-centric'' and ``communication-centric'' designs, respectively, as will be detailed in later sections.
In 2013, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the US funded another project named ``Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications (SSPARC)", which aimed to release part of the sub-6 GHz spectrum from the radar bands for the shared use of radar and communication \cite{SSPARC}. This leads to another interesting research topic of ``radar-communication coexistence (RCC)" within the framework of cognitive radio, where individual radar and communication systems are expected to coexist in the same frequency band, without unduly interfering with each other \cite{7953658,7814210,8871348,8743424,8168273}. Going beyond the spectral coexistence and interference management involved in RCC, ISAC pursues a deeper integration of the two functionalities through a common infrastructure.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{timeline}{1939}{2021}{2cm}{2cm}{1.3\columnwidth}{14.5cm}
\entry{1939}{The term RADAR is first used by the US Navy \cite{lapedes1974mcgraw}.}
\entry{1942}{The first microwave phased-array antenna is invented by the Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez \cite{walker1988alvarez}.}
\entry{1944}{The first practical phased-array radar, FuMG 41/42 Mammut, is built by the Germany company GEMA \cite{9079101}.}
\entry{1963}{The world's first ISAC signaling scheme is proposed in \cite{mealey1963method}, in which the communication bits are modulated on the radar pulse interval.}
\entry{1994}{The first patent on MIMO communication system is granted \cite{paulraj1994increasing}.}
\entry{1996}{The Advanced Multifunction RF Concept (AMRFC) Program \cite{858893} is initiated by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) of the US.}
\entry{2003}{The first ISAC scheme that exploits chirp signals is proposed \cite{roberton2003integrated}.}
\plainentry{2004}{The concept of the collocated MIMO radar is proposed in \cite{1316398} by the MIT Lincoln Lab.}
\plainentry{2005}{The HAD structure is introduced into MIMO communication \cite{1519678}.}
\entry{2010}{T. L. Marzetta's seminal work \cite{5595728} on massive MIMO communication is published.}
\entry{2010}{The concept of the phased-MIMO radar is proposed \cite{5419124}, with a similar RF front-end structure to the HAD communication system.}
\plainentry{2011}{The OFDM based ISAC signaling scheme is proposed \cite{sturm2011waveform}.}
\entry{2013}{NYU WIRELESS's landmark paper \cite{6515173} on mmWave mobile communication is published.}
\entry{2013}{DARPA launches the project ``Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications (SSPARC)'', which aims at releasing part of the radar spectrum for use of commercial communication.}
\plainentry{2014}{The HAD technique is applied to the mmWave massive MIMO communication system \cite{6717211}.}
\entry{2017}{The concept of the perceptive mobile network is proposed \cite{8108564}.}
\plainentry{2020}{The first theoretical analysis of the asymptotic performance of the massive MIMO radar is presented \cite{8962251}.}
\plainentry{2021}{The definition and scope of ISAC are formally given in \cite{cui2021integrating} and this paper.}
\end{timeline}
\end{footnotesize}
\caption{Interplay between S\&C - A Historical View.}
\label{fig:timeline}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.9\columnwidth]{ISAC_Framework.pdf}
\caption{Framework of ISAC technologies and structure of the paper.}
\label{fig: ISAC_Framework}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Parallel Development of Radar and Communication}
In 2010, massive MIMO (mMIMO) was proposed in Marzetta's seminal work, which later became one of the core technologies for 5G-and-beyond networks \cite{6824752,5595728}. Three years later in 2013, NYU WIRELESS published their landmark paper on the feasibility of exploiting millimeter wave (mmWave) signals for mobile communications \cite{6515173}. From then on, mmWave and mMIMO became a perfect couple that mutually aid each other. Massive MIMO arrays can be made physically much smaller thanks to the signal wavelength at the mm level, and mmWave signals can be transmitted farther away owing to the high beamforming gain provided by the mMIMO array. Nevertheless, a critical challenge preventing large-scale deployment of mMIMO mmWave technologies is that huge hardware costs and energy consumption are imposed, due to the large number of mmWave RF chains required. This forced wireless researchers to rethink the RF front-end architecture of mMIMO systems. Among others, the hybrid analog-digital (HAD) structure became a viable promising solution, which connects massive antennas with a small number of RF chains through a well-designed phase-shifter network, thus leading to reduced costs and energy consumption \cite{1519678,6717211,9050842}.
\\\indent Coincidentally, in the same year when the mMIMO was born, the concept of the phased-MIMO radar was proposed in \cite{5419124}, which attempts to achieve a balance between phased-array and MIMO radars. Notice that by transmitting individual waveforms at each antenna, the MIMO radar is beneficial in increasing the DoFs at a cost of limited array gains; by contrast, via focusing the transmit power towards a target direction, the phased-array radar is advantageous in achieving higher array gains but with compromised DoFs. A natural idea is therefore to design a system architecture which bridges the gap between the two, by linking multiple antennas with a limited number of RF chains via phase-shifter arrays. This achieves a flexible tradeoff between phased-array and MIMO radars \cite{5419124}. In the extreme case when there is only a single RF chain, phased-MIMO radar reduces to the phased-array radar. On the other hand, if the number of RF chains equals the number of antennas, phased-MIMO radar is equivalent to MIMO radar. More recently, advantages of leveraging mMIMO for radar detection are considered in \cite{8962251}, where a target can be accurately sensed via a single snapshot in the presence of disturbance with unknown statistics.
Due to the above parallel, yet largely independent development, there exist duplications in devices, such as between phased arrays for radar and for communications, MIMO radar and MIMO communications, while multi-static radars can be paralleled to cooperative communications. Notably, there are also parallels between the radar signal processing and that of communications, including between beamforming for communications and for radar, hypothesis testing for target detection and signal detection, millimeter-wave communication channel estimation and radar angle detection, among others that will be detailed in the following sections.
\subsubsection{Convergence of S\&C}
The above similarities provide a clear opportunity for the convergence of the two technologies into systems and devices, that can serve sensing and communications with a single transmission. Indeed, one may observe from the above interesting parallel, that radar and communication technologies are so deeply interweaved with each other that they evolve towards the same direction eventually. That is, high frequency band and large-scale antenna array, which are essentially demands for more spectral and spatial resources. From the communication perspective, large bandwidth and antenna arrays boost the communication capacity and provide massive connections. On the other hand, increasing bandwidth and number of antennas will also considerably improve the radar performance in range and angular resolutions, i.e., the ability to more accurately sense more targets, or to map a complex environment.
Radar and communication also tend to be similar in both channel characteristics and signal processing, as their operation frequencies go up to the mmWave band \cite{6824752}. In particular, the mmWave communication channel is sparse, dominated by Line of Sight (LoS), due to the fact that the available propagation paths are not as rich as those in the sub-6 GHz band. The mmWave channel model is thereby aligns better to the physical geometry, which, in conjunction with the mMIMO, triggers the development of beam domain signal processing for mmWave communications \cite{8869705,7400949}. These include but are not limited to, beam training, beam alignment, beam tracking, and beam management, all of which can be based on an HAD structure \cite{7397861}. It is noteworthy that communication in the beam domain mimics the conventional radar signal processing to a certain degree, where beam training and tracking can be viewed as target searching and tracking. To that end, the boundary between radar and communication turns to be more and more ambiguous, and the sensing functionality is not necessarily restricted to the radar infrastructure. Wireless infrastructures and devices can also perform sensing via its radio emission and signaling, which forms the technical foundation and rationale of ISAC \cite{cui2021integrating}. For the sake of clarity, we have summarized the historical development of S\&C and their interplay in Fig. \ref{fig:timeline}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Existing Overview Papers on ISAC}
\label{tab: existing_works}
\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Existing Works}} &
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Type}} &
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Applications}} &
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Fundamental} \\\textbf{Tradeoff} \end{tabular}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Signal Processing}} &
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Communications and Networking}} \\ \cline{5-9}
&
&
&
&
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Waveform} \\ \textbf{Design}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Transceiver} \\ \textbf{Design}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Resource} \\ \textbf{Management}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Network} \\ \textbf{Architecture}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Network} \\ \textbf{Protocol}\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\cite{sturm2011waveform,8828030,9127852,hassanien2016signaling} & Tutorial & & & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & & & \\
\cite{9296833,zhang2020enabling} & Survey & & & $\surd$ & & & $\surd$ & $\surd$ \\
\cite{8999605,7782415} & Survey & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & & & \\
\cite{Zhang2021oveview} & Survey & & & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ \\
\cite{9354629} & Survey & & & & & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ \\
\cite{8972666} & Survey & $\surd$ & & $\surd$ & & $\surd$ & & $\surd$ \\
\cite{Liu2021ISAC_survey} & Survey & & $\surd$ & & & & & \\
\cite{cui2021integrating} & Survey & $\surd$ & & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & & $\surd$ & $\surd$ \\
This Paper & Survey & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\subsection{ISAC: A Paradigm Shift in Wireless Network Design}
Given the above technical trends, the wireless community is now witnessing a new paradigm shift that may shape our modern information society in profound ways. While wireless sensors are already ubiquitous, they are expected to be further integrated into wireless networks of the future. More precisely, sensing functionality could be a native capability of the next-generation wireless network, not only as an auxiliary method, but also as a {\emph{basic service}} provided to vast number of users \cite{9376324}. This magnificent picture has brought us a huge space for imagination. The sensory data can be collected and utilized for the purpose of enhancing the communication performance, e.g., sensing aided vehicular beamforming and resource management. Moreover, equipped with sensing functionality, future mobile networks open their ``eyes'' and become {\emph{perceptive networks}} \cite{8108564,9296833}. Such a network senses the surrounding environment ubiquitously, providing various services such as urban traffic monitoring, weather observation, and human activity recognition. The wealth of data collected provides the basis for building intelligence both for the ISAC network itself, and also for emerging smart home and city applications.
We define ISAC as a design methodology and corresponding enabling technologies that integrate sensing and communication functionalities to achieve efficient usage of wireless resources and to mutually benefit each other \cite{cui2021integrating}. Within this definition, we further identify two potential gains of ISAC, namely, i) {\emph{Integration Gain}} attained by the shared use of wireless resources for dual purposes of S\&C to alleviate duplication of transmissions, devices and infrastructure, and ii) {\emph{Coordination Gain}} attained from the mutual assistance between S\&C \cite{cui2021integrating}. By foreseeing that ISAC will play a significant role in B5G/6G cellular systems, the next-generation WLAN, and the V2X network, we overview the applications and use cases, technical approaches, as well as challenges and future directions related to ISAC.
\subsection{Structure of the Paper}
In this paper, we provide a comprehensive technical overview on the theoretical framework of ISAC. We first study use cases and industrial activities related to ISAC in Sec. II. Then, we look into ISAC theory and performance tradeoffs between S\&C in Sec. III, ranging from information theoretical limits, to tradeoffs in physical layer (PHY) and ISAC channels, and to the tradeoff in cross-layer designs. We then overview signal processing aspects of ISAC, such as ISAC waveform design, and receive signal processing in Sec. IV and V, respectively. As a step further, we investigate the mutual assistance between S\&C by discussing the design of the perceptive mobile network in Sec. VI and VII, respectively, i.e., communication-assisted sensing, and sensing-assisted communications, including sensing-assisted beam training, beam tracking, and generic resource allocation. Finally, we summarize the paper by identifying the potential interplay between ISAC and other emerging communication technologies in Sec. VIII.
We note that there have been several survey/tutorial papers on ISAC-related topics, e.g., \cite{8999605} on the general designs of JRC systems, \cite{Liu2021ISAC_survey} on fundamental limits of ISAC, \cite{8828016} on the spectral coexistence of radar and communication systems, \cite{8828023} on the sensing-centric DFRC design, \cite{8828030} on the mmWave JRC, and \cite{9127852} on DFRC for autonoumous vehicles. Unlike previous works that depict only part of the picture of ISAC, our overview has demonstrated the panorama of the ISAC theoretical framework, by shedding light on the basic performance tradeoffs, waveform design, and receiver design in ISAC systems, as well as the mutual assistance between S\&C at a network level. For clarity, we have provided a detailed comparison between existing overviews and our paper in TABLE. \ref{tab: existing_works}. Our hope is that this paper can provide a reference point for wireless researchers working in the area of ISAC, by offering both the bird-eye view and technical details in the state-of-the-art ISAC innovations.
\section{Applications and Industrial Progress}
In this section, we first extend the use case studies in \cite{cui2021integrating} to further illustrate our ISAC vision of the future wireless networks. In particular, we elaborate seven potential ISAC application scenarios followed by several key use cases for each. Then, recent ISAC-related industrial activities and research efforts are introduced to fill the gap between academia and industry communities.
\subsection{Case Studies}
\subsubsection{Sensing as a Service} The recent deployment of dense cellular networks as part of 5G provides unique opportunities for sensing. Current communication infrastructures can be reused for sensing with only small modifications in hardware, signaling strategy, and communication standards. In such a case, integrating sensing into current IoT devices and cellular networks would be performed rapidly and cheaply, by reusing reference or synchronization signals as sensing waveforms. As a step forward, sensing and communication functionalities can be fully integrated into all radio emissions \cite{8386661}, where both pilot and payload signals can be exploited for sensing. This kind of ISAC strategy is able to achieve better integration and coordination gains, however, raising more difficulties in receiver architecture and signaling designs, which will be detailed in Sec. VI.
With the use of ISAC technologies, the role of existing cellular networks will turn to a ubiquitously deployed large-scale sensor network, namely a perceptive network \cite{9296833}, which triggers a variety of novel applications for the current communication industry. We provide some examples below:
\textbf{Enhanced Localization and Tracking}: Localization has been a key feature in the standardization, implementation, and exploitation of existing cellular networks, from 1G to the future 6G \cite{delCST2018}. Due to the low range and angle resolutions that are respectively caused by the bandwidth and antenna limitations, most of current cellular networks (i.e. 4G and 5G) only provide measurement data with meter-level accuracy to assist in global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). According to the key parameter indicators (KPIs) of 5G New Radio (NR) Release 17 \cite{3GPPPosi}, the highest required localization accuracies are 0.2 m/1 m horizontally/vertically in industrial IoT applications, which are unable to meet the requirement of future applications. Particularly, location resolution requirements to pinpoint the position of users are higher in indoor environments than that in outdoor, e.g., indoor human activity recognition \cite{chenCUSR2021} ($\sim$1 cm), autonomous robot and manufacturing \cite{lasi2014industry} ($\sim$5 mm). On the other hand, current cellular based localization technologies are mostly implemented in a device-based manner, where a wireless equipment (e.g., a smartphone) is attached to the locating object by computing its location through signal interactions and geometrical relationships with other deployed wireless equipments (e.g. a Wi-Fi access point or a base station (BS)). However, the device-based approach limits the choice of locating objects and does not generalize to diverse scenarios.
Benefiting from additional Doppler processing and by exploiting useful information from multi-path components, ISAC enabled cellular networks are able to improve the localization accuracy compared to current localization technologies. On top of that, a cellular network with sensing functionality is not limited to just pinpointing the location of a certain object with a smartphone, but also suits boarder scenarios that extract spectroscopic and geometric information from the surrounding environment.
\textbf{Area Imaging}: The RF imaging technology generates high-resolution, day-and-night, and weather-independent images for a multitude of applications ranging from environmental monitoring, climate change research, and security-related applications \cite{albertoGRSM2013}. Importantly, compared to camera based imaging, it is less intrusive and allows focusing on the intended information without revealing sensitive information in the surrounding environment. Due to the narrow-band nature of past-generation cellular systems, the range resolution is roughly meter-level which does not support high-resolution services. Thanks to the deployment of mmWave and massive MIMO technologies, future BSs could possibly pursue high range and angle resolutions by cooperatively sensing and imaging a specified area. In such a case, the radio access network acts as a distributed MIMO radar as elaborated in Section VI. Consequently, the future cellular network and user equipment (UE) could “see” the surrounding environment, which would further support high-layer applications such as digital twins, virtual reality, and more \cite{tanJCS2021}. Furthermore, with significantly improved imaging resolutions due to higher frequencies, future cellular network
would also support spectrogram-related and spatial/location-aware services. Finally, cellular BSs and UEs with imaging abilities could provide additional commercial values to traditional telecommunication carriers, as a new billing service for civilians.
\textbf{Drone Monitoring and Management}: In recent years, the enthusiasm for using UAVs in civilian and commercial applications has skyrocketed \cite{zengPROC2019}. However, the civilization of drones is posing new regulatory and management headaches. As an aerial platform that could fly over various terrains, drones have the potential to be employed in non-fly zones and in illegal activities, e.g., unauthorized reconnaissance, surveillance of objects and individuals. With the merits of low attitude, small size and varying shape, such non-cooperative UAVs always operate below the line-of-sight (LoS) of current airborne radars, and are difficult to be detected by other surveillance technologies such as video or thermal sensor. The existing cellular network with sensing functionality would not only provide an affordable solution to monitor non-cooperative UAVs in low-attitude airspace, but act as a radio access network to manage and control cooperative UAVs with cellular connections, and assist their navigation in swarms. As a result, the ISAC cellular network could develop into the drone infrastructure that provides drone monitoring and management services to secure future low-attitude airspace applications.
\subsubsection{Smart Home and In-Cabin Sensing} Currently, in most indoor applications, such as in-home and in-cabin scenarios, electronic devices are expected to be interactable and intelligent to fit out a comfortable, convenient and safe living condition. Aiming for this purpose, smart IoT devices should be able to understand the residents both physically and physiologically. With the merits of privacy-preserving, unobtrusive and ubiquitous, standardized wireless signals have been widely employed to figure out what is going on in the surrounding indoor scenario \cite{huangIN2020,zhangTMC2020}.
Recently, ISAC enabled IoT has shown great potential in daily activity recognition, daily health care, home security, driver attention monitoring, etc., in which several of them have been implemented into household products \cite{forbes}. To mention but a few:
\textbf{Human Activity Recognition}: Activity recognition is essential to both humanity and computer science, since it records people’s behaviors with data that allows computing systems to monitor, analyze, and assist their daily life. Over-the-air signals are affected by both static or moving objects, as well as dynamic human activities. Therefore, amplitude/phase variations of wireless signal could be employed to detect or to recognize human presence/proximity/fall/sleep/breathing/daily activities \cite{maCUSR2019}, by extracting the range, Doppler, or micro-Doppler features while moving indoor. Moreover, if the sensing resolution is high enough, fatigue driving could be recognized by identifying the driver’s blink rate. By integrating sensing functionality into current commercial wireless devices, e.g., Wi-Fi devices, they are able to detect and recognize resident’s activities to support a smart and human-centric living environment.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Case Studies and Key Performance Indicators}
\label{tab: usecases}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{} & \textbf{} & \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{\textbf{Key Performance Indicators}} & \textbf{} \\
\cline{3-9}
\textbf{Application} & \textbf{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Case} & Max. Range& Max.Velocity& Range & Doppler & Temporal & Angular &Data Rate Per & \textbf{mmWave}\\
\textbf{} & \textbf{} & (m)& (m/s)& Resolution & Resolution& Resolution &Resolution &User (Avg. / Peak.)& \textbf{}\\
\hline
&$\bullet$ Drone Monitoring and Management& 500&40&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{2}&/ &\satisfaction{0}&Low&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Localization and Tracking in Cellular Network&300&10&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{1}&Low/Very High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Human Authorization and Identification&300 &5&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{1}&Low/Very High&/ \\
Sensing as&$\bullet$ Human Counting& 200&5&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{1}&Low/Very High&/ \\
a Service&$\bullet$ Area Imaging&200 &/ &\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{1}&Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
&$\bullet$ Mobile Crowd Sensing&300 &5&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{1}&Low/Very High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Channel Knowledge Map Construction&300&5&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{1}&Low/Very High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Passive Sensing Network&300 &30&\satisfaction{2}&/&/ &\satisfaction{4}&Low/Very High&/ \\
\hline
&$\bullet$ Human Presence Detection&20 &2&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{1}&High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Human Proximity Detection& 20&4&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{1}&High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Fall Detection&10 &3&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Sleep Monitoring& 1 &2&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{2}&High&/ \\
Smart Home &$\bullet$ Daily Activity Recognition&10&4&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{2}&High&/ \\
and In-Cabin&$\bullet$ Breathing/Heart Rate Estimation&1&2&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{2}&High&/ \\
Sensing&$\bullet$ Intruder Detection&20 &5&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{2}&High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Location-aware Control&20 &3&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&/ &\satisfaction{2}&High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Sensing Aided Wireless Charging &5&4&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{0}&High&$\surd$ \\
&$\bullet$ Passenger Monitoring&2&/ &\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{1}&High&$\surd$ \\
&$\bullet$ Driver Attention Monitoring&1&/&\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{0}&High&$\surd$ \\
\hline
&$\bullet$ Raw Data Exchange and High Precision Location&300&30&\satisfaction{4}&/ &/ &\satisfaction{1}&High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Secure Hand-Free Access&300 &/&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{1}&Low/Very High&/ \\
Vehicle to Everything &$\bullet$ Vehicle Platooning&100 &30&\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{2}&/ &\satisfaction{0}&High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Simultaneous Localization and Mapping& 300&30&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{1}&Low/Very High&/ \\
&$\bullet$ Extended Sensor&300 &30&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{0}&Low&/ \\
\hline
&$\bullet$ Employee Localization and Authorization &1000&5 &\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{2} &/ &\satisfaction{3} &Low/Very High&/ \\
Smart Manufacturing &$\bullet$ Manufacture Defect Analysis & 20 &/&\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{1}&\satisfaction{3}&High&$\surd$ \\
and Industrial IoT &$\bullet$ Automatic Guided Vehicles &500 & 5 &\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{3}&/ &\satisfaction{1}&Low&$\surd$ \\
&$\bullet$ Predictive Maintenance &100 &/ &\satisfaction{4}&/ &\satisfaction{2} &\satisfaction{3} &Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
\hline
Remote Sensing&$\bullet$ Drone Swarm SAR Imaging& 1000&40&\satisfaction{2}&/ &/ &\satisfaction{1}&Low&$\surd$ \\
and Geoscience &$\bullet$ Satellite Imaging and Broadcasting&10000&/&\satisfaction{4}&/ &/ &/ &Low&$\surd$ \\
\hline
&$\bullet$ Weather Prediction&500&/&\satisfaction{2}&/ &/ &/ &Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
Environmental &$\bullet$ Pollution Monitoring& 200&/ &\satisfaction{1}&/ &/ &/ &Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
Monitoring&$\bullet$ Rain Monitoring&200 &/ &\satisfaction{2}&/ &/ &/ &Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
&$\bullet$ Insect Monitoring&200&/ &\satisfaction{2}&/ &/ &/ &Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
\hline
&$\bullet$ Gesture Recognition&1 &20&\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{4}&/&Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
Human Computer&$\bullet$ Keystroke Recognition&1&20&\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{4}&\satisfaction{4}&/ &Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
Interaction&$\bullet$ Head Activity Recognition& $>$2 &20&\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{3}&\satisfaction{3}&/ &Low/Very High&$\surd$ \\
&$\bullet$ Arm Activity Recognition& $>$2&10&\satisfaction{0}&\satisfaction{2}&\satisfaction{3}&/ &Low/Very High&/ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\begin{tablenotes}
\footnotesize
\item (*) In order to indicate different requirements of Range/Doppler/Temporal/Angular resolutions, we artificially categorize these KPI values into four levels, e.g. \satisfaction{0}: very low, \satisfaction{1}: low, \satisfaction{2}: high, \satisfaction{4}: very high.
\item (*) The symbol ``$/$'' represents that there are few requirements on this scenario.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Spatial-aware Computing}: Let's switch our sight from the resident to the indoor device. The further exploitation of geometric relationship among massive IoT devices also potentially enhance resident well-being as well as living comfort. The ubiquity of wireless signals with high spatial resolution represent an opportunity for gathering all spatial relationships between the indoor devices \cite{shekhharCACM2016}, which may be densely and temporarily deployed in a cramped space. For instance, a smartphone with centimeter-level sensing precision is able to pinpoint the location of any electronic devices with the angle resolution reaching ±3°. Therefore, once directing the smartphone towards a given device, they would connect and control with each other automatically \cite{xiaomi}.
In addition, knowing where the devices are in space and time promises a deeper understanding of neighbors, networks, and the environment. By considering spatial relationships between moving devices and access points, initial access or cross-network handover operations would probably be expedited, rather than SINR-only considerations, as will be detailed in Section VII-C. Furthermore, spatial-aware computing promises to coordinate distributedly deployed household products to jointly analyze the movement, understand patterns of mobility, and eventually to support augmented virtual reality applications.
\subsubsection{Vehicle to Everything (V2X)} Autonomous vehicles promise the possibility of fundamentally changing the transportation industry, with an increase in both highway capacity and traffic flow, less fuel consumption and pollution, and hopefully fewer accidents \cite{luettelPROC2012}. To achieve this, vehicles are equipped with communication transceivers as well as various sensors, aiming to simultaneously extract the environmental information and exchange information with road side units (RSUs), other vehicles, or even pedestrians \cite{kaiwartyaACCESS2016}. The combination of sensing and communications is provably a viable path, with reduced number of antennas, system size, weight and power consumption, as well as alleviate concerns for electromagnetic compatibility and spectrum congestion \cite{luettelPROC2012}. For example, ISAC-aided V2X communications could provide environmental information to support fast vehicle platooning, secure and seamless access, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). RSU networks can provide sensing services to extend the sensing range of a passing vehicle beyond its own LoS and field-of-view (FoV). We briefly discuss two representative use cases:
\textbf{Vehicle Platooning}: Autonomous vehicles in tightly spaced, computer-controlled platoons will lead to increased highway capacity and increased passenger comfort. Current vehicle platooning schemes are mostly based on cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) through a conventional leader-follower framework \cite{8621607,8778746}, which requires multi-hop Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communications to transfer the state information of each vehicle over all the platooned vehicles. However, the high latency of multi-hop communications leads to the out-of-sync problem on situational information of the platooned vehicles, particularly when the platoon is very long and highly dynamic. In this case, platooned vehicles that are unaware of situational changes increase the control risk. RSU, as vehicle infrastructure, offers a more reliable approach to form and maintain the vehicle platoon, as it serves multiple vehicles simultaneously \cite{wang2021V2I,6121906}. More importantly, the wireless sensing functionality equipped on the RSU provides an alternative way to acquire vehicles' states in a fast and cheap manner, which in turn facilitates the V2I communications and platooning by significantly reducing the beam training overhead and latency \cite{9171304,9246715}, as will be detailed in Sec. VII.
\textbf{Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM)}: Joint localization and mapping can provide vehicles with situational awareness without the need for high-precision maps \cite{barneto2021millimeterwave}. Based on the environment data extracted from various sensors, a vehicle could obtain its current location and the spatial relationship with the objects in a local area, based on which to perform navigation and path planning. Most of previous SLAM studies rely on camera or lidar sensors, which overlooked the fact that the channel propagation characteristics could be utilized to construct 2D or 3D maps of the surrounding environment. In this sense, ISAC-based radio sensing has the potential to become a key component to be integrated into current SLAM solutions, by endowing communication devices with sensing functionalities while requiring minimum hardware/software modification. The ISAC receive signal processing pipeline for SLAM poses a number of challenges, such as the separation of sensing and communication signals, and the reconstruction of high-quality point cloud.
\subsubsection{Smart Manufacturing and Industrial IoT} The penetration of wireless networks in the hard industries such as construction, car manufacturing, and product lines among others has given rise to the revolution of Industrial IoT \cite{industry40}, showing orders-of-magnitude increase in automation and production efficiency. Such scenarios often involve network nodes and robots that coordinate to carry out complex and often delicate tasks, that require connectivity in large numbers and with severe latency limitations.
ISAC offers paramount advantages in such smart factory scenarios, where in addition to ultra-fast, low-latency communications typical for such scenarios \cite{urllc} the integration of the sensing functionality will enable the factory nodes and robots to seamlessly navigate, coordinate, map the environment and potentially cut signaling overheads dedicated to such functionalities. The desired technology here involves elements of the above cases such as swarm navigation, platooning, imaging, but under the important constraints of ultra reliability, ultra low latency and massive connectivity, often encountered in smart factory scenarios \cite{industry40}.
\subsubsection{Remote Sensing and Geoscience} Radar carried by satellites or planes has been widely applied in geoscience and remote sensing to provide high-resolution all-weather day-and-night imaging. Today, more than 15 spaceborne radar systems are operated for innumerous applications, ranging from environmental and Earth system monitoring, change detection, 4D mapping (space and time), security-related applications to planetary exploration \cite{albertoGRSM2013}. All these radars are operated in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode, mostly using chirp or OFDM waveforms. Communication data can be embedded into these waveforms, as will be detailed in Sec. IV, enabling these radar infrastructures to broadcast low-speed data streams to its imaging area, or provide covert communication services in a battlefield.
Being able to rapidly deploy and loiter over a disaster area for hours, drones provide essential emergency response capability against many natural disasters. Such response tasks include damage assessment, search-and-rescue operation \cite{Schedleabg1188}, and emergency communication for disaster areas. To accomplish these tasks, drones should carry various heavy and energy-consuming payloads, including airborne imaging radar, communication BS, and thermal sensors, which severely limits drones’ endurance. Benefiting from ISAC, the radio sensing system and emergency communication system can be merged to achieve higher energy and hardware efficiency, i.e., the integration gain.
More interestingly, a swarm of drones or satellites could exchange sensed information, and therefore cooperatively act as a mobile antenna array forming a large virtual aperture. In such a case, drone swarm based SAR algorithms may be exploited to implement a high-resolution low-attitude airborne imaging system.
\subsubsection{Environmental Monitoring} Environmental information such as humidity and particle concentration can be indicated by the propagation characteristics of transmitted wireless signals \cite{Messer713}. Wireless signals operating on different frequencies are aware of different environmental changes. For instance, high-frequency mmWave signals are sensitive to humidity because they are closer to the water vapor absorption bands. By analyzing the path-loss data of city-wide mmWave links between BSs and smart phones, it is possible to monitor rainfall or other variations in the atmospheric environment such as water vapor, air pollutants, and insects. As such, a cellular network with a sensing function serves as a built-in real-time monitoring facility and
therefore, be utilized as a widely-distributed large-scale atmospheric observation network. Moreover, with the continuous exploitation of higher frequency, future urban cellular networks could also monitor locusts or other insects, serving as an insect observation network in urban areas.
\subsubsection{Human Computer Interaction (HCI)} An object’s characteristics and dynamics could be captured from the time/frequency/Doppler variations of the reflected signal. Therefore, gesture interaction detection via wireless signals is a promising HCI technology. For instance, a virtual keyboard that projects onto a desk could be constructed by recognizing the keystroke gesture at the corresponding position. Another well-known example is the Soli project of Google \cite{lien2016soli}, which demonstrated radio sensing in HCI. Based on advanced signal processing from a broad antenna beam, Soli delivers an extremely high temporal resolution instead of focusing on high spatial resolution, i.e. its frame rates range from 100 to 10,000 frames per second, such that high dynamic gesture recognition is feasible. Benefiting from integrating sensing capability into smartphone and other UEs' communication systems, gesture-based touchless interaction may serve as the harbinger of new HCI applications, which may play a key role in the post COVID-19 era. The main challenges are how to improve micro-Doppler recognition accuracy and how to design a signal processing strategy providing high temporal resolution.
We summarize the above case studies and required KPIs for different ISAC use cases in TABLE \ref{tab: usecases}, where supplementary information on other potential cases within different scenarios is also provided.
\subsection{Industry Progress and Standardization}
As initial research efforts towards 6G are well-underway, ISAC has drawn significant attention from major industrial companies. Recently, Ericsson \cite{ericssonWhite}, NTT DOCOMO \cite{nttWhite}, ZTE \cite{ZTE}, China Mobile, China Unicom \cite{ZTE}, Intel \cite{intel}, and Huawei \cite{tanJCS2021} have all suggested that sensing will play an important role in their 6G white papers and Wi-Fi 7 visions. In particular, in November 2020 Huawei identified harmonized sensing and communication as one of the three new scenarios in 5.5G (a.k.a. B5G) \cite{huawei}. The main focus of this new technology is to exploit the sensing capability of the existing massive MIMO BS, and to support future UAVs and automotive vehicles. Six months later, Huawei further envisioned that 6G new air interface will support simultaneous wireless communication and sensing signaling \cite{tanJCS2021}. This will allow ISAC enabled cellular networks to ``see" the physical world, which is one of the unique capabilities of 6G. Nokia has also launched a unified mmWave system as a blueprint of future indoor ISAC technology \cite{alloulahMC2019}.
The IEEE standardization association (SA) and the third-generation partnership project (3GPP) have also devoted substantial efforts to develop ISAC related specifications. In particular, IEEE 802.11 formed the WLAN Sensing Topic Interest Group and Study Group in 2019, and created a new official Task Group IEEE 802.11bf \cite{restuccia2021ieee} in 2020\footnote{\url{https://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/tgbf_update.htm}}, intending to define the appropriate modifications to existing Wi-Fi standards to enhance sensing capabilities through 802.11-compliant waveforms. On the other hand, in the NR Release 16 specification, the redefined positioning reference signal (PRS) obtains a more regular signal structure and a much larger bandwidth, which allows for easier signal correlation and parameter estimation (e.g., by estimating the time of arrival, ToA). Moreover, the measurements for PRSs received from multiple distinct BSs could be shared and fused at either the BS side or the UE side, which further enhance the parameter estimation accuracy to support advanced sensing ability. Furthermore, to foster the research and innovation surrounding the study, design, and development of ISAC, IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc) established an Emerging Technology Initiative (ETI)\footnote{\url{https://isac.committees.comsoc.org/}} and IEEE Signal Processing Society (SPS) created a Technical Working Group (TWG)\footnote{\url{https://signalprocessingsociety.org/community-involvement/integrated-sensing-and-communication-technical-working-group/integrated}}, all focusing on integrated sensing and communications.
\section{Performance Tradeoffs in ISAC}
In this section, we identify performance tradeoffs in ISAC, including tradeoffs in information-theoretical limits, PHY performance, propagation channels, and cross-layer metrics. We first introduce basic S\&C performance metrics, and then provide some insights into their connections and tradeoffs.
\subsection{S\&C Performance Metrics}
\subsubsection{Sensing Performance Metrics}
Sensing tasks can be roughly classified into three categories, {\emph{detection}}, {\emph{estimation}}, and {\emph{recognition}}, which are all based on collecting signals/data with respect to the sensed objects \cite{maCUSR2019}. While these terminlogies can have varying connotations under different scenarios, and can be performed over different layers, we attempt to define them as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\textbf {Detection:}} Detection refers to making binary/multiple decisions on the state of a sensed object, given the noisy and/or interfered observations. Such states typically include: presence/absence of a target (PHY), and occurrence of an event (application layer), e.g., motion detection. This can be modeled as a binary or multi-hypothesis testing problem. Taking the binary detection problem as an example, we choose from the two hypotheses $\mathcal{H}_1$ and $\mathcal{H}_0$, e.g., target present or absent, based on the observed signals. Detection metrics include detection probability, which is defined as the probability that $\mathcal{H}_1$ holds true and the detector chooses $\mathcal{H}_1$, and the false-alarm probability, that $\mathcal{H}_0$ holds true but the detector chooses $\mathcal{H}_1$ \cite{kay1998fundamentals2}.
\item {\textbf {Estimation:}} Estimation refers to extracting useful parameters of the sensed object from the noisy and/or interfered observations. This may include estimating distance/velocity/angle/quantity/size of target(s). Estimation performance can be measured by mean squared error (MSE) and Cram\'er-Rao Bound (CRB) \cite{kay1998fundamentals1}. In particular, MSE is defined as the mean of the squared error between the true value of a parameter $\theta$ and its estimate $\hat \theta$. CRB is a lower bound on the variance of any unbiased estimator over $\theta$, which is defined as the inverse of the Fisher Information (FI). FI is the expectation of the curvature (negative second derivative) of the likelihood function with respect to $\theta$, which measures the “sharpness” or the accuracy of the estimator.
\item {\textbf {Recognition:}} Recognition refers to understanding {\emph{what}} the sensed object is based on the noisy and/or interfered observations. This may include target recognition, and human activity/event recognition. Recognition is typically defined as a classification task on the application layer, whose performance is evaluated by the recognition accuracy \cite{tait2005introduction}.
\end{itemize}
For sensing tasks over PHY, detection probability, false-alarm probability, MSE, and CRB are of particular interest. For higher-layer applications, recognition accuracy is at the core of learning based schemes. More advanced sensing tasks, e.g., imaging, require multiple detection and estimation operations to be performed over a complex target.
\subsubsection{Communication Performance Metrics}
Similar to sensing, communication tasks can also be built on different layers. In this section, we consider PHY performance metrics for communications. In general, communication performance can be evaluated from two aspects, i.e., efficiency and reliability, with the following definitions:
\begin{itemize}
\item{\textbf{Efficiency:}} The successful transmission of the information is at the cost of wireless resources, e.g., spectrum, spatial, and energy resources. Accordingly, efficiency is a metric to evaluate how much information is successfully delivered from the transmitter to the receiver, given limited available resources \cite{goldsmith2005wireless,tse2005fundamentals}. Spectral efficiency and energy efficiency are widely adopted, defined as the achievable rate per unit bandwidth/energy, with units of bit/s/Hz or bits/channel use, and bit/s/Joule, respectively. Moreover, channel capacity, coverage, and maximum number of served users are also important efficiency metrics.
\item{\textbf{Reliability:}} A communication system should have resiliance towards harmful factors within the communication channel. In other words, we expect communication system to operate in the presence of noise, interference, and fading effects. Accordingly, reliability is to measure the ability of a communication system to reduce or even to correct the erroneous information bits \cite{goldsmith2005wireless,tse2005fundamentals}. Commonly used metrics include outage probability, bit error rate (BER), symbol error rate (SER) and frame error rate (FER).
\end{itemize}
Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) plays a key role that links to both S\&C metrics. While the definiton of SINR may depend on the specific S\&C scenario, in most circumstances, an increase of SINR leads to improved performance for both functionalities. For instance, the detection probability for sensing and the achievable rate for communication both improve at high SINR.
\subsection{Information-Theoretical Limits}
Information theory is key in evaluating wireless communication systems \cite{cover1999elements}. However, the performance of sensing, from information theoretical perspectives, is not as clearly defined as in that of communications. Therefore, new analytical techniques are needed to evaluate ISAC systems \cite{Liu2021ISAC_survey}.
The most well-known information theoretical result related to ISAC comes from the seminal paper by Guo et al. \cite{1412024}, which connects the input-output mutual information, a communication metric, and the minimum mean squared error (MMSE), a sensing metric, via an elegant formula. Given a real-valued Gaussian channel and denoting its received signal-to-noise ratio as $\operatorname{snr}$, the mutual information $I\left( {\operatorname{snr} } \right)$ and the MMSE $MMSE\left( {\operatorname{snr} } \right)$ of the channel input and output are related by
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\frac{d}{{d\operatorname{snr} }}I\left( {\operatorname{snr} } \right) = \frac{1}{2}MMSE\left( {\operatorname{snr} } \right).
\end{equation}
That is, the derivative of the mutual information with respect to $\operatorname{snr}$ is equal to half of the MMSE regardless of the input statistics. Eq. (\ref{eq1}) highlights a connection between information theory and estimation theory, which play fundamental roles in communication and sensing, respectively. It can be observed from (\ref{eq1}) that, while a Gaussian input maximizes the mutual information for Gaussian channels, it also maximizes the MMSE, making it the most favorable for communication yet the least favourable for sensing.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\label{fig:2}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{C_D_tradeoff_1.pdf}
\label{fig2}}
\hspace{.1in}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{C_D_tradeoff_2.pdf}
\label{fig2x}}
\caption{(a) Information transmission over a state-dependent channel; (b) Mono-static ISAC Channel: Information transmission over a state-dependent channel with generalized feedback.}
\label{fig: CD_tradeoff}
\end{figure}
More relevant to ISAC, the classical capacity-distortion tradeoff was first studied in \cite{936166} by Chiang and Cover. The basic scenario is to consider a communication problem with channel state information \cite{1023498,1412040,6034756,6457451}. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: CD_tradeoff} (a), the sender wishes to transmit both pure information, i.e., an index $W \in \left\{ {1,2,...,{2^{nR}}} \right\}$, and description ${{\hat S}}$ of the channel state $S$ to the receiver. Given the information index $W$ and state $S$, the sender transmits a code ${X}\left( {W,{S}} \right)$ to the receiver, with a rate of $R$. The receiver observes
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
{Y}\sim\prod\nolimits_{i = 1}^n {p\left( {{y_i}\left| {{x_i},{s_i}} \right.} \right)}.
\end{equation}
The receiver then decodes the information from ${Y}$ as $\hat W\left( {{Y}} \right) \in \left\{ {1,2,...,{2^{nR}}} \right\}$, and estimates the state as ${{\hat S}}\left( {{Y}} \right)$. Define the decoding error probability and state estimation error as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{P}}_e^{\left( n \right)} = \frac{1}{{{2^{nR}}}}\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{{2^{nR}}} {\Pr \left\{ {\hat W \ne i\left| {W = i} \right.} \right\}} , \hfill \\
D = \mathbb{E}\left\{ {d\left( {{S},{{\hat S}}} \right)} \right\}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $d\left( {{S},{{\hat S}}} \right)$ is a distortion measure between ${S}$ and ${{\hat S}}$. We say that a rate-distortion pair $\left(R,D\right)$ is {\emph{achievable}} if there exists a sequence of $\left( {{2^{nR}},n} \right)$ codes ${X}\left( {W,{S}} \right)$, such that \cite{1412040}
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{E}\left\{ {d\left( {{S},{{\hat S}}} \right)} \right\} \le D,
{\mathcal{P}}_e^{\left( n \right)} \to 0,n \to \infty. \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
If the distortion function is chosen as the squared state estimation error, then the estimation MSE can be given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq5}
\mathbb{E}\left\{ {d\left( {{S},{{\hat S}}} \right)} \right\} = \frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}{\left\| {{S} - {{\hat S}}\left( {{Y}} \right)} \right\|^2}.
\end{equation}
By leveraging the above metric for state estimation and given a state-depenedent Gaussian channel ${Y} = {X}\left( {W,{S}} \right) + {S} + {N}$, where ${S_i}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( {0,Q_S} \right), {N_i}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( {0,Q_N} \right)$, the Pareto-optimal boundray of the $\left(R,D\right)$ pair is \cite{1412040}
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}
\begin{small}
\begin{gathered}
\left( {R,D} \right) =\hfill \\
\left( {\frac{1}{2}\log \left( {1 + \frac{{\gamma P}}{Q_N}} \right),Q_S\frac{{\left( {\gamma P + Q_N} \right)}}{{{{\left( {\sqrt {Q_S} + \sqrt {\left( {1 - \gamma } \right)P} } \right)}^2} + \gamma P + Q_N}}} \right), \hfill \\
\gamma \in \left[ {0,1} \right], \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
where $\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\left\{ {\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^n {X_i^2\left( {W,{S}} \right)} } \right\} \le P$ is an expected power constraint on ${X}$. It can be shown that the above tradeoff is achieved by the power-sharing strategy, which splits the transmit power into $\gamma P$ and $\left(1-\gamma\right) P$, for transmitting the pure information and a scaled signal of the channel state, respectively \cite{1412040}. That is, the power resource is shared between pure information delivering and channel state estimation to achieve the optimal tradeoff.
The above rate-distortion tradeoff fails to capture an important feature for typical ISAC scenarios, i.e., the estimation of a target from a reflected echo. Indeed, in mono-static radar, it is impossible for the transmitter to know the target channel state {\emph{a priori}}, otherwise there is no point to sense the target. The work of Kobayashi and Caire proposed to model the target return as a delayed feedback channel \cite{8437621}. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: CD_tradeoff} (b), the channel state is available at the receiver, but is unknown to the transmitter. At each transmission, the transmitter reconstructs the state estimate ${{\hat S}}$ from the delayed feedback output $Z\in \mathcal{Z}$ via an estimator. By picking a message $W$, the transmitter sends a symbol ${X} \in \mathcal{X}$ via an encoder based on both $W$ and ${{\hat S}}$. The channel outputs $Y \in \mathcal{Y}$ to the receiver, and feeds back a state to the transmitter. The joint distribution of $SXYZ{\hat S}$ can be expressed by
\begin{equation}\label{eq7}
\begin{gathered}
{P_{SXYZ\hat S}}\left( {s,x,y,z,\hat s} \right) = \hfill \\
{P_S}\left( s \right){P_X}\left( x \right){P_{\left. {YZ} \right|XS}}\left( {\left. {y,z} \right|x,s} \right){P_{\left. {\hat S} \right|XZ}}\left( {\left. {\hat s} \right|x,z} \right). \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
Given a distortion $D$, the capacity-distortion tradeoff $C\left(D\right)$ is defined as the supremum of the rate $R$, such that the $\left(R,D\right)$ pair is achievable.
With the above model at hand, and by imposing an average power constraint, the capacity-distortion tradeoff is \cite{8437621}
\begin{equation}\label{eq8}
\begin{gathered}
C\left( D \right) = \mathop {\max }\limits_{{P_X}:\;\frac{1}{n}\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^n {\mathbb{E}\left\{ {X_i^2} \right\}} \le P} I\left( {X;\left. Y \right|S} \right) \hfill \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;{\rm{s.t.}}\;\mathbb{E}\left\{ {d\left( {S,\hat S} \right)} \right\} \le D, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $P_X$ denotes the distribution of channel input $X$. The above problem is convex in general, and can be solved via a modified Blahut-Arimoto algorithm. As a step further, multi-user channels are considered under this framework, where inner and outer bounds for capacity-distortion region are investigated in terms of both multiple access and broadcast channels. We refer the reader to \cite{8437621,8849242,9457571} for more details.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\label{fig:3}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{passive_sensing.pdf}
\label{fig3}}
\hspace{.1in}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{ISAC_monostatic.pdf}
\label{fig3x}}
\caption{(a) Joint passive sensing and communication; (b) Joint active sensing and multi-user communication.}
\label{fig: passive_active_ISAC}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Tradeoff in PHY}
When wireless resources are shared between S\&C functionalities, their integration into a common infrastructure allows the design of scapable tradeoffs between, often contradictory, sensing and communication objectives and metrics. In general, PHY tradeoffs can be analyzed by investigating the relationship between the native performance metrics of S\&C, which follows exactly the spirit of the information theoretical framework introduced above. Alternatively, one may also define a new information metric for sensing, which is more convenient to tradeoff with conventional communication metrics. In what follows, we overview recent works focusing on both aspects.
\subsubsection{Tradeoff between Native S\&C Metrics}
PHY sensing performance is typically measured by the detection probability and the MSE, respectively. In the event that a closed-form expression for the MSE is not obtainable, CRB, which represents the lower bound on the variance of all the unbiased estimators, is an alternative option, as it can often be expressed analytically.
{\textbf{Detection vs. Communication:}} We consider a tradeoff example between the detection probability and the achievable rate, which was proposed in \cite{7962141} for a joint communication and passive radar system. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: passive_active_ISAC} (a), an ISAC transmitter emits a sensing waveform $s_R\left(t\right)$ to detect targets using a portion of its total power budget, and emits a communication waveform $s_C\left(t\right)$ using another portion. The two signals are scheduled over orthogonal resources (time-frequency) such that they are not interfering with each other. The sensing receiver (SR) receives $s_R\left(t\right)$ from both the direct channel and the surveillance channel, and wishes to detect the presence of a target in the latter. On the other hand, the communication user (CU) receives $s_C\left(t\right)$, which contains useful information. The problem is then to optimally allocate power to S\&C functionalities, such that the detection performance can be optimized while ensuring a minimum communication rate. This can be formulated as the following optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq10}
\mathop {\max }\limits_{{P_R},{P_C}} \;{\mathcal{P}_D}\;{\rm{s.t.}}\;R \ge {R_{th}},\;{P_R} + {P_C} = {P_T},
\end{equation}
where $P_R$ and $P_C$ represent the transmit power of radar and communication signals, respectively, and $P_T$ is the total power budget. $\mathcal{P}_D$ denotes the radar detection probability, $R = \log \left( {1 + {P_C}{\gamma _c}} \right)$ is the achievable rate, with $\gamma_c$ being the communication channel gain normalized by the noise variance. Finally, $R_{th}$ is a rate threshold.
In a passive radar system, the SR detects the target in the surveillance channel by correlating the reflected signal with the reference signal received from the direct channel \cite{griffiths2017introduction}. By sampling the received signals as $L$ time-domain samples, the detection problem can be modeled as the following binary hypothesis testing problem (ignoring clutter):
\begin{equation}\label{eq11}
{\mathcal{H}_0}:\left\{ \begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{y}}_d} = {\gamma _d}{{\mathbf{G}}_d}{{\mathbf{s}}_R} + {{\mathbf{n}}_d} \hfill \\
{{\mathbf{y}}_s} = {{\mathbf{n}}_s} \hfill \\
\end{gathered} \right.,\;\;{\mathcal{H}_1}:\left\{ \begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{y}}_d} = {\gamma _d}{{\mathbf{G}}_d}{{\mathbf{s}}_R} + {{\mathbf{n}}_d} \hfill \\
{{\mathbf{y}}_s} = {\gamma _s}{{\mathbf{G}}_s}{{\mathbf{s}}_R} + {{\mathbf{n}}_s} \hfill \\
\end{gathered} \right.,
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal{H}_0}$ and ${\mathcal{H}_1}$ stand for the hypotheses of target absent (null hypothesis) and target present, $\mathbf{y}_d$ and $\mathbf{y}_s$ are the signals received from direct and surveillance channels, $\mathbf{G}_d$ and $\mathbf{G}_s$ represent the $L \times L$ unitary delay-Doppler operator matrices corresponding to the direct and surveillance channels, respectively, with $\gamma_d$ and $\gamma_s$ being the scalar coefficients of the two channels. Finally, $\mathbf{n}_d$ and $\mathbf{n}_s$ are additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with variance $\sigma^2$. The detection is performed via a generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT), for which the corresponding $P_D$ can be approximated in the case of high direct-path SNR (D-SNR) as
\begin{equation}\label{eq12}
{{\mathcal{P}}_D} \approx {Q_1}\left( {\sqrt {\frac{{2{P_R}{{\left| {{\gamma _d}} \right|}^2}}}{{{\sigma ^2}}}} ,\sqrt {2\gamma } } \right),
\end{equation}
where $Q_1\left(a,b\right)$ denotes the Marcum Q-function of the first order with parameters $a$ and $b$, and $\gamma$ is the detection threshold. Using
the rate expression, and the relation $P_R + P_C = P_T$, the detection probability can be recast as \cite{7962141}
\begin{equation}\label{eq13}
{{\mathcal{P}}_D} \approx {Q_1}\left( {\sqrt {2\left( {{P_T} - \frac{1}{{{\gamma _c}}}\left( {{2^{{R_{th}}}} - 1} \right)} \right)\frac{{{{\left| {{\gamma _d}} \right|}^2}}}{{{\sigma ^2}}}} ,\sqrt {2\gamma } } \right).
\end{equation}
In (\ref{eq13}), the sensing metric ${\mathcal{P}}_D$ is related to the communication rate threshold $R_{th}$, which clearly shows that there exists a tradeoff between S\&C if the power resources are shared between them. In \cite{8378636}, the authors further generalize the above power allocation design to a multi-static passive radar-communication system. The approach proposed in \cite{7962141,8378636} can also be extended to active and monostatic ISAC/radar-communication systems.
{\textbf{Estimation vs. Communication:}} While the assumption of non-overlapping resources makes the analysis more tractable, this results in low efficiency, and does not address the more practical secenairos where resources are required to be reused between S\&C. To this end, the authors of \cite{liu2021CRB} consider optimizing estimation performance of an ISAC system via the use of a common waveform, where the temporal, spectral, power, and signaling resources are fully reused for S\&C, thus to achieve the maximum integration gain. Consider a multi-antenna ISAC transceiver with $N_t$ transmit and $N_r \ge N_t$ receive antennas, which serves $K$ single-antenna users, and in the meantime detects target(s), as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: passive_active_ISAC} (b). This forms a multi-user multi-input single-output (MU-MISO) downlink communication system as well as a monostatic/active MIMO radar. By transmitting an ISAC waveform matrix $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{C}^{N_t \times L}$, which is constrained by a power budget $P_T$, the BS receives the following echo signal
\begin{equation}\label{eq14}
{{\mathbf{Y}}_R} = {\mathbf{GX}} + {{\mathbf{N}}_R},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{G}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_r \times N_t}$ represents the target response matrix (TRM), which can be of different forms for different target models, and $\mathbf{N}_R$ is an AWGN matrix with variance of $\sigma_R^2$. The receive signal model for multi-user communication is
\begin{equation}\label{eq15}
{{\mathbf{Y}}_C} = {\mathbf{HX}} + {{\mathbf{N}}_C},
\end{equation}
where ${\mathbf{H}} = {\left[ {{{\mathbf{h}}_1},{{\mathbf{h}}_2}, \ldots ,{{\mathbf{h}}_K}} \right]^H} \in \mathbb{C}^{K \times N_t}$ is the communication channel matrix, which is assumed to be known to the BS, and again, $\mathbf{N}_C$ is an AWGN matrix with variance $\sigma_C^2$.
The maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) of $\mathbf{G}$ is known to be ${{{\mathbf{\hat G}}}_{MLE}} = {{\mathbf{Y}}_R}{{\mathbf{X}}^H}{\left( {{\mathbf{X}}{{\mathbf{X}}^H}} \right)^{ - 1}}$ \cite{kay1998fundamentals1}. Accordingly, the MSE of estimating $\mathbf{G}$ can be computed as \cite{kay1998fundamentals1}
\begin{equation}\label{eq16}
\mathbb{E}\left\{ {{{\left\| {{\mathbf{G}} - {{{\mathbf{\hat G}}}_{MLE}}} \right\|}^2}} \right\} = \frac{{\sigma _R^2{N_r}}}{L}\operatorname{tr} \left( {{\mathbf{R}}_X^{ - 1}} \right),
\end{equation}
where ${{\mathbf{R}}_X} = \frac{1}{L}{\mathbf{X}}{{\mathbf{X}}^H}$ is the sample covariance matrix of $\mathbf{X}$. Note that since the MLE problem reduces to a linear estimation problem in the presence of the i.i.d. Gaussian noise, its CRB is achieved by the above MSE. To design an ISAC waveform $\mathbf{X}$ that is favorable for both target estimation and information delivering, one can formulate an optimization problem as
\begin{equation}\label{eq17}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{\mathbf{X}} \;\operatorname{tr} \left( {{\mathbf{R}}_X^{ - 1}} \right)\;{\rm{s.t.}}\;\;\;\left\| {\mathbf{X}} \right\|_F^2 \le L{P_T},\;\;{c_i}\left( {\mathbf{X}} \right) \trianglelefteq C_i,\forall i,
\end{equation}
where $\trianglelefteq$ can represent either $\ge$, $\le$, or $=$, and $c_i\left( {\mathbf{X}} \right)$ is a communication utility function constrained by $C_i$, e.g., per-user SINR, sum-rate, SER, etc. In (\ref{eq17}), an S\&C tradeoff exists due to the reuse of a single waveform $\mathbf{X}$ towards conflicting objectives.
\emph{Remark:} Note that in (\ref{eq17}) the existence of ${{\mathbf{R}}_X^{ - 1}}$ implies that $\mathbf{X}$ is of full rank. Otherwise, an unbiased estimator does not exist, neither does the MLE \cite{4838872}. This can be interpreted as follows. In order to estimate a rank-$N_t$ matrix $\mathbf{G}$, the transmitted waveform should utilize all the available DoFs in the system, and to transmit a rank-$N_t$ waveform for sensing. This, however, leads to an interesting conflict between S\&C. In conventional MU-MISO downlink, the number of DoFs is limited by $\min\left(N_t, K\right)$, where $K \le N_t$ is almost always the case, especially for mMIMO scenarios. That is to say, in each transmission, $K$ individual data streams should be communicated from the BS to $K$ users, which is typically implemented by precoding a rank-$K$ data matrix $\mathbf{S}_C \in \mathbb{C}^{K \times L}$ into $\mathbf{X}$. In the event that a linear precoder is employed, i.e., $\mathbf{X} = \mathbf{W}_C\mathbf{S}_C, \mathbf{W}_C = \left[\mathbf{w}_1, \mathbf{w}_2,...,\mathbf{w}_K\right]\in \mathbb{C}^{N_t \times K}$, $\mathbf{X}$ should have rank of $K$, which means that ${{\mathbf{R}}_X}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_t \times N_t}$ is rank-deficient and thereby non-invertible.
To resolve the above issue, a promising method is to augument the data matrix $\mathbf{S}_C$ by adding at least $N_t - K$ dedicated sensing streams $\mathbf{S}_A$, which contain no useful information and are orthogonal to the data streams $\mathbf{S}_C$ \cite{liu2021CRB,9124713}. Accordingly, the precoding matrix $\mathbf{W}_C$ should also be augumented by an additional precoder $\mathbf{W}_A$. This suggests that
\begin{equation}\label{eq18}
{\mathbf{X}} = \left[ {{{\mathbf{W}}_C},{{\mathbf{W}}_A}} \right]\left[ \begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{S}}_C} \hfill \\
{{\mathbf{S}}_A} \hfill \\
\end{gathered} \right] = {{\mathbf{W}}_C}{{\mathbf{S}}_C} + {{\mathbf{W}}_A}{{\mathbf{S}}_A}.
\end{equation}
By doing so, $\mathbf{X}$ can be of full rank. It can be observed at the receiver that the communication data will be corrupted by the dedicated sensing streams $\mathbf{S}_A$, in which case the per-user SINR is expressed as (assuming unitary $\mathbf{S}_C$ and $\mathbf{S}_A$)
\begin{equation}\label{eq19}
{{\gamma} _k} = \frac{{{{\left| {{\mathbf{h}}_k^H{{\mathbf{w}}_k}} \right|}^2}}}{{\sum\nolimits_{i = 1,i \ne k}^K {{{\left| {{\mathbf{h}}_k^H{{\mathbf{w}}_i}} \right|}^2} + {{\left\| {{\mathbf{h}}_k^H{{\mathbf{W}}_A}} \right\|}^2} + \sigma _C^2} }}, \forall k,
\end{equation}
where the first item in the denominator is the multi-user interference, and the second item is the interference imposed by dedicated sensing streams. On the other hand, both ${{\mathbf{W}}_C}{{\mathbf{S}}_C}$ and ${{\mathbf{W}}_A}{{\mathbf{S}}_A}$ can be used for monostatic sensing, which suggests that communication will not interfere sensing. Instead, it will facilitates target estimation\footnote{Notice that the dedicated sensing signals ${{\mathbf{W}}_A}{{\mathbf{S}}_A}$ can also be {\it a-priori} designed, and thus can be known at the communication receivers prior to the transmission. In this case, the communication receivers can pre-cancel the interference caused by the sensing signals before decoding the communication signal, thus leading to an increased SINR with ${{\left\| {{\mathbf{h}}_k^H{{\mathbf{W}}_A}} \right\|}^2}$ disappeared in the denominator in (\ref{eq19}) \cite{Xujie2021ISAC}.}. By substituting (\ref{eq19}) into (\ref{eq17}) as communication utility functions, problem (\ref{eq17}) minimizes the estimation MSE subject to per-user SINR constraints, which can be optimally solved via semidefinite relaxation (SDR) \cite{5447068}.
In addition to improving the sensing performance, the addition of a dedicated sensing waveform ${{\mathbf{W}}_A}{{\mathbf{S}}_A}$ also benefits the MIMO radar beampattern design. As discussed in \cite{9124713}, the extra DoFs provided by the dedicated sensing signals enables the formation of a better MIMO radar beampattern with guaranteed SINR of CUs, compared to the conventional ISAC scheme that exploits ${{\mathbf{W}}_C}{{\mathbf{S}}_C}$ only \cite{8288677}. We refer readers to \cite{liu2021CRB,9124713,Xujie2021ISAC} for more details on the use of dedicated sensing signals.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Radar_Cube.pdf}
\caption{Radar sensing resolution unit.}
\label{fig: resolution unit}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Tradeoff between Novel Sensing Metrics and Communication Metrics}
On top of the tradeoff between native S\&C metrics, there were also research efforts focusing on defining a new measure of ``capacity'' for sensing, and in particular for radar sensing. In light of this, a basic question is, how much information is gained from a sensing operation?
Guerci et al. \cite{7131098} studied the radar capacity from a resolution point of view. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: resolution unit}, a resolution unit/cell can be defined in three dimensions, i.e., range, Doppler, and angle. Each unit accomodates only one point target. If there are more than one target in the same resoultion unit, the radar would not be able to identify them and would regard them as a single target. In this sense, each resolution unit can be considered as a binary information storage unit where a binary decision is made for target detection, i.e., ``0'' = target absent, ``1'' = target present. The maximum ``capacity'' of a moving target indication (MTI) radar can be expressed by the Hartley capacity measure as \cite{7131098}
\begin{equation}\label{eq22}
{C_R} = \log {N_u},
\end{equation}
where $N_u$ is the total number of resolution cells, which satiesfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq23}
{N_u} \propto \left( {\frac{D_{\max }}{\Delta D}} \right)\left( {\frac{{2\pi }}{{\Delta \theta }}} \right)\left( {\frac{{PRF}}{{\Delta {f_D}}}} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta D$, $\Delta\theta$, and $\Delta {f_D}$ stand for the range resolution, angular resolution, and Doppler resolution of the radar, and $D_{\max}$ and $PRF$ denote the maximum detectable range and the pulse repetition frequency (PRF), respectively.
The capacity in (\ref{eq22}) is simply a noiseless measure on how many point targets can be distinguished by the radar system. Consider an $N_t$-antenna pulsed radar whose antenna array is uniformly and linearly placed. Its range, velocity, and angular resolutions can be calculated by
\begin{equation}\label{eq24}
\Delta D = \frac{c}{{2B}},\;\;\Delta {f_D} = \frac{1}{{{T_d}}},\;\;\Delta \theta \approx \frac{2}{{{N_t}}},
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the bandwidth, and $T_d$ represents the dwell time, i.e., the duration that a target stays in radar's illumination. It can be seen that the resolution of a radar is determined by its physical limit, or the maximum available amount of temporal, spectral, and spatial resources. This being the case, it is still not straightforward to see how the capacity in (\ref{eq22}) trades off with the fundamental communication metrics, as it is specifically restricted to the identifiability of targets.
Inspired by classical rate distortion theory\footnote{Note that rate-distortion theory is distinctly different from the rate-distortion tradeoff discussed above.}, the authors of \cite{6875553,7279172} proposed the ``estimation rate'' as a sensing metric. Consider the range estimation problem in radar sensing. By transmitting a radar pulse $s_R\left(t\right)$ with bandwidth $B$ and pulse duration $T$, a single target is sensed with delay $\tau$ and amplitude $h_R$, yielding the following echo signal
\begin{equation}\label{eq25}
{y_R}\left( t \right) = h_R\sqrt {{P_R}} {s_R}\left( {t - \tau } \right) + n_R\left( t \right),
\end{equation}
where $n_R\left( t \right)$ is the AWGN with the variance of $\sigma_R^2$. The CRB for delay estimation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq26}
CRB\left( \tau \right) \triangleq \sigma _{\tau,est} ^2 = \frac{{\sigma _R^2}}{{8{\pi ^2}{h_R^2}B_{rms}^2BT{P_R}}},
\end{equation}
where $B_{rms}$ is the root-mean-square (RMS) bandwidth of $s_R\left(t\right)$.
Suppose that the radar is operating in tracking mode, and prior knowledge on the range of the target is available, subject to some random fluctuations. The radar can therefore predict the delay of the target by leveraging a prediction function, which we denote as ${\tau _{pre}}$. The true delay for the target can therefore be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq27}
\tau = {\tau _{pre}} + {n_{pre}},
\end{equation}
where ${n_{pre}}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( {0,\sigma _{\tau,pre}^2} \right)$ represents the range fluctuation.
The radar estimation rate is defined as the cancellation of the uncertainty in target parameters per second, with the unit of bit/s, which is upper-bounded by \cite{7279172}
\begin{equation}\label{eq28}
{R_{est}} \le \frac{{{H_{\tau ,rr}} - {H_{\tau ,est}}}}{{{T_{PRI}}}},
\end{equation}
where $T_{PRI}$ is the pulse repetition interval, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq29}
\begin{gathered}
{H_{\tau ,rr}} = \frac{1}{2}\log \left( {2\pi e\left( {\sigma _{\tau ,pre}^2 + \sigma _{\tau ,est}^2} \right)} \right), \hfill \\
{H_{\tau ,est}} = \frac{1}{2}\log \left( {2\pi e\sigma _{\tau ,est}^2} \right) \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
are the received signal entropy and the estimation entropy, respectively. Using (\ref{eq26}), the estimation rate bound is expressed as \cite{7279172}
\begin{equation}\label{eq30}
{R_{est}} \le \frac{1}{{2{T_{PRI}}}}\log \left( {1 + \frac{{8{\pi ^2}{h_R^2}\sigma _{\tau ,pre}^2B_{rms}^2BTP_R}}{{\sigma _R^2}}} \right).
\end{equation}
This estimation rate can be then employed to tradeoff with the communication rate. Let us consider an ISAC receiver, which receives both the communication signal from the user(s) and the echo signal reflected from the target, yielding
\begin{equation}\label{eq31}
y\left( t \right) = h_C\sqrt {{P_C}} {s_C}\left( t \right) + h_R\sqrt {{P_R}} {s_R}\left( {t - \tau } \right) + n\left( t \right),
\end{equation}
where $h_C$, $P_C$ and $s_C\left( t \right)$ are the communication channel coefficient, transmit power and communication signal, respectively. Such a scenario can be modeled as a multi-access channel, where the target is viewed as a virtual user that unwillingly communicates information with the ISAC receiver on its parameters \cite{7279172}. Different inner bounds between communications rate and estimation rate can be achieved via schemes of isolated sub-band allocation, successive interference cancellation, water filling, and Fisher Information optimization \cite{7279172}.
\subsection{Tradeoff in S\&C Spatial Degrees-of-Freedom}
A fundamental tradeoff naturally arises in ISAC systems due to the different treatment towards the spatial resources in S\&C. In a generic communication system, one needs to ``exploit all the available degrees of freedom (DoFs) in the channel'' \cite{tse2005fundamentals} for enhancing the communication performance. For example, Non-LoS (NLoS) was initially considered harmful to wireless systems, as it results in channel fading. With the development of the multi-antenna technology, surprisingly, a common sense is condensed, that NLoS paths and fading effects can be exploited to provide diversity and DoFs for MIMO communications. For sensing, on the contrary, not all the paths are useful. Instead, some of them may have negative impact on the sensing performance. In most cases, sensing requires the existence of an explicit LoS path between the sensor and the object to be sensed. In typical radar applications, signals reflected by objects other than targets of interest are referred to as ``clutter'', and are regarded as harmful and needs to be mitigated. NLoS components fall into this category in general. Accordingly, a specific propagation path can be useful for both functinalities, as long as it contains information of the target of interest. Otherwise, it is useful to communication only, but harmful to sensing. This again reflects the contradictory needs in S\&C.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{ISAC_channel_tradeoff.pdf}
\caption{Tradeoff in S\&C channels: NLoS Reduction or Exploitation?}
\label{fig: channel tradeoff}
\end{figure}
To see this more clearly, consider a simple scenario shown in Fig. \ref{fig: channel tradeoff}, where a mmWave BS acts also as a monostatic radar, equipped with $N_t$ and $N_r$ transmit and receive antennas. The ISAC BS serves an $N_v$-antenna vehicle while tracking its movement, which suggests that the vehicle is both a CU and a target. By transmitting an ISAC signal matrix $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{C}^{N_t \times L}$, the received signal at the vehicle is expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq32}
\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{Y}}_C} = \underbrace {{\alpha _0}{\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _0}} \right){{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _0}} \right){\mathbf{X}}}_{\text{LoS}} + \underbrace {\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^I {{\alpha _i}} {\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _i}} \right){{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _i}} \right){\mathbf{X}}}_{\text{NLoS}} + \underbrace {{{\mathbf{Z}}_C}}_{\text{Noise}} \hfill \\
\triangleq {\mathbf{HX}} + {{\mathbf{Z}}_C}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_i$, $\theta_i$ and $\phi_i$ represents the channel coefficient, the angle of departure (AoD) and the angle of arrival (AoA) of the $i$th path, with $i = 0$ and $i \ge 1$ being the indices of the LoS path and NLoS paths, $\mathbf{a}_t\left(\theta\right) \in \mathbb{C}^{N_t \times 1}$ and $\mathbf{a}_v\left(\phi\right) \in \mathbb{C}^{N_v \times 1}$ being the steering vectors for the transmit antenna array of the BS and the receive antenna array of the vehicle, and $I$ being the total number of available paths in the channel. Note that we omit the delay and Doppler of each path without loss of generality.
By assuming each NLoS path corresponds to a clutter source, the ISAC BS receives the reflected echo from the vehicle as
\begin{equation}\label{eq33}
\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{Y}}_R} = \underbrace {{\beta _0}{{\mathbf{a}}_r}\left( {{\theta _0}} \right){\mathbf{a}}_t^H\left( {{\theta _0}} \right){\mathbf{X}}}_{\text{Target}} + \underbrace {\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^I {{\beta _i}{{\mathbf{a}}_r}\left( {{\theta _i}} \right){\mathbf{a}}_t^H\left( {{\theta _i}} \right){\mathbf{X}}} }_{\text{Clutter}} + \underbrace {{{\mathbf{Z}}_R}}_{\text{Noise}}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\beta_i$ is the reflection coefficient of the $i$th clutter, and $\mathbf{a}_r\left(\theta\right) \in \mathbb{C}^{N_r \times 1}$ is the steering vector of the receive antenna array of the ISAC BS. From (\ref{eq32}), we see that the receive SNR of the vehicle is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq34}
\operatorname{SNR} _C = \frac{{\left\| {{\mathbf{HX}}} \right\|_F^2}}{{L\sigma _C^2}},
\end{equation}
where all the propagation paths contribute to the receive power. From (\ref{eq33}), on the other hand, the signal-to-clutter-plus-noise ratio (SCNR) of the target return is expressed as \cite{6649991}
\begin{equation}\label{eq35}
\operatorname{SCNR}_R = \frac{{\left\| {{\beta _0}{{\mathbf{a}}_r}\left( {{\theta _0}} \right){\mathbf{a}}_t^H\left( {{\theta _0}} \right){\mathbf{X}}} \right\|_F^2}}{{\left\| {\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^I {{\beta _i}{{\mathbf{a}}_r}\left( {{\theta _i}} \right){\mathbf{a}}_t^H\left( {{\theta _0}} \right){\mathbf{X}}} } \right\|_F^2 + \sigma _R^2}}.
\end{equation}
To balance the S\&C performance, the ISAC waveform $\mathbf{X}$ should be carefully designed to allocate power and other resources to each of the propagation paths, such that both S\&C performance can be guaranteed, where convex optimization techniques may be employed to solve the problem. The tradeoff discussed above can be extended to generic ISAC scenarios with multiple targets/CUs of interest, where multiple paths can be useful for sensing.
\subsection{Cross-Layer Tradeoff}
As discussed in Sec. II, S\&C operations can be performed at different layers, instead of being restricted to the PHY only. An interesting example is mobile sensing or wireless sensing, where commercial wireless devices are employed for both purposes of communication and higher-layer sensing tasks, e.g., human detection, which is typically realized by training a deep neural network (DNN) using the sensory data. Accordingly, the performance tradeoff of S\&C may no longer be analyzed through conventional framework built upon PHY, where cross-layer designs are required. In wireless sensing, a commonly employed sensing metric is the recognition accuracy rate, i.e., the probability that the mobile sensor correctly detects the human activities/events. Nonetheless, the exploitation of the DNN for such sensing tasks makes the resource allocation between S\&C challenging, given that the relationship between accuracy rate and the amount of allocated wireless resources could be mathematically intractable for DNN based recognition tasks.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{guoliang_TDMA.pdf}
\caption{Target recognition and communication in a time-division manner.}
\label{fig:cross_tradeoff}
\end{figure}
To reveal the above cross-layer tradeoff, \cite{guoliang2021rethink} considered an ISAC scenario in Fig. \ref{fig:cross_tradeoff}, where the time budget $T$ is divided into interleaved sensing and communication cycles. In each sensing cycle, $N$ targets are sensed, each of which is allocated a sensing duration $t_S$. On the other hand, for each communication cycle, $K$ users are scheduled through a round-robin protocol, via allocating each of them a communication duration $t_1,t_2,...,t_K$. By assuming constant-power transmission, the following multi-objective optimization problem is formulated to allocate time slots to S\&C \cite{guoliang2021rethink}
\begin{equation}\label{eq36}
\begin{gathered}
\mathop {\max }\limits_{A,R,C,{t_k}} \left( {A,R} \right) \hfill \\
\;\;\;{\rm{s.t.}}\;\;\;\;A = \Theta \left( C \right), \hfill \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;R = \mathop {\min }\limits_{k = 1,2..,K} \frac{{{t_k}}}{T}B\log \left( {1 + \frac{{{h_k}P}}{{\sigma _C^2}}} \right), \hfill \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;CN{t_S}+ \sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^K {{t_k}} = T, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is the sensing accuracy rate of a well-trained DNN, $R$ is the minimum achievable rate among $K$ users, $C$ stands for the number of sensing cycles, and $h_k$ is the channel coefficient of the $k$th user. In particular, the relationship of the accuracy rate and the allocated number of sensing cycles is represented by $A = \Theta \left( C \right)$, which may be an unknown nonlinear function. The authors proposed to employ the classical nonlinear model $\Theta \left( C \right) \approx 1 - \alpha {C^{ - \beta }}$ to approximately capture the shape of $\Theta \left( C \right)$, and to find $\left(\alpha,\beta\right)$ by least-squares fitting using training data. Problem (\ref{eq36}) can be then optimally solved via the Lagrangian multiplier method, where the Pareto frontier is achieved.
\section{Waveform Design for ISAC}
Waveform design plays a key role in ISAC systems, which mainly focuses on designing a dual-functional waveform that is capable of S\&C by the shared use of signaling resources, such that the intergation gain can be achieved. Depending on the integration level, ISAC waveform can be conceived from the most loosely coupled approach (time/frequency/spatial-division), to the most tightly coupled one (fully unified waveform). In this section, we will first overview the ISAC waveform design with non-overlapped resource allocation, and then discuss approaches for fully unified waveform design.
\subsection{Non-Overlapped Resource Allocation}
It is straightforward to see that S\&C can be scheduled on orthogonal/non-overlapped wireless resources, such that they do not interfere with each other. This could be realized over temporal, spectral, or spatial domains, which is known as time-division ISAC, frequency-division ISAC, and spatial-division ISAC, respectively.
\textbf{{Time-Division ISAC:}} Time-division ISAC is the most loosely coupled waveform design, which can be conveniently implemented into the existing commercial systems. For instance, in \cite{han2013joint}, a joint radar-communication waveform design was proposed, where the transmission duration is split into radar cycle and radio cycle. In particular, frequency-modulated continuous waveform (FMCW) with up- and down-chirp modulations is used for radar sensing, while various modulation schemes, e.g., BPSK, PPM, and OOK can be flexibly leveraged for communication. More recently, time-division ISAC is realized in a number of commercial wireless standards, such as IEEE 802.11p and IEEE 802.11ad, where the CEF/pilot signals, originally designed for channel estimation, are exploited for radar sensing \cite{5888501,8114253,8309274,8246850}.
\textbf{{Frequency-Division ISAC:}} Frequency-division ISAC is another simple option, which is typically constructed on the basis of an OFDM waveform. In this sense, it is not as flexible as its time-division counterpart where any S\&C waveforms may be employed. To be specific, S\&C functionalities are allocated to different subcarriers given the channel conditions, required KPIs for S\&C, and power budget of the transmitter \cite{8561147,8094973}. For instance, in \cite{8094973}, a power allocation and subcarrier selection scheme is designed to minimize the transmit power, while guaranteeing both the mutual information and achievable data rate constraints for radar sensing and communications, respectively.
\textbf{{Spatial-Division ISAC:}} On top of the above two division schemes, spatial-division has recently gained attentions due to research progress in MIMO and massive MIMO technologies \cite{iet2020_1845}. In such methods, S\&C are performed over orthogonal spatial resources, e.g., different antenna groups \cite{8288677}. In the event that the communication channel is dominated by a LoS component, the S\&C waveforms can be transmitted over different spatial beams, which show strong orthogonality in the case of massive MIMO \cite{8871348}. On the other hand, if the communication channel is composed by rich scattering paths, the sensing waveform may be projected into its null space to avoid interfering with the communication functionality \cite{7814210,6503914}.
Although being relatively easy to implement on a single hardware platform, the above waveform designs suffer from poor spectral and energy efficiencies. To increase the integration gain to its maximum, it is favorable to design a fully unified ISAC waveform, where the temporal, sepctral, and spatial resources are utilized in a shared and overlapped manner \cite{8743424,8168273}.
\subsection{Fully Unified Waveform}
Fully unified ISAC waveforms are generally designed following three philosophies, namely, sensing-centric design (SCD), communication-centric design (CCD), and joint design (JD) \cite{Zhang2021oveview,9127852}, which we elaborate as follows.
\subsubsection{Sensing-Centric Design}
SCD aims to incorporate the communication functionality into existing sensing waveforms/infrastructures. In other words, the sensing performance needs to be primarily guaranteed. Nevertheless, a pure radar sensing waveform is unable to be directly exploited for communcation, as it contains no signaling information. The essence of SCD is to embed information data into the sensing waveform, without unduly degrading the sensing performance. To provide insight into such an operation, consider a radar waveform matrix $\mathbf{S}_R$, and a communication data matrix $\mathbf{D}$. The sensing-centric waveform can be designed by \cite{9201513}
\begin{equation}\label{eq37}
{\mathbf{X}} = \mathcal{C}\left( {{{\mathbf{S}}_R},{\mathbf{D}}} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}\left(\cdot\right)$ represents the embedding operation. Similar to Sec. IV-A, the communication data can be embedded into different domains of the sensing signal, in order to formulate an ISAC waveform.
\textbf{Chirp-based Waveform Design (Time-Frequency Domain Emdedding):} Early SCD schemes typically focus on time-frequency domain embedding, where a chirp signal, which is widely employed in various radar applications, acts as an information carrier \cite{roberton2003integrated,saddik2007ultra}. A generic chirp signal is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq38}
{s_\text{chirp}}\left( t \right) = A\exp \left( {j2\pi \left( {{f_0}t + \frac{1}{2}k{t^2}} \right) + {\phi _0}} \right), t \in \left[0,T_0\right],
\end{equation}
where $A, f_0, k, \phi_0$, and $T_0$ stand for the amplitude, start frequency, chirp slope, initial phase, and duration of the chirp signal, respectively. The derivative of the overall phase of (\ref{eq38}) with respect to time $t$ is a linear function. This suggests that the frequency of the chirp signal is linearly increasing with time, resulting in a bandwidth $B = kT_0$, and large time-bandwidth product $BT_0 = kT^2_0$. Given the design DoFs available in (\ref{eq38}), one may represent communication symbols using the variation of the parameters $A, f_0$, and $\phi_0$. Accordingly, a wide variety of modulation formats, e.g., ASK, FSK, and PSK, can be straightforwardly applied by using chirp signals as carriers. It is also possible to modulate communication symbols onto the chirp slope $k$.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{ISAC Waveform Designs}
\label{tab: waveform_designs}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}{\textbf{Waveform}} \\ {\textbf{Designs}}\end{tabular}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Methodologies}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Representative Techniques}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Pros}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Cons}} \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Non-overlapped \\ Resource \\ Allocation\end{tabular}} &
Time-Division &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$\bullet$ TD between FMCW and comms modulations \cite{han2013joint}\\ $\bullet$ Using CEF of IEEE 802.11ad frame for sensing \cite{8114253}\end{tabular} &
\multirow{3}{*}{Easy to implement} &
\multirow{3}{*}{Low efficiency} \\ \cline{2-3}
&
Frequency-Division &
$\bullet$ Subcarrier allocation between S\&C in OFDM \cite{8094973}&
&
\\ \cline{2-3}
&
Spatial-Division &
$\bullet$ Antenna separation between S\&C \cite{8288677}&
&
\\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Fully \\ Unified \\ Waveform\end{tabular}} &
Sensing-Centric &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$\bullet$ Using chirp signals as information carriers \cite{saddik2007ultra}\\ $\bullet$ MIMO radar sidelobe embedding approach \cite{7347464}\\ $\bullet$ Index modulation \cite{9093221,9345999,Ma2021FRaC}\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Guaranteed sensing \\ performance\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Low infomation rate/\\ spectral efficiency\end{tabular} \\ \cline{2-5}
&
Communication-Centric &
$\bullet$ Using OFDM for sensing \cite{sturm2011waveform}&
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Guaranteed comms \\ performance\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Unreliable sensing \\ performance\end{tabular} \\ \cline{2-5}
&
Joint Design &
$\bullet$ Waveform design based on optimization \cite{8288677,8386661,9424454,9124713}&
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Scalable S\&C \\ performance tradeoff\end{tabular} &
High complexity \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Sidelobe Control Approach (Spatial Domain Emdedding):} To equip a MIMO radar with communication functionality, recent SCD schemes consider embedding useful data into the radar's spatial domain \cite{7347464,7485066,7485316}. One classical approach is to represent each communication symbol by the sidelobe level of the MIMO radar beampattern, where the main beam is solely used for target sensing \cite{7347464}. Suppose that an $N_t$-antenna MIMO radar is transmitting information to an $N_r$-antenna CU located at angle $\theta_C$. Within each radar pulse, a $Q$-bit message is represented by a binary sequence $B_q, q = 1,...,Q$. Let ${{\mathbf{S}}_R} = {\left[ {{{\mathbf{s}}_{R,1}}, \ldots ,{{\mathbf{s}}_{R,Q}}} \right]^H} \in {\mathbb{C}^{Q \times L}}$ be $Q$ orthogonal radar waveforms. The transmitted ISAC signal can be represented by
\begin{equation}\label{eq39}
{\mathbf{X}} = {\mathbf{W}}{{\mathbf{S}}_R},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{W} \in \mathbb{C}^{N_t \times Q}$ is an ISAC beamforming matrix, which is expressed as \cite{7347464}
\begin{equation}\label{eq40}
{\mathbf{W}} = \left[ {{B_1}{{\mathbf{w}}_1} + \left( {1 - {B_1}} \right){{\mathbf{w}}_0},...,{B_Q}{{\mathbf{w}}_1} + \left( {1 - {B_Q}} \right){{\mathbf{w}}_0}} \right],
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{w}_0$ and $\mathbf{w}_1$ are beamforming vectors associated with ``0'' and ``1'' data, which are designed offline to satisfy certain radar beamforming constraints. For example, $w_i, i = 0,1$ may be designed by solving the following optimization problem \cite{7347464}
\begin{equation}\label{eq41}
\begin{gathered}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{{{\mathbf{w}}_i}} \mathop {\max }\limits_\theta \;\left| {{G}\left( \theta \right) - \left| {{\mathbf{w}}_i^H{\mathbf{a}}\left( \theta \right)} \right|} \right|,\;\theta \in \Theta \hfill \\
\;{\rm{s.t.}}\;\;\left| {{\mathbf{w}}_i^H{\mathbf{a}}\left( \theta \right)} \right| \le \varepsilon ,\theta \in \bar \Theta ,\;{\mathbf{w}}_i^H{\mathbf{a}}\left( {{\theta _C}} \right) = {\delta _i}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{a}\left(\theta\right)$ is the transmit steering vector of the MIMO radar. The objective function is to approximate the desired beampattern magnitude $G\left(\theta\right)$ within the mainlobe region $\Theta$. The first constraint is imposed to control the sidelobe level within the sidelobe regin $\bar \Theta$. The second constraint is to ensure that the sidelobe level at the direction of the CU equals to a given value $\delta_i$, with $\delta_0 < \delta_1$.
When transmitting $\mathbf{X}$, the CU receives
\begin{equation}\label{eq42}
\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{Y}}_C} = \beta {\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _C}} \right){{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _C}} \right){\mathbf{W}}{{\mathbf{S}}_R} + {{\mathbf{Z}}_C}= \hfill \\
\alpha {\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _C}} \right){{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _C}} \right)\sum\limits_{q = 1}^Q {\left( {{B_q}{{\mathbf{w}}_1}{\mathbf{s}}_{R,q}^H + \left( {1 - {B_q}} \right){{\mathbf{w}}_0}{\mathbf{s}}_{R,q}^H} \right)} + {{\mathbf{Z}}_C}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is the channel coefficient, $\mathbf{b}\left(\phi\right)$ is the receive steering vector at the communication receiver, and $\phi_C$ is the angle of arrival (AoA) of the ISAC signal, which can be readily estimated at the receiver's side via various algorithms, e.g., MUSIC and ESPRIT.
Matched-filtering $\mathbf{Y}_C$ with the $q$th waveform yields the signal vector
\begin{equation}\label{eq43}
{{\mathbf{y}}_{C,q}} = \left\{ \begin{gathered}
\alpha {\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _C}} \right){{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _C}} \right){{\mathbf{w}}_0} + {{\mathbf{z}}_{C,q}},\;\;{B_q} = 0, \hfill \\
\alpha {\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _C}} \right){{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _C}} \right){{\mathbf{w}}_1} + {{\mathbf{z}}_{C,q}},\;\;{B_q} = 1, \hfill \\
\end{gathered} \right.
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{z}_{C,q}$ is the output noise of the $q$-th matched filter. Note that ${\mathbf{w}}_0^H{\mathbf{a}}\left( {{\theta _C}} \right) = {\delta _0} < {\delta _1} = {\mathbf{w}}_1^H{\mathbf{a}}\left( {{\theta _C}} \right)$. By multiplying (\ref{eq43}) with a receive beamformer $\mathbf{b}^H\left(\phi_C\right)$, $B_q$ can be simply detected as \cite{7347464}
\begin{equation}\label{eq44}
{{\hat B}_q} = \left\{ \begin{gathered}
0,\;\;\;\left| {{{\mathbf{b}}^H}\left( {{\phi _C}} \right){{\mathbf{y}}_{C,q}}} \right| < \lambda, \hfill \\
1,\;\;\;\left| {{{\mathbf{b}}^H}\left( {{\phi _C}} \right){{\mathbf{y}}_{C,q}}} \right| > \lambda, \hfill \\
\end{gathered} \right.
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a pre-defined threshold. The above scheme can also be extended to $M$-ary modulation by designing $M$ beamforming vectors $\mathbf{w}_i, i = 1,...,M$, while maintaining a desired MIMO radar beampattern.
We show a numerical example of the sidelobe control scheme in Fig. \ref{fig: sidelobe_control}, where a 10-antenna MIMO radar serves a single CU while formulating a wide radar beam towards $\Theta \in \left[-10^\circ,10^\circ\right]$. The CU is located at $-50^\circ$. The overall sidelobe level is controlled to be less than $\varepsilon = -20\text{dB}$. Accordingly, the sidelobe level radiated towards the CU's direction alternates between $\delta_0 = -40\;\text{dB}$ and $\delta_1 = -20\;\text{dB}$, which represents the ``0" and ``1" data. It can be observed in the figure that the $-50^\circ$ sidelobe is indeed exploited to transmit communication bits, and that the the two beamforming vectors generate almost the same pattern at the main beam.
We note that while the main beam shape for target detection can be kept unchanged in the sidelobe control scheme, it may not ensure 100\% radar performance, as the frequent fluctuation in the sidelobe of the radar beampattern may lead to high false alarm rate, which is particularly pronounced when the communcation channel changes rapidly.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{nasr_bmpt-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{ISAC beamforming based on sidelobe control.}
\label{fig: sidelobe_control}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Index Modulation:} To fully guarantee the radar sensing performance, a more promising SCD approach is to realize ISAC via {\emph{index modulation}}. Pioneered by \cite{7485316}, when $N_t$ orthogonal waveforms are transmitted by an $N_t$-antenna MIMO radar, the communication functionality can be implemented by shuffling the waveforms across antennas. In this case, the communication codeword is represented by a permutation matrix, resulting a maximum bit rate of ${f_\text{PRF}} \cdot {\log _2}N_t!$, where $f_\text{PRF}$ is the radar's PRF.
As a further study, an index modulation scheme based on carrier agile phased arrary radar (CAESAR) is proposed to enable the ISAC capability, namely the multi-carrier agile joint radar communication (MAJoRCom) system \cite{9205659,9093221}. In particular, it randomly changes the carrier frequencies pulse to pulse, and randomly allocates frequencies to each antenna element, thus to introduce agility to both spatial and frequency domains. Suppose that the available carrier frequencies forms the following set with the cardinality $M_f$:
\begin{equation}\label{IM1}
\mathcal{F}: = \left\{ {{f_c} + m\Delta f\left| {m = 0,1, \ldots ,M_f - 1} \right.} \right\},
\end{equation}
where $f_c$ is the initial carrier frequency, and $\Delta f$ is the frequency step. In each pulse, the radar randomly chooses $K_f$ frequencies from $\mathcal{F}$. The resultant number of possible selections is
\begin{equation}\label{IM2}
{N_1} = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{M_f}} \\
{{K_f}}
\end{array}} \right) = \frac{{{M_f}!}}{{{K_f}!\left( {{M_f} - {K_f}} \right)!}}.
\end{equation}
Once $K_f$ frequencies are selected, each antenna will be allocated a carrier frequency to transmit a monotone waveform. All $N_t$ antennas are arranged into ${L_K} = \frac{{{N_t}}}{{{K_f}}}$ with $L_K$ being an integer, where antennas in one group share the same carrier frequency. By doing so, the number of possible allocation patterns is
\begin{equation}\label{IM3}
{N_2} = \frac{{{N_t}!}}{{{{\left( {{L_K}!} \right)}^{{K_f}}}}}.
\end{equation}
Accordingly, the total number of bits that can be represented by varying the selections of carrier frequencies and allocation patterns is calculated as
\begin{equation}\label{IM4}
\begin{gathered}
{\log _2}{N_1} + {\log _2}{N_2} = {\log _2}\frac{{{M_f}!}}{{{K_f}!\left( {{M_f} - {K_f}} \right)!}} + {\log _2}\frac{{{N_t}!}}{{{{\left( {{L_K}!} \right)}^{{K_f}}}}} \hfill \\
\approx {K_f}{\log _2}{M_f} + {N_t}{\log _2}{K_f}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where the approximation is based on the Stirling's formula. The maximum bit rate is therefore ${f_\text{PRF}} \cdot \left(K_f{\log _2}M_f + {N_t}{\log _2}K_f\right)$. For clarity, a simple example with 2 transmit antennas is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: index_modulation}, where the input bits are mapped to selected carrier frequencies and antennas using index modulation.
We note that the sensing performance of MAJoRCom is almost unaffected by transmitting communication bits, since communication codewords are random and equally distributed over different pulses, just as in a standard CAESAR radar\cite{9205659}. This allows the use of random sensing matrices for range-Doppler reconstruction with guaranteed estimation performance. In addition to the pulsed radar, the index modulation technique can also be applied in conjunction with frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signaling, leading to a FMCW-based radar-communication system (FRaC) \cite{Ma2021FRaC}. FRaC achieves higher increased bit rate than that of the MAJoRCom, through an extra level of phase modulation on the ISAC signal.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{IM_ISAC.pdf}
\caption{ISAC signaling based on Index Modulation.}
\label{fig: index_modulation}
\end{figure}
Note that most SCD schemes employ slow-time coding, i.e., inter-pulse modulations rather than inner-pulse approaches, resulting in a bit rate that is tied to the PRF of the radar. Consequently, while SCD provides a favorable sensing performance, its application is limited to scenarios requiring low/moderate data rate only.
\subsubsection{Communication-Centric Design}
In contrast to SCD, communication-centric design is to implement the sensing functionality over an existing communication waveform/system, i.e., communication is the primary functionality to be guaranteed. In principle, any communication waveform can be utilized for mono-static sensing, as it is fully known to the transmitter. Nevertheless, the randomness brought by the communication data may considerably degrade the sensing performance.
As a representative CCD strategy, the use of OFDM waveform for radar sensing has recently received growing attention, thanks to its compatibility with the state-of-the-art 4G and 5G standards \cite{sturm2011waveform}. A baseband OFDM communication signal, in its simplest form, is analytically given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq45}
\begin{gathered}
{s_\text{OFDM}}\left( t \right) =
\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{{N_{s}}} {\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{{N_c}} {{d_{m,n}}e^ {j2\pi {f_n}t}\operatorname{rect} \left( {\frac{{t - \left( {m - 1} \right){T_\text{OFDM}}}}{{{T_\text{OFDM}}}}} \right)} }, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $N_{s}$ and $N_c$ are the number of OFDM symbols and subcarriers within a signal frame, $d_{m,n}$ is the $m$-th data symbol at the $n$-th subcarrier, $f_n = \left(n-1\right)\Delta f$ is the $n$-th subcarrier frequency with subcarrier interval $\Delta f$, $T_\text{OFDM} = T_s + T_g $ is the overall OFDM symbol duration, with $T_s$ and $T_g$ being the duration of an elementary symbol and a cyclic prefix (CP), and $\operatorname{rect}\left({t \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {t {{T}}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{T}}}\right)$ depicts a rectangular window with duration $T$.
At the ISAC BS, (\ref{eq45}) is transmitted to sense a point target with Doppler $f_D$ and delay $\tau$. The noiseless echo signal received at the BS is then
\begin{equation}\label{eq46}
\begin{gathered}
{y_R}\left( t \right) = \sum\limits_{m = 1}^{{N_{s}}} {{e^{j2\pi {f_D}t}}} \cdot \hfill \\
\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{{N_c}} {{\alpha _{m,n}}\left( {{d_{m,n}}{e^{ - j2\pi {f_n}\tau }}} \right){e^{j2\pi {f_n}t}}\operatorname{rect} \left( {\frac{{t - \left( {m - 1} \right){T_s} - \tau }}{{{T_s}}}} \right)}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{m,n}$ is the channel coefficient at the $m$th OFDM symbol and the $n$th subcarrier. By assuming that the guard interval $T_g$ is properly chosen, the time shift on the rectangular function can be neglected. Through sampling at each OFDM symbol, and performing block-wise FFT, the received discrete signal can be arranged into a matrix, with the $\left(m,n\right)$th entry being
\begin{equation}\label{eq47}
{y_{m,n}} = {\alpha _{m,n}}{d_{m,n}}{e^{ - j2\pi \left(n-1\right)\Delta f\tau }}{e^{j2\pi {f_D}\left( {m - 1} \right){T_{\operatorname{OFDM} }}}},
\end{equation}
where the noise is again omitted for simplicity. We first observe that, the random communication data $d_{m,n}$ can be mitigated by simple element-wise division, which yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq48}
{{\tilde y}_{m,n}} = \frac{{{y_{m,n}}}}{{{d_{m,n}}}} = {\alpha _{m,n}}{e^{ - j2\pi \left(n-1\right)\Delta f\tau }}{e^{j2\pi {f_D}\left( {m - 1} \right){T_{\operatorname{OFDM} }}}}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, (\ref{eq48}) can be recast into a matrix form as
\begin{equation}\label{eq49}
{\mathbf{\tilde Y}} = {\mathbf{A}} \odot {{\mathbf{v}}_\tau }{\mathbf{v}}_f^H,
\end{equation}
where $\left({\mathbf{\tilde Y}}\right)_{m,n} = {{\tilde y}_{m,n}}$, $\left({\mathbf{A}}\right)_{m,n} = {{\alpha}_{m,n}}$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq50}
\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{v}}_\tau } = {\left[ {1,{e^{ - j2\pi \Delta f\tau }},...,{e^{ - j2\pi \left( {{N_c} - 1} \right)\Delta f\tau }}} \right]^T}, \hfill \\
{{\mathbf{v}}_f} = {\left[ {1,{e^{ - j2\pi {f_D}{T_{\operatorname{OFDM} }}}},...,{e^{ - j2\pi {f_D}\left( {{N_{s}} - 1} \right){T_{\operatorname{OFDM} }}}}} \right]^T}.\hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
To sense the target, we compute the FFT on each column of ${\mathbf{\tilde Y}}$ to obtain the Doppler estimate, and then compute the IFFT on each row to obtain the delay estimate. This can be represented as \cite{sturm2011waveform}
\begin{equation}\label{eq51}
{\mathbf{\bar Y}} = {{\mathbf{F}}_{{N_{s}}}}{\mathbf{\tilde YF}}_{{N_c}}^H,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{F}_N$ is the $N$-dimensional DFT matrix. The resultant ${\mathbf{\bar Y}}$ forms a 2-dimensional delay-Doppler profile, where a peak is detected at the corresponding delay-Doppler grid that contains the target. Unlike conventional chirp signals, delay and Doppler processing are decoupled in OFDM waveforms, which is favorable for radar applications.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{OFDM_ISAC_flow_chart.pdf}
\caption{Signal processing flow chart for OFDM based ISAC signaling.}
\label{fig:OFDM_flow}
\end{figure}
Although the above OFDM-based ISAC waveform is able to fully guarantee the communication performance, its sensing performance is rather restricted, since many desired properties for sensing are not addressed. To begin with, constant envelope is typically needed for radar to transmit at the maximum available power budget without signal distortion, such that the SNR of the received echo signal is maximized. Second, the reliance to clutter interference, a key requirement in radar sensing, is rarely considered in CCD schemes. Last but not least, the sensing waveform should possess good correlation properties, so that the temporal/spectral/angular sidelobes are reduced to the lowest level to avoid false target detection. In order to improve the sensing performance, the CCD ISAC waveform needs to be well-shaped subject to the above sensing-specific constraints.
\subsubsection{Joint Design}
As mentioned above, while SCD and CCD schemes realize ISAC to a certain extent, they fail to formulate a scalable tradeoff between S\&C. That is to say, SCD and CCD are two extreme cases in ISAC waveform design, where the communication/sensing functionality is implemented in a rather restricted manner provided that the sensing/communication performance is fully guaranteed. To address this issue, joint design is regarded as a promising methodology. Unlike its SCD and CCD counterparts, JD aims at conceiving an ISAC waveform from the ground-up, instead of relying on existing sensing and communication waveforms \cite{8999605,8288677,8386661,9424454,9124713}. This offers extra DoFs and flexibility, and thereby improves the S\&C performance simultaneously. In what follows, we overview a state-of-the-art JD scheme in detail \cite{8386661}.
We consider an $N_t$-antenna ISAC BS, serving $K$ single-antenna users in an MU-MISO downlink while sensing targets. Suppose that an ISAC signal matrix $\mathbf{X}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_t \times L}$ is transmitted, with $L$ being the length of the radar pulse/communication block. The received signal at the users can be modeled as \cite{8386661,6451071}
\begin{equation}\label{eq52}
{{\mathbf{Y}}_C} = {\mathbf{HX}} + {\mathbf{Z}} = {{\mathbf{S}}_C} + \underbrace {\left( {{\mathbf{HX}} - {{\mathbf{S}}_C}} \right)}_{\operatorname{MUI} } + {\mathbf{Z}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{H}\in\mathbb{C}^{K \times N}$ is the MU-MISO communication channel matrix, and ${\mathbf{Z}}_C \in \mathbb{C}^{K \times L}$ is again an AWGN noise matrix with variance $\sigma_C^2$. Finally, $\mathbf{S}_C\in\mathbb{C}^{K \times L}$ contains communication data streams intended for $K$ users, with each entry being a communication symbol drawn from some pre-defined constellations, e.g., QPSK or 16-QAM. Here, ${\left( {{\mathbf{HX}} - {{\mathbf{S}}_C}} \right)}$ is the multi-user interference (MUI). By zero-forcing the MUI, the channel $\mathbf{H}$ vanishes, and the MU-MISO channel becomes a standard AWGN channel.
The reduction of the MUI term leads to higher communication sum-rate \cite{6451071}, which motivates the use of MUI as a cost function for communications. In addition to bearing the information matrix $\mathbf{S}_C$, the ISAC signal $\mathbf{X}$ should possess a number of aforementioned features that are favorable for sensing, which would be quite challenging to be implemented simultaneously in a single waveform. Therefore, an alternative option is to approximate a well-designed pure sensing waveform $\mathbf{X}_0$, e.g., orthogonal chirp waveform, which is known to have superior sensing performance. With the above consideration, we formulate the following ISAC waveform design problem.
\begin{equation}\label{eq53}
\begin{gathered}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{\mathbf{X}} \;\rho \left\| {{\mathbf{HX}} - {{\mathbf{S}}_C}} \right\|_F^2{\text{ + }}\left( {1 - \rho } \right)\left\| {{\mathbf{X}} - {{\mathbf{X}}_0}} \right\|_F^2 \hfill \\
\;{\rm{s.t.}}\;\;{f_n}\left( {\mathbf{X}} \right) \trianglelefteq {C_n},\forall n, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where we use a weighting factor $\rho \in \left[0,1\right]$ to control the weight assigned to S\&C functionalities, i.e., $\rho$ and $1-\rho$ represent the priority/preference for the communication and sensing performance in the ISAC system, respectively. In addition to minimizing the weighted cost function, $N$ waveform shaping constraints are imposed on $\mathbf{X}$, which may include overall power budget constraint, per-antenna power budget constraint, constant-modulus (CM) constraint (in order to enable the full-power and distortionless signal emission for radar sensing), and range/Doppler/angle sidelobe control constaints. For instance, by imposing a total transmit power constraint $P_T$, (\ref{eq53}) can be reformulated into
\begin{equation}\label{eq53-1}
\begin{gathered}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{\mathbf{X}} \;\rho \left\| {{\mathbf{HX}} - {{\mathbf{S}}_C}} \right\|_F^2{\text{ + }}\left( {1 - \rho } \right)\left\| {{\mathbf{X}} - {{\mathbf{X}}_0}} \right\|_F^2 \hfill \\
\;{\rm{s.t.}}\;\;\left\| {\mathbf{X}} \right\|_F^2 = L{P_T}. \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
Note that if $\rho = 1$, communication is given the full priority, and solving problem (\ref{eq53-1}) yields a zero-forcing (ZF) precoded signal with respect to the channel $\mathbf{H}$. On the contrary, if $\rho = 1$, sensing is given the full priority, and the optimal solution is exactly $\mathbf{X} = \mathbf{X}_0$, provided that $\mathbf{X}_0$ is also constrained by the same power budget $P_T$. When $\rho$ varies from 0 to 1, a favorable S\&C performance tradeoff can be obtained via solving (\ref{eq53-1}).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{ISAC_PD_rate_tradeoff-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Performance tradeoff between S\&C by the joint design, $N_t = 16$ radar SNR = -6 dB, $P_{FA} = 10^{-7}$.}
\label{fig:ISAC_PD_rate_tradeoff}
\end{figure}
We show a numerical example of the joint design in (\ref{eq53}) for $N_t = 16, K = 4, 6, 8$, by using orthogonal waveform $\mathbf{X}_0$ as a benchmark, which is known to have superior sensing performance for MIMO radar. We consider a scenario where a point-like target located at the angle of $36^{\circ}$ is to be sensed via the constant false-alarm rate (CFAR) detection approach, with the false-alarm probability and receive SNR fixed at $10^{-7}$ and $-6$ dB, respectively. The tradeoff between the detection probablity $P_D$ and the avaerage achievable rate per user is investigated in Fig. \ref{fig:ISAC_PD_rate_tradeoff} by varying $\rho$ from 0 to 1, under both total and per-antenna (perAnt) power constraints. Accordingly, the ISAC performance varies from sensing-optimal smoothly to communication-optimal, which suggests that SCD and CCD performance are two end-points on the JD tradeoff curve. Another tradeoff can be observed from Fig. \ref{fig:ISAC_PD_rate_tradeoff} is that, with the reduced number of communcation users, the detection probability is on the rise. When $K = 4$, the achievable rate is increased without sacrificing too much sensing performance.
Despite the higher computational complexity of the JD scheme, it often outperforms conventional schemes in many aspects, as elaborated below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item While most SCD waveforms are based on inter-pulse modulation (slow-time coding), the JD waveform in (\ref{eq53}) modulates communication data through an inner-pulse manner (fast-time coding), where each fast-time snapshot represents a communication symbol. This significantly improves the data rate.
\item While the classical sidelobe control scheme in (\ref{eq39})-(\ref{eq44}) serves communication users in LoS channels only, the JD waveform in (\ref{eq53}) is not conditional on any specific channel. In fact, any MIMO channel matrix $\mathbf{H}$ can be inserted into (\ref{eq53}) for designing the JD waveform.
\item Problem (\ref{eq53}) takes into account sensing-specific constraints, such as constant modulus and waveform similarity, which improves the sensing quality compared to CCD schemes, such as OFDM-based designs.
\end{enumerate}
We summarize the pros and cons for different ISAC waveform designs in TABLE. \ref{tab: waveform_designs}.
\section{Receive Signal Processing}
The requirement for simultaneously accomplishing S\&C tasks poses unique challenges in receive signal processing. In general, an ISAC receiver should be able to decode useful information from the communication signal, and at the same time detect/estimate targets from the echoes. In the event that the two signals do not overlap, conventional signal processing can be applied unalteredly, as both S\&C are interference free. However, mutual interference occurs if the two signals are fully/partially overlapped on both temporal and frequency domains, which is the price to pay for acquiring the integration gain.
We demonstrate a generic ISAC receiver structure in Fig. \ref{fig: ISAC_Receiver}, where the mixed communication and echo signals are received from the same antenna array, and are amplified, down-converted, and sampled from the RF chain. The sampled signals are then fed into communication and sensing processors for the purpose of information decoding and target detection/estimation/recognition, where the cooperation between S\&C is required to facilitate mutual interference cancellation. Within this framework, below we overview state-of-the-art ISAC receive signal processing techniques.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Receiver_structure.pdf}
\caption{General structure of an ISAC receiver.}
\label{fig: ISAC_Receiver}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fundamental Insights from a Toy Model}
Let us first examine a toy model in an AWGN channel, which was considered in \cite{8332962,8070342}, where a transmitter wishes to communicate with a receiver in the presence of strong radar interference. The radar signal is modeled as a short-duration pulse with large amplitude, while the communication signal is assumed to be of small bandwidth and considerably lower power with 100\% duty cycle. From the communication point of view, the radar interference can be approximated as a constant modulus signal, whose amplitude is accurately estimated, but the phase shift is randomly fluctuated and thus is difficult to track. In this case, the received signal at the communication receiver is given as \cite{8332962}
\begin{equation}\label{eq54}
y = \underbrace {\sqrt {{P_C}} {s_C}}_{{\text{Comms}}\;{\text{Signal}}} + \underbrace {\sqrt {{P_R}} {e^{j\theta }}}_{{\text{Radar}}\;{\text{Interference}}} + \underbrace z_{{\text{Noise}}},
\end{equation}
where $P_C$ and $P_R$ represent the received power of the communication and radar signals, respectively, which are assumed to be known to the receiver. Moreover, $s_C$ is a communication symbol to be detected, which is drawn from a constellation $\mathcal{S} = \left\{ {{s_1},{s_2}, \ldots ,{s_M}} \right\}$, and $\theta$ is an unknown phase shift randomly distributed over $\left[0,2\pi\right]$. Finally, $z$ is the Gaussian noise with zero mean and unit variance. Two fundamental problems arise from the model in (\ref{eq54}). The first one is what the optimal decision region is for a given constellation in accordance with the maximum likelihood (ML) criterion. The second one is how to design a self-adaptive constellation that optimizes communication metrics, e.g., the communication rate and the SER.
To answer the first question, one may form an ML decoder by averaging over all the possible phases $\theta$, which yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq55}
\begin{gathered}
{{\hat m}^{opt}} = \hfill \\
\mathop {\arg \min }\limits_{m \in \left[ {1:M} \right]} \left( {{{\left| {y - \sqrt {{P_C}} {s_m}} \right|}^2} - \ln {I_0}\left( {2\sqrt {{P_R}} \left| {y - \sqrt {{P_C}} {s_m}} \right|} \right)} \right), \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $I_0\left(\cdot\right)$ is the zero-order modified Bessel function of the first kind. For low interference-to-noise (INR) regime, i.e., ${\alpha _R}\sqrt {{P_R}} \ll {\alpha _C}\sqrt {{P_C}}$, the ML decoder reduces to a Treat-Interference-as-Noise (TIN) decoder, i.e., the radar interference is regarded as noise. This can be approximated by
\begin{equation}\label{eq56}
{{\hat m}^{opt}} = \mathop {\arg \min }\limits_{m \in \left[ {1:M} \right]} {\left| {y - \sqrt {{P_C}} {s_m}} \right|^2}.
\end{equation}
On the contrary, when ${\alpha _C}\sqrt {{P_C}} \ll {\alpha _R}\sqrt {{P_R}}$, i.e., the INR is high, the ML decoder can be approximately expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq57}
{{\hat m}^{opt}} = \mathop {\arg \min }\limits_{m \in \left[ {1:M} \right]} {\left( {\left| {y - \sqrt {{P_C}} {s_m}} \right| - \sqrt {{P_R}} } \right)^2},
\end{equation}
which is known as Interference-Cancellation (IC) receiver, where the radar interference is pre-canceled before communication symbols are decoded. By taking low-, mid-, and high-INR regimes into consideration, the authors analyze in detail the SER for commonly-employed constellations, including PAM, QAM, and PSK.
Based on the above analysis, one may answer the second question by employing optimization techniques to design interference-aware constellations. The first design, which optimizes the communication rate, i.e., the cardinality of the constellation, can be formulated as \cite{8332962}
\begin{equation}\label{eq58}
\begin{gathered}
\mathop {\max }\limits_\mathcal{S} \;M \hfill \\
s.t.\;\;\mathcal{S} = \left\{ {{s_1},{s_2}, \ldots ,{s_M}} \right\}, \hfill \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;{{\mathcal{P}}_e}\left( \mathcal{S} \right) \le \varepsilon, \hfill \\
\;\;\;\;\;\frac{1}{M}\sum\nolimits_{m = 1}^M {{{\left| {{s_m}} \right|}^2}} \le 1,\;{s_m} \in \mathbb{C}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal{P}}_e\left(\mathcal{S}\right)$ in the second constraint is the SER of the constellation, which is required to be smaller than a given threshold $\varepsilon$, and the third constraint is imposed as a normalized power constraint. Accordingly, the SER minimization problem can be formulated into \cite{8332962}
\begin{equation}\label{eq59}
\begin{gathered}
\min\limits_\mathcal{S} \;{{\mathcal{P}}_e}\left( \mathcal{S} \right) \hfill \\
s.t.\;\mathcal{S} = \left\{ {{s_1},{s_2}, \ldots ,{s_M}} \right\}, \hfill \\
\;\;\;\;\frac{1}{M}\sum\nolimits_{m = 1}^M {{{\left| {{s_m}} \right|}^2}} \le 1,\;{s_m} \in \mathbb{C}. \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
The above two optimization problems are non-convex in general, which can be sub-optimally solved via the MATLAB Global Optimization Toolbox using the Global Search (GS) method. The numerical results show that for both design criteria, the optimal constellation is with concentric hexagon shape for low-INR regime, and is with unequally spaced PAM shape for high-INR counterpart.
The study of the toy model (\ref{eq54}) shows that, in the regime of mid/high radar INR, one may consider to recover/estimate the radar interference first, and pre-cancel it from the mixed reception $y$. More importantly, \emph{a good ISAC receiver design should exploit the structural information of the S\&C signals}. For instance, the constant modulus of the radar signal is considered when developing the optimal decoder. In the next subsection, we will show that the hidden sparsity of S\&C signals can also be employed for receiver design.
\subsection{ISAC Receiver Design based on Sparsity}
Inline with the above spirit, a practical receiver design has been proposed in \cite{8233171}, where an ISAC receiver receives the communication signals from a single user, as well as interference from $J$ radar/sensing systems. The aim is to correctly demodulate the communication data while recovering the radar signals. The generic form of the received coded signal can be given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq60}
\begin{gathered}
y\left( t \right) ={y_C}\left( t \right) + {y_R}\left( t \right) + z\left( t \right) = \hfill \\
\underbrace {\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{N - 1} {x\left( n \right)\varepsilon \left( {t - nT} \right)} }_{\text{Comms Signal} }+ \underbrace {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{N - 1} {{c_j}{g_j}\left( n \right)\varepsilon \left( {t - nT - {\tau _j}} \right)} } }_{\text{Radar Interference} } + \underbrace {z\left( t \right)}_{\text{Noise} } \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where ${y_C}\left( t \right)$, ${y_R}\left( t \right)$, and $z\left( t \right)$ stand for the communication signal, coded radar signal, and noise in the time domain, $\varepsilon \left(t\right)$ is a basic pulse satisfying the Nyquist criterion with respect to its length $T$, $N$ is the code length for both communication and radar, $\tau_j$ and $c_j$ denote the delay and complex channel coefficient between the $j$th radar interference and the communication receiver, $g_j\left(n\right)$ is the $n$th code for the $j$th radar signal, and finally, $x\left(n\right)$ is the $n$th communication signal sample. It is assumed that the radar code $\mathbf{g}_j = \left[g_j\left(1\right),g_j\left(2\right),\ldots,g_j\left(N\right)\right]^T$ lies in a low-dimensional subspace, spanned by the columns of a known matrix $\mathbf{D}$, such that $\mathbf{g}_j = \mathbf{D}\mathbf{h}_j$. This can be interpreted as an implementation scheme of radar waveform diversity, where radar copes with different situations, e.g., interference, clutter, spectrum sharing, by varying the transmit waveforms via selecting from a given waveform dictionary. Moreover, we have $\mathbf{x} = \left[x\left(0\right),x\left(1\right),\ldots,x\left(N-1\right)\right]^T = \mathbf{H}_C\mathbf{b}$, where $\mathbf{H}_C$ and $\mathbf{b}\in\mathcal{B}$ are communication channel and data symbols, respectively, with $\mathcal{B}$ being a communication alphabet. After standard signal processing, the received signal can be arranged into a discrete form as
\begin{equation}\label{eq61}
{\mathbf{r}} = {{\mathbf{H}}_C}{\mathbf{b}} + {{\mathbf{H}}_R}{\bm{\alpha }} + {\mathbf{z}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{H}_R$ is a matrix function of a over-complete dictionary/grid formed by time delays ${\tilde \tau}_1,{\tilde \tau}_2,\ldots,{\tilde \tau}_{\tilde J}$, ${\tilde J} \ge N$ and the known matrix $\mathbf{D}$, and ${\bm{\alpha }} = {\left[ {{c_1}{\mathbf{h}}_1^T, {c_2}{\mathbf{h}}_2^T, \ldots, {c_{\tilde J}}{\mathbf{h}}_{\tilde J}^T} \right]^T}$. The sparsity-based receiver design is implemented in an iterative manner. To proceed, an initial symbol demodulation is operated over $\mathbf{r}$, yielding an incorrectly detected symbol vector ${\hat {\mathbf{b}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}$ due to the strong radar interference. One may recover the communication signal by $\mathbf{H}_C{\hat {\mathbf{b}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}$, and substract it from $\mathbf{r}$, leading to
\begin{equation}\label{eq62}
\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{r}}^{\left( 1 \right)}} = {{\mathbf{H}}_C}\left( {{\mathbf{b}} - {{\widehat {\mathbf{b}}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}} \right) + {{\mathbf{H}}_R}{\bm{\alpha }} + {\mathbf{z}} \hfill \\
\triangleq {{\mathbf{H}}_C}{{\mathbf{v}}^{\left( 1 \right)}} + {{\mathbf{H}}_R}{\bm{\alpha }} + {\mathbf{z}}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where ${{\mathbf{v}}^{\left( 1 \right)}} = {{\mathbf{b}} - {{\widehat {\mathbf{b}}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}}$ is the demodulation error.
Then, in each iteration we reconstruct $\mathbf{v}$ for communication and $\bm\alpha$ for radar simultaneously (e.g., from ${{\mathbf{r}}^{\left( 1 \right)}}$ in (\ref{eq62}) in the first iteration), and refine the demodulation process. Given $J \ll N \le \tilde{J}$, $\bm{\alpha}$ should be a sparse vector. Furthermore, to minimize the SER, we need $\mathbf{v}$ to be as sparse as possible, i.e., the number of zero elements in $\mathbf{v}$ should be maximized. With these two observations in mind, an iterative on-grid compressed sensing (CS) problem is formulated. For the $l$th iteration, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq63}
\begin{gathered}
\left( {{{\hat {\bm{\alpha }}}^{\left( l \right)}},{{{\mathbf{\hat v}}}^{\left( l \right)}}} \right) = \arg \mathop {\min }\limits_{{\mathbf{\alpha }},{{\mathbf{v}}^{\left( l \right)}}} \frac{1}{2}\left\| {{{\mathbf{r}}^{\left( l \right)}} - {{\mathbf{H}}_C}{{\mathbf{v}}^{\left( l \right)}} - {{\mathbf{H}}_R}{\bm{\alpha }}} \right\|_2^2 \hfill \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; + \lambda {\left\| {{{\mathbf{v}}^{\left( l \right)}}} \right\|_1}{\text{ + }}\gamma {\left\| {\bm{\alpha }} \right\|_1}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $l_1$ norm penalties are imposed to replace the non-convex $l_0$ norm. Moreover, $\lambda$ and $\gamma$ are weights determining the sparsity of the reconstruction. After solving the convex problem (\ref{eq63}), we obtain the demodulation error ${{\mathbf{\hat v}}^{\left( l \right)}}$. By combining ${{\mathbf{\hat v}}^{\left( l \right)}}$ and ${{\widehat {\mathbf{b}}}^{\left( {l - 1} \right)}}$, the data symbols can be re-demodulated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq64}
{\hat {\mathbf{b}}^{\left( l \right)}} = \arg \mathop {\min }\limits_{{\mathbf{b}} \in \mathcal{B}} \left\| {{\mathbf{b}} - {{\widehat {\mathbf{b}}}^{\left( {l - 1} \right)}} - {{\mathbf{v}}^{\left( l \right)}}} \right\|_2^2,
\end{equation}
and we update ${{{\mathbf{v}}^{\left( l+1 \right)}}}$ and $\bm{\alpha}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq65}
{{\mathbf{v}}^{\left( {l + 1} \right)}} = {{\mathbf{r}}^{\left( l \right)}} - {{\mathbf{H}}_C}{\widehat {\mathbf{b}}^{\left( l \right)}},{\bm{\alpha }} = {{\hat {\bm{\alpha }}}^{\left( l \right)}}.
\end{equation}
The algorithm terminates if ${\hat {\mathbf{b}}^{\left( l \right)}} = {\hat {\mathbf{b}}^{\left( l-1 \right)}}$, or if the maximum iteration number is reached. To further boost the performance, off-grid CS algorithm can also be developed, where the atomic norm is used instead of the $l_1$ norm \cite{8233171}.
\section{Communication-Assisted Sensing: Perceptive Network}
As discussed in Sec. I and II, the sensing functionality is expected to be integrated into the future wireless network to form a perceptive network \cite{9296833,8827589,9349171}, such that it becomes a native capability that provides various sensing services to users, e.g., localization, recognition, and imaging. In this sense, communication can assist sensing with the following two levels of design methodologies:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\textbf{Frame-Level ISAC:}} Sensing supported by default communication frame structures and protocols, such as Wi-Fi 7 and 5G NR\footnote{We note that in the frame-level ISAC, sensing as a basic functionality is implemented by standardized communication frame structures and waveforms, which can be recognized as a communication-assisted sensing technique, despite that the coordination gain is not as explicit as in the network-level ISAC.}.
\item {\textbf{Network-Level ISAC:}} Distributed/Networked sensing supported by state-of-the-art wireless network architectures, such as Cloud-RAN (C-RAN).
\end{itemize}
Below we overview the basic framework and technical issues raised in the perceptive network. Without loss of generality, our discussion is based on a general cellular network, namely a perceptive mobile network (PMN). We refer readers to \cite{cui2021integrating} for a detailed examination on other types of perceptive networks, such as Wi-Fi and IoT.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.4\columnwidth]{NR_frame.pdf}
\caption{Structure of 2 slots within a subframe of 5G NR, $\mu = 4$.}
\label{fig: NR_waveform}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{General Framework}
Before presenting the basic framework, we first investigate and classify the objects to be sensed, i.e., targets, in a PMN. A target to be sensed can either be a communication or non-communication object. The first case often emerges in high-mobility scenarios, where the BS/UE wishes to communicate with a mobile terminal while tracking its movement, which is quite typical in V2X or UAV networks. This will be discussed in Sec. VII in detail, where we show that the V2X beamforming performance can be significantly improved with the aid of downlink active sensing. In the second case, the target usually belongs to the surronding environment, which needs to be localized, recognized or even imaged for further applications, e.g., high-precision mapping. In this subsection, we will not differentiate between these two types of targets, but will focus on the technical challenges on realizing sensing using 5G-and-beyond communication infrastructures.
In a PMN, sensing can be performed in ways that are similar to communication links. That is, it can be implemented by using downlink or uplink signals, which are transmitted from a BS or a UE, respectively. This, accordingly, defines downlink and uplink sensing operations. Furthermore, one may define mono-static, bi-static, and distributed/networked sensing operation modes, which are determined by the locations of the transmitter(s) and receiver(s). For clarity, we split sensing operations in a PMN into following categories \cite{8827589}:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\textbf{Downlink Mono-static Sensing:}} Downlink signals transmitted from the BS to the UE are exploited for sensing, while the BS receives the echo signals reflected from targets by its own receiver. In this case, BS acts as a mono-static radar, for which the transmitter and the receiver are collocated.
\item {\textbf{Uplink Mono-static Sensing:}} Uplink signals transmitted from the UE to the BS are exploited for sensing, and the UE receives the signals reflected from targets by itself.
\item {\textbf{Downlink Bi-static Sensing:}} Downlink signals are exploited for sensing, which hits the target(s) and is reflected to another BS. This is deemed to be similar to a bi-static radar, where transmitter and receiver are well-separated.
\item {\textbf{Uplink Bi-static Sensing:}} Uplink signals transmitted from the UE to the BS are exploited for sensing, and the BS receives the uplink signals scattered from the targets. This is again a bi-static radar architecture.
\item {\textbf{Distributed/Networked Sensing:}} Sensing signals can be emitted from multiple transmitters, and are received by multiple receivers after hitting the target. Both BSs and UEs can act as transmitters and receivers. This corresponds to a multi-static radar system, where a certain level of cooperation is required between transceivers.
\end{itemize}
Note that uplink mono-static sensing is rarely considered, due to the fact that UEs with small size normally only have limited sensing capability when acting as sensing receiver, which is the general case for small-size UEs. Nevertheless, we note that for specific UEs with high computational capacity, e.g., vehicles, uplink mono-static sensing could also be possible.
\subsection{Using 5G-and-Beyond Waveform for Sensing}
In this subsection, we provide our insights into the feasibility of using 5G-and-beyond waveform for sensing, and the challenges and opportunities therein.
\subsubsection{Feasibility}
For any sensing operation mode in ISAC systems, a known reference signal is indispensible, either for matched-filtering the received echo signal and thereby to extract the target information, or simply for mitigating the impact of the random communication data. In both 4G LTE and 5G NR, OFDM is the default waveform format, which can be exploited for sensing in the PMN following the general signal processing pipeline overviewed in Sec. IV-B. Recall that in (\ref{eq48}), the dependence of the data is removed from the echo signal via element-wise division. This requires that the communication signal sent from the transmitter is known to the receiver before the target is sensed, which motivates examining the signal resources that are available for sensing within a communication frame.
Let us investigate a standard frame structure for NR, which is based on 3GPP Technical Specification 38.211, Release 15 \cite{8928165}. A 5G NR frame lasts for 10 ms, consisting of 10 subframes, each with a duration of 1 ms. Each subframe consists of $2^\mu$ time slots, with $\mu$ being a numerology ranging from 0 to 5, referring to a subcarrier spacing of $2^\mu \cdot 15 \text{ }\text{kHz}$. Each slot occupies 14 or 12 OFDM symbols, determined by whether normal or extended CP is used.
Fig. \ref{fig: NR_waveform} shows the structure of 2 time slots for $\mu = 4$, i.e., 28 OFDM symbols. It can be seen that in addition to the data payload, there are 4 signal synchronization blocks (SSBs), each of which occupies 4 OFDM symbols. The components of the SSB include a Primary Synchronization Signal (PSS), a Secondary Synchronization Signal (SSS), Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH), and its Demodulation Reference Signal (PBCH-DMRS). SSB is broadcasted periodically for channel estimation and synchronization. Under certain circumstances, multiple SSBs can be transmitted within a localized burst to support possible beam sweeping operations. Signals accommodated in an SSB are known to both BS and UE, and can be easily exploited for sensing. In particular, synchronization signals, i.e., PSS and SSS, are typically with fixed structures, while the PBCH and its DMRS are more flexible and could be optimized for both S\&C, through specifically tailored precoding and scheduling schemes. Further to that, the PRS defined in Release 16 of NR can also be readily utilized for localization. These designs fall into the scope of time-frequency division ISAC discussed in Sec. IV-A, where only part of a frame structure is exploited for sensing. In line with the design philosophy of the fully unified waveform, one may further employ the data payload available in the frame for sensing, which would significantly improve the matched filtering gain and the sensing SNR.
\subsubsection{Challenges and Opportunities}
As per the analysis above, we next discuss the crictical challenges raised in waveform-level ISAC design using 5G NR, as well as their potential solutions.
{\textbf{Limited Bandwidth for High-Precision Sensing:}} 3GPP has defined 2 frequency range (FR) types for NR. FR1 (sub-6 GHz) is from 450 MHz to 6 GHz, and FR2 (mmWave) is from 24.25 GHz to 52.6 GHz. The channel bandwidth is up to 100 MHz in FR1, and 400 MHz in FR 2, which correspond to range resolutions of 1.5 m and 0.375 m, respectively, as per (\ref{eq23}). While these resolutions may be sufficient for basic sensing services, they are unable to fulfill the demand of high-precision localization applications, e.g., autonomous vehicles that require sensing resolution at the level of 0.1 m. One possible way to improve the range resolution is to leverage the carrier aggregation (CA) technique, which is able to boost the data rate by assigning multiple frequency blocks to the same user. In this spirit, one may also assign multiple frequency blocks to sense the same target. For example, if 16 carriers are aggregated within the sub-6 GHz band, the overall bandwidth can be up to 1.6 GHz, leading to a range resolution of 0.094 m. However, if the aggregated bandwidths are discontinued, high range sidelobes may occur, which possibly results in a high false-alarm probability. To that end, proper measures should be taken to reduce the sidelobes.
{\textbf{Self-Interference in Mono-static Sensing:}} For mono-static sensing operation, while both the SSB and the data payload are known and can thus be used for target probing, self-interference (SI) is a problem that can not be bypassed. Let us take the the case with $\mu = 4$ frames as an example, for which the subcarrier spacing is 240 kHz, and the corresponding OFDM symbol plus CP lasts for 4.46 $\mu s$. Such a duration translates to a target at a distance of 670 m. That is to say, if a target is within the range of 670 m, its echo signal will be reflected back to the BS within a duration of an OFDM symbol, while the BS is still transmitting. The leaked signal from the transmitter to the receiver results in strong SI, which saturates the receiver's amplifiers and masks the target return. For a moving target, the SI could be less harmful as long as the BS can distinguish it on the Doppler spectrum. Nevertheless, for static targets, this leads to ``black zone'' at the level of 100-1000 m, even if only a single OFDM symbol is employed, not to mention the use of both the SSB and the data payload, which generates even larger black zone. In fact, large signal dynamic range is required to resolve both types of targets, which practical analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) are unable to handle. To address this issue, full-duplex and SI cancellation techniques are necessary \cite{6832464}, or at least a certain degree of isolation between transmit and receive antennas is required. Fortunately, recent research has reported that by leveraging both RF and digital cancelers, a 100 dB SI suppresion can be reached for OFDM signaling, which is sufficient for the BS to identify a static drone at a distance of 40 m \cite{8805161}.
{\textbf{Unknown Data Payload in Bi-static Sensing:}} For bi-static sensing where the transmitter and receiver are separated, the SI is no longer an issue, and known SSB signals can be readily leveraged as sensing waveforms. Nevertheless, the data payload is unable to be straightforwardly utilized, as it may be unknown to the receiver side in the case that there are no direct channels/links in between. To tackle this problem, the receiver may first estimate the channel matrix by using the PBCH available in the SSB, and demodulate the data symbols using the estimated channel. By doing so, the demodulated symbols in conjunction with the SSB can be used for estimating the target parameters of interest.
For clarity, let us revisit the OFDM model present in (\ref{eq46}) by taking into account the spatial channel. Through transmitting a symbol vector $\mathbf{x}_{m,n} \in \mathbb{C}^{N_t \times 1}$ at the $n$-th subcarrier and the $m$-th OFDM symbol to sense $L$ targets, which correspond to $L$ propagation paths from the transmitter to the receiver, the received $N_r$-dimensional signal vector at the same subcarrier and OFDM symbol can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq66}
\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{y}}_{m,n}} = \sum\limits_{l = 1}^L {{\alpha _{l}}{e^{ - j2\pi \left( {n - 1} \right)\Delta f{\tau _l}}}{e^{j2\pi {f_{D,l}}\left( {m - 1} \right){T_{\operatorname{OFDM} }}}} \cdot } \hfill \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;{\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _l}} \right){{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _l}} \right){{\mathbf{x}}_{m,n}} + {{\mathbf{z}}_{m,n}}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{l}, \tau_l, f_{D,l}, \phi_l$ and $\theta_l$ represent the amplitude, delay, Doppler, AoA and AoD of the $l$-th target/path, respectively, and ${{\mathbf{z}}_{m,n}}$ is a Gaussian noise vector. By letting
\begin{equation}\label{eq67}
\begin{gathered}
{\mathbf{B}}\left( \Phi \right) = \left[ {\;{\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _1}} \right),...,{\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\phi _L}} \right)} \right],
{\mathbf{A}}\left( \Theta \right) = \left[ {{\mathbf{a}}\left( {{\theta _1}} \right),...,{\mathbf{a}}\left( {{\theta _L}} \right)} \right], \hfill \\
{{\mathbf{C}}_n} = \operatorname{diag} \left\{ {\left[ {{\alpha _{1}}{e^{ - j2\pi \left( {n - 1} \right)\Delta f{\tau _1}}},...,{\alpha _{L}}{e^{ - j2\pi \left( {n - 1} \right)\Delta f{\tau _L}}}} \right]} \right\}, \hfill \\
{\mathbf{D}_m} = \operatorname{diag} \left\{ {\left[ {{e^{j2\pi {f_{D,1}}\left( {m - 1} \right){T_{\operatorname{OFDM} }}}},...,{e^{j2\pi {f_{D,L}}\left( {m - 1} \right){T_{\operatorname{OFDM} }}}}} \right]} \right\}, \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
the relation (\ref{eq66}) can be written in compact form as
\begin{equation}\label{eq68}
\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{y}}_{m,n}} = {\mathbf{B}}\left( \Phi \right){{\mathbf{C}}_n}{{\mathbf{D}}_m}{{\mathbf{A}}^H}\left( \Theta \right){{\mathbf{x}}_{m,n}} + {{\mathbf{z}}_{m,n}} \hfill \\
\triangleq {{\mathbf{H}}_{m,n}}{{\mathbf{x}}_{m,n}} + {{\mathbf{z}}_{m,n}}. \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
For communication purposes, the ISAC channel matrix ${\mathbf{H}}_{m,n}$ can be estimated via the known pilots in the NR frame, without the need of knowing its inner structure. On the other hand, for sensing purposes, the target parameters $\alpha_{l}, \tau_l, f_{D,l}, \phi_l$, and $\theta_l$ need to be estimated. To proceed, one can either extract these parameters from the estimated channel ${\mathbf{\hat H}}_{m,n}$ directly, or first demodulate the data symbols and reconstruct $\mathbf{x}_{m,n}$ by using $\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{m,n}$, and then estimate the target parameters by further exploiting the reconstruced signal ${{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_{m,n}}$ as a reference signal \cite{8827589}. With the latter design, not only the target can be more accurately estimated, but also the communication channel estimate can be further refined, which is an example for attaining the coordination gain.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{CRAN_ISAC.pdf}
\caption{C-RAN architecture for networked sensing.}
\label{fig: CRAN_ISAC}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Using 5G-and-Beyond Network Architecture for Sensing}
In this subsection, we show how 5G-and-beyond network architectures can be utilized for sensing.
\subsubsection{Feasibility}
Over the past decades, networked sensing has been well-studied for a variety of sensing systems, including wireless sensor network (WSN), multi-static radar, and distributed MIMO radar (a.k.a. MIMO radar with widely separated antennas) \cite{4408448,5571889,5762798}. Among these sensing systems, a common structure is that the sensing operation is performed by multiple sensing nodes, and the sensed results are collected by a centralized unit for further processing, e.g., data fusion. By doing so, better sensing performance can be achieved over single-node sensing operation.
Depending on the processing pipeline at the centralized unit, networked sensing can be generally split into the following two categories:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\textbf{Information-Level Fusion:}} Each sensing node performs individual sensing by its own observations. The sensed parameters are collected and fused at the centralized unit. Conventional WSN that localizes an agent (target) using measurements of received signal strength (RSS), ToA, AoA, and time difference of arrival (TDoA) from anchors (sensing nodes), is a representative system using information-level fusion \cite{1458287,5208736}.
\item {\textbf{Signal-Level Fusion:}} Each sensing node observes signals reflected/scattered from the target, which could be transmitted from other nodes. The signals, instead of the sensed parameters, are collected and fused at the centralized unit, where an important application of such techniques is distributed MIMO radar \cite{4408448,5466526}. Signal-level fusion is known to be superior to information-level fusion, as the latter may discard important information relevant for sensing by individually processing the sensing signals at each node \cite{5571889}.
\end{itemize}
While it is plausible that the signal-level fusion provides performance gains over its information-level counterpart, it suffers from much higher computational and signaling overheads, as well as hardware costs. This is particularly pronounced for distributed MIMO radar, in which case a huge amount of sensed data needs to be communicated to a fusion center with strong computational power.
Fortunately, the C-RAN architecture designed for 5G-and-beyond communications provides a flexible and reconfigurable framework that enables a variety of sensing modes discussed above \cite{7096298,7444125}. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: CRAN_ISAC}, a typical C-RAN consists of a pool of base band units (BBUs), a large number of remote radio heads (RRHs), and a fronthaul network that connects RRHs to BBUs. The BBU pool is deployed at a centralized site, with software-defined BBUs that process the baseband signals and coordinate the wireless resource allocation. Eventually, the BBU pool can act as a centralized signal processing unit for networked sensing. RRUs are in charge of RF amplification, up/down-coversion, filtering, analog-to-digital/digital-to-analog conversion, and interface adaption, which can be leveraged as radar sensors supported by the NR waveform and relevant ISAC signaling techniques. Finally, the fronthaul link is typically realized by optical fiber communication technologies with high capacity and low latency, which can be exploited to transmit both S\&C data with high reliability \cite{7018201}.
\subsubsection{Challenges and Opportunities}
We end this subsection by identifying the unique challenges and opportunities imposed in C-RAN based ISAC, from a networked sensing perspective.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Feasible Techniques and Challenges in Perceptive Mobile Network}
\label{tab: perceptive_net}
\resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Sensing Operation Modes}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Feasible Techniques}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Challenges}} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Downlink Mono-static\\ (RRH mono-static sensing)\end{tabular} &
Using both SSB and data for sensing &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$\bullet$ SI cancellation\\ $\bullet$ transmitter/receiver isolation\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Downlink Bi-static\\ (RRH-RRH bi-static sensing)\end{tabular} &
Using both SSB and data for sensing &
$\bullet$ Interference management \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Uplink Bi-static\\ \\ (UE-RRH bi-static sensing)\end{tabular}} &
Using SSB only for sensing &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$\bullet$ Low matched-filtering gain\\ $\bullet$ Synchronization issue\end{tabular} \\ \cline{2-3}
&
Using both SSB and data for sensing &
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$\bullet$ Unknown data payload\\ $\bullet$ Synchronization issue\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Networked Sensing} &
\multirow{3}{*}{Using C-RAN architecture for sensing} &
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$\bullet$ Interference management\\ $\bullet$ Scheduling with target return\\ $\bullet$ Network synchronization issue\end{tabular}} \\
&
&
\\
&
&
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
{\textbf{Is Inter-Cell Interference a Friend or Foe?}} C-RAN is able to effectively mitigate the inter-RRH interference by using interference management approaches, e.g., coordinated multi-point (CoMP) or soft fractional frequency reuse (S-FFR) techniques \cite{7096298,7544500}. In most cases, inter-cell interference in communication networks is recognized as a harmful factor that needs to be reduced. For perceptive networks, however, inter-RRH interference may contain useful information with respect to targets of interest, which needs to be exploited to enhance the sensing performance, rather than being cancelled. In addition to receiving the echo signal originating from the mono-static sensing operation, each RRH may also receive the target return generated from ISAC signals transmitted by other RRHs or UEs.
Assuming that there are $Q$ RRHs connected to a BBU pool, and recalling (\ref{eq68}), the sensing signals received at the $q$th RRH, the $m$th OFDM symbol, and the $n$th subcarrier can be modeled as \cite{9296833}
\begin{equation}\label{eq69}
{{\mathbf{y}}_{q,m,n}} = {{\mathbf{H}}_{q,m,n}}{{\mathbf{x}}_{q,m,n}} + \sum\limits_{\begin{subarray}{l}
q' = 1 \\
q' \ne q
\end{subarray}} ^Q {{{\mathbf{H}}_{q',m,n}}{{\mathbf{x}}_{q',m,n}}} + {{\mathbf{z}}_{q,m,n}},
\end{equation}
where ${{\mathbf{H}}_{q,m,n}}$ represents the ISAC channel matrix for mono-static sensing, ${{\mathbf{H}}_{q',m,n}}$ is the ISAC channel matrix for bi-static sensing between the $q'$th and the $q$th RRHs, and ${{\mathbf{x}}_{q,m,n}}$ and ${{\mathbf{x}}_{q',m,n}}$ stand for the OFDM ISAC signals transmitted from the $q'$th and the $q$th RRHs, respectively, and finally ${{\mathbf{z}}_{q,m,n}}$ is the noise. While the $q$th RRH may be interested in recovering the target information from the mono-static channel matrix ${{\mathbf{H}}_{q,m,n}}$, bi-static channel matrices ${{\mathbf{H}}_{q',m,n}}, \forall q' \ne q$ may also contain useful information with respect to the same target, which need to be estimated and recovered. By doing so, the fluctuation in the radar cross section (RCS) of the target can be easily compensated, since the same target may be sensed from different looking directions \cite{4408448}. This provides coordination gains to the sensing performance, which is similar to the diversity gain in MIMO communications.
{\textbf{Target Return as an Outlier in C-RAN Scheduling:}} On top of the interference management, sensing operations also impose challenges in resource scheduling in a PMN. In the control plane of the C-RAN system, the resource management module is composed of three functions: the context-aware function (CAFun), the resource scheduling function (RSFun), and the reconfiguration function (RFun). The CAFun collects context information, e.g., Channel State Information (CSI), Quality-of-Service (QoS) requirements, battery consumption, from the network and forwards it to the RSFun. The RSFun then generates the scheduling strategy given the context information, and communicates it to the RFun, which executes the scheduling decision for RANs and UEs \cite{7018201}. In a communication-only C-RAN, the above framework is sufficient to coordinate the resource allocation for RRHs and UEs, as they are generally controllable in terms of their transmission and reception operations. Nevertheless, for PMN, the target return tends to be an outlier, as it could randomly appear in time, frequency, and spatial domains. To this end, novel scheduling approaches are needed to incorporate the prediction of target echoes into the control plane.
{\textbf{Network Synchronization:}} A more critical challenge happens in the sensing scenario between multiple UEs and RRHs. While the RRHs can be precisely synchronized at a clock level since they are connected to the centralized BBU via fronthaul links, UEs and RRHs are unlikely to be clock-synchronized due to the wireless channel in between. This leads to severe phase noise in terms of timing offset (TO) and carrier frequency offset (CFO) between the sensing transmitter and receiver, and thereby causes ambiguity in estimating the delay and Doppler frequency of the target. As an example, a clock stability of 20 parts-per-million (PPM) may generate a TO of 20 ns over 1 ms, which leads to ranging error of 6 m \cite{Zhang2021oveview}. For typical coherent radar signal processing across packets/pulses, the sensing performance will be seriously degraded due to the accumulation of the TO and CFO. To overcome this challenge, a cross-antenna cross-correlation (CACC) method was proposed for passive Wi-Fi sensing \cite{10.1145/3130940}. A more recent work addressing this issue for uplink sensing between the UE and the RRH is \cite{9349171}, where MUSIC-like algorithms are developed to further enhance the performance of the CACC method.
In light of the discussion above, we summarize the feasible techniques and challenges in perceptive mobile networks in TABLE. \ref{tab: perceptive_net} Among all the sensing operation modes, we highlight that the downlink bi-static sensing between RRHs is the most promising technique. Since RRHs are connected via fronthaul links to the BBU pool, both the SSB and the data payload transmitted from one RRH can be straightforwardly known to another RRH through coordination, and can thus be exploited for sensing. This also removes the necessity of complicated phase noise compensation and synchronization algorithms thanks to the high-capacity and low-latency optical fiber fronthaul.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Beam_training_tracking.pdf}
\caption{Frame structures for feedback based beam training and tracking, and ISAC based beam prediction.}
\label{fig: frame_structure}
\end{figure}
\section{Sensing-Assisted Communication}
Despite being rarely discussed in an explicit manner, communication systems are often assisted by sensing in a general setting. An example is the estimation of CSI before data transmission by sending pilots from the transmitter to the receiver. Another example for sensing-assisted communication is spectrum sensing in the context of cognitive radio, where the secondary user detects the precense of the primary user over a frequency band of interest, and then utilizes the spectrum to transmit information if the band is not occupied \cite{8253420,4796930,4489760}. While sensing techniques have been indeed employed to assist communication in the aforementioned applications, we underline that conventional sensing-assisted communication schemes generally rely on deviced-based and cooperative sensing, i.e., a sensing device should be attached to the sensed target, where device-free techniques such as radar sensing remains widely unexplored for improving the communication peformance.
In what follows, we take the sensing-assisted V2X network as an example, to shed light on how sensing, especially device-free sensing, can be employed to enhance mmWave communication performance, thus to pursue the coordination gain. For convenience, we consider mono-static sensing with the assumption that the SI is fully cancelled.
\subsection{Sensing-Assisted Beam Training}
In mmWave communication systems, a communication link is configured via classical {\emph{beam training}} protocols \cite{5262295,6847111}. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig: frame_structure}, the transmitter sends pilots to the receiver over different spatial beams. The receiver measures the SNR of the received pilots by leveraging different receive combiners/beamformers, and feeds back to the transmitter the indices of the beam pair that yields the highest SNR. In this way, the transmit and receive beams are aligned with each other. Nevertheless, an exhaustive search of the optimal pair requires a large number of pilots as well as frequent uplink feedback, which causes large overheads and latency.
To guarantee the communication QoS for latency-critical applications such as V2X networks, the beam training overhead needs to be reduced to the minimum, which motivates research on sensor-aided beam alignment. Indeed, by leveraging the prior information provided by the sensors, such as GNSS, radar, lidar, and camera, the search space of the beams can be narrowed down \cite{9266511}. It has been shown in \cite{7888145} that, for a V2I communication system with 64$\times$16 = 1024 beam pairs, the search space can be reduced to 475 beam pairs through the use of the positioning information generated by the GPS, and to 32 beam pairs with the help of the radar-based positioning, both of which attain the same accuracy compared to the exhaustive search method. On top of that, it is also possible to use a hierarchical beam search method in conjuction with the positioning information from the sensors, which further reduces overheads.
A more interesting example can be found in \cite{9162000}, where a MIMO radar mounted on the RSU is exploited to sense the vehicle. By assuming that the radar and communication channels share the same dominant paths, the covariance matrix of the communication channel can be estimated by relying on the echo signals. Based on this information, the RSU can further design a precoder and send pilots to the vehicle to facilitate its receive beamforming. In this case, feedback between the vehicle and the RSU is no longer needed, as the channel reciprocity is employed.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{arbitrary_trajectory_scenario.pdf}
\caption{ISAC-enanbled V2I downlink system.}
\label{fig: ISAC_V2I}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sensing-Assisted Beam Tracking and Prediction}
Once the communication link is established, i.e., the initial access is accomplished by beam training, both the transmitter and receiver are required to keep tracking the variation of the optimal beam pairs for the purpose of preserving the communication quality, which is known as {\emph{beam tracking}} \cite{9269463,7929295}. Beam tracking schemes exploit the temporal correlation between adjacent signal blocks, i.e., the previously estimated beams are utilized as prior information for the current epoch. By doing so, the search space of the beams can be maintained to a small interval centered around the previous beam, thus avoiding the transmission of redundant pilots. Nonetheless, the receiver still needs to feed back the optimal beam index to the transmitter in each of beam tracking cycles. Again, it is possible to remove the feedback loop by using a radar sensor mounted on the transmitter.
By taking a closer look at the above radar-aided beam training and tracking schemes, we see that the S\&C coordination gain is achieved by reducing the training overheads, but at the cost of extra radar hardware, i.e., with the loss of integration gain \cite{7888145,9162000}. Moreover, in high-mobility communication channels, e.g., V2X channels, it is necessary to have the capability of {\emph{beam prediction}}, as beam tracking may not be sufficient to adapt to fast-changing channels. To address these issues, the authors of \cite{9171304,9246715} consider employing ISAC signaling in V2I beam tracking and prediction, which demands no dedicated sensors and hence realizes both integration and coordination gains.
Consider an ISAC-enabled V2I downlink shown in Fig. \ref{fig: ISAC_V2I}, where an RSU equipped with $N_t$ transmit and $N_r$ receive antennas is serving a single-antenna vehicle in the LoS channel. The ISAC signal is transmitted on a block-by-block basis. At the $n$th transmission block, the vehicle's state is represented by $\mathbf{x}_n = \left[d_n, v_n, \theta_n\right]^T$, where $d_n$, $v_n$, and $\theta_n$ are the distance, velocity, and azimuth angle of the vehicle relative to the RSU, which are assumed to be constant within a single block. Suppose that the initial access is performed via radar-aided beam training method upon the arrival of the vehicle, based on which the RSU acquires the parameter estimates ${{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_0} = {\left[ {{{\hat d}_0},{{\hat v}_0},{{\hat \theta }_0}} \right]^T}$. The RSU then tracks and predicts the vehicle's state following the steps below:
{\textbf{State Prediction:}} At the $\left(n-1\right)$th epoch, the RSU predicts the vehicle's state at the $n$th epoch as
\begin{equation}\label{eq70}
{{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_{\left. n \right|n - 1}} \triangleq {\left[ {{{\hat d}_{\left. n \right|n - 1}},{{\hat v}_{\left. n \right|n - 1}},{{\hat \theta }_{\left. n \right|n - 1}}} \right]^T} = \mathcal{P}\left( {{{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_{n - 1}}} \right),
\end{equation}
where ${{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_{\left. n \right|n - 1}}$ stands for the $n$th predicted state based on the $\left(n-1\right)$th estimate, and $\mathcal{P}\left( \cdot \right)$ is a predictor, which can be designed either through model-based or model-free methods. While the model-based prediction typically relies on the vehicle's kinetic model, model-free approaches can be built upon machine learning frameworks, which is particularly useful in the case of complex traffic environment and channel conditions.
{\textbf{Beamforming:}} With the predicted angle ${{\hat \theta }_{\left. n \right|n - 1}}$ at hand, the RSU transmits the following ISAC signal to the vehicle at the $n$th epoch
\begin{equation}\label{eq71}
{{{\mathbf{\tilde s}}}_n}\left( t \right) = {\mathbf{f}}_n^H{s_n}\left( t \right),
\end{equation}
where ${\mathbf{f}}_n$ and ${s_n}\left( t \right)$ are the predictive beamformer and the unit-power data stream intended for the vehicle at epoch $n$. The beamformer ${\mathbf{f}}_n$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq72}
{{\mathbf{f}}_n} = {\mathbf{a}}\left( {{{\hat \theta }_{\left. n \right|n - 1}}} \right),
\end{equation}
where ${\mathbf{a}}\left(\theta\right) \in \mathbb{C}^{N_t \times 1}$ is again the transmit steering vector. Accordingly, the received signal at the vehicle can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq73}
{y_{C,n}}\left( t \right) = \alpha_n {{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _n}} \right){{\mathbf{f}}_n}{s_n}\left( t \right) + {z_{C,n}}\left( t \right),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_n$ and ${z_C}\left( t \right)$ represents the channel coefficient and the AWGN with zero mean and variance $\sigma_C^2$, respectively. The achievable rate can be computed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq74}
{R_n} = \log \left( {1 + \frac{{{{\left| {\alpha_n {{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _n}} \right){{\mathbf{f}}_n}} \right|}^2}}}{{\sigma _{C,n}^2}}} \right).
\end{equation}
If the predicted angle is sufficiently accurate, i.e., $\left|{{\hat \theta }_{\left. n \right|n - 1}}-{\theta _n}\right| \approx 0$, then the resulting high beamforming gain ${{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _n}} \right){{\mathbf{f}}_n}$ is able to support reliable V2I communications.
{\textbf{State Tracking:}} Once the ISAC signal hits the vehicle, it will be partially recived by the vehicle's receiver, and will also be partially reflected back to the RSU. The received echo signal at the RSU can be modeled as
\begin{equation}\label{eq75}
\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf{y}}_{R,n}}\left( t \right) = \hfill \\
{\beta _n}{e^{j2\pi {f_{D,n}}t}}{\mathbf{b}}\left( {{\theta _n}} \right){{\mathbf{a}}^H}\left( {{\theta _n}} \right){{\mathbf{f}}_n}{s_n}\left( {t - {\tau _n}} \right) + {z_{R,n}}\left( t \right), \hfill \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $\beta_n$ is the reflection coefficient, ${f_{D,n}} = \frac{{2{v_n}{f_c}}}{c}$ is the Doppler frequency, with $f_c$ and $c$ being the carrier frequency and the speed of the light, respectively. Again, $\mathbf{b}\left(\theta\right)$ denotes the receive steering vector. ${\tau _n} = \frac{{2{d_n}}}{c}$ stands for the round-trip delay. Finally, ${z_{R,n}}\left( t \right)$ is the AWGN with zero mean and variance of $\sigma_R^2$. By inputing (\ref{eq75}) into the estimator $\mathcal{F}\left(\cdot\right)$, the $n$th state can be estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq76}
{{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_n} = \mathcal{F}\left( {{{\mathbf{y}}_{R,n}}} \right).
\end{equation}
Alternatively, by taking into account the prediction ${{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_{\left. n \right|n - 1}}$, one can use a Bayesian filter $\mathcal{F}_B\left(\cdot\right)$, e.g., Kalman filter, to improve the estimation precision. This can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq77}
{{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_n} = {\mathcal{F}_B}\left( {{{\mathbf{y}}_{R,n}},{{{\mathbf{\hat x}}}_{\left. n \right|n - 1}}} \right).
\end{equation}
The estimate $\mathbf{\hat x}_n$ is then served as the input of the predictor for the $\left(n+1\right)$th epoch.
By iteratively performing state/beam prediction and tracking, the RSU is able to keep up with the movement of the vehicle, while preserving a high-quality V2I downlink. As observed from the ISAC frame structure shown in Fig. \ref{fig: frame_structure}, ISAC based beam tracking /prediction schemes outperform the communication-only protocols in the following aspects \cite{9201355}:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\textbf{No downlink pilots are needed:}} The entire ISAC signal block is exploited for both V2I communication and vehicle sensing, where dedicated downlink pilots are no longer needed. This reduces downlink overheads, while at the same time improving radar estimation performance.
\item {\textbf{No uplink feedbacks are needed:}} The uplink feedback signal is replaced with the echo signal reflected by the vehicle, which reduces the uplink overheads.
\item {\textbf{No quantization errors:}} The communication-only scheme requires quantizing the estimated angle before feeding it back to the RSU. In contrast to that, the ISAC scheme performs continuous angle estimation by relying on the echoes received by the RSU, which improves the estimation accuracy.
\item {\textbf{Significant matched-filtering gain:}} The use of the entire ISAC signal block for radar sensing benefits from the matched-filtering gain, which is equal to the ISAC block length. In general, the matched filtering gain that spans the whole communication block, is much more significant than that of the feedback based scheme, where only a limited number of pilots are used for beam tracking. As a result, the estimation accuracy is improved.
\end{itemize}
While the above study mainly focues on V2I communications, it can be straightforwardly genaralized to the V2V scenairo, for which the above features still hold.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{ISAC_rate-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Achievable rates comparison of the ISAC based and communication-only beam tracking schemes.}
\label{fig: ISAC_rate}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig: ISAC_rate}, we consider a scenario where a 64-antenna RSU serves a vehicle on a straight road, where the vehicle is driving from one side at a distance of 25 m and a speed of 18 m/s, passing by the RSU to another side. Since the RSU transmits at a fixed power, the communication rate firstly increases and then decreases. We compare the achievable rate of the ISAC scheme using extended Kalman filtering (EKF), and a feedback based communication-only scheme, namely the auxiliary beam pair (ABP) tracking method proposed in \cite{7929295}. It can be observed that while the ISAC scheme maintains a relatively stable rate, the achievable rate of the ABP technique goes down to zero drastically at 1040 ms, as it loses the track of the vehicle's angle. This further proves the superiority of ISAC signaling for V2I beam tracking and prediction.
\subsection{Sensing-Assisted Resource Allocation}
Apart from assisting in mmWave beamforming, sensing can also be a powerful tool for supporting the efficient allocation of more general wireless resources.
{\textbf{Sensing-Assisted Cell Handover:}} Let us consider again a V2I downlink, where a vehicle drives from a cell into another. In order to provide continuous communication service, handover is typically needed between the RSUs. The conventional handover protocol is built upon dual-connection techniques \cite{9013764}, in which the vehicle is connected simultaneously with a serving RSU and an idle RSU. The QoS of the two links is measured by their receive SINR, i.e., $\text{SINR}_{\text{serve}}$ and $\text{SINR}_{\text{idle}}$. If $\text{SINR}_{\text{serve}} < \text{SINR}_{\text{idle}}$ due to blockage or large distance, then the serving RSU will handover and forward the buffered data to the idle RSU. Given the high mobility of the vehicle, frequent handovers and re-connections are needed, which consume extra wireless resources. In view of that, a more efficient approach is to equip RSUs with the ISAC ability, such that the idle RSU can actively monitors the vehicle's state, including the distance, velocity, azimuth angle, and heading direction, by sending ISAC signals and hearing their echoes. These results are then exploited to estimate the time and location at when/where the vehicle enters into the idle RSU's coverage. Accordingly, the RSU then prepares the resources and data intended for the vehicle in advance, such that seamless high-quality service can be provided in an almost handover-free mode.
Under the framework above, it would be even more interesting to consider V2X scenarios where multiple vehicles are served simultaneously. The resource allocation can be again designed based on sensing the kinematic states, driving environment, and geometrical relationship of vehicles, where both S\&C performance should be taken into account. Below we list some potential allocation strategies for different resources.
{\textbf{Bandwidth Allocation:}} Bandwidth allocation for communications aims to maximize the spectral efficiency, or to satisfy individual QoS requirement of users. In the case that the spectrum is reused among multiple users, bandwidth allocation should also take into account the avoidance/mitigation of mutual interference \cite{9070137,8943325}. While bandwidth is key to increasing the communication rate, one may recall (\ref{eq24}) to see that the it also determines the range resolution for sensing. In ISAC-powered V2X networks, different vehicles may demand different S\&C services, and hence have various needs for communication rate and sensing resolution. All these requirements can be imposed as constraints in bandwidth allocation designs given the overall spectrum available.
{\textbf{Beamwidth Allocation:}} Beamwidth plays an important role for both S\&C \cite{9453816}. For faraway vehicles that are deemed to be point-like targets, the transmit beam can be made as narrow as possible, thus providing both high beamforming gain for communication and superior angular resolution for sensing. For nearby vehicles, however, things become distinctly different, as the vehicle is no longer viewed as a point target but an extended target. To sense the vehicle, a wide beam should be employed to cover the vehicle's body. On the other hand, a narrow beam is still preferred for communication, since the RSU should accurately steer the beam towards the receive antennas mounted on the vehicle. Moreover, it is readily seen that velocity also affects the beamwidth allocation, where narrow and wide beams are preferred for low- and high-speed vehicles, respectively \cite{8845121}.
{\textbf{Power Allocation:}} Power allocation affects almost all aspects of S\&C, as it is involved in all the performance metrics. For multi-user communications, while the classical water-filling power allocation design is able to maximize the communication rate, it is not able to address the issue of minimizing estimation errors. In V2X scenarios where both high-throughput communication and high-accuracy localization services are required, S\&C performance metrics including CRB and communication rate, should be considered simultaneously in the problem formulation. For instance, ISAC power allocation designs are proposed in \cite{9171304,9414871}, where the CRB for vehicle tracking is minimized, subject to the sum-rate constraint of multiple vehicles.
While Sec. VII mainly concentrates on vehicular communications served by radar, we remark that sensing, not just restricted to mono-static sensing, can indeed assist in a wide variety of communication applictions that require low overhead and latency, as well as efficient resource allocation.
\subsection{Sensing-Assisted PHY Security}
The compelling applications emerging with 5G and beyond such as remote-Health, V2X communications, are expected to carry confidential
personal data. Ensuring security and privacy is of key importance, and traditional cryptographic techniques at the network layer \cite{crypto} face a number of issues, most importantly an increasing vulnerability with the relentless growth of computational power. Critically, cyber threats start from the acquisition of access to wireless traffic, and this has motivated decades-long research in security solutions at the physical (PHY) layer.
Furthermore, the ISAC transmission poses unique security challenges. The inclusion of data into the probing signal, used to illuminate targets, makes it prone to eavesdropping from potentially malicious radar targets \cite{9199556}. Even if the data itself is protected with higher layer encryption, the existence of a communication link can still be detected from a malicious target which can jeopardize the communication privacy, reveal the AP’s location and ID and make it prone to cyberattacks \cite{8682745,8335560,8935749}. Classical communications-only PHY security solutions often involve reducing the signal power at the direction of the eavesdropper (target), which would severely deteriorate the sensing performance of ISAC. There is an abundance of communications-only PHY layer security approaches, ranging from secure beamforming, jamming, artificial noise design, as well as cooperative security designs \cite{Sec}, that could be adopted to address this challenge. Recent work has focused on addressing this vulnerability of ISAC by designing secure ISAC transmission \cite{9199556}, \cite{DFRCSec2}. This aims to address the conflicting objectives of illuminating signal energy to the radar target, while at the same time constraining the useful signal energy (SNR) towards the same direction of the sensed target, to inhibit its capability do eavesdrop the information signal towards the communication users.
In addition to unique security challenges ISAC offers, it provides key opportunities to address the limitations of PHY security solutions. Importantly, the sensing functionality offers new opportunities in making PHY security solutions practical \cite{DFRCSecOpportunities}. The major limitation of a large class of PHY security solutions stems from the need for knowing the eavesdroppers’ (Eves) channels, or direction as a minimum. The sensing capability has an enabling role for PHY security, where the detected targets’ (Eves’) AoAs can be used to enable null steering and secure beamforming, and provides new ground for the development of sensing-assisted secure communications.
The provision of security is an additional requirement in the wireless network of the future, that gives rise to new and unexplored tradeoffs at the cross-domain among communications, sensing, and security.
\section{The Road Ahead}
\subsection{Summary}
In this paper, we provided our vision of the future dual-functional wireless networks supported by integrated sensing and communications (ISAC) technologies. To begin with, we overviewed the historical development of radar and communications systems, based on which a formal definition and rationale for ISAC was given, followed by the definition of two types of gains in ISAC. We discussed various applications and use cases supported by ISAC, as well as its industrial progress and relevant standardization activities. We further investigated the technical aspects of ISAC, from the performance tradeoff between S\&C, to the ISAC waveform design, and ISAC receiver design. As a step further, we have shown the great benefits achieved by communication-assisted sensing and sensing-assisted communication, respectively, which paves the way towards the future perceptive network. In the next subsection, we speculate on the potential interplay and connection between ISAC and other emerging communication technologies.
\subsection{Interplay Between ISAC and Other Emerging Technologies}
\subsubsection{ISAC Meets Edge Intelligence}
Edge intelligence has been recognized as another key technology towards the next-generation wireless networks such as 6G (see, e.g., \cite{Letaief_AI6G}). Driven by the recent success of mobile edge computing (MEC) \cite{MEC_Kaibin,Wang20TWC_WPMEC}, edge intelligence pushes the computation-intensive artificial intelligence (AI) tasks from the centralized cloud to distributed BSs at the wireless network edge, in order to efficiently utilize the massive data generated at a large number of edge devices. The integration with edge intelligence is important to unlock the full potential of ISAC. In particular, the ISAC is expected to generate a large volume of data at distributed wireless transceivers, which need to be properly processed (potentially jointly processed with sensed data from other sensors like camera and lidar) via AI algorithms in a swift manner (for, e.g., recognition), in order to support applications with ultra-low-latency sensing-communication-computation-control requirements. Towards this end, the federated edge learning has emerged as a promising solution, in which the sensing devices can iteratively exchange their locally trained AI models for updating the desired global AI model in a distributed manner, while preserving data privacy at each sensing device, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: ISAC_AI} \cite{EdgeIntelligenceGuangxu,federated2021yonina}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Interplay1_Edge_AI.pdf}
\caption{ISAC meets edge intelligence.}
\label{fig: ISAC_AI}
\end{figure}
Integration between ISAC and edge intelligence poses new technical challenges \cite{tong2021accelerating}. First, due to the scarcity of spectrum resources, the wireless communication for exchanging AI models between sensing devices and edge servers is recognized as the performance bottleneck for federated edge learning. With the integration of ISAC, this issue will become even more severe, as the limited spectrum resources need to be further reused to support the radio sensing functionality. To resolve this problem, a new multiple access technique, namely over-the-air computation (AirComp) \cite{AirCompIOT}, has been utilized to enhance the communication efficiency of federated edge learning (see, e.g., \cite{AirFEEL}), in which the sensing devices can simultaneously transmit their local AI models over the same frequency band for global aggregation, by exploiting the wireless signal superposition at the edge server. With AirComp involved, it becomes an interesting new research direction to coordinate its integration with ISAC. How to optimize the power control (see, e.g., \cite{PowerControlAirComp}) and wireless resource allocation to balance the AirComp and sensing performances, and how to properly control the multi-cell sensing and AirComp interference (see, e.g., \cite{ICAirComp}) are interesting problems to be investigated. Proper precoding design may also play an important role (see, e.g., \cite{9459539}).
Furthermore, the ISAC-and-edge-intelligence integration introduces more complicated tradeoffs among sensing, communication, and computation. In particular, the demand of higher sensing accuracy and resolution in ISAC may lead to more data to be processed, which thus induces higher communication and computational burden. To deal with such tradeoffs, the joint design over the sensing-communication-computation flow is crucial, in which the ultimate goals of the AI tasks (e.g., recognition accuracy) should be adopted as new optimization objectives (instead of considering conventional sensing/communication metrics). For instance, adaptive AI-task-aware ISAC may be an interesting direction worth pursuing, in which the sensing devices can adaptively adjust their sensing area/accuracy/resolution based on the requirements of AI tasks subject to wireless and computation resource constraints.
\subsubsection{ISAC Supported By Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (RIS)}
Reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS), also known as intelligent reflecting surface (IRS) and large intelligent surface (LIS), is a new type of passive metamaterial device consisting of a large number of reflecting elements whose reflecting amplitudes and phases can be independently controlled to reconfigure the wireless environment \cite{TCOM_IRS,JSAC_IRS}. While RIS has shown great potential in increasing the spectrum and energy efficiency of wireless communications, it is also expected to benefit the ISAC by providing better sensing coverage, and enhancing the sensing accuracy and resolution. First, in conventional ISAC systems, sensing generally depends on the LoS link between the ISAC transmitter and the target of interes. How to sense targets without LoS connections is quite challenging. To resolve this issue, RIS can serve as a viable new solution by potentially providing additional LoS links with targets in those conventionally NLoS covered areas, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: ISAC_RIS}. Next, RIS is also beneficial to facilitate the sensing of targets with LoS links, via providing an additional link to see the targets from a different angle, thus potentially enhancing the sensing and localization accuracy and resolution. To fully reap these benefits, it is important to properly design the deployment locations of RISs based on the new sensing requirements, and optimize their reflecting amplitudes and phases in real time by taking into account the new sensing performance metrics and new co-channel sensing-communication interference. This is a challenging task, especially when there are many RISs deployed in a distributed manner and when the RIS-related network information is only partially available due to its passive nature.
One the other hand, ISAC in return can also be useful for enhancing wireless communication performance with RISs. One of the key technical challenges faced in RIS-enabled wireless communications is that the RIS-related CSI is difficult and costly to obtain due to the lack of signal processing capability at the RIS, thus making beam tracking and beam alignment difficult. In this case, by employing the sensing function to measure the parameters related to communication users (e.g., the angle-of-arrival/departure), ISAC provides an alternative approach to acquire the CSI to facilitate the RISs' passive beamforming.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Interplay2_RIS.pdf}
\caption{ISAC served by Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface.}
\label{fig: ISAC_RIS}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{ISAC With UAVs}
With recent technical advances, UAVs have found abundant applications in wireless networks as, e.g., aerial users, relays, BSs, or APs. In this case, wireless networks are experiencing a paradigm shift from conventional terrestrial ones to terrestrial-and-aerial integration (see, e.g., \cite{UAV_Survey} and the references therein). As a result, the interplay between UAVs and ISAC is becoming another interesting research topic, in which the UAVs may act as sensing targets, communication users, and aerial ISAC platforms, respectively, depending on different application scenarios discussed in Sec. II.
First, similar to conventional radar, ISAC enabled cellular networks can be used to detect and monitor the undesirable or suspicious UAV targets in the sky to protect the cyber and physical security. Next, when UAVs are connected into wireless networks as communication users, the on-ground BSs can send ISAC signals to localize these UAVs during the communication, and measure the related channel parameters. Such information may be utilized to facilitate the transmit beam tracking and wireless resource allocation, thus increasing the communication data rate and reliability, mitigating the severe ground-air interference, and enhancing the data security, with reduced signaling overhead. Finally, UAVs can act as mobile aerial platforms to perform ISAC with on-ground targets and communication users. This is appealing for both sensing and communication, as UAVs are highly likely to have strong LoS links towards users. By exploiting the UAVs' fully controllable mobility, they are able to maneuver towards desired locations to provide ISAC services on demand, and the UAVs' maneuver control provides a new DoF for optimizing ISAC performance. How to properly design the ISAC signal processing and resource allocation, together with the UAVs' deployment or trajectory optimization is an interesting but challenging problem. Moreover, as discussed in Sec. VII-D, security of ISAC transmission should be guaranteed in the event that an unauthorized UAV eavesdrops the information intended for the legitimate UAV user.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Interplay3_UAV.pdf}
\caption{ISAC with unmanned aerial vehicles.}
\label{fig: ISAC_UAV}
\end{figure}
In addition to the above research directions, ISAC may also find potential usage in conjunction with other emerging and important technologies, e.g., low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellite networks \cite{9275613,9210567}, Terahertz (THz) communications and sensing \cite{8732419,6882305}, digital twin \cite{9170905,9374645}, orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation\cite{7925924,9109735,9082873}, and more. Given the page limit, we will not elaborate on these aspects.
We firmly believe that ISAC will not only serve as the foundation of the new air interface for the 6G network, but will also act as the bond to bridge the physical and cyber worlds, where everything is sensed, everything is connected, and everything is intelligent.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\balance
|
\section{Conclusion}
We introduce \textsc{MMChat}, a large-scale multi-modal dialogue corpus that reveals the image-sparsity phenomenon in real conversations. Our dataset contains 120.84K dialogue sessions filtered from 32.4M sessions of raw multi-modal dialogues. Building on 100K dialogues from \textsc{MMChat}, we further conduct human filtering, yielding \textsc{MMChat-hf}, in which there are 19.9K high-quality multi-modal dialogue sessions. A dialogue model is proposed to tackle the image-sparsity issue utilizing \textsc{MMChat}. Experiment results indicate that both \textsc{MMChat} and \textsc{MMChat-hf} help to develop image-grounded dialogue systems and facilitate further study of the image-sparsity issue. Besides the filtered dialogues in \textsc{MMChat}, we will also release all the raw dialogues obtained in the data collection process to facilitate further studies.
\section{Broader Considerations}
Our dataset \textsc{MMChat} originates from a Chinese social media. The dataset collection and release protocols are carefully designed to avoid violating the privacy of each user on that social media. Specifically, each user's permission setting is strictly respected so that only publicly visible contents are collected. Rules are designed to filter out dialogues that may potentially expose users' private information, such as phone numbers or emails. Moreover, we will not host these images in \textsc{MMChat} on our own server. Only the URLs to these images will be released along with the download scripts.
To further enforce the data privacy, \textsc{MMChat} is released under strict terms for academic uses only, in which they promise no abuse of \textsc{MMChat} besides academic purposes.
In addition to the privacy issues, there might also be toxic or biased texts in \textsc{MMChat} or be generated by MMDSs trained on \textsc{MMChat}. Although we take the responsibility to remove toxic texts (using an offensive word list, an offensive content classifier, and human filtering), we cannot guarantee that there are no offensive contents left. However, as offensive and abusive content recognition is a rapidly developing area~\cite{vidgen2019challenges}, we would deploy more advanced filters once the new state-of-the-art offensive and abusive classifiers are proposed in the future.
Regarding the potential biases, except those from the dataset itself~\cite{henderson2018ethical} (which always exists in dialogue datasets), biases might be introduced by the pre-trained language model~\cite{bender2021dangers} and the pre-trained image encoder~\cite{steed2020image} used in this work. In the future, we head to apply and develop corresponding mitigation techniques~(following works such as~\newcite{dinan2019queens} and~\newcite{liu2020mitigating}).
During annotation, we pay each annotator 0.5 CNY per item. This results in approximately 60 CNY per hour, which is 4.5 times the minimum wage standard in China.
Besides, we also note that the goal of our work is to facilitate further work on multi-modal dialogue systems. Although the model used in this work is still far from realistic, our dataset can be regarded as an initial step toward the sparsity issue in real-world multi-modal conversations.
\section{Bibliographical References}\label{reference}
\bibliographystyle{lrec2022-bib}
\section{Dataset Construction: \textsc{MMChat}} \label{sec:dataset}
\textsc{MMChat} originates from a Chinese social media on which users can share their daily lives through images and texts. This section starts by introducing how \textsc{MMChat} is constructed (Section~\ref{sec:collect}) and cleaned (Section~\ref{sec:clean}). We then sketch how to manually annotate \textsc{MMChat} to produce \textsc{MMChat-hf} (Section~\ref{sec:annotation}). At length, we report an analysis of the \textsc{MMChat} dataset.
\subsection{Data Collection} \label{sec:collect}
A two-phase pipeline is used to construct raw dialogues in \textsc{MMChat}: the first phase aims to collect seed users who are active on social media. We start this phase with a few hand-collected mass media accounts. Professionals maintain these accounts and are committed to posting daily news on broad topics. The users who comment under this news are collected as our \emph{seed users}. The second phase starts from the seed users collected above. Specifically, the images posted by these seed users are obtained, and the comments under these images are collected. Dialogues along these images are constructed by restoring the reply relationship between these comments.
The two-phase data collection approach used in our study effectively avoids spammers' noises since most spammers will not bother to follow and reply to daily news. Moreover, we also filter out seed users that are not active to make the data collection process more effective. Finally, we collected a corpus containing about 32.4M sessions of raw dialogues.
\subsection{Data Filtering and Post-processing} \label{sec:clean}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{2.0pt}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\toprule
\#(Dialogues) & 120.84K \\
\#(Total Images) & 204.32K \\
\#(Total Utterances) & 314.13K \\
\#(Dialogue Sessions) Longer than 4 & 17.32K \\
\#(Image) per Dialogue & 2.91 \\
\#(Utterance) per Dialogue & 2.59 \\
\#(Character) per Utterance & 8.52 \\
\midrule
\#(Raw Dialogues) & 32.4M \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Statistics of \textsc{MMChat}.}
\label{tab:data_info}
\end{table}
\begin{CJK}{UTF8}{gbsn}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{clcl}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}{.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{img/3-1B.png}
\end{minipage} & \makecell[l]{\textbf{Caption}: A store on the \\street during night. \\ \textbf{Detected Objects}: building, \\light, red signature, \\ red calligraphy, plants, \\flowers, lamps, table} &
\begin{minipage}{.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{img/3-2B.png}
\end{minipage} & \makecell[l]{\textbf{Caption}: A brick house \\with guidepost. \\ \textbf{Detected Objects}: building, \\wall, black signature, \\ red signature, calligraphy, lamp} \\ & \\
\begin{minipage}{.22\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{img/3-3B.png}
\end{minipage} & \makecell[l]{\textbf{Caption}: Flags on the street. \\ \textbf{Detected Objects}: building, \\blue sky, red flags, roof, \\ people, trees} \\ & \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\makecell[l]{A: 去王家大院看看。\\ \quad\ (Will you have a visit to the Wang Family Courtyard?) \\ B: 跟古城差不多吧。\\ \quad\ (Isn't there having the same scene with the ancient city?) \\ A: 比古城好，有时间可以去。\\ \quad\ (Much better than the ancient city. You can have a visit if you have spare time.) \\ B: 好的~古城过度开发了都成商业街了。\\ \quad\ (Sure. The ancient city has been over-commercialized.) \\ A: 嗯嗯，王家大院很震撼我。\\ \quad\ (Uh-huh. The Wang Family Courtyard impressed me a lot.)}} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{An example dialogue (translated from Chinese) and its associated images from \textsc{MMChat}. Each image's semantic information (including object labels, attributes, bounding boxes and image captions) is provided.}
\label{tab:ex2}
\end{table*}
\end{CJK}
To improve the quality of \textsc{MMChat}, a set of rules is carefully designed to filter out low-quality images and dialogues from the raw corpus collected in Section~\ref{sec:collect}. Specifically, images with extremely low resolution (fewer than $500$ pixels) or high aspect ratios (larger than $10$) are abandoned, and dialogues that contain extremely long utterances (longer than 200 tokens) are filtered. Moreover, we only retain dialogues that contain more than $3$ utterances. The offensive contents are also filtered using an offensive word list and a pre-trained offensive content classifier~\cite{wang2020chinese}.
To ensure the dialogue contents in \textsc{MMChat} are related to the corresponding images in the first few turns of the conversation, we only retain images that are uploaded through the direct-share mode. This mode allows users to share images without providing textual content. We argue that the initial few turns of the dialogues following these image-only posts are usually triggered by the visual information because there are no previous textual contexts except for the uploaded images.
Note that eliminating posts that are not uploaded through the direct-share mode filters out a vast majority of collected raw dialogues. However, this rule is adopted not because these filtered dialogues are of low quality but because we only have limited computation resources. We want our model to focus on dialogues that are more closely related to its multi-modal contexts. We believe these filtered raw dialogues are useful in building large-scale multi-modal dialogue models or multi-modal pre-trained models. We will release all the collected raw dialogues to facilitate further studies in this direction.
The statistics of the resulting \textsc{MMChat} dataset are shown in Table \ref{tab:data_info}. Each dialogue session is associated with at least one image (9 images maximum), and a considerable amount of sessions (more than 17.32K) in \textsc{MMChat} contain at least 4 utterances (i.e., 2 turns). Note that different dialogues may share the same post (i.e., the same set of images). To protect data privacy, \textsc{MMChat} is released under strict terms for academic users only. More details for the data release protocol can be found in the Broader Consideration section.
\subsection{Human Filtering} \label{sec:annotation}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{2.0pt}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\toprule
\#(Dialogues) & 19.90K \\
\#(Total Images) & 52.66K \\
\#(Total Utterances) & 81.06K \\
\#(Dialogue Sessions) Longer than 4 & 8.91K \\
\#(Image) per Dialogue & 2.70 \\
\#(Utterance) per Dialogue & 4.07 \\
\#(Character) per Utterance & 11.93 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Statistics of \textsc{MMChat-hf}.}
\label{tab:mmachat_hf_info}
\end{table}
To facilitate further studies on \textsc{MMChat}, we recruit annotators to manually filter \textsc{MMChat}, and construct a dataset \textsc{MMChat-hf} with higher quality. Concretely, we random sample 100k dialogue sessions from \textsc{MMChat} and ask annotators to annotate each session from the following three aspects: 1) \emph{Whether the associated images are qualified}. The associated images of a dialogue session are not qualified if any of the images is overlong/flat (i.e., depth-width ratio $>$ 10 or $<$ 0.1) or is a screenshot of texts (e.g., email, news, etc.). We also identify selfies and offensive images as disqualified; 2) \emph{Whether the dialogue contents are non-offensive}. Though we have filtered offensive contents automatically, we ask annotators to check them further manually; 3) \emph{Whether the dialogue content is strongly correlated with the associated images}. A dialogue session is annotated as ``true'' in this aspect if its content contains mentions of any object/person/background of its associated images.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=400px]{img/fig2.pdf}
\caption{Overview of multi-modal dialogue generation model.}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure*}
In \textsc{MMChat-hf}, we only retain dialogue sessions that are annotated as ``true'' in all the above three aspects. This results in 19.90K dialogue sessions as well as 52.66K images. More statistics are shown in Table~\ref{tab:mmachat_hf_info}. In \textsc{MMChat-hf}, dialogues contains 4.07 utterances on average and utterances contains 11.93 characters on average, which are longer than dialogues in \textsc{MMChat} (see Table~\ref{tab:data_info}). All these annotations will be released under our data release protocol.
\subsection{Data Analysis}
We try to reveal the semantics of images contained in \textsc{MMChat}. Specifically, a Faster R-CNN model \cite{Ren2015Faster_rcnn,lu2019vilbert} trained with attribute head on the Visual Genome \cite{krishnavisualgenome} dataset is used to detect objects in each image \footnote{We use the pre-trained model provided by \url{https://github.com/peteanderson80/bottom-up-attention}}. The regions where any class detection confidence exceeds a threshold (0.2 in our case following \cite{Anderson2017up-down}) are selected to further detect the specific object labels. We follow the work of \newcite{Anderson2017up-down} to use an object and attribute vocabulary with the size of 1600 and 400, respectively. An average count of 11.42 objects is detected in each image. This indicates that images in our dataset contain rich semantic information and thus are informative. An example dialogue session, together with its associated images, is shown in Table~\ref{tab:ex2}.
\section{Experiments}
Experiments are performed to assess both our model and datasets. Specifically, we train our model on both \textsc{MMChat} and \textsc{MMChat-hf}. For \textsc{MMChat}, we sample 4.0K and 2.0K dialogue sessions for testing and validation, respectively, and for \textsc{MMChat-hf}, we sample 1.0K and 1.0K dialogue sessions for testing and validation, respectively. Two baselines are also implemented in our study.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
In our proposed dialogue model (referred to as \textbf{Seq2Seq+IMG}), the encoder and decoder are 12-layer transformers with 768-dimensional hidden states and 12 attention heads. For the position-wise feed-forward networks, 3,072-dimensional inner states are used. The Adam optimizer is used to train our model with $\beta_1=0.9$, $\beta_2=0.98$ and $\epsilon=10^{-9}$. The maximum learning rate is set to 1.0e-4. The training starts with a warmup step of 1,000, and the learning rate is annealed proportionally to the inverse square root of the step number. The batch size is set to 360, and the training iterators 60 epochs. A character-level vocabulary of size 13,084 is used. Other settings of our Transformer model follow the work of \newcite{radford2018improving}.
We share the weights of the encoder and decoder in the dialogue model and initialize these weights using a pre-trained GPT model \cite{wang2020chinese}. The pre-training corpus contains about 0.5 billion tokens, and the pre-training process lasts for a week on 8 GTX1080Ti GPUs. We use the top-K ($K=20$) decoding scheme with beam search for the dialogue model in the inference phase. The beam size and length penalty are 4 and 2.0, respectively. The training of our model lasted for about 24 hours on 2 NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs. The number of parameters for our model (textual encoder and decoder, not including the image encoder) is 191.01M. Note that due to the large computation loads to utilize the pre-training based method in our model and our baselines, we inherit most of the hyper-parameter settings from the previous studies, such as \newcite{radford2018improving}, and skip the hyper-parameter tuning process. Moreover, for fair comparisons, we use a fixed set of hyper-parameters in all our experiments (including all the baselines).
\subsection{Baselines}
We also implement two baselines to validate our dataset and model: \textbf{Seq2Seq}: a transformer-based Seq2Seq model is built with only textual inputs; \textbf{Seq2Seq+PIMG}: an image-grounded dialogue model is built with a single pooled image representation. Specifically, an max-pooling operation is applied to $E_{\mathcal{I}}$, and the pooled vector is added to each representation vector in $E_{\mathcal{C}}$. The attention route to $E_{\mathcal{I}}$ (i.e., Eq. \ref{eq:img_cxt}) is not applied. Note that the first baseline does not use image contexts, and the second baseline does not model the sparsity phenomenon.
For fair comparisons, all baselines employ the same architecture, hyper-parameter setting and initialization scheme with our model \textbf{Seq2Seq+IMG}.
\subsection{Metrics}
We use the following metrics: \textbf{BLEU} \cite{papineni2002bleu} measures the n-gram (n=2,3,4) overlaps between generated and reference responses; \emph{Distinct} (\textbf{Dist}) \cite{li2016diversity} measures the proportion of unique n-gram in the generated response (n=1,2); \emph{Entropy} (\textbf{Ent}) \cite{zhang2018generating} measures how evenly the empirical n-gram (n=1,2) distribution is:
\begin{equation}
\mbox{Ent} = \frac{1}{\sum_w F(w)} \sum_{w \in V} F(w) \log \frac{F(w)}{\sum_w F(w)},
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the set of all n-grams and $F(w)$ is the frequency of n-gram $w$. Note that both distinct and the entropy measure the diversity of the generated responses.
\subsection{Results}
Table~\ref{tab:results} and Table~\ref{tab:results_hf} shows the results on \textsc{MMChat} and \textsc{MMChat-hf}, respectively. Table~\ref{tab:ex3} lists some example outputs of our dialogue generation models and baselines. Generally speaking, our Seq2Seq+IMG outperforms both baselines on most metrics. The exception is on the entropy metric: the difference between Seq2Seq and Seq2Seq+IMG on both datasets is marginal (approximately 1\%).
Based on the above results, we can observe that: 1) Incorporating image contexts in dialogue models helps to produce better responses. Specifically, our model obtains 24.97\% and 54.84\% relative improvements on the BLEU-4 score compared to the text-only baseline Seq2Seq on \textsc{MMChat} and \textsc{MMChat-hf}, respectively. Meanwhile, similar improvements are also identified when comparing Seq2Seq+PIMG and Seq2Seq. These results validate our motivation to incorporate multi-modal features in the dialogue generation model and prove that \textsc{MMChat} (as well as \textsc{MMChat-hf}) can be used to build image-grounded dialogue models. 2) Our model, Seq2Seq+IMG, obtains greater relative improvement on BLEU than Seq2Seq+PIMG. This indicates that explicitly modeling the sparsity phenomenon helps to further improve the dialogue generation performance, and \textsc{MMChat}/\textsc{MMChat-hf} facilitates the study of such a phenomenon.
Moreover, by comparing results on \textsc{MMChat} and \textsc{MMChat-hf}, we find that: 1) Models trained on \textsc{MMChat-hf} generally receive higher BLEU and distinct scores than those trained on \textsc{MMChat-hf}; 2) Incorporating image information on \textsc{MMChat-hf} introduce higher improvement on the BLEU score comparing to the improvement observed on \textsc{MMChat} (e.g., BLEU-4 is improved 54.84\% on \textsc{MMChat-hf} while improved 24.97\% on \textsc{MMChat}). These results indicate that filtering out low-quality images and dialogues that are irrelative to their associated images (see Section~\ref{sec:annotation}) do help build a better dataset.
Note that the diversity improvement of our model Seq2Seq+IMG is not significant compared to the baseline Seq2Seq, particularly on the \textsc{MMChat-hf} dataset. This may be because the generated responses are bounded by more contexts (i.e., images). \footnote{Also note that models receive higher distinct scores on \textsc{MMChat-hf} than \textsc{MMChat}, which could, to a large extent, because the test set of \textsc{MMChat-hf} is smaller than that of \textsc{MMChat}.}.
\section{Introduction}
The ability to converse like a human is one of the desiderata for building open-domain dialogue systems~\cite{adiwardana2020towards}. Current attempts to build human-like open-domain dialogue systems generally follow two angles: 1) Enriching the dialogue system with textual or structural contexts such as knowledge~\cite{madotto-etal-2018-mem2seq} or personalities~\cite{zhang-etal-2018-personalizing,zheng2019personalized}; 2) Enabling the dialogue systems to perceive multi-modality contexts beyond text such as vision, voice, or even gesture~\cite{shuster2019dialogue,shuster2020multi,liao2018knowledge,ju2019all}. Systems built following the second angle are also known as Multi-Modal Dialogue Systems (MMDSs).
To facilitate the development of data-driven MMDSs, a few dialogue datasets containing visual information have been constructed \cite{mostafazadeh-etal-2017-image,mogadala2019trends,alamri2019audio,kottur2019clevr,pasunuru2018game,shuster-etal-2020-image,meng2020openvidial}. For instance, \newcite{shuster-etal-2020-image} introduced a crowd-sourced image grounded dialogue corpus \textsc{Image-Chat}, in which annotators are employed to chat in accordance with given images. \newcite{meng2020openvidial} proposed \textsc{OpenViDial} by directly extracting dialogues and their visual contexts from movies and TV series. There are also works on visual question answering~\cite{das2017visual} that focus on the question answering tasks involving image inputs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=210px]{img/fig1.pdf}
\caption{Example dialogues from \textsc{MMChat} (translated from Chinese).}
\label{fig:image_dialog_example}
\end{figure}
A significant drawback of existing datasets is that they postulated every utterance in a dialogue to be grounded on the given image. Nevertheless, this is not always true in our daily communications. Concretely, the topic triggered by the image may drift in the conversation flow so that not every utterance in a dialogue session is image-grounded. Taking the right dialogue in Figure~\ref{fig:image_dialog_example} as an example, it is initialized by objects shown in the associated image (i.e., ``\emph{paintbox}'' and ``\emph{dried paint}'') but the focus of the following dialogue move to the speaker's own experience as a painter, which is not image-related anymore. A similar pattern is also observed in the left example of Figure~\ref{fig:image_dialog_example}. We refer to this phenomenon as the issue of \emph{sparsity} and dialogues that exhibit this phenomenon as the \emph{sparse image-grounded dialogues}.
To tackle the above issue, we introduce \textsc{MMChat}: a large-scale dataset that contains sparse image-grounded dialogues in Chinese. We first collected 32.4M sessions of raw dialogues and 8.41M associated images from social media. Based on these raw dialogues, we design an elaborate data filtering process and construct \textsc{MMChat}, which contains 120.84K sessions of filtered high-quality dialogues and 204.32K images. Dialogues that are incoherent or involve offensive content are filtered. Two example dialogue sessions are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:image_dialog_example}. Unlike previous multi-modal dialogue datasets that only provide a single raw image per dialogue session, each filtered dialogue session in \textsc{MMChat} corresponds to one or multiple images. The semantic information of each image is further revealed in our dataset using a pre-trained image caption model. Specifically, a set of detected object labels and a generated descriptive caption are released for each image in \textsc{MMChat}.
To further improve the quality of dialogues in \textsc{MMChat}, we sample 100K dialogue sessions from \textsc{MMChat}, and manually check the quality of images and whether these dialogues are strongly correlated with the associated images. This yields a ``human filtered'' dataset \textsc{MMChat-hf} that contains 19.90K dialogue sessions and 52.24K images.
Building on both \textsc{MMChat} and \textsc{MMChat-hf}, We provide a strong benchmark model to tackle the image-sparsity issue in open-domain dialogue generation tasks based on the attention routing mechanism \cite{zheng2020pre}. Evaluation results on both datasets suggest that incorporating visual contexts contributes positively to dialogue modeling, and the approach used in our benchmark model helps alleviate the sparsity issue.
Besides enlightening advanced models for realistic multi-modal conversations, \textsc{MMChat} is also built to help understand how Chinese multi-modal communications are conducted from the aspect of social science~\cite{jovanovic2018multimodal}. The vast amount of dialogues and images in \textsc{MMChat} can also benefit the study of multi-modal pretraining models.
In what follows, we summarize our main contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We construct a large multi-modal dialogue dataset \textsc{MMChat}, addressing the issue of ``sparsity''. A dedicated automatic filtering process is proposed to clean the dataset.
\item We offer a human filtered dataset \textsc{MMChat-hf} based on 100K dialogue sessions sampled from \textsc{MMChat}.
\item We build benchmark models on \textsc{MMChat}. The results indicate that incorporating visual contexts contribute positively to dialogue modeling, and our benchmark model can better tackle the sparsity issue.
\end{itemize}
Our dataset and code are available in \url{https://github.com/silverriver/MMChat}
\section{Dialogue Generation on \textsc{MMChat}} \label{sec:model}
This section starts by formally defining the task of MMDS (Section~\ref{sec:task}). Moreover, we propose to use the attention routing mechanism~\cite{zheng2020pre} to capture the issue of sparsity (Section~\ref{sec:model_detail}).
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
Model & BLEU-2 & BLEU-3 & BLEU-4 & Dist-1 & Dist-2 & Ent-1 & Ent-2 \\
\midrule
Seq2Seq & 2.830 & 1.376 & 0.805 & 2.63 & 33.92 & 6.00 & 9.47 \\
Seq2Seq+PIMG & 2.928 & 1.469 & 0.888 & 2.73 & 34.34 & 6.01 & 9.45 \\
& (+3.46\%) & (+6.76\%) & (+10.31\%) & (+3.80\%) & (+1.24\%) & (+0.17\%) & (-0.21\%) \\
Seq2Seq+IMG & 3.001 & 1.588 & 1.006 & 2.82 & 35.38 & 6.07 & 9.52 \\
& (+6.04\%) & (+15.41\%) & (+24.97\%) & (+7.22\%) & (+4.30\%) & (+1.17\%) & (+0.53\%) \\
\midrule
Human Reference & N/A & N/A & N/A & 9.09 & 48.77 & 6.69 & 9.64 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Evaluation Results on \textsc{MMChat}. Relative improvements compared to the Seq2Seq baseline is shown in parentheses.}
\label{tab:results}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
Model & BLEU-2 & BLEU-3 & BLEU-4 & Dist-1 & Dist-2 & Ent-1 & Ent-2 \\
\midrule
Seq2Seq & 3.779 & 2.405 & 1.641 & 5.35 & 45.62 & 6.11 & 9.26 \\
Seq2Seq+PIMG & 4.576 & 3.094 & 2.230 & 5.04 & 42.61 & 6.01 & 9.14 \\
& (+21.09\%) & (+28.65\%) & (+35.89\%) & (-5.79\%) & (-6.60\%) & (-1.64\%) & (-0.21\%) \\
Seq2Seq+IMG & 4.818 & 3.381 & 2.541 & 5.75 & 45.35 & 6.05 & 9.15 \\
& (+27.49\%) & (+40.58\%) & (+54.84\%) & (+7.48\%) & (-0.59\%) & (-0.98\%) & (+1.19\%) \\
\midrule
Human Reference & N/A & N/A & N/A & 6.17 & 47.43 & 5.98 & 9.00 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular
\caption{Evaluation Results on \textsc{MMChat-hf}. Relative improvements compared to the Seq2Seq baseline is shown in parentheses.}
\label{tab:results_hf}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Task Definition} \label{sec:task}
The task of MMDS is to learn a function $f$ that can map textual contexts $\mathcal{C}$ (e.g., dialogue histories) and multi-modal contexts $\mathcal{I}$ (e.g., images, audio or video) into dialogue responses $Y$, i.e., learn $f:\{\mathcal{C, I}\} \mapsto Y$. In this study, we focus on the image modality in $\mathcal{I}$, i.e., $\mathcal{I}$ is composed of a set of images $\{I_n\}_{n=1}^N$.
\subsection{Dialogue Generation Model} \label{sec:model_detail}
The Seq2Seq architecture is used as our backbone to build a multi-modal dialogue generation model. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:model}, two encoders are used to respectively encode the textual context $\mathcal{C}$ and image context $\mathcal{I}$ into encoded representations $E_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $E_{\mathcal{I}}$. An attention routing module is utilized to merge $E_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $E_{\mathcal{I}}$ in the decoder, and the response $Y$ is decoded auto-regressively.
\subsubsection{Encoder}
The encoder for the textual context $\mathcal{C}$ is parameterized with the Transformer architecture \cite{vaswani2017attention} (12 layers, 12 attention heads, and 768 hidden states). To improve the generation quality, we initialize its weights using a pre-trained GPT model \cite{radford2018improving}. Utterances in the dialogue history are concatenated using a special token ``[SEP]'', and $E_{\mathcal{C}}$ is obtained by feeding the concatenated token sequence into the textual encoder.
The encoder for the image context $\mathcal{I}$ is implemented as the Faster R-CNN model with ResNet-101 backbone. The weights of this encoder are pre-trained on the Visual Genome dataset and fixed in the training process \footnote{We have released the pre-trained weights}. Specifically, a feature vector with the size of 2048 is extracted from each image region. The top-50 high confidence regions are used to produce $E_{\mathcal{I}}$ with a linear layer to adjust the feature-length, i.e., the resulting $E_{\mathcal{I}}$ contains 50 features, each has a length of 768.
\subsubsection{Decoder}
We implement the dialogue decoder with the Transformer architecture and share its weights with our textual encoder. To tackle the sparsity issue, we equip the dialogue decoder with the attention routing mechanism~\cite{zheng2020pre} to balance the contribution of each region feature. Specifically, given the encoding of the dialogue context $E_\mathcal{C}$, image context $E_\mathcal{I}$, and previous decoded tokens $E_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}}$, three attention routes are computed as:
\begin{align}
O_\mathcal{C} & = \mbox{MHA}(E_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}}, E_\mathcal{C}, E_\mathcal{C}), \label{eq:text_cxt} \\
O_\mathcal{I} & = \mbox{MHA}(E_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}}, \gamma E_\mathcal{I}, \gamma E_\mathcal{I}), \label{eq:img_cxt} \\
O_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}} & = \mbox{MMHA}(E_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}}, E_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}}, E_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}}), \label{eq:pre}
\end{align}
where $\gamma \in [0,1]$ is a hyper-parameter to re-scale $E_\mathcal{I}$. MHA and MMHA represent masked and unmasked multi-head attention, respectively, in which $E_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}}$ serves as the query. The results of each attention operation are averaged before proceeding to the next sub-module:
\begin{equation}
O_{\mbox{merge}} = \frac{O_\mathcal{C} + O_\mathcal{I} + O_{\mathcal{\mbox{pre}}}}{3}.
\end{equation}
Note that the attention route on image features (i.e., Eq. \ref{eq:img_cxt}) assigns different weights to different image regions. This facilitates more flexible control over image features in the decoding process and thus helps ease the sparsity issue.
\section{Related Work}
|
\section{Introduction}
Matching two sentences is a core problem in many information retrieval (IR) applications, such as web search \cite{kelly2009foundations}, question answering \cite{berger2000bridging} and paraphrasing identification\cite{dolan2004unsupervised}. Take web search as an example, given a query and a document, the matching score is usually used to determine the relevance between them.
Recently, deep neural networks have been widely applied in this area and achieved great progresses. These deep text matching models are usually divided into two categories, i.e.~representation and interaction based methods. The representation based methods use deep neural network to obtain the representations of each object, then conduct the interaction information to output a matching score. Representative models includes DSSM \cite{huang2013learning}, CDSSM \citep{shen2014latent} and ARC-I \citep{hu2014convolutional}, etc. While the interaction based methods directly apply deep neural networks on the interaction matrix of the two objects to output the matching score. DRMM \citep{Guo2016A}, MatchPyramid \citep{pang2016text}, KNRM\citep{xiong2017end}, DeepMatch\citep{revaud2016deepmatching} and ARC-II\citep{hu2014convolutional} have been recognized as some typical models of this kind. More recently, the popular pre-training technique, e.g.~BERT~\citep{devlin2018bert} has also been applied to deep text matching models and gain increasing attention.
Though deep text matching models have shown good performance in information retrieval, it is unclear what happened in matching process. Features are not explicit any more in these deep text matching models, as compared with the traditional learning-to-rank methods. Deep learning models are black boxes themselves. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why deep text matching models perform well, and what kind of knowledge/principles do they learn or capture in the matching process. This is exactly the motivation of this paper. We should note that this problem is very challenging. Firstly, interpretation itself is a difficult problem for in the field of deep learning, though the direction has obtained significant attentions and several different interpretation methods have been proposed, such as feature visualizations \citep{olah2017feature}, attribution methods \citep{ancona2017unified} , and sample importance methods \citep{koh2017understanding}. Secondly, the formal definition of interpretability is not clear, and may differ for various applications.
Looking back at IR history, some IR heuristics, i.e., several basic desirable constraints, have been proposed in \cite{fang2004formal, fang2005exploration}. The performance of a retrieval formula is tightly related to how well it satisfies these constraints. Inspired by this finding, we propose to conduct the understanding of existing deep text matching methods from the perspective of IR heuristics, including term frequency constraints (TFCs) \cite{Salton1987Term}, term discrimination constraint (TDC), length normalization constraints (LNCs) \cite{Zobel1998Exploring}, and TF-length constraint (TF-LNC). We noticed that \citep{rennings2019axiomatic} has conducted a similar empirical study. However, they focus on diagnosing the deep model whether they can be improved by adding some data which satisfy the assumption of the constraints. Therefore, there are two problems in this approach: 1) it fails to detect whether these constraints are truly satisfied by a deep text matching model; 2) comparisons between different deep learning models are not allowed.
To address these limitations, this paper focus on study whether these deep text matching models satisfy the existing IR constraint. Since the deep text matching models are usually very complicated and contain many parameters, it is not feasible any more to directly conduct mathematical derivations to achieve the conclusion. So we propose to test the trained models on constructed test data. Firstly, we train a deep text matching model on training data. Then we construct queries and documents which satisfy the assumption of a constraint to form a test data. Finally, the trained model is applied on test data, and the proportion of data that satisfy the constraint can be obtained. This value reflect to which extent the deep text matching model satisfy this constraint. Furthermore, the interpretation method Integrated Gradient (IG) \citep{sundararajan2017axiomatic}, which has been proven to be stable and reliable in many different applications, is used in our experiments to conduct detailed analysis and improvements.
We experiment on two widely used datasets in IR, i.e.~LETOR 4.0 and MS Marco. Three kinds of deep text matching models are tested, including representation based methods such as ARC-I, interaction based methods such as MatchPyramid, KNRM and BERT, and the hybrid models such as RI-Match and DUET. The results show that these deep text matching models satisfy the four concerned constraints with high probabilities in statistics, which explain why deep text matching models usually perform well on many IR tasks. Furthermore, we extend the above constraints to the semantic versions, by incorporating the word embeddings into the definitions. Experiments show that the deep text matching models satisfy semantic constraints with higher probabilities, which explains the mechanism of how these models capture the semantic matching relations between queries and documents in the scenario of IR.
Our main contributions include: 1) the proposal of a method to test whether a deep text matching model satisfies the existing IR heuristics, which can be used for existing and future deep learning models; 2) the extensive empirical studies on LETOR 4.0 and MS Marco, including both representation and interaction based models; 3) the extension of existing IR constraints to the semantic versions, which provide some foundations for potential investigations of modern deep learning based retrieval models.
\section{Backgrounds}
In this section, we introduce backgrounds that including existing deep matching models for IR, and the interpretation method used in this paper, i.e., integrated gradient (IG).
\subsection{Deep Text Matching Models}
Recently, deep text matching technique has been widely applied in IR, and existing models can be mainly divided into two categories, i.e representation based methods and interaction based methods.
Representation based methods focus on representing query and document to two vectors by using different deep neural networks, such as CNNs \cite{kalchbrenner2014convolutional,denil2014modelling} and RNNs \citep{li2015hierarchical,touretzky1996advances}. Then matching score is computed by similarity function or multiple layer perceptron(MLP). Typical representation based models include DSSM, CDSSM, ARC-I, LSTM-RNN\citep{palangi2016deep}. DSSM adopts a feed forward neural network with letter trigram representation as the input. CDSSM and ARC-I both represent the input by CNN. For CDSSM, the input format is letter trigram representation, while ARC-I is a CNN with word embeddings as the input. LSTM-RNN utilize RNN embeds document into a semantic vector. In general, this approach is straightforward and capture the high level semantic meanings of each sentence.
Though representation based models are easy to understand and implement, they usually lose rich detailed interaction features. Interaction based models have been proposed to overcome shortcoming. Therefore, a matching matrix is firstly used to capture the word level query-document interaction features. Then different deep neural networks are utilized to further capture the high level matching features. At last, similar to representation based models, the matching score is produced by a simple similarity function or a MLP. Typical interaction based text matching models include ARC-II
\citep{hu2014convolutional} , MatchPyramid\citep{pang2016text}, Match-SRNN\cite{wan2016match}, KNRM\citep{xiong2017end} and BiMPM\cite{wang2017bilateral}. In ARC-II and MatchPyramid, interaction information is calculated by a mapping function to map query/document to a sequence of word representations, then ARC-II adopts 1-D CNN structure to scan each patch of words from query and document, while MatchPyramid adopts CNN to obtain it. Match-SRNN utlize tensor operation to incorporate high dimensional word level interactions, then 2D-GRU structure used to process the information. In KNRM, the translation layer calculates the word-word similarities to form the translation matrix, the kernel pooling process above matrix. BiMPM utilize multi-perspective matching operation including the attentive matching to capture the interaction information. BERT obtain the interaction information by the Transformert structure.
Both interaction information and text representations are needed to determine the matching score. To further improve performance of deep text matching models, DUET\citep{mitra2017learning} and RI-Match \citep{chen2018ri} are proposed to combine the merits of both deep matching approaches to improve the performance of text matching.
Although the existing deep text matching models have achieved great success in many IR tasks, models are still black boxes for us. The understandings of these models are critical because they can not only help explain how these model work, but also give some insights on how to design better models. However, rare studies have been conducted in this area. The only work on this topic is \citep{rennings2019axiomatic}, which is very similar to us because they also conduct an empirical study for deep text matching models on IR heuristics. However, it should be noted that our approach are quite different from them. They mainly diagnose a deep model by adding data satisfying the constraint. If a model achieves performance improvements on added data, it is recognized as a good model. However, this approach cannot truly determine whether a model satisfy the IR constraints. Furthermore, using the performance improvement for a single model on different data fail to achieve an comparison between different models. Our work addresses these two limitations. In addition, we adopt an interpretation algorithm to conduct a detailed data analysis on important words to demonstrate some potential improvements. We also extend these existing constraints to the semantic versions to better fit the deep learning scenario.
\subsection{Interpretation Methods}\label{sec:IG}
Recently, interpretable machine learning has attracted increasing attention, and many interpretation methods have been proposed, including feature visualization \citep{olah2017feature}, attribution methods\citep{ancona2017unified,baehrens2010explain,shrikumar2017learning,binder2016layer,springenberg2014striving} and sample importance methods\citep{koh2017understanding}. Among these methods, attribution methods is the most popular approach. It adopts the attribution concept to understand the input output behaviour of a deep neural network. Formally, we have a deep network $F$ with the input $\mathbf{x}=[x_1,...,x_m]$ and ouput $\mathbf{y}=[y_1,...,y_n]$, where $m$ and $n$ separately stands for the dimensions of $x$ and $y$. The goal of attribution methods is to calculate the attrition $A_i=[a_i,...,a_n]$ for each feature of the input $\mathbf{x}$ for the corresponding output value $y_i$.
Saliency\citep{Simonyan2013Deep} is the first attribution method, it uses gradients to generate the saliency maps. For a given image and the corresponding class saliency map, it first computes the object segmentation mask using the GraphCut\citep{boykov2001interactive} colour segmentation, then calculates the absolute value of $\frac{\partial F(x)}{\partial x_i}$ as the attrition value. Intuitively, this value indicates those input features that can be perturbed the least in order for the target output to change the most. In order to addresses the limitation of gradient-based approaches because the difference from the reference may be non-zero even when the gradient is zero, GradInput \citep{shrikumar2016not} has been proposed. Since GradInput scores are computed using a backpropagation like algorithm, they can be obtained efficiently in a single backward pass after a prediction has been made.
Integrated Gradient calculates the average value of gradients at all points which along a straight line path from the baseline $x^{\prime}$ to input $x$. For image networks, the baseline is the black image \citep{Baehrens2012How}. For text models, the baseline $x^{\prime}$ is set to be zero vector. For the input $x$ and baseline $x^{\prime}$ can be defined as follows which along the $i^{th}$ dimension. Here, $\frac{\partial F(x)}{\partial x_i}$ is the gradient of $F(x)$ along $i^{th}$ dimension.
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:ig}
\begin{split}
IntegratedGrads(x;F)_i &= (x_i -x_i^{\prime})\\
& \times \int_{\alpha=0}^{1}\frac{\partial F(x^\prime + \alpha \times (x-x^\prime))}{\partial x_i}\, d\alpha
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The above formula is the ideal state, but it is hard to calculate. So Integratd Gradient usually adopts the summation operation to approximate the integral operation. To calculate the integral of integrated gradients, we simply summarize the gradients at points along the path from baseline $x^{\prime}$ to input $x$ with the small intervals.
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:ig_approve}
\begin{split}
IntegratedGrads^{approx}(x;F)_i &= \frac{x_i -x_i^{\prime} }{m} \\
&\times \sum_{k=1}^m \frac{\partial( F(x^{\prime}+k/m \times (x_i-x_i^{\prime}))}{\partial x_i},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $m$ is the number of steps from baseline $x^{\prime}$ to input $x$. In theory, the smaller the $m$ is, the closer the two formulas are to each other. we set $m$ to 50 in following experiments. There are also many other paths that monotonically interpolate between baseline $x^{\prime}$ and input $x$. Integrated Gradient has been widely used in interpretating different machine learning methods in text or image applications. Considering the advantage of Integrated Gradient, we use it as our interpretation method to facilitate our study.
\section{Experiments on IR Heuristics}
In this section, we study interpretation of deep text matching models on IR heuristics. First, we introduce empirical settings, incuding the details of two datasets and the investigated deep text matching models. Then we will describe our interpretation results of these models by using integrated gradient algorithm on four IR heuristics.
\subsection{Empirical Settings}
\subsubsection{Datasets}
To facilitate our empirical study, We experiment on two datasets, i.e LETOR4.0 [LT]\footnote{https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/letor-benchmark-collection-research-learning-rank-information-retrieval/} and MS Marco[MS] \footnote{http://www.msmarco.org/dataset.aspx}. They are both web search ranking dataset that includes queries and documents. Text matching models can be used to achieve the document ranking list for a specific query. We experiment on both datasets to compare the ranking performances of different models.
LETOR4.0 \citep{qin2013introducing} is a benchmark data for evaluating learning to rank methods. This dataset sampled from the GOV2 corpus using the TREC 2007 and TREC 2008 to generate two separate subsets, i.e. MQ2007 and MQ2008. MQ2007 is a bit larger, which contains 1692 queries and 65,323 documents. While MQ2008 only contains 784 queries and 14,384 documents. The query number in MQ2008 is too mall that may cause the serious insufficient training problem, we merge them into one dataset, denoted as LETOR4.0. In total, LETOR4.0 contains 69,623 and 84,834 query-document pairs. The ground-truth labels are collected by human annotators using 3-level graded labeling strategy, i.e. 0, 1, and 2 stands for irrelevant, relevant, and most relevant, respectively.
MS MARCO\citep{nguyen2016ms} is a large scale dataset focused on machine reading comprehension, question answering, and passage ranking. The data are collected from real search engine. All 13000 queries are sampled from real anonymous user queries. The 204638 context passages are extracted from real Web documents. We experiment on the data for passage ranking task. For this task, given a query $q$ and the 1000 candidate passages $P$ = $p1$, $p2$, $p3$,... $p1000$, it is expected that the most relevant passages be ranked as high as possible. Since there are only one document labeled as relevant, the positive and negative data are extremely imbalanced, i.e,, 1000. So we randomly sampled 20 passages from the irrelevant passages to construct our negative samples for each query. In total, 10000, 3000 and 3000 queries are randomly selected to construct the training, validation, and test data, respectively.
\subsubsection{Deep Text Matching Models}
We study both representation and interaction based deep text matching models, and also the hybrid ones. Specifically, ARC-I is chosen as the representative of the representation based models, MatchPyramid, BERT and KNRM are chosen as the representative of the interaction based models. DUET and RI-Match are the hybrid models used in our experiments.
\textbf{ARC-I} utilizes CNN to obtain representations of the input query and document. Then two vectors are concatenated to one vector, and a muti-layer perceptron (MLP) \citep{lin2013network} is used to output the matching score. It concatenates two vectors into one vector. The model is an end-to-end neural network structure \citep{Floyd1999Promoting}.
\textbf{MatchPyramid} [MP] constructs a word level interaction matrix, with each element stands for the similarity of two corresponding words in the query and document. Then interaction matrix is fed as a image to a two dimensional CNN to extract high level matching patterns. Finally, a MLP is used to obtain matching degree.
\textbf{KNRM} uses atching matrix as used in MatchPyramid to obtain the word level matching signals. The difference lies in the second step, where KNRM uses a new kernel-pooling technique, instead of CNN to extract high level matching patterns. The advantage of using the kernel-pooling technique is that they can help to extract multi-level soft match features. At last, a learning-to-rank layer is utilized to combine these features to obtain the final ranking score.
\textbf{DUET} composed of two separate deep neural networks. One matches the query and the document using a local representation. Another one matches the query and the document using learned distributed representations. The two networks are jointly trained as part of a single neural network.
\textbf{RI-Match} combines the benefits of representation and interaction based models. Firstly, the word level and sentence level matching matrices are created by using various matching functions. Then these matrices are fed into a spatial recurrent neural network \citep{wan2016match} to generate high level matching patterns. After a $k$-max pooling \citep{wan2016deep}, the vector is fed into a MLP to output the matching score.
\textbf{BERT} is a language representation model which stands for Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers. It pre-trains deep bidirectional representation from huge unlabeled text to obtain contextual word representations. The pre-trained BERT model can be further fine-tuned with additional output layer for a specific task. For text matching task, we output the matching degree of two texts as a classification task.
\subsubsection{Parameter Setting}
For all deep models, We trained them by using their implementations in MatchZoo\footnote{https://github.com/NTMC-Community/MatchZoo/tree/1.0}\citep{fan2017matchzoo}. All the hyparameters were tuned using the same experimental setup as described in the respective papers. For the input word embeddings, we initialize the embedding layer with the 300-dimensional Glove\citep{pennington2014glove} word vectors pre-trained in the 840B Common Crawl corpus\footnote{http://index.commoncrawl.org/}. For the out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words, we initialize the word vectors to zero. We leverage Adam\citep{kingma2014adam} as our optimizer to update the parameters of models, and minimize the categorical cross entropy on the training set until the model converges.
\subsubsection{Ranking Performance}
To conduct the interpretation analysis, we need to guarantee that the models have been trained sufficiently. So we first give the ranking performance of the deep text matching on both datasets, as shown in Table \ref{tab:letor_performance} and Table \ref{tab:marco_performance}. From the table, we can see that most deep text matching models have been trained to achieve the SOTA results, except for BERT on LETOR dataset. It is mainly because the dataset size is relatively too small for the huge BERT model and may cause overfitting. Therefore, it is reasonable to conduct further interpretation analysis based on these models.
\begin{table}
\caption{Performance on Letor4.0 datasets.}
\label{tab:letor_performance}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Model & MAP(\%) & NDCG@3(\%) & NDCG@5(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &42.69 &33.22 &35.28\\
DUET &43.27 &35.47 &36.98\\
RI-Match &44.54 &36.49 &37.54\\
MatchPyramid &44.37 &36.29 &37.51\\
KNRM &44.06 &36.73 &37.50\\
BERT &41.42 &32.42 & 34.46\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Performance on MS Marco datasets.}
\label{tab:marco_performance}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Model & MRR(\%) & NDCG@3(\%) & NDCG@5(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &50.06 &49.99 &54.13\\
DUET &50.70 &50.15 &54.10\\
RI-Match &52.21 &51.86 &55.77\\
MatchPyramid &52.57 &51.94 &55.49\\
KNRM &52.35 &50.77 &55.79\\
BERT &55.62 &54.38 &55.16\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5 pt}
\end{table}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,trim=10 20 10 10,clip]{ig_arci}
\caption{Attributions from ARC-I model. Term color indicates attribution strength--Red is positive, Blue is negative, and white is neutral.}
\label{fig:ig_arci}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{Img/F1.pdf}
\caption{Attribution results for ARC-I model. The color of each term indicates the attribution value, where red is positive, blue is negative, and white is neutral.}
\label{fig:ig_arci}
\vspace{-5 pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Interpretation Analysis}
In this paper, we use Integrated Gradient as the interpretation method to analyze the deep text matching models. As we introduced in Section~\ref{sec:IG}, it computes the integral of integrated gradients to show the importance of each input attribution for the output. Applying IG to our analysis, we can view each trained deep text matching model as the function $F$ in the computation of IG, and output the integral of integrated gradients. For visualization, we use the brightness of different colors to show the value of these gradients. Therefore, we can obtain the significance of each word both in query and document, to show their contributions to the matching score. Figure \ref{fig:ig_arci} shows an example of such analysis. From this example, we can see that the word "\textit{spokane}" is the most attributed term to the matching score of the example query and document, which is accordant with human's understanding. In the following experiments, we will continue to use this analysis technique to facilitate our study.
Before we begin our analysis on IR intrinsics, we first introduce some notations. Formally, we use $q=(q_1,\cdots,q_m)$ to denote a query, $d$ or $d_i$ to denote a document, $\omega$ or $\omega_i$ to denote a query term, and $\omega\prime$ to denote a non-query term. The length of document $d$ is expressed as $|d|$. $c(\omega,d)$ stands for the count of word $\omega$ in document $d$. $f$ stands for a matching function, and $f(d,q)$ calculates the matching score of document $d$ with respect to query $q$. $idf(\omega)$ stands for the IDF discrimination value of a query term $\omega$. While $df(\omega)$ and $tf(\omega)$ denote the term frequency of term $\omega$ in the datasets and the document, respectively.
Now we formally study whether the above learned deep text matching models satisfy the four IR intrinsic constraints, i.e., term frequency constraint(TFCs), term discrimination constraint (TDC), length normaliza-tion constraints (LNCs), and TF-length constraint (TF-LNC). We first introduce the detailed definition of each constraint, and then demonstrate how we construct data to test whether the trained deep text matching models satisfy the constraints. We also show some further investigations on the reason of the results.
\subsection{Term Frequency Constraint}
There are two term frequency constraint, denoted as TFC1 and TFC2. Both constraints are to capture the desired contribution
of the TF of a term to scoring. The first constraint captures
the basic TF heuristic, which gives a higher score to a document with more occurrences of a query term when the only
difference between two documents is the occurrences of the
query term. While the second constraint ensures that the increase in
the score due to an increase in TF is smaller for larger TFs
(i.e., the second partial derivative w.r.t. the TF variable
should be negative). The formal definitions are show as follows.
\textbf{ TFC1:} Let $q={\{\omega\}}$ which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|$, if $c(\omega,d_1)>c(\omega,d_2)$, then$f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\textbf{ TFC2:} Let $q={\{\omega\}}$ which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|= |d_3|$, $c(\omega ,d_1)>0$, if $c(\omega,d_2)-c(\omega,d_1)=1$ and $c(\omega,d_3)-c(\omega,d_2)=1$, then $f(d_2,q)-f(d_1,q)>f(d_3,q)-f(d_2,q)$.
To evaluate how much the learned matching function satisfy the desired TFC constraints, we need to construct data which satisfy the above conditions. For TFC1, we can see that the condition is mainly on the query and document length, so we can construct data as follows. Suppose the query $q$ contains $m$ query terms $\{q_1,...,q_m\}$. For each two associated documents $d_1 $ and $d_2$, we can truncate them to be with length $min (| d_1 |, | d_2 |)$, still denoted as $d_1 $ and $d_2$. Then each $q_i, d1$ and $q_i, d_2$ becomes a pair satisfying the condition of TFC1, we can test whether the learned function output an accordant score w.r.t. the occurrence of the query term in each document.
The data construction for TFC2 is a little bit more complicated. For query term $\omega$, we first select three documents that contains $\omega$. Then we select three documents according to the occurrence of $\omega$ in the documents. The document with least $\omega$ is denoted as $d_1$. For $d_2$, we delete extra $\omega$ to make $c(\omega,d_2)-c(\omega,d_1)=1$. If $c(\omega,d_2)=c(\omega,d_1)$, we add one $\omega$ to the $d_2$ randomly. Then we need to make $|d_1|=|d_2|$. If $|d_1|<|d_2|$, we delete other words in $d_2$ except for $\omega$ until $|d_1|=|d_2|$. If $|d_1|>|d_2|$, we add other words to $d_2$ except for $\omega$ until $|d_1|=|d_2|$. For $d_3$, we do similar constructions to make $|d_2|=|d_3|$ and $c(\omega,d_2)-c(\omega,d_1)=1$.
To evaluate the degree to which the deep text matching models satisfy the TFC constraints, we calculate the proportion of data where the constraints are satisfied. Please note that the data construction could be conducted on both training and test data for LETOR4.0 and Ms MARCO, so we give the experimental results on those four data, denoted as LT-Train, LT-Test, MS-Train, and MS-Test, respectively, as shown in Table \ref{tab:tfc1} and Table \ref{tab:tfc2}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TFC1.}
\label{tab:tfc1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &79.96 & 74.54& 87.17 &84.89 \\
DUET &80.36 & 75.37& 88.27 &85.97 \\
RI-Match &81.61 & 76.98& 90.82 &87.53\\
MP &93.95 & 81.61& 95.66 &91.54\\
KNRM &95.68 & 89.23& 94.84 &90.37 \\
BERT &77.36 & 75.28& 96.57 &92.46 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TFC1 with $df(\omega) < 5000$.}
\label{tab:tfc1_cons}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &81.47 &77.23 &88.87 &82.82\\
DUET &82.63 &78.46 &89.92 &82.66\\
RI-Match &83.56 &78.64 &92.62 &86.89\\
MP &95.06 &87.01 &95.99 &88.33\\
KNRM &96.20 &88.52 &95.23 &87.71\\
BERT &79.54 &77.12 &97.47 &90.45\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TFC2.}
\label{tab:tfc2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &83.44 &77.35 & 82.83 &78.64 \\
DUET &84.84 &78.29 & 82.20 &79.74 \\
RI-Match &85.62 &78.40 & 84.43 &79.28\\
MP &87.27 &79.46 & 86.26 &82.68\\
KNRM &86.92 &78.82 & 87.23 &84.67 \\
BERT &81.11 &79.27 & 90.89 &88.56 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
From Table 4, we can see that all deep text matching models satisfy the TFC constraints with a high probability. TFC2 result is not as good as TFC1 result. That is mainly because a lot of matching degree attributes to some more frequent words, such as "\textit{in}" and "\textit{for}", shown as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ig_arci}. As stated in \cite{fang2004formal, fang2005exploration}, words with large DF usually play a negative correlation role in the matching process, so we limit the $df$ of all words to eliminate the influence of these words. Table \ref{tab:tfc1_cons} show the performance of different deep text matching models in terms of TFC1 under the condition $df(\omega) < 5000$ in the training data, where consistency is significantly improved.
\subsection{Term Discrimination Constraint}
Term Discrimination Constraint captures the interaction between TF and IDF, and emphasizes the effect of using IDF in the scoring of text matching, denoted as TDC. Specifically, given a fixed times of occurrences of query terms, a document should obtain higher matching score if it has more discriminative terms, measured by IDF. The formal definition is shown as follows.
\textbf{TDC:} Let $q$ be a query and has two query terms, then $q={\{\omega_1,\omega_2\}}$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|$, $c(\omega_1,d_1)+c(\omega_2,d_1)=c(\omega_1,d_2)+c(\omega_2,d_2)$. If $idf(\omega_1) \ge idf(\omega_2)$ and $c(\omega_1,d_1)>c(\omega_1,d_2)$, then $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
To evaluate how much the learned matching function satisfy the desired TDC constraints, we need to construct data which satisfy the above conditions. Suppose the query $q$ contains several words $\{q_1,....q_m\}$ and two associated documents $d_1$ and $d_2$. We select two words appeared both in $d_1 $ and $d_2$ to construct a new query $q=\{\omega_1,\omega_2\}$. The occurrences of the two words in the document are marked as $c(\omega_1,\omega_2;d_1)$ and $c(\omega_1,\omega_2;d_2)$. Without loss of generality, we set $c(\omega_1,\omega_2 ;d_1)>c(\omega_1,\omega_2;d_2)$, and delete $\omega_1$ or $\omega_2$ in $d_1$ to make $c(\omega_1,\omega_2;d_1)=c(\omega_1 , \omega_2;d_2)$. Then we delete other words to make the two documents with equal length, i.e.,~$|d_1|=|d_2|$.
To evaluate the degree to which the deep text matching models satisfy the TDC constraint, we calculate the proportion of data where the constraint is satisfied. The results on LT-Train, LT-Test, MS-Train, and MS-Test are shown in Table~\ref{tab:tdc} and Table \ref{tab:tdc_yizhi}. For the deep text matching models, they all satisfy the TDC results with a high probability in statistics. In \citep{fang2004formal, fang2005exploration}, a stronger condition is added to TDC constraint, that is $c(\omega_1, d_2) \leq c(\omega_2, d_1)$. So we also investigate the influence of this condition for interpretaing existing deep text matching models. Specifically, with this condition of TDC, the proportion of data which satisfy TDC is shown in Table \ref {tab:tdc_yizhi}. For the experimental results, we can see that deep text matching better satisfy TDC. That is because when $c(\omega_1,d_2) \leq c(\omega_2,d_1)$, the influence of word $ \omega_2$ will be reduced, which makes the influence of $\omega_1$ with high IDF more prominent.
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TDC.}
\label{tab:tdc}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &83.22 &77.26 &84.70 &81.59 \\
DUET &84.28 &79.28 &83.11 &79.77 \\
RI-Match &85.28 &79.47 &84.67 &80.54\\
MP &86.37 &80.27 &85.68 &81.81\\
KNRM &85.26 &79.23 &87.89 &83.87\\
BERT &79.11 &78.12 &88.23 &85.25\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TDC with $c(\omega_1,d_2)\leq c(\omega_2,d_1)$.}
\label{tab:tdc_yizhi}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &87.48 &79.49 &87.83 &83.00\\
DUET &87.13 &82.23 &86.49 &82.56\\
RI-Match &88.58 &83.56 &87.76 &84.85\\
MP &89.34 &83.65 &88.73 &84.23\\
KNRM &88.75 &84.68 &90.45 &84.80\\
BERT &83.45 &80.45 &91.54 &86.27\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on LNC1.}
\label{tab:lnc1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &70.36 &67.23 &70.21 &66.67\\
DUET &71.55 &67.94 &72.63 &68.89\\
RI-Match &72.56 &68.34 &71.35 &68.12\\
MP &74.28 &69.45 &72.66 &67.28\\
KNRM &74.18 &69.26 &71.38 &68.31\\
BERT &69.24 &66.26 &73.57 &69.23\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on LNC2.}
\label{tab:lnc2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &96.7 &88.12 &87.23 &83.59\\
DUET &96.23 &87.93 &88.25 &84.38\\
RI-Match &96.56 &87.85 &89.35 &84.67\\
MP &100.00&89.87 &96.07 &90.28\\
KNRM &99.01 &87.28 &93.79 &89.06\\
BERT &94.34 &986.23 &100.00 &93.26\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Length Normalization Constraint}
There are two length normalization constraints, denoted as LNC1 and LNC2. Both constraints capture contribution of the length of document in the scoring process. LNC1 says that if we add one extra non-relevant word to form a new document, then the matching degree of the new document with respect to the query will decrease. While LNC2 says that if we duplicate a document $k$ times to form a new document, the new document will obtain higher matching score than the original document. The formal definitions are shown as follows.
\textbf{LNC1:} Let $q$ be a query and $d_1$, $d_2$ be two document. If for some word $\omega^\prime \not\in q$, $c(\omega^\prime,d_2)=c(\omega^\prime,d_1)+1$, but for any query term $\omega$, $c(\omega,d_2)=c(\omega,d_1)$, we have $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\textbf{LNC2:} Let $q$ be a query. $\forall k >1$, $d_1$ and $d_2$ are two documents with $|d_1| = k \cdot |d_2|$. If for any query term $\omega$, $c(\omega,d_1) = k\cdot c(\omega,d_2)$, we have $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
To evaluate how much the learned matching function satisfy the desired LNC constraints, we need to construct data which satisfy the constrains. For LNC1, suppose that the query $q$ contains several terms $\{q_1,....q_m\}$ and the document is $d_1$. We first find a word in the document that does not exist in the query $q$. Appending this word to the end of the document $d_1 $ to form a new document $d_2$, then $(q,d)$ and $(q, d_2)$ form a data pair that satisfies the LNC1 constraint.
The data construction for LNC2 is a little bit more easy. Suppose that the query is $q$ and the document is $d_1 $ with length $|d_1|$. Here, we set $k = 2$ as an example. We first duplicate document $d_1$ to form the new document $d_2$ with length $2|d_1|$, then $(q, d_1)$ and $(q, d_2)$ forms a data pair that satisfies the constraints.
After that, we calculate the proportion of data that satisfy the constraints. The results on LT-Train, LT-Test, MS-Train, and MS-Test are shown in Table \ref{tab:lnc1} and Table \ref{tab:lnc2}. From the results, we can see that LNC1 constraint is not so well satisfied for deep text matching models as LNC2. So we utilize the IG algorithm to conduct the attribution analyse.
We found that one key difference between LNC1 and LNC2 is that, the influence of duplicated words are different. We show two examples in Figure \ref{fig:lnc1_neg} and \ref{fig:ig_lnc2}. We can see that the word "\textit{map}" has the positive attribution value in the original document. When it is added to form a new document, it still has a positive attribution value and will improve the matching degree of the documents. That is contradiction with the LNC1 constraint. While for LNC2, though most duplicated word still attribute with the same sign, some key words like "\textit{primary}" change their attribution sign from positive to negative. So we conclude that the attribution sign plays an important role in LNC1, and we need to take this factor into account. Specifically, when we construct the data for LNC1, the attribution value of the word $\omega\prime$ is constrained to be less than zero. In this way, the proportion that satisfy the new constraint of existing deep text matching models are shown in Table \ref{tab:lnc1_con}. On the contrary, the results are shown in Table \ref{tab:lnc1_con_neg} for adding words with positive attribution value. From the results, we can see that the proportion of data satisfying LNC1 is significantly improved by adding the condition $IG\_value(\omega\prime)>0$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{lnc1_doc.pdf}
\caption{An example for LNC1.}
\label{fig:lnc1_neg}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Img/F6.pdf}
\caption{An example for LNC2.}
\label{fig:ig_lnc2}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on LNC1 with $IG\_value(\omega\prime)<0$.}
\label{tab:lnc1_con}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &83.57 &80.37 &85.99 &82.09\\
DUET &84.62 &81.88 &86.46 &82.72\\
RI-Match &86.35 &82.55 &87.86 &83.86\\
MP &87.29 &83.54 &87.12 &84.21\\
KNRM &86.48 &82.70 &88.08 &84.92\\
BERT &81.37 &80.03 &90.32 &87.53\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on LNC1 with $IG\_value(\omega\prime)>0$.}
\label{tab:lnc1_con_neg}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &62.37 &55.32 &61.41 &58.54\\
DUET &63.56 &58.35 &62.23 &59.47\\
RI-Match &66.45 &63.26 &62.46 &60.48\\
MP &67.57 &64.30 &64.24 &62.67\\
KNRM &66.25 &60.37 &64.28 &62.25\\
BERT &60.23 &51.46 &59.28 &57.28\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The ratio of duplicated words with consistency attributions on LNC2.}
\label{tab:lnc2_yizhi}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
DataSet & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match& MP &KNRM &BERT\\
\hline
\hline
Letor 4.0 &0.707 &0.728 &0.739 &0.758 &0.742 &0.693\\
MS Marco &0.692 &0.712 &0.724 &0.735 &0.726 &0.758\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As shown in the Table \ref{tab:lnc2}, the deep text matching models well satisfy LNC2. Furthermore, we conduct an experiment to study the influence of duplicated contents. Specifically for each document, we count the proportion of words in the duplicate part whose attribution is weaker than that in the previous part. Here we do not distinguish the training and test data, and just average the results, shown in Table \ref{tab:lnc2_yizhi}. From results, we can see that the a large proportion of words in the duplicate part contribute weaker with the sign than that in the previous part. Considering the fact that the role of most words is consistent with that in the previous part, Although these functions are weaker than those of the previous part, the consistency ratio of these words is helpful to enhance the matching degree between query and document globally.
\subsection{TF-Length Constraint}
TF-Length constraint captures the interaction between TF and document length, denoted as TF-LNC. It says that if $d_1$ is constructed by adding more query term to $d_2$, the matching score of $d_1$ will be higher than $d_2$. The formal definition is shown as follows.
\textbf{TF-LNC:} Let $q={\{\omega}$ be the query which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $c(\omega,d_1)>c(\omega,d_2)$ and $|d_1|=|d_2| + c(\omega,d_1)-c(\omega,d_2)$, we have $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Img/F5.pdf}
\caption{An example for TF-LNC.}
\label{fig:ig_tf-lnc}
\end{figure}
To evaluate how much the learned matching function satisfy the desired TF-LNC constraint, we need to construct data which satisfy the above condition in the definition. We first add $c(\omega, d_1)-c(\omega,d_2)$ words (not $\omega$) to document $d_2$. Then we calculate the proportion of data where the constraint is satisfied, and the results are shown in Table \ref{tab:tf-lnc}. From the table, we can see that most of deep text matching models well satisfy the TF-LNC. We further apply the IG algorithm to analyse the attribution of each word, and an example is shown in Figure \ref{fig:ig_tf-lnc}. In the example, the query contains only one query term "\textit{muscle}", and $c(q, d_1)> c(q, d_2) $. Although the document length of $d_1$ is larger, most of the "\textit{muscle}" appearing in the document attribute positively to the matching score. That explains why $d_1$ is more relevant than $d_2$ with respect to the query. We further make a statistics on the proportion of words in $d_1$ with greater attribution value than $d_2$ in the dataset, as shown in Table \ref{tab:tf-lnc_yizhi}. We can see that most words remain their attribution signs in the duplication process.
\begin{table}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.0cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.0cm}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TF-LNC.}
\label{tab:tf-lnc}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &84.37 &80.35 &83.75 &80.38\\
DUET &83.62 &80.01 &85.18 &82.44\\
RI-Match &81.38 &78.36 &82.75 &80.26\\
MP &94.00 &87.58 &93.90 &87.28\\
KNRM &96.39 &88.37 &92. 92 &85. 19\\
BERT &80.14 &78.25 &95.28 &88.28\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.0cm}
\begin{table}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\caption{The ratio of duplicated words with consistency attributions on TF-LNC.}
\label{tab:tf-lnc_yizhi}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Dateset & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match& MP &KNRM &BERT \\
\hline
\hline
Letor 4.0 &0.772 &0.745 &0.712 &0.738 &0.735 &0.764\\
MS Marco &0.743 &0.727 &0.704 &0.712 &0.709 &0.700\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{Extension to Semantic IR Heuristics}
From the above studies, we can conclude that the existing deep text matching models well satisfy the four IR heuristics. However, all the IR heuristics only consider the exact matching, which may be limited in the semantic scenario that deep learning models are good at. So we propose to extend the previous IR heuristics to incorporate the semantic meanings, namely semantic IR heuristics including TFC1-E, TDC-E, and TF-LNC-E. The precise definitions are described as follows.
\textbf{TFC1-E:} Let $q={\{\omega\}}$ which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|$, $\theta \in [0,1]$ is the threshold of the cosine similarity, $\gamma_{i}$ stands for the $i$-th word in document $d$. We define the semantic count [Sc] of $\omega$ for $d$ in the Equation \ref{eq:sc}. Assume $Sc(\omega,d_1)\geq Sc(\omega,d_2)$, where $f$ denotes the cosine similarity function, we ave $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sc}
SemanticCount(\omega,d) = \sum_{i=1}^{|d|} [f(\omega,\gamma_{i})|f(\omega,\gamma_{i})\geq \theta]
\end{equation}
\textbf{TDC-E:} Let $q$ be a query which has two query terms $q={\{\omega_1,\omega_2\}}$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|$, $[Sc(\omega_1,d_1) + Sc(\omega_2,d_1)]$ $-[Sc(\omega_1, d_2) + Sc(\omega_2, d_2)]$ $< \epsilon $, here we set $\epsilon=0.1$. If $idf(\omega_1) \ge idf(\omega_2)$ and $Sc(\omega_1,d_1)>Sc(\omega_1,d_2)$, we have $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\textbf{ TF-LNC-E:} Let $q={\{\omega\}}$ which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $|d_1| = |d_2| + \left\lfloor Sc(\omega, d_1) - Sc(\omega, d_2)\right\rfloor$ and $Sc(\omega, d_1) > Sc(\omega, d_2)$ , where the $\left\lfloor \right\rfloor$ denotes the floor function, we have $f(d_1, q)>f(d_2, q)$.
We compare the previous IR heuristics and our proposed extension versions by comparing the satisfied data proportion, shown in Table \ref{tab:extention1}, \ref{tab:extention2}, \ref{tab:extention3}, and \ref{tab:extention4}. The experimental results show that existing deep text matching models better satisfy our proposed extension versions than the previous IR heuristics, which better explain the existing deep text matching models than traditional ones.
\begin{table}
\caption{The results on semantic IR heuristics in the training data of LETOR when $\theta>0.90$.}
\label{tab:extention1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Constraint & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match &MP &KNRM &BERT \\
\hline
\hline
TFC1 &79.96 &80.36 &81.61& 93.95&95.68 &77.37 \\
TFC1-E &\textbf{82.67}&\textbf{84.37} & \textbf{86.59}& \textbf{94.02}&\textbf{96.78}&\textbf{80.36} \\
\hline
TDC &83.22 &84.28 &85.28 &86.37 &85.26 &79.11\\
TDC-E &\textbf{83.88} &\textbf{84.36} &\textbf{85.31} &\textbf{86.98}& \textbf{86.32}& \textbf{82.28}\\
\hline
TF-LNC &84.37 &83.62 &81.38 &94.00 &96.39 &80.14\\
TF-LNC-E &\textbf{85.79}&\textbf{85.86} &\textbf{84.84} &\textbf{94.23}&\textbf{96.89}&\textbf{83.37} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The results on semantic IR heuristics in the test data of LETOR when $\theta>0.90$.}
\label{tab:extention2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Constraint & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match &MP &KNRM &BERT\\
\hline
\hline
TFC1 &74.54 &75.37 &76.98& 81.17&89.23 &75.28 \\
TFC1-E &\textbf{75.75}&\textbf{76.25} & \textbf{78.89}& \textbf{82.13}&\textbf{90.25} &\textbf{75.89} \\
\hline
TDC &77.26&79.28 &79.47 &80.27&79.23 &78.12\\
TDC-E &\textbf{77.44} &\textbf{80.31} &\textbf{80.36} &\textbf{82.19} & \textbf{80.33} & \textbf{79.25} \\
\hline
TF-LNC &80.35 &80.01 &78.36 &87.58 &88.37 &78.25\\
TF-LNC-E &\textbf{81.65}&\textbf{82.15} &\textbf{81.59} &\textbf{89.97}&\textbf{91.04} &\textbf{93.11} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The results on semantic IR heuristics in the training data of Marco when $\theta>0.90$.}
\label{tab:extention3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Constraint & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match &MP &KNRM &BERT\\
\hline
\hline
TFC1 &87.17 &88.27 &90.82& 95.66&94.84 &96.57 \\
TFC1-E &\textbf{88.44}&\textbf{90.86} &\textbf{92.35}& \textbf{95.83}&\textbf{95.17}&\textbf{97.38} \\
\hline
TDC &84.70&83.11 &84.67 &85.68&87.89 &88.23 \\
TDC-E &\textbf{85.12} &\textbf{84.47} &\textbf{85.86} &\textbf{86.08} &\textbf{87.44} &\textbf{88.95}\\
\hline
TF-LNC &83.38 &85.18 &82.75 &93.90 &92.92 &95.28\\
TF-LNC-E &\textbf{86.91}&\textbf{87.75} &\textbf{83.28} &\textbf{94.13}&\textbf{93.56}&\textbf{96.24} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The results on semantic IR heuristics in the test data of Marco when $\theta>0.90$.}
\label{tab:extention4}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Constraint & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match &MP &KNRM &BERT\\
\hline
\hline
TFC1 &84.89 &85.97 &87.97& 91.54&90.37 &92.46 \\
TFC1-E &\textbf{85.52}&\textbf{87.82} & \textbf{88.40}& \textbf{92.25}&\textbf{91.26}&\textbf{92.75} \\
\hline
TDC &81.59&79.77 &80.54 &81.81&83.87 &85.25\\
TDC-E &\textbf{81.89} &\textbf{80.43} &\textbf{80.98} &\textbf{82.23} &\textbf{81.32} &\textbf{86.13}\\
\hline
TF-LNC &80.38 &82.44 &80.26 &87.28 &85.19 &88.28\\
TF-LNC-E &\textbf{81.88}&\textbf{83.16} &\textbf{82.34} &\textbf{89.19}&\textbf{86.04}&\textbf{89.46} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose to understand deep text matching model from the perspective of how much do they satisfy the IR heuristics. We propose an empirical method to facilitate our study. First, we train deep text matching model on original training data, and then apply it to some constructed data satisfying the assumption of a constraint. As a result, the proportion of data satisfying the constraint can be used as our required qualitative measure. In our experiments, we test six representative deep text matching models (ARC-I, MatchPyramid, KNRM, RI-Match, BERT and DUET), in terms of four IR heuristics (TFCs, TDC, LNCs, and TF-LNC). Experimental results show that all six models satisfy heuristics with high probabilities in statistics. Moreover, we extend the existing IR heuristics to the semantic version, and experimental results show that these semantic constraints can be better satisfied by these deep text matching models. So the semantic IR heuristics can better explain the success of deep text matching models, as compared with traditional ones. Except for these revealed understandings, We believe the proposed evaluation methodology will be useful for testing existing and future deep text matching models.
In future, we plan to extend our study to other deep text matching models and IR heuristics, to complete a more thorough investigation. Furthermore, we are interested in how to design more suitable IR heuristics for deep learning, and how to use the proposed semantic heuristics to help us design better deep text matching models.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\section{Introduction}
Matching two sentences is a core problem in many information retrieval (IR) applications, such as web search \cite{kelly2009foundations}, question answering \cite{berger2000bridging} and paraphrasing identification\cite{dolan2004unsupervised}. Take web search as an example, given a query and a document, the matching score is usually used to determine the relevance between them.
Recently, deep neural networks have been widely applied in this area and achieved great progresses. These deep text matching models are usually divided into two categories, i.e.~representation and interaction based methods. The representation based methods use deep neural network to obtain the representations of each object, then conduct the interaction information to output a matching score. Representative models includes DSSM \cite{huang2013learning}, CDSSM \citep{shen2014latent} and ARC-I \citep{hu2014convolutional}, etc. While the interaction based methods directly apply deep neural networks on the interaction matrix of the two objects to output the matching score. DRMM \citep{Guo2016A}, MatchPyramid \citep{pang2016text}, KNRM\citep{xiong2017end}, DeepMatch\citep{revaud2016deepmatching} and ARC-II\citep{hu2014convolutional} have been recognized as some typical models of this kind. More recently, the popular pre-training technique, e.g.~BERT~\citep{devlin2018bert} has also been applied to deep text matching models and gain increasing attention.
Though deep text matching models have shown good performance in information retrieval, it is unclear what happened in matching process. Features are not explicit any more in these deep text matching models, as compared with the traditional learning-to-rank methods. Deep learning models are black boxes themselves. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why deep text matching models perform well, and what kind of knowledge/principles do they learn or capture in the matching process. This is exactly the motivation of this paper. We should note that this problem is very challenging. Firstly, interpretation itself is a difficult problem for in the field of deep learning, though the direction has obtained significant attentions and several different interpretation methods have been proposed, such as feature visualizations \citep{olah2017feature}, attribution methods \citep{ancona2017unified} , and sample importance methods \citep{koh2017understanding}. Secondly, the formal definition of interpretability is not clear, and may differ for various applications.
Looking back at IR history, some IR heuristics, i.e., several basic desirable constraints, have been proposed in \cite{fang2004formal, fang2005exploration}. The performance of a retrieval formula is tightly related to how well it satisfies these constraints. Inspired by this finding, we propose to conduct the understanding of existing deep text matching methods from the perspective of IR heuristics, including term frequency constraints (TFCs) \cite{Salton1987Term}, term discrimination constraint (TDC), length normalization constraints (LNCs) \cite{Zobel1998Exploring}, and TF-length constraint (TF-LNC). We noticed that \citep{rennings2019axiomatic} has conducted a similar empirical study. However, they focus on diagnosing the deep model whether they can be improved by adding some data which satisfy the assumption of the constraints. Therefore, there are two problems in this approach: 1) it fails to detect whether these constraints are truly satisfied by a deep text matching model; 2) comparisons between different deep learning models are not allowed.
To address these limitations, this paper focus on study whether these deep text matching models satisfy the existing IR constraint. Since the deep text matching models are usually very complicated and contain many parameters, it is not feasible any more to directly conduct mathematical derivations to achieve the conclusion. So we propose to test the trained models on constructed test data. Firstly, we train a deep text matching model on training data. Then we construct queries and documents which satisfy the assumption of a constraint to form a test data. Finally, the trained model is applied on test data, and the proportion of data that satisfy the constraint can be obtained. This value reflect to which extent the deep text matching model satisfy this constraint. Furthermore, the interpretation method Integrated Gradient (IG) \citep{sundararajan2017axiomatic}, which has been proven to be stable and reliable in many different applications, is used in our experiments to conduct detailed analysis and improvements.
We experiment on two widely used datasets in IR, i.e.~LETOR 4.0 and MS Marco. Three kinds of deep text matching models are tested, including representation based methods such as ARC-I, interaction based methods such as MatchPyramid, KNRM and BERT, and the hybrid models such as RI-Match and DUET. The results show that these deep text matching models satisfy the four concerned constraints with high probabilities in statistics, which explain why deep text matching models usually perform well on many IR tasks. Furthermore, we extend the above constraints to the semantic versions, by incorporating the word embeddings into the definitions. Experiments show that the deep text matching models satisfy semantic constraints with higher probabilities, which explains the mechanism of how these models capture the semantic matching relations between queries and documents in the scenario of IR.
Our main contributions include: 1) the proposal of a method to test whether a deep text matching model satisfies the existing IR heuristics, which can be used for existing and future deep learning models; 2) the extensive empirical studies on LETOR 4.0 and MS Marco, including both representation and interaction based models; 3) the extension of existing IR constraints to the semantic versions, which provide some foundations for potential investigations of modern deep learning based retrieval models.
\section{Backgrounds}
In this section, we introduce backgrounds that including existing deep matching models for IR, and the interpretation method used in this paper, i.e., integrated gradient (IG).
\subsection{Deep Text Matching Models}
Recently, deep text matching technique has been widely applied in IR, and existing models can be mainly divided into two categories, i.e representation based methods and interaction based methods.
Representation based methods focus on representing query and document to two vectors by using different deep neural networks, such as CNNs \cite{kalchbrenner2014convolutional,denil2014modelling} and RNNs \citep{li2015hierarchical,touretzky1996advances}. Then matching score is computed by similarity function or multiple layer perceptron(MLP). Typical representation based models include DSSM, CDSSM, ARC-I, LSTM-RNN\citep{palangi2016deep}. DSSM adopts a feed forward neural network with letter trigram representation as the input. CDSSM and ARC-I both represent the input by CNN. For CDSSM, the input format is letter trigram representation, while ARC-I is a CNN with word embeddings as the input. LSTM-RNN utilize RNN embeds document into a semantic vector. In general, this approach is straightforward and capture the high level semantic meanings of each sentence.
Though representation based models are easy to understand and implement, they usually lose rich detailed interaction features. Interaction based models have been proposed to overcome shortcoming. Therefore, a matching matrix is firstly used to capture the word level query-document interaction features. Then different deep neural networks are utilized to further capture the high level matching features. At last, similar to representation based models, the matching score is produced by a simple similarity function or a MLP. Typical interaction based text matching models include ARC-II
\citep{hu2014convolutional} , MatchPyramid\citep{pang2016text}, Match-SRNN\cite{wan2016match}, KNRM\citep{xiong2017end} and BiMPM\cite{wang2017bilateral}. In ARC-II and MatchPyramid, interaction information is calculated by a mapping function to map query/document to a sequence of word representations, then ARC-II adopts 1-D CNN structure to scan each patch of words from query and document, while MatchPyramid adopts CNN to obtain it. Match-SRNN utlize tensor operation to incorporate high dimensional word level interactions, then 2D-GRU structure used to process the information. In KNRM, the translation layer calculates the word-word similarities to form the translation matrix, the kernel pooling process above matrix. BiMPM utilize multi-perspective matching operation including the attentive matching to capture the interaction information. BERT obtain the interaction information by the Transformert structure.
Both interaction information and text representations are needed to determine the matching score. To further improve performance of deep text matching models, DUET\citep{mitra2017learning} and RI-Match \citep{chen2018ri} are proposed to combine the merits of both deep matching approaches to improve the performance of text matching.
Although the existing deep text matching models have achieved great success in many IR tasks, models are still black boxes for us. The understandings of these models are critical because they can not only help explain how these model work, but also give some insights on how to design better models. However, rare studies have been conducted in this area. The only work on this topic is \citep{rennings2019axiomatic}, which is very similar to us because they also conduct an empirical study for deep text matching models on IR heuristics. However, it should be noted that our approach are quite different from them. They mainly diagnose a deep model by adding data satisfying the constraint. If a model achieves performance improvements on added data, it is recognized as a good model. However, this approach cannot truly determine whether a model satisfy the IR constraints. Furthermore, using the performance improvement for a single model on different data fail to achieve an comparison between different models. Our work addresses these two limitations. In addition, we adopt an interpretation algorithm to conduct a detailed data analysis on important words to demonstrate some potential improvements. We also extend these existing constraints to the semantic versions to better fit the deep learning scenario.
\subsection{Interpretation Methods}\label{sec:IG}
Recently, interpretable machine learning has attracted increasing attention, and many interpretation methods have been proposed, including feature visualization \citep{olah2017feature}, attribution methods\citep{ancona2017unified,baehrens2010explain,shrikumar2017learning,binder2016layer,springenberg2014striving} and sample importance methods\citep{koh2017understanding}. Among these methods, attribution methods is the most popular approach. It adopts the attribution concept to understand the input output behaviour of a deep neural network. Formally, we have a deep network $F$ with the input $\mathbf{x}=[x_1,...,x_m]$ and ouput $\mathbf{y}=[y_1,...,y_n]$, where $m$ and $n$ separately stands for the dimensions of $x$ and $y$. The goal of attribution methods is to calculate the attrition $A_i=[a_i,...,a_n]$ for each feature of the input $\mathbf{x}$ for the corresponding output value $y_i$.
Saliency\citep{Simonyan2013Deep} is the first attribution method, it uses gradients to generate the saliency maps. For a given image and the corresponding class saliency map, it first computes the object segmentation mask using the GraphCut\citep{boykov2001interactive} colour segmentation, then calculates the absolute value of $\frac{\partial F(x)}{\partial x_i}$ as the attrition value. Intuitively, this value indicates those input features that can be perturbed the least in order for the target output to change the most. In order to addresses the limitation of gradient-based approaches because the difference from the reference may be non-zero even when the gradient is zero, GradInput \citep{shrikumar2016not} has been proposed. Since GradInput scores are computed using a backpropagation like algorithm, they can be obtained efficiently in a single backward pass after a prediction has been made.
Integrated Gradient calculates the average value of gradients at all points which along a straight line path from the baseline $x^{\prime}$ to input $x$. For image networks, the baseline is the black image \citep{Baehrens2012How}. For text models, the baseline $x^{\prime}$ is set to be zero vector. For the input $x$ and baseline $x^{\prime}$ can be defined as follows which along the $i^{th}$ dimension. Here, $\frac{\partial F(x)}{\partial x_i}$ is the gradient of $F(x)$ along $i^{th}$ dimension.
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:ig}
\begin{split}
IntegratedGrads(x;F)_i &= (x_i -x_i^{\prime})\\
& \times \int_{\alpha=0}^{1}\frac{\partial F(x^\prime + \alpha \times (x-x^\prime))}{\partial x_i}\, d\alpha
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The above formula is the ideal state, but it is hard to calculate. So Integratd Gradient usually adopts the summation operation to approximate the integral operation. To calculate the integral of integrated gradients, we simply summarize the gradients at points along the path from baseline $x^{\prime}$ to input $x$ with the small intervals.
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:ig_approve}
\begin{split}
IntegratedGrads^{approx}(x;F)_i &= \frac{x_i -x_i^{\prime} }{m} \\
&\times \sum_{k=1}^m \frac{\partial( F(x^{\prime}+k/m \times (x_i-x_i^{\prime}))}{\partial x_i},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $m$ is the number of steps from baseline $x^{\prime}$ to input $x$. In theory, the smaller the $m$ is, the closer the two formulas are to each other. we set $m$ to 50 in following experiments. There are also many other paths that monotonically interpolate between baseline $x^{\prime}$ and input $x$. Integrated Gradient has been widely used in interpretating different machine learning methods in text or image applications. Considering the advantage of Integrated Gradient, we use it as our interpretation method to facilitate our study.
\section{Experiments on IR Heuristics}
In this section, we study interpretation of deep text matching models on IR heuristics. First, we introduce empirical settings, incuding the details of two datasets and the investigated deep text matching models. Then we will describe our interpretation results of these models by using integrated gradient algorithm on four IR heuristics.
\subsection{Empirical Settings}
\subsubsection{Datasets}
To facilitate our empirical study, We experiment on two datasets, i.e LETOR4.0 [LT]\footnote{https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/letor-benchmark-collection-research-learning-rank-information-retrieval/} and MS Marco[MS] \footnote{http://www.msmarco.org/dataset.aspx}. They are both web search ranking dataset that includes queries and documents. Text matching models can be used to achieve the document ranking list for a specific query. We experiment on both datasets to compare the ranking performances of different models.
LETOR4.0 \citep{qin2013introducing} is a benchmark data for evaluating learning to rank methods. This dataset sampled from the GOV2 corpus using the TREC 2007 and TREC 2008 to generate two separate subsets, i.e. MQ2007 and MQ2008. MQ2007 is a bit larger, which contains 1692 queries and 65,323 documents. While MQ2008 only contains 784 queries and 14,384 documents. The query number in MQ2008 is too mall that may cause the serious insufficient training problem, we merge them into one dataset, denoted as LETOR4.0. In total, LETOR4.0 contains 69,623 and 84,834 query-document pairs. The ground-truth labels are collected by human annotators using 3-level graded labeling strategy, i.e. 0, 1, and 2 stands for irrelevant, relevant, and most relevant, respectively.
MS MARCO\citep{nguyen2016ms} is a large scale dataset focused on machine reading comprehension, question answering, and passage ranking. The data are collected from real search engine. All 13000 queries are sampled from real anonymous user queries. The 204638 context passages are extracted from real Web documents. We experiment on the data for passage ranking task. For this task, given a query $q$ and the 1000 candidate passages $P$ = $p1$, $p2$, $p3$,... $p1000$, it is expected that the most relevant passages be ranked as high as possible. Since there are only one document labeled as relevant, the positive and negative data are extremely imbalanced, i.e,, 1000. So we randomly sampled 20 passages from the irrelevant passages to construct our negative samples for each query. In total, 10000, 3000 and 3000 queries are randomly selected to construct the training, validation, and test data, respectively.
\subsubsection{Deep Text Matching Models}
We study both representation and interaction based deep text matching models, and also the hybrid ones. Specifically, ARC-I is chosen as the representative of the representation based models, MatchPyramid, BERT and KNRM are chosen as the representative of the interaction based models. DUET and RI-Match are the hybrid models used in our experiments.
\textbf{ARC-I} utilizes CNN to obtain representations of the input query and document. Then two vectors are concatenated to one vector, and a muti-layer perceptron (MLP) \citep{lin2013network} is used to output the matching score. It concatenates two vectors into one vector. The model is an end-to-end neural network structure \citep{Floyd1999Promoting}.
\textbf{MatchPyramid} [MP] constructs a word level interaction matrix, with each element stands for the similarity of two corresponding words in the query and document. Then interaction matrix is fed as a image to a two dimensional CNN to extract high level matching patterns. Finally, a MLP is used to obtain matching degree.
\textbf{KNRM} uses atching matrix as used in MatchPyramid to obtain the word level matching signals. The difference lies in the second step, where KNRM uses a new kernel-pooling technique, instead of CNN to extract high level matching patterns. The advantage of using the kernel-pooling technique is that they can help to extract multi-level soft match features. At last, a learning-to-rank layer is utilized to combine these features to obtain the final ranking score.
\textbf{DUET} composed of two separate deep neural networks. One matches the query and the document using a local representation. Another one matches the query and the document using learned distributed representations. The two networks are jointly trained as part of a single neural network.
\textbf{RI-Match} combines the benefits of representation and interaction based models. Firstly, the word level and sentence level matching matrices are created by using various matching functions. Then these matrices are fed into a spatial recurrent neural network \citep{wan2016match} to generate high level matching patterns. After a $k$-max pooling \citep{wan2016deep}, the vector is fed into a MLP to output the matching score.
\textbf{BERT} is a language representation model which stands for Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers. It pre-trains deep bidirectional representation from huge unlabeled text to obtain contextual word representations. The pre-trained BERT model can be further fine-tuned with additional output layer for a specific task. For text matching task, we output the matching degree of two texts as a classification task.
\subsubsection{Parameter Setting}
For all deep models, We trained them by using their implementations in MatchZoo\footnote{https://github.com/NTMC-Community/MatchZoo/tree/1.0}\citep{fan2017matchzoo}. All the hyparameters were tuned using the same experimental setup as described in the respective papers. For the input word embeddings, we initialize the embedding layer with the 300-dimensional Glove\citep{pennington2014glove} word vectors pre-trained in the 840B Common Crawl corpus\footnote{http://index.commoncrawl.org/}. For the out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words, we initialize the word vectors to zero. We leverage Adam\citep{kingma2014adam} as our optimizer to update the parameters of models, and minimize the categorical cross entropy on the training set until the model converges.
\subsubsection{Ranking Performance}
To conduct the interpretation analysis, we need to guarantee that the models have been trained sufficiently. So we first give the ranking performance of the deep text matching on both datasets, as shown in Table \ref{tab:letor_performance} and Table \ref{tab:marco_performance}. From the table, we can see that most deep text matching models have been trained to achieve the SOTA results, except for BERT on LETOR dataset. It is mainly because the dataset size is relatively too small for the huge BERT model and may cause overfitting. Therefore, it is reasonable to conduct further interpretation analysis based on these models.
\begin{table}
\caption{Performance on Letor4.0 datasets.}
\label{tab:letor_performance}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Model & MAP(\%) & NDCG@3(\%) & NDCG@5(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &42.69 &33.22 &35.28\\
DUET &43.27 &35.47 &36.98\\
RI-Match &44.54 &36.49 &37.54\\
MatchPyramid &44.37 &36.29 &37.51\\
KNRM &44.06 &36.73 &37.50\\
BERT &41.42 &32.42 & 34.46\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Performance on MS Marco datasets.}
\label{tab:marco_performance}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Model & MRR(\%) & NDCG@3(\%) & NDCG@5(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &50.06 &49.99 &54.13\\
DUET &50.70 &50.15 &54.10\\
RI-Match &52.21 &51.86 &55.77\\
MatchPyramid &52.57 &51.94 &55.49\\
KNRM &52.35 &50.77 &55.79\\
BERT &55.62 &54.38 &55.16\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5 pt}
\end{table}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,trim=10 20 10 10,clip]{ig_arci}
\caption{Attributions from ARC-I model. Term color indicates attribution strength--Red is positive, Blue is negative, and white is neutral.}
\label{fig:ig_arci}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{Img/F1.pdf}
\caption{Attribution results for ARC-I model. The color of each term indicates the attribution value, where red is positive, blue is negative, and white is neutral.}
\label{fig:ig_arci}
\vspace{-5 pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Interpretation Analysis}
In this paper, we use Integrated Gradient as the interpretation method to analyze the deep text matching models. As we introduced in Section~\ref{sec:IG}, it computes the integral of integrated gradients to show the importance of each input attribution for the output. Applying IG to our analysis, we can view each trained deep text matching model as the function $F$ in the computation of IG, and output the integral of integrated gradients. For visualization, we use the brightness of different colors to show the value of these gradients. Therefore, we can obtain the significance of each word both in query and document, to show their contributions to the matching score. Figure \ref{fig:ig_arci} shows an example of such analysis. From this example, we can see that the word "\textit{spokane}" is the most attributed term to the matching score of the example query and document, which is accordant with human's understanding. In the following experiments, we will continue to use this analysis technique to facilitate our study.
Before we begin our analysis on IR intrinsics, we first introduce some notations. Formally, we use $q=(q_1,\cdots,q_m)$ to denote a query, $d$ or $d_i$ to denote a document, $\omega$ or $\omega_i$ to denote a query term, and $\omega\prime$ to denote a non-query term. The length of document $d$ is expressed as $|d|$. $c(\omega,d)$ stands for the count of word $\omega$ in document $d$. $f$ stands for a matching function, and $f(d,q)$ calculates the matching score of document $d$ with respect to query $q$. $idf(\omega)$ stands for the IDF discrimination value of a query term $\omega$. While $df(\omega)$ and $tf(\omega)$ denote the term frequency of term $\omega$ in the datasets and the document, respectively.
Now we formally study whether the above learned deep text matching models satisfy the four IR intrinsic constraints, i.e., term frequency constraint(TFCs), term discrimination constraint (TDC), length normaliza-tion constraints (LNCs), and TF-length constraint (TF-LNC). We first introduce the detailed definition of each constraint, and then demonstrate how we construct data to test whether the trained deep text matching models satisfy the constraints. We also show some further investigations on the reason of the results.
\subsection{Term Frequency Constraint}
There are two term frequency constraint, denoted as TFC1 and TFC2. Both constraints are to capture the desired contribution
of the TF of a term to scoring. The first constraint captures
the basic TF heuristic, which gives a higher score to a document with more occurrences of a query term when the only
difference between two documents is the occurrences of the
query term. While the second constraint ensures that the increase in
the score due to an increase in TF is smaller for larger TFs
(i.e., the second partial derivative w.r.t. the TF variable
should be negative). The formal definitions are show as follows.
\textbf{ TFC1:} Let $q={\{\omega\}}$ which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|$, if $c(\omega,d_1)>c(\omega,d_2)$, then$f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\textbf{ TFC2:} Let $q={\{\omega\}}$ which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|= |d_3|$, $c(\omega ,d_1)>0$, if $c(\omega,d_2)-c(\omega,d_1)=1$ and $c(\omega,d_3)-c(\omega,d_2)=1$, then $f(d_2,q)-f(d_1,q)>f(d_3,q)-f(d_2,q)$.
To evaluate how much the learned matching function satisfy the desired TFC constraints, we need to construct data which satisfy the above conditions. For TFC1, we can see that the condition is mainly on the query and document length, so we can construct data as follows. Suppose the query $q$ contains $m$ query terms $\{q_1,...,q_m\}$. For each two associated documents $d_1 $ and $d_2$, we can truncate them to be with length $min (| d_1 |, | d_2 |)$, still denoted as $d_1 $ and $d_2$. Then each $q_i, d1$ and $q_i, d_2$ becomes a pair satisfying the condition of TFC1, we can test whether the learned function output an accordant score w.r.t. the occurrence of the query term in each document.
The data construction for TFC2 is a little bit more complicated. For query term $\omega$, we first select three documents that contains $\omega$. Then we select three documents according to the occurrence of $\omega$ in the documents. The document with least $\omega$ is denoted as $d_1$. For $d_2$, we delete extra $\omega$ to make $c(\omega,d_2)-c(\omega,d_1)=1$. If $c(\omega,d_2)=c(\omega,d_1)$, we add one $\omega$ to the $d_2$ randomly. Then we need to make $|d_1|=|d_2|$. If $|d_1|<|d_2|$, we delete other words in $d_2$ except for $\omega$ until $|d_1|=|d_2|$. If $|d_1|>|d_2|$, we add other words to $d_2$ except for $\omega$ until $|d_1|=|d_2|$. For $d_3$, we do similar constructions to make $|d_2|=|d_3|$ and $c(\omega,d_2)-c(\omega,d_1)=1$.
To evaluate the degree to which the deep text matching models satisfy the TFC constraints, we calculate the proportion of data where the constraints are satisfied. Please note that the data construction could be conducted on both training and test data for LETOR4.0 and Ms MARCO, so we give the experimental results on those four data, denoted as LT-Train, LT-Test, MS-Train, and MS-Test, respectively, as shown in Table \ref{tab:tfc1} and Table \ref{tab:tfc2}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TFC1.}
\label{tab:tfc1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &79.96 & 74.54& 87.17 &84.89 \\
DUET &80.36 & 75.37& 88.27 &85.97 \\
RI-Match &81.61 & 76.98& 90.82 &87.53\\
MP &93.95 & 81.61& 95.66 &91.54\\
KNRM &95.68 & 89.23& 94.84 &90.37 \\
BERT &77.36 & 75.28& 96.57 &92.46 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TFC1 with $df(\omega) < 5000$.}
\label{tab:tfc1_cons}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &81.47 &77.23 &88.87 &82.82\\
DUET &82.63 &78.46 &89.92 &82.66\\
RI-Match &83.56 &78.64 &92.62 &86.89\\
MP &95.06 &87.01 &95.99 &88.33\\
KNRM &96.20 &88.52 &95.23 &87.71\\
BERT &79.54 &77.12 &97.47 &90.45\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TFC2.}
\label{tab:tfc2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &83.44 &77.35 & 82.83 &78.64 \\
DUET &84.84 &78.29 & 82.20 &79.74 \\
RI-Match &85.62 &78.40 & 84.43 &79.28\\
MP &87.27 &79.46 & 86.26 &82.68\\
KNRM &86.92 &78.82 & 87.23 &84.67 \\
BERT &81.11 &79.27 & 90.89 &88.56 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
From Table 4, we can see that all deep text matching models satisfy the TFC constraints with a high probability. TFC2 result is not as good as TFC1 result. That is mainly because a lot of matching degree attributes to some more frequent words, such as "\textit{in}" and "\textit{for}", shown as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ig_arci}. As stated in \cite{fang2004formal, fang2005exploration}, words with large DF usually play a negative correlation role in the matching process, so we limit the $df$ of all words to eliminate the influence of these words. Table \ref{tab:tfc1_cons} show the performance of different deep text matching models in terms of TFC1 under the condition $df(\omega) < 5000$ in the training data, where consistency is significantly improved.
\subsection{Term Discrimination Constraint}
Term Discrimination Constraint captures the interaction between TF and IDF, and emphasizes the effect of using IDF in the scoring of text matching, denoted as TDC. Specifically, given a fixed times of occurrences of query terms, a document should obtain higher matching score if it has more discriminative terms, measured by IDF. The formal definition is shown as follows.
\textbf{TDC:} Let $q$ be a query and has two query terms, then $q={\{\omega_1,\omega_2\}}$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|$, $c(\omega_1,d_1)+c(\omega_2,d_1)=c(\omega_1,d_2)+c(\omega_2,d_2)$. If $idf(\omega_1) \ge idf(\omega_2)$ and $c(\omega_1,d_1)>c(\omega_1,d_2)$, then $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
To evaluate how much the learned matching function satisfy the desired TDC constraints, we need to construct data which satisfy the above conditions. Suppose the query $q$ contains several words $\{q_1,....q_m\}$ and two associated documents $d_1$ and $d_2$. We select two words appeared both in $d_1 $ and $d_2$ to construct a new query $q=\{\omega_1,\omega_2\}$. The occurrences of the two words in the document are marked as $c(\omega_1,\omega_2;d_1)$ and $c(\omega_1,\omega_2;d_2)$. Without loss of generality, we set $c(\omega_1,\omega_2 ;d_1)>c(\omega_1,\omega_2;d_2)$, and delete $\omega_1$ or $\omega_2$ in $d_1$ to make $c(\omega_1,\omega_2;d_1)=c(\omega_1 , \omega_2;d_2)$. Then we delete other words to make the two documents with equal length, i.e.,~$|d_1|=|d_2|$.
To evaluate the degree to which the deep text matching models satisfy the TDC constraint, we calculate the proportion of data where the constraint is satisfied. The results on LT-Train, LT-Test, MS-Train, and MS-Test are shown in Table~\ref{tab:tdc} and Table \ref{tab:tdc_yizhi}. For the deep text matching models, they all satisfy the TDC results with a high probability in statistics. In \citep{fang2004formal, fang2005exploration}, a stronger condition is added to TDC constraint, that is $c(\omega_1, d_2) \leq c(\omega_2, d_1)$. So we also investigate the influence of this condition for interpretaing existing deep text matching models. Specifically, with this condition of TDC, the proportion of data which satisfy TDC is shown in Table \ref {tab:tdc_yizhi}. For the experimental results, we can see that deep text matching better satisfy TDC. That is because when $c(\omega_1,d_2) \leq c(\omega_2,d_1)$, the influence of word $ \omega_2$ will be reduced, which makes the influence of $\omega_1$ with high IDF more prominent.
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TDC.}
\label{tab:tdc}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &83.22 &77.26 &84.70 &81.59 \\
DUET &84.28 &79.28 &83.11 &79.77 \\
RI-Match &85.28 &79.47 &84.67 &80.54\\
MP &86.37 &80.27 &85.68 &81.81\\
KNRM &85.26 &79.23 &87.89 &83.87\\
BERT &79.11 &78.12 &88.23 &85.25\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TDC with $c(\omega_1,d_2)\leq c(\omega_2,d_1)$.}
\label{tab:tdc_yizhi}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &87.48 &79.49 &87.83 &83.00\\
DUET &87.13 &82.23 &86.49 &82.56\\
RI-Match &88.58 &83.56 &87.76 &84.85\\
MP &89.34 &83.65 &88.73 &84.23\\
KNRM &88.75 &84.68 &90.45 &84.80\\
BERT &83.45 &80.45 &91.54 &86.27\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on LNC1.}
\label{tab:lnc1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &70.36 &67.23 &70.21 &66.67\\
DUET &71.55 &67.94 &72.63 &68.89\\
RI-Match &72.56 &68.34 &71.35 &68.12\\
MP &74.28 &69.45 &72.66 &67.28\\
KNRM &74.18 &69.26 &71.38 &68.31\\
BERT &69.24 &66.26 &73.57 &69.23\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on LNC2.}
\label{tab:lnc2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &96.7 &88.12 &87.23 &83.59\\
DUET &96.23 &87.93 &88.25 &84.38\\
RI-Match &96.56 &87.85 &89.35 &84.67\\
MP &100.00&89.87 &96.07 &90.28\\
KNRM &99.01 &87.28 &93.79 &89.06\\
BERT &94.34 &986.23 &100.00 &93.26\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Length Normalization Constraint}
There are two length normalization constraints, denoted as LNC1 and LNC2. Both constraints capture contribution of the length of document in the scoring process. LNC1 says that if we add one extra non-relevant word to form a new document, then the matching degree of the new document with respect to the query will decrease. While LNC2 says that if we duplicate a document $k$ times to form a new document, the new document will obtain higher matching score than the original document. The formal definitions are shown as follows.
\textbf{LNC1:} Let $q$ be a query and $d_1$, $d_2$ be two document. If for some word $\omega^\prime \not\in q$, $c(\omega^\prime,d_2)=c(\omega^\prime,d_1)+1$, but for any query term $\omega$, $c(\omega,d_2)=c(\omega,d_1)$, we have $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\textbf{LNC2:} Let $q$ be a query. $\forall k >1$, $d_1$ and $d_2$ are two documents with $|d_1| = k \cdot |d_2|$. If for any query term $\omega$, $c(\omega,d_1) = k\cdot c(\omega,d_2)$, we have $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
To evaluate how much the learned matching function satisfy the desired LNC constraints, we need to construct data which satisfy the constrains. For LNC1, suppose that the query $q$ contains several terms $\{q_1,....q_m\}$ and the document is $d_1$. We first find a word in the document that does not exist in the query $q$. Appending this word to the end of the document $d_1 $ to form a new document $d_2$, then $(q,d)$ and $(q, d_2)$ form a data pair that satisfies the LNC1 constraint.
The data construction for LNC2 is a little bit more easy. Suppose that the query is $q$ and the document is $d_1 $ with length $|d_1|$. Here, we set $k = 2$ as an example. We first duplicate document $d_1$ to form the new document $d_2$ with length $2|d_1|$, then $(q, d_1)$ and $(q, d_2)$ forms a data pair that satisfies the constraints.
After that, we calculate the proportion of data that satisfy the constraints. The results on LT-Train, LT-Test, MS-Train, and MS-Test are shown in Table \ref{tab:lnc1} and Table \ref{tab:lnc2}. From the results, we can see that LNC1 constraint is not so well satisfied for deep text matching models as LNC2. So we utilize the IG algorithm to conduct the attribution analyse.
We found that one key difference between LNC1 and LNC2 is that, the influence of duplicated words are different. We show two examples in Figure \ref{fig:lnc1_neg} and \ref{fig:ig_lnc2}. We can see that the word "\textit{map}" has the positive attribution value in the original document. When it is added to form a new document, it still has a positive attribution value and will improve the matching degree of the documents. That is contradiction with the LNC1 constraint. While for LNC2, though most duplicated word still attribute with the same sign, some key words like "\textit{primary}" change their attribution sign from positive to negative. So we conclude that the attribution sign plays an important role in LNC1, and we need to take this factor into account. Specifically, when we construct the data for LNC1, the attribution value of the word $\omega\prime$ is constrained to be less than zero. In this way, the proportion that satisfy the new constraint of existing deep text matching models are shown in Table \ref{tab:lnc1_con}. On the contrary, the results are shown in Table \ref{tab:lnc1_con_neg} for adding words with positive attribution value. From the results, we can see that the proportion of data satisfying LNC1 is significantly improved by adding the condition $IG\_value(\omega\prime)>0$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{lnc1_doc.pdf}
\caption{An example for LNC1.}
\label{fig:lnc1_neg}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Img/F6.pdf}
\caption{An example for LNC2.}
\label{fig:ig_lnc2}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on LNC1 with $IG\_value(\omega\prime)<0$.}
\label{tab:lnc1_con}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &83.57 &80.37 &85.99 &82.09\\
DUET &84.62 &81.88 &86.46 &82.72\\
RI-Match &86.35 &82.55 &87.86 &83.86\\
MP &87.29 &83.54 &87.12 &84.21\\
KNRM &86.48 &82.70 &88.08 &84.92\\
BERT &81.37 &80.03 &90.32 &87.53\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on LNC1 with $IG\_value(\omega\prime)>0$.}
\label{tab:lnc1_con_neg}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &62.37 &55.32 &61.41 &58.54\\
DUET &63.56 &58.35 &62.23 &59.47\\
RI-Match &66.45 &63.26 &62.46 &60.48\\
MP &67.57 &64.30 &64.24 &62.67\\
KNRM &66.25 &60.37 &64.28 &62.25\\
BERT &60.23 &51.46 &59.28 &57.28\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The ratio of duplicated words with consistency attributions on LNC2.}
\label{tab:lnc2_yizhi}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
DataSet & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match& MP &KNRM &BERT\\
\hline
\hline
Letor 4.0 &0.707 &0.728 &0.739 &0.758 &0.742 &0.693\\
MS Marco &0.692 &0.712 &0.724 &0.735 &0.726 &0.758\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As shown in the Table \ref{tab:lnc2}, the deep text matching models well satisfy LNC2. Furthermore, we conduct an experiment to study the influence of duplicated contents. Specifically for each document, we count the proportion of words in the duplicate part whose attribution is weaker than that in the previous part. Here we do not distinguish the training and test data, and just average the results, shown in Table \ref{tab:lnc2_yizhi}. From results, we can see that the a large proportion of words in the duplicate part contribute weaker with the sign than that in the previous part. Considering the fact that the role of most words is consistent with that in the previous part, Although these functions are weaker than those of the previous part, the consistency ratio of these words is helpful to enhance the matching degree between query and document globally.
\subsection{TF-Length Constraint}
TF-Length constraint captures the interaction between TF and document length, denoted as TF-LNC. It says that if $d_1$ is constructed by adding more query term to $d_2$, the matching score of $d_1$ will be higher than $d_2$. The formal definition is shown as follows.
\textbf{TF-LNC:} Let $q={\{\omega}$ be the query which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $c(\omega,d_1)>c(\omega,d_2)$ and $|d_1|=|d_2| + c(\omega,d_1)-c(\omega,d_2)$, we have $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Img/F5.pdf}
\caption{An example for TF-LNC.}
\label{fig:ig_tf-lnc}
\end{figure}
To evaluate how much the learned matching function satisfy the desired TF-LNC constraint, we need to construct data which satisfy the above condition in the definition. We first add $c(\omega, d_1)-c(\omega,d_2)$ words (not $\omega$) to document $d_2$. Then we calculate the proportion of data where the constraint is satisfied, and the results are shown in Table \ref{tab:tf-lnc}. From the table, we can see that most of deep text matching models well satisfy the TF-LNC. We further apply the IG algorithm to analyse the attribution of each word, and an example is shown in Figure \ref{fig:ig_tf-lnc}. In the example, the query contains only one query term "\textit{muscle}", and $c(q, d_1)> c(q, d_2) $. Although the document length of $d_1$ is larger, most of the "\textit{muscle}" appearing in the document attribute positively to the matching score. That explains why $d_1$ is more relevant than $d_2$ with respect to the query. We further make a statistics on the proportion of words in $d_1$ with greater attribution value than $d_2$ in the dataset, as shown in Table \ref{tab:tf-lnc_yizhi}. We can see that most words remain their attribution signs in the duplication process.
\begin{table}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.0cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.0cm}
\caption{Results of deep text matching models on TF-LNC.}
\label{tab:tf-lnc}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Models & LT-Train(\%)& LT-Test(\%) &MS-Train(\%)&MS-Test(\%) \\
\hline
ARC-I &84.37 &80.35 &83.75 &80.38\\
DUET &83.62 &80.01 &85.18 &82.44\\
RI-Match &81.38 &78.36 &82.75 &80.26\\
MP &94.00 &87.58 &93.90 &87.28\\
KNRM &96.39 &88.37 &92. 92 &85. 19\\
BERT &80.14 &78.25 &95.28 &88.28\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.0cm}
\begin{table}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\caption{The ratio of duplicated words with consistency attributions on TF-LNC.}
\label{tab:tf-lnc_yizhi}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Dateset & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match& MP &KNRM &BERT \\
\hline
\hline
Letor 4.0 &0.772 &0.745 &0.712 &0.738 &0.735 &0.764\\
MS Marco &0.743 &0.727 &0.704 &0.712 &0.709 &0.700\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{Extension to Semantic IR Heuristics}
From the above studies, we can conclude that the existing deep text matching models well satisfy the four IR heuristics. However, all the IR heuristics only consider the exact matching, which may be limited in the semantic scenario that deep learning models are good at. So we propose to extend the previous IR heuristics to incorporate the semantic meanings, namely semantic IR heuristics including TFC1-E, TDC-E, and TF-LNC-E. The precise definitions are described as follows.
\textbf{TFC1-E:} Let $q={\{\omega\}}$ which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|$, $\theta \in [0,1]$ is the threshold of the cosine similarity, $\gamma_{i}$ stands for the $i$-th word in document $d$. We define the semantic count [Sc] of $\omega$ for $d$ in the Equation \ref{eq:sc}. Assume $Sc(\omega,d_1)\geq Sc(\omega,d_2)$, where $f$ denotes the cosine similarity function, we ave $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sc}
SemanticCount(\omega,d) = \sum_{i=1}^{|d|} [f(\omega,\gamma_{i})|f(\omega,\gamma_{i})\geq \theta]
\end{equation}
\textbf{TDC-E:} Let $q$ be a query which has two query terms $q={\{\omega_1,\omega_2\}}$. Assume $|d_1|=|d_2|$, $[Sc(\omega_1,d_1) + Sc(\omega_2,d_1)]$ $-[Sc(\omega_1, d_2) + Sc(\omega_2, d_2)]$ $< \epsilon $, here we set $\epsilon=0.1$. If $idf(\omega_1) \ge idf(\omega_2)$ and $Sc(\omega_1,d_1)>Sc(\omega_1,d_2)$, we have $f(d_1,q)>f(d_2,q)$.
\textbf{ TF-LNC-E:} Let $q={\{\omega\}}$ which has only one term $\omega$. Assume $|d_1| = |d_2| + \left\lfloor Sc(\omega, d_1) - Sc(\omega, d_2)\right\rfloor$ and $Sc(\omega, d_1) > Sc(\omega, d_2)$ , where the $\left\lfloor \right\rfloor$ denotes the floor function, we have $f(d_1, q)>f(d_2, q)$.
We compare the previous IR heuristics and our proposed extension versions by comparing the satisfied data proportion, shown in Table \ref{tab:extention1}, \ref{tab:extention2}, \ref{tab:extention3}, and \ref{tab:extention4}. The experimental results show that existing deep text matching models better satisfy our proposed extension versions than the previous IR heuristics, which better explain the existing deep text matching models than traditional ones.
\begin{table}
\caption{The results on semantic IR heuristics in the training data of LETOR when $\theta>0.90$.}
\label{tab:extention1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Constraint & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match &MP &KNRM &BERT \\
\hline
\hline
TFC1 &79.96 &80.36 &81.61& 93.95&95.68 &77.37 \\
TFC1-E &\textbf{82.67}&\textbf{84.37} & \textbf{86.59}& \textbf{94.02}&\textbf{96.78}&\textbf{80.36} \\
\hline
TDC &83.22 &84.28 &85.28 &86.37 &85.26 &79.11\\
TDC-E &\textbf{83.88} &\textbf{84.36} &\textbf{85.31} &\textbf{86.98}& \textbf{86.32}& \textbf{82.28}\\
\hline
TF-LNC &84.37 &83.62 &81.38 &94.00 &96.39 &80.14\\
TF-LNC-E &\textbf{85.79}&\textbf{85.86} &\textbf{84.84} &\textbf{94.23}&\textbf{96.89}&\textbf{83.37} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The results on semantic IR heuristics in the test data of LETOR when $\theta>0.90$.}
\label{tab:extention2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Constraint & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match &MP &KNRM &BERT\\
\hline
\hline
TFC1 &74.54 &75.37 &76.98& 81.17&89.23 &75.28 \\
TFC1-E &\textbf{75.75}&\textbf{76.25} & \textbf{78.89}& \textbf{82.13}&\textbf{90.25} &\textbf{75.89} \\
\hline
TDC &77.26&79.28 &79.47 &80.27&79.23 &78.12\\
TDC-E &\textbf{77.44} &\textbf{80.31} &\textbf{80.36} &\textbf{82.19} & \textbf{80.33} & \textbf{79.25} \\
\hline
TF-LNC &80.35 &80.01 &78.36 &87.58 &88.37 &78.25\\
TF-LNC-E &\textbf{81.65}&\textbf{82.15} &\textbf{81.59} &\textbf{89.97}&\textbf{91.04} &\textbf{93.11} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The results on semantic IR heuristics in the training data of Marco when $\theta>0.90$.}
\label{tab:extention3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Constraint & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match &MP &KNRM &BERT\\
\hline
\hline
TFC1 &87.17 &88.27 &90.82& 95.66&94.84 &96.57 \\
TFC1-E &\textbf{88.44}&\textbf{90.86} &\textbf{92.35}& \textbf{95.83}&\textbf{95.17}&\textbf{97.38} \\
\hline
TDC &84.70&83.11 &84.67 &85.68&87.89 &88.23 \\
TDC-E &\textbf{85.12} &\textbf{84.47} &\textbf{85.86} &\textbf{86.08} &\textbf{87.44} &\textbf{88.95}\\
\hline
TF-LNC &83.38 &85.18 &82.75 &93.90 &92.92 &95.28\\
TF-LNC-E &\textbf{86.91}&\textbf{87.75} &\textbf{83.28} &\textbf{94.13}&\textbf{93.56}&\textbf{96.24} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The results on semantic IR heuristics in the test data of Marco when $\theta>0.90$.}
\label{tab:extention4}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Constraint & ARC-I &DUET & RI-Match &MP &KNRM &BERT\\
\hline
\hline
TFC1 &84.89 &85.97 &87.97& 91.54&90.37 &92.46 \\
TFC1-E &\textbf{85.52}&\textbf{87.82} & \textbf{88.40}& \textbf{92.25}&\textbf{91.26}&\textbf{92.75} \\
\hline
TDC &81.59&79.77 &80.54 &81.81&83.87 &85.25\\
TDC-E &\textbf{81.89} &\textbf{80.43} &\textbf{80.98} &\textbf{82.23} &\textbf{81.32} &\textbf{86.13}\\
\hline
TF-LNC &80.38 &82.44 &80.26 &87.28 &85.19 &88.28\\
TF-LNC-E &\textbf{81.88}&\textbf{83.16} &\textbf{82.34} &\textbf{89.19}&\textbf{86.04}&\textbf{89.46} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose to understand deep text matching model from the perspective of how much do they satisfy the IR heuristics. We propose an empirical method to facilitate our study. First, we train deep text matching model on original training data, and then apply it to some constructed data satisfying the assumption of a constraint. As a result, the proportion of data satisfying the constraint can be used as our required qualitative measure. In our experiments, we test six representative deep text matching models (ARC-I, MatchPyramid, KNRM, RI-Match, BERT and DUET), in terms of four IR heuristics (TFCs, TDC, LNCs, and TF-LNC). Experimental results show that all six models satisfy heuristics with high probabilities in statistics. Moreover, we extend the existing IR heuristics to the semantic version, and experimental results show that these semantic constraints can be better satisfied by these deep text matching models. So the semantic IR heuristics can better explain the success of deep text matching models, as compared with traditional ones. Except for these revealed understandings, We believe the proposed evaluation methodology will be useful for testing existing and future deep text matching models.
In future, we plan to extend our study to other deep text matching models and IR heuristics, to complete a more thorough investigation. Furthermore, we are interested in how to design more suitable IR heuristics for deep learning, and how to use the proposed semantic heuristics to help us design better deep text matching models.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
Dynamic monopoly pricing has intrigued economists for decades. The literature has long emphasized that Coasian dynamics are key for understanding dynamic monopoly pricing: The monopolistic seller of a durable good who cannot commit to future prices has an incentive to lower the prices for (negatively selected) non-buyers over time, since high-value buyers purchase early on.\footnote{The lack of commitment constrains the monopolist's market power, and in the limit the profit converges to zero if all trade takes place in the ``twinkle of an eye'', as conjectured by \cite{Coase1972} and formally established by \cite{Stokey1981}, \cite{Bulow1982}, \cite{Fudenberg1985}, \cite{Gul1986}, and \cite{Ausubel1989}.}
Yet, recent work has identified various settings in which monopoly pricing is \emph{not} governed by Coasian dynamics. For instance, there is no commitment problem for the seller, and pricing dynamics do not arise, if the potential buyers of a durable good have access to an outside option with strictly positive value that ends the game \citep{Board2014}. Similarly, optimal prices remain constant if only high-value rather than low-value consumers remain in the market (``positive selection'') for a rental good \citep{Tirole2016}.\footnote{If the seller offers a rental good and both negative selection (for non-buyers) and positive selection (for loyal buyers) are at work, then Coasian dynamics for the prices offered to non-buyers lead to ``behavior-based pricing'' \citep{Acquisti2005,Armstrong2006,Fudenberg2007,buehler-eschenbaum}.} Finally, if the seller offers two durable varieties (rather than one), then Coasian dynamics apply, but they generally do not lead to zero profits in the limit \citep{NavaShiraldi2019}. Failures of the Coase conjecture have thus been shown to emerge for different reasons in different settings.
This paper studies dynamic monopoly pricing for a broad class of settings that includes previously unexplored settings with multiple rental varieties or ``mixed'' settings with one durable and one rental variety.\footnote{\cite{NavaShiraldi2019} study an extension of their setting in which consumers may return to the market after purchase, but focus on the impact on market clearing.} The analysis highlights that the driving force behind pricing dynamics---as opposed to the repeated play of static monopoly prices---is the seller's incentive to ``trade up'' consumers to higher-valued consumption options: Faced with a set of consumers who can be traded up to a higher-valued consumption option, the seller has an incentive to cut the price of this higher-valued option and benefit from the larger surplus emerging after switching consumers. Our notion of trading up extends the logic of Coasian dynamics, which applies to the prices set for non-buyers of a durable good, to the prices set for buyers of a non-durable good.
Specifically, we consider a monopolist with zero marginal cost that chooses prices for two varieties of a good facing a unit mass of consumers with unit demand. We assume that the monopolist cannot commit to future prices. In each period, consumers either consume one of the varieties or refrain from consumption and are thus in one of three states. They all start the game in the same state, and their fixed values of the two varieties are private information. A fixed set of admissible transitions between the three states governs the choices that are available to consumers in every period. Hence, if consumers cannot select one of the varieties throughout the game, our setting reduces to a one-variety problem. For a consumer who may not select the outside option in a given period, we impose a price of zero for her previous consumption choice to prevent expropriation. Thus, an absorbing variety can be viewed as a durable good that can be sold only once, whereas a variety that can be purchased in every period can be viewed as a rental good. We are interested in characterizing the pricing dynamics in Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium (PBE).
We derive three key results. First,
we show that, at a history at which there are no trading-up opportunities, the best the seller can do is to let buyers continue with purchasing their most-preferred variety at a constant price for all future periods. Hence, no dynamics in realized consumption choices or paid prices emerge along the equilibrium path starting at such a history. The result is reminiscent of \citet{Tirole2016}'s finding that it is optimal to offer a constant price to loyal buyers of a single rental good in a positive selection setting where the outside option is absorbing.\footnote{In the positive selection setting with a single variety, all consumers begin the game in the state where they consume the variety, and they cannot return to the consumption state after choosing the absorbing outside option. There are thus no trading-up opportunities at any history.} The result highlights that trading-up opportunities are crucial for pricing dynamics to emerge.
Second, we show that, if there are no trading-up opportunities in the monopoly outcome of the static game, the seller cannot do better than obtain the repeated static monopoly profit $\pi(p^m)$ over the course of the game. In the essentially unique PBE of the game, the seller obtains the repeated monopoly profit and therefore does not face a commitment problem.\footnote{The equilibrium is essentially unique in the sense that the seller obtains the repeated monopoly profit in any PBE of the game.} The result establishes that the seller cannot benefit from pricing dynamics if she can exhaust all trading-up opportunities by implementing the static monopoly outcome right from the start. The seller can do so, for instance, in a setting where the potential buyers of a durable good have access to an additional durable variety with strictly positive value (similar to the setting considered in \citealp{Board2014}), or a setting with positive selection with a single variety \citep{Tirole2016}.
Third, we show that for any history at which there are trading-up opportunities, the seller trades up consumers along the equilibrium path following this history. Hence, prices fall until all trading-up opportunities are exhausted. Yet, they do not fall below the prices $\bp$ associated with the seller-optimal outcome in the static game that leaves no trading-up opportunities. In addition, the seller's present discounted profit is bounded from below by the repeated static profit $\pi(\bp)$, which implies that the seller can obtain a positive profit in many settings. We further show that whether or not the pricing dynamics are played out in finite time depends on the setting under study and the lowest values in the support.
Our analysis highlights that the pricing dynamics in a broad class of monopoly pricing problems depend on whether or not the monopoly outcome in the static game leaves trading-up opportunities to the seller. If the monopoly outcome leaves no trading-up opportunities, then the seller does not face a commitment problem and the profit-maximizing solution is to implement the repeated static monopoly outcome irrespective of commitment ability. Instead, if there are trading-up opportunities at the static monopoly outcome, then the monopolist will lower prices to trade up consumers over time, and a zero-profit lower bound applies in some settings, but not in general. Our analysis extends the essence of Coase's insight to the pricing of non-durable varieties: pricing dynamics emerge whenever the seller has an incentive to switch consumers to a higher-valued consumption option.
We discuss various implications of our analysis, paying particular attention to settings with two rental or mixed varieties. For instance, the prices of two rental varieties will eventually equalize if the lowest values in the support are the same. Also, the seller of two mixed varieties will be able to obtain a strictly positive profit if there are consumers who prefer the rental to the durable variety. The latter implication extends \cite{NavaShiraldi2019}'s insight for two durable varieties---intra-temporal price discrimination can partially make up for the loss of market power due to inter-temporal price discrimination and shield the seller from zero profits---to settings in which the seller can exhaust all trading-up opportunities at once while achieving positive profits. Finally, we show how our insights translate to settings in which one variety may only be indirectly accessible to consumers via another state (``transitional games'').
This paper contributes to an extensive literature on the pricing of a single durable good \citep[e.g][]{Coase1972, Fudenberg1985, Gul1986, Sobel1991, Kahn1986, Bond1984,Fuchs2010}, of multidimensional settings with a durable good \citep[e.g.][]{NavaShiraldi2019,Board2014}, and of vertically differentiated durable products \citep{Hahn2006,Inderst2008,Takeyama2002}. Our work differs by proposing a unified analytical framework and focusing on settings with two rentals or mixed varieties, respectively, that have largely gone unnoticed. In doing so, we add to the analysis of positive selection \citep{Tirole2016}, as we allow for an absorbing outside option. Our framework shows how the analysis of positive selection can be extended to multiple varieties. In addition, we contribute to the literature on behavior-based pricing \citep[e.g.][]{Acquisti2005,Armstrong2006,Fudenberg2007,taylor2004,buehler-eschenbaum}. In contrast to recent work by \citet{RochetThanassoulis2019}, we focus on settings with unit-demand and do not allow for varieties to be sold as a bundle. Finally, our notion of ``trading up'' is related to the concept of ``upselling'' in the marketing literature \citep[e.g.,][]{Blattberg2008,Goker2008,Wilkie1998}. The key difference is that upselling refers to the upgrading of loyal buyers to a more expensive product, whereas trading up applies to buyers and non-buyers alike.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec-framework} introduces the analytical framework, formalizes the notion of trading-up opportunities, and sketches various applications.
Section~3 provides a skimming property for the unified analytical framework, explains how it translates into known skimming results for specific settings, and characterizes dynamic monopoly pricing in the absence and presence of trading-up opportunities.
Section~\ref{sec-implications} discusses the implications of our results for specific applications. Section~\ref{sec-ext-transitional} examines an extension to transitional games. Section~\ref{sec-conclusion} concludes and offers directions for future research.
\section{Analytical Framework}\label{sec-framework}
Consider a monopolist that offers two varieties of a good, $a$ and $b$, at zero marginal cost to a unit measure of consumers, and suppose that the monopolist cannot commit to future prices. Consumers have unit-demand and either purchase one of the varieties or select the outside option in each period. Following \citet{NavaShiraldi2019}, the value profiles of consumers $v=(v_a,v_b)$ are fixed, private information, and distributed according to a measure $\F$ on the unit square $[0,1]^2$. The associated cumulative distribution is $F$, with density $f$, and $V$ is the support. $F_i$ denotes the marginal cumulative distribution of variety~$i$, while $f_i$ and $V_i$ denote the respective density and support.\footnote{For instance, in the case of a bivariate uniform distribution of value profiles, the cumulative distribution is $F(c,d)=\int_0^d\int_0^c f(v_a,v_b)dv_a dv_b= cd$, with density $f(v_a,v_b)=1$, for $0\leq v_a,v_b\leq 1$, and the marginal distribution is univariate uniform.} The value of the outside option is zero.
Time is discrete and indexed by $t=0,...,T$, where $T$ is finite or infinite. All players share the same discount factor $\delta \in(0,1)$. In every period $t$, buyers make a discrete choice $x^t\in X$, where
\alst{X \equiv\{(1,0),(0,1),(0,0)\}\text{,}}
is the set of states with elements $a=(1,0)$, $b=(0,1)$, and the outside option $o=(0,0)$. Let $\bar{x}\in X$ be the initial state for all consumers. A sequence of choices $x^t$ from period $t$ onward is a \emph{consumption path} $\x^t = (x^t,x^{t+1},..., x^T)$ that gives rise to (present discounted) \emph{total consumption} $\chi(\x^t) = \sum_{\tau=t}^T \delta^{\tau-t} x^\tau$. A consumption path is \emph{admissible} if all transitions from state to state along the entire path are within the set of admissible transitions $\Gamma\subset X \times X$, where $\Gamma$ is exogenous and determines how consumers can switch between states from one period to the next. Throughout we maintain the assumption that transitions from a state to itself are always admissible, that is, $(o,o), (a,a), (b,b) \in \Gamma$. In the main part of our analysis we focus on settings in which each state is either directly accessible from the initial state or not accessible at all. We will consider the extension to ``transitional games'' (where one variety is only indirectly accessible from the initial state) in Section~\ref{sec-ext-transitional}. A state $x\in X$ is \emph{absorbing} if no other state $x'\in X$ is accessible
from $x$, that is, $(x,x')\notin \Gamma$. Let $\Delta^t = \sum_{\tau=t}^T \delta^{\tau-t}$ denote the (present discounted) \emph{number of periods} from $t$ on.\footnote{From now on, we will consistently omit the exponent for all expressions if $t=0$.}
A variety that is absorbing and can only be sold once and for all future periods is a durable variety. A variety that allows for transitions to and from the outside option in every period, in turn, is a rental variety. To simplify exposition, we will henceforth refer to the setting with two absorbing varieties and non-absorbing initial state $\bar{x}=o$ as the ``two durables'' setting. Similarly, we will refer to the setting with all transitions being admissible and initial state $\bx = o$ as the ``two rentals'' setting. Lastly, we will refer to the setting with one rental and one durable variety with initial state $\bx = o$ as the ``mixed varieties'' setting.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\caption{States and transitions in two nested settings}\label{fig-non-abs}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{Two rentals}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick, node distance = 2.8cm, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, ->]
\node[state, initial,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (o) {$o$};
\node[state, left of=o, below of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (a) {$a$};
\node[state, right of=o, below of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (b) {$b$};
\draw (o) edge[bend left=15, right] node{$(o,a)$} (a);
\draw (a) edge[bend left=15, left] node{$(a,o)$} (o);
\draw (b) edge[bend left=15, below] node{$(b,a)$} (a);
\draw (a) edge[bend left=15, below] node{$(a,b)$} (b);
\draw (o) edge[bend left=15, right] node{$(o,b)$} (b);
\draw (b) edge[bend left=15, left] node{$(b,o)$} (o);
\draw (a) edge[loop below] node{$(a,a)$} (a);
\draw (b) edge[loop below] node{$(b,b)$} (b);
\draw (o) edge[loop above] node{$(o,o)$} (o);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{Mixed varieties}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick, node distance = 2.8cm, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, ->]
\node[state, initial,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (o) {$o$};
\node[state, left of=o, below of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (a) {$a$};
\node[state, right of=o, below of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (b) {$b$};
\draw (o) edge[bend left=15, right] node{$(o,a)$} (a);
\draw (a) edge[bend left=15, left] node{$(a,o)$} (o);
\draw (a) edge[below] node{$(a,b)$} (b);
\draw (o) edge[right] node{$(o,b)$} (b);
\draw (a) edge[loop below] node{$(a,a)$} (a);
\draw (b) edge[loop below] node{$(b,b)$} (b);
\draw (o) edge[loop above] node{$(o,o)$} (o);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig-non-abs} illustrates the two rentals setting and the mixed varieties setting. The vertices indicate the states $X=\{a,b,o\}$, with initial state $\bar{x}=o$, while the arcs and brackets $(x,x')\in \Gamma$ represent the admissible transitions. Panel (a) shows the two rentals setting in which all transitions are admissible, $\Gamma = \{(a,a), (b,b) ,(o,o), (a,b), (b,a),\allowbreak (o,a), (o,b),\allowbreak (a,o),(b,o)\}$. Panel (b) shows the mixed varieties setting with $a$ as the rental variety and indicates that two transitions are not admissible, $(b,o), (b,a) \notin \Gamma$, because durable varieties are absorbing states.
\subsection{Prices, Histories, and Solution Concept}
All players are risk-neutral. In each period $t$, the monopolist selects a price profile $p^t=(p_a^t,p_b^t) \in [\psi,1]^2$, with $\psi < 0$,\footnote{The assumption on the set of prices ensures that the monopolist's action set is compact.} for every history of play. Consumers then either purchase one of the varieties or forego consumption. Importantly, if buyers cannot transition from their current state $i \in (a,b)$ to the outside option (i.e., $(i,o)\notin \Gamma$), then the period-$t$ price for variety $i$, $p_{i}^t$, is set to zero by assumption, and the seller only chooses the price for the other variety $j\neq i$. This assumption is consistent with our interpretation of an absorbing variety as a durable good and excludes the expropriation of ``captured'' buyers. Let $\rho(\x) = \sum_{t=0}^T \delta^{t} (p^t \cdot x^t)$ denote the (present discounted) \emph{total payment} made along consumption path $\x=(x^0,x^1,...,x^T)$. Similarly, let $\nu(v,\x) = v \cdot \chi(\x)$ be the (present discounted) \emph{total value} obtained by a buyer with value profile $v$ along consumption path $\x$. We can then write the (present discounted) total utility obtained by a buyer with value profile $v$ along consumption path $\x$ compactly as $\nu(v,\x) - \rho(\x)$.
\autoref{fig-paths} illustrates the admissible consumption paths $\x$ and corresponding utilities obtained by a consumer with value profile $v=(v_a,v_b)$ for two rentals and two periods ($T=1$). For instance, the lowest branch in \autoref{fig-paths} depicts the ``always-$b$'' path $\x_b = (b,b)$ with total consumption $\chi(\x_b) = (0,1+\delta)$, total value $\nu(v,\x_b) = (1+\delta)v_b$, total payment $\rho(\x_b) = p_b^0 + \delta p_b^1(p_a^0,p_b^0,b)$, and total utility $\nu(v,\x_b) - \rho(\x_b) = v_b-p_b^0(\emptyset)+\delta(v_b-p_b^1(p_a^0,p_b^0,b))$.
\tikzstyle{level 1}=[level distance=3.5cm, sibling distance=3.5cm]
\tikzstyle{level 2}=[level distance=3.5cm, sibling distance=1.2cm]
\tikzstyle{bag} = [circle,draw]
\tikzstyle{square} = [rectangle,draw]
\tikzstyle{solid node}=[circle,draw,inner sep=1.5,fill=black]
\tikzstyle{hollow node}=[circle,draw,inner sep=1.5]
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\caption{Consumption paths and utilities for two rentals and two periods}\label{fig-paths}
\begin{tikzpicture}[grow=right, sloped][scale=1
\node[hollow node] {$\bar{x}$}
child {
child {
node[label=right:
{$v_b-p_b^0(\emptyset)+\delta(v_b-p_b^1(p_a^0,p_b^0,b))$}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=b$}
node[below] {}
}
child {
node[label=right:
{$v_b-p_b^0(\emptyset)+\delta(v_a-p_a^1(p_a^0,p_b^0,b))$}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=a$}
node[below] {}
}
child {
node[label=right:
{$v_b-p_b^0(\emptyset)$}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=o$}
node[below] {}
}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^0=b$}
}
child {
child {
node[label=right:
{$v_a-p_a^0(\emptyset)+\delta(v_b-p_b^1(p_a^0,p_b^0,a))$}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=b$}
node[below] {}
}
child {
node[label=right:
{$v_a-p_a^0(\emptyset)+\delta(v_a-p_a^1(p_a^0,p_b^0,a))$}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=a$}
node[below] {}
}
child {
node[label=right:
{$v_a-p_a^0(\emptyset)$}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=o$}
node[below] {}
}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^0=a$}
}
child {
child {
node[label=right:
{$\delta(v_b-p_b^1(p_a^0,p_b^0,o))$}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=b$}
node[below] {}
}
child {
node[label=right:
{$\delta(v_a-p_a^1(p_a^0,p_b^0,o))$}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=a$}
node[below] {}
}
child {
node[label=right:
{0}] {}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^1=o$}
node[below] {}
}
edge from parent
node[above] {$x^0=o$}
};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
A period-$t$ seller history, $h^t$, is a sequence of previous price profiles $(p^0,...,p^{t-1})$ and consumption choices $(x^0,...,x^{t-1})$, with $h^0=\emptyset$. A period-$t$ buyer history, $\hat{h}^t$, consists of the seller history $h^t$ and the period-$t$ price profile $p^t(h^t)=(p_a^t(h^t),p_b^t(h^t))$ offered to consumers with seller history $h^t$. The set of period-$t$ seller histories is denoted by $H^t$, and the set of all seller histories by $H=\cup_{t=0}^{T}H^T$. Similarly, the set of period-$t$ buyer histories is denoted by $\hat{H}^t$, and the set of all buyer histories by $\hat{H}=\cup_{t=0}^{T}\hat{H}^T$. Let $V(h^t)\subseteq V$ denote the subset of consumers with the same seller history $h^t$.
We let $\Pi(h^t)$ denote the (present discounted) value of the seller's profit in the dynamic game obtained from buyers with history $h^t\in H^t$. The seller's profit in the static game, in turn, is given by
\eqst{
\pi(p) = \sum_{i\in(a,b)}p_i \F \left(v \in V \big|i=\arg \max_{x\in X, (\bar{x},x)\in \Gamma } \{(v-p)\cdot x\}\right) \text{.}
}
Let $\pi(p^m)$ denote the supremum of the seller's profit in the static game, henceforth called the ``monopoly profit'' for convenience, with associated price profile $p^m$,
A behavioral strategy for buyers is denoted by $\hs$ and determines the probability distributions over the consumption choices $x\in X$ made by buyers at every possible history. In line with the literature, we assume that at any possible history the set of buyers making the same consumption choice is a measurable set. A behavioral strategy for the seller is denoted by $\sigma$ and determines the probability distribution over the prices $p \in [\psi, 1]^2$ set by the seller as a function of the history of play. A \emph{Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium} (PBE) is a strategy profile $\{\sigma, \hs\}$ and updated beliefs about the buyers' values along the various consumption paths, such that actions are optimal given beliefs, and beliefs are derived from actions from Bayes' rule whenever possible.
\subsection{Trading-Up Opportunities}
We say that there is a trading-up opportunity for the seller if there are consumers who can transition to a strictly higher-valued state:
\begin{definition}[\textbf{Trading-up opportunity}]\label{definition-tuo}
The seller has a trading-up opportunity if there is a positive measure of consumers in state $x$ for whom transitions to a strictly higher-valued state $x'$ are admissible, that is,
$$
\exists x,x'\in X \text{~s.t.~}(x,x')\in \Gamma \text{~and~}v \cdot x'>v \cdot x.
$$
\end{definition}
Let $\Omega$ denote the set of price profiles $p=(p_a,p_b)$ that induce an allocation which leaves no trading-up opportunities for the seller in the static game,
$$
\Omega = \left\{p \in \mathbb{R}^2 \Big| x=\arg\max_{\tilde{x}\in X,(\bar{x},\tilde{x})\in \Gamma}(v-p)\cdot \tilde{x}\ \Rightarrow v\cdot x>v\cdot x' ~\text{or}~ (x,x') \notin \Gamma \ \forall v\in V \right\}.
$$
Intuitively, any price profile $p\in \Omega$ must induce an allocation where all consumers either choose their most-preferred state among those that are accessible from the initial state, or an absorbing state. Thus, in a setting with two durables, $p \in \Omega$ is equivalent to market-clearing. In a setting with two rentals, $p \in \Omega$ is equivalent to market-clearing and efficiency.\footnote{We follow \cite{NavaShiraldi2019} in referring to price profiles which ensure that all buyers choose their most-preferred (accessible) variety as \emph{efficient}, since they maximize total welfare when marginal costs are zero.} Finally, we let $\bar{p}\in \Omega$ denote a price profile that is associated with the supremum of the profit obtainable in the static game conditional on leaving no trading-up opportunities, $\pi(\bar{p})$. This profit supremum exists provided that $\Omega \neq \emptyset$, which is guaranteed unless there exists a state that is accessible only (indirectly) over the course of the game, but not from the initial state, since otherwise we always have $p = (0,0) \in \Omega$.\footnote{We consider the extension to transitional games in \autoref{sec-ext-transitional}.}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\caption{Demand segments in the static game for given $p$ (panel (a)), and profiles $p\in \Omega$ with full support (panel (b)) or linear support (panel (c)) for two rentals}
\label{fig-tuo-threedist}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{Static demand}
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.3]
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (-0.5,0) -- (11.5,0);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (0,-0.5) -- (0,11.5);
\draw[line width=0.4mm] (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\draw[fill, black] (5,5) circle(0.2cm);
\node at (5.7,4.7) {$p$};
\node at (-0.75,5) {$p_b$};
\node at (5,-0.75) {$p_a$};
\draw[thick] (5,0) -- (5,5) -- (0,5);
\draw[thick] (5,5) -- (10,10);
\fill[RawSienna,opacity=0.2] (0,0) -- (5,0,0) -- (5,5) -- (0,5);
\fill[CornflowerBlue,opacity=0.2] (5,0) -- (5,5) -- (10,10) -- (10,0);
\fill[ForestGreen,opacity=0.2] (0,5) -- (5,5) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\node at (2.5,2.5) {$x=o$};
\node at (4,7.75) {$x=b$};
\node at (7.5,2.5) {$x=a$};
\node at (-0.5,10) {$1$};
\node at (10,-0.7) {$1$};
\node at (11,-1) {$v_a$};
\node at (-1.1,11) {$v_b$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{fig-segments}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{$p\in \Omega$, full support}
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.3]
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (-0.5,0) -- (11.5,0);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (0,-0.5) -- (0,11.5);
\draw[line width=0.4mm] (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\fill[blue,opacity=0.1] (0,0) -- (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\node[text=blue] at (5,5) {$V$};
\draw[line width = 0.5mm, red] (0,0) -- (-2,-2);
\node at (-0.5,10) {$1$};
\node at (10,-0.7) {$1$};
\node at (11,-1) {$v_a$};
\node at (-1.1,11) {$v_b$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{fig-tuo-full}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{$p\in \Omega$, linear support}
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.3]
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (-0.5,0) -- (11.5,0);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (0,-0.5) -- (0,11.5);
\draw[line width=0.4mm] (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\draw[line width = 0.5mm, blue] (2,0) -- (10,8);
\node[text=blue] at (5.5,4.5) {$V$};
\fill[red,opacity=0.4] (-2,-2) -- (-2,10) -- (2,10) -- (2,0) -- (0,-2);
\node at (-0.5,10) {$1$};
\node at (10,-0.7) {$1$};
\node at (11,-1) {$v_a$};
\node at (-1.1,11) {$v_b$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{fig-tuo-vertical}
\end{subfigure}
\end{figure}
\autoref{fig-tuo-threedist} illustrates for the two rentals setting how buyers self-select in the static game for a given price profile $p$, and depicts price profiles (in red) that satisfy $p\in \Omega$ for two different supports. Specifically, panel (a) shows the static demand segments for a given price profile $p=(0.5,0.5)$ and indicates, for instance, that all consumers with a value profile $v < p$ choose the outside option, $x = o$. Panels (b) and (c) depict price profiles that leave no trading-up opportunities with full and linear support, respectively. For two rentals, $p \in \Omega$ requires that all consumers choose their most-preferred variety, as otherwise there are trading-up opportunities from one variety to the other, or from the initial state to each variety. Thus, with full support only non-positive price profiles on the diagonal satisfy $p \in \Omega$ (panel (b)), whereas with an increasing linear support that lies to the right of the diagonal through the type space (panel (c)), any price profile that ensures $x=a$ for all types in the support satisfies $p \in \Omega$, since all buyers prefer $a$ to $b$ (``vertical differentiation'').
\subsection{Applications}\label{subsec-applications}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Three examples: Accessible states and admissible transitions (left), and price profiles $p\in \Omega$ with a full support (right)}\label{fig-applications}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\caption{Single durable variety $a$}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.53\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick, node distance = 3cm, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, ->]
\node[state, initial,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (o) {$o$};
\node[state, right of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (a) {$a$};
\draw (o) edge node[above]{$(o,a)$} (a);
\draw (o) edge[loop above] node{$(o,o)$} (o);
\draw (a) edge[loop above] node{$(a,a)$} (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.25]
\fill[red,opacity=0.4] (-2,10) -- (0,10) -- (0,-2) -- (-2,-2);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (-1,0) -- (11.75,0);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (0,-1) -- (0,11.75);
\draw[line width=0.4mm] (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\fill[blue,opacity=0.1] (0,0) -- (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\node[text=blue] at (5,5) {$V$};
\node at (-0.75,10) {$1$};
\node at (10,-0.9) {$1$};
\node at (11.25,-1.25) {$v_a$};
\node at (-1.25,11.25) {$v_b$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\label{fig-one-durable}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{2em}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\caption{Positive selection, with single variety $a$ and initial state $\bar{x}=a$}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.53\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick, node distance = 3cm, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, ->]
\node[state, initial,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (a) {$a$};
\node[state, right of=a,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (o) {$o$};
\draw (a) edge[above] node{$(a,o)$} (o);
\draw (a) edge[loop above] node{$(a,a)$} (a);
\draw (o) edge[loop above] node{$(o,o)$} (o);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.25]
\fill[red,opacity=0.4] (-2,10) -- (10,10) -- (10,-2) -- (-2,-2);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (-1,0) -- (11.75,0);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (0,-1) -- (0,11.75);
\draw[line width=0.4mm] (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\fill[blue,opacity=0.1] (0,0) -- (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\node[text=blue] at (5,5) {$V$};
\node at (-0.75,10) {$1$};
\node at (10,-0.9) {$1$};
\node at (11.25,-1.25) {$v_a$};
\node at (-1.25,11.25) {$v_b$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\label{fig-tirole}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{2em}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\caption{Mixed setting, with rental variety $a$, durable variety $b$, and initial state $\bx = o$}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick, node distance = 2.5cm, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, ->]
\node[state, initial,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (o) {$o$};
\node[state, left of=o, below of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (a) {$a$};
\node[state, right of=o, below of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (b) {$b$};
\draw (o) edge[bend left=15, right] node{$(o,a)$} (a);
\draw (a) edge[bend left=15, left] node{$(a,o)$} (o);
\draw (a) edge[below] node{$(a,b)$} (b);
\draw (o) edge[right] node{$(o,b)$} (b);
\draw (a) edge[loop left] node{$(a,a)$} (a);
\draw (b) edge[loop right] node{$(b,b)$} (b);
\draw (o) edge[loop above] node{$(o,o)$} (o);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.25]
\fill[red,opacity=0.4] (-2,-2) -- (0,0) -- (10,0) -- (10,-2);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (-1,0) -- (11.75,0);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (0,-1) -- (0,11.75);
\draw[line width=0.4mm] (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\fill[blue,opacity=0.1] (0,0) -- (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\node[text=blue] at (5,5) {$V$};
\node at (-0.75,10) {$1$};
\node at (10,-0.9) {$1$};
\node at (11.25,-1.25) {$v_a$};
\node at (-1.25,11.25) {$v_b$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\label{fig-mix}
\end{subfigure}
\end{figure}
Our analytical framework covers a class of dynamic monopoly pricing settings that are characterized by the tuple $(\bar{x},\Gamma, \F)$ and can be illustrated in two complementary graphs: one showing the accessible states and admissible transitions, and one showing the support $V$ of the value profiles. \autoref{fig-applications} provides three examples that are drawn for a full support $V$ on the unit square $[0,1]^2$. We also indicate price profiles that satisfy $p \in \Omega$ in red.\footnote{For simplicity, inaccessible states (and transitions out of these states) are omitted.}
In the setting with a single durable variety $a$ (\autoref{fig-one-durable}), $p \in \Omega$ requires that $p_a \leq 0$ (whereas the price $p_b$ remains unrestricted) given a full support, which implies that $\pi(\bp) =0$. In a setting characterized by positive selection with one variety $a$ and initial state $\bar{x}=a$ (\autoref{fig-tirole}), in turn, all price profiles satisfy $p \in \Omega$, which implies that $\pi(\bp) = \pi(p^m)>0$ with a full support. Finally, in the mixed setting with rental variety $a$, durable variety $b$, and initial state $\bar{x}=o$ (\autoref{fig-mix}), $p \in \Omega$ requires that the price of the durable variety $b$ is non-positive, whereas the price of the rental variety $a$ can be positive and thus $\pi(\bp) > 0$ with a full support.
We pay particular attention to the price profiles $p \in \Omega$ that leave no trading-up opportunities in the static game because our analysis will demonstrate that, in order to characterize the dynamics in equilibrium, it is sufficient to determine the supremum of the profit obtained in the static game conditional on leaving no trading-up opportunities, $\pi(\bp)$, and examine whether it coincides with the monopoly profit $\pi(p^m)$.
\section{Analysis}\label{sec-analysis}
In this section, we employ the unified framework to characterize dynamic monopoly pricing. We proceed in three steps. First, we examine the behavior of consumers in equilibrium. Second, we study optimal pricing in the absence of trading-up opportunities. Finally, we analyze optimal pricing with trading-up opportunities.
\subsection{Skimming}\label{sec-skimming}
This section establishes that the value profiles of consumers who make the same consumption choice satisfy an appropriate partial ordering. We first derive the condition under which consumers with different value profiles choose the same consumption path $\x^t$. Next, we derive the condition that characterizes the value profiles of consumers who make the same period-$t$ consumption choice $x^t$, which informs the seller's beliefs about the relevant measures of buyers in PBE (the proofs of all results are relegated to the Appendix).
\begin{lemma}[\textbf{Ordering I: paths}]\label{lemma-skimming-1}
Consider consumers with common history $h^t\in H^t$.
If a consumer with value profile $v$ obtains a higher (present discounted) total utility along path $\x_k^t$ than along path $\x_l^t$, with $\chi(\x_k^t) \neq \chi(\x_l^t)$, then so does a consumer with value profile $\tilde{v} \neq v$ such that
\eq{\label{equ-skim1}
(\tilde{v}-v) \cdot (\chi(\x_k^t)-\chi(\x_l^t)) \geq 0 \text{.}
}
\end{lemma}
The result shows that, for two consumers with different value profiles to have the same preferences over the total utilities obtained along two distinct consumption paths, the relative value profiles and the relative consumption along the two paths must be aligned. That is, it is generally not sufficient for a type to have strictly higher values for both varieties to satisfy the condition; instead, the relative values $(v_a-v_b)$ must be considered. For example, if following path $\x_k^t$ instead of $\x_l^t$ implies obtaining relatively less consumption of $a$ and relatively more consumption of $b$ and type $v$ chooses path $\x_k^t$ over $\x_l^t$, then only types $\tilde{v}$ who do not prefer $a$ relatively more than $b$ compared to type $v$ will make the same choice. However, if path $\x_k^t$ implies obtaining more consumption of $a$ compared to path $\x_l^t$, while the consumption of $b$ is equal along the two paths, then for type $\tilde{v}$ to have the same preference $\tilde{v}_a > v_a$ is sufficient. Hence, restricting the set of admissible consumption paths makes it easier to satisfy the ordering condition, and restricting the setting to a one-variety problem yields the classic truncation results.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Illustration of the ordering condition in Lemma \ref{lemma-skimming-1}}\label{fig-skimming}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale = 0.5]
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-3.5,0) -- (3.5,0);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-10,0) -- (-3.75,0);
\draw[line width=0.5mm,->] (3.75,0) -- (10,0);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-4,-0.25) -- (-3.5,0.25);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-3.75,-0.25) -- (-3.25,0.25);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (4,0.25) -- (3.5,-0.25);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (3.75,0.25) -- (3.25,-0.25);
\draw[line width=0.5mm,->] (0,3.75) -- (0,10);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (0,-3.5) -- (0,3.5);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (0,-10) -- (0,-3.75);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-0.25,3.5) -- (0.25,4);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-0.25,3.25) -- (0.25,3.75);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-0.25,-4) -- (0.25,-3.5);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-0.25,-3.75) -- (0.25,-3.25);
\draw[thick] (3,-3) -- (3,3) -- (-3,3) -- (-3,-3) -- (3,-3);
\node at (2.7,-0.5) {$1$};
\node at (-2.3,-0.5) {$-1$};
\node at (-0.3,2.5) {$1$};
\node at (-0.7,-2.6) {$-1$};
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (8,-0.15) -- (8,0.15);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-8,-0.15) -- (-8,0.15);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-0.15,8) -- (0.15,8);
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-0.15,-8) -- (0.15,-8);
\node at (8,-0.6) {$\Delta^t$};
\node at (-0.8,8) {$\Delta^t$};
\node at (-8,-0.6) {$-\Delta^t$};
\node at (-1.3, -8) {$-\Delta^t$};
\node at (9.3,-0.4) {$a$};
\node at (-0.5,9.3) {$b$};
\draw[dashed,thick] (8,0) -- (0,8);
\draw[dashed,thick] (-1.5,8) -- (-8,8) -- (-8,0);
\draw[dashed,thick] (-7,-1) -- (0,-8) -- (8,-8) -- (8,-1.25);
\draw[line width = 0.5mm,->, color = blue] (0,0) -- (-7.7,7.7);
\draw[line width = 0.3mm, color = blue] (-8,8) circle(1.5mm);
\node at (-8,8.8) {$\chi(\x_k^t)-\chi(\x_l^t)$};
\draw[line width = 0.5mm, color = blue] (-3,-3) -- (3,3);
\filldraw[fill=blue, opacity=0.1] (-3,-3) -- (3,3) -- (-3,3) -- (-3,-3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
The intuition of Lemma~\autoref{lemma-skimming-1} is illustrated in \autoref{fig-skimming}, where the solid square shows the possible differences in the value profiles $(\tilde{v}-v)$ and the dashed lines indicate the possible differences in total consumption $\left(\chi(\x_k^t)-\chi(\x_l^t)\right)$ along two consumption paths. For the particular difference in total consumption $\left(\chi(\x_k^t)-\chi(\x_l^t)\right)$ depicted, only consumers with value profiles in the shaded area satisfy condition~(\ref{equ-skim1}).\footnote{To see this, note that the sorting condition in Lemma~\ref{lemma-skimming-1} describes a dot product and restricts the angle between the two vectors $(\tilde{v}-v)$ and $\left(\chi(\x_k^t)-\chi(\x_l^t)\right)$ to a maximum of 90\degree.} If $b$ is an inaccessible state, then differences in total consumption yield vectors along the $a$-axis only, in which case any higher type $\tilde{v}_a > v_a$ will satisfy condition~(\ref{equ-skim1}) if $\x_k^t$ implies more consumption of $a$ than $\x_l^t$. This is the classic ``skimming'' result for one variety.
\begin{lemma}[\textbf{Ordering II: period-$t$ choices}]\label{lemma-skimming-2}
Consider consumers with common history $h^t\in H^t$. In any PBE, if a consumer with value profile $v$ prefers consumption choice $x^t=x$ to $x^t= x'$, $x'\neq x$, then so does a consumer with value profile $\tilde{v} \neq v$ such that
\al{\label{equ-skim2}
\left( \tilde{v}-v\right) \cdot \left( x-x^{\prime}\right) + &\delta \left[
\min_{\mathbf{x}^{t+1}\in\{\mathbf{X}^{t+1}\mid x^t=x\}}\left\{ \left( \tilde
{v} - v \right) \cdot\chi(\mathbf{x}^{t+1}) \right\} \right] \nonumber \\
- &\delta\left[ \max_{\mathbf{x}^{t+1}\in\{\mathbf{X}^{t+1}\mid x^t=x^{\prime}\}}\left\{ \left( \tilde{v}-v\right) \cdot\chi(\mathbf{x}^{t+1})\right\} \right] \geq 0 \text{,}
}
where $\{\X^{t+1} | x^t\}$ is the set of admissible consumption paths after consumption choice $x^t$.
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lemma-skimming-2} characterizes the partial ordering applicable in PBE in terms of the values resulting from current consumption choices and (future) admissible consumption paths following these choices.
Condition~(\ref{equ-skim2}) nests well-known earlier skimming results for settings that are covered by our analytical framework. To see this, consider the classic setting with a single durable good, say $a$, and focus on consumers that have not yet purchased at time $t$. Let $x$ be the purchase of the durable good, whereas $x'$ is the choice of the outside option, and distinguish the following two cases: $\tilde{v}_a \geq v_a$ and $\tilde{v}_a < v_a$. In the first case, the minimum difference in total value after $x$ equals the maximum difference in total value after $x'$ and is given by $(\tilde{v}_a-v_a) \Delta^{t+1}$, so that (\ref{equ-skim2}) simplifies to $\tilde{v}_a \geq v_a$. In the second case, the minimum difference in total value after $x$ is unchanged (but negative), while the maximum difference in total value after $x'$ is $0$, such that (\ref{equ-skim2}) cannot be satisfied. Thus, we obtain the standard condition $\tilde{v}_a \geq v_a$.\footnote{We can obtain the same result from (\ref{equ-skim1}) by noting that purchasing today (path $\x_k^t$) rather than delaying (path $\x_l^t$) immediately implies that $\chi(\x_k^t)-\chi(\x_l^t) \geq 0$.}
A similar result holds in a setting characterized by positive selection as introduced in \citet{Tirole2016} with a single variety $a$ and an absorbing outside option. Consider the set of types that have purchased $a$ in every previous period until time $t$. Let $x$ denote the purchase of the good $a$ and $x'$ the choice of the outside option. Then, the minimum difference in total value after $x$ is $0$ if $\tilde{v}_a\geq v_a$ and $(\tilde{v}_a-v_a)\Delta^{t+1}$ if $\tilde{v}_a<v_a$, while the maximum difference in total value following $x'$ is $0$ for $\tilde v_a\geq v_a$ and $\tilde v_a< v_a$ because the outside option is an absorbing state. The skimming condition (\ref{equ-skim2}) then simplifies to $\tilde{v}_a \geq v_a$.\footnote{Again, we can obtain the result from (\ref{equ-skim1}) by noting that $\chi(\x_k^t)-\chi(\x_l^t) \geq 0$ because the outside option is an absorbing state.}
Finally, consider the two durables setting \citep{NavaShiraldi2019}. Let $x$ be the purchase of one of the two varieties, say $a$. Then $x'$ is either $b$ or $o$. Our above analysis of the setting with one durable shows that when $x'=o$, skimming is satisfied whenever $\tilde{v}_a \geq v_a$ if the maximum difference in total value after $x'$ is $(\tilde{v}_a - v_a)\Delta^{t+1}$. Instead, if the maximum difference in total value after x$'$ is $(\tilde{v}_b - v_b)\Delta^{t+1}$, then skimming is satisfied whenever $(\tilde{v}_a-v_a)\Delta^t \geq \delta\Delta^{t+1} (\tilde{v}_b-v_b)$. When $x' = b$ in turn, the minimum difference in total value after $x$ is $(\tilde{v}_a-v_a) \Delta^{t+1}$ while the maximum difference in total value after $x'$ is $(\tilde{v}_b-v_b) \Delta^{t+1}$, since both varieties are absorbing, and so (\ref{equ-skim2}) becomes $\tilde{v}_a-v_a \geq \tilde{v}_b-v_b$. In conjunction, we obtain that skimming is satisfied if $\tilde{v}_a-v_a\geq \max\{0,\tilde{v}_b-v_b\}$.\footnote{We can obtain the same result from (\ref{equ-skim1}) by noting that for the comparison of two paths that feature different varieties in period $t$, we have $(\tilde{v}-v) \cdot (\chi(\x_k^t)-\chi(\x_l^t)) \geq 0$ iff $\tilde{v}_a-\tilde{v}_b\geq v_a-v_b$.}
\subsection{Pricing without trading-up opportunities}\label{sec-no-TUO}
Suppose there are no trading opportunities for the seller at history $h^t\in H^t$ with associated state $x^{t-1}$. It is useful to distinguish the following three different cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] The state $x^{t-1}$ is absorbing.
\item[(ii)] The state $x^{t-1}$ is the most-preferred (accessible) state $i\in (a,b)$ for all consumers, and the transition to the outside option is \emph{not} admissible, $(i,o) \notin \Gamma$.
\item[(iii)] The state $x^{t-1}$ is the most-preferred (accessible) state $i\in (a,b)$ for all consumers, and the transition to the outside option is admissible, $(i,o) \in \Gamma$.
\end{itemize}
It is straightforward to see that pricing dynamics are excluded in cases (i) and (ii) by construction. In case (i), consumers either cannot buy any variety $i\in (a,b)$ (if $x^{t-1}=o$) or must make the same consumption choice $i$ in every future period (if $x^{t-1}=i$), with the price $p_i$ set to zero for all future periods by assumption (and the price $p_j$ set arbitrarily). In case (ii), consumers obtain their most-preferred variety $i$ in every future period at price zero by assumption. For case (iii), our first main result establishes that the seller cannot benefit from dynamic pricing, either.
\begin{proposition}[\textbf{No dynamics after $h^t$}]\label{prop-1}
Consider history $h^t \in H^t$ with $x^{t-1}=i \in (a,b)$, where $i$ is the most-preferred variety of all consumers. Assume that $(i,o) \in \Gamma$, and suppose that all consumers purchase variety $i$ in the seller-optimal one-shot game that yields the profit supremum, $\pi^\ast(h^t)$. Then, in any PBE no dynamics in paid prices or realized consumption choices emerge along the equilibrium path starting at history $h^t$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop-1} shows that if, at a given history $h^t$, all buyers are in their most-preferred state and the seller cannot benefit from pricing out buyers in the one-shot game at this history, then the best the seller can do is to let all buyers continue with purchasing their most-preferred variety at a constant price. Thus, dynamics in paid prices or realized consumption choices do not emerge along the equilibrium path following this history. Note that this result only pins down the price of the most-preferred variety $i$. For the price of variety~$j$, the only requirement is that it must be sufficiently high to ensure that all buyers continue with purchasing variety~$i$. Thus, dynamics in the price $p_j^\tau$ may still emerge, and numerous strategies for the seller may constitute a PBE. However, the seller cannot benefit from dynamic pricing.
The result suggests that if the profit-maximizing solution to the static game does not leave any trading-up opportunities to the seller, then no dynamics will emerge in equilibrium because the seller can exhaust all trading-up opportunities right from the start by playing static optimal prices. Our next result shows that this is indeed the case. Specifically, we consider settings in which there are no trading-up opportunities in the static optimum, so that the monopoly profit $\pi(p^m)$ coincides with the supremum of the profit the seller can obtain in the static game conditional on leaving no trading-up opportunities, $\pi(\bar{p})$. We show that, in this case, the maximum profit the seller can obtain in the dynamic game is the repeated monopoly profit, and the seller can obtain this payoff irrespective of commitment ability. That is, the seller faces no commitment problem if there are no trading-up opportunities in the static monopoly outcome, and the equilibrium is \emph{essentially unique} in the sense that the seller will obtain this profit in any PBE.
Borrowing terminology from \cite{Board2014}, we say that the seller and consumers adopt ``monopoly strategies'' if, in every period $t$, (i) the seller plays $p_i^m$ for every variety $i$ that satisfies $(i,o) \in \Gamma$, and $p_i^m \Delta^t$ for every variety that satisfies $(i,o) \notin \Gamma$ in every state $x \neq i$ (and zero otherwise), and (ii) consumers behave as if they were making optimal choices in the static game facing prices $p^m$. We can then state the following result.
\begin{proposition}[\textbf{Repeated static monopoly}]\label{prop-2}
Suppose there are no trading-up opportunities in the static monopoly outcome, that is, $\pi(p^m) = \pi(\bp)$. Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] the seller can do no better than obtain the repeated monopoly profit $\pi(p^m)$ over all periods $t=0,...,T$, that is, $\Pi \leq \pi(p^m)\Delta$.
\item[(ii)] there exists a PBE in which the seller and consumers adopt monopoly strategies in every period $t=0,...,T$.
\item[(iii)] the PBE is essentially unique, and thus the seller is guaranteed to obtain the commitment profit irrespective of commitment ability.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
Proposition~\ref{prop-2} shows that the emergence of pricing dynamics crucially depends on the existence of trading-up opportunities in the static monopoly outcome. A profit-maximizing seller engages in dynamic pricing only if doing so allows her to trade up consumers (buyers or non-buyers) to more valuable consumption options over the course of the game. Therefore, if the profit-maximizing solution in the static game leaves no trading-up opportunities, $\pi(p^m)=\pi(\bar{p})$, then the seller can simply repeat the static monopoly solution and obtain the commitment profit irrespective of commitment ability, since the monopoly strategies of the seller and consumers form a PBE. Moreover, the seller is guaranteed to obtain the maximum profit despite being unable to commit as the described PBE is essentially unique.
The result implies that it suffices to know the profit-maximizing solution of the static game to determine the outcome of the repeated game in settings with $\pi(p^m) = \pi(\bar{p})$. The following corollary provides an explicit characterization of such settings. Intuitively, there are two classes of settings in which $\pi(p^m) = \pi(\bar{p})$: settings that exclude trading-up opportunities for arbitrary price profiles (including static monopoly prices), and settings where the distribution of value profiles is such that static monopoly prices happen to leave no trading-up opportunities.
\begin{corollary}[\textbf{Settings without trading-up}]\label{lemma-no-tuos}
Let $(\bar{x},\Gamma,\F)$ represent the setting under study. Then, there are no trading-up opportunities for the seller
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] for arbitrary price profiles $p$, if the initial state $\bar{x}$ is absorbing.
\item[(ii)] for arbitrary price profiles $p$, if the initial state $\bar{x}$ is non-absorbing and the (weakly) most-preferred state for all consumers, and all other accessible states are absorbing (positive selection).
\item[(iii)] for any price profile $p$ such that the lowest-value buyer obtains a strictly positive utility in at least one of the accessible states, if the initial state $\bar{x}$ is non-absorbing and the (weakly) least-preferred state for all buyers, and all accessible states are absorbing \citep{Board2014}.
\item[(iv)] for arbitrary price profiles $p$, if the initial state $\bar{x}$ is non-absorbing, all buyers have the same preference ranking over all accessible states, and only transitions from a preferred to a (weakly) less-preferred state are admissible (trading down).
\end{itemize}
Otherwise, there exist trading-up opportunities at static monopoly prices, unless $\F$ is such that $\pi(p^m) = \pi(\bar{p})$.
\end{corollary}
Corollary~\ref{lemma-no-tuos} characterizes the settings in which Proposition \ref{prop-2} applies. Case~(i) is trivial in the sense that no transition out of the initial state is admissible. Case~(ii) describes a setting characterized by positive selection where the initial state is the most-preferred state for all consumers who can transition to less-preferred absorbing states only. \cite{Tirole2016} provides an in-depth analysis of such a setting with a single non-absorbing variety as the initial state and the outside option as an absorbing state.\footnote{See \autoref{fig-tirole} for an illustration of positive selection with a single variety $a$.} Corollary~\ref{lemma-no-tuos} shows that we can extend such a setting to allow for a second variety while ensuring that $p^m = \bar{p}$ continues to apply by requiring that the second variety is less-preferred and absorbing. This arguably is the essence of positive selection: all consumers start in the most-preferred state and can only transition to less-preferred states in which they are ``captured'', that is, they can only trade down but never back up. With a single variety, this is ensured if the outside option is absorbing. Case~(iii) describes a setting in which the initial state is the least-preferred state for all consumers who can transition to more-preferred absorbing states and obtain a strictly positive utility in at least one of them. \cite{Board2014} provide a detailed analysis of such a setting where the initial state is the non-absorbing outside option, and the seller offers a single absorbing variety, but consumers can also choose a second absorbing outside option with a strictly positive value for all buyers. We can embed the basic characteristics of such a setting into our framework by restricting the price for one durable variety to be strictly below the lowest value in the support. Case~(iv) describes settings in which the initial state is allowed to be any of the three states, but the admissible transitions and value profiles of consumers are such that they may only ever trade down.
In any other setting, static monopoly prices will generally leave trading-up opportunities in the static game. For example, consider a mixed setting with rental variety $a$ and durable variety $b$, and assume that the initial state is the non-absorbing outside option (see \autoref{fig-mix}). For a price profile to leave no trading-up opportunities, we must have that the market clears and that all types allocating themselves to the non-absorbing variety prefer it to the absorbing one. Thus, we need to check if $\pi(p^m)$ happens to satisfy these conditions for the given measure $\F$ and associated support $V$ of consumers.
\subsection{Trading-up opportunities and pricing dynamics}\label{sec-TUO}
Let us now consider settings where the seller has trading-up opportunities at the static monopoly outcome (i.e., $\pi(p^m) \neq \pi(\bar{p})$). Examples include the classic setting with a single durable good, the two durables settings, the two rentals settings, and the mixed setting.
Our next result shows that a profit-maximizing seller will engage in dynamic pricing after any history at which trading-up opportunities exist by repeatedly lowering prices until all trading-up opportunities are exhausted. We further characterize the pricing dynamics and provide conditions under which they are played out in finite time.
\begin{proposition}[\textbf{Pricing dynamics}]\label{prop-3}
In any PBE,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] for any history $h^t$ at which there exist trading-up opportunities, the seller trades up a positive measure of types along the equilibrium path.
\item[(ii)] the seller will never set a price for a variety $i$ below $\bp_i$ at any history $h^t$ at which the transition to state $i$ is admissible.
\item[(iii)] the seller's (present discounted) profit satisfies $\Pi \geq \pi(\bp) \Delta$.
\item[(iv)] all trading-up opportunities are exhausted in finite time $t\leq T$ if the minimal value of at least one variety and $\pi(\bp)$ are strictly positive, and $T$ is sufficiently large.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop-3} demonstrates that trading-up opportunities are the driving force behind pricing dynamics. For a seller who faces trading-up opportunities and lacks commitment ability, it is strictly profit-maximizing to trade up (some) consumers to a higher-valued consumption option and thereby extract a larger surplus from these consumers. However, in order to induce consumers to trade up, the seller must lower the price relative to the price previously offered. Thus, as the game progresses, the seller is lowering prices to trade up more and more consumers. Since any price profile $p \in \Omega$ leaves no trading-up opportunities, neither in the static nor in the dynamic game, the seller will not want to set prices below $\bar{p}$. Hence, the dynamics come to an end at prices $\bar{p}$, provided that transitions to the respective consumption options are admissible.\footnote{The latter qualification is required for price dynamics to end at $\bar{p}$, because otherwise any price is a best-response (including prices below $\bar{p}$)} This implies that the seller's profit in the absence of commitment is bounded below at $\pi(\bar{p})\Delta$, which may be strictly positive (depending on the setting under study). The time it takes for the price dynamics to play out depends on the setting under study. However, for all trading-up opportunities to be exhausted in finite time, both the minimum value for at least one variety and the optimal static profit that leaves no trading-up opportunities, $\pi(\bp)$, must be strictly positive, and the number of periods of play must be sufficiently large.
To understand the intuition for statement (iv), observe that since it is optimal for the seller to engage in trading-up at any history with trading-up opportunities (statement (i)), the seller must decide whether to trade up some or \emph{all} consumers. The more consumers the seller has already traded up in previous periods, the smaller is the extra surplus that can be extracted from the remaining consumers who can still be traded up. Eventually, it no longer pays for the seller to delay the trading up of some lower-value consumers in order to trade up higher-valued consumers earlier on at higher prices, and the seller trades up all remaining consumers instantaneously. But for this to occur in finite time, the seller must be able to strictly increase profit by trading up all consumers at once. If the minimum value of at least one variety is strictly positive---the ``gaps'' case---and there are sufficiently many periods of play, this is guaranteed as long as $\pi(\bp)$ is strictly positive. Otherwise---in the ``no gaps case''--- the pricing dynamics may continue indefinitely.
\section{Implications}\label{sec-implications}
In this section, we summarize the implications of our analysis for the characterization of dynamic monopoly pricing. We pay particular attention to the settings with two rentals, two durables, and mixed varieties.
\begin{implication}
If there are no trading-up opportunities for the seller in the static optimum, there will be no dynamics in the repeated game. Otherwise, Coasian dynamics emerge.
\end{implication}
Our analysis highlights that the profit-maximizing prices that leave no trading-up opportunities in the static game play a crucial role in determining the dynamics in equilibrium. In particular, if the static optimum does not leave any trading-up opportunities for the seller, then the equilibrium of the dynamic game is simply a repetition of the static optimum (see Proposition \ref{prop-2}). The intuition is straightforward: the exhaustion of all trading-up opportunities can be understood as the depletion of all gains from trade. Hence, if all gains from trade are depleted, there is no incentive to engage in dynamic pricing. There are a number of settings in which this is the case (see Corollary \ref{lemma-no-tuos}).
\begin{implication}
Prices will eventually equalize for two rentals if the lowest values in the support are equal, while the same is not necessarily true for two durables.
\end{implication}
With two rental varieties, prices continue to fall until they reach the lowest values in the support (see Proposition \ref{prop-3}). As a consequence, with equal lowest values in the support there is continuous pressure on prices to equalize: whenever prices are different, there is an incentive for consumers to select the lower-priced variety, even if they prefer the more expensive one. Thus, prices must equalize and reach the lower bound of the support in order to exhaust all trading-up opportunities in the static game. In a setting with two durables, in turn, consumers who strategically select their less-preferred variety are ``captured'' in an absorbing state, so that prices must not necessarily equalize.
\begin{implication}
All dynamics end in finite time with two durables, but in infinite time with two rentals unless there are two ``gaps'' in the support.
\end{implication}
A marked difference between the two durables and the two rentals settings emerges in the length it takes for the dynamics to play out. The explanation relates to the profit obtained by the seller when leaving no trading-up opportunities in the static game. A seller of two durable varieties can clear the market (and thus leave no trading-up opportunities) with only one price set to zero provided that there exists a positive measure of consumers who strictly prefer the other variety \citep{NavaShiraldi2019}. As a consequence, eventually it is no longer worth delaying the trading-up of all remaining consumers in order to only trade up some higher-valued consumers, and the dynamics come to an end. For a seller of two rental varieties, in turn, this moment never occurs: whenever prices are not equal, some consumers may select their less-preferred variety to benefit from the lower price, and thus trading-up opportunities persist. The exception to this is the two-gaps case, where the seller can obtain a strictly positive profit when leaving no trading-up opportunities in the one-shot game, and these prices can always be played in the repeated game to end dynamics.
\begin{implication}
With two ``gaps'' in the support, all dynamics end in finite time in every setting.
\end{implication}
The logic that underlies Implication 3 also implies that, in the two-gaps case, dynamics always end in finite time, irrespective of the specific setting. Two gaps in the support ensure that the seller is guaranteed to earn a positive profit in the one-shot game when leaving no trading-up opportunities, and since she can always play these prices to end the dynamics, eventually it is worth doing so instead of continuing a slow decrease of prices over time.
\begin{implication}
A seller of mixed varieties obtains a positive profit if there are consumers who prefer the rental to the durable variety.
\end{implication}
If there are consumers who prefer the rental to the durable variety, the seller can set a low price for the durable variety to clear the market and ensure that only consumers who prefer the rental variety select it in the one-shot game. By doing so, the seller can obtain a positive profit while leaving no trading-up opportunities. And since these prices can always be played in the repeated game to end all dynamics, she will not be forced to further lower prices and can obtain a positive profit. A seller of a single product, in turn, cannot stop herself from lowering prices to trade up consumers and therefore has an incentive to introduce a low-quality durable variety that is less-preferred by all consumers. This extends a key insight from \cite{NavaShiraldi2019} for two durables to the case of mixed varieties.
\section{Extension: Transitional games}\label{sec-ext-transitional}
In this section, we sketch how our analysis can be extended to settings in which one of the varieties is only indirectly accessible via the other variety from the initial state $\bar{x} = o$. We call this class of settings ``transitional games.'' \autoref{fig-transitionalgame} provides an example of a transitional game where variety $b$ is absorbing and only indirectly accessible via variety $a$ from the initial state $\bar{x} = o$, with a full support. A possible interpretation is that the seller is offering the baseline version~$a$ to all consumers, while the ``upgraded'' version~$b$ is only available to previous buyers of the baseline version. The existence of states that are only indirectly accessible poses a challenge for our analysis, because the consumption options accessible in the static game do not correspond to those in the repeated game, such that there might be no prices that exhaust all trading-up opportunities in the static game.
We now show that our approach of characterizing the dynamic equilibrium by analyzing the associated static game can also be applied to transitional games by introducing a suitably defined ``extended static game.''
\begin{definition}[\textbf{Extended static game}]\label{def-extendedgame}
In the extended static game associated with the transitional game $(\bx, \Gamma, \F)$, consumers choose among the directly accessible states $\bx, x' \in X$ and a mixed state $\tilde{x}$ associated with path $\tilde{\x} = \{x', x'',..., x'' \} \in \X$, where $x''\in X$ is the indirectly accessible state. The value of the mixed state is $\tilde{v} = \alpha v_a + \beta v_b$ for all $v \in V$, with $\alpha= 1/\Delta$ and $\beta=(\sum_{t=1}^T \delta^t)/\Delta$.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h]
\caption{A transitional game}\label{fig-transitionalgame}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\caption{States and transitions}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick, node distance = 2.5cm, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, ->]
\node[state, initial,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (o) {$o$};
\node[state, left of=o, below of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (a) {$a$};
\node[state, right of=o, below of=o,inner sep=1pt,minimum size=25pt] (b) {$b$};
\draw (o) edge[bend left=15, right] node{$(o,a)$} (a);
\draw (a) edge[bend left=15, left] node{$(a,o)$} (o);
\draw (a) edge[below] node{$(a,b)$} (b);
\draw (o) edge[right, dashed, blue] node{$(o,\tilde{x})$} (b);
\draw (a) edge[loop left] node{$(a,a)$} (a);
\draw (b) edge[loop right] node{$(b,b)$} (b);
\draw (o) edge[loop above] node{$(o,o)$} (o);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4\textwidth}
\caption{Support}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.25]
\fill[red,opacity=0.4] (-2.4,-2) -- (0,0) -- (10,0) -- (10,-2);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (-1,0) -- (11.75,0);
\draw[line width=0.6mm,->] (0,-1) -- (0,11.75);
\draw[line width=0.4mm] (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\fill[blue,opacity=0.1] (0,0) -- (10,0) -- (10,10) -- (0,10);
\node[text=blue] at (5,5) {$V$};
\node at (-0.75,10) {$1$};
\node at (10,-0.9) {$1$};
\node at (11.25,-1.25) {$v_a$};
\node at (-2.25,11.25) {$v_b, \textcolor{blue}{\tilde{v}}$};
\draw[line width=0.4mm, blue, dashed] (0,6) -- (10,10);
\draw[line width=0.4mm, blue, dashed] (0,0) -- (10,4);
\draw[pen colour = {blue}, decorate, decoration = {calligraphic brace, mirror, raise = 2.5pt}, line width = 0.4mm] (10,4.2) -- (10,9.8);
\node[text=blue] at (11.5,7) {$\beta$};
\draw[pen colour = {blue}, decorate, decoration = {calligraphic brace, mirror, raise = 2.5pt}, line width = 0.4mm] (10,0.2) -- (10,3.8);
\node[text=blue] at (11.5,2) {$\alpha$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\end{figure}
The extended static game is illustrated in \autoref{fig-transitionalgame}. In panel (a), the only indirectly accessible state $b$ is replaced by a directly accessible mixed state $\tilde{x}$, and a dashed direct transition $(o,\tilde{x})$ to the mixed state $\tilde{x}$ is added. The mixed state $\tilde{x}$ reflects a one-time deviation from the repeated play of $b$, which is not possible in the transitional game because state $b$ is not accessible in the first period. Note that the value of the mixed option $\tilde{v}$ is different from $v_b$ for all off-diagonal value profiles in the support. The support of the value profiles $(v_a,\tilde{v})$ in the extended static game follows from a transformation of the original support of $v=(v_a,v_b)$ and lies inside the dashed lines in panel (b).
We denote the price profile associated with the profit supremum that leaves no trading-up opportunities in the extended static game by $\bp^e$. Crucially, setting prices to zero in the extended static game leaves no trading-up opportunities, and hence $\bp^e$ always exists. The next result exploits the definition of the extended static game to show that the repeated profit $\pi^e(p^m)\Delta$ is the equilibrium profit in the transitional game if $\pi^e(\bp^e) = \pi^e(p^m)$.
\begin{proposition}[\textbf{Transitional game}]\label{prop-4}
For any transitional game $(\bx=o, \Gamma, \F)$, there exists an essentially unique PBE in which the seller obtains the repeated monopoly profit from the associated extended static game $\pi^e(p^m)$ over all periods $t = 0, ..., T$, if $\pi^e(p^m) = \pi^e(\bp^e)$.
\end{proposition}
In conjunction with statement (i) from Proposition \ref{prop-3}, which directly applies to transitional games, Proposition \ref{prop-4} implies that our main insights also apply to transitional games, including our approach of checking for trading-up opportunities in the (extended) static game in order to characterize the outcome of the repeated game. However, a subtle difference arises with transitional games: $\pi^e(p^m) = \pi^e(\bp)$ no longer excludes that price dynamics emerge in the transitional game, but rather that the only price change that may emerge is a one-time price change that occurs in line with the change in the consumption choice along path $\tilde{\x}$. This one-time price change accounts for the change in available consumption options after the first period and can take the form of a price \emph{increase} for repeat buyers of the same variety.\footnote{A one-time ``escalation'' of prices in the second period also arises in unit-demand models with a single rental variety \citep{buehler-eschenbaum}.}
\autoref{fig-transitionalgame} illustrates a setting with a one-time price increase. Just as in the setting with mixed varieties, the seller can set a price of zero for the mixed option~$\tilde{x}$ and a strictly positive price for the rental variety $a$, thereby ensuring that no trading-up opportunities are left while achieving a positive profit for the given support, $\pi^e(\bp^e) > 0$. But to implement this in the repeated game, the seller must set a price of zero for variety $a$ in the first period, since playing a negative price for variety $b$ in future periods cannot constitute a PBE.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec-conclusion}
This paper employed a unified analytical framework to study a class of dynamic monopoly pricing problems that includes settings with multiple durable, multiple rental, or a mix of varieties. Our analysis demonstrates that the driving force behind pricing dynamics is the seller's incentive to trade up consumers to higher-valued consumption options. We show that the dynamics in equilibrium can be characterized by comparing two solutions of the static game: i) the monopoly outcome, and ii) the optimal outcome for the seller that leaves no trading-up opportunities. If the two solutions coincide, then no dynamics arise in equilibrium, and there exists an essentially unique PBE in which the seller continually plays the monopoly prices. Examples include applications with positive selection \citep{Tirole2016} with one or multiple varieties, or multiple durable varieties where one variety provides a strictly positive value (mimicking the setting in \citealp{Board2014}). Instead, if the monopoly outcome does leave trading-up opportunities, then in equilibrium dynamics arise until all trading-up opportunities are exhausted. These dynamics take the form of Coasian dynamics. We further characterize the conditions under which all dynamics end in finite time, and the final prices at which dynamics end. Examples include settings with one or multiple durable or rental varieties.
We discuss various implications of our analysis. Our findings in particular imply that dynamic monopoly problems can be analyzed by checking for trading-up opportunities in the static optimum. But they also show, for example, that the prices of two rental varieties will eventually equalize if the lowest values in the support are the same, and that a seller of a single rental variety may want to introduce a low-quality, durable variety to avoid being forced down to lower prices. Finally, we consider transitional games, in which one variety is only indirectly accessible and cannot be selected at the start of the game. We show how our analytical approach can be applied in such a setting, and that our key insights translate to transitional games.
|
\section{Introduction \label{sec:intro}}
Disorder systems are of many physical interests. They are relevant in statistical physics, condensed matter and high energy physics. The physical reason for considering disorder is that, in practice, real systems are not pure, and they come with either impurities or inhomogeneous background fields.
The presence of impurities or non-constant background fields affects the microscopic interactions of the pure system. As a result, it is clearly of interest to understand the effect of impurities on the large distance properties of the system, particularly the critical behaviour of the system.
In many situations, the impurities are frozen in time, i.e. these can be treated as non-dynamical. These kinds of disorders are called quench disorders. Assuming that the scale of variation of the disorders is much smaller than the size of the system, we can treat them as a field varying independently and randomly at every point in space and taking values from a probability distribution.
A given profile of a disorder breaks the translational invariance of the pure system.
The Hamiltonian of the system is no longer homogeneous and involves inhomogeneous coupling constants that couple to one or more local operators.
In this paper, we will focus on disorders of this type. Such disorder systems have been studied previously with different motivation~\cite{Harris_1974, PhysRevB.26.154, Dotsenko:1994im, Dotsenko:1994sy, Fujita:2008rs, Hartnoll:2014cua, Hartnoll:2015rza, Aharony:2015aea, Aharony:2018mjm, Narovlansky:2018muj}
A quench disorder comes in two flavours. A $d$-dimensional classical statistical mechanical system near a second-order phase transition is described by a $d$-dimensional Euclidean field theory. A quench disorder, in this case, is called a classical disorder. The classical disorder field $h(x)$ is function of spatial coordinates and takes values from a probability distribution $P[h]$. On the other hand, a disorder in a quantum mechanical system, which has an extra time direction, is called the quantum disorder. In this case the disorder field $h(x)$ is only function of spatial coordinates and takes values from a probability distribution $P[h]$. We will analytically continue the time direction and work with a Euclidean theory to treat classical and quantum disorders uniformly. In that case, the quantum disorder field $h(x)$ will be independent of the Euclidean time coordinate.
A disordered system is specified by the knowledge of various thermodynamical quantities and correlation functions of local operators. These properties of the system depend on the disorder profile $h(x)$, which takes values from the probability distribution $P[h]$. Often, most notably near the critical point, it is not sufficient to know the property of the system for a given realization of the disorder. To characterize the disorder system, one needs an ensemble of many different systems with the different realizations of the disorder profile (with the given probability distribution). As a result, the free energy and thermodynamic quantities obtained by differentiating the free energy are averaged over the probability distribution.
The present paper aims to compute the disordered averaged correlation function of local operators, and critical exponents near the critical point of the renormalization group flow. These are relevant in the context of the second-order phase transition in the disordered system.
It is important to emphasize that typically, even a small amount of disorder can lead to a significant change in the critical behaviour of the system. A disorder perturbation can grow at long distances leading to a nontrivial fixed point or no nontrivial fixed point.
In this paper, we study the effect of a random quench disorder on a conformal field theory. More precisely, we begin with a pure system described by a conformal field theory and deform it by one or more interactions. For simplicity, we will consider one of the interactions to be a disorder interaction that couples to a scalar operator and leads to a renormalization group flow in the space of coupling constant to a new fixed point (or no fixed point).
The conformal field theories of our interests will be boundary conformal field theories (bCFTs). Specifically, we will consider a special class of boundary conformal field theories obtained by a free scalar field theory in $(d+1)$-dimensional Euclidean space. These classes of bCFTs have been studied before in many different contexts with various motivations; see for example~\cite{Callan:1993mw, Callan:1994ub, Fendley:1994rh, Herzog:2017xha, Giombi:2019enr}. We will investigate the critical properties of these bCFTs deformed by disorder interaction localized at the $d$-dimensional planar boundary. Our computations will be in the framework of $\epsilon$-expansion. We will find examples where, to leading order in $\epsilon$, weakly coupled disorder Wilson-Fisher fixed point exists together with weakly coupled pure Wilson-Fisher fixed point. These provide examples of field theories with IR disorder fixed points. Another property of this class of bCFTs, is the existence of an infinite number of higher spin currents. These currents are conserved in bulk with the partial breaking of conservation law at the boundary, i.e., a delta function source localized at the boundary for the divergence of these currents. These sources define boundary operators, which are called higher spin displacement operators. These operators are protected, i.e. they do not receive anomalous dimension even though there are interactions localized at the boundary. We find that the statement is true even in the presence of disorder interactions.
The organization of this paper is as follows: In section 2, we introduce the replica treatment of quench disorder in field theory in the presence of a boundary. We then discuss the renormalization group flow and the generalization of the Callan-Symanzik equation in disordered quantum field theory. In section 3, we briefly discuss the salient features of a free scalar field theory in the presence of a planar boundary. In section 4, we study a few examples of free bulk scalar field theory in the presence of a planar boundary with Neumann boundary condition. The scalar field is interacting with boundary degrees of freedom in the presence of classical disorder interactions localized at the boundary. We find the fixed point of the boundary renormalization group flow, and calculate the anomalous dimension of $(\text{mass})^{2}$ operator at the fixed point. Section 5 discusses the anomalous dimension of the higher spin displacement operator localized at the boundary. In section 6, we study an example of field theory in the presence of quantum disorder localized at the boundary and look for the quantum disorder fixed point. Finally, in section 7, we conclude with a brief discussion.
\section{Disorder in quantum field theory, replica trick and renormalization group flow}
This section will discuss the quenched disorder in Euclidean field theory in the presence of a planar boundary. Our discussion follows very closely the work of~\cite{Aharony:2018mjm, Narovlansky:2018muj} where the authors examined the renormalization group flow in Euclidean field theory (without boundary) in the presence of quench disorder. We will apply their work in our set up where we will have a Euclidean field theory in the presence of a boundary with a disorder interaction localized at the boundary. The analysis in the present section uses the replica trick, which is a very practical approach to dealing with quench disorder.
Our conventions are as follows. We will take $d$-number of spatial coordinates denoted by $\vec x$ to be the boundary coordinates and $y\geq 0$ is the direction normal to the boundary, i.e. the bulk is labelled by $x\equiv (\vec x, y)$ and the boundary is at $y=0$. Thus, for the discussion of the classical disorder, the bulk dimension is $(d+1)$ and the boundary dimension is $d$. When we discuss a quantum disorder, we also need to introduce an extra time coordinate $t$. In this case, the bulk coordinates are $(t,\vec x, y)$ and the boundary coordinates are $(t,\vec x)$. Accordingly, the bulk and boundary dimensions are $(d+2)$ and $(d+1)$, respectively. A quench disorder localized at the boundary will be denoted by $h(\vec x)$, i.e. the coupling constant varies as a function of spatial coordinates $\vec x$. In particular, in the case of a quantum disorder, the disorder field is independent of the time coordinate and varies only spatially.
We will further make the disorder random with a probability distribution that we denote by $P[h]$. We will assume that probability distribution given by a Gaussian function,
\begin{equation}
P[h]=\mathcal N\exp\Big(-\frac{1}{2v}\int d^{d}\vec x\,h^{2}(\vec x)\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal N$ is a constant determined by the normalization condition
\begin{equation}
\int[Dh]P[h]=1\,.
\end{equation}
For the Gaussian distribution, we have
\begin{equation}
\overline{h(\vec x)}=0,\quad \overline{h(\vec x)h(\vec x')}=v\,\delta^{d}(\vec x-\vec x')\,,
\end{equation}
and higher moments are obtained by Wick's contraction.
Now, consider a (pure) Euclidean field theory in the presence of boundary described by an action $S_{0}$. The action $S_{0}$ will consist of bulk fields interacting with degrees of freedom localized at the boundary. For example, our case of interests will be where the bulk fields are free scalar fields having nontrivial interactions with degrees of freedom propagating on a boundary.
We introduce the disorder at the boundary by coupling the field $h(\vec x)$ to a boundary operator $\mathcal O_{0}(\vec x)$. Assuming that the operator is a scalar operator, the action for the classical disordered theory is
\begin{equation}
S=S_{0}+\int d^{d}\vec x\,h(\vec x)\mathcal O_{0}(\vec x)\,.
\end{equation}
In the case of the quantum disorder the corresponding action is
\begin{equation}
S=S_{0}+\int d^{d}\vec x\,dt\,h(\vec x)\mathcal O_{0}(t,\vec x)\,.
\end{equation}
Note that one can consider a more general situation where there are more than one disordered coupling constant. Next, we want to compute the correlation function of operators in a disordered theory.
We will begin with the case of classical disorder. The partition function for a given profile of the disorder is
\begin{equation}
Z[h,J_{i}]=e^{W[h,J_{i}]}=\int\mathcal D\phi\,e^{-S-\int d^{d}\vec x\,h(\vec x)\mathcal O_{0}(\vec x)+\sum_{i}\int d^{d+1}x\,J_{i}\mathcal O_{i}}\,.
\end{equation}
Here $W[h,J_{i}]$ is the generating functional for the connected correlation function for a given profile of the disorder field~\footnote{Here, we have turned on the sources for the bulk operators. It is just for the presentation. We could also turn on sources for the operators localized on the boundary.}. We are interested in the disorder averaged connected correlation function. The generating functional for the disordered average connected correlation function is given by
\begin{equation}\label{DisW}
W_{D}[J_{i}]=\int [Dh]P[h]W[h,J_{i}]\,,
\end{equation}
and the disordered averaged connected correlation functions are
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{<\mathcal O_{1}(x_{1})\mathcal O_{2}(x_{2})....\mathcal O_{n}(x_{n})>_{\text{conn.}}}&=&\int \mathcal Dh\,P[h]\,<\mathcal O_{1}(x_{1})\mathcal O_{2}(x_{2})....\mathcal O_{n}(x_{n})>_{h,\text{conn.}}\,,\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\delta^{n}W_{D}[J_{i}]}{\delta J_{1}(x_{1})....\delta J_{n}(x_{n})}\Big|_{J_{i}=0}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We calculate the disordered average free energy using the replica trick. In the replica approach, we compute the partition function of $n$-copies of the original theory maintaining the replica symmetry i.e.
\begin{equation}
Z^{n}[h,J]=\int \prod_{A=1}^{n}D\phi_{A}\,e^{-\sum_{A=1}^{n}S_{A}-\sum_{A=1}^{n}\int d^{d}\vec x\,h(\vec x)\mathcal O_{0,A}(\vec x)+\sum_{i,A}\int d^{d+1}x\,J_{i}\mathcal O_{i,A}}\,.
\end{equation}
Next, we introduce the replica functional
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{n}[J]&=&\int\, [Dh]P[h]Z^{n}[h,J]\,,\nonumber\\
&=&\int\prod_{A=1}^{n}D\phi_{A}\,e^{-S_{\text{repl.}}+\sum_{i}\sum_{A}\int d^{d+1}x\,J_{i}\mathcal O_{i,A}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_{\text{repl.}}$ is the replica action obtained after integrating over the disorder field and is given by
\begin{equation}
S_{\text{repl.}}=\sum_{A=1}^{n}S_{A}-\frac{v}{2}\sum_{A,B=1}^{n}\int\,d^{d}\vec x\,\mathcal O_{0,A}(\vec x)\mathcal O_{0,B}(\vec x)\,.
\end{equation}
Note that the replicated action has translation and rotation invariance.
The disordered free energy is then obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{WD.1}
W_{D}[J_{i}]={\rm lim}_{n\rightarrow 0}\frac{\partial W_{n}[J]}{\partial n}\,.
\end{equation}
A generalization of the above discussion to the case of quantum disorder is straightforward. However, there are some modifications to the replica action, which is essential to emphasize. As we stated above, the quantum system is defined on the $(d+1)$-dimensional space where fields are a function of $(d+1)$-spatial coordinates and a time coordinate. The disorder field $h(\vec x)$ at the boundary is the only function of the $d$-spatial coordinates. Therefore, for a specific profile of the disorder field the translation and rotation invariances of the boundary are broken but the time translational invariance is maintained. In this case, the partition function is
\begin{equation}
Z[h,J_{i}]=e^{W[h,J_{i}]}=\int\mathcal D\phi\,e^{-S-\int dt\,d^{d}\vec x\,h(\vec x)\mathcal O_{0}(t,\vec x)+\sum_{i}\int dt\,d^{d}x\,dy\,J_{i}\mathcal O_{i}(t,\vec x,y)}\,,
\end{equation}
and the replica functional is
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{n}[J]&=&\int \prod_{A=1}^{n}D\phi_{A}\,e^{-S_{\text{repl.}}+\sum_{i,A}\int dt\,d^{d}x\,dy\,J_{i}\mathcal O_{i,A}(t,\vec x,y)}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_{\text{repl.}}$ is the replica action obtained after integrating over the disorder field and is given by
\begin{equation}
S_{\text{repl.}}=\sum_{A=1}^{n}S_{A}-\frac{v}{2}\sum_{A,B=1}^{n}\int\,dt\,dt'\,d^{d}\vec x\,\mathcal O_{0,A}(t,\vec x)\mathcal O_{0,B}(t',\vec x)\,.
\end{equation}
We see from the replica action that it is non-local in time. As we will see later, this fact brings an extra complication of infrared divergence in our computations. Since we will be interested in calculating fixed points in the renormalization group flow, we will ignore the issues related to infrared divergences.
The generating functional for the quantum disordered correlation function is
\begin{equation}\label{WD.2}
W_{D}[J_{i}]={\rm lim}_{n\rightarrow 0}\frac{\partial W_{n}[J]}{\partial n}\,.
\end{equation}
Unlike the classical case, the averaging over the quantum disorder does not restore the full invariance of the original (pure) action.
Using the relations~\eqref{WD.1} and~\eqref{WD.2}, we see that the disordered connected correlation function is given in terms of correlation functions in the replicated theory as
\begin{equation}\label{DisorderConnCorr.1}
\overline{<\mathcal O_{1}(x_{1})\mathcal O_{2}(x_{2})....\mathcal O_{n}(x_{n})>_{\text{conn.}}}={\rm lim}_{n\rightarrow 0}\frac{\partial}{\partial n}<\sum_{A_{1}}\mathcal O_{1,A_{1}}(x_{1})....\sum_{A_{n}}\mathcal O_{n,A_{n}}(x_{n})>_{\text{rep.}}\,.
\end{equation}
Note that the correlation function that appears on the right hand side is not necessarily a connected one. We can further simplify the right hand side using the replica symmetry. Assuming that the replica symmetry is not spontaneously broken, we have
\begin{equation}
<\sum_{A_{1}}\mathcal O_{1,A_{1}}(x_{1})....\sum_{A_{n}}\mathcal O_{n,A_{n}}(x_{n})>_{\text{rep.}}=n<\mathcal O_{1,1}(x_{1})....\sum_{A_{n}}\mathcal O_{n,A_{n}}(x_{n})>_{\text{rep.}}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus, we get
\begin{equation}
\overline{<\mathcal O_{1}(x_{1})\mathcal O_{2}(x_{2})....\mathcal O_{n}(x_{n})>_{\text{conn.}}}={\rm lim}_{n\rightarrow 0}<\mathcal O_{1,1}(x_{1})\sum_{A_{2}}\mathcal O_{2,A_{2}}(x_{2})....\sum_{A_{n}}\mathcal O_{n,A_{n}}(x_{n})>_{\text{rep.}}\,.
\end{equation}
\noindent{\bf Harris criteria:}
Thinking of the disorder as an interaction in perturbation theory, it is important to know when the interaction is relevant at long distance. It is clear that it should depend on the dimension of the operator $\mathcal O_{0}(x)$ the disorder couples to. Harris criteria~\cite{Harris_1974} provides a useful way to organize the disorder interactions in terms of relevant, irrelevant and marginal perturbations. Let us suppose the dimension of the operator $\mathcal O_{0}(x)$ is $\Delta_{0}$. From the Gaussian distribution, the disorder has dimension $[v]=2[h]-d$. Now, for the classical disorder the dimension of $h$ is $[h]=d-\Delta_{0}$. Then the classical disorder is relevant if $\Delta_{0}<\frac{d}{2}$, irrelavant for $\Delta_{0}>\frac{d}{2}$ and marginal for $\Delta_{0}=\frac{d}{2}$. For the quantum disorder, we have a slightly different condition. In this case, the dimension of the disorder field is $[h]=d+1-\Delta_{0}$. Therefore, the quantum disorder is relevant if $\Delta_{0}<\frac{d+2}{2}$, marginal for $\Delta_{0}=\frac{d+2}{2}$ and irrelevant for $\Delta_{0}>\frac{d+2}{2}$.
\noindent{\bf Renormalization group equation:}
In a standard quantum field theory, where coupling constants are homogeneous in spacetime, a renormalized correlation function satisfies Callan-Symanzik equation. A generalization of the Callan-Symanzik equation exists for the disordered case. In the case of a classical disorder, the replicated action describes a standard quantum field theory. The replicated action has an extra coupling constant compared to pure theory which is proportional to the disorder strength. Therefore, we expect that a $k$-point renormalized correlation function in the replicated theory to satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Big(\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}+\sum_{i}\beta_{\lambda_{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda_{i}}+\beta_{v}\frac{\partial}{\partial v}\Big)<\mathcal O_{A_{1}}(x_{1})\mathcal O_{A_{2}}(x_{2})...>_{\text{rep.}}\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\,+\sum_{B_{1}}\g_{A_{1}B_{1}}<\mathcal O_{B_{1}}(x_{1})\mathcal O_{A_{2}}(x_{2})...>_{\text{rep.}}+...=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $A_{i}$'s and $B_{i}$'s are replica index, $\mu$ is the renormalization scale and $\lambda_{i}$'s are coupling constants of the pure theory. Note that there is a beta function, $\beta_{v}$, for the disorder strength. Also, in the above equation, we have assumed that $\mathcal O_{A}(x)$ are lowest dimension operators in which case these operators mix among themselves. As a result, the anomalous dimension has the form
\begin{equation}
\g_{AB}=\g\,\delta_{AB}+\g'\,,
\end{equation}
where $\g'$ is a constant and independent of replica index.
Using the relation~\eqref{DisorderConnCorr.1}, we obtain the Callan-Symanzik equation satisfied by the $k$-point disordered average connected correlation function
\begin{equation}
\Big(\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}+\sum_{i}\beta_{\lambda_{i}}\small|_{n=0}\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda_{i}}+\beta_{v}\small|_{n=0}\frac{\partial}{\partial v}+k\,\g\small|_{n=0}\Big)\overline{<\mathcal O(x_{1})\mathcal O(x_{2})...>_{\text{conn.}}}=0\,.
\end{equation}
The above equation describes the beta and gamma functions for the disordered theory.
Similar Callan-Symanzik equation exists for the quantum disorder case. However, the Callan-Symanzik equation for the case with quantum disorder differs from the classical disorder. Note that the presence of quantum disorder breaks the isotropy between space and time. As a result, even though we start with a pure theory, where space and time have the same scaling, the disordered theory at the quantum critical point may not respect the scaling symmetry of space and time; for example the correlation function of the boundary operators may not respect the scaling symmetry of the boundary coordinates $(\vec x,t)\rightarrow (\lambda\,\vec x,\lambda\, t)$. In this case, the Lifshitz scaling may emerge. It was shown in~\cite{Aharony:2018mjm,Narovlansky:2018muj} that the disordered averaged $k$-point connect correlation function satisfies
\begin{equation}
\Big(\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}+\sum_{i}\beta_{\lambda_{i}}\Big|_{n=0}\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda_{i}}+\beta_{v}\Big|_{n=0}\frac{\partial}{\partial v}+\g_{t}\sum_{i=1}^{k}t_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial t_{i}}+k\,\g\Big|_{n=0}\Big)\overline{<\mathcal O(x_{1})\mathcal O(x_{2})...>_{\text{conn.}}}=0\,.
\end{equation}
The critical exponent $\g_{t}$ gives the Lifshitz scaling exponent
\begin{equation}
z=1+\g_{t}^{*}\,,
\end{equation}
with $\g_{t}^{*}$ evaluated at the quantum disorder fixed point.
\section{Scalar field theory in the presence of boundary}
Our goal in this article is to study the renormalization group flow in a scalar field theory when one of the interactions at the boundary is a disorder interaction. More specifically, we will focus on a class of models where bulk interactions have been switched off i.e. the scalar fields in the bulk are free fields and having interactions localized at the boundary. For example in the case of classical disorder, the general action of our interests would be
\begin{equation}
S=\int d^{d}\vec x\,dy\,\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi^{I}\partial^{\mu}\phi^{I}+\int d^{d}\vec x\,\mathcal L_{\text{int}}+\int d^{d}\vec x\,\mathcal L_{\text{dis.int}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $I=1,...,N$, and $\mathcal L_{\text{int}}$ and $\mathcal L_{\text{dis.int}}$ are relevant/marginal and disorder interactions, respectively. Furthermore, because of the presence of boundary, the scalar fields need to satisfy either Dirichlet or generalized Neumann condition. In this paper, we will be focussing on examples with generalized Neumann boundary condition.
A free scalar field theory is a conformal field theory. In the dimensions, $d+1$, the conformal group is $SO(d+2,1)$. The presence of co-dimension one planar boundary breaks the conformal symmetry to the conformal group of the boundary, i.e. $SO(d+1,1)$. The energy-momentum tensor is not conserved in all directions, and the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor along the direction perpendicular to the boundary defines a displacement operator,
\begin{equation}\label{DisplacementOp}
\partial_{\mu}T^{\mu y}=D(\vec x)\delta(y)\,.
\end{equation}
Since the displacement operator is obtained from the energy-momentum tensor, which is conserved in the bulk, one would expect it to be a protected operator, i.e. the scaling dimension of the displacement operator is the same as the energy-momentum tensor. We will see that this is true in the presence of disorder interactions at the boundary.
A free field theory has also an infinite number of higher spin conserved currents. These currents are bilinear in fields and constructed out by acting derivatives on them. For example in the case of a free scalar field theory, a spin $s$-current is given by~\cite{Giombi:2016ejx}
\begin{equation}
J^{s}_{\mu_{1}...\mu_{s}}=\sum_{k=0}^{s}a_{sk}\,\partial_{\{\mu_{1}...\mu_{k}}\phi^{I}\,\partial_{\mu_{k+1}...\mu_{s}\}}\phi^{I}\,.
\end{equation}
Here $a_{sk}$'s are constants determined by the conservation condition, and curly brackets ensure traceless symmetrization condition. The dimension of a spin $s$-current is $\Delta_{s}=d-1+s$.
The presence of interactions localized at the boundary has an interesting consequence on the conservation of higher spin currents. These currents are conserved in bulk, where fields are free; however, the conservation law is broken at the boundary.
Following the definition of the displacement operator~\eqref{DisplacementOp}, one can define the higher spin analog of the displacement operator~\cite{Giombi:2019enr}.
More precisely, we define
\begin{equation}
\partial^{\mu}J^{s}_{\mu\m_{1}...\mu_{s-2}y}=D_{\mu_{1}..\mu_{s-2}}(\vec x)\delta(y)\,.
\end{equation}
Note that the boundary operator $D_{\mu_{1}..\mu_{s-2}}(\vec x)$ carries bulk index $\mu=(i,y)$, where $i$ is the boundary index. When all $\mu$'s equal to $y$, we obtain a spin zero boundary operator whereas all $\mu$'s different from $y$ corresponds to a spin $(s-2)$-operator. Thus, the boundary operator $D_{\mu_{1}..\mu_{s-2}}(\vec x)$ gives rise operators of all spins between $0$ and $s-2$. The classical dimensions of these boundary operators are the same as the dimension of the current, i.e. $\Delta=d-1+s$. One would expect that the scaling dimension of the higher spin displacement operators will not renormalize in the perturbation theory. As we will see later, the higher spin displacement operator does not have an anomalous dimension due to disorder interaction at the boundary.
\section{Classical disorder at boundary}
This section discusses examples of free scalar field theories with classical disorder interaction turned on on the boundary. We will restrict ourselves to the cases where the disorder interaction is marginal. We will then look for the fixed point of the renormalization group flow.
\subsection{Single scalar field with a classical disorder at boundary}
We start with a simplest example of a scalar field theory with a classical disorder interaction at the boundary. The action is given by
\begin{equation}\label{SingleScalar}
S=\int d^{d}\vec x\,dy\,\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi+\int d^{d}\vec x\,h(x)\phi^{2}(x)+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\int d^{d}\vec x\,\phi^{4}(x)\,.
\end{equation}
The strength of the disorder is marginal in the dimension $d=2$ and is relevant for $d<2$. We have also added $\phi^{4}$ interaction since it is a marginal in $d=2$ dimensions.
We will therefore study the above theory in the dimensions $d=2-\epsilon$.
The action for the replicated theory is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ReplicatedSingleScalar}
S_{\text{repl.}}&=&\sum_{A=1}^{n}S_{A}-\frac{v}{2}\int d^{d}x\,\sum_{A,B=1}^{n}\phi_{A}^{2}(x)\mathcal \phi^{2}_{B}(x)\,,\nonumber\\
&=&\int d^{d}x\,dy\,\frac{1}{2}\sum_{A=1}^{n}\partial_{\mu}\phi_{A}\partial^{\mu}\phi_{A}+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\sum_{A=1}^{n}\int d^{d}x\,\phi_{A}^{4}-\frac{v}{2}\int d^{d}x\,\sum_{A,B=1}^{n}\phi_{A}^{2}(x)\mathcal \phi^{2}_{B}(x)\,.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the replicated theory is a standard quantum field theory and we will treat the disorder in a perturbation theory.
Since there are no bulk interactions, we expect the anomalous dimension of the scalar field to be zero. We see this by noting that there is no wave function renormalization.
We compute the bulk 2-point function $<\phi_{A}(\vec p,y_{1})\phi_{B}(-\vec p,y_{2})>$. When we fine tune the mass term to zero, the first non trivial contributions to the 2-point function comes from 2-loop diagrams, shown in figure. \ref{2-pointFn1}.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6in]{2-pointFn.pdf}
\vspace{-4cm}
\caption{Bulk 2-point function at 2-loop order. The blue dot represents the disorder vertex.\label{2-pointFn1}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The contributions of these Feynman diagrams are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{e^{-p|y_{1}-y_{2}|}+e^{-p(y_{1}+y_{2})}}{2p}\delta_{AB}+\Big(8v^{2}(n+1)+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{6}-4\lambda\,v\Big)\frac{e^{-p(y_{1}+y_{2})}}{p^{2}}\delta_{AB}\times\nonumber\\
&&\times\int\frac{d^{d}\vec k_{1}d^{d}\vec k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{2d}}\frac{1}{|\vec k_{1}||\vec k_{2}||\vec k_{1}+\vec k_{2}+\vec p|}\,,\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{e^{-p|y_{1}-y_{2}|}+e^{-p(y_{1}+y_{2})}}{2p}\delta_{AB}+\Big(8v^{2}(n+1)+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{6}-4\lambda\,v\Big)\frac{e^{-p(y_{1}+y_{2})}}{p^{2}}\delta_{AB}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d-1}{2})^{3}\Gamma(\frac{3-d}{2})}{(4\pi)^{d}\pi^{3/2}\Gamma(\frac{3d-3}{2})(p^{2})^{\frac{3-2d}{2}}}\,.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
For $d=2-\epsilon$, we see that there is no divergence.
Thus, the disordered averaged connected 2-point function at the fixed point is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{<\phi(\vec p,y_{1})\phi(-\vec p,y_{2})>_{\text{conn.}}}&=&{\rm lim}_{n\rightarrow 0}\frac{\partial}{\partial n}<\sum_{A}\phi_{A}(\vec p,y_{1})\sum_{B}\phi_{B}(-\vec p,y_{2})>\,,\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{e^{-p|y_{1}-y_{2}|}+e^{-p(y_{1}+y_{2})}}{2p}+\Big(8v_{*}^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{*}^{2}}{6}-4\lambda_{*}\,v_{*}\Big)\frac{e^{-p(y_{1}+y_{2})}}{8\pi^{2}\,p}\,.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\lambda_{*}$ and $v_{*}$ are the values of the coupling constants at the fixed point of the disordered theory.
Next, we compute the 4-point function of the boundary value of scalar fields. In particular, we compute $<\phi_{A}(\vec p_{1})\phi_{B}(\vec p_{2})\phi_{C}(\vec p_{3})\phi_{D}(\vec p_{4})>$ upto 2-loop order. The diagrams are shown in the figure \ref{4-pointFn1}.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.2 cm}
\includegraphics[width=6in]{4-pointfunction.pdf}
\vspace{-2 cm}
\caption{Boundary 4-point function at 2-loop order. The blue dot represents the disorder vertex.\label{4-pointFn1}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The contributions are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-\lambda(1+\delta_{\lambda})\delta_{A,B,C,D}+4v(1+\delta_{v})\delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}+\Big(8v^{2}(1+\delta_{v})^{2}(n+8)\delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}+\frac{3}{2}\lambda^{2}(1+\delta_{\lambda})^{2}\delta_{A,B,C,D}\nonumber\\
&&-4\lambda v(1+\delta_{\lambda})(1+\delta_{v})(\delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}+6\delta_{A,B,C,D})\Big)I_{1}(\vec p)\nonumber\\
&&+\Big(16v^{3}\delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}(n^{2}+6n+20)-12v^{2}\lambda \delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}(n+4)-144v^{2}\lambda \,\delta_{A,B,C,D}+3v\lambda^{2}\delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}\nonumber\\
&&+18v\lambda^{2}\delta_{A,B,C,D}-\frac{3\lambda^{3}}{4}\delta_{A,B,C,D}\Big)I_{2}(\vec p)\nonumber\\
&&+\Big(64v^{3}(5n+22)\delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}-48v^{2}\lambda(n+14)\delta_{A,B,C,D}-192v^{2}\lambda\,\delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}+96v\lambda^{2}\delta_{A,B,C,D}\nonumber\\
&&+4v\lambda^{2}\delta_{AB}\delta_{CD}-3\lambda^{3}\delta_{A,B,C,D}\Big)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In the above the notation $\delta_{A,B,C,D}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\delta_{A,B,C,D}=\begin{cases} 1,\quad\text{if}\,\,A=B=C=D\,,\\
0,\quad\text{otherwise}\,.\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The integrals $I_{1,2,3}$ are given in the appendix~\ref{UsefulIntegrations}. These integrals are divergent. Expanding near $d=2-\epsilon$, and requiring that the 4-point function to be finite determines the counter terms $\delta_{\lambda}$ and $\delta_{v}$. These are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\delta_{\lambda}=\frac{3(\lambda-16v)}{4\pi\epsilon}-\frac{48(n+14)v^{2}-96v\lambda+3\lambda^{2}}{4\pi^{2}\epsilon}\ln 2+\frac{96(20+n)v^{2}-264v\lambda+9\lambda^{2}}{16\pi^{2}\epsilon^{2}}\,,\nonumber\\
&&\delta_{v}=\frac{\lambda-2(n+8)v}{2\pi\epsilon}-\frac{16(22+5n)v^{2}-48v\lambda+\lambda^{2}}{4\pi^{2}\epsilon}\ln 2+\frac{16(8+n)^{2}v^{2}-12(n+12)v\lambda+5\lambda^{2}}{16\pi^{2}\epsilon^{2}}\,.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
The beta function equations are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon\lambda+\beta_{\lambda}+\frac{\lambda}{1+\delta_{\lambda}}\Big(\frac{\partial\delta_{\lambda}}{\partial{\lambda}}\beta_{\lambda}+\frac{\partial\delta_{\lambda}}{\partial{v}}\beta_{v}\Big)=0\,,\quad \epsilon v+\beta_{v}+\frac{v}{1+\delta_{v}}\Big(\frac{\partial\delta_{v}}{\partial{\lambda}}\beta_{\lambda}+\frac{\partial\delta_{v}}{\partial{v}}\beta_{v}\Big)=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In the above we have included the fact that in $d=2-\epsilon$, both $\lambda$ and $v$ carries the mass dimension $\epsilon$, whereas $\delta_{\lambda}$ and $\delta_{v}$ are dimensionless.\\
Solving the above two, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{\lambda}=-\epsilon\lambda+\frac{3\lambda(\lambda-16v)}{4\pi}-\frac{3\lambda(16(n+14)v^{2}-32v\lambda+\lambda^{2})\ln 2}{2\pi^{2}}\nonumber\\
&&\beta_{v}=-\epsilon v+\frac{v(\lambda-2(n+8)v)}{2\pi}-\frac{v(16(22+5n)v^{2}-48v\lambda+\lambda^{2})\ln 2}{2\pi^{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the beta functions of the disordered theory are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{\lambda}\Big|_{n=0}=-\epsilon\lambda+\frac{3\lambda(\lambda-16v)}{4\pi}-\frac{3\lambda(224v^{2}-32v\lambda+\lambda^{2})\ln 2}{2\pi^{2}}\nonumber\\
&&\beta_{v}\Big|_{n=0}=-\epsilon v+\frac{v(\lambda-16v)}{2\pi}-\frac{v(352v^{2}-48v\lambda+\lambda^{2})\ln 2}{2\pi^{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we look at the fixed points which are solutions of the equations $\beta_{\lambda}\small|_{n=0}=0$ and $\beta_{v}\small|_{n=0}=0$. We find three fixed points upto $\mathcal O(\epsilon^{2})$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Gaussian fixed point:} This corresponds to the fixed point $\lambda=0=v$.
\item {\bf Pure fixed point:} This corresponds to the fixed point $\lambda=\frac{4\pi\epsilon}{3}+\frac{32\pi\epsilon^{2}}{9}\ln 2$ and $v=0$.
\item {\bf Disorder fixed point:} This corresponds to the fixed point $\lambda=0$ and $v=-\frac{\pi\epsilon}{8}-\frac{11\pi\epsilon^{2}}{32}\ln 2$. For $0<|\epsilon|<<1$, this gives rise to a UV fixed point. Note that the fixed point disappears for $\epsilon<-0.52$. Therefore, it is crucial to go higher-order in perturbation expansion to see if the fixed point survives.
\end{enumerate}
Next, we compute the anomalous dimension of the operator $\phi^{2}(x)$ in the disordered theory. This would require computing the correlation function $<\sum_{A=1}^{n}\phi_{A}^{2}(x)...>$ in the replicated theory. However, this will not be sufficient since in the replicated theory the operator $\sum_{A=1}^{n}\phi_{A}^{2}(x)$ can mix with the double replicated operator $\sum_{A\neq B=1}^{n}\phi_{A}\phi_{B}(x)$.
In general, the renormalized correlation function $<\sum_{A=1}^{n}\phi_{A}^{2}(x)\phi_{C}(y)\phi_{D}(z)>$
satisfies the Callan-Symanzik equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Callan-SymanzikPhi2}
&&\Big(\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}+\beta_{\lambda}\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}+\beta_{v}\frac{\partial}{\partial v}+\g_{\phi^{2}}\Big)<\sum_{A=1}^{n}\phi_{A}^{2}(x)\phi_{C}(y)\phi_{D}(z)>_{\text{rep.}}\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\g'_{\phi\phi}<\sum_{A\neq B=1}^{n}\phi_{A}\phi_{B}(x)\phi_{C}(y)\phi_{D}(z)>_{\text{rep.}}=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
To determine the anomalous dimension $\g_{\phi^{2}}$ and the mixing coefficient $\g'_{\phi\phi}$, we compute the 3-point functions $G^{2,1}_{\phi^{2}}=<\sum_{A=1}^{n}\phi_{A}^{2}(x)\phi_{C}(y)\phi_{D}(z)>$ and $G^{2,1}_{\phi\phi}=<\sum_{A\neq B=1}^{n}\phi_{A}\phi_{B}(x)\phi_{C}(y)\phi_{D}(z)>$ up to a 2-loop order. The Feynman diagrams are given in figure \ref{CompositeOperator1}.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-2 cm}
\includegraphics[width=6in]{CompositeOperator1.pdf}
\vspace{-2 cm}
\caption{Anomalous dimension computation for $\phi^{2}$ operator. The blue dot represents the disorder vertex.\label{CompositeOperator1}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
These are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
G^{2,1}_{\phi^{2}}&=&\delta_{CD}\Big[2(1+\delta_{\phi^{2}})+\Big(4v(n+2)(1+\delta_{v})(1+\delta_{\phi^{2}})-\lambda(1+\delta_{\lambda})(1+\delta_{\phi^{2}})\Big)I_{1}(\vec p)\nonumber\\
&&+\Big(\frac{\lambda^{2}}{2}-4v\lambda(n+2)+8v^{2}(n+2)^{2}\Big)I^{2}_{1}(\vec p)+\Big(\lambda^{2}-24v\lambda+48v^{2}(n+2)\Big)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)\Big]\,,\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
G^{2,1}_{\phi\phi}&=&(1-\delta_{CD})\Big[2(1+\delta_{\phi\phi})+8v(1+\delta_{v})(1+\delta_{\phi\phi})I_{1}(\vec p)+32v^{2}I^{2}_{1}(\vec p)\nonumber\\
&&+\Big(-8v\lambda+16v^{2}(n+6)\Big)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)\Big]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Requiring that the divergences to cancel, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\delta_{\phi^{2}}=\frac{\lambda-4v(n+2)}{4\pi\epsilon}-\frac{(48(n+2)v^{2}-24v\lambda+\lambda^{2})\ln 2}{8\pi^{2}\epsilon}+\frac{8(n+2)(n+5)v^{2}-4(n+5)v\lambda+\lambda^{2}}{8\pi^{2}\epsilon^{2}}\nonumber\\
&&\delta_{\phi\phi}=-\frac{2v}{\pi\epsilon}+\frac{v(\lambda-2(n+6)v)\ln2}{\pi^{2}\epsilon}+\frac{v(2(n+10)v-\lambda)}{2\pi^{2}\epsilon^{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the above relation and the Callan-Symanzik equation~\eqref{Callan-SymanzikPhi2}, we obtain $\g'_{\phi\phi}=0$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\g_{\phi^{2}}=\frac{\lambda_{*}-4v_{*}(n+2)}{4\pi}-\frac{(48(n+2)v_{*}^{2}-24v_{*}\lambda_{*}+\lambda_{*}^{2})\ln 2}{4\pi^{2}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_{*}$ and $v_{*}$ are coupling constants at the fixed point. Thus, the anomalous dimesnion of the $(\text{mass})^{2}$ operator in the disordered theory is
\begin{equation}
\g_{\phi^{2}}=\frac{\lambda_{*}-8v_{*}}{4\pi}-\frac{(96v_{*}^{2}-24v_{*}\lambda_{*}+\lambda_{*}^{2})\ln 2}{4\pi^{2}}\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{$\mathcal O(N)$ invariant field theory with a disorder interaction at boundary}
We can generalize the analysis in the previous section to the $\mathcal O(N)$ invariant scalar field theory in $\epsilon$-expansion. In this case, we will find that we have a non-trivial IR disorder fixed point for the values $1<N<4$. The starting action is
\begin{equation}
S=\int d^{d}\vec x\,dy\,\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi^{I}\partial^{\mu}\phi^{I}+\int d^{d}\vec x\,h(x)\phi^{I}\phi^{I}(x)+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\int d^{d}\vec x\,(\phi^{I}\phi^{I}(x))^{2}\,,
\end{equation}
where $I,J..$ run from $1$ to $N$.
In this case, the replicated action is given by
\begin{equation}
S_{\text{rep.}}=\sum_{A=1}^{n}S_{A}-\frac{v}{2}\int d^{d}x\,\sum_{A,B=1}^{n}\phi^{2}_{A}\mathcal \phi^{2}_{B}(x)\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
S_{A}=\int d^{d}\vec x\,dy\,\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi_{A}^{I}\partial^{\mu}\phi_{A}^{I}+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\int d^{d}\vec x\,(\phi_{A}^{I}\phi_{A}^{I}(x))^{2}\,.
\end{equation}
Next, we look for the fixed point of the renormalization group flow in $d=2-\epsilon$-dimensions. We compute the 4-point function $<\phi^{I_{1}}_{A_{1}}\phi^{I_{2}}_{A_{2}}\phi^{I_{3}}_{A_{3}}\phi^{I_{4}}_{A_{4}}>$. The contributions to the 4-point function to 2-loop order are (we have the same Feynman diagrams as shown in the figure~\ref{4-pointFn1})
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\delta^{I_{1}I_{2}}\delta^{I_{3}I_{4}}\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}}\delta_{A_{3}A_{4}}\Big(4v(1+\delta_{v})+8v^{2}(1+\delta_{v})^{2}(nN+8)I_{1}(\vec p)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{4\lambda v(1+\delta_{\lambda})(1+\delta_{v})}{3}(N+2)I_{1}(\vec p)+16v^{3}(N^{2}n^{2}+6Nn+20)I_{2}(\vec p)\nonumber\\
&&-4v^{2}\lambda(N^{2}n+2Nn+4N+8)I_{2}(\vec p)+\frac{v\lambda^{2}}{3}(N+2)^{2}I_{2}(\vec p)+64v^{3}(5Nn+22)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)\nonumber\\
&&-64v^{2}\lambda\,(N+2)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)+\frac{4v\lambda^{2}}{3}\,(N+2)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)\Big)\nonumber\\
&&+\delta^{I_{1}I_{2}}\delta^{I_{3}I_{4}}\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}A_{4}}\Big(-\frac{\lambda(1+\delta_{\lambda})}{3}+\frac{\lambda^{2}(1+\delta_{\lambda})^{2}}{18}(N+8)I_{1}(p)-8\lambda v(1+\delta_{\lambda})(1+\delta_{v})I_{1}(p)\nonumber\\
&&-48v^{2}\lambda I_{2}(\vec p)+\frac{2v\lambda^{2}}{3}(N+8)I_{2}(\vec p)-\frac{\lambda^{3}}{108}(N^{2}+6N+20)I_{2}(\vec p)\nonumber\\
&&-16v^{2}\lambda\,(Nn+14)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)+\frac{16v\lambda^{2}}{3}\,(N+5)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)-\frac{\lambda^{3}}{27}(5N+22)I_{3}(\vec p,\vec q)\Big)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Requiring the divergences to cancel, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\delta_{v}=\frac{1}{2\pi\epsilon}\Big(\frac{\lambda}{3}(N+2)-2v(nN+8)\Big)-\frac{1}{12\pi^{2}\epsilon}\Big(48(22+5nN)v^{2}-48v\lambda(2+N)+(2+N)\lambda^{2}\Big)\ln 2\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{48\pi^{2}\epsilon^{2}}\Big(48(8+nN)^{2}v^{2}-12v\lambda(N+2)(12+nN)+(2+N)(4+N)\lambda^{2}\Big)\nonumber\\
&&\delta_{\lambda}=\frac{1}{2\pi\epsilon}\Big(\frac{N+8}{6}\lambda-24v\Big)-\frac{1}{36\pi^{2}\epsilon}\Big(432(14+nN)v^{2}-144(5+N)v\lambda+(22+5N)\lambda^{2}\Big)\ln 2\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{144\pi^{2}\epsilon^{2}}\Big(864(20+nN)v^{2}-72(28+5N)v\lambda+(8+N)^{2}\lambda^{2}\Big)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Solving the Callan-Symanzik equation
\begin{equation}
\Big(\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}+\beta_{\lambda}\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}+\beta_{v}\frac{\partial}{\partial v}\Big)<\phi^{I_{1}}_{A_{1}}\phi^{I_{2}}_{A_{2}}\phi^{I_{3}}_{A_{3}}\phi^{I_{4}}_{A_{4}}>=0,
\end{equation}
we obtain the beta functions of the replicated theory. These are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{v}=-\epsilon v-\frac{v\Big(6(8+nN)v-(2+N)\lambda\Big)}{6\pi}-\frac{v\Big(48(22+5nN)v^{2}-48(2+N)v\lambda+(2+N)\lambda^{2}\Big)\ln 2}{6\pi^{2}}\,,\nonumber\\
&&\beta_{\lambda}=-\epsilon\,\lambda-\frac{\lambda(144v-(8+N)\lambda)}{12\pi}-\frac{\lambda\Big(432(14+nN)v^{2}-144(5+N)v\lambda+(22+5N)\lambda^{2}\Big)\ln2}{18\pi^{2}}\,.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
From the above, we obtain the following fixed point in the disordered theory:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Gaussian fixed point:} $\lambda=0,\,v=0$\,.
\item {\bf Pure fixed point:} $\lambda=\frac{12\pi\epsilon}{N+8}+\frac{96(22+5N)\pi\epsilon^{2}\ln 2}{(N+8)^{3}},\,v=0$\,.
\item {\bf Disorder fixed point:} $\lambda=0,\,v=-\frac{\pi\epsilon}{8}-\frac{11\epsilon^{2}}{32}\pi\ln2$\,.
\item {\bf Mixed disorder fixed point:} $\lambda=\frac{3\pi\epsilon}{N-1}+\frac{3\Big(32+N(15N-128)\Big)\pi\epsilon^{2}\ln 2}{16(N-1)^{3}},\,v=\frac{(4-N)\epsilon\pi}{16(N-1)}+\frac{\Big(128-N(512-(196-55N)N)\Big)\pi\epsilon^{2}\ln2}{256(N-1)^{3}}$\,.
\end{enumerate}
Note that the mixed disorder fixed point is an IR fixed point for the sufficiently small values of $\epsilon$ and $N\in (1,4)$. The fixed point disappears for $N=1$.
Next, we calculate the anomalous dimension of the operator $(\text{mass})^{2}$ in the disordered theory. We compute the anomalous dimension to one loop.
For this, we compute the three point correlation function $<\sum_{A}\phi^{I}_{A}\phi^{I}_{A}(x)\phi^{K}_{B}\phi^{L}_{C}>$ at one loop order. In this case, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\delta^{LK}\delta_{BC}\Big[2(1+\delta_{\phi^{2}})+\Big(-\frac{\lambda}{4!}8(N+2)+\frac{v}{2}8(nN+2)\Big)\int\frac{d^{d}k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{|\vec k||\vec k-\vec p|}\Big]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Cancellation of the divergence requires
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\phi^{2}}=\frac{\lambda}{6}\frac{N+2}{2\pi\epsilon}-\frac{2v(nN+2)}{2\pi\epsilon}\,.
\end{equation}
Solving the Callan Symanjik equation, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\g_{\phi^{2}}=\frac{\lambda(N+2)}{12\pi}-\frac{v(nN+2)}{2\pi}\,.
\end{equation}
In the limit $n\rightarrow 0$, the anomalous dimension is
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{\phi^{2}}=\frac{\lambda(N+2)}{12\pi}-\frac{v}{\pi}\,.
\end{equation}
At the mixed disorder fixed point, the anomalous dimension becomes (for $d=2-\epsilon$)
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\phi^{2}}=d-1+\gamma_{\phi^{2}}=1+\frac{(20-11N)\epsilon}{16(N-1)}\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Mixed $\sigma\phi$ theory}
Next, we consider a model where the bulk-free scalar fields interact with matter degrees of freedom at the boundary. We focus here on the case where the boundary degrees of freedom consists of a single scalar field $\sigma$. As we will see below, this provides another example of disorder field theory with an IR fixed point with a non zero value of disorder strength when $\epsilon<<1$.
The action is given by,
\begin{equation}
S=\int d^{d+1}x\,\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi^{I}\partial^{\mu}\phi^{I}+\int d^{d}x\,\Big(\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\sigma\partial^{\mu}\sigma+h(x)\sigma^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{1}}{2}\sigma\phi^{I}\phi^{I}+\frac{\lambda_{2}}{4!}\sigma^{4}\Big)\,.
\end{equation}
In the above $I=1,..,N$. Harris criteria dictate that the disorder is marginal in the dimensions $d=4$. We will, therefore, work in the dimensions $d=4-\epsilon$. Note that we have also included boundary interactions which are marginal in the dimensions $d=4$.\\
After averaging over the disorder, we obtain the replicated action given by
\begin{equation}
S_{\text{repl.}}=\sum_{A=1}^{n}S_{A}-\frac{v}{2}\sum_{A,B=1}^{n}\int d^{d}x\,\sigma_{A}^{2}\sigma_{B}^{2}\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
S_{A}=\int d^{d+1}x\,\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi^{I}_{A}\partial^{\mu}\phi^{I}_{A}+\int d^{d}x\,\Big(\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\sigma_{A}\partial^{\mu}\sigma_{A}+\frac{\lambda_{1}}{2}\sigma_{A}\phi^{I}_{A}\phi^{I}_{A}+\frac{\lambda_{2}}{4!}\sigma_{A}^{4}\Big)\,.
\end{equation}
The replicated theory is a standard local quantum field theory. We will analyze the renormalization flow in the theory and look for the perturbative fixed point. To obtain this, we will compute 2, 3 and 4-point functions involving the scalar field $\sigma$. The relevant Feynman diagrams are shown in figure~\ref{234-pointFn}.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.3 cm}
\includegraphics[width=6in]{SigmaPhitheory.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5 cm}
\caption{Boundary $2,3$ and $4$-point function at one loop order. The blue dot represents the disorder vertex. Solid and dotted lines represent the $\phi$-propagator and $\sigma$-propagator, respectively.\label{234-pointFn}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We first begin with the 2-point function of the $\sigma$ field. The 2-point function is divergent at one-loop, and there is a wave function renormalization for the $\sigma$ field. The one loop contribution to the 2-point functions are
\begin{equation}
<\sigma_{A}(p)\sigma_{B}(-p)>=N\delta_{AB}\frac{\lambda^{2}_{1}}{2}\int\frac{d^{d}\vec k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{|\vec p||\vec k+\vec p|}-\delta_{AB}\,p^{2}\delta_{\sigma}\,.
\end{equation}
The counter term $\delta_{\sigma}$ is determined by requiring that the derivative of the above contribution with respect to $p^{2}$ at some renormalization scale $\mu$ is finite.
Cancelling the divergence requires that
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\sigma}=-\frac{N\lambda^{2}_{1}}{128\pi^{2}\epsilon}\,.
\end{equation}
Next, we look for the 3-point function $<\sigma_{A_{1}}\phi^{I}_{A_{2}}\phi^{J}_{A_{3}}>$ at one loop order. The result is given by
\begin{equation}
\delta^{IJ}\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}}\Big[-\lambda_{1}(1+\delta_{\lambda_{1}})-\lambda^{3}_{1}\int\frac{d^{d}\vec k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{\vec k^{2}|\vec k-\vec q||\vec k+\vec p|}\Big]\,.
\end{equation}
Cancelling the divergence requires that
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\lambda_{1}}=-\frac{\lambda^{2}_{1}}{8\pi^{2}\epsilon}\,.
\end{equation}
Finally, we calculate the 4-point function of $\sigma$ field i.e. $<\sigma_{A_{1}}\sigma_{A_{2}}\sigma_{A_{3}}\sigma_{A_{4}}>$. In this case, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-\lambda_{2}(1+\delta_{\lambda_{2}})\,\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}A_{4}}+4v(1+\delta_{v})\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}}\delta_{A_{3}A_{4}}+\frac{1}{2}\Big[3\lambda_{2}^{2}\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}A_{4}}\nonumber\\
&&-8\lambda_{2}v\Big(\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}}\delta_{A_{3}A_{4}}+6\delta_{A_{1},A_{2},A_{3},A_{4}}\Big)+16v^{2}(n+8)\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}}\delta_{A_{3}A_{4}}\Big]\times\int\frac{d^{d}\vec k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{k^{2}(\vec k+\vec p)^{2}}\nonumber\\
&&+3N\lambda_{1}^{4}\int \frac{d^{d}\vec k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{|\vec k||\vec k+\vec p||\vec k+\vec p+\vec q||\vec k-\vec r|}\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}A_{4}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Cancellation of divergences implies that
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{2}\delta_{\lambda_{2}}=\frac{3\lambda^{2}_{2}-48v\lambda_{2}+6N\lambda^{4}_{1}}{16\pi^{2}\epsilon},\qquad \delta_{v}=\frac{\lambda_{2}-2v(n+8)}{8\pi^{2}\epsilon}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus, we obtain the following $\beta$-function equations
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{1}=-\frac{\epsilon \lambda_{1}}{2}+\frac{(N-32)\lambda^{3}_{1}}{256\pi^{2}}\,,\nonumber\\
&&\beta_{2}=-\lambda_{2}\epsilon+\frac{3\lambda^{2}_{2}}{16\pi^{2}}+\frac{N\lambda^{2}_{1}\lambda_{2}}{64\pi^{2}}-\frac{3v\lambda_{2}}{\pi^{2}}+\frac{3N\lambda_{1}^{4}}{8\pi^{2}}\,,\nonumber\\
&&\beta_{v}=-\epsilon v-\frac{(8+n)v^{2}}{4\pi^{2}}+\frac{N\lambda^{2}_{1}v}{64\pi^{2}}+\frac{v\lambda_{2}}{8\pi^{2}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The $\beta$-function for the disorderd theory is obtained by substituting $n\rightarrow 0$ limit
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{1}=-\frac{\epsilon \lambda_{1}}{2}+\frac{(N-32)\lambda^{3}_{1}}{256\pi^{2}}\,,\nonumber\\
&&\beta_{2}=-\lambda_{2}\epsilon+\frac{3\lambda^{2}_{2}}{16\pi^{2}}+\frac{N\lambda^{2}_{1}\lambda_{2}}{64\pi^{2}}-\frac{3v\lambda_{2}}{\pi^{2}}+\frac{3N\lambda_{1}^{4}}{8\pi^{2}}\,,\nonumber\\
&&\beta_{v}=-\epsilon v-\frac{2v^{2}}{\pi^{2}}+\frac{N\lambda^{2}_{1}v}{64\pi^{2}}+\frac{v\lambda_{2}}{8\pi^{2}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we solve the $\beta$-function equation to find the fixed points. We find the following fixed points:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Gaussian fixed point:} $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=v=0$\, for any value of $N$.
\item {\bf Decoupled pure fixed point:} $\lambda_{1}=v=0, \,\lambda_{2}=\frac{16\pi^{2}\epsilon}{3}$\, for any value of $N$.
\item {\bf Coupled pure fixed point:} $v=0,\,\lambda^{2}_{1}=\frac{128\pi^{2}\epsilon}{N-32},\,\\\lambda_{2}=\frac{8\pi^{2}\epsilon}{3(N-32)}\Big(-(N+32)+\sqrt{1024+N(N-4544)}\Big)$. The fixed point exists for $N>4544$. However, the coupling constant $\lambda_{2}$ is negative and, therefore, the fixed point is nonperturbatively unstable.
\item {\bf Coupled mixed disorder fixed point:} $\lambda^{2}_{1}=\frac{128\pi^{2}\epsilon}{N-32},\,v=\frac{(1024+1600N+N^{2})\pi^{2}\epsilon}{2(N-32)(N+32)},\,\lambda_{2}=\frac{12288N\pi^{2}\epsilon}{(N-32)(N+32)}$. The fixed point is non-perturbatively stable as long as $N>32$. \\
We can also compute the anomalous dimension of the field $\sigma$ at the fixed point at one-loop order. It is given by
\begin{equation}
\g_{\sigma}=\frac{\mu}{2(1+\delta_{\sigma})}\frac{d}{d\mu}(1+\delta_{\sigma})=\frac{N\lambda_{1}^{2}}{256\pi^{2}}=\frac{N\epsilon}{2(N-32)}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Anomalous dimensions of displacement operators at one loop}
This section discusses the effect of classical disorder on the one-loop computation of anomalous dimensions of higher spin displacement operators. It was shown in~\cite{Giombi:2019enr} that in the pure theory with $\phi^{4}$ interaction at the boundary, describe by the action~\eqref{SingleScalar} with vanishing disorder coupling, the higher spin displacement operators do not have anomalous dimensions at two-loop order. Here, we repeat their analysis in the presence of classical disorder and find that the anomalous dimension is not affected, i.e. the displacement operators do not have anomalous dimensions.
We will compute the anomalous dimension of the displacement operator at one loop for a single scalar field with action given in~\eqref{SingleScalar}. The corresponding replicated action is given in~\eqref{ReplicatedSingleScalar}. The energy-momentum tensor of the replicated theory is
\begin{equation}
T^{\text{Repl.}}_{\mu\nu}=\sum_{A}T_{\mu\nu}^{A}\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
T^{A}_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}\phi_{A}\partial_{\nu}\phi_{A}-\frac{\delta_{\mu\nu}}{2}\partial_{\rho}\phi_{A}\partial^{\rho}\phi_{A}-\frac{d-1}{4d}(\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}-\delta_{\mu\nu}\partial^{2})\phi_{A}^{2}\,,
\end{equation}
Note that we have considered only the bulk contributions to the energy-momentum tensor. The boundary terms in the energy-momentum tensor are proportional to the coupling constant and, therefore, in the anomalous dimension computation at one loop, these will be higher-order contributions in the powers of the coupling constant.
The displacement operator of the replicated theory is
\begin{equation}
D^{\text{Repl.}}(\vec x)={\rm lim}_{y\rightarrow 0}T^{\text{Repl.}}_{yy}\,.
\end{equation}
Following the calculation of~\cite{Giombi:2019enr}, we see that at one loop we do not have any divergences for $d=2$.
In particular, at one loop the contribution is proportional to the integral
\begin{equation}
\int\frac{d^{d}\vec k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{|\vec k||\vec k+\vec p|}\Big(\frac{d}{2}(\vec k^{2}+(\vec k+\vec p)^{2})-\frac{\vec p^{2}}{2}\Big)
\end{equation}
which evaluates to zero for $d=2$. Thus, at one-loop, we do not have anomalous dimensions. The calculation proceeds similarly for the higher spin displacement operators. Basically, up to an overall factor, which depends on the coupling constants and some numerical factors, the one loop integrals are the same as in~\cite{Giombi:2019enr}. In the paper, authors have shown that those integrals, appearing at one-loop order, are finite for $d=2$ and thus, there are no divergences. We conclude, therefore, that the disorder does not have any effect on the scaling dimension.
\section{Quantum disorder}
Finally, we consider an example of a scalar field theory with the quantum disorder localized at the boundary. As we have explained before, there is an extra time coordinate and the disorder field $h(\vec x)$ is homogeneous in time. We consider the theory of a single scalar field with action
\begin{equation}
S=\int d^{d}\vec x\,dt\,dy\,\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi+\int d^{d}\vec x\,dt\,h(\vec x)\phi^{2}(\vec x,t)\,.
\end{equation}
For $d=2$, the disorder coupling at the boundary is marginal. The only other operator which is marginal in $d=2$ is $\phi^{3}$. However, we will assume the coupling constant of the $\phi^{3}$ term to be zero.\\
After averaging over the disorder, we obtain the replicated action, which is
\begin{equation}
S_{\text{repl.}}=\sum_{A=1}^{n}\int d^{d}\vec x\,dt\,dy\,\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi_{A}\partial^{\mu}\phi_{A}-\frac{v}{2}\sum_{A,B=1}^{n}\int d^{d}x\,dt\,dt'\phi_{A}\phi_{A}(\vec x,t)\phi_{B}\phi_{B}(\vec x,t')\,.
\end{equation}
Note that it is not a standard local quantum field theory. However, we can analyze the theory in powers of disorder strength in perturbation expansion.
To find the fixed point of the theory, we compute the correlation function of boundary operators\\
$<\phi_{A_{1}}(\vec p_{1},E_{1})\phi_{A_{2}}(\vec p_{2},E_{2})\phi_{A_{3}}(\vec p_{3},E_{3})\phi_{A_{4}}(\vec p_{4},E_{4})>$. It is given by (upto an overall factor which enforces conservation of momenta)
\begin{eqnarray}
&&8\frac{v(1+\delta_{v})}{2}\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}}\delta_{A_{3}A_{4}}\delta(E_{1}+E_{2})\delta(E_{3}+E_{4})+128\frac{v^{2}}{8}\delta_{A_{1}A_{2}}\delta_{A_{3}A_{4}}\delta(E_{1}+E_{2})\delta(E_{3}+E_{4})\nonumber\\
&&\int \frac{d^{d}\vec k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\Big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\vec k^{2}+E_{3}^{2})((\vec p-\vec k)^{2}+E_{3}^{2})}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\vec k^{2}+E_{1}^{2})((\vec p-\vec k)^{2}+E_{1}^{2})}}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{2}{\sqrt{(\vec k^{2}+E_{1}^{2})((\vec p\,'-\vec k)^{2}+E_{3}^{2})}}\Big]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In the above $\vec p=\vec p_{1}+\vec p_{2}$ and $\vec p\,'=\vec p_{1}+\vec p_{3}$.
Note that in the above, we have excluded the infrared divergent contribution.
Now, in the dimensions, $d=2+\epsilon$, each of above the integral is UV divergent and the divergence is given by
\begin{equation}
\int\frac{d^{d}\vec k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\vec k^{2}+E_{3}^{2})((\vec p-\vec k)^{2}+E_{3}^{2})}}\sim-\frac{1}{2\pi\epsilon}\,.
\end{equation}
Cancellation of divergence requires that
\begin{equation}
\delta_{v}=\frac{8v}{\pi\epsilon}\,.
\end{equation}
Solving the Callan-Symanizik equation, we obtain the beta function
\begin{equation}
\beta_{v}=\epsilon v-\frac{8v^{2}}{\pi}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus, it has a UV fixed point given by
\begin{equation}
v_{*}=\frac{\pi\epsilon}{8}\,.
\end{equation}
From the Callan-Symanizik equation, we can compute the dynamical exponent $\g_{t}$ at the fixed point. At the one-loop order in perturbation theory, we find that $\g^{*}_{t}$ vanishes, i.e. $\g^{*}_{t}=\mathcal O(v_{*}^{2})$. Thus, the correlation function at one-loop order does not have Lifshitz scaling.
\section{Discussion}
In this article, we study the renormalization group property of a disordered quantum field theory in the presence of a boundary. We constructed examples of boundary field theory with both classical and quantum disorder localized at the boundary. In these theories, we found fixed points of renormalization group flow and computed the anomalous dimension of certain operators.
There are many interesting questions and directions which have not been addressed in the paper. One of the questions which will be interesting to understand is whether the disorder fixed point, if it exists, exhibits (or under what conditions) conformal symmetry. It will be very interesting since it will lead to examples of disorder conformal field theory, and
one can use various tools of conformal field theory, see for example~\cite{Komargodski:2016auf} to study the disordered theory at the fixed point.
In another direction, it will be interesting to find an analogous monotonicity theorem that exists in boundary quantum field theory~\cite{PhysRevLett.67.161,Jensen:2015swa, Casini:2016fgb, Nozaki:2012qd, Wang:2021mdq, Kobayashi:2018lil}. It requires finding a quantitative measure that decreases along with the renormalization group flow in a disordered theory.
In the present article, we have studied quench disorder in scalar field theories. It will also be interesting to consider examples with fermions and gauge fields. In this direction, the most interesting model to study would be the mixed dimensional QED and possibly generalization to non-abelian theories.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Justin R. David and Meenu for useful discussion. This work is supported by the ISIRD grant 9-406/2019/IITRPR/5480.
|
\section{Introduction}
It has been known for a long time that explicit calculation of the Kaluza-Klein mass spectrum is a very difficult task in general backgrounds. The computations have been performed successfully only for a restricted class of background such as homogeneous Freund-Rubin type solutions.
However recently, starting with the seminal work of \cite{Malek:2019eaz, Malek:2020yue}, a new and powerful method to compute the Kaluza-Klein spectrum has been developed and applied to a number of examples. It turns out that this method can be applied to any vacuum in maximally gauged supergravity obtained through the consistent truncations of $D=10$ or $D=11$ supergravity \cite{Malek:2019eaz, Malek:2020yue, Malek:2020mlk, Varela:2020wty, Guarino:2020flh, Cesaro:2020soq, Bobev:2020lsk, Cesaro:2021haf}.\footnote{See \cite{Eloy:2020uix} for AdS$_3$ vacua in half-maximal gauged supergravity.}
The Kaluza-Klein spectrum plays an important role in the stability analysis.
The recent computation of the Kaluza-Klein mass spectrum of non-supersymmetric SO(3)$\times$ SO(3)-invariant AdS$_4$ vacuum in eleven-dimensional supergravity shows that there exist higher Kaluza-Klein modes whose mass-squared are below the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound. The result implies that this non-supersymmetric AdS$_4$ vacuum is perturbatively unstable \cite{Malek:2020mlk}. Similar analysis has been done for non-supersymmetric AdS$_4$ vacua of massive IIA theory \cite{Guarino:2020flh}.
Furthermore, in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence, the mass of the Kaluza-Klein modes can be mapped to the conformal dimension of the gauge invariant operators in dual field theory.
The analysis of the Kaluza-Klein spectrum of AdS$_5$ Pilch-Warner solution of type IIB supergravity enables us calculate the index over gravitons. It is shown that this graviton index exactly agrees with the superconformal index of four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ Leigh-Strassler superconformal field theory \cite{Bobev:2020lsk}.
In this work, we focus on two specific AdS solutions: ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ SU(3) $\times$ U(1)-invariant AdS$_4$ solutions in $D=11$ \cite{Corrado:2001nv} and massive IIA supergravity \cite{Guarino:2015jca}. The former can be obtained by uplifting Warner's AdS$_4$ solution \cite{Warner:1983vz} in ${\mathcal{N}}=8$ SO(8) gauged supergravity to eleven-dimensions.
Its dual is $D=3$ Chern-Simons-matter theory called mABJM theory, which can be obtained as an IR fixed point of the RG-flow triggered by a superpotential mass deformation of UV ABJM theory \cite{Benna:2008zy, Klebanov:2008vq}.
The latter solution can be obtained by uplifting the SU(3) $\times$ U(1)-invariant AdS$_4$ solutions of $D=4$, $\mathcal{N}=8$ dyonic ISO(7) gauged supergravity on $S^6$ \cite{Guarino:2015qaa, Guarino:2015vca}. Its dual field theory is called GJV theory, which can be obtained as an IR fixed point of the RG-flow triggered by a Chern-Simons deformation of $D=3$ UV SYM theory on D2-branes \cite{Guarino:2015jca}.
For these two sets of theories, the AdS/CFT correspondence has passed various non-trivial tests, for example, $S^3$-free energy, black hole entropy, etc.\footnote{See, for example, \cite{Jafferis:2011zi, Bobev:2018wbt, Kim:2019ewv, Bobev:2018uxk, Amariti:2021cpk, Guarino:2015jca, Hosseini:2017fjo, Benini:2017oxt}.}
In this paper, utilizing the recent works on the Kaluza-Klein spectrum, we calculate the graviton index on
${\mathcal{N}}=2$ SU(3) $\times$ U(1)-invariant AdS$_4$ solutions in $D=11$ and massive IIA supergravity.
On the field theory side, we compute the superconformal index, which was first discussed in $D=4$ superconformal field theories in \cite{Kinney:2005ej, Romelsberger:2005eg, Romelsberger:2007ec}.
For $D=3$,
the ${\mathcal N}=2$ superconformal index \cite{Bhattacharya:2008bja, Kim:2009wb, Imamura:2011su, Imamura:2011uj} is defined as
\begin{equation}
I=\textrm{Tr} \left[\left(-1\right)^{F}\, e^{-\beta\{Q,S\}}\,x^{\Delta+j_3}\,\sum_i {z_i}^{F_i}\right].
\end{equation}
Here $F$ is the fermion number and $\Delta,\, R,\, j_3$ denote energy, R-charge, and the third component of the angular momentum, respectively. $z_i$ are fugacities for global symmetries and $F_i$ are the charges. Lastly, $Q$ and $S$ are certain supercharges in the ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ superconformal algebra, which satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{BPS}
\{Q,S\}=\Delta-R-j_3 \geq 0.
\end{equation}
Only the states saturating the above bound contribute to the index.
We show that the gravity calculations exactly agree with the field theory results. Hence, we provide one more precision test of AdS/CFT correspondence for mABJM and GJV theories, respectively.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{mABJM}, we calculate the gravity and field theory index for mABJM theory. We show that they perfectly agree in the neutral sector and in the sector with one unit of magnetic flux. In section \ref{GJV}, we perform similar analysis for GJV theory. We conclude in section \ref{discussion}. In the appendix, we collect the various formulas that we use in the main part of this paper.
\section{mABJM theory}\label{mABJM}
The mABJM theory \cite{Benna:2008zy} is three-dimensional Chern-Simons-matter theory obtained by adding a superpotential mass term to one of the chiral multiplets of ABJM theory \cite{Aharony:2008ug}. This mass deformation triggers an RG-flow from UV ABJM theory to ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ superconformal field theory in the IR, which is called mABJM theory. Its gravity dual is given by an ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ AdS$_4$ solution of $D=11$ supergravity \cite{Corrado:2001nv}, which can be obtained by uplifting the SU(3) $\times$ U(1) invariant AdS$_4$ vacuum of ${\mathcal{N}}=8$ SO(8) gauged supergravity \cite{Warner:1983vz}. The correspondence of these two theories has passed various non-trivial tests, i.e., for example, matching the gauge theory operators with the supergravity multiplets \cite{Klebanov:2008vq}, an agreement of $S^3$-free energy \cite{Jafferis:2011zi, Bobev:2018wbt, Kim:2019ewv}, the topologically twisted index accounting for the entropy of black holes in AdS$_4$ \cite{Bobev:2018uxk} and, very recently, the holographic computation of $\tau_{RR}$ \cite{Amariti:2021cpk}.
In this section, we add to the list another non-trivial test of the correspondence, by checking the superconformal index. We compute the graviton index and the field theory index separately and show that two computations perfectly agree.
\subsection{Gravity index}
The $D=4,\, {\mathcal{N}}=2$ SU(3) $\times$ U(1) invariant AdS$_4$ solution and its uplift to $D=11$ supergravity were constructed a long time ago in \cite{Warner:1983vz} and in \cite{Corrado:2001nv}, respectively.
However, its complete Kaluza-Klein spectrum was not known. Only a small subset of the spectrum, for example,
the spectrum of the short multiplets \cite{Klebanov:2008vq}
and the spin-2 spectrum \cite{Klebanov:2009kp} was known. It was only recently that the complete spectrum was successfully calculated based on the Exceptional Field Theory techniques in \cite{Malek:2019eaz, Malek:2020yue}.
In this paper, we focus on the spectrum of the short multiplets\footnote{We follow the conventions used in \cite{Klebanov:2008vq}.}, even though the full spectrum is available, because we will compute the gravity index and compare it to the superconformal index of dual field theory. The spectrum of the short multiplets is summarized in table \ref{table:mABJM}, which contains all the information needed for the index: the names of the short multiplets, their SU(3) $\times$ U(1)$_r$ representations and the energy $E_0$. Here $[p,q]$ represents the SU(3) Dynkin label, $r$ is the R-charge and $n$ is the Kaluza-Klein level. See table 6 in \cite{Klebanov:2008vq} and equations (5.66) and (5.67) in \cite{Malek:2020yue}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|ll||l}
& \hfil $[p,q]_r$ & $\hfil E_0$ & \hfil index\\
\hline
SGRAV & $[0,0]_{\pm n}$ & $E_0=n+2$ & $-x^{4+n}$ \\
SGINO & $[n+1,0]_{(n+1)/3} \oplus [0,n+1]_{-(n+1)/3}$ & $E_0=\frac{11}{6}+\frac{n}{3}$
& $\phantom{+}x^{\frac{10+n}{3}}$\\
SVEC & $[n+1,1]_{n/3} \oplus [1,n+1]_{-n/3}$ & $E_0=\frac{n+3}{3}$ & $-x^{\frac{6+n}{3}}$\\
HYP & $[n+2,0]_{(n+2)/3} \oplus [0,n+2]_{-(n+2)/3}$ & $E_0=\frac{n+2}{3}$ &
$\phantom{+}x^{\frac{2+n}{3}}$\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{The spectrum of the short multiplets at the Kaluza-Klein level $n$ and the contributions to the superconformal index for ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ SU(3) $\times$ U(1) invariant AdS$_4$ solution in $D=11$ supergravity.}
\label{table:mABJM}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Here SGRAV, SGINO, SVEC, HYP represent ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ short graviton, short gravitino, short vector and hyper multiplet, respectively. For $n=0$, SGRAV and SVEC reduce to a massless graviton multiplet MGRAV and a massless vector multiplet MVEC, respectively. We compute the contributions to the index for given short multiplets and write them down in the last column of table \ref{table:mABJM}, which will be multiplied by the $SU(3)$ characters. Let us explain in more detail. The fields in the supermultiplets are labeled by $(s, E, y)$, where spin $s$, energy $E$ and hypercharge $y$.\footnote{See table 8 $\sim$ 16 in \cite{Klebanov:2008vq}. Tables 9, 11, 14, 16 are relevant to our calculations in this section. See also the section 4.2 of \cite{Cordova:2016emh}.} For SGRAV multiplet, the fields with $(\frac{3}{2}, E_0+\frac{1}{2}, y_0+1)$ saturate the bound \eqref{BPS} and contribute $-x^{4+n}$ to the index. Similarly, the fields labeled by $(1, E_0+\frac{1}{2}, y_0+1)$ in SGINO, $(\frac{1}{2}, E_0+\frac{1}{2}, y_0+1)$ in SVEC and $(0, E_0, y_0)$ in HYP contribute to the index by $x^{\frac{10+n}{3}},\, -x^{\frac{6+n}{3}}$ and $x^{\frac{2+n}{3}}$, respectively. On top of that, we should multiply the specific SU(3) characters for given representations of the supermultiplets. Only multiplets with $r \geq 0$ in the above table contribute to the index. Taking into account the multiples with spacetime derivatives, one should multiply an overall factor of $\frac{1}{1-x^2}$. Finally, we sum the contributions over all the Kaluza-Klein levels and obtain the single-graviton index as
\begin{align}
&I_{\textrm{mABJM}}^\textrm{sp}\left(x,y_1,y_2 \right)\nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{1}{1-x^2}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left( - x^{4+n}\, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[0,0]}
+ x^{\frac{10+n}{3}} \, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[n+1,0]}
- x^{\frac{6+n}{3}} \, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[n+1,1]}
+ x^{\frac{2+n}{3}} \, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[n+2,0]}
\right)\label{mABJM-gravity0}\\
&\phantom{=}\,\,
+\dfrac{1}{1-x^2}
\left(
- x^{\frac{5}{3}} \chi_{SU(3)}^{[0,1]}
+x^{\frac{1}{3}} \chi_{SU(3)}^{[1,0]}
\right),\nonumber\\
&=
\dfrac{
\left(1- {y_1}^{-1} x^{\frac{5}{3}} \right)
\left(1-y_1 {y_2}^{-1} x^{\frac{5}{3}} \right)
\left(1-y_2 x^{\frac{5}{3}} \right)
}{
\left(1- y_1 x^{\frac{1}{3}} \right)
\left(1-{y_1}^{-1} y_2 x^{\frac{1}{3}} \right)
\left(1-{y_2}^{-1} x^{\frac{1}{3}} \right)
\left(1-x^2\right)^2}-\dfrac{1-x^2+x^4}{(1-x^2)^2}\label{mABJM-gravity} .
\end{align}
Here $\chi_{SU(3)}^{[p,q]}$ is the SU(3) character with Dynkin labels $[p,q]$, whose explicit form is written in \eqref{chi-su(3)}. In the second line of equation \eqref{mABJM-gravity0}, we have added the contributions from SVEC and HYP with $n=-1$. They correspond to the contribution from the spin $\frac{1}{2}$ and $0$ ultra-short singleton supermultiplets \cite{Gunaydin:1985tc} sitting at the bottom of the Kaluza-Klein tower.
The singleton fields are known to be free and live on the boundary. Hence, they are decoupled from the spectrum. In the viewpoint of AdS/CFT correspondence, they correspond to the decoupled U(1) sector of dual field theory.
See, for example, \cite{Gunaydin:1998km, Witten:1998qj, Maldacena:2001ss}.
This index can be also obtained from the ABJM index, i.e. the single-graviton index on AdS$_4 \times$ S$^7$ \eqref{ABJM-index} by substituting
\begin{equation}
y_1\rightarrow x^{\frac{1}{3}}y_1, \quad y_2\rightarrow x^{-\frac{1}{3}}y_2, \quad y_3\rightarrow x^{\frac{1}{3}}y_2 / y_1.
\end{equation}
It reflects the fact that ABJM theory and mABJM theory are related by an RG-flow.\footnote{For AdS$_5$/CFT$_4$ correspondence, similar analysis was carried out between ${\mathcal{N}}=4$ SYM theory in the UV and the Leigh-Strassler SCFT in the IR \cite{Bobev:2020lsk}.}
\subsection{Superconformal index}
In this section, we compute the superconformal index of mABJM theory, which can be obtained as an IR fixed point of an RG-flow starting from UV ABJM theory \cite{Benna:2008zy, Klebanov:2008vq}. More specifically, the flow is triggered by a mass term
\begin{equation}
\Delta W \sim \textrm{Tr} \left(T^{(1)} A_1 \right)^2,
\end{equation}
to the superpotential of $k=1, 2$ ABJM theory. Here, for concreteness, we choose one specific chiral multiplet $A_1$. $T^{(1)}$ is the monopole operator in $(\mathbf{N},\mathbf{\bar{N}})$ representation. This superpotential deformation preserves ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ supersymmetry, but breaks SU(4)$_R \times $ U(1)$_b$ symmetry of ${\mathcal{N}}=6$ ABJM theory to SU(3)$_F \times$ U(1)$_R$.
Let us begin by summarizing various charges of the bosonic fields in ABJM and mABJM theories in the table below.\footnote{We follow the convention of \cite{Kim:2009wb} for charges of ABJM theory. For the charges of the fermionic fields and supercharges, we refer to this reference.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c c c c c c|c c c}
& & & ABJM & & & & &mABJM & \\
\hline
fields & $\phantom{-}h_1$ & $\phantom{-}h_2$ & $\phantom{-}h_3$ & $\phantom{-}h_4$ & $j_3$ & $\Delta$ & $\phantom{-}t_1$ & $\phantom{-}t_2$ & $\Delta$\\
\hline
$A_1$ & $\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}$ & $\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$& $\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}$ & 0 & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\phantom{-}0$ & $\phantom{-}0$ & $1$ \\
$A_2$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}$ & 0 & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\phantom{-}0$ & $\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ \\
$B_1$ & $\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & 0 & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ \\
$B_2$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $\phantom{-}\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & 0 & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $\phantom{-} 0$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The superconformal symmetry of ABJM theory is Osp(6|4), whose bosonic subgroup is SO(6) $\times$ SO(3,2).
Here, $h_1, h_2, h_3$ and $j_3, \Delta $ are the charges of the Cartans in SO(6) $\times$ SO(3) $\times$ SO(2). $\Delta$ is the scaling dimension of the fields and equal to $\frac{1}{2}$.
$h_4$ is a charge of a baryon-like U(1)$_b$ symmetry.
In ABJM theory, it is known that the monopole operator plays a central role.
The monopole operators are charged under U(1)$_b$ symmetry and turns on magnetic fluxes through an $S^2$ surrounding the point where the monopole operator is inserted. Constructing the gauge invariant operators dressed with the monopole operators, one can show that U(1)$_R \times$ SU(2) $\times$ SU(2) $\times$ U(1)$_b$ symmetry, which is manifest with the above charge assignments, is enhanced to SU(4) $\times$ U(1)$_b$.
The superconformal index of ABJM theory was first computed in the neutral sector, where the monopole operator is not included. The field theoretic result matches the gravitational calculation on AdS$_4 \times S^7/\mathbb{Z}_k$ in the large $k$ 't Hooft limit \cite{Bhattacharya:2008bja}. After including the monopole operators, the index in the large $N$ limit shows a perfect agreement with the graviton index on AdS$_4 \times S^7/\mathbb{Z}_k$ with an arbitrary $k$ \cite{Kim:2009wb}.
Then, the index computation was generalized to other ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ quiver gauge theories with arbitrary R-charges \cite{Imamura:2011su,Imamura:2011uj,Cheon:2011th}.
Now let us turn to the mABJM theory. The symmetry of mABJM theory is SU(3) $\times$ Osp(2|4), whose bosonic subgroup is SU(3) $\times$ U(1)$_R$ $\times$ SO(3,2).
Here $t_1$ and $t_2$ are the charges of the Cartans in SU(3). The scaling dimensions of the fields at the IR fixed point are different than those of the free fields.
The monopole operator also plays an important role in constructing the gauge invariant operators in mABJM theory \cite{Klebanov:2008vq}. Without it, only the SU(2) symmetry is seen manifestly. This symmetry is enhanced to SU(3) after introducing a monopole operator. However, note that, in contrast to ABJM theory, the baryon-like U(1)$_b$ on its own is not a symmetry in mABJM theory. Its presence in the symmetry algebra is only as a linear combination with another U(1) whose charge we denote by $h_1$, thereby leading to an element in the Cartan subalgebra of SU(3). It can be easily seen if one rewrites the Cartan charges in terms of the charges of ABJM theory as $t_1=\left(h_1-h_2 \right)/2,\, t_2=-\left(h_1-h_4 \right)/2$.
Now let us consider the superconformal index of mABJM theory.
We follow the prescription of Romelsberger \cite{Romelsberger:2007ec, Gadde:2010en} and calculate the index of the UV description with the R-charge assignments of the IR theory.
The index can be calculated from the path integral on $S^2 \times S^1$, which localizes at the saddle points labeled by magnetic fluxes on $S^2$ and the holonomy zero modes along $S^1$.
We closely follow the method developed in \cite{Kim:2009wb, Imamura:2011su} and summarize various formulas needed in the computations in the appendix \ref{review-SCI}.
For the case at hand, the U(1)$_b$ is not a symmetry of mABJM theory. Therefore, we compute the index with the fugacities $z_1, q$ and $q_b$ for charges $t_1, -h_1/2$ and $h_4/2$ instead of the fugacities $z_1, z_2$ for $t_1, t_2$. Then, we identify $q$ and $q_b$ later.
In this paper we are interested in comparing the field theory index to the gravitational one. Hence, we focus on the large $N$ limit of superconformal index. At large $N$, it is known that the index is factorized into
\begin{equation}
I=I^{(0)}I^{(+)}I^{(-)},
\end{equation}
where $I^{(0)}$ is the index without the monopole operators and $I^{(+)}\left(I^{(-)}\right)$ represents the index with the positive(negative) magnetic fluxes \cite{Kim:2009wb}.
First, let us calculate the neutral part of the index. Without monopole operators, the theory does not enjoy the full SU(3) symmetry, but only exhibits SU(2). Hence, we consider the index with the fugacity $z_1$. Then, one can easily read off the matrix $M$ in \eqref{fprime} and obtain the neutral part of the index \eqref{neutral-index} as
\begin{align}\label{SCI-mABJM-neutral}
I^{(0)}
=
\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{(1-x^{2n})^2}{
\left(1-{z_1}^{-\frac{n}{2}} x^{\frac{2n}{3}}\right)
\left(1-{z_1}^{\frac{n}{2}} x^{\frac{2n}{3}}\right)
\left(1-{z_1}^{-\frac{n}{2}} x^{\frac{4n}{3}}\right)
\left(1-{z_1}^{\frac{n}{2}} x^{\frac{4n}{3}}\right)}.
\end{align}
We also calculate the index with the fugacities $z_1, q$ and $q_b$. The neutral part of the index is independent of $q_b$, as expected. Then by setting $q$ to one, we obtain the above result.
We move on to the computation of the index of the sector with the monopole operators. As illustrated in \cite{Kim:2009wb, Imamura:2011su}, we will consider
Dirac monopoles in U(1)$^N \times$ U(1)$^N \subset$ U(N) $\times$ U(N).
Here, we restrict ourselves to the diagonal magnetic monopole. It implies that its magnetic charges satisfy the relation $\sum_i m_i =\sum_i \tilde{m}_i$.
For simplicity, we compute the index in the sector with the unit magnetic flux as
\begin{equation}
m=\left(1,0,\cdots,0 ; 1,0,\cdots,0\right).
\end{equation}
Its positive part and the corresponding holonomy can be denoted as
\begin{equation}
m^{(+)}=(1 ; 1), \quad a^{(+)}=(a; \tilde{a}).
\end{equation}
Following the procedures summarized in the appendix \ref{review-SCI}, we calculate the zero-point contributions and the classical contribution from the Chern-Simons action as
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_0^{(+)}=0, \quad q_{0i}^{(+)}=0, \quad S_{CS}^{(+)}= i k (a-\tilde{a}).
\end{equation}
Then, the index is given by
\begin{equation}
I_{\ytableausetup{boxsize=0.3em}\ydiagram{1}\,\,\ydiagram{1}}^{(+)}=
\int \dfrac{da}{2\pi}\, \dfrac{d\tilde{a}}{2\pi}\,e^{-i k (a-\tilde{a})}\,\textrm{exp}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \dfrac{1}{n}f^{+}\left(e^{i n(a-\tilde{a})}, {z_1}^n, q^n, {q_b}^n, x^n\right)\right],
\end{equation}
where the letter index from the vector and the chiral multiplets \eqref{f-vec}, \eqref{f-chi} are
\begin{align}
f^{(+)}_{\textrm{vector}}&=2x^2,\\
f^{(+)}_{\textrm{chiral}}
&=
\sum_{A_i}\left( e^{i(a-\tilde{a})} {z_1}^{t_1} q^{-\frac{h_1}{2}} {q_b}^{\frac{h_4}{2}} x^{\Delta}
-e^{-i(a-\tilde{a})} {z_1}^{-t_1} q^{\frac{h_1}{2}} {q_b}^{-\frac{h_4}{2}}x^{2-\Delta} \right)\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{B_i}\left( e^{i(\tilde{a}-a)} {z_1}^{t_1} q^{-\frac{h_1}{2}} {q_b}^{\frac{h_4}{2}} x^{\Delta}
-e^{-i(\tilde{a}-a)} {z_1}^{-t_1} q^{\frac{h_1}{2}} {q_b}^{-\frac{h_4}{2}}x^{2-\Delta} \right).
\end{align}
Calculating the plethystic exponential and defining an integration variable $z\equiv e^{i \left(a-\tilde{a} \right)}$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{SCI-mABJM-pre}
I_{\ytableausetup{boxsize=0.3em}\ydiagram{1}\,\,\ydiagram{1}}^{(+)} \left(x, z_1, q \right)
= &\oint
\dfrac{dz}{(2\pi i)z}\, z^{-k} \\
&\times\left[
\dfrac{
\left(1-{z_1}^{-\frac{1}{2}} q^{\frac{1}{4}}z x^{\frac{5}{3}} \right)
\left(1-{z_1}^{\frac{1}{2}} q^{-\frac{1}{4}}z x^{\frac{5}{3}}\right)
\left(1- q^{-\frac{1}{4}} z^{-1} x^{\frac{5}{3}}\right)
\left(1- q^{\frac{1}{4}}z^{-1} x \right)}{
\left(1-{z_1}^{\frac{1}{2}} q^{-\frac{1}{4}}z^{-1} x^{\frac{1}{3}} \right)
\left(1-{z_1}^{-\frac{1}{2}} q^{\frac{1}{4}}z^{-1} x^{\frac{1}{3}} \right)
\left(1- q^{\frac{1}{4}} z x^{\frac{1}{3}} \right)
\left(1- q^{-\frac{1}{4}}z x\right)
\left(1-x^2\right)^2}\right].\nonumber
\end{align}
Here the fugacity ${q_b}$ is absorbed in $z$ so that $z$ plays a role of ${q_b}^{\frac{1}{4}}$ in the bracket in \eqref{SCI-mABJM-pre}. This function in the bracket can be obtained by substituting
\begin{equation}
y_1 \rightarrow {t_1}^{\frac{1}{2}} q^{-\frac{1}{2}} x^{\frac{1}{3}}, \quad
y_2 \rightarrow {t_1}^{\frac{1}{2}} x^{-\frac{1}{3}}, \quad
y_3 \rightarrow z^2 x^{\frac{1}{3}}
\end{equation}
into the function $F(x, y_1, y_2, y_3)$ defined in the ABJM theory \cite{Kim:2009wb}.\footnote{See equation (C.3) in \cite{Kim:2009wb}.}
The quantity $I_{\ytableausetup{boxsize=0.3em}\ydiagram{1}\,\,\ydiagram{1}}^{(+)}$, which we have just calculated in \eqref{SCI-mABJM-pre}, is the contribution to the index from the sector with unit magnetic flux. By summing up all the contributions from the various magnetic flux configurations, one can obtain the index $I^{(+)}$ as
\begin{equation}
I^{(+)} \left(x, z_1, q, z \right)=1+z^k\, I_{\ytableausetup{boxsize=0.3em}\ydiagram{1}\,\,\ydiagram{1}}^{(+)} \left(x, z_1, q \right)+ \cdots.
\end{equation}
In other words, once we know the index $I^{(+)} \left(x, z_1, q,z \right)$, then we can expand it in $z$ and obtain $I_{\ytableausetup{boxsize=0.3em}\ydiagram{1}\,\,\ydiagram{1}}^{(+)}$ from the coefficient of $z^k$. However, it is not possible to calculate $I^{(+)}$ by summing up all the monopole operator contributions in general.
Hence, instead of comparing $I^{(+)}$ and $I^{(+)}_\textrm{mp}$, we compare the field theory calculation and the gravity result for each sector, for example, the sector with unit magnetic flux as we will consider in this paper.
Furthermore, since we consider the index with SU(3) symmetry, we identify $q$ and $q_b$, and denote them as $z_2$, as we mentioned earlier. It leads us to identify $z \equiv {z_2}^{\frac{1}{4}}$ and obtain
\begin{equation}
I^{(+)} \left(x, z_1, z_2 \right)=1+{z_2}^{\frac{k}{4}}\, I_{\ytableausetup{boxsize=0.3em}\ydiagram{1}\,\,\ydiagram{1}}^{(+)} \left(x, z_1, z_2 \right)+ \cdots.
\end{equation}
Once we identify $q$ and $q_b$, and obtain the index associated with SU(3) symmetry, we are not allowed to expand the index in terms of fugacity associated to the monopole operator any more.
\subsection{Refined gravity index}
In previous sections, we have computed the single-graviton index and the field theory index. More specifically, the field theory index has been calculated in the sector with zero and one monopole operator. To compare these gravity and field theory results, let us revisit the gravity index in this section.
In the class of theories having U(1)$_b$ symmetry,\footnote{It includes ABJM theory \cite{Bhattacharya:2008bja,Kim:2009wb}
and examples studied in \cite{Cheon:2011th}.}
one expands the gravity index in terms of the fugacity associated to U(1)$_b$ symmetry, which is realized as the isometry along the Hopf fibration in seven-dimensional internal manifolds.
Then, one may reproduce the field theory results, i.e. the neutral sector index which is not charged under U(1)$_b$ and the index in the sector with monopole operators. However, mABJM theory does not have a U(1)$_b$ symmetry: it has only SU(3) flavor symmetry. As a result, the gravity index is written in terms of the SU(3) characters. Hence, it is not clear what should be the expansion parameter which allows us to distinguish the index in the neutral sector and in the sector with monopole operators, in the gravity result \eqref{mABJM-gravity}. Here, we point out that we need more information than given in the single-graviton index \eqref{mABJM-gravity} in terms of SU(3) representations.
Let us begin with the single-graviton index in AdS$_4 \times S^7$ \eqref{ABJM-gravity-su4}, which is written in terms of SU(4) characters. We rewrite this expression using U(3) characters $\chi_{U(3)}^{[p,q]}(x_1, x_2, x_3)$ and substitute
\begin{equation}
x_1 \rightarrow x^{-\frac{1}{6}} x_1, \quad
x_2 \rightarrow x^{-\frac{1}{6}} x_2, \quad
x_3 \rightarrow x^{-\frac{1}{6}} x_3, \quad
x_4 \rightarrow x^{\frac{1}{2}} x_4,
\end{equation}
where $x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4=1$. Then, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{ll}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{2}{l}{
(1-x^2)\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}(x, x_1, x_2,x_3)}\label{refined}\\
=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\Bigg\{
&-x^{\frac{n}{2}+4} \left( \textcolor{blue}{x^{\frac{n}{2}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[0,0]} x_4^n}
+\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} x^{-\frac{n-4i}{6}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n-i,0]} x_4^i\right)\nonumber\\
&+x^{\frac{n}{2}+3} \left( \textcolor{blue}{x^{-\frac{n-2}{6}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n+1,0]} x_4 }
+\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} x^{-\frac{n-4i}{6}+1} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n-i,0]} x_4^{i+2}
+\sum_{i=-1}^{n-1} x^{-\frac{n-2-4i}{6}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n-i-1,1]} x_4^{i+1}
\right) \nonumber\\
&-x^{\frac{n}{2}+2} \Bigg( \textcolor{blue}{x^{-\frac{n}{6}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n+1,1]} x_4} \nonumber\\
&\phantom{-x^{\frac{n}{2}+2} \Bigg(}\left.
+ \sum_{i=-1}^{n-1} x^{-\frac{n-2-4i}{6}+1} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n-i-1,1]} x_4^{i+3}
+\sum_{i=1}^{n+2} x^{-\frac{n+2-4i}{6}-1} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n+2-i,0]} x_4^{i-2}
\right) \nonumber\\
&+x^{\frac{n}{2}+1} \left( \textcolor{blue}{x^{-\frac{n+2}{6}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n+2,0]} }
+\sum_{i=1}^{n+2} x^{-\frac{n+2-4i}{6}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[n+2-i,0]} x_4^{i} \right)\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{2}{l}{
\phantom{=}-x^{\frac{3}{2}} \left( \textcolor{blue}{x^{\frac{1}{6}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[0,1]} x_4 }
+x^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_4^{-1}\right)
+x^{\frac{1}{2}} \left( \textcolor{blue}{x^{-\frac{1}{6}} \chi_{U(3)}^{[1,0]}}+x^{\frac{1}{2}}x_4\right).}\nonumber
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
Here we use $\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}$ to denote a refined version of the single-graviton index with one more fugacity compared to the original single-graviton index calculated in \eqref{mABJM-gravity0}.
When we impose $x_1 x_2 x_3=1$, or equivalently $x_4=1$, all the U(3) characters in the above expression reduce to SU(3) characters. Then, the terms written in blue in \eqref{refined} exactly match the index which is calculated directly from the KK-spectroscopy analysis in \eqref{mABJM-gravity0}. The remaining terms completely cancel with each other and do not contribute to the index in this case.
Now we are ready to reproduce the field theory results presented in the previous section. To do that, it is more appropriate to use the following expression
\begin{align}\label{refined-sum}
\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}=
\dfrac{(1-x_1^{-1}x^{\frac{5}{3}})(1-x_2^{-1}x^{\frac{5}{3}})(1-x_3^{-1}x^{\frac{5}{3}})
(1- x_1 x_2 x_3 x)}
{(1-x_1 x^{\frac{1}{3}})(1-x_2 x^{\frac{1}{3}})(1-x_3 x^{\frac{1}{3}})
(1-(x_1 x_2 x_3)^{-1}x)(1-x^2)^2}
-\dfrac{1-x^2+x^4}{(1-x^2)^2},
\end{align}
which can be obtained by evaluating the summations in \eqref{refined}.
We identify the fugacities of the gravity and field theory indices as
\begin{equation}
x_1 \equiv {z_1}^{\frac{1}{2}} q^{-\frac{1}{4}}z^ {-1}, \quad
x_2 \equiv {z_1}^{-\frac{1}{2}} q^{\frac{1}{4}}z^{-1}, \quad
x_3 \equiv q^{\frac{1}{4}} z,
\end{equation}
by comparing the refined single-graviton index \eqref{refined-sum} and the field theory index in the sector with one monopole operator \eqref{SCI-mABJM-pre}. With this identification, we can rewrite the refined gravity index in terms of the field theory fugacities $z_1, q, z$. We already know from the field theory analysis that $z$ plays the role of $q_b^{\frac{1}{4}}$, which is the fugacity associated with the baryonic U(1)$_b$. Hence, it implies that we finally obtain the expression which we can expand in $z$, i.e. the fugacity associated to the monopole operators and reproduce the field theory results.
Before doing that, we mention that the refined index \eqref{refined-sum} reduces to the original one by imposing the constraint $x_1 x_2 x_3 =1$. More specifically, we can reproduce \eqref{mABJM-gravity} with
\begin{equation}
x_1= y_1, \quad x_2=\dfrac{1}{y_2}, \quad x_3 =\dfrac{y_2}{y_1}.
\end{equation}
The constraint $x_1 x_2 x_3 =1$ translates into the identification $z \equiv q^{\frac{1}{4}}$ on the field theory side.
Now we check the agreement between the gravity and field theory calculations in each sector. First, we focus on the neutral sector index.
We can calculate the neutral sector index by expanding $\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}\left(x, z_1, q, z \right)$ in $z$ and read off the $z$-independent part. It can be done by evaluating the contour integral
\begin{align}
\oint
\dfrac{dz}{(2\pi i)z} \tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}\left(x, z_1, q, z \right),
\end{align}
which includes the poles at $z=0,\, z={z_1}^{-\frac{1}{2}} q^{\frac{1}{4}} x^{\frac{1}{3}},\,z={z_1}^{\frac{1}{2}} q^{-\frac{1}{4}} x^{\frac{1}{3}}$. As a result, we obtain the single particle index as
\begin{align}
\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}(x, z_1, q)=
&-2-\dfrac{2}{1-x^2}\nonumber\\
&+\dfrac{1}{1-{z_1}^{-\frac{1}{2}} q^{\frac{1}{2}}x^{\frac{2}{3}}}
+\dfrac{1}{1-{z_1}^{\frac{1}{2}} x^{\frac{2}{3}}}
+\dfrac{1}{1-{z_1}^{-\frac{1}{2}} x^{\frac{4}{3}}}
+\dfrac{1}{1-{z_1}^{\frac{1}{2}} q^{-\frac{1}{2}}x^{\frac{4}{3}}}.
\end{align}
After setting $q=1$, we calculate the multi-particle index as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{mp}}(x, {z_1})=\textrm{exp}\left[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n}\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}(x^n, {z_1}^n)\right],
\end{equation}
and successfully reproduce the field theory index in the neutral sector \eqref{SCI-mABJM-neutral}.
Let us move on to the index in the sector with one monopole operator. In this sector, we also expand
$\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}} \left(x, z_1, q,z \right)$ in $z$ and compute the coefficient of $z^k$ as
\begin{align}
\tilde{I}_k^\textrm{sp} \left(x, z_1, q \right)
= \oint
\dfrac{dz}{(2\pi i)z}\, z^{-k}\,\tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}\left(x, z_1, q, z \right).
\end{align}
The field theory index \eqref{SCI-mABJM-pre} can be neatly rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{index-one-mono}
I_{\ytableausetup{boxsize=0.3em}\ydiagram{1}\,\,\ydiagram{1}}^{(+)} \left(x, z_1, q \right)
= \oint
\dfrac{dz}{(2\pi i)z}\, z^{-k} \left ( \tilde{I}_{\textrm{mABJM}}^{\textrm{sp}}\left(x, z_1, q, z \right)+\dfrac{1-x^2+x^4}{(1-x^2)^2}\right).
\end{equation}
As in the case of ABJM theory, the second term in \eqref{index-one-mono} does not contribute to the contour integral. Hence, as a result, we conclude that
\begin{equation}
I_{\ytableausetup{boxsize=0.3em}\ydiagram{1}\,\,\ydiagram{1}}^{(+)}\left(x, z_1, q \right)=\tilde{I}_k^\textrm{sp} \left(x, z_1, q \right).
\end{equation}
It shows a perfect agreement of the gravity and field theory index in the sector with one monopole operator.
\section{GJV theory}\label{GJV}
In this section,
we turn to another class of AdS$_4$ solution with SU(3) symmetry and its field theory dual proposed by Guarino, Jafferis and Varela \cite{Guarino:2015jca}. The gravity solution, on the one hand, is the $\mathcal{N}=2$ SU(3) $\times$ U(1) invariant fixed point of $D=4$, $\mathcal{N}=8$ dyonic ISO(7) gauged supergravity, which can be uplifted on $S^6$ to $\mathcal{N}=2$ AdS$_4$ solutions in massive type IIA supergravity \cite{Guarino:2015qaa, Guarino:2015vca}. Its field theory dual, on the other hand, is given by $D=3$ Chern-Simons-matter theory consisting of one U(N) gauge multiplet with a CS level $k$ and three adjoint chiral multiplets enjoying SU(3) flavor symmetry.
This superconformal field theory can be obtained as an IR fixed point of RG-flow, which is triggered by the addition of Chern-Simons terms to UV $\mathcal{N}=8$ SYM on D2-branes. This RG flow is studied holographically in \cite{Guarino:2016ynd}.
For the GJV theory, the gravity free energy and the $S^3$-free energy at large $N$ are shown to precisely agree \cite{Guarino:2015jca}. The entropy of AdS$_4$ black hole in massive IIA supergravity was successfully reproduced from the computation of the topologically twisted index \cite{Hosseini:2017fjo, Benini:2017oxt}. Recently $\tau_{RR}$ was calculated in four-dimensional gauged supergravity \cite{Amariti:2021cpk}.
In this section, we compute the gravity index and the superconformal index at large $N$, and show that they also perfectly agree.
\subsection{Gravity index}
For the AdS$_4$ solution in massive IIA supergravity, the Kaluza-Klein graviton spectrum was studied in \cite{Pang:2017omp}.
Recently, the complete KK spectrum was obtained using the ExFT techniques \cite{Varela:2020wty}. In this section, we compute the graviton index.
Since the analysis is parallel to the mABJM case presented in the previous section, we briefly
sketch the calculation and present the result. The SU(3) Dynkin labels, R-charges and the energy of the short multiplets are summarized in table \ref{table:GJV}.
See table 2 in \cite{Varela:2020wty}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|ll||l}
& \hfil $[p,q]_r$ & \hfil $E_0$ &\hfil index\\
\hline
SGRAV & $[n,0]_{-2n/3} \oplus [0,n]_{2n/3}$ & $E_0=\frac{2n}{3}+2$ &
$-x^{\frac{2(6+n)}{3}}$\\
SGINO & $[n,1]_{-(2n+1)/3} \oplus [1,n]_{(2n+1)/3}$ & $E_0=\frac{11}{6}+\frac{2n}{3}$ &
$\phantom{+}x^{\frac{2(5+n)}{3}}$\\
SVEC & $[n+1,1]_{-2n/3} \oplus [1,n+1]_{2n/3}$ & $E_0=\frac{2n}{3}+1$ &
$-x^{\frac{2(3+n)}{3}}$\\
HYP & $[n+2,0]_{-2(n+2)/3} \oplus [0,n+2]_{2(n+2)/3}$ & $E_0=\frac{2n}{3}+\frac{4}{3}$ &
$\phantom{+}x^{\frac{2(2+n)}{3}}$\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{The spectrum of the short multiplets at the Kaluza-Klein level $n$ and the contributions to the superconformal index for ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ SU(3) $\times$ U(1) invariant AdS$_4$ solution in massive IIA supergravity.}
\label{table:GJV}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Here, we compute the contributions to the index of each supermultiplet and write them down in the last column of the table above.
Multiplying the SU(3) character and summing over all the KK levels, we obtain the single-graviton index as
\begin{align}
&I_{\textrm{GJV}}^{\textrm{sp}}\left(x,y_1,y_2 \right)\nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{1}{1-x^2}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
- x^{\frac{2(6+n)}{3}}\, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[0,n]}
+ x^{\frac{2(5+n)}{3}} \, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[1,n]}
- x^{\frac{2(3+n)}{3}} \, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[1,n+1]}
+ x^{\frac{2(2+n)}{3}} \, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[0,n+2]}
\right)\nonumber\\
&\phantom{=}\,\,
+\dfrac{1}{1-x^2} \left(- x^{\frac{4}{3}} \, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[1,0]}
+ x^{\frac{2}{3}} \, \chi_{SU(3)}^{[0,1]} \right),\label{GJV-grav-sp}\\
&=-\dfrac{1}{1-x^2}-\dfrac{x^{\frac{2}{3}}}{x^{\frac{2}{3}}-y_1}
+\dfrac{x^{\frac{2}{3}}y_1}{y_2-x^{\frac{2}{3}}y_1}
+\dfrac{1}{1-x^{\frac{2}{3}}y_2}.
\end{align}
We have added the singletons contributions in the second line of equation \eqref{GJV-grav-sp}. It corresponds to the decoupled U(1) sector of U(N) GJV theory.
Evaluating the plethystic exponential \eqref{mp-sp}, we obtain the index of the multi-graviton as
\begin{equation}\label{GJV-grav-mp}
I_{\textrm{mp}}
=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{(1-x^{2n})}{
\left(1-{y_1}^{-n} x^{\frac{2}{3}n}\right)
\left(1-{y_1}^{n} {y_2}^{-n} x^{\frac{2}{3}n}\right)
\left(1- {y_2}^{n} x^{\frac{2}{3}n}\right)}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Superconformal index}
Now we move on to the calculation of the superconformal index of GJV theory.\footnote{The superconformal index of GJV theory with complex fugacities, which scales as $N^{\frac{5}{3}}$, was discussed in \cite{Bobev:2019zmz,Choi:2019dfu}.} The theory has three chiral multiplets $X_1, X_2$ and $X_3$ with the conformal dimensions $\frac{2}{3}$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c c c}
& & GJV & \\
\hline
fields & $t_1$ & $t_2$ & $\Delta$\\
\hline
$X_1$ & $0$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ \\
$X_2$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ \\
$X_3$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$ & $0$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Here $t_1$ and $t_2$ are the charges of the Cartan generators of SU(3).
We easily read off the matrix $M$ \eqref{fprime} in
\begin{align}
&f^{'}_{\textrm{vector}} = -\lambda_{1,+1}\lambda_{1,-1},\nonumber\\
&f^{'}_{\textrm{chiral}} =\dfrac{\lambda_{1,+1}\lambda_{1,-1}}{1-x^2}\sum_{X_a}\left(z_i^{F_i} x^\Delta- z_i^{-F_i} x^{2-\Delta}\right),
\end{align}
and obtain the index as
\begin{equation}
I^{(0)}=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{\textrm{det}M}
=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{(1-x^{2n})}{
\left(1-{z_1}^{-\frac{n}{2}} x^{\frac{2n}{3}}\right)
\left(1-{z_1}^{\frac{n}{2}}{z_2}^{-\frac{n}{2}} x^{\frac{2n}{3}}\right)
\left(1- {z_2}^{\frac{n}{2}} x^{\frac{2n}{3}}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Upon replacing
\begin{equation}
z_1 \rightarrow y_1^2, \quad z_2 \rightarrow y_2^2,
\end{equation}
one can easily see exact agreement with the gravity calculation in \eqref{GJV-grav-mp}.
\section{Conclusions}\label{discussion}
In this short note, we have discussed the large $N$ superconformal index for two non-trivial $\mathcal{N}=2$ Chern-Simons theories known as mABJM and GJV theories. They appear as IR-fixed points of the RG-flows driven by a superpotential mass deformation of UV ABJM theory and a Chern-Simons deformation of UV SYM on D2-branes, respectively. We have adopted the prescription provided in \cite{Kim:2009wb, Imamura:2011su} and computed the field theory index. We have also computed the graviton index on ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ SU(3) $\times$ U(1)-invariant AdS$_4$ solutions in D=11 and massive IIA supergravity, where we have extensively used the results of recent studies on the Kaluza-Klein spectrum on these backgrounds.
Given the full KK spectrum, the computation of the graviton index is very straightforward and yields the expression in terms of SU(3) characters for both cases. However, the field theory computation for mABJM theory is rather subtle because the baryon-like U(1)$_b$ symmetry, under which the monopole operator is charged, is not a symmetry of mABJM theory. We can explicitly keep track of it at the expense of introducing one more fugacity related to U(1)$_b$ symmetry and follow the method of \cite{Kim:2009wb}. Then, we compute the index in the neutral sector and in the sector with one monopole operator. Something similar happens on the gravity side. To compare with the field theory index, one has to expand the graviton index \eqref{mABJM-gravity} in the fugacity associated with the monopole operator. However, we could not identify it in the graviton index. Hence, we have devised the so-called refined graviton index, by using the fact that ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ SU(3) $\times$ U(1)-invariant AdS$_4$ solutions in $D=11$ supergravity
is related to AdS$_4 \times$ S$^7$ solution by an RG-flow, and managed to identify it. As a result, we have successfully reproduced the field theory results.
For the GJV theory, there is no such issue. The gravity index is in perfect agreement with the field theory index. As a generalization of GJV theory, there is a large class of dual pairs of AdS$_4$ solutions in massive IIA supergravity and $D=3$ Chern-Simons theories with non-zero CS levels, which are inherited from the parent $D=4$, $\mathcal{N}=1$ superconformal field theory \cite{Fluder:2015eoa}. We expect that the computation of the field theory index is
a relatively easy task.
It would be very interesting to study the Kaluza-Klein spectrum of these background and compute the graviton index to give a concrete test of AdS$_4$/CFT$_3$ correspondence.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank Thomas Basile for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant
2019R1A2C2004880(HK, NK) and 2020R1A2C1008497(HK).
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $(M, g)$ be a Riemannian manifold, $f$ a smooth function on $M$. The Bakry-\'Emery Ricci curvature tensor $Ric+Hess\, f$, first introduced in \cite{BE}, is a natural generalization of the classical Ricci curvature tensor (the case where $f$ is a constant). Here, $Ric$ and $Hess\, f$ represent the Ricci curvature tensor and the hessian of $f$, respectively.
Bakry-\'Emery Ricci curvature being bounded below is the concept of ``Ricci curvature bounded below" for smooth metric space $(M, g, e^{-f}dV)$, namely, $M$ equipped with the distance induced by $g$ and measure $e^{-f}dV$, where $dV$ is the volume element. It can also be extended to general metric measure spaces and used to study Ricci limit spaces (see e.g. \cite{St1}, \cite{St2}, \cite{LV}). Moreover, manifolds with constant Bakry-\'Emery Ricci curvature are so called Ricci solitons, which play a crucial role in the singularity analysis of the Ricci flow (see e.g. \cite{Per}, \cite{TZ}, \cite{CW}, \cite{Bam}). Therefore, the question that whether the results for manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded below can also be established when Bakry-\'Emery Ricci curvature is bounded below has drawn a lot of attention.
In this paper, we study the eigenvalue estimates of Beltrami Laplacian $\Delta$ on closed manifolds. The basic assumptions are that $(M^m, g)$ is an $m$-dimensional closed Riemannian manifold with
\begin{equation}\label{basic assumption1}
Ric+Hess\,f\geq -K g,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{basic assumption2}
|\nabla f|\leq L,
\end{equation}
where $\nabla f$ is the gradient of $f$, and $K$ and $L$ are nonnegative constants.
On manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded below, there have been numerous results on eigenvalue estimates (see e.g. \cite{Lich}, \cite{Ob}, \cite{Cheeger}, \cite{Cheng}, \cite{LY}, \cite{ZY}, \cite{Li}). For manifolds with Bakry-\'Emery Ricci curvature bounded from below, normally the weighted measure $e^{-f}dV$ is considered, and the corresponding self-adjoint Laplace operator is the drifted Laplacian $\Delta_f=\Delta- \nabla f\cdot \nabla$. Under the assumptions \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2}, Munteanu-Wang \cite{MW}, Su-Zhang \cite{SZ}, and Wu \cite{Wu} independently obtained a Cheng type upper bound for the first positive eigenvalue of $\Delta_f$. On the other hand, Charalambous-Lu-Rowlett \cite{CLR} proved lower bound estimates for all positive eigenvalues of $\Delta_f$. An eigenvalue comparison for the first positive eigenvalue of $\Delta_f$ is also given in \cite{BQ} and \cite{AN}.
Different from the above setting, we consider here the standard measure $dV$ and Beltrami-Laplacian $\Delta$ under conditions \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2}. A main difficulty rising in this case is that the hessian of $f$ does not appear in the Bochner formula for $\Delta$, as opposed to the Bochner formula for $\Delta_f$. Thus, to utilize the lower boundedness of the Bakry-\'Emery Ricci curvature, we need to manually add $Hess\,f$, which causes an extra bad term $-Hess\,f(\nabla \cdot, \nabla \cdot)$. By using integration by parts and Moser iteration, we are able to overcome this difficulty.
Denote the eigenvalues of $\Delta$ by $0=\lambda_0<\lambda_1\leq \lambda_2\leq \cdots\leq \lambda_k\leq \cdots$, we derive lower bounds for all $\lambda_k$'s. More precisely, we show that
\begin{theorem}\label{main theorem}
Let $(M^m,g)$ be an $m$-dimensional closed Riemannian manifold. Assume that conditions \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2} are satisfied. Then\\
(1) we have
\begin{equation}\label{lower bound of 1}
\lambda_1\ge c_0;
\end{equation}
(2) for $m \ge 3$,
\begin{equation}\label{lower bound of k}
\lambda_k\ge c_1k^{\frac{2}{m}}, \ \forall k\geq 2,
\end{equation}
and for $m=2$,
\begin{equation}\label{lower bound of k m=2}
\lambda_k\ge c_2k^{\frac{1}{2}}, \ \forall k\geq 2.
\end{equation}
Here $c_0$, $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants depending on $m$, $K,\ L$, and the upper bound $D$ of the diameter of $M$.
\end{theorem}
We prove (1) and (2) of Theorem \ref{main theorem} separately in sections 2 and 3 (see Theorem \ref{thm 1} and Theorem \ref{thm n}), where explicit expressions of $c_0$ , $c_1$ and $c_2$ can also be found. In section 2, we establish the estimate \eqref{lower bound of 1} by finding a lower bound of Cheeger's isoperimetric constant $IN_1(M)$. Actually, we obtain lower bound for the general isoperimetric constant $IN_{\alpha}(M)$, $\alpha>0$, defined in \cite{Li}. The proof follows a method of Dai-Wei-Zhang \cite{DWZ} and uses the volume comparison result of Q. Zhang and the third author \cite{ZZ}. In section 3, following the method in \cite{WZ} (see also \cite{LZZ}), estimates \eqref{lower bound of k} and \eqref{lower bound of k m=2} are proved by using \eqref{lower bound of 1} and gradient estimates for eigenfunctions. The gradient estimates are done by Moser iteration, in which the Sobolev inequality required comes from the isoperimetric constant estimate in section 2.\\
\section{Isoperimetric constant estimate and lower bound of $\lambda_1$ }
In this section, we prove part (1) of Theorem \ref{main theorem}. According to \cite{Cheeger}, it suffices to bound Cheeger's isoperimetric constant from below. Firstly, let us recall the definitions of isoperimetric constants. We adapt the notations and definitions in \cite{Li}.
\begin{definition}
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold (with or without boundary). For $\alpha>0$, The Neumann $\alpha$-isoperimetric constant of M is defined by
$$ IN_\alpha(M)=\inf_{\substack{\partial\Omega_1=H=\partial\Omega_2 \\ M=\Omega_1\cup H \cup \Omega_2}}\frac{\vol(H)}{\min\{{\vol(\Omega_1),\vol(\Omega_2)}\}^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}},$$
\\
where the infimum is taken over all hypersurfaces $H$ dividing $M$ into two parts, denoted by $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$, and $\vol(\cdot)$ denotes the volume of a region.
\end{definition}
In \cite{Cheeger}, Cheeger showed that
\begin{lemma}\label{Cheeger}
Let $(M,g)$ be a closed Riemannian manifold. Then
\[\lambda_1 \ge \frac{IN_1(M)^2}{4}.\]
\end{lemma}
Thus, one can get a lower bound of $\lambda_1$ by bounding $IN_1(M)$ from below. As indicated in \cite{DWZ}, this can be done by using the method therein. For completeness, we state the result and also include the proof in the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{isoperimetric estimate}
Let $(M^m,g)$ be an $m$-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold, $m\geq 2$. Assume that \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2} are satisfied. Let $\Omega$ be a bounded convex domain in $M$. Then
for $1\le\alpha \le \frac{m}{m-1},$ we have
\begin{equation}
IN_\alpha(\Omega)\ge d^{-1}2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-(24-\frac{2}{\alpha})Ld-(104-\frac{1}{\alpha})Kd^2} \vol(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}},
\end{equation}
and for $0<\alpha<1,$ we have
\begin{equation}
IN_{\alpha}(\Omega)\ge d^{-1}2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-22Ld-103Kd^2}\vol(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}},
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the diameter of the domain $\Omega$.
In particular, if $M$ is closed, then
\begin{equation}
IN_1(M)\ge D^{-1}2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-22LD-103K D^2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
IN_{\frac{m}{m-1}}(M)\ge D^{-1}2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-(22+\frac{2}{m})LD-(103+\frac{1}{m})K D^2}\vol(M)^{\frac{1}{m}},
\end{equation}
where $D$ is an upper bound of the diameter of $M$.
\end{theorem}
Before starting the proof of Theorem \ref{isoperimetric estimate}, let us present some results needed. First of all, Q. Zhang and the third author \cite{ZZ} proved a volume comparison theorem for manifolds satisfying \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2}.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{ZZ}]\label{volume element comparison}
Let $(M^m, g)$ be an $m$-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold. Suppose that $Ric+\frac{1}{2}\mathscr{L}_Vg \ge -Kg$ for some constant $K\ge0$ and smooth vector field $V$ with $|V|\le L$, where $\mathscr{L}_V$ means the Lie derivative in the direction of $V$. Then the following conclusions are true.
\\
(a)Let $A(s,\theta)$ denote the volume element of the metric $g$ on M in geodesic polar coordinates. Then for any $0< s_1 <s_2$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{AC}
\frac{A(s_2,\theta)}{s_2^{m-1}}\le e^{2Ls_2+Ks_2^2} \frac{A(s_1,\theta)}{s_1^{m-1}}.
\end{equation}
\\
(b)For any $0<r_1<r_2$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{VC}
\frac{\vol(B_{r_2}(x))}{r_2^m}\le e^{[K(r_2^2-r_1^2)+2L(r_2-r_1)]}\frac{\vol(B_{r_1}(x))}{r_1^m},
\end{equation}
where $B_r(x)$ is the geodesic ball centered at $x\in M$ with radius $r$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
When $V=\nabla f$, the assumptions in the above Theorem become \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2}.
\end{remark}
Next, we need the following lemma by Gromov.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Gro}]\label{Gromov}
Let $(M^m,g)$ be a complete Riemannian manifold. Let $\Omega$ be a convex domain in $M$, and $H$ a hypersurface dividing $\Omega$ into two parts $\Omega_1,\Omega_2$. For any Borel subsets $W_i \subset \Omega_i,i=1,2$, there exists an $x_1$
in one of $W_i$, say $W_1$, and a subset $W$ in the other part $W_2$, such that
\begin{equation}
\vol(W) \ge \frac{1}{2}\vol(W_2),
\end{equation}
and for any $x_2\in W$, there is a unique minimal geodesic $\gamma_{x_1, x_2}$ between $x_1$ and $x_2$ which intersects $H$ at some $z$ with
\begin{equation}
dist(x_1,z)\ge dist(x_2,z),
\end{equation}
where $dist(x_1,z)$ denotes the distance between $x_1$ and $z$.
\end{lemma}
Combining Theorem \ref{volume element comparison} and Lemma \ref{Gromov}, we get
\begin{lemma}
Let $H,W$ and $x_1$ be as in Lemma \ref{Gromov}. Then
\begin{equation}
\vol(W)\le D_12^{m-1}e^{4LD_1+4KD_1^2}\vol(H^{'}),
\end{equation}
where $D_1=\sup_{x\in W} dist(x_1,x)$, and $H^{'}$ is the set of intersection points with $H$ of geodesics $\gamma_{x_1,x} $ for all $x \in W$.
\end{lemma}
\proof Let $S_{x_1}$ be the set of unit tangent vectors of $M$ at $x_1$, and $\Gamma \subset S_{x_1} $ the subset of vectors $\theta$ such that $\gamma_{\theta} =\gamma_{x_1,x_2}$ for some $x_2\in W$. The volume element of the metric $g$ is written as $dV=A(\theta,t)d\theta \wedge dt$ in polar coordinates $(\theta,t) \in S_{x_1} \times \mathbb{R^{+}}$. For any $\theta \in \Gamma$, let $r(\theta)$ be the radius such that $exp_{x_1}(r (\theta))\in H$. Then it follows from Lemma \ref{Gromov} that $W\subset \{exp_{x_1}(r)|r(\theta) \le r \le 2r(\theta),\ \theta \in \Gamma\}$, and hence
\begin{equation}\label{vol M}
\vol(W) \le \int_{\Gamma}\int_{r(\theta)}^{2r(\theta)} A(\theta,t)dtd\theta.
\end{equation}
For $r(\theta) \le t \le 2r(\theta) \le 2D_1$, by \eqref{AC}, we have
\[\frac{A(\theta,t)}{t^{m-1}}\le e^{2Lt+Kt^2} \frac{A(\theta,r(\theta))}{r(\theta)^{m-1}},\]
which implies that
\[A(\theta,t) \le e^{4LD_1+4KD_1^2}2^{m-1}A(\theta,r(\theta)).\]
Plugging the above inequality into \eqref{vol M} gives \[\vol(W)\le e^{4LD_1+4KD_1^2}2^{m-1}\int_{\Gamma} r(\theta)A(\theta,r(\theta))d\theta \le D_12^{m-1} e^{4LD_1+4KD_1^2} \vol(H^{'}). \] \qed\\
When $W$ is the intersection of $\Omega$ and a ball in $M$, the above lemma implies that
\begin{corollary}
Let $H$ be any hypersurface dividing a convex domain $\Omega$ into two parts $\Omega_1,\Omega_2$. For any ball $B_r(x)$ in $M$, we have
\begin{equation}
\min(\vol(B_r(x)\cap\Omega_1),\vol(B_r(x)\cap\Omega_2)) \le 2^{m+1}re^{4Ld+4Kd^2}\vol(H\cap(B_{2r}(x))),
\end{equation}
where $d=diam(\Omega)$, the diameter of $\Omega$. In particular, if $B_r(x)\cap\Omega$ is divided equally by $H$, then
\begin{equation} \label{RV}
\vol(B_r(x)\cap\Omega) \le 2^{m+2}re^{4Ld+4Kd^2}\vol(H\cap B_{2r}(x)) .
\end{equation}
\proof Put $W_i=B_r(x)\cap\Omega_i$ in the above lemma and use $D_1 \le 2r$ and $H^{'}\subset H\cap B_{2r}(x).$ \qed\\
\end{corollary}
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{isoperimetric estimate}.\\
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{isoperimetric estimate}.} Let $H$ be any hypersurface dividing $M$ into two parts, $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$. We may assume that $\vol(\Omega_1) \le \vol(\Omega_2)$. For any $x\in\Omega_1$, Let $r_x$ be the smallest radius such that
\[\vol(B_{r_x}(x)\cap\Omega_1)=\vol(B_{r_x}(x)\cap\Omega_2)=\frac{1}{2}\vol(B_{r_x}(x)\cap\Omega).\]
By \eqref{RV}, we have,
\begin{equation}\label{CC}
\vol(B_{r_x}(x)\cap\Omega) \le 2^{m+2}r_xe^{4Ld+4Kd^2}\vol(H\cap B_{2r_x}(x)).
\end{equation}
The domain $\Omega_1$ has a covering
\[\Omega_1\subset \cup_{x\in\Omega_1}B_{2r_x}(x).\]
By Vitali Covering Lemma, we can choose a countable family of disjoint balls $B_i=B_{2r_{x_i}}(x_i)$ such that $\cup_iB_{10r_{x_i}}(x_i) \supset \Omega_1.$
So\[\vol(\Omega_1)\le \sum_i \vol(B_{10r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega_1).\]
Applying the volume comparison Theorem \ref{volume element comparison} in $\Omega_1$ gives
\[\frac{\vol(B_{10r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega_1)}{(10r_{x_i})^m}\le e^{99Kr_{x_i}^2+18Lr_{x_i}}\frac{\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega_1)}{(r_{x_i})^m}.\]
On the other hand, since $\vol(\Omega_1) \le \vol(\Omega_2) $, we have $r_x \le d$ for any $x\in \Omega_1$. Thus,
\begin{align}
\vol(B_{10r_{x_i}} (x_i) \cap\Omega_1)
&\le 10^me^{99Kd^2+18Ld} \vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega_1)\nonumber\\ &=2^{-1}10^me^{99Kd^2+18Ld} \vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)\nonumber.
\end{align}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{vol omega 1}
\vol(\Omega_1) \le 2^{-1}10^me^{99Kd^2+18Ld} \sum_i\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega) .
\end{equation}
Moreover, since the balls $B_i$ are disjoint, \eqref{CC} gives
\begin{equation}\label{vol H}
\vol(H)\ge \sum_i \vol(B_i \cap H) \ge 2^{-m-2}e^{-4Ld-4Kd^2} \sum_i r_{x_i}^{-1} \vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega).
\end{equation}
When $1\le \alpha \le \frac{m}{m-1}$, it follows from \eqref{vol omega 1} and \eqref{vol H} that
\begin{equation}\label{iso 1}
\begin{split}
\frac{\vol(H)}{\vol(\Omega_1)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}} &\ge \frac{2^{-m-2}e^{-4Ld-4Kd^2}}{(2^{-1}10^me^{99Kd^2+18Ld})^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}}\frac{\sum_i r_{x_i}^{-1}\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)}{(\sum_i\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega))^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}} \\
& \ge \frac{2^{-m-2}e^{-4Ld-4Kd^2}}{2^{-1}10^me^{99Kd^2+18Ld}}\frac{\sum_ir_{x_i}^{-1} \vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)}{\sum_i\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}} \\
& \ge2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-22Ld-103Kd^2}\inf_i\frac{r_{x_i}^{-1}\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)}{\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)^\frac{1}{\alpha}} \\
&= 2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-22Ld-103Kd^2}\inf r_{x_i}^{-1}\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Applying the volume comparison Theorem \ref{volume element comparison} in $\Omega$ gives
\[\frac{\vol(B_d(x_i)\cap\Omega)}{d^m}\le e^{Kd^2+2Ld}\frac{\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)} {r_{x_i}^m}.\]
Since $1-\frac{1}{\alpha} \ge 0$, and $m(1-\frac{1}{\alpha})-1\le0$,
we derive
\begin{equation}\label{iso 2}
\aligned\inf r_{x_i}^{-1} \vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}} \ge & d^{m(1-\frac{1}{\alpha})-1}\inf r_{x_i}^{-m(1-\frac{1}{\alpha})} \vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}\\
\geq & d^{-1}e^{-(Kd^2+2Ld)(1-\frac{1}{\alpha})}\vol(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}.
\endaligned
\end{equation}
From \eqref{iso 1} and \eqref{iso 2}, we conclude that
\[IN_{\alpha}(\Omega)\ge d^{-1}2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-(24-\frac{2}{\alpha})Ld-(104-\frac{1}{\alpha})K d^2}\vol(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}.\]
On the other hand, when $0<\alpha<1$, similarly to \eqref{iso 1}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{iso 3}
\begin{split}
\frac{\vol(H)}{\vol(\Omega_1)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}}&=\frac{\vol(H)}{\vol(\Omega_1) \vol(\Omega_1)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}-1}} \ge \frac{\vol(H)}{\vol(\Omega_1) \vol(\Omega)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}-1}} \\
& \ge \frac{2^{-m-2}e^{-4Ld-4Kd^2}}{2^{-1}10^me^{99Kd^2+18Ld}}\frac{\sum_ir_{x_i}^{-1} \vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)}{\sum_i\vol(B_{r_{x_i}}(x_i)\cap\Omega)} \vol(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}} \\
& \ge d^{-1}2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-22Ld-103Kd^2}\vol(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}} .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Taking infimum over $H$ finishes the proof. \qed\\
From Lemma \ref{Cheeger} and Theorem \ref{isoperimetric estimate}, we immediately have the estimate of the first eigenvalue.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm 1}
Let $(M^m,g)$ be an $m$-dimensional closed Riemannian manifold with diameter bounded from above by $D$, and $m\geq 2$. Suppose that \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2} are satisfied. Then
\begin{equation}
\lambda_1\ge \frac{1}{16}D^{-2}400^{-m}e^{-44LD-206KD^2}:= c_0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\medskip
To derive the lower bound of higher order eigenvalues, we need to use gradient estimates for eigenfunctions, which in term require a Sobolev inequality. According to section 9 in \cite{Li}, the desired Sobolev inequality follows from the lower bound estimate of $IN_{\frac{m}{m-1}}(M)$.
\begin{definition}[\cite{Li}]
Let $(M^m,g)$ be an $m$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (with or without boundary). For any $\alpha>0$, the Neumann $\alpha$-Sobolev constant of $M$ is defined by
\[SN_\alpha(M)=\inf_{f\in H^{1,1}(M)} \frac{\int_M |\nabla f|}{\{\inf_{k\in \mathbb{R}} \int_M |f-k|^\alpha\}^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}},\]
where $H^{1,1}(M)$ is the Sobolev space.
\end{definition}
As pointed out in \cite{Li}, when $\alpha>\frac{m}{m-1}$, it holds that $IN_{\alpha}(M)=SN_{\alpha}(M)=0$. In general, the relation between $IN_\alpha(M)$ and $SN_\alpha(M)$ is as follows.
\begin{lemma}[section 9 in \cite{Li}]\label{SN and IN}
For any $\alpha >0$, we have
$$ \min\{{1,2^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}}\} IN_\alpha(M) \le SN_\alpha(M)\le \max\{{1,2^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}}\}IN_\alpha(M). $$
\end{lemma}
Moreover, a lower bound of the Sobolev constant $SN_{\alpha}(M)$ provides a Sobolev inequality. In fact, we have
\begin{lemma}[Corollary 9.9 in \cite{Li}]\label{SN and Sobolev}
Let $(M^m, g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold (with or without boundary). There exist constants $C_1(\alpha), C_2(\alpha)>0$ depengding only on $\alpha$, such that
\[\int_M |\nabla f|^2 \ge C_1(\alpha)SN_\alpha(M)^2\left(\left(\int_M |f|^{\frac{2\alpha}{2-\alpha}}\right)^\frac{2-\alpha}{\alpha}-C_2(\alpha)\vol(M)^{\frac{(2-2\alpha)}{\alpha}} \int_M |f|^2\right)\] for all $f\in H^{1,2}(M).$
\end{lemma}
Then by choosing $\alpha=\frac{m}{m-1}$ for $m\geq 3$ and $\alpha=\frac{4}{3}$ for $m=2$, and combining Lemma \ref{SN and IN}, Lemma \ref{SN and Sobolev}, and Theorem \ref{isoperimetric estimate}, one can get the following Sobolev inequalities.
\begin{corollary} \label{Sobolev inequality}
Let $(M^m,g)$ be an $m$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold (with or without boundary). Assume that \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2} are satisfied. Then for any $f\in H^{1,2}(M)$,\\
(1) when $m\ge 3$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Sobolev1}
\int_M |\nabla f|^2 \ge C_1(m) \tilde{C}^2 \vol(M)^{\frac{2}{m}}\left(\left(\int_M |f|^{\frac{2m}{m-2}}\right)^{\frac{m-2}{m}}-C_2(m)\vol(M)^{-\frac{2}{m}}\int_M|f|^2\right),
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{C}=D^{-1}2^{-2m-1}5^{-m}e^{-(22+\frac{2}{m})LD-(103+\frac{1}{m})K D^2}$, and $C_1(m)$ and $C_2(m)$ are dimensional constants; \\
(2) when $m=2$, one has
\begin{equation}\label{Sobolev2}
\int_M |\nabla f|^2 \ge \tilde{S_1} \tilde{S}^2 \vol(M)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\left(\int_M |f|^{4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-\tilde{S_2}\vol(M)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\int_M|f|^2\right),
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{S}_1$ and $\tilde{S}_2$ are pure constants, and
$\tilde{S}=D^{-1}2^{-5}5^{-2}e^{-(22+\frac{1}{2})LD-(103+\frac{1}{4})K D^2}.$\\
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}\label{constants}
By carefully following the proof of Corollary 9.9 in \cite{Li}, one can check that we may take $C_1(m)=\frac{(m-2)^2}{4(m-1)^2}2^{\frac{2-m}{m(m-1)}}$, $C_2(m)=2^{\frac{2m^3-7m^2+2m+4}{m(m-1)(m-2)}}$, $\tilde{S_1}=3^{-2}2^{-\frac{1}{6}}$, and $\tilde{S_2}=2^{\frac{7}{6}}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Gradient and higher order eigenvalue estimates }
In this section, we use a method in \cite{WZ} (see also \cite{LZZ}) to show the lower bound estimates of high order eigenvalues. Firstly, we prove a gradient estimate of eigenfunctions by Moser iteration.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop gradient estimate eigenfunction}
Let $(M^m,g)$, $m\ge3$, be an $m$-dimensional closed Riemannian manifold. Suppose that \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2} are satisfied. Let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of the Laplace operator, and $u$ an eigenfunction satisfing $\Delta u=-\lambda u$. Then we have the following gradient estimate.
\begin{equation}
|\nabla u|^2\le 2^m\left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{2}\left(\frac{3\lambda+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1}\right)^\frac{m}{2}(\lambda+L^2)\vol(M)^{-1}\int_M u^2,
\end{equation}
where $C_1=C_1(m)\tilde{C}^2$, and $C_2=C_1(m)\tilde{C}^2C_2(m)$ with $C_1(m),\ C_2(m)$, $\tilde{C}$ the constants in \eqref{Sobolev1}.
In particular, when $||u||_{L^2}=1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{gradient estimate eigenfunction}
|\nabla u|^2\le 2^m\left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{2}\left(\frac{3\lambda+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1}\right)^\frac{m}{2}(\lambda+L^2)\vol(M)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\proof Let $v=|\nabla u|^2+L^2u^2$. The Bochner formula and assumptions \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2} induce that
\begin{align}
\Delta v &=2|Hess\,u|^2+2<\nabla\Delta u,\nabla u>+2Ric(\nabla u,\nabla u)+2L^2u\Delta u+2L^2|\nabla u|^2 \nonumber\\
&\ge 2|Hess\,u|^2-2\lambda|\nabla u|^2-2K|\nabla u|^2-2f_{ij}u_iu_j-2L^2\lambda u^2+2L^2|\nabla u|^2\nonumber\\
&=2|Hess\,u|^2-2\lambda v +(2L^2-2K)|\nabla u|^2-2f_{ij}u_iu_j\nonumber\\
&\ge 2u_{ij}^2-2(\lambda+K) v-2f_{ij}u_iu_j.\nonumber
\end{align}
Multiple both sides above by $v^{p-1}$, $p\geq 2$, and take integrals over $M$. Notice that
\begin{align}
\int_Mv^{p-1}\Delta v&=-\int_M<\nabla v^{p-1},\nabla v>=-\int_M(p-1)v^{p-2}<\nabla v,\nabla v>\nonumber\\
&=-(p-1)\int_Mv^{p-2}|\nabla v|^2=-
\frac{4(p-1)}{p^2}\int_M|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2\nonumber.
\end{align}
Hence, we have
\begin{equation}\label{multiply v^p-1}
\frac{4(p-1)}{p^2}\int_M|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2\le -2\int_M u_{ij}^2v^{p-1}+2(\lambda+K) \int_Mv^p+2\int_Mf_{ij}
u_iu_jv^{p-1}.
\end{equation}
For the third term on the right hand side above, integrating by part yields
\begin{align}\label{int by parts}
2\int_Mf_{ij}u_iu_jv^{p-1}&=-2\int_Mf_i(u_iu_jv^{p-1})_j\nonumber\\
&=\underbrace{-2\int_Mf_iu_{ij}u_jv^{p-1}}_{I}\underbrace{-2\int_Mf_iu_iu_{jj}v^{p-1}}_{II}\underbrace{-2\int_Mf_iu_iu_j(p-1)v^{p-2}v_j}_{III}.
\end{align}
For $I$ above, using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the bound of $|\nabla f|$ gives
\begin{align}
I=-2\int_Mf_iu_{ij}u_jv^{p-1}& \le 2\int_M(u_{ij}^2v^{p-1}+\frac{1}{4}f_i^2u_j^2v^{p-1})\nonumber\\
&=2\int_Mu_{ij}^2v^{p-1}+\frac{1}{2}\int_Mf_i^2u_j^2v^{p-1}\nonumber\\
&\le 2\int_Mu_{ij}^2v^{p-1}+\frac{L^2}{2}\int_Mv^{p}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Next, noticing that $v\ge2L|\nabla u||u|$, we have
$$II=-2\int_Mf_iu_iu_{jj}v^{p-1}=2\lambda\int_Mf_iu_iuv^{p-1}\le2\lambda L \int_M|\nabla u||u|v^{p-1}\le\lambda \int_M v^p.$$
Finally, by applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality inequality again to $III$, we deduce
\begin{align}
III=-2\int_Mf_iu_iu_j(p-1)v^{p-2}v_j&\le2(p-1)L\int_M|\nabla u|^2|\nabla v|v^{p-2}\le2(p-1)L\int_M|\nabla v|v^{p-1}\nonumber\\
&\le 2(p-1)L(\frac{1}{4\epsilon_1}\int_Mv^p+\epsilon_1\int_M|\nabla v|^2v^{p-2})\nonumber\\
&=\frac{(p-1)L}{2\epsilon_1}\int_Mv^p+\frac{8(p-1)L\epsilon_1}{p^2}\int_M
|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2,\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\epsilon_1> 0$ is any constant. Thus, by combining the above estimates in \eqref{multiply v^p-1}, we arrive at
$$(\frac{4(p-1)}{p^2}-\frac{8(p-1)L\epsilon_1}{p^2})\int_M|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2\le(3\lambda+\frac{L^2}{2}+ 2K+\frac{(p-1)L}{2\epsilon_1})\int_Mv^p.$$
Assume for now that $L>0$. Then, by choosing $\epsilon_1=\frac{1}{4L}$ and noticing that $\frac{2(p-1)}{p^2}\ge\frac{1}{p}$ for $p\geq 2$, one gets
\begin{equation}\label{L>0}
\int_M|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2\le p^2(3\lambda+2L^2+ 2K)\int_Mv^p.
\end{equation}
If $L=0$, then $f$ is a constant, and from \eqref{multiply v^p-1} we conclude that
\[\int_M|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2\le \frac{1}{2}p^2(\lambda+K)\int_Mv^p,\]
which is better than \eqref{L>0}. Therefore, we always have
\begin{equation}\label{L}
\int_M|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2\le p^2(3\lambda+2L^2+ 2K)\int_Mv^p.
\end{equation}
Recall the Sobolev inequality \eqref{Sobolev1},
\begin{align} \label{22222}
\int_M |\nabla f|^2 \ge C_1\vol(M)^{\frac{2}{m}}\left(\int_M|f|^{\frac{2m}{m-2}}\right)^{\frac{m-2}{m}}-C_2\int_M|f|^2
\end{align}
for all $f\in H^{1,2}(M)$, where $C_1=C_1(m)\tilde{C}^2$, and $C_2=C_1(m)\tilde{C}^2C_2(m).$
Putting $f=v^{\frac{p}{2}}$ and using \eqref{L} yield
$$\left(\int_Mv^{\frac{pm}{m-2}}\right)^{\frac{m-2}{m}}\le p^2\left(\frac{3\lambda+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1\vol(M)^{\frac{2}{m}}}\right)\int_Mv^p.$$
Denote $Q=\frac {3\lambda+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1\vol(M)^{\frac{2}{m}}}$ \ for convenience. The inequality above means that
$$||v||_{\frac{pm}{m-2}}\le(p^2Q)^\frac{1}{p}||v||_p$$ for all $p\ge2$.
Setting $\beta=\frac{m}{m-2},\ p=2\beta^j $ for $ j=0,\ 1,\ 2,\ ...\, ,$ it implies that
$$||v||_{2\beta^{j+1}}\le2^{\frac{1}{\beta^j}}\beta^{\frac{j}{\beta^j}}Q^{\frac{1}{2\beta^j}}||v||_{2\beta^j}.$$
Iterating this estimate, we conclude that
$$||v||_{2\beta^{j+1}}\le2^{\sum_{l=0}^{j}\frac{1}{\beta^l}}\beta^{\sum_{l=0}^{j}\frac{l}{\beta^l}}Q^{\sum_{l=0}^{j}\frac{1}{2\beta^l}}||v||_2.$$ Letting $j\to\infty$, we obtain
$$||v||_{\infty}\le2^{\frac{m}{2}}\left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{4}Q^{\frac{m}{4}}||v||_2.$$
Notice that $\int_M v^2\le||v||_{\infty}\int_M v$. Therefore, the above estimate reduces to
$$\max\limits_{M} v\le2^m\left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{2}Q^{\frac{m}{2}}\int_Mv.$$
This finishes the proof, since $$\int_M v=\int_M(|\nabla u|^2+L^2u^2)=(\lambda+L^2)\int_Mu^2.$$ \qed\\
When $m=2$, by using the Sobolev inequality \eqref{Sobolev2} instead of \eqref{Sobolev1}, one can similarly obtain the following gradient estimate for $u$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop gradient estimate eigenfunction m=2}
If $(M, g)$ is a Riemann surface, $u$ is an eigenfunction associated to eigenvalue $\lambda$, and \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2} are satisfied, then
\[|\nabla u|^2 \le 2^8\left(\frac{3\lambda+2K+2L^2+S_2}{S_1}\right)^2(\lambda +L^2)\vol(M)^{-1}\int_M u^2,\]
where $S_1=\tilde{S_1}\tilde{S}^2$, and $S_2=\tilde{S_1}\tilde{S}^2\tilde{S_2}$ with $\tilde{S_1},\ \tilde{S_2}$, $\tilde{S}$ the constants in \eqref{Sobolev2}.
\end{proposition}
Next, we prove a similar gradient estimate for linear combinations of eigenfunctions.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop gradient estimate combination}
Let $(M^m, g_{ij})$ be an $m$-dimensional closed Riemannian manifold satisfying \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2}. Let $\phi_j$ be a normalized eigenfunction associated to $\lambda_j$, $j=1,\,2,\,\ ...,\ k$ i.e., $\Delta \phi_j=-\lambda_j \phi_j$ and $\int_M |\phi_j|^2 dV=1$. Then for any sequence of real numbers $b_j,\ j=1,\ 2,\ ...,\ k,$ with $\sum_{j=1}^{k}b_j^2 \le 1$, the linear combination $w=\sum_{i=1}^{k}b_j\phi_j$ satisfies that, for $m\geq 3$,
\begin{equation}\label{gradient estimate combination}
|\nabla w|^2 +L^2w^2 \le 2^m \left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{2}\left(\frac{6\lambda_k+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}(\lambda_k+L^2)\vol(M)^{-1},
\end{equation}
and for $m=2$,
\begin{equation} \label{gradient estimate combination m=2}
|\nabla w|^2+L^2w^2 \le 2^8\left(\frac{6\lambda_k+2K+2L^2+S_2}{S_1}\right)^2(\lambda_k+L^2)\vol(M)^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $C_1,\ C_2,\ S_1,\ S_2$ are constants in Propositions \ref{prop gradient estimate eigenfunction} and \ref{prop gradient estimate eigenfunction m=2}.
\end{proposition}
\proof Here, we only present the proof of \eqref{gradient estimate combination}. The proof of \eqref{gradient estimate combination m=2} is similar by using \eqref{Sobolev2} instead of \eqref{Sobolev1}. First of all, since $\lambda_k>0$, we can write
$$\Delta w=-\sum_{j=1}^{k}\lambda_jb_j\phi_j=-\lambda_k \eta,$$ where $\displaystyle \eta=\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{\lambda_j}{\lambda_k}b_j\phi_j.$\\
Let $v=|\nabla w|^2+L^2w^2$. Then
\begin{align}
\Delta v &=2|Hess\,w|^2+2<\nabla \Delta w,\nabla w>+2Ric(\nabla w,\nabla w)+2L^2w\Delta w +2L^2|\nabla w|^2\nonumber\\
&\ge 2w_{ij}^2-2\lambda_k\eta_iw_i-2K|\nabla w|^2-2f_{ij}w_iw_j-2L^2\lambda_k\eta w.\nonumber\\
&\ge 2w_{ij}^2-2\lambda_k\eta_iw_i-2Kv-2f_{ij}w_iw_j-2L^2\lambda_k\eta w.\nonumber
\end{align}
Multiplying both sides by $v^{p-1}, \ p \ge 2$, and integrating over $M$ give
\begin{equation} \label{222}
\begin{split}
\frac{4(p-1)}{p^2}\int_M|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2 &\le -2\int_M w_{ij}^2v^{p-1}+2\lambda_k\int_M \eta_iw_iv^{p-1}\\
&+2K\int_Mv^p+2\int_M f_{ij}w_iw_jv^{p-1} +2\lambda_k L^2\int_M \eta wv^{p-1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using H\"older inequality yields
\begin{equation}\label{combination1}
2\lambda_k\int_M \eta_iw_iv^{p-1} \le 2\lambda_k \int_M |\nabla \eta|v^{p-\frac{1}{2}} \le 2\lambda_k \left( \int_M v^p \right)^{\frac{p-\frac{1}{2}}{p}} \left( \int_M |\nabla\eta|^{2p}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p}}.
\end{equation}
Notice that the coefficients in $\nabla \eta$ satisfy $\sum_{j=1}^{k}(\frac{\lambda_j}{\lambda_k}b_j)^2 \le \sum_{j=1}^{k}b_j^2 \le 1$ and $\int_M v^p \ge \int_M |\nabla w|^{2p}$. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{combination2}
\int_M |\nabla \eta|^{2p} \le \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \int_M v^p.
\end{equation}
By combining \eqref{combination1} and \eqref{combination2}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{max1}
2\lambda_k\int_M \eta_iw_iv^{p-1} \le 2\lambda_k \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \int_M v^p.
\end{equation}
Here and in the rest of the proof, the maximum is taken for all real numbers $b_1,\cdots,b_k$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^k b_j^2\leq1$.
Similarly, for the last term of \eqref{222}, we have
\begin{equation}
\aligned
2\lambda_kL^2 \int_M \eta wv^{p-1} \le& 2 \lambda_kL\int_M |\eta|v^{p-\frac{1}{2}} \le 2\lambda_kL \left( \int_M v^p \right)^{\frac{p-\frac{1}{2}}{p}} \left( \int_M |\eta|^{2p}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p}}\\
\leq &2\lambda_k \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \int_M v^p
\endaligned
\end{equation}
Finally, we need to deal with the fourth term on the right hand side of \eqref{222}. Using integration by parts gives
\begin{equation}\label{22}
2\int_M f_{ij}w_iw_jv^{p-1}=\underbrace{-2\int_M f_{i}w_{ij}w_jv^{p-1}}_{I}\underbrace{-2\int_M f_{i}w_iw_{jj}v^{p-1}}_{II}\underbrace{-2\int_M f_{i}w_iw_j(p-1)v^{p-2}v_j}_{III}.
\end{equation}
Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the bound of $|\nabla f|$, we have
\[I=-2\int_M f_{i}w_{ij}w_jv^{p-1}\le 2\int_M w^2_{ij}v^{p-1}+\frac{L^2}{2}\int_M v^p \le 2\int_M w^2_{ij}v^{p-1} +\frac{L^2}{2} \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \int_M v^p,\]
\[II=-2\int_M f_{i}w_iw_{jj}v^{p-1}\le 2\lambda_k \int_M |\nabla f| |\nabla w| |\eta| v^{p-1} \le 2\lambda_k L \int_M |\eta|v^{p-\frac{1}{2}} \le 2\lambda_k\max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \int_M v^p,\]
and
\begin{align}
III=-2\int_M f_{i}w_iw_j(p-1)v^{p-2}v_j &\le 2(p-1)L \int_M |\nabla w |^2v^{p-2}|\nabla v| \le 2(p-1)L \int_M v^{p-1}|\nabla v|\nonumber\\
& \le 2(p-1)L \left(\frac{1}{4\varepsilon_2}\int_M v^p +\varepsilon_2 \int_M v^{p-2}|\nabla v|^2 \right)\nonumber\\
&= \frac{(p-1)L}{2\varepsilon_2}\max_{b_1,\dots,b_k}\int_M v^p +\frac{8(p-1)L\varepsilon_2}{p^2} \int_M |\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\varepsilon_2 >0$ is arbitrary constant. Hence, plugging the estimates above in \eqref{222} asserts that
\[ \left(\frac{4(p-1)}{p^2}-\frac{8(p-1)L\varepsilon_2}{p^2} \right ) \int_M |\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2 \le \left(6\lambda_k +\frac{L^2}{2}+2K+\frac{(p-1)L}{2\varepsilon_2}\right) \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \int_M v^p .\]
Choosing $\varepsilon_2=\frac{1}{4L}$, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{max2}
\max_{b_1,\dots,b_k}\int_M|\nabla v^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2 \le p^2 \left(6\lambda_k+2K+2L^2\right) \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \int_M v^p.
\end{equation}
Again, by \eqref{max2} and the Sobolev inequality \eqref{Sobolev1}, we have
\begin{equation}
\max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \left(\int_M v^{\frac{pm}{m-2}} \right)^{\frac{m-2}{m}} \le p^2
\left(\frac{6\lambda_k+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1\vol(M)^{\frac{2}{m}}}\right) \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \left(\int_M v^p \right).
\end{equation}
Denoting $Q=\frac{6\lambda_k+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1\vol(M)^{\frac{2}{m}}}$ and using Moser iteration as in Proposition \ref{prop gradient estimate eigenfunction}, it follows that
\[\max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} ||v||_{\infty} \le 2^{\frac{m}{2}} \left(\frac{m}{m-2} \right)^{\frac{m(m-2)}{4}}Q^{\frac{m}{4}} \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} ||v||_2 .\]
Square both sides above and notice that
\[ \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} \int_M v^2 \le \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} ||v||_{\infty} \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k}\int_M v. \]
Thus, we get \\
\begin{equation} \label{3}
\max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k} ||v||_{\infty} \le 2^m \left(\frac{m}{m-2} \right)^{\frac{m(m-2)}{2}}Q^{\frac{m}{2}} \max \limits_{b_1,\dots,b_k}\int_M v .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, since $\phi_1,\ \phi_2,\ \dots,\ \phi_k$ are orthonormal, we have
\[
\begin{split}
\int_M v &=\int_M (|\nabla w|^2+L^2w^2)=-\int_M w\Delta w+L^2\int_M w^2 \\ &=\int_M(\sum_{j=1}^{k}b_j\phi_j)(\sum_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_i b_i \phi_i)+L^2\int_M(\sum_{j=1}^{k}b_j\phi_j)^2 \\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{k} \lambda_j b_j^2+L^2\sum_{j=1}^{k}b_j^2 \le (\lambda_k+L^2)\sum_{j=1}^{k}b_j^2 \le \lambda_k+L^2.
\end{split}
\]
This, together with \eqref{3}, completes the proof.\qed\\
The above gradient estimate for linear combinations of eigenfunctions allows us to derive the arithmetic inequality of the eigenvalues below.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem combination eigenvalue}
Under the same assumptions and notations as in Proposition \ref{prop gradient estimate combination}, we have for $m\geq 3$,
\begin{equation}\label{combination eigenvalue}
\lambda_1+\lambda_2+...+\lambda_k\le \\
m 2^m \left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{2}\left(\frac{6\lambda_k+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}(\lambda_k+L^2),
\end{equation}
and for $m=2$,
\begin{equation}\label{combination eigenvalue m=2}
\lambda_1+\lambda_2+...+\lambda_k \le 2^9\left(\frac{6\lambda_k+2K+2L^2+S_2}{S_1}\right)^2(\lambda_k+L^2).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof We only prove \eqref{combination eigenvalue} by using \eqref{gradient estimate combination}. The proof of \eqref{combination eigenvalue m=2} follows similarly from \eqref{gradient estimate combination m=2}.
If $k\le m$, the conclusion follows immediately from Proposition \ref{prop gradient estimate eigenfunction} by integrating both sides of \eqref{gradient estimate eigenfunction} for each $\phi_j$, $j=1,2,\cdots,k$.
When $k> m$, for each $x\in M$, we can find an orthogonal matrix $(a_{ij})_{k\times k}$ such that
$$\varphi_i=\sum_{j=1}^{k}a_{ij}\phi_j,i=1,\ 2,\ \dots,\ k$$ satisfy that
$$\nabla_l\varphi_i(x)=0,\ l=1,\ 2,\ \dots,\ m,\ m+1\le i \le k. $$
Indeed, since the rank of the matrix
\begin{equation}
J=\begin{pmatrix}
\nabla_1\phi_1&\dots&\nabla_1\phi_k\\
\vdots& & \vdots\\
\nabla_m\phi_1&\dots&\nabla_m\phi_k
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
is no more than $m$, there are $k-m$ linearly independent solutions of $J\vec{x}=\vec{0}$, and then Schmidt orthogonalization gives $(a_{ij})$.
Thus, we derive from Proposition \ref{prop gradient estimate combination} that
$$|\nabla \phi_1|^2+...+|\nabla \phi_k|^2=|\nabla \varphi_1|^2+...+|\nabla \varphi_k|^2=|\nabla \varphi_1|^2+...+|\nabla \varphi_m|^2 $$
$$\le m 2^m \left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{2}\left(\frac{6\lambda_k+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}(\lambda_k+L^2)\vol(M)^{-1}.$$ \qed\\
Thus, integrating both sides gives Lemma \ref{lem combination eigenvalue}.
\begin{remark}
Notice that the above Lemma cannot be deduced directly from Propositions \ref{prop gradient estimate eigenfunction} and \ref{prop gradient estimate eigenfunction m=2}, which will enlarge the coefficient $m$ on the right hand side of \eqref{combination eigenvalue} and \eqref{combination eigenvalue m=2} to be $k$.
\end{remark}
From \eqref{combination eigenvalue} and \eqref{combination eigenvalue m=2}, in order to get a lower bound of $\lambda_k$, we only need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{WZ}]\label{lem WZ}
For $0\le\lambda_1\le\lambda_2\le...\le\lambda_k\le...$, if the inequality
\begin{equation}
\lambda_1+\lambda_2+...+\lambda_k\le C_3\lambda_k^{\frac{m}{2}+1}
\end{equation}
holds for any $k\ge 1$, then ones has
\begin{equation}
\lambda_k\ge C_4k^{\frac{2}{m}},
\end{equation}
\\
where
$$C_4=min\left\{\lambda_1,\ \left(\frac{m}{C_3(m+2)}\right)^{\frac{2}{m}}\right\},$$
and $m\ge 1$ is an integer.
\end{lemma}
Now we can see that a lower bound of $\lambda_k$ follows immediately from Theorem \ref{thm 1}, Lemma \ref{lem combination eigenvalue} and Lemma \ref{lem WZ}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm n}
Assume that $(M^m,g)$ is an $m$-dimensional closed Riemannian manifold such that \eqref{basic assumption1} and \eqref{basic assumption2} are satisfied. Let $c_0$ be the lower bound of $\lambda_1$ in Theorem \ref{thm 1}. Then\\
(1) for $m\geq 3$,
\begin{equation}\label{lambda k lower bound}
\lambda_k\ge c_1k^{\frac{2}{m}},\ \forall k\geq 2,
\end{equation}
where $c_1=min\left\{c_0,\ \left(\frac{m}{C_5(m+2)}\right)^{\frac{2}{m}}\right\},$ and \\ $C_5=m2^m\left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{2}c_0^{-(\frac{m}{2}+1)}\left(\frac{6c_0+2K+2L^2+C_2}{C_1}\right)^\frac{m}{2}(c_0+L^2);$\\
(2) for $m=2$,
\begin{equation}\label{lambda k lower bound m=2}
\lambda_k \ge c_2k^{\frac{1}{2}},\ \forall k\geq 2,
\end{equation}
where $c_2=\min\left\{c_0,\ \left(\frac{2}{3C_6}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}$, and $C_6=2^9c_0^{-3}\left(\frac{6c_0+2K+2L^2+S_2}{S_1}\right)^2\left(c_0+L^2\right). $
\end{theorem}
\proof To prove \eqref{lambda k lower bound}, from Lemma \ref{lem combination eigenvalue}, we have
$$\lambda_1+\lambda_2+...+\lambda_k\le \lambda_k^{\frac{m}{2}+1}m 2^m \left(\frac{m}{m-2}\right)^\frac{m(m-2)}{2}\left(\frac{6+\frac{2K+2L^2+C_2} {\lambda_k}}{C_1}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}(1+\frac{L^2}{\lambda_k}).$$
Since $\lambda_k\geq \lambda_1\geq c_0$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\lambda_1+\lambda_2+...+\lambda_k\le C_5\lambda_k^{\frac{m}{2}+1}.
\end{equation}
From Lemma \ref{lem WZ}, we can easily get the conclusion.
The proof of \eqref{lambda k lower bound m=2} is similar. \qed
\begin{remark}
Recall that the constants $C_1$, $C_2$, $S_1$, and $S_2$ have explicit expressions according to Corollary \ref{Sobolev inequality} and Remark \ref{constants}. Thus, the lower bound of $\lambda_k$ in the above theorem can also be expressed explicitly.\\
\end{remark}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Research is partially supported by NSFC Grant No. 11971168, Shanghai Science and Technology Innovation Program Basic Research Project STCSM 20JC1412900, and Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (STCSM) No. 18dz2271000.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Fuzzing approaches aim at automatically generating program input to assess the robustness of a program to arbitrary input. The goal of a fuzzer is to trigger some form of unwanted behavior, e.g., a crash or exception. Once a program fault occurs during the fuzzing process, a developer or analyst investigates the fault to identify its root cause.
Subsequently, this allows the software vendor to improve the quality and security of the software.
One of the most prominent fuzzers, called American Fuzzy Lop (AFL)~\cite{ZAL2019}, has discovered hundreds of security-critical bugs in a wide variety of libraries and programs.
Following the success of AFL, various other fuzzers have been proposed which aim to outperform AFL by implementing new and improved fuzzing techniques (e.g.,~\cite{LEM2018,BOE2016,LYU2019,GAN2018}). However, it remains largely unclear whether the claim of improving the overall fuzzing performance is indeed true. This is because accurately evaluating a fuzzer is challenging as the fuzzing process itself is non-deterministic. Hence, comparing single runs or multiple runs using simple statistical measurements such as average values can lead to false conclusions about the performance of the evaluated fuzzer. Similarly, deriving the number of potentially discovered bugs based solely on coverage measurements and the number of program crashes does not necessarily map to the effectiveness of a fuzzer. For instance, Inozemtseva et al.~\cite{INO2014} show that there is no strong correlation between the coverage of a test suite and its ability to detect bugs. Additionally, there are fuzzing approaches that prioritize certain program paths instead of maximizing the overall coverage~\cite{BOE2017,HON2018,WAN2020}. Such approaches cannot be evaluated using overall code coverage as a measurement.
A study by Klees et al.~\cite{KLE2018} shows that existing evaluation strategies do not consider state-of-the-art best practices for testing randomized algorithms such as significance tests or standardized effect sizes. They also provide a list of recommendations. However, these recommendations are mainly derived from known best practices from the field of software testing or from a small set of experiments on a small test set. Nevertheless, as we will show in Section~\ref{sec:problem_description}, recent fuzzing proposals still do not consistently follow recommendations regarding the employed statistical methods and evaluation parameters (e.g., run-time or number of trials). Since the goal of the recommendations is to ensure that the reported findings are not the results of randomness, it remains unclear whether we can trust existing fuzzing experiments and conclusions drawn from those experiments.
Another important aspect of any fuzzer evaluation concerns the employed test set. Several research works introduced test sets such as LAVA-M~\cite{DOL2016}, Magma~\cite{HAZ2020}, or the Google Fuzzer Suite~\cite{GOO2016}. Ideally, a test set should contain a wide variety of different programs as well as a set of known bugs covering various bug types including a proof-of-vulnerability (PoV). This is crucial to enable accurate assessment on the effectiveness and efficiency of a fuzzer as a missing ground truth may lead to overestimating or underestimating the real performance of a fuzzer. We analyze these test sets in detail in Section~\ref{subsec:methodology:testsets} as the test set selection is crucial for evaluating and comparing fuzzers.
Lastly, existing evaluation strategies lack uniformity for evaluation parameters such as the number of trials, run-time, and size of the employed test set and the included bugs. As it is still unknown how these parameters affect the fuzzer evaluation in practice, fuzzing experiments are commonly executed using a wide variety of different parameters and evaluation methods. This may not only affect the soundness (e.g., due to biases caused by the choice of parameter) of the results but also makes it even harder to compare results across multiple studies.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Our Contributions.}
In this study, we address the existing shortcomings of fuzzing evaluations. To do so, we review current fuzzing evaluation strategies and introduce the design and implementation of a novel fuzzing evaluation framework, called SENF~(Statistical EvaluatioN of Fuzzers), which unifies state-of-the-art statistical methods and combines them to calculate a ranking to compare an arbitrary number of fuzzers on a large test set. The goal of our framework is twofold. First, we aim to provide a platform that allows us to easily compare a large number of fuzzers (and configurations) on a test set utilizing statistical significance tests and standardized effect sizes. Contrary to existing frameworks, such as UNIFUZZ~\cite{LI2021}, SENF\ provides a single ranking which allows for an easy comparison of the overall performance of fuzzers. Second, due to the lack of comprehensive empirical data we test if following the recommended best practices is necessary or if we can loosen the strict guidelines to reduce the computational effort needed to compare different fuzzing algorithms without impairing the quality of the evaluation which was not possible with the data provided by Klees et al.~\cite{KLE2018}.
To show the applicability of SENF, we build our evaluation based on the most prominent fuzzer, namely AFL~\cite{ZAL2019} and its optimizations, as well as the popular forks AFLFast~\cite{BOE2016}, Fairfuzz~\cite{LEM2018}, and AFL++~\cite{FIO2020}. This allows us to argue about the usefulness and impact of the proposed methods and techniques as AFL is commonly used as the baseline fuzzer in existing fuzzing evaluations. We ensure that all tested fuzzers share the same code base which allows us to precisely attribute performance differences to the changes made by the respective fuzzer or optimization technique.
We provide an extensive empirical evaluation of the impact of fuzzing parameters. In total, we ran over 600 experiments which took over 280k CPU hours to complete. To the best of our knowledge, this is currently the largest study of fuzzers published in academic research.
In summary, we provide the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We implement a fuzzing evaluation framework, called SENF, which utilizes state-of-the-art statistical evaluation methods including p-values and standardized effect sizes to compare fuzzers on large test sets.
\item We conduct a large-scale fuzzer evaluation based on a test set of 42 different targets with bugs from various bug classes and a known ground truth to quantify the influence of various evaluation parameters to further improve future fuzzer evaluations.
\item We open-source SENF~\cite{PAA2021}, containing the statistical evaluation scripts, the result data of our experiments, and seed files to aid researchers to conduct fuzzer evaluations and allowing reproducibility of our study.
\end{itemize}
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
In this section, we provide background information on the most relevant fuzzing concepts and discuss how these are implemented in case of the popular fuzzer AFL~\cite{ZAL2019}.
Fuzzers are programs that need to decide on a strategy to generate inputs for test programs. The inputs should be chosen in such a way that they achieve as much coverage of the program's state space as possible to be able to detect abnormal behavior that indicates an error. Fuzzers are commonly categorized into black-box, white-box, and grey-box fuzzers.
Where black-bock fuzzers (e.g., zzuf~\cite{HOV2006}) try to maximizes the number of executions while white-box fuzzers (e.g., KLEE~\cite{CAD2008}) make heavy use of instrumentation and code analysis to generate more significant input. Grey-box fuzzers (e.g., AFL~\cite{ZAL2019}) try to find a balance between the executions per second and time spend on analysis.
One of the most well-known fuzzers is called American fuzzy lop (AFL) and is a mutation-based coverage-guided grey-box fuzzer. It retrieves coverage feedback about the executed program path for a corresponding test input. Since its creation, AFL discovered bugs in more than 100 different programs and libraries~\cite{ZAL2019} confirming its high practical relevance to improve software quality and security.
Given the influence of AFL in the fuzzing area, we take a closer look at its architecture.
AFL includes a set of tools that act as drop-in replacements for known compilers, e.g., as a replacement for \texttt{gcc} AFL features \texttt{afl-gcc} which is used to add code instrumentation. The instrumentation provides crucial information such as the branch coverage and coarse-grained information about how often a specific branch has been taken.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{./figures/overview-afl/afl-overview}
\caption{Overview of the different components of AFL.}
\label{fig:afloverview}
\end{figure}
The fuzzing process can be divided into four different core components (see Figure~\ref{fig:afloverview}) which can also be found in many existing mutations-based grey-box fuzzers, including forks of AFL:
\ding{172}~\emph{Search strategy}: The search strategy selects an input (e.g., one of the initial seeds) that is used in the mutation stage to generate more test inputs. \ding{173}~\emph{Power schedule}: The power schedule assigns an energy value which limits the number of new inputs generated in the mutation stage. The idea is to spend more time mutating input that is more likely to increase the code coverage. \ding{174}~\emph{Mutations}: The mutation stage changes (part of) the selected input to produce new inputs which are then executed by the program under test. AFL has two different mutation stages. The \emph{deterministic stage} does simple bit flips or inserts specific values such as \texttt{INT\_MAX}. In the \emph{havoc stage}, AFL executes a loop that applies different mutations on the selected input, e.g., inserting random data or trimming the input. \ding{175}~\emph{Select interesting input}: After executing a new input, the fuzzer collects the feedback data and decides if the newly generated input is interesting, i.e., whether or not the input should be mutated to generate new inputs.
Successors of AFL commonly implement their improvements as part of one or more of the discussed core components. In Section~\ref{subsec:experiments:fuzzers} we describe the changes implemented by the different fuzzers we test in our evaluation in more detail.
To address the problem of inputs being rejected due to rigorous input checks, fuzzer leverage seed files which provide initial coverage and useful inputs for the mutation stage. Thus, a fuzzer does not need to learn the input format from scratch. To generate a set of seed files, one can either collect sample files from the public sources or manually construct them. AFL prefers seeds with high code coverage, a small file size, and low execution time. To minimize the seed set, AFL provides a tool called \texttt{afl-cmin} which one can use to remove useless seed files. However, if it is not possible to collect a sophisticated seed set one can always employ an empty file as the only initial seed file.
\section{Statistical Evaluations}
\label{subsec:backgroud:statisticalevaluation}
As the main purpose of fuzzers is to find bugs, the naive approach to compare two or more fuzzers, is to fuzz a target program for a fixed amount of time and then either compare the time it took to find bugs or compare the number of bugs a fuzzer discovered. However, the fuzzing process itself is non-deterministic. For instance, in AFL, the non-deterministic component is the havoc stage which is part of the mutation module. Thus, executing multiple trials with the same fuzzer may yield different results. As a consequence, using only a single execution might lead to a false conclusion. Other utilized evaluation metrics such as the average and median can be affected by similar issues. The common problem of these simple techniques is that they ignore randomness, i.e., they do not consider the non-deterministic nature of fuzzing. The most common method to address this problem is to calculate the statistical significance, i.e., the p-value which was popularized by Fisher~\cite{FIS1925}. If the p-value is below a predefined threshold we assume that the observed difference between to fuzzers is genuine and consider the results statistically significant.
When comparing two fuzzers, it is not only relevant to know whether the performance differences are statistically significant but also to properly quantify the difference, namely, we have to calculate the effect size. However, when comparing fuzzers on multiple targets non-standardized effect sizes are affected by the unit of measurement which may result in unwanted biases. To address this issue a standardized effect size should be used~\cite{ARC2014}.
In general, we can differentiate between statistical tests for dichotomous and interval-scale results which require a different set of statistical evaluation methods. In the following, we describe both result types and the recommended approach to calculate statistical significance and the corresponding effect size as discussed by Arcuri et al.~\cite{ARC2014}. For more details about the employed statistical methods, we refer the interested reader to the relevant literature~\cite{MAN47,FIS22,VAR00}.
An interval-scale result in the context of fuzzing is the time a fuzzer needs to detect a specific bug. In such a case it is recommended to use the Mann-Whitney-U test to calculate the p-value to test for statistical significance. Contrary to the popular \emph{t-test} the Mann-Whitney-U test does not assume that the underlying data follows the normal distribution. To quantify the effect size for interval-scale results, one can utilize the Vargha and Delaneys $\hat{A}_{12}$ statistic.
A dichotomous result can only have two outcomes, usually \emph{success} or \emph{failure}. In the context of a fuzzer evaluation, a dichotomous result simply states whether a specific bug has been discovered in the given time limit. To calculate the statistical significance, Arcuri et al.~\cite{ARC2014} recommend using the Fisher exact test. As the name suggests, this statistical test is exact which means that it is precise and not just an estimation for the actual p-value. To calculate the effect size for dichotomous results, it is recommended to calculate the odds ratio.
\section{Problem Description and Related Work}
\label{sec:problem_description}
The evaluation of fuzzers was first analyzed by Klees et al.~\cite{KLE2018} who demonstrate that simply comparing the number of crashes found using a single trial on a small set of targets is misleading as it gives no insight into whether the fuzzer finding more crashes discovers more bugs in practice. Thus, it is preferred to use a test set with a ground truth, i.e., a set of inputs that trigger a known bug or vulnerability inside the test program. To improve fuzzer evaluations, Klees et al.~\cite{KLE2018} provided a set of recommendations for evaluating fuzzers based on best practices from the field of software engineering. They recommend 30~trials, a run-time of 24h and use of the Mann-Whitney-U test for statistical significance, and the $\hat{A}_{12}$ statistic as an effect size. However, as we show in Table~\ref{tab:evalsummery}, these recommendations are only partially followed by current fuzzing evaluations. As it is unknown how much influence each evaluation parameter has on the results, it is unclear whether or not these results are reproducible in practice. Contrary to Klees et al~\cite{KLE2018}, we conduct comprehensive experiments to be able to argue about the influence of different evaluation parameters based on empirical data.
To discuss the state of current fuzzer evaluations we analyze the evaluations from previous work published in reputable security conferences. The experiments gathered from the evaluation sections of different studies based on the following criteria: \ding{172}~the experiment is used to compare the overall performance of the respective approach to at least one different fuzzers \ding{173}~we exclude experiments that are used to either motivate the work or certain design choices as well as case studies. The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:evalsummery}. Note that we use the term \emph{Crashes} as an evaluation metric for all evaluations that do not utilize a ground truth and rely on a de-duplication method which tries to correlate crashes to a root cause. However, de-duplication methods are prone to errors and cannot sufficiently estimate the correct number of bugs~\cite{KLE2018}. We use the term \emph{Bugs} when the authors evaluate fuzzers with a set of targets that contain known vulnerabilities, i.e., it is possible to determine which inputs trigger which bug without utilizing a de-duplication technique.
We observe that none of the fuzzing proposals strictly follows all best practices in their evaluations. For instance, none of the listed studies uses 30 trials per experiment and only a single study employs a standardized effect size. Another problem is the lack of uniformity. This is especially prevalent when real-world programs are used to evaluate fuzzers which regularly use different sets of programs or program versions which may introduce unwanted biases and also makes it hard to compare these results. Furthermore, most studies either do not provide any statistical significance results or only for some of the conducted experiments.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\let\TPToverlap=\TPTrlap
\centering
\caption{\footnotesize Analysis of current fuzzer evaluations. Entries with a question mark mean that we were unable to find the respective information in the related study. Test set: \emph{RW} = real-world programs, \emph{Google} = Google fuzzing suite. The number following the test sets corresponds to the number of targets used. Effect Size: \emph{Avg.} = average, \emph{Max.} = maximum value of all trials. Statistical significance: \emph{CI} = confidence intervals, \emph{MWU} = Mann-Whitney-U test.\\}
\begin{threeparttable}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcllllll}
\hline
Fuzzer & No. & Test set & Run-time & Trials & Eval. metric & Effect size & Stat. significance \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Hawkeye~\cite{HON2018}} & 1 & RW (19) & 8h & 20 & Bugs & Average & - \\
& 2 & RW (1) & 4h & 8 & Bugs & Average, $\hat{A}_{12}$ & - \\
& 3 & RW (1) & 4h & 8 & Bugs & Average, $\hat{A}_{12}$ & - \\
& 4 & Google (3) & 4h & 8 & Coverage & Average, $\hat{A}_{12}$ & - \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Intriguer~\cite{CHO2019}} & 1 & LAVA-M (3) & 5h & 20 & Bugs & Median, Max. & \\
& 2 & LAVA-M (1) & 24h & 20 & Bugs & Median & CI, MWU\\
& 3 & RW (7) & 24h & 20 & Coverage & Median &CI\tnote{2}, MWU\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{DigFuzz~\cite{ZHA2019}} & 1 &CGC (126) & 12h & 3 & Coverage & Norm. Bitmap\tnote{1} & - \\
& 2 & CGC (126) & 12h & 3 & Bugs & - & - \\
& 3 & LAVA-M (4) & 5h & 3 & Bugs & ? & - \\
& 4 & LAVA-M (4) & 5h & 3 & Coverage & Norm. Bitmap\tnote{1} & - \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{REDQUEEN~\cite{ASH2019}} & 1 & LAVA-M (4) & 5h & 5 & Bugs & Median & CI\tnote{3}\\
& 2 & CGC (54) & 6h & ? & Bugs & - & - \\
& 3 & RW (8) & 10h & 5 & Coverage & Median & CI, MWU\\
& 4 & RW (8) & 10h & 5 & Bugs & - & -\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{GRIMOIRE~\cite{BLA2019}} & 1 & RW (8) & 48h & 12 & Coverage & Median & CI, MWU\tnote{4}\\
& 2 & RW (4) & 48h & 12 & Coverage & Median & CI, MWU\\
& 3 & RW (3) & 48h & 12 & Coverage & Median & CI, MWU\\
& 4 & RW (5) & ? & ? & Bugs & - & - \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{EcoFuzz~\cite{YUE2020}} & 1 & RW (14) & 24h & 5 & Coverage & Average & p-value\tnote{5} \\
& 2 & RW (2) & 24h & 5 & Coverage & Average & - \\
& 3 & RW (2) & 24h & ? & Crashes & - & - \\
& 4 & LAVA-M (4) & 5h & 5 & Bugs & - & - \\
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{GREYONE~\cite{GAN2020}} & 1 & RW (19) & 60h & 5 & Crashes\tnote{6} & - & - \\
& 2 & RW (19) & 60h & 5 & Coverage & - & - \\
& 3 & LAVA-M (4) & 24h & 5 & Bugs & Average & - \\
& 4 & LAVA-M (4) & 24h & 5 & Crashes & Average & - \\
& 5 & RW (10) & 60h & 5 & Coverage & Average& - \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Pangolin~\cite{HUA2020}} & 1 & LAVA-M (4) & 24h & 10 & Bug & Average & MWU \\
& 2 & RW (9) & 24h & 10 & Crashes & - & - \\
& 2 & RW (9) & 24h & 10 & Coverage & Average & MWU \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\begin{tablenotes}\scriptsize
\item [1] Normalized Bitmap size describes the relative size of the bitmap compared to the bitmap found\\ by all tested fuzzers.
\item [2] Confidence intervals only given for five of the seven targets.
\item [3] Confidence intervals are only provided for Redqueen.
\item [4] The Appendix further provides: mean, standard deviation, skeweness, and kurtosis.
\item [5] We were unable to determine the exact statistical test which has been used to obtain the p-value.
\item [6] The evaluation compares de-duplicated crashes as well as unique crashes as reported by\\ AFL-style fuzzers.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:evalsummery}
\end{table*}
A work that partially addresses similar issues has been introduced by~Metzman et al.~\cite{MET2020} from Google who published FuzzBench, an evaluation framework for fuzzers. FuzzBench generates a report based on coverage as an evaluation metric including a statistical evaluation. However, as the main purpose of a fuzzer is to find bugs, the coverage is only a proxy metric and therefore less meaningful than comparing the number of bugs found on a ground truth test set and thus not recommended~\cite{PHA2017,VTO2018,KLE2018}.
UNIFUZZ is a platform to compare different fuzzers based on 20 real-world programs~\cite{LI2021}. The evaluation metrics are based on crashes which are de-duplicated using the last three stack frames which is known to be unreliable because stack frames might be identical even though they trigger different bugs or stack frame may be different while triggering the same bug~\cite{KLE2018}. UNIFUZZ provides an overview of the fuzzer performance on each test program which makes it hard to assess the overall performance. SENF\ goes one step further and summarizes the results in a single ranking which allows us to easily compare all tested fuzzers. Therefore, it is not required to manually analyze the results on each target separately. However, if needed one can still get the target specific data from the results database of SENF.
\section{Our Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
In this section, we provide an overview of the most important aspects of a fuzzer evaluation. We describe our choice of fuzzers, seeds, test set, and test machine setup which we use to test our framework to quantify the influence of various evaluation parameters.
\subsection{Comparing Fuzzers}
\label{subsec:methodology:fuzzers}
Comparing fuzzers with each other is not straightforward due to the various fuzzer designs and the wide variety of available testing methods. A fuzzer design is usually highly complex and given that a fuzzer executes millions of test runs, even small differences can have a huge impact on the performance. Some fuzzers are based on completely novel designs which makes it hard to attribute performance improvements to a specific change. For example, Chen and Chen proposed Angora~\cite{CHE2018} a mutation-based fuzzer that is written in Rust instead of C/C++ like AFL. Angora implements various methods to improve the fuzzing process: byte-level taint tracking, a numeric approximation based gradient descent, input length exploration, and integration of call stacks to improve coverage mapping. Due to the considerable differences to other fuzzers, it is impossible to accurately quantify the respective contribution of each technique when comparing it with AFL or other fuzzer which do not share the same code base. As a consequence, it is important to evaluate fuzzers based on common ground. Given the high popularity of AFL, we opted to focus on fuzzers that are based on the AFL code base. Note however that our evaluation framework is not specifically tailored to AFL in any way. Thus, it can be used to evaluate an arbitrary selection of fuzzers.
\subsection{Test Set Selection}
\label{subsec:methodology:testsets}
A crucial aspect of any fuzzer evaluation is the underlying test set, i.e., the target programs for which the fuzzer aims to discover bugs. In what follows, we study four different test sets available at the time of testing and argue why we decided to use the CGC test set for our evaluation. Note that we focus on test sets that provide a form of ground truth as there is currently no way to reliably match crashes to the same root cause as proper crash de-duplication is still an open problem (see Section~\ref{sec:problem_description}).
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{LAVA-M.}
In 2016, Brendan et al. presented LAVA~\cite{DOL2016}, a method to inject artificial bugs into arbitrary programs. The corresponding \emph{LAVA-M} test set was the first ground truth test set to evaluate fuzzers that has been published in academia. It consists of four different programs with hundreds of injected bugs. Each bug has a specific bug-id that is printed before deliberately crashing the program. Due to its rather small size, the \emph{LAVA-M} test set lacks the diversity found in real-world programs. Further, recent fuzzers such as Redqueen~\cite{ASH2019} and Angora~\cite{CHE2018} solve the test set by finding all injected bugs. This is possible because LAVA-M only features a single bug type which requires that the fuzzer solves magic byte comparisons, missing the bug diversity found in real-world software.
\noindent\textbf{Google Fuzzing Suite.}
The Google Fuzzer Suite~\cite{GOO2016} consists of 22~different real-world programs with 25 different challenges that fuzzers are expected to solve. All challenges are documented and may include seed files. However, the test~suite is not suitable for our use case as the majority of the bugs can be discovered by existing fuzzers in a very short time span (seconds or minutes). Furthermore, some of the challenges do not contain any bugs. Instead, the goal of these challenges is for the fuzzer to reach a certain path or line of code (i.e., a coverage benchmark) which is not compatible with our evaluation metric as we are interested in the number of bugs found. Additionally, the included bugs are partially collected from other fuzzing campaigns which might introduce biases.
\noindent\textbf{Magma.}
The Magma fuzzing benchmark is a ground truth test set~\cite{HAZ2020} that is based on a set of real-world programs. At the time of testing, the test set contains six different targets each containing a set of known bugs. Similar to LAVA-M, Magma uses additional instrumentation in the form of bug oracles to signal whether a bug condition has been triggered by a specific input.
However, we do not use the Magma test set because at the time of testing it did not provide a sufficiently large test set. Further, not all bugs include a proof-of-vulnerability (PoV) which makes it impossible to know if a fault can be triggered by any means.
\noindent\textbf{CGC.}
The DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge\footnote{\url{https://github.com/CyberGrandChallenge/}} (CGC) was a capture-the-flag style event where different teams competed by writing tools that are able to detect and subsequently fix bugs in a test corpus of close to 300 different programs with a prize pool of nearly 4 million USD. Each challenge has been designed carefully and consists of one or more binary which mirror functionality known from real-world software. CGC challenges contain at least one bug of one of two types: Type 1 bugs allow an attacker to control the instruction pointer and at least one register. Type 2 bugs allow reading sensitive data such as passwords. The challenges are written by different teams of programmers and do not rely on automatically injected bugs. As a result, the CGC test set offers great bug diversity which are similar to bugs found in real-world software and is therefore not susceptible to the same limitations as the LAVA-M test set.
Instead of the original binaries which were written for \emph{DECREE}, we use the multi OS variant published by Trail of Bits~\cite{GUI2016} which allows us to execute the challenge binaries on Linux. All challenges and bugs are very-well documented and contain a PoV and a patched version of the respective challenge program(s). Each bug is categorized into their respective CWE classes\footnote{Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) is a list of software and hardware problem types (\url{https://cwe.mitre.org/})}. Further, challenges include test suits that we can use to ensure that the compiled program works as intended which can be especially helpful when using code instrumentation.
Given the greater bug and program diversity of CGC in combination with its great documentation and comprehensive test~suites, we select a subset of the ported version of the CGC test set based on the following criteria: \ding{172}~All tests (including the PoV) are successfully executed on our test servers. \ding{173}~The target only contains one vulnerability. \ding{174}~The vulnerability is of type 1 as type 2 bugs do not lead to a crash. \ding{175}~The challenge consists of only one binary as fuzzers usually do not support to fuzz multiple binaries.
We are using targets with only one vulnerability as this allows us to verify the discovered crashing inputs using differential testing (see Section~\ref{subsec:methodology:testruns}). This process does not require any additional instrumentation (e.g., bug oracles) which may significantly change the program behavior and lead to non-reproducible bugs~\cite{LI2021}. Furthermore, we do not need to correlate crashes to their root cause using de-duplication methods. Our complete test set is composed of 42 targets including bugs of 21 different CWE types. We provide a complete list of all targets including their bug types in Appendix~\ref{apx:subsec:testset}.
Note that it is not required to use CGC to be able to use SENF\ because the framework is not specifically tailored to the test set but can used with any test set.
\subsection{Seed sets}
\label{subsec:methodology:seeds}
To evaluate fuzzers, we opted to use two sets of seed files. The first set of seed files contains sample input which we extract from the test inputs that are shipped with each CGC challenge. We minimize each seed set using \texttt{afl-cmin}. As it might not always be possible for users to create a comprehensive seed set for their target, we use an empty file as a second seed set.
\subsection{Statistical Evaluation}
\label{subsec:methodology:statisticalevaluation}
To evaluate the results of our experiments, we employ the statistical methods described in Section~\ref{subsec:backgroud:statisticalevaluation}. SENF\ supports both, dichotomous and interval-scale statistics as their usage depends on the use case. Dichotomous results provide an answer to the question which fuzzer finds the most bugs in a certain time frame, but ignores the time it took to find a bug. These types of evaluations are relevant for use cases such as OSS-Fuzz~\cite{AIZ2016} where fuzzing campaigns are continuously run for months without a fixed time frame. Statistical tests on interval-scale results are useful in practical deployments when the amount of time to fuzz a target is limited, e.g., when running tests before releasing a new software version. We use R~\cite{RCT2019} to calculate statistical significance tests as well as effect sizes.
When comparing multiple fuzzers or fuzzer configurations on a large set of targets, we encounter two problems. First, due to the large number of comparisons, it is not practical to publish all p-values and effect sizes as part of a study. Secondly, even if one publishes all values, it is not trivial to assess if a fuzzer actually outperforms another. Therefore, we implement a scoring system, which is inspired by Arcuri et al.~\cite{ARC2014}, to summarize the results in a single score. The scoring system follows the intuition that the fuzzer which finds the most bugs the fastest, on the most of the targets is overall the best fuzzer. To determine the best fuzzer, the algorithm compares all fuzzers using the statistical significance tests and standardized effect sizes. For each target, it generates a ranking based on the time it took each fuzzer to find a specific bug. The final score is the average ranking of each fuzzer over the whole test set. For a more detailed description of the scoring algorithm we refer the interested reader to the respective publication~\cite{ARC2014}.
\subsection{Fuzzing Evaluation Setup}
\label{subsec:methodology:framework}
In Figure~\ref{fig:approachoverview} we provide an overview of our fuzzing evaluation setup. At its core, our design features a management server that runs a controller which provides the target program and seed set to one of the available experiment servers. On each experiment server, a dedicated executor starts the fuzzer and monitors the fuzzing process. The monitoring includes logging the CPU utilization and number of executions of the fuzzer. Thus, we can detect hangs and crashes of the fuzzer itself and restart a run if necessary.
After the pre-defined run-time, the executor stops the fuzzer and sends a success message to the controller program. Using the data from all successful fuzzing runs, SENF\ evaluates the reported results using evaluation methods which compare all executed runs of an arbitrary number of fuzzers and calculates statistical significance, effect size, the ranking based on dichotomous and interval-scale statistical tests.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./figures/overview-fuzz-eval/fuzz-eval-overview-pp-2}
\caption{Conceptual overview of the fuzzing evaluation setup.}
\label{fig:approachoverview}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Test runs}
\label{subsec:methodology:testruns}
Note that we conduct each experiment (i.e., a combination of fuzzers, targets, and seeds) for a maximum of 24h. As each target only contains a single bug, we stop fuzzing when an input has been found by a fuzzer that triggers the bug of the respective target. To avoid false positives~\cite{ASH2019}, we verify each crash using differential analysis, i.e., we execute a potential crashing input on the vulnerable and patched version of the respective binary and check whether the input crashes the binary.
SENF\ itself only requires a database which contains the result data, i.e., the time it took until a specific bus has been triggered, and a list of targets/seeds that should be used in the evaluation. Therefore, our framework can be used to evaluate other fuzzers or test sets. With minimal modifications one can also use other evaluation metrics (e.g., block coverage) to compare fuzzers with SENF.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
We run extensive fuzzing campaigns to systematically quantify the influence of various parameters used in fuzzing evaluations while following state-of-the-art statistical evaluation methodology. We test the influence of the following parameters: the seed set, number of trials, run-time, and number of targets as well as bugs. In total we run 616 fuzzing experiments with an accumulated run-time of over 284k CPU hours.
If not stated otherwise we use the following parameters as a default configuration for the statistical evaluation: a p~threshold of 0.05, a non-empty seed set, interval-scale statistical tests, with 30 trials per experiment and a run-time of 24h.
Further, experiments for a specific target are always run on the same hardware configuration to ensure uniform test conditions. Note that when testing with an empty seed we have to exclude seven targets of our test set of 42 programs as these targets do not properly process an empty file thus fail initial tests done in AFLs initialization routine.
We execute all experiments on a cluster of 13 servers. To ensure equal conditions for all fuzzers, we use Docker containers and assign them one CPU core each and a ramdisk to minimize the overhead caused by I/O operations. We utilize Ubuntu 18.04 LTS as an operating system. If not stated otherwise we use fuzzers AFL/Fairfuzz in version 2.52b and AFLFast in version 2.51b as well as AFL++ in version 2.65c. The CGC test set was built using the code from commit \texttt{e50a030} from the respective repository from Trail of Bits.
\subsection{Fuzzers}
\label{subsec:experiments:fuzzers}
We test a total of four fuzzers (\ding{182}~AFL~\cite{ZAL2019}, \ding{183}~AFLFast~\cite{BOE2016}, \ding{184}~Fairfuzz~\cite{LEM2018}, \ding{185}~AFL++~\cite{FIO2020}), two AFL-based compiler optimizations (\ding{186}~AFL-CF, \ding{187}~AFL-LAF), and two modes of AFL (\ding{188}~\texttt{-d} and \ding{189}~\texttt{-q}) which provide a wide range of different performances. In the following, we explain the different fuzzers and modes of AFL we tested including the different compiler optimizations.
\noindent
\ding{182}~\textbf{AFL.} The general purpose fuzzer AFL supports various different optimizations and parameters which change one or more its core components:
\ding{188}~\textbf{AFL (-d).} If the \texttt{-d} flag is enabled, AFL skips the deterministic part of the mutation stage and directly proceeds with the havoc stage. \ding{189}~\textbf{AFL (-q)} The \texttt{-q} flag enables the \emph{qemu mode}. Using this mode, AFL can fuzz a target without access to its source code. The necessary coverage information is collected using QEMU. According to the AFL documentation\footnote{\url{https://github.com/mirrorer/afl/blob/master/qemu\_mode/README.qemu}}, the performance may decrease substantially due to the overhead introduced by the binary instrumentation.
\noindent
\ding{186}~\textbf{AFL-CF.} As described in Section~\ref{sec:background}, AFL ships with various compilers that add the coverage feedback instrumentation when compiling a target program from source code. Using the alternative compiler \texttt{afl-clang-fast}, the instrumentation is added on the compiler level, instead of the assembly level, using a LLVM pass which improves the performance.
\noindent
\ding{187}~\textbf{AFL-LF.} Based on \texttt{afl-clang-fast}, one can try to improve the code coverage by using the LAF LLVM passes\footnote{\url{https://gitlab.com/laf-intel/laf-llvm-pass/tree/master}}. For instance, these passes split multi-byte comparisons into smaller ones which AFL can solve consecutively.
\noindent
\ding{183}~\textbf{AFLFast.} AFLFast~\cite{BOE2016} is a fork of AFL that investigates fuzzing \emph{low-frequency paths}. These are paths that are reached by only a few inputs following the intuition that these inputs solve a path constraint that may lead to a bug. The implementation is part of the power schedule with an optimized search strategy. Note that AFL incorporated improvements from AFLFast starting with version 2.31b.
\noindent
\ding{184}~\textbf{Fairfuzz.}~Fairfuzz~\cite{LEM2018} is also based on AFL. Similar to AFLFast, it aims at triggering branches that are rarely reached by other testing inputs. However, it does not utilize a Markov chain model but rather relies on a dynamic cutoff value (i.e., a threshold for the number of hits) to decide which branches are considered \emph{rare}. Further, Fairfuzz uses a heuristic that checks if certain bytes can be modified while still executing the same respective rare branch. Fairfuzz implements these changes as part of the search strategy and the mutation stage of AFL.
\noindent
\ding{185}~\textbf{AFL++.}~The AFL++ fuzzer~\cite{FIO2020} is a novel variation of AFL that improves usability and enables easy customization. It implements various improvements from academia as well as the fuzzing community (e.g., the AFLFast power schedules and the LAF LLVM passes). The goal is to introduce a new baseline fuzzer that is used for future fuzzing evaluations.
\subsection{Seed Set}
\label{subsec:experiment:seeds}
First, we evaluate the influence of the seed set by comparing an empty with a non-empty seed set (see Section~\ref{subsec:methodology:seeds}). The results are depicted in Table~\ref{tab:seed_compare} which lists the number of times that a fuzzer performed statistically better with the empty and non-empty seed set. We find that with the majority of targets the non-empty seed set either outperforms the empty seed or performs equally well on both statistical tests. We find that AFL is able to detect five bugs using the empty seed set that AFL is unable to detect when using the non-empty seed set. We believe that the main reason for this is that AFL spends less time in the deterministic stage when using an empty seed as the file is only a single byte. Note that even though the performance with a proper seed set is significantly better, testing an empty seed is still useful in cases where it is favorable to minimize the number of variables which may influence the fuzzing process~\cite{KLE2018} as well as scenarios where one cannot compile a comprehensive sets of inputs for the tested programs.
\begin{table}[htb]
\center
\small
\caption{Comparison of the non-empty and empty seed sets using interval-scale and dichotomous tests. Listed are the number of times the performance of the non-empty seed set was statistically better than the empty seed set and vice versa.}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{\extracolsep{3pt}}lcccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{interval-scaled} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{dichotomous} \\
\cline{2-3} \cline{4-5}
Fuzzer & non-empty & empty & non-empty & empty \\
\hline
afl & 12 & 6 & 6 & 2 \\
afl (-Q) & 8 & 4 & 7 & 1 \\
afl (-d) & 18 & 2 & 8 & 1 \\
fairfuzz & 13 & 4 & 7 & 1 \\
afl-li & 13 & 6 & 5 & 3 \\
afl-cf & 12 & 6 & 5 & 2 \\
aflfast & 12 & 5 & 6 & 0 \\
afl++ & 12 & 5 & 5 & 2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:seed_compare}
\end{table}
\subsection{Run-Time}
\label{subsec:experiment:runtime}
To show the impact of differences in run-time, we calculate the ranking for maximum run-times between 1h and 24h. For each ranking, we only consider crashes that have been found in the respective time frame. We present the results in Figure~\ref{fig:timeoverview}. We observe that the run-time has a significant influence on the results. Interestingly, we find that even though all fuzzers are based on the same code base there is no uniform trend when increasing the run-time. For example, AFL without its deterministic stage consistently improves, in total by 0.45 in the average ranking from 1h to 24h. In the same time the performance of Fairfuzz, AFLFast, and AFL may increase or decrease slightly which also changes the relative ranking of these fuzzers depending on the maximum run-time. \emph{We observe that on our test set, the run-time should be at least 8h as lower run-times may lead to false conclusions of the fuzzer performance.}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figures/max_time_compare_mwu_poll_005/max_time}
\caption{Run-times varying between 1h and 24h.}
\label{fig:timeoverview}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figures/max_runs_compare_mwu_poll_005/max_run}
\caption{Trials varying between 5 and 30.}
\label{fig:repoverview2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Average ranking when using different run-times and number of trials.}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Number of Trials}
\label{subsec:experiment:trials}
To calculate a p-value, one has to repeat every experiment multiple times. The number of trials also influences the minimum p-value that can be achieved. We compare the average ranking of each fuzzer and configuration considering between the first 5 and all 30 trials. In Figure~\ref{fig:repoverview2}, we can see that the performance may vary significantly depending on the number of trials used. For example, using 10 trials AFL++ has a slightly better performance than AFL and Fairfuzz, both of which clearly outperform AFLFast. Analyzing the results after 30 trials we find that AFL++ now outperforms AFL and Fairfuzz which both perform as well as AFLFast. \emph{We conclude that the number of trials has significant impact on the results and if under serious resource constraints one should prioritize a higher number of trials over longer run-times.}
\subsection{Number of Bugs/Targets}
\label{subsec:experiment:bugs}
Another parameter that one can adjust is the number of targets a fuzzer is evaluated on. As we use targets with a single bug, the number of targets is equal to the number of bugs in our test set. We evaluate all fuzzers on test sets between five and 35 different targets. For each test set size, we randomly sample 1000 different target combinations and calculate the ranking including maximum and minimum. Note that given larger test sets, the spread will naturally decrease as we sample from a maximum of 42 different targets. In Figure~\ref{fig:targetsoverview}, we can see that the performance may vary substantially depending on the used test set. We further analyze the results and find randomly sampled test sets with 15 targets where AFL-CF outperforms AFL without the deterministic stage or test sets where the performance of Fairfuzz is second to last. Even when we use 35 targets, we find randomly sampled test sets that result in a substantially different rankings compared to the 42 target test set. For example, we observe test sets where AFL++ outperforms AFL-CF or test sets where Fairfuzz performs better than AFL++. \emph{Our results show that target and bug selection should not be taken lightly as it can introduce significant biases when testing fuzzers.}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\center
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.3\textwidth]{./figures/targets_std_graph/test}}
\caption{Average ranking when using varying numbers of targets/bugs. Whiskers correlate to the minimum and maximum rank.}
\label{fig:targetsoverview}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Statistical Significance}
\label{subsec:experiments:statistical_sig}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figures/p_compare_mwu_poll/p}
\caption{Interval-scaled ranking}
\label{fig:p}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figures/p_compare_mwu_poll/p_dicho}
\caption{Dichotomous ranking.}
\label{fig:p_dicho}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of the average rank for various p thresholds.}
\label{fig:p_thresholds}
\end{figure}
Recall that SENF\ supports two different statistical tests: dichotomous and interval-scaled (see Section~\ref{subsec:backgroud:statisticalevaluation}). In Figure~\ref{fig:p_thresholds} we compare the average ranking resulting from both methods. Looking at the results for 5e-2, we can see that the ranking based on dichotomous tests shows less performance differences. Interestingly, we find that AFL++ is performing relatively worse on the dichotomous ranking, as it ranks slightly below AFL-CF, Fairfuzz, and AFLFast. Futhermore, AFL is the second best performing fuzzer, while AFL without the deterministic stage is still the best performing fuzzers. \emph{The difference of both ranking shows that it is useful to provide both, inverval-scaled and dichotomous results as they test different aspects of fuzzers.}
Klees et al.~\cite{KLE2018} as well as Arcuri and Briand~\cite{ARC2014} recommend to use a p~threshold of 0.05. As other scientific communities opted to use lower thresholds~\cite{BEN2017} we analyze the influence of lower p~thresholds. Generally, lowering the p~threshold decreases the chances for false positive results while increasing the chance for false negatives. We calculate the ranking for each threshold between 0.05 and 5e-8 and provide the results in Figure~\ref{fig:p_thresholds}. We can see that the interval-scaled ranking is less affected when using a lower threshold compared to the dichotomous ranking. Taking a closer look at Figure~\ref{fig:p}, we observe that the relative ranking of AFLFast, Fairfuzz, and AFL is affected the most due to the similar performance of all three fuzzers. Interestingly, we find that a lower p threshold greatly influences the relative performance of AFL++. While clearly in third place with a p~threshold of 0.05, AFL++ performs on a similar level as AFL when using a threshold of 5e-4 to 5e-6. \emph{Thus, we can see that the p threshold can have a significant effect when comparing the performance of fuzzers.}
\subsection{Effect Size}
\label{subsec:experiments:effect_size}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth]{./figures/effect_size/effect_size_a12}
\caption{Difference between different effect size tresholds when using the $\hat{A}_{12}$ statistic.}
\label{fig:a12_diff}
\end{figure}
Besides the threshold for statistical significance, one can also set a threshold for the effect size. Vargha and Delaney~\cite{VAR00} provide three different thresholds for the $\hat{A}_{12}$ effect size. Namely 0.56 is considered small, 0.64 is considered medium and 0.71 is called a large effect. We provide an overview of the average ranking when considering all or only small/medium/large effect sizes in Figure~\ref{fig:a12_diff}. We can observe that the influence of the effect size is rather subtle compared to the other parameters. The mostly effected fuzzers are, AFL++, Fairfuzz, AFLFast, and AFL. Most notably, the performance of AFLFast is relatively worse when only considering large differences. \emph{We conclude that the effect size threshold is less meaningful when comparing fuzzers in our evaluation setup.}
\subsection{Further Insights}
\label{subsec:experiments:furtherinsights}
Next, we compare the SENF-ranking with a ranking that utilizes the \emph{average} as commonly found in fuzzer evaluations (see Section~\ref{sec:problem_description}). The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:avg}. Notably, when we only consider the average, the overall ranking changes drastically with the exception of the best and worst performing fuzzers. \emph{This shows the influence of statistically insignificant results on the overall performance results which further confirms the choice of using righteous statistical methods as employed in SENF.}
\begin{table}[htb]
\center
\small
\caption{Comparison of the SENF-ranking and avg. number of bugs found over all targets.}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{\extracolsep{3pt}}lrlr}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{SENF Ranking} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Ranking based on Avg.} \\
\cline{1-2} \cline{3-4}
Fuzzer & Avg. ranking & Fuzzer & Avg. \#bugs found\\
\hline
afl (-d) & 2.67 & afl (-d) & 16.86 \\
afl-cf & 3.82 & fairfuzz & 14.17\\
afl++ & 4.11 & afl-cf & 13.55 \\
fairfuzz & 4.54 & aflfast & 13.26\\
aflfast & 4.60 & afl & 12.60 \\
afl & 4.60 & afl-li & 12.60 \\
afl-li & 5.31 & afl++ & 12.48\\
afl (-Q) & 6.37 & afl (-Q) & 9.21\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:avg}
\end{table}
To test the \emph{consistency} of each fuzzer, we take a closer look at the time it takes a fuzzer to detect a bug in Figure~\ref{fig:execdiff}. To improve the readability of the figure we plot the difference between the shortest and longest time a fuzzer needs to find a bug over all trials for each target. If a fuzzer is not able to find a bug, we set the execution time to 24h. When a fuzzer was not able to find a bug in a target over all trials, we omitted the result to increase readability. For all fuzzers and configurations, randomness plays a significant role when searching for bugs with differences between minimum and maximum time close to our run-time of 24h. \emph{No fuzzer in our evaluation is able to consistently find bugs over all trials.}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth]{./figures/execution_time_compare/exec_diff}
\caption{Difference between min. and max. exec. time for each fuzzer and target over all trials.}
\label{fig:execdiff}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\noindent
\textbf{Test Set Selection.}
Our framework SENF\ in combination with a ground truth test set significantly increases the probability that the reported results are reproducible. Even though our test set of 42 different programs and 21 different bug types ensures a certain level of diversity in our evaluation, the resulting ranking could potentially differ if a larger, representative test set of real-world programs with a ground truth is used because programs from the CGC test set do not provide the same level complexity. Note that other test sets can easily be evaluated with SENF\ as we only require a database containing the experiment results as input.
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Resource Limitations.}
Due to unavoidable limitations of resources, we cannot analyze the full range of parameters used in existing fuzzing evaluations, e.g., run-times of 60h (see Section~\ref{sec:problem_description}). Therefore, we limit our experiments to values recommended in fuzzing literature~\cite{KLE2018}. For the same reason, we do not conduct experiments with multiple concurrent fuzzer instances testing the same target. The experiments of Chen et al.~\cite{CHE2019} as well as B\"{o}hme and Falk~\cite{BOE2020} suggest that the performance of fuzzers varies significantly when fuzzing with multiple instances simultaneously.
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Fuzzer Selection.}
Due to the aforementioned resource constraints, we have to limit the selection of fuzzers as the experiments in Section~\ref{sec:experiments} already required over 280k CPU hours. We opted to focus on AFL, AFL-based fuzzers, and various optimizations as this allows us to easily attribute performance differences. Furthermore, AFL is the most popular baseline fuzzer, e.g., it is recommended by Klees et al.~\cite{KLE2018} and used in all evaluations we studied in Section~\ref{sec:problem_description}. Additionally, AFL is commonly used as a code base to implement new fuzzers~\cite{BOE2016,SCH2017,GAN2018,LEM2018,LYU2019,PHA2019}. For these reasons, we argue that focusing on AFL-style fuzzers is more significant for common fuzzer evaluations compared to other fuzzers. However, since our implementation is open-source one can easily use SENF\ to evaluate other fuzzers. We provide detailed guidelines in our public repository.
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Scoring Algorithm.}
The scoring algorithm we use in our evaluation adopts the commonly used intuition that the fuzzer which outperforms the other fuzzers (i.e., finds more bugs) on the most targets has the best overall performance. However, other evaluation metrics may be useful for other use cases, e.g., when testing a target with a section of different fuzzers one may not only be interested in the fuzzer that finds the most bugs but also fuzzers that find a unique set bugs which all other fuzzers are unable to detect. However, calculating the unique set of bugs for each fuzzer does not require complex statistical evaluations as provided by SENF.
Furthermore, our evaluation does not take into account by how much a fuzzer~A improves over a different fuzzer~B. SENF\ addresses this problem by supporting a variable effect size thresholds. Thus, interested parties can set a custom minimum effect size which SENF\ takes into account when calculating the score of a fuzzer. We provide more detailed information on the effect size and its influence on the fuzzer evaluation in Section~\ref{subsec:experiments:effect_size}.
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Threshold of the p-value.}
In our evaluation, we opted to use the widely established p threshold of 0.05 which is commonly used in software engineering evaluations~\cite{KLE2018}. However, this threshold is generally considered a trade-off between the probability of false positive and false negative results. Other scientific communities opted to use lower thresholds or other methods of statistical evaluation~\cite{BEN2017}. SENF\ addresses this and lets the user set an arbitrary threshold to calculate the average ranking of each fuzzer. A more detailed discussion on the influence of the p-value threshold is given in Section~\ref{subsec:experiments:statistical_sig}.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Our analysis of recent fuzzing studies shows that fuzzers are largely evaluated with various different evaluation parameters which are not in line with the recommendations found in academic literature. To address these issues, we presented SENF, which implements dichotomous and interval-scale statistical methods to calculate the p-value and effect sizes to compute a ranking to asses the overall performance of all tested fuzzers.
Based on extensive empirical data, we quantified the influence of different evaluation parameters on fuzzing evaluations for the first time. We demonstrate that even when we utilize the recommended statistical tests, using insufficient evaluation parameters --- such as a low number of trials or a small test set --- may still lead to misleading results that in turn may lead to false conclusions about the performance of a fuzzer. Thus, the choice of parameters for fuzzing evaluations should not be taken lightly and existing recommendations should be followed to lower the chance of non-reproducible results. We described and open-sourced a practical evaluation setup that can be used to test the performance of fuzzers.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy -- EXC 2092 CASA -- 390781972.
\noindent
This work has been partially funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) -- SFB 1119 -- 236615297.
\section{Test set}
\label{apx:subsec:testset}
In Table~\ref{tab:apx:targets} we provide a list with all targets in our test set including the CWE classification of the included bug that can be found by a fuzzer. Note that seven targets cannot be included when using an empty seed due to requirements of AFL.
\begin{table}[!hb]
\centering
\small
\caption{List of all target names from the CGC test set ported by Trail of Bits included in our test set. For each bug, we provide the corresponding CWE classification found in the respective challenge description.}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{rp{0.4\columnwidth}p{0.4\columnwidth}}
\hline
Alias & Name & CWE classes\\
\hline
01 & AIS-Lite & CWE-20, CWE-120, CWE-122, CWE-129, CWE-788\\
02 & basic\_emulator & CWE-170\\
03 & BitBlaster & CWE-476, CWE-824 \\
04 & Cereal\_Mixup\_\_A\_Cereal\_\allowbreak Vending\_\allowbreak Machine\_\allowbreak Controller & CWE-502, CWE-822\\
05 & CNMP & CWE-134\\
06 & Differ\tnote{1} & CWE-121\\
07 & Diophantine\_\allowbreak Password\_\allowbreak Wallet & CWE-476, CWE-824 \\
08 & Divelogger2\tnote{1} & CWE-119\\
09& expression\_database\tnote{1} & CWE-119\\
10 & FileSys & CWE-416\\
11 & FSK\_Messaging\_Service & CWE-120, CWE-122 \\
12 & humaninterface & CWE-122\\
13 & Image\_Compressor & CWE-787\\
14 & LazyCalc & CWE-121\\
15 & Loud\_Square\_\allowbreak Instant\_\allowbreak Messaging\_\allowbreak Protocol\_\allowbreak LSIMP & CWE-843\\
16 & Matrix\_Math\_Calculator & CWE-121\\
17 & middleout & CWE-121, CWE-788, CWE-787\\
18 & Movie\_Rental\tnote{1} & CWE-134\\
19 & Multi\_User\_Calendar & CWE-121\\
20 & Multipass & CWE-822\\
21 & One\_Amp & CWE-121\\
22 & online\_job\_application2\tnote{1} & CWE-120, CWE-122\\
23 & Palindrome & CWE-121\\
24 & Palindrome2 & CWE-121\\
25 & Particle\_Simulator & CWE-787\\
26 & Personal\_Fitness\_Manager & CWE-121, CWE-131\\
27 & Printer & CWE-122\\
28 & REMATCH\_3--Address\_Resolution\_Service--SQL\_Slammer & CWE-121\\
29 & Resort\_Modeller & CWE-468, CWE-822\\
30 & root64\_and\_parcour & CWE-121\\
31 & SAuth & CWE-121, CWE-190\\
32 & SFTSCBSISS & CWE-120\\
33 & ShoutCTF & CWE-121\\
34 & Simple\_Stack\_Machine & CWE-122\\
35 & Space\_Attackers & CWE-121\\
36 & Square\_Rabbit & CWE-190\\
37 & stream\_vm\tnote{1} & CWE-127\\
38 & stream\_vm2 & CWE-129, CWE-665, CWE-787\\
39 & Thermal\_Controller\_v2 & CWE-121\\
40 & User\_Manager\tnote{1} & CWE-416\\
41 & XStore & CWE-121\\
42 & yolodex & CWE-787\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}\footnotesize
\item[1] Target cannot process an empty seed.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:apx:targets}
\end{table}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the topic of paramount interest in the area of numerical solution of partial differential equations is to design schemes for non-linear hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. These equations are natural models for many physical problems in areas of engineering and scientific studies like gas dynamics, fluid flow problems, astrophysical flow etc. Generic one dimensional system of conservation laws can be written in the form,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{conservation_laws}
\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{u}}{\partial t} +\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{u})}{\partial x }&=&0,\;\; \forall (x,\;t) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^+,\\
\mathbf{u}(x,0) &=& \mathbf{u}_0(x), \forall x \in \mathbf{R}.
\end{eqnarray}
where vector $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{u}):\mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m $ is a smooth flux function of conserved vector quantity $\mathbf{u}(x,~t):\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$. It is well known that \eqref{conservation_laws} admits discontinuities like shock and rarefaction in its solution which pose further problems like non-unique weak solutions and non-oscillatory crisp numerical resolution of these discontinuities. In fact some of the well known classical schemes converge to physically incorrect weak solution \cite{leveque2002finite}. On one hand low order schemes yield smeared approximation of discontinuities whereas on other hand uniformly high order schemes exhibit spurious oscillations around such discontinuities. Therefore it is required to device robust and efficient high order schemes which crisply capture these discontinuities without introducing spurious oscillations. Moreover, one core requirement is that such numerical scheme should yield solution which converge to viscosity solution of \eqref{conservation_laws}\cite{evans1998partial}.
\par Notably the viscosity solution satisfies two intrinsic properties (i) a maximum principle \cite{Zhang2011} and (ii) it uniquely satisfies entropy stability inequality \cite{Tadmor2003}. These characteristics of the viscosity solution paved the way for devising modern shock capturing schemes.
There is a vast literature on numerical schemes which are designed based on above characteristics of physically acceptable solution. We mention a few foundational as well recent significant work which fall inline with the theme of this paper.
\par Non-Oscillatory schemes which are designed following the maximum principle are monotone schemes \cite{crandall1979monotone}, high resolution total variation diminishing (TVD) schemes \cite{Harten1984, sweby1984high,toro2000,Zhang2011, ZhangTVD,Kumar2007483}. Schemes which weakly satisfies maximum priciple are arbitrary high order accurate Essentially non-oscillatory (ENO) \cite{SHU1988439} and weighted ENO \cite{Shu1997} schemes, and their modified improved versions in \cite{jiang1996efficient, serna2004power, castro2011high, fan2014new, kim2016modified,rathan2018modified, henrick2005mapped, biswas2018accuracy} etc. Schemes satisfying the maximum principle ensure non-oscillatory approximation for discontinuities but do not guarantee for convergence to viscosity solution. It is important to note that there are schemes which are entropy stable as well strictly satisfies maximum principle e.g., monotone and TVD schemes in \cite{Sanders1983,Ismail2009, DUBEY2018,Chen2011,Chen2017} however they are at most first order accurate at solution extrema \cite{osher1984high, osher1986very, tadmor1988convenient}.
\par Entropy stable fluxes for hyperbolic conservation laws can be obtained by adding numerical diffusion into entropy conservative fluxes \cite{Tadmor1987}. Some of the entropy stable schemes designed following this approach are \cite{Tadmor1987, Ismail2009,Fjordholm2012,Zakerzadeh19052015, Cheng2016,Cheng2019, DUBEY2018,BbRk, Fisher2013,BbRk,Cheng2016, DUAN2021110136, Winters201672}. Note that, entropy stable schemes guarantee for convergence to viscosity solution but they do not ensure for non-occurrence of oscillations in the vicinity of discontinuities particularly higher order schemes due to absence of suitable numerical diffusion \cite{BbRk}. However, deducing the suitable amount of this additive numerical diffusion such that resulting scheme maintains formal high order of accuracy and yet yields non-oscillatory approximate solution is non-trivial and have been a topic of wide interest and research. The existing approach for constructing high order non-oscillatory entropy stable flux using high order numerical diffusion operator demands for (i) sign stability of the reconstructed scaled entropy variable which is very restrictive (ii) explicit computation of dissipation operator which is costly and problem dependent.
\par The aim of this work is to construct robust and efficient arbitrary high order non-oscillatory entropy stable scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws \eqref{conservation_laws}. This idea is to design non-oscillatory entropy stable fluxes such that additive numerical diffusion (i) is implicitly defined (ii) robust in the sense it does not depends sign property of the high order reconstructions of scaled entropy variable (iii) is optimized in such a way that the non-oscillatory property of entropy stable flux is govern by underlying non-oscillatory flux.
\par The rest of the paper is as follows: For motivation and completeness of the presentation in section \ref{sec2}, a brief introduction and challenges in the construction of {\em high order non-oscillatory entropy stable fluxes} are highlighted. In \ref{sec3}, a quick introduction on non-oscillatory fluxes like TVD and ENO/WENO is given. The main contribution of this work is gven in section \ref{sec4} where construction of non-oscillatory entropy stable flux is posed as least square optimization problem and required numerical diffusion is deduced using first order optimality condition. In section \ref{sec5}, a flux sign stability lemma for entropy stability of any flux is given and used to retrospectively analysis some well known entropy stable fluxes. In section \ref{sec6}, numerical results by various designed entropy stable schemes are given and compared. Conclusions are given in section \ref{sec7}.
\section{Entropy stable scheme} \label{sec2}
This secton briefly present theory and development of entropy stable schemes and comprehensive details can be found in \cite{Tadmor2003, Tadmor2016}. On assuming that system \eqref{conservation_laws} is equipped with entropy pair $\left(\eta(\mathbf{u}), q(\mathbf{u})\right)$ which symmetrizes the system \eqref{conservation_laws}. Then it can be shown that a physical weak solution of \eqref{conservation_laws} uniquely satisfies following entropy inequality
\begin{equation}\label{Entropy_condition}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \eta(\mathbf{u})+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}q(\mathbf{u}) \leq 0,
\end{equation}
where entropy function $\eta \equiv \eta(\mathbf{u}):\mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is convex and entropy flux function $q(\mathbf{u}): \mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ satisfies the following compatibility relation with entropy variable $\mathbf{v}=\eta_\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{u})$
\begin{equation}\label{sym_cond}
\mathbf{v}^T \mathbf{f_u}=q_\mathbf{u}^T,
\end{equation}
By virtue of the convexity of $\eta$ the mapping $\mathbf{v}\rightarrow \mathbf{u}$ is one-to-one and change of variable $\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{u(v)}$ transforms the system \eqref{conservation_laws} into an equivalent symmetric form
\begin{equation}\label{sym_form}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf{u(v)}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{u})=0,\; \mathbf{g(v)} =\mathbf{f(u(v)}.
\end{equation}
The system \eqref{sym_form} is symmetric in the sense the Jocobians of temporal and spatial fluxes of variable $\mathbf{v}$ i.e., $\mathbf{u(v)}$ and $\mathbf{g(v)}$ respectively satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{jacob_mat}
H(\mathbf{v})= \mathbf{u_v(v)}= H^T(\mathbf{v})>0, \;B(\mathbf{v}) =\mathbf{g_v(v)}=B^T(\mathbf{v}).
\end{equation}
Moreover, under \eqref{sym_cond}, the Hessian of an entropy function symmetrizes the system \eqref{conservation_laws} as following holds \cite{Tadmor2003}
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\mathbf{uu}}A = \left[\partial \eta_{uu}A\right]^T,\; A = \dfrac{\partial f(\mathbf{u}) }{\partial \mathbf{u}} .
\end{equation}
In order to numerically approximate the solution of \eqref{conservation_laws}, discretize the spatial domain into intervals $I_{i}=[x_{i-\frac{1}{2}},x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}]$ using Cartesian mesh $\{x_i\}_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}$ with mesh size $\Delta x= x_{i+1}-x_{i}$ such that $x_{i}= (x_{i+\frac{1}{2}} +x_{i-\frac{1}{2}})/2$. Then the semi-discrete finite difference (or finite volume) conservative scheme to compute the updated solution of \eqref{conservation_laws} is given by \begin{equation}
\label{semi_scheme}
\frac{d}{dt}\mathbf{u}_{i}(t)=-\frac{1}{\Delta x_{i}}\left({\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-{\mathbf{F}}_{i-\frac{1}{2}}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{u}_{i}(t)=\mathbf{u}(x_{i}, t)$ and numerical flux function ${\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ satisfies the consistency condition that is ${\mathbf{F}}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u},...,\mathbf{u})=\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{u})$. The scheme \eqref{semi_scheme} is said to be entropy conservative if it satisfies the following discrete entropy criterion,
\begin{equation}\label{disEC}
\frac{d}{dt}\eta(\mathbf{u}_{i}(t))+\frac{1}{\Delta x_{i}}\left({q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-{q}_{i-\frac{1}{2}}\right)=0,
\end{equation}
where discrete entropy flux function ${q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}={q}(\mathbf{u}_{i-l+1},...,\mathbf{u}_{i+l}), l \in \mathbb{Z}^+$ is consistent with entropy flux function $q$ such that
\begin{equation}
{q}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u},...,\mathbf{u})=q(\mathbf{u}).
\end{equation}
Define the notations for jump and average of a discrete quantity ${z}_{i},\; i\in \mathbb{Z}$ by $\left[\left[z\right]\right]_{i}:=z_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-z_{i-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\bar{z}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} := \frac{1}{2}(z_{i+1}+z_{i})$ respectively. Then a foundational approach to construct entropy conservative numerical flux in \cite{Tadmor1987} is as follows.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorm1987}
Let a consistent numerical flux $ {\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}={\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq_ec}
\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}} {\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*=\left[\left[\psi\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\psi $ is entropy potential given by
\begin{equation} \label{defpsi}
\psi(\mathbf{v})=\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{g}(\mathbf{v})-q(\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{v})).
\end{equation}
Then the scheme \eqref{semi_scheme} with numerical flux $\mathbf{F}^*$ is second order accurate and entropy conservative i.e., computed solution by scheme satisfies the discrete entropy equality \eqref{disEC} with numerical entropy flux
\begin{equation}\label{qstar}
q_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \equiv {q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_{i}, \mathbf{u}_{i+1}) = \bar{\mathbf{v}}^{T}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \mathbf{F}^{*}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} - \bar{\psi}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The entropy conservative flux ${\mathbf{F}}^*$ obtained from \eqref{eq_ec} for scalar problem is unique, though suffers from non uniqueness in the case of the system of conservation laws. However, this non-uniqueness does not severely impact the development of entropy conservative fluxes various hyperbolic systems and exhaustively available second as well arbitrary high order entropy conservative fluxes can be found in \cite{Chandrashekar2013,Ismail2009,Winters201672,Tadmor2003, LeFloch2002, Fjordholm2012}. A detailed comparison of various entropy conservative fluxes for Euler equation is given in \cite{Hendrik2017}.
\subsection{Entropy Stable flux and numerical diffusion} The entropy of the solution of hyperbolic conservation law remains conserved for smooth solution and dissipates across shocks. Therefore, schemes using entropy conservative fluxes allow non-physical oscillations near shock due to absence of numerical diffusion which ensures that computed solution exhibits entropy dissipation. A standard procedure to obtain such dissipative fluxes is by explicitly adding numerical diffusion in to the entropy conservative flux \cite{Tadmor1987, Tadmor2003}. We state the result therein as follows,
\begin{theorem}\label{ES_Thm}
Let $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\in\mathbf{R}^m\times \mathbf{R}^m $ be symmetric positive semi-definite i.e., $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\geq 0$ and $\mathbf{F}^{*}:\mathbf{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbf{R}^m$ be entropy conservative flux then the computed solution by scheme \eqref{semi_scheme} using numerical flux of the form
\begin{equation}\label{ES_Flux}
\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*-\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}},\,
\end{equation}
satisfies the following discrete analog of the entropy inequality \eqref{Entropy_condition},
\begin{equation}\label{disECInq}
\frac{d}{dt}\eta(\mathbf{u}_{i}(t))+\frac{1}{\Delta x_{i}}\left[\hat{q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\hat{q}_{i-\frac{1}{2}}\right]\leq 0.
\end{equation}
where numerical entropy flux $\hat{q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = q^{*}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\frac{1}{2}\bar{\mathbf{v}}^{T}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \mathbf{D}_{i + \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$.
\end{theorem}
The so defined flux $\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ is called entropy stable flux and the term $\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ in \eqref{ES_Flux} represents numerical diffusion term. The numerical diffusion term in \eqref{ES_Flux} is constituted by a symmetric positive semi-definite dissipation operator $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ and the jump in the discrete entropy variable $\mathbf{v}_i$. Note that "A conservative scheme which contain more numerical viscosity than that present in the entropy conservative one is also entropy stable" \cite{Tadmor1987}. Therefore constructing entropy stable flux $\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ can be easily done by using any symmetric $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\geq 0$. However, following caveats are there when it comes to design {\em high order non-oscillatory entropy stable fluxes}.
\subsubsection{Quest for suitable dissipation operator}
The dissipation of the numerical entropy determines the discontinuities capturing ability of the underlying scheme. Thus just the positiveness property of dissipation operator $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ alone is not enough to ensure for truly oscillation free entropy stable scheme. Further, excessive dissipation cause smeared approximation of the discontinuity whereas in absence of sufficient diffusion spurious oscillations may occur in the vicinity of discontinuities. Thus the problem is to determine a suitable diffusion operator $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ which enables the scheme to yield a crisp resolution of discontinuities. Let $\mathbf{A}=\partial_{\mathbf{u}}\mathbf{f(u)}$ be the Jacobian matrix with complete set of independent eigen vectors such that $\mathbf{A}= \mathbf{R}\mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{R}^{-1}$ where $\Lambda$ is a non-negative diagonal matrix depending on eigenvalues of Jacobian $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ is matrix of associated eigenvectors. Then some examples of diffusion operator used in \cite{Fjordholm2012} are $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \mathbf{\tilde{R}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{\Lambda}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \tilde{R}^T_{i+\frac{1}{2}}}$ where $\mathbf{\tilde{R}}$ is a scaling of $\mathbf{R}$ such that $\mathbf{u_v}= \mathbf{\tilde{R}\tilde{R}}^T$ and $\mathbf{A}= \mathbf{\tilde{R}}\mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\tilde{R}^{T}}$.
The subscript $i+\frac{1}{2}$ of $\mathbf{\tilde{R}}$ and $\mathbf{\tilde{\Lambda}}$ denotes an average state at cell interface $x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$. Two of the choices used for $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ therein are Roe type dissipation operator $\mathbf{\Lambda} = diag(|\lambda_1|, |\lambda_2|, \dots |\lambda_m|)$ and Rusanov type dissipation operator $\mathbf{\Lambda} = \max\left(|\lambda_1|, |\lambda_2|, \dots |\lambda_m|\right)\mathbf{I}_{m\times m}$.
In \cite{Ismail2009}, entropy consistent diffusion operator {\it EC1} is proposed using a second and third-order differential terms for Euler equation given as,
\begin{equation}\label{ec1}
\mathbf{\Lambda}^{EC1} = |\mathbf{\Lambda}| + \frac{1}{6}|\left[\left[\mathbf{\Lambda}_{u\pm a}\right]\right]|
\end{equation}
where $\left[\left[\mathbf{\Lambda}\right]\right] = diag\left(\left[\left[ u-a \right]\right],0, \left[\left[u+a\right]\right]\right)$. However, extension of \eqref{ec1} for general hyperbolic systems is not clear and its non-oscillatory nature depends on the choice of entropy function \cite{DUBEY2018}. A total variation diminishing condition is deduced on $\mathbf{D}$ such that the resulting entropy stable flux \eqref{ES_Flux} ensures for the complete removal of spurious oscillations in \cite{DUBEY2018}. For systems it is defined as,
\begin{equation}\label{estvd}
\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \geq \max\left(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}|\mathbf{\Lambda}|\mathbf{\tilde{R}}^T + |Q^*|, 0\right)
\end{equation}
where the entropy viscosity matrix $Q^*$ in terms of Jacobian $B(\mathbf{v})$ in \eqref{jacob_mat} is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{ev_matrix}
Q^{*}= \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}2\xi\,B\left(\mathbf{v}_{i + \frac{1}{2}}(\xi)\right),\; \,\mathbf{v}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} + \xi \left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
Clearly to obtain diffusion operator in \eqref{estvd}, one needs to explicitly calculate entropy viscosity which often may not be tractable. Apart from above the diffusion operator $\mathbf{D}$ in context of Shallow water hydrodynamics equation is given using Cholesky decomposition of matrix $\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{u}}{\partial \mathbf{v}}$ in \cite{DUAN2021110136}. Thus it can be observed that for general system defining and computing $\mathbf{D}$ is a complicated step in designing non-oscillatory entropy stable flux.
\subsubsection{Need for sign stable high order reconstruction} Note that irrespective of order of accuracy of flux $\mathbf{F}^{*}$, entropy stable schemes with numerical diffusion term $\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ are only first order accurate as the jump $\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ in entropy variable across cell interface $x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ is of order $\Delta x$. Thus in order to achieve high order entropy stable flux, a suitable reconstruction of the jump in the entropy variable $\mathbf{v}$ is needed as shown in TECNO schemes \cite{Fjordholm2012}. More precisely, let $\mathbf{v}_{i}^{\pm}$ be $(2k-1)^{th}$ order reconstruction of entropy variable $\mathbf{v}$, then a $(2k-1)^{th}$ order entropy stable flux is obtained by adding a $(2k-1)^{th}$ order diffusion term to $2k^{th}$ order entropy conservative flux in the form
\begin{equation}\label{tecno_f}
\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*-\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{\tilde{R}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{\Lambda}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}}\left<\left<\mathbf{\tilde{w}}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}},\,
\end{equation}
where $\left<\left<\mathbf{\tilde{w}}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \mathbf{\tilde{w}}_{i+1}^+ - \mathbf{\tilde{w}}_{i}^-$ is the jump in the reconstructed values of scaled entropy variable $\mathbf{w}^{\pm}_i= \tilde{\mathbf{R}}^T_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{v}_i$ defined as $ \mathbf{\tilde{w}}^{\pm}_i = \tilde{\mathbf{R}}^T_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{v}^{\pm}_i$. It is shown in \cite{Fjordholm2012} that flux \eqref{tecno_f} is entropy stable provided reconstruction of scaled entropy variable satisfies the following component wise sign property at each interface $x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$,
\begin{equation}\label{Tencosignprop}
sign\left(\left<\left<\mathbf{\tilde{w}}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) = sign\left(\left<\left<\mathbf{w}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{wv}
\left<\left<\mathbf{\tilde{w}}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}} &=& \mathbf{\tilde{w}}_{i+1}^+ - \mathbf{\tilde{w}}_{i}^- = \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T\mathbf{v}_{i+1}^- - \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T\mathbf{v}_{i}^+ = \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T\left<\left<\mathbf{v}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}},\label{tildew}\\
\left<\left<\mathbf{w}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}} &=& \mathbf{{w}}_{i+1}^+ - \mathbf{w}_{i}^- = \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T\mathbf{v}_{i+1} - \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T\mathbf{v}_{i} \;=\; \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}.\label{wonly}
\end{eqnarray}
For each component $l$, \eqref{Tencosignprop} is defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cc}
\left<\left<w^l\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}>0, & \mbox{then}\; \left<\left<\tilde{w}^l\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\geq 0,\\
\left<\left<w^l\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}<0, & \mbox{then}\; \left<\left<\tilde{w}^l\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\leq 0,\\
\left<\left<w^l\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=0, & \mbox{then}\; \left<\left<\tilde{w}^l\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}= 0.\\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Note that TeCNO framework \cite{Fjordholm2012} for constructing high order non-oscillatory schemes demands for sign stability property \eqref{Tencosignprop} in the high order reconstruction and therefore only ENO reconstruction could be used in \cite{Fjordholm2013}. Authors in \cite{BbRk} modified the TECNO framework which demands sign stablity of scaled entropy variable only accross locally significantly jumps and therefore can work with other high order reconstructions e.g., third order WENO and high order TVD reconstruction. In \cite{DUAN2021110136}, high-order accurate well-balanced semi-discrete entropy stable schemes are developed for shallow water magnetohydrodynamics by adding diffusion using a switch function proposed in \cite{BbRk}. The construction of suitable dissipation term in therein again based on the WENO reconstruction of the scaled entropy variables. Recently in \cite{LIU2019104266} the third order WENO reconstruction of scaled entropy variables is proposed to construct entropy stable schemes for shallow water equations. We remark here that this scaling involve expansive matrix-vector multiplication between scaled matrix $\mathbf{\tilde{R}}$ and entropy vector $\mathbf{v}$ in each cell.
\section{Non-Oscillatory Schemes}\label{sec3}
This section present a quick review of class of prevailing non-oscillatory schemes. Note that, oscillatory approximations for discontinuous solution of \eqref{conservation_laws} can not be considered
as admissible solution since it violets the following global maximum
principle satisfied by the its physically admissible solution. In scalar case it is given as,
\begin{equation} \min_{x}(u_{0}(x)) \leq u(x,t) \leq \max_{x}(u_{0}(x)),
\forall (x,\;t)\in \mathbb{R}\times\, \mathbb{R}^{+}.
\label{mp}
\end{equation}
Examples of Maximum principle \eqref{mp} satisfying schemes are monotone schemes \cite{crandall1979monotone}, total variation diminishing (TVD) schemes \cite{Harten1984,sweby1984high, ZhangTVD,Goodman}. Apart from these other non-oscillatory schemes which do not strictly follow maximum principle but practically give excellent non-oscillatory numerical results are uniformly non-oscillatory scheme \cite{HartenOsher}, Essentially non-oscillatory (ENO) and weighted ENO schemes \cite{SHU1988439,Shu1997, Shu2009} and references therein. Among these non-oscillatory schemes, ENO and WENO schemes are very attractive as they preserve formal higher order of accuracy unlike monotone and TVD schemes and are well developed now \cite{jiang1996efficient, henrick2005mapped,borges2008improved,castro2011high,ha2013improved,rathan2018modified,biswas2018accuracy,Sabana}.
\subsection{Non-oscillatory flux}
The fluxes corresponding to ENO/WENO schemes relies on high order reconstruction/interpolation of the conserved quantity at cell interface $x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$. Let $v(x),\; x\in \Sigma \subset \mathbb{R}$ be a piece-wise continuous function and the domain $\Sigma$ is partitioned with the grids $\{x_i\}$, $i\in\mathbb{Z}$, and the point values are given by $v_{i}=v(x_{i})$. Then the $k$-th order ENO interpolation procedure in an arbitrary interval $I_{i}:=[x_{i-\frac{1}{2}}, x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}]$ utilizes $(2k-1)$ grid point stencil and consists of two steps. The first step chooses smoothest stencil among $k$ consecutive points $S_{pref}=\{x_{i-r},\,\dots,\,x_{i},\,\dots,\, x_{i-r+k-1}\}$ where $r\in\{0,1,\dots, \left(k-1\right)\}$. Then the unique $\left(k-1\right)$-th degree polynomial $p_i(x)$ passing through such $S_{pref}$ is used to interpolate conserved variable at cell interface $x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ as,
\begin{eqnarray*}
v_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^{-}=p_{i}(x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}),
\\v_{i-\frac{1}{2}}^{+}=p_{i}(x_{i-\frac{1}{2}}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Compared to ENO, in WENO reconstruction improved accuracy of $(2k-1)^{th}$ order can be achieved using same $(2k-1)$ point stencil for smooth data. The idea in WENO reconstruction is to consider a convex combination of reconstructed values at cell interfaces $x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ using all $(k-1)^{th}$ order unique polynomials $p_i^r(x)$ which reconstruct function $v(x)$ over sub stencil $S_r(i)=\{x_{i+r-k+1},......,x_{i+r}\},\;\;r=0,....k-1$\cite{Shu2009}. Such $(2k-1)^{th}$ order accurate reconstructed values are given by
\begin{equation}\label{WENO_Re}
v_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^{-}=\sum_{r=0}^{k-1} \omega_r p^{r}_i(x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}),\;
v_{i-\frac{1}{2}}^{+}=\sum_{r=0}^{k-1} \tilde{\omega}_r p^{r}_i(x_{i-\frac{1}{2}}).
\end{equation}
where non-linear weights $w_r, \tilde{w}_r$ are given by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\omega_r=\frac{\alpha_r}{\sum_{p=0}^k\alpha_p},\, \, \tilde{\omega}_r=\frac{\tilde{\alpha}_r}{\sum_{p=0}^k\tilde{\alpha}_p},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{beta_j}
\alpha_r=\frac{\gamma_{r}}{(\epsilon+\beta_r)^2},\,\,\tilde{\alpha}_r=\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{r}}{(\epsilon+\beta_r)^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
The constants $\gamma_{r}$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_r$ are such that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{r=0}^{k-1} \gamma_r p^{r}_i(x_{i+\frac{1}{2}})-v(x_{i+\frac{1}{2}})=O(h^{2k-1}),
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{r=0}^{k-1} \tilde{\gamma}_r p^{r}_i(x_{i-\frac{1}{2}})-v(x_{i-\frac{1}{2}})=O(h^{2k-1}).
\end{equation*}
The parameters $\beta_r$'s in \eqref{beta_j} measures the smoothness and is given by\begin{equation}\label{beta}
\beta_r=\sum_{l=1}^{k}\int_{x_{i-\frac{1}{2}}}^{x_{i+\frac{1}{2}}}{\Delta x}^{2l-1}\left(\frac{d^l}{dx^l}p^{j}_i(x)\right)^2 dx, \,(j=0,1,...,k-1).
\end{equation}
A good detail on ENO/WENO reconstruction and interpolation procedure can be found in \cite{Shu1997, Fjordholm2013}. In scalar case, the ENO/WENO flux $F^{s}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ in finite difference semi-discrete conservative approximation \eqref{semi_scheme} is reconstructed by point values $f(u_i)$. More precisely, use $f^+(u_i)$ to reconstruct the positive cell interface numerical flux $F^{+}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}= v^{-}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ and use $f^{-}(u_i)$ to reconstruct the negative cell interface numerical flux $F^{-}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}= v^{+}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$. The positive and negative flux $f^{\pm}$ satisfy $f(u) = f(u)^+ +f(u)^-$ which can be obtained by any suitable flux splitting such that $\frac{f(u)^+}{du} \geq 0,\; \frac{f(u)^-}{du}\leq 0$ \cite{Shu1997}. For example the simplest Lax-Friedrichs splitting is,
\begin{equation}\label{split_lxf}
f^{\pm}(u) = \frac{1}{2}(f(u) \pm \sigma u)
\end{equation}
where $\sigma = \displaystyle \max_u|f'(u)|$ over the relevant range of $u$.
Finally the non-oscillatory ENO/WENO numerical flux can be obtained by $F^{s}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = F^{+}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}+ F^{-}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$.
We conclude this section that it can be observed that despite of active efforts to develop high order entropy stable schemes, entropy stable fluxes are never designed to explicitly mimic properties of established aforementioned high order non-oscillatory fluxes.
\section{Least square optimization Problem}\label{sec4}
Through out rest of the paper, vectors functions $\hat{\mathbf{F}}$ and $\mathbf{F}^*$ denote generic numerical entropy stable and entropy conservative flux respectively whereas $\mathbf{F}^s$ denotes non-oscillatory numerical flux function of any stable scheme like monotone, TVD or ENO, WENO schemes etc. More precisely, Let $\mathbf{F}^s$ be consistent numerical flux function of any $n^{th}$ order non-oscillatory finite difference scheme such that
\begin{equation}\label{2kEC}
\frac{1}{\Delta x}(\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^s - \mathbf{F}_{i-\frac{1}{2}}^s )= \left.\mathbf{f(\mathbf{u})}_x\right|_{x=x_i} + \mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{n}).
\end{equation}
Also let $\mathbf{F}^*$ be a $m^{th}$ order consistent entropy conservative flux for \eqref{ES_Flux} such that
\begin{equation}\label{2kFw}
\frac{1}{\Delta x}(\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^* - \mathbf{F}_{i-\frac{1}{2}}^* )= \left.\mathbf{f(\mathbf{u})}_x\right|_{x=x_i} + \mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{m}).
\end{equation}
Further, the scheme with flux $\mathbf{F}^*$ satisfies the discrete entropy equality \eqref{disEC} with some appropriate numerical entropy function $q$. For example, in $m=2p^{th}$, $p \in \mathbb{N}$ order entropy conservative schemes \cite{LeFloch2002} the numerical entropy function is
\begin{equation}\label{2p_qstar}
q_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \sum_{k=1}^p \alpha_k^p\sum_{l=1}^{k-1}q^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbf{u}_{i-l}, \mathbf{u}_{i-l+k}),
\end{equation}
where $q^*$ is second order numerical entropy flux function \eqref{qstar} and $\alpha_k^p$'s solve the linear system
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=1}^p k\alpha_k^p =1, \; \sum_{i=1}^{p} i^{2j -1}\alpha_k^p =0, (j= 2, 3,\dots p).
\end{equation}
Note that for problem \eqref{conservation_laws}, these numerical fluxes are discrete vector functions $\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}: \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m $,
$\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}: \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m $,
and $\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}: \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m $. Denote by $\mathbb{P}$ the set of symmetric positive definite matrices $\textbf{A}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$ s.t. $ \textbf{x}^T\textbf{Ax}\geq0, \forall \textbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ and $D_{i,j}$ represents $(i,j)^{th}$ element of matrix $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$. Further, denote by $\nabla_{\textbf{D}}$ the matrix differentiation operator with respect to matrix $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ defined either in $\omega$ or $\alpha$-derivative sense \cite{MAGNUS20102200}. We prefer to use $\omega$-derivative definition however the agruments used in the following part of this section hold true for $\alpha$-derivative definition too. On dropping out the sub-script $i+\frac{1}{2}$ in $\mathbf{D}$, the $\omega$-derivative of any $n\times q$ matrix function $\textbf{G}$ w.r. to $m\times m$ matrix $\mathbf{D}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{omega_diff}
\nabla^{\omega}_{\mathbf{D}}\textbf{G(D)} =\displaystyle \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{1,1}} & \frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{1,2}} & \dots & \frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{1,m}}\\
\frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{2,1}} & \frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{2,2}} & \dots & \frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{2,m}}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{m,1}} & \frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{m,2}} & \dots & \frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{m,m}}\\
\end{array}\right)_{mn\times qm},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{omega_diff1}
\frac{\partial \textbf{G(D)}}{\partial D_{i,j}} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\partial \textbf{G}_{1,1}}{\partial D_{i,j}} & \frac{\partial \textbf{G}_{1,2}}{\partial D_{i,j}} & \dots & \frac{\partial \textbf{G}_{1q}}{\partial D_{i,j}}\\
\frac{\partial \textbf{F}_{2,1}}{\partial D_{i,j}} & \frac{\partial \textbf{G}_{2,2}}{\partial D_{i,j}} & \dots & \frac{\partial \textbf{G}_{2q}}{\partial D_{i,j}}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\frac{\partial \textbf{G}_{n,1}}{\partial D_{i,j}} & \frac{\partial \textbf{G}_{n,2}}{\partial D_{i,j}} & \dots & \frac{\partial \textbf{G}_{nq}}{\partial D_{i,j}}\\
\end{array}\right)_{n\times q},
\end{equation}
In this setting, the problem of constructing entropy stable flux $\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ in \eqref{ES_Flux} which can imitate non-oscillatory property of $\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ can be
posed as following modified least square problem i.e.,\\
$$\mathcal{P}1: \mbox{Given}\; \left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \in \mathbb{R}^m, \mbox{find matrix} \;\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \in \mathbb{P} \subset \mathbb{R}^m\times \mathbb{R}^m \; s.t.\; \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*-\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^s.$$
It can be reformulated as following equivalent minimization problems
\begin{equation}\label{LSprob1}
\mathcal{P}2: \displaystyle \underset{\mathbf{D} \in \mathbb{P}}{\min} \|\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} - \mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\|
\Longleftrightarrow \displaystyle \min_{\mathbf{D} \in \mathbb{P}} \|\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} - \mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\|^2 \end{equation}
Deducing such minimizing $\mathbf{D}$ can equivalently written as optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}3: \;\;\mathbf{D} = \displaystyle \underset{\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\in \mathbb{P}}{\arg\min} J(\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}})\; \mbox{where}\; J(\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2,
\end{equation}
where $J(\mathbf{D_{i+\frac{1}{2}}})$ is cost or penalty function. Thanks to convexity of $J(\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}})$ a unique minimizer $\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ exists and can be determined by using the first order optimality condition. Differentiating $J(\mathbf{D})$ w.r.to. matrix $\mathbf{D}$ in $\omega$-derivative sense we have,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}} J(\mathbf{D})= \left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(-\frac{1}{2}\nabla_{\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}}(\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}})\right)
\end{equation}
Note that the tensor $\nabla_{\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\not \equiv \mathbf{0}$ identically until $\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{0}$ and in this case entropy stability can be achieved trivially in \eqref{ES_Flux}. Thus first order sufficient optimality condition i.e., $\nabla_{\mathbf{D}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}} J(\mathbf{D}) =0$ gives the following condition on minimizing optimizer $\mathbf{D}^o$
\begin{equation}\label{num_diff1}
\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{D}^o_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
Note that solving \eqref{num_diff1} to explicitly obtain minimizing $\mathbf{D}^o$ in system case is non-trivial. However, the good thing to be observed from \eqref{ES_Flux} the explicit computation of minimizing $\mathbf{D}^o$ is not needed and diffusion term $\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{D}^o_{i+\frac{1}{2}}[\mathbf{v}]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ can be directly replaced by right hand side expression of \eqref{num_diff1}.
However, to ensure entropy stability of the flux the positivity condition $\mathbf{D}^o\geq 0$ holds provided,
\begin{equation}\label{signprop}
sign\left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) = sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right).
\end{equation}
We termed condition \eqref{signprop} as {\em flux sign stability property}. Therefore, define the {\em optimized non-oscillatory numerical diffusion} for constructing entropy stable flux \eqref{ES_Flux} as
\begin{equation}\label{num_diff2}
\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{D}^o_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=
\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}} &\; \mbox{if}\; sign\left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) = sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right), \\
\mathbf{0} &\; \mbox{else}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Alternatively the entropy stable flux $\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ can be expressed as following convex combination
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}} - \chi_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right),
\end{equation}
where
$$
\chi_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \mbox{if}\;sign\left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) = sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right), \\
0 & \;\mbox{else}.
\end{array}\right.
$$
\begin{theorem}
The numerical scheme with flux \eqref{ES_Flux} with numerical diffusion \eqref{num_diff2} is entropy stable and its solution satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{disESInq}
\frac{d}{dt}\eta(\mathbf{u}_{i}(t))+\frac{1}{\Delta x_{i}}\left[\hat{q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\hat{q}_{i-\frac{1}{2}}\right]\leq 0\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where discrete entropy function
$\displaystyle \hat{q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = q^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\frac{1}{2}\bar{\mathbf{v}}^{T}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \mathbf{D}^o_{i + \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ and $q^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ is the numerical entropy flux associated with the entropy conservative flux $\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$.\\
{\bf Proof:} It follows from \eqref{num_diff2} that
\begin{equation}
\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T \mathbf{D}^o_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=
\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]^T_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) &\; \mbox{if}\; sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) = sign\left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) \\
\mathbf{[v]}^T_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\cdot \mathbf{0} &\; \mbox{else}
\end{array}\right\} \geq \mathbf{0}
\end{equation}
Now on multiplying the scheme \eqref{semi_scheme} with $\mathbf{v}^T$ and following the steps in \cite{Tadmor1987} we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}\eta(\mathbf{u}_{i}(t)) +\frac{1}{\Delta x_{i}}\left[\hat{q}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\hat{q}_{i-\frac{1}{2}}\right]&=&
-\frac{1}{4\Delta x}\left(
\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T \mathbf{D}^o_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}} + \left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i-\frac{1}{2}}^T \mathbf{D}^o_{i-\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i-\frac{1}{2}}\right)\nonumber \\
&\leq & \mathbf{0}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\hfill $\square$
\end{theorem}
\section{Non-oscillatory Entropy stable flux}\label{sec5}
On applying Mean value theorem on convex entropy variable $\mathbf{v(\mathbf{u})}$ gives
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle \left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{v}_{\textbf{u}}(\xi)\left[\left[\mathbf{u}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\xi\in [\mathbf{u}_i,\,\mathbf{u}_{i+1}]$ and since $\mathbf{v_u}({\xi})=\eta_{\mathbf{uu}}({\xi}) \geq 0$ it follows,
\begin{equation}\label{sign_uisv}
sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)=sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{u}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)
\end{equation}
Thus the non-oscillatory entropy stable flux can be defined in the following simple form
\begin{equation}\label{finalESflux}
\mathbf{\hat{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=
\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}} &\; \mbox{if}\; sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{u}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) = sign\left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) \\
\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}} &\; \mbox{else}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Following Lemma which trivially follows provides a {\em flux sign stability property} for entropy stability of a given flux .
\begin{lemma}\label{lemm1}
Let $\mathbf{F}$ be any consistent numerical flux for \eqref{conservation_laws} and if there exist an consistent entropy conservative flux $\mathbf{F}^*$ for \eqref{conservation_laws} such that
\begin{equation}\label{F_isES}
\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} =\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}} - \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\tilde{D}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\tilde{D}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ is any unknown scaling factor then $\mathbf{F}$ is entropy stable provided it satisfies the flux sign stability property holds
\begin{equation}\label{signpropu}
sign\left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbf{F}^s_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right) = sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{u}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)
\end{equation}
{\bf Proof:} Rewrite \eqref{F_isES} as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\tilde{D}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
Clearly under the flux sign stability conditions \eqref{signpropu} and sign relation \eqref{sign_uisv}, scaling factor $\mathbf{\tilde{D}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\geq 0$ therefore flux \eqref{F_isES} is entropy stable from Theorem \ref{ES_Thm}.
\hfill $\square$
\end{lemma}
In the following we retrospective test the Lemma \ref{lemm1} for some well known entropy stable fluxes.
\subsection{First order Entropy stable flux}
We remark that the first order entropy stable fluxes in \cite{Ismail2009, DUBEY2018}, are of the form \eqref{F_isES} and under \eqref{sign_uisv} naturally satisfies flux sign stability condition \eqref{signpropu} for the dissipation operators characterize by \eqref{ec1} or \eqref{estvd}. We further consider the following flux of a generic three point conservative scheme,
\begin{equation}\label{llf_u}
\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \bar{\mathbf{f}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\frac{1}{2} \alpha_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{u}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
On writing the second order entropy conservative flux \eqref{eq_ec} in viscosity form \cite{Tadmor2003},
\begin{equation}\label{visc_form}
\mathbf{F}^{*}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \bar{\mathbf{f}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} - \dfrac{1}{2}Q^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
where $Q^*$ is defined in \eqref{ev_matrix}.
Note from \eqref{sym_form} that
\begin{equation}
\left[\left[\mathbf{u}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}= \int_{\xi =-1/2}^{1/2} \dfrac{d}{d\xi}\mathbf{u(v_{i+\frac{1}{2}}(\xi))} d\xi =
\int_{\xi =-1/2}^{1/2}H(v_{i+\frac{1}{2}}(\xi))d\xi. \left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
Thus using $\alpha_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[\mathbf{u}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = Q_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$, flux \eqref{llf_u} can be written in terms of entropy variable,
\begin{equation}\label{llf_v}
\mathbf{F} = \bar{\mathbf{f}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} -\frac{1}{2} Q_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left[v\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
Q_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \alpha_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\int_{\xi =-1/2}^{1/2}H(v_{i+\frac{1}{2}}(\xi))d\xi
\end{equation}
In \cite{Tadmor2003} using comparison, it is shown that flux \eqref{llf_u} is entropy stable provided
\begin{equation}\label{alpha_cond}
\alpha_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \geq \max_{\lambda,|\xi|\leq 1/2}\left|\lambda\left[A(\mathbf{u(v_{i+\frac{1}{2}}(\xi))})\right]\right|.
\end{equation}
Moreover note that, under \eqref{alpha_cond}, inequality $Q_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \geq Q*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$ holds.
From \eqref{visc_form} and \eqref{llf_v} we have
$$\mathbf{F^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-F_{i+\frac{1}{2}}} = \frac{1}{2}(Q-Q^*)\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}$$
Clearly under condition \eqref{alpha_cond} and from \eqref{sign_uisv}, the flux sign stability property \eqref{signpropu} holds, therefore the flux \eqref{llf_u} is entropy stable.
Examples of viscosity coefficient of such entropy stable fluxes are,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\alpha_{i+\frac{1}{2}}= \displaystyle \max_{\lambda,|\xi|\leq 1/2}\left|\lambda\left[A(\mathbf{u(v_{i+\frac{1}{2}}(\xi))})\right]\right| $ viz Rusanov viscosity \cite{Rusanov}.
\item $\alpha_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \displaystyle \max_{\lambda,\mathbf{u}}|\lambda\left[A(\mathbf{u})\right]|$ viz Lax-Friedrichs viscosity \cite{Friedrichs}.
\end{itemize}
\hfill $\square$
\subsection{High order entropy stable TeCNO flux}
The high order numerical fluxes in \cite{Fjordholm2012,BbRk,DUAN2021110136,LIU2019104266} etc can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{tecno_u}
{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*-\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{\tilde{R}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{\Lambda}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}}\left<\left<\mathbf{\tilde{w}}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
Flux \eqref{tecno_u} is entropy stable provided $sign\left(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T\left<\left<\mathbf{v}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)= sign\left(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T\left[\left[\mathbf{v}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)$. On using scaled entropy variable relation \eqref{tildew}, \eqref{tecno_u} can be written as
\begin{equation}
{\mathbf{F}^*}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{\tilde{R}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{\Lambda}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \tilde{R}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T}\left<\left<\mathbf{v}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}},\,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\tilde{R}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{\Lambda}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} \tilde{R}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^T}\geq 0$ \cite{Fjordholm2012}. Thus on using \eqref{sign_uisv}, flux sign stability property \eqref{signpropu} holds i.e., we have
$$sign\left(\mathbf{F}^*_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-{\mathbf{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)=sign\left(\left<\left<\mathbf{v}\right>\right>_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)= sign\left(\left[\left[\mathbf{u}\right]\right]_{i+\frac{1}{2}}\right)$$
\hfill $\square$
\section{Numerical Result}\label{sec6}
The approach to construct entropy stable flux \eqref{finalESflux} is generic and robust as it can work with richly available any entropy conservative $\mathbf{F}^*$ and any non-oscillatory $\mathbf{F}^s$ fluxes. Entropy conservative fluxes for large class of hyperbolic systems can be found in \cite{LeFloch2002,Ismail2009,Fjordholm2012,DUAN2021110136,Chandrashekar2013,Winters201672} whereas non-oscillatory fluxes can be chosen from \cite{Shu1997,liu1994weighted,biswas2018accuracy,jiang1996efficient,Sabana,HARTEN1983357,ZhangTVD,Zhang2011,borges2008improved}. In the following, several numerical tests are presented to demonstrate the accuracy and non-oscillatory capability of entropy stable schemes using various combinations. Precisely, we choose following setting to construct entropy stable non-oscillatory fluxes and obtain the computational results: \\
{\bf Entropy conservative fluxes:} We choose entropy conservative flux $\mathbf{F}^*$ given in \cite{Tadmor1987, LeFloch2002}.
In particular, we use the forth order entropy conservative flux
\begin{equation}\label{ECflux4}
\mathbf{F}^{*,4}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{4}{3}\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{u}_{i+1}) -\frac{1}{6}(\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_{i-1},\mathbf{u}_{i+1}) + \mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_{i},\mathbf{u}_{i+2}))
\end{equation}
and the sixth order entropy conservative flux
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ECflux6}
\mathbf{F}^{*,6}_{i+\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{3}{2}\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{u}_{i+1}) -\frac{3}{10}(\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_{i-1},\mathbf{u}_{i+1}) + \mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_{i},\mathbf{u}_{i+2})) \nonumber \\
+
\frac{1}{30}(\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_{i-2},\mathbf{u}_{i+1}) + \mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_{i-1},\mathbf{u}_{i+2}) + \mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{u}_{i},\mathbf{u}_{i+3}))
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{F}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^*(\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b})$ is second order entropy conservative fluxes satisfying \eqref{eq_ec} \cite{Fjordholm2012,DUAN2021110136,Ismail2009,Tadmor2003,Tadmor2016}.\\
{\bf Non-oscillatory Fluxes:} The non-oscillatory fluxes $\mathbf{F}^s$ which we used are first order Local Lax-Friedrichs or Rusanov flux \eqref{llf_u}, second and third order ENO fluxes \cite{Shu1997}, third and fifth order WENO-JS fluxes with Jiang-Shu weights \cite{jiang1996efficient,Sabana}. For comparison of results in Figure \ref{LintestIC2c} WENO-Z fluxes with weight \cite{borges2008improved} is also used. In the $m$-system case \eqref{conservation_laws}, a straightforward and computationally efficient component-wise reconstruction \cite{Shu2009} is used as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Split the physical flux $\mathbf{f(u)}$ in \eqref{conservation_laws} as,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f(u)}=\mathbf{f(u)}^++\mathbf{f(u)}^-,
\end{equation}
such that $\dfrac{d\mathbf{f(u)}}{d\mathbf{u}}^+\geq 0$ and $\dfrac{d\mathbf{f(u)}}{d\mathbf{u}}^-\leq 0$.
\item The $m^{th}$ component of discrete numerical flux ${{\mathbf{F}}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^{\pm}$ using ENO/WENO reconstructions is defined as, \begin{equation}
{{F}^{(m)\pm}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}=v_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^{\mp}.
\end{equation}
where $\bar{v}_{i}=f^{(m)\pm}_i$ is taken as input.
\item Then the non-oscillatory ENO/WENO numerical flux is obtained by,
\begin{equation}
{{\mathbf{F}}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}={{\mathbf{F}}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^{+}+{{\mathbf{F}}}_{i+\frac{1}{2}}^{-}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
{\bf Time integration:} For time marching in \eqref{semi_scheme}, following explicit third order strong stability preserving(SSP) Runge-Kutta methods is used \cite{gottlieb1998total,shu1988total}. \begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{u}^{(1)}=\mathbf{u}^n+\triangle t \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{u}^n),\\ \nonumber
\mathbf{u}^{(2)}=\frac{3}{4} \mathbf{u}^{(n)}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathbf{u}^{(1)}+\triangle t \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{u}^{(1)}\right), \\
\mathbf{u}^{(n+1)}=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2}{3} \mathbf{u}^{(2)}+\frac{2}{3}\triangle t \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{u}^{(2)}).
\end{eqnarray}
where
$ [\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{u})]_i = -\frac{1}{\Delta x}\left[\left[\mathbf{\hat{F}}\right]\right]_{i}$.\\
In order to extend the schemes for multi-dimensional test problems on regular mesh, dimension by dimension or tensorial approach \cite{Shu1997, Fjordholm2012} is utilized. \\
{\bf Name Convention:} The following name convention is used to annotate the results: legend {\it EC-m-$F^w$-n} denotes the numerical result using entropy stable scheme constructed by combination of $m^{th}$ order accurate entropy conservative flux $F^*$ and $n^{th}$ order non-oscillatory flux $F^s$. For example, EC-6-WENOJS-5 represents entropy stable flux obtained by combining $6^{th}$ order entropy conservative flux \eqref{ECflux6} with the fifth order non-oscillatory WENOJS flux \cite{borges2008improved}.
\subsection{Scalar conservation law} We consider scalar problems to analyze the accuracy and non-oscillatory nature of various entropy stable schemes obtained by different combinations of entropy conservative fluxes $F^*$ and non-oscillatory fluxes $F^s$.
\subsubsection{\bf Linear transport equation:} Consider the following linear equation
\begin{equation}\label{transporteq}
u_t+u_x=0,
\end{equation}
along with following initial conditions.
\begin{itemize}
\item{IC1: To test accuracy of schemes:} \begin{equation}\label{LinearIC1}
u(x,0)=-sin(\pi x) ,\;\;\; x\in [-1,1]
\end{equation}
In Table \ref{tab1LinearIC1} to \ref{tab4LinearIC1} the $L^\infty$ and $L^1$ convergence rate of different non-oscillatory entropy stable schemes is given and compared with the corresponding non-oscillatory scheme with respect to initial condition \eqref{LinearIC1}. It can be seen that the entropy stable scheme using $m^{th}$ order entropy conservative flux and $n^{th}$ order non-oscillatory flux {\it EC-m-$F^w$-n} maintains the $k^{th}$ order convergence rate where $k=\min(m,n)$.
\item{IC2: To test non-oscillatory property of schemes:} \begin{equation}\label{LinearIC2}
u(x,0)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
1 & |x|\leq \frac{1}{10}\\
0 & else
\end{array}\right.,\;\;\;x\in [-1,1] \\
\end{equation}
In figures \ref{LintestIC2a}, \ref{LintestIC2b} and \ref{LintestIC2c} computed solutions corresponding to initial condition \eqref{LinearIC2} by various entropy stable schemes are given and compared. It can be observed that these entropy stable schemes do not produce any spurious oscillations in the vicinity of discontinuities. From Figures \ref{LintestIC2a} and \ref{LintestIC2b} it can be observed the resolution of discontinuities by entropy stable schemes is characterizes by underlying $k^{th}$ order flux $F^*$ or $F^s$.
In figure \ref{LintestIC2c}, results are compared between entropy stable schemes using WENO-JS weights \cite{jiang1996efficient} and their modified version improved WENO-Z weights \cite{borges2008improved} to achieve optimal third-order accuracy regardless of the critical point. This improvement between third order WENO-JS and WENO-Z fluxes aslo reflects clearly in the computational results in \ref{LintestIC2c} (Left).
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\bf ENO-2}\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline N & $L^\infty$ error & Rate & $L^1$ error & Rate \\
\hline 20 & 0.103650350580194 & -Inf & 0.100929889040078 & -Inf \\
\hline 40 & 0.041704628948130 & 1.31 & 0.028772670613416 & 1.81 \\
\hline 80 & 0.017091991415075 & 1.29 & 0.007888602609992 & 1.87 \\
\hline 160 & 0.006973305119206 & 1.29 & 0.002081311252851 & 1.92 \\
\hline 320 & 0.002825010666346 & 1.30 & 0.000547242910005 & 1.93 \\
\hline 640 & 0.001140808448396 & 1.31 & 0.000143102433616 & 1.94 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC2-ENO-2\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.103650350580194 & - & 0.100929889040078 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.041704628948130 & 1.31 & 0.028772670613416 & 1.81 \\
\hline 80 & 0.017091991415075 & 1.29 & 0.007888602609992 & 1.87 \\
\hline 160 & 0.006973305119206 & 1.29 & 0.002081311252851 & 1.92 \\
\hline 320 & 0.002825010666346 & 1.30 & 0.000547242910005 & 1.93 \\
\hline 640 & 0.001140808448396 & 1.31 & 0.000143102433616 & 1.94 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC4-ENO-2\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.101147595657889 & - & 0.100570557317309 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.041672834586009 & 1.28 & 0.028450506050033 & 1.82 \\
\hline 80 & 0.017076078517514 & 1.29 & 0.007834801357435 & 1.86 \\
\hline 160 & 0.006957858965941 & 1.30 & 0.002069192494543 & 1.92 \\
\hline 320 & 0.002822571755367 & 1.30 & 0.000544841502157 & 1.93 \\
\hline 640 & 0.001140309717931 & 1.31 & 0.000142661434106 & 1.93 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC6-ENO-2\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.100718064441172 & - & 0.100246810487900 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.041640706191883 & 1.27 & 0.028443864620176 & 1.82 \\
\hline 80 & 0.017049582878448 & 1.29 & 0.007832290131885 & 1.86 \\
\hline 160 & 0.006954018562111 & 1.29 & 0.002069509727474 & 1.92 \\
\hline 320 & 0.002821703047318 & 1.30 & 0.000544868940700 & 1.93 \\
\hline 640 & 0.001139926469693 & 1.31 & 0.000142666777703 & 1.93 \\
\end{tabular}\\
\hline
\hline\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab1LinearIC1} {\it Linear transport equation:} Convergence rate of base non-oscillatory schemes and corresponding entropy stable schemes {\it EC-m-$F^s$-n} for initial condition \eqref{LinearIC1}, $\Delta t = \Delta x^{\frac{5}{3}},\; Tf =0.5$ }
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\bf ENO-3}\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.005406480964691 & - & 0.006734873704422 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.000616301811662 & 3.13 & 0.000730929733999 & 3.20 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000072520785343 & 3.09 & 0.000085989470177 & 3.09 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000008791230376 & 3.04 & 0.000010393579292 & 3.05 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000001077164992 & 3.03 & 0.000001280407541 & 3.02 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000000132451830 & 3.02 & 0.000000158874708 & 3.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC2-ENO-3\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.050543475632165 & - & 0.047520338901013 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.021966858587848 & 1.20 & 0.013346936006220 & 1.83 \\
\hline 80 & 0.009471535241998 & 1.21 & 0.003601408089964 & 1.89 \\
\hline 160 & 0.003984836829451 & 1.25 & 0.000973727113086 & 1.89 \\
\hline 320 & 0.001653962671563 & 1.27 & 0.000259703997357 & 1.91 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000674588416101 & 1.29 & 0.000068309161723 & 1.93 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC4-ENO-3\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.005547400761271 & - & 0.006753254108990 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.000631519872228 & 3.13 & 0.000731575516321 & 3.21 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000074491329863 & 3.08 & 0.000086022367170 & 3.09 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000009045052137 & 3.04 & 0.000010395657689 & 3.05 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000001113643600 & 3.02 & 0.000001280564509 & 3.02 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000000137250298 & 3.02 & 0.000000158885516 & 3.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC6-ENO-3\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.007039299255173 & - & 0.008204945851443 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.000863983047168 & 3.03 & 0.000970359664068 & 3.08 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000094006201842 & 3.20 & 0.000108905524817 & 3.16 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000011206410794 & 3.07 & 0.000013134852567 & 3.05 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000001354597352 & 3.05 & 0.000001612869148 & 3.03 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000000165232131 & 3.04 & 0.000000199829737 & 3.01 \\
\end{tabular}\\
\hline
\hline\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab2LinearIC1} {\it Linear transport equation case:} Convergence rate of non-oscillatory schemes and corresponding entropy stable schemes {\it EC-m-$F^s$-n}, for initial condition \eqref{LinearIC1}, $\Delta t = \Delta x^{\frac{5}{3}},\; Tf =0.5$ }
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\bf WENOJS-3}\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.095295719529242 & - & 0.097589964487292 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.037882127968846 & 1.33 & 0.024549404055603 & 1.99 \\
\hline 80 & 0.014499096466708 & 1.39 & 0.005929934948099 & 2.05 \\
\hline 160 & 0.004486646249450 & 1.69 & 0.001166681092555 & 2.35 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000792775926365 & 2.50 & 0.000138843470203 & 3.07 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000050791668167 & 3.96 & 0.000013117165987 & 3.40 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC2-WENOJS-3\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.096619636409225 & - & 0.096363607474423 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.038750928270435 & 1.32 & 0.025351032277798 & 1.93 \\
\hline 80 & 0.014977670426086 & 1.37 & 0.006266304072526 & 2.02 \\
\hline 160 & 0.004879825577255 & 1.62 & 0.001327973739958 & 2.24 \\
\hline 320 & 0.001273255037385 & 1.94 & 0.000226978005982 & 2.55 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000361908965099 & 1.81 & 0.000042452734679 & 2.42 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC4-WENOJS-3\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.093949645707552 & - & 0.096603590083196 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.037699524785342 & 1.32 & 0.024559646487770 & 1.98 \\
\hline 80 & 0.014450852094813 & 1.38 & 0.005857712856211 & 2.07 \\
\hline 160 & 0.004461105840692 & 1.70 & 0.001117876971273 & 2.39 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000823176706129 & 2.44 & 0.000122547918652 & 3.19 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000170130196615 & 2.27 & 0.000012785439939 & 3.26 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC6-WENOJS-3\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.006091950556727 & -Inf & 0.006795899050582 & -Inf \\
\hline 40 & 0.000693581835622 & 3.13 & 0.000733637225341 & 3.21 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000080943147491 & 3.10 & 0.000086141984941 & 3.09 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000009655813762 & 3.07 & 0.000010401032181 & 3.05 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000001168287450 & 3.05 & 0.000001280810577 & 3.02 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000000141575726 & 3.04 & 0.000000158895341 & 3.01 \\
\end{tabular}\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab3LinearIC1} {\it Linear transport equation:} Convergence rate of non-oscillatory schemes and corresponding entropy stable schemes {\it EC-m-$F^s$-n}, for initial condition \eqref{LinearIC1}, $CFL=0.8,\; \Delta t = \Delta x^{\frac{5}{3}},\; Tf =0.5$ }
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\bf WENOJS-5}\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline N & $L^\infty$ error & Rate & $L^1$ error & Rate \\
\hline 20 & 0.001063307461522 & - & 0.001067470709297 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.000028857556769 & 5.20 & 0.000027413329345 & 5.28 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000000838767067 & 5.10 & 0.000000777342539 & 5.14 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000000024195642 & 5.12 & 0.000000023316656 & 5.06 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000000000666380 & 5.18 & 0.000000000716246 & 5.02 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000000000019484 & 5.10 & 0.000000000022600 & 4.99 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC4-WENOJS-5\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.000902851352136 & - & 0.001054980033863 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.000105655879544 & 3.10 & 0.000056640425063 & 4.22 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000011827762287 & 3.16 & 0.000003516274955 & 4.01 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000001314715704 & 3.17 & 0.000000228819055 & 3.94 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000000144469908 & 3.19 & 0.000000014882411 & 3.94 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000000015851658 & 3.19 & 0.000000000964265 & 3.95 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC6-WENOJS-5\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.000981495800376 & -
& 0.001013770549779 & - \\
\hline 40 & 0.000027221380075 & 5.17 & 0.000026652053956 & 5.25 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000000808887363 & 5.07 & 0.000000774174265 & 5.11 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000000023875431 & 5.08 & 0.000000023322080 & 5.05 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000000000666377 & 5.16 & 0.000000000716247 & 5.03 \\
\hline 640 & 0.000000000019488 & 5.10 & 0.000000000022600 & 4.99 \\
\end{tabular}\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab4LinearIC1} {\it Linear transport equation:} Convergence rate of non-oscillatory schemes and corresponding entropy stable schemes {\it EC-m-$F^s$-n}, $m>n$, for initial condition \eqref{LinearIC1}, $CFL=0.8,\; \Delta t = \Delta x^{\frac{5}{3}},\; Tf =0.5$ }
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4EC-2ENO.pdf} &
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4EC-2WENO.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4EC-4ENO.pdf} &
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4EC-4WENO.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4EC-6ENO.pdf} &
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4EC-6WENO.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{LintestIC2a} {\it Linear transport equation for non-oscillatory property:} Each sub figure corresponds to Fixed EC flux $F^*$ with different $F^s$ fluxes.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4ENO2EC-6.pdf}
& \includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4ENO3EC-6.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4WENO3EC-6.pdf} &
\includegraphics[scale =0.55]{lintest4WENO5EC-6.pdf}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{LintestIC2b} {\it Linear transport equation for non-oscillatory property:} Each sub figure corresponds to different EC flux with fixed $F^s$ flux}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{lintest4EC-4WENO-compare}
& \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{lintest4EC-6WENO-compare}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{LintestIC2c} {\it Linear transport equation for non-oscillatory property:} Different EC fluxes with WENOJS and WENOZ fluxes.}
\label{fig:lintest4ec-4weno-compare}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Burgers equation}
Consider the Burger's equation \\ \\ \\
\begin{equation} \label{Burgerseq}
u_t+\bigg(\frac{u^2}{2}\bigg)_x=0,\; x\in [-1,1]
\end{equation}
with periodic boundary condition. The following initial conditions are chosen
\begin{itemize}
\item{IC3: To test accuracy of schemes:}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{BurgerIC1}
u(x,0)=1+ \frac{1}{2}sin(\pi x),
\end{eqnarray}
The solution of Burgers equation corresponding to \eqref{BurgerIC1} remains smooth until pre-shock time $T =Tb$. In Table \ref{tabBurgersIC1}, the $L^\infty$ and $L^1$ convergence rate of different non-oscillatory entropy stable schemes is given and compared with the corresponding non-oscillatory scheme with respect to initial condition \eqref{LinearIC1}. Similar to linear case, entropy stable schemes {\it EC-m-$F^w$-n} maintains the $k^{th}$ order convergence rate where $k=min(m,n)$.
\item {IC4: To test non-oscillatory property:}
\begin{equation}\label{BurgerIC2}
u(x,0) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\sin(\pi x) & |x|> 4\\
3 & -1\leq x\leq -0.5\\
1.0 & -0.5\leq x\leq 0\\
3.0 & 0.0\leq x < 0.5\\
1.0 & \mbox{else}.
\end{array}\right. x\in [-4,4]
\end{equation}
The initial condition \eqref{BurgerIC2} contains smooth and discontinuous data regions which eventually develops a complex solution containing stationary shock at $x=\pm 3$, rarefaction waves and moving shocks of varied intensities. In Figure \ref{fig:burgertest6eceno}, numerical solution computed by different high order entropy stable schemes is given compared. It can be observed from results in sub-figures \ref{fig:burgertest6eceno}(a) and \ref{fig:burgertest6eceno}(b) that entropy stable non-oscillatory {\it TeCNO} schemes proposed in \cite{Fjordholm2012} and low dissipative {\it TeC-WENOJS3} scheme in \cite{BbRk} respectively exhibits oscillations at discontinuities. However, the proposed entropy stable schemes {\it EC-m-$F^w$-n} in this work give non-oscillatory solution as shown in sub-figures \ref{fig:burgertest6eceno}(c) and \ref{fig:burgertest6eceno}(d). Moreover, the resolution of discontinuities is characterized by the base non-oscillatory flux used in the construction of entropy stable scheme.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[htb!]\label{tabBurgersIC1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\bf ENO-3}\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.004089806180465 & -Inf & 0.002576711084414 & -Inf \\
\hline 40 & 0.000652957611008 & 2.65 & 0.000330110340694 & 2.96 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000135597656038 & 2.27 & 0.000044560530326 & 2.89 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000029932048665 & 2.18 & 0.000006236888973 & 2.84 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000006346061054 & 2.24 & 0.000000951369850 & 2.71 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC4-ENO-3\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.003984058473352 & -Inf & 0.002564119225979 & -Inf \\
\hline 40 & 0.000697102270904 & 2.51 & 0.000332755325627 & 2.95 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000141257762097 & 2.30 & 0.000044795195031 & 2.89 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000030229316719 & 2.22 & 0.000006251616266 & 2.84 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000006352967047 & 2.25 & 0.000000953700271 & 2.71 \\
\end{tabular}\\
\hline \hline \\
{\bf WENOJS-3}\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.030054283683825 & -Inf & 0.021503606487366 & -Inf \\
\hline 40 & 0.011645863708584 & 1.37 & 0.005705413057081 & 1.91 \\
\hline 80 & 0.004446629544148 & 1.39 & 0.001272279921921 & 2.16 \\
\hline 160 & 0.001229792324948 & 1.85 & 0.000209695528475 & 2.60 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000160195787758 & 2.94 & 0.000019563728701 & 3.42 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC4-WENOJS-3\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.028159747571163 & -Inf & 0.021200069278609 & -Inf \\
\hline 40 & 0.011420125749124 & 1.30 & 0.005621069554234 & 1.92 \\
\hline 80 & 0.004354218766912 & 1.39 & 0.001256133850256 & 2.16 \\
\hline 160 & 0.001195708298807 & 1.86 & 0.000201484286229 & 2.64 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000180158182566 & 2.73 & 0.000016295119155 & 3.63 \\
\end{tabular}\\
\hline \hline \\
{\bf WENOJS-5}\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline N & $L^\infty$ error & Rate & $L^1$ error & Rate \\
\hline 20 & 0.001585602535748 & -Inf & 0.000868966169066 & -Inf \\
\hline 40 & 0.000040536940062 & 5.29 & 0.000025150570223 & 5.11 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000001917646443 & 4.40 & 0.000000750072987 & 5.07 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000000150942973 & 3.67 & 0.000000023675030 & 4.99 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000000003900132 & 5.27 & 0.000000000587218 & 5.33 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
EC6-WENOJS-5\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline 20 & 0.001503755255236 & -Inf & 0.000839061370388 & -Inf \\
\hline 40 & 0.000040903613295 & 5.20 & 0.000024422796621 & 5.10 \\
\hline 80 & 0.000001973978420 & 4.37 & 0.000000736081852 & 5.05 \\
\hline 160 & 0.000000153479630 & 3.68 & 0.000000023303174 & 4.98 \\
\hline 320 & 0.000000004094550 & 5.23 & 0.000000000572338 & 5.35 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
\caption{{\it Burgers equation:} Convergence rate of base non-oscillatory schemes and corresponding entropy stable schemes for initial condition \eqref{BurgerIC1}, $CFL=0.4,\;\Delta t = \Delta x^{\frac{5}{3}},\; Tf =\frac{1}{2\pi}$ }
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Burgers6TecNO} &\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Burgers6TecWENO}\\
(a) & (b)\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Burgertest6ECENO} &\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Burgertest6ECWENOJS}\\
(c) & (d) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Non-oscillatory solution of Burgers equation by {\it EC-m-$F^w$-n} schemes corresponding to \eqref{BurgerIC2} at $T=0.5,\; CFL = 0.8,\; N=80$. Small spurious oscillations can be observed TECNO \cite{Fjordholm2012} and TeC-WENOJS3 \cite{BbRk} schemes.}
\label{fig:burgertest6eceno}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\subsection{Systems of Conservation Laws}
Like scalar case, in system case also various proposed entropy stable schemes {\it EC-m-$F^w$-n} are used to compute the numerical solution of hyperbolic systems. However to restrict the length of the presentation, in one dimensional tests, results are reported only for third and fifth order entropy stable {\it ES-4-ENO-3} and {\it ES-6-WENOJS-5} schemes. Also results are compared with results by base non-oscillatory {\it ENO-3} and {\it WENOJS-5} schemes respectively. In two dimensional test cases, computational results by fifth order non-oscillatory entropy stable scheme {\it EC6-WENOJS-5} are given and compared with results of non-oscillatory WENO scheme {\it WENOJS-5}.
\subsubsection{The 1D Euler system} The one dimensional system of Euler equations is given by
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\rho\\
\rho u\\
E
\end{array}
\right)_t+\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\rho u\\
\rho u^2+p\\
u(E+p)
\end{array}
\right)_x=0,
\end{equation}
where following relationship holds between density ($\rho$), pressure($p$) and energy($E$)
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
p=(\gamma-1)\bigg(E-\frac{1}{2}\rho u^2\bigg).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\gamma$ is the ratio of specific heat coefficient. Computational results are obtained for various Riemann problem of the form \cite{toro2013riemann}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
u(x,0)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
u_l & \text{if} \;\; x<x_0 \\
u_r & \text{if} \;\; x\geq x_0
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $u_l=(\rho_l,u_l,p_l)$ and $u_r=(\rho_r,u_r,p_r)$.\\\\
\subsubsection*{Sod shock tube test:} The sod problem is defined in \cite{sod1978survey} is given by following initial condition
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
u(x,0)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
(1,0,1) & \text{if} \;\; -5<x<0 \\
(0.125,0,0.1) & \text{if} \;\; 0 \leq x \leq5
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for this initial condition the evolved solution consists of a rarefaction wave followed by a contact discontinuity and the shock discontinuity. The numerical solution for this test is given in Figure \ref{fig:eulertest1}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace{-1cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest1eno.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest1.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Solution at $N=100,\; CFL=0.25,\; T=1.3$}
\label{fig:eulertest1}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Laney Shock tube Test} A more complicated shock tube test problem to check the non-oscillatory property of any numerical scheme is govern by the initial Riemann data
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
u(x,0)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
(1.0,0,100000) & \text{if} \;\; x<0 \\
(0.01,0,1000) & \text{if} \;\; 0 \leq x \leq0
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In this test, the ratio of left and right states of density and pressure across initial discontinuity is very high and right initial state of density is close to zero. Therefore, computationally, even small oscillations can lead to negative density or pressure, which results into nonphysical imaginary speed of sound $c= \sqrt{\frac{\gamma p}{\rho}}$. The numerical solution for this test case is given in Figure \ref{fig:eulertest2}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace{-1cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest2eno.pdf}&\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest2.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Density plot for Laney test with $N=100, CFL=0.25, T= 0.01$}
\label{fig:eulertest2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Lax tube test:}
We consider the Lax tube problem discussed in \cite{Lax1954} with the initial condition given by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
u(x,0)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
(0.445,0.698,3.528) & \text{if} \;\; -5<x<0 \\
(0.5,0,0.571) & \text{if} \;\; 0 \leq x \leq5
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
solution corresponding this initial condition contains a right traveling strong shock wave, a contact surface, and a left rarefaction wave. The numerical solution for this test case is given in Figure \ref{fig:eulertest3}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace{-1cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest3eno.pdf}& \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest3.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Solution at $N=100, CFL=0.25, T=1.3$}
\label{fig:eulertest3}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{\bf Shock-entropy wave interaction}\cite{SHU1988439} This Shu-Osher problem is govern by following initial condition
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
u(x,0)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
(3.857143,2.629369,2.629369) & \text{if} \;\; -5<x<0 \\
(1+\epsilon sin(kx),0,1) & \text{if} \;\; 0 \leq x \leq5
\end{array}
\right. \epsilon =0.2, k=5,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
which simulates shock-turbulence interaction in which a strong shock wave propagates into density filed with artificial fluctuations with amplitude $\epsilon=$ and wave number $k$. This problem tests the capability of any scheme to accurately capture a shock wave, its interaction with an unsteady density field, and the sinusoidal waves propagating downstream of the shock. The numerical solution for this test case is given in Figure \ref{fig:eulertest4}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace{-1cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest4eno.pdf}&
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest4.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Density plot for Shu-Osher test with $N=400, CFL=0.25, T= 1.8$. }
\label{fig:eulertest4}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Two interacting blast wave}
Wood-Colella blast wave \cite{woodward1984numerical} is another interesting problem to test the shock capturing ability of numerical scheme given by following initial condition
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
u(x,0)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
(1.0,0.0,1000.0) & \text{if} \;\; 0.0<x<0.1 \\
(1.0,0.0,0.01) & \text{if} \;\; 0.1 \leq x \leq0.9 \\
(1.0,0.0,100.0) & \text{if} \;\; 0.9 \leq x \leq1.0 .
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
This problem involves the multiple interactions of shock, contact, and rarefaction wave. A reflecting boundary condition is applied at the boundary of the domain $x=0$ and $x=1$. The numerical solution for this test case is given in Figure \ref{fig:eulertest9}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\hspace{-1cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest9eno.pdf}&
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Euler1Dtest9.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Density plot for two interacting blast wave test $N=400, CFL = 0.25, T=0.038$}
\label{fig:eulertest9}
\end{figure}
From figures \ref{fig:eulertest1} and \ref{fig:eulertest2} for Sod and Laney shock tube test respectively show that solution by entropy stable schemes is almost identical with that of solution by shock capturing non-oscillatory ENO/WENO schemes. The comparison of the approximated solution by entropy stable schemes and ENO/WENO schemes is clearly visible in figures \ref{fig:eulertest3}-\ref{fig:eulertest9}. It can be concluded from numerical results for 1D shock tube problems in figures \ref{fig:eulertest1}-\ref{fig:eulertest9}, that high order entropy stable schemes {\it EC-4-ENO-3} and {\it EC-6-WENOJS-5} yield non-oscillatory solutions even for complex flow and results are comparable with ENO/WENO schemes.
\subsection{2D Euler equation}
In this section the proposed scheme is applied to 2D Euler equations
\begin{equation}\label{Euler2Deq}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\rho\\
\rho u\\
\rho v\\
E
\end{array}
\right)_t+\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\rho u\\
\rho u^2+p\\
\rho uv \\
u(E+p)
\end{array}
\right)_x+\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\rho v\\
\rho uv \\
\rho v^2+p\\
v(E+p)
\end{array}
\right)_y=0.
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is density and $u,\,v$ are component of velocity along $x$ and $y$ direction respectively.The pressure and energy are related by following
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
E=\frac{p}{\gamma-1}+\frac{\rho(u^2+v^2)}{2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and $\gamma$ is the ratio of specific heat.
The following test problems are considered for testing the performance of the scheme for equation \eqref{Euler2Deq}. In all the tests numerical solution using fifth order non-oscillatory entropy stable scheme {\it EC6-WENOJS-5} is compared with the base non-oscillatory schemes {\it WENOJS-5}. Solution plots are given in figure side by side
\par {\bf 2D Riemann problem \cite{Kurganov2002, schulz1993numerical}} Consider 2D Euler equations \eqref{Euler2Deq} with Riemann data defined in
in following way,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{config3}
(p,\rho,u,v)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
(1.5000,1.5000,0.0000,0.0000) & \text{if} \;\; x>0.5 \;\; \text{and} \;\; y>0.5,\\
(0.3000,0.5323,1.2060,0.0000) & \text{if} \;\; x <0.9 \;\; \text{and} \;\;y\geq0.5, \\
(0.0290,0.1380,1.2060,1.2060) & \text{if} \;\; x <0.5 \;\; \text{and} y<0.5, \\
(0.3000,0.5323,0.0000,1.2060) & \text{if} \;\; x>0.5 \;\; \text{and} \;\; y<0.5.\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Solution for this initial condition is computed at time $t=0.5$ and corresponding filled contour plots are given in figure \ref{fig:euler2dtest3}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
~\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Euler2Dtest3WENO5.pdf}& ~\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Euler2Dtest3EC6WENO5.pdf}\\
(a) & (b)\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ZoomedEuler2Dtest3WENO5.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ZoomedEuler2Dtest3EC6WENO5.pdf}\\
(c) &(d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contour solution plot of 2D Riemann problem with $31$ of contour lines corresponding to configuration \eqref{config3}. Solution by {\it WENOJS-5} is in (a) and zoomed version in (c). Solution by {\it EC6-WENOJS-5} is in (b) and zoomed version in (d)., $CFL=0.25,\; t=0.5, N=400\times 400$ }
\label{fig:euler2dtest3}
\end{figure}
\par {\bf Explosion problem \cite{liska2003comparison}}
The explosion test problem is setup in a square domain $[-3,3]\times[-3,3]$ in x-y plane. The initial Riemann data is separated in the domain by a circle with center $(0,0)$ and radius $0.4$. The initial density and pressure are defined in following way.
\begin{subequations}\label{ICexplosion}
\begin{align}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\rho(x,y)=1,p(x,y)=1, & \text{if} \;\; x^2+y^2<(0.4)^2\\
\rho(x,y)=0.125,p(x,y)=0.1 \;. &\text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The filled contour plot of numerical results for explosion problem are shown and compared in figure \ref{fig:euler2dexplosion}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Euler2Dtest11WENO5.pdf}& \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Euler2Dtest11EC6WENO5.pdf}\\
(a) & (b)\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ZoomedEuler2Dtest11WENO5.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ZoomedEuler2Dtest11EC6WENO5.pdf}\\
(c) &(d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contour solution plot of 2D Riemann problem with $31$ of contour lines corresponding to explosion problem \eqref{ICexplosion}. Solution by {\it WENOJS-5} is in (a) and zoomed version in (c). Solution by {\it EC6-WENOJS-5} is in (b) and zoomed version in (d)., $CFL=0.45,\; t=3.2, N=400\times 400$ }
\label{fig:euler2dexplosion}
\end{figure}
\par {\bf Implosion}\cite{Hui1999unified}
Consider the implosion problem modeled inside a square domain $\left[-0.3,0.3\right]\times \left[-0.3,0.3\right]$ in $x-y$ plane. Initial Density and pressure distribution of the gas are following,
\begin{equation*}\label{imp}
\begin{cases}
\rho (x,y)=0.125, p(x,y)=0.14, & \text{if $|x|+|y|<0.15$ }\\
\rho (x,y)=1, p(x,y)=1. & \text{otherwise }
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Initially the velocities are kept zero in the computational domain $\left[0,0.3\right]\times \left[0,0.3\right]$ with reflecting boundary. Computation is done only for upper right quadrant $(x,y) \in (0,0.3)\times(0, 0.3)$ as in \cite{liska2003comparison, biswas2018accuracy}. The numerical results are shown and compared in Figure \ref{fig:euler2dimplosion}.
\begin{subequations}\label{ICimplosion}
\begin{align}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\rho(x,y)=1,p(x,y)=1, & \text{if} \;\; x^2+y^2<(0.4)^2\\
\rho(x,y)=0.125,p(x,y)=0.1 \;. &\text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Euler2Dtest12WENO5.pdf}& \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Euler2Dtest12EC6WENO5.pdf}\\
(a) & (b)\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ZoomedEuler2Dtest12WENO5.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{ZoomedEuler2Dtest12EC6WENO5.pdf}\\
(c) &(d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contour solution plot of 2D Riemann problem with $31$ of contour lines corresponding to implosion problem \eqref{ICimplosion}. Solution by {\it WENOJS-5} is in (a) and zoomed version in (c). Solution by {\it EC6-WENOJS-5} is in (b) and zoomed version in (d)., $CFL=0.45,\; t=3.2, N=400\times 400$ }
\label{fig:euler2dimplosion}
\end{figure}
From the numerical results for 2D Euler tests in figures \ref{fig:euler2dtest3}-\ref{fig:euler2dimplosion} it is clear {\it EC6-WENOJS-5} captures feature of the flow and results are comparable to WENO5JS scheme.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec7}
In this work, problem of constructing non-oscillatory arbitrary order entropy stable flux is solved by framing it as least square optimization problem. Based on optimization, entropy stable flux is proposed which utilizes a {\em flux sign stability property}. Some of the existing entropy stable fluxes are retrospectively shown to satisfy the flux sign stability property. The proposed approach is robust and works well with any entropy conservative and non-oscillatory flux. Numerical results also established that such constructed entropy stable schemes give excellent non-oscillatory results even for complex problems. Moreover for smooth solution region these schemes retains formal order of accuracy of lower order flux used in the construction.
|
\section{Introduction}
Please follow the steps outlined below when submitting your manuscript to
the IEEE Computer Society Press. This style guide now has several
important modifications (for example, you are no longer warned against the
use of sticky tape to attach your artwork to the paper), so all authors
should read this new version.
\subsection{Language}
All manuscripts must be in English.
\subsection{Dual submission}
Please refer to the author guidelines on the ICCV 2021 web page for a
discussion of the policy on dual submissions.
\subsection{Paper length}
Papers, excluding the references section,
must be no longer than eight pages in length. The references section
will not be included in the page count, and there is no limit on the
length of the references section. For example, a paper of eight pages
with two pages of references would have a total length of 10 pages.
{\bf There will be no extra page charges for ICCV 2021.}
Overlength papers will simply not be reviewed. This includes papers
where the margins and formatting are deemed to have been significantly
altered from those laid down by this style guide. Note that this
\LaTeX\ guide already sets figure captions and references in a smaller font.
The reason such papers will not be reviewed is that there is no provision for
supervised revisions of manuscripts. The reviewing process cannot determine
the suitability of the paper for presentation in eight pages if it is
reviewed in eleven.
\subsection{The ruler}
The \LaTeX\ style defines a printed ruler which should be present in the
version submitted for review. The ruler is provided in order that
reviewers may comment on particular lines in the paper without
circumlocution. If you are preparing a document using a non-\LaTeX\
document preparation system, please arrange for an equivalent ruler to
appear on the final output pages. The presence or absence of the ruler
should not change the appearance of any other content on the page. The
camera ready copy should not contain a ruler. (\LaTeX\ users may uncomment
the \verb'\iccvfinalcopy' command in the document preamble.) Reviewers:
note that the ruler measurements do not align well with lines in the paper
--- this turns out to be very difficult to do well when the paper contains
many figures and equations, and, when done, looks ugly. Just use fractional
references (e.g.\ this line is $095.5$), although in most cases one would
expect that the approximate location will be adequate.
\subsection{Mathematics}
Please number all of your sections and displayed equations. It is
important for readers to be able to refer to any particular equation. Just
because you didn't refer to it in the text doesn't mean some future reader
might not need to refer to it. It is cumbersome to have to use
circumlocutions like ``the equation second from the top of page 3 column
1''. (Note that the ruler will not be present in the final copy, so is not
an alternative to equation numbers). All authors will benefit from reading
Mermin's description of how to write mathematics:
\url{http://www.pamitc.org/documents/mermin.pdf}.
\subsection{Blind review}
Many authors misunderstand the concept of anonymizing for blind
review. Blind review does not mean that one must remove
citations to one's own work---in fact it is often impossible to
review a paper unless the previous citations are known and
available.
Blind review means that you do not use the words ``my'' or ``our''
when citing previous work. That is all. (But see below for
tech reports.)
Saying ``this builds on the work of Lucy Smith [1]'' does not say
that you are Lucy Smith; it says that you are building on her
work. If you are Smith and Jones, do not say ``as we show in
[7]'', say ``as Smith and Jones show in [7]'' and at the end of the
paper, include reference 7 as you would any other cited work.
An example of a bad paper just asking to be rejected:
\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
\end{center}
In this paper we present a performance analysis of our
previous paper [1], and show it to be inferior to all
previously known methods. Why the previous paper was
accepted without this analysis is beyond me.
[1] Removed for blind review
\end{quote}
An example of an acceptable paper:
\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
\end{center}
In this paper we present a performance analysis of the
paper of Smith \etal [1], and show it to be inferior to
all previously known methods. Why the previous paper
was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.
[1] Smith, L and Jones, C. ``The frobnicatable foo
filter, a fundamental contribution to human knowledge''.
Nature 381(12), 1-213.
\end{quote}
If you are making a submission to another conference at the same time,
which covers similar or overlapping material, you may need to refer to that
submission in order to explain the differences, just as you would if you
had previously published related work. In such cases, include the
anonymized parallel submission~\cite{Authors14} as additional material and
cite it as
\begin{quote}
[1] Authors. ``The frobnicatable foo filter'', F\&G 2014 Submission ID 324,
Supplied as additional material {\tt fg324.pdf}.
\end{quote}
Finally, you may feel you need to tell the reader that more details can be
found elsewhere, and refer them to a technical report. For conference
submissions, the paper must stand on its own, and not {\em require} the
reviewer to go to a tech report for further details. Thus, you may say in
the body of the paper ``further details may be found
in~\cite{Authors14b}''. Then submit the tech report as additional material.
Again, you may not assume the reviewers will read this material.
Sometimes your paper is about a problem which you tested using a tool which
is widely known to be restricted to a single institution. For example,
let's say it's 1969, you have solved a key problem on the Apollo lander,
and you believe that the ICCV70 audience would like to hear about your
solution. The work is a development of your celebrated 1968 paper entitled
``Zero-g frobnication: How being the only people in the world with access to
the Apollo lander source code makes us a wow at parties'', by Zeus \etal.
You can handle this paper like any other. Don't write ``We show how to
improve our previous work [Anonymous, 1968]. This time we tested the
algorithm on a lunar lander [name of lander removed for blind review]''.
That would be silly, and would immediately identify the authors. Instead
write the following:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent
We describe a system for zero-g frobnication. This
system is new because it handles the following cases:
A, B. Previous systems [Zeus et al. 1968] didn't
handle case B properly. Ours handles it by including
a foo term in the bar integral.
...
The proposed system was integrated with the Apollo
lunar lander, and went all the way to the moon, don't
you know. It displayed the following behaviours
which show how well we solved cases A and B: ...
\end{quotation}
As you can see, the above text follows standard scientific convention,
reads better than the first version, and does not explicitly name you as
the authors. A reviewer might think it likely that the new paper was
written by Zeus \etal, but cannot make any decision based on that guess.
He or she would have to be sure that no other authors could have been
contracted to solve problem B.
\medskip
\noindent
FAQ\medskip\\
{\bf Q:} Are acknowledgements OK?\\
{\bf A:} No. Leave them for the final copy.\medskip\\
{\bf Q:} How do I cite my results reported in open challenges?
{\bf A:} To conform with the double blind review policy, you can report results of other challenge participants together with your results in your paper. For your results, however, you should not identify yourself and should not mention your participation in the challenge. Instead present your results referring to the method proposed in your paper and draw conclusions based on the experimental comparison to other results.\medskip\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule{0pt}{2in} \rule{0.9\linewidth}{0pt}}
\end{center}
\caption{Example of caption. It is set in Roman so that mathematics
(always set in Roman: $B \sin A = A \sin B$) may be included without an
ugly clash.}
\label{fig:long}
\label{fig:onecol}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Miscellaneous}
\noindent
Compare the following:\\
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\verb'$conf_a$' & $conf_a$ \\
\verb'$\mathit{conf}_a$' & $\mathit{conf}_a$
\end{tabular}\\
See The \TeX book, p165.
The space after \eg, meaning ``for example'', should not be a
sentence-ending space. So \eg is correct, {\em e.g.} is not. The provided
\verb'\eg' macro takes care of this.
When citing a multi-author paper, you may save space by using ``et alia'',
shortened to ``\etal'' (not ``{\em et.\ al.}'' as ``{\em et}'' is a complete word.)
However, use it only when there are three or more authors. Thus, the
following is correct: ``
Frobnication has been trendy lately.
It was introduced by Alpher~\cite{Alpher02}, and subsequently developed by
Alpher and Fotheringham-Smythe~\cite{Alpher03}, and Alpher \etal~\cite{Alpher04}.''
This is incorrect: ``... subsequently developed by Alpher \etal~\cite{Alpher03} ...''
because reference~\cite{Alpher03} has just two authors. If you use the
\verb'\etal' macro provided, then you need not worry about double periods
when used at the end of a sentence as in Alpher \etal.
For this citation style, keep multiple citations in numerical (not
chronological) order, so prefer \cite{Alpher03,Alpher02,Authors14} to
\cite{Alpher02,Alpher03,Authors14}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule{0pt}{2in} \rule{.9\linewidth}{0pt}}
\end{center}
\caption{Example of a short caption, which should be centered.}
\label{fig:short}
\end{figure*}
\section{Formatting your paper}
All text must be in a two-column format. The total allowable width of the
text area is $6\frac78$ inches (17.5 cm) wide by $8\frac78$ inches (22.54
cm) high. Columns are to be $3\frac14$ inches (8.25 cm) wide, with a
$\frac{5}{16}$ inch (0.8 cm) space between them. The main title (on the
first page) should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from the top edge of the
page. The second and following pages should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from
the top edge. On all pages, the bottom margin should be 1-1/8 inches (2.86
cm) from the bottom edge of the page for $8.5 \times 11$-inch paper; for A4
paper, approximately 1-5/8 inches (4.13 cm) from the bottom edge of the
page.
\subsection{Margins and page numbering}
All printed material, including text, illustrations, and charts, must be kept
within a print area 6-7/8 inches (17.5 cm) wide by 8-7/8 inches (22.54 cm)
high.
Page numbers should be included for review submissions but not for the
final paper. Review submissions papers should have page numbers in the
footer with numbers centered and .75 inches (1.905 cm) from the bottom
of the page and start on the first page with the number 1.
Page numbers will be added by the publisher to all camera-ready papers
prior to including them in the proceedings and before submitting the
papers to IEEE Xplore. As such, your camera-ready submission should
not include any page numbers. Page numbers should automatically be
removed by uncommenting (if it's not already) the line
\begin{verbatim}
\end{verbatim}
near the beginning of the .tex file.
\subsection{Type-style and fonts}
Wherever Times is specified, Times Roman may also be used. If neither is
available on your word processor, please use the font closest in
appearance to Times to which you have access.
MAIN TITLE. Center the title 1-3/8 inches (3.49 cm) from the top edge of
the first page. The title should be in Times 14-point, boldface type.
Capitalize the first letter of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs; do not capitalize articles, coordinate conjunctions, or
prepositions (unless the title begins with such a word). Leave two blank
lines after the title.
AUTHOR NAME(s) and AFFILIATION(s) are to be centered beneath the title
and printed in Times 12-point, non-boldface type. This information is to
be followed by two blank lines.
The ABSTRACT and MAIN TEXT are to be in a two-column format.
MAIN TEXT. Type main text in 10-point Times, single-spaced. Do NOT use
double-spacing. All paragraphs should be indented 1 pica (approx. 1/6
inch or 0.422 cm). Make sure your text is fully justified---that is,
flush left and flush right. Please do not place any additional blank
lines between paragraphs.
Figure and table captions should be 9-point Roman type as in
Figures~\ref{fig:onecol} and~\ref{fig:short}. Short captions should be centered.
\noindent Callouts should be 9-point Helvetica, non-boldface type.
Initially capitalize only the first word of section titles and first-,
second-, and third-order headings.
FIRST-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, {\large \bf 1. Introduction})
should be Times 12-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left,
with one blank line before, and one blank line after.
SECOND-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, { \bf 1.1. Database elements})
should be Times 11-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left,
with one blank line before, and one after. If you require a third-order
heading (we discourage it), use 10-point Times, boldface, initially
capitalized, flush left, preceded by one blank line, followed by a period
and your text on the same line.
\subsection{Footnotes}
Please use footnotes\footnote {This is what a footnote looks like. It
often distracts the reader from the main flow of the argument.} sparingly.
Indeed, try to avoid footnotes altogether and include necessary peripheral
observations in
the text (within parentheses, if you prefer, as in this sentence). If you
wish to use a footnote, place it at the bottom of the column on the page on
which it is referenced. Use Times 8-point type, single-spaced.
\subsection{References}
List and number all bibliographical references in 9-point Times,
single-spaced, at the end of your paper. When referenced in the text,
enclose the citation number in square brackets, for
example~\cite{Authors14}. Where appropriate, include the name(s) of
editors of referenced books.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline
Method & Frobnability \\
\hline\hline
Theirs & Frumpy \\
Yours & Frobbly \\
Ours & Makes one's heart Frob\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results. Ours is better.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Illustrations, graphs, and photographs}
All graphics should be centered. Please ensure that any point you wish to
make is resolvable in a printed copy of the paper. Resize fonts in figures
to match the font in the body text, and choose line widths which render
effectively in print. Many readers (and reviewers), even of an electronic
copy, will choose to print your paper in order to read it. You cannot
insist that they do otherwise, and therefore must not assume that they can
zoom in to see tiny details on a graphic.
When placing figures in \LaTeX, it's almost always best to use
\verb+\includegraphics+, and to specify the figure width as a multiple of
the line width as in the example below
{\small\begin{verbatim}
\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} ...
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]
{myfile.eps}
\end{verbatim}
}
\subsection{Color}
Please refer to the author guidelines on the ICCV 2021 web page for a discussion
of the use of color in your document.
\section{Final copy}
You must include your signed IEEE copyright release form when you submit
your finished paper. We MUST have this form before your paper can be
published in the proceedings.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
\section{Introduction}
Please follow the steps outlined below when submitting your manuscript to
the IEEE Computer Society Press. This style guide now has several
important modifications (for example, you are no longer warned against the
use of sticky tape to attach your artwork to the paper), so all authors
should read this new version.
\subsection{Language}
All manuscripts must be in English.
\subsection{Dual submission}
Please refer to the author guidelines on the ICCV 2021 web page for a
discussion of the policy on dual submissions.
\subsection{Paper length}
Papers, excluding the references section,
must be no longer than eight pages in length. The references section
will not be included in the page count, and there is no limit on the
length of the references section. For example, a paper of eight pages
with two pages of references would have a total length of 10 pages.
{\bf There will be no extra page charges for ICCV 2021.}
Overlength papers will simply not be reviewed. This includes papers
where the margins and formatting are deemed to have been significantly
altered from those laid down by this style guide. Note that this
\LaTeX\ guide already sets figure captions and references in a smaller font.
The reason such papers will not be reviewed is that there is no provision for
supervised revisions of manuscripts. The reviewing process cannot determine
the suitability of the paper for presentation in eight pages if it is
reviewed in eleven.
\subsection{The ruler}
The \LaTeX\ style defines a printed ruler which should be present in the
version submitted for review. The ruler is provided in order that
reviewers may comment on particular lines in the paper without
circumlocution. If you are preparing a document using a non-\LaTeX\
document preparation system, please arrange for an equivalent ruler to
appear on the final output pages. The presence or absence of the ruler
should not change the appearance of any other content on the page. The
camera ready copy should not contain a ruler. (\LaTeX\ users may uncomment
the \verb'\iccvfinalcopy' command in the document preamble.) Reviewers:
note that the ruler measurements do not align well with lines in the paper
--- this turns out to be very difficult to do well when the paper contains
many figures and equations, and, when done, looks ugly. Just use fractional
references (e.g.\ this line is $095.5$), although in most cases one would
expect that the approximate location will be adequate.
\subsection{Mathematics}
Please number all of your sections and displayed equations. It is
important for readers to be able to refer to any particular equation. Just
because you didn't refer to it in the text doesn't mean some future reader
might not need to refer to it. It is cumbersome to have to use
circumlocutions like ``the equation second from the top of page 3 column
1''. (Note that the ruler will not be present in the final copy, so is not
an alternative to equation numbers). All authors will benefit from reading
Mermin's description of how to write mathematics:
\url{http://www.pamitc.org/documents/mermin.pdf}.
\subsection{Blind review}
Many authors misunderstand the concept of anonymizing for blind
review. Blind review does not mean that one must remove
citations to one's own work---in fact it is often impossible to
review a paper unless the previous citations are known and
available.
Blind review means that you do not use the words ``my'' or ``our''
when citing previous work. That is all. (But see below for
tech reports.)
Saying ``this builds on the work of Lucy Smith [1]'' does not say
that you are Lucy Smith; it says that you are building on her
work. If you are Smith and Jones, do not say ``as we show in
[7]'', say ``as Smith and Jones show in [7]'' and at the end of the
paper, include reference 7 as you would any other cited work.
An example of a bad paper just asking to be rejected:
\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
\end{center}
In this paper we present a performance analysis of our
previous paper [1], and show it to be inferior to all
previously known methods. Why the previous paper was
accepted without this analysis is beyond me.
[1] Removed for blind review
\end{quote}
An example of an acceptable paper:
\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
\end{center}
In this paper we present a performance analysis of the
paper of Smith \etal [1], and show it to be inferior to
all previously known methods. Why the previous paper
was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.
[1] Smith, L and Jones, C. ``The frobnicatable foo
filter, a fundamental contribution to human knowledge''.
Nature 381(12), 1-213.
\end{quote}
If you are making a submission to another conference at the same time,
which covers similar or overlapping material, you may need to refer to that
submission in order to explain the differences, just as you would if you
had previously published related work. In such cases, include the
anonymized parallel submission~\cite{Authors14} as additional material and
cite it as
\begin{quote}
[1] Authors. ``The frobnicatable foo filter'', F\&G 2014 Submission ID 324,
Supplied as additional material {\tt fg324.pdf}.
\end{quote}
Finally, you may feel you need to tell the reader that more details can be
found elsewhere, and refer them to a technical report. For conference
submissions, the paper must stand on its own, and not {\em require} the
reviewer to go to a tech report for further details. Thus, you may say in
the body of the paper ``further details may be found
in~\cite{Authors14b}''. Then submit the tech report as additional material.
Again, you may not assume the reviewers will read this material.
Sometimes your paper is about a problem which you tested using a tool which
is widely known to be restricted to a single institution. For example,
let's say it's 1969, you have solved a key problem on the Apollo lander,
and you believe that the ICCV70 audience would like to hear about your
solution. The work is a development of your celebrated 1968 paper entitled
``Zero-g frobnication: How being the only people in the world with access to
the Apollo lander source code makes us a wow at parties'', by Zeus \etal.
You can handle this paper like any other. Don't write ``We show how to
improve our previous work [Anonymous, 1968]. This time we tested the
algorithm on a lunar lander [name of lander removed for blind review]''.
That would be silly, and would immediately identify the authors. Instead
write the following:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent
We describe a system for zero-g frobnication. This
system is new because it handles the following cases:
A, B. Previous systems [Zeus et al. 1968] didn't
handle case B properly. Ours handles it by including
a foo term in the bar integral.
...
The proposed system was integrated with the Apollo
lunar lander, and went all the way to the moon, don't
you know. It displayed the following behaviours
which show how well we solved cases A and B: ...
\end{quotation}
As you can see, the above text follows standard scientific convention,
reads better than the first version, and does not explicitly name you as
the authors. A reviewer might think it likely that the new paper was
written by Zeus \etal, but cannot make any decision based on that guess.
He or she would have to be sure that no other authors could have been
contracted to solve problem B.
\medskip
\noindent
FAQ\medskip\\
{\bf Q:} Are acknowledgements OK?\\
{\bf A:} No. Leave them for the final copy.\medskip\\
{\bf Q:} How do I cite my results reported in open challenges?
{\bf A:} To conform with the double blind review policy, you can report results of other challenge participants together with your results in your paper. For your results, however, you should not identify yourself and should not mention your participation in the challenge. Instead present your results referring to the method proposed in your paper and draw conclusions based on the experimental comparison to other results.\medskip\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule{0pt}{2in} \rule{0.9\linewidth}{0pt}}
\end{center}
\caption{Example of caption. It is set in Roman so that mathematics
(always set in Roman: $B \sin A = A \sin B$) may be included without an
ugly clash.}
\label{fig:long}
\label{fig:onecol}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Miscellaneous}
\noindent
Compare the following:\\
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\verb'$conf_a$' & $conf_a$ \\
\verb'$\mathit{conf}_a$' & $\mathit{conf}_a$
\end{tabular}\\
See The \TeX book, p165.
The space after \eg, meaning ``for example'', should not be a
sentence-ending space. So \eg is correct, {\em e.g.} is not. The provided
\verb'\eg' macro takes care of this.
When citing a multi-author paper, you may save space by using ``et alia'',
shortened to ``\etal'' (not ``{\em et.\ al.}'' as ``{\em et}'' is a complete word.)
However, use it only when there are three or more authors. Thus, the
following is correct: ``
Frobnication has been trendy lately.
It was introduced by Alpher~\cite{Alpher02}, and subsequently developed by
Alpher and Fotheringham-Smythe~\cite{Alpher03}, and Alpher \etal~\cite{Alpher04}.''
This is incorrect: ``... subsequently developed by Alpher \etal~\cite{Alpher03} ...''
because reference~\cite{Alpher03} has just two authors. If you use the
\verb'\etal' macro provided, then you need not worry about double periods
when used at the end of a sentence as in Alpher \etal.
For this citation style, keep multiple citations in numerical (not
chronological) order, so prefer \cite{Alpher03,Alpher02,Authors14} to
\cite{Alpher02,Alpher03,Authors14}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule{0pt}{2in} \rule{.9\linewidth}{0pt}}
\end{center}
\caption{Example of a short caption, which should be centered.}
\label{fig:short}
\end{figure*}
\section{Formatting your paper}
All text must be in a two-column format. The total allowable width of the
text area is $6\frac78$ inches (17.5 cm) wide by $8\frac78$ inches (22.54
cm) high. Columns are to be $3\frac14$ inches (8.25 cm) wide, with a
$\frac{5}{16}$ inch (0.8 cm) space between them. The main title (on the
first page) should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from the top edge of the
page. The second and following pages should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from
the top edge. On all pages, the bottom margin should be 1-1/8 inches (2.86
cm) from the bottom edge of the page for $8.5 \times 11$-inch paper; for A4
paper, approximately 1-5/8 inches (4.13 cm) from the bottom edge of the
page.
\subsection{Margins and page numbering}
All printed material, including text, illustrations, and charts, must be kept
within a print area 6-7/8 inches (17.5 cm) wide by 8-7/8 inches (22.54 cm)
high.
Page numbers should be included for review submissions but not for the
final paper. Review submissions papers should have page numbers in the
footer with numbers centered and .75 inches (1.905 cm) from the bottom
of the page and start on the first page with the number 1.
Page numbers will be added by the publisher to all camera-ready papers
prior to including them in the proceedings and before submitting the
papers to IEEE Xplore. As such, your camera-ready submission should
not include any page numbers. Page numbers should automatically be
removed by uncommenting (if it's not already) the line
\begin{verbatim}
\end{verbatim}
near the beginning of the .tex file.
\subsection{Type-style and fonts}
Wherever Times is specified, Times Roman may also be used. If neither is
available on your word processor, please use the font closest in
appearance to Times to which you have access.
MAIN TITLE. Center the title 1-3/8 inches (3.49 cm) from the top edge of
the first page. The title should be in Times 14-point, boldface type.
Capitalize the first letter of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs; do not capitalize articles, coordinate conjunctions, or
prepositions (unless the title begins with such a word). Leave two blank
lines after the title.
AUTHOR NAME(s) and AFFILIATION(s) are to be centered beneath the title
and printed in Times 12-point, non-boldface type. This information is to
be followed by two blank lines.
The ABSTRACT and MAIN TEXT are to be in a two-column format.
MAIN TEXT. Type main text in 10-point Times, single-spaced. Do NOT use
double-spacing. All paragraphs should be indented 1 pica (approx. 1/6
inch or 0.422 cm). Make sure your text is fully justified---that is,
flush left and flush right. Please do not place any additional blank
lines between paragraphs.
Figure and table captions should be 9-point Roman type as in
Figures~\ref{fig:onecol} and~\ref{fig:short}. Short captions should be centered.
\noindent Callouts should be 9-point Helvetica, non-boldface type.
Initially capitalize only the first word of section titles and first-,
second-, and third-order headings.
FIRST-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, {\large \bf 1. Introduction})
should be Times 12-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left,
with one blank line before, and one blank line after.
SECOND-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, { \bf 1.1. Database elements})
should be Times 11-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left,
with one blank line before, and one after. If you require a third-order
heading (we discourage it), use 10-point Times, boldface, initially
capitalized, flush left, preceded by one blank line, followed by a period
and your text on the same line.
\subsection{Footnotes}
Please use footnotes\footnote {This is what a footnote looks like. It
often distracts the reader from the main flow of the argument.} sparingly.
Indeed, try to avoid footnotes altogether and include necessary peripheral
observations in
the text (within parentheses, if you prefer, as in this sentence). If you
wish to use a footnote, place it at the bottom of the column on the page on
which it is referenced. Use Times 8-point type, single-spaced.
\subsection{References}
List and number all bibliographical references in 9-point Times,
single-spaced, at the end of your paper. When referenced in the text,
enclose the citation number in square brackets, for
example~\cite{Authors14}. Where appropriate, include the name(s) of
editors of referenced books.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline
Method & Frobnability \\
\hline\hline
Theirs & Frumpy \\
Yours & Frobbly \\
Ours & Makes one's heart Frob\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results. Ours is better.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Illustrations, graphs, and photographs}
All graphics should be centered. Please ensure that any point you wish to
make is resolvable in a printed copy of the paper. Resize fonts in figures
to match the font in the body text, and choose line widths which render
effectively in print. Many readers (and reviewers), even of an electronic
copy, will choose to print your paper in order to read it. You cannot
insist that they do otherwise, and therefore must not assume that they can
zoom in to see tiny details on a graphic.
When placing figures in \LaTeX, it's almost always best to use
\verb+\includegraphics+, and to specify the figure width as a multiple of
the line width as in the example below
{\small\begin{verbatim}
\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} ...
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]
{myfile.eps}
\end{verbatim}
}
\subsection{Color}
Please refer to the author guidelines on the ICCV 2021 web page for a discussion
of the use of color in your document.
\section{Final copy}
You must include your signed IEEE copyright release form when you submit
your finished paper. We MUST have this form before your paper can be
published in the proceedings.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
\section{Introduction}
Due to the availability of large-scale datasets~\cite{zheng2015scalable,ristani2016performance,wei2018person} and affordable computing resources, the field of machine learning has witnessed rapid progress over the past decade.
Real-world applications can be found in everyday life, \eg, targeted advertising in online shopping, recommender systems in video streaming services, and virtual assistants on smart devices.
With the widespread adoption of techniques such as person re-identification~\cite{zhong2017random,lin2019improving,luo2019bag,ye2020deep,he2020fastreid}, the concern over security issues can not be overemphasized.
Significant efforts have been put into understanding the vulnerabilities in machine learning models~\cite{kurakin2016adversarial,shokri2017membership,tramer2016stealing,wu2016methodology}.
In the following, we outline four types of attacks, \ie, adversarial example attacks, membership inference attacks, model extraction attacks, and model inversion attacks.
In adversarial example attacks, input data is slightly manipulated so that a human may not observe the changes while the model would make incorrect predictions~\cite{kurakin2016adversarial}.
In~\cite{dong2018boosting}, a momentum term is integrated into the iterative process for performing attacks, and it stabilizes the direction for updates, avoids poor local maxima, and improves the success rate.
Afterward, Su \etal~\cite{su2019one} analyses an extreme case where only one pixel can be modified.
Perturbation is encoded into an array, and the candidate solution is optimized by adopting differential evolution.
By contrast, He \etal~\cite{he2017adversarial} generates an ensemble of weak defenses, while the resulting method does not always promote resilience.
In membership inference attacks, an adversary is interested in identifying whether a specific sample is included in a model's training set~\cite{shokri2017membership}.
Multiple shadow models are trained to simulate the target model while the membership in their training sets is available~\cite{shokri2017membership,long2017towards}.
Subsequently, a separate threat model is trained on the input-output pairs of the shadow models, and it behaves differently depending on whether the sample is used for training the target model.
In~\cite{yeom2018privacy}, the relation between overfitting and membership vulnerability has been studied, and results indicate that overfitting is a sufficient but not necessary condition for membership vulnerability.
In model extraction attacks, an adversary has black-box access to a target model, and the primary purpose is to duplicate the functionality of the target model~\cite{tramer2016stealing}.
Experiments on simple target models show that one could train substitute models locally on public datasets with near-perfect fidelity~\cite{tramer2016stealing}.
Under similar settings, a reinforcement learning approach is proposed in~\cite{orekondy2019knockoff} to improve sample efficiency of queries, and a real-world image recognition model was pirated with reasonable performance.
Juuti \etal~\cite{juuti2019prada} design a countermeasure that analyses the distribution of consecutive query requests and raises the alarm when suspicious activities are detected.
Later on, two defense strategies are presented in~\cite{krishna2019thieves}: the first membership inference strategy checks whether inputs are outliers, and the second watermarking strategy generates wrong outputs deliberately for a tiny fraction of queries.
In model inversion attacks, an adversary intends to infer input data from a released model~\cite{wu2016methodology}.
Fredrikson \etal~\cite{fredrikson2014privacy} managed to invert a linear regression model and predict the patient's genetic markers based on demographic information.
With confidence scores returned by a facial recognition model, one could recover face images that are representative of a specific person in the training set~\cite{fredrikson2015model}.
In the case that a partial prediction vector is returned, truncation is applied to feature vectors when training the inversion model in~\cite{yang2019adversarial}.
By contrast, Zhang \etal~\cite{zhang2020secret} shifts the focus to a white-box setting and theoretically proves that the vulnerability to model inversion attacks is unavoidable for models with high predictive power.
Existing studies on model inversion attacks are subject to the following limitations:
(1) The threat model is trained on the same dataset as the proprietary model~\cite{dosovitskiy2016generating,dosovitskiy2016inverting,mahendran2016visualizing,oord2016conditional};
(2) The adversary has white-box access to the proprietary model~\cite{yin2020dreaming,zhang2020secret};
(3) Experiments are limited to small-scale low-resolution datasets~\cite{fredrikson2015model,oord2016conditional,yang2019adversarial,zhang2020secret}.
To handle these problems, we investigate model inversion attacks in a more practical setting:
(1) The proprietary dataset is unavailable, and the adversary has to collect and utilize a different local dataset;
(2) A black-box \acrshort{api} for inference is provided, while the architecture and parameters of the proprietary model are unknown;
(3) Experiments are conducted on large-scale high-resolution datasets with state-of-the-art proprietary models.
In this study, our contribution is twofold:
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep0em
\item
We adopt an experimental setting that is more practical than previous works.
Only two assumptions are made, and they hold true in most, if not all, image retrieval systems.
On the one hand, an adversary has illegitimate access to feature vectors of user data.
On the other hand, the adversary can extract feature vectors of samples in a local dataset via a black-box \acrshort{api}.
Furthermore, two attack scenarios have been validated on state-of-the-art person re-identification models.
In the presence of severe constraints, results indicate that it is still feasible to recognize auxiliary attributes with decent accuracy and reconstruct user data that are recognizable.
\item
In light of the aforementioned results, we suggest that practitioners incorporate an encryption method when transferring and storing deep features.
Note that \acrfull{aes}~\cite{daemen1999aes} is the de facto standard for symmetric-key algorithms.
We introduce an alternative method termed ShuffleBits, in which the binary sequence of each floating-point number gets shuffled.
Unlike traditional encryption methods, it can be implemented as a plug-and-play module inside neural networks, and the resulting model generates encrypted deep features in a straightforward manner.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/attack_scenarios.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
Both the users and the adversary have access to the server, in which a proprietary model is deployed.
Meanwhile, the adversary intercepts the server's responses to the users, and a local dataset is available.
}
\label{figure:attack_scenarios}
\end{figure}
\section{Attack scenarios}
\label{section:attack_scenarios}
\noindent\textbf{Preliminaries.}
Figure~\ref{figure:attack_scenarios} illustrates the background of attack scenarios in this study.
A server runs a proprietary model that is trained on a proprietary dataset, and a response containing feature vectors is returned after processing a request containing user data.
Additionally, the server's responses to the users are intercepted by the adversary, \ie, feature vectors of user data are known.
Since the proprietary dataset is unreachable, the adversary collects and utilizes a local dataset instead.
The primary purpose is to train a threat model that sniffs sensitive information of user data from the feature vectors.
\noindent\textbf{Recognizing auxiliary attributes.}
Depending on the proprietary model in question, certain auxiliary attributes may be relevant.
For example, one might be interested in a person's age and gender when using a facial recognition model.
Although the original task (\ie, recognizing faces) is inherently different from the auxiliary task (\ie, predicting age and gender), the feature vectors for the original task may still contain relevant information for solving the auxiliary task.
With a local dataset at hand, the adversary could annotate auxiliary attributes and construct a predictive model.
The multi-layer perceptron is suitable for solving multi-class classification problems, where each sample might be associated with multiple labels.
\noindent\textbf{Reconstructing user data.}
Alternatively, one could interpret the whole system as an autoencoder.
The proprietary model on the server is the encoder that maps raw data into feature vectors.
The adversary builds a decoder that reconstructs raw data from feature vectors.
The decoder is trained in an unsupervised manner, \ie, it does not require a labeled dataset.
The inputs are feature vectors extracted by the proprietary model, and the ground truth outputs are raw data.
The decoder is optimized with an objective function so that the difference between ground truth data and reconstructed data is minimized.
\newpage
\noindent\textbf{Constraints.}
Multiple constraints complicate matters for the adversary.
Firstly, the proprietary model and the threat model are trained on different datasets.
Since samples from different datasets vary in factors such as background, weather condition and camera angle, the domain gap would degrade performance.
Secondly, the proprietary model's internal workings are out of reach because the adversary can only access it through a black-box \acrshort{api}.
Outputs of intermediate layers in the proprietary model are unattainable, and methods such as lateral shortcut connections~\cite{valpola2015neural} can not be applied.
Thirdly, the threat model can not be optimized simultaneously with the proprietary model since the proprietary model is fixed.
It leads to a mismatch between the objectives of the proprietary model and the threat model, \eg, the proprietary model learns representative features for facial recognition while the threat model is trained to reconstruct face images.
\section{ShuffleBits}
In spite of recent studies on binarized neural networks~\cite{rastegari2016xnor,courbariaux2016binarized} which reduce memory consumption and improve inference speed, storing weights and activations in the single-precision floating-point format is still the predominant option.
Each single-precision floating-point value can be viewed as a 32-bit binary sequence (\ie, binary32).
The IEEE 754 standard~\cite{IEEE_754} defines the procedure which converts a real number from decimal representation to binary32 format, and vice versa.
Given a single-precision floating-point value $x$, it can be represented as a finite binary sequence
\begin{equation}
(a_{i})_{i \in I},
\end{equation}
where $a_{i} \in \{0,1\}$, $I = \{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $n = 32$.
One could shuffle the original sequence according to an encryption key, and the encrypted sequence is
\begin{equation}
(b_{j})_{j \in J},
\end{equation}
where $J = \{1,\ldots,n\}$.
The encryption key is a bijective function $f \colon I \rightarrow J$, and it is an injective and surjective mapping of set $I$ to set $J$.
In addition, we have $b_{f(i)} = a_{i}$ for $i \in I$.
Similarly, the decrypted sequence is
\begin{equation}
(c_{k})_{k \in K},
\end{equation}
where $K = \{1,\ldots,n\}$.
The decryption key is another bijective function $g \colon J \rightarrow K$ which maps set $J$ to set $K$.
Furthermore, we have $c_{g(j)} = b_{j}$ for $j \in J$.
Since $f$ is a bijection, it has an inverse function obtained by swapping the inputs and outputs in $f$.
Let $g$ be the inverse function of $f$, we have
\begin{equation}
a_{i} = b_{f(i)} = c_{g(f(i))} = c_{i} \text{ for } i \in I.
\end{equation}
With the correct decryption key, it is apparent that the decrypted sequence is identical to the original sequence.
Finally, the encrypted sequence and the decrypted sequence can be converted to decimal representation.
Figure~\ref{figure:shuffle_bits} provides a step-by-step explanation of the proposed method using specific encryption and decryption keys.
The original value's binary sequence is shuffled according to the encryption key, and the encrypted sequence corresponds to the encrypted value.
By contrast, modifications are reverted so that the decrypted value is the same as the original value.
In the event of a brute-force attack, the adversary must systematically enumerate all possible decryption keys and check each of them.
It is computationally infeasible to conduct exhaustive key search for three reasons.
Firstly, there are $32! \approx 2.63\mathrm{e}{+35}$ unique keys, thus the number of candidate keys is large.
Secondly, it is not straightforward to validate whether the decrypted values are correct or not.
Thirdly, bit shuffling can be deployed using the \acrlong{otp} scheme, and the decryption keys in each request would be different.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/shuffle_bits.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
A specific case of ShuffleBits:
a left rotation operation is applied in the encryption process,
and a right rotation operation is applied in the decryption process.
}
\label{figure:shuffle_bits}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Background}
\noindent\textbf{Domain.}
We conduct experiments in the domain of person re-identification, in which the objective is to retrieve a person of interest across multiple cameras~\cite{ye2020deep}.
\noindent\textbf{Datasets.}
We select the following datasets that are widely used:
Market-1501~\cite{zheng2015scalable}, DukeMTMC-reID~\cite{ristani2016performance} and MSMT17~\cite{wei2018person}.
In each dataset, there are three partitions, namely, training set, query set, and gallery set.
The latter two sets are merged as the test set.
Throughout this study, we use MSMT17 as the proprietary dataset, while the local dataset is either Market-1501 or DukeMTMC-reID.
\noindent\textbf{Models.}
The FastReID repository provides a unified instance re-identification library, along with a set of pre-trained models~\cite{he2020fastreid}.
We include three top-performing methods which are built using the ResNet50~\cite{he2016deep} backbone, \ie, BoT~\cite{luo2019bag}, AGW~\cite{ye2020deep} and SBS~\cite{he2020fastreid}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}cc@{}}
\subfigure[][Scores on the test set in Market-1501.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.475\linewidth]{figures/Market1501_attributes.pdf}
} &
\subfigure[][Scores on the test set in DukeMTMC-reID.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.475\linewidth]{figures/DukeMTMC_attributes.pdf}
}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
The balanced accuracies of each auxiliary attribute.
}
\label{figure:attributes}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Recognizing auxiliary attributes}
\label{section:recognizing_auxiliary_attributes}
\noindent\textbf{Model.}
For each auxiliary attribute, batch normalization~\cite{ioffe2015batch} and dense layers are stacked to obtain the probabilities of each class.
Similar to the proprietary models~\cite{luo2019bag,ye2020deep,he2020fastreid} that classify person identities, we use only one batch normalization layer and one dense layer.
The dimensionality of the output space in the dense layer equals the number of classes.
Opting for this relatively simple architecture gives the best results in our experiments.
\noindent\textbf{Loss function.}
Similar to conventional classification models~\cite{he2016deep}, the cross-entropy loss~\cite{zhang2018generalized} is utilized on the outputs of dense layers.
Given an imbalanced dataset with unequal distribution of classes, classifiers would be biased in favor of the dominant classes.
To address this issue, we assign a scalar value to each class during training so that more attention is paid to the under-represented classes~\cite{panchapagesan2016multi}.
The class weights are inversely proportional to the count number of occurrences of each class.
\noindent\textbf{Evaluation metric.}
The accuracy score measures the percentage of samples in which the predicted label matches the corresponding ground truth.
However, it may give inflated performance estimates on imbalanced datasets.
Thus, we adopt balanced accuracy~\cite{mosley2013balanced} which is a better option, and it is defined as the average of recall calculated on each class.
\noindent\textbf{Implementation.}
The batch size is set to $128$, and the number of epochs is limited to $100$.
The Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} optimizer is utilized in training the model.
The learning rate is fixed to $5\mathrm{e}{-5}$ in the first $50$ epochs, and it decreases by a factor of five in the remaining epochs.
The mean of balanced accuracies of all labels is monitored so that the optimal model can be identified.
\noindent\textbf{Analysis.}
We leverage the auxiliary attributes in~\cite{lin2019improving}.
These annotations provide detailed descriptions of pedestrians.
Multiple labels are present while each label corresponds to a binary or multi-class classification problem.
Figure~\ref{figure:attributes} visualizes the balanced accuracies of each auxiliary attribute in two local datasets.
Using feature vectors extracted by proprietary models yields significantly more accurate predictions than guessing randomly, and it gives coarse-grained estimations of user data.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}cc@{}}
\subfigure[][Samples from the test set in Market-1501.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.475\linewidth]{figures/Market1501_reconstructions.pdf}
} &
\subfigure[][Samples from the test set in DukeMTMC-reID.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.475\linewidth]{figures/DukeMTMC_reconstructions.pdf}
}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Comparison of the reconstructed images using different proprietary models, local datasets, and loss functions.
}
\label{figure:reconstructions}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Reconstructing user data}
\label{section:reconstructing_user_data}
\noindent\textbf{Model.}
Two sub-models are involved in reconstructing user data, \ie, a generator and a discriminator.
We instantiate models with similar architectures to the BigGAN~\cite{brock2018large} work.
On the one hand, the generator maps feature vectors to images.
At the start, a dense layer with $256$ units transforms the feature vectors into a low-dimensional space, while another dense layer and a reshaping operation generate the smallest feature maps.
Subsequently, five upsampling residual blocks increase the spatial dimensionality to the target resolution (\ie, $128$×$384$).
The last convolutional layer reduces the number of channels to $3$, and the resulting predictions are in the RGB color space.
On the other hand, the discriminator classifies whether the images are original or synthetic.
Five downsampling residual blocks decrease the spatial dimensionality, and a global average pooling layer generates flattened feature vectors of the images.
Complemented with the feature vectors extracted by the proprietary model, a dense layer generates the estimations based on the concatenated feature vectors.
More details regarding the architectural layout of residual blocks can be found in the appendix of~\cite{brock2018large}.
\noindent\textbf{Loss function.}
Different loss functions are utilized for updating the generator and discriminator.
The generator can be optimized with a weighted sum of the following loss functions:
(1) The pixel loss~\cite{johnson2016perceptual} calculates the \acrlong{mse} between the ground truth images and the reconstructed images;
(2) Given a pre-trained model, one may extract an intermediate layer's outputs as feature maps.
The feature reconstruction loss~\cite{johnson2016perceptual} refers to the \acrlong{mse} between the feature maps of the ground truth images and the reconstructed images.
More specifically, we use the outputs of layer "conv2\_block3\_out" in a ResNet50~\cite{he2016deep} model that is pre-trained on the ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet} dataset;
(3) The adversarial loss~\cite{goodfellow2014generative} measures how well the generator can fool the discriminator when feeding the outputs of the generator to the discriminator.
By contrast, the discriminator is optimized using the \acrlong{mse} loss that is proposed in~\cite{mao2017least}.
Compared with the cross-entropy loss~\cite{zhang2018generalized}, it suppresses the vanishing gradients problem and stabilizes the learning process.
\newpage
\noindent\textbf{Evaluation metric.}
For each reconstructed image, the ground truth image is available for reference.
Instead of comparing these images pixel by pixel, we extract the reconstructed images' feature vectors using the same proprietary model and calculate the cosine distance between feature vector pairs.
It follows the same principle as the feature reconstruction loss~\cite{johnson2016perceptual}, while there exist differences in the underlying model and the distance metric.
The cosine distance metric is widely used when comparing two feature vectors extracted by person re-identification models.
The cosine distance scores range from $0$ to $1$, and the minimum value $0$ is obtained when the angle between feature vectors is $0$.
The aforementioned evaluation metric provides quantitative performance measures for studying the effects of loss functions.
\noindent\textbf{Implementation.}
The batch size is set to $64$, and the number of iterations is limited to $60,000$.
The Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} optimizer is utilized in training both the generator and discriminator, with the learning rate fixed to $1\mathrm{e}{-4}$.
The training procedure within one batch can be separated into multiple consecutive steps.
Firstly, the generator produces the reconstructed images based on the pre-computed feature vectors.
Secondly, the discriminator is updated by feeding the ground truth or reconstructed images alongside the corresponding labels.
Thirdly, the generator is updated while keeping the parameters of the discriminator frozen.
\noindent\textbf{Analysis.}
Generating perfect reconstructions merely from feature vectors is a difficult task.
Otherwise, the algorithm can be treated as a promising solution for neural image compression.
As discussed in Section~\ref{section:attack_scenarios}, there are three constraints that pose significant challenges, namely, the domain gap in datasets, the nature of having only black-box access, and the mismatch between optimization objectives.
Figure~\ref{figure:reconstructions} illustrates randomly chosen reconstructed images under various settings.
Those experiments differ in terms of the proprietary model, the local dataset, and the loss function.
In addition, the mean of cosine distance scores is calculated on the corresponding test set.
Three observations can be drawn:
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep0em
\item
Using the pixel loss gives inherently blurry predictions for the reason that the Euclidean distance is minimized by averaging all plausible outputs~\cite{isola2017image}.
\item
Switching to the feature reconstruction loss sharpens the images, while noticeable checkerboard artifacts are present.
\item
The checkerboard artifacts can be suppressed significantly by adding the adversarial loss, and the reconstructed images share strong similarities with the ground truth images.
Furthermore, combining the feature reconstruction loss with the adversarial loss results in the lowest cosine distance score.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Importance of encrypting deep features}
Results in Section~\ref{section:recognizing_auxiliary_attributes} and~\ref{section:reconstructing_user_data} demonstrate that an adversary could successfully infer sensitive information even under severe constraints.
In particular, it is still feasible to recognize auxiliary attributes with decent accuracy and reconstruct user data that are recognizable.
Given a machine learning model in production, it is of great importance to adopt an encryption method.
Under the condition that an encryption method is utilized, one has to include an encryption key in each request, and feature vectors in the corresponding response are encrypted (see Figure~\ref{figure:attack_scenarios}).
Since the decryption key is kept on the client side, the original values can be recovered without changes.
The adversary could still train threat models on original feature vectors.
However, the decryption key required to decrypt feature vectors of user data is unknown, while the threat models would not generate meaningful predictions on encrypted feature vectors.
In addition, training threat models directly on encrypted feature vectors is not an option because the users and the adversary are using different encryption keys.
\subsection{ShuffleBits vs traditional encryption methods}
The ShuffleBits method differs from traditional encryption methods in two aspects.
On the one hand, computations in ShuffleBits can be translated into operations on tensors.
Incorporating ShuffleBits into an existing neural network is straightforward, and it can be implemented as a plug-and-play module without extra dependencies.
On the other hand, a model with ShuffleBits would generate encrypted deep features directly.
It eliminates the risk of transferring unencrypted data from \acrshort{gpu} to \acrshort{cpu}.
The \acrfull{aes}~\cite{daemen1999aes} method is widely accepted as the de facto standard for symmetric-key algorithms.
Since the security of ShuffleBits is yet to be validated, a natural extension would be to develop dedicated attacks against ShuffleBits from the perspective of cryptography.
In the work of InstaHide~\cite{huang2020instahide}, a method is introduced to encrypt training images in a federated learning scenario.
However, it is later found to be insecure in~\cite{carlini2021private}.
To address the potential vulnerabilities in ShuffleBits, we introduce two workarounds.
On the one hand, the \acrlong{otp} scheme can be utilized.
In each request, different encryption/decryption keys are used.
It is unlikely to recover the original feature vectors by observing a few instances.
On the other hand, ShuffleBits can be seamlessly applied alongside traditional encryption methods.
Such cascade encryption pipeline leads to better security, as an adversary has to break all the encryption algorithms to obtain useful information.
\section{Conclusion}
This study emphasizes the importance of encrypting deep features when deploying a machine learning model in production.
On the one hand, we adopt an experimental setting with only two assumptions, and it is more practical than previous works.
Two attack scenarios have been proposed to reverse state-of-the-art person re-identification models.
Results show that an adversary could recognize auxiliary attributes and reconstruct user data, thus breaching user privacy.
On the other hand, adopting an encryption method when transferring and storing deep features would prevent model inversion attacks.
By performing manipulations on the binary sequence of each floating-point number, we introduce the ShuffleBits method, and it can be implemented as a plug-and-play module inside neural networks.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Rigidity theory involves the study of structural stability in mechanical systems as a result of the balance between their degrees of freedom and constraints. Its applications span many areas of research from structural engineering~\cite{calladine1978buckminster,connelly1996second,kato1994effect,grigorjeva2010static}, robotics~\cite{krick2009stabilisation, steltz2010jamming, zelazo2012rigidity}, and wireless network localization~\cite{aspnes2006theory,zhao2018bearing} to \note{studies of amorphous solids~\cite{he1985elastic, micoulaut2007onset, vaagberg2011glassiness, lopez2013jamming, Ellenbroek2015, lubensky2015phonons,charbonneau2016universal}} and biological systems such as confluent tissues~\cite{bi2015density,bi2016motility,merkel2018geometrically,yan2019multicellular}, biopolymer networks~\cite{storm2005nonlinear,huisman2011internal,rens2018micromechanical}, and proteins~\cite{jacobs2001protein,perticaroli2013secondary,perticaroli2014rigidity,karshikoff2015rigidity,atilgan2001anisotropy,doruker2000dynamics}.
First attempts in formulating a mathematical description of rigidity date back to Maxwell who studied principles of constructing stiff bar-and-joint frames~\cite{maxwell1864calculation}. Maxwell considered a frame as a set of joints that are connected via rigid bars. A mechanical frame of $N$ joints in $d=3$ dimensions has $3N$ degrees of freedom since each joint has three \note{translational} degrees of freedom. Maxwell realized that to render the set of $3N$ joints rigid, $3N - 6$ bars (constraints) are required where subtracting $6$ accounts for the trivial rigid motions including $d=3$ translations and $d(d-1)/2 = 3$ rotations if the frame has free boundary conditions. This counting rule would be different if the frame has periodic boundary conditions since a periodic structure does not have rotational degrees of freedom. Calladine, later, modified Maxwell's rule to take into account the existence of redundant bars that lead to states of self-stress~\cite{calladine1978buckminster}. In the Maxwell-Calladine count, the difference between the number of degrees of freedom ($Nd$) and constraints ($N_c$) in a $d$-dimensional frame is equal to the difference between its number of floppy modes ($F$) and the number of states of self-stress ($S$)\note{\cite{lubensky2015phonons}}:
\begin{equation}
F - S = Nd - N_c.
\label{eq:maxwell-calladine}
\end{equation}
A system with no states of self-stress and no non-trivial floppy modes is called \note{\textit{isostatic}}. Eq.~(\ref{eq:maxwell-calladine}) can be used to describe the rigidity of bar-and-joint structures or other physical systems that become rigid when there are enough constraints to cancel out the existing degrees of freedom. Such systems are called first-order rigid. However, this equation is not a suitable proxy for measuring rigidity in systems with higher-order rigidity such as under-constrained spring networks that rigidify under tension~\cite{damavandi2021energetic,damavandi2021energetic2}. For this reason, it is more appropriate to characterize the rigidity of a system using changes in its energy due to infinitesimal deformations. These deformations can be in the form of shear, hydrostatic pressure, or displacements of individual particles~\cite{schlegel2016local,zaccone2011approximate}.
In the following sections, we first present a mathematical framework that provides a robust proxy for measuring rigidity of physical systems~\cite{damavandi2021energetic}, and then we demonstrate how the introduced tools can be computed in {\tt rigidPy}{} for Hookean spring networks of arbitrary size.
\section{Mathematical Background}\label{sec:theory}
Imagine $N$ particles interacting via contact potential $V(r_{ij})$ where $r_{ij} = \lvert \mathbf{r}_{i} - \mathbf{r}_{j} \rvert$ is the distance between particles $i$ and $j$. This potential can be attractive or repulsive and can have any functional form in terms of $r_{ij}$. After applying a small deformation, particle $i$ is displaced by $\mathbf{u}_{i}$ and its new position is given by $\mathbf{r'}_{i} = \mathbf{r}_{i} + \mathbf{u}_{i}$. See Fig.~\ref{fig:displace} for reference. Total displacement between two particles, $\mathbf{u}_{ij}$, due to changes in their positions can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:displacement_vector}
\mathbf{u}_{ij} = \mathbf{u}_i - \mathbf{u}_j = \mathbf{u}_{ij,\parallel} + \mathbf{u}_{ij,\perp},
\end{equation}
where the parallel and perpendicular subscripts refer to components of the displacement vector that are parallel and perpendicular to the contact vector, $\mathbf{n}_{ij}$, connecting particle $j$ to particle $i$, defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{n}_{ij} = \frac{\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j}{r_{ij}}
= \frac{\mathbf{r}_{ij}}{r_{ij}}.
\end{equation}
\note{The distance between two particles after displacement can be written as:}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:displacement_approx}
r'_{ij} &= \lvert \mathbf{r'}_{i} - \mathbf{r'}_{j} \rvert = [\left( \mathbf{r}_{ij}+\mathbf{u}_{ij} \right).\left( \mathbf{r}_{ij}+\mathbf{u}_{ij} \right)]^{1/2} \nonumber \\
&= \left(r^{2}_{ij} + 2 {u}_{ij,\parallel} + {u}^2_{ij,\parallel} + {u}^2_{ij,\perp} \right)^{1/2} \nonumber \\
&= \left(r_{ij} + u_{ij, \parallel}\right) \sqrt{
1 + \left(\frac{u_{ij, \perp}}{r_{ij} + u_{ij, \parallel}}\right)^2} \nonumber \\
&= \left(r_{ij} + u_{ij, \parallel}\right) \left(1 + \frac{u^2_{ij, \perp}}{2 (r_{ij} + u_{ij, \parallel}) } + \mathcal{O}(u^4) \right) \nonumber \\
&\approx r_{ij} + u_{ij, \parallel} + \frac{u^2_{ij, \perp}}{2r_{ij}}.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{./networkDisplacement.pdf}
\caption{Two interacting particles $i$ and $j$ with distance $r_{ij}$ are shown. Displacing the particles by $\mathbf{u}_{i}$ and $\mathbf{u}_{j}$ respectively, changes their separation vector $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ to $\mathbf{r}'_{ij} = \mathbf{r}_{ij} + \mathbf{u}_{ij}$ where $\mathbf{u}_{ij} = \mathbf{u}_i - \mathbf{u}_j$.}
\label{fig:displace}
\end{figure}
\note{As a result of this approximation, the energy stored in bond $i \bondsign j$, up to second order in displacements is}:
\begin{align}
V(r'_{ij}) &\approx V(r_{ij}) + V'(r_{ij}) (r'_{ij}-r_{ij}) + \frac{1}{2} V''(r_{ij}) (r'_{ij}-r_{ij})^2 \nonumber \\
&\approx V(r_{ij}) + V'(r_{ij}) \left(u_{ij,\parallel} + \frac{u^2_{ij,\perp}}{2 r_{ij}}\right) + \frac{1}{2} V''(r_{ij}) u^2_{ij,\parallel}.
\label{eq:energyStored}
\end{align}
In the case of harmonic potential, we can replace the second derivative of the energy with $V''(r_{ij}) = K_{ij}$ which is the stiffness of contact between particles $i$ and $j$, and the first derivative of the energy with $V'(r_{ij})= -f_{ij}$ which represents the force between two particles $i$ and $j$ due to prestress. Using this notation, we can write the change in total energy of a harmonic system as:
\begin{equation}
\delta V=V(r') - V(r) = - \sum_{ij} f_{ij} u_{ij,\parallel} - \sum_{ij} f_{ij} \frac{u^2_{ij,\perp}}{2 r_{ij}} + \sum_{ij} \frac{1}{2} K_{ij} u^2_{ij,\parallel},
\label{eq:energyChange_total}
\end{equation}
with $ij$ representing all of the interacting pairs of particles. The first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:energyChange_total}) vanishes \note{when all particles are in force balance.}
Since $u^2 = u^2_{\perp} + u^2_{\parallel}$, and by defining $K'_{ij} = f_{ij}/r_{ij}$, we can write the change in total energy as:
\begin{equation}
\delta V = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} K_{ij} u^2_{ij,\parallel} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} K'_{ij} (u^2_{ij} - u^2_{ij,\parallel}).
\label{eq:vp-v}
\end{equation}
This will be useful when we write these equations in matrix form. The parallel component of $\mathbf{u}_{ij}$ is given by $u_{ij,\parallel} = \mathbf{u}_{ij}.\mathbf{n}_{ij}$. However, $u^2_{ij}$ cannot be written in terms of $\mathbf{n}_{ij}$. So one convenient approach is to write it as the sum of its orthogonal vector components in $d$ dimensions (\note{$\mathbf{\hat{x}_{\alpha}}$ is the unit vector along $\alpha-$axis.}):
\begin{align}
u^2_{ij} &= u_{ij,1}^2+ u_{ij,2}^2 + ... + u_{ij,d}^2 \nonumber \\
\newline
&=(\mathbf{u}_{ij}.\mathbf{\hat{x}_{1}})^2 + (\mathbf{u}_{ij}.\mathbf{\hat{x}_{2}})^2 + ... + (\mathbf{u}_{ij}.\mathbf{\hat{x}_{d}})^2 .
\end{align}
Now, one can write Eq.~(\ref{eq:vp-v}) in a matrix form by defining two diagonal matrices $\mathbf{K}$ and $\mathbf{K'}$ with diagonal elements $K_{ij}$ and $K'_{ij}$, respectively. Using $\mathbf{u}^T = \left[\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_N\right]$ as the vector of individual displacements, each term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vp-v}) can be written as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:theGramTerm}
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} K_{ij} u^2_{ij,\parallel} &= \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{u}^T \mathbf{R}^T \mathbf{K} \mathbf{R} \mathbf{u} \\ \newline
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} K'_{ij} u^2_{ij,\parallel} &= \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{u}^T \mathbf{R}^T \mathbf{K'} \mathbf{R} \mathbf{u}\\ \newline
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} K'_{ij} u^2_{ij} &= \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{u}^T (\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{d} \mathbf{G}_{\alpha}^T \mathbf{K'} \mathbf{G}_{\alpha}) \mathbf{u}
\label{eq:theGFunctions}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{R}$ is the rigidity matrix that includes the first derivatives of constraints (bond lengths in the case of spring networks) with respect to degrees of freedom, $R_{\mu,i} = \frac{\partial r_{\mu}}{\partial x_{i}}$. $\mathbf{R}$ is a $N_c\times Nd$ dimensional matrix ($N_c$ being the number of constraints), where each column corresponds to a particle and each row, $\mu$, represents an interacting pair of particles. When grouped together, these entries make up the normalized contact vectors $\mathbf{n}_{ij}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rigidity_matrix}
\mathbf{R} =
\bordermatrix{& 1 & \hdots & i & \hdots & j & \hdots & N \cr
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \hdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \cr
(i,j) & \mathbf{0} & \hdots & \mathbf{n}_{ij} & \hdots & -\mathbf{n}_{ij} & \hdots & \mathbf{0} \cr
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \hdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots}
\end{equation}
with $\mathbf{n}_{ji} = - \mathbf{n}_{ij}$.
The $\mathbf{G}_\alpha$ matrix in Eq.~(\ref{eq:theGFunctions}) is given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{G}_\alpha=
\bordermatrix{& 1 & \hdots & i & \hdots & j & \hdots & N \cr
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \hdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \cr
(i,j) & \mathbf{0} & \hdots & \mathbf{\hat{x}_{\alpha}} & \hdots & -\mathbf{\hat{x}_{\alpha}} & \hdots & \mathbf{0} \cr
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \hdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots}
\end{equation}
\newline
which is also a $N_c\times Nd$ dimensional matrix with unit vectors $\mathbf{\hat{x}_{\alpha}}$ in each orthogonal direction. For instance, if $\alpha = 1$, then $\mathbf{G}_{1}$ for a $3D$ system will contain $\mathbf{\hat{x}_{1}} = [1, 0, 0]$ vectors only.
Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:theGramTerm}-\ref{eq:theGFunctions}), we can write the change in total energy as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:energy_change_matrix}
\delta V = \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{u}^T \overbrace{
\left(
\underbrace{\mathbf{R}^T \mathbf{K} \mathbf{R}}_\text{$\mathbf{H}_{\text{g}}$}
+ \underbrace{\mathbf{R}^T \mathbf{K'} \mathbf{R} - (\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{d} \mathbf{G}_{\alpha}^T \mathbf{K'} \mathbf{G}_{\alpha})}_\text{$\mathbf{H}_{\text{p}}$}
\right)
}^\text{$\mathbf{H}$} \mathbf{u}
\end{align}
\note{where $\mathbf{H}_{\text{g}}$ and $\mathbf{H}_{\text{p}}$ are the geometrical and prestress terms in the Hessian, $\mathbf{H}$, respectively. When a system has no prestress forces, the Hessian reduces to the geometrical part only}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:full_hessian_no_prestress}
\mathbf{H}_{\text{no-prestress}} = \mathbf{H}_{\text{g}} = \mathbf{R^T K R}.
\end{equation}
This form of the Hessian is also called the dynamical matrix.
Note that entries of $ \mathbf{H}$ match the mathematical definition of Hessian which includes second derivatives of the energy with respect to degrees of freedom. This means that the Hessian in Eq.~(\ref{eq:energy_change_matrix}) can also be derived directly using its definition:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:full_hessian_derivative}
\mathbf{H}_{ij}^{\alpha \beta} = \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial r_i^{\alpha} \partial r_j^{\beta}} \ .
\end{equation}
In the case of a harmonic system, where the energy is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:harmonic_energy}
V = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j} K_{ij} \ ({r'}_{ij} - {r}_{ij})^2,
\end{equation}
writing all the derivatives in Eq.~(\ref{eq:full_hessian_derivative}) leads to terms that are linear in $({r'}_{ij} - {r}_{ij})$ and terms that are independent of $({r'}_{ij} - {r}_{ij})$. Those terms that are linear in $({r'}_{ij} - {r}_{ij})$ represent the forces between pairs of interacting particles ($f_{ij}$) and thereby belong to the $\mathbf{H}_{p}$ matrix. On the other hand, terms that are independent of the changes in distance between two particles, represent the geometrical Hessian, $\mathbf{H}_{g}$. \note{Harmonic potentials are widely used in models of elastic networks such as Anisotropic Network Model~\cite{atilgan2001anisotropy,doruker2000dynamics} and Gaussian Network Model~\cite{haliloglu1997gaussian,bahar1997direct}. There are a variety of existing software packages for molecular rigidity analysis that make use of these models~\cite{bakan2011prody,li2016gnm}. However, we note that the formalism we present here is distinct as it is extendable to any central-force energy function. In addition, {\tt rigidPy}{} provides implementations of various boundary conditions as well as a set of crucial tools such as the rigidity matrix, the geometrical and prestress terms of the Hessian, and elastic moduli, which make it suitable for analysing the rigidity and flexibility of a larger class of elastic systems including higher-order rigid networks~\cite{damavandi2021energetic}.}
\subsection{Zero Modes and Infinitesimal Zero Modes}
The vibrational modes of a system are the eigenmodes of the Hessian matrix given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:energy_change_matrix}). Number of zero modes, thereby, represents the number of ways in which one can perturb the system without any change in the energy~\note{\cite{hinsen2005normal}}.
Infinitesimal zero modes are the zero modes of the geometrical part of Hessian which is equivalent to assuming that there is no prestress in the system:
\begin{align*}
\label{eq:infinitesimal}
& \text{Infinitesimal zero modes} = \\
\newline
& \text{Zero modes of the geometrical Hessian (dynamical matrix),} \ \mathbf{ R^T K R} = \\
\newline
& \text{Zero modes of a system with no prestress}
\end{align*}
Note that when infinitesimal zero modes and overall zero modes in a system only include trivial rigid motions (translations and rotations), the system is first-order rigid\note{~\cite{connelly1993rigidity}}. On the other hand, when the geometrical part of the Hessian has non-trivial zero modes (e.g. when the system is under-constrained), but the overall Hessian only has trivial zero modes, the system is said to be second-order rigid\note{~\cite{connelly1993rigidity, damavandi2021energetic2}}. In this case, the prestress Hessian is positive definite and its eigenvalues can balance the non-trivial zero modes of the geometrical Hessian, leading to second-order rigidity in the system~\cite{damavandi2021energetic,damavandi2021energetic2}.
\subsection{States of Self-Stress}
States of self-stress refer to possible ways one can put non-zero forces on contacts while keeping the system at mechanical equilibrium with zero resultant force on each particle or node~\cite{lubensky2015phonons}. In a system of particles, the total force on each particle is the sum of all the forces exerted by its interacting neighbors. The total force on particle $i$ is related to the contact forces shared between $i$ and its interacting neighbors through the equilibrium matrix, which is the transpose of the rigidity matrix:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:forces_on_particles}
\mathbf{F}_i = \mathbf{R^T}_{i \ell} \ \mathbf{\tau}_{\ell},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\tau}_{\ell}$ is the force on the $\ell$th neighboring contact. States of self-stress, therefore, are all the non-trivial solutions to $\mathbf{R^T}\mathbf{\tau} = 0$ which gives the right null-space of the equilibrium matrix $\mathbf{R^T}$\note{~\cite{pellegrino1993structural}}. To find the right null-space of this matrix, one can multiply $\mathbf{R^T}\mathbf{\tau} = 0$ by the rigidity matrix, $\mathbf{R}\mathbf{R^T}\mathbf{\tau} = 0$, and find zero eigenvalues of the resulting matrix, $\mathbf{N}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:N_matrix}
\mathbf{N} = \mathbf{RR^T},
\end{equation}
In other words:
\begin{align*}
\label{eq:sss}
& \text{States of self-stress} = \text{Zero modes of matrix} \ \mathbf{N}.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Elastic Properties}
The elasticity of a system is measured by its response to an applied deformation. When a system is first-order rigid, elastic moduli of the system (shear modulus in particular) can be used to determine its rigidity~\cite{damavandi2021energetic}.
According to Hooke's law, the stress induced in an elastic material is proportional to the amount of strain (deformation) that has been applied to it. In the linear regime (harmonic approximation), the energy density ($\delta v = \delta V / \text{Volume}$) stored in an elastic object due to a strain can be written as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:energydensity}
\delta v = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} c_{ij} e_{i} e_{j},
\end{equation}
where $e_i$ is the strain in direction $i$ and $c_{ij}$ are the moduli of elasticity, characterizing the resistance of the material to elastic deformations~\cite{hagh2018rigidity}. As an example, in $2D$, the strain matrix is written as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:strainmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
e_{xx} & e_{xy} \\
e_{xy} & e_{yy}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Elastic moduli can be calculated by determining the direction and magnitude of the applied deformation. Bulk modulus and shear modulus are two of the primary moduli that are widely used in the study of elastic response in solids. Bulk modulus, $B$, measures the response of a system to a uniform compression in all directions. In a $2D$ system, the strain matrix for uniform compression can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
-\epsilon & 0 \\
0 & -\epsilon
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
which leads to
\begin{equation}
\delta v = \frac{1}{2}
\left(c_{11} + c_{11} + 2 c_{12}\right) \epsilon^2 = 2 B \epsilon^2.
\end{equation}
Shear modulus, on the other hand, is a measure of the material's response when it experiences a force parallel to one of its surfaces while the opposite surface undergoes a deformation in the opposite direction. There are two common types of shear in $2D$ with the following strain matrices:
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
\epsilon & 0 \\
0 & -\epsilon
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \epsilon \\
\epsilon & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
which are known as the \textit{pure shear}, $G$, and \textit{simple shear}, $G_{xy}$, respectively. Note that in both shear cases, the volume of the material is preserved. The corresponding shear moduli are found to be:
\begin{align}
\delta v &= \frac{1}{2}
\left(c_{11} + c_{11} - c_{12}\right) \epsilon^2 = 2 G \epsilon^2 \\
\delta v &= \frac{1}{2}
\left(c_{33} \right) \epsilon^2 = 2 G_{xy} \epsilon^2.
\end{align}
For a more detailed review of elastic moduli and their derivations in $2D$, see~\cite{hagh2018rigidity}.
\section{Program Description and Installation}
In this paper, we introduce {\tt rigidPy}{} which is a lightweight Python library dedicated to studying rigidity and linear response in spring networks. The flexibility of {\tt rigidPy}{} allows the user to easily combine its outputs with other scientific tools in Python.
{\tt rigidPy}{} uses an object-oriented style of programming which gives the user access to a set of methods to compute the desired quantities or extend the library with custom functions. This functionality is made possible by expressing the network information and its dynamics as a set of linear equations that relate the changes in constraints to changes in degrees of freedom (See Section~\ref{sec:theory}). {\tt rigidPy}{} has been successfully used in multiple research projects~\cite{sadjadi2021realizations, sadjadi2018two, hagh2019broader} and its latest version is accessible on GitHub~\cite{rpgit}.
{\tt rigidPy}{} is written with Python $3$ in mind. However, it is also tested successfully in Python $2.7$, although this version is no longer supported. The package is written so that the dependencies are limited to the standard scientific libraries of Python such as Numpy and Scipy~\cite{scipy}. The code takes full advantage of the vectorization and fast performance of the BLAS/LAPACK library. However, for those with Intel CPUs, it is recommended to build the numpy/scipy environments with Intel(R) Math Kernel Library~\cite{intel} for optimal performance.
The most convenient way to install the package is through Python Package Index~\cite{pypi} and \texttt{pip} package manager:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> pip install rigidpy
\end{verbatim}
However, if the user prefers to build from the source or install the development version, the package can be downloaded from GitHub~\cite{rpgit} by:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> git clone https://github.com/vardahagh/rigidpy.git
\end{verbatim}
To install the package, change directory to {\tt rigidPy}{} and use the following command:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> pip install --no-cache-dir .
\end{verbatim}
To improve the package usability, we have divided the application programming interface (API) into several modules based on their functionalities. Currently, {\tt rigidPy}{} consists of three modules:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{framework} module is the base class. It receives lists of node positions, bonds, boundary conditions, stiffnesses, masses, and rest lengths to construct a \texttt{framework} object. This class provides multiple methods to compute the rigidity matrix, geometrical and prestress Hessian matrices, states of self-stress, elastic moduli, \textit{etc}.
\item \texttt{configuration} provides functionality for geometry optimization and energy minimization. {\tt rigidPy}{} currently supports Newton-Conjugate Gradient and L-BFGS-B optimization algorithms. The L-BFGS-B algorithm can be used in optimizations that fix the positions of a subset of nodes.
\item \texttt{circuit} contains two methods to find alternative realizations of a network. The methods are based on constraint reduction and cell-volume change. For more information, see~\cite{sadjadi2021realizations}.
\end{itemize}
In the following section, we show a detailed example of applying {\tt rigidPy}{} to a periodic spring network using the \texttt{framework} module. One can find further information about \texttt{configuration} and \texttt{circuit} modules in the {\tt rigidPy}{} repository.
\section{Usage}
At the core of {\tt rigidPy}{} there is \texttt{framework} class that creates a base class to compute the rigidity and elastic properties of a network.
To make a \texttt{framework} object, a minimum of two arrays/lists are required: (i) coordinates of nodes, (ii) list of bonds. Users can save the coordinates and bond list in any desired format, but the inputs to \texttt{framework} have special shape requirements to ensure the correct rigidity characterization. For a network with $N$ nodes in $d$ dimensions and $N_c$ connecting bonds, the shape of ``coordinates'' array is $(N, d)$ and of the ``bonds'' array is $(N_c,2)$. The inputs can be Numpy arrays or Python lists.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{periodicNetwork.pdf}
\caption{A $2D$ example of a periodic network with $6$ nodes and $12$ bonds in the unit cell. The red arrows show the repeat/basis vectors.}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
As was discussed earlier, boundary conditions can greatly impact the rigidity of a network. If no boundary conditions are specified, \texttt{framework} defaults to \textit{free} boundaries which is equivalent to having no constraints on the positions of the nodes. However, {\tt rigidPy}{} also supports periodic and anchored (pinned) boundary conditions~\cite{theran2015anchored} by setting the \texttt{basis} and \texttt{pins} parameters.
The \texttt{basis} parameter is used to specify the array of repeat vectors with shape $(d,d)$. The \texttt{pins} parameter, receives a list of node indices and fixes their positions by effectively freezing the relevant degrees of freedom~\cite{theran2015anchored}. Note that \texttt{basis} takes precedence over \texttt{pins} parameter. This enables users to create periodic lattices while pinning a selection of nodes. If ``pure anchored boundary conditions'' are desired~\footnote{Pure anchored boundary conditions are satisfied when exactly half of the nodes on the surface of a network are immobilized, but users can provide fewer or more pins.}, users should not provide any \texttt{basis} vectors and only provide a list of nodes to pin.
Fig.~\ref{fig:framework} shows a $2D$ network with periodic boundary conditions. The coordinates and bonds of the network can be found in the GitHub repository under \texttt{tests/data\_6} directory. The coordinates are saved in a file named \texttt{coordinates.txt} where each row represents a coordinate pair $(x,y)$:
\begin{verbatim}
1.398598 2.732305
0.964475 1.940684
0.072057 1.408286
0.875796 0.956616
1.891248 0.873234
1.951186 1.936490
\end{verbatim}
The nodes are indexed in the order they appear inside the coordinates file. The list of bonds is provided in \texttt{bonds.txt} file, where each row represents a pair of connected nodes $i \bondsign j$:
\begin{verbatim}
0 1
0 3
0 4
0 5
1 5
1 2
1 3
2 3
2 4
2 5
3 4
4 5
\end{verbatim}
Note that each bond appears only once (since $1 \bondsign 0$ is the same bond as $0 \bondsign 1$) and the node indices start at zero.
The basis vectors for the network in Fig.~\ref{fig:framework} are saved in \texttt{basis.txt}:
\begin{verbatim}
2.732051 0.000000
0.000000 2.732051
\end{verbatim}
Coordinates, bonds, and basis vectors can be imported via Numpy. Once {\tt rigidPy}{} is imported, a \texttt{framework} can be easily constructed~\footnote{Users can find this example under \url{https://github.com/VardaHagh/Rigidpy/tree/master/notebooks/basic_example.ipynb} in the GitHub repository with additional information.}:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> import rigidpy as rp
>>> import numpy as np
>>> coordinates = np.loadtxt("./tests/data_6/coordinates.txt")
>>> bonds = np.loadtxt("./tests/data_6/bonds.txt",int)
>>> basis = np.loadtxt("./tests/data_6/basis.txt")
>>> restLengths = 1.0
>>> F = rp.framework(coordinates, bonds, basis, restLengths=restLengths)
\end{verbatim}
\note{In the example above, \texttt{framework} is created using the required arguments (coordinates, bonds, and basis) plus the optional argument, \texttt{restLengths}, which is necessary for networks with prestress.
Users can specify other network properties such as spring constants (\texttt{k}), list of pinned particles (\texttt{pins}), potential power (\texttt{power}), \textit{etc}. Note that both the spring constants and rest lengths can be specified for each bond separately}.
\note{If the network is not in mechanical equilibrium, it should be relaxed \textit{before} the \texttt{framework} is created. This can be achieved using the \texttt{configuration} module:}
\begin{verbatim}
>>> config = rp.configuration(coordinates, bonds, basis)
>>> relaxedCoordinates = config.energyMinimizeNewton(restLengths, restLengths)
>>> F = rp.framework(relaxedCoordinates, bonds, basis, restLengths=restLengths)
\end{verbatim}
\note{Note that in the definition of \texttt{F}, we have used \texttt{relaxedCoordinates} instead of \texttt{coordinates}, since these are the coordinates of the nodes after the system has been brought to a local energy minimum.}
Once \texttt{F} is defined as a \texttt{framework} object, the user has access to a set of functions to compute the rigidity matrix, the Hessians, and the elastic moduli of the network which are presented in this section. \note{In addition, one can produce a simple visualization (as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:framework}) for networks with free, periodic, and pinned boundaries using the \texttt{visualize} function:}
\begin{verbatim}
>>> F.visualize()
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Rigidity Tools}
One could easily compute the rigidity matrix, geometrical Hessian, prestress Hessian, and full Hessian matrices using the \texttt{framework} object:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> R = F.rigidityMatrix()
>>> hessianMatrixGeometric = F.hessianMatrixGeometric()
>>> hessianMatrixPrestress = F.hessianMatrixPrestress()
>>> fullHessianMatrix = F.hessianMatrix()
\end{verbatim}
\note{Note that to detect any prestress forces in the network, one should provide the rest length values when creating the \texttt{framework} object. Otherwise, {\tt rigidPy}{} assumes that the rest lengths are the same as the bond lengths, giving zero values for the prestress term in the Hessian.}
Users can also compute the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hessian matrix. For instance, to compute the first $5$ smallest eigenvalues and their corresponding eigenvectors of the full Hessian, one can use:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> eigenValues, eigenVectors = F.eigenSpace(eigvals=(0, 4))
\end{verbatim}
To compute the entire set of eigenvalues simply pass \texttt{eigvals=None}. The results are floating-point numbers and whether an eigenvalue is zero is the user's choice. Zero modes can be found by setting a threshold on the eigenvalues of the Hessian. Similarly, infinitesimal zero modes can be found by computing the eigenvalues of the \verb!hessianMatrixGeometric!. Finally, states of self-stress are computed by:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> SSS = F.selfStress()
>>> print (SSS.shape)
(12,2)
\end{verbatim}
In this particular example, there are two states of self-stress since the network has two bonds in excess of isostaticity.
\subsection{Elastic moduli}
{\tt rigidPy}{} has built-in functions to compute the bulk and \textit{pure} shear moduli of a network. Both these moduli can be computed using the \texttt{framework} object:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> B = F.bulkModulus()
>>> G = F.shearModulus()
>>> print ("bulk modulus = {:.2f}, shear modulus = {:.2f}".format(B, G))
bulk modulus = 0.35, shear modulus = 0.18
\end{verbatim}
To measure the \textit{simple} shear, one needs to provide the appropriate strain matrix (see the following example).
In general, the \texttt{elasticModulus} function within \texttt{framework} can measure an elastic modulus for any arbitrary deformation within linear regime. The strain (deformation) matrix is of the shape $(d,d)$ as given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:strainmatrix}), and the energy stored in the network due to a given deformation is computed using Eq.~(\ref{eq:energydensity}). Note that the strain matrix passed to the function is the strain matrix plus the identity matrix in $d$ dimensions.
As an example, consider a deformation consisting of an elongation along $y-$axis and a contraction along $x-$axis but with no changes along $xy$ plane. The strain matrix can be defined as:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> eps = 1e-6
>>> strainMatrix = np.array([[1-eps, 1],[1,1+eps]])
>>> print (strainMatrix)
[[0.999999 1.0]
[1.0 1.000001]]
\end{verbatim}
To compute the elastic modulus after applying this deformation on the network in Fig.~\ref{fig:framework}, one can simply use:
\begin{verbatim}
>>> em = F.elasticModulus(strainMatrix)
>>> print (em)
0.011521283842869033
\end{verbatim}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this paper, we provide an overview of the mathematical framework within which the rigidity and mechanical response of \note{central-force} systems can be studied. We then introduce a new Python library, {\tt rigidPy}{}, that includes the tools and modules necessary for computing linear response in spring networks, in addition to their elastic moduli and vibrational modes. The authors would like to continue the development process with the support of the community by adding new tools and features to the library.
Rigidity research is not limited to Hookean spring networks with central-force potentials. There are many materials and systems in which the bending energy must be included for more realistic modeling of the system~\cite{overney1993structural, kang2013molecular,rens2019rigidity}. In other cases, non-Hookean energy functions such as Hertzian potentials and density-independent models such as Vertex Model are used~\cite{o2003jamming, corwin2005structural,bi2015density}. One exciting addition to {\tt rigidPy}{} would be to include these models by adding automatic differentiation tools that can automatically differentiate arbitrary energy functions without writing explicit equations that relate the constraints to degrees of freedom~\cite{jax2018github, jaxmd2020}.
A technical limitation of the current implementation is that matrices are represented as dense arrays which limit {\tt rigidPy}{}'s scalability (we have successfully tested our implementation with system sizes of up to $\mathcal{O}$($10^3-10^4$) particles). However, for short-range energy functions, both the Hessian and rigidity matrices are very sparse. The support for sparse representation is another feature that the authors would like to add to {\tt rigidPy}{}, in the hope that it will make the package more suitable for larger system sizes.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work has been supported by National Science Foundation under grant DMS 1564468 (MS and VFH) and by Simons Foundation via award 348126 (VFH).
|
\section{Introduction} \label{introduction}
Machine translation has flourished ever since
the first computer was made
\citep{hirschberg2015advances, popel2020transforming}.
Over the years, human translation is assisted by machine
translation to
remove human bias and translation
capacity limitations
\citep{koehn2009interactive, li2014comparison, savoldi2021gender, bowker2002computer, bowker2010computer, koehn2009process}.
By learning human translation taxonomy
and post-editing styles,
machine translation borrows many ideas
from human translation to improve performance
through active learning
\citep{settles2012active, carl2011taxonomy, denkowski2015machine}.
We propose a workflow to bring human
translation and machine translation to work together
seamlessly in translation of a closed text
into a severely low resource language as shown in
Figure \ref{fig:hmt_algo} and Algorithm \ref{algo:proposedtrans}.
Given a closed text that has many existing
translations in different languages, we are
interested in translating it into a severely
low resource language well.
Researchers recently have shown achievements
in translation using
very small seed parallel
corpora in low resource languages
\citep{lin2020pre, qi2018and, zhong2018massively}.
Construction methods of such seed corpora
are therefore pivotal in translation performance.
Historically, this is
mostly determined by field linguists'
experiential and intuitive discretion.
Many human translators
employ a portion-based strategy when translating large texts.
For example, translation of the book ``The Little Prince''
may be divided into smaller tasks
of translating 27 chapters, or
even smaller translation units like a few consecutive pages.
Each translation unit contains
consecutive sentences.
Consequently, machine translation often uses
seed corpora that are chosen based on human
translators' preferences, but may not be optimal
for machine translation.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{hmt.png}
\caption{Proposed joint human machine translation sequence for a given closed text. }
\label{fig:hmt_algo}
\end{figure*}
\begin{algorithm*}[t]
\small
\KwIn{A text of $N$ lines consisting multiple books/portions, parallel in $L$ source languages}
\KwOut{A full translation in the target low resource language, $l'$}
0. Initialize translation size, $n = 0$, vocabulary size, $v = 0$, vocabulary update size, $\triangle v = 0$ \;
1. Randomly sample $S$ ($\sim$1,000) sentences with vocabulary size $v_S$ for human translators to produce the seed corpus, update $n = S$, $v = v_S$ \;
2. Rank and pick a family of close-by languages by linguistic, distortion or performance metric \;
\While{$n < N$} {
\If{$\triangle v > 0 $ } {
3. Pretrain on the full texts of neighboring languages \;
}
4. Train on the $n$ sentences of all languages in multi-source multi-target configuration \;
5. Train on the $n$ sentences of all languages in multi-source single-target configuration \;
6. Combine translations from all source languages using the centeredness measure \;
7. Review all books/portions of the translation draft \;
8. Pick a book/portion with $n'$ lines and $v'$ more vocabulary \;
9. Complete human post-editing of the portion chosen, $v = v + v'$, $n = n + n'$, $\triangle v = v'$ \;
}
return full translation co-produced by human (Step 1, 7-9) and machine (Step 0, 2-6) translation \;
\caption{Proposed joint human machine translation sequence for a given closed text.}
\label{algo:proposedtrans}
\end{algorithm*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{p{3.4cm}p{3.2cm}p{0.9cm}p{0.9cm}p{0.9cm}p{0.9cm}}
\toprul
Book & Author & Books & Chapters & Pages & Languages\\
\midrule
The Bible & Multiple & 66 & 1,189 & 1,281 & 689 \\
The Little Prince & Antoine de Saint Exupéry & 1 & 27 & 96 & 382 \\
Dao De Jing & Laozi & 1 & 81 & $\sim$10 & $>$250 \\
COVID-19 Wiki Page & Multiple & 1 & 1 & $\sim$50 & 155 \\
The Alchemist & Paulo Coelho & 1 & 2 & 163 & 70\\
Harry Potter & J. K. Rowling & 7 & 199 & 3,407 & 60\\
The Lord of the Rings & J. R. R. Tolkien & 6 & 62 & 1,037 & 57\\
Frozen Movie Script & Jennifer Lee & 1 & 112 & $\sim$40 & 41\\
The Hand Washing Song & Multiple & 1 & 1 & 1 & 28\\
Dream of the Red Chamber & Xueqin Cao & 2 & 120 & 2500 & 23\\
Les Misérables & Victor Hugo & 68 & 365 & 1,462 & 21\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx} }
\caption{Examples of different texts with the
number of languages translated to date \citep{unesco1932world, mayer2014creating, de2019principito, zi1993dao, covid19wiki, coelho2014alchemist, rowling2019harry, tolkien2012lord, jennifer2013frozen, thampi2020s, xueqin2011dream, hugo1863miserables}.}
\label{table:exbooks}
\end{table*}
We propose to use a random sampling approach
to build seed corpora when resources are extremely
limited. In other words, when field linguists have
limited time and resources, which lines would be
given priority? Given a closed text, we propose
that it would beneficial if field linguists translate
randomly sampled $\sim$1,000 lines first, getting the first
machine translated draft of the whole text, and then
post-edit to obtain final translation of each portion
iteratively as shown in Algorithm \ref{algo:proposedtrans}.
We recognize that the portion-based translation is very helpful in
producing quality translation with
formality, cohesion and contextual relevance.
Thus, our proposed way is not to
replace the portion-based approach, but instead,
to get the best of both worlds and
to expedite the translation process as shown in
Figure \ref{fig:hmt_algo}.
The main difference of the two approaches is that
the portion-based approach focuses on preserving
coherence of the text locally, while the random-sampling
approach focuses on increasing coverage of the text
globally. Our results show that the random
sampling approach performs better.
When training on a seed corpus of $\sim$1,000 lines
from the Bible and testing on the rest of the Bible
($\sim$30,000 lines), random sampling beats
the portion-based approach by +8.5 BLEU using
English as a simulated low resource language training on
a family of languages built on the distortion measure, and by
+1.9 using a Mayan language, Eastern Pokomchi, training
on a family of languages based on the linguistic definition.
Using random sampling, machine translation
is able to produce a high-quality first draft of the whole
text that expedites the subsequent iterations of translation efforts.
Moreover, we compare three different ways of incorporating
incremental post-edited data during
the translation process. We find that
self-supervision using the whole translation draft
affects performance
adversely, and is best to be avoided. We also show that adding
the newly post-edited text to
training with vocabulary update performs the best.
\section{Related Works} \label{relatedwork}
\subsection{Human Translation and Machine Translation}
Machine translation began about the same time as the first
computer \citep{hirschberg2015advances, popel2020transforming}.
Over the years,
human translators have different
reactions to machine translation advances,
mixed with doubt or fear \citep{hutchins2001machine}.
Some researchers study human translation taxonomy
for machine to better assist human
translation and post-editing efforts \citep{carl2011taxonomy, denkowski2015machine}.
Human translators benefit from machine assistance
as human individual bias and translation capacity limitations
are compensated for by large-scale
machine translation
\citep{koehn2009interactive, li2014comparison, savoldi2021gender, bowker2002computer, bowker2010computer, koehn2009process}.
On the other hand, machine translation
benefits from professional human translators'
context-relevant and culturally-appropriate
translation and post-editing efforts \citep{hutchins2001machine}.
Severely low resource translation is a fitting ground for
close human machine collaboration
\citep{zong2018research, carl2011taxonomy, martinez2003human}.
\subsection{Severely Low Resource Text-based Translation}
Many use multiple rich-resource
languages to translate to a low resource language
using multilingual methods
\citep{johnson2017google, ha2016toward, firat2016multi, zoph2016multi, zoph2016transfer, adams2017cross, gillick2016multilingual, zhong2018massively, zhou2018paraphrases}.
Some use data selection for active learning
\citep{eck2005low}. Some use
as few as $\sim$4,000 lines \citep{lin2020pre, qi2018and}
and $\sim$1,000 lines \citep{zhou2021family} of data.
Some do not use low resource data \citep{neubig2018rapid, karakanta2018neural}.
\subsection{Active Learning and Random Sampling}
Active learning has long been used
in machine translation
\citep{settles2012active, ambati2012active, eck2005low, haffari2009active, gonzalez2012active, miura2016selecting, gangadharaiah2009active}.
Random sampling and data selection
has been successful
\citep{kendall1938randomness, knuth19913, clarkson1989applications, sennrich2015improving, hoang2018iterative, he2016dual, gu2018meta}.
The mathematician Donald Knuth uses the population
of Menlo Park to illustrate the value of random sampling
\citep{knuth19913}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{p{1.1cm}p{0.4cm}p{0.65cm}|p{0.4cm}p{0.6cm}|
p{1.1cm}p{0.4cm}p{0.65cm}|p{0.4cm}p{0.6cm}|
p{1.1cm}p{0.4cm}p{0.65cm}|p{0.4cm}p{0.6cm}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{15}{c}{Input Language Family} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{5}{c|}{By Linguistics} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{By Distortion} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{By Performance} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textit{FAMO$^+$}} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textit{FAMD}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textit{FAMP}} \\
\midrule
Training & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Luke}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Rand}} &
Training & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Luke}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Rand}} &
Training & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Luke}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textit{Rand}} \\
\midrule
Testing & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} &
Testing & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} &
Testing & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} \\
\midrule
Combined & 37.9 & 21.9 & 42.8 & 28.6 &
Combined & 38.6 & 22.9 & 44.8 & 31.4 &
Combined & 40.2 & 23.7 & 44.6 & 30.6 \\
\midrule
German & 35.6 & 20.0 & 40.8 & 26.5 &
German & 37.0 & 20.8 & 42.7 & 28.8 &
German & 38.0 & 21.3 & 41.6 & 28.2\\
Danish & 36.7 & 19.0 & 38.2 & 25.9 &
Danish & 37.3 & 19.6 & 39.5 & 28.0 &
Danish & 38.4 & 19.9 & 39.2 & 27.5 \\
Dutch & 36.4 & 20.4 & 39.7 & 27.2 &
Dutch & 36.4 & 21.1 & 41.9 & 29.6 &
Dutch & 37.5 & 21.6 & 41.6 & 28.9 \\
Norwegian & 36.5 & 20.2 & 40.0 & 26.9 &
Norwegian & 37.2 & 20.8 & 41.4 & 29.1 &
Norwegian & 37.5 & 21.1 & 41.0 & 28.4 \\
Swedish & 34.9 & 19.7 & 39.9 & 26.2 &
Afrikaans & 38.3 & 22.2 & 42.8 & 30.5 &
Afrikaans & 39.5 & 22.9 & 42.3 & 29.8 \\
Spanish & 36.8 & 21.5 & 39.8 & 27.6 &
Marshallese & 35.1 & 21.6 & 41.4 & 28.8 &
Spanish & 38.7 & 22.9 & 41.9 & 29.0 \\
French & 36.0 & 19.7 & 39.6 & 26.1 &
French & 36.2 & 20.3 & 41.1 & 28.3 &
French & 37.3 & 20.7 & 40.5 & 27.5 \\
Italian & 36.7 & 20.6 & 38.4 & 26.9 &
Italian & 37.3 & 21.0 & 40.6 & 29.1 &
Italian & 38.6 & 21.8 & 39.9 & 28.5 \\
Portuguese & 32.4 & 15.8 & 30.1 & 21.3 &
Portuguese & 33.2 & 16.5 & 33.6 & 24.0 &
Portuguese & 33.7 & 16.3 & 33.1 & 22.9 \\
Romanian & 34.9 & 19.3 & 37.1 & 26.0 &
Frisian & 36.4 & 21.6 & 43.0 & 29.8 &
Frisian & 37.8 & 22.3 & 42.2 & 29.1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Performance training on 1,093 lines of Eastern Pokomchi data on \textit{FAMO$^+$}, \textit{FAMD} and \textit{FAMP}. We train using the portion-based approach in \textit{Luke}, and using random sampling in \textit{Rand}. During testing, \textit{Best} is the book with highest BLEU score, and \textit{All} is the performance on $\sim$29,000 lines of test data \textsuperscript{\ref{fn1}}.}
\label{table:enRandCompare}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{p{1.1cm}p{0.4cm}p{0.65cm}|p{0.4cm}p{0.6cm}|
p{1.1cm}p{0.4cm}p{0.65cm}|p{0.4cm}p{0.6cm}|
p{1.1cm}p{0.4cm}p{0.65cm}|p{0.4cm}p{0.6cm}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{15}{c}{Input Language Family} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{5}{c|}{By Linguistics} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{By Distortion} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{By Performance} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textit{FAMO$^+$}} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textit{FAMD}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textit{FAMP}} \\
\midrule
Training & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Luke}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Rand}} &
Training & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Luke}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Rand}} &
Training & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{Luke}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textit{Rand}} \\
\midrule
Testing & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} &
Testing & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} &
Testing & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} & \textit{Best} & \textit{All} \\
\midrule
Combined & 23.1 & 8.6 & 19.7 & 10.5 &
Combined & 23.3 & 8.5 & 17.7 & 9.5 &
Combined & 22.4 & 7.2 & 15.8 & 7.8 \\
\midrule
Chuj & 21.8 & 7.9 & 16.5 & 9.8 &
Chuj & 22.0 & 7.9 & 15.4 & 8.9 &
Chuj & 21.8 & 7.0 & 13.2 & 7.3 \\
Cakchiquel & 22.3 & 7.9 & 18.2 & 9.9 &
Cakchiquel & 22.4 & 7.9 & 17.3 & 9.1 &
Cakchiquel & 21.2 & 6.9 & 14.8 & 7.4 \\
Guajajara & 19.9 & 7.1 & 14.7 & 8.9 &
Guajajara & 19.2 & 6.9 & 14.2 & 8.2 &
Guajajara & 18.9 & 5.9 & 10.6 & 6.6 \\
Mam & 22.2 & 8.6 & 19.7 & 10.6 &
Russian & 22.2 & 7.3 & 13.7 & 8.5 &
Mam & 21.9 & 7.5 & 17.1 & 8.0 \\
Kanjobal & 21.8 & 8.1 & 17.5 & 10.0 &
Toba & 22.0 & 8.3 & 16.8 & 9.4 &
Kanjobal & 21.6 & 7.1 & 13.8 & 7.6 \\
Cuzco & 22.4 & 7.8 & 17.7 & 9.8 &
Myanmar & 19.2 & 5.3 & 10.7 & 6.5 &
Thai & 21.9 & 6.3 & 10.5 & 7.0 \\
Ayacucho & 21.6 & 7.6 & 18.5 & 9.7 &
Slovenský & 22.2 & 7.5 & 13.5 & 8.7 &
Dadibi & 19.9 & 6.2 & 15.3 & 6.9 \\
Bolivian & 22.3 & 7.8 & 17.4 & 9.8 &
Latin & 22.0 & 7.8 & 14.8 & 9.0 &
Gumatj & 19.2 & 3.8 & 8.9 & 3.3 \\
Huallaga & 22.2 & 7.7 & 18.0 & 9.7 &
Ilokano & 22.6 & 8.4 & 17.8 & 9.4 &
Navajo & 21.4 & 6.5 & 13.5 & 7.3 \\
Aymara & 21.5 & 7.5 & 18.6 & 9.6 &
Norwegian & 22.6 & 8.3 & 16.7 & 9.4 &
Kim & 21.6 & 7.0 & 13.9 & 7.5 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Performance training on 1,086 lines of Eastern Pokomchi data on \textit{FAMO$^+$}, \textit{FAMD} and \textit{FAMP}. We train using the portion-based approach in \textit{Luke}, and using random sampling in \textit{Rand}. During testing, \textit{Best} is the book with highest BLEU score, and \textit{All} is the performance on $\sim$29,000 lines of test data \textsuperscript{\ref{fn1}}.}
\label{table:phRandCompare}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{p{1.8cm}p{1.9cm}p{2.7cm}p{2.3cm}p{2.3cm}}
\toprule
Source & \textit{Seed} & \textit{Self-Supervised} & \textit{Old-Vocab} & \textit{Updated-Vocab} \\
\midrule
Combined & 30.8 & 24.4 (-6.4) & 32.1 (+1.3) & 32.4 (+1.6) \\
\midrule
Danish & 27.7 & 21.6 (-6.1) & 28.8 (+1.1) & 29.2 (+1.5) \\
Norwegian & 28.6 & 22.5 (-6.1) & 29.8 (+1.2) & 30.2 (+1.6) \\
Italian & 28.7 & 22.3 (-6.4) & 29.8 (+1.1) & 30.2 (+1.5) \\
Afrikaans & 30.1 & 23.8 (-6.3) & 31.4 (+1.3) & 31.6 (+1.5) \\
Dutch & 29.2 & 22.9 (-6.3) & 30.3 (+1.1) & 30.6 (+1.4) \\
Portuguese & 23.8 & 18.3 (-5.5) & 24.6 (+0.8) & 25.0 (+1.2) \\
French & 27.8 & 21.7 (-6.1) & 28.9 (+1.1) & 29.4 (+1.6) \\
German & 28.4 & 22.4 (-6.0) & 29.5 (+1.1) & 29.9 (+1.5) \\
Marshallese & 28.4 & 22.4 (-6.0) & 29.5 (+1.1) & 29.9 (+1.5) \\
Frisian & 29.3 & 23.2 (-6.1) & 30.4 (+1.1) & 30.8 (+1.5) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Comparing three ways of adding the newly post-edited book of 1 Chronicles \textsuperscript{\ref{fn1}}. \textit{Seed} is the baseline of training on the seed corpus alone, \textit{Old-Vocab} skips the vocabulary update while \textit{Updated-Vocab} has vocabulary update. \textit{Self-Supervised} adds the complete translation draft in addition to the new book.
}
\label{table:1chron}
\end{table}
\iffalse
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{p{0.4cm}p{1.8cm}p{1.3cm}p{1.3cm} | p{0.4cm}p{1.8cm}p{1.3cm}p{1.3cm} }
\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{English} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Eastern Pokomchi}\\
\midrule
Index & Book & BLEU & Lines & Index & Book & BLEU & Lines \\
\midrule
13 & 1 Chronicles & 49.6 & 900 & 13 & 1 Chronicles & 24.4 & 900 \\
12 & 2 Kings & 42.1 & 684 & 17 & Esther & 18.5 & 157 \\
15 & Ezra & 41.9 & 266 & 32 & Jonah & 18.5 & 46 \\
7 & Judges & 41.4 & 600 & 15 & Ezra & 17.1 & 266 \\
16 & Nehemiah & 41.0 & 382 & 12 & 2 Kings & 16.7 & 684\\
25 & Lamentations & 40.3 & 151 & 7 & Judges & 16.5 & 600\\
8 & Ruth & 39.8 & 84 & 29 & Joel & 16.3 & 68 \\
14 & 2 Chronicles & 39.7 & 787 & 4 & Numbers & 16.2 & 1238 \\
1 & Genesis & 39.5 & 1472 & 16 & Nehemiah & 16.1 & 382 \\
62 & 1 John & 39.5 & 98 & 14 & 2 Chronicles & 15.8 & 787 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Top 10 books by performance of iterative pretraining
and testing on the 66 books of the Bible (excluding training
and validation data): training on 1,093 lines of English
randomly sampled FAMD data on the left and
training on 1,086 lines of Eastern Pokomchi
randomly sampled FAMO$^+$ data on the right. }
\label{table:top10famdfamo}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{p{0.4cm}p{2.3cm}p{1.3cm}p{1.3cm}p{1.3cm}p{1.3cm}p{1.3cm}p{1.3cm}}
\toprule
Index & Book & \textit{Seed} & \textit{11} & \textit{22} & \textit{33} & \textit{44} & \textit{55}\\
\midrule
- & Whole Text & 33.9 & 48.9 & 62.5 & 71.3 & 79.1 & 86.7 \\
\midrule
21 & Ecclesiastes & 22.6 & 24.3 & 25.6 & 25.4 & 99.7 & 99.8 \\
59 & James & 22.0 & 24.8 & 26.7 & 28.7 & 28.3 & 30.1 \\
47 & 2 Corinthians & 21.9 & 23.8 & 25.9 & 46.8 & 48.2 & 48.7\\
56 & Titus &21.9 & 24.9 & 23.6 & 27.5 & 30.5 & 32.7 \\
35 & Habakkuk & 20.8 & 22.7 & 24.0 & 67.9 & 67.6 & 67.7\\
63 & 2 John & 19.7 & 21.0 & 25.5 & 85.8 & 85.6 & 86.9\\
58 & Hebrews & 19.3 & 21.7 & 24.4 & 24.1 & 25.8 & 26.0 \\
22 & Song of Solomon & 19.2 & 21.5 & 22.2 & 23.4 & 99.2 & 99.2\\
60 & 1 Peter & 17.9 & 19.0 & 50.5 & 50.9 & 52.0 & 53.0 \\
64 & 3 John & 16.8 & 18.7 & 18.2 & 97.4 & 97.4 & 97.7\\
57 & Philemon & 16.6 & 21.6 & 23.1 & 22.6 & 26.6 & 28.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Performance on the most difficult 11 books VS number of books in training.
\textit{seed} is the experiment training on 1,093 lines of English
randomly sampled FAMD data. }
\label{table:curve_en_hmt}
\end{table}
\fi
\section{Methodology}\label{method}
We train our models using a state-of-the-art multilingual transformer
by adding language labels to each source sentence
\citep{johnson2017google, ha2016toward, zhong2018massively, zhou2018paraphrases}.
We borrow the order-preserving named entity translation
method by replacing each named entity with \texttt{\_\_NE}s
\citep{zhou2018paraphrases} using a multilingual
lexicon table that covers 124 source languages and 2,939
named entities \citep{zhou2021family}. For example, the sentence ``Somchai calls Juan''
is transformed to ``\texttt{\_\_opt\_src\_en \_\_opt\_tgt\_ca} \texttt{\_\_NE0} calls \texttt{\_\_NE1}''
to translate to Chuj.
We use families of close-by languages constructed by
ranking 124 source languages by distortion measure (\textit{FAMD}),
performance measure (\textit{FAMP})
and linguistic family (\textit{FAMO$^+$});
the distortion measure ranks languages by decreasing probability
of zero distortion, while the performance measure incorporates
an additional probability of fertility equalling one \citep{zhou2021family}.
Using families constructed, we pretrain our model first
on the whole text of nearby languages,
then we train on the $\sim$1,000 lines
of low resource data and the corresponding lines in other languages
in a multi-source multi-target fashion.
We finally train on the $\sim$1,000 lines in a multi-source single-target
fashion \citep{zhou2021family}.
We combine translations
of all source languages into one. Let all $N$ translations
be $t_i, i = 1, \ldots, N$ and let similarity
between translations $t_i$ and $t_j$ be $S_{ij}$.
We rank all translations according to how
centered it is with respect to other sentences by
summing all its similarities to the rest through $\sum_j S_{ij}$ for $i = 1, \ldots, N$.
We take the most centered translation
for every sentence, $\max_i \sum_j S_{ij}$, to build the combined
translation output. The expectation of the combined score is higher than that
of any of the source languages \citep{zhou2021family}.
Our work differs from the past research in that we put
low resource translation into the broad collaborative
scheme of human machine translation.
We compare the portion-based approach with
the random sampling approach in building seed corpora.
We also compare three methods of updating models with
increasing amount of human post-edited data.
We add the newly post-edited data to training in three ways:
with vocabulary update,
without vocabulary update,
or incorporating the whole translation draft in a
self-supervised fashion additionally.
For best performance,
we build the seed corpus by random sampling,
update vocabulary iteratively,
and add newly post-edited data to
training without self-supervision.
We also have a larger test set,
we test on $\sim$30,000 lines rather than
$\sim$678 lines from existing research \textsuperscript{\ref{fn1}}.
We propose a joint human machine translation
workflow in Algorithm \ref{algo:proposedtrans}.
After pretraining on neighboring languages in Step 3,
we iteratively train on the randomly sampled
seed corpus of low resource data in Step 4 and 5.
The reason we include both Step 4 and 5 in our algorithm
is because training both steps iteratively performs
better than training either one \citep{zhou2021family}.
Our model produces a translation draft of the whole text.
Since the portion-based approach has the advantage
with formality, cohesion and contextual relevance, human
translators may pick and post-edit portion-by-portion iteratively.
The newly post-edited data with updated vocabulary is added to
the machine translation models without self-supervision.
In this way, machine translation systems
rely on quality parallel corpora that are incrementally produced
by human translators.
Human translators lean on machine
translation for quality translation draft to expedite translation.
This creates a synergistic collaboration between
human and machine.
\section{Data}\label{data}
We work on the Bible in 124 source languages \citep{mayer2014creating}, and
have experiments for English, a simulated
language, and Eastern Pokomchi, a Mayan language.
We train on $\sim$1,000 lines of low resource data and on full texts for all
the other languages.
We aim to translate the
rest of the text ($\sim$30,000 lines) into the low resource language.
In pretraining, we use
80\%, 10\%, 10\% split for training, validation
and testing. In training, we
use 3.3\%, 0.2\%, 96.5\% split for training, validation
and testing. Our test size is >29 times of the training size \textsuperscript{\ref{fn1}}.
We use the book "Luke" for the portion-based approach as suggested by many
human translators.
Training on $\sim$100 million parameters with Geforce RTX 2080 Ti,
we employ a 6-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder with
512 hidden states, 8 attention heads,
512 word vector size, 2,048 hidden units,
6,000 batch size, 0.1 label smoothing,
2.5 learning rate, 0.1 dropout and attention dropout,
an early stopping patience of 5 after 190,000 steps,
``BLEU'' validation metric,
``adam'' optimizer and ``noam'' decay method \citep{klein2017opennmt, papineni2002bleu}. We increase
patience to 25 for larger data in the second stage of training in Figure
\ref{fig:curve_en_hmt} and \ref{fig:curve_ph_hmt}.
\section{Results}\label{results}
We observe that random sampling performs
better than the portion-based approach.
In Table \ref{table:enRandCompare} and \ref{table:phRandCompare},
random sampling gives a performance gain of +8.5
for English on FAMD and +1.9 for Eastern Pokomchi on FAMO$^+$ \footnote{
\label{fn1}
Previously, we test on $\sim$30,000 lines excluding
the $\sim$1,000 lines of training and validation data. In this version of our paper,
we test on the intersection of different test sets.
In Table \ref{table:enRandCompare} and \ref{table:phRandCompare}, we test
on $\sim$29,000 lines of data of the Bible excluding both the book of Luke
and the randomly sampled $\sim$1,000 lines. In Table~\ref{table:1chron}, we
evaluate on $\sim$29,000 lines of data of the Bible excluding both
the randomly sampled $\sim$1,000 lines and the book of 1 Chronicles.
}.
The performance gain for
Eastern Pokomchi may be lower because Mayan languages are
morphologically rich, complex, isolated and opaque
\citep{aissen2017mayan, clemens2015ergativity, england2011grammar}.
English is closely related to many languages due to
colonization and globalization even though it is
artificially constrained in size \citep{bird2020decolonising}.
This may explain why Eastern Pokomchi
benefits less.
To simulate human translation efforts in Step 7 and 8 in Algorithm
\ref{algo:proposedtrans}, we rank 66 books of the Bible
by BLEU scores on English's FAMD and Eastern
Pokomchi's FAMO$^+$. We assume that BLEU ranking is available
to us to simulate human judgment.
In reality, this step is realized by human translators
skimming through the translation draft and comparing performances
of different books by intuition and experience.
In Section \ref{conclusion},
we will discuss the limitation of this assumption.
Performance ranking of the simulated
low resource language may differ from that of the
actual low resource language.
But the top few may coincide
because of the nature of the text, independent of the language.
In our results, we observe that narrative books performs better than
philosophical or poetic books. The book of 1 Chronicles
performs best for both English and Eastern Pokomchi with random sampling.
A possible explanation is
that the book of 1 Chronicles is mainly narrative,
and contains many named
entities that are translated well by the
order-preserving lexiconized model.
We included the BLEU scores of the
best-performing book in Table \ref{table:enRandCompare} and \ref{table:phRandCompare}.
Note that only scores of ``All'' are comparable across experiments
trained on the book of Luke with those trained by
random sampling as they evaluate on the same set \textsuperscript{\ref{fn1}}.
For the best-performing book, it is the book of 1 Chronicles for random sampling,
and the book of Mark or the book of Matthew for experiments trained on the book of Luke.
Thus, we cannot compare BLEU scores for the best-performing books across experiments.
We include them in the tables to show the quality of the translation draft human translators will
work on if they proceed to translate the best-performing book.
In Table \ref{table:1chron}, we compare
three different ways of
updating the machine translation models by
adding a newly post-edited book that
human translators produced.
We call the baseline without addition of the new book \textit{Seed}.
\textit{Updated-Vocab} adds the new book to
training with updated vocabulary
while \textit{Old-Vocab} skips the vocabulary update.
\textit{Self-Supervised} adds the whole translation draft
of $\sim$30,000 lines to pretraining in addition to the new
book. Self-supervision refers to using the small seed corpus to translate
the rest of the text which is subsequently used to train the model.
We observe that the \textit{Self-Supervised} performs the
worst among the three. Indeed, \textit{Self-Supervised} performs even
worse than the baseline \textit{Seed}.
This shows that quality is much more important than
quantity in severely low resource translation. It is better
for us not to add the whole translation draft to the
pretraining as it affects performance adversely.
On the other hand, we see that both \textit{Updated-Vocab} and
\textit{Old-Vocab} performs better than \textit{Seed} and
\textit{Self-Supervised}.
\textit{Updated-Vocab}'s performance is better than
\textit{Old-Vocab}. An explanation could be that \textit{Updated-Vocab}
has more expressive power with updated vocabulary.
Therefore, in our proposed algorithm,
we prefers vocabulary update in each iteration. If
the vocabulary has not increased, we may skip
pretraining to expedite the process.
We show how the algorithm is put into practice for English and Eastern Pokomchi
in Figure \ref{fig:curve_en_hmt} and \ref{fig:curve_ph_hmt}.
We take the worst-performing 11 books as the held-out test set,
and divide the other 55 books of the Bible into 5 portions.
Each portion contains 11 books. We translate
the text by using the randomly sampled $\sim$1,000 lines of seed corpus
first, and then proceed with human machine translation
in Algorithm \ref{algo:proposedtrans}
in 5 iterations with increasing number of post-edited portions.
For English, we observe that philosophical books like ``Proverbs'' and poetry books like
``Song of Solomon'' perform very badly in the beginning, but begin to achieve
above 20 BLEU scores after adding 11 books of training data.
This reinforces our earlier result that $\sim$20\% of the text
is sufficient for achieving high-quality translation \citep{zhong2018massively}.
However, some books like ``Titus'' remains
difficult to translate even after adding 33 books of training data. This shows
that adding data may benefit some books more than the others.
A possible explanation is that there are
multiple authors of the Bible, and books differ from each other
in style and content. Some books are closely related to each other, and may
benefit from translations of other books. But some may be
very different and benefit much less.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{curve_en.png}
\caption{English}
\label{fig:curve_en_hmt}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{curve_ph.png}
\caption{Eastern Pokomchi}
\label{fig:curve_ph_hmt}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Performance of the most difficult 11 books with increasing number of training books.}
\end{figure*}
For Eastern Pokomchi, though the performance
of the most difficult 11 books never reach
BLEU score of 20s like that of English experiments,
all books have BLEU scores that are steadily
increasing. Challenges remain for Eastern Pokomchi,
a Resource 0 language \citep{joshi2020state}. We hope to
work with native Mayan speakers to see ways we may improve the
results.
\section{Conclusion}\label{conclusion}
We propose to use random sampling to build
seed parallel corpora instead of using
the portion-based approach
in severely low resource settings. Training on $\sim$1,000 lines,
the random sampling approach outperforms
the portion-based approach by +8.5
for English's FAMD, and by +1.9
for Eastern Pokomchi's FAMO$^+$.
We also compare three different ways
of updating the machine translation models by
adding newly post-edited data iteratively.
We find that vocabulary update is necessary, but
self-supervision by pretraining with whole translation draft
is best to be avoided.
One limitation of our work is that in real life scenarios, we do not have the reference
text in low resource languages to
produce the BLEU scores to decide the
post-editing order. Consequently, field linguists
need to skim through and decide the post-editing order
based on intuition. However, computational models
can still help. One potential way to tackle it
is that we can train on $\sim$1,000 lines from
another language with available text and
test on the 66 books. Since our results show that
the literary genre plays important role in the performance ranking,
it would be reasonable to determine the order
using a ``held-out language'' and then using that
to determine order in the target low resource language.
In the future, we
would like to work with human translators who understand and speak
low resource languages.
Another concern human translators may have is the creation
of randomly sampled seed corpora. To gauge the amount of interest
or inertia, we have interviewed some
human translators and many are interested. However,
it is unclear whether human translation quality of randomly sampled data
differs from that of the traditional portion-based approach.
We hope to work with human translators closely to determine whether the translation
quality difference is manageable.
We are also curious how our model will perform with
large literary works like ``Lord of the Rings'' and "Les Misérables".
We would like to see whether it will translate well
with philosophical depth and literary complexity. However,
these books often have copyright
issues and are not as easily available as the Bible data.
We are interested in collaboration with teams who have multilingual
data for large texts, especially multilingual COVID-19 data.
\pagebreak
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}
Understanding the 3D world is a fundamental problem in computer vision. One of its central challenges is how to represent and recognize objects in the 3D space. Recently, many view-based methods~\cite{chen2020learning,emv,hypergraph,gvcnn,n_gram,deepccfv,rotationnet,mvcnn,mvcnn_new,dscnn,view-gcn,relationnet,mhbn} were proposed to recognize 3D shape with multi-view 2D images based on the aggregation of features learned by deep neural networks. Leveraging advances in 2D image descriptors (\eg~\cite{resnet}) and massive image databases~\cite{imagenet}, they are among the state-of-the-art methods for 3D shape recognition.
However, most of these methods~\cite{chen2020learning,emv,hypergraph,gvcnn,n_gram,rotationnet,mvcnn,mvcnn_new,dscnn,view-gcn,relationnet,mhbn} focus on settings with a pre-defined camera setup where the same set of viewpoints are used for every object, \eg, Fig.~\ref{fig:first}(a).
In practical applications, 3D objects are often observed from arbitrary views without knowing their precise camera positions.
In this work, we aim to tackle 3D shape recognition with arbitrary views. The setting can be defined as follows.
(i) Views are taken from arbitrary viewpoints for each object. (ii) Objects have varying numbers of observation views, \eg, Fig.~\ref{fig:first}(b).
\begin{figure}
\label{fig:first}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{assets/fig1.pdf}
\caption{This paper addresses 3D shape recognition with arbitrary views as shown in (b), which is more challenging and realistic than the fixed-viewpoint setting in (a). As shown in (c), given an arbitrary number of unaligned view images, our method learns canonical view features of a 3D shape aligned to a fixed number of learnable reference view features using optimal transport.}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
Compared with the fixed-viewpoint setup, 3D shape recognition faces new challenges brought by the unaligned inputs from arbitrary views.
It is difficult to robustly aggregate features of structurally unaligned views. Moreover, representations learned from a typical neural network are also mutually-unaligned in the feature space,
where feature aggregation could result in a loss of discriminability.
To tackle these challenges, an intuitive motivation is to recover the inherent alignment for the arbitrary views. Specifically, if we find a link between the unaligned features from arbitrary views and a set of virtual reference views for observing an object, we can transform the features into aligned representations for the subsequent aggregation.
Driven by this motivation, we design a novel canonical view representation for 3D shape recognition with arbitrary views. Specifically, the input arbitrary views of each 3D shape are first processed by an image-level feature encoder consisting of a CNN and a Transformer encoder~\cite{attention}. Then these features of arbitrary views are transformed into canonical view features aligned to a fixed number of learned reference view features. The transformation mapping is derived by the optimal transport~\cite{Sinkhorn2013,ROT1,OT_old}. To ensure that the canonical view features are distinct, we require that the canonical view features can be embedded into a Euclidean space (\eg, $\mathbb{R}^3$) with mutually distant coordinates. In this way, each 3D shape is represented by a fixed number of features over the reference views in the feature space, resulting in the canonical representation of each 3D shape. The aligned canonical view features added with spatial embeddings are further encoded and aggregated to generate a discriminative global representation of the 3D shape.
Our main contributions can be summarized as follows.
We tackle the challenge of 3D object recognition with arbitrary views by introducing a novel canonical view representation, which recovers the inherent mutual-alignment features among arbitrary views and produces a rich representation of the 3D shape.
We further propose a canonical view feature separation loss to ensure feature separability, which improves the discriminability and robustness of the final representation. We conduct experiments on CAD, scanned model and real-world image datasets including ModelNet40~\cite{modelnet}, ScanObjectNN~\cite{scanobjectnn} and RGBD~\cite{rgbd} dataset. The results show that our approach significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art methods under the challenging setting of 3D shape recognition with arbitrary views.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{assets/overview_v7_cropped.pdf}
\caption{Overview of our approach. The network consists of three components, i.e., Image-level Feature Encoder (ILFE), Canonical View Representation (CVR), and Canonical View Aggregator (CVA). Images from $N$ arbitrary views are first encoded by the ILFE, then the original unaligned features $F^o=\{f^o_i\}_{i=1}^N$ are transformed into a fixed number $M$ of canonical view features $F^c=\{f^c_i\}_{i=1}^M$ aligned to the
learned reference view features $Z=\{z_i\}_{i=1}^M$.
Optimal transport is performed between $F^o$ and $Z$ to obtain the canonical view features $F^c$, while a novel Canonical View Feature Separation Loss (CVFSL) ensures canonical view features $F^c$ to be distinct and separable.
The CVA with spatial embeddings further explores the inter-viewpoint relationship and aggregates the canonical view features. *Robust Euclidean Embedding~(REE) is used to visualize $Z$ in an example 3D space.}
\label{fig:main}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{3D shape recognition with multi-view images}
View-based methods in 3D shape recognition have proved to be effective while only requiring 2D input images observed from different viewpoints. The key challenge of the view-based methods is how to effectively aggregate the features of multiples views to generate the shape descriptor.
MVCNN~\cite{mvcnn} is a framework that aggregates multi-view features with max-pooling, achieving superior performance against methods directly working on 3D inputs. Multi-view feature aggregation is further explored in GVCNN~\cite{gvcnn} where the view features are grouped to obtain more informative representation. Similarly, view-GCN~\cite{view-gcn} uses Graph Convolutional Neural Network to model the relations among different viewpoints to hierarchically aggregate features of multiple views.
RotationNet~\cite{rotationnet} attempts to tackle the challenge of perturbed objects by predicting the object pose to represent the 3D shape in its aligned form. EMV\cite{emv} also tries to solve this problem with group convolution over discrete rotation groups. While achieving impressive performance, these approaches assume having a pre-defined set of viewpoints for each object. This makes them unfitted for the more practical setting where viewpoint positions are arbitrary and different for every object.
To the best of our knowledge, there are few works that go beyond the fixed viewpoints setup. DeepCCFV~\cite{deepccfv} tries to simulate a constraint-free camera setup in the testing phase and improve the generalization performance. However, it still assumes a pre-defined camera setup for the training data and the retrieval gallery, and the queries are sampled from the pre-defined viewpoints.
OVCNet~\cite{liu2020recognizing} attempts to tackle the task of shape recognition from any view, but mainly targets at the single-view scenario and relies on a challenging task of 3D reconstruction from a single image, while our method focuses on effectively aggregating multi-view images from arbitrary viewpoints.
Compared with the above-mentioned methods, our proposed method is also view-based, but we flexibly relax the fixed viewpoints setup to the arbitrary viewpoints setup. Our method achieves the state-of-the-art results in this challenging setting by employing a canonical view representation that
aligns the image-level features of arbitrary views to a set of reference view features.
\subsection{Transformer networks}
Transformers~\cite{language,bert,attention} are initially introduced as an encoder-decoder architecture for machine translation, where the self-attention mechanism is incorporated to model the relationship among a set of inputs. To model the positional information of the sequential inputs, positional encodings are added to the input embedding. They are widely adopted in NLP for their scalability and good generalization performance.
Transformer networks are also proved to be effective for computer vision tasks~\cite{dert,ipt,vit,pct,swintransformer,pyramidtransformer,point_transformer}. DETR~\cite{dert} is an object detection method based on Transformer, which encodes the image features and decodes the objects in parallel. VIT~\cite{vit} demonstrated the feasibility of using Transformer as the backbone for image classification, and outperforms the popular CNNs.
In this work, we first utilize the Transformer encoder~\cite{attention} as an effective way to explore the relationship among features of arbitrary views. After we
transform the features into the canonical view representation, we use another Transformer encoder~\cite{attention} to process the aligned canonical view features added with spatial embeddings, resulting in the final representation of the 3D shape.
\section{Canonical View Representation} \label{sec:CR}
We first introduce our proposed canonical view representation for 3D shape recognition with arbitrary views, taken as the basis of our 3D shape recognition network presented in Sect.~\ref{sec:net}. The major objective of this representation is to transform a set of arbitrary view features of a 3D shape to be a fixed number of view features, by learning and aligning to the same number of reference view features in the feature space. The optimally transformed features are dubbed \textit{\textbf{canonical view representation}} of a 3D shape.
Suppose that we have extracted features from each view of 3D shape by the Image-level Feature Encoder (in Sect.~\ref{sec:ILF-encoder}). We next present how to model a set of reference view features in the feature space and transform the arbitrary view features to a canonical view representation based on optimal transport, as shown in the Fig.~\ref{fig:optimal_transport}.
In order to increase the discriminative ability of the canonical view representation, we also propose a constraint to ensure that the canonical view representations are separable in the feature space. Since the involved computations are differentiable, the computations for the canonical view representation will be taken as network modules in our 3D shape recognition network introduced in Sect.~\ref{sec:net}, and the reference view features and sub-nets in canonical view representation can be learned by network training.
\subsection{Formulation}
Given varying $N$ arbitrary views of a 3D shape, we first extract their original features $F^{o}\triangleq\{f^o_i\}_{i=1}^N \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$ by an image-level feature encoder (in Sect.~\ref{sec:ILF-encoder}). Then, to obtain a fixed number ($M$) of view features from the features $F^{o}$ of $N$ arbitrary views, we propose to find a feature transform $\mathcal{T}: \mathbb{R}^{N\times d} \to \mathbb{R}^{M\times d}$ such that $\mathcal{T}(F^o)\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times d}$. We assume that $\mathcal{T}$ is linear which is reasonable in high-dimensional feature space. Now we have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}(F^o)\triangleq \mathbf{T}F^o, \quad f^t_j\triangleq\sum_{i}\mathbf{T}_{ji}f^o_i, \forall j=1,...,M,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ is a linear transform map implementing $\mathcal{T}$ and $F^{t}\triangleq\{f^t_j\}_{j=1}^M \in \mathbb{R}^{M\times d}$ are the transformed features taken as the candidate canonical view representations. We hope to find an optimal transform map $\mathbf{T}^*$ to construct $F^{t}$, which is detailed in the followings.
\textbf{Reference view representation}. We further specify the transform $\mathbf{T}$ as the mapping from $N$ arbitrary view features to a fixed number ($M$) learnable reference view features $Z\triangleq\{z_j\}_{j=1}^M$, which can be seen as virtual reference views shared by all different 3D shapes. We define a similarity function $S(f^t_i, z_j)$ to measure similarity between $f^t_i$ and $z_j$ for $i\in[1, N], j \in [1, M]$, and solve the following optimization problem to find an optimal transform map $\mathbf{T}^*$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{T}^*\triangleq\mathop{\text{argmax}}\limits_{\mathbf{T}}\sum_{j}S(f^t_j, z_j)=\sum_{j}S(\sum_{i}\mathbf{T}_{ji}f^o_i, z_j).\label{eq:similar}
\end{equation}
In this paper, a simple yet efficient definition of $S(\cdot,\cdot)$ is adopted as the linear inner product
$ S(f^t_i, z_j)\triangleq f^t_i\cdot z_j.$
\textbf{Optimal transport solver}. Due to the linearity of $S$, the optimization problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq:similar} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{T}^*\triangleq\mathop{\text{argmin}}\limits_{\mathbf{T}}\sum_{ij}-\mathbf{T}_{ji}S(f^o_i, z_j),\label{eq:LP}
\end{equation}
which can be solved by many linear programming algorithms~\cite{LP2,LP_inter}. However, to guarantee the regularization for $\mathbf{T}$ and differentiability for the training procedure, we regularize $\mathbf{T}$ to be a doubly-stochastic matrix~\cite{doublely1959,sinkhorn1967} and add an entropy-based regularization term to Eq.~\eqref{eq:LP}:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{T}^*\triangleq\mathop{\text{argmin}}\limits_{T}\sum_{ij}-\mathbf{T}_{ji}S(f^o_i, z_j)+\epsilon\sum_{ij}\mathbf{T}_{ji}\text{ln}(\mathbf{T}_{ji}),\label{eq:ROT}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon\ge 0$ is a balance weight. Moreover, Eq.~\eqref{eq:ROT} is a well-known regularized optimal transport problem~\cite{bregmen,ROT1,OTK}, that can be solved differentiably with the Sinkhorn algorithm~\cite{Sinkhorn2013}.
\textbf{Canonical view representation}. Once the optimal $\mathbf{T}^*$ is solved, we get the canonical view features as $F^c\triangleq\{f^c_j\}_{j=1}^M$, where $f^c_j=\sum_{i}\mathbf{T}^*_{ji}f^o_i$. Thus the canonical view representation of a 3D shape with arbitrary views are the optimally transformed features under the alignment constraint w.r.t. the reference view features.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{assets/optimal_transport_v5_cropped.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the canonical view representation for 3D shape with arbitrary views. Given the unaligned features $F^o\triangleq\{f^o_i\}_{i=1}^N$ and reference view features $Z\triangleq\{z_j\}_{j=1}^M$, the transformation map $\mathbf{T}^*\triangleq\{T^*_{ji}\}$ is calculated with optimal transport in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ROT}. The transformed feature $F^c\triangleq\{f^c_i\}_{i=1}^M$ are the aligned canonical view features. The Canonical View Feature Separation Loss (CVFSL) ensures that $F^c$ are aware of the reference positions $\{\mathrm{P}=\rho_i\}_{i=1}^M$.}
\label{fig:optimal_transport}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Canonical View Feature Separability}
The canonical view representation obtained above for each 3D shape is length-and-order fixed benefiting from the reference view representation,
but the resulting features might suffer from homogenization
without proper constraint. Thus we propose the \textbf{C}anonical \textbf{V}iew \textbf{F}eature \textbf{S}eparation \textbf{L}oss (CVFSL) to instill separability among these features. More precisely, we require that the canonical view representation $F^c$ of a 3D shape can be embedded into a spatial representation $F^s\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times k}$ such that $F^s$ are scattered in the $k$-dimensional Euclidean space.
To achieve this goal, we utilize a two-layer MLP network $\Phi(\cdot)$ with a hidden dimension of 64 to extract the spatial representation $F^s\in \mathbb{R}^{M\times k}$ from $F^c \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times d}$, such that $
F^s=\Phi(F^c).
$
To make the spatial representation $F^s$ scatter uniformly in the $\mathbb{R}^k$ space, we enforce the constraint that
\begin{equation}
\text{L}_{sep}\triangleq \sum_{j=1}^M||f^{s'}_j-\frac{\rho_j}{||\rho_j||}||_2^2,\label{eq:spatial-loss},
\end{equation}
where $f^{s'}$ is the $l_2$-normalization of $f^{s}$, and reference positions $\mathrm{P}\triangleq \{{\rho}_j\}_{j=1}^M\in\{1,-1\}^k, M=2^k$. When training our network (in Sect.~\ref{sec:net}) using this loss as one term,
it enforces that the canonical view representation of each 3D shape are separable and discriminative. The effectiveness of this design is validated in Sect.~\ref{sec:ablation}.
\section{Network Architecture} \label{sec:net}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:main}, our network for 3D shape recognition consists of three modules: the Image-level Feature Encoder (ILFE), the Canonical View Representation (CVR), and the Canonical View Aggregator (CVA). The Image-level Feature Encoder is composed of the CNN backbone and a Transformer encoder~\cite{attention}. Given \textit{N} arbitrary views $\{I_i\}^N_{i=1}$, the CNN backbone processes each view individually, and the Transformer encoder further processes the whole set of views to output a richer feature for each view, denoted by $F^{o}\triangleq\{f^o_i\}_{i=1}^N$. The Canonical View Representation module aims to align the features in $F^o$ of arbitrary views to the reference view features $Z\triangleq\{z_j\}_{j=1}^M$ that are also learned during training.
We compute a linear transformation map $\mathbf{T}^*\in\mathbb{R}^{M \times N}$ using optimal transport. It can optimally transform $F^o$ to a fixed sized canonical view representation $F^{c}\triangleq\{f^c_i\}_{i=1}^M$ based on reference view features $Z$.
$F^{c}$ are then processed by the Canonical View Aggregator to derive a global feature for the 3D shape. In the CVA, a transformer encoder explores the relationship among the view features of the canonical view representation with spatial embedding, followed by a Global Average Pooling (GAP) layer to obtain the global feature for the 3D shape. We next introduce these network modules.
\subsection{Image-level Feature Encoder}\label{sec:ILF-encoder}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:main}, the image-level feature encoder consists of the CNN backbone and the transformer encoder. Given \textit{N} views $\{I_i\}^N_{i=1}$, the CNN backbone processes the images individually and produces the view features $F^v\triangleq\{f^v_i\}^N_{i=1} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$. The features $F^v$ are then processed by a transformer encoder~\cite{attention}, where multi-head self-attention and the Feed-Forward Network (FFN) are utilized to extract the information among arbitrary views. In the self-attention layer, the queries, keys and values are obtained by linearly projecting the view features. Namely, the query $Q$, key $K$ and value $V$ are denoted as
\begin{equation}
Q \triangleq F^vW^Q, \quad K \triangleq F^vW^K, \quad V \triangleq F^vW^V,
\end{equation}
where $W^Q \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, $W^K \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, and $W^V \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ are learnable linear weights. We utilize the Scaled Dot-Product Attention~\cite{attention} defined as
\begin{equation}
\text{Attention}(Q,K,V) = \text{softmax}(\frac{QK^T}{\sqrt{d_k}})V
\end{equation}
Then the Multi-Head Attention (MHA) is calculated as
\begin{align}\label{eq:MHA}
\begin{split}
\text{MHA}(Q,K,V) &= \text{Concat}(head_1, ..., head_h)W^O \\
\text{where \:}head_h &= \text{Attention}(Q, K, V)
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here $W^o\in \mathbb{R}^{hd \times d}$ reduces the dimension of the concatenated attention heads. The relationship among the arbitrary views are explored.
The results are fed into an FFN~\cite{attention}, from which we obtain the image-level features denoted as $F^{o}\triangleq\{f^o_i\}_{i=1}^N$ of the input arbitrary views. FFN$(\cdot)$~\cite{attention} is a simple neural network using a two-layer MLP following the standard Transformer architecture. There are also residual connections and layer normalization~\cite{layernorm} after every block.
\subsection{Canonical View Representation}\label{sec:CR-decoder}
As demonstrated in Sect.~\ref{sec:CR}, the Canonical View Representation (CVR) module consists of three main operations, including (i)~learning the reference view features $Z$, (ii)~transforming the image-level features $F^o$ into the canonical view features $F^c$ with optimal transport,
(iii)~ensuring separability of the canonical view representation with CVFSL. The illustration of the process is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:optimal_transport}.
\noindent{\textbf{Update of $Z$}}. We first randomly initialize it as $Z^0\in \mathbb{R}^{M\times d}$. Then, with the forwarded features $F^o\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$, we construct the objective function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ROT} that is solved differentiably with the Sinkhorn algorithm. In this way, the gradient of both $Z$ and $F^o$ can be calculated so as to update $Z$ during training.
\noindent{\textbf{Transformation of $F^o$}}. Given $F^{o}$, we calculate the canonical view feature as the linearly-transformed features of $F^o$ with the optimal transport map:
\begin{equation}
F^c = \mathbf{T}^*F^o,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{T}^*$ is the solution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:ROT}.
{\textbf{Separability constraint on $F^c$}}.
With the canonical view features $F^c$, a two-layer MLP with hidden dimension of 64 is used to extract the spatial representation $F^{s}\in\mathbb{R}^{M \times k}$, by $F^s=\text{MLP}(F^c)$. Then, we construct the canonical view feature separation constraint in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spatial-loss} to enforce that $F^s$, inferred from the canonical view representation $F^c$, scatters uniformly in the $\mathbb{R}^{M \times k}$ space.
\subsection{Canonical View Aggregator} \label{sec:CF-aggregator}
The Canonical View Aggregator (CVA) further processes the canonical view features $F^c$ along with the spatial representation $F^s$, and produces a global representation of the 3D shape. Given the canonical view representation $F^c\in\mathbb{R}^{M \times d}$, we explore the relationship between view features in the canonical view representation and aggregate them into a global feature $F^g$ for the 3D shape.
\noindent{\textbf{Transformer encoder with spatial embedding.}} Given the spatial representation $F^s\in\mathbb{R}^{M \times k}$ calculated in the CVR, we obtain the spatial embedding $F^{se}\in\mathbb{R}^{M \times d}$ by $F^{se} = \Psi(F^s)$, where $\Psi(\cdot)$ is designed as a two-layer MLP network with 64 hidden units and a LeakyReLU layer. Thus we calculate the query $Q$, key $K$, and value $V$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:qkv_cra}
\begin{aligned}
Q &\triangleq (F^c+F^{se})W^Q, \\
K &\triangleq (F^c+F^{se})W^K, \\
V &\triangleq F^cW^V.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We then calculate the multi-head attention as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:MHA}, after which the outputs are fed into a Feed Forward Network, resulting in the same number of features $F^{ce}\in\mathbb{R}^{M \times d}$.
\noindent{\textbf{Global representation of the 3D shape.}} We obtain the global representation $f^g\in\mathbb{R}^{1 \times d}$ of the 3D shape by performing Global Average Pooling (GAP) on the outputs of the Transformer encoder $F^{ce}$, by $f^g=\text{GAP}(F^{ce})$.
\subsection{Classifier}
We construct the classification module by a two-layer MLP network with hidden dimension of $\frac{d}{2}$. The output of the MLP is then fed into a softmax layer and the resulting logits represent the probability of each class.
\subsection{Network Training}
\noindent{\textbf{Training Loss.}} The training loss of our network consists of the classification loss $\text{L}_{cls}$ and the Canonical View Feature Seperation Loss $\text{L}_{sep}$. The overall loss is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:overall_loss}
\begin{aligned}
\text{L} &\triangleq \text{L}_{cls} + \text{L}_{sep} \\
&= -\sum_{c=1}^Cy_c\text{log}\:p_c + \lambda(\sum_{j=1}^M||f^{s'}_j-\frac{\rho_j}{||\rho_j||}||_2^2),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $y_c$ and $p_c$ are the true probability and predicted probability of class $c$, while $f_j^{s'}$ and $\rho_j$ are defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spatial-loss}.
\noindent{\textbf{Hyper-parameters and backbone.}} We adopt the ResNet-18~\cite{resnet} pretrained on ImageNet\cite{imagenet} as our CNN backbone network in Image-level Feature Encoder and set the feature dimension to $d=512$. $M=2^k$ is the number of canonical views, which affects how the Canonical View Representation module processes inputs. We use $M=8, k=3$ for experiments on ModelNet40~\cite{modelnet} and ScanobjectNN~\cite{scanobjectnn}, while $M=4,k=2$ for RGBD~\cite{rgbd}. Further discussion on the effect of $M$ is in Sect.~\ref{sec:ablation}. $\lambda$ is the weighting factor for the canonical view feature separation loss as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:overall_loss}, which we set $\lambda=0.1$ for the experiments. $\epsilon$ is the balance weight defined in \eqref{eq:ROT}, empirically set to 0.05.
\noindent{\textbf{Training Details.}} For all the experiments, we train our network for 60 epochs, with a batch-size of 20 on a NVIDIA V100 GPU. For the aligned and rotated setting, each batch contains 20 shapes with 400 multi-view images. For the arbitrary-view setting, the number of views for each shape varies. Variable-length view features from the CNN backbone network are zero-padded to the max number of views (20) and batched together. We use SGD with momentum as the optimizer. The initial learning rate, weight decay, momentum are $10^{-3}$, $10^{-3}$, 0.9 respectively. The learning rate follows the warm-up strategy~\cite{warmup} in the first epoch, and it linearly increases from 0 to $10^{-3}$. Then it is reduced to $10^{-5}$ following a cosine quarter-cycle. Our code will be available on \url{http://github.com/weixmath/CVR}.
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{Shape classification accuracy (in $\%$) on ModelNet40. `NA' / `-': method is not applicable or result was not reported.}
\begin{center}
\small
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Aligned} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Rotated} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Arbitrary Views} \\ \cline{2-7}
& Per Class Acc. & {Per Ins. Acc.} & Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. & Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\ \hline
MVCNN-M & 94.30\% & 96.35\% & 87.95\% & 88.17\% & 78.86\% & 83.20\% \\
GVCNN-M & 94.46\% & 96.07\% & 89.69\% & 88.10\% & 80.98\% & 83.57\% \\
RotationNet~\cite{rotationnet} & - & 97.37\% & 84.74\% & 85.29\% & NA & NA \\
View-GCN~\cite{view-gcn} & \textbf{96.50\%} & \textbf{97.60\%} & 85.90\% & 88.25\% & NA & NA \\ \hline
Ours & 95.77\% & 97.16\% & \textbf{91.12\%} & \textbf{92.22\%} & \textbf{84.01\%} & \textbf{86.91\%} \\ \hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.35cm}
\label{table:modelnet}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{Shape classification accuracy (in $\%$) on ScanObjectNN. `NA' represents that the method is not applicable to this setting.}
\begin{center}
\small
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Aligned} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Rotated} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Arbitrary Views} \\ \cline{2-7}
& Per Class Acc. & {Per Ins. Acc.} & Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. & Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\ \hline
MVCNN-M & 85.71\% & 87.82\% & 78.21\% & 80.62\% & 58.58\% & 63.29\% \\
GVCNN-M & 86.64\% & 88.68\% & 82.86\% & 83.70\% & 58.84\% & 65.35\% \\
RotationNet~\cite{rotationnet} & 84.88\% & 86.90\% & 74.68\% & 76.16\% & NA & NA \\
View-GCN~\cite{view-gcn} & \textbf{88.67\%} & 90.39\% & 81.99\% & 83.50\% & NA & NA \\ \hline
Ours & 88.39\% & \textbf{90.74\%} & \textbf{84.70\%} & \textbf{85.59\%} & \textbf{68.07\%} & \textbf{71.36\%} \\ \hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{table:scanobject}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{assets/dataset_final_crop.pdf}
\caption{Examples of data in three different datasets. }
\label{fig:dataset}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
We evaluate the performance of our method on multiple datasets including ModelNet40~\cite{modelnet}, ScanObjectNN~\cite{scanobjectnn} and RGBD~\cite{scanobjectnn}, examples of data in these datasets are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dataset}. For each dataset, we conduct experiments under the arbitrary view setting and the fixed viewpoint setting, where the 3D objects are either aligned or rotated. To keep the comparisons fair, we re-implement MVCNN~\cite{mvcnn} and GVCNN~\cite{gvcnn} denoted as MVCNN-M and GVCNN-M, and they utilize the exact same backbone network and training settings as ours.
\subsection{Data Preparation}
\noindent{\textbf{ModelNet40 and ScanObjectNN}}. For the arbitrary view setting on ModelNet40~\cite{modelnet} and ScanobjectNN~\cite{scanobjectnn}, we generate the projected views with the following steps:
(i) Randomly choose 6 to 20 points from a spherical surface as camera locations. (ii) Project the object from the chosen viewpoints to obtain the 2D views (cameras are assumed to point to the centroid of the object). For the fixed viewpoint setting with object rotation, we obtain the 2D views by first
rotating the object around X-axis by a random angle between 0 and 180 degrees and then projecting the object from 20 fixed viewpoints that constitute a dodecahedron similar to~\cite{rotationnet,view-gcn}. As for the aligned setting, we follow the setup used in other work like ~\cite{rotationnet,view-gcn}. We compare our performance with the state-of-the-art methods applicable to the specific setting. Note that since ScanObjectNN provides 3D models in the form of point clouds, we first reconstruct them into meshes with Poisson Surface Reconstruction~\cite{poisson}.
\noindent{\textbf{RGBD dataset}}. The RGBD dataset~\cite{rgbd} contains real-world pictures of objects from a large number of viewpoints, without providing 3D scans of these objects. Thus we simulate the arbitrary view settings by randomly sampling 4 to 12 images from each object instance. We also perform 10-fold cross validation on this dataset. In each round, we randomly leave one instance from each class out for testing while the rest are used in training.
\subsection{Experiments on ModelNet40}
This dataset consists of 12,311 3D shapes from 40 categories, with 9,483 training models and 2,468 test models for shape classification. It is the most widely adopted benchmark for 3D shape classification. Various methods reported results on this dataset using different shape representations including voxels, point clouds and multi-view images.
The experimental results on ModelNet40~\cite{modelnet} are shown in Tab.~\ref{table:modelnet}. Among the previous methods, view-GCN~\cite{view-gcn} and RotationNet~\cite{rotationnet} are two powerful methods and produce state-of-the-art results when the objects are aligned. However, their classification accuracies drop dramatically by more than 9.3\% under the rotated object setting, in which the projected 2D images are not well aligned. Our method outperforms them by 3.97\% per class and 5.22\% per instance accuracy, showing that our method can obtain more robust representations from perturbed objects.
For the arbitrary view setting, we can see that our proposed method achieves notably better accuracy than the compared methods with the margin of 3.34\% per instance and 3.03\% per class accuracy. Note that RotationNet~\cite{rotationnet} and view-GCN~\cite{view-gcn} are not applicable to the arbitrary view setting because RotationNet~\cite{rotationnet} assumes pre-defined viewpoints while view-GCN~\cite{view-gcn} requires given fixed viewpoint positions to construct view-graph in training and testing.
\subsection{Experiments on ScanObjectNN}
ScanObjectNN~\cite{scanobjectnn} is a recently proposed real-world 3D object classification dataset with scanned indoor scene data. It contains around 15000 objects that are categorized into 15 categories with 2902 unique object instances. ScanObjectNN offers more practical challenges including background occurrence, object partiality, and different deformation variants.
The results on ScanObjectNN are shown in Tab.~\ref{table:scanobject}. Under the arbitrary view setting, our approach significantly outperforms MVCNN-M and GVCNN-M by more than 6.01\% and 9.23\% on per-instance and per-class accuracy respectively. As for the fixed viewpoint setting, while our approach performs similarly with the current state-of-the-art on aligned objects, it achieves better results on rotated objects, improving per-instance and per-class accuracy by 2.09\% and 2.71\%.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Shape classification accuracy (in\%) on RGBD.}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3mm}
{\begin{tabular}{l c c c}
\toprule
\hline
Method &Setting & $\#$View & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
MDSICNN~\cite{MDSICNN} & \multirow{5}{*}{Fixed} & $\geq$ 120 & 89.6 \% \\
CFK\cite{CFK} & & $\geq$ 120 & 86.8 \% \\
MMDCNN~\cite{MMDCNN} & & $\geq$ 120 & 86.8 \% \\
RotationNet~\cite{rotationnet} & & 12 & 89.3\% \\
View-GCN~\cite{view-gcn} & & 12 & \textbf{94.3}\% \\\hline
MVCNN-M & \multirow{3}{*}{Arbitrary} & \multirow{3}{*}{4-12} & 89.0\% \\
GVCNN-M & & & 89.8 \% \\
Ours & & & \textbf{91.8}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}\label{table:RGBD}
\end{table}
\subsection{Experiments on RGBD Dataset}
To further evaluate our method for recognizing real captured multi-view images, we conduct experiments on multi-view shape recognition with images from the RGBD dataset~\cite{rgbd}. We randomly select images captured by camera with different elevation angles and the view number is varying from 4 to 12. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:RGBD}, for the arbitrary view setting, our method outperforms MVCNN-M and GVCNN-M by 2\%, which shows that our method is capable of dealing with real multi-view images captured from arbitrary views. Our method in arbitrary view setting (4 to 12 views) also exceeds the results of RotationNet in the setting of fixed 12 views.
\subsection{Ablation Study}\label{sec:ablation}
In this section, we take a closer look at the effects of key components of our network. Experiments are conducted on ModelNet40 under the arbitrary view setting.
\noindent{\textbf{Effects of image-level feature encoder.}} We examine the effects of the Image-level Feature Encoder (ILFE) defined in Sect.~\ref{sec:ILF-encoder}. We compare it with a baseline network that extracts features with a CNN and aggregates them with Max-pooling, the same structure as MVCNN~\cite{mvcnn}. To evaluate the effects of the ILFE, We use the ILFE instead of the CNN to extract the view features. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:ablation_modules_old}, the ILFE brings 1.92\% and 2.92\% improvement on per-instance and per-class accuracies over the baseline. This proves the effectiveness of the Transformer that explores the relationship among arbitrary views.
\noindent{\textbf{Empirical analysis of canonical view representation.}} We evaluate the effects of the Canonical View Representation~(CVR) module defined in Sect.~\ref{sec:CR-decoder}, and our choice of using optimal transport to obtain canonical view features. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:CVR}, if we remove the CVR module completely, the per-instance and per-class accuracies drop by 1.87\% and 2.00\% respectively. Aside from optimal transport, Transformer decoder~\cite{attention} is a popular network structure that can align an arbitrary number of input features into fixed sized features. While structurally identical to a Transformer encoder, a Transformer decoder takes learnable reference view features $Z$ as query and image-level features $F^0$ as key and value. We substitute the CVR module with a Transformer decoder while the rest of the network is kept unchanged. Surprisingly, the results further drop by 2.04\% and 1.75\%. This shows that optimal transport is a superior way to align features and brings a significant performance boost to our network.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{assets/spatial_loss.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of canonical view features $F^c$ with~(a) and without (b) the canonical view feature separation constraint. Each element of the matrix is the cosine similarity of paired canonical view features.}
\label{fig:spatial_loss}
\end{figure}
\noindent{\textbf{Effects of canonical view feature separation constraint.}} We now study empirically how the Canonical View Feature Separation Loss (CVFSL) affects the performance. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:ablation_modules_old}, with CVFSL, our method achieves notably better results with 1.59\% and 1.73\% improvements on per-instance and per-class accuracies.
Moreover, we can observe in Fig.~\ref{fig:spatial_loss}~(b) that without CVFSL, the resulting features have a flat similarity matrix. This means that canonical view features are not properly distinguishable in the feature space, resulting in a non-informative representation of the 3D shape. With CVFSL, the features are much more diverse as shown in (a), which can explain the larger performance gain with the CVFSL enabled. We also compare it with a cosine similarity loss that simply forces canonical view features to be different. The results drop by 1.06\% and 1.21\% in two accuracies. Therefore, we conclude that the canonical view feature separation constraint is vital in obtaining an informative canonical view representation and a robust final feature representation of the 3D shape.
\noindent{\textbf{Selection of the number of reference view features.}} In this paper, we have introduced the reference view features to which the features from arbitrary views are aligned. Here we evaluate the effect of the number ($M$) of reference view features. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:choiceofM}, different choices of $M$ results in notable differences in performance on ModelNet40 with arbitrary views. Specifically, $M=8$ results in the best performance, followed by $M=16$, and $M=4$ at last. We can infer that on the arbitrary-view setting of ModelNet40, $M=8$ is preferable. Note that this result may vary on different datasets and settings with different distributions of viewpoints.
\noindent{\textbf{Effects of the canonical view aggregator.}} Now we examine the effects of the Canonical View Aggregator (CVA) module defined in Sect.~\ref{sec:CF-aggregator}. We remove the CVA from our network, instead we directly perform view pooling on the output features from CVR. Comparing the results shown in Tab.~\ref{table:ablation_modules_old}, we find that removing the CVA leads to a performance drop of 1.16\% and 1.97\% on per-instance and per-class accuracy. Therefore, it is shown that the CVA module, which makes use of the aligned spatial encoding and further models the relationship among features in canonical representation, is crucial to the performance of our network.
\begin{table}[]
\caption{Comparison of optimal transport with Transformer decoder in CVR.}
\centering
\label{table:CVR}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5mm}
{\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
\hline
& Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\ \hline
w/o CVR & 82.01\% & 85.04\% \\ \hline
Transformer decoder & 79.97\% & 83.29\% \\ \hline
Optimal transport (ours) & \textbf{84.01}\% & \textbf{86.91}\% \\ \hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Ablation study on each module of our network.}
\label{table:ablation_modules_old}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}
{\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
\hline
ILFE & CVR & CVA & CVFSL & Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\ \hline
& & & & 78.86\% & 83.20\% \\ \hline
\checkmark & & & & 81.78\% & 85.12\% \\ \hline
\checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & 82.04\% & 85.75\% \\ \hline
\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & 82.28\% & 85.32\% \\ \hline
\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \textbf{84.01\%} & \textbf{86.91\%} \\ \hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Results by choosing different number of reference view features.}
\label{table:choiceofM}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5mm}
{\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
\hline
& Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\ \hline
M = 4 & 82.41\% & 85.69\% \\ \hline
M = 8 & \textbf{84.01\%} & \textbf{86.91\%} \\ \hline
M = 16 & 82.71\% & 86.22\% \\ \hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
In this work, we propose a novel canonical view representation to tackle the challenge of 3D shape recognition with arbitrary views. We incorporate optimal transport with the canonical view feature separation constraint to transform the features of arbitrary views into an aligned canonical view representation, enabling us to aggregate and derive a rich and robust feature representation for the 3D shape. The experimental results prove the effectiveness of our method. As discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:CR} and Sect.~\ref{sec:net}, the learned reference view features in $Z$ set up a common reference for aligning arbitrary views to a fixed number of learnable reference views. This approach can potentially be applied to other multi-view vision tasks, such as view synthesis, view-based 3D reconstruction or generation, which we may investigate in our future work.
{\textbf{Acknowledgment}} This work was supported by NSFC with grant numbers of 11971373, U20B2075, 11690011, U1811461, 12026605, 12090021, 61721002, and National Key R$\&$D Program 2018AAA0102201.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
\section*{A.~Additional Ablation Study}
To further evaluate the performance impact of different components in our network, we report additional results on the selections of hyperparameters and architectures. We conduct all these experiments on ModelNet40~\cite{modelnet} under the arbitrary-view setting.
\section*{A.1.~Backbone network}
We first examine the performance of our method with different CNN backbone networks: AlexNet~\cite{alexnet}, ResNet-18~\cite{resnet}, ResNet-50~\cite{resnet} and ResNet-101~\cite{resnet}. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:backbone}, a more efficient backbone network produces better performance, as variants of the ResNet architecture outperform AlexNet significantly. However, the performance margin among the ResNet backbones are much less noticeable, with the deeper ResNet-101 achieves less than 1\% gain in accuracy over ResNet-18. We choose the ResNet-18 network for our implementation since it performs reasonably well while being less computationally expensive.
\section*{A.2.~Obtaining the global representation}
As mentioned in Sect.~{4.3}, Global Average Pooling (GAP) is performed on the outputs of the Transformer Encoder in canonical view aggregator to obtain a global representation of the 3D shape. Here we compare the GAP to other methods in producing the global representation, including Global Max Pooling (GMP) and concatenating the features directly. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:pooling}, we can see that GAP performs noticeably better than GMP, while marginally outperforming the direct concatenation of features. One possible explanation for GMP's lower performance is that the gradients are only back-propagated to the maximum elements. For our particular network design, this could potentially be harmful for learning diverse and robust canonical view features.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Results with different CNN backbone networks.}
\label{table:backbone}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5mm}
{\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\hline
Backbone & Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
AlexNet~\cite{alexnet} & 75.94\% & 78.88\% \\\hline
ResNet-18~\cite{resnet} & 84.01\% & 86.91\% \\\hline
ResNet-50~\cite{resnet} & 83.64\% & 87.18\% \\\hline
ResNet-101~\cite{resnet} & \textbf{84.34}\% & \textbf{87.77}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Comparing methods for obtaining global representation.}
\label{table:pooling}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.7mm}
{\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\toprule
\hline
& Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
Concat. & 83.76\% & 86.42\% \\\hline
GMP & 82.77\% & 85.41\% \\\hline
GAP & \textbf{84.01}\% & \textbf{86.91}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Impact of the weighting factor $\lambda$ for the Spatial-Awareness Constraint Loss.}
\label{table:lambda}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.7mm}
{\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\toprule
\hline
& Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
$\lambda = 1.0$ & 82.97\% & 85.12\% \\\hline
$\lambda = 0.5$ & 81.06\% & 84.02\% \\\hline
$\lambda = 0.1$ & \textbf{84.01}\% & \textbf{86.91}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of learnable spatial embeddings with fixed sinusoidal positional embeddings.}
\label{table:fixed}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.7mm}
{\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\toprule
\hline
& Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
Fixed & 82.14\% & 85.41\% \\\hline
Learned & \textbf{84.01}\% & \textbf{86.91}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[MVCNN-M]{
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{LaTeX/assets/mvcnn_train_compressed.png}}
\subfigure[Ours]{
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{LaTeX/assets/f0_train_compressed.png}
\caption{Visualization of shape features learned by MVCNN-M~(a) and our method~(b) via t-SNE on ModelNet40 train set.}
\label{fig:tsne_train}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[MVCNN-M]{
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{LaTeX/assets/mvcnn_test_compressed.png}}
\subfigure[Ours]{
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{LaTeX/assets/f0_test_compressed.png}
\caption{Visualization of shape features learned by MVCNN-M~(a) and our method~(b) via t-SNE on ModelNet40 test set.}
\label{fig:tsne_test}
\end{figure*}
\section*{A.3.~Loss coefficient $\lambda$}
As defined in Eq.~(11), the overall loss of our network consists of the classification loss $\text{L}_{cls}$ and the Spatial-Awareness Constraint Loss (SACL) $\text{L}_{spatial}$, where the coefficient $\lambda$ controls the weighting factor between the two loss functions. We conduct experiments to examine how $\lambda$ can affect the performance. As seen in Tab.~\ref{table:lambda}, increasing $\lambda$ from 0.1 to 0.5 and 1.0 lowers the classification accuracy. This shows that a good balance between the classification loss and the SACL is important for maximizing the performance. We set $\lambda=0.1$ for our implementation in all experiments.
\section*{A.4.~Positional embedding}
Positional embedding is crucial in Transformer-based architectures to capture sequential information of the inputs. Vaswani et al.~\cite{attention} originally adopts fixed sinusoidal positional embeddings to represent positions, where the $t$-th input's sinusoidal positional embedding is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fixed}
\begin{aligned}
PE_{(t,2i)} = \sin{(t/100000^{2i/d})} \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}where $d$ is the feature dimension and $i=1,2,...,d$.
As mentioned in Sect.~4.3, our approach uses learnable spatial embeddings $F^{se}=\Psi(F^s)$ to encode positional information, where $F^s$ is the spatial representation inferred from the canonical view features $F^c$ by a two-layer MLP $\Psi$ and is constrained by Spatial-Aware Constraint Loss (SACL). To compare the performance impacts of fixed and learned embeddings, we substitute the learned spatial embedding $F^{se}$ with fixed sinusoidal positional embeddings. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:fixed}, the classification results drop by 1.87\% and 1.50\% in two accuracies, which demonstrates the effectiveness of learnable spatial embeddings.
\section*{B.~Visualization}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne_train} and Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne_test}, we visualize the features learned by MVCNN-M~\cite{mvcnn} and our method on both the train set and the test set of ModelNet40 under the arbitrary-view setting. We perform t-SNE~\cite{tsne} on features of object instances from all classes to visualize the feature discriminability on a macro level. According to Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne_train} and Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne_test}, in both the train set and the test set, features from our method display much better clustered distributions under t-SNE than those produced by MVCNN-M~\cite{mvcnn}. Specifically, we can observe both lower intra-class variance and higher inter-class variance in the results of our method compared to MVCNN-M~\cite{mvcnn}, which reflects better overall shape classification performance on ModelNet40 with arbitrary view.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
\section*{A.~Additional Ablation Study}
To further evaluate the performance impact of different components in our network, we report additional results on the selections of hyperparameters and architectures. We conduct all these experiments on ModelNet40~\cite{modelnet} under the arbitrary-view setting.
\section*{A.1.~Backbone network}
We first examine the performance of our method with different CNN backbone networks: AlexNet~\cite{alexnet}, ResNet-18~\cite{resnet}, ResNet-50~\cite{resnet} and ResNet-101~\cite{resnet}. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:backbone}, a more efficient backbone network produces better performance, as variants of the ResNet architecture outperform AlexNet significantly. However, the performance margin among the ResNet backbones are much less noticeable, with the deeper ResNet-101 achieves less than 1\% gain in accuracy over ResNet-18. We choose the ResNet-18 network for our implementation since it performs reasonably well while being less computationally expensive.
\section*{A.2.~Obtaining the global representation}
As mentioned in Sect.~{4.3}, Global Average Pooling (GAP) is performed on the outputs of the Transformer Encoder in canonical view aggregator to obtain a global representation of the 3D shape. Here we compare the GAP to other methods in producing the global representation, including Global Max Pooling (GMP) and concatenating the features directly. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:pooling}, we can see that GAP performs noticeably better than GMP, while marginally outperforming the direct concatenation of features. One possible explanation for GMP's lower performance is that the gradients are only back-propagated to the maximum elements. For our particular network design, this could potentially be harmful for learning diverse and robust canonical view features.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Results with different CNN backbone networks.}
\label{table:backbone}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5mm}
{\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\hline
Backbone & Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
AlexNet~\cite{alexnet} & 75.94\% & 78.88\% \\\hline
ResNet-18~\cite{resnet} & 84.01\% & 86.91\% \\\hline
ResNet-50~\cite{resnet} & 83.64\% & 87.18\% \\\hline
ResNet-101~\cite{resnet} & \textbf{84.34}\% & \textbf{87.77}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Comparing methods for obtaining global representation.}
\label{table:pooling}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.7mm}
{\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\toprule
\hline
& Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
Concat. & 83.76\% & 86.42\% \\\hline
GMP & 82.77\% & 85.41\% \\\hline
GAP & \textbf{84.01}\% & \textbf{86.91}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Impact of the weighting factor $\lambda$ for the Canonical View Feature Separation Loss.}
\label{table:lambda}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.7mm}
{\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\toprule
\hline
& Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
$\lambda = 1.0$ & 82.97\% & 85.12\% \\\hline
$\lambda = 0.5$ & 81.06\% & 84.02\% \\\hline
$\lambda = 0.1$ & \textbf{84.01}\% & \textbf{86.91}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of learnable spatial embeddings with fixed sinusoidal positional embeddings.}
\label{table:fixed}
\small\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.7mm}
{\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\toprule
\hline
& Per Class Acc. & Per Ins. Acc. \\\hline
Fixed & 82.14\% & 85.41\% \\\hline
Learned & \textbf{84.01}\% & \textbf{86.91}\% \\\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[MVCNN-M]{
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{LaTeX/assets/mvcnn_train_compressed.png}}
\subfigure[Ours]{
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{LaTeX/assets/f0_train_compressed.png}
\caption{Visualization of shape features learned by MVCNN-M~(a) and our method~(b) via t-SNE on ModelNet40 train set.}
\label{fig:tsne_train}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[MVCNN-M]{
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{LaTeX/assets/mvcnn_test_compressed.png}}
\subfigure[Ours]{
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{LaTeX/assets/f0_test_compressed.png}
\caption{Visualization of shape features learned by MVCNN-M~(a) and our method~(b) via t-SNE on ModelNet40 test set.}
\label{fig:tsne_test}
\end{figure*}
\section*{A.3.~Loss coefficient $\lambda$}
As defined in Eq.~(11), the overall loss of our network consists of the classification loss $\text{L}_{cls}$ and the Canonical View Feature Separation Loss (CVFSL) $\text{L}_{sep}$, where the coefficient $\lambda$ controls the weighting factor between the two loss functions. We conduct experiments to examine how $\lambda$ can affect the performance. As seen in Tab.~\ref{table:lambda}, increasing $\lambda$ from 0.1 to 0.5 and 1.0 lowers the classification accuracy. This shows that a good balance between the classification loss and the CVFSL is important for maximizing the performance. We set $\lambda=0.1$ for our implementation in all experiments.
\section*{A.4.~Positional embedding}
Positional embedding is crucial in Transformer-based architectures to capture sequential information of the inputs. Vaswani et al.~\cite{attention} originally adopts fixed sinusoidal positional embeddings to represent positions, where the $t$-th input's sinusoidal positional embedding is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fixed}
\begin{aligned}
PE_{(t,2i)} = \sin{(t/100000^{2i/d})} \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}where $d$ is the feature dimension and $i=1,2,...,d$.
As mentioned in Sect.~4.3, our approach uses learnable spatial embeddings $F^{se}=\Psi(F^s)$ to encode positional information, where $F^s$ is the spatial representation inferred from the canonical view features $F^c$ by a two-layer MLP $\Psi$ and is constrained by Spatial-Aware Constraint Loss (SACL). To compare the performance impacts of fixed and learned embeddings, we substitute the learned spatial embedding $F^{se}$ with fixed sinusoidal positional embeddings. As shown in Tab.~\ref{table:fixed}, the classification results drop by 1.87\% and 1.50\% in two accuracies, which demonstrates the effectiveness of learnable spatial embeddings.
\section*{B.~Visualization}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne_train} and Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne_test}, we visualize the features learned by MVCNN-M~\cite{mvcnn} and our method on both the train set and the test set of ModelNet40 under the arbitrary-view setting. We perform t-SNE~\cite{tsne} on features of object instances from all classes to visualize the feature discriminability on a macro level. According to Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne_train} and Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne_test}, in both the train set and the test set, features from our method display much better clustered distributions under t-SNE than those produced by MVCNN-M~\cite{mvcnn}. Specifically, we can observe both lower intra-class variance and higher inter-class variance in the results of our method compared to MVCNN-M~\cite{mvcnn}, which reflects better overall shape classification performance on ModelNet40 with arbitrary view.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{section:introduction}
In the paper \cite{KU}, we gave a method, the so-called {\it gluing method}, for constructing a family of K3 surfaces, that is,
we constructed such a K3 surface by holomorphically gluing two open complex surfaces obtained as the complements of tubular neighborhoods of elliptic curves embedded in blow-ups of the projective planes at nine points.
The family has complex dimension $19$ and each K3 surface of the family admits compact Levi-flat hypersurfaces.
In this paper, we will show that there are {\it projective} K3 surfaces among the family.
One of the main results is given as follows:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
There exists a deformation $\pi\colon\mathcal{X}\to B$ of projective K3 surfaces over an {$18$ dimensional} complex manifold $B$ with injective Kodaira-Spencer map
such that each fiber $X_b:=\pi^{-1}(b)$ admits a holomorphic immersion $F_b\colon \mathbb{C}\to X_b$ with the property that
the Euclidean closure of the image $F_b(\mathbb{C})$ in $X_b$ is a compact real analytic hypersurface $C^\omega$-diffeomorphic to a real $3$-dimensional torus $\bS^1\times \bS^1\times \bS^1$ which is Levi-flat.
Especially, $F_b(\mathbb{C})$ is Zariski dense in $X_b$ whereas it is not Euclidean dense.
Moreover, $X_b$ is non-Kummer for almost every $b\in B$ in the sense of the Lebesgue measure.
\end{theorem}
In the construction of K3 surfaces given in the paper \cite{KU}, we prepare two surfaces $S^+$ and $S^-$ obtained from the blow-ups of
the projective plane $\mathbb{P}^2$ at nine points $\{p_1^{\pm}, \ldots, p_9^{\pm}\}$ with smooth elliptic curves $C^{\pm} \in |K_{S^\pm}^{-1}|$.
Here we assume that $(S^{\pm},C^{\pm})$ satisfy the following two conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item there exists an isomorphism $g : C^+ \to C^-$ such that $g^*N_- \cong N_+$, where $N_\pm:=N_{C^\pm/S^\pm}$ are the normal bundles of $C^{\pm}$ in $S^{\pm}$, and
\item the normal bundles $N_\pm \in \mathrm{Pic}^0(C^{\pm})$ satisfy the Diophantine condition (see Definition~\ref{def:diophnormal}).
\end{enumerate}
Then Arnol'd's theorem \cite{A} guarantees that there exist {\it analytically linearizable neighborhoods} $W^{\pm} \subset S^{\pm}$ of $C^{\pm}$ in $S^{\pm}$, namely,
$W^{\pm}$ are tubular neighborhoods of $C^{\pm}$ in $S^{\pm}$ which are biholomorphic to neighborhoods of the zero sections in $N_{\pm}$.
In other words, there exist a pair $(p,q) \in \mathbb{R}^2$ that satisfies the Diophantine condition (see Definition \ref{def:diophpair}) and a positive real number $R>1$ such that
$W^{\pm}$ are expressed as
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:isomorphism}
W^\pm \cong \set{(z^\pm, w^\pm)\in \mathbb{C}^2\mid \abs{w^\pm}<R }/\sim_\pm,
\end{equation}
where $\sim_\pm$ are the equivalence relations generated by
\[
(z^\pm, w^\pm) \sim_\pm
(z^\pm+1,\ \exp(\pm p\cdot 2\pi\sqrt{-1})\cdot w^\pm) \sim_\pm
(z^\pm+\tau,\ \exp(\pm q\cdot 2\pi\sqrt{-1})\cdot w^\pm)
\]
with $\tau\in \mathbb{H}:=\set{ \tau \in\mathbb{C}\mid {\rm Im}\,\tau>0}$ (here note that $C^+ \cong C^-$ via $g$).
From now on, we fix $(p,q)$, $(S^{\pm},C^{\pm})$, $g$, and isomorphisms \eqref{eqn:isomorphism}.
In the present paper, we take an appropriate $\xi \in \mathbb{C}$ and consider $g_\xi:=\ell_\xi\circ g$, where $\ell_{\xi} : C^- \cong \mathbb{C}/\langle 1,\tau \rangle \circlearrowleft$ is the translation induced from
$\mathbb{C}\ni z\mapsto z+\xi\in \mathbb{C}$. Note that
$g_\xi^*N_-\cong N_+$ remains true since $N_{\pm} \in \mathrm{Pic}^0(C^{\pm})$.
For each $s \in \Delta:=\set{s\in\mathbb{C}\mid |s|<1}$ with $s \neq 0$, we define open submanifolds $M_s^\pm$ of $S^{\pm}$ by
\[
M_s^\pm := S^\pm\setminus \left\{[(z^\pm, w^\pm)]\in W^\pm\mid \abs{w^\pm}\leq \sqrt{\abs{s}}/R\right\},
\]
which contain
\[
V_s^\pm := \set{[(z^\pm, w^\pm)]\in W^\pm\mid \sqrt{|s|}/R<|w^\pm|< \sqrt{|s|}R }
\]
as neighborhoods of boundaries of $M_s^\pm$, and a biholomorphism $f_s\colon V_s^+\to V_s^-$ by
\[
f_s\left([(z^+, w^+)]\right)=\left[(g_\xi(z^+),s/w^+)\right].
\]
Then by identifying $V_s^+$ and $V_s^-$ via the biholomorphic map $f_s$, we can patch $M_s^+$ and $M_s^-$ to define a compact complex surface $X_s$.
In the paper \cite{KU}, we showed that $X_s$ is a K3 surface and that the nowhere vanishing holomorphic $2$-form $\sigma_s$ on $X_s$ satisfies
\[
\sigma_s|_{V_s}=c\cdot \frac{dz\wedge dw}{w}
\]
for some $c \in \mathbb{C}^*$, where $V_s \subset X_s$ is the open submanifold corresponding to $V_s^+\cong V_s^-$ and $(z,w)$ are the coordinates induced from $(z^+,w^+)$.
For each $\xi$, these K3 surfaces $X_s$ with $s \in \Delta \setminus \{0\}$ are the fibers of a proper holomorphic map
\[
\mathcal{X}\to \Delta
\]
from a smooth complex manifold $\mathcal{X}(=\mathcal{X}(\xi))$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[---] each fiber over $s \in \Delta \setminus \{0\}$ coincides with the K3 surface $X_s$,
\item[---] the fiber $X_0$ over $0 \in \Delta$ is a compact complex variety with normal crossing singularities whose irreducible components are $S^+$ and $S^-$ and whose singular part is the one obtained by identifying $C^+$ and $C^-$ via $g_{\xi}$, and thus
\item[---] $\mathcal{X}\to \Delta$ is a type \romfigure{2} degeneration of K3 surfaces (see Section~\ref{section:proof_main_i}).
\end{itemize}
We notice that $V_s \subset X_s$ is biholomorphic to a topologically trivial annulus bundle over the elliptic curve $C:=C^+ \cong C^-$,
and hence homotopic to $\bS_{\alpha}^1 \times \bS_{\beta}^1 \times \bS_{\gamma}^1$, where $\bS_{\alpha}^1$ and $\bS_{\beta}^1$ are circles in $V_s$ such that $\bS_{\alpha}^1 \times \bS_{\beta}^1$ is a $C^\infty$ section of the bundle,
and $\bS_{\gamma}^1$ is a circle in a fiber of the bundle which generates the fundamental group. Then we define the $2$-cycles $A_{\alpha\beta}$, $A_{\beta\gamma}$, $A_{\gamma\alpha}$ by
\[
A_{\alpha\beta}=\bS_{\alpha}^1 \times \bS_{\beta}^1, \quad A_{\beta\gamma}=\bS_{\beta}^1 \times \bS_{\gamma}^1, \quad\text{and}\quad A_{\gamma\alpha}=\bS_{\gamma}^1 \times \bS_{\alpha}^1.
\]
In addition to the $2$-cycles $A_{\alpha\beta}$, $A_{\beta\gamma}$, $A_{\gamma\alpha}$,
each K3 surface $X_s$ admits a marking, which gives $22$ generators of the second homology group $H_2(X_s, \mathbb{Z})$ denoted by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:generator}
A_{\alpha\beta},\ A_{\beta\gamma},\ A_{\gamma\alpha},\ B_\alpha,\ B_\beta,\ B_\gamma,\ C_{12}^+,\ C_{23}^+,\ \ldots, C_{78}^+,\ C_{678}^+,\ C_{12}^-,\ C_{23}^-,\ \ldots,\ C_{78}^-,\ C_{678}^-.
\end{equation}
In \S \ref{sec:calculation}, we will give the definitions of these generators.
Now let $L^{\pm}$ be holomorphic line bundles on $S^{\pm}$ with $(L^+\cdot C^+)=(L^-\cdot C^-)$.
Assume that there exists $\xi \in \mathbb{C}$ such that $g_\xi^*\left(L^-|_{C^-}\right)\cong L^+|_{C^+}$.
Note that such a $\xi$ always exists when $(L^+\cdot C^+)=(L^-\cdot C^-)\not=0$.
We fix such a $\xi \in \mathbb{C}$, and consider the deformation family $\mathcal{X}\to \Delta$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main1}
Under the above setting, we have the following.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item For any $s \in \Delta$, the line bundles $L^+|_{M_s^+}$ and $L^-|_{M_s^-}$ glue to define a holomorphic line bundle $L_s=L^+ \vee L^-$ on $X_s$.
Moreover there exists a holomorphic line bundle $\mathcal{L}\to \mathcal{X}$ such that $\mathcal{L}|_{X_s}=L_s$ for each $s \in \Delta$.
\item If $L^\pm$ are ample, then there exists $\ve_0>0$ such that $L_s$ is ample for any $s \in \Delta$ with $0<|s|<\ve_0$.
\item Let $L$ be a holomorphic line bundle on $X_s$ for some $s \in \Delta \setminus \{0 \}$. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exist line bundles $L^{\pm}$ on $S^{\pm}$ with $(L^+\cdot C^+)=(L^-\cdot C^-)$ such that $L=L^+\vee L^-$.
\item There exists a line bundle $\mathcal{L}\to \mathcal{X}$ such that $L=\mathcal{L}|_{X_s}$.
\item $(L\cdot A_{\beta\gamma})=(L\cdot A_{\gamma\alpha})=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
In our arguments it is important to describe the line bundles on $V_s^{\pm}$ and on $W^{\pm}$, which is given in Section~\ref{sec:linebundles} after preliminary studies in Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}.
Then we will prove the main theorems in Section~\ref{sec:proofs}.
Moreover, we will determine the Chern class $c_1(L_s)$ of the line bundle $L_s$ in terms of the marking \eqref{eqn:generator} in Section~\ref{sec:calculation}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to give special thanks to Prof. Takeo Ohsawa and Prof. Yuji Odaka whose enormous supports and insightful comments were invaluable during the course of their study.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:preliminaries}
\subsection{Neighborhoods of elliptic curves} \label{subsec:nbhdellcurve}
First we give the following definition.
\begin{definition} \label{def:diophpair}
Let $(p,q) \in \mathbb{R}^2$ be a pair of real numbers.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(p,q)$ is called a {\it torsion pair} if $(p,q) \in \mathbb{Q}^2$. Otherwise, $(p,q)$ is called a {\it non-torsion pair}.
\item $(p,q)$ is said to satisfy the {\it Diophantine condition} if there exist $\alpha>0$ and $A>0$ such that
\[
\min_{\mu,\nu \in \mathbb{Z}} \abs{n(p+q \sqrt{-1})-(\mu+\nu \sqrt{-1})} \ge A \cdot n^{-\alpha}
\]
for any $n \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Of course, if $(p,q)$ satisfies the Diophantine condition, then $(p,q)$ is a non-torsion pair.
Let $X$ be a complex manifold. Denote by ${\rm Pic}(X)$ the Picard group of $X$, the group of isomorphism classes of holomorphic line bundles on $X$,
and by ${\rm Pic}^0(X)$ the subgroup of ${\rm Pic}(X)$ consisting of (isomorphism classes of) topologically trivial line bundles.
Note that $L \in{\rm Pic}(X)$ is topologically trivial if and only if $L$ satisfies $c_1(L)=0 \in H^2(X, \mathbb{Z})$, where $c_1(L)$ stands for the first Chern class of
$L \in {\rm Pic}(X)$.
If $X=C$ is a smooth elliptic curve, then any topologically trivial line bundle $L \in {\rm Pic}^0(C)$ admits a structure of unitary flat line bundle (see \cite{U}).
In particular, the monodromy of $L \in {\rm Pic}^0(C)$ along any loop in $C$ is expressed as a complex number with modulus $1$.
\begin{definition} \label{def:diophnormal}
For $\tau \in \mathbb{H}$,
let $C=\mathbb{C}/ \langle 1,\tau \rangle$ be a smooth elliptic curve,
and let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be the loops in $C$ corresponding to the line segments $[0,1]$ and $[0,\tau]$, respectively.
Then a topologically trivial line bundle $L \in {\rm Pic}^0(C)$ on $C$ is said to satisfy the {\it Diophantine condition} if so does the pair $(p,q) \in \mathbb{R}^2$,
where $(p,q)$ is defined from $L$, that is, $\exp(p \cdot 2\pi \sqrt{-1})$ and $\exp(q \cdot 2\pi \sqrt{-1})$ are the monodromies of $L$ along the loops $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively.
\end{definition}
Now,
assume $C_0=\mathbb{C}/ \langle 1,\tau \rangle \subset \mathbb{P}^2$ is a smooth elliptic curve embedded in the projective plane $\mathbb{P}^2$.
Let $Z:=\set{p_1,\ldots, p_9} \subset C_0$ be nine points on $C_0$, and $S:={\rm Bl}_Z\mathbb{P}^2$ be the blow-up of $\mathbb{P}^2$ at $Z$
with the strict transform $C$ of $C_0$.
In this case, the normal bundle $N_{C/S} \in {\rm Pic}(C)$ of $C$ in $S$ is isomorphic to
$\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(3)|_{C_0} \otimes \mathcal{O}_{C_0}(-p_1-\dots-p_9) \in {\rm Pic}^0(C_0) \cong {\rm Pic}^0(C)$,
and the pair $(p,q) \in \mathbb{R}^2$ defined from $L=N_{C/S}$ (see Definition~\ref{def:diophnormal}) is given by
\[
9 p_0-\sum_{j=1}^9 p_j=q-p \cdot \tau \quad \mathrm{mod}\quad \langle 1,\tau \rangle,
\]
where $p_0$ is an inflection point of $C_0$. Moreover, if $N_{C/S} \in {\rm Pic}^0(C)$ satisfies the Diophantine condition, then Arnol'd's theorem \cite{A}
guarantees that there exists a analytically linearizable neighborhood of $C$ in $S$, namely,
a tubular neighborhood of $C$ in $S$ which is biholomorphic to a neighborhood of the zero section in $N_{C/S}$.
In other words, there exists a neighborhood of $C$ in $S$ biholomorphic to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nbhdW}
W := \set{(z, w)\in \mathbb{C}^2\mid \abs{w}<R }/\sim
\end{equation}
for some $R>1$, where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation generated by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:relationVW}
(z, w) \sim
(z+1,\ \exp(p\cdot 2\pi\sqrt{-1})\cdot w) \sim
(z+\tau,\ \exp(q\cdot 2\pi\sqrt{-1})\cdot w).
\end{equation}
With the neighborhood $W$ at hand, we can construct a family of K3 surfaces as mentioned in the introduction.
\begin{remark} \label{rem:leviflat}
For a given $w_0 \in \mathbb{C}$ with $0<\abs{w_0} <R$, let $F : \mathbb{C} \to W \subset S$ be a holomorphic map defined by $F(z)=[(z, w_0)]$.
Since $(p,q)$ satisfies the Diophantine condition, the Euclidean closure of $F(\mathbb{C})$ in $S$ coincides with
$\set{[(z, w)] \mid \abs{w}=\abs{w_0}} \subset W$, which is a real analytic hypersurface $C^\omega$-diffeomorphic to a real $3$-dimensional torus $\bS^1\times \bS^1\times \bS^1$.
The maps $F_b$ in Theorem \ref{thm:main} can be constructed in this manner.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Holomorphic line bundles on toroidal groups}
The neighborhood $W$ given in \eqref{eqn:nbhdW} is closely related to the {\it toroidal group}.
For $\tau \in \mathbb{H}$ and a non-torsion pair $(p,q) \in \mathbb{R}^2$, we consider
\[
U=U_{\tau,(p,q)}:=\mathbb{C}^2_{(z, \eta)}/\Lambda \quad \text{ with } \quad
\Lambda=\Lambda_{\tau,(p,q)}:=\left\langle
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
p
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\tau \\
q
\end{array}
\right)
\right\rangle.
\]
It is seen that $U$ becomes a toroidal group (see \emph{e.g.} \cite{AK}).
On the toroidal group $U$, an important class of line bundles is the {\it theta line bundles}, given as follows.
Let
\[
H=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
\overline{b} & c
\end{array}
\right) \in \rM_2(\mathbb{C})
\]
be a Hermitian matrix satisfying the condition
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:condi}
\mathrm{Im}\, H(\lambda,\mu) \in \mathbb{Z} \quad (\lambda , \mu \in \Lambda),
\end{equation}
where $H(x,y)={}^t x H \overline{y}$ for $x,y \in \mathbb{C}^2$, and let $\rho : \Lambda \to U(1)$ be a {\it semi-character} of $\mathrm{Im}\, H$, that is, it satisfies
\[
\rho(\lambda+\mu)=\rho(\lambda)\rho(\mu)\exp\left(\pi \sqrt{-1} \mathrm{Im}\, H(\lambda,\mu)\right) \quad (\lambda , \mu \in \Lambda).
\]
Then we define the holomorphic function $\alpha_\lambda=\alpha^{(H,\rho)}_\lambda : \mathbb{C}^2_{(z, \eta)} \to \mathbb{C}$ by
\[
\alpha_\lambda(x) := \rho(\lambda)\exp\left(\pi H(x, \lambda)+(\pi/2) H(\lambda, \lambda)\right), \quad \lambda \in \Lambda,\ x={}^t(z, \eta) \in \mathbb{C}^2.
\]
From \eqref{eqn:condi}, the function $\alpha_\lambda(x)$ satisfies the cocycle condition
\[
\alpha_{\lambda+\mu}(x) = \alpha_{\lambda}(x+\mu) \alpha_{\mu}(x), \quad \lambda,\mu \in \Lambda,\ x \in \mathbb{C}^2,
\]
and hence
\[
L=L_{H,\rho}:=(\mathbb{C}_{\zeta} \times \mathbb{C}^2)/ \Lambda
\]
with
\[
\lambda \cdot (\zeta,x):=(\alpha_{\lambda}(x) \cdot \zeta, x+\lambda), \quad \lambda \in \Lambda,\ \zeta \in \mathbb{C}_{\zeta},\ x \in \mathbb{C}^2
\]
defines a line bundle on $U$, which is called a {\it theta line bundle} on $U$.
In our setting, note that $\lambda_2 \in \mathbb{R}$ for any ${}^t (\lambda_1,\lambda_2) \in \Lambda$.
Hence a nowhere vanishing holomorphic function $\beta : \mathbb{C}^2 \to \mathbb{C}^*$, given by
\[
\beta(z, \eta)=\exp (-\pi c \eta^2/2),
\]
satisfies
\[
\alpha^{(H_0,\rho)}_\lambda(x) =\beta(x+\lambda)\alpha^{(H,\rho)}_{\lambda}(x) \beta(x)^{-1} \quad (\lambda \in \Lambda, x \in \mathbb{C}^2)
\qquad
\text{with} \quad H_0=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
\overline{b} & 0
\end{array}
\right),
\]
which means that $L_{H,\rho}$ is holomorphically isomorphic to $L_{H_0,\rho}$. Hereafter, we assume $c=0$ and put
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:hermitian}
H=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
\overline{b} & 0
\end{array}
\right) \in \rM_2(\mathbb{C}).
\end{equation}
On the line bundle $L_{H,\rho}$, there is a natural metric $h=h_H$, given by
\[
|\zeta|_{h, x}^2 := \exp(-\pi H(x, x)) |\zeta|^2,
\]
which is well-defined because
\begin{align*}
|\alpha_\lambda(x)\cdot \zeta|_{h, x+\lambda}^2
&= |\alpha_\lambda(x)|^2\cdot \exp(-\pi H(x+\lambda, x+\lambda)) |\zeta|^2 \\
&=\exp({\rm Re}(2\pi H(x, \lambda)+\pi H(\lambda, \lambda))) \cdot \exp(-\pi H(x+\lambda, x+\lambda)) |\zeta|^2 \\
&=\exp(\pi H(x, \lambda) + \pi H(\lambda, x) +\pi H(\lambda, \lambda))\\
&\quad \cdot \exp(-\pi H(x, x)-\pi H(x, \lambda)-\pi H(\lambda, x)-\pi H(\lambda, \lambda))|\zeta|^2\\
&=\exp(-\pi H(x, x))|\zeta|^2=|\zeta|_{h, x}^2.
\end{align*}
In particular, the curvature form of $h_H$ is given by
\[
\Theta_{h_H} := - \partial \overline{\partial} \log h_H=
\pi \cdot (a dz\wedge d\overline{z} + bdz\wedge d\overline{\eta} + \overline{b}d\eta\wedge d\overline{z} )
\]
with $x={}^t(z,\eta) \in \mathbb{C}^2$, and $c_1(L_{H,\rho})=[\sqrt{-1} \Theta_{h_H}/2 \pi]$.
Moreover the following result holds (see \cite{AK}).
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:thetabdle}
Assume that $(p,q)$ satisfies the Diophantine condition. Then any line bundle $L$ on $U_{\tau,(p,q)}$ is holomorphically isomorphic to $L_{H,\rho}$ for some $(H,\rho)$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Deformations of K3 surfaces and Picard numbers}
The following results are taught by Dr. Takeru Fukuoka.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:K3_deform_picard}
Let $P\colon \mathcal{X}\to T$ be a deformation family of K3 surfaces.
Assume that the Kodaira--Spencer map $\rho_{\rm KS, P} \colon T_T\to R^1P_*T_{\mathcal{X}/T}$ is injective.
Then, for almost every $t\in T$, it holds that $\rho(X_t)\leq20-\dim(T)$, where $X_t:=P^{-1}(t)$ and $\rho(X_t)$ is the Picard number of $X_t$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Take a base point $0\in T$ and denote by $L:=\Pi_{3, 19}$ the K3 lattice $H^2(X_0, \mathbb{Z})$.
Fix a marking $R^2P_*\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{X}}\cong(L_\mathbb{C})_T$, where $L_\mathbb{C}:=L\otimes\mathbb{C}$.
Consider the map $V_\bullet\colon T\to \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})$ defined by
$t\mapsto V_t:=H^0(X_t, K_{X_t})^{\bot}$ for each $t\in T$, where we are regarding $\mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})$ as the set of hyperplanes of $L_\mathbb{C}$.
It follows from Torelli's theorem that the map $V_\bullet$ is a locally closed embedding of $T$ into $\mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})$.
Therefore ${\rm Image}\,V_\bullet$ is a locally closed subvariety of $\mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})$ of dimension $\dim(T)$.
Define $r\colon \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})\to \mathbb{Z}$ by $r(V):={\rm rank}(L\cap V)$.
Note that $r(V_t)={\rm rank}(H^2(X_t, \mathbb{Z})\cap (H^{1, 1}(X_t, \mathbb{C})\oplus H^{0, 2}(X_t, \mathbb{C})))=\rho(X_t)+1$ holds for each $t\in T$.
Therefore the set $\set{t\in T\mid \rho(X_t)< 21-\dim(T)}$ can be rewritten as
$V_\bullet^{-1}\left(({\rm Image}\,V_\bullet)\setminus \set{V\in \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})\mid r(V)\geq 22-\dim(T)}\right)$.
By Lemma \ref{lem_countable_union_F_r} below, $\set{V\in \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})\mid r(V)\geq 22-\dim(T)}$ is a countable union of ($\dim(T)-1$)-dimensional linear subspaces of $\mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_countable_union_F_r}
Let $r\colon \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})\to \mathbb{Z}$ be as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:K3_deform_picard}.
Then $F_n:=\set{V\in \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})\mid r(V)\geq n}$ is a countable union of $(21-n)$-dimensional linear subspaces of $\mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})$ for each $n=0, 1, 2, \ldots, 21$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Set $\Lambda:=\set{M\subset L\mid M: \text{sub module},\ {\rm rank}\,M=n}$.
For $M\in\Lambda$ and $W\in \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C}/M_\mathbb{C})$, it clearly holds that $p_M^{-1}(W)\in F_n$,
where $M_\mathbb{C}:=M\otimes \mathbb{C}$ and $p_M\colon L_\mathbb{C}\to L_\mathbb{C}/M_\mathbb{C}$ is the natural projection.
Conversely, for each $V\in F_n$ and a sublattice $M\subset V$ of rank $n$, we have $V=p_M^{-1}(W)$ by defining $W:=V/M_\mathbb{C}\in \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C}/M_\mathbb{C})$.
Therefore we obtain the description
\[
F_n=\bigcup_{M\in\Lambda}\set{p_M^{-1}(W)\mid W\in \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C}/M_\mathbb{C})}.
\]
As $\Lambda$ is countable and the map $p_M^{-1}(-)\colon \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C}/M_\mathbb{C})\ni W\mapsto p_M^{-1}(W)\in F_n\subset \mathbb{P}(L_\mathbb{C})$ is a linear embedding for each $M$, the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Line bundles on $W$ and $V$} \label{sec:linebundles}
For $\tau \in \mathbb{H}$, let $C=\mathbb{C}_{z} /\langle 1,\tau \rangle$ be a complex torus,
and for a non-torsion pair $(p, q) \in\mathbb{R}^2$ and $0 \le r<R \le \infty$, let $W =W_{\tau,(p,q)}^R$ be defined in \eqref{eqn:nbhdW} and $V =V_{\tau,(p,q)}^{r,R}$
be defined by
\[
V =V_{\tau,(p,q)}^{r,R}:= \set{(z, w)\in \mathbb{C}^2\mid r<\abs{w}<R }/\sim,
\]
where $\sim$ is given by \eqref{eqn:relationVW}.
We notice that $V$ is isomorphic to an open submanifold of the toroidal group $U=U_{\tau,(p,q)}=(\mathbb{C}_z \times \mathbb{C}_{\eta})/\Lambda$,
namely,
\[
U \supset \left(\mathbb{C}_z \times \set{ -\log R < 2 \pi \mathrm{Im}\,\eta<-\log r }\right)/\Lambda \ni [(z,\eta)] \overset{\cong}{\longmapsto} \left[\left(z,\exp(2 \pi \sqrt{-1} \eta)\right)\right] \in V
\]
with $U_{\tau,(p,q)} \cong V_{\tau,(p,q)}^{0,\infty}$,
and $W$ is obtained from $V_{\tau,(p,q)}^{0,R}$ by adding the complex torus $C$.
Let $\pi : W \to C$ be the natural projection, given by $\pi([(z,w)])=[z]$, and denote $\pi|_{V} : V \to C$ by $\pi : V \to C$ for simplicity.
\begin{lemma}\label{top_triv_lb}
Assume that $(p,q)$ satisfies the Diophantine condition. Then for any $L\in {\rm Pic}^0(W)$, the equality $L=\pi^*(L|_C)$ holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As the topologically trivial bundle $L$ satisfies $c_1(L)=0$, $L$ can be represented by some $\alpha\in H^1(W, \mathcal{O}_W)$
from the exact sequence $H^1(W, \mathcal{O}_W) \to {\rm Pic}(W) \overset{c_1}{\longrightarrow} H^2(W, \mathbb{Z})$.
Hence it is enough to show that $\pi^*(\alpha|_C) =\alpha$.
Put $\alpha=\{(W_{jk}, f_{jk})\}$, where $W_{jk}=W_j \cap W_k$ and $W_j=\pi^{-1}(U_j)\cong U_j\times \Delta$ with a Stein open covering $\{U_j\}$ of $C$.
Moreover $f_{jk}$ can be expressed on $W_j$ as a convergent power series
\[
f_{jk}(z_j, w_j) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty f_{jk, n}(z_j)\cdot w_j^n,
\]
where $(z_j, w_j)$ are coordinates on $W_j$ which come from $(z, w)$.
Then it is enough to show that there are holomorphic functions $g_j\colon W_j\to \mathbb{C}$ such that
\[
\set{(W_{jk}, \widehat{f}_{jk})} = \delta\set{(W_j, g_j)}:= \left\{ (W_{jk}, -g_j + g_k) \right\} ,
\]
where
\[
\widehat{f}_{jk}(z_j, w_j) := f(z_j, w_j)-f(z_j, 0) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty f_{jk, n}(z_j)\cdot w_j^n.
\]
Note that there exists a multiplicative $1$-cocycle $\{t_{jk}\}$ with $t_{jk} \in U(1)$ representing $N_{C/W}$ such that $w_k=t_{kj} \cdot w_j$ for any $j,k$.
Since $\set{(U_{jk}, f_{jk, n})} \in H^1\left(\{U_j\}, N_{C/W}^{-n}\right)$ and $N_{C/W}$ is non-torsion,
the $\delta$-equation
\[
-g_{j, n}+t_{jk}^{-n}\cdot g_{k, n} = f_{jk, n}
\]
has a unique solution $g_{j, n} \colon U_j\to \mathbb{C}$ for each $n>0$.
Furthermore the power series
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:powerseries}
g_j(z_j, w_j)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty g_{j, n}(z_j)\cdot w_j^n
\end{equation}
converges.
Indeed, Ueda's lemma (see \cite[Lemma~4]{U}) says that there exists a constant $K>0$ depending only on $C$ and $\set{U_j}$ such that for any flat line bundle $E$ over $C$
and for any $0$-cochain $\set{h_j} \in C^0\left(\set{U_j},\mathcal{O}(E)\right)$, the inequality
\[
d(\mathbb{I}_C,E) \cdot \norm{\set{h_j}} \le K \cdot \norm{\delta \set{h_j}}
\]
holds, where $\mathbb{I}_C$ is the holomorphically trivial line bundle on $C$, $d(\mathbb{I}_C,E)$ is the Euclidean distance of ${\rm Pic}^0(C)\cong \mathbb{C}/\langle 1, \tau\rangle$, which clearly is an invariant distance, and
\[
\norm{\set{h_j}}:=\max_{j} \sup_{z \in U_j}\abs{h_j(z)} \quad\text{and}\quad \norm{\delta\set{h_j}}:=\max_{j,k} \sup_{z \in U_j \cap U_k}\abs{h_{jk}(z)} \quad \text{with}\ \ \set{h_{jk}}:=\delta\set{h_j}.
\]
In our setting, since $N_{C/W}$ satisfies the Diophantine condition, there exist $A>0$ and $\alpha>0$ such that $d(\mathbb{I}_C, N_{C/W}^n)\geq A\cdot n^{-\alpha}$ holds for any $n\geq 1$.
Cauchy's inequality shows that for any $\ell \in (0,R)$, there exists $M>0$ such that $\abs{f_{jk,n}(z_j)} \le M/\ell^n$ for any $n \ge 1$ and $z_j \in U_j \cap U_k$.
Hence we have
\[
\abs{g_{j,n}(z_j)} \le \frac{K}{d(\mathbb{I}_C,N_{C/W}^n)} \cdot \max_{j,k} \sup_{z_j \in U_j \cap U_k}\abs{f_{jk}(z_j)} \le \frac{K}{A\cdot n^{-\alpha}} \cdot \frac{M}{\ell^n}
=\frac{KM}{A} \cdot \frac{n^{\alpha}}{\ell^n},
\]
which means that the power series \eqref{eqn:powerseries} indeed converges because $\ell \in (0,R)$ is chosen arbitrarily.
Therefore we have $\pi^*(\alpha|_C) =\alpha$ in $H^1(W, \mathcal{O}_W)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The following can be proved in a similar manner by replacing a Taylor power series with a Laurent power one: for any $L\in {\rm Pic}^0(V)$, there exists an $F \in {\rm Pic}^0(C)$ such that $L= \pi^*F$, which is proved in \cite{AK} for the case where $V=U$ is a toroidal group.
Conversely, \cite{AK} also proves the statement that if a pair $(p,q)$ {\it does not} satisfy the Diophantine condition,
then there exists an $L\in {\rm Pic}^0(U)$ such that $L \neq \pi^*F$ for any $F \in {\rm Pic}^0(C)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:linebundleonW}
Assume that $(p,q)$ satisfies the Diophantine condition.
Then $L=\pi^*(L|_C)$ holds for any $L\in {\rm Pic}(W)$. In particular, the restriction map ${\rm Pic}(W)\to {\rm Pic}(C)$ is an isomorphism.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As $C$ is a deformation retract of $W$, the restriction map $H^2(W, \mathbb{Z})\to H^2(C, \mathbb{Z})$ is an isomorphism.
Hence we have $c_1(L \otimes \pi^*(L^{-1}|_C))=0$ and $L \otimes \pi^*(L^{-1}|_C)$ is topologically trivial.
Since $(L \otimes \pi^*(L^{-1}|_C))|_C$ is a trivial bundle on $C$, one has $L=\pi^*(L|_C)$ by Lemma \ref{top_triv_lb}.
\end{proof}
Now let us recall the three $2$-cycles
\[
A_{\alpha\beta}=\bS_{\alpha}^1 \times \bS_{\beta}^1, \quad A_{\beta\gamma}=\bS_{\beta}^1 \times \bS_{\gamma}^1, \quad \text{and}\quad A_{\gamma\alpha}=\bS_{\alpha}^1 \times \bS_{\gamma}^1
\]
on $V$, where, for a base point $[(0,w_0)] \in V$, $\bS_{\alpha}^1, \bS_{\beta}^1, \bS_{\gamma}^1$ are circles given by the images of
\begin{itemize}
\item $i_{\alpha}\colon [0, 1] \ni \alpha \mapsto \left[(\alpha, \exp(\alpha p \cdot 2 \pi \sqrt{-1}) w_0)\right] \in V$, \\
\item $i_{\beta}\colon [0, 1] \ni \beta \mapsto \left[(\beta \tau, \exp(\beta q \cdot 2 \pi \sqrt{-1}) w_0)\right] \in V$, \\
\item $i_{\gamma}\colon [0, 1] \ni \gamma \mapsto \left[(0, \exp(\gamma \cdot 2 \pi \sqrt{-1}) w_0)\right] \in V$,
\end{itemize}
respectively. Here, the orientations of $A_{\alpha\beta}, A_{\beta\gamma}, A_{\gamma\alpha}$ are defined by $d \alpha \wedge d \beta$, $d \beta \wedge d \gamma$, $d \alpha \wedge d \gamma$, respectively.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:intersection}
For a Hermitian matrix $H$ given in \eqref{eqn:hermitian} satisfying condition \eqref{eqn:condi} and a semi-character $\rho$ of $\,{\rm Im}\,H$, we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(L_{H,\rho}\cdot A_{\alpha\beta})=\mathrm{Im}\, H(x_{\beta},x_{\alpha})=a\cdot {\rm Im}\,\tau +p\cdot {\rm Im}(b \tau) -q \cdot {\rm Im}\,b$, \\
\item $(L_{H,\rho}\cdot A_{\beta\gamma}) = \mathrm{Im}\, H(x_{\gamma},x_{\beta})=-{\rm Im}(b\tau)$, \\
\item $(L_{H,\rho}\cdot A_{\gamma\alpha}) = \mathrm{Im}\, H(x_{\gamma},x_{\alpha})=-{\rm Im}\,b$,
\end{enumerate}
where $x_{\alpha}:={}^t (1,p)$, $x_{\beta}:={}^t (\tau,q)$, and $x_{\gamma}:={}^t (0,1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will only prove the assertion (1) as the other cases can be treated in the same manner.
Note that the class $c_1(L_{H,\rho})$ can be represented as
\[
\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2} \cdot (a dz\wedge d\overline{z} + bdz\wedge d\overline{\eta} + \overline{b}d\eta\wedge d\overline{z}),
\]
where $w=\exp(\eta \cdot 2 \pi \sqrt{-1})$. By the definition of $A_{\alpha\beta}$, put $z=\alpha+\tau \beta$ and $\eta=p\alpha+q \beta$.
Since $p, q, \alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{R}$, we have
\[
j_{\alpha\beta}^*dz \wedge d\overline{z} =d(\alpha+\tau \beta) \wedge d(\alpha+\overline{\tau} \beta)=(\overline{\tau}-\tau) d \alpha \wedge d \beta = -2 \sqrt{-1} \mathrm{Im}\,\tau d \alpha \wedge d \beta,
\]
where $j_{\alpha\beta}\colon A_{\alpha\beta}\to V$ is the embedding induced by $i_\alpha$ and $i_\beta$.
In a similar manner, one has
\[
j_{\alpha\beta}^*dz\wedge d\overline{\eta} = - (p \tau-q)d \alpha \wedge d \beta, \quad j_{\alpha\beta}^*d\eta\wedge d\overline{z} = \overline{(p \tau-q)} d \alpha \wedge d \beta,
\]
and hence
\[
j_{\alpha\beta}^*(bdz\wedge d\overline{\eta} + \overline{b}d\eta\wedge d\overline{z}) = -2 \sqrt{-1} \mathrm{Im} \left(b (p \tau-q)\right) d \alpha \wedge d \beta.
\]
Therefore we have
\[
(L_{H,\rho}\cdot A_{\alpha\beta})=\int_{[0,1]\times [0,1]} \left(a \mathrm{Im}\,\tau + \mathrm{Im} (b (p \tau-q))\right) d \alpha \wedge d \beta=a \mathrm{Im}\,\tau + \mathrm{Im} (b (p \tau-q)).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:extentability}
Let $L\in {\rm Pic}(V)$ be a holomorphic line bundle on $V$.
Assume that $(p,q)$ satisfies the Diophantine condition.
Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a holomorphic line bundle $G\in {\rm Pic}(W)$ on $W$ such that $L=G|_V$.
\item $(L\cdot A_{\beta\gamma}) = (L\cdot A_{\gamma\alpha}) =0$.
\item The equality $b=0$ holds, where $b$ is the $(1, 2)$-element of the Hermitian matrix $H \in \rM_2(\mathbb{C})$ as \eqref{eqn:hermitian}
satisfying the condition \eqref{eqn:condi} and $L=L_{H, \rho}$ for a semi-character $\rho$ of $\mathrm{Im}\, H$, whose existence is assured by Proposition~\emph{\ref{prop:thetabdle}}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Note that the Diophantine assumption on the pair $(p, q)$ in this proposition can be dropped if one assumes that $L=L_{H, \rho}$ for some Hermitian matrix $H \in \rM_2(\mathbb{C})$ satisfying condition \eqref{eqn:condi} and $\rho$ is a semi-character of $\mathrm{Im}\, H$.
\begin{proof}
The equivalence (2) $\Longleftrightarrow$ (3) follows from Lemma \ref{lem:intersection} and
(1) $\Longrightarrow$ (2) holds since the circle $\bS_{\gamma}^1$ is contractible in $W$.
The implication (3) $\Longrightarrow$ (1) follows since the factor $\alpha^{(H,\rho)}_{\lambda}(z, \eta)$ depends only on $z$ and thus $L$ is expressed as $L=\pi^{*}(L_0)$ for some $L_0 \in {\rm Pic}(C)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of main theorems} \label{sec:proofs}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} $(i)$}\label{section:proof_main_i}
It follows from Proposition \ref{prop:linebundleonW} and the assumption $g_{\xi}^*\left(L^-|_{C^-}\right) \cong L^+|_{C^+}$ that
the restrictions $L^{\pm}|_{V^{\pm}_s}$ of $L^{\pm}|_{W^{\pm}}$ are isomorphic via the biholomorphic map $f_s : V_s^+ \to V_s^-$.
Thus, $\left(M^+_s, L^+|_{M^+_s}\right)$ and $\left(M^-_s, L^-|_{M^-_s}\right)$ are glued together to yield a holomorphic line bundle $L_s=L^+ \vee L^-$ on $X_s$.
In order to describe the holomorphic line bundle $\mathcal{L}\to \mathcal{X}$ on $\mathcal{X}$ via the isomorphisms \eqref{eqn:isomorphism},
we define manifolds $\mathcal{M}^{\pm}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ by
\[
\mathcal{M}^{\pm}:= (S^{\pm} \times \Delta ) \setminus \set{ (\left[(z^{\pm},w^{\pm})\right],s) \in W^{\pm} \times \Delta \mid \abs{w^{\pm}} \le \sqrt{\abs{s}} R}
\]
and
\[
\mathcal{V}:=\set{(z^+,w^+,w^-)\in \mathbb{C}^3 \mid \abs{w^{+}}<R,\, \abs{w^{-}}<R,\, \abs{w^+ w^-}<1}/\sim,
\]
where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation generated by
\[
(z^+, w^+,w^-) \sim
(z^++1,\ e^{p \cdot 2\pi\sqrt{-1}}\cdot w^+,\ e^{-p \cdot 2\pi\sqrt{-1}}\cdot w^-) \sim
(z^++\tau,\ e^{q \cdot 2\pi\sqrt{-1}}\cdot w^+,\ e^{-q \cdot 2\pi\sqrt{-1}}\cdot w^-).
\]
Then $\mathcal{M}^{\pm}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ are glued together to yield the deformation family $\mathcal{X}$ via injective holomorphic maps $f_{\pm} : \mathcal{M}^{\pm} \supset \mathcal{V}^{\pm} \to \mathcal{V}$, where
\[
\mathcal{V}^{\pm}:= \set{ ([(z^{\pm},w^{\pm})],s) \in W^{\pm} \times\Delta \mid \sqrt{\abs{s}} R<\abs{w^{\pm}} < R} \subset \mathcal{M}^{\pm}
\]
and
\[
f_{+}\left(([(z^+,w^+)],s)\right)=[(z^+,w^+,s/w^+)], \quad f_{-}\left(([(z^-,w^-)],s)\right)=[(g_{\xi}^{-1}(z^-),s/w^-,w^-)].
\]
The restriction of $\mathcal{X} \to \Delta$ on $\mathcal{M}^{\pm}$ is the natural projection $\mathcal{M}^{\pm} \to \Delta$,
while that on $\mathcal{V}$ is given by $[(z^+,w^+,w^-)] \mapsto w^+ \cdot w^-$.
Moreover, it should be noted that there are natural projections $\varphi_{\pm} : \mathcal{M}^{\pm} \to S^{\pm}$ and $\varphi : \mathcal{V} \to C^+$ given by $\varphi([(z^+,w^+,w^-)])=[z^+]$.
Then a holomorphic line bundle $\mathcal{L} \to \mathcal{X}$ is defined by the pullbacks $\varphi_{\pm}^* (L^{\pm})$ on $\mathcal{M}^{\pm}$ and $\varphi^*(L^+|_{C^+})$ on $\mathcal{V}$.
We notice that the line bundle $\mathcal{L} \to \mathcal{X}$ is well-defined since
the line bundles $f_+^* \varphi^*(L^+|_{C^+})$ and $f_-^* \varphi^*(g_{\xi}^*(L^-|_{C^-}))$ are the same as the restrictions $\mathcal{L}|_{\mathcal{V}^{+}}$ and $\mathcal{L}|_{\mathcal{V}^{-}}$ respectively,
by virtue of Proposition \ref{prop:linebundleonW} and the assumption $g_{\xi}^*(L^-|_{C^-}) \cong L^+|_{C^+}$.
\qed
\subsection{Idea of proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} $(ii)$}
Let $X=X_s$ be a K3 surface obtained by gluing $M^+=M_s^+$ and $M^-=M_s^-$, and $L^{\pm}$ be an ample line bundle on $S^{\pm}$.
In order to show Theorem \ref{thm:main1} $(ii)$, we will construct a $C^{\infty}$-Hermitian metric on $L:=L_s=L^+ \vee L^-$ with positive curvature in the following manner for fixed $0<R_1<R_2<R$:
\begin{description}
\item[Step 1] Construct a $C^{\infty}$-Hermitian metric $h_{\pm}$ on $L^\pm$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[---] $h_{\pm}$ can be glued to define a $C^{\infty}$-Hermitian metric $h$ on $L$ (if $0<\abs{s}<\ve_0$),
\item[---] the Chern curvature of $h_{\pm}$ is semi-positive: $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_\pm}\geq 0$,
\item[---] $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_\pm} > 0$ holds on $S^{\pm} \setminus \set{\abs{w^{\pm}} \le R_1}$, and
\item[---] $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_\pm}(\partial/\partial z^{\pm},\partial/\partial z^{\pm}) > 0$ holds on $S^{\pm}$.
\end{itemize}
\item[Step 2] Construct a $C^{\infty}$ function $\psi^{\pm}$ on $S^{\pm} \setminus C^{\pm}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[---] $\psi^{\pm}$ can be glued to define a $C^{\infty}$ function $\psi$ on $X$,
\item[---] $\psi^{\pm}$ is psh on $M^{\pm} \setminus \set{R_2 \le \abs{w^{\pm}} \le R}$: $\sqrt{-1} \partial \bar\partial \psi^{\pm}|_{ M^{\pm} \setminus \set{R_2 \le \abs{w^{\pm}} \le R}} \ge0$,
\item[---] $\psi^{\pm}|_{W^{\pm}}$ depends only on $\abs{w^{\pm}}$, and
\item[---] $\sqrt{-1}\partial \bar\partial \psi^{\pm}(\partial/\partial w^{\pm},\partial/\partial w^{\pm}) > 0$ holds on $\set{\abs{w^{\pm}}<R_2 }$.
\end{itemize}
\item[Step 3] For $0<c\ll 1$, $h\cdot e^{-c\psi}$ is a desired metric on $L$ with positive Chern curvature $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h}+ c \sqrt{-1}\partial \bar\partial \psi >0$.
\end{description}
In our construction, $h_\pm\cdot e^{-c\psi^\pm}$ is a $C^{\infty}$-Hermitian metric on $L^\pm|_{S^\pm\setminus C^\pm}$ with positive Chern curvature
such that $h_\pm\cdot e^{-c\psi^\pm} \sim (\log |w^{\pm}|)^2$ as $w^{\pm} \to 0$.
Moreover, $\omega^\pm :=\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_\pm} +c\sqrt{-1}\ddbar \psi^\pm \in c_1\left(L^\pm|_{S^\pm\setminus C^\pm}\right)$ gives a complete K\"ahler metric on $S^\pm\setminus C^\pm$, and
on a neighborhood $\set{\abs{w^\pm}<\sqrt{\ve_0}R}$ of $C^\pm$, the form $\omega^\pm$ is expressed as
\[
\omega^\pm|_{\set{\abs{w^\pm}<\sqrt{\ve_0}R}} = \frac{\pi (L^{\pm}\cdot C^{\pm})}{\mathrm{Im}\,\tau}\cdot \sqrt{-1}dz^\pm\wedge d\overline{z}^\pm + 2c\cdot \frac{\sqrt{-1}dw^\pm\wedge d\overline{w}^\pm}{\abs{w^\pm}^2}.
\]
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} $(ii)$}
Let $S$ be the blow-up of $\mathbb{P}^2$ at nine points, and $C \subset S$ be an elliptic curve in $|K_{S}^{-1}|$ such that
$N_{C/S} \in {\rm Pic}^0(C)$ satisfies the Diophantine condition. Then Arnol'd's theorem says that there is an analytically linearizable neighborhood $W \subset S$ of $C$.
By shrinking $W$ if necessary, we may assume that $W$ is isomorphic to $W_{\tau,(p,q)}^{R}$ for some $R>0$, $\tau \in \mathbb{H}$ and $(p,q) \in \mathbb{R}^2$
satisfying the Diophantine condition, and let $\pi : W \to C$ be the projection given in Section~\ref{sec:linebundles}.
Let $L \in {\rm Pic }(S)$ be an ample line bundle, which implies that there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $L^n\otimes [-C]$ is very ample,
and let $g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_N$ be a basis of $H^0(S, L^n\otimes [-C])$, which are regarded as sections of $L^n$ with zeros along $C$.
Then the {\it singular} Hermitian metric $h_L$ on $L$ is defined by
\[
\langle \xi, \eta\rangle_{h_L, x} := \frac{\xi\cdot \overline{\eta}}{\left(\abs{g_1(x)}^2+\abs{g_2(x)}^2+\cdots + \abs{g_N(x)}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}}, \quad\text{where}\ \ \xi, \eta\in L|_x.
\]
The metric $h_L$ has a pole along $C$ and
its restriction $h_L|_{S\setminus C}$ induces a $C^{\infty}$-metric on $S \setminus C$ with positive curvature form $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_L}|_{S \setminus C}>0$.
Moreover let $h_C$ be a $C^{\infty}$-metric on $L|_W$ satisfying $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_C}= b \sqrt{-1}dz\wedge d\overline{z}$ for $b:=\pi (L\cdot C)/\mathrm{Im}\,\tau >0$.
Fix $0<R_1 <R_2<R$. Then we define a metric $h$ on $L$ by
\[
h^{-1} := \begin{cases}
{\rm Regularized Max} (h_L^{-1}, \ve\cdot \pi^*h_{C}^{-1}) & \text{on}\ W \\
h_L^{-1} & \text{on}\ S\setminus\overline{W}
\end{cases}
\]
where $\ve>0$ and ${\rm Regularized Max}\colon\mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}$ is the regularized maximum function (see \cite[Chapter~\romfigure{1}, Lemma~5.18]{D}).
Note that, by choosing $\ve>0$ sufficiently small, one may assume that $h=h_L$ holds on $\set{[(z, w)]\in W\mid R_1< \abs{w}}$, which ensures the smoothness of $h$.
Then $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_h\geq 0$, since the local weight function $\vp$ of $h$ satisfies
\[
\vp = {\rm Regularized Max}(\vp_L, \vp_C-\log\ve),
\]
where $\vp_L$ and $\vp_C$ are the local weight functions of $h_L$ and $h_C$, respectively.
By the construction of $h$, there exists a positive constant $\ve_0$ such that
$h=\ve^{-1} \cdot \pi^*h_{C}$ holds on $\set{\abs{w}< \sqrt{\ve_0} R }$.
By shrinking $\ve_0$ if necessary, we may assume $\sqrt{\ve_0} R<R_1$.
For $s \in \Delta$ with $|s|< \ve_0$, let $\lambda=\lambda_s : \mathbb{R}_{>0} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a $C^{\infty}$-function satisfying the conditions
\[\begin{cases}
\lambda(t)=\left(\log (t^2/\abs{s}) \right)^2 &\text{if}\ 0<t<R_2,\\
\lambda(t)\equiv\text{constant}&\text{if}\ t \geq R,
\end{cases}\]
and $\psi=\psi_s : S \setminus C \to \mathbb{R}$ be the $C^{\infty}$-function defined by
\[
\psi(p):=
\begin{cases}
\lambda(\abs{w}) & \forall\, p=(z,w) \in W \setminus C \\
\lambda(R) & \forall\, p \notin W.
\end{cases}
\]
It is easy to see that $\ddbar\psi=0$ outside $\set{ \abs{w} \le R }$ and
$\ddbar \psi=2\cdot dw\wedge d\overline{w}/\abs{w}^2$
on $\set{0<\abs{w} < R_2}$.
Finally, we choose $c>0$ so that
\[
\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_L}+c\sqrt{-1}\ddbar \psi>0
\]
on the compact subset $\set{R_2 \le \abs{w} \le R}$.
Here note that such a $c>0$ exists since $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_L}$ is strictly positive on $\set{R_2 \le \abs{w} \le R} \subset S \setminus C$.
We consider the metric $h \cdot e^{-c \psi}$ on $S \setminus C$. Our assumption on $c>0$ says that
\[\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h \cdot e^{-c \psi}} = \sqrt{-1} \Theta_{h_L} + c \sqrt{-1}\ddbar \psi>0\] outside $\set{\abs{w}<R_2}$.
Moreover, $h \cdot e^{-c \psi}$ has positive curvature also on $\set{0<\abs{w}<R_2}$, since it holds
\[
\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_L \cdot e^{-c \psi}} > \sqrt{-1} \Theta_{h_L}>0, \quad
\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{\ve^{-1} \cdot \pi^*h_C \cdot e^{-c \psi}}=b \sqrt{-1} dz \wedge \overline{z}+ c \frac{\sqrt{-1}dw\wedge d\overline{w}}{\abs{w}^2}>0
\]
and
\[
(h\cdot e^{-c \psi})^{-1} = {\rm Regularized Max} \left((h_L\cdot e^{-c \psi})^{-1}, (\ve^{-1}\cdot \pi^*h_{C}\cdot e^{-c \psi})^{-1} \right)
\]
on $\set{0<\abs{w}<R_2}$ (see \cite[Chapter~\romfigure{1}, Lemma~5.18(e)]{D}).
Therefore the curvature of $h \cdot e^{-c \psi}$ is positive on $S \setminus C$.
Now we consider two pairs $(S^{\pm},C^{\pm})$ of surfaces $S^{\pm}$ and curves $C^{\pm} \subset S^{\pm}$ given in the introduction, which admit analytically linearizable neighborhoods $W^{\pm} \subset S^{\pm}$ of $C^{\pm}$, and assume that $W^{\pm}$ are regarded as subspaces $\set{[(z^{\pm},w^{\pm})] \mid \abs{w^{\pm}} <R}$ of toroidal groups.
Moreover let $L^{\pm}$ be ample line bundles with $(L^+\cdot C^+)=(L^-\cdot C^-)$ and $g_{\xi} : C^+ \to C^-$ be an isomorphism with $g_\xi^*\left(L^-|_{C^-}\right)=L^+|_{C^+}$.
In what follows we abuse the notation to denote $g_\xi$ simply by $g$.
Then the above argument shows that there exist $C^{\infty}$-metrics $h_{\pm} \cdot e^{-c \psi^{\pm}}$ on $S^{\pm} \setminus C^{\pm}$ such that
$\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_{\pm} \cdot e^{-c \psi^{\pm}}}>0$ on $S^{\pm} \setminus C^{\pm}$ and
\[
h_{\pm} =\ve^{-1} \cdot \pi_{\pm}^*h_{C_{\pm}}, \quad \psi^{\pm}(z^{\pm}, w^{\pm}) = \left(\log \frac{\abs{w^{\pm}}^2}{\abs{s}} \right)^2
\]
on $\set{0<\abs{w^{\pm}}<\sqrt{\abs{s}}R \ (<\sqrt{\ve_0} R<R_1)}$.
As our K3 surface $X_s$ is given by gluing two surfaces
\[M_s^{\pm}=S^{\pm} \setminus \set{\abs{w^{\pm}} \le\sqrt{\abs{s}}/R }\]
via the map
$(z^+, w^+) \mapsto (z^-, w^-)=(g(z^+), s/w^+)$,
it follows from Proposition \ref{prop:linebundleonW} that $h_{\pm}$ can be glued together and become a global $C^{\infty}$-Hermitian metric on $L_s = L^+\vee L^-$.
Moreover, on $\set{ \sqrt{\abs{s}}/R<\abs{w^+}<\sqrt{\abs{s}}R }$, we have
$\psi^+(z^+, w^+) = \left(\log \abs{w^+}^2/\abs{s}\right)^2$ and
\[
\psi^-\left(g(z^+), \frac{s}{w^+}\right) = \left(\log \frac{\abs{s/w^+}^2}{\abs{s}}\right)^2
= \left(-\log \frac{\abs{w^+}^2}{\abs{s}} \right)^2
= \psi^+(z^+, w^+) ,
\]
which means that $\psi^{\pm}$ can be glued together and become a global $C^{\infty}$-function $\psi$ on $X_s$.
Therefore $h_{\pm} \cdot e^{-c \psi^{\pm}}$ yield a $C^{\infty}$-metric on $X_s$ with positive definite curvature form.
\qed
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} $(iii)$}
The equivalence (a) $\Longleftrightarrow$ (c) follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:extentability}, and the implications (a) $\Longrightarrow$ (b) follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} (i).
In what follows we show (b) $\Longrightarrow$ (c).
Take a line bundle $\mathcal{L}\to \mathcal{X}$ as in (b) and consider the function
$h\colon \Delta\to \mathbb{Z}$ defined by
\[
h(t) := \left(\mathcal{L}|_{M_t^+}\cdot\ A_{\beta\gamma}\right),
\]
where we are regarding $A_{\beta\gamma}$ as a cycle of $M_t^+$.
As $\mathcal{M}^+\to \Delta$ is a submersion, $h$ is continuous. Thus $h$ is a constant function.
Therefore, in order to show that $(L\cdot A_{\beta\gamma}) (=h(s))$ is equal to zero, it is sufficient to show that $h(0)=0$, which follows from Proposition \ref{prop:extentability} since $\mathcal{L}|_{M_0^+}$ coincides with the restriction of the line bundle $(\mathcal{L}|_{X_0})|_{S^+}$ to $M_0^+$.
The equation $(L\cdot A_{\gamma\alpha})=0$ can be shown in the same manner.
\qed
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}}
Our construction of K3 surfaces has $19$ complex dimensional degrees of freedom if we allow the variation of $\xi$ \cite{KU}.
Indeed, for a fixed pair $(p,q) \in \mathbb{R}^2$ satisfying the Diophantine condition, we have the following parameters:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\Roman*)]
\item $1$ parameter $\tau\in\mathbb{H}$ determining the elliptic curve $C^+ \cong C^-$,
\item $16$ parameters $\{p_1^{\pm},\dots, p_8^{\pm}\}$ determining the centers of the blow-ups $\pi^{\pm}$ (here $p_9^+$ and $p_9^-$ are fixed from the conditions (a) and (b) in the introduction),
\item $1$ parameter $\xi \in \mathbb{C}$ determining the isomorphism $g_{\xi} : C^+ \to C^-$, and
\item $1$ parameter $s \in \Delta \setminus \{0\}$ determining the gluing function $f_s : V_s^+ \to V_s^-$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that there always exist ample line bundles $L^\pm\to S^\pm$ with $(L^+\cdot C^+)=(L^-\cdot C^-)$.
If such ample line bundles $L^{\pm}$ are fixed, then $\xi$ is determined uniquely up to modulo $\langle 1, \tau\rangle$ from the condition $g_{\xi}^*\left(L^-|_{C^-}\right) \cong L^+|_{C^+}$,
and depends holomorphically on the parameters given in (\romfigure{1}) and (\romfigure{2}) (see also the relation \eqref{eqn:xifix}).
Moreover, for any $s \in \Delta \setminus \{0\}$ with sufficiently small $\abs{s}\ll 1$, the K3 surface $X_s$ admits an ample line bundle $L_s =L^+ \vee L^-$ by Theorem \ref{thm:main1} $(ii)$.
Hence we have an $18$ dimensional family of projective K3 surfaces, whose Kodaira-Spencer map is injective by \cite[Theorem 1.1]{KU}. Moreover it follows from \cite{KU} that there exists
a holomorphic immersion $F_b\colon \mathbb{C}\to X_b$ mentioned in Theorem \ref{thm:main} (see also Remark \ref{rem:leviflat}).
Finally among the family, almost every fiber is a non-Kummer K3 surface
since if follows from Proposition \ref{prop:K3_deform_picard} that almost every fiber $X_s$ has the Picard number $\rho(X_s) \le 2$.
\qed
\section{Calculation of the Chern class $c_1(L)$} \label{sec:calculation}
Let $S^{\pm}$ be surfaces obtained from the blow-ups $\pi^{\pm} : S^{\pm} \to \mathbb{P}^2$ of
the projective plane $\mathbb{P}^2$ at nine points $\{p_1^{\pm}, \ldots, p_9^{\pm}\}$ with smooth elliptic curves $C^{\pm} \in \abs{K_{S^\pm}^{-1}}$.
In our assumption $(S^{\pm},C^{\pm})$ satisfy Conditions (a) and (b) given in the introduction.
Moreover let $L^{\pm}$ be holomorphic line bundles on $S^{\pm}$.
In this section, we compute the Chern class $c_1(L)$ in the lattice $H^2(X, \mathbb{Z})\cong H_2(X, \mathbb{Z})$, where $X$ is a K3 surface given by the gluing construction and $L = L^+ \vee L^-$ is the line bundle on $X$
(see the introduction).
First we notice that the second homology group of $S^{\pm}$ is expressed as
\[
H_2(S^{\pm}, \mathbb{Z}) \cong H^2(S^{\pm},\mathbb{Z}) \cong \mathrm{Pic}(S^{\pm})= \langle H^{\pm},E_1^{\pm},\ldots, E_9^{\pm} \rangle,
\]
where $E_\nu^\pm$ is (the class of) the exceptional divisor in $S^\pm$ which is the preimage of $p_\nu^\pm$ for $\nu=1, 2, \ldots, 9$,
and $H^\pm$ is (the class of) the preimage of a line in $\mathbb{P}^2$ by the blow-up $\pi^\pm\colon S^\pm\to \mathbb{P}^2$.
In the homology group $H_2(S^{\pm}, \mathbb{Z})$, the elliptic curve $C^{\pm}$ is expressed as
\[
C^{\pm}=3H^{\pm}-\sum_{j=1}^9 E_j^{\pm}.
\]
We also notice that the points $p_1^{\pm}, \ldots, p_9^{\pm}$ lie in the elliptic curve $C_0^{\pm}:=\pi^{\pm}(C^{\pm})$.
Then fix isomorphisms
\[
C_0^+ \cong C_0^- \cong \mathbb{C}/\langle 1,\tau \rangle
\]
and also fix an inflection point $p_0^{\pm}$ so that
\[
9p_0^{\pm}-\sum_{j=1}^9 p_j^{\pm}= \pm \mu\quad \text{mod}\ \langle 1, \tau\rangle,
\]
where $\mu:= q-p \cdot \tau$ and the points $p_j^{\pm} \in \mathbb{C}$ $(j=0,\ldots,9)$ are regarded as complex numbers (see Subsection~\ref{subsec:nbhdellcurve}).
By choosing the complex number corresponding to the point $p_0^\pm$ appropriately, we may assume that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:torrelation}
9p_0^{\pm}-\sum_{j=1}^9 p_j^{\pm}= \pm \mu,
\end{equation}
actually holds.
In what follows we assume that $g(p_0^+)=p_0^-$ by changing $g$ if necessary.
For $j \neq k \in \set{0,1,\ldots,9}$, let $\Gamma_{jk}^{\pm} \subset C^{\pm}$ be the lift of an arc in $C^\pm_0$ connecting $p_{j}^{\pm}$ and $p_{k}^{\pm}$.
Now we give the definitions of the generators \eqref{eqn:generator} (see also \cite{KU}).
The $2$-cycles $A_{\alpha \beta}$, $A_{\beta \gamma}$, $A_{\gamma \alpha}$
are already defined in the introduction.
In order to define the 2-cycle $B_{\bullet}$ for $\bullet\in\set{\alpha, \beta, \gamma}$, we first notice that $M_s^{\pm}$ are simply connected.
Thus, there exist topological discs $D_{\bullet}^{\pm} \subset M_s^{\pm}$ such that
$\partial D_{\bullet}^{\pm}=\pm \bS_{\bullet}^1$ hold,
where $\bS_{\bullet}^1 \subset V_s$, which are given in the introduction, are regarded as $1$-cycles of $V_s^{\pm} \subset M_{s}^{\pm}$.
Then $B_{\bullet}$ is defined by $B_{\bullet}=D_{\bullet}^+ \cup_{\bS_{\bullet}^1} (-D_{\bullet}^-)$,
that is, the patch of $D_{\bullet}^+$ and $-D_{\bullet}^-$ through $\bS_{\bullet}^1$.
In order to define the $2$-cycles $C_{\bullet}^{\pm}$, we prepare the tube $T_{jk}^{\pm}$ given by
$T_{jk}^{\pm}:=\mathrm{pr}_{\pm}^{-1}(\Gamma_{jk}^{\pm}) \subset \set{\abs{w^{\pm}}=\sqrt{\abs{s}}}$, where
\[
\mathrm{pr}_{\pm} : \set{[(z^\pm, w^\pm)]\in W^\pm\mid \abs{w^\pm}= \sqrt{\abs{s}}} \ni [(z^\pm, w^\pm)] \longmapsto [z^{\pm}] \in C^{\pm}
\]
is a natural projection. Then for $\nu=1,\ldots,7$, the $2$-cycle $C_{\nu, \nu+1}^{\pm}$ is defined by the connected sum
$(\pm E_{\nu}^{\pm}) \# (\mp E_{\nu+1}^{\pm})$ of
$\pm E_{\nu}^{\pm}$ and $\mp E_{\nu+1}^{\pm}$ given by connecting them through the tube $T_{\nu, \nu+1}^{\pm}$. In a similar manner, the $2$-cycle $C_{678}^{\pm}$ is defined by the connected sum
\[C_{678}^{\pm}:=(\mp H^{\pm}) \# (\pm E_{6}^{\pm}) \# (\pm E_{7}^{\pm}) \# (\pm E_{8}^{\pm})\]
of $\mp H^{\pm}$, $\pm E_{6}^{\pm}$, $\pm E_{7}^{\pm}$, $\pm E_{8}^{\pm}$ given by connecting them through the tubes
$T_{0 6}^{\pm}$, $T_{0 7}^{\pm}$, $T_{0 8}^{\pm}$.
In particular, $C_{\bullet}^{\pm}$ is represented as
\[
C_{12}^{\pm}=\pm(E_1^{\pm}-E_2^{\pm}),\ \ldots , \ C_{78}^{\pm}=\pm(E_7^{\pm}-E_8^{\pm}),
\ C_{678}^{\pm}=\pm(-H^{\pm}+E_6^{\pm}+E_7^{\pm}+E_8^{\pm})
\]
in $H_2(S^{\pm}, \mathbb{Z})$.
It should be noted that $C_{\bullet}^{\pm}$ lies in $M_s^{\pm}$.
Moreover, $H_2(S^{\pm}, \mathbb{Z})$ admits an orthogonal decomposition
\[
H_2(S^{\pm}, \mathbb{C}) = \langle C^{\pm}, E_9^{\pm} \rangle \oplus \mathcal{C}^{\pm}
\]
with respect to the intersection product, where $\mathcal{C}^\pm$ is given by $\mathcal{C}^\pm:=\langle C^\pm_{12}, C^\pm_{23},\ldots,C^\pm_{78},C^\pm_{678}\rangle$,
and any element $q^{\pm} \in H_2(S^{\pm}, \mathbb{C})=H_2(S^{\pm}, \mathbb{Z}) \otimes \mathbb{C}$ admits an expression
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:q_expression}
q^{\pm}=q_0^{\pm} H^{\pm}-\sum_{j=1}^9 q_j^{\pm} E_j^{\pm} = \Bigl(3q_0^{\pm}-\sum_{j=1}^8 q_j^{\pm}\Bigr) C^{\pm}
+ \Bigl(3q_0^{\pm}-\sum_{j=1}^9 q_j^{\pm}\Bigr) E_9^{\pm} + q^{\pm}|_{\mathcal{C}^{\pm}}.
\end{equation}
Next let us consider a K3 surface $X=X_s$ given by the gluing construction.
It is seen (\emph{cf.} \cite{KU}) that the second homology group of $X$ is given by the orthogonal decomposition
\[
H_2(X, \mathbb{Z})=\Pi_{3,19} \cong \langle A_{\alpha\beta}, B_\gamma\rangle\oplus \langle A_{\beta\gamma}, B_\alpha\rangle\oplus \langle A_{\gamma\alpha}, B_\beta\rangle\oplus \mathcal{C}^+ \oplus \mathcal{C}^-.
\]
with respect to the intersection product. Here note that
\begin{align*}
&(A_{\alpha\beta}\cdot A_{\alpha\beta})=(A_{\beta\gamma}\cdot A_{\beta\gamma})=(A_{\gamma\alpha}\cdot A_{\gamma\alpha})=0, \\
&(B_\gamma\cdot B_\gamma)=(B_\alpha\cdot B_\alpha)=(B_\beta\cdot B_\beta)=-2, \\
&(A_{\alpha\beta}\cdot B_\gamma)= (A_{\beta\gamma}\cdot B_\alpha)=( A_{\gamma\alpha}\cdot B_\beta)=1.
\end{align*}
The K3 surface $X$ admits a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $2$-form $\sigma$, which is expressed as
\[
\sigma = (2 \mu + c_9^-)A_{\alpha\beta} + \mu B_\gamma
+xA_{\beta\gamma} + \tau B_\alpha
+yA_{\gamma\alpha} + B_\beta
+\sum c^+_\bullet C^+_\bullet
+\sum c^-_\bullet C^-_\bullet
\]
in $H_2(X,\mathbb{C})$ by multiplying a constant to $\sigma$ if necessary,
where $x=x(s)$ and $y=y(s)$ are constants and $c_{\bullet}^{\pm}$ is given by
\[
c_{\bullet}^{\pm}=\int_{\Gamma_{\bullet}^{\pm}} dz^{\pm}
\]
with $\Gamma_9^- \subset C^{-}$ being the lift of an arc in $C^-_0$ connecting $p_9^-$ and $g_{\xi}(p_9^+)$.
Hence, one has
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:coeffcientc}
c^{\pm}_{12} =\pm(p_1^{\pm}-p_2^{\pm}), \ \ldots ,\ c^{\pm}_{78} =\pm(p_7^{\pm}-p_8^{\pm}), \ c^{\pm}_{678} =\pm(-3 p_0^{\pm}+p_6^{\pm}+p_7^{\pm}+p_8^{\pm}), \ \ \text{and}\ \ c_9^-=g_{\xi}(p_9^+)-p_9^-
\end{equation}
if one selects the arcs appropriately.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:charnexpression}
The Chern class $c_1(L)$ in $H^2(X, \mathbb{Z})\cong H_2(X, \mathbb{Z})$ is expressed as
\[
c_1(L) = (2b+n_9^++n_9^-)A_{\alpha\beta} + b B_\gamma
+L^+|_{\mathcal{C}^+}+L^-|_{\mathcal{C}^-},
\]
where $b:=(L^+\cdot C^+) =(L^-\cdot C^-)$ and $n_9^{\pm}:=(L^{\pm}\cdot E_9^{\pm})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We put
\[
c_1(L) = \widehat{a}_{\alpha\beta}A_{\alpha\beta} + \widehat{b}_\gamma B_\gamma
+\widehat{a}_{\beta\gamma}A_{\beta\gamma} + \widehat{b}_\alpha B_\alpha
+\widehat{a}_{\gamma\alpha}A_{\gamma\alpha} + \widehat{b}_\beta B_\beta
+\sum\widehat{c}^+_\bullet C^+_\bullet
+\sum\widehat{c}^-_\bullet C^-_\bullet.
\]
First the coefficients $\widehat{c}^{\pm}_\bullet$ are determined from $L^{\pm}|_{\mathcal{C}^{\pm}}$ since the cycles $C^{\pm}_\bullet$ in $X_s$ are also regarded as the ones
in $M_s^{\pm} \subset S^{\pm}$. Next it follows from Theorem \ref{thm:main1} $(iii)$ that $(L\cdot A_{\beta\gamma})=(L\cdot A_{\gamma\alpha})=0$, which implies that $\widehat{b}_\alpha=\widehat{b}_\beta=0$.
Moreover, the cycle $A_{\alpha\beta}$ may be regarded as $C^{\pm}$ in $S^{\pm}$, which means that $(L\cdot A_{\alpha\beta})=(L^\pm\cdot C^\pm)=b$ and thus
$\widehat{b}_\gamma = b$.
Finally we will determine the coefficients $\widehat{a}_\bullet$. To this end, we put
\[
p^{\pm}:= 3 p_0^{\pm}H^{\pm}- \sum_{j=1}^9 p_j^{\pm} E_j^{\pm} \in H_2(S^{\pm}, \mathbb{C}).
\]
Then Condition \eqref{eqn:torrelation} shows that $(p^{\pm}\cdot C^{\pm})=\pm \mu$
and the relation \eqref{eqn:coeffcientc} means that $\sigma|_{\mathcal{C}^{\pm}}= \pm p^{\pm}|_{\mathcal{C}^{\pm}}$.
Thus it follows from Equation \eqref{eqn:q_expression} that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:pexpression}
p^{\pm}= \left(9p_0^{\pm}-\sum_{j=1}^8 p_j^{\pm}\right) C^{\pm} + \left(9p_0^{\pm}-\sum_{j=1}^9 p_j^{\pm}\right) E_9^{\pm} + p^{\pm}|_{\mathcal{C^{\pm}}}
= (\pm \mu + p_9^{\pm}) C^{\pm} \pm \mu E_9^{\pm} \pm \sigma|_{\mathcal{C}^{\pm}}.
\end{equation}
Moreover,
by the condition $g_\xi^{*}\left(L^-|_{C^-}\right)=L^+|_{C^+}$, we may assume that $\xi \in \mathbb{C}$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:xifix}
\xi = \frac{1}{b} \left((p^-\cdot L^-)-(p^+\cdot L^+)\right).
\end{equation}
Thus we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:subrel1}
c_9^-=g_{\xi}(p_9^+)-p_9^-=(p_9^++\xi)-p_9^-=\frac{1}{b} \left((p^-\cdot L^-)-(p^+\cdot L^+)\right)+(p_9^+-p_9^-).
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eqn:pexpression} shows that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:subrel2}
(\sigma|_{\mathcal{C}^{\pm}}\cdot L^{\pm})= \pm (p^{\pm}\cdot L^{\pm}) - (\mu {\pm} p_9^{\pm})(C^{\pm}\cdot L^{\pm}) - \mu(E_9^{\pm}\cdot L^{\pm})
= \pm (p^{\pm}\cdot L^{\pm}) {\mp} b p_9^{\pm} -b \mu -n_9^{\pm} \mu,
\end{equation}
and Equations \eqref{eqn:subrel1} and \eqref{eqn:subrel2} show that
\begin{align*}
0 = (\sigma.\cdot L)
&=\left(((2 \mu + c_9^-)A_{\alpha\beta} + \mu B_\gamma)\cdot (\widehat{a}_{\alpha\beta}A_{\alpha\beta} + b B_\gamma)\right)+\left((xA_{\beta\gamma} + \tau B_\alpha)\cdot \widehat{a}_{\beta\gamma}A_{\beta\gamma}\right)\\
&\qquad +\left((yA_{\gamma\alpha} + B_\beta)\cdot \widehat{a}_{\gamma\alpha}A_{\gamma\alpha}\right)
+\left(\sigma|_{\mathcal{C}^+}\cdot L^+\right)+\left(\sigma|_{\mathcal{C}^-}\cdot L^-\right)\\
&= \left(\mu\widehat{a}_{\alpha\beta}+\tau \widehat{a}_{\beta\gamma}+\widehat{a}_{\gamma\alpha}\right)+b c_9^-
+(\sigma|_{\mathcal{C}^+}\cdot L^+)+(\sigma|_{\mathcal{C}^-}\cdot L^-)
= \left(\mu\widehat{a}_{\alpha\beta}+\tau \widehat{a}_{\beta\gamma}+\widehat{a}_{\gamma\alpha}\right) - (2b+n_9^++n_9^-) \mu.
\end{align*}
Since $\widehat{a}_{\alpha\beta}, \widehat{a}_{\beta\gamma}, \widehat{a}_{\gamma\alpha}, b, n_9^+,n_9^-\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $(1,\tau,\mu)$ are
independent over $\mathbb{Q}$ by the Diophantine condition for the pair $(p, q)$, we have $\widehat{a}_{\alpha\beta}=2b+n_9^++n_9^-$ and $\widehat{a}_{\beta\gamma}=\widehat{a}_{\gamma\alpha}=0$.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction} The goal of this short note, which is inspired greatly by the works of Polischuk, \cite{Pol}, and Zwegers, \cite{Zw}, is to provide a (super-) moduli theoretic interpretation of the Appell-Lerch sum, which in our normalisation will be $$\kappa(u,v;\tau)=\kappa(x,y;q):=\vartheta^{-1}(x)\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{q^{\binom{n}{2}}(-x)^{n}}{q^{n}-y},$$ for $x=e^{2\pi iu}, y=e^{2\pi iv}, q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$, with $\mathfrak{Im}(\tau)>0$ and $\vartheta(x):=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}q^{\binom{n}{2}}(-x)^{n}$.
The function $\kappa$ is by now well known to appear naturally in certain questions arising in Super-Conformal Field Theory, and our approach is in keeping with this as it centres on the study of a certain moduli space of \emph{super-curves}. By this we mean $1|1$ dimensional smooth and proper complex manifolds, which, in keeping with the physical literature, we will refer to as $\mathcal{N}=2$ curves. The appearance of $\kappa$ will be a purely fermionic phenomenon, invisible at the level of the underlying even spaces. In a sense, (the poles of) $\kappa$ will measure the \emph{non-splitness} of an appropriate universal family, which can be taken to be the slogan animating this text.
Slightly more precisely, we will restrict our attention to pointed super curves with fixed topological invariants corresponding to elliptic curves (the reduced part) with degree one line bundles (the odd fibre directions), equipped further with a certain decoration. The bulk of the geometry is thus very well understood and is easily described (for fixed $E$ say) in terms of the dual elliptic curve, $E^{\vee}$, and the (degree $1$ component of the) Poincar\'e sheaf. The interesting phenomena are thus purely odd, so that everything is nilpotent and we are really doing deformation theory. We shall see below that $\kappa$ arises as a meromorphic splitting of an extension of line bundles corresponding to the \emph{odd cotangent exact sequence} attached to the universal $\mathcal{N}=2$ curve with the aforementioned topological invariants.
We begin by studying the moduli problem for a fixed elliptic curve $E$, which essentially amounts to some rather basic function theory on the curve $E$. We will then explain how the results can be globalized so as to allow us to vary the curve. Along the way so we will give algebro-geometric interpretations of some of the constructions arising in the celebrated work of Zwegers, although such intepretations are surely well-known to experts. In particular we will explain the algebraic significance of his non-holomorphic correction function $R$. We will see in particular that it corresponds to an $\mathbb{R}$-analytic \emph{splitting} of the universal $\mathcal{N}=2$, as well as providing a representative in $\bar{\partial}$-cohomology for the extension of line bundles described above.
\section{Constructions with fixed elliptic curve}\subsection{Construction of Odd Deformations} For a detailed introduction to the theory of super-spaces we refer to the work \cite{Wi}. We work over $\mathbb{C}$, and we will pass between the algebraic and holomorphic worlds without further comment. A \emph{family of} $\mathcal{N}=2$ curves will mean a smooth morphism $\mathcal{X}\rightarrow B$ with fibres of dimension $1|1$. With $B=*$ we have that $\mathcal{X}=(X\,|\,L)$ is a \emph{split} space, given as the odd total space of a line bundle $L$ on a smooth curve $X$. We have $X=\mathcal{X}^{red}$, the \emph{reduced} part of $\mathcal{X}$, and $L=\Omega^{0|1}_{\mathcal{X}}$, the odd cotangent sheaf, which is a sheaf on the reduced part. A proper $\mathcal{N}=2$ curve, $\mathcal{X}$, has two topological invariants given by $g(X)$ and $c_{1}(L)$. We recall here that a map $\mathcal{Y}\rightarrow\mathcal{X}$ is called \emph{split} if it realizes $\mathcal{X}$ as the total space of an odd vector bundle on $\mathcal{Y}$. $\mathcal{X}$ is called split if the map $\mathcal{X}^{red}\rightarrow\mathcal{X}$ is split.
\begin{definition} A family $\pi:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow B$ is called \emph{split} if $\pi^{-1}(B^{red})\rightarrow\mathcal{X}$ is split relative to $B$. \end{definition}
\begin{remark} If $B$ is purely even then any family of $\mathcal{N}=2$ curves over $B$ is automatically split. \end{remark}
Infinitessimal deformations of the $\mathcal{N}=2$ curve $(X\,|\,L)=\mathcal{X}$ are parametrized by $H^{1}(\mathcal{X},T_{\mathcal{X}})$. We can compute this via the projection $p:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow X$, noting that this map is affine and that $p_{*}T_{\mathcal{X}}\cong T_{X}\oplus\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus\Pi (L^{-1}\oplus T_{X}\otimes L)$, where $\Pi$ denotes the parity-switching functor. Infinitessimal odd deformations are thus parameterized by $H^{1}(X,L^{-1})\oplus H^{1}(X,L\otimes T_{X})$. The topological restrictions we will later impose lead us to focus on the $H^{1}(X,L^{-1})$ summand. The following lemma, whilst trivial, is nonetheless central to our approach. \begin{lemma} An extension $\mathcal{O}\rightarrow V\rightarrow L$ induces a deformation of $(X\,|\,L)$ with total space $(X\,|\,V)$. This deformation is trivial iff it is split in the sense of def 2.1 which is further equivalent to the extension $V$ being split. This establishes a bijection between $H^{1}(X,L^{-1})$ and isomorphism classes of deformations of $\mathcal{X}$ over $\mathbb{A}^{0|1}$ with split total space. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} A map $(X|V)\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^{0|1}$ induces a global section, $\xi\in\Gamma(X,V)$ by taking the pull-back of the natural global odd cotangent vector on $\mathbb{A}^{0|1}$. Smoothness of the map is equivalent to $\mathsf{coker}(\xi)$ being a vector bundle, and the fibre of $(X\,|\,V)\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^{0|1}$ over $*=\mathbb{A}^{0|1,red}$ is $(X\,|\,\mathsf{coker}(\xi))$. That there is an induced bijection as claimed can now be easily checked.\end{proof}
The following lemma will be of some use to us;
\begin{lemma} Let $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}$ be a morphism of smooth super-spaces, so that $\mathcal{X}^{red}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}^{red}$ is an isomorphism. Then $f$ is an isomorphism iff it induces an isomorphism on $\mathbb{A}^{\,0|1}$-valued points. This is moreover the case iff the induced map $(f^{red})^{*}\Omega_{\mathcal{Y}}^{\,0|1}\rightarrow\Omega^{\,0|1}_{\mathcal{X}}$ is an isomorphism.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This follows from the fact that a smooth super algebra $\mathcal{A}$, with $A:=\mathcal{A}^{red}$, admits a natural filtration with associated graded $Sym_{A}(\Pi\,\Omega_{\mathcal{A}}^{\,0|1})$. \end{proof}
\subsection{Elliptic Curves and Theta Bundles} Fix an elliptic curve $E=E_{q}=\mathbb{C}^{*}/q^{\mathbb{Z}}$, which we write in multiplicative notation. $E^{\vee}$ will denote the dual elliptic curve, which is isomorphic to $E$ via the Abel-Jacobi map. We will let $x$ denote a multiplicative coordinate on $E$, and $y$ a multiplicative coordinate on $E^{\vee}$. The bundle $\mathcal{O}_{E}(e)$, where $e\in E(\mathbb{C})$ is the neutral element, will be denoted $\Theta(x)$. $\Theta(y)$ will denote the corresponding bundle on $E^{\vee}$. Making use of the group structure we define also the bundle $\Theta(xy)$ on $E\times E^{\vee}$ in an evident manner. Descent with respect to the covering $\mathbb{C}^{*}\rightarrow E_{q}$ identifies isomorphism classes of line bundles on $E_{q}$ with classes in group cohomology $H^{1}(q^{\mathbb{Z}},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{*}}^{*})$, which are referred to as \emph{automorphy factors}, see subsection 3.1 below for a description of this formalism in a less trivial case. Global sections of the corresponding line bundle are given by functions with transformation properties (with respect to $q^{\mathbb{Z}}$) specified by the automorphy factor. $\Theta(x)$ corresponds to the automorphy factor $q^{n}\mapsto (-x)^{-n}q^{-\binom{n}{2}}$. There is a one-dimensional space of global sections of $\Theta(x)$ spanned by $\vartheta(x)=\vartheta(x;q)=\sum (-x)^{n}q^{\binom{n}{2}}$, the theta function corresponding to the \emph{odd} spin structure. A point $y\in E^{\vee}(\mathbb{C})$ specifies a line bundle $L_{y}$ on $E$, with $c_{1}(L_{y})=0$, with corresponding automorphy factor $q^{n}\mapsto y^{n}$.
\begin{remark} We have $\Theta(xy)|_{E}\cong \Theta(x)\otimes L_{y}^{-1}$, as can be confirmed by comparing their respective automorphy factors. \end{remark}
We consider now moduli of (weakly) pointed $\mathcal{N}=2$ curves, $\mathcal{X}$, with $\mathcal{X}^{red}=E$, and $c_{1}(\Omega^{0|1})=1$ fibre-wise. By a \emph{weakly pointed family} we mean a family of $\mathcal{N}=2$ curves, equipped with a distinguished section of the induced map of reduced spaces. In fact we will consider a certain decorated moduli space so as to rigidify the situation somewhat. We will essentially consider families of curves equipped with non-zero odd cotangent vectors, up to isomorphisms.
\begin{definition} Let $\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}$ denote the moduli functor parameterizing the following data up to isomorphism; \begin{itemize}\item a family, $\pi$, of $\mathcal{N}=2$ curves with reduced part $E$ and $c_{1}(\Omega^{0|1})=1$ fibre-wise, \item a distinguished section of the map $\pi^{red}$, \item a trivialization of the determinant of the push-forward of the odd cotangent sheaf $\mathbb{R}^{0}\pi_{*}\Omega^{0|1}_{\pi}$, which we refer to as an \emph{odd framing} of the family.\end{itemize} Further let $\mathcal{C}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}$ denote the resulting universal family. \end{definition}
\begin{remark} An $\mathcal{N}=2$ curve (over a point) always has a $\mathbb{C}^{*}$ of automorphisms given by re-scaling odd fibre directions. The data of the odd framing rigidifies the curve, so that we no longer have such automorphisms. \end{remark}
If we restrict to even bases the moduli space is simply $E^{\vee}$ and we claim the universal curve is $$\pi:(E\times E^{\vee}\,|\,\Theta(xy))\rightarrow E^{\vee},$$ with the evident section. Certainly this will follow if we show $\mathbb{R}^{0}\pi_{*}\Theta(xy)\cong\mathcal{O}$, which we do in lemma 2.3 below. The fibre over $y\in E^{\vee}(\mathbb{C})$ is the $\mathcal{N}=2$ curve $(E\,|\,\Theta(x)L_{y}^{-1})$.
\begin{remark} Note that we now see now another reason for the inclusion of the trivialization of $\mathbb{R}^{0}\pi_{\*}(\Omega^{0|1})$. Indeed otherwise we could equally well have taken $\Theta(xy)\otimes\Theta(y)$. \end{remark}
We will now calculate the genuine moduli space, which is necessarily a purely odd thickening of $E^{\vee}$, with universal curve an odd thickening of $(E\times E^{\vee}\,|\,\Theta(xy))$. We calculate first the sheaf on the base parameterizing deformations along the fibres. A relative version of the compupation of infinitessimal deformations from subsection 2.1 identifies this with $\mathbb{R}^{1}\pi_{*}\Theta(xy)^{-1}\cong\mathbb{R}^{0}\pi_{*}\Theta(xy)$.
\begin{lemma} There is an isomorphism $\mathbb{R}^{0}\pi_{*}\Theta(xy)\cong\mathcal{O}$, whence an odd framing of the family above. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let us first note that the fibres $H^{1}(E,\Theta L_{y}^{-1})$ are one dimensional by Riemann-Roch, so we have a line bundle. The space of global sections, $H^{0}(E\times E^{\vee},\Theta(xy))$, is one dimensional.
The anti-diagonal on $E\times E^{\vee}$ has vanishing self-intersection, whence Riemann-Roch for the surface $E\times E^{\vee}$ implies that we have $\chi(\Theta(xy))=0$. We conclude that $H^{1}$ is one dimensional, as $H^{2}$ vanishes by Serre-Duality.
Certainly $\mathbb{R}^{1}\pi_{*}\Theta(xy)=0$ and now considering the Leray spectral sequence for the projection, together with the computations of $H^{1}$ and $H^{2}$, we deduce that the line bundle $\mathbb{R}^{0}\pi_{*}\Theta(xy)$ has non-vanishing $H^{0}$ and $H^{1}$. It is thus necessarily $\mathcal{O}$. That $\mathbb{R}^{0}\pi_{*}$ is also trivial is now immediate from Grothendieck duality. \end{proof}
Note that the above implies that the sheaf on the base parametrizing odd deformations fibrewise is just $\mathcal{O}$. This suggests that we have $\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}\cong (E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{O})$, so we should look for a universal family on this space. We saw in the proof above that there is a one dimensional space of extensions of $\mathcal{O}$ by $\Theta(xy)$. We will now describe the resulting sheaf more explicitly in automorphic terms, and in particular we will see that the extensions realizes fibrewise the extensions corresponding to the odd deformations of $(E\,|\,\Theta(x)L_{y}^{-1})$ described by lemma 2.1 above.
\begin{lemma} The unique non-trivial extension $\mathcal{O}\rightarrow\mathcal{K}\rightarrow\Theta(xy)$ is such that for all $y\in E^{\vee}(\mathbb{C})$, the corresponding extension class $[\mathcal{K}_{y}]$ is non-zero.\end{lemma} \begin{proof} We give a model for the automorphy factor representing $\mathcal{K}^{*}$. Consider the vector of meromorphic functions on $E\times E^{\vee}$, $$s(x,y):=\binom{\kappa(x,y)}{1},$$ where $$\kappa(x,y)=\vartheta^{-1}(x)\sum\frac{q^{\binom{n}{2}}(-x)^{n}}{q^{n}-y}$$ is the Appell-Lerch sum. It is elementary to check that the vector $s(x,y)$ transforms according to the automorphy factors $$\binom{1}{0}\mapsto\begin{bmatrix}
\,-xy&-x\\
\,0&1\\
\end{bmatrix}, \binom{0}{1}\mapsto\begin{bmatrix}\,-xy&-x\\ \,0 &1\end{bmatrix}.$$ Observe that this describes an extension of $\mathcal{O}$ by $\Theta^{-1}$, as the matrices are upper triangular with the appropriate diagonal entries. We let this define the sheaf $\mathcal{K}^{*}$. Now to check that for any $y$ the extension corresponding to the fibre $\mathcal{K}^{*}_{y}$ is non-split one must show that there is never a holomorphic lift of the section $1\in H^{0}(\mathcal{O})$.
To see this first consider $y\neq 1$ (modulo $q^{\mathbb{Z}}$). Multiplying by $\vartheta$ we would have a holomorphic function $s(x)$, which is divisible by $\vartheta$, such that $s(qx)-ys(x)=\vartheta$. There is however a unique such function, given by $\vartheta\kappa$, which is not (holomorphically) divisible by $\theta$. Indeed the sub-bundle $L_{y}$ of the corresponding extension has no sections for such $y$. Note that this argument appears in \cite{Pol}. Now let $y=1$ (modulo $q^{\mathbb{Z}}$). In this case we are looking for a holomorphic function $s$ so that $s(qx)-s(x)=\vartheta$, which is impossible by considering Laurent expansions around $0$. \end{proof}
\begin{tcolorbox}\begin{corollary} We have $\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}\cong (E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{O})$ and $\mathcal{C}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}\cong (E\times E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{K})$. The family, $\pi:\mathcal{C}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}$ is induced from the extension according to lemma 2.1. The Appell-Lerch sum $\kappa(x,y)$ describes a meromorphic splitting of the family $\pi$.\end{corollary}\end{tcolorbox}
\begin{proof} We have the family, $$\pi:(E\times E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{K})\longrightarrow (E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{O}),$$ induced from the extension. The extension defining $\mathcal{K}$ is the short exact sequence for the odd cotangent spaces, whence the bundle $\Omega^{0|1}_{\pi}$ is isomorphic to $\Theta(xy)$, and the family is thus framed. By definition this produces a morphism $(E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{O})\rightarrow\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}$, such that $(E\times E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{K})$ is pulled back from $\mathcal{C}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{E}$.
It is an isomorphsim on reduced spaces, whence to see that is an isomorphism we must check that is an isomorphism on $\mathbb{A}^{\,0|1}$-valued points, by lemma 2.2. This is the content of lemma 2.4, which says precisely that the family, $(E\times E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{K})\rightarrow (E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{O}),$ sees all the $\mathbb{A}^{\,0|1}$-families of curves fibre-wise.
That $\kappa$ describes a meromorphic splitting (cf definition 2.1 above) follows from the isomorphism $\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2,red}_{E})\cong (E\times E^{\vee}\,|\,\mathcal{O})$, and the fact that a splitting of an extension of $\mathcal{O}$ is a lift of the section $1\in H^{0}(\mathcal{O})$. \end{proof}
\section{Varying the curve}
\subsection{Automorphic and Geometric Data}
We collect here some general facts about sections of extensions of vector bundles expressed in automorphic language. In the next subsection we will specialize to the case appearing in the work of Zwegers, but we prefer to work generally for now to emphasize that the phenomena are not unique to the context in \cite{Zw}. Fix the following data; \begin{itemize}\item$\Gamma$ a discrete group acting on a Stein complex manifold, $X$,with finite stabilizers. \item An automorphy factor $j\in H^{1}(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}^{*})$, $j:\gamma\in \Gamma\mapsto j_{\gamma}\in \mathcal{O}_{X}^{*}$. \item A class $\delta\in H^{1}(X,\mathcal{O}(X)|^{j})$, where $\mathcal{O}(X)|^{j}$ denotes the $\Gamma$-module with $\gamma$ acting as $f\mapsto f|^{j}_{\gamma}$.\end{itemize}
By descent, this corresponds to the following geometric data;
\begin{itemize} \item The analytic Deligne-Mumford stack $X//\Gamma$. \item A line bundle on $X//\Gamma$, which we will denote $\mathcal{L}_{j}$. \item A rank $2$ vector bundle, $\mathcal{V}_{\delta}$, fitting into an extension, $\mathcal{L}_{j}\rightarrow\mathcal{V}_{\delta}\rightarrow\mathcal{O}$, corresponding to the class $\delta\in H^{1}(X//\Gamma,\mathcal{L}_{j})$. \end{itemize}
\begin{lemma} A meromorphic trivialization of this bundle is equivalent to the data of a meromorphic function $s$, on $X$, satisfying the transformation property $$\gamma^{*}s=j_{\gamma}s+\delta_{\gamma},\, \gamma\in\Gamma.$$ \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is basically trivial, the point is that the bundle $\mathcal{V}_{\delta}$ is represented by the non-abelian cohomology class in $H^{1}(\Gamma,GL_{2}(\mathcal{O}_{X}))$, given by the matrices $$J_{\gamma}:=\begin{bmatrix}\,j_{\gamma}&\delta_{\gamma}\\ \,0&1\end{bmatrix}.$$ A section is then given by a vector $\binom{s_{0}}{s_{1}}$ transforming according to the automorphy factor $J$. A trivialization is given by a lift of the section $1$, thus a section of the form $\binom{s}{1}$, whence we are done.\end{proof}
Let us now say something about Dolbeault representatives for the relevant cohomology classes. We have a class $\delta\in H^{1}(X//\Gamma,\mathcal{L}_{j})$. A Dolbeault representative for this class is given by a smooth $(0,1)$-form on $X$ with the property $\gamma^{*}\lambda=j_{\gamma}\lambda$, modulo the $\bar{\partial}$-operator (acting on functions with the same transformation property).
\begin{lemma} We recover the above cocycle representation of the class $\delta$ from $\lambda$ as follows - take any $\bar{\partial}$-antiderivative for $\lambda$, denoted $F$. Then the cocycle is given by $\gamma\mapsto F-F|^{j}_{\gamma}$.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} First note that since we do not demand that $F$ has the same transformation properties as $\lambda$, such an $F$ necessarily exists and the space of such is a torsor for the space of holomorphic functions on $X$. Further note that whilst $F$ is not necessarily holomorphic the corresponding cocycle is, because of the equations $\bar{\partial}F=\lambda$ and $\gamma^{*}\lambda=j_{\gamma}\lambda$. It is not hard to show that this is the desired cocycle. \end{proof}
\begin{corollary} If $\binom{s}{1}$ is a section of $\mathcal{V}_{\delta}$ lifting $1\in H^{0}(\mathcal{O})$, then the $\mathcal{C}^{\infty}$ function, $s+F,$ transforms according to the automorphy factor $j$. \end{corollary}
As such, we see that $F$ is simultaneously a trivialization of the extension class, expressed in either the language of automorphy factors or of $\bar{\partial}$-cohomology. Presumably, though we will not claim to understand the physics, this is an instance of the principle one sees in the physics literature, whereby \emph{modular anomalies} and \emph{holomorphic anomalies} are essentially interchangeable. We will refer to $F$ as \emph{controlling} the extension.
\begin{example}Let us describe a toy model. We can take $X=\mathbb{C}$, $\Gamma=\mathbb{Z}^{2}$ so that the quotient is the elliptic curve $E_{\tau}$ with coordinate $z$. We take the automorphy factor to be trivial. We have a class $\delta\in H^{1}(E,\mathcal{O})$, given in automorphic terms as the element of $\delta\in H^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{2},\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{C}))$ with $\delta\binom{1}{0}=0, \,\,\delta\binom{0}{1}=1.$ A Dolbeault representative is given by the $(0,1)$-form $\frac{1}{2iy}d\bar{z}$, with $y:=\mathfrak{Im}\tau$. The relevant non-holomorphic function $F(z,\bar{z})$ controlling the extension can be taken to be $$F(z,\bar{z}):=\frac{\bar{z}-z}{2iy}.$$ A meromorphic trivialization of the extension corresponding to $\delta\in H^{1}$ is given by the Weierstrass $\zeta$ function (a suitably normalized indefinite integral of $\wp(z)$) and we have that $\zeta(z)+F(z,\bar{z})$ is $\mathbb{Z}^{2}$-invariant. \end{example}
\subsection{Dictionary With Zwegers}We now sketch how to specialize the above considerations to the context studied in the work of Zwegers, nothing is susbtantially new here, we just supply some algebro-geometric intepretations. Recall that we set $x=e^{2\pi iu}, y=e^{2\pi iv}, q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$, with $\mathfrak{Im}(\tau)>0$. In the notation of the previous subsection \begin{definition}We take $X:=\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}\times\mathfrak{h}$, $\Gamma:=SL_{2}\rtimes(\mathbb{Z}^{2}\times\mathbb{Z}^{2})$. The modular parameter will be denoted $\tau$ and the two (additive) elliptic parameters $u$ and $v$. We refer to the analytic stack $X//\Gamma$ as $\mathcal{C}$. \end{definition}
\begin{remark} Putting $\mathcal{M}:=(\mathbb{C}\times\mathfrak{h})//SL_{2}\rtimes\mathbb{Z}$, it is standard that $\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ is the universal curve on the moduli stack of pairs consisting of an elliptic curve and a degree $1$ line bundle on it. A pair $(v;\tau)\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{C})$ determines an elliptic curve $E_{\tau}$, and the line bundle $\Theta(u+v)\cong\Theta(u)\otimes L_{-v}$ on it.\end{remark}
As mentioned, $\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ is a universal family, and so there is a line bundle on it realizing the various $\Theta(u+v)$ fibrewise, which is unique once we fix a normalization for the push-forward line bundle, ie what will become the odd framing. The resulting line bundle will be denoted $\Theta(u+v;\tau)$. It is determined by demanding that $\vartheta(u+v,\tau)$ is a section of it. Note that this is well defined as the zeroes of $\vartheta$ are invariant under the \emph{full} group $\Gamma:=SL_{2}\rtimes(\mathbb{Z}^{2}\times\mathbb{Z}^{2})$, because we are working with the $\vartheta$-function corresponding to the odd spin structure. A representative for the line bundle in automorphic terms is given by a cocycle $j$, so that for $\gamma\in SL_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$, we have $$j_{\gamma}(u,v;\tau)\sim \frac{1}{(c\tau+d)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\exp\Big( -\pi i\frac{(u+v)^{2}}{c\tau+d}\,\Big),$$ with constant of proportionality some eighth root of unity.
\begin{lemma} There is a rank $2$ vector bundle on the stack $\mathcal{C}$, denoted again $\mathcal{K}$, fitting into an extension $$\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow\mathcal{K}\rightarrow\Theta(u+v;\tau),$$ realizing fibrewise (over the moduli stack of elliptic curves) the extension of lemma 2.4. Further $\kappa$ gives a meromorphic splitting of the extension.\end{lemma}\begin{proof} Again we construct the dual bundle $\mathcal{K}^{*}$. It suffices to specify an appropriate automorphy factor in $H^{1}(\Gamma,GL_{2}(\mathcal{O}_{X}))$. Now the condition that $\mathcal{K}$ fits into an exact sequence as desired means we are looking for upper triangular automorphy factors and that the diagonal entries are specified as those corresponding to $\mathcal{O}$ and $\Theta(u+v,\tau)^{-1}$, whence we are only looking for the upper right entries. Equivalently we are looking for a cocycle $\delta\in H^{1}(\Gamma,\mathcal{O}(X)|^{j})$. Further, we know the values on $\mathbb{Z}^{2}\times\mathbb{Z}^{2}$, as we have given them above in lemma 2.4.
It remains thus to specify $\delta_{\gamma}$ for $\gamma\in SL_{2}$. We write $T:= \tau\mapsto\tau+1$ and $S:=\tau\mapsto -\frac{1}{\tau}$ and stipulate $\delta_{T}=0$, $\delta_{S}(u,v;\tau)=\frac{1}{2i}h(u+v,\tau)$, where $h$ is the \emph{Mordell Integral} considered by Zwegers in \cite{Zw}. To see that in this manner we obtain an automorphy factor note that the results of \cite{Zw} (cf. in particular proposition 1.5 (2) of \emph{loc. cit.}), imply that the vector of meromorphic functions $\binom{\kappa(u,v;\tau)}{1}$ transforms according to the putative automorphy factor, whence we are done as we need only check the cocycle condition for the off-diagonal entries of the automorphy factors. That $\kappa$ gives a meromorphic splitting is now clear.\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Recall that Zwegers defines a non-holomorphic function $R(u;\tau)$ with the property that his completed function $\tilde{\mu}:=\mu+\frac{i}{2}R(u-v;\tau)$ is a section of $\Theta(u-v;\tau)^{-1}$. This of course translates trivially into such a function, which we denote $F$, so that we have $\kappa+F$ a section of $\Theta(u+v;\tau)$, let us now see that the results of Zwegers are in line with the generalities of subsection 3.1. Indeed we can easily check that lemma 1.8 of \emph{loc. cit.} provides precisely a Dolbeault representative of the cohomology class of the extension, further it is almost tautological that $R$ defines a $\mathcal{C}^{\infty}$ trivialization of the extension class expressed in terms of automorphy factors. We summarize this as follows; \begin{itemize}\item The Mordell Integral (cf. \cite{Zw} subsection 1.2) $h$ arises as a matrix coefficient of an automorphy factor for a rank two bundle on $\mathcal{C}$, which is an extension of $\mathcal{O}$ by $\Theta(u+v;\tau)^{-1}$. \item The extension class in $H^{1}(\mathcal{C},\Theta(u+v,\tau)^{-1})$ has a Dolbeault representative $[\bar{\partial}R]$, cf lemma 1.8 of \emph{loc. cit.}. As such, $R$, controls the extension in the sense of 3.2 above.\item $\mu$ is a meromorphic trivialization of the extension, so that $\mu +R$ is necessarily a smooth section of the sub-bundle $\Theta(u+v;\tau)^{-1}$.\end{itemize}\end{remark}
We let $\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{ell}$ denote the moduli of $\mathcal{N}=2$ elliptic curves with odd fibre direction a degree one line bundle, equipped with an odd framing. Let $\mathcal{C}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{ell}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{ell}$ denote the universal family of such $\mathcal{N}=2$ curves.
Note that the reduced parts of these spaces are respectively just $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{C}$. Further, the universal family over the reduced part of the base is $(\mathcal{C}\,|\,\Theta(u+v,\tau))\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$. The $0|1$-dimensional thickening providing the genuine moduli space is of course determined by the bundle $\mathcal{K}$. \begin{tcolorbox}\begin{theorem} There are isomorphisms, $\mathcal{C}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{ell}\cong(\mathcal{C}\,|\,\mathcal{K})$ and $(\mathcal{M}\,|\,\mathcal{O})\cong\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{N}=2}_{ell}.$ The universal family is induced from the short exact sequence $\mathcal{O}\rightarrow\mathcal{K}\rightarrow\Theta(u+v;\tau).$ It is not a split family, and has a meromorphic splitting given by the Appell-Lerch sum $\kappa(u,v;\tau)$. There is an $\mathbb{R}$-analytic splitting given by Zwegers' correction function $R(u+v;\tau)$. \end{theorem}\end{tcolorbox}
\begin{proof} The proof is essentially identical to the proof of corollary 2.1 above. \end{proof}
\begin{remark} Note that $R$ is real-analytic. The existence of a \emph{smooth} such $R$ is a formal consequence of the existence of partitions of unity, it is considerably less obvious fact that a real-analytic such also exists by general cohomological arguments. This follows from Proposition 2.3 of \cite{AH}, which says that real-analytic coherent cohomology vanishes.\end{remark}
|
\section{Acknowledgement}
This work is supported by
National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2019YFC1521104),
Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2021SHZDZX0102),
Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (No. 21511101200),
Zhejiang Lab (No. 2020NB0AB01)
and
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61972157).
The author Qianyu Zhou is supported by Wu Wenjun Honorary Doctoral Scholarship, AI Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we statistically analyzed the impact of FoV difference between domains, including both FoV-increasing and -decreasing cases. Then we proposed a novel method (PIT) for cross-FoV detection/segmentation, which can be widely used in real-world applications due to the variety of cameras.
Our method aligns the structural appearance of instances in the same category across domains.
We also design a loss re-weighting strategy as a substitution of reverse PIT to speed up the training.
As a plug-and-play approach, our method can be easily embedded into a wide range of existing networks. Experiments demonstrate that it boosts the performance in cross-domain detection and segmentation.
\section{Experiments}
We conduct extensive experiments on object detection and semantic segmentation tasks. The results show that our approach can soundly boost the performance on cross-FoV adaptation by easily plugging it into any UDA frameworks.
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
\noindent\textbf{Datasets.} We utilize three public datasets provided with FoV parameters in our experiments: Cityscapes \cite{CITYSCAPES}, KITTI \cite{kITTI} and Virtual KITTI \cite{VKITTI}.
In here, we add a two-dimensional array after the name of each dataset, to indicate the approximate horizontal and vertical FoV parameters $(FoVx, FoVy)$ of the camera for scene capturing.
\begin{itemize}
\item \noindent\textbf{Cityscapes} \cite{CITYSCAPES} ($50\degree$, $26\degree$) is a dataset of street scenes in several cities. It owns 2,975 images for training and 500 for validation, and both of them have dense pixel-level labels. We get the bounding box labels for object detection task by calculating the tightest rectangles of instance annotations as \cite{DA-Faster-RCNN} did.
It uses 4 types of cameras with different FoVs ($49.5\degree < FoVx < 51.7\degree$, $25.5\degree < FoVy < 26.2\degree$), and we process each image with its own recorded FoV.
\item \noindent\textbf{KITTI} \cite{kITTI} ($90\degree$, $34\degree$) is a real-world dataset containing 7,481 images with bounding boxes and another 200 images with pixel-level labels. In the detection task, we split the the training set and the validation set manually.
In the segmentation task, it is used as the target domain only due to the lack of pixel-level annotations.
\item \noindent\textbf{Virtual KITTI} \cite{VKITTI} ($80\degree$, $29\degree$) is a synthetic dataset which clones the scenes from the KITTI with 21,260 images. It provides pixel-level instance labels, and the bounding boxes are obtained as those in Cityscapes.
\end{itemize}
\noindent\textbf{Baselines and Comparison Methods.} Following the experimental design in \cite{ICR-CCR}, we select SWDA~\cite{SWDA}, SCL~\cite{SCL}, GPA~\cite{GPA} as our baseline methods for cross-domain detection, and Self-Ensembling~\cite{choi2019self}, CowMix\cite{french2020milking}, CutMix\cite{french2019semi}, DACS~\cite{dacs} for cross-domain segmentation.
We re-implement these methods for fair comparisons, and our re-implementations attain higher accuracies than the reported ones. When comparing with other state-of-the-art methods, we use the results from the original papers.
\noindent\textbf{Implementation Details.}
In object detection experiments, VGG16~\cite{vgg} model pre-trained on ImageNet \cite{imagenet} is used as the backbone of all the selected methods.
The hyper-parameters are set according to the original papers. The average precision (AP) is used as evaluation metric.
In semantic segmentation experiments, the DeepLab-v2~\cite{chen2017deeplab} with ResNet101~\cite{he2016deep} pretrained on ImageNet~\cite{imagenet} and on MSCOCO~\cite{COCO} is used as our backbone. Hyper-parameters are set following \cite{AdaptSegNet,choi2019self}.
\input{tables/source_only}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig/crop.pdf}
\caption{Cropping image with certain $FoVx$. $FoVx$ was reduced from $\angle AFB$ to $\angle CFD$ after cropping.}
\label{fig:crop}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Existence of FoV Gap}
In order to prove the existence of FoV gap, we crop the images (Fig. \ref{fig:crop}) to generate new datasets with certain $FoVx$. Then we train a Faster-RCNN \cite{FASTER-RCNN} model (but \textbf{NOT} a UDA method) on KITTI-50\degree, and test it directly on KITTI-70\degree/80\degree/90\degree to examine the compactness of features.
Tab. \ref{sourceonly} shows the detection results of these source-only experiments. Without PIT, the performance gets worse as the FoV gap gets bigger, while PIT effectively suppresses the performance drop. It demonstrates that the PIT module plays an important role in bridging the FoV gap.
\subsection{Domain Adaptation for Object Detection}
\input{tables/od_v2k_compare}
\input{tables/od_c2k}
\input{tables/od_v2k}
\input{tables/data_aug2}
\subsubsection{FoV-increasing Adaptation}
\noindent\textbf{Cityscapes ($50\degree$, $26\degree$) $\rightarrow$ KITTI $(90\degree, 34\degree)$.} It's a cross-camera adaptation, in which FoV gap is one of the main components of the domain gap. Table \ref{tab:c2k} shows the AP results of the car class. With our proposed PIT method, all the methods performed much better than their vanilla versions. The highest gain reaches $5.27\%$, which is a remarkable improvement in object detection.
\noindent\textbf{Virtual KITTI $(80\degree, 29\degree)$ $\rightarrow$ KITTI $(90\degree, 34\degree)$.} It's a synthetic-to-real adaptation in which FoV gap is a minor factor of domain gap. The results are shown in Table \ref{tab:v2k}.
In order to look into the factors which influence the effectiveness of our method, we design controlled experiments. We crop the images (see Fig. \ref{fig:crop}) with certain $FoVx$ and use them as the source or target domain.
In Table \ref{tab:v2k_compare}, experiments in the upper part have the same source $FoVx$ and incremental target $FoVx$ (\emph{i.e.}, incremental FoV gap), and those in the bottom part of Table \ref{tab:v2k_compare} have a constant target $FoVx$ with different source $FoVx$. With the fixed $FoVx$ in one domain, the larger $FoVx$ gaps result in worse performance in the baseline, while our method gains higher improvement. These results verify that our proposed method can effectively narrow the specific FoV gap.
\subsubsection{FoV-decreasing Adaptation}
As analyzed in Section \ref{section:FoV-decre}, in this case, our method works with insufficient labeled data. So we reduce the size of the source dataset manually for the experiment setting, with no special treatment on the target domain.
\noindent\textbf{KITTI $(90\degree$, $34\degree)$ $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes $(50\degree$, $26\degree)$}. We use 1,000 labeled images in KITTI dataset as source data. Table \ref{tab:k2c} shows the detection results on Cityscapes, and our method outperforms baselines by $1.48\% \sim 2.01\%$ on car AP.
\noindent\textbf{Virtual KITTI $(80\degree$, $29\degree)$ $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes $(50\degree$, $26\degree)$}. We use the "clone" subset (2126 images) of Virtual KITTI as source data. As shown in Table \ref{tab:v2c}, our method achieves increases when plugged in all the baseline networks.
\subsection{Domain Adaptation for Semantic Segmentation}
We conduct two experiments : 1) Cityscapes $(50\degree$, $26\degree)$ $\rightarrow$ KITTI $(90\degree, 34\degree)$, 2) Virtual KITTI $(80\degree, 29\degree)$ $\rightarrow$ KITTI$(90\degree, 34\degree)$. mIoUs are reported for comparisons. The class-wise IoUs are reported in the supplementary material.
The results are shown in Table \ref{tab:ss_total}. Assembled in four state-of-the-art domain adaptative semantic segmentation methods, our method improves the mIoUs by $1.06\%$ to $1.77\%$ compared to the original methods, which again demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed method.
\subsection{Comparison with Data Augmentation}
Though served as a fixed part before and after the network, PIT is totally different from data augmentation. Data augmentation processes data with random parameters in several directions to diversify samples, while PIT aims at the opposite purpose. It calculates the optimal transform directly and reduces the variety of intra-class instances, which is beneficial for the feature alignment.
\input{tables/od_decreasing2}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{fig/rbt2.pdf}
\caption{The bin-wise performance in AP space.Based on detection task Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ KITTI, SWDA \cite{SWDA} backbone.}
\label{fig:bin-wise}
\end{figure}
\input{tables/ss_total}
We use the commonly-used data augmentation (random scale and random crop)~\cite{TrainInGermany} in experiments. Results in Tab. \ref{tab:data_aug} shows that PIT and data augmentation play different roles in the UDA task. Data augmentation aims at the linear transformation of objects (\emph{e.g.} different scale), while PIT reduces the instance diversity caused by non-linear deformations.
\subsection{Visualization}
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of PIT over different incident angles, we reported the performance for different bins in the AP space (specified in Sec. \ref{sec:moti}). Using the center point to represent a predicted bounding box, we calculate the bin-wise accuracy and visualize in Fig. \ref{fig:bin-wise}. There are clear improvements in the peripheral regions where the objects have greater deformation, which verifies the effectiveness of the instance alignment through PIT.
See more results in the supplementary material.
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{fig/teaser.pdf}
\caption{Objects (cars) in different positions relative to the camera have different extent of deformation, which remarkably burdens the alignment of intra-class features. This can be effectively mitigated by our PIT. Top row: images of an object (in different positions) captured by a virtual camera.
Other rows: real photos from the KITTI dataset.
}
\label{pit_compare}
\end{figure}
Object detection~\cite{girshick2015fast,FASTER-RCNN,yolo} and semantic segmentation~\cite{fcn,chen2017deeplab,chen2018encoder,feng2020semi} are two fundamental problems in computer vision. The former aims at precisely locating and identifying the objects in an image and the latter targets to classify the semantics of each pixel.\footnotetext{*Equal Contribution. $^\dagger$ Joint Corresponding author.} Training a generalized model with high performance for the two tasks calls for massive images with elaborate annotations, while it is laborious to prepare such well-annotated data. Meanwhile, due to the existence of domain shift~\cite{da_theory}, a model trained on a specific dataset often suffers from significant performance degradation when applied to another domain. A common solution is to transfer the knowledge acquired from a labeled source domain to an unlabeled target domain, which is known as Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA)~\cite{da_survey}.
In general, two typical manners have been explored to adapt models from the source to the target domain. One is pixel-level alignment, target-like images are generated to provide implicit or explicit supervisory signals on target domain~\cite{gta,CyCADA,domain_mixup}. The other is feature-level alignment, the feature distributions of two domains are aligned through constraining domain discrepancy metrics~\cite{dan,deepcoral,wdan} or performing feature confusion~\cite{revgrad,adda,multi_adversarial}.
In the study of cross-domain detection/segmentation, previous works~\cite{DA-Faster-RCNN,SWDA,GPA,MTOR,choi2019self,ICR-CCR,CyCADA,AdaptSegNet,BDL,zhou2021context} mainly focus on narrowing the domain shift caused by external environments, \emph{e.g.} the change of background, illumination and weather, etc. However, very little attention has been paid to the camera's intrinsic parameters which often bring noticeable domain discrepancy due to the use of various cameras.
We observe that one main camera parameter, the Field of View (FoV)\textsuperscript{\rm 1}\footnotetext{\textsuperscript{\rm 1}Field of View (FoV): in photography, the angle between two rays passing through the perspective center (rear nodal point) of a camera lens to the two opposite sides of the format. \label{fov_def}}, induces a distinct dimension of the domain gap. As a matter of fact, the FoV discrepancy frequently occurs among datasets or in real-world scenarios.
For instance, in autonomous driving, cameras with different FoVs are often used together, because of the inevitable updating of cameras in the long period of data collection.
FoV difference derives the variety of instance structural appearances across the source and target domains, leading to the sample diversifying within a category. This obviously increases the burden of domain adaptation models, thus resulting in less desired performance.
Motivated by the above observation, in this paper we attempt to alleviate the adverse impact of the diverse FoVs between domains, in order to boost the performance of cross-domain detection/segmentation.
We discuss the influence of the FoV gap in two general cases. (1) In FoV-increasing adaptation (the FoV of the target domain is larger than that of the source domain), the target domain instances with large incident angles cannot be well aligned to the source domain for the lack of similar-appearance counterparts. (2) In FoV-decreasing adaptation (target FoV smaller than source FoV), the sparsity of the source domain instances within a specific range of incident angle also hampers domain alignment. Existing UDA methods usually try to bridge the whole domain gap and optimize the model without specifically taking account of the FoV factor, thus preventing the model from fully learning domain-invariant features.
To address the above problem, we propose the \textbf{Position-Invariant Transform} (PIT) to straightforwardly narrow the FoV gap between the source and target domains (Fig. \ref{pit_compare}). Specifically, the pixels lying in the original imaging space are mapped to another two-dimensional space shaped as a spherical surface, such that the appearances of the instances in various positions are aligned to a great extent. Also, we introduce a reverse PIT for mapping the transformed images back to the original image space. In addition, we design an efficient loss re-weighting strategy to speed up the training procedure. Our modules induce little computational overhead while boosting performance, and they can be easily served as plug-and-play modules to any existing cross-domain detection/segmentation frameworks.
Our contributions can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We statistically analyze the negative influence of FoV difference between the source and target domains on UDA models, in which both the increasing and decreasing of FoV between domains impair the domain alignment.
\item We propose the Position-Invariant Transform (PIT) to align instance structural appearances in different positions in each category, and reverse PIT to map the transformed images to the original image space.
We also introduce a loss re-weighting strategy to speed up the training procedure.
\item The effectiveness of PIT is verified on both cross-domain detection and segmentation tasks.
Equipped with our modules, state-of-the-art UDA methods show soundly better performance than before.
\end{itemize}
\section{Method}
In Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA), a source domain $\mathcal{S} = \{(x^\mathcal{S}_i, y^\mathcal{S}_i)\}^{N_\mathcal{S}}_{i=1}$ with $N_\mathcal{S}$ labeled samples and a target domain $\mathcal{T} = \{x^\mathcal{T}_j\}^{N_\mathcal{T}}_{j=1}$ with $N_\mathcal{T}$ unlabeled samples are available, where $x^\mathcal{S}_i$ follows source distribution $\mathbb{P}_\mathcal{S}$, and $x^\mathcal{T}_j$ obeys target distribution $\mathbb{P}_\mathcal{T}$. The objective of UDA is to train a model generalizing well in the target domain, using the above data from both domains.
\subsection{Motivation}
\label{sec:moti}
In the real world, images are often captured by cameras with distinct intrinsic parameters, which leads to the cross-camera domain gap. We observe that the structure of objects deform noticeably as their positions change, and the FoV parameter mainly impacts the deformation extent (Fig. \ref{pit_compare}).
The FoV parameter restricts the angle of the area that can be observed by a camera, \emph{i.e.} the maximum incident angle of observable objects. Fig.~\ref{fig:lens_imaging_2d} (a) illustrates how the variance of the incident angle affects the structural appearance of an object. $l$, $m$, and $n$ are structure-alike objects which lie in different positions with the same distance to the optical center $O$. When projected onto the imaging plane, the length of their images $l'$, $m'$, and $n'$ are obviously different. Specifically, with the increase of an object's deviation from the center of a scene (\emph{i.e.} the expansion of the incident angle), its camera imaging becomes longer, which makes the object structure vary in different positions of an image.
Because of the restriction on the range of incident angles by FoV, the structural appearance of objects within the same category can be noticeably distinct between the source and target domains, as shown in Fig.~\ref{pit_compare} where different degrees of imaging deformation may occur in two domains.
This kind of deformation is totally different from the lens distortion~\cite{distortion}. The latter is a deviation from rectilinear projection and can be fixed by camera calibration, and the calibrated image is the ideal projection on the imaging plane.
Considering the significance of learning structure-invariant feature representations in scene understanding~\cite{STN,DCN}, the structural difference between the objects from two domains can trap a UDA model into a dilemma in which that kind of difference cannot be handled well. To better elucidate the existence and underlying effect of the FoV gap between the two domains, we statistically analyze the incident angle distribution in various datasets. Specifically, we define $\alpha$ and $\beta$ ($\alpha$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lens_imaging_2d} (c), $\beta$ is the counterpart in $yFz$ plane) as a point's incident angles towards the optical center along the horizontal and vertical axis, respectively. Notice that the imaging deformation of an object is closely related to $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and the deformation extent continuously increases along these two angles' absolute values. Therefore, we span the $\alpha$ axis and $\beta$ axis to form a two-dimensional space, named as \textbf{Angular-Position space} (AP space), in which the absolute value of each point's coordinate measures the horizontal and vertical deformation extent of the object lying in the corresponding position.
We then count the number of foreground occurrences for each $(\alpha, \beta)$ integer values on KITTI~\cite{kITTI} and Cityscapes~\cite{CITYSCAPES} datasets, and these statistics are displayed as heat maps in Fig.~\ref{fig:count}.
It can be observed that the objects of KITTI dataset distribute in a wider range of incident angles than those of Cityscapes dataset, which leads to two opposite directions of cross-FoV adaptation (see below).
\noindent\textbf{FoV-increasing Adaptation.} In this case, the target domain possesses a wider FoV distribution than the source domain, \emph{e.g.} adapting from Cityscapes (Fig. \ref{fig:count}(b)) to KITTI (Fig. \ref{fig:count}(a)), which means that the objects in target domain own a greater range of deformation extents. Consequently, some target objects fall in the regions without source objects in the AP space, and they cannot be well aligned to the source domain for the lack of proper supervision from similar-appearance counterparts, which impairs the performance of UDA models. The proposed PIT module (Sec. \ref{sec:PIT}) effectively mitigates this defect via its position-invariance.
\noindent\textbf{FoV-decreasing Adaptation.} In this case, the target domain has a narrower FoV distribution, \emph{e.g.} adapting from KITTI (Fig. \ref{fig:count}(a)(c)) to Cityscapes (Fig. \ref{fig:count}(b)), such that the distributional range of target objects are covered by that of source objects. It is true that when the source objects are dense enough everywhere (Fig. \ref{fig:count}(a)) in the AP space, domain alignment can be well performed by a UDA method. However, when the source domain has low data density (Fig. \ref{fig:count}(c)), a target object can hardly find its source counterparts with a similar structural appearance which it can align with; meanwhile the source samples are not fully utilized. Under this situation, the proposed PIT approach (Sec \ref{sec:PIT}) is able to gather source objects in the AP space and thus eases the alignment.
\label{section:FoV-decre}
\subsection{Position-Invariant Transform}
\label{sec:PIT}
The object deviating more from the principal axis of the lens would be stretched to a greater extent in the camera imaging process, which manifests the imaging deformation phenomenon in Fig.~\ref{pit_compare}.
In order to alleviate this kind of deformation, we propose the \textbf{Position-Invariant Transform} (PIT). Fig.~\ref{fig:lens_imaging_2d}(a) shows the principle of PIT.
The location of a point's image is the intersection of its incident light passing through the optical center $O$ and the imaging surface, so the imaging of a scene would be altered by changing the imaging surface.
In this method, the incident light from an object passing through $O$ is received with a spherical surface instead of a plane, i.e. the $uFv$ surface with sphere center $O$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lens_imaging_2d}(b). In such a spherical space, images can largely retain the relative size of original objects. For the same-size objects $l$, $m$ and $n$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:lens_imaging_2d}(a), they are mapped to $l''$, $m''$ and $n''$ with the same length on the $uFv$ surface. This example illustrates that the imaging on a spherical surface is invariant to the object's angular position, \emph{i.e.} satisfying \textit{position-invariance}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{fig/network.pdf}
\caption{ Overview of our method.
}
\label{net}
\end{figure*}
After manifesting the benefits of a spherical surface over 2D imaging plane,
a projection from spherical image back to a new plane image is needed to match the image with the input form of network.
Thus, such projection should have two properties, which cannot be satisfied by the existing projection approaches (e.g. equirectangular, Mercator, etc.): (1) the image space after transformation should obey position-invariance, in order to align instances in the pixel level; (2) the horizontal (vertical) line should remain horizontal (vertical) after transformation, so as to ensure the validity of bounding box labels. Taking both properties into consideration, we formulate a new projection which is defined as (referring to Fig.~\ref{fig:lens_imaging_2d}(c) for intuitive notions):
\begin{equation}
X(U) = f \times \tan(\frac{U}{f}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Y(V) = f \times \tan(\frac{V}{f}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M'[U][V] = M[X(U)][Y(V)],
\end{equation}
where $(X,Y)$ is the coordinate in the original image space (\emph{i.e.} the $xFy$ coordinate system with origin $F$), and $(U,V)$ is the coordinate in the image space after PIT (\emph{i.e.} the $uFv$ coordinate system with origin $F$). $M[X][Y]$ and $M'[U][V]$ denote the pixel values of the corresponding points before and after transformation. $f$ is the focal length which can be estimated using the FoV parameter or precisely calculated by camera calibration.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{pit_compare}, the size of an image becomes smaller after PIT, and the regions further from the center of a scene are compressed with a higher ratio. Furthermore, the vertical/horizontal lines are preserved after PIT.
\subsection{Cross-FoV Domain Adaptation}
\label{sec:3.3}
\noindent\textbf{Integration.} The proposed PIT method can be utilized as a plug-and-play module to existing cross-domain detection and segmentation frameworks. As shown in Fig. \ref{net}, both the images from the source and target domains are first fed into the PIT module to be transformed into the position-invariant ones, which serve as the inputs to the task network. In the training phase, the labels from source domain are also transformed by PIT to provide supervision. As for inference, the prediction result of the task network is mapped back to the original image space by the reverse PIT module which outputs the final prediction.
\noindent\textbf{Reverse PIT and loss re-weighting strategy.} Since the evaluation is conducted with the un-transformed ground truth, it is plausible to provide supervision with the original labels, as shown by the black dash lines in Fig. \ref{net}. However, different from the PIT process which only needs to execute once for each input image in the datasets, the reverse PIT module would be employed in each iteration and cause extra computational cost.
In order to accelerate the training, we design a pixel-wise loss re-weighting strategy to substitute the reverse PIT module during the training process.
A pixel in the transformed image corresponds to a region in the original image, and each pixel in the original image weighs equally in evaluation. Therefore, a transformed pixel's weight should be the area of its mapping region, depending on the pixel's position. With this weight, the transformed supervision is equivalent to the reverse PIT in terms of loss computation.
The weighting matrix is formulated as:
\begin{equation}
w_{R}(U,V) = (X(|U| + 1) - X(|U|))\times(Y(|V|+1) - Y(|V|)),
\end{equation}
where $w_{R}$ is the weight assigned to pixel located in $(U,V)$ in the transformed image.
Using the weights derived above, we re-weigh the pixel-wise losses, including the task-specific loss $L_{task}$ (\emph{e.g.} the supervised loss $L_{sup}$ in \cite{choi2019self}) and the domain adaptation loss $L_{da}$ (\emph{e.g.} the consistency loss $L_{con}$ in \cite{choi2019self}):
\begin{equation}
L = L_{task} \otimes W_{R} + \lambda L_{da} \otimes W_{R},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is the weight to balance the two losses.
With this loss re-weighting strategy, we can use the transformed labels to optimize the model, as shown by the green line in Fig.~\ref{net}, which speeds up the training procedure.
\section{Related Work}
\noindent\textbf{Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA).}
UDA aims to adapt the model trained on a labeled source domain to an unlabeled target domain by reducing the distribution gap between two domains.
A group of recent approaches focused on minimizing the domain discrepancy~\cite{dan,deepcoral,wdan} metric (\emph{e.g.} Maximum Mean Discrepancy~\cite{2014Deep}), adversarial learning~\cite{revgrad,adda,multi_adversarial} or prototype-based alignment~\cite{semantic,minimax_entropy,GPA}. Despite the successes achieved in classification-based tasks~\cite{dan,revgrad,deepcoral,adda,gta,domain_mixup}, these methods work well on simple classification datasets (\emph{e.g.} MNIST~\cite{lecun1998gradient} and
SVHN~\cite{netzer2011reading}), but can hardly be applied to more challenging tasks, \emph{e.g.} object detection and semantic segmentation.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig/transform.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{(a)} Illustration of the position-related deformation and the position-invariance of PIT. \textbf{(b)} The 3D spatial relationship of images before and after PIT. \textbf{(c)} The transformation between two coordinate systems. $O$: the optical center of a camera; $F$: the focal point; $x'Oy'$: the plane of lens ($y'$ axis is perpendicular to $x'Oz$); $xFy$: the imaging plane which is parallel to $x'Oy'$; $uFv$: the spherical surface to map the image, where the coordinate axes $u$ and $v$ are arcs.
}
\label{fig:lens_imaging_2d}
\end{figure*}
\noindent\textbf{Domain Adaptive Detection/Segmentation.} Not until recently has the community paid attention to domain shift problem in object detection or semantic segmentation.
This line of research has been investigated by a large number of researchers, and great efforts have been made to explore a variety of algorithms and architectures to reduce the domain gap in pixel-level~\cite{CyCADA, DISE, BDL, LTIR,guo2021label}, feature-level~\cite{SIBAN, CBST,MTOR, DA-Faster-RCNN,zhou2021sad},
instance-level~\cite{DA-Faster-RCNN, ICR-CCR, HTCN} and output-level~\cite{AdaptSegNet,AdaptPatch,CLAN,APODA}, which have shown successes on both object detection~\cite{DA-Faster-RCNN, SCDA, MTOR,SWDA,HTCN,GPA,ICR-CCR} and semantic segmentation~\cite{CyCADA, AdaptSegNet, CLAN, BDL, SIM, AdaptPatch, ADVENT,zhou2021context}. The current mainstream approaches of these two tasks include adversarial learning~\cite{SCDA,MAF,SWDA, AdaptSegNet,CLAN,ADVENT,AdaptPatch}, self-training~\cite{CBST, CRST,NL} and self-ensembling~\cite{MTOR,choi2019self,deng2020unbiased,zhou2020uncertainty,zhou2021context}.
Despite the great progress, these works mainly focused on adapting different external environmental conditions, \emph{e.g.} background, illumination and weather. While the gap of camera intrinsic parameters between distinct domains has been ignored.
In this work, we show the effectiveness of our method by easily integrating it into adversarial learning and self-ensembling on these two tasks.
\noindent\textbf{CNNs with Geometric Transformations. }
Researchers investigated CNNs with the abilities of geometric transformation or deformation gains over the past years.
Spatial transformer networks \cite{STN} predicted the transformation parameters to reduce the influence of affine transformations. Active convolution \cite{ActiveConv} designed a transformable convolution kernel to get a more general shape of receptive field. Deformable convolution network \cite{DCN} further improved the former by predicting the receptive field location, and \cite{su2017learning} used spherical CNN to translate a planar CNN to process $360^\circ$ imagery directly in its equirectangular projection. Largely different from these methods which mainly focused on designing new network architectures, our method pays more attention to the attribution of the data itself (\emph{i.e.} position-related deformation caused by camera imaging) to enhance the feature alignment in UDA models.
\section*{\centering{PIT: Position-Invariant Transform for Cross-FoV Domain Adaptation
\\Supplementary Material\\[90pt]}}
\end{@twocolumnfalse}
]
\section{Appendix.}
\subsection{Class-wise Detection Results}
In the paper, we follow the setting of DA-FRCN \cite{DA-Faster-RCNN}, SCL \cite{SCL} and GPA \cite{GPA} for fair comparison, which only have car results in the adaptation between Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ KITTI. In order to verify the generalization ability of our method, we conduct an experiment training with 4-classes label (4 overlapped classes in these two datasets). Results in Tab. \ref{tab:od_multi} shows that PIT can work on multi-class training.
\subsection{Class-wise Segmentation Results}
Tab. \ref{tab:ss_c2k} and Tab. \ref{tab:ss_v2k} shows the IoU of each class in semantic segmentation experiments. The results demonstrate that PIT module tends to improve the performance of large objects, for the reason that their area spans a larger FoV and thus lead to a greater extent of intra-instance deformation in the original images.
\subsection{Full-size FoV-decreasing Adaptation}
Sec. 3.2 analyzes the different situation (\emph{i.e.} whether the source image is sufficient) in FoV-decreasing case, and Sec. 4.3.2 gives the result of insufficient source images (a subset of source dataset). For reference, Tab. \ref{tab:od_fullsize} shows the result of sufficient source images (the fullsize source dataset). In FoV-decreasing case, the PIT module works better when there are not enough source samples.
\section{Computational Overhead}
Datasets can be transformed and saved before training, and it takes little time to transform an image. For example, it takes 0.27s to process an image in Cityscapes ($2048 \times 1024$ pixels), and 0.06s for one from KITTI ($1242 \times 375$ pixels) with a Tesla V100 GPU.
Table \ref{tab:time_ss} shows the time comparison of segmentation task Cityscapes$\rightarrow$KITTI with and without PIT. Due to the fact the Self-Ensembling~\cite{choi2019self} is the repredentative method of the consistency regulaization~\cite{french2019semi,french2020milking,dacs,zhou2020uncertainty,zhou2021context}, we use \cite{choi2019self} as our backbone framework. It needs little additional time to train with PIT and reverse PIT modules. Using our re-weighting strategy, training time for each iteration declines due to the smaller sizes of transformed images, and the performance remain similar (mIoU = $60.62\%$ for reverse PIT and $61.00\%$ for re-weighting). Adding the fixed time of PIT process, the average time rises little in few iterations, and even becomes less in a large number of iterations. In addition, the inference time per image in this task changes from $0.081$s to $0.096$s when adding our method, which only costs $10.9$s extra time for the validation of $748$ images.
\section{Qualitative results}
We visualize the qualitative results of task Cityscapes~\cite{CITYSCAPES} ($50\degree$, $25\degree$) $\rightarrow$ KITTI~\cite{kITTI} $(90\degree, 34\degree)$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:vis_od} shows the detection results using GPA~\cite{GPA} as the baseline. In results of the baseline (left column), the off-centered objects are likely to be recognized as several smaller objects or be detected partially due to their greater deformation extent. Our method (right column) solves these problem successfully by alleviating this kind of deformation, leading to clearer and more precise predicted bounding boxes.
Using Self-Ensembling~\cite{choi2019self} as the baseline, we get the qualitative segmentation results in Fig.~\ref{fig:vis_ss}. Our method provides more accurate predictions, especially in the off-centered pixels.
\input{tables/od_multiclass}
\input{tables/od_fullsize}
\input{tables/ss_c2k}
\input{tables/ss_v2k}
\input{tables/time_ss}
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig/supp4.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative detection results of task Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ KITTI, all the predictions are car class.}
\label{fig:vis_od}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{fig/supp_vis_ss2.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative segmentation results of task Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ KITTI.}
\label{fig:vis_ss}
\end{figure*}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $X$ be a smooth symplectic quasiprojective variety. We make the following assumptions:
\begin{itemize}
\item A torus $\mathsf{T}$ acts on $X$ such that it scales the symplectic form with character $\hbar$. We denote by $\mathsf{A}:=\ker(\hbar)\subset\mathsf{T}$ the subtorus preserving the symplectic form.
\item The $\mathsf{T}$-action has finitely many fixed points.
\item The tangent bundle of $X$ has a polarization $T^{1/2}X$. In other words, there exists some class $T^{1/2}X \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(X)$ so that the tangent bundle of $X$ decomposes as
$$
TX= T^{1/2}X + \hbar^{-1} \left(T^{1/2} X\right)^{\vee} \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(X)
$$
\item A chamber $\mathfrak{C}\subset \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A})$ is fixed, which is a choice of connected component of the complement of
$$
\bigcup_{p\in X^{\mathsf{A}}} \bigcup_{w\in \text{char}_{\mathsf{A}}(T_pX)}\{\sigma\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}) \, \mid \, \langle \sigma, w \rangle =0\}
$$
where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is the pairing of characters and cocharacters. This chamber decomposes the tangent space at the fixed points into attracting and repelling directions.
\end{itemize}
Our main interest is the case when $X$ is a Nakajima quiver variety of linear or affine type $A$. If such a variety satisfies some natural conditions which hold for quiver varieties, it is known that the cohomological, $K$-theoretic, and elliptic stable envelopes exist, see \cite{AOElliptic} and \cite{indstab1}.
For a torus fixed point $p \in X^{\mathsf{T}}$, the $K$-theoretic stable envelope provides a class
$$
\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{\mathfrak{C},T^{1/2}X}(p) \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(X)
$$
which depends on the chosen polarization and chamber, as well as a generic choice of $s \in \mathrm{Pic}(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{R}$ called the slope. For an appropriately normalized version of the stable envelope, we consider the $K$-theoretic equivariant Euler characteristic
$$
\chi\left(\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{\mathfrak{C},T^{1/2}X}(p)\right) \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(pt)_{loc}= \mathbb{C}({\bs a},\hbar)
$$
where ${\bs a}$ denotes the equivariant parameters of the torus $\mathsf{A}$. A natural question is to ask for an explicit description of this rational function and to study its expansion as a series in ${\bs a}$.
In this paper, we study this problem for the special case when $X$ is the cotangent bundle of the full flag variety. This variety is known to be self-dual with respect to 3d mirror symmetry, see \cite{MirSym2} and \cite{msflag}. We denote the 3d mirror dual copy of this variety by $X^{!}$ and denote the torus acting on this variety by $\mathsf{T}^{!}$. While $X$ and $X^{!}$ are isomorphic as varieties, the 3d mirror symmetry relationship requires that various tori associated to $X$ and $X^{!}$ are related in non-trivial ways, see (\ref{kap}) below. Hence it will be necessary to distinguish them.
Using results from \cite{msflag}, we identify in Theorem \ref{mainthm} the power series expansion of $\chi\left(\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{\mathfrak{C},T^{1/2}X}(p)\right)$ around a certain point with an object we call the index vertex of $X^{!}$. We will now briefly explain the geometric meaning of the index vertex.
The index vertex arises in the enumerative geometry of quasimaps from $\mathbb{P}^1$ to $X^{!}$, see section 4 of \cite{pcmilect} and section 8.2 of \cite{NO}. For a $\mathsf{T}^{!}$-fixed point $p^{!} \in X^{!}$, we denote by ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_{p^{!}}$ the moduli space of stable quasimaps from $\mathbb{P}^1$ to $X^{!}$ that evaluate to $p^{!}$ at $\infty$. The torus $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q:=\mathsf{T}^{!}\times\mathbb{C}^{\times}_q$, where $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_q$ acts on $\mathbb{P}^1$, acts on ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_{p^{!}}$ with a discrete fixed point set. A generic choice of the slope $s$ provides a decomposition of the virtual tangent space of ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_{p^{!}}$ at a $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q$-fixed point into attracting and repelling directions. The index vertex $\mathrm{Ind}^{!s}_{p^{!}}$ is defined as the generating function that counts these repelling directions, with the sum taken over all possible degrees of quasimaps, see Definition \ref{ind} below. Then, roughly speaking, our first main theorem states:
$$
\chi\left(\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{\mathfrak{C},T^{1/2}X}(p)\right)= \mathrm{Ind}^{!s}_{p^{!}}
$$
where $p$ and $p^{!}$ are related under the bijection provided by 3d mirror symmetry as in section \ref{mirsym}.
As a consequence of this result, we deduce that the index vertex is the power series expansion of a rational function.
While $K$-theoretic stable envelopes require the slope $s$ to be generic, the index vertex can be defined for non-generic slopes $s$ as a limit of the so-called vertex function of $X^{!}$. In this case, the index vertex is still the power series expansion of a rational function, but the identification of the rational function is more complex. Using results from \cite{KS2}, we prove in Theorem \ref{mainthm2} that it gives the power series expansion of a certain rational function obtained from the stable envelopes of $X$ and stable envelopes of a subvariety $Y_s \subset X^{!}$.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In section \ref{basicnotions}, we describe some basic notions regarding the description of the cotangent bundle of the full flag variety as a Nakajima quiver variety. In section \ref{mirsym}, we describe a few pieces of data involved in the 3d mirror self-symmetry of this variety that will be important for us. In the next two sections we discuss the main objects of study in this paper: the index vertex in section \ref{indsection} and stable envelopes in \ref{stabsection}. We state and prove our main theorems in section \ref{theoremsection}. In the final section, we calculate all relevant quantities directly and verify our result for generic slopes explicitly in the simplest possible example.
We conclude this introduction with a few general remarks. Although the cotangent bundle of the full flag variety is a particularly nice variety, we expect the results of this paper to hold much more generally. More specifically, we expect that for any two varieties related by 3d mirror symmetry satisfying the conditions listed at the beginning of the introduction, the index vertex and the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes should be related in the same way as described here. Indeed, the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm} shows that the relationship between the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes and the index vertex is really a consequence of a more general conjecture regarding elliptic stable envelopes and vertex functions of 3d mirror dual varieties, see \cite{dinkms1}, \cite{msflag}, \cite{mstoric}, \cite{liu} and the introduction of \cite{AOElliptic}. While a general construction of 3d mirror dual pairs is not presently known, the construction of Coloumb branches in \cite{coul1} and \cite{coul2} provides a large class of varieties 3d mirror dual to quiver varieties, and more generally Higgs branches of 3d $N=4$ gauge theories. In the case of type $A$, which closely resembles this paper, 3d mirror dual pairs can be realized as Cherkis bow varieties, see \cite{NakBow}, \cite{RSbows}, \cite{Cherk1}, \cite{Cherk2}, and \cite{Cherk3}.
\subsection{Acknowledgements}
This work was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-2054527.
\section{Basic properties of \texorpdfstring{$X$}{X}}\label{basicnotions}
\subsection{Description as a quiver variety}
We construct the cotangent bundle of the full flag variety as a Nakajima quiver variety. The quiver data is given in Figure \ref{fig1}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[roundnode/.style={circle,fill,inner sep=2.5pt},squarednode/.style={rectangle,fill,inner sep=3pt}]
\node[squarednode,label=below:{$n$}](F1) at (6,-1.5){};
\node[roundnode,label=above:{1}](V1) at (1.5,0){};
\node[roundnode,label=above:{2}](V2) at (3,0){};
\node(V3) at (4.5,0){\ldots};
\node[roundnode,label=above:{$n-1$}](V4) at (6,0){};
\draw[thick, ->] (V4) -- (F1);
\draw[thick, ->] (V1) -- (V2);
\draw[thick, ->] (V2) -- (V3);
\draw[thick, ->] (V3) -- (V4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The quiver data for the cotangent bundle of the flag variety.} \label{fig1}
\end{figure}
We place a vector space $V_i$ of dimension $i$ at the vertex of the quiver labeled by $i$. We denote the $n$-dimensional framing vector space by $V_n$. We choose the stability condition given by the $G:=\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} GL(V_i)$-character
$$
\theta: G \to \mathbb{C}^{\times}, \qquad (g_i)_i \mapsto \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (\det g_i)^{-1}
$$
Let
$$
\mu: T^*\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} Hom(V_i,V_{i+1})\right)\to \mathfrak{g}^{*}, \quad \mathfrak{g}=\mathrm{Lie}(G)
$$
be the moment map associated to the natural $G$-action. Points in the associated quiver variety
$$
X:= \mu^{-1}(0)^{\theta-ss}/G
$$
are represented by tuples of maps
$$
A_i:V_i \to V_{i+1}, \quad B_i: V_{i+1} \to V_i, \quad \text{for } i \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}
$$
A collection of maps describes a $\theta$-semistable if and only if the maps $A_i$ are injective. The variety $X$ is the cotangent bundle of the full flag variety.
\subsection{Torus action}
The action of $(\mathbb{C}^{\times})^n$ on $V_n$ induces an action of $(\mathbb{C}^{\times})^n$ on $X$. The diagonal $\mathbb{C}^{\times} \subset (\mathbb{C}^{\times})^n$ acts trivially on $X$, and we denote by $\mathsf{A}$ the quotient of $(\mathbb{C}^{\times})^n$ by this subtorus. We denote the coordinates on $(\mathbb{C}^{\times})^n$ by $(u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n)$ which means that coordinates on $\mathsf{A}$ are given by $a_i=u_i/u_{i+1}$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$.
An additional torus $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_{\hbar}$ acts on $X$ by scaling the cotangent data, which is given by the maps $B_i:V_{i+1} \to V_{i}$ for $i\in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$, by $\hbar^{-1}$. We define
$$
\mathsf{T}:=\mathsf{A} \times \mathbb{C}^{\times}_{\hbar}
$$
The torus $\mathsf{A} \subset \mathsf{T}$ preserves the symplectic form of $X$ and $\mathsf{T}/\mathsf{A}$ scales it with character $\hbar$.
The $\mathsf{T}$-fixed points of $X$ are indexed naturally by permutations $I=(I_1,\ldots, I_n)$ of $n$. As remarked above, $\theta$-semistability implies that the maps $A_i:V_i \to V_{i+1}$ are injective. We identify each of these vector spaces with a subspace of $V_n=\mathbb{C}^{n}$ and denote by $e_1, \ldots, e_n$ the standard basis of $\mathbb{C}^n$. Then a fixed point indexed by $I$ corresponds to a chain of vector spaces
$$
V_1 \subset V_2 \subset \ldots \subset V_n
$$
such that $V_i/V_{i-1}=\text{Span}_{\mathbb{C}}\{e_{I_i}\}$.
\subsection{}
The vector spaces $V_i$ descend to bundles $\mathcal{V}_i$ on $X$. It is known from \cite{kirv} that the tautological line bundles $\mathscr{L}_i=\det \mathcal{V}_i$ generate $\mathrm{Pic}(X)$.
We define the K\"ahler torus of $X$ by
$$
\mathsf{K}= \mathrm{Pic}(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{C}^{\times}
$$
and write ${\bs z}=(z_1,\ldots,z_{n-1})$ for the coordinates on it induced by the tautological line bundles. The variables $z_i$ are usually referred to as K\"ahler parameters.
The real Lie algebra of $\mathsf{K}$ is
$$
\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K}):=\text{cochar}(\mathsf{K})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{R} = \mathrm{Pic}(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{R}
$$
We denote elements of $\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})$ by $s$ and call them slopes. We identify $\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})$ with $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ by the map
\begin{equation}\label{lierk}
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mathscr{L}_i\otimes r_i \mapsto (-r_1,\ldots,-r_{n-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}
\end{equation}
The minus signs are chosen to match later notation.
\subsection{Dual variety}
The cotangent bundle of the full flag variety is known to be self dual with respect to 3d mirror symmetry, see \cite{MirSym2}, \cite{msflag}, and \cite{GaKor}. We denote by $X^{!}$ the same variety, constructed as a quiver variety in the same way. For $X^{!}$ we likewise have tori $\mathsf{T}^{!}$, $\mathsf{A}^{!}$, and $\mathsf{K}^{!}$.
\subsection{Polarization and chamber}
Stable envelopes depend on a choice of polarization and chamber. We explain the meaning of these here.
A polarization of $X$ is the choice of a $K$-theory class $T^{1/2}X$ so that the tangent bundle decomposes as
$$
TX= T^{1/2}X+\hbar^{-1} (T^{1/2}X)^{\vee} \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(X)
$$
We fix the polarization of $X$, given in terms of the tautological bundles $\mathcal{V}_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$ by
\begin{equation}\label{pol}
T^{1/2}X = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mathcal{V}_i^{\vee} \otimes \mathcal{V}_{i+1} -\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mathcal{V}_{i}^{\vee} \otimes \mathcal{V}_{i} \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(X)
\end{equation}
In terms of the Chern roots $x^{(i)}_1,\ldots x^{(i)}_i$ of $\mathcal{V}_i$, this is given by
$$
T^{1/2}X = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left( \sum_{j=1}^{i} \frac{1}{x^{(i)}_j}\right) \left( \sum_{k=1}^{i+1} x^{(i+1)}_k\right) - \left( \sum_{j=1}^{i} \frac{1}{x^{(i)}_j}\right) \left( \sum_{k=1}^{i} x^{(i)}_k \right) \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(X)
$$
At the fixed point given by a permutation $I$ of $\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$, the tangent space can be calculated by substituting $x^{(i)}_j = u_{I_j}$. So
\begin{align*}
T^{1/2}_I X &= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \sum_{j=1}^{i} \sum_{k=1}^{i+1} \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}} - \sum_{j=1}^{i} \sum_{k=1}^{i} \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}} \\
&= \sum_{1\leq j < k \leq n} \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}} \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(pt)
\end{align*}
and
$$
T_I X = \sum_{1\leq j < k \leq n} \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}} + \hbar^{-1} \sum_{1\leq j < k \leq n} \frac{u_{I_j}}{u_{I_k}} \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(pt)
$$
\subsection{Chamber}
A chamber is a choice of connected component of
\begin{equation}\label{comp}
\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}\mathsf{A} -\bigcup_{w}\{\sigma \in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}\mathsf{A} \mid \langle \sigma, w \rangle=0\}
\end{equation}
where the union is taken over all $\mathsf{A}$-weights of the tangent spaces at the fixed points and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is induced by the natural pairing on characters and cocharacters. A choice of generic cocharacter $\sigma$ of $\mathsf{A}$ gives a chamber $\mathfrak{C}$, and the dependence of the chamber on the cocharacter is locally constant. The tangent space at a fixed point decomposes into a direct sum of $\mathsf{T}$-weight spaces
$$
T_I X= \bigoplus_{w\in Hom(\mathsf{T},\mathbb{C}^{\times})} V_I(w)
$$
A choice of chamber given by a cocharacter $\sigma$ decomposes the tangent space at a fixed point $I$ into attracting and repelling directions:
$$
T_I X= N^{+}_I+N^{-}_I
$$
where
\begin{align*}
N_I^{+} &= \bigoplus_{\substack{w \\ \langle \sigma, w \rangle}>0} V_I(w) \\
N_I^{-} &= \bigoplus_{\substack{w \\ \langle \sigma, w \rangle}<0} V_I(w)
\end{align*}
Here, $\sigma$ is viewed as a cocharacter of $\mathsf{T}$ via the inclusion $\mathsf{A} \subset \mathsf{T}$. Since the fixed point set is finite and $\sigma$ is chosen to lie in (\ref{comp}), every direction is either attracting or repelling.
In the case of the cotangent bundle of the full flag variety, we fix once and for all the cocharacter
\begin{align}\label{chamb}
\sigma: u \mapsto (u^{-1},u^{-2},\ldots,u^{-n}), \qquad u \in \mathbb{C}^{\times}
\end{align}
and denote the corresponding chamber as $\mathfrak{C}$. With respect to this chamber, attracting weights look like $u_i/u_j$ where $i<j$, or equivalently, like monomials with positive powers in $a_i:=u_i/u_{i+1}$. Explicitly, we have
$$
T_I X= N^{+}_I+N^{-}_I
$$
where
\begin{align}\nonumber \label{normal}
N_I^- &= \sum_{\substack{1\leq j < k \leq n \\ I_k > I_j}} \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}} + \hbar^{-1}\sum_{\substack{1\leq j < k \leq n \\ I_k < I_j}} \frac{u_{I_j}}{u_{I_k}} \\
N_I^+ &= \sum_{\substack{1\leq j < k \leq n \\ I_k < I_j}} \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}} + \hbar^{-1}\sum_{\substack{1\leq j < k \leq n \\ I_k > I_j}} \frac{u_{I_j}}{u_{I_k}}
\end{align}
\subsection{Ordering on fixed points}
Given a permutation $I=(I_1,\ldots,I_n)$ of $n$, we define the ordered indices $i^{(k)}_1,\ldots,i^{(k)}_k$ so that
$$
\{i^{(k)}_1 < \ldots < i^{(k)}_k\}= \{I_1,\ldots,I_k\}
$$
\begin{Definition}\label{bruhat}
For permutations $I$ and $J$ with ordered indices $i^{(k)}_m$ and $j^{(k)}_m$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{bruhateq}
I\prec J \iff i^{(k)}_m<j^{(k)}_m \text{ for all } k=1,\ldots,n-1 \text{ and } m=1,\ldots,k
\end{equation}
The partial order $\prec$ coincides with the partial order on fixed points given by attraction in section 3.1.2 of \cite{AOElliptic}. In what follows, we will also denote by $\prec$ an arbitrary refinement of this partial order to a total order.
\end{Definition}
\section{3d mirror symmetry}\label{mirsym}
\subsection{Exchange of equivariant and K\"ahler parameters}
One property of 3d mirror symmetry, see \cite{KS2} and \cite{dinksmir}, is the existence of a bijection
$$
X^{\mathsf{T}} \longleftrightarrow {X^{!}}^{\mathsf{T}^{!}}
$$
and an isomorphism of tori
$$
\kappa: \mathsf{T} \times \mathsf{K} \times \mathbb{C}^{\times}_q \to \mathsf{T}^{!} \times \mathsf{K}^{!} \times \mathbb{C}^{\times}_q
$$
that induces isomorphisms $\mathsf{T} \cong \mathsf{K}^{!}$ and $\mathsf{K} \cong \mathsf{T}^{!}$. The torus $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_q$ acts on the domain of quasimaps to $X$ and $X^{!}$, as will be explained in section \ref{quasimaps} below.
Following \cite{msflag}, we define the bijection on fixed points by
$$
I \longleftrightarrow I^{-1} =:I^{!}
$$
and the map $\kappa$ by
\begin{align}\label{kap} \nonumber
z_{i} &\mapsto \hbar^{!} a^{!}_i \\ \nonumber
a_i &\mapsto \frac{\hbar^{!}}{q} z^{!}_i \\ \nonumber
\hbar &\mapsto \frac{q}{\hbar^{!}} \\
q &\mapsto q
\end{align}
The differential $d\kappa$ induces isomorphisms
\begin{equation}\label{lielie}
\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}) \cong \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K}^{!}), \qquad \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K}) \cong \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})
\end{equation}
We also obtain an induced map
$$
K_{\mathsf{T}\times \mathbb{C}^{\times}_q}(pt)_{loc}[[{\bs z}]] \cong \mathbb{C}({\bs a},\hbar,q)[[{\bs z}]] \to \mathbb{C}({\bs a}^{!},\hbar^{!},q)[[{\bs z}^{!}]]\cong K_{\mathsf{T}^{!}\times \mathbb{C}^{\times}_q}(pt)_{loc}[[{\bs z}^{!}]]
$$
where we use the subscript $loc$ to denote the localized $K$-theory. We will abuse notation and also denote this last map by $\kappa$.
\subsection{Walls and resonances}
The $K$-theoretic stable envelopes depend on a choice of slope $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})$. The dependence is locally constant, and the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes change only when $s$ crosses the walls of a certain hyperplane arrangement, which we denote by $\mathsf{Wall}(X)$.
From (\ref{lierk}) and (\ref{lielie}) we have
$$
s=(s_1,\ldots,s_{n-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\cong \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})\cong \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})
$$
and we write
\begin{align*}
{\bs z} q^{s} &= (z_1 q^{s_1},\ldots, z_{n-1} q^{s_{n-1}}) \\
{\bs a}^{!} q^{s} &=(a_1^{!} q^{s_1},\ldots, a_{n-1}^{!} q^{s_{n-1}})
\end{align*}
To each element $\mathsf{w} \in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A})$ with $\mathsf{w}=(\mathsf{w}_1,\ldots,\mathsf{w}_{n-1})$, we let $\nu_{\mathsf{w}}$ be the cyclic subgroup of $\mathsf{A}$ generated by
\begin{equation}\label{resgroup}
(e^{2 \pi i w_1},\ldots, e^{2 \pi i w_{n-1}}) \in \mathsf{A}
\end{equation}
We define
$$
\mathsf{Res}(X)=\{\mathsf{w} \in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}) \, \mid \, X^{\nu_{\mathsf{w}}} \neq X^{\mathsf{A}} \}
$$
In \cite{KS1}, it is shown that
$$
\mathsf{Res}(X)=\{\mathsf{w} \, \mid \, \langle \alpha, \mathsf{w} \rangle+m=0 \, \, \text{for some} \, \, m \in \mathbb{Z}, \, \, I\in X^{\mathsf{A}}, \, \, \alpha \in \text{char}_{\mathsf{A}}(T_I X) \}
$$
Under the identification (\ref{lielie}), the walls and resonances are exchanged (\cite{KS2} Theorem 2):
$$
\mathsf{Wall}(X) \cong \mathsf{Res}(X^{!}), \quad \mathsf{Res}(X) \cong \mathsf{Wall}(X^{!})
$$
A simple calculation shows that under (\ref{lierk}), the walls are given by
$$
\mathsf{Wall}(X)=\{(s_1,\ldots,s_{n-1}) \, \mid \, \exists I \subset \{1,\ldots,n-1\}, \, \sum_{i \in I} s_i \in \mathbb{Z}\}
$$
We use the term generic slopes to refer to elements of $\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})\setminus \mathsf{Wall}(X)$.
\section{Index vertex}\label{indsection}
In this section, we define one of the objects involved in our main theorem: the index vertex. We are interested in it for $X^{!}$.
\subsection{Quasimaps}\label{quasimaps}
Let $[x:y]$ denote homogeneous coordinates on $\mathbb{P}^1$. We denote
$$
0=[0:1], \quad \infty=[1:0]
$$
The torus $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_q$ acts on $\mathbb{P}^1$ by
\begin{equation}\label{Cq}
q \cdot [x_0:x_1] = [x_0 q:x_1], \quad q \in \mathbb{C}^{\times}
\end{equation}
For $p\in (X^{!})^{\mathsf{T}^{!}}$, let ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_{p}$ be the moduli space of stable quasimaps from $\mathbb{P}^1$ to $X^{!}$ that take the value $p$ at $\infty$, see \cite{qm} and \cite{pcmilect} section 4. The data of a stable quasimap to $X^{!}$ provides:
\begin{itemize}
\item Vector bundles $\mathscr{V}_i$ for $i\in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$ over $\mathbb{P}^1$ such that $\text{rank}(\mathscr{V}_i)=i$.
\item A trivial vector bundle $\mathscr{V}_n$ over $\mathbb{P}^1$ of rank $n$.
\item A section
$$
f \in H^0(\mathbb{P}^1,\mathscr{M}\oplus (\hbar^{!})^{-1}(\mathscr{M})^{\vee}),\quad f(\infty)=p
$$
where
$$
\mathscr{M}= \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n-1} Hom(\mathscr{V}_i,\mathscr{V}_{i+1})
$$
\end{itemize}
such that the section $f$ lands in the GIT stable locus for all but finitely many points of $\mathbb{P}^1$. We abuse notation by writing a quasimap as $f$, with the understanding that the data of the vector bundles are included.
The degree of a quasimap is given by
$$
\deg f=(\deg \mathscr{V}_1,\ldots, \deg \mathscr{V}_{n-1})
$$
which gives a decomposition
$$
{{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_p = \bigsqcup_{{\bs d}} {{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{{\bs d}}_p
$$
of the quasimap moduli space into components corresponding to quasimaps with fixed degree ${\bs d}$. It is known that the degrees for which ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^d_p$ is nonempty lie inside a certain cone, see \cite{pcmilect} section 7.2.
The actions of $\mathsf{T}^{!}$ on $X^{!}$ and of $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_q$ on $\mathbb{P}^1$ induce an action on quasimaps. We denote $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q=\mathsf{T}^{!}\times\mathbb{C}^{\times}_{q}$.
\subsection{Virtual classes on ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_p$}
It is known that ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_p$ has a perfect obstruction theory, which allows one to define the symmetrized virtual structure sheaf $\widehat{{{\mathcal{O}}}}_{{\rm{vir}}}$ and virtual tangent space $\mathscr{T}_{\text{vir}}$, see \cite{qm} Theorem 7.2.2 and \cite{pcmilect} section 6.
Fix $f \in \left({{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_{p}\right)^{\mathsf{T}^{!}_q}$. As a $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q$-module, the virtual tangent space of ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_p$ at $f$ is
$$
\mathscr{T}_{\textrm{vir},f}=H^*\left(\mathbb{P}^1, \mathcal{T}^{1/2}+ \hbar^{-1}(\mathcal{T}^{1/2})^{\vee}\right)
$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{Tbundle}
\mathcal{T}^{1/2}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{n-1} Hom(\mathscr{V}_i,\mathscr{V}_{i+1}) - \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n-1} End(\mathscr{V}_i)
\end{equation}
The reduced virtual tangent space at $f$ is defined to be
$$
\mathscr{T}_{\textrm{vir},f}^{\textrm{red}}=\mathscr{T}_{\textrm{vir},f}-T_p X^{!}
$$
The class $\mathcal{T}^{1/2}$ induces a polarization $\mathscr{T}^{1/2}$ of the reduced virtual tangent space at a fixed quasimap $f$:
\begin{equation}\label{qmpol}
\mathscr{T}_{\mathrm{vir},f}^{\mathrm{red}}=\mathscr{T}^{1/2}+\hbar^{-1}\left(\mathscr{T}^{1/2}\right)^{\vee} \quad \text{where} \quad \mathscr{T}^{1/2}=H^*(\mathbb{P}^1, \mathcal{T}^{1/2})-T^{1/2}_{p}X^{!}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Index vertex}
Let $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})\setminus \mathsf{Res}(X^{!})$ and denote the substitution $a_i=q^{s_i}$ by ${\bs a}=q^{s}$. Such an $s$ induces a decomposition
$$
\mathscr{T}^{1/2}=\mathscr{T}^{1/2}_{s,+}+\mathscr{T}^{1/2}_{s,-}
$$
where $\mathscr{T}^{1/2}_{s,\pm}$ consists of the terms of $\mathscr{T}^{1/2}$ that, after the substitution ${\bs a}=q^s$, have finite limit as $q^{\pm} \to \infty$.
\begin{Definition}\label{sindex}
Let $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})\setminus \mathsf{Res}(X^{!})$. The $s$-index of $f\in \left({{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}_p\right)^{\mathsf{T}^{!}_q}$ is
$$
\mathcal{I}_{s}(f)=\text{rank}\left( \mathscr{T}^{1/2}_{s,-}\right)
$$
where we understand the rank of a virtual $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q$-bundle to be counted with sign.\footnote{In other words, if $A$ and $B$ are $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q$-modules, then $\text{rk}(A-B)=\text{rank}(A)-\text{rank}(B)$.}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Definition}[\cite{pcmilect} section 7.3]\label{ind}
The index vertex of $X^{!}$ at $p \in (X^{!})^{\mathsf{T}^{!}}$ with respect to $s \in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})\setminus \mathsf{Res}(X^{!})$ is the generating function
$$
\mathrm{Ind}_p^{!s}=\sum_{\substack{{\bs d} \\ {{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{d}_p \neq \emptyset}} \left({\bs z}^{!}\right)^{-{\bs d}} \sum_{f \in ({{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{{\bs d}}_p)^{\mathsf{T}^{!}_q}} \left( \frac{\hbar^{!}}{q}\right)^{\mathcal{I}_s(f)}
$$
where $\left({\bs z}^{!}\right)^{-{\bs d}}=\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \left(z_i^{!}\right)^{-d_i}$.
\end{Definition}
The choice of $-{\bs d}$ in the definition of the index vertex is made for the sake of consistency with our other conventions from \cite{msflag}, which will be used below.
\subsection{Vertex function}
There is an alternative perspective on the index vertex which describes it as a limit of the so-called vertex function for $X^{!}$. Since we will need the vertex function for both $X$ and $X^{!}$, we briefly switch our variables back to those of $X$. The vertex function for $X^{!}$ is given by the same formula as below after the trivial change of variables
$$
\hbar \to \hbar^{!}, \quad u_i \to u_i^{!}, \quad \text{and} \quad z_i \to z_i^{!}
$$
\begin{Definition}\label{degrees}
We define $C\subset \mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z}^2\times \ldots \times \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$ as the collection of integers $d_{i,j}$ where $i\in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$ and $j\in\{1,\ldots,i\}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $d_{i,j}\geq 0$ for all $i,j$.
\item For each $i\in\{1,\ldots,n-2\}$, there exists $\{j_1,\ldots,j_i\}\subset \{1,\ldots,i+1\}$ so that $d_{i,k}\geq d_{i+1,j_k}$ for all $k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Definition}
The vertex function of $X$ is defined by an equivariant count of quasimaps from $\mathbb{P}^1$ to $X$, see Theorem \ref{qmver} below. To streamline our presentation here, we define the vertex function through a formula.
\begin{Definition}\label{ver}
The vertex function of the cotangent bundle of the full flag variety restricted to a fixed point $I$ is given by the following power series:
\begin{multline*}
V_I({\bs a},{\bs z}) = \sum_{d_{i,j} \in C} {\bs z}^{{\bs d}} \prod_{i=1}^{n-2} \prod_{j=1}^i \prod_{k=1}^{i+1}\frac{\left(\hbar \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}}\right)_{d_{i,j}-d_{i+1,k}}}{\left(q \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}}\right)_{d_{i,j}-d_{i+1,k}}} \\ \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \prod_{j,k=1}^{i}\frac{\left(q \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}}\right)_{d_{i,j}-d_{i,k}}}{\left(\hbar \frac{u_{I_k}}{u_{I_j}}\right)_{d_{i,j}-d_{i,k}}}
\prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{j=1}^{n-1} \frac{\left(\hbar \frac{u_i}{u_{I_j}} \right)_{d_{n-1,j}}}{\left(q \frac{u_i}{u_{I_j}} \right)_{d_{n-1,j}}}
\end{multline*}
where ${\bs z}^{{\bs d}}=\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}\prod_{j=1}^i z_i^{d_{i,j}}$ and $(x)_d$ denotes the $q$-Pochammer symbol
$$
(x)_d:=\frac{\varphi(x)}{\varphi(x q^d)}, \qquad \varphi(x)=\prod_{i=0}^{\infty} (1-x q^i)
$$
\end{Definition}
In what follows, we will need the roof function, which is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{roof}
\hat{a}(t)=\frac{1}{t^{1/2}-t^{-1/2}}, \quad \hat{a}(t_1+t_2-t_3)=\frac{\hat{a}(t_1)\hat{a}(t_2)}{\hat{a}(t_3)}
\end{equation}
The geometric meaning of the vertex function is given by the following theorem. For precise definitions, see \cite{pcmilect} section 7.
\begin{Theorem}[\cite{KorZeit} Theorem 3.1]\label{qmver}
Let $\widehat{{{\mathcal{O}}}}_{{\rm{vir}}}^{{\bs d}}$ be the symmetrized virtual structure sheaf on ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{d}_I$. The vertex function $V_I({\bs a},{\bs z})$ in Definition \ref{ver} is equal to
\begin{equation}\label{qmver2}
\frac{1}{\hat{a}(T_I X)}\sum_{\substack{{\bs d} \\ {{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{{\bs d}}_{I} \neq \emptyset}} \left({\bs z}^{\#}\right)^{-{\bs d}} \chi\left(\widehat{{{\mathcal{O}}}}_{{\rm{vir}}}^{{\bs d}}\right) \in K_{\mathsf{T}_q}(pt)_{loc}[[{\bs z}]]
\end{equation}
where $\chi$ denotes the $K$-theoretic equivariant Euler characteristic and
$$
\left({\bs z}^{\#}\right)^{-{\bs d}}= \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \left(z_i^{\#}\right)^{-d_i} \quad \text{where} \quad z^{\#}_i=\hbar^{a_i/2}q^{b_i/2} z_i
$$
for some $a_i, b_i \in \mathbb{Z}$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Remark}
The $\hat{a}$ prefactor is equivalent to replacing the virtual tangent space by the reduced virtual tangent space in localization formulas, which causes the series to start with 1.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Remark}
The precise form of the shift $z^{\#}_i=\hbar^{a_i/2}q^{b_i/2} z_i$ is described in the proof of Proposition \ref{2index} below.
\end{Remark}
\subsection{Index limit}
In this subsection, we switch back to the variables for $X^{!}$.
\begin{Definition}\label{indlimit}
The index limit of an element of $F({\bs a}^{!},{\bs z}^{!})\in K_{\mathsf{T}^{!}_q}(pt)[[{\bs z}^{!}]]$ with respect to $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})$ is defined to be
$$
\kappa\left(\lim_{q\to 0} \kappa^{-1}\left(F({\bs a}^{!} , {\bs z}^{!})\right)\big|_{{\bs z}={\bs z} q^{s+1}} \right)
$$
provided this limit exists. Here, ${\bs z} q^{s+1}=(z_1 q^{s_1+1}, \ldots, z_{n-1} q^{s_n+1})$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}
The reason we shift by $q^{s+1}$ instead of $q^s$ is for consistency with the index vertex, see Proposition \ref{2index} below.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Remark}
It may appear more natural to consider the limit
$$
\lim_{q\to 0} V^{!}_{I^{!}}({\bs a}^{!} q^{s},{\bs z}^{!})
$$
However, this limit will not exist for vertex functions. For example, the vertex function of one of the fixed points of $X^{!}=T^*\mathbb{P}^1$ is
$$
V({\bs a}^{!},{\bs z}^{!})=\sum_{d=0}^{\infty} \frac{(\hbar^{!})_{d} (\hbar^{!} u_1^{!}/u_2^{!} )_d}{(q)_d (q u_1^{!}/u_2^{!} )_d} {z^{!}_1}^{d}
$$
and one can easily check that the limit
$$
\lim_{q\to 0} V({\bs a}^{!} q^{s},{\bs z}^{!})
$$
does not exist. On the other hand, the index limit does exist. By Proposition \ref{limver} below, this is also the case in general.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Remark}\label{rm2}
The index limit with respect to $s$ could also be defined by formally substituting $\hbar^{!}=q/t$, shifting ${\bs a}^{!} \to {\bs a}^{!} q^{s}$, taking the limit $q\to 0$, and substituting back $t=q/\hbar^{!}$.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Proposition}\label{limver}
The index limit of the vertex function restricted to any fixed point exists for all $s$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
The coefficients of the vertex function consist of terms of the form
$$
\left(\frac{(\hbar^{!} x)_d}{(q x)_d}\right)^{\pm1}
$$
where $x$ is a character of $\mathsf{A}^{!}$ and $d\in \mathbb{Z}$. Using Remark \ref{rm2}, one can see that the limit of all such terms exists.
\end{proof}
\begin{Proposition}\label{2index}
For $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})\setminus \mathsf{Res}(X^{!})$, the index limit with respect to $s$ of the vertex function of $X^{!}$ restricted to $I^{!}$ is equal to the index vertex at $I^{!}$:
$$
\kappa\left( \lim_{q\to 0} \kappa^{-1}\left(V^{!}_{I^{!}}({\bs a}^{!},{\bs z}^{!}) \right)\big|_{{\bs z} \to {\bs z} q^{s+1}} \right)= \mathrm{Ind}^{!s}_{I^{!}}
$$
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begingroup
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{2}
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Virtual sub-bundle of $\mathcal{T}^{1/2}$ & Contribution to $\mathscr{T}^{\text{red}}_{\text{vir},f}$ \\ \hline
$ \pm x q^{d} \mathcal{O}(d) \pm (\hbar^{!})^{-1}x^{-1} q^{-d}\mathcal{O}(-d)$ & $\pm x q \left(1+q+\ldots + q^{d-1}\right) \mp \dfrac{1}{x \hbar^{!}}\left( 1 + q^{-1} + \ldots q^{-d+1} \right)$ \\ \hline
$\pm x q^{-d} \mathcal{O}(-d)\pm (\hbar^{!})^{-1} x^{-1} q^{d} \mathcal{O}(d)$ & $\pm \dfrac{q }{x \hbar^{!}}\left(1+q+\ldots + q^{d-1}\right) \mp x\left( 1 + q^{-1} + \ldots q^{-d+1} \right)$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contributions of $\mathcal{T}^{1/2}$ to $\mathscr{T}^{\text{red}}_{\text{vir},f}$.}\label{tab1}
\end{table}
\endgroup
Up to normalization, the vertex function of $X^{!}$ is equal to the generating function of the equivariant Euler characteristic of ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{{\bs d}}_{I^{!}}$ as in Theorem \ref{qmver}. We will compute this here using equivariant localization.
At a fixed point $f\in \left({{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{{\bs d}}_{I^{!}}\right)^{\mathsf{T}^{!}_q}$, the vector bundles $\mathscr{V}_i$ over $\mathbb{P}^1$ split into the sum of equivariant line bundles:
$$
\mathscr{V}_i=\bigoplus_{j=1}^i w_{i,j} q^{d_{i,j}}\mathcal{O}(d_{i,j})
$$
where $w_{i,j}$ stands for a character of $\mathsf{A}^{!}$, see section 4.5 of \cite{Pushk1}. The injectivity of the maps $V_{i-1}\to V_{i}$ constrains the posible degrees of the bundles $\mathscr{V}_i$. In particular, the collection $\{-d_{i,j}\}$ of negatives of the degrees must lie in $C$. Hence we have
$$
\mathcal{T}^{1/2} = \bigoplus_{i} x_{i}q^{a_i} \mathcal{O}(a_i)-\bigoplus_{j} y_{j}q^{b_j} \mathcal{O}(b_j)
$$
where $x_i$ and $y_j$ are characters of $\mathsf{A}^{!}$, $a_i$ and $b_j$ are integers, and the sums are taken over some indexing sets.
Each of the possible virtual sub-bundles $\pm x q^{\pm d} \mathcal{O}(\pm d)$ of $\mathcal{T}^{1/2}$ comes with a pair $\pm (\hbar^{!})^{-1} x^{-1} q^{\mp d} \mathcal{O}(\mp d)$ which together contribute to the reduced virtual tangent space as in Table \ref{tab1} (see \cite{Pushk1} Lemma 1). We assume in Table \ref{tab1} without loss of generality that $d\geq 0$.
By definition of the symmetrized virtual structure sheaf, these terms contribute to localization formula via the roof function (\ref{roof}). The contributions of each of these terms is given in Table \ref{tab2}.
\begingroup
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{2}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
Virtual sub-bundle of $\mathcal{T}^{1/2}$ & Contribution to (\ref{qmver2}) \\ \hline
$ \pm x q^{d} \mathcal{O}(d) \pm (\hbar^{!})^{-1}x^{-1} q^{-d}\mathcal{O}(-d)$ & $\left((-q^{1/2} (\hbar^{!})^{-1/2})^d \dfrac{(\hbar^{!} x)_d}{(q x)_d}\right)^{\pm 1}$ \\ \hline
$\pm x q^{-d} \mathcal{O}(-d)\pm (\hbar^{!})^{-1} x^{-1} q^{d} \mathcal{O}(d)$ & $\left((-q^{1/2}(\hbar^{!})^{-1/2})^{-d}\dfrac{(\hbar^{!} x)_{-d}}{(q x)_{-d}}\right)^{\pm 1}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contributions in the localization formula.}\label{tab2}
\end{table}
\endgroup
The terms $(-q^{1/2}\hbar^{-1/2})^{\pm d}$ account for precisely the difference between $z_i$ and $z^{\#}_i$ in Theorem \ref{qmver}.
Applying Remark \ref{rm2}, we see that the contributions to the index limit arise from monomials in
$$
\mathscr{T}^{1/2}\big|_{{\bs a}^{!}= q^{s}}
$$
that tend to $0$ as $q\to \infty$. Each such monomial contributes a power of $\left(\hbar^{!}/q\right)^{\pm 1}$, with the sign determined by the sign of the monomial. Putting all this together, we see that the index limit of the vertex function is equal to the index vertex.
\end{proof}
We can now extend the definition of the index vertex to include non-generic slopes.
\begin{Definition}
The index vertex of $X^{!}$ at $I^{!}$ with respect to $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})$ is defined to be the index limit of $V^{!}_{I^{!}}({\bs a}^{!},{\bs z}^{!})$ with respect to $s$.
\end{Definition}
Thanks to Proposition \ref{2index}, this definition agrees with Definition \ref{ind} for $s \in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})\setminus \mathsf{Res}(X^{!})$ and extends it for $s \in \mathsf{Res}(X^{!})$.
\section{Stable envelopes}\label{stabsection}
In this section, we explain our conventions used for stable envelopes. The main references for stable envelopes are \cite{AOElliptic} and section 9 of \cite{pcmilect}.
\subsection{Notations}
Given a $\mathsf{T}$-module expressed in weights as $V=w_1+\ldots + w_r \in K_{\mathsf{T}}(pt)$ with $w_i\neq 1$ for all $i$, we define the symmetric and exterior powers as
$$
{S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(V):= \prod_{i=1}^{r} (1-w_i)^{-1}, \quad {\bigwedge}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet} V :=\prod_{i=1}^{r} (1-w_i)
$$
We extend these to all of $K_{\mathsf{T}}(pt)$ by
$$
{S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(-V):= {\bigwedge}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet} V, \quad {\bigwedge}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet} (-V):={S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(V)
$$
Similarly, we define
$$
\Theta(V)= \prod_{i=1}^{r} \vartheta(w_i) \quad \text{and} \quad \Phi(V)= \prod_{i=1}^{r} \varphi(w_i)
$$
where
$$
\varphi(x)=\prod_{i=0}^{\infty} (1-x q^i) \quad \text{and} \quad \vartheta(x)=(x^{1/2}-x^{-1/2}) \varphi(q x) \varphi(q/x)
$$
We similarly extend these to $K_{\mathsf{T}}(pt)$ by multiplicativity.
\subsection{Stable envelopes}
Stable envelopes depend on a choice of polarization and chamber. In all that follows, we assume that these are given by (\ref{pol}) and (\ref{chamb}).
For $I\in X^{\mathsf{A}}$, let $\mathrm{Stab}^{X,Ell}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I)$ be the elliptic stable envelopes of $I$ for $X$ corresponding to the polarization $T^{1/2}X$ and chamber $-\mathfrak{C}$.
The elliptic stable envelope of a fixed point gives a section of a line bundle over the extended elliptic cohomology scheme of $X$. This scheme can be described as
$$
\text{Ell}_{\mathsf{T}}(X)=\left(\bigsqcup_{I \in X^{\mathsf{T}}} \widehat{O}_I\right)/\Delta
$$
where $\widehat{O}_{I}$ is a product of elliptic curves isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}^{\times}/q^{\mathbb{Z}}$ for fixed $q$ with $|q|<1$ and $\Delta$ denotes a certain gluing of these abelian varieties, see \cite{SmirnovElliptic} section 2.13. Restricting this section to a component $\widehat{O}_J$, one obtains the matrix of restrictions of the elliptic stable envelope:
$$
T^X_{I,J}:=\mathrm{Stab}^{X,Ell}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I)\big|_{\widehat{O}_J}
$$
We use the normalization of the elliptic stable envelope determined by
$$
T^{X}_{I,I} = \Theta(N_I^{+})
$$
which differs from the normalization of \cite{AOElliptic} by a sign.
We assume the fixed points are ordered from highest to lowest with respect to $\prec$ from Definition \ref{bruhat}, which means that the matrix of restrictions is upper triangular. Explicit formulas for the elliptic stable envelopes in terms of the theta function $\vartheta$ can be written using the so-called elliptic weight functions, see \cite{RTV} and section 3 of \cite{msflag}. More generally, explicit formulas for the elliptic stable envelopes of any type $A$ quiver variety were written in \cite{dinkinselliptic}.
We also define a normalized matrix of restrictions of the elliptic stable envelope by
$$
\widetilde{T}^{X}_{I,J}= \frac{\mathrm{Stab}^{X, Ell}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I)\big|_{\widehat{O}_J}}{\mathrm{Stab}^{X,Ell}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(J)\big|_{\widehat{O}_J}}
$$
Similarly, we have $K$-theoretic stable envelopes $\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I)$ that depend further on a choice of slope $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})$, see \cite{pcmilect} section 9 and \cite{OS} section 2. We normalize them by requiring that the diagonal terms of the matrix of fixed point restrictions are given by
$$
\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I)\big|_{I} = \sqrt{\frac{\det N_{I}^{+}}{\det T^{1/2}_I X}} {\bigwedge}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet} (N_{I}^{+})^{\vee}
$$
We denote the matrix of restrictions of the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes by
$$
A^{s,X}_{I,J}= \mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I)\big|_J
$$
and a renormalized restriction matrix by
$$
\widetilde{A}^{s,X}_{I,J}= \frac{\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I)\big|_J}{\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(J)\big|_J}
$$
\section{Index vertex and stable envelopes}\label{theoremsection}
This section contains our main theorems, which relate the index vertex of $X^{!}$ to the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes of $X$.
\subsection{Big enough slopes}
In what follows, we will also be interested in the index limits of $\kappa\left(V_{I}({\bs a},{\bs z})\right)$ and $\Phi((q-\hbar^{!})N_{I^{!}}^{!+})$ in the sense of Definition \ref{indlimit}. It will be convenient to have a notion of slopes for which these limits are trivial.
\begin{Definition}\label{ample}
A slope $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})$ is said to be big enough if $s_i>0$ for all $i$ and
$$
s_i+s_{i+1} + \ldots + s_{j} > j-i-1
$$
for all $j\geq i$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Lemma}\label{ample2}
If $s\in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})$ big enough, then
$$
\lim_{q\to 0} V_{I}({\bs a},{\bs z} q^{s+1})=1
$$
and
$$
\kappa\left( \lim_{q\to0} \kappa^{-1}\left(\Phi((q-\hbar^{!}) N_{I^{!}}^{!+})\right)\big|_{{\bs z}\to{\bs z} q^{s+1}} \right)=1
$$
for all permutations $I$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
The follows from Definition \ref{ver} and (\ref{normal}) by a straightforward computation.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Generic slopes}
Let $\mathsf{D}$ be the diagonal matrix given by
\begin{equation}\label{Dmat}
\mathsf{D}=\text{diag}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\det T_I^{1/2}}{\det N_I^+}}\right)_{I\in X^{\mathsf{T}}}
\end{equation}
Let ${S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left( \hbar \otimes N^+ \right)$ be the column vector
$$
{S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left( \hbar \otimes N^+ \right)=\left( {S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left( \hbar \otimes N_I^+ \right)\right)_{I \in X^{\mathsf{T}}}
$$
and $\mathrm{Ind}^{!s}$ be the column vector
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^{!s}=\left(\mathrm{Ind}^{!s}_{I^{!}}\right)_{I \in X^{\mathsf{T}}}
$$
of index vertices for $X^{!}$. We remind the reader that $I^{!}$ is the inverse permutation of $I$.
Our main theorem describes the index vertex of $X^{!}$ for generic slopes in terms of the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes of $X$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{mainthm}
If $s \in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})\setminus \mathsf{Wall}(X)$ is big enough, then
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^{!s} = \kappa\left( \mathsf{D} \cdot \widetilde{A}^{s+1,X} \cdot \mathsf{D}^{-1} \cdot {S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left(\hbar \otimes N^+\right) \right)
$$
Equivalently,
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^{!s}_{I^{!}}=\kappa\left( \sum_{J \in X^{\mathsf{T}}} \sqrt{\frac{\det T^{1/2}_I X}{ \det N_I^+}} \widetilde{A}^{s+1,X}_{I,J} \sqrt{\frac{ \det N_J^{+}}{\det T_J^{1/2}X}}{S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left( \hbar \otimes N_J^{+} \right) \right)
$$
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
In \cite{msflag}, we proved that
\begin{multline}\label{msflags}
\Phi((q-\hbar^{!}) N_{I^{!}}^{! +}) V^{!}_{I^{!}}({\bs a}^{!},{\bs z}^{!}) \\ =\kappa\left(\sum_{J \in X^{\mathsf{T}}} \sqrt{\frac{\det T^{1/2}_I X }{\det N_I^+}} \widetilde{T}^{X}_{I,J} \sqrt{\frac{\det N_J^{+}}{\det T_J^{1/2}X}} \Phi((q-\hbar) N_{I}^{+}) V_{J}({\bs a},{\bs z}) \right)
\end{multline}
To deduce Theorem \ref{mainthm}, we take the index limit of both sides with respect to $s$.
Lemma \ref{ample2} implies that $\Phi((q-\hbar^{!}) N_{I^{!}}^{!+})$ and $V_J({\bs a},{\bs z})$ contribute a factor of $1$ to the limit. The term
$$
\sqrt{\frac{\det T^{1/2}_I X }{\det N_I^+}} \sqrt{\frac{\det N_J^{+}}{\det T_J^{1/2}X}}
$$
does not depend on ${\bs z}$ or $q$. The limit of the normalized stable envelope $\widetilde{T}^{X}_{I,J}$ was calculated in \cite{KS2}. For $s \notin \mathsf{Wall}(X)$, we have
$$
\lim_{q\to 0} \widetilde{T}^{X}_{I,J}|_{z=zq^{s+1}} = \widetilde{A}^{s+1,X}_{I,J}
$$
The contribution from $\Phi((q-\hbar)N_J^{+})$ is given by
$$
\prod_{w \in \text{char}_{\mathsf{T}}(N_J^{+})} (1-\hbar w)^{-1}= {S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left( \hbar \otimes N_J^{+} \right)
$$
Putting all this together gives the result.
\end{proof}
The normalized $K$-theoretic stable envelopes are related to the usual ones by
$$
A^{s+1,X}_{I,J} = \sqrt{\frac{\det N_J^+}{\det T^{1/2}_J X}} {\bigwedge}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet} (N_J^+)^{\vee} \widetilde{A}^{s+1,X}_{I,J}
$$
Also,
$$
N_{J}^{+}= \hbar^{-1} \left( N_{J}^{-}\right)^{\vee} \implies {S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(\hbar \otimes N_J^+ ) =
{S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left( \left( N_J^{-}\right)^{\vee} \right)
$$
So Theorem \ref{mainthm} is equivalent to
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^{!s}_{I^{!}}=\kappa\left( \sum_{J \in X^{\mathsf{T}}} \sqrt{\frac{\det T^{1/2}_I X}{ \det N_I^+}} A^{s+1,X}_{I,J} {S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left( T_JX^{\vee} \right) \right)
$$
By equivariant localization, the right side of this equation is the $K$-theoretic equivariant Euler characteristic of the $K$-theoretic stable envelope of $I$ twisted by a line bundle:
\begin{Theorem}
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^{!s}_{I^{!}}= \kappa \left(\chi\left(\sqrt{\frac{\det T^{1/2}_I X}{ \det N_I^+}} \mathrm{Stab}^{s+1,X,K}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I) \right) \right)
$$
\end{Theorem}
As a consequence, we obtain:
\begin{Corollary}
For big enough generic slopes, the index vertex $\mathrm{Ind}^{! s}_{I^{!}}({\bs a},{\bs z})$ is a rational function of ${\bs a}^{!}$, ${\bs z}^{!}$, and $\sqrt{\hbar^{!}}$.
\end{Corollary}
\subsection{Non-generic slopes}
The limits of the elliptic stable envelopes for non-generic slopes is one of the main results of \cite{KS2}.
Under the identification given by $\kappa$, a slope $s \in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})$ can be viewed as an element of $\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{A}^{!})$, which has an associated cyclic subgroup $\nu_{s}\subset \mathsf{A}^{!}$ as in (\ref{resgroup}). In particular, if $s \in \mathsf{Wall}(X)=\mathsf{Res}(X^{!})$, then we obtain a subvariety
$$
Y_s := (X^{!})^{\nu_{s}} \neq (X^{!})^{\mathsf{A}^{!}}
$$
The limits of the elliptic stable envelopes for non-generic slopes is expressed in terms of the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes of $Y_s$. We need to explain the choice of chamber, polarization, and slope used in the latter.
We first explain the choice of slope. Let $\mathscr{U}_0$ denote an open analytic neighborhood of $0$ in $\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K}^{!})$. Let $\mathsf{Wall}_0(X^{!})$ be the set of walls passing through $0$. Then $\mathscr{U}_0 \setminus \mathsf{Wall}_0(X^{!})$ is the disjoint union of connected components. Let $\mathfrak{D}_+(X^{!})$ denote the connected component containing ample line bundles on $X^{!}$. Explicitly, $\mathfrak{D}_+(X^{!})$ is generated by small positive real multiples of the Chern classes of the tautological line bundles $\mathscr{L}^{!}_i$ for $i\in\{1,\ldots, n-1\}$.
The inclusion
$$
\iota: Y_s \to X^{!}
$$
induces a map
$$
\iota^{*}: \mathrm{Pic}(X^{!})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R} \to \mathrm{Pic}(Y_s)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}
$$
Define $\mathfrak{D}_+(Y_s)=\iota^{*}(\mathfrak{D}_+(X^{!}))$. Slopes in $\mathfrak{D}_{+}(Y_s)$ will be the right choice for the stable envelopes of $Y_s$.
Since the torus $\mathsf{A}^{!}$ acts on $Y_s$, the chamber $-\mathfrak{C}$ automatically gives a chamber for the stable envelopes of $Y_s$.
The $\nu_s$-invariant part of the polarization for $X^{!}$ gives a polarization $\left(T^{1/2}X^{!}\right)^{\nu_s}$ of $Y_s$.
With respect to these choices, we can now talk about the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes of $Y_{s}$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{mainthm2}
Let $s\in \mathsf{Wall}(X)$ be big enough and let $\epsilon\in \mathfrak{D}_+(X)$ be a small ample slope of $X$ such that $s'=s+\epsilon$ is a generic slope. Then
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^{!s} =\kappa\left( \mathsf{D} \cdot \mathsf{H} \cdot \widetilde{A}^{\mathfrak{D}_+(Y_{s+1}),Y_{s+1}}\cdot \mathsf{H}^{-1} \cdot \widetilde{A}^{s',X} \cdot \mathsf{D}^{-1} \cdot {S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left( \hbar \otimes N^+ \right) \right)
$$
where $\mathsf{H}$ is the diagonal matrix given by
$$
\mathsf{H}= \text{diag}\left((-1)^{\gamma_{I}(s)} \hbar^{m_I(s)/2} \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \mathscr{L}_i|_{I}\right)_{I \in X^{\mathsf{T}}}
$$
where $\gamma_I(s)$ and $m_I(s)$ are integers.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Theorem 3 and Theorem 5 in \cite{KS2}, the twisted limit of the restriction matrix of the elliptic stable envelope is
$$
\lim_{q\to 0} \widetilde{T}^{X}|_{z=z q^{s+1}} = \widetilde{Z}^{'} \cdot \widetilde{A}^{s'+1,X}
$$
Here, the matrix $\widetilde{Z}^{'}$ is given by
$$
\widetilde{Z}^{'}= \mathsf{H} \cdot \widetilde{A}^{\mathfrak{D}_{+}(Y_{s+1}),Y_{s+1}}\cdot \mathsf{H}^{-1}
$$
where $\mathsf{H}$ is the diagonal matrix
$$
\mathsf{H}=\text{diag} \left( (-1)^{\gamma_{I}(s)} \hbar^{m_{I}(s)/2} \left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \mathscr{L}_i|_{I}\right) \right)_{I \in X^{\mathsf{T}}}
$$
for integers $\gamma_{I}(s)$ and $m_{I}(s)$. For the precise description of these integers, see Theorem 2 in \cite{KS1} and Theorem 4 in \cite{KS2}.
The limits of the rest of the terms in (\ref{msflags}) are the same as in Theorem \ref{mainthm}, which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
Contrary to the case of generic $s$, the right hand side of Theorem \ref{mainthm2} does not admit a nice interpretation as an equivariant Euler characteristic of a simple twist of the $K$-theoretic stable envelope of $X$. However, we still have:
\begin{Corollary}
For any big enough $s \in \mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathsf{K})$, the index vertex $\mathrm{Ind}^{! s}_{I^{!}}$ is a rational function of ${\bs a}^{!}$, ${\bs z}^{!}$, and $\sqrt{\hbar^{!}}$.
\end{Corollary}
\section{Example: \texorpdfstring{$T^*\mathbb{P}^1$}{P}}
We work out our main result for generic slopes explicitly here in the simplest example: $X=T^*\mathbb{P}^1$. This corresponds to the quiver shown in Figure \ref{fig2}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[roundnode/.style={circle,fill,inner sep=2.5pt},squarednode/.style={rectangle,fill,inner sep=3pt}]
\node[squarednode,label=below:{$2$}](F1) at (0,-1.5){};
\node[roundnode,label=above:{$1$}](V1) at (0,0){};
\draw[thick, ->] (V1) -- (F1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The quiver data for the variety $T^*\mathbb{P}^1$.} \label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Let $V=\mathbb{C}$ and $W=\mathbb{C}^2$. Points in $X$ are represented by maps
$$
(I,J) \in Hom(W,V)\oplus Hom(V,W)
$$
such that $I$ is injective and $I \circ J=0$, modulo the action of $GL(1)$ on $V$. The torus $(\mathbb{C}^{\times})^{2}$ acts on $\mathbb{C}^2$ by
$$
(u_1,u_2) \cdot (x_1,x_2)=(u_1^{-1}x_1,u_2^{-1}x_2)
$$
which induces an action of $\mathsf{A}=\mathbb{C}^{\times}$, where the coordinate on this torus is $a=u_1/u_2$.
The torus $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_{\hbar}$ acts by
$$
\hbar \cdot (I,J) = (\hbar^{-1}I,J)
$$
We denote $\mathsf{T}=\mathsf{A}\times \mathbb{C}^{\times}_{\hbar}$. There are two $\mathsf{T}$-fixed points $p_1$ and $p_2$, which are labeled by the identity permutation and the simple transposition, respectively. The vector space $V$ descends to a line bundle $\mathcal{V}$ on $X$ and the $\mathsf{T}$-character of this tautological bundle at the fixed point $p_i$ is $u_i$.
We denote the dual copy of $T^*\mathbb{P}^1$ as $X^{!}$ and denote the torus as $\mathsf{T}^{!}=\mathsf{A}^{!}\times \mathbb{C}^{\times}_{\hbar^{!}}$. The exchange of equivariant and K\"ahler parameters is given by (\ref{kap}) and the bijection on fixed points is the identity map.
\subsection{Torus fixed quasimaps}
A quasimap $f\in {{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{d}_{p_i}$ to $X^{!}$ consists of a degree $d$ line bundle $\mathscr{V}$ and a trivial rank 2 vector bundle $\mathscr{W}$ over $\mathbb{P}^1$, along with a section
$$
f\in H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^1,\mathscr{M} \oplus (\hbar^{!})^{-1} (\mathscr{M})^{\vee})
$$
where
$$
\mathscr{M}= Hom(\mathscr{V},\mathscr{W})
$$
Assume the quasimap is $\mathsf{T}^{!}_{q}$-fixed. Equivariantly with respect to the torus $\mathsf{T}^{!}$, we have
$$
\mathscr{W}={u_1^{!}} \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1} \oplus {u_2^{!}} \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}
$$
where $w \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}$ denotes a twist of the structure sheaf of $\mathbb{P}^1$ by a trivial line bundle with weight $w$. Since the section $f$ takes the value $p_i$ at $\infty$, in order $f$ to be $\mathsf{T}^{!}$-fixed, $\mathscr{V}$ must have $\mathsf{T}^{!}$-weight ${u_i^{!}}$. Furthermore, the component of the section in
$$
Hom(\mathscr{V},u_i^{!}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{!}})\cong \mathcal{O}(-d)
$$
must be nonzero at $\infty$. So $d \leq 0$ and there is only one such section, which is given in homogeneous coordinates by $x_0^{-d}$. To be invariant under $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_q$, the bundle $\mathscr{V}$ must be further twisted by the trivial line bundle with $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_q$-weight of $q^{-d}$. This completely determines the quasimap.
To summarize, there is a unique $\mathsf{T}^{!}_{q}$-fixed quasimap in ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{d}_{p_i}$ for each $d \leq 0$, and the data is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathscr{W}=u_1^{!} \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{!}} \oplus u_2^{!} \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{!}} $
\item $\mathscr{V}=u_i^{!} q^{-d} \mathcal{O}(-d)$
\item $f=x_0^{-d}$
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Virtual tangent space}
Fix $d \leq 0$ and let $\mathscr{W}$, $\mathscr{V}$, and $f_d$ be the unique $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q$-fixed quasimap of degree $d$ as above. We have the induced virtual bundle from (\ref{Tbundle}):
\begin{equation}\label{qmpolp1}
\mathcal{T}^{1/2}=\mathscr{V}^{\vee} \otimes \mathscr{W} - \mathscr{V}^{\vee}\otimes \mathscr{V} = q^{-d} \mathcal{O}(-d) + u^{!} q^{-d} \mathcal{O}(-d)-\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}
\end{equation}
where
$$
u^{!}= \frac{u_j}{u_i}, \quad j \in \{1,2\}\setminus \{i\}
$$
The reduced virtual tangent space at $f_d$ is
$$
\mathscr{T}^{\mathrm{red}}_{\mathrm{vir},f_d}=H^*(\mathcal{T}^{1/2}\oplus \hbar^{-1}(\mathcal{T}^{1/2})^{\vee})- T_{p_i} X
$$
The action of $\mathbb{C}^{\times}_q$ in (\ref{Cq}) is such that the global sections of $\mathcal{O}(m)$ for $m\geq 0$ have character $1+q^{-1}+\ldots+q^{-m}$. Thus, any given term $x q^{-d} \mathcal{O}(-d)$ in $\mathscr{T}^{1/2}$ of (\ref{qmpolp1}) leads to contributions of the form
\begin{multline*}
H^*\left(x q^{-d} \mathcal{O}(-d)+ (\hbar^{!})^{-1} x^{-1} q^{d} \mathcal{O}(d)\right)-x-(\hbar^{!})^{-1}x^{-1} \\=
xq\left(1+q+\ldots+q^{-d-1}\right)-\frac{1}{\hbar^{!} x}\left(1+q^{-1}+\ldots +q^{d+1}\right)
\end{multline*}
So the $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q$-character of the reduced virtual tangent space at $f$ is
\begin{align} \nonumber\label{tvir}
\mathscr{T}^{\mathrm{red}}_{\mathrm{vir},f_d}= q\left(1+q+\ldots + q^{-d-1}\right)&-\frac{1}{\hbar^{!}}\left(1+q^{-1}+\ldots+q^{d+1}\right) \\ + q u^{!}\left(1+q+\ldots+q^{-d-1}\right)&-\frac{1}{\hbar^{!} u^{!}}\left(1+q^{-1}+\ldots+q^{d+1}\right)
\end{align}
\subsection{Vertex functions}
The twist in \cite{pcmilect} section 6.1.8 that transforms the virtual structure sheaf to the symmetrized virtual structure sheaf means that the vertex function from Theorem \ref{qmver} is
$$
\sum_{d \leq 0} (z^{!})^{-d} q^{\deg \mathcal{T}^{1/2}/2} \hat{a}\left(\mathscr{T}^{\mathrm{red}}_{\mathrm{vir},f_d}\right)
$$
Writing this out explicitly, we find that for the fixed point $p_i$ with $u^{!}$ as above, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d \leq 0} (z^{!})^{-d} q^{\deg \mathcal{T}^{1/2}/2} \hat{a}\left(\mathscr{T}^{\mathrm{red}}_{\mathrm{vir},f_d}\right)&=\sum_{d = 0}^{\infty} (z^{!})^{d} q^{d} \frac{(\hbar^{!})_d }{(q)_d}\left(-\frac{q}{\hbar^{!}}\right)^{d/2} \frac{(\hbar^{!} u^{!})_d}{ (q u^{!})_d} \left(-\frac{q}{\hbar^{!}}\right)^{d/2} \\
&=\sum_{d \geq 0} \left(\frac{q^2}{\hbar^{!}} z^{!} \right)^d \frac{(\hbar^{!})_d }{(q)_d} \frac{(\hbar^{!} u^{!})_d}{ (q u^{!})_d}
\end{align*}
The vertex functions from Definition \ref{ver} are
\begin{align*}
V_{p_1}^{!}(a^{!},z^{!})=\sum_{d=0}^{\infty} \frac{(\hbar^{!})_d (\hbar^{!}u_2^{!}/u_1^{!})_d}{(q)_d (q u_2^{!}/u_1^{!})_d} (z^{!})^{d} \\
V_{p_2}^{!}(a^{!},z^{!})=\sum_{d=0}^{\infty} \frac{(\hbar^{!})_d (\hbar^{!}u_1^{!}/u_2^{!})_d}{(q)_d (qu_1^{!}/u_2^{!})_d} (z^{!})^{d}
\end{align*}
which clearly agree with the previously ones after renormalizing the K\"ahler parameter.
\subsection{Index}
With respect to the choice of chamber (\ref{chamb}), the attracting weight is $a^{!}:=u^{!}_1/u^{!}_2$. Write $f_{d}^i$ for the unique $\mathsf{T}^{!}_q$-fixed quasimap of degree $d$ on ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{d}_{p_i}$. The polarization of the reduced virtual tangent space (\ref{tvir}) for ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{d}_{p_1}$ at $f^{1}_d$ is
$$
\mathscr{T}^{1/2}_{f^{1}_d}=q\left(1+q+\ldots+q^{-d-1}\right) +\frac{q}{a^{!}}\left(1+q+\ldots+q^{-d-1}\right)
$$
Thus the $s$-index from Definition \ref{sindex} is
$$
\mathcal{I}_s\left(f\right) = \begin{cases}
-d & -d <s \\
\lfloor s \rfloor & 1<s<-d \\
0 & s<1
\end{cases}
$$
where $\lfloor \cdot \rfloor$ denotes the floor function. Hence
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Ind}^{! s}_{p_1}&=\begin{dcases}
\frac{1-\left(z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q\right)^{\lfloor s\rfloor +1 }}{1-z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q} + \frac{(\hbar^{!}/q)^{\lfloor s \rfloor } z^{! \lfloor s \rfloor +1}}{1-z^{!}} & s>1 \\
\frac{1}{1-z^{!}} & s <1
\end{dcases}
\end{align*}
Similarly, the polarization of the virtual tangent space (\ref{tvir}) for ${{\textnormal{\textsf{QM}}}}^{d}_{p_2}$ at $f^{2}_d$ is
$$
\mathscr{T}^{1/2}\big|_{p_2}=q\left(1+q+\ldots+q^{-d-1}\right) +a^{!}q\left(1+q+\ldots+q^{-d-1}\right)
$$
So
$$
\mathcal{I}_s\left(f\right) = \begin{dcases}
0 & s>-1 \\
\lfloor |s| \rfloor & d < s<-1 \\
-d=|d| & s<d
\end{dcases}
$$
and
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Ind}^{! s}_{p_2}&=\begin{dcases}
\frac{1-\left(z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q\right)^{\lfloor | s | \rfloor +1}}{1-z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q} + \frac{(\hbar^{!}/q)^{\lfloor | s | \rfloor } z^{! \lfloor | s | \rfloor +1}}{1-z^{!}} & s<-1 \\
\frac{1}{1-z^{!}} & s >-1
\end{dcases}
\end{align*}
\subsection{Stable envelopes}
Now we switch from $X^{!}$ to $X$. We need to compute the $K$-theoretic stable envelopes for $X$. With respect to the chamber $\mathfrak{C}$ from (\ref{chamb}), $a:=u_1/u_2$ is an attracting weight. The choice of polarization is assumed to be
$$
T^{1/2}X=Hom(V,W)-Hom(V,V)
$$
Under (\ref{lierk}), big enough slopes are given by $s>0$.
Analogous to the argument given in section 7.1 of \cite{OS}, one can use the defining properties of stable envelopes to calculate the matrix of the $K$-theoretic stable envelope in the basis of fixed points ordered as $[p_1,p_2]$ to be:
\begingroup
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{2}
$$
A^{s,X}=\left(\mathrm{Stab}^{s,X,K}_{-\mathfrak{C}}(I)|_{J}\right)_{I,J\in X^{\mathsf{T}}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\left(\frac{a}{\hbar}-1\right)\sqrt{\hbar} & \left( \hbar^{-1}-1\right) \sqrt{\hbar} a^{\lfloor s \rfloor}\\
0 & (1-a^{-1})
\end{pmatrix}
$$
\endgroup
Alternatively, one could use the formulas \cite{dinkinselliptic} and their implementation in Maple described there. Normalizing by dividing each column by the diagonal entry gives
\begingroup
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{2}
$$
\widetilde{A}^{s,X}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -\dfrac{\left( 1-\hbar\right)a^{\lfloor s \rfloor+1}}{(1-a)\sqrt{\hbar}}\\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
$$
\endgroup
The polarization at the fixed points is
\begin{align*}
T^{1/2}X|_{p_1}&=a^{-1} \\
T^{1/2}X|_{p_2}&=a
\end{align*}
So conjugating by $\mathsf{D}$ in (\ref{Dmat}) and multiplying on the right by ${S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}\left(\hbar\otimes N^{+}\right)$ gives
\begingroup
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{2}
$$
\mathsf{D}\cdot \widetilde{A}^{s,X} \cdot \mathsf{D}^{-1} \cdot {S}^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(\hbar \otimes N^+)=
\begin{pmatrix}
\dfrac{1}{1-a} -\dfrac{\left( 1-\hbar\right)a^{\lfloor s \rfloor}}{(1-a)(1-\hbar a)}\\
\dfrac{1}{1-\hbar a}
\end{pmatrix}
$$
\endgroup
Applying $\kappa$ and summing the two components of this vector, we see that Theorem $\ref{mainthm}$ for $s>1$ reads
\begin{align*}
\frac{1-\left(z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q\right)^{\lfloor s\rfloor +1 }}{1-z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q} + \frac{(\hbar^{!}/q)^{\lfloor s \rfloor } z^{! \lfloor s \rfloor +1}}{1-z^{!}} &=\frac{1}{1-z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q} -\frac{\left( 1-q/\hbar^{!}\right)\left(z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q\right)^{\lfloor s+1 \rfloor}}{\left(1-z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q\right)\left(1-z^{!}\right)} \\
\frac{1}{1-z^{!}}&= \frac{1}{1-q/\hbar^{!} ( z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q)}
\end{align*}
which is easily checked to be true. For $0<s<1$, Theorem \ref{mainthm} reads
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{1-z^{!}}&=\frac{1}{1-z^{!}\hbar^{!}/q}-\frac{\left(1-q/\hbar^{!}\right)\left(z^{!}\hbar^{!}/q\right)}{\left(1-z^{!}\hbar^{!}/q\right)\left(1-z^{!}\right)} \\
\frac{1}{1-z^{!}}&= \frac{1}{1-q/\hbar^{!} ( z^{!} \hbar^{!}/q)}
\end{align*}
which is also true.
\printbibliography
\newpage
\noindent
Hunter Dinkins\\
Department of Mathematics,\\
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,\\
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3250, USA\\
<EMAIL>
\vspace{3 mm}
\noindent
Andrey Smirnov\\
Department of Mathematics,\\
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,\\
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3250, USA\\
Steklov Mathematical Institute \\
of Russian Academy of Sciences, \\
Gubkina str. 8, Moscow, 119991, Russia \\
<EMAIL>
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\vspace{-0.05cm}
Dramatic progress has been made on speaker separation in anechoic conditions, since the inventions of deep clustering and permutation invariant training (PIT) \cite{R.Hershey2016, Isik2016, Kolbak2017}.
Room reverberation is pervasive in real-world applications, and speaker separation in reverberant conditions remains a challenging task.
In reverberant rooms, speech signals propagate in the air and are reflected many times inside the room.
The signal captured by far-field microphones contains an infinite number of delayed and decayed copies of the dry source signals.
Reverberation degrades speech intelligibility and quality, and is harmful to modern automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems.
Simultaneous speaker separation and dereverberation is a challenging task, as it is difficult to differentiate and separate the direct-path signal from its copies, especially when reverberation is strong and when there are multiple speakers.
Weighted prediction error (WPE) \cite{Nakatani2010} is so far the most popular dereverberation algorithm.
It estimates the late reverberation at the current frame by applying a linear filter to past observations, and then subtracts the estimate from the mixture for dereverberation.
The filter is estimated alternately with the target power spectral density (PSD).
WPE is found to introduce little speech distortion, leading to consistent improvements in many robust ASR studies \cite{Kinoshita2016, Boeddecker2018}.
Other conventional approaches for dereverberation include computing a Wiener filter based on estimated reverberation time \cite{Habets2009} or by using the estimated PSD of late reverberation \cite{Braun2018}.
Another popular approach for dereverberation is based on supervised deep learning, where DNNs are trained to estimate the direct-path signal from the mixture in a data-driven way \cite{WDL2018}.
The rationale is that clean speech exhibits strong spectral-temporal patterns, which can be modelled by powerful learning machines such as DNNs.
DNNs were initially used in the magnitude domain to predict T-F masks or target magnitudes \cite{Han2015}.
In the DNN-WPE algorithm \cite{Kinoshita2017}, the target PSD in WPE is estimated by DNNs so that the linear filter can have a closed-form solution and the iterative procedure is avoided.
Riding on the advance of deep learning, many subsequent DNN-based studies \cite{Luo2020, Wang2020b, Zhao2020, J.Borgstrom2020} have focused on designing advanced DNN architectures to predict target speech based on end-to-end training in the complex T-F or time domain.
However, there are few studies explicitly exploiting the linear-filter structure of reverberation, i.e., the fact that reverberation results from a linear convolution between an RIR and a dry source signal.
Intuitively, such a structure could be used as a regularizer for better dereverberation.
In this context, our study investigates the combination of linear prediction and deep learning to exploit the linear-filter structure for single- and multi-channel reverberant speaker separation and dereverberation, where we first use a DNN to estimate the direct-path signal of each speaker and then identify its delayed and decayed copies as the outcome of a forward filtering step.
Such copies are used to compute extra features to train another DNN for better dereverberation and separation.
We name the proposed dereverberation algorithm forward convolutive prediction (FCP), and compare its performance on reverberant speaker separation with DNN-WPE \cite{Kinoshita2017}, which implicitly exploits the linear-filter structure through inverse filtering.
\vspace{-0.05cm}
\section{System Overview}
\label{sec:overview}
\vspace{-0.05cm}
Given a $C$-speaker mixture recorded in a noisy-reverberant environment by a $P$-microphone array, the physical model in the short-time Fourier transform (STFT) domain can be formulated as
\begin{align}
\mathbf{Y}(t,f) &= \sum\nolimits_{c=1}^{C} \mathbf{X}(c,t,f)+\mathbf{V}(t,f) \nonumber \\
&= \sum\nolimits_{c=1}^{C} \big(\mathbf{S}(c,t,f)+\mathbf{H}(c,t,f)\big)+\mathbf{V}(t,f), \label{eq:phymodel_freq}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{Y}(t,f)$, $\mathbf{V}(t,f)$, $\mathbf{X}(c,t,f)$, $\mathbf{S}(c,t,f)$ and $\mathbf{H}(c,t,f)\in {\mathbb C}^{P}$ respectively denote the STFT vectors of the mixture, noise, reverberant speech, direct and non-direct signals of speaker $c$, at time $t$ and frequency $f$.
The noise in this study is assumed to be a weak stationary noise.
Our study aims at recovering each speaker's direct-path signal captured at a reference microphone $q$, i.e., $S_q(c)$, based on $\mathbf{Y}$.
Variables without $t$ and $f$ refer to the corresponding spectrogram. To avoid clutter, we drop $f$ from the equations whenever computations are performed independently per frequency.
Figure \ref{systemfigure} illustrates the proposed two-DNN system.
The first DNN is trained using utterance-wise permutation invariant training (uPIT) \cite{Isik2016,Kolbak2017} to estimate the direct-path signal of each speaker at each microphone, denoted as $\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_1}(c)$.
The target estimates are used to compute statistics for dereverberation based on convolutive prediction, and MVDR beamforming.
The second DNN takes in the outputs of the first DNN as well as the beamforming and dereverberation steps as features to enhance each target speaker.
Both DNNs are trained using single- or multi-microphone complex spectral mapping \cite{Wang2020c,Wang2020e}, where we predict the real and imaginary (RI) components of target speech based on the RI components of the stacked input signals.
DNN$_1$ is trained using the ``PIT+sumPIT'' loss proposed in \cite{Wang2021FCPjournal}, and DNN$_2$ is trained using either the ``RI'' loss or the ``RI+Mag'' loss presented in \cite{Wang2021FCPjournal}.
This two-DNN system is built upon a recent state-of-the-art speaker separation system, MISO-BF-MISO \cite{Wang2020c}, where an MVDR module is used in between the two networks.
The major contributions of this study are the introduction of a novel dereverberation module in between the two DNNs, and its integration with beamforming.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure_overview.pdf}}\vspace{-0.45cm}
\caption{System illustration.}\vspace{-0.6cm}
\label{systemfigure}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\section{WPE and DNN-WPE}
\label{sec:wpe}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
This section reviews WPE \cite{Nakatani2010} and DNN-WPE \cite{Kinoshita2017}, and points out their strength and weakness.
While WPE was originally designed for single-speaker dereverberation, we adapt it to perform dereverberation in the context of reverberant speaker separation by estimating a dereverberation filter for each speaker, rather than estimating a single filter to dereverberate the mixture.
Since each speaker is convolved with a different RIR, it seems reasonable to estimate a dereverberation filter for each speaker.
WPE \cite{Nakatani2010} computes a $K$-tap inverse linear filter per frequency to estimate the late reverberation at the current frame from the past observations.
The estimated late reverberation
is then subtracted from the mixture for dereverberation, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{wperesult}
\breve{S}_q^{\text{WPE}}(c,t)=Y_q(t)-\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\widetilde{\mathbf{Y}}(t-\Delta),
\end{align}
where $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c)\in {\mathbb C}^{KP}$ is a $KP$-dimensional filter, $\Delta$ ($\geq 1$) a prediction delay, and
$\widetilde{\mathbf{Y}}(t)=[\mathbf{Y}(t)^{\mathsf T},\dots,\mathbf{Y}(t-K+1)^{\mathsf T}]^{\mathsf T}$.
Assuming that the estimated target speech follows a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with time-varying PSD $\lambda_q(c,t)$, i.e., $\breve{S}_q^{\text{WPE}}(c,t) \sim \mathcal{N}\big(0, \lambda_q(c,t)\big)$, and based on maximum likelihood estimation, WPE computes the filter through the minimization problem
\begin{align}%
\underset{\substack{\mathbf{g}_q(c), \lambda_q(c)}}{{\text{argmin}}} \sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|Y_q(t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\mathbf{Y}}(t-\Delta)|^2}{\lambda_q(c,t)}+\text{log}\lambda_q(c,t),
\end{align}
where $|\cdot|$ computes magnitude.
This objective does not have a closed-form solution. An iterative algorithm is proposed in \cite{Nakatani2010} to alternately estimate $\mathbf{g}_q(c)$ and $\lambda(c,t)$.
Given a typical 32 ms STFT window size and an 8 ms hop size, $\Delta$ is usually set by default, or tuned through a validation set, to 3 or 4, because smaller $\Delta$ makes $Y_q(t)$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{Y}}(t-\Delta)$ share time-domain signals due to the overlap between nearby frames, and will more likely result in target cancellation.
However, a large $\Delta$ would likely limit WPE’s capability to reduce early reflections.
Our work aims at removing both early reflections and late reverberation.
In the subsequent DNN-WPE algorithm \cite{Kinoshita2017}, $\lambda$ is estimated by a magnitude-domain DNN model, and
the simplified objective is
\begin{align}\label{dnnwpe}
\underset{\mathbf{g}_q(c)}{{\text{argmin}}} \sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|Y_q(t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\mathbf{Y}}(t-\Delta)|^2}{\hat{\lambda}_q(c,t)}.
\end{align}
$\hat{\lambda}_q(c,t,f)=\text{max}(\varepsilon \text{max}(|\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c)|^2),|\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t,f)|^2)$, where $b\in \{1,2\}$ indicates one of the two DNNs, $\text{max}(\cdot)$ extracts the maximum value of a spectrogram, $\text{max}(\cdot,\cdot)$ returns the larger of two values, and $\varepsilon$ is a floor value to avoid putting too much weight on silent T-F units.
This quadratic objective has a closed-form solution.
The dereverberation result $\breve{S}_q^{\text{DNN-WPE}}$ is computed using Eq.~(\ref{wperesult}).
Compared with WPE, DNN-WPE leverages the modeling power of a DNN on magnitude-domain speech patterns to improve PSD estimation.
It makes WPE suitable for online dereverberation \cite{Heymann2018b} and makes the joint training of WPE with other DNN modules practical \cite{Heymann2019, ZhangWangyou2020, Zhang2021}.
Motivated by DNN-WPE, we explore other ways of using DNN-provided statistics for linear prediction.
One insight for potential improvement is that DNN-WPE only utilizes DNN-estimated target magnitude (i.e., by using it to compute $\hat{\lambda}$).
Many recent studies have suggested that phase estimation can also be improved by using deep learning \cite{Williamson2016, Wang2018d, Luo2019, Wang2020b, Wang2019}.
Our proposed algorithm leverages both magnitude and phase estimated by a DNN for filter estimation.
Another insight for potential improvement is that the linear filtering in WPE is applied to the mixture, which consists of multiple sources. The computed filter could be biased towards dereverberating higher-energy sources.
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\section{Proposed Algorithms}
\label{sec:proposed}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
To tackle these problems, we propose DNN-supported FCP for dereverberation in the context of reverberant speaker separation, and analyze its robustness to interferences.
We then present a multi-step FCP extension, and combine FCP with MVDR for multi-channel processing.
A post-filtering technique is presented at last.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Forward Convolutive Prediction (FCP)}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
In FCP, we approximate the mixture $Y_q(t)$ by forward filtering of the target speech $\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}$ estimated by the DNN.
The filter is obtained by solving the minimization problem
\begin{align}\label{complexproj2}
\underset{\mathbf{g}_q(c)}{{\text{argmin}}} \sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|Y_q(t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)|^2}{\hat{\eta}_q(c,t)},
\end{align}
where $\widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)\!=\![\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t),\dots,\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t-K+1)]^{\mathsf T}$ and $\hat{\eta}_q(c,t,f)=\text{max}(\varepsilon \text{max}(|Y_q|^2),|Y_q(t,f)|^2)$.
While DNN-WPE stems from a probabilistic model, we here introduce the denominator merely as a weighting that can balance the contribution of T-F units with diverse energy levels.
The objective to minimize is quadratic and a closed-form solution exists.
Note that among all the signals in the mixture, $\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c)$, if sufficiently accurate, is expected to only correlate with the reverberant speech of speaker $c$.
Therefore, $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)$ can only approximate $X_q(c,t)$ for a time-invariant $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c)$.
The dereverberation result is obtained as
\begin{align}
\breve{S}_q^{\text{FCP}}(c,t) = Y_q(t)-\big(\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)-\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)\big),
\label{eq:s_fcp}
\end{align}
where the subtracted term from $Y_q(t)$ is considered as the estimated reverberation of speaker $c$.
Note that $\breve{S}_q^{\text{FCP}}(c)$ still contains the reverberant signals of the other sources, as Eq. (\ref{eq:s_fcp}) only reduces the reverberation of a target speaker from the mixture and preserves everything else.
We can reduce the reverberation of all the target speakers by combining their FCP results (denoted as cFCP):
\begin{align}
\!\breve{S}_q^{\text{cFCP}}\!(c,t) \!=\! Y_q(t)\!-\!\sum_{c'}\!\big(\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c')^{{\mathsf H}}\widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c',t)\!-\!\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}\!(c',t)\big).
\label{cFCP}
\end{align}
Compared with (\ref{dnnwpe}), Eq.~(\ref{complexproj2}) may better reduce early reflections because a prediction delay is not necessary.
In addition, it can utilize both magnitude and phase estimated by DNNs for linear prediction.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Robustness of WPE and FCP to Interference}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
Eq.~(\ref{complexproj2}) may lead to better filter estimation than (\ref{dnnwpe}) for the target speaker when interferences are present.
To see this, we equivalently reformulate Eq.~(\ref{complexproj2}) in terms of $X_q$: denoting $\mathbf{N}(c)=\mathbf{Y}-\mathbf{X}(c)$,
\begin{align}\label{complexproj2robust}
&\underset{\mathbf{g}_q(c)}{{\text{argmin}}} \sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|X_q(c,t)+N_q(c,t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)|^2}{\hat{\eta}_q(c,t)} \nonumber \\
&= %
\underset{\mathbf{g}_q(c)}{{\text{argmin}}} \sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|X_q(c,t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(t)|^2+|N_q(c,t)|^2}{\hat{\eta}_q(c,t)} \nonumber \\
&= %
\underset{\mathbf{g}_q(c)}{{\text{argmin}}} \sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|X_q(c,t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)|^2}{\hat{\eta}_q(c,t)},
\end{align}
where the analysis assumes that $\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}$ and $X_q(c)$ are uncorrelated with $N_q(c)$, meaning that
\begin{align}
\sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{N_q(c,t)^{{\mathsf H}}\Big(X_q(c,t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)\Big)}{\hat{\eta}_q(c,t)}\approx 0.
\end{align}
This derivation suggests that FCP essentially estimates the filter using $\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}$ and $X_q(c)$, between which a linear-filter structure exists.
This could produce a good filter estimate for each target speaker, even if the mixture includes competing speakers and noise.
A similar derivation for Eq.~(\ref{dnnwpe}) leads to
\begin{align}\label{wperobust}
&\underset{\mathbf{g}_q(c)}{{\text{argmin}}} \!\sum_{t} \!\frac{{
\footnotesize
|X_q(c,t)\!+\!\!N_q(c,t) \!-\! \mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\! \big(\widetilde{\mathbf{X}}(c,t\!-\!\Delta)\!+\!\widetilde{\mathbf{N}}(c,t\!-\!\Delta)\big)|^2}}
{\hat{\lambda}_q(c,t)} \nonumber \\
&= %
\underset{\mathbf{g}_q(c)}{{\text{argmin}}}
\big(
\sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|X_q(c,t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\widetilde{\mathbf{X}}(c,t-\Delta)|^2}{\hat{\lambda}_q(c,t)} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{1.3cm}
+ \sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|N_q(c,t)-\mathbf{g}_q(c)^{{\mathsf H}}\widetilde{\mathbf{N}}(c,t-\Delta)|^2}
{\hat{\lambda}_q(c,t)}
\big),
\end{align}
where $\widetilde{\mathbf{X}}(c,t)$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{N}}(c,t)$ are defined similarly to $\widetilde{\mathbf{Y}}(t)$.
This derivation suggests that WPE aims at dereverberating the target speaker and non-target sources using a single filter.
This could be problematic when non-target sources are present and the number of sources exceeds the number of microphones (i.e., in under-determined cases), because the filter would also need to reduce the reverberation of non-target sources rather than focusing on dereverberating the target speaker.
When they are strong, in under-determined cases the loss on non-target sources could dominate the numerator, and the resulting filter may be biased towards dereverberating higher-energy sources.
In contrast, Eq.~(\ref{complexproj2}) of FCP aims at only removing the reverberation related to a target speaker.
This is particularly useful in multi-speaker separation, because each target speaker is convolved with a different RIR and it is thus reasonable to compute a different dereverberation filter for each speaker.
This also means that our current method does not aim at using linear prediction to reduce the reverberation of non-target sources such as multi-source environmental noises, as it would require estimating each anechoic noise source, which is very difficult \cite{Kavalerov2019}.
We think this is fine because we have a second DNN to leverage convolutive-prediction outputs for further enhancement.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Multi-Step FCP (msFCP)}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
For Eq.~(\ref{complexproj2}) to boil down to (\ref{complexproj2robust}), $\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}$ needs to be sufficiently accurate; otherwise, linearly filtering it to approximate $Y_q$ would not be able to approximate $X_q(c)$.
Ideally, we would want to estimate the filter using Eq.~(\ref{complexproj2robust}), but $X_q(c)$ has to be estimated beforehand.
One way is to train a separate DNN or add an output in our first DNN to estimate it, at the cost of increased DNN complexity.
Considering that $V$ is a weak stationary noise in this study, we propose multi-step FCP, where we remove from $Y_q$ the reverberation estimated in the previous step to refine the target used in FCP.
More specifically, in step one we apply Eq.~(\ref{complexproj2}) to estimate an FCP filter $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c;1)$ for each speaker $c$.
At step $i>1$, we compute the filter $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c;i)$ as
\begin{align}\label{complexproj2multistep}
\underset{\mathbf{g}_q(c;i)}{{\text{argmin}}} \sum\nolimits_{t} \frac{|\hat{Z}_q(c,t;i\text{-}1)-\mathbf{g}_q(c;i)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)|^2}{\hat{\tau}_q(c,t;i\text{-}1)},
\end{align}
where $\hat{Z}_q(c,t;i\text{-}1)=Y_q(t)-\sum_{c'\neq c}\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c';i\text{-}1)^{{\mathsf H}}\ \widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}(c',t)$ can be considered as an estimation of $X_q(c,t)$, and $\hat{\tau}_q(c,t,f;i\text{-}1)=\text{max}(\varepsilon \text{max}(|\hat{Z}_q(c;i\text{-}1)|^2),|\hat{Z}_q(c,t,f;i\text{-}1)|^2)$.
The dereverberation result is obtained as
\begin{align}
\breve{S}_q^{\text{msFCP}}\!(c,t;i) \!=\! \hat{Z}_q(c,t;i\text{-}1)\!-\! \big(\hat{\mathbf{g}}_q(c;i)^{{\mathsf H}}\widetilde{\hat{\mathbf{S}}}{}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}\!(c,t)\!-\!\hat{S}_q^{\text{DNN}_b}\!(c,t)\big).
\label{msFCP}
\end{align}
Two steps are applied in our experiments.
Note that different from $\breve{S}_q^{\text{FCP}}(c)$ and $\breve{S}_q^{\text{cFCP}}(c)$, $\breve{S}_q^{\text{msFCP}}(c)$ is expected to only contain the anechoic speech of speaker $c$ and reverberant noises.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Combining FCP with MVDR Beamforming}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
Following \cite{Drude2018, Nakatani2020, Boeddeker2020}, we then apply MVDR beamforming to dereverberation outputs to further improve separation and dereverberation.
The target and non-target covariance matrices, $\hat{\mathbf{\Phi}}(c)$ and $\hat{\mathbf{\Phi}}(\lnot c)$, are computed as
\begin{align}\label{covariancematrix}
\hat{\mathbf{\Phi}}(c) &= \sum\nolimits_t \hat{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)\hat{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(c,t)^{{\mathsf H}}, \\
\hat{\mathbf{\Phi}}(\lnot c) &= \sum\nolimits_t \hat{\mathbf{U}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(\lnot c,t)\hat{\mathbf{U}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(\lnot c,t)^{{\mathsf H}}, \\
\hat{\mathbf{U}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(\lnot c) &= \breve{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{Dereverb}}(c)-\hat{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(c), \label{nontarget1}
\end{align}
where $\breve{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{Dereverb}}(c)$ denotes the results of FCP, cFCP, msFCP, or DNN-WPE.
Following \cite{Yoshioka2015, Zhang2017a}, the steering vector $\hat{\mathbf{d}}(c)$ of speaker $c$ is computed as the principal eigenvector of $\hat{\mathbf{\Phi}}(c)$.
Designating microphone $q$ as the reference, an MVDR beamformer is computed as
$\hat{\mathbf{w}}(c;q) = \frac{\hat{\mathbf{\Phi}}(\lnot c)^{-1} \hat{\mathbf{d}}(c)}{\hat{\mathbf{d}}(c)^{{\mathsf H}} \hat{\mathbf{\Phi}}(\lnot c)^{-1} \hat{\mathbf{d}}(c)} \hat{d}_q^{*}(c)$,
where $(\cdot)^{*}$ computes the complex conjugate, and beamforming results are computed as
\begin{align}\label{bf}
\hat{S}_q^{\text{BF}}(c,t) = \hat{\mathbf{w}}(c;q)^{{\mathsf H}}\breve{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{Dereverb}}(c,t).
\end{align}
Alternatively, we can compute $\hat{\mathbf{U}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(\lnot c)$ using
\begin{align}\label{nontarget2}
\hat{\mathbf{U}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(\lnot c)=\mathbf{Y}-\hat{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{DNN}_b}(c),
\end{align}
and apply the resulting beamformer to the mixture.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Post-Filtering}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
FCP exploits the linear-filter structure in reverberation, and MVDR leverages the linear spatial information among multiple microphones.
Both of them could provide information complementary to plain DNN-based end-to-end dereverberation and separation.
We hence combine their outputs with the mixture as input features to train DNN$_2$ to enhance each target speaker.
As $\hat{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{DNN}_2}$ is likely better than $\hat{\mathbf{S}}^{\text{DNN}_1}$, at run time we use it to do another pass of FCP and MVDR, and feed the new FCP and MVDR results to DNN$_2$ to estimate each speaker again.
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Dataset and System Configurations}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
We validate the proposed algorithms using the six-channel SMS-WSJ dataset \cite{Drude2019}, which contains 33,561, 982, and 1,332 simulated reverberant two-speaker mixtures for training, validation, and testing, respectively.
The speaker-to-array distance is sampled from the range $[1.0, 2.0]$~m, and the T60 is drawn from the range $[0.2, 0.5]$~s.
A weak white noise is added to simulate microphone noise. The energy level between the sum of the reverberant target speech signals and the noise is sampled from the range $[20, 30]$~dB.
The sampling rate is 8~kHz.
We use the direct sound, obtained by setting T60 to $0$ s, as the labels for model training and perform joint dereverberation, separation, and denoising.
We consider monaural separation, where the first microphone is used for model training and testing, and two-channel separation using the first and fourth microphones.
We use the default ASR backend provided with SMS-WSJ for recognition, trained on single-speaker reverberant speech. %
For STFT, the window size is 32 ms and hop size 8 ms.
After cross-validation, $K$ is set to 37 and $\Delta$ to 3 for DNN-WPE, $K$ is set to 40 for FCP, and $\varepsilon$ is tuned to $0.001$ for $\hat{\lambda}$, $\hat{\eta}$, and $\hat{\tau}$.
The DNN architectures follow \cite{Wang2020c}.
Scale-invariant signal-to-distortion ratio (SI-SDR) \cite{LeRoux2019}, perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ) \cite{P862.1} and word error rate (WER) are used as the evaluation metrics.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Results}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
Table \ref{results1ch} reports monaural (1ch) results.
We only go over the SI-SDR numbers, as similar trends are observed for PESQ and WER.
For now, we only look at the entries where $\text{DNN}_2$ is trained using the ``RI'' loss in \cite{Wang2021FCPjournal}.
$\text{DNN}_1$, a uPIT network, improves the performance from $-5.5$ to $6.1$ dB.
$\text{DNN}_1$+DNN$_2$, which combines the mixture with the outputs of $\text{DNN}_1$ to train an enhancement network (DNN$_2$) to enhance each speaker, improves the performance to $9.8$ dB.
We can also include the outcomes of WPE or FCP, computed based on $\text{DNN}_1$ outputs, to train DNN$_2$.
Among them, $\text{DNN}_1$+msFCP+DNN$_2$ shows
the best performance at $12.2$ dB.
Doing another pass of msFCP and running DNN$_2$ one more time, denoted as $\text{DNN}_1$+(msFCP+DNN$_2$)$\times$2, improves the performance from $12.2$ to $14.0$ dB.
In contrast, doing another pass on WPE only improves the performance slightly.
This is likely because DNN$_2$ can produce better magnitude and phase than $\text{DNN}_1$, and FCP can leverage these better magnitude and phase for better reverberation estimation, while WPE only leverages the magnitude.
The $14.0$ dB result is substantially better than a recent complex spectral mapping based system (SISO) \cite{Wang2020c} and DPRNN-TasNet \cite{Luo2020}, both of which are popular end-to-end approaches in speaker separation.
Table \ref{results2ch} presents two-microphone results.
Using two-channel uPIT, $\text{DNN}_1$ obtains $8.5$ dB.
Plain DNN stacking, $\text{DNN}_1$+DNN$_2$, gets to $12.2$ dB.
Including MVDR results computed using $\text{DNN}_1$ outputs to train DNN$_2$, denoted as $\text{DNN}_1$+MVDR+DNN$_2$, improves the performance from $12.2$ to $12.8$ dB.
This MVDR is computed by using Eq.~(\ref{nontarget2}) and the beamformer is applied to the mixture.
We can include the outcomes of FCP or WPE computed based on $\text{DNN}_1$ outputs to train DNN$_2$.
Among them, $\text{DNN}_1$+MVDR+msFCP+DNN$_2$ performs slightly better.
We can also apply MVDR beamforming to the results of FCP or WPE %
rather than to the mixture (denoted as, for example, $\text{DNN}_1$+msFCP\_MVDR+msFCP+DNN$_2$).
This leads to better performance.
By doing one more pass of msFCP\_MVDR and msFCP, we get our best score, $16.1$ dB.
This result is substantially better than two popular end-to-end systems, FasNet-TAC \cite{Luo2020d} and multi-channel ConvTasNet \cite{ZhangJisi2020}, and a recent MISO-BF-MISO system \cite{Wang2020c}, which is essentially the same as $\text{DNN}_1$+MVDR+DNN$_2$.
Training DNN$_2$ with the ``RI+Mag'' loss presented in \cite{Wang2021FCPjournal} produces better PESQ and WER, and slightly worse SI-SDR for the DNN$_1$+msFCP+DNN$_2$ system in Table~\ref{results1ch} and the DNN$_1$+msFCP\_MVDR+msFCP+DNN$_2$ system in Table~\ref{results2ch}.
This observation aligns with the findings in \cite{Wang2021compensation}.
\begin{table}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
\sisetup{table-format=2.2,round-mode=places,round-precision=2,table-number-alignment = center,detect-weight=true,detect-inline-weight=math}
\caption{\footnotesize{SI-SDR (dB), PESQ and WER (\%) results on SMS-WSJ (1ch).}}
\label{results1ch}
\begin{tabular}{lcS[table-format=2.1,round-precision=1]S[table-format=1.2,round-precision=2]S[table-format=2.1,round-precision=1]}
\toprule
{\bf Approaches} & {\bf DNN$_2$ Loss} & {\bf SI-SDR} & {\bf PESQ} & {\bf WER} \\
\midrule
Unprocessed & - & -5.5 & 1.50 & 78.42 \\ %
DNN$_1$ & - & 6.1 & 2.17 & 38.42 \\ %
DNN$_1$+DNN$_2$ & RI & 9.8 & 2.64 & 23.39 \\
\midrule
DNN$_1$+WPE+DNN$_2$ & RI & 11.0 & 2.81 & 18.82 \\ %
DNN$_1$+FCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 12.0 & 2.89 & 18.26 \\ %
DNN$_1$+cFCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 11.3 & 2.78 & 20.47\\ %
DNN$_1$+msFCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 12.2 & 3.04 & 16.04 \\
DNN$_1$+msFCP+DNN$_2$ & RI+Mag & 11.6 & 3.25 & 13.22 \\
\midrule
DNN$_{1}$+(WPE+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI & 11.4 & 2.88 & 18.23 \\ %
DNN$_1$+(FCP+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI & 13.0 & 3.00 & 16.33 \\ %
DNN$_1$+(cFCP+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI & 12.4 & 2.84 & 20.68 \\ %
DNN$_1$+(msFCP+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI & \bfseries 14.0 & 3.30 & 13.84 \\
DNN$_1$+(msFCP+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI+Mag & 13.4 & \bfseries 3.41 & \bfseries 10.93 \\
\midrule
SISO \cite{Wang2020c} & - & 5.1 & 2.40 & 28.28 \\ %
DPRNN-TasNet \cite{Luo2020} & - & 6.5 & 2.28 & 38.12 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
\sisetup{table-format=2.1,round-mode=places,round-precision=2,table-number-alignment = center,detect-weight=true,detect-inline-weight=math}
\caption{\footnotesize{SI-SDR (dB), PESQ and WER (\%) results on SMS-WSJ (2ch).}}
\label{results2ch}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{lcS[table-format=2.1,round-precision=1]S[table-format=1.2,round-precision=2]S[table-format=2.1,round-precision=1]}
\toprule
{\bf Approaches} & {\bf DNN$_2$ Loss} & {\bf SI-SDR} & {\bf PESQ} & {\bf WER} \\
\midrule
Unprocessed & - & -5.5 & 1.50 & 78.42 \\ %
DNN$_1$ & - & 8.5 & 2.53 & 27.12 \\ %
DNN$_1$+DNN$_2$ & RI & 12.2 & 3.00 & 15.04 \\ %
DNN$_1$+MVDR+DNN$_2$ & RI & 12.8 & 3.16 & 13.78 \\
\midrule
DNN$_1$+MVDR+WPE+DNN$_2$ & RI & 13.6 & 3.25 & 12.60 \\ %
DNN$_1$+MVDR+FCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 13.9 & 3.26 & 13.16 \\ %
DNN$_1$+MVDR+cFCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 14.1 & 3.35 & 11.74 \\ %
DNN$_1$+MVDR+msFCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 14.1 & 3.37 & 11.73 \\
\midrule
DNN$_1$+WPE\_MVDR+WPE+DNN$_2$ & RI & 14.3 & 3.37 & 11.57 \\ %
DNN$_1$+FCP\_MVDR+FCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 14.3 & 3.35 & 12.17 \\ %
DNN$_1$+cFCP\_MVDR+cFCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 14.4 & 3.38 & 11.80 \\ %
DNN$_1$+msFCP\_MVDR+msFCP+DNN$_2$ & RI & 14.5 & 3.44 & 11.15 \\
DNN$_1$+msFCP\_MVDR+msFCP+DNN$_2$ & RI+Mag & 14.2 & 3.63 & 9.12 \\
\midrule
DNN$_1$+(WPE\_MVDR+WPE+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI & 14.4 & 3.37 & 11.72 \\ %
DNN$_1$+(FCP\_MVDR+FCP+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI & 15.4 & 3.46 & 11.71 \\ %
DNN$_1$+(cFCP\_MVDR+cFCP+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI & 15.5 & 3.49 & 11.17 \\ %
DNN$_1$+(msFCP\_MVDR+msFCP+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI & \bfseries 16.1 & 3.65 & 10.04 \\
DNN$_1$+(msFCP\_MVDR+msFCP+DNN$_2$)$\times2$ & RI+Mag & 15.8 & \bfseries 3.71 & \bfseries 8.55 \\
\midrule
FasNet-TAC \cite{Luo2020d} & - & 6.9 & 2.31 & 34.85 \\ %
Multi-channel ConvTasNet \cite{ZhangJisi2020} & - & 5.8 & 2.60 & 45.72\\ %
MISO-BF-MISO \cite{Wang2020c} & - & 12.3 & 3.39 & 11.39 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\vspace{-0.45cm}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We have proposed convolutive prediction for reverberant speech separation and dereverberation, and combined it with beamforming in the multi-channel case.
Evaluation results show that the proposed convolutive prediction leads to better separation and ASR performance than DNN-WPE in the context of a state-of-the-art two-DNN speech separation system, in both single- and multi-channel scenarios. %
In closing, we emphasize that the linear-filter structure in reverberation provides an informative cue for dereverberation, and explicitly exploiting it could be an important step towards solving the cocktail party problem in realistic conditions.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
{\footnotesize
|
\section{Introduction}
One of problems in General Relativity (GR) is singularities. The Schwarzschild metric for neutral black holes (BHs) and Reisner $-$Nordstr\"{o}m metric for charged BHs have curvature singularities at $r=0$.
To avoid singularities GR has to be modified for the large curvatures. There are different approaches to deform GR. To solve the singularity problem one can assume that there is a critical energy $\mu$ and the corresponding length $l=\mu^{-1}$ so that the metric is modified when the space-time curvature is in the order of $l^{-2}$ \cite{Sakharov}, \cite{Markov}, \cite{Markov1} (see also \cite{Frolov}).
The length scale $l$ characterises quantum gravity effects and this approach is beyond classical GR. The modification
of GR considered here is important at the Planck scale $l_{Pl}$. When curvature invariants are much greater than $l^{-2}$ the deformation of GR,
considered here, should be taken into account. Otherwise standard results are recovered. For a neutral BH a simple metric with the
length $l$ was proposed by Hayward \cite{Hayward} in the framework of quantum gravity theory. We follow this avenue by modifying the Hayward metric by the replacement of the constant mass $M$ with the mass $M(r)$ depending on the radius. It is worth noting that the complete quantum gravity theory is not developed yet. The fundamental constant $l$ only mimics the quantum gravity effects at small radii of BHs and huge curvatures within a classical model. Therefore, we do not imply the concrete deformation of the Einstein equations and corresponding equations of motion. Some authors, to avoid the black hole singularities, postulated the metric for the regular BHs but without discussing what are sources of gravity \cite{Bardeen}. The corresponding solutions in these models are not exact solutions to Einstein equations.
In this paper we postulate a new metric with the fundamental length $l$, a la Hayward, which for $l=0$ gives
the regular magnetically charged BH solution of Einstein equations with the source of rational nonlinear electrodynamics (RNED) proposed in \cite{Kr3}. The BH thermodynamics and phase transitions are investigated. The authors of \cite{Ali} and \cite{Halilsoy} also studied BH solutions with the modified Hayward metric based on nonlinear electrodynamics (NED) proposed in \cite{Kr8} and \cite{Kr7}, respectively. In \cite{Kr2} the similar study was performed for a model considered in \cite{Bronnikov}. There are different models of NED known in the literature (not a complete list) \cite{BI0}-\cite{Habib}. It is worth noting that the general form of the Lagrangian density for NED in the case of nonsingular black holes was given in \cite{Bronnikov2}.
Here, we explore RNED which has attractive features such as a simplicity and regularity.
The RNED coupled to GR gives the regular magnetic black holes \cite{Kr}. Also, the size of the shadow of M87* black hole calculated within RNED-GR is in agrement with the data of Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration \cite{Kr1}. In addition, the RNED describes the inflation of the universe in accordance with the astrophysical data \cite{Kr4}.
It should be noted that the Hayward metric corresponds to the neutral black hole and regularises the Schwarzschild solution. The modify Hayward metric, which we propose, describes the magnetically charged black hole with nonzero Schwarzschild mass $m_0$ and magnetic mass $m_M$. The magnetically charged black hole with RNED, in the framework of GR, has a solution which is regular only if $m_0=0$ \cite{Kr3}. The modify Hayward metric, for magnetized black hole, that we discuss here, is regular even for $m_0\neq 0$.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 we study the regular magnetized BH solution within nonlinear rational electrodynamics. A modified Hayward metric of magnetically charged black hole space-time and the fundamental length, characterising quantum gravity effects, are introduced. Thermodynamics and phase transitions in this model are investigated in Sect. 3. The Hawking temperature and the heat capacity are evaluated. We show that phase transitions take place. In Sect. 4, it is demonstrated that curvature invariants are bounded and the limiting curvature conjecture takes place. In Sect. 5 we make a conclusion.
We use here a natural unit system with $\epsilon_0=\mu_0=c=\hbar=k_B=1$. This yields a single scale value - the length $L$.
In this system the Newton constant $G$ has a unit $[G]=L^2$, the mass $m$ possesses the init $[m]=L^{-1}$ and the charge $q$ is unitless.
\section{A regular magnetized BH solution}
Let us consider the Lagrangian of RNED \cite{Kr3} to obtain the magnetically charged BH solution
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = -\frac{{\cal F}}{1+2\beta{\cal F}},
\label{1}
\end{equation}
with the parameter $\beta$ of the dimension of (length)$^4$, ${\cal F}=(1/4)F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}=(\textbf{B}^2-\textbf{E}^2)/2$,
$F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu$ is the field tensor. The correspondence principle holds because at the weak fields $\beta {\cal F}\ll 1$, we have the Maxwell limit and the Lagrangian (1) becomes
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}\rightarrow-{\cal F}.
\label{2}
\end{equation}
We will consider the magnetic BHs because, as was proven in [13], the solution for electrically charged BHs in GR coupled with
NED, which has at weak-field limit the Maxwell electrodynamics, is singular. Here the magnetic monopole is due to space-time curvature and is realized in BHs. We use the spherically symmetric line element squared
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+\frac{1}{f(r)}dr^2+r^2(d\vartheta^2+\sin^2\vartheta d\phi^2).
\label{3}
\end{equation}
To derive the metric function representing the static magnetic regular BH we explore the Hayward metric function \cite{Hayward}
\begin{equation}
f(r)=1-\frac{2GMr^2}{r^3+2GMl^2},
\label{4}
\end{equation}
with $G$ being the Newton constant, and $l$ is the fundamental length. In a Hayward model of the neutral BH the mass $M$ is constant. The metric function (4) can be found as a solution in GR coupled with NED, containing the length $l$, $G$ and a nonzero magnetic charge \cite{Kr}. In this case the correspondence principle is broken and at the weak-field limit the NED Lagrangian is not converted to the Maxwell Lagrangian. Thus, the source of gravity within GR is questionable. Therefore, we interpret the Hayward metric, within modified gravity theory, as a metric which takes into account quantum corrections characterized by the fundamental constant $l$. This approach is beyond the GR and $l$ mimics the quantum effects when $r\ll l$. A variable mass $M(r)$ will be substituted into Eq. (4) instead of a constant mass $M$.
Thus, we postulate the metric (4) with the variable mass $M(r)$ and consider such metric in the framework of modified GR by quantum corrections with the fundamental length $l$. Similar procedure was used also in the papers \cite{Ali} and \cite{Halilsoy} for other NEDs.
When $l=0$ in Eq. (4) with a constant mass $M$, we have the Schwarzschild metric of an uncharged BH which is a solution to Einstein's equation. We assume that the BH is magnetically charged and the mass function of the BH varies with $r$ \cite{Bronnikov},
\begin{equation}
M(r)=m_0+\int_0^r\rho(r) r^2dr=m_0+\int_0^\infty\rho(r) r^2dr-\int_r^\infty\rho(r) r^2dr,
\label{5}
\end{equation}
where $m_0$ (the constant of integration) is the Schwarzschild mass and $ m_M = \int_0^\infty\rho(r)r^2dr$ is the magnetic mass of the BH, $\rho(r)$ is the magnetic energy density. It should be noted that we have a regular metric with RNED (1) in GR if $m_ 0=0$ \cite{Kr}. But at a nonzero $m_ 0$ the singularity is present.
When the charge $q=0$ the mass function $M=m_0$ becomes constant and we come to the Hayward metric function (4). The magnetic energy density at $\textbf{E}=0$ is \cite{Kr}
\begin{equation}\label{6}
\rho(r)=-{\cal L} = \frac{{\cal F}}{1+2\beta{\cal F}}
=\frac{B^2}{2(\beta B^2+1)}=\frac{q^2}{2(r^4+\beta q^2)},
\end{equation}
where ${\cal F}=B^2/2=q^2/(2r^4)$, and $q$ is a point-like magnetic charge. Making use of Eq. (6) the mass function (5) becomes
\[
M(x)=m_0+\frac{q^{3/2}}{8\sqrt{2}\beta^{1/4}}\biggl(\ln\frac{x^2-\sqrt{2}x+1}{x^2+\sqrt{2}x+1}
\]
\begin{equation}
+2\arctan(\sqrt{2}x+1)-2\arctan(1-\sqrt{2}x)\biggr),
\label{7}
\end{equation}
where we introduce the dimensionless variable $x=r/\sqrt[4]{\beta q^2}$. The BH magnetic mass is given by \cite{Kr}
\begin{equation}\label{8}
m_M = \int_0^\infty\rho(r)r^2dr=\frac{\pi q^{3/2}}{4\sqrt{2}\beta^{1/4}}\approx 0.56\frac{q^{3/2}}{\beta^{1/4}},
\end{equation}
and the total BH mass is $M(\infty)\equiv m=m_0+m_M$. It is worth noting that in classical electrodynamics the magnetic mass, which is the total magnetic energy of a magnetic monopole is infinite, but in our case the magnetic energy of the magnetized BH is finite.
The metric function of a charged BH becomes
\begin{equation}
f(r)=1-\frac{2GM(r)r^2}{r^3+2GM(r)l^2},
\label{9}
\end{equation}
with $M(r)$ given by (7). At $l=0$ we have the metric function of a charged BH within GR \cite{Kr}.
With the help of Eqs. (7)-(9) we obtain the metric function
\begin{equation}\label{10}
f(x)=1-\frac{x^2(Ag(x)+C)}{4\sqrt{2}x^3+CD+Bg(x)},
\end{equation}
where the dimensionless constants $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ and the function $g(x)$ are given by
\[
A=\frac{Gq}{\sqrt{\beta}},~~~B=\frac{Gl^2}{\beta},~~~C=\frac{8\sqrt{2}Gm_0}{\sqrt{q}\beta^{1/4}},~~~D=\frac{l^2}{q\sqrt{\beta}},
\]
\begin{equation}\label{11}
~~g(x)=\ln\frac{x^2-\sqrt{2}x+1}{x^2+\sqrt{2}x+1}+2\arctan(\sqrt{2}x+1)-2\arctan(1-\sqrt{2}x).
\end{equation}
Do not confuse the parameter $B$ with the magnetic field.
Making use of Eqs. (10) and (11) one finds the asymptotic of the metric function as $r\rightarrow\infty$ and $r\rightarrow 0$
\begin{equation}\label{12}
f(r)=1-\frac{2Gm}{r}+\frac{Gq^2}{r^2}+\frac{4G^2ml^2}{r^4}\left(m-\frac{q^2}{r}\right) +
{\cal O}(r^{-6})~~~~r\rightarrow\infty,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{13}
f(r)=1-\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{5r^{10}}{G\beta q^4l^4}+{\cal O}(r^{11})~~~~r\rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
According to Eq. (12) the corrections to the RN solution are in the order of ${\cal O}(r^{-4})$. At $l=0$ Eq. (12) becomes the equation found in \cite{Kr}. As $r\rightarrow \infty$ the spacetime becomes flat. Because $\lim_{r\rightarrow 0}f(r)=1$ the space-time of the BH is regular and possesses a smooth de Sitter core.
The plot of the function $f(x)$ is depicted in Fig. 1. \begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=3.0in,width=3.0in]{Kr.eps}
\caption{\label{fig.1}The plot of the function $f(x)$ for $B=1$ and $C=0$ ($m_0=0$). The dashed-dotted line corresponds to $A=5$, the solid line corresponds to $A=2$ and the dashed line corresponds to $A\approx 3.5$.}
\end{figure}
Figure 1 shows that at $A<3.5$ ($B=1$, $C=0$) horizons are absent and we have the particle-like solution and BHs are absent. At $A\approx 3.5$ we have the extreme solution (one horizon). When $A>3.5$, there are two BH horizons. The plot of the parameter $A$ at $C=0$ versus the horizon radii $x_h$ ($f(x_h)=0$) is in Fig. 2. The inverse function gives the dependence of $x_h$ on the parameter $A$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=3.0in,width=3.0in]{Kr1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig.2}The plot of the function $A$ versus $x_h$ for $C=0$ ($m_0=0$). The dashed-dotted line corresponds to $B=5$, the solid line corresponds to $B=1$ and the dashed line corresponds to $B=3$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Thermodynamics and phase transitions}
The mass function (7) and lapse function of metric (3) depend only on the radial coordinate, and therefore, the
spacetime is stationary and possesses a timelike Killing vector, $\chi^\mu$, so that $\chi^\mu \partial_\mu=\partial_t$ and $\chi^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$. The covariant Killing vector for the metric (3) is $\chi_\nu=g_{\nu\mu}\chi^\mu=(-f(r),0,0,0)$ so that $\chi_\mu\chi^\mu\rightarrow -1$ as $r\rightarrow\infty$. The surface gravity $\kappa$ for a static BH with a Killing horizon \cite{Wald} is defined as $\chi^\mu\nabla^\nu\chi_\mu=-\kappa\chi^\nu$ (this equation is evaluated at the horizon). Thus, we obtain the surface gravity $\kappa=(1/2)\partial_rf(r)$.
To study the thermal stability of magnetized BHs and the phase transitions we calculate the Hawking temperature which is given by \cite{Hawking}
\begin{equation}
T_H=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi}=\frac{f'(r)|_{r=r_h}}{4\pi}.
\label{14}
\end{equation}
With the help of Eqs. (10), (14) and the relation $Ag(x_h)x_h^2=4\sqrt{2}x_h^3+Bg(x_h)$ ($f(x_h)=0$) at $C=0$ ($m_0=0$), one finds the Hawking temperature
\begin{equation}
T_H=\frac{1}{4\pi\beta^{1/4}\sqrt{q}}\biggl(-\frac{2}{x_h}
-\frac{4\sqrt{2}x_h^2(4\sqrt{2}x_h^3-3g(x_h)(x_h^4+1))}{g(x_h)(4\sqrt{2}x_h^3+Bg(x_h))(x_h^4+1)}\biggr).
\label{15}
\end{equation}
The dimensionless Hawking temperature $T_H\sqrt{q}\beta^{1/4}$ is depicted in Fig. 3 for $C=0$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=3.0in,width=3.0in]{Kr2.eps}
\caption{\label{fig.3}The plot of the function $\sqrt{q}\beta^{1/4}T_H$ versus horizon radii $x_h$ for $C=0$ ($m_0=0$). The dashed-dotted line corresponds to $B=10$, the solid line corresponds to $B=1$ and the dashed line corresponds to $B=5$.}
\end{figure}
In accordance with Fig. 3 for the greater value of $B$ (or $l$) the maximum of the Hawking temperature is less. The temperature possesses a maximum corresponding to a phase transition. The similar form of the temperature curve for a BH occurs in the models \cite{Myung1}, \cite{Myung}, \cite{Tharanath}, \cite{Kr5}. One can check that the Hawking temperature (15) with the area law does not satisfy the first law of black
hole thermodynamics. But when $l^{-2}$ is much smaller than curvature invariants the first law of black hole thermodynamics holds. This
occurs if the event horizon radius is not small enough (see Fig. 5). Therefore, we will consider this case in the following to study the
thermodynamics. To describe phase transitions we calculate the heat capacity at the constant charge that is defined by \cite{Novikov}
\begin{equation}
C_q=T_H\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial T_H}\right)_q=\frac{T_H\partial S/\partial r_h}{\partial T_H/\partial r_h}=\frac{2\pi r_hT_H}{G\partial T_H/\partial r_h},
\label{16}
\end{equation}
where the entropy is $S=A/(4G)=\pi r_h^2/G$. It follows from Eq. (16) that when the Hawking temperature has the extremum, $\partial T_H/\partial r_h=0$, the second-order phase transition takes place because the heat capacity is singular. The plot of the function $GC_q/(\sqrt{\beta}q)$ versus the horizon radius $x_h$ for $C=0$ ($m_0=0$) is depicted in Fig. 4.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics{Kr3_new.eps}
\caption{\label{fig.4}The plot of the function $C_qG/(\sqrt{\beta}q)$ versus $x_h$ for $C=0$ ($m_0=0$), $B=1$, $B=5$, $B=10$.}
\end{figure}
According to Fig. 4 the second-order phase transitions occur at the discontinuity points where the maximum of the temperature holds. The discontinuity points separate areas with positive and negative heat capacities. The negative capacity correspond to the early stage of the thermodynamics process and the positive heat capacity corresponds to the late stage. When the heat capacity is positive the BH is stable, otherwise the BH is unstable. For the bigger parameter $B$, the second-order BH phase transition occurs at the larger value of the horizon radius $r_h$.
According to Eqs. (15) and (16) at some point, $x_h=x_1$, the Hawking temperature and heat capacity are zero and a first-order phase transition occurs. At this point $x_1$ the BH remnant is formed, where the BH mass is not zero but the Hawking temperature and the heat capacity vanish. When the maximum of the Hawking temperature $\partial T_H(x_h)/\partial x_h=0$ takes place, at the event horizon radius $x_h=x_2$, the heat capacity possesses the discontinuity and the second-order phase transition holds. Therefore, at the range $x_2>x_h>x_1$ BHs are locally stable. At $x_h>x_2$ the BH evaporates and becomes unstable and at $x_h<x_1$ we have the BH remnant at zero Hawking temperature and heat capacity.
\section{The limiting curvature conjecture}
In a viable theory the curvature invariants are bounded. This statement, named the limiting curvature conjecture, was discussed in \cite{Markov}, \cite{Markov1}, \cite{Frolov}, \cite{Polchinski}. To verify the limiting curvature conjecture we consider the curvature invariants
\[
R(r)=f''(r)+\frac{4f'(r)}{r}-\frac{2(f(r)-1)}{r^2},
\]
\begin{equation}
K(r)\equiv R_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} K^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}=
(f''(r))^2+\left(\frac{2f'(r)}{r}\right)^2+\left(\frac{2(f(r)-1)}{r^2}\right)^2,
\label{17}
\end{equation}
where $R(r)$ is the Ricci scalar and $K$ is the Kretschmann scalar. In the terms of the dimensionless variable $x=r/\sqrt[4]{\beta q^2}$ Eq. (17) reads
\[
R(x)q\sqrt{\beta}=f''(x)+\frac{4f'(x)}{x}-\frac{2(f(x)-1)}{x^2},
\]
\begin{equation}
K(x)q^2\beta=(f''(x))^2+\left(\frac{2f'(x)}{x}\right)^2+\left(\frac{2(f(x)-1)}{x^2}\right)^2.
\label{18}
\end{equation}
The Plots of the dimensionless functions $R(x)q\sqrt{\beta}$ and $K(x)q^2\beta$ are depicted in Figs. (5) and (6).
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=3.0in,width=3.0in]{Kr6.eps}
\caption{\label{fig.5}The plot of the function $R(x)q\sqrt{\beta}$ versus $x$ for $A=1$, $C=0$ ($m_0=0$). The solid line corresponds to $B=1$, the dashed line corresponds to $B=5$ and the dashed-dotted line corresponds to $B=10$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=3.0in,width=3.0in]{Kr8.eps}
\caption{\label{fig.6}The plot of the function $K(x)q^2\beta$ versus $x$ for $A=1$, $C=0$ ($m_0=0$). The solid line corresponds to $B=1$, the dashed line corresponds to $B=5$ and the dashed-dotted line corresponds to $B=10$.}
\end{figure}
Figures 5 and 6 show that the curvature invariants are bounded and the limiting curvature conjecture takes place. The maxima of invariants depend on the parameters $A$, $B$ and $C$. The curvature boundedness is provided by the elementary length $l\neq 0$ in the case of $m_0\neq 0$ for magnetic BH. For the case of $m_0=0$ we have the regular BH in the framework of GR and curvature invariants are bounded.
\section{Conclusion}
The summary of this paper is as follows. We have introduced the fundamental length $l$ which characterises the quantum corrections at short distances close to the Planck length. The classical Einstein theory describes the gravity correctly when the curvature invariants are less than $l^{-2}$. If curvatures are in the order of $l^{-2}$ or greater the quantum effects start to play an important role. In this region the classical GR is UV-incomplete and correct theory should be quantum gravity which is not developed yet. Therefore, in this scale we can describe the quantum effects phenomenologically by modifying the metric function. In this paper we use the Hyward metric for this purpose to take into account quantum corrections to classical Einstein gravity.
For some parameters the magnetically charged BHs have one extreme horizon or two horizons, or no horizons corresponding to the particle-like solution. As the radius approaches infinity corrections to the RN solution are in the order of ${\cal O}(r^{-4})$ and as $r\rightarrow\infty$ the space-time becomes the Minkowski space-time. As $r\rightarrow 0$ the space-time possesses a de Sitter core and the singularity at $r = 0$ has been smoothed out. Thus, the solution describes the regular BH with the finite curvature everywhere.
By calculating the Hawking temperature and the heat capacity of the BH, we demonstrated that second-order phase transitions occur separating areas between negative and positive heat capacities. When the Hawking temperature is negative the BH does not exist. In some range of horizon radii the heat capacity is positive and the BHs are stable. The behaviors of the Hawking temperature and heat capacity are similar
to them of Ref. [8] and [9]. However, in [8] the expressions for the metric function, temperature and specific heat are given in special functions. In the present paper and in [9] these expressions are simpler. More importantly, the RNED model compared to NED used in [8], [9] has some advantages that we mentioned in Introduction. In addition, it was demonstrated that the limiting curvature conjecture holds.
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the last few decades, semi-crystalline polymers have found their way into almost all outdoor structural applications (\textit{e.g.}, automotive and aerospace industries, electrical insulation technologies, and thermal storage applications) due to their excellent mechanical performance and optimal strength-to-weight ratio. During their service life, semi-crystalline polymers are exposed to several extreme environmental factors such as Ultra-Violet (UV) light, heat, oxygen, and other chemical processes that degenerate their mechanical properties and contribute to their permanent failure. In particular, UV light emitted by the sun or other artificial sources has been found to be the dominant degradation mechanism causing the fragmentation of semi-crystalline polymers into smaller-scaled particles known as microplastics \citep{yousif2013photodegradation,ranjan2019degradation,guo2019chemical}. Due to their minuscule sizes, microplastics can easily travel in large amounts through water pathways leading to the ocean. The abundance of microplastics in the marine environment has become a major concern in today's environmental discussion \citep{kershaw2015sources,brandon2016long,da2018degradation,bergmann2019white}. Therefore, it is imperative that special attention be devoted to the study of photo-oxidation impacts on semi-crystalline polymers for durable design and environmental preservation.
The presence of oxygen in addition to UV light accelerates polymer photodegradation and causes what is commonly referred to as photo-oxidation \citep{rabek1994polymer}. Generally, the resistance of polymers to photo-oxidation
varies depending on the polymer composition, possible inherent contaminations, and the inclusion of pigments, additives, or fillers. Polymers with weak bond energies and high concentration of chromophoric groups (\textit{i.e.}, chemical groups that are capable of absorbing light) for instance, are generally more susceptible to photo-oxidation. %
Photo-oxidation and its deleterious effects on the lifespan of semi-crystalline polymers has been a subject of experimental investigation for decades. Photo-oxidation contributes to the degeneration of mechanical and aesthetic properties of semi-crystalline polymers and creates weaker materials that cannot sustain further mechanical loading, which ultimately leads to their complete failure \citep{CARRASCO20011457,HSU20122385,celina2013review,bhateja1983radiation,fayolle2008degradation,julienne2019influence,Hedir2020,cundiff2020photo}. In semi-crystalline polyolefins, for instance, photo-oxidation can be initiated either through hydroperoxide decomposition or through ketone photolysis via Norrish reactions \citep{rabek1994polymer}. As a result of these initiators, polymers can undergo an initial period of random chain-scission followed by a secondary period of crosslinking that is responsible for surface embrittlement. Due to this embrittlement, the polymers harden and visible cracks can potentially occur on their surface \citep{rodriguez2020effect}. A common consensus in the literature is that in semi-crystalline polymers, photo-oxidation reactions occur in the amorphous region that is favorable to oxygen diffusion \citep{ayoub2020modeling,rodriguez2020effect}. The random coil structure of the amorphous region favors chain linking/unlinking. As a result, when the polymer is exposed to light and oxygen, photo-oxidation-induced molecular chain alterations (\textit{i.e.}, chain-scission and crosslinking) manifest themselves in the unstructured, random amorphous phase. Therefore, given these considerations, it is clear that the macromolecular changes induced by photo-oxidation can be directly linked to the mechanical response (\textit{e.g.}, embrittlement, crack initiation and propagation, etc.) of photo-oxidatively aged polymers.
Many researchers have developed models to simulate the response of polymeric and elastomeric materials to environmental conditions (\textit{e.g.}, \cite{soares2008constitutive,soares2010deformation,vieira2014constitutive,vieira2011material,breche2016mechanical,breche2016non,wang2010entropy,han2009model,zhao2017oxidation,johlitz2014thermo,abdelaziz2019new,shakiba2021physics,XIAO201670,shakiba2016thermodynamic,ZHAO2020100826}). However, to the best knowledge of the authors, only a few studies tried to develop constitutive equations to study the behavior of semi-crystalline polymers in response to photo-oxidation. \cite{belbachir2010modelling} and \cite{ayoub2020modeling} used physics-based elasto-viscoplastic constitutive relationships to incorporate the effects of UV radiation on the mechanical properties of polylactic acid (PLA) and low-density-polyethylene (LDPE), respectively. More recently, \cite{lamnii2021experimental} captured the effect of UV radiation on the fatigue life of a bulk semi-crystalline polymer based on two fatigue indicators: the maximum true stress and the dissipated energy. The authors used the evolution of the molecular weight of photo-oxidatively aged polymers to define a degradation parameter suitable for macromechanical response prediction. However, a major limitation to all these studies
concerned the identification of the evolution of material properties
which contained fitting parameters that carried no physical meaning. The evolution of the material properties in these studies was obtained simply by fitting the constitutive equations to the already obtained experimental mechanical measurements on aged samples. Doing so renders the constitutive equations essentially a fitting algorithm that can only describe the particular scenario upon which calibration was performed. In contrast, purely physio-chemically-based evolution functions of the material properties, based on network evolution, are desirable to eliminate the need for fitting parameters.
Thus, although works have been accomplished in the experimental and the numerical sides, the link between the network evolution and the mechanical responses in photo-oxidative aging of polymers is still missing.
In this study, we investigate the effects of photo-oxidation on the mechanical performance of LDPE.
Our goal is to present a physio-chemically-based constitutive framework to predict the macromechanical behavior of LDPE materials in response to photo-oxidation. More severe UV radiation, compared to the previous studies, is also considered in this work
This manuscript is organized as follows. Section~\ref{objectives} reiterates the objectives and main contributions of this work. Section~\ref{constitutive model} provides a concise description of the constitutive framework that has been adopted in this work to describe the mechanical response of unaged LDPE. In section~\ref{photo_kinetics}, a detailed discussion on photo-oxidation processes is provided to propose a novel methodology to monitor changes in the material properties of LDPE due to photo-oxidation. Then, upon identification of the physical processes responsible for photo-oxidation of LDPE, we present in section~\ref{material_charac} the in-house experimental investigations proposed to determine our evolution functions for the material properties. Results and their corresponding analyses are provided in section~\ref{results}. Finally, section~\ref{conclusion} concludes with some important remarks and ideas for subsequent future investigations.
\section{Objectives} \label{objectives}
This paper will contribute to the missing relationship between the chemical macromolecular changes and the mechanical responses of semi-crystalline LDPE due to photo-oxidation. To achieve this, a framework is developed to connect the evolution of the material properties in the constitutive equations to the physio-chemical processes affecting polymer network.
This connection eliminates the need to conduct mechanical testing on aged polymers and bypasses the need for extra fitting parameters. Our objectives are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item First, based on our understanding of how photo-oxidation affects semi-crystalline polymers, we aim to develop a physically-based and chemically-motivated constitutive framework to predict the response of photo-oxidatively aged LDPE.
The chemical characterization techniques employed in this work are Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) and a Quartz Crystal Microbalance with Dissipation Monitoring (QCM-D). DSC is used to determine the evolution of the crystallinity, whereas QCM-D is used to determine the evolution of the minute mass ratio between the initial unaged thin polymer and the corresponding aged samples.
\item Second, we plan to verify the validity of employing the above characterization techniques (particularly QCM-D) on thin polymers to investigate the photo-oxidation of relatively thicker films.
\end{itemize}
Although the mass loss characterizes the direct damage from physio-chemical reactions of the polymer during aging, to the best of our knowledge, there exists currently no study that uses the mass loss evolution to quantify the degree of photo-oxidation in polymers. The primary reason of the missing of mass ratio as a damage indicator is the difficulty of mass change determinations at microgram or even nanogram scale. Minute mass determination based on ordinary techniques is often unreliable due to the low sensitivity of analytical balance to mass change at micro- or nanoscale. In contrast, QCM-D, an acoustic technique, provides sensitive detection of mass change and high accuracy to nanogram-scale, which can be a solution to this challenge, thus fulfilling the deficiency of minute mass loss evolution in the literature.
\section{Constitutive and Governing Equations} \label{constitutive model}
Our goal is to predict the macromechanical response of photo-oxidatively aged LDPE based solely on the fundamental understandings of the chemical macromolecular changes occurring in the material upon exposure to UV radiation. The effect of photo-oxidation is captured by conjecturing appropriate chemistry-based evolution functions for the mechanical properties of LDPE. We begin with describing the constitutive relationships governing the mechanical response of semi-crystalline polymers, and later present the framework accounting for the contribution of photo-oxidation to polymer mechanical degradation.
A number of studies in the literature have tried to develop constitutive relationships to describe the finite-strain elasto-viscoplastic behavior of polymers \citep{boyce1988large,arruda1995effects,bardenhagen1997three,tervoort1997constitutive,boyce2000constitutive,ahzi2003modeling,anand2003theory,makradi2005two,dupaix2006constitutive,ayoub2010modelling}. The three-dimensional physics-based constitutive theory of \cite{boyce2000constitutive} -- which is what we used in this work -- is particularly attractive due to its simplicity and its capability of simulating various behaviors of thermoplastics based on the motion of molecular chains. The constitutive relationships of \cite{boyce2000constitutive} were originally developed to describe deformation resistance of amorphous polymers processed above their glass transition temperature; however, in semi-crystalline polymers, the contribution due to crystallinity shown in Figure~\ref{SM} can also be captured implicitly through the elastic modulus \citep{abdul2014large}.
In the constitutive formulation of \cite{boyce2000constitutive}, the resistance to deformation consists schematically of two nonlinear Maxwell elements connected in parallel to one another as shown in Figure~\ref{RM}. Branch I involves a linear elastic spring to represent molecular interactions, and a nonlinear viscous dashpot to account for the non-Newtonian flow arising from the motion of polymer segments (unlinking and sliding) as shown in Figure~\ref{SM}. The spring stiffness in Branch I implicitly considers the contribution from both the amorphous as well as the crystalline phases illustrated in Figure~\ref{SM}. Branch N is composed of a nonlinear elastic spring (\textit{i.e.}, Langevin spring) representing the rubbery behavior of the polymer network based on the non-Gaussian statistical mechanics theory of rubber elasticity \citep{arruda1993three}. The nonlinear spring is intended to capture the post-yield strain hardening at large strains due to the alignment of the long-chain polymer molecules. A nonlinear dashpot that is connected in series to it is included to represent the rate- and temperature-dependent flow arising from the motion of polymer segments at large strains. The inclusion of the two nonlinear dashpots captures the rate-dependency of the stress-strain behavior through molecular orientation and relaxation.
Since the branches of the schematic representation shown in Figure~\ref{RM} are parallel, the total deformation gradient $\mathbf{F}$ is applied to both branches and we have:
\begin{align} \label{parallel def}
\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{F}_I = \mathbf{F}_N
\end{align}
where the indices I and N refer to the intermolecular and network resistance branches, respectively. The total Cauchy stress tensor $\mathbf{T}$ can therefore be written as the sum of the two contributions $\mathbf{T}_I$ and $\mathbf{T}_N$:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{T} = \mathbf{T}_I + \mathbf{T}_N
\end{align}
Next, we present details on the kinematic configuration as well as the developed constitutive framework considering photo-oxidation effects.
\begin{figure*}[h!bt]
\centering
\subfloat[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Semi-crytalline.PNG}
\label{SM}
}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Reological_Model_v2.PNG}
\label{RM}
}
\caption{a) Schematic representation of a semi-crystalline polymer consisting of two contributing regions: an amorphous region characterized by the coil-like random arrangement, and a crystalline region characterized by the structured, orderly geometric alignment. b) Rheological representation of the constitutive theory of \cite{boyce2000constitutive} highlighting the contribution from the intermolecular resistance (\textit{i.e.}, branch I) and molecular network resistance (\textit{i.e.}, branch N). The elasto-viscoplastic parameters are shown attached to each corresponding element. The effects of both the amorphous as well as the the crystalline regions on the mechanical resistance to deformation is captured implicitly via the elastic modulus $E$. The total deformation gradient $\mathbf{F}$ is applied to both branches. }
\label{fig: Boyce-Socrate-Llana}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Kinematics}
Both branches involve springs that are attached in series to dashpots. Therefore, the deformation gradients corresponding to each branch can be decomposed multiplicatively into elastic and plastic components as follows \citep{lee1969elastic}:
\begin{align} \label{lee decomp}
\mathbf{F}_I = \mathbf{F}^e_I \mathbf{F}^p_I
\quad\text{and}\quad
\mathbf{F}_N = \mathbf{F}^e_N \mathbf{F}^p_N
\end{align}
where the superscripts $e$ and $p$ refer to the elastic and plastic parts, respectively.
The plastic deformation gradients $\mathbf{F}^p_I$ and $\mathbf{F}^p_N$ can be obtained as follows:
\begin{align} \label{dot FIp}
\dot{\mathbf{F}}_I^p = {\mathbf{F}_I^e}^{-1} \mathbf{D}_I^p
\mathbf{F}_I^e \mathbf{F}_I^p
\quad\text{and}\quad
\dot{\mathbf{F}}_N^p = {\mathbf{F}_N^e}^{-1} \mathbf{D}_N^p
\mathbf{F}_N^e \mathbf{F}_N^p
\end{align}
in which the rates of inelastic deformation $\mathbf{D}_I^p$ and $\mathbf{D}_N^p$ must be described. The dot expression denotes the time derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial t} (\cdot)$. The elastic deformation gradients $\mathbf{F}_I^e$ and $\mathbf{F}_N^e$ are obtained using Equations~\ref{lee decomp}. The derivations leading to Equations~\ref{dot FIp} are provided in Appendix A.
\subsection{Intermolecular contribution}
In this section, we explain the governing visco-elastoplastic equations corresponding to the intermolecular resistance branch.
The intermolecular resistance is represented by a linear spring in series with a nonlinear dashpot. The intermolecular Cauchy stress $\mathbf{T}_I$ is expressed in terms of the Hencky strain ln$(\mathbf{V}_I^e)$ as:
\begin{align} \label{eq: intermolecular Cauchy Stress}
\mathbf{T}_I = \frac{1}{J_I^e} \mathbf{C}_I^e \text{ln}(\mathbf{V}_I^e)
\end{align}
where $J_\text{I}^e = \text{det} \mathbf{F}_I^e$ and $\mathbf{C}_I^e$ is the isotropic fourth-order elastic stiffness tensor expressed as:
\begin{align} \label{eq: fourth-order elastic stiffness tensor}
\mathbf{C}_I^e = \Big (\frac{E}{1+\nu} \Big) \mathbf{\mathbb{I}} + \Big (\frac{E \nu}{(\nu + 1)(2\nu -1 )} \Big) \mathbf{\mathcal{I}} \otimes \mathbf{\mathcal{I}}
\end{align}
where $E$ is the Young's modulus, $\nu$ is the Poisson's ratio, and $\mathbf{\mathbb{I}}$ and $\mathbf{\mathcal{I}}$ are the fourth- and second-order identity tensors, respectively. The symbol $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product operation.
The viscoplastic strain rate tensor $\mathbf{D}^p_I$ is expressed by the following flow rule:
\begin{align} \label{eq: viscoplastic flow rule}
\mathbf{D}^p_I = \dot\gamma^p_I \frac{\textbf{DEV}(\mathbf{T}_I)}{\sqrt{2}\tau_I}
\end{align}
where $\textbf{DEV}(\mathbf{T}_I) = \mathbf{T}_I - \frac{tr(\mathbf{T}_I)}{3} \mathbf{\mathcal{I}} $ is the deviatoric part of $\mathbf{T}_I$, $\tau_I = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ||\textbf{DEV}(\mathbf{T}_I)||$
is the effective shear stress written in terms of the Frobenius norm $||\textbf{DEV}(\mathbf{T}_I)||$ of the deviatoric part of $\mathbf{T}_I$, and $\dot\gamma^P_I$ is the viscoplastic shear strain rate given by the following expression:
\begin{align} \label{eq: viscoplastic shear strain}
\dot\gamma^p_I = \dot\gamma_0 exp\Big[-\frac{\Delta G_a}{K_B\Theta}\bigg(1-\frac{\tau_I}{s}\Big)\bigg]
\end{align}
where $\dot\gamma_0$, $\Delta G_a$, $s$, $K_B$, and $\Theta$ are the pre-exponential factor, the activation energy, the athermal shear strength, the Boltzmann constant, and the absolute temperature, respectively.
\subsection{Network contribution}
In this section, we explain the governing visco-hyper-elastoplastic equations corresponding to the molecular network resistance branch N. The molecular network resistance is represented by a nonlinear spring in series with a nonlinear dashpot.
The molecular network part of the Cauchy stress $\mathbf{T}_N$ is expressed as a function of the elastic deformation gradient $\mathbf{F}_N^e$ using a non-Gaussian statistical framework involving the inverse of the Langevin function $\mathcal{L}^{-1}$ \citep{arruda1993three}:
\begin{align} \label{eq: Arruda-Boyce stress tensor}
\mathbf{T}_N = \frac{1}{J^e_N} \mu \frac{\sqrt{N_k}}{\bar \lambda^e_N} \mathcal{L}^{-1}\bigg(\frac{\bar\lambda^e_N}{\sqrt{N_k}}\bigg) \Big[ \mathbf{\bar B}_N^e - (\bar\lambda^e_N)^2 \mathbf{\mathcal{I}} \Big]
\end{align}
where $\mu = n K_B \Theta$ is the rubber modulus given as a function of $n$ the number of chains per unit volume, $N_k$ is the number of Kuhn monomers per chain, $\mathcal{L}(\cdot) = \text{coth}(\cdot) - \frac{1}{(\cdot)}$ is the Langevin function whose inverse is given by $\mathcal{L}^{-1}(x) = x \bigg( \frac{3-x^2}{1-x^2} \bigg)$ \citep{cohen1991pade}, and $\bar\lambda^e_N = \sqrt{\frac{\bar I_1}{3}}$ is the effective macro-stretch written as a function of the first invariant $\bar I_1=tr(\mathbf{\bar B}^e_N)$ of the elastic isochoric left Cauchy-Green deformation tensor $\mathbf{\bar B}^e_N = (J^e_N)^{-2/3}\mathbf{F}^e_N{\mathbf{F}^e_N}^T$.
The flow strain rate tensor $\mathbf{D}^p_N$ is expressed by the following flow rule:
\begin{align} \label{eq: flow strain rate}
\mathbf{D}^p_N = \dot\gamma^p_N \bigg (\frac{\textbf{DEV}(\mathbf{T}_N)}{\sqrt{2}\tau_N} \bigg)
\end{align}
where $\textbf{DEV}(\mathbf{T}_N) = \mathbf{T}_N - \frac{tr(\mathbf{T}_N)}{3} \mathbf{\mathcal{I}} $ is the deviatoric part of $\mathbf{T}_N$, $\tau_N = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ||\textbf{DEV}(\mathbf{T}_N)||$
is the effective shear stress, and $\dot\gamma^p_N$ is the flow shear strain rate given by the following expression:
\begin{align} \label{eq: flow shear strain rate}
\dot\gamma^p_N = C \bigg( \frac{\tau_N}{\lambda^p_N - 1} \bigg)
\end{align}
in which the parameter $C$ is included to account for temperature-dependency of relaxation and $\lambda^p_N = [tr(\mathbf{B}_N^p)/3]^{1/2}$, where $\mathbf{B}_N^p = \mathbf{F}_N^p{\mathbf{F}^p_N}^T$. Note that Equation~\ref{eq: flow shear strain rate} is unstable for $\lambda^p_N = 1$; therefore, to ensure numerical stability, a perturbation coefficient equal to $10^{-6}$ is added to $\lambda^p_N$ in all of our simulations.
\subsection{Photo-oxidation contribution} \label{photo_kinetics}
Photo-oxidation induces alterations to the mechanical properties of semi-crystalline polymers. Upon exposure to UV light, semi-crystalline polymers undergo an initial period of chain-scission in which long molecular chains in the amorphous phase break causing a decrease in the average molar mass. As a result, segments of entangled chains in the amorphous region are released, and with enough mobility, free segments can rearrange into a crystalline region \citep{rabello1997crystallization}. With increased crystallinity, the inter-lamellar spacing decreases and embrittlement takes place \citep{fayolle2008degradation}. This process is known as chemi-crystallization and is illustrated schematically in Figure~\ref{degradation_mechanism}.
During photo-oxidation, thickness of the primary crystalline region remains unchanged ($ l^c_0 \approx l^{c1}_{aged}$); however, thickness of the amorphous domain decreases ($ l^a_{aged} < l^a_0$) and free segments begin to re-crystallize within a newly formed crystalline domain of thickness $l^{c2}_{aged}$ \citep{rodriguez2020effect}. In other words, the amorphous region shrinks at the expense of the crystalline phase that gains further structuring ($ l^c_0 < l^{c1}_{aged} + l^{c2}_{aged} $). Note that we keep the distinction between primary and secondary crystallites out of discussion since such distinction is irrelevant from the perspective of the behavior of the material where crystallinity is expected to increase regardless of which label is most appropriate.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{degradation_mechanism_v3.PNG}
\caption{Schematic representation of chemi-crystallization due to photo-oxidation. Upon exposure to UV light, the molecular chains in the amorphous region break and degrade causing the formation of additional crystals within the amorphous domain. Thickness of the primary crystalline region remains unchanged but the thickness of the amorphous domain decreases, thus allowing free segments to re-crystallize within a newly formed crystalline domain. In other words, the amorphous region shrinks ($ l^a_{aged} < l^a_0$) on the expense of the crystalline phase that gains further structuring ($ l^c_0 < l^{c1}_{aged} + l^{c2}_{aged} $).
}
\label{degradation_mechanism}
\end{figure*}
On the one hand, chemi-crystallization is indicative of a stiffening and a strengthening behavior probing intermolecular interactions. In fact, increase in crystallinity (and consequent shrinkage of the amorphous domain) as shown in Figure~\ref{degradation_mechanism} suggests that an increased stiffness is expected. On the other hand, chemi-crystallization also indicates an increase in the flow stress required to overcome intermolecular barriers to deformation. Therefore, it is expected that the material properties involved in the intermolecular resistance branch to change in response to photo-oxidation.
In this section, we aim to conjecture appropriate evolution functions for the material properties corresponding to the intermolecular resistance branch, \textit{i.e.}, the initial stiffness $E$, the athermal shear strength $s$, and the activation energy $\Delta G_a$, based on the chemical understanding presented heretofore.
\textbf{\textit{Remark}}. Recall that the material parameters involved in the constitutive relationships of \cite{boyce2000constitutive} are: for the intermolecular resistance branch, the elastic modulus $E$, the Poisson's ratio $\nu$, the athermal shear strength $s$, the activation energy $\Delta G_a$, and the pre-exponential factor $\dot \gamma_0$, whereas for the network resistance branch, the rubber modulus $\mu$, the number of Kuhn monomers per chain $N_k$, and the constant accounting for temperature-dependency of relaxation $C$. The parameters $\nu$, $\dot \gamma_0$, and $C$ are assumed constant in this work. The reason for this assumption is provided as follows. Since LDPE films are tested above their glass transition temperature, we assign the value $0.49$ to the Poisson's ratio $\nu$. Additionally, at room temperature -- which is where accelerated photo-oxidation aging is performed in this study -- the temperature-dependent relaxation parameter $C$ is assigned the value $8 \times 10^{-8}$ $\text{MPa}^{-1}$ \citep{boyce2000constitutive}. Finally, the pre-exponential factor $\dot\gamma_0$ is assigned the value $1.75\times10^6$ $\text{s}^{-1}$ \citep{boyce2000constitutive}. On the other hand, the rubber modulus $\mu$ and the number of monomers per chain $N_k$ are assumed to have minor effects on the response of LDPE to photo-oxidation, especially at long aging times. In fact,
as the material becomes highly crystalline, it also becomes brittle and fracture occurs prematurely when mechanical load is applied (\textit{i.e.}, at lower strain levels). The increase in crystallinity and subsequently the premature fracture of LDPE at long aging times means that the resistance to deformation at long aging times can be captured simply by the intermolecular branch responsible for the elasto-plastic behavior. Therefore, from a mathematical standpoint, the material properties corresponding to the network resistance branch (\textit{i.e.}, the rubber modulus $\mu$ and the number of Kuhn monomers per chain $N_k$) -- which govern the large-strain deformation behavior, are no longer necessary. Instead, at long exposure times, the material is highly brittle and the mechanical response can be captured elasto-plastically (\textit{i.e.}, using only the intermolecular branch contribution).
In order to conjecture appropriate chemistry-based evolution expressions for the material properties, we first recognize that photo-oxidation effects are mostly surface effects \citep{suresh2011mechanical,shlyapintokh1983synergistic,yousif2013photodegradation}. Photo-oxidation causes carbonyl groups to form on the surface of polyethylene and increases hydrophilicity, which then leads to embrittlement \citep{suresh2011mechanical}. As a result, photo-oxidation-induced damage concentrates on the surface of the material. Taking these considerations into account, we propose to employ the minute mass ratio, utilizing a surface-sensitive technique, as the characteristic degradation indicator to photo-oxidation in LDPE. Additionally, as mentioned in the earlier discussion, changes in the molecular-surface interactions as well as the crystallinity probe the evolution of the initial stiffness in response to photo-oxidation. Therefore, we posit that the evolution of the Young's modulus where the material is degraded be expressed as follows:
\begin{align} \label{eq: evolution of E}
E(t) = E_{0} \bigg(\frac{\zeta(t)}{\zeta_{0}}\bigg) \omega(t)^{-1}
\end{align}
where $E_{0}$ is the Young's modulus at the initial pristine configuration, $\zeta_{0}$ and $\zeta(t)$ are the crystallinities at the initial (unaged) and current (aged for some aging time, t) configurations, respectively, and $\omega(t)$ is the degradation indicator defined as minute mass ratio between the current and initial aging states (\textit{i.e.}, $\omega(t)=m(t)/m(0)$ where $m(0)$ and $m(t)$ are the polymer masses at UV exposure duration of 0 and t, respectively).
Equation~\ref{eq: evolution of E} captures two principles. First, the initial stiffness depends on the evolution of the crystallinity. In fact, not only does this dependence capture the increase in the initial modulus, but even situations for which the initial stiffness decreases or remains constant can be well captured. Indeed, the crystallinity can follow any type of evolution depending on the chemical mechanism at hand. The stiffness will then follow a similar evolution (with mass loss held fixed) due to the linear proportionality of Equation~\ref{eq: evolution of E}. Second, the effect of mass degeneration on the stiffness is taken into account through an inverse proportionality. This inverse dependence can be justified as follows. First, as previously mentioned in the manuscript, photo-oxidation effects occur predominantly in the amorphous region of semi-crystalline polymers. Therefore, any changes in the polymer's mass would suggest that the amorphous phase is perturbed on the expense of the crystalline region (see Figure~\ref{degradation_mechanism}). Additionally, one could appreciate the parallelism between Equation~\ref{eq: evolution of E} and the relationship for elastomers relating the crosslink density, $\rho$, and the molar mass between two crosslinks, $M_c$, through $\rho \propto \frac{1}{M_c}$. It suffices to mention that the crosslink density in elastomers is proportional to stiffness to deduce the inverse proportionality between molar mass and stiffness.
In Equation~\ref{eq: evolution of E}, aside from $E_{0}$ which can be obtained directly from a mechanical tensile test on an unaged sample, the evolution of the Young's modulus is given entirely as a function of variables that can be experimentally determined through appropriate chemical characterization tests -- in this case, DSC to obtain the crystallinity $\zeta$ and the surface-sensitive technique QCM-D to obtain the degradation parameter $\omega$. Therefore, no additional fitting variables are required, making Equation~\ref{eq: evolution of E} purely physio-chemically motivated. Therefore, in defining Equation~\ref{eq: evolution of E}, we have imparted actual physical meaning to the micromechanical changes of the polymer instead of simply assuming the usual empirical approach that results in numerous extra fitting parameters bearing no actual physical meaning.
The effect of photo-oxidation on the evolution of the remaining physical variables on the intermolecular branch of Figure~\ref{RM} (\textit{i.e.}, the athermal shear strength $s$ and the activation energy $\Delta G_a$ in Equation~\ref{eq: viscoplastic shear strain}) is accounted for by describing appropriate evolution functions in terms of the degradation indicator $\omega(t)$. In particular, the evolution of the athermal shear strength $s$ is defined as follows:
\begin{align} \label{eq: evolution of s}
s(t) = s_{0} \omega(t)^{-1}
\end{align}
where $s_0$ and $s(t)$ are the athermal shear strengths corresponding to the unaged and aged states, respectively. Again, the inverse proportionality is justified using the same argument as the one given for the Young's modulus. Furthermore, assuming that the ratio $\frac{\Delta G_a}{s}$ remains constant \citep{belbachir2010modelling}, the evolution of the activation energy can be expressed as follows:
\begin{align} \label{eq: evolution of delG}
\Delta G_a(t) = \Delta G_{a0} \bigg(\frac{s(t)}{s_{0}} \bigg)
\end{align}
where $\Delta G_{a0}$ is the activation energy corresponding to the initial unaged state.
Having identified the responsible mechanisms for degradation and conjectured appropriate physio-chemically based evolution functions for the material properties, in section~\ref{material_charac}, we present the chemical characterization techniques that have been designed to measure the crystallinity and the minute mass ratio needed in the evolution equations~\ref{eq: evolution of E}, ~\ref{eq: evolution of s}, and ~\ref{eq: evolution of delG}.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Graph2.jpg}
\caption{Evolution of the swelling ratio as a function of aging time.}
\label{Graph2}
\end{figure*}
\end{comment}
\section{Material Characterization} \label{material_charac}
In this section, information pertaining to the experimental techniques is summarized. Specific details regarding the LDPE material, the UV aging procedure for which the LDPE films were subjected to, and the experimental test measurements (\textit{i.e.}, DSC, QCM-D, and quasi-static tensile tests) are presented. Interpretation of the experimental results is provided in section~\ref{exp_results_interpretation}.
\subsection{Material}
LDPE pellets were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and used as received. The density of the virgin LDPE is 0.93 $g/cm^2$ and the melting point is $\SI{116} {\celsius}$. LDPE films were prepared from thermopressing at $\SI{180} {\celsius}$ with loading of 8 $tons$ during 2 $min$. The resulting films were cooled in air from $\SI{180} {\celsius}$ to room temperature and were subsequently thermally annealed at $\SI{110} {\celsius}$ for 1 $h$. The resulting polymer films had thicknesses ranging between 30 and 80 $\mu m$. This range of thickness was intentionally selected to allow for homogeneous oxidation and prevent diffusion-limited-oxidation (DLO) conditions \citep{ayoub2020modeling,tavares2003effect,tireau2009environmental,hsueh2020micro}.
\subsection{UV aging} \label{aging_procedure}
Polymer films were aged under a 250 $W$ UV lamp at a wavelength of 254 $nm$ (Rayonet with a maximum UV dose of 125 $kW/m^2$) to simulate and accelerate the LDPE photo-oxidation in air at room temperature ($\SI{25} {\celsius}$). Subsequently, the LDPE coated QCM-D sensors were aged in the UV chamber for varying aging times (\textit{i.e.}, 0, 24, 48, 72, and 112 $h$). It is worth comparing the above UV dose to solar radiation which has a UV intensity of approximately 100-200 $W/m^2$ , the maximum aging time chosen in this work (112 $h$) corresponds to 432 days of solar radiation.
\subsection{Differential Scanning Calorimetry}
DSC was performed between 40 and $\SI{200} {\celsius}$ at a heating rate of $\SI{30} {\celsius}/min$ under a Nitrogen stream of 50 $mL/min$ on a Discovery DSC2500 (TA Instruments). The DSC was calibrated using indium (melting point (m.p.) = $\SI{156.60} {\celsius}$) and zinc (m.p. = $\SI{419.47} {\celsius}$) standards. The crystallinity of LDPE was calculated using melting enthalpy divided by 293 $J/g$ for 100\% crystalline material. DSC characterization on films with thicknesses smaller than 1 $\mu m$ is difficult due to the low sensitivity of common DSC at low sample mass. Therefore, crystallinity was measured for bulk samples (\textit{i.e.}, samples with thicknesses ranging between 30 and 80 $\mu m$). This range of thickness is larger than the threshold limit for which thickness effects on crystallinity measurement become significant, \textit{i.e.}, between 300 $nm$ and 1000 $nm$ \citep{wang2004crystallization}.
\subsection{Quartz Crystal Microbalance with Dissipation Monitoring}
QCM-D is a mass measurement technique that is highly surface sensitive and is mostly employed to measure the mass of layers in the nanometer thickness range. In this study, QCM-D was utilized to measure the minute mass ratio between the aged and unaged films. To investigate the effect of film thickness on the mass loss, three varying thicknesses (three parallel samples each) were prepared (\textit{i.e.}, 146, 158, and 200 $nm$) by spincoating directly on the QCM-D sensor plate. The film thicknesses were determined based on the film mass and density. The film thickness was controlled by changing the spin speed during spincoating a xylene solution of LDPE (6 wt.\%). During spin-coating, the QCM-D plate and LDPE solution were heated with an IR lamp to prevent precipitation. Polymer coated plates were then thermally annealed under vacuum at the same conditions as bulk films before aging experiments and QCM-D measurements were performed. After UV aging, the LDPE coated QCM-D plates were rinsed with deionized water at room temperature to dissolve the polymer fragments. The water on the sample was carefully wiped off and samples were subsequently dried with nitrogen flow (50 $mL/s$). Any residual moisture was removed under vacuum at room temperature ($\SI{25} {\celsius}$) for 12 $h$. The resonance frequency of the samples was then directly measured and converted into mass using Sauerbrey equation \citep{sauerbrey1959verwendung}.
\subsection{Mechanical testing}
Specimens of as-received and aged LDPE films were cut out into dogbones and tensile tests were conducted to determine their stress-strain response before and after aging (following ASTM-D-638 standard). To subject the specimens to quasi-static loading, samples were stretched in tensile mode up to rupture at a constant strain rate of 0.004 $s^{-1}$. At least three sample tests were performed for a given exposure time to minimize uncertainty in the observed behavior.
\section{Results and Discussion} \label{results}
\subsection{Interpretation of the experimental test results} \label{exp_results_interpretation}
\subsubsection{DSC} \label{DSC discussion}
Figure~\ref{fig: crystal vs aging time} presents the evolution of the crystallinity during photo-oxidation obtained based on DSC. Under the applied aging scenarios, the degree to which the crystalline part of the material gains further chain-ordering increased linearly with aging time. In fact, after just 48 $h$ of photo-oxidation, the crystallinity increased from an initial value of approximately 43\% to 46\%, totaling nearly a 7\% difference. At the end of 112 $h$, the crystallinity reached a value of nearly 52\%, which corresponds to a percent difference of about 19\% from the initial value. The shift in the crystallinity in this work is similar to the work of \cite{rodriguez2020effect} while the percentage difference is higher. The dissimilarity in the percent difference is because the initial crystalline in the work of \cite{rodriguez2020effect} was higher than LDPE here (\textit{i.e.}, 55\% compared to 43\%). This difference of the initial crystallinity can be attributed to the different annealing procedure. Particularly, the material which \cite{rodriguez2020effect} used was initially as crystallinity as our material was after 112 $h$ of UV aging. The difference in initial crystallinity could explain some of the discrepancies in material response behavior observed in our studies. However, it is also worth mentioning that in the work of \cite{rodriguez2020effect}, the aging experiments were performed with a radiance of 1.55 $W/m^2$ compared to 125 $kW/m^2$ in our work. This means that at the end of 250 $h$ of UV aging, their samples were subjected to a total of 1.4 $MJ/m^2$ of UV radiation compared to 50 $GJ/m^2$ in our work for a duration of 112 $h$. Clearly, the extent of crystallinity change is heavily dependent on the initial composition of the material as well as exposure intensity.
\begin{figure*}[h!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Crystallinity.pdf}
\caption {Evolution of crystallinity as a function of photo-oxidation aging time obtained from the DSC test.}
\label{fig: crystal vs aging time}
\end{figure*}
The increase in crystallinity in this study contributes to a further stiffening in the material upon photo-oxidation. Whether the newly created crystallites are primary or secondary however, cannot be determined simply using Figure~\ref{fig: crystal vs aging time}. To this end, Figure~\ref{fig:heatflow} illustrates the heating thermograms of LDPE for varying photo-oxidation aging times. It can be seen that additional endothermic shoulders appeared below the melting temperature (\textit{i.e.}, $ \sim \SI{105}<\SI{125} {\celsius}$ ). However, this temperature is higher than the exposure temperature ($\SI{25} {\celsius}$). Therefore, these findings may indicate that the newly formed crystallites are secondary. However, as explained earlier in the manuscript, identifying the nature of these crystallites is not as important as recognizing that the crystallinity is inevitably expanded, and as a result, stiffness and ultimately embrittlement are significantly amplified.
\begin{figure*}[h!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{HeatFlow.png}
\caption {DSC thermograms of LDPE after varying photo-oxidation aging times.}
\label{fig:heatflow}
\end{figure*}
While it is clear that the extent of crystallization increases linearly with aging time, it is expected, however, that the increase in crystallinity would reach a steady state some time later on in the aging process, in which case the stiffness would also reach a saturation state \citep{bhateja1983radiation}. Therefore, to account for this apparent linear dependency between the change in crystallinity and its effect on stiffness, a linear proportionality seems to be the right fit. Any changes in the crystallinity and its influence on stiffness (\textit{i.e.}, increase, constancy, or even decrease) would be appropriately captured by a linear proportionality between the initial elastic modulus and the evolution in crystallinity.
\subsubsection{QCM-D} \label{QCMD discussion}
Figure~\ref{fig: massloss} illustrates the evolution of the minute mass ratio with respect to aging time measured by the QCM-D for three different LDPE film thicknesses. The 200-$nm$-thick film experienced a nearly 5\% weight loss after 120 $h$ of UV aging. On the other hand, the two remaining thinner films experienced more weight loss under the same aging duration (\textit{i.e.}, up to 15\% for the 146-$nm$-thick film). Nevertheless, given that the LDPE coated QCM-D plates were rinsed with deinonized water, a 5\% mass loss at 112 $h$ of UV aging with a dose rate equal to 125 $kW/m^2$ is remarkable.
Indeed, microplastics are found in exuberant amounts largely due to plastic-fragmentation caused by the exposure of plastics to environmental perturbations such as UV radiation.
\begin{figure*}[h!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{MassLoss.pdf}
\caption {Evolution of the minute mass ratio between the aged and unaged samples as a function of photo-oxidation aging time obtained from the QCM-D test. The minute mass ratio is presented for three film thicknesses; 200~$nm$, 158~$nm$, and 146~$nm$ represented by circles, hexagons, and squares, respectively.}
\label{fig: massloss}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Mechanical testing}
Tensile stress-strain curves for LDPE were obtained for the aging times considered in this work (\textit{i.e.}, 0, 48, 74, 98, and 112 $h$). At least three replicates were tested for each aging time. The averages amongst each group of replicates were taken and the result were plotted in Figure~\ref{fig: avgEngSS}. It can be seen that both the initial stiffness and the yield stress increased by increasing aging time. On the other hand, the films showed a substantial reduction in ductility. The increase in the initial stiffness and yield stress are indicative of chemi-crystallization and chain crosslinking. The loss of ductility is indicative of a reduction in the molecular weight. The observed effects of photo-oxidation on the mechanical performance of LDPE (\textit{i.e.}, increase in initial stiffness and yield stress and decrease in ductility) are expected and supported by the characterizations of DSC and QCM-D. On the one hand, the expansion of the crystalline domain at the expense of its amorphous counterpart after long aging times explains the enhanced initial stiffness and yield stress. On the other hand, the minute mass loss determined by the QCM-D indicates LDPE degradation during photo-oxidation which reduces chain integrity and compromises the mechanical response, causing a substantial decrease in material ductility over exposure time. Here, it is worth mentioning that although the weight loss in bulk polymer films may not be comparable with that of thin films under the same aging conditions,
the loss of LDPE chain integrity after photo-oxidation is expected be comparable for both thin and bulk polymer films due to the good UV light transmittance in polyethylene at thicknesses lower than 80 $\mu m$.
Therefore, other than the crystallinity change determined by DSC, the reduced ductility after photo-oxidation is also explained by the mass loss monitored by QCM-D .
\begin{figure*}[h!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Avg_EngSS.pdf}
\caption {Average engineering stress-strain curves from each group of at least three replicates corresponding to different photo-oxidation aging times (\textit{i.e.}, 0, 40, 74, 98, and 112 $h$).}
\label{fig: avgEngSS}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Prediction capability of the proposed constitutive framework}
In this section, prediction capability of the proposed constitutive framework is discussed.
The constitutive framework was numerically implemented into a Matlab code for the case of uniaxial tensile loading. The true stress-strain measures were used to describe the deformation behavior of the material.
\begin{figure*}[h!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{UnagedModelExp.pdf}
\caption {True stress-strain curve of unaged LDPE representing the experiment versus numerical response based on the constitutive framework.}
\label{fig: unagedprediction}
\end{figure*}
To begin, the unaged tensile test was used to determine the material properties of the unaged film involved in the constitutive framework (\textit{i.e.}, $E_0$, $s_0$, $\Delta G_{a0}$, $\mu_0$, and $N_{k0}$).
Specifically, the elastic modulus $E_0$ and the rubber modulus $\mu_0$ were determined as the slope of the low-strain and the large-strain regions of the tensile stress-strain curve, respectively. Additionally, the athermal shear strength $s_0$, the activation energy $\Delta G_{a0}$, and the number of Kuhn monomers $N_{k0}$ were determined by fitting the unaged stress-strain curve to the numerical response. An alternative method to obtain $s_0$ and $\Delta G_{a0}$ is through conducting tensile tests at varying strain rates and using equation~\ref{eq: viscoplastic shear strain} to back-calculate the values of the two properties.
Table~\ref{Model parameters} summarizes the obtained unaged material properties and Figure~\ref{fig: unagedprediction} illustrates the comparison between the unaged numerical and experimental true stress-strain responses.
Once the unaged material properties were determined, their evolution according to the proposed evolution functions (\textit{i.e.}, Equations~\ref{eq: evolution of E}, ~\ref{eq: evolution of s}, and ~\ref{eq: evolution of delG}) for any aging time could be readily acquired.
\begin{table}[h!bt]
\centering
\small
\caption{Material properties for the unaged LDPE specimen.}
\label{Model parameters}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
Branch contribution & Parameters & Equation & Values \\ \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{\textbf{Intermolecular resistance}} & Elastic modulus ($MPa$), $E_0$ & \ref{eq: fourth-order elastic stiffness tensor} & 596 \\
{} & Poisson's ratio, $\nu$ & \ref{eq: fourth-order elastic stiffness tensor} & 0.49 \\
{} & Pre-exponential factor ($s^{-1}$), $\dot\gamma_0$ & \ref{eq: viscoplastic shear strain} & $1.75\times 10^6$ \\
{} & Athermal shear strength ($MPa$), $s_0$ & \ref{eq: viscoplastic shear strain} & 155 \\
{} & Activation energy ($J$), $\Delta G_{a0}$ & \ref{eq: viscoplastic shear strain} & $8.5\times 10^{-17}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Network resistance}} & Rubbery modulus ($MPa$), $\mu_0$ & \ref{eq: Arruda-Boyce stress tensor} & 2.3 \\
{} & Number of Kuhn monomers, $N_{k0}$ & \ref{eq: Arruda-Boyce stress tensor} & 100 \\
{} & Relaxation parameter ($MPa^{-1}$), C & \ref{eq: flow shear strain rate} & $8 \times 10^{-8}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Figure~\ref{fig: agedprediction} demonstrates the comparison between the experimental tensile test and the developed constitutive framework for photo-oxidatively aged LDPE under varying exposure times. Particularly, Figure~\ref{fig:all} summarizes the comparison results from all of the considered aging times, while Figures~\ref{fig:40}-\ref{fig:112} focus on the response predictions at each aging time separately to better appreciate the accuracy of predictions. A very good prediction could be obtained for all aging times. Both the initial modulus and the yield stress accurately matched with the experimental results for the varying aging times considered in this study.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!p]
\centering
\subfloat[All aging times]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{AllResponses.pdf}
\label{fig:all}
} \\
\hfil
\subfloat[Aged 40 h]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Aged40ModelExp.pdf}
\label{fig:40}
}%
\hfill%
\subfloat[Aged 74 h]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Aged74ModelExp.pdf}
\label{fig:74}
}%
\vspace*{-1cm}
\hfill%
\subfloat[Aged 98 h]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Aged98ModelExp.pdf}
\label{fig:98}
}%
\hfill%
\subfloat[Aged 112 h]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Aged112ModelExp.pdf}
\label{fig:112}
}%
\caption {Constitutive framework prediction versus experimental results for the varying aging times considered in this work.}
\label{fig: agedprediction}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Discussion}
Physio-chemically-motivated evolution functions based on LDPE film minute mass loss and crystallinity changes are important for accurate prediction of photo-oxidation effects on the mechanical response of LDPE. Obtaining the minute mass loss evolution functions is challenging primarily due to the minor weight loss and negligible mass change for thick polymer films. Therefore, to accurately measure the mass loss during aging, the use of thin films is an inevitable selection. However, when it comes to thin films, the thickness effect on the film behavior is considerable. For instance, the film thickness has an observable effect on the glass transition temperature of polymer when it is around 100~$nm$ due to the increased surface effect of thin films \citep{peter2006thickness}. Therefore, to consider the minor mass loss for thick films and avoid spurious thickness effects for thin films, LDPE films with thickness less than 1 $\mu m$ but greater than 100~$nm$ can be used to amplify the mass loss under the aging conditions and accurately measure the change of mass.
Indeed, an increase in the film thickness in the QCM-D measurement may further improve the accuracy and reliability of result predictions; nonetheless, based on the mass loss evolution of films with thickness equal to 200~$nm$, the proposed constitutive framework already can predict the mechanical responses of photo-oxidatively aged semi-crystalline LDPE very well as it can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig: agedprediction}.
In addition to the minute mass loss, crystallinity behavior also merits careful attention. In particular, the initial crystallinity determined in this work was relatively lower than the one reported by \cite{rodriguez2020effect}. This particular difference in the measured initial crystallinity may have had a significant contribution to the differences observed in the mechanical responses of unaged and aged samples between our study and the work by \cite{rodriguez2020effect}. Indeed, after 112 $h$ of UV radiation with an intensity of 125 $kW/m^2$, our material was just as crystalline as the material used in \cite{rodriguez2020effect} initially was (\textit{i.e.}, before any UV exposure). Therefore, comparison between both of these works should be approached with care to make meaningful conclusions regarding crystallinity change effects on the evolution of LDPE material properties.
The ability of the developed constitutive framework to accurately predict the mechanical test results of aged LDPE independently of any mechanical tests constitutes the important contribution of the proposed framework. Indeed, many, if not all of the existing works use several mechanical tests to fit and obtain fitting parameters that carry no physical meaning within the overall material behavior \citep{ayoub2020modeling,lamnii2021experimental,belbachir2010modelling}. Doing so renders the constitutive approach essentially a fitting algorithm with numerous fitting parameters that applies only to the specific problem for which calibration was performed. In contrast, developing a general framework which is physics- and chemistry-based and is comprehensive in its prediction capability is more reliable. As demonstrated throughout the manuscript, our constitutive framework predicts the responses of aged LDPE without conducting any further fitting to the mechanical test results on aged samples. More so, it can predict the responses of photo-oxidatively aged semi-crystalline polymers with high accuracy. Therefore, the developed physio-chemically-motivated framework is unique and unprecedented.
\section{Concluding remarks} \label{conclusion}
We developed a purely physio-chemically-based constitutive framework to predict the mechanical performance of semi-crystalline LDPE in response to photo-oxidative aging. In contrast to all modeling efforts in the literature, we based the evolution of the macromechanical properties in response to photo-oxidation on the chemically verified processes responsible for material degradation. In doing so, we eliminated the need to employ extra fitting parameters which carry no physical meaning. The framework was based on modifying the constitutive equations of \cite{boyce2000constitutive} to incorporate the effects of crystallinity evolution and minute mass ratio change in modifying the elasto-viscoplastic material properties. The crystallinity change was measured with DSC whereas the minute mass loss was measured with QCM-D. The use of QCM-D as a characterization technique for photo-oxidation investigation was validated through comparison between numerical and experimental tensile test results. Particularly, we showed that the minute mass ratio can be directly related to polymer stiffening and increase in yield stress and conjectured appropriate evolution functions for the material properties probing polymer response to chemical changes. These chemical characterizations (\textit{i.e.}, DSC and QCM-D) determined the changes in the physio-chemical structure of the material and bridged the gap between molecular network evolution and its effect on the overall macroscopic mechanical changes. The developed constitutive framework could predict the mechanical responses of photo-oxidatively aged LDPE independently of mechanical tests on aged specimens with high accuracy. It thus provides a one-to-one mapping between chemistry-based quantities (\textit{i.e.}, crystallinity and minute mass ratio) and physics-based macroscopic variables (\textit{i.e.}, elasto-viscoplastic mechanical properties of the material).
A possible future investigation is to implement the developed three-dimensional constitutive framework into a finite element software that allows for various additional considerations (\textit{e.g.}, more complex load states, coupled chemo-mechanical diffusion problem, etc). This can be realized through the incorporation of kinetics equations based on the chemical characterizations presented in this work (\textit{i.e.}, crystallinity change and evolution of mass loss) coupled with a diffusion-deformation problem. Another possible future study is to incorporate damage into the developed constitutive framework to capture photo-oxidation-induced failure of aged polymers.
Consideration of such important developments is particularly essential in ensuring durable polymer design and active environment protection and is the topic of future work by the authors.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the National Science Foundation under the award number CMMI-1914565.
\section*{Appendix. A} \label{appendix}
The determinant of the total deformation gradient $\mathbf{F}$, det$\mathbf{F}$, can be multiplicatively decomposed into elastic and plastic components as det $\mathbf{F}=J^e J^p > 1$, in which we define $J^e = $ det$\mathbf{F}^e$ and $J^p = $ det$\mathbf{F}^p$. Assuming that plastic flow is volume preserving (\textit{i.e.}, incompressible), we write $J^p =$ det$\mathbf{F}^p = 1$. Note that the decomposition used in Equations~\ref{lee decomp} indicates that there exists an intermediate configuration (\textit{i.e.}, a relaxed configuration) between the undeformed and the current configurations. The relaxed configuration is assumed to be obtained from the current configuration by unloading through the inverse of the elastic part of the deformation gradients.
Additionally, we can use the polar decomposition of the deformation gradients Equations~\ref{lee decomp} and write \citep{gurtin2005decomposition}:
\begin{align} \label{polar decomp I}
\mathbf{F}_I = \mathbf{V}_I^e \mathbf{R}_I^e \mathbf{V}_I^p \mathbf{R}_I^p
\end{align}
\begin{align} \label{polar decomp N}
\mathbf{F}_N = \mathbf{V}_N^e \mathbf{R}_N^e \mathbf{V}_N^p \mathbf{R}_N^p
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ refer to the stretch (symmetric) and rotation (orthogonal) parts of the corresponding deformation gradient, respectively.
The velocity gradients $\mathbf{L}_I = \dot{\mathbf{F}}_I {\mathbf{F}}_I^{-1}$ for branch I and $\mathbf{L}_N = \dot{\mathbf{F}}_N {\mathbf{F}}_N^{-1}$ for branch N can be computed as follows:
\begin{align} \label{vel gradient I}
\mathbf{L}_I = \dot{\mathbf{F}}_I {\mathbf{F}}_I^{-1} = \dot{\mathbf{F}}_I^e {\mathbf{F}_I^e}^{-1} + \mathbf{F}_I^e \dot{\mathbf{F}}_I^p {\mathbf{F}_I^p}^{-1}{\mathbf{F}_I^e}^{-1} = \mathbf{L}_I^e + \mathbf{L}_I^p
\end{align}
\begin{align} \label{vel gradient N}
\mathbf{L}_N = \dot{\mathbf{F}}_N {\mathbf{F}}_N^{-1} = \dot{\mathbf{F}}_N^e {\mathbf{F}_N^e}^{-1} + \mathbf{F}_N^e \dot{\mathbf{F}}_N^p {\mathbf{F}_N^p}^{-1}{\mathbf{F}_N^e}^{-1} = \mathbf{L}_N^e + \mathbf{L}_N^p
\end{align}
The plastic components of the velocity gradients $\mathbf{L}_I^p = \mathbf{F}_I^e \dot{\mathbf{F}}_I^p {\mathbf{F}_I^p}^{-1}{\mathbf{F}_I^e}^{-1} $ and $\mathbf{L}_N^p = \mathbf{F}_N^e \dot{\mathbf{F}}_N^p {\mathbf{F}_N^p}^{-1}{\mathbf{F}_N^e}^{-1}$ can also further be decomposed into their symmetric and skew parts as follows:
\begin{align} \label{sym I}
\mathbf{L}_I^p = \mathbf{D}_I^p + \mathbf{W}_I^p
\end{align}
\begin{align} \label{sym N}
\mathbf{L}_N^p = \mathbf{D}_N^p + \mathbf{W}_N^p
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{D}_I^p$ and $\mathbf{D}_N^p$ are the rates of inelastic deformation, and $\mathbf{W}_I^p$ and $\mathbf{W}_N^p$ are the inelastic spins which are assumed, without loss of generality, to be equal to zero (\textit{i.e.}, irrotational).
\begin{comment}
For isothermal conditions, the global dissipation inequality (Clausius-Duhem inequality) can be mathematically expressed as follows \citep{gurtin2005decomposition}:
\begin{align} \label{eq: global dissipation}
- \frac{D}{Dt} \int_\mathcal{B} \Psi dv = - \int_\mathcal{B} J^{-1} \dot{\bar{\Psi}} dv > \int_\mathcal{B} \mathbf{}{\sigma} \vdots \mathbf{L} dv
\end{align}
where $\Psi$ and $\bar{Psi}$ denote the Helmholtz free energy per unit volume associated with the current $\mathcal{B}$ and relaxed $\bar{\mathcal{B}}$ configurations, respectively.
Assuming that the specific internal energy and entropy of the oxygen inside the solid medium are negligible, the second law of thermodynamics in the form of the Clausius–Duhem inequality for a solid medium can be presented as
\begin{align} \label{eq:CD}
\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{S} \cdot \dot{{\mathbf{C}}} - \rho \dot \Psi - \rho \dot T Z - \frac{\mathbf{Q} \cdot \nabla T}{T} \geq 0
\end{align}
where ${\mathbf{C}}$ is the right Cauchy-Green strain tensor, $\mathbf{S}$ is the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor, $\rho$ is the density, $\Psi$ is the specific Helmholtz free energy, $Z$ is the the specific entropy, $T$ is temperature, and $\mathbf{Q}$ is Lagrangian heat flux. If we assume that the Helmholtz free energy is a function of the right Cauchy-Green strain tensor and the temperature of the medium, \textit{i.e.}, $\Psi = \Psi \left( { {\mathbf{C}}}, T \right) $, and using the chain rule to take the derivative of the Helmholtz free energy and substitute it in Eq. (\ref{eq:CD}), the Clausius–Duham inequality becomes
\begin{align} \label{eq: Helmholtz in CD-0}
\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{S} - \rho \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial \mathbf{C} } \right) \cdot \dot{\mathbf{C}} - \rho \left( \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial T} + Z \right) \dot T - \frac{\mathbf{Q} \cdot \nabla T}{T} \geq 0
\end{align}
It is known that since the positivity of energy dissipation must hold for all processes, we can get
\begin{align} \label{eq: Helmholtz in CD}
\mathbf{S} = 2\rho \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial {\mathbf{C}} }, \quad \text{and} \quad Z= -\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial T}
\end{align}
\end{comment}
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\vspace{-0.15cm}
This work was supported in part by the Innovation and Technology Fund (ITF) under Grant No. MRP/022/20X, Innovation and Technology Commission, Hong Kong S.A.R.
\input{arxiv.bbl}
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
}
\pagebreak
\twocolumn[{
\renewcommand\twocolumn[1][]{#1}
\begin{center}
\textbf{\Large Supplementary Material:\\Learning Skeletal Graph Neural Networks for Hard 3D Pose Estimation}\end{center}
}]
\vspace{10pt}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\setcounter{table}{0}
\setcounter{section}{0}
\setcounter{page}{0}
This supplementary material presents more experimental details, including data pre-processing, implementation details, additional experimental results, and ablation studies.
\section{3D Human Pose Estimation}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
In this section, we demonstrate more detailed results on 3D human pose estimation. Sec.~\ref{sec:hm_imp} gives more details on experiment settings. Second, Sec.~\ref{sec:hard_model} analyzes features of hard poses in this task. Third, Sec.~\ref{sec:hm_pa} compares existing methods by the metric of PA-MPJPE.
Finally, Sec.~\ref{sec:hm_ab} shows the ablation study of only using a dynamic graph with HCSF module.
\subsection{Dataset and Implementation Details}
\label{sec:hm_imp}
\subsubsection{Dataset Pre-processing}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We follow our baseline~\cite{ci2019optimizing} to transform the 3D joint position under the camera coordinate system into the pixel coordinate system to remove the influence of pose scales for the single-view pose estimation. Following previous works~\cite{pavllo20193d,ci2019optimizing,zeng2020srnet}, we normalize 2D input poses in the range of [-1, 1] according to the width and height of images. The furthest hop is $6$ in our pre-defined topology. Meanwhile, we set the entry values of the adjacency matrix to be ones if two nodes are physically connected and zero if not.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsubsection{Training Details}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We build a six-layer network as the basic setting, including the first layer, two cascaded blocks, and the last layer. For a single-frame setting, each cascaded block consists of two HCSF layers followed by BN, LeakyReLU (alpha is $0.2$), and dropout (random drop probability is $0.25$). Besides, each block is wrapped with a residual connection, as shown in Fig.$3$ in the main paper. The channel size of each layer we report in the final result is $128$. In the ablation study, we set all output channels as $64$ for each node. The above framework is a common structure that is also used in those works~\cite{martinez2017simple,pavllo20193d,ci2019optimizing,zhao2019semantic,zeng2020srnet}. For temporal settings, each cascaded block consists of one HCSF layer and one TCN layer. The fusion functions $\cF_k$ and $\cF_a$ are concatenation operators by default, which can also be addition, multiplication. L1 regression loss is used between the ground truth and outputs. Moreover, we train our model for $80$ epochs using Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} optimizer. The initial learning rate is set as $0.001$, and the exponential decay rate is $0.95$. The mini-batch size is $256$. For data augmentation, we follow~\cite{pavllo20193d,ci2019optimizing,zhao2019semantic,zeng2020srnet} and use horizontal flip data augmentation at both training and test stages. Then, we evaluate our method with standard protocol following ~\cite{ci2019optimizing,zhao2019semantic,zeng2020srnet,pavllo20193d}.
\subsection{Further Analysis on Model-Specific Hard Poses}
\label{sec:hard_model}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We define \emph{high-error poses} as hard poses in the 2D-3D pose regression task. After analyzing the error distribution of hard poses in recent works~\cite{martinez2017simple,zhao2019semantic,ci2019optimizing,zeng2020srnet}, we could conclude they are model-specific. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hard_result}, we illustrate the comparison of the ($50\%\sim5\%$) hardest poses from each method. For example, Fig.~\ref{fig:hard_result}(a) shows the ($50\%\sim5\%$) hardest poses from the fully connected network~\cite{martinez2017simple}, and we compare the results with the other four methods under the same poses.
We can observe: (1) The hardest $10\%$ poses of each method is different, indicating that hard poses are model-specific; (2) as the poses become increasingly difficult, the errors of all methods rise to some extent; (3) our method obtains the best results for the hardest poses of all the other four methods; (4) the error gap in Fig.~\ref{fig:hard_result}(e) is smaller than Fig.~\ref{fig:hard_result}(a$\sim$d).
\begin{figure}[thbp]
\subfigure[The hard poses of FCN~\cite{martinez2017simple}]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/hard_fc.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfigure[The hard poses of SemGCN~\cite{zhao2019semantic}]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/hard_sem.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfigure[The hard poses of LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing}]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/hard_lcn.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfigure[The hard poses of SRNet~\cite{zeng2020srnet}]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/hard_Sr.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfigure[The hard poses of Ours]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/hard_our.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{The comparison of the hard poses in terms of each method.}
\label{fig:hard_result}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison in PA-MPJPE}
\label{sec:hm_pa}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
In Tab.~\ref{tab:human_p2_single}, we compare our methods with other related works using the PA-MPJPE metric where available. We show the results from different 2D inputs, using detected poses or ground truth poses. Our approach achieves the new state-of-the-art with different inputs. Specifically, we surpass ~\cite{zeng2020srnet} from 27.8mm to 24.8mm (relative 10.8\% improvement) with 2D ground truth input. Moreover, we improve upon ~\cite{liu2020comprehensive} from 41.2mm to 39.0mm (relative 5.3\% improvement) with 2D keypoint detection input. Our method can also show the superior in this metric, indicating the effectiveness of this method.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
{\begin{tabular}{ l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c }
\hline
Method & Direct & Discuss & Eat & Greet & Phone& Photo & Pose & Purcha. & Sit & SitD &Smoke &Wait &WalkD&Walk& WalkT & Avg.\\
\hline
Martinez et al.~\cite{martinez2017simple} & 39.5 &43.2& 46.4 &47.0 &51.0 &56.0 &41.4 &40.6& 56.5& 69.4 &49.2 &45.0 &49.5 &38.0 &43.1 &47.7 \\
Fang et al.~\cite{fang2018learning}&38.2 &41.7 &43.7 &44.9 &48.5 &55.3 &40.2 &38.2 &54.5 &64.4 &47.2& 44.3 &47.3 &36.7& 41.7& 45.7\\
Park et al.~\cite{park20183d}&38.3 &42.5& 41.5& 43.3 &47.5& 53.0& 39.3 &37.1& 54.1& 64.3& 46.0& 42.0& 44.8& 34.7& 38.7& 45.0\\
Hossain et al.~\cite{rayat2018exploiting} $\S$ & 35.7 &39.3 &44.6 &43.0 &47.2 &54.0 &38.3& 37.5& 51.6 &61.3 &46.5 &41.4& 47.3 &34.2 &39.4& 44.1\\
Zou et al.~\cite{zou2020high} $\dagger$&38.6 &42.8& 41.8 &43.4 &44.6& 52.9 &37.5 &38.6& 53.3& 60.0& 44.4 &40.9 &46.9 &32.2& 37.9& 43.7\\
Liu et al.~\cite{liu2020learning}$\dagger$ &38.4 &41.1 &40.6& 42.8& 43.5& 51.6 &39.5 &37.6 &49.7& 58.1& 43.2& 39.2& 45.2 &32.8 &38.1 &42.8\\
Ci et al.~\cite{ci2019optimizing}$\dagger$&36.9& 41.6& 38.0& 41.0& 41.9 &51.1 &38.2& 37.6& 49.1 &62.1 &43.1& 39.9& 43.5& 32.2& 37.0& 42.2\\
Liu et al.~\cite{liu2020comprehensive}$\dagger$&35.9 &40.0 &38.0 &41.5 &42.5 &51.4 &37.8 &36.0 &48.6 &56.6 &41.8& 38.3& 42.7& 31.7& 36.2 &41.2\\
\hline
\emph{Ours-HCSF}$\dagger$&34.3&37.6&37.5&38.6&39.5&44.2&38.3&35.5&48.5&55.6&41.4&38.7&42.3&30.8&32.2&39.7\\
\emph{Ours-HCSF w/A}$\dagger$&\textbf{33.9}&\textbf{37.2}&\textbf{36.8}&\textbf{38.1}&\textbf{38.7}&\textbf{43.5}&\textbf{37.8}&\textbf{35.0}&\textbf{47.2}&\textbf{53.8}&\textbf{40.7}&\textbf{38.3}&\textbf{41.8}&\textbf{30.1}&\textbf{31.4}&\textbf{39.0}\\
\hline
Zeng et al.~\cite{zeng2020srnet}$\S$&24.3&28.1&24.3& 28.1&27.4&29.8&28.3&25.6&27.8& 34.5&27.5&27.7&31.8&25.7&25.6&27.8\\
\emph{Ours-HCSF}$\dagger$ $\S$ &20.9&27.3&22.4&25.3&24.4&29.7&24.9&23.0&27.2&32.6&25.8&25.6&26.4&20.4&21.7&25.2\\
\emph{Ours-HCSF w/A}$\dagger$ $\S$ &\textbf{20.7}&\textbf{26.9}&\textbf{22.1}&\textbf{24.8}&\textbf{24.0}&\textbf{29.1}&\textbf{24.5}&\textbf{22.7}&\textbf{26.8}&\textbf{32.1}&\textbf{25.3}&\textbf{25.2}&\textbf{26.0}&\textbf{20.2}&\textbf{21.5}&\textbf{24.8}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison results regarding PA-MPJPE after \emph{rigid transformation} from the ground truth. We highlight the graph-based methods by $\dagger$. $\S$ donates the use of 2D ground truth poses as input. Best results in bold.}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\label{tab:human_p2_single}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Ablation Study on Dynamic Graph}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\label{sec:hm_ab}
This work has two main contributions: Hierarchical Channel-Squeezing Fusion (HCSF) and temporal-aware dynamic graph learning. We further explore how temporal-aware dynamic graph alone influences the regression results. The 2D inputs are 2D ground truth to explore the upper bound of our method to avoid some irrelevant noises from detected 2D poses.
\noindent\textbf{Effects of dynamic graph learning.}
Dynamic graph learning shows different action-related connectivity with different inputs. It can be more flexible to extract specific-action patterns, especially for hard poses. We have demonstrated the influence on both HCSF and dynamic graph learning in the main paper. Accordingly, we study the effects of dynamic graph learning alone. We take the \emph{Non-hierarchy strategy} LCN with the static graph aggregating with hop-$2$ as a baseline. Similar to the Tab.$6$ in the main paper, the Tab. ~\ref{tab:hm_dy1}a, ~\ref{tab:hm_dy1}b, ~\ref{tab:hm_dy1}c shows that $\mM_k$ ($ori$), using the physical topology as an initial connections, is better than $\mM_k$ ($dense$) and $\mM_k$ ($rand$). The weighted graph $\mM_k$ ($ori$) can also surpass the \emph{same} weighted graph in LCN. Moreover, only learning graph structure from features increase the error from $35.7$mm to $46.1$, which is infeasible. After combining the weighed graph $\mM_k$ ($ori$) with the dynamic offset $\mO_k$, we can obtain $0.5$mm improvement. Furthermore, considering a dynamic scale $\alpha$ to control the influence of the dynamic offsets, which is the formula in Eq.$8$, will be helpful. Last, we can observe that the temporal-aware scheme can boost the performance, decreasing the MPJPE from $34.0$mm to $33.5$mm.
\begin{table*}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\small
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c |c|c|c|c}
\hline
Method & LCN & a & b & c & d & e & f & g\\
\hline
$\mA_k$ & $ori$ &Only $\mM_k$ ($ori$) & Only $\mM_k$ ($dense$)&Only $\mM_k$ ($rand$) & Only $\mO_k$ & $\mM_k + \mO_k$ & Eq.$8$ & Eq.$8$ w/T\\
\hline\hline
MPJPE(mm)&35.7&34.8&35.5&41.2&46.1&34.3&34.0&\textbf{33.5}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison on the effects of dynamic graph learning $\mA$ in a \emph{Non-hierarchy strategy}. $ori$ is the static graph with physical connections, shown in LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing}. \emph{Baseline} takes $\mA_k$ as $ori$. \emph{Only $\mM_k$ ($\cdot$)} denotes applying $\mM_k$ with different initialization. \emph{Only $\mO_k$} keeps the dynamic offset in Eq.$8$. \emph{$\mM_k + \mO_k$} equals to set $\alpha=1$ in Eq.$8$. \emph{w/T} represents the temporal-aware scheme defined in Sec.$3.3$.}
\label{tab:hm_dy1}
\end{table*}
\noindent\textbf{Effects of the temporal scale.}
The uncertainty in single-frame poses will affect the regression results, making dynamic graph learning unstable and misleading. Hence, it is essential to introduce temporal consistency to make the process effective. We then explore how different settings in the temporal-aware scheme impact the performance. The temporal-aware schemes are different from the receptive fields. We fix $S$=$1$, $L$=$2$, $d$=$1/8$. The channel size of each layer is $128$. And the frame of input is $9$. From Tab.~\ref{tab:hm_tp}, we can find that using the $3\times1$ kernel size will be better than other settings. And using temporal information will consistently improve the single-frame results by $0.1\sim0.4$mm. Thus, we report our final results using the $3\times1$ kernel size.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c|c|c}
\hline
$F$ &(1,1)&(3,1)&(3,1) w/$st.$=2&(3,1) w/$di.$=2&(5,1)&(7,1)\\
\hline
HCSF&30.8&\textbf{30.4}&30.7&30.7&30.6&30.7\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The impact of settings $F$ of temporal convolution in dynamic graph learning of 3D human pose estimation. $st.$ is an abbreviation for $stride$, and $di.$ is $dilation$.
}
\label{tab:hm_tp}
\end{table}
\section{Skeleton-based Human Action Recognition}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
In this section, we present the experimental details, more results and ablation study of skeleton-based action recognition in Sec.~\ref{sec:act_imp}, Sec.~\ref{sec:har_single} and Sec.~\ref{sec:act_ab}, respectively.
\subsection{Dataset and Implementation Details}
\label{sec:act_imp}
\subsubsection{Data Description}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\noindent\textbf{NTU RGB+D 60}~\cite{shahroudy2016ntu} is one of the most widely used in-door RGB+Depth action recognition dataset with 60 actions. They include daily, mutual, and health-related actions. NTU RGB+D 60 has 40 subjects under three cameras.
Following~\cite{shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton,ye2020dynamic,peng2020mix,yan2018spatial}, we use skeleton sequences with 25 body joints captured by Kinect V.2 as inputs, and take two evaluation settings in NTU RGB+D 60: (1) Cross-Subject (X-Sub), where 20 subjects each for training and testing, respectively; (2) Cross-View (X-View), where 2 camera views for training and 1 camera view for testing. We perform the ablation study in Sec.~\ref{sec:act_ab} on the X-View setting.
\noindent\textbf{NTU RGB+D 120}~\cite{liu2019ntu} collects 120 various actions by 106 distinct subjects and contains more than 114 thousand video samples and 8 million frames. We also follow some previous works~\cite{ye2020dynamic,liu2020disentangling,peng2020mix,peng2020learning}, using two evaluation settings: (1) Cross-Setup (X-Set), training on 16 camera setups and testing on other 16 camera setups; (2) Cross-Subject (X-Sub), half subjects for training and half for testing.
We report the top-1 accuracy on both benchmarks.
\subsubsection{Data Pre-processing}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
The procedure for both datasets follows~\cite{shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton,liu2020disentangling}. Each video has a maximum of 300 frames, and if it is shorter than 300, we repeat some frames to make up for it. Since there are at most two people in both datasets, we pad the second body with zeros to keep the same shape of inputs when the second body does not appear.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsubsection{Training Details}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We build a ten-layer network, including nine cascaded blocks that consist of one HCSF layer followed by BN, ReLU, temporal convolution layer (TCN), BN and ReLU. Each temporal 1D convolution layer conducts $9 \times 1$ convolution on the feature maps. Each block is wrapped with a residual connection. The output dimension for each block are 64, 64, 64, 128, 128, 128, 256, 256 and 256. A global average pooling layer and a fully-connected layer are used to aggregate extracted features, and then, feed them into a softmax classifier to obtain the action class. The above framework is also a common setting as in~\cite{yan2018spatial,shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton,ye2020dynamic}. For multi-stream networks~\cite{shi2020skeleton}, we use four modalities, e.g., joints, bones and their motions, as inputs for each stream, and average their softmax scores to obtain the final prediction. Cross-entropy is used as the classification loss function to back-propagate gradients. We set the entry values in the adjacency matrix to be ones if two nodes are physically connected and zero if not.
For the training settings, we train our model for $60$ epochs using the SGD optimizer with mini-batch size $64$. The initial learning rate is 0.1 and it reduces by $10$ times in both the $35_{th}$ and $45_{th}$ epoch, respectively. The weight decay is set as $0.0005$. All data augmentation is the same as~\cite{shi2019skeleton, shi2020skeleton}.
\subsection{Results of Single-Stream Framework}
\label{sec:har_single}
Due to space limitations, we only report the accuracy of the multi-stream framework~\cite{shi2020skeleton} for the skeleton-based human action recognition task in the main paper. Specifically, the multi-stream network comprises four different modality inputs: the 3D skeleton joint position, the 3D skeleton bone vector, the motion of the 3D skeleton joint, and the motion of the 3D skeleton bone. Here, we report the performance of \emph{each modality input} in Tab.~\ref{tab:har_stream} for the ease of comparison with existing works.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ c| cc|c c }
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{NTU-RGB+D 60}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{NTU-RGB+D 120}} \\
&X-Sub(\%)&X-View(\%)&X-Sub(\%)&X-Set(\%)\\
\hline
Joint&89.0&95.3&83.5&85.7\\
Bone&89.3&94.9&85.0&86.6\\
Joint-Motion&86.9&93.5&80.1&81.5\\
Bone-Motion&86.9&93.1&80.6&83.0\\
\hline
Multi-Stream&\textbf{91.6}&\textbf{96.7}&\textbf{87.5}&\textbf{89.2}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Top-1 accuracy (\%) is used as the evaluation metric. The best result in each K is in bold.
}
\label{tab:har_stream}
\end{table}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
\label{sec:act_ab}
We investigate the proposed methods on the NTU RGB-D X-View setting with 3D joint positions as inputs.
\paragraph{\textbf{Effects of hierarchical channel-squeezing fusion block.}}
From Tab.~\ref{tab:decay_D}, our method improves the accuracy of 0.7$\%$ steadily under all three graph settings, static graphs $\mathcal{G}_k$ and two dynamic graphs $\mathcal{M}_k$ and $\mathcal{A}_{k}$ in Eq.$8$. Basically, better results can be achieved when $d$=$1/8$.
Moreover, we get the best results when using HCSF with dynamic graph $\mathcal{A}_{k}$, which validates the effectiveness of the proposed structure.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c|c}
\hline
Decay Rate $d$&$1$&$1/2$&$1/4$&$1/8$&$1/16$\\
\hline
Static-$\mathcal{G}$& 93.9&94.5&94.6&\textbf{94.8}&94.5\\
Dynamic-$\mathcal{M}$ &94.4&94.9&\textbf{95.1}&94.9&\textbf{95.1}\\
Dynamic-$\mathcal{A}$ &94.6&95.0&95.2&\textbf{95.3}&\textbf{95.3} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The impact of decay rate $d$ under static matrix $\mathcal{G}$, dynamic graph from $\mathbf{M_k}$, and dynamic graph from $\mathbf{A_{k}}$ in Eq.$8$.
}
\label{tab:decay_D}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
\vspace{5pt}
Furthermore, in Tab.~\ref{tab:comp_dy}, we demonstrate the performance of different methods concerning the number of hops. Since the skeleton topology in NTU-RGBD datasets is different from Human3.6M, it has more keypoints and further hops. The furthest hop is $13$ in our pre-defined topology. We set $S$=$5$, $L$=$7$ and $d$=$1/8$. $k$-hop ($k$=$1, 5, 7$) means aggregating the neighbors within the distance $k$ (1-hop with a static graph is ST-GCN~\cite{yan2018spatial}). Mixhop~\cite{abu2019mixhop} means that it concatenates the $k$-hop ($k$=$1, 5, 7$) features as the output of a layer, and the output size of the $k$-hop feature is one-third of the final output. MS-Hop means that it averages the $k$-hop ($k$=$1, 5, 7$) features, and the output size of the $k$-hop feature is the same as the final output.
As illustrated in Tab.~\ref{tab:comp_dy}, though MixHop and MS-Hop show improvements on k-hop strategies, they have no distinction in handling distant and close neighbors, which over-mix the useful and noisy information.
Our approaches outperform all other baselines, which indicates the effectiveness of the hierarchical channel-squeezing fusion strategy.
Additionally, we explore the effects of other hyper-parameters in the HCSF. We have the following observations. First, when using a dynamic graph $\mathcal{A}_{k}$ in Eq.$8$ and fixing the hyper-parameters squeezing ratio $d$ and the output channel size $C$ in a layer, we find little effects on the results that $S$ and $L$ has. The accuracy is stable around 95.1$\%$ $(\sim0.2\%)$. It indicates that the HCSF is robust to the noise in the graph.
Second, as the number of hops increases, the performance first improves and then becomes stable. Since adding more hops leads to extra computations, to balance the computation efficiency and performance, our final setting for each layer is $S$=$5$, $L$=$7$, $d$=$1/8$, $C$ of each layer is the same as~\cite{yan2018spatial,shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton}.
Last, we also explore to automatically learn the relations between hops and dimensions with the guidance of channel attention. However, we find that the exponentially decaying in dimension consistently yields better results than the soft attention, which may be because the soft attention mechanism introduces more uncertainty and complexity.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c|c |c}
\hline
Method&1-hop&5-hop&7-hop&MixHop&MS-Hop&Ours\\
\hline
Static $\mathcal{G}$& 92.2&93.5&93.7&93.9&94.1&\textbf{94.8}\\
Dynamic-$\mathcal{M}$ &93.4&94.1&94.1&94.5&94.6&\textbf{95.2}\\
Dynamic-$\mathcal{A}$&93.9&94.3&94.2&94.8&94.7&\textbf{95.3} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison on various multiple hop structures under static matrix $\mathcal{G}_K$, dynamic graph from $\mathcal{M}_k$, and a dynamic graph from $\mathcal{A}_{k}$. Top-1 accuracy is used as the evaluation metric.
}
\label{tab:comp_dy}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Effects of the temporal-aware dynamic graph learning.}}
The jitter and missing inputs will make dynamic graph learning unreliable, making it difficult to distinguish between similar actions, e.g., ``eat a meal" and ``brushing teeth." Such problems are serious in using single-frame features, but they can be improved by involving temporal information. From Tab.~\ref{tab:har_temporal}, we can observe that when using three frames into a temporal convolution, it can improve the single-frame setting by 0.6\%. While the settings of temporal aggregation are important, the longer temporal contexts will also degrade the performance, and use three frames will be the optimal setting.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c|c|c}
\hline
$F$ &(1,1)&(3,1)&(3,1) w/$st.$=2&(3,1) w/$di.$=2&(5,1)&(7,1)\\
\hline
HCSF&94.7&\textbf{95.3}&95.0&94.8&95.1&94.7\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The impact of settings of temporal convolution in dynamic graph learning of skeleton-based action recognition. $st.$ is an abbreviation for $stride$, and $di.$ is $dilation$.
}
\label{tab:har_temporal}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
\end{document}
\section{Conclusion}
\vspace{-0.15cm}
In this work, we explore a novel skeleton-based representation learning method for better dealing with hard poses in 3D pose estimation. The proposed Hierarchical Channel-Squeezing Fusion module can encode short-range and long-range contexts, keeping essential information while reducing irrelevant noises. Besides, we learn dynamic graphs that adaptively evolved based on the input poses rather than relying on a fixed pre-defined graph.
Our method surpasses all non-graph methods by $10.3\%$ and enhances the effectiveness of graph-based methods. We hope that our method would inspire the field of skeleton-based representation learning.
\section{Experiment}
In this section, we perform experimental studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed solution.
\vspace{-4pt}
\subsection{3D Human Pose Estimation}
\label{sec:3dpose}
\subsubsection{Data Description}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\noindent -- \emph{Human3.6M}~\cite{ionescu2013human3} consists of 3.6 million video frames with $15$ actions from $4$ camera viewpoints, where accurate 3D human joint positions are captured from high-speed motion capture system. Following previous works~\cite{ci2019optimizing,cai2019exploiting,zeng2020srnet,martinez2017simple}, we adopt the standard cross-subject protocol with 5 subjects (S1, S5, S6, S7, S8) as training set and another 2 subjects (S9, S11) as test set. It is commonly evaluated by two metrics, namely \emph{the mean per joint position error (MPJPE)} with 17 joints of each subject and \emph{the Procrustes Analysis MPJPE (PA-MPJPE)} to relieve the inherent scale, rotation, and translation problems.
\noindent -- \emph{MPI-INF-3DHP} \cite{mehta2017monocular,mehta2017vnect} contains both constrained indoor scenes and complex outdoor scenes, covering a greater diversity of poses and actions, where it is usually taken as a cross-dataset setting to verify the generalization ability of the proposed methods. For evaluation, we follow common practice~\cite{ci2019optimizing,wang2019generalizing,zeng2020srnet} by using the Percentage of Correct Keypoints (PCK) with a threshold of 150mm and the Area Under Curve (AUC) for a range of PCK thresholds.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
{
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c }
\hline
Method & Direct & Discuss & Eat & Greet & Phone& Photo & Pose & Purcha. & Sit & SitD & Smoke & Wait & WalkD & Walk & WalkT & Avg.\\
\hline
Luvizon et al. \cite{luvizon20182d}& 63.8 & 64.0 & 56.9 & 64.8 & 62.1 & 70.4 & 59.8 & 60.1&71.6 & 91.7 &60.9 & 65.1 & 51.3 & 63.2 & 55.4 & 64.1 \\
Martinez et al. \cite{martinez2017simple}& 51.8 &56.2 &58.1 &59.0 &69.5 &78.4 &55.2 &58.1& 74.0& 94.6 &62.3 &59.1& 65.1& 49.5& 52.4 &62.9 \\
Park et al.\cite{park20183d}&49.4 &54.3& 51.6& 55.0& 61.0 &73.3 &53.7 &50.0& 68.5& 88.7 &58.6 &56.8& 57.8& 46.2 &48.6 &58.6\\
Wang et al. \cite{wang2019generalizing}&47.4 &56.4 &49.4 &55.7& 58.0& 67.3& 46.0& 46.0& 67.7& 102.4& 57.0& 57.3& 41.1& 61.4& 40.7 &58.0\\
Zhao et al. \cite{zhao2019semantic}$\dagger$&47.3 &60.7& 51.4& 60.5& 61.1 &49.9 &47.3 &68.1& 86.2& 55.0& 67.8& 61.0& 42.1& 60.6& 45.3& 57.6\\
Zou et al. \cite{zou2020high}$\dagger$&49.0& 54.5& 52.3 &53.6 &59.2& 71.6& 49.6& 49.8& 66.0& 75.5& 55.1& 53.8& 58.5& 40.9& 45.4& 55.6\\
Liu et al. \cite{liu2020learning}$\dagger$&48.4& 53.6& 49.6& 53.6 &57.3 &70.6 &51.8 &50.7& 62.8 &74.1 &54.1 &52.6 &58.2& 41.5& 45.0& 54.9\\
Ci et al. \cite{ci2019optimizing}$\dagger$&46.8 &52.3& 44.7& 50.4& 52.9& 68.9& 49.6& 46.4& 60.2 &78.9& 51.2& 50.0& 54.8& 40.4& 43.3& 52.7\\
Liu et al. \cite{liu2020comprehensive}$\dagger$&46.3& 52.2& 47.3& 50.7& 55.5 &67.1 &49.2 &46.0 &60.4 &71.1& 51.5 &50.1 &54.5 &40.3 &43.7& 52.4\\
Pavllo et al. \cite{pavllo20193d} &47.1& 50.6& 49.0& 51.8 &53.6 &61.4& 49.4 &47.4 &59.3 &67.4 &52.4& 49.5& 55.3& 39.5& 42.7& 51.8\\
Cai et al. \cite{cai2019exploiting}$\dagger$&46.5 &48.8 &47.6& 50.9& 52.9 &61.3 &48.3 &45.8 &59.2 &64.4& 51.2& 48.4& 53.5& 39.2& 41.2& 50.6\\
Zeng et al. \cite{zeng2020srnet}&44.5& \textbf{48.2} &47.1 &47.8 &51.2 &\textbf{56.8} &50.1& \textbf{45.6}& 59.9 &66.4 &52.1 &45.3 &54.2 &39.1 &40.3 &49.9\\
\hline
\emph{Ours-HCSF} $\dagger$&43.4&49.7&45.1&47.6&50.7&57.5&47.1&45.9&56.5&61.1&49.8&\textbf{47.1}&\textbf{51.4}&35.8&37.8& 48.4\\
\emph{Ours-HCSF w/A}$\dagger$ &\textbf{43.1}&50.4&\textbf{43.9}&\textbf{45.3}&\textbf{46.1}&57.0&\textbf{46.3}&47.6&\textbf{56.3}&\textbf{61.5}&\textbf{47.7}&47.4& 53.5&\textbf{35.4}&\textbf{37.3}&\textbf{47.9}\\
\hline\hline
Martinez et al. \cite{martinez2017simple}&37.7 &44.4 &40.3 &42.1& 48.2& 54.9 &44.4 &42.1 &54.6& 58.0 &45.1 &46.4 &47.6 &36.4 &40.4& 45.5\\
Pham et al. \cite{pham2019unified} &36.6 &43.2 &38.1 &40.8 &44.4 &51.8 &43.7 &38.4 &50.8 &52.0 &42.1 &42.2 &44.0 &32.3 &35.9 &42.4\\
Zhao et al. \cite{zhao2019semantic}$\dagger$ &37.8 &49.4 &37.6 &40.9 &45.1 &41.4 &40.1& 48.3& 50.1 &42.2& 53.5 &44.3 &40.5 &47.3& 39.0 &43.8\\
Wang et al. \cite{wang2019generalizing}& 35.6 &41.3 &39.4 &40.0 &44.2 &51.7 &39.8 &40.2 &50.9 &55.4 &43.1 &42.9 &45.1 &33.1 &37.8 &42.0\\
Liu et al. \cite{liu2020learning}$\dagger$&36.2 &40.8 &33.9 &36.4 &38.3 &47.3 &39.9 &34.5 &41.3 &50.8 &38.1 &40.1 &40.0& 30.3& 33.0 &38.7\\
Liu et al. \cite{liu2020comprehensive}$\dagger$&36.8 &40.3& 33.0 &36.3 &37.5 &45.0 &39.7 &34.9 &40.3 &47.7& 37.4& 38.5& 38.6& 29.6 &32.0 &37.8\\
Ci et al. \cite{ci2019optimizing} $\dagger$&36.3& 38.8 &29.7& 37.8& 34.6& 42.5& 39.8& 32.5& 36.2& 39.5& 34.4& 38.4& 38.2& 31.3& 34.2&36.3\\
Zeng et al. \cite{zeng2020srnet}& 32.9 & 34.5 & 27.6 & 31.7 & 33.5 &42.5 & 35.1 & 29.5& 38.9& 45.9 & 33.3 & 34.9 & 34.4 & 26.5 & 27.1& 33.9\\
\hline
\emph{Ours-HCSF} $\dagger$&29.0&34.1&27.3&31.7&\textbf{28.8}&\textbf{34.8}&34.4&\textbf{27.3}&33.5&38.9&\textbf{30.4}&32.3&\textbf{29.7}&24.6&25.2&30.8\\
\emph{Ours-HCSF w/A} $\dagger$&\textbf{26.8}&\textbf{33.2}&\textbf{26.7}&\textbf{30.0}&30.8&36.7&\textbf{31.5}&27.4&\textbf{33.1}&\textbf{38.0}&30.8&\textbf{31.8}&30.3&\textbf{23.9}&\textbf{25.0}&\textbf{30.4}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison of single-frame 3D pose estimation in terms of MPJPE on Human3.6M. Works above the double line show results from detected 2D poses, and the below results are from 2D ground truth inputs to explore the upper bound of these methods. We highlight the graph-based methods by $\dagger$. w/A denotes using dynamic graphs. Best results in bold.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{tab:human_p1_t}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Method Comparison}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
In terms of the frames of inputs, \emph{single-view} 3D pose estimation can be divided into \emph{single-frame} and \emph{temporal} settings. We first compare our \textbf{HCSF} module and \textbf{Dynamic graph learning} with other previous works under the \emph{single-frame} setting. Then, we extend to the \emph{temporal} setting to compare related works with our \textbf{Temporal-aware dynamic graph learning with HCSF} scheme.
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Comparison with \emph{Single-frame} methods.}}
As shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:human_p1_t}, we compare our methods with other baselines.
Under the standard protocol with \emph{2D detected inputs}~\cite{chen2018cascaded}, our methods can improve the graph-based method~\cite{cai2019exploiting} from 50.6mm to 47.9mm (relative 5.3\% improvement), and surpass the non-graph based method~\cite{zeng2020srnet} by 2.0mm (relative 4.0\% improvement). Since the results of 2D detected poses would affect uncertainty, it is better to consider using 2D ground truth as input to explore the upper bound of these methods. Accordingly, with \emph{2D ground truth inputs}, our proposed model improves the graph-based state-of-the-art~\cite{ci2019optimizing} from 36.3mm to 30.4mm (relative \textbf{16.3}\% improvement). Although LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing} aggregates long-range ($L=3$) information to relieve depth ambiguities, it ignores the fact that distant joints may bring more disruptions while they still contain certain useful information. The proposed HCSF module considers this effect by squeezing the different hop features into different latent spaces and then hierarchically fusing them. Moreover, our method surpasses state-of-the-art non-GNN method~\cite{zeng2020srnet} by 3.5mm (relative \textbf{10.3}\% improvement), which further proves the effectiveness among the general methods.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Comparison with \emph{Temporal} methods.}}
We compare with temporal methods with nine frames as inputs and Tab.~\ref{tab:temporal} shows the comparison in terms of average error.
For all methods, we select their reported results with similar input frames for comparison.
The result shows that the proposed method can outperform previous approaches consistently.
With temporal-aware dynamic graph construction, the proposed solution further improves the result by 0.7mm.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\small
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c |c |c|c }
\hline
Method &Hossain et al.~\cite{rayat2018exploiting} & Lee et al. \cite{lee2018propagating} & Pavllo et al.~\cite{pavllo20193d} & Cai et al.~\cite{cai2019exploiting} & Lin et al.~\cite{lin2019trajectory} & Ours w/o \emph{T} & Ours \\
\hline
MPJPE (mm) &58.3&52.8&49.8&48.8&48.8&46.4&\textbf{45.7}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison on \emph{temporal 2D detected poses input} with similar input frames ($5, 3, 9, 7, 10, 9, 9$ frames, individually) for comparison. The noted w/o \emph{T} denotes using dynamic graphs without temporal-aware scheme.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{tab:temporal}
\end{table*}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Improvements on hard poses.}}
As discussed earlier, we define hard poses as those with high prediction errors and \emph{they are model-specific}. That is, while hard poses have some inherent characteristics (e.g., depth ambiguity and self-occlusion), they are handled differently with different models~\cite{ci2019optimizing,zhao2019semantic,zeng2020srnet,zou2020high}. Consequently, one pose that exhibits large errors on one model may show satisfactory results on another model and vice versa (we show more detailed analyses in the supplemental material). However, statistically speaking, if a model handles hard poses better, it would have the following properties: (1) those actions with high prediction errors would be improved more; (2) the proportion of poses with high errors would be smaller; (3) the upper bound of high-error poses would be smaller.
Compared with state-of-the-art solution~\cite{zeng2020srnet}, our method reduces the prediction errors by 7.9mm, 6.1mm, 5.8mm, and 5.8mm (relative 17.2\%, 18.5\%, 14.9\%, 13.6\% improvements) on the actions ``SitDown", ``Direct", ``Sit" and ``Photo", respectively. The average improvement of the hard poses is \textbf{16.1}\% in Tab.~\ref{tab:human_p1_t}. Next, in Fig.~\ref{fig:mp}, we compare the error distribution in the test set with four existing solutions~\cite{martinez2017simple,zhao2019semantic, ci2019optimizing, zeng2020srnet}. We can observe that there are much fewer poses with high prediction errors with our proposed solution. Specially, there are only 3.6\% cases with MPJPE above 60mm with our solution, while it is more than 6\% with all the other methods. In fact, the number of cases with MPJPE above 40mm is consistently lower, and the number of cases with MPJPE less than 30mm is consistently higher with our solution than that with other methods.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{img/hard1.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption{MPJPE distribution on the testset of Human3.6M. }
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\label{fig:mp}
\end{figure}
Last, we present the mean errors for the top $5$\% hardest poses of five methods in Fig.~\ref{fig:upp}, ours is $\textbf{70.7}mm$, which is \textbf{$13.8\%$} and \textbf{$17.1\%$} smaller than the SOTA methods LCN ($82.0mm$) and SRNet ($85.3mm$), respectively.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{img/upperbound1.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\caption{Mean-Error comparison of the 5\% Hardest Poses.}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{fig:upp}
\end{figure}
We also show visualization results in Fig.~\ref{fig:viz}, compared with SOTA methods (upper LCN, below SRNet). In summary, the above results demonstrate the benefits of the proposed technique on hard poses.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{img/viz2.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Qualitative results of hard poses.~3D ground truth, \textcolor[RGB]{ 192,0,0}{SOTA methods}, and \textcolor[RGB]{47,85,151}{ours} are black, \textcolor[RGB]{ 192,0,0}{red}, \textcolor[RGB]{47,85,151}{blue} in order.}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{fig:viz}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Comparison on MPI-INF-3DHP.}}~We further test our model trained with the Human3.6M dataset on the MPI-INF-3DHP dataset to verify its generalization capability. Tab.~\ref{tab:com} shows about $5.5\%$ improvements on all metrics over related methods.
\begin{table}[htbp]
{
\scriptsize{
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.95}
{
\begin{tabular}{ l |c| c|c|c|c}
\hline
Method &FCN~\cite{martinez2017simple}&OriNet~\cite{luo2018orinet}&LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing}&SRNet~\cite{zeng2020srnet}&Ours\\
\hline
Outdoor &31.2&65.7&77.3&80.3&$\textbf{84.6}\uparrow_{5.4\%}$\\
\hline
All PCK &42.5&65.6&74.0&77.6&$\textbf{82.1}\uparrow_{5.8\%}$\\
\hline
All AUC& 17.0&33.2&36.7&43.8&$\textbf{46.2}\uparrow_{5.5\%}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}}}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Cross-dataset results on MPI-INF-3DHP.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{tab:com}
\end{table}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
To study some important design choices in the proposed method, we take 2D ground truth poses as inputs and adopt MPJPE as an evaluation metric for analysis.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Impact of hierarchical fusion.}}
Tab.~\ref{tab:dis} shows that (1) two hierarchical design consistently outperforms \emph{Non-hierarchy} by 2mm$\sim$3.7mm under different $L$, indicating that it is not appropriate to fuse long-range and short-range information in a single stage;
(2) without considering different contributions from different hops, the performance of \emph{Hierarchy w/o hop-aware} is inferior to \emph{Hierarchy}, leading to a consistent performance drop of 1.6mm$\sim$1.8mm. It illustrates that the importance of processing long-range contexts according to hops. We fix $S$=1, $d$=$1$/$16$ by default.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.85}
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c | c |c |c |c }
\hline
$L$ &2& 3 & 4 & 5 & 6\\
\hline
\emph{Non-hierarchy} &37.2&36.2&37.7&37.4&39.9\\
\emph{Hierarchy w/o hop-aware} &34.6&34.2&34.7&35.4&36.2\\
\emph{Hierarchy}&-&\textbf{32.6}&\textbf{32.9}&\textbf{33.7}&\textbf{34.4} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison of aggregating without hierarchy strategy (\emph{Non-hierarchy}), with hierarchy scheme but regarding all hops information equally (\emph{Hierarchy w/o hop-aware}) and our full design (\emph{Hierarchy}). }
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{tab:dis}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Impact of squeezing ratio $d$.}}
We set $S=1, L=2$ to study the influence of the squeezing ratio $d$.
Tab.~\ref{tab:low_dim_lcn} shows that as $d$ decreases, the corresponding MPJPE first decreases and then increases. As $d$ controls the output channel size of different hop features, the small value of $d$ indicates the small output dimension for channel-squeezing transform. The decrease of $d$ may first reduce the irrelevant information from long-range context, and thus reducing the pose estimation error. When $d$ takes an extreme value $\frac{1}{16}$, the useful information may also be substantially squeezed, leading to a performance drop.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\small
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c |c|c|c|c}
\hline
Method & Baseline & a & b & c & d & e & f & g\\
\hline
$\mA_k$ & $ori$ &Only $\mM_k$ ($ori$) & Only $\mM_k$ ($dense$)&Only $\mM_k$ ($rand$) & Only $\mO_k$ & $\mM_k + \mO_k$ & Eq.~\ref{eq:dy2} & Eq.~\ref{eq:dy2} w/T\\
\hline\hline
MPJPE(mm)&30.8&32.1&35.7&40.8&44.3&30.5&30.4&\textbf{29.7}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison on the effects of dynamic graph learning $\mA$. $ori$ is the static graph with physical connections. \emph{Baseline} takes $\mA_k$ as $ori$. \emph{Only $\mM_k$ ($\cdot$)} denotes applying $\mM_k$ with different initialization. \emph{Only $\mO_k$} keeps the dynamic offset in Eq.~\ref{eq:dy2}. \emph{$\mM_k + \mO_k$} equals to set $\alpha=1$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:dy2}. \emph{w/T} represents the temporal-aware scheme defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:ldcn}.}
\label{tab:dyn}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.9}
{
\begin{tabular}{ l |c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
$d$ &$1$&$1/2$&$1/4$&$1/8$& $1/16$\\
\hline
MPJPE (mm) & 35.4&34.7&33.8&\textbf{31.4}&32.6\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Influence of the squeezing ratio $d$.}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\label{tab:low_dim_lcn}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[hb]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\scalebox{0.9}
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c |c|c}
\hline
$L$ & 1 & 2 &3&4 & 5&6\\
\hline
$S=0$& \textbf{35.5}&34.6&34.8&34.7&35.4&36.1\\
$S=1$& -&\textbf{32.6}&\textbf{33.4}&\textbf{34.0}&\textbf{34.7}&\textbf{35.7}\\
$S=2$& -&-&34.9&35.1&35.6&36.2\\
\hline
LCN \cite{ci2019optimizing} &38.0&35.7&36.2&37.7&37.4&39.9\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The influence of the hop-$S$ and the hop-$L$.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{tab:kl}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Impact of $S$ and $L$.}}
\label{sec:sr-lcn}
As shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:kl}, $S=1$ yields consistently good results under different $L$. As features within hop-$S$ will not be squeezed, it is in line with our intuition that the direct neighbors provide the most relevant information to the target node.
Besides, a random combination of $S$ and $L$ surpasses the strong baseline LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing}, demonstrating the effectiveness of our design.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Impact of the dynamic graph learning}}
In Sec.~\ref{sec:ldcn}, we introduce a dynamic graph $\mA_k$ consisting of a learnable graph $\mM_k$ and a graph offset $\mO_k$ learned from input features.
As Tab.~\ref{tab:dyn}a, ~\ref{tab:dyn}b and ~\ref{tab:dyn}c illustrate, the initialization of the dynamic graph learning is important. The result shows that it is hard for all connected initialization (Tab.~\ref{tab:dyn}b) and random (Tab.~\ref{tab:dyn}c) to converge well. On the other hand, taking the physical topology as an initial graph (Tab.~\ref{tab:dyn}a) can achieve better results ($32.1$mm).
Only learning the dynamic offsets (Tab.~\ref{tab:dyn}d) leads to severe performance drop. Relying only on input features may weaken its capability of dealing with data noise.
Tab.~\ref{tab:dyn}e adds the weighted graph $\mM_k$ and dynamic offsets $\mO_k$, obtaining a 0.3mm performance gain over \emph{baseline}.
Moreover, although the dynamic graph shows priority in representing different motion-specific relations, it is usually vulnerable to the single-frame outliers. After considering the temporal context, we can further improve the baseline from 30.8mm to 29.7mm.
\subsection{Skeleton-based Action Recognition}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
As a plug-and-play module, we integrate the proposed HCSF layer and temporal-aware dynamic graph learning into \emph{skeleton-based action recognition}.
Given a sequence of human skeleton coordinates in videos, this task categorizes them into a predefined action class.
We conduct experiments on two commonly used datasets, namely, \textbf{NTU RGB+D 60}~\cite{shahroudy2016ntu} and \textbf{NTU RGB+D 120}~\cite{liu2019ntu}. Due to the limits of contents, we leave detailed datasets, implementation details, and ablation study in the supplemental material.
Following related works~\cite{yan2018spatial,shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton,liu2020disentangling,cheng2020skeleton,ye2020dynamic}, we employ a GNN model with ten spatial-temporal convolution neural layers as the baseline framework.~We adopt the proposed framework shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:frame} to this task by changing the final regression branch into classification branch. Our results use the multi-stream framework as in~\cite{shi2020skeleton,cheng2020skeleton}. Single stream results are \emph{in the supplemental material.}
Tab.~\ref{tab:ntu} shows that our solution outperforms SOTA on both benchmarks. In particular, the top-1 accuracy is $89.2\%$ and $87.5\%$ in the X-Set and X-Sub settings on the more complex dataset~\cite{liu2019ntu}, surpassing state-of-the-art solutions irrespective of the fact that they employ sophisticated attention modules~\cite{shi2020skeleton} and temporal-dilated combinations in each layer~\cite{liu2020disentangling}. Our method can construct robust dynamic relations through the proposed HCSF layer and temporal-aware scheme. Therefore, those inherent relations among joints are better captured, enhancing the capability to distinguish different actions.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{NTU RGB+D 60}}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{NTU RGB+D 120}}\\
& X-Sub (\%) & X-View (\%) & X-Sub (\%) & X-Set (\%) \\
\hline
ST-GCN~\cite{yan2018spatial} &84.3&92.7&71.3&72.4\\
AS-GCN~\cite{li2019actional}&86.8&94.2&77.7&78.9\\
SGN~\cite{zhang2020semantics}&89.0&94.5&79.2&81.5\\
2s-AGCN~\cite{shi2019skeleton}&88.9&95.1&82.9&84.9\\
NAS-GCN~\cite{peng2020learning}&89.4&95.7&-&-\\
Mix-dim~\cite{peng2020mix}&89.7&96.0&80.5&83.2\\
ST-Transformer~\cite{plizzari2020spatial}&89.3&96.1&82.7&84.7\\
MS-AAGCN~\cite{shi2020skeleton}&90.0&96.2&-&-\\
Shift-GCN~\cite{cheng2020skeleton}&90.7&96.5&85.9&87.6\\
MMDGCN~\cite{xia2021multi}&90.8&96.5&86.8&88.0\\
DecoupleGCN~\cite{cheng2020eccv}&90.8& 96.6&86.5&88.1\\
MS-G3D~\cite{liu2020disentangling}& 91.5&96.2& 86.9& 88.4\\
\hline
Ours&\textbf{91.6}&\textbf{96.7}&\textbf{87.5}&\textbf{89.2}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison against state-of-the-art methods on the NTU RGB+D 60 and 120 Skeleton dataset in terms of Top-1 accuracy(\%). Best results in bold.}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\label{tab:ntu}
\end{table}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.96\textwidth]{img/hero.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The examples of two \emph{easy poses}, one \emph{moderate pose}, and four kinds of \emph{hard poses} in 2D-to-3D pose estimation with 2D detected poses as inputs (shown in the images). Although rapid progress has been made in this field, both \textcolor[RGB]{133,181,213}{non-graph} methods and \textcolor[RGB]{231,110,47}{graph-based} ones yield large prediction error on these \emph{hard poses}.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:ob1}
\end{figure*}
Single-view skeleton-based 3D pose estimation problem plays an important role in numerous applications, such as human-computer interaction, video understanding, and human behavior analysis.
Given the 2D skeletal positions detected by a 2D keypoint detector (e.g.,~\cite{chen2018cascaded,newell2016stacked,sun2019deep}), this task aims to regress the 3D positions of the corresponding joints. It is a challenging task and has drawn lots of attention from academia in recent years. Even though the average performance increases steadily over the years, the prediction errors on some poses are still quite high.
Fig.~\ref{fig:ob1} shows some examples in a widely used dataset, Human3.6M~\cite{ionescu2013human3}.
Some actions (e.g., ``Sit" and ``Sit Down") contain many poses with depth ambiguity, self-occlusion, or complex poses. Also,
there inevitably exist some poses rarely seen in the training dataset. Similar to the definition of hard examples in object detection~\cite{lin2017focal} and semantic segmentation~\cite{li2017not}, we collectively regard those poses with high prediction errors as \emph{hard poses}.
Early attempts~\cite{martinez2017simple,pavllo20193d} simply use fully-connected networks (FCN) to lift the 2D keypoints into 3D space. However, the dense connection of FCN is prone to overfit, leading to relatively poor performance. To tackle this problem, geometric dependencies are incorporated into the network in~\cite{fang2018learning,park20183d,wang2019generalizing,zeng2020srnet}, which significantly improve prediction accuracy. As articulated human body can be naturally modeled as a graph, with the recent development of graph neural networks (GNN)~\cite{kipf2016semi,li2019deepgcns,abu2019mixhop,xu2018representation,zhang2020hop}, various GNN-based methods~\cite{zhao2019semantic,ci2019optimizing,liu2020learning,cai2019exploiting,zou2020high} are proposed in the literature for 2D-to-3D pose estimation.
GNN-based solutions naturally capture the relationship between body joints. For a target node, aggregating features from its neighboring nodes facilitates bringing in semantic information to relieve the uncertainty in estimating its 3D position. In other words, for the estimation of a particular node in the graph (e.g., left hand), both its direct neighbor (i.e., left elbow) and other nodes that are multiple hops away in the graph (e.g., left shoulder and even right foot in some poses) may
provide useful information that contributes to the position estimation of the target node, and the learning
of skeletal graph neural networks is to capture such context information for better 2D-to-3D pose estimation. However, existing GNN-based solutions do not fully tap the potential of the skeleton graph. The reasons are two-fold:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{itemize}
\item The power of graph neural networks lies in the aggregation of neighboring nodes, which, however, contributes both useful information and undesired noises. On the one hand, aggregating distant nodes in the skeletal graph does provide useful information; On the other hand, the more distant the nodes, the more likely undesired noises are introduced into the aggregation procedure. Existing works do not consider such signal-to-noise issues in message passing over the GNN.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\item The relationship between body joints varies with different poses. For example, for poses in ``running'', the hand-foot joints are closely related, while for poses in ``Sitting", there is no such strong relationship. It is rather difficult to capture such information with a static skeleton graph across all poses.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
This work proposes novel skeletal GNN learning solutions to mitigate the above problems, especially for hard poses. Our contributions are summarized as follows:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a \emph{hop-aware} hierarchical \emph{channel-squeezing} fusion layer to extract relevant information from neighboring nodes effectively while suppressing undesired noises. This is inspired by the feature squeezing works~\cite{zhu2019rethinking,yu2019autoslim,zeng2021hop}, wherein channel size is reduced to keep valuable information in each layer. Specifically, we squeeze long-range context features (i.e., information from distant nodes) and fuse them with short-range features in a hierarchical manner.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Inspired by GNN-based action recognition work~\cite{shi2019skeleton,ye2020dynamic,liu2020disentangling}, we build dynamic skeletal graphs, wherein the edges between nodes are not only from the fixed human skeleton topology but also the node features to capture action-specific poses. To cope with the change of dynamic graphs over time and relieve outliers from frame-level features, we further integrate temporal cues into the learning process of dynamic graphs. The proposed temporal-aware dynamic graph construction procedure is robust and effective for 2D-to-3D pose estimation.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{itemize}
We conduct experiments on Human3.6M dataset~\cite{ionescu2013human3}, and the proposed solution outperforms state-of-the-art techniques~\cite{zeng2020srnet} in 3D pose estimation by 10.3\% on average, and greatly improves on \emph{hard poses}. Compared to state-of-the-art GNN-based solutions, we surpass ~\cite{ci2019optimizing} by \textbf{16.3}\%. As the proposed method is a plug-and-play module, we further integrate it into the skeleton-based action recognition framework, achieving state-of-the-art performance.
\section{Method}
In this work, our goal is to reduce errors of 3D human pose estimation, especially on \emph{hard poses}. More specifically, given 2D keypoints $X\in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 2}$, with $N$ nodes, the model outputs better 3D positions $Y\in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 3}$.
The framework is designed based on the observations and motivations in Sec.~\ref{sec:obs}, and shown in Fig~\ref{fig:frame}. The core of our framework is the module: a Dynamic Hierarchical Channel-Squeezing Fusion Layer (\emph{D-HCSF}) shown in Fig~\ref{fig:branch}. It contains a hierarchical channel-squeezing fusion scheme for updating features of each node (Fig~\ref{fig:branch}), and a temporal-aware dynamic graph learning component for updating the dynamic graph.
In this section, we first revisit the formulation of generic GCN~\cite{kipf2016semi} and LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing} in Sec.~\ref{sec:gnn_ske}. Then, we introduce our hierarchical channel-squeezing fusion scheme in Sec.~\ref{sec:llcn}. Finally, we propose the dynamic graph learning and consider temporal-aware strategy in this process in Sec~\ref{sec:ldcn}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{img/frame.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The framework of our method. The key is a specially designed module called Dynamic Hierarchical Channel-Squeezing Fusion layer (\emph{D-HCSF}), shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:branch} with details.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:frame}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{img/branch.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The architecture of our Dynamic Hierarchical Channel-Squeezing Fusion (D-HCSF) layer under $k$ hops. Each dotted box consists of two streams: a weighted graph learning branch based on fixed physical edges (blue lines) and a dynamic graph learning branch to update the graph based on the node features adaptively (orange lines).}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:branch}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Vanilla Graph Neural Network}
\label{sec:gnn_ske}
Given a graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$, it consists of the nodes $\mathcal{V}$ and the edges $\mathcal{E}$. We revisit a generic GCN~\cite{kipf2016semi} layer defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H} = \sigma(\Hat{\mathbf{A}} \mathbf{X} \mathbf{W}),
\label{eq:mp}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{A}\in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ is an adjacency matrix with $N$ nodes, indicating the connections between nodes. If the joint $j$ is dependent on the joint $i$, then ${a_{ij}=1}$. Otherwise, the connections are set to zero ${a_{ij}=0}$. We denote the input node features as $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times C_{in}}$, the learnable weight matrix as $\mathbf{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{C_{in} \times C_{out}}$, and the activation function as $\sigma(\cdot)$. \emph{For simplification, we ignore the $\sigma(\cdot)$ in the following formulas}.
The GCN's representation power is limited by weight sharing strategy in node regression problem, while Ci et al.~\cite{ci2019optimizing} propose a locally connected network (LCN), which introduces the node-wise trainable parameters to enhance the differences among node features.~This aggregation scheme learns different relations among different nodes. Accordingly, we recap its basic formulation. For clarity purposes, we take the embedding learning of node $i$ from the direct neighbors in a layer as an example:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}_i = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_{1,i}} (\Hat{a}_{ij} \mathbf{x}_j \mathbf{W}_{ij}),
\label{eq:lcn2}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}_{1,i}$ contains the self-node and direct neighbors (hop=1) of the node $i$. We denote $\Hat{a}_{ij}$ as the value of $i_{th}$ row and $j_{th}$ column in the adjacency matrix $\Hat{\mathbf{A}}$, which distinctly aggregates features among neighbors. $\mathbf{x}_j$ is the inputs of the neighbor $j$. $\mathbf{W}_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^{C_{in} \times C_{out}}$ denotes the learnable weights between the node pair $(i,j)$, and $\mathbf{h}_i$ is the updated features of the node $i$. Hence, the final output $\mH$ is represented by the concatenation of all node features.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{img/arc.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The architectures of (a) Graph Convolution Network (GCN)~\cite{kipf2016semi}, (b) Locally Connected Network (LCN)~\cite{ci2019optimizing}, and (c) Our Hierarchical Channel-Squeezing Fusion (HCSF). We take the feature updating of node 1 as an example. The index of the node corresponds to Fig.~\ref{fig:hop}.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:fuse}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Hierarchical Channel-Squeezing Fusion Layer}
\label{sec:llcn}
Inspired by the first observation in Sec.~\ref{sec:obs}, we find (i) hierarchical spatial features are important to capture better short-to-long range context; (ii) distinguishing short-range and long-range context in fusion strategies is necessary to relieve irrelevant long-range context while keeping their essential components in hard pose estimation. Thus, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:fuse} (c), we propose a hierarchical channel-squeezing fusion layer to reach the above hypothesis.
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Hierarchical fusion layer.}}
\label{sec:hflayer}
~Accordingly, we take node-wise aggregation LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing} as a baseline.~To capture different ranges in spatial context, we generalize Eq.~\ref{eq:lcn2} by modifying the direct neighbors $\mathcal{N}_{1,i}$ to hop-$k$ neighbors $\mathcal{N}_{k,i}$. Then, we can get updated features $\mathbf{h}_{k,i}$ from hop-$k$ neighbors.
To integrate multi-hop features in a layer, we propose a hierarchical fusion block as follows. It consists of two parts. First, we consider the short-range features $\vh_{S,i}$ within hop-$S$, which contain the most essential context of the target node $i$. We thus keep the whole information without squeezing them. We then define a farthest hop $L$ to obtain the potentially useful information as a set of long-range context $\cH_{L,i}$ defined as:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}_{S,i} = \sum_{ j \in \mathcal{N}_{S,i}}( \Hat{a}_{ij} \mathbf{x}_j \mathbf{W}_{ij}),\\
\label{eq:hopS}
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{equation}
\cH_{L,i} = \{\vh_{k,i} | k=S+1,...,L\},
\label{eq:hopL}
\end{equation}
where $S$ is less than or equal to $L$, set empirically.
To fuse features from different contexts, we introduce two fusion functions, namely $\cF_k$ and $\cF_a$, to form a two-stage procedures. $\cF_k$ first transforms a set of long-range features $\cH_{L,i}$ to obtain a fused long-range features $\vh_{L, i}$, and then $\cF_a$ fuses $\vh_{L, i}$ with short-range features $\vh_{S, i}$ to get output $\vh_{a,i}$. We refer to such two-step fusion scheme as \emph{hierarchical fusion block}. Finally, we process the feature $\vh_{a,i}$ through a transformation $\mathbf{W}_a$ to obtain an final output $\mathbf{h}_i$ with pre-defined dimension. Formally, the final output $\mathbf{h}_i$ of this fusion layer is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}_i = \mathcal{F}_a [\mathbf{h}_{S,i}, \mathcal{F}_k(\cH_{L,i} )]\mathbf{W}_a.
\label{eq:fuse_hop}
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Channel-Squeezing block.}}
\label{sec:csblock}
To retain useful information while suppressing the irrelevant information of long-range context, we hypothesize that the context contains less relevant information. Hence, we propose a set of bottleneck transformations, named Channel-Squeezing Blocks to filter irrelevance by an end-to-end learning scheme.
To reach the above hypothesis, we distinguish the learnable matrix $\mathbf{W}_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^{C_{in} \times C_{k,out}}$ from its output size $C_{k,out}$ of long-range context $\cH_{L,j}$.
Moreover, based on the theoretical Information Gain (IG) analysis on the hop-$k$~\cite{gao2021} measured by the average KL-divergence, where the information gain IG($k$) of hop $k$ always fits well on the function $ae^{-bk}$, where $a,b > 0$. It means the information gain from long-range context will be decreased exponentially. In our condition, we propose a simplified relation function to decide the output size $C_{k,out}$ for each long-range context to reflect the decay of useful information as $k$ increases.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{equation}
C_{k,out} = d ^ {(k-L)} * C_{in},
\label{eq:decay}
\end{equation}
where $d \in [0 , 1]$ indicates the channel squeezing ratio, and $k \in [S+1, L]$.
For short-range context $\vh_{S,i}$, the output channels of $\mW_{i,j}$ keep the same as $C_{in}$ without squeezing to reduce the loss of useful features. Compared with Eq.~\ref{eq:lcn2}, LCN is a special kind of HCSF module when $C_{k,out}$ is a constant across hops, and $\mathcal{F}_k, \mathcal{F}_a$ are summations.
Please noted that the HCSF layer could also adapt to other graph-based frameworks, like GCN~\cite{kipf2016semi}, Pre-Agg, Post-Agg~\cite{liu2020learning}, the difference lies in weight sharing schemes, which is orthogonal to our approach.
\subsection{Temporal-aware Dynamic Graph Learning}
\label{sec:ldcn}
In this subsection, we present a framework when dealing with dynamic skeleton topology. Based on the second observation in Sec.~\ref{sec:obs}, with a static graph, the model is hard to properly reflect the relations, especially for \emph{hard poses}.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Learning dynamic graph.}}
We learn the dynamic graph from two streams, where one is to update by physical skeleton topology, and the other is to update through features of nodes. For the first stream (Fig.~\ref{fig:branch} blue lines), we initialize the graph $\mathbf{M}_k$ as the physical skeleton topology following SemGCN~\cite{zhao2019semantic}. Then, this graph will be updated during training. After training, this graph $\mathbf{M}_k$ keeps fixed during inference and reflects the distribution of the whole dataset.
As the poses change, the connections should be varied during testing to capture motion-specific relations. Hence, we introduce a scheme for the second stream (Fig.~\ref{fig:branch} orange lines) to learn the graph from input features dynamically. Then, the graph can be adapted to the input pose during the inference. The input feature $\mathbf{X}$ is separately transformed by $\mathbf{W}_{k, \theta}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{k, \phi}$ for each branch. After multiplying two transformed features, we obtain a $N\times N$ matrix indicating relations among nodes.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{O}_k = \mathcal{F}\{[(\mathbf{X})^{tr} \mathbf{W}_{k, \theta}] [(\mathbf{W}_{k, \phi})^{tr} \mathbf{X}]\},
\label{eq:ms_soft}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}$ denotes the activation function (i.e., Tanh), and $tr$ denotes the transpose of a matrix. The output $\mathbf{O}_k$ generates unique connections changing adaptively with input $\mathbf{X}$.
Since learning dynamic graphs directly from input features may be sensitive to outliers (e.g., jitter and missing joints). We regard $\mathbf{O}_k$ as dynamic offsets to refine the weighted graph $\mathbf{M}_k$.
Hence, the final formulation of the dynamic graph of Hop-$k$ is as follows:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{A}_{k} = \mathbf{M}_k+ \alpha\mathbf{O}_k,
\label{eq:dy2}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha $ is a learnable scalar to adjust the scale of dynamic offsets. Then, we can aggregate the hop-$k$ features by $\mathbf{A}_{k}$, and the following fusion block is the same as Eq.~\ref{eq:fuse_hop}.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Temporal-aware dynamic graph.}}
\label{sec:temp_gcn}
The connections between nodes may naturally vary over space and time, and the frame-level dynamic graph will suffer from unstable inputs, it is potential to optimize the dynamic graph learning process combining spatial and temporal context as a whole. In terms of introducing temporal information, the input will add a time dimension, where $\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{C_{in} \times T_{in} \times N}$.
We develop a temporal-aware scheme in Eq.~\ref{eq:ms_soft}. Instead of only applying linear transformations in spatial domain, we integrate temporal context by 1D temporal convolution layer with a kernel size of $1\times F$. It can smooth and filter the spatial outliers in input $\mathbf{X}$ to make the learning process robust.
\subsection{Observation and Motivation}
~\label{sec:obs}
Fig.~\ref{fig:ob1} shows the prediction accuracy of recent 3D pose estimation methods~\cite{martinez2017simple,pham2019unified,zeng2020srnet,liu2020learning,zou2020high}. As can be observed from this figure, most of them suffer from poor performance for some complex actions, such as, ``Sit," ``Sit Down," and ``Take Photos."
We attribute this phenomenon to that these hard poses require both short-range and long-range context information for better estimation. Meanwhile, existing solutions do not fuse them effectively in the learning process.
\textbf{Distant neighbors pass not only valuable semantic information but also irrelevant noise.}
Existing GNN-based methods try to aggregate the semantic information in both short-range and long-range neighbors. However, they ignore that the messages passed from distant neighbors also contain irrelevant noise. For example, "Walking" has a clear pattern, which contains strong correlation between arm and leg. Intuitively, we need to take both of them into account. However, due to some personalized style, besides the action pattern, there is also some heterogeneous noise. Therefore, it is necessary to suppress such irrelevant noise. Interestingly, through experiments, we observe that such noise is sensitive to the channel dimension. The channel dimension can constrain the amount of information and noise passed among nodes in a skeleton graph. In other words, an effective channel squeezing strategy could filter out undesired noise while keeping valuable information. Consequently, we propose a hop-aware hierarchical channel-squeezing transform on long-range features to improve aggregation effectiveness in skeletal GNN learning.
\textbf{Dynamic graph construction is useful but should be delicately designed.}~Existing GNN-based methods construct the graph based on the physical skeleton topology~\cite{ci2019optimizing,zhao2019semantic}, like Fig.~\ref{fig:hop}(a). However, the strong hidden relationships among nodes vary with actions. By constructing a dynamic graph as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hop}(b), such a relationship might be more useful than physical features. Although the dynamic graphs seem intuitive for representing different motion-specific relations, it usually seems vulnerable to the single-frame outliers. Thus, we introduce temporal information to make dynamic graph learning robust.
\section{Preliminaries and Motivation}
This work focuses on GNN-based 3D pose estimation. We first describe the general skeletal GNN construction procedure in Sec.~\ref{sec:relate_sg}. Next, we discuss existing GNN-based solutions for 3D pose estimation in Sec.~\ref{sec:relate_pose}. Finally, Sec.~\ref{sec:obs} motivates this work.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{img/hop.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The illustration of a skeletal graph with human physical edges and action-specific dynamic edges.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:hop}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Skeletal Graph Neural Network}
~\label{sec:relate_sg}
The human skeleton can be naturally modeled as a graph as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hop}(a). The nodes in the graph represent the 2D positions of human joints, and the edges between two joints denote bone connections. Hop-$k$ demonstrates the shortest path $k$ between two nodes. For instance, take node 1 (right shoulder) as the target node, node $2$ (right elbow) and node $3$ (neck) are its hop-$1$ neighbors (masked in dark blue); while nodes $4$ (right hand), $5$ (head), $6$ (left shoulder), and $7$ (spine) are its hop-$2$ neighbors (masked in light blue).
In a graph neural network,
adjacency matrix determines the information passing among nodes, and the objective of the learning procedure is to obtain each node's features by aggregating features from its neighboring nodes. As hop-$k$ increases during message passing, the information passed from the corresponding neighbors varies from short-range context to long-range context.
\subsection{GNN-Based 3D Human Pose Estimation}
\label{sec:relate_pose}
Recently, various GNN-based methods~\cite{zhao2019semantic,ci2019optimizing,cai2019exploiting,liu2020comprehensive,liu2020learning,zou2020high} are proposed in the literature for 3d pose estimation. As weight sharing strategy restricts the representation power, a locally connected network (LCN)~\cite{ci2019optimizing} is proposed to learn the weight of each node individually for enhancing the representation differences among nodes, achieving better generalization capability.
High-order GCN~\cite{zou2020high} explores different aggregation methods on high-order neighbors to capture the long-range dependencies among nodes.
However, it may introduce more noises from less-related nodes without differentiating the impacts between short-range and long-range contexts.
Furthermore, some recent works~\cite{zhao2019semantic,ci2019optimizing} try to learn the edge weights of the skeletal graph. However, without changing the graph topology, the effectiveness of such a dynamic solution is limited, especially for rare poses.
\section{3D Human Pose Estimation}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
In this section, we demonstrate more detailed results on 3D human pose estimation. Sec.~\ref{sec:hm_imp} gives more details on experiment settings. Second, Sec.~\ref{sec:hard_model} analyzes features of hard poses in this task. Third, Sec.~\ref{sec:hm_pa} compares existing methods by the metric of PA-MPJPE.
Finally, Sec.~\ref{sec:hm_ab} shows the ablation study of only using a dynamic graph with HCSF module.
\subsection{Dataset and Implementation Details}
\label{sec:hm_imp}
\subsubsection{Dataset Pre-processing}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We follow our baseline~\cite{ci2019optimizing} to transform the 3D joint position under the camera coordinate system into the pixel coordinate system to remove the influence of pose scales for the single-view pose estimation. Following previous works~\cite{pavllo20193d,ci2019optimizing,zeng2020srnet}, we normalize 2D input poses in the range of [-1, 1] according to the width and height of images. The furthest hop is $6$ in our pre-defined topology. Meanwhile, we set the entry values of the adjacency matrix to be ones if two nodes are physically connected and zero if not.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsubsection{Training Details}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We build a six-layer network as the basic setting, including the first layer, two cascaded blocks, and the last layer. For a single-frame setting, each cascaded block consists of two HCSF layers followed by BN, LeakyReLU (alpha is $0.2$), and dropout (random drop probability is $0.25$). Besides, each block is wrapped with a residual connection, as shown in Fig.$3$ in the main paper. The channel size of each layer we report in the final result is $128$. In the ablation study, we set all output channels as $64$ for each node. The above framework is a common structure that is also used in those works~\cite{martinez2017simple,pavllo20193d,ci2019optimizing,zhao2019semantic,zeng2020srnet}. For temporal settings, each cascaded block consists of one HCSF layer and one TCN layer. The fusion functions $\cF_k$ and $\cF_a$ are concatenation operators by default, which can also be addition, multiplication. L1 regression loss is used between the ground truth and outputs. Moreover, we train our model for $80$ epochs using Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam} optimizer. The initial learning rate is set as $0.001$, and the exponential decay rate is $0.95$. The mini-batch size is $256$. For data augmentation, we follow~\cite{pavllo20193d,ci2019optimizing,zhao2019semantic,zeng2020srnet} and use horizontal flip data augmentation at both training and test stages. Then, we evaluate our method with standard protocol following ~\cite{ci2019optimizing,zhao2019semantic,zeng2020srnet,pavllo20193d}.
\subsection{Further Analysis on Model-Specific Hard Poses}
\label{sec:hard_model}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We define \emph{high-error poses} as hard poses in the 2D-3D pose regression task. After analyzing the error distribution of hard poses in recent works~\cite{martinez2017simple,zhao2019semantic,ci2019optimizing,zeng2020srnet}, we could conclude they are model-specific. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hard_result}, we illustrate the comparison of the ($50\%\sim5\%$) hardest poses from each method. For example, Fig.~\ref{fig:hard_result}(a) shows the ($50\%\sim5\%$) hardest poses from the fully connected network~\cite{martinez2017simple}, and we compare the results with the other four methods under the same poses.
We can observe: (1) The hardest $10\%$ poses of each method is different, indicating that hard poses are model-specific; (2) as the poses become increasingly difficult, the errors of all methods rise to some extent; (3) our method obtains the best results for the hardest poses of all the other four methods; (4) the error gap in Fig.~\ref{fig:hard_result}(e) is smaller than Fig.~\ref{fig:hard_result}(a$\sim$d).
\begin{figure}[thbp]
\subfigure[The hard poses of FCN~\cite{martinez2017simple}]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{LaTeX/img/hard_fc.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfigure[The hard poses of SemGCN~\cite{zhao2019semantic}]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{LaTeX/img/hard_sem.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfigure[The hard poses of LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing}]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{LaTeX/img/hard_lcn.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfigure[The hard poses of SRNet~\cite{zeng2020srnet}]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{LaTeX/img/hard_Sr.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfigure[The hard poses of Ours]
{
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{LaTeX/img/hard_our.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{The comparison of the hard poses in terms of each method.}
\label{fig:hard_result}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison in PA-MPJPE}
\label{sec:hm_pa}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
In Tab.~\ref{tab:human_p2_single}, we compare our methods with other related works using the PA-MPJPE metric where available. We show the results from different 2D inputs, using detected poses or ground truth poses. Our approach achieves the new state-of-the-art with different inputs. Specifically, we surpass ~\cite{zeng2020srnet} from 27.8mm to 24.8mm (relative 10.8\% improvement) with 2D ground truth input. Moreover, we improve upon ~\cite{liu2020comprehensive} from 41.2mm to 39.0mm (relative 5.3\% improvement) with 2D keypoint detection input. Our method can also show the superior in this metric, indicating the effectiveness of this method.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
{\begin{tabular}{ l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c }
\hline
Method & Direct & Discuss & Eat & Greet & Phone& Photo & Pose & Purcha. & Sit & SitD &Smoke &Wait &WalkD&Walk& WalkT & Avg.\\
\hline
Martinez et al.~\cite{martinez2017simple} & 39.5 &43.2& 46.4 &47.0 &51.0 &56.0 &41.4 &40.6& 56.5& 69.4 &49.2 &45.0 &49.5 &38.0 &43.1 &47.7 \\
Fang et al.~\cite{fang2018learning}&38.2 &41.7 &43.7 &44.9 &48.5 &55.3 &40.2 &38.2 &54.5 &64.4 &47.2& 44.3 &47.3 &36.7& 41.7& 45.7\\
Park et al.~\cite{park20183d}&38.3 &42.5& 41.5& 43.3 &47.5& 53.0& 39.3 &37.1& 54.1& 64.3& 46.0& 42.0& 44.8& 34.7& 38.7& 45.0\\
Hossain et al.~\cite{rayat2018exploiting} $\S$ & 35.7 &39.3 &44.6 &43.0 &47.2 &54.0 &38.3& 37.5& 51.6 &61.3 &46.5 &41.4& 47.3 &34.2 &39.4& 44.1\\
Zou et al.~\cite{zou2020high} $\dagger$&38.6 &42.8& 41.8 &43.4 &44.6& 52.9 &37.5 &38.6& 53.3& 60.0& 44.4 &40.9 &46.9 &32.2& 37.9& 43.7\\
Liu et al.~\cite{liu2020learning}$\dagger$ &38.4 &41.1 &40.6& 42.8& 43.5& 51.6 &39.5 &37.6 &49.7& 58.1& 43.2& 39.2& 45.2 &32.8 &38.1 &42.8\\
Ci et al.~\cite{ci2019optimizing}$\dagger$&36.9& 41.6& 38.0& 41.0& 41.9 &51.1 &38.2& 37.6& 49.1 &62.1 &43.1& 39.9& 43.5& 32.2& 37.0& 42.2\\
Liu et al.~\cite{liu2020comprehensive}$\dagger$&35.9 &40.0 &38.0 &41.5 &42.5 &51.4 &37.8 &36.0 &48.6 &56.6 &41.8& 38.3& 42.7& 31.7& 36.2 &41.2\\
\hline
\emph{Ours-HCSF}$\dagger$&34.3&37.6&37.5&38.6&39.5&44.2&38.3&35.5&48.5&55.6&41.4&38.7&42.3&30.8&32.2&39.7\\
\emph{Ours-HCSF w/A}$\dagger$&\textbf{33.9}&\textbf{37.2}&\textbf{36.8}&\textbf{38.1}&\textbf{38.7}&\textbf{43.5}&\textbf{37.8}&\textbf{35.0}&\textbf{47.2}&\textbf{53.8}&\textbf{40.7}&\textbf{38.3}&\textbf{41.8}&\textbf{30.1}&\textbf{31.4}&\textbf{39.0}\\
\hline
Zeng et al.~\cite{zeng2020srnet}$\S$&24.3&28.1&24.3& 28.1&27.4&29.8&28.3&25.6&27.8& 34.5&27.5&27.7&31.8&25.7&25.6&27.8\\
\emph{Ours-HCSF}$\dagger$ $\S$ &20.9&27.3&22.4&25.3&24.4&29.7&24.9&23.0&27.2&32.6&25.8&25.6&26.4&20.4&21.7&25.2\\
\emph{Ours-HCSF w/A}$\dagger$ $\S$ &\textbf{20.7}&\textbf{26.9}&\textbf{22.1}&\textbf{24.8}&\textbf{24.0}&\textbf{29.1}&\textbf{24.5}&\textbf{22.7}&\textbf{26.8}&\textbf{32.1}&\textbf{25.3}&\textbf{25.2}&\textbf{26.0}&\textbf{20.2}&\textbf{21.5}&\textbf{24.8}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison results regarding PA-MPJPE after \emph{rigid transformation} from the ground truth. We highlight the graph-based methods by $\dagger$. $\S$ donates the use of 2D ground truth poses as input. Best results in bold.}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\label{tab:human_p2_single}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Ablation Study on Dynamic Graph}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\label{sec:hm_ab}
This work has two main contributions: Hierarchical Channel-Squeezing Fusion (HCSF) and temporal-aware dynamic graph learning. We further explore how temporal-aware dynamic graph alone influences the regression results. The 2D inputs are 2D ground truth to explore the upper bound of our method to avoid some irrelevant noises from detected 2D poses.
\noindent\textbf{Effects of dynamic graph learning.}
Dynamic graph learning shows different action-related connectivity with different inputs. It can be more flexible to extract specific-action patterns, especially for hard poses. We have demonstrated the influence on both HCSF and dynamic graph learning in the main paper. Accordingly, we study the effects of dynamic graph learning alone. We take the \emph{Non-hierarchy strategy} LCN with the static graph aggregating with hop-$2$ as a baseline. Similar to the Tab.$6$ in the main paper, the Tab. ~\ref{tab:hm_dy1}a, ~\ref{tab:hm_dy1}b, ~\ref{tab:hm_dy1}c shows that $\mM_k$ ($ori$), using the physical topology as an initial connections, is better than $\mM_k$ ($dense$) and $\mM_k$ ($rand$). The weighted graph $\mM_k$ ($ori$) can also surpass the \emph{same} weighted graph in LCN. Moreover, only learning graph structure from features increase the error from $35.7$mm to $46.1$, which is infeasible. After combining the weighed graph $\mM_k$ ($ori$) with the dynamic offset $\mO_k$, we can obtain $0.5$mm improvement. Furthermore, considering a dynamic scale $\alpha$ to control the influence of the dynamic offsets, which is the formula in Eq.$8$, will be helpful. Last, we can observe that the temporal-aware scheme can boost the performance, decreasing the MPJPE from $34.0$mm to $33.5$mm.
\begin{table*}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\small
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c |c|c|c|c}
\hline
Method & LCN & a & b & c & d & e & f & g\\
\hline
$\mA_k$ & $ori$ &Only $\mM_k$ ($ori$) & Only $\mM_k$ ($dense$)&Only $\mM_k$ ($rand$) & Only $\mO_k$ & $\mM_k + \mO_k$ & Eq.$8$ & Eq.$8$ w/T\\
\hline\hline
MPJPE(mm)&35.7&34.8&35.5&41.2&46.1&34.3&34.0&\textbf{33.5}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison on the effects of dynamic graph learning $\mA$ in a \emph{Non-hierarchy strategy}. $ori$ is the static graph with physical connections, shown in LCN~\cite{ci2019optimizing}. \emph{Baseline} takes $\mA_k$ as $ori$. \emph{Only $\mM_k$ ($\cdot$)} denotes applying $\mM_k$ with different initialization. \emph{Only $\mO_k$} keeps the dynamic offset in Eq.$8$. \emph{$\mM_k + \mO_k$} equals to set $\alpha=1$ in Eq.$8$. \emph{w/T} represents the temporal-aware scheme defined in Sec.$3.3$.}
\label{tab:hm_dy1}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table*}
\noindent\textbf{Effects of the temporal scale.}
The uncertainty in single-frame poses will affect the regression results, making dynamic graph learning unstable and misleading. Hence, it is essential to introduce temporal consistency to make the process effective. We then explore how different settings in the temporal-aware scheme impact the performance. The temporal-aware schemes are different from the receptive fields. We fix $S$=$1$, $L$=$2$, $d$=$1/8$. The channel size of each layer is $128$. And the frame of input is $9$. From Tab.~\ref{tab:hm_tp}, we can find that using the $3\times1$ kernel size will be better than other settings. And using temporal information will consistently improve the single-frame results by $0.1\sim0.4$mm. Thus, we report our final results using the $3\times1$ kernel size.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c|c|c}
\hline
$F$ &(1,1)&(3,1)&(3,1) w/$st.$=2&(3,1) w/$di.$=2&(5,1)&(7,1)\\
\hline
HCSF&30.8&\textbf{30.4}&30.7&30.7&30.6&30.7\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The impact of settings $F$ of temporal convolution in dynamic graph learning of 3D human pose estimation. $st.$ is an abbreviation for $stride$, and $di.$ is $dilation$.
}
\label{tab:hm_tp}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
\section{Skeleton-based Human Action Recognition}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
In this section, we present the experimental details, more results and ablation study of skeleton-based action recognition in Sec.~\ref{sec:act_imp}, Sec.~\ref{sec:har_single} and Sec.~\ref{sec:act_ab}, respectively.
\subsection{Dataset and Implementation Details}
\label{sec:act_imp}
\subsubsection{Data Description}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\noindent\textbf{NTU RGB+D 60}~\cite{shahroudy2016ntu} is one of the most widely used in-door RGB+Depth action recognition dataset with 60 actions. They include daily, mutual, and health-related actions. NTU RGB+D 60 has 40 subjects under three cameras.
Following~\cite{shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton,ye2020dynamic,peng2020mix,yan2018spatial}, we use skeleton sequences with 25 body joints captured by Kinect V.2 as inputs, and take two evaluation settings in NTU RGB+D 60: (1) Cross-Subject (X-Sub), where 20 subjects each for training and testing, respectively; (2) Cross-View (X-View), where 2 camera views for training and 1 camera view for testing. We perform the ablation study in Sec.~\ref{sec:act_ab} on the X-View setting.
\noindent\textbf{NTU RGB+D 120}~\cite{liu2019ntu} collects 120 various actions by 106 distinct subjects and contains more than 114 thousand video samples and 8 million frames. We also follow some previous works~\cite{ye2020dynamic,liu2020disentangling,peng2020mix,peng2020learning}, using two evaluation settings: (1) Cross-Setup (X-Set), training on 16 camera setups and testing on other 16 camera setups; (2) Cross-Subject (X-Sub), half subjects for training and half for testing.
We report the top-1 accuracy on both benchmarks.
\subsubsection{Data Pre-processing}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
The procedure for both datasets follows~\cite{shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton,liu2020disentangling}. Each video has a maximum of 300 frames, and if it is shorter than 300, we repeat some frames to make up for it. Since there are at most two people in both datasets, we pad the second body with zeros to keep the same shape of inputs when the second body does not appear.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsubsection{Training Details}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We build a ten-layer network, including nine cascaded blocks that consist of one HCSF layer followed by BN, ReLU, temporal convolution layer (TCN), BN and ReLU. Each temporal 1D convolution layer conducts $9 \times 1$ convolution on the feature maps. Each block is wrapped with a residual connection. The output dimension for each block are 64, 64, 64, 128, 128, 128, 256, 256 and 256. A global average pooling layer and a fully-connected layer are used to aggregate extracted features, and then, feed them into a softmax classifier to obtain the action class. The above framework is also a common setting as in~\cite{yan2018spatial,shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton,ye2020dynamic}. For multi-stream networks~\cite{shi2020skeleton}, we use four modalities, e.g., joints, bones and their motions, as inputs for each stream, and average their softmax scores to obtain the final prediction. Cross-entropy is used as the classification loss function to back-propagate gradients. We set the entry values in the adjacency matrix to be ones if two nodes are physically connected and zero if not.
For the training settings, we train our model for $60$ epochs using the SGD optimizer with mini-batch size $64$. The initial learning rate is 0.1 and it reduces by $10$ times in both the $35_{th}$ and $45_{th}$ epoch, respectively. The weight decay is set as $0.0005$. All data augmentation is the same as~\cite{shi2019skeleton, shi2020skeleton}.
\subsection{Results of Single-Stream Framework}
\label{sec:har_single}
Due to space limitations, we only report the accuracy of the multi-stream framework~\cite{shi2020skeleton} for the skeleton-based human action recognition task in the main paper. Specifically, the multi-stream network comprises four different modality inputs: the 3D skeleton joint position, the 3D skeleton bone vector, the motion of the 3D skeleton joint, and the motion of the 3D skeleton bone. Here, we report the performance of \emph{each modality input} in Tab.~\ref{tab:har_stream} for the ease of comparison with existing works.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ c| cc|c c }
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{NTU-RGB+D 60}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{NTU-RGB+D 120}} \\
&X-Sub(\%)&X-View(\%)&X-Sub(\%)&X-Set(\%)\\
\hline
Joint&89.0&95.3&83.5&85.7\\
Bone&89.3&94.9&85.0&86.6\\
Joint-Motion&86.9&93.5&80.1&81.5\\
Bone-Motion&86.9&93.1&80.6&83.0\\
\hline
Multi-Stream&\textbf{91.6}&\textbf{96.7}&\textbf{87.5}&\textbf{89.2}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Top-1 accuracy (\%) is used as the evaluation metric. The best result in each K is in bold.
}
\label{tab:har_stream}
\end{table}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
\label{sec:act_ab}
We investigate the proposed methods on the NTU RGB-D X-View setting with 3D joint positions as inputs.
\paragraph{\textbf{Effects of hierarchical channel-squeezing fusion block.}}
From Tab.~\ref{tab:decay_D}, our method improves the accuracy of 0.7$\%$ steadily under all three graph settings, static graphs $\mathcal{G}_k$ and two dynamic graphs $\mathcal{M}_k$ and $\mathcal{A}_{k}$ in Eq.$8$. Basically, better results can be achieved when $d$=$1/8$.
Moreover, we get the best results when using HCSF with dynamic graph $\mathcal{A}_{k}$, which validates the effectiveness of the proposed structure.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c|c}
\hline
Decay Rate $d$&$1$&$1/2$&$1/4$&$1/8$&$1/16$\\
\hline
Static-$\mathcal{G}$& 93.9&94.5&94.6&\textbf{94.8}&94.5\\
Dynamic-$\mathcal{M}$ &94.4&94.9&\textbf{95.1}&94.9&\textbf{95.1}\\
Dynamic-$\mathcal{A}$ &94.6&95.0&95.2&\textbf{95.3}&\textbf{95.3} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The impact of decay rate $d$ under static matrix $\mathcal{G}$, dynamic graph from $\mathbf{M_k}$, and dynamic graph from $\mathbf{A_{k}}$ in Eq.$8$.
}
\label{tab:decay_D}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
\vspace{5pt}
Furthermore, in Tab.~\ref{tab:comp_dy}, we demonstrate the performance of different methods concerning the number of hops. Since the skeleton topology in NTU-RGBD datasets is different from Human3.6M, it has more keypoints and further hops. The furthest hop is $13$ in our pre-defined topology. We set $S$=$5$, $L$=$7$ and $d$=$1/8$. $k$-hop ($k$=$1, 5, 7$) means aggregating the neighbors within the distance $k$ (1-hop with a static graph is ST-GCN~\cite{yan2018spatial}). Mixhop~\cite{abu2019mixhop} means that it concatenates the $k$-hop ($k$=$1, 5, 7$) features as the output of a layer, and the output size of the $k$-hop feature is one-third of the final output. MS-Hop means that it averages the $k$-hop ($k$=$1, 5, 7$) features, and the output size of the $k$-hop feature is the same as the final output.
As illustrated in Tab.~\ref{tab:comp_dy}, though MixHop and MS-Hop show improvements on k-hop strategies, they have no distinction in handling distant and close neighbors, which over-mix the useful and noisy information.
Our approaches outperform all other baselines, which indicates the effectiveness of the hierarchical channel-squeezing fusion strategy.
Additionally, we explore the effects of other hyper-parameters in the HCSF. We have the following observations. First, when using a dynamic graph $\mathcal{A}_{k}$ in Eq.$8$ and fixing the hyper-parameters squeezing ratio $d$ and the output channel size $C$ in a layer, we find little effects on the results that $S$ and $L$ has. The accuracy is stable around 95.1$\%$ $(\sim0.2\%)$. It indicates that the HCSF is robust to the noise in the graph.
Second, as the number of hops increases, the performance first improves and then becomes stable. Since adding more hops leads to extra computations, to balance the computation efficiency and performance, our final setting for each layer is $S$=$5$, $L$=$7$, $d$=$1/8$, $C$ of each layer is the same as~\cite{yan2018spatial,shi2019skeleton,shi2020skeleton}.
Last, we also explore to automatically learn the relations between hops and dimensions with the guidance of channel attention. However, we find that the exponentially decaying in dimension consistently yields better results than the soft attention, which may be because the soft attention mechanism introduces more uncertainty and complexity.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c|c |c}
\hline
Method&1-hop&5-hop&7-hop&MixHop&MS-Hop&Ours\\
\hline
Static $\mathcal{G}$& 92.2&93.5&93.7&93.9&94.1&\textbf{94.8}\\
Dynamic-$\mathcal{M}$ &93.4&94.1&94.1&94.5&94.6&\textbf{95.2}\\
Dynamic-$\mathcal{A}$&93.9&94.3&94.2&94.8&94.7&\textbf{95.3} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Comparison on various multiple hop structures under static matrix $\mathcal{G}_K$, dynamic graph from $\mathcal{M}_k$, and a dynamic graph from $\mathcal{A}_{k}$. Top-1 accuracy is used as the evaluation metric.
}
\label{tab:comp_dy}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\paragraph{\textbf{Effects of the temporal-aware dynamic graph learning.}}
The jitter and missing inputs will make dynamic graph learning unreliable, making it difficult to distinguish between similar actions, e.g., ``eat a meal" and ``brushing teeth." Such problems are serious in using single-frame features, but they can be improved by involving temporal information. From Tab.~\ref{tab:har_temporal}, we can observe that when using three frames into a temporal convolution, it can improve the single-frame setting by 0.6\%. While the settings of temporal aggregation are important, the longer temporal contexts will also degrade the performance, and use three frames will be the optimal setting.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{ l| c |c |c |c|c|c}
\hline
$F$ &(1,1)&(3,1)&(3,1) w/$st.$=2&(3,1) w/$di.$=2&(5,1)&(7,1)\\
\hline
HCSF&94.7&\textbf{95.3}&95.0&94.8&95.1&94.7\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The impact of settings of temporal convolution in dynamic graph learning of skeleton-based action recognition. $st.$ is an abbreviation for $stride$, and $di.$ is $dilation$.
}
\label{tab:har_temporal}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Coralia Cartis, Tim Claridge, Jean-Nicolas Dumez, David Goodwin, Iain Swan, and Chris Waudby for helpful discussions; as well as Fay Probert and Abi Yates for providing the rodent urine sample.
J.R.J.Y.\ thanks the Clarendon Fund (University of Oxford) and the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Synthesis for Biology and Medicine (EP/L015838/1) for a studentship, generously supported by AstraZeneca, Diamond Light Source, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Evotec, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Syngenta, Takeda, UCB, and Vertex.
M.F.\ thanks the Royal Society for a University Research Fellowship and a University Research Fellow Enhancement Award (Grant Nos. URF\textbackslash{}R1\textbackslash{}180233 and RGF\textbackslash{}EA\textbackslash{}181018).
\printbibliography{}
\include{si}
\includepdf[pages=-]{./files/docu.pdf}
\end{document}
\section{Raw data and reproducibility}
\label{sec:si_rawdata}
All raw data used for this paper, as well as the Python scripts to generate the plots in the main paper and SI, can be downloaded from Zenodo at the DOI \href{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4698423}{\texttt{10.5281/zenodo.4698423}}.
\subsection{Datasets}
The datasets that were used for each section are tabulated in \cref{tbl:datasets}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Section & Description & Folder name & Expnos \\
\midrule
\ang{90} pulse width & Reference grid search & \texttt{P1\_Scan} & 1--161 \\
& Optimisation (initial value \SI{48}{\us}) & \texttt{P1\_Opt} & 4 \\
& Optimisation (initial value \SI{43}{\us}) & \texttt{P1\_Opt} & 5 \\
& Optimisation (initial value \SI{53}{\us}) & \texttt{P1\_Opt} & 6 \\
Ernst angle & 2D inversion-recovery & \texttt{Invrec\_Opt} & 2 \\
& Optimisation (6 to \SI{8}{\ppm}) & \texttt{Ernst\_Opt} & 1001 \\
& Optimisation (\SI{6.79}{\ppm} only) & \texttt{Ernst\_Opt} & 1002 \\
NOE mixing time & Reference grid search & \texttt{NOESY\_OptScan} & 101--159 \\
& Optimisation & \texttt{NOESY\_OptScan} & 3 \\
Inversion-recovery & 2D inversion-recovery & \texttt{Invrec\_Opt} & 2 \\
& Optimisation (6 to \SI{8}{\ppm}) & \texttt{Invrec\_Opt} & 3 \\
& Optimisation (\SI{7.08}{\ppm} only) & \texttt{Invrec\_Opt} & 4 \\
ASAP-HSQC & Reference grid search & \texttt{HSQC\_OptScan} & 101--133 \\
& Optimisation & \texttt{HSQC\_OptScan} & 2 \\
EPSI & Reference grid search & \texttt{EPSI\_Scan} & 95--116 \\
& Optimisation & \texttt{EPSI\_Opt} & 1 \\
& Ultrafast 2D TOCSY & \texttt{EPSI\_Opt} & 10--11 \\
PSYCHE & Flip angle reference grid search & \texttt{PSYCHE\_FAScan} & 301--331 \\
& Optimisation (1 parameter) & \texttt{PSYCHE\_Opt} & 101 \\
& Optimisation (2 parameters) & \texttt{PSYCHE\_Opt} & 102 \\
& Optimisation (3 parameters) & \texttt{PSYCHE\_Opt} & 103 \\
& Optimisation (4 parameters) & \texttt{PSYCHE\_Opt} & 104 \\
& Pseudo-2D homodecoupled spectra & \texttt{PSYCHE\_Opt} & 1400--1404 \\
Solvent suppression & Offset reference grid search & \texttt{Solvsupp\_O1Scan} & 101--141 \\
& Optimisation (1 parameter) & \texttt{Solvsupp\_Opt} & 11 \\
& Optimisation (2 parameters) & \texttt{Solvsupp\_Opt} & 14 \\
& Optimisation (3 parameters) & \texttt{Solvsupp\_Opt} & 15 \\
& Optimisation (4 parameters) & \texttt{Solvsupp\_Opt} & 16 \\
& Representative optimised spectra & \texttt{Solvsupp\_Opt} & 31, 35--37 \\
DOSY & Optimisation (sequential) & \texttt{DOSY\_Opt} & 101--102 \\
& Optimised Oneshot DOSY & \texttt{DOSY\_Opt} & 1, 1001--1021 \\
& Optimisation (simultaneous) & \texttt{DOSY\_Opt} & 201--202 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Datasets used for each section of the Supporting Information.}
\label{tbl:datasets}
\end{table}
All of the POISE{} optimisation data was logged in \texttt{poise.log} files, which can be found in the corresponding raw data folders.
These log files detail the optimisation trajectory and the cost function at each point, and can be parsed using the \texttt{parse\_log()} function (please see the documentation for more information).
However, some of these date from an older development version of POISE{} in which less information was recorded, so some details (e.g.\ of the AU programme used for acquisition) may be blank.
Full details of acquisition and processing parameters for each optimisation can be found in these folders.
For this reason, except for a few key values, they are not tabulated in the main text or here.
\subsection{Figures}
All figures are done in Python 3 and use the \texttt{penguins} package (written by J.R.J.Y.) to parse and plot NMR data.
As of the time of writing, this package is still in development; consequently, the interface and functionality may change in a backward-incompatible manner.
In order to ensure full reproducibility, please install version 0.4.1 of \texttt{penguins}, which was released specifically for this paper.
This can be done using the command
\begin{minted}{text}
pip install penguins=0.4.1
\end{minted}
After downloading the raw data, the NMR datasets themselves should be found in a directory called \texttt{datasets}, and the scripts in a directory called \texttt{figures}.
The figures themselves are provided in this folder, but can be regenerated at any point in time by re-running the scripts (the scripts also provide a ``trace'' of which data is being used to plot the data).
The scripts will be executable as long as this directory structure is preserved, as they use a relative path to locate the datasets.
If the directories are moved for any reason, the environment variable \texttt{POISE\_DATA} should be set such that it points to the \texttt{datasets} directory.
For example, in \texttt{bash} and similar shells, this can be done using (replace the path accordingly)
\begin{minted}{text}
export POISE_DATA=/path/to/nmrpoise_data/datasets
\end{minted}
\section{Routines}
In POISE{}, routines are stored in the human-readable JSON format, and are thus provided in the sections which follow.
These JSON files should be placed in the TopSpin directory \texttt{.../exp/stan/nmr/\\py/user/poise\_backend/routines}.
Each routine consists of several entries:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{name}: The name of the routine, which can be arbitrarily chosen (although it should match the filename: thus a routine with name \texttt{my\_routine} should be stored in \texttt{my\_routine.json}).
\item \texttt{pars}: A list of string parameters which are to be optimised. These correspond exactly to parameter names in TopSpin.
\item \texttt{lb}: A list of numbers acting as the lower bounds for each parameter. Units are given in TopSpin's native units, i.e.\ pulses are in microseconds, delays in seconds, etc.
\item \texttt{ub}: A list of numbers acting as the upper bounds for each parameter.
\item \texttt{init}: A list of numbers acting as the initial values for each parameter.
\item \texttt{tol}: A list of numbers acting as the tolerances for each parameter.
\item \texttt{cf}: The name of the cost function. A function with this name must be defined in either of the files \texttt{poise\_backend/costfunctions.py} or \texttt{poise\_backend/costfunctions\_user.py}. For a list of pre-installed cost functions and descriptions, please refer to the POISE{} user documentation.
\item \texttt{au}: The name of the AU programme used for acquisition and processing. This can be left blank (see below).
\end{itemize}
If no AU programme is specified by the user upon setup, the \texttt{poise\_1d} or \texttt{poise\_2d} AU programmes will automatically be used depending on the dimensionality of the dataset.
These default AU programmes are used for many of the optimisations described in the \textit{Supporting Information}{}, and are detailed below.
All the routines in the \textit{Supporting Information}{} can be found in the \texttt{.../exp/stan/nmr/py/user/\\poise\_backend/example\_routines} directory, and can be directly copied to the \texttt{routines} directory if desired.
\clearpage
\subsection{poise\_1d AU programme}
\inputminted{c}{./files/au/poise_1d}
\subsection{poise\_1d\_noapk AU programme}
This AU programme is not used by default, but comes installed together with POISE, used in some of the optimisations described below.
\inputminted{c}{./files/au/poise_1d_noapk}
\subsection{poise\_2d AU programme}
\inputminted{c}{./files/au/poise_2d}
\section{1D \texorpdfstring{\ce{^{1}H}{}}{1H} spectra for all samples}
As a reference, we provide here the \ce{^{1}H}{} spectra of all samples used in this work.
These can also be found in the raw data (\cref{sec:si_rawdata}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{si_proton_ferulic.png}
\caption{
\ce{^{1}H}{} spectrum of \SI{45}{\milli\molar} ferulic acid in DMSO-$d_6$ (\SI{500}{\MHz} resonance frequency).
}
\label{fig:si_proton_ferulic}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{si_proton_3fpba.png}
\caption{
\ce{^{1}H}{} spectrum of \SI{120}{\milli\molar} 3-fluorophenylboronic acid in DMSO-$d_6$ (\SI{700}{\MHz} resonance frequency).
}
\label{fig:si_proton_3fpba}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{si_proton_andro.png}
\caption{
\ce{^{1}H}{} spectrum of \SI{45}{\milli\molar} andrographolide in DMSO-$d_6$ (\SI{600}{\MHz} resonance frequency).
}
\label{fig:si_proton_andro}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{si_proton_rodent.png}
\caption{
\ce{^{1}H}{} spectrum of rodent urine in \ce{D2O} (\SI{400}{\MHz} resonance frequency).
The water peak has been suppressed using the 1D NOESY / presaturation sequence.
}
\label{fig:si_proton_rodent}
\end{figure}
\section{\texorpdfstring{$\mathbf{90^\circ}$}{90°} pulse width calibration}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{600}{\MHz} Bruker AVIII spectrometer, equipped with a Prodigy \ce{N2} broadband cryoprobe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{66}{\gauss\per\cm}.
The sample used was \SI{45}{\milli\molar} ferulic acid in DMSO-$d_6$.
\subsection{Cost function}
The cost function used in this section, \texttt{minabsint}, comes pre-installed with POISE.
It can be mathematically expressed as
\begin{equation}
f = \sum_i \sqrt{\mathbf{S}_{\text{real},i}^2 + \mathbf{S}_{\text{imag},i}^2}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{S}_{\text{real}}$ and $\mathbf{S}_{\text{imag}}$ are vectors of length \texttt{SI} corresponding to the real and imaginary parts of the spectrum respectively.
The elements $\mathbf{S}_i$ are the intensities of the spectrum at each point along the spectral width.
\subsection{Reference grid search}
The grid search, as used in the builtin \texttt{popt}, is a highly time-consuming method of locating the optimum.
It is used here only as a reference, i.e.\ to prove that the faster optimisation algorithms are indeed finding the true optimum.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{p1_scan.png}
\caption{
Dependence of the cost function on the pulse width (\texttt{p1}).
The minimum value of the cost function is $3.34 \times 10^7$ and occurs at $\mathtt{p1} = \SI{48.3}{\us}$.
}
\label{fig:p1scan}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optimisation}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Method & Description & Optimum found (\si{\us}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & \texttt{popt} & \texttt{MAGMIN} cost function & 48.40 & 41 & 299 \\
2 & \texttt{pulsecal} & -- & 46.64 & -- & 37 \\
3a & POISE{} & Nelder--Mead & 48.38 & 10 & 76--79 \\
3b & & MDS & 48.38 & 10 & 77--80 \\
3c & & BOBYQA & 48.29--48.41 & 6--7 & 46--54 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
\ang{360} pulse width optimisations run with an initial point of \SI{48}{\us}.
\texttt{popt} optimisations were run between values of \SI{40}{\us} and \SI{56}{\us}, with a linear increment of \SI{0.4}{\us}.
The POISE{} routine is: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "p1cal", "pars": ["p1"], "lb": [40.0], "ub": [56.0], "init": [48.0], "tol": [0.2], "cf": "minabsint", "au": "poise_1d"}}.
The pulse programme used was the Bruker standard \texttt{zg}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=1}, \texttt{DS=0}, \texttt{SW=12.0}, \texttt{TD=16384}, \texttt{D1=1.5}.
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:p1init48}
\end{table}
The BOBYQA algorithm takes the \textit{exact value} of the cost function into consideration when deciding what points to sample.
On the other hand, the simplex-based methods only consider how the various points are ordered according to the value of the cost function at each point.
This is partly why BOBYQA tends to converge faster than the other two algorithms, which in turn explains why we have set it as the default algorithm for POISE; it also accounts for the slight variability in the optimum found (note that this range is still well within the specified tolerance of \SI{0.2}{\us}, so it does not reflect a failing).
However, in edge cases when the cost function is extremely unbalanced or noisy, we find that BOBYQA can be unduly biased by the resulting cost function values (this is not the case here).
We find that the simplex-based NM and MDS methods, although slower on average, can be slightly more reliable in such situations.
The next two tables describe optimisations starting from an inaccurate initial point.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Method & Description & Optimum found (\si{\us}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1a & POISE{} & Nelder--Mead & 48.38 & 14 & 109--114 \\
1b & & MDS & 48.38 & 14 & 108--112 \\
1c & & BOBYQA & 48.27--48.33 & 9 & 70 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Pulse width optimisations with an initial point of \SI{43}{\us}.
The POISE{} routine is the same as in \cref{tbl:p1init48}, except with \texttt{"init":[43.0]}.
All other acquisition parameters are identical.
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:p1init43}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Method & Description & Optimum found (\si{\us}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1a & POISE{} & Nelder--Mead & 48.38 & 14 & 110--114 \\
1b & & MDS & 48.25--48.38 & 16 & 123--126 \\
1c & & BOBYQA & 48.26--48.33 & 9 & 69--70 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Pulse width optimisations with an initial point of \SI{53}{\us}.
The POISE{} routine is the same as in \cref{tbl:p1init48}, except with \texttt{"init":[53.0]}.
All other acquisittion parameters are identical.
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:p1init53}
\end{table}
As can be seen, POISE{} is capable of ``recovering'' from a bad start. Although this requires more time, even in the worst-case scenario, the time taken is still less than half of that needed for the full grid search (299 seconds, cf.\ Entry 1, \cref{tbl:p1init48}).
\subsection{Using POISE under automation}
POISE{} provides a command-line interface which allows it to be called from within AU and Python scripts once the appropriate routines and cost functions have been set up.
Thus, for example, a typical optimisation `procedure' would involve the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Create a new dataset specially for the optimisation.
\item Read in a parameter set, where the appropriate pulse programme for optimisation, as well as all other unoptimised parameters, have been chosen.
\item Run the POISE{} optimisation with \texttt{poise <routine\_name> <options>}. (For the available options please see the user documentation.)
\item Transfer the optimised parameter values back to the original dataset, and run the optimised experiment.
\end{enumerate}
All of this can be easily automated using either AU or Python scripts.
Here we provide examples of both AU and Python scripts, called \texttt{poisecal}, which perform a similar role to the existing \texttt{pulsecal} AU programme in TopSpin.
Running either of these will carry out a POISE{} optimisation in expno 99999, then set the optimised value of \texttt{p1} to the currently active dataset.
(These examples are also included in the documentation with extra explanation.)
\textbf{Please note that both of these can be downloaded from GitHub; the links are near the top of the source code.}
In general, the AU programme should be preferred as it contains some extra functionality (namely the option to dynamically specify the region of the spectrum to optimise on: please see the header of the AU programme for more information).
\subsubsection{AU programme}
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt]{c}{./files/au/poisecal}
\subsubsection{Python script}
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt]{python}{./files/py/poisecalpy.py}
\section{Ernst angle}
\label{sec:si_ernst}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{500}{\MHz} Bruker AVIII spectrometer, equipped with a triple-resonance TBO probe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{50}{\gauss\per\cm}.
The sample used was \SI{45}{\milli\molar} ferulic acid in DMSO-$d_6$.
\subsection{Cost function}
The cost function used in this section is \texttt{maxrealint}, which corresponds simply to a summation of all peaks in the real part of the spectrum:
\begin{equation}
f = -\sum_i \mathbf{S}_{\mathrm{real},i}
\end{equation}
The minus sign is necessary because optimisation algorithms always seek to \textit{minimise} the cost function.
Thus, in this case, a larger peak intensity corresponds to a more negative cost function, i.e.\ a ``better'' spectrum.
\subsection{Theoretical optima via \texorpdfstring{$T_1$}{T1}}
\label{sec:si_ernst_invrec}
In lieu of a reference grid search, we sought to measure the longitudinal relaxation times ($T_1$) of each peak in the sample.
The Ernst angle $\theta$ which maximises the sensitivity for a given repetition time $\tau_\mathrm{r}$ can then be calculated from this via
\begin{equation}
\cos \theta = \exp\left(-\frac{\tau_\mathrm{r}}{T_1}\right)
\end{equation}
thus giving us the theoretical optimal value, without having to go through a grid search.
The $T_1$ values extracted from a gradient-enhanced inversion-recovery experiment, and the corresponding Ernst angles (for a repetition time of $\tau_\mathrm{r} = \SI{1.20}{\s}$, as used in the optimisation), are summarised in \cref{tbl:ernst_2dinvrec}.
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Peak & \ce{^{1}H}{} chemical shift (ppm) & $T_1$ (\si{\s}) & $\theta$ ($^\circ$) \\
\midrule
1 & 7.49 & 1.750 & 59.8 \\
2 & 7.27 & 0.977 & 73.0 \\
3 & 7.08 & 1.279 & 67.0 \\
4 & 6.79 & 1.615 & 61.6 \\
5 & 6.36 & 1.415 & 64.6 \\
6 & 3.49 & 0.949 & 73.6 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
$T_1$ (at \SI{500}{\MHz}) and Ernst angles for each peak in ferulic acid, calculated for a repetition time of \SI{1.20}{\s}.
}
\label{tbl:ernst_2dinvrec}
\end{table}
\subsection{Optimisation}
It is possible to show, both theoretically and experimentally, that in order to maximise the sensitivity per unit time, the relaxation delay should be set to zero and the Ernst angle applied with $\tau_\mathrm{r}$ simply equal to the acquisition time \texttt{AQ}.
See, e.g., \textit{Concepts Magn.\ Reson.}\ \textbf{1992,} \textit{4} (2), 153--160 (DOI: \href{https://doi.org/10.1002/cmr.1820040204}{\texttt{10.1002/cmr.1820040204}}) and \textit{J.\ Mol.\ Spectrosc.}\ \textbf{1970,} \textit{35} (2), 298--305 (DOI: \href{https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2852(70)90205-5}{\texttt{10.1016/0022-2852(70)90205-5}}).
Furthermore, in order to make an Ernst angle optimisation worthwhile, the repetition time must be on the order of $T_1$.
With longer repetition times on the order of $3T_1$ or so, the Ernst angle is very close to \ang{90}, which transforms the issue into the \ang{90} calibration already described in the previous section.
In the event, we elected to use a repetition time of \SI{1.20}{\s}, which is on the order of the $T_1$ times shown in \cref{tbl:ernst_2dinvrec}.
In the first optimisation, we set the region under optimisation to be just the aromatic and olefinic peaks between 6 and \SI{8}{\ppm} (i.e.\ peaks 1--5).
Instead of changing the actual spectral window, this is most easily done using the \texttt{dpl} command in TopSpin; for more information, please refer to the user documentation.
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found ($^\circ$) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 67.5--73.1 & 9--13 & 91--132 \\
2 & MDS & 67.5--73.1 & 9 & 90--92 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 70.1--70.7 & 7 & 70--71 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Ernst angle optimisations on all aromatic and olefinic peaks in ferulic acid (between 6 and \SI{8}{\ppm}).
The POISE{} routine used here is: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "ernst", "pars": ["cnst20"], "lb": [10.0], "ub": [90.0], "init": [30.0], "tol": [3.0], "cf": "maxrealint", "au": "poise_1d"}}.
The pulse programme used was \texttt{zgvfa\_jy} (\cref{sec:si_ernst_pp}).
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=1}, \texttt{DS=4}, \texttt{D1=0}, \texttt{SW=14}, \texttt{TD=16384}, \texttt{AQ=1.17}.
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:ernst_fivepeaks}
\end{table}
Of course, the user may select the spectral bounds themselves in order to maximise the overall sensitivity for the entire spectrum, a particular region, or even a specific peak of interest.
In the second case, we ran an optimisation on only the peak at \SI{6.79}{\ppm}.
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found (\si{\s}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 60.0--67.5 & 9--11 & 91--111 \\
2 & MDS & 65.6--67.5 & 11 & 110--111 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 60.0--65.2 & 6--7 & 59--71 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Ernst angle optimisations on the peak at \SI{6.79}{\ppm} in ferulic acid.
The POISE routine and all acquisition parameters are the same as in \cref{tbl:ernst_fivepeaks}, but the spectral region under optimisation was set to be 6.71--\SI{6.87}{\ppm} via the \texttt{dpl} TopSpin command.
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:ernst_onepeak}
\end{table}
\subsection{Variable flip angle pulse-acquire pulse programme}
\label{sec:si_ernst_pp}
Note that the following pulse programme, which requires \texttt{p1} to be the calibrated \ang{90} pulse width and sets \texttt{cnst20} to the flip angle, should only be used if the \textit{actual flip angle} is of interest.
If the sole aim is to maximise sensitivity, then the standard Bruker \texttt{zg} pulse programme suffices.
The routine should be modified to optimise \texttt{p1} directly instead of the flip angle itself.
In essence, this means that we do not care what the flip angle is, we merely want the pulse width which maximises the sensitivity.
This approach has an advantage in that \texttt{p1} does not need to be calibrated beforehand.
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt, xrightmargin=0pt]{text}{./files/pp/zgvfa_jy}
\section{NOE mixing time}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{700}{\MHz} Bruker AVIII spectrometer, equipped with a TCI H/C/N cryoprobe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{53}{\gauss\per\cm}.
The sample used was \SI{120}{\milli\molar} 3-fluorophenylboronic acid in DMSO-$d_6$.
\subsection{Cost function}
The cost function used for the optimisation here, named \texttt{noe\_1d}, is pre-installed with POISE.
It is only applicable to 1D selective NOE spectra.
In short, it takes the processed spectrum, removes a region of \SI{50}{\Hz} around the selectively excited peak, and calculates the intensity of the remaining parts of the spectrum.
Since we aim to \textit{maximise} this intensity, the cost function must return the \textit{negative} of this intensity.
Further details are best explained through the comments in the source code, which is reproduced here:
\inputminted[breaklines,firstline=21,lastline=50,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt]{python}{./files/costfunctions.py}
\subsection{Reference grid search}
The grid search was carried out using actual 2D NOESY spectra; this has the advantage of proving that the mixing time optimised using 1D spectra does in fact accurately represent the best mixing time for 2D spectra.
The intensity of each crosspeak here refers to the intensity of the most negative point within a \SI{0.12}{\ppm} by \SI{0.12}{\ppm} box centred on the crosspeak.
A broad minimum around a mixing time of 3--4 seconds can be seen.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{noesy_scan.png}
\caption{Dependence of crosspeak intensity on the NOE mixing time (\texttt{d8}).}
\label{fig:noesy_scan}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optimisation}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found (\si{\s}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 3.25--3.88 & 16--18 & 268--312 \\
2 & MDS & 3.63--3.75 & 16--18 & 269--305 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 3.38--3.80 & 6--10 & 88--162 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
NOE mixing time optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used here is: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "1dnoe", "pars": ["d8"], "lb": [0.2], "ub": [6.0], "init": [0.5], "tol": [0.1], "cf": "noe_1d", "au": "poise_1d"}}.
The pulse programme used here is \texttt{spfgsenoezs2.1\_jy} (\cref{sec:si_noesy_pp}).
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=1}, \texttt{D1=1}.
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:noe}
\end{table}
\subsection{1D NOE pulse programme}
\label{sec:si_noesy_pp}
The 1D NOE spectra were acquired with a modified pulse programme with two inversion pulses during the NOE mixing time to minimise artefacts arising from relaxation.
(In principle, these artefacts do not contribute to the cost function as they ideally sum to zero due to their antiphase nature.
However, it is almost always a good idea to try to minimise noise in the cost function where possible.)
The pulse programme is attached below, and can also be found in the main POISE{} repository.
For most compounds, the existing family of Bruker pulse sequences \texttt{selnogpzs} should suffice.
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt, xrightmargin=0pt]{text}{./files/pp/spfgsenoezs2.1_jy}
\section{Inversion-recovery}
\label{sec:si_invrec}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{500}{\MHz} Bruker AVIII spectrometer, equipped with a triple-resonance TBO probe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{50}{\gauss\per\cm}.
The sample used was \SI{45}{\milli\molar} ferulic acid in DMSO-$d_6$.
\subsection{Cost function}
In this optimisation, we sought to make the real part of the spectrum as close to zero as possible: this indicates the ``null'' in the inversion-recovery experiment where the delay $\tau$ is exactly $T_1 \ln 2$.
This is accomplished by the \texttt{zerorealint} cost function, which comes installed with POISE:
\begin{equation}
f = \sum_i \left\lvert \mathbf{S}_{\mathrm{real},i} \right\rvert
\end{equation}
\subsection{2D inversion-recovery}
$T_1$ for each peak was measured via a gradient-selected inversion-recovery experiment.
The data presented here is the same as in \cref{tbl:ernst_2dinvrec}, but additionally includes the theoretical optimum of $T_1 \ln 2$ for each peak.
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Peak & \ce{^{1}H}{} chemical shift (ppm) & $T_1$ (\si{\s}) & $T_1\ln 2$ (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & 7.49 & 1.750 & 1.213 \\
2 & 7.27 & 0.977 & 0.677 \\
3 & 7.08 & 1.279 & 0.887 \\
4 & 6.79 & 1.615 & 1.119 \\
5 & 6.36 & 1.415 & 0.981 \\
6 & 3.49 & 0.949 & 0.658 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
$T_1$ (at \SI{500}{\MHz}) and the corresponding theoretical null in the inversion-recovery profile, given by $T_1\ln 2$, for each peak in ferulic acid.
}
\label{tbl:invrec_2dinvrec}
\end{table}
\subsection{Optimisation}
As previously mentioned, it is possible to use the \texttt{dpl} TopSpin command to restrict the spectral region that the cost function acts on.
In the first optimisation, we set this region to be between 6 and \SI{8}{\ppm}.
This provides an ``averaged'' value of $T_1 \ln 2$, which can be useful in e.g.\ choosing relaxation delays for 2D experiments, which invariably need to be a compromise between multiple peaks.
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found (\si{\s}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 0.938--0.969 & 14--16 & 204--235 \\
2 & MDS & 0.956--0.975 & 16 & 233--235 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 0.953--0.971 & 9--11 & 130--160 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Inversion-recovery optimisations on all aromatic and olefinic peaks in ferulic acid (between 6 and \SI{8}{\ppm}.
The POISE{} routine used here is: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "invrec", "pars": ["d27"], "lb": [0.35], "ub": [1.75], "init": [0.6], "tol": [0.01], "cf": "zerorealint", "au": "poise_1d"}}.
The pulse programme used was \texttt{t1irgp1d\_jy} (\cref{sec:si_invrec_pp}).
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=1}, \texttt{DS=0}, \texttt{D1=5}, \texttt{AQ=3.6} (note that there is also an additional ca.\ 5 seconds between experiments due to pulse programme compilation, etc.).
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:invrec_fivepeaks}
\end{table}
In the second optimisation we focused on only the peak at \SI{7.08}{\ppm}.
This provides a relatively ``fast'' method of determining $T_1$ for one specific peak in a spectrum.
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found (\si{\s}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 0.863--0.875 & 14 & 202--205 \\
2 & MDS & 0.863--0.869 & 14 & 203--204 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 0.862--0.873 & 9--10 & 128--145 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Inversion-recovery optimisations on only the peak at \SI{7.08}{\ppm}.
The POISE routine and all acquisition parameters are the same as in \cref{tbl:invrec_fivepeaks}, but the spectral region under optimisation was set to be 7.02--\SI{7.15}{\ppm} via the \texttt{dpl} TopSpin command.
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:invrec_onepeak}
\end{table}
\subsection{1D inversion-recovery pulse programme}
\label{sec:si_invrec_pp}
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt, xrightmargin=0pt]{text}{./files/pp/t1irgp1d_jy}
\section{ASAP-HSQC}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{700}{\MHz} Bruker AVIII spectrometer, equipped with a TCI H/C/N cryoprobe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{53}{\gauss\per\cm}.
The sample used was \SI{120}{\milli\molar} 3-fluorophenylboronic acid in DMSO-$d_6$.
\subsection{Cost function}
The cost function used here, \texttt{asaphsqc}, simply takes the $f_2$ projection of the acquired 2D spectrum and calculates the total intensity by summing up all points.
Unlike the previous cost functions, it is not builtin: to enable this cost function, please uncomment the \texttt{asaphsqc()} function in \texttt{poise\_backend/costfunctions.py}.
\subsection{Reference grid search}
Crosspeak intensities here refer to the maximum peak height, i.e.\ the intensity of the highest point found within a \SI{3}{\ppm} ($f_1$) by \SI{0.12}{\ppm} ($f_2$) box centred on the crosspeak.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{hsqc_scan.png}
\caption{Dependence of crosspeak intensity on the INEPT delay $\Delta = (1 / 4 \cdot \mathtt{cnst3})$.}
\label{fig:hsqcscan}
\end{figure}
The exact point of maximum intensity is not obvious (and not really useful in this case, as essentially \textit{any} point near the maximum will give essentially the same result).
However, broadly speaking, it can be seen that the intensity reaches a maximum at around \SI{230}{Hz}, after which it plateaus off.
\subsection{Optimisation}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\hline
1 & Nelder--Mead & 250.0--256.3 & 8--9 & 169--195 \\
2 & MDS & 237.5--243.8 & 8 & 171--179 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 229.8--245.6 & 4--7 & 114--157 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
ASAP-HSQC INEPT delay optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "asaphsqc", "pars": ["cnst3"], "lb": [120.0], "ub": [280.0], "init": [150.0], "tol": [10.0], "cf": "asaphsqc", "au": "poise_2d"}}.
The pulse programme used here is \texttt{asaphsqc\_jy} (\cref{sec:si_hsqc_pp}).
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=1}, \texttt{DS=2}, \texttt{TD1=36}, \texttt{TD2=512}, \texttt{D1=0.1}.
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:hsqc}
\end{table}
\subsection{ASAP-HSQC pulse programme}
\label{sec:si_hsqc_pp}
The pulse programme used here is almost identical to the published version but includes several minor changes for convenience.
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt, xrightmargin=0pt]{text}{./files/pp/asaphsqc_jy}
\section{EPSI}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{600}{\MHz} Bruker AVIII spectrometer, equipped with a Prodigy \ce{N2} broadband cryoprobe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{66}{\gauss\per\cm}.
The sample used was \SI{45}{\milli\molar} ferulic acid in DMSO-$d_6$.
\subsection{Cost function}
The cost function used for EPSI optimisations (called \texttt{epsi\_gradient\_drift}) comes pre-installed with POISE.
It is more involved than usual, as the entirety of the EPSI processing must be carried out within the cost function (POISE{} itself only providing a function to get the FID).
Briefly, this processing consists of the following steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item Removal of the ``group delay'' (by circularly shifting the FID).
\item Reshaping of the 1D FID into a 2D $(k, t_2)$ matrix.
\item Removing parts of the FID acquired under negative gradients, as well as during the delay between gradients.
\item Absolute-value processing.
\item Apodisation.
\item Removing any rows (i.e.\ any values of $t_2$) for which the maximum intensity is below a certain threshold. This ensures that only parts of the $(k, t_2)$ matrix with strong signal are used for the calculation of the slope.
\end{itemize}
The slope of $k$ versus $t_2$ can then be calculated by finding, for each row, the value of $k$ where the intensity is maximum, and performing a least-squares fitting.
Technically $k/k_{\text{max}}$, not $k$, is used instead of $k$, but $k_{\text{max}}$ is merely a constant factor which has no influence on the results.
For more details, please refer to the source code which is attached below:
\inputminted[breaklines,firstline=132,lastline=192,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt]{python}{./files/costfunctions.py}
\subsection{Reference grid search}
The parameter optimised here is \texttt{cnst16}, which represents the ratio of nominal negative gradient amplitude to nominal positive gradient amplitude during the EPSI acquisition.
In the main text, this is referred to as $\alpha$.
On an ideal instrument, the optimised value of \texttt{cnst16} would simply be 1.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{epsi_scan.png}
\caption{
Dependence of the cost function on the value of \texttt{cnst16}.
The minimum occurs at around \texttt{cnst16} = 1.0004.
}
\label{fig:epsi_scan}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optimisation}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 1.000375 & 10 & 49--52 \\
2 & MDS & 1.000375 & 10 & 49--50 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 1.000383--1.000388 & 7 & 34--35 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Results of EPSI gradient imbalance optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used here is: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "epsi", "pars": ["cnst16"], "lb": [0.99], "ub": [1.01], "init": [1.0], "tol": [0.0001], "cf": "epsi_gradient_drift", "au": "poise_1d"}}.
The pulse programme used was \texttt{zg\_epsi.2\_jy} (\cref{sec:si_epsi_pp}).
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=1}, \texttt{DS=0}, \texttt{L4=0}, \texttt{D1=0.5}, \texttt{DW=0.7} (note units of \texttt{DW} are \si{\us}), \texttt{AQ=0.092}, \texttt{GPZ15=35.644} (the maximum gradient amplitude on this machine is \SI{67.5}{G.cm^{-1}}).
To avoid hardware damage \texttt{AQ} should always be kept short, ideally under \SI{100}{\ms}.
Note that such a short value of \texttt{D1} is \textit{only} possible because there is always an extra delay between successive experiments required for pulse programme compilation, etc.
\textbf{A short recovery delay should not be used when DS \textgreater{} 0 or NS \textgreater{} 1.}
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:epsi_opt}
\end{table}
\subsection{Excitation--EPSI pulse programme}
\label{sec:si_epsi_pp}
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt]{text}{./files/pp/zg_epsi.2_jy}
\section{PSYCHE}
\label{sec:si_psyche}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{600}{\MHz} Bruker AVIII spectrometer, equipped with a Prodigy \ce{N2} broadband cryoprobe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{66}{\gauss\per\cm}.
The sample used was \SI{45}{\milli\molar} andrographolide in DMSO-$d_6$.
\subsection{Cost function}
The cost function, named \texttt{specdiff}, is given by:
\begin{equation}
f = \left|\left|\frac{\mathbf{S}}{||\mathbf{S}||} - \frac{\mathbf{T}}{||\mathbf{T}||}\right|\right|
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{T}$ are vectors corresponding to the spectrum under optimisation and a target spectrum respectively.
The target spectrum was acquired using a proton pulse-acquire sequence (\texttt{zg}).
The optimisation spectrum was acquired using a \ang{90}--delay--refocusing element--delay--acquire sequence, as described in the main text.
(This pulse programme is attached further below.)
The spectral region used in the optimisation was restricted to \SI{1.15}{\ppm} and above, in order to exclude methyl singlets.
This is not strictly necessary (roughly the same results will be obtained if the entire spectral window is used), but helps to reduce noise in the cost function.
\texttt{specdiff} is not pre-installed with POISE: to enable it, uncomment the \texttt{specdiff()} function in \texttt{poise\_backend/costfunctions.py}.
\subsection{Flip angle reference grid search}
Due to the large amount of time required for multiple-parameter grid searches, we chose to only run this over a single parameter, namely the flip angle $\beta$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{psyche_fascan.png}
\caption{Dependence of cost function on PSYCHE flip angle (\texttt{cnst20}).}
\label{fig:psychescan}
\end{figure}
The cost function is minimised at around 15--\ang{18}.
We can use this opportunity to have a closer look at exactly how this cost function works.
It penalises the low signal-to-noise seen at smaller flip angles: in this case $||\mathbf{S}||$ is small and consequently the noise in $\mathbf{S}/||\mathbf{S}||$ has a larger intensity.
This contributes to a larger value of $\mathbf{S}/||\mathbf{S}|| - \mathbf{T}/||\mathbf{T}||$ and hence a larger value of the cost function.
On the other hand, at larger flip angles this is not a problem: instead one starts to observe phase distortions in the peaks.
This causes $\mathbf{S}/||\mathbf{S}|| - \mathbf{T}/||\mathbf{T}||$ to be larger in the vicinity of the peaks, which also pushes $f$ up.
The cost function is therefore minimised in a ``compromise'' region which has acceptable signal-to-noise but also not too much phase distortion.
This is depicted in \cref{fig:psychedetail}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{psyche_detail.png}
\caption{A closer look at the cost function at different flip angles. \textit{Left column:} The target spectrum $\mathbf{T}$ (this is the same for all three rows). \textit{Middle column:} The 1D test spectrum $\mathbf{S}$, acquired using different flip angles (the optimum is around \ang{15}). \textit{Right column:} The vector $\mathbf{S}/||\mathbf{S}|| - \mathbf{T}/||\mathbf{T}||$. One can see how at low flip angles, the main contribution to the cost function is noise. At higher flip angles, the noise contributes less and the increases in cost function are due to phase distortion.}
\label{fig:psychedetail}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection{Optimisations}
\label{sec:si_psyche_optim}
In this section we present the overall results of all the PSYCHE optimisations ran (with 1, 2, 3, and 4 parameters being optimised at once).
From the aggregated results (\cref{tbl:psyche}), it is clear that increasing the number of parameters leads to larger decreases in the cost function, i.e.\ better performance as a refocusing element, although there is a drawback in that more time is required for convergence.
We note here that an increase in the number of parameters leads to greater complexity in the cost function.
This increases the likelihood of converging to a local minimum which may be suboptimal.
The tradeoff between various factors such as potentially improved performance, the time required for optimisation, and the chances of being caught in a shallow local minimum must be carefully weighed when deciding how complicated an optimisation to run.
In general, our opinion is that optimising two parameters (the flip angle and gradient amplitude) provides a good balance between all of these competing factors, and is most suitable for routine use.
First, we present an overview of all the optimisations run.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Aggregated results from all runs} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Optimised parameters from best run} \\
Description & $f_\mathrm{best}$ & $n_\mathrm{fev}$ & Time (s) & $\beta$ ($^\circ$) & $g$ (\%) & $\Delta F$ (kHz) & $\tau_\mathrm{p}$ (ms) \\
\hline
Initial point & 0.353 & -- & -- & (25.0) & (2.00) & (10.0) & (30.0) \\
1 parameter & 0.340--0.343 & 5--10 & 84--168 & 17.5 & (2.00) & (10.0) & (30.0) \\
2 parameters & 0.325--0.338 & 12--33 & 205--565 & 16.5 & 1.00 & (10.0) & (30.0) \\
3 parameters & 0.320--0.328 & 18--77 & 315--1344 & 17.4 & 1.73 & 15.9 & (30.0) \\
4 parameters & 0.316--0.333 & 39--85 & 705--1504 & 13.9 & 1.45 & 15.9 & 36.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Summary of optimisations on PSYCHE refocusing element.
Details of the routines used are described in \cref{tbl:psyche1p,tbl:psyche2p,tbl:psyche3p,tbl:psyche4p}.
Parameters in parentheses were not optimised (they are inherited from the initial point).
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
The optimised parameters in each row are taken from the best run, as judged by the lowest value of the cost function found.
}
\label{tbl:psyche}
\end{table}
We follow this with details of the individual classes of optimisation.
For the 1-parameter optimisation, the results are summarised in a similar format to previous tables.
However, for the remainder of the optimisations, we present only summaries of $n_\text{fev}$ and the time taken.
For details of the optima found, we point the interested reader in the direction of the \texttt{poise.log} files, as well as the \texttt{parse\_log()} function to help with parsing these (please refer to the documentation for more details).
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found (\si{\degree}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 15.0--20.0 & 8--10 & 135--168 \\
2 & MDS & 17.5--20.0 & 8 & 133--136 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 18.4--19.9 & 5 & 84--85 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
PSYCHE 1-parameter (flip angle) optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "psyche1", "pars": ["cnst20"], "lb": [10.0], "ub": [35.0], "init": [25.0], "tol": [2.0], "cf": "specdiff", "au": "poise_1d"}}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=1}, \texttt{D1=1.5}.
}
\label{tbl:psyche1p}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 18--24 & 307--410 \\
2 & MDS & 25--33 & 424--565 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 12--16 & 205--271 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
PSYCHE 2-parameter (flip angle and gradient amplitude) optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "psyche2", "pars": ["cnst20", "gpz10"], "lb": [10.0, 0.2], "ub": [35.0, 5.0], "init": [25.0, 2.0], "tol": [2.0, 0.2], "cf": "specdiff", "au": "poise_1d"}}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=1}, \texttt{D1=1.5}.
}
\label{tbl:psyche2p}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 33--43 & 576--770 \\
2 & MDS & 46--77 & 804--1344 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 18--31 & 315--540 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
PSYCHE 3-parameter (flip angle, gradient amplitude, and bandwidth) optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "psyche3", "pars": ["cnst20", "gpz10", "cnst21"], "lb": [10.0, 0.2, 1000.0], "ub": [35.0, 5.0, 20000.0], "init": [25.0, 2.0, 10000.0], "tol": [2.0, 0.2, 500.0], "cf": "specdiff", "au": "poise_psyche"}}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=1}, \texttt{D1=1.5}.
}
\label{tbl:psyche3p}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 40--47 & 733--845 \\
2 & MDS & 57--85 & 1006--1504 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 39--62 & 705--1130 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
PSYCHE 4-parameter (flip angle, gradient amplitude, bandwidth, and pulse duration) optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "psyche4", "pars": ["cnst20", "gpz10", "cnst21", "p40"], "lb": [10.0, 0.2, 1000.0, 5000.0], "ub": [35.0, 5.0, 20000.0, 75000.0], "init": [25.0, 2.0, 10000.0, 30000.0], "tol": [2.0, 0.2, 500.0, 2000.0], "cf": "specdiff", "au": "poise_psyche"}}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=1}, \texttt{D1=1.5}.
}
\label{tbl:psyche4p}
\end{table}
The best of each of these optimisations are shown in the next figure.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{psyche_5spectra.png}
\caption{
Insets of PSYCHE spectra of a sample of \SI{45}{\milli\molar} andrographolide in DMSO-$d_6$, obtained before and after optimisation of up to 4 parameters.
The original coupled \ce{^1H} spectrum is shown as a reference.
The time required for each optimisation is indicated on each spectrum.
}
\label{fig:psyche_5spec}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection{AU programme used for optimisations}
The \texttt{poise\_psyche} AU programme was used for all the optimisations above.
It is the same as \texttt{poise\_1d}, except that it calls on a separate Python script to create a new double saltire pulse with the specified parameters prior to acquisition (similar to TopSpin's WaveMaker software):
\inputminted{c}{./files/au/poise_psyche}
The Python script \texttt{make\_double\_saltire} is described next.
\subsection{Python script for generating double saltire}
Please note that this is a Python script to be run \textit{inside} TopSpin.
It can be downloaded from the link in the docstring.
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt, xrightmargin=0pt]{python2}{./files/py/make_double_saltire.py}
\clearpage
\subsection{1D spin echo pulse programme}
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt]{text}{./files/pp/psyche_1dopt_jy}
\section{1D NOESY-based solvent suppression}
\label{sec:si_solvsupp}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{400}{\MHz} Bruker Avance NEO spectrometer, equipped with a broadband Smart probe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{50}{\gauss\per\cm}.
A sample of rodent urine in \ce{D2O} was used, kindly provided by Fay Probert and Abi Yates (Department of Chemistry, University of Oxford).
\subsection{Cost function}
The cost function used for all optimisations here was \texttt{zerorealint\_squared}, which attempts to minimise the squared intensity of the real spectrum:
\begin{equation}
f = \sum_i \mathbf{S}_{\mathrm{real},i}^2
\end{equation}
The aim of this is to strongly penalise large deviations from the baseline, which are more likely to potentially obscure nearby peaks.
This cost function comes pre-installed with POISE{}.
The region of the spectrum under consideration was restricted to between 4.65 and \SI{4.75}{\ppm} using the \texttt{dpl} function in TopSpin.
\subsection{Transmitter offset reference grid search}
It is not feasible to run a grid search over four parameters at the same time.
As with the PSYCHE section, we therefore only ran one grid search for the first parameter, i.e.\ the transmitter offset \texttt{O1}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{solvsupp_o1scan.png}
\caption{
Insets of the residual water peak, and the value of the cost function thus calculated, as a function of transmitter offset (\texttt{O1}).
}
\label{fig:solvsupp_o1scan}
\end{figure}
It is evident here that there are multiple possible minima which POISE{} could optimise to.
POISE{} is not a \textit{global} minimiser; it will only converge to a \textit{local} minimum.
In fact, a similar situation was observed when we ran grid searches over the other three parameters: multiple potential minima were observed, due to an oscillatory dependence on the parameters under optimisation.
\subsection{Optimisations}
\label{sec:si_solvsupp_optim}
It is likely that there are multiple different sets of optimised parameters which give similar minima in the cost function.
We assume that the user does not mind exactly \textit{which} minimum is obtained, as long as there is a sufficient decrease in the cost function.
In other words, we assume that the user is not concerned with exactly which combination of parameters provides the best solvent suppression (as long as they are within reasonable bounds, e.g.\ presaturation power is not too high; these should be set appropriately in the POISE{} routine).
As with the PSYCHE optimisations (\cref{sec:si_psyche}), we note that optimising more parameters simultaneously takes a longer time and risks being caught in local minima.
However, it is also clear that this has the potential of leading to a greater decrease in the cost function.
In our experience, optimising two parameters (O1 and CNST20) is usually sufficient to give a good decrease in the cost function (i.e.\ good water suppression).
For routine usage this two-parameter optimisation should be considered.
The detailed optimisation results are presented below, in a similar format to the PSYCHE section (\cref{sec:si_psyche_optim}).
On the \SI{400}{\MHz} spectrometer we used, the default \texttt{O1} value of \SI{1880.61}{\Hz} corresponds to exactly \SI{4.70}{\ppm}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Aggregated results from all runs} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Optimised parameters from best run} \\
Description & $f_\mathrm{best} / 10^{18}$ & $n_\mathrm{fev}$ & Time (s) & \texttt{O1} (\si{\Hz}) & \texttt{CNST20} (\si{\Hz}) & \texttt{D8} (\si{\s}) & \texttt{D1} (\si{\s}) \\
\hline
Initial point & 14.7 & -- & -- & (1880.61) & (50.0) & (0.100) & (2.00) \\
1 parameter & 1.85--2.49 & 6--12 & 259--520 & 1880.41 & (50.0) & (0.100) & (2.00) \\
2 parameters & 1.21--9.68 & 9--21 & 390--911 & 1880.20 & 51.94 & (0.100) & (2.00) \\
3 parameters & 1.24--4.20 & 19--26 & 825--1128 & 1879.90 & 47.79 & 0.118 & (2.00) \\
4 parameters & 0.165--1.65 & 25--53 & 1143--2314 & 1881.10 & 53.28 & 0.150 & (3.00) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Summary of optimisations on 1D NOESY / presaturation pulse sequence for solvent suppression..
Details of the routines used are described in \cref{tbl:solvsupp1p,tbl:solvsupp2p,tbl:solvsupp3p,tbl:solvsupp4p}.
Parameters in parentheses were not optimised (they are inherited from the initial point).
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
The optimised parameters in each row are taken from the best run, as judged by the lowest value of the cost function found.
}
\label{tbl:solvsupp_overview}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found (\si{\Hz}) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 1880.24--1880.49 & 10--12 & 436--519 \\
2 & MDS & 1880.24--1880.36 & 12 & 518--520 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 1880.34--1880.47 & 6--7 & 259--303 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Solvent suppression 1-parameter (transmitter offset) optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "solvsupp1", "pars": ["o1"], "lb": [1870.61], "ub": [1890.61], "init": [1880.61], "tol": [0.2], "cf": "zerorealint_squared", "au": "poise_1d_noapk"}}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=4}, \texttt{AQ=4.19}.
}
\label{tbl:solvsupp1p}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 17--21 & 737--911 \\
2 & MDS & 15 & 649--652 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 9--14 & 390--608 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Solvent suppression 2-parameter (transmitter offset and presaturation power) optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "solvsupp2", "pars": ["o1", "cnst20"], "lb": [1870.61, 10.0], "ub": [1890.61, 55.0], "init": [1880.61, 50.0], "tol": [0.2, 2.5], "cf": "zerorealint_squared", "au": "poise_1d_noapk"}}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=4}, \texttt{AQ=4.19}.
}
\label{tbl:solvsupp2p}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 23--26 & 1002--1128 \\
2 & MDS & 24--25 & 1034--1080 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 19--26 & 825--1133 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Solvent suppression 3-parameter (transmitter offset, presaturation power, and mixing time) optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "solvsupp3", "pars": ["o1", "cnst20", "d8"], "lb": [1870.61, 10.0, 0.010], "ub": [1890.61, 55.0, 0.150], "init": [1880.61, 50.0, 0.100], "tol": [0.2, 2.5, 0.010], "cf": "zerorealint_squared", "au": "poise_1d_noapk"}}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=4}, \texttt{AQ=4.19}.
}
\label{tbl:solvsupp3p}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\hbadness=10000
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 29--40 & 1250--1726 \\
2 & MDS & 34--53 & 1487--2314 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 25--40 & 1143--1843 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Solvent suppression 4-parameter (transmitter offset, presaturation power, mixing time, and presaturation duration) optimisations.
The POISE{} routine used was: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "solvsupp4", "pars": ["o1", "cnst20", "d8", "d1"], "lb": [1870.61, 10.0, 0.010, 1.0], "ub": [1890.61, 55.0, 0.150, 3.0], "init": [1880.61, 50.0, 0.100, 2.0], "tol": [0.2, 2.5, 0.010, 0.1], "cf": "zerorealint_squared", "au": "poise_1d_noapk"}}.
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=2}, \texttt{DS=4}, \texttt{AQ=4.19}.
}
\label{tbl:solvsupp4p}
\end{table}
The best of each of these optimisations are shown in the next figure.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{solvsupp_5spectra.png}
\caption{
Insets of 1D NOESY / presaturation spectra of a sample of rodent urine, obtained before and after optimisation of up to 4 parameters.
The time required for each optimisation is indicated on each spectrum.
}
\label{fig:solvsupp_5spec}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection{1D NOESY pulse programme}
\label{sec:si_solvsupp_pp}
This pulse programme is almost the same as the Bruker default \texttt{noesygppr1d}, except that the presaturation power is controlled via the \texttt{CNST27} parameter (which represents the RF amplitude in \si{\Hz}).
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt]{text}{./files/pp/noesygppr1d_jy}
\section{Diffusion NMR}
\label{sec:si_dosy}
All spectra in this section were acquired on a \SI{600}{\MHz} Bruker AVIII spectrometer, equipped with a Prodigy \ce{N2} broadband cryoprobe with a nominal maximum $z$-gradient strength of \SI{66}{\gauss\per\cm}.
The sample used was \SI{45}{\milli\molar} andrographolide in DMSO-$d_6$.
\subsection{Sequential optimisation strategy}
Traditionally, setting up a diffusion experiment is considered to be a tedious process.
At the very least, one must search for a range of gradient amplitudes ($G_\mathrm{min}$ through $G_\mathrm{max}$) which provide an appropriate range of signal attenuation: thus, for example, the increment acquired with $G_\mathrm{max}$ must exhibit a certain level of attenuation with respect to $G_\mathrm{min}$.
If $G_\mathrm{max}$ is too large or too small, then the resulting fitting will be less accurate.
In more complicated cases, the diffusion delay $\Delta$ and/or the gradient pulse duration $\delta$ must also be tweaked.
Here, we use the oneshot DOSY experiment (\textit{Magn.\ Reson.\ Chem.}\ \textbf{2002,} \textit{40} (13), S147--S152, DOI: \href{https://doi.org/10.1002/mrc.1107}{\texttt{10.1002/mrc.1107}}); the process can easily be adapted to all other DOSY variants.
Throughout the optimisation, the script maintains a ``reference'' 1D spectrum acquired with $G_\mathrm{min} = 10\%$.
The entire optimisation can be run using a single wrapper Python script, \texttt{dosy\_opt.py}.
We seek to first optimise $\Delta$ by performing stepwise increases from a small initial value, until a separate spectrum, obtained with $G_\mathrm{max} = 80\%$, displays ``sufficient'' attenuation with respect to the reference spectrum.
Here, we define ``sufficient'' as 75\% attenuation.
To determine this, the script leverages the \texttt{dosy\_aux} routine and cost function.
Since this is not a traditional ``optimisation'' in the sense that the value can only go upwards, we use the wrapper script to check the value of the cost function: thus we set the \texttt{maxfev} option to 1, such that on every function evaluation, control is returned to the wrapper script.
The routine is (note that \texttt{lb}, \texttt{ub}, and \texttt{tol} have no use in this routine and can be set to any valid value):
\inputminted[breaklines]{json}{./files/example_routines/dosy_aux.json}
The \texttt{dosy\_aux} cost function is defined by
\begin{equation}
f_{\text{att}} = \frac{\sum_i \mathbf{S}_i}{\sum_i \mathbf{R}_i} - 0.25
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{R}$ is the reference spectrum (acquired with a minimum gradient amplitude of 10\%) and $\mathbf{S}$ is the maximally attenuated spectrum (acquired with a gradient amplitude of 80\%).
Once a suitable diffusion delay has been found, we then carry out a simple POISE{} optimisation to find the actual value of $G_\mathrm{max}$ that provides 75\% attenuation.
This utilises the \texttt{dosy} routine and cost function.
The routine is as follows:
\inputminted[breaklines]{json}{./files/example_routines/dosy.json}
and the \texttt{dosy} cost function is simply the absolute value of $f_\mathrm{att}$.
The total time taken for the entire process depends on how many times $\Delta$ must be increased from its initial value (roughly 1 additional minute per increase).
In order to minimise this, it is recommended to start with a sensible value of $\Delta$ based on known precedent.
The second step takes approximately 3 minutes in our hands regardless of optimisation algorithm, for an overall total time of ca.\ 5 minutes (using the parameters \texttt{DS=2}, \texttt{NS=4}).
In Figure \ref{fig:dosy}, we plot the typical decay profiles obtained for \ce{CH} and \ce{OH} protons in andrographolide, obtained from a oneshot DOSY experiment using parameters optimised according to the procedure described above.
The two profiles are slightly different because of chemical exchange between the \ce{OH} protons and water present in the sample.
This data is clearly amenable towards further analysis using processing tools such as Bruker's Dynamic Centre software or the DOSY Toolbox.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{dosy_att.png}
\caption{Example diffusion decay profiles obtained using optimised values of $G_\mathrm{max} = 75.6\%$ (equivalent to \SI{49.7}{G\per\cm} on the spectrometer we used) and $\Delta = \SI{100}{\ms}$ in the oneshot DOSY experiment. $G_\mathrm{min}$ is $10\%$, or \SI{6.57}{G\per\cm}. Dashed lines are the Gaussian profiles which have been fitted to the observed intensities. The sample used was \SI{45}{\milli\molar} andrographolide in DMSO-$d_6$.}
\label{fig:dosy}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Python script for automation}
The steps to use this script are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Make sure that you have enabled the DOSY routines and cost functions. The routines can be found in the \texttt{.../py/user/poise\_backend/example\_routines} directory and should be copied to the \texttt{.../py/user/poise\_backend/routines} directory; the cost functions are in \texttt{.../py/user/poise\_backend/costfunctions.py} and must be uncommented before they can be used.
\item Download this Python script. There is a GitHub link in the source code below.
\item Set up a 2D diffusion experiment (most easily done by reading in a parameter set). The initial gradient amplitudes do not matter, but the diffusion delay should be set to something that is not too large (since the script only \textit{increases} the diffusion delay if it is found to be too short).
\item If the particular DOSY experiment has not been registered in this script yet, then do so by modifying the dictionary near the top of the script. This only needs to be done once.
(If the DOSY experiment has never been set up before, then you need to find (or create) a 1D version of the diffusion experiment. It will basically be the same as the 2D version, except that the encoding gradient is not incremented.)
\item Run this Python script (just type \texttt{dosy\_opt} in the TopSpin command line).
\end{enumerate}
\inputminted[xleftmargin=0pt, xrightmargin=0pt]{python}{./files/py/dosy_opt.py}
\subsection{Sequential optimisation details}
The second part of the optimisation ($G_\mathrm{max}$ optimisation) is the only place where using different algorithms can have an effect.
In order to evaluate the effect of using different algorithms, we ran the second optimisation using each of the algorithms, using the diffusion delay $\Delta = \SI{100}{\ms}$ obtained from the first step.
The results are summarised in Table \ref{tbl:dosy}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Entry & Algorithm & Optimum found (\%) & $n_\text{fev}$ & Time taken (\si{\s}) \\
\midrule
1 & Nelder--Mead & 75.00 & 9 & 195--197 \\
2 & MDS & 75.00 & 9 & 196--197 \\
3 & BOBYQA & 75.00--75.60 & 8--9 & 175--197 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Optimisations of maximum gradient amplitude ($G_\mathrm{max}$) for diffusion NMR spectroscopy.
The POISE{} routine used here is: \mintinline[breaklines]{json}{{"name": "dosy", "pars": ["gpz1"], "lb": [20.0], "ub": [80.0], "init": [50.0], "tol": [2.0], "cf": "dosy", "au": "poise_1d"}}.
The pulse programme used was \texttt{doneshot\_1d\_jy} (\cref{sec:si_dosy_pp}).
Key acquisition parameters: \texttt{NS=4}, \texttt{DS=2}, \texttt{D1=1.5}, \texttt{AQ=1.14}.
$n_\text{fev}$ refers to the number of function evaluations, i.e.\ the number of spectra acquired in the course of the optimisation.{}
The results are aggregated from five separate runs for each optimisation algorithm.{}
}
\label{tbl:dosy}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simultaneous optimisation strategy}
We also tried directly performing a simultaneous two-parameter optimisation of both the gradient amplitude and the diffusion delay, instead of the entire procedure above.
The POISE{} routine and its associated cost function are called \texttt{dosy\_2p}.
The routine is:
\inputminted[breaklines]{json}{./files/example_routines/dosy_2p.json}
In order to bias the optimisation towards smaller values of $\Delta$ (which is desirable as it minimises $T_1$ losses), we added a term to the cost function that is proportional to $\Delta$.
This cost function can be found in \texttt{.../py/user/poise\_backend/costfunctions.py} as well, although it is commented out by default.
\begin{equation}
f = |f_\mathrm{att}| + (\Delta / \mathrm{s})
\end{equation}
Unfortunately, although this optimisation \textit{did} work, it was far slower: for example, using the Nelder--Mead algorithm, this took 36 function evaluations and 1572 seconds (over 26 minutes).
The optimum converged to was $G_\mathrm{max} = 79.3\%$ and $\Delta = \SI{91.6}{\ms}$, which is very similar to that found above.
Part of the reason why this is so slow is that every time the diffusion delay $\Delta$ is changed, the reference spectrum must be reacquired: this means that every function evaluation in this two-parameter optimisation takes twice as long as every function evaluation in the individual optimisation of $G_\mathrm{max}$.
\subsection{Oneshot DOSY pulse programmes}
\label{sec:si_dosy_pp}
\subsubsection{2D Oneshot}
Some modifications from the published version were made so that it could be run on our spectrometers.
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt,breaklines]{text}{./files/pp/doneshot_2d_jy}
\subsubsection{1D Oneshot}
\inputminted[fontsize=\small,xleftmargin=0pt,xrightmargin=0pt,breaklines]{text}{./files/pp/doneshot_1d_jy}
\section{Documentation}
Finally, the current version of the POISE{} documentation is attached here.
This is meant to act as a user guide, with specific instructions on how to set up and run optimisations.
Please note that the latest version of the documentation can always be found online at
\begin{minted}{text}
https://foroozandehgroup.github.io/nmrpoise
\end{minted}
and a PDF version of this can be downloaded at
\begin{minted}{text}
https://foroozandehgroup.github.io/nmrpoise/poise.pdf
\end{minted}
|
\section*{Availability}
\begin{acks}
We thank Felix Rohrbach and Maximilian von Tschirschnitz for their feedback and discussion, and Adrian Dabrowski for shepherding our paper.
This work has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Hessen State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts within their joint support of the National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE.
\end{acks}
\balance
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
The following section explains Bluetooth pairing basics, recent attacks,
and expected failures
in case of \ac{MitM} presence.
\subsection{Bluetooth Pairing Modes}
Bluetooth pairing modes and warnings in user interfaces are separate components
on all stacks researched in this paper. However, security vulnerabilities in
Bluetooth pairing or encryption enable \ac{MitM} attacks, and, thus, motivate
clear warnings in user interfaces.
The early \ac{BT} versions had a very flawed pairing, now termed
\emph{Legacy Pairing}, since it still is implemented for backwards
compatibility~\cite{2005:shaked}. \ac{BT} 2.1 introduced \ac{SSP}, which was formally verified~\cite{chang2007formal}.
Despite this verification, the specification is unclear about
certain aspects of \ac{SSP} and the follow-up encryption, resulting in various
practical attacks~\cite{hypponen2007nino, 2018:biham, methodconfusion, antonioli20bias, knob, reflection}.
With the Bluetooth specification version 4.0, \ac{BLE} was introduced, featuring low-energy connections for IoT
gadgets and medical devices. Instead of using exactly
the same pairing mechanism, a lightweight pairing was added, which is fundamentally broken
and now called \emph{LE Legacy Pairing}~\cite{ryan2013bluetooth}.
Newer versions use \ac{SC}, which are very similar to \ac{SSP}.
Thus, attacks on \ac{SSP} typically also apply to \ac{SC}. Even worse, the key format in \ac{BT}
and \ac{BLE} devices is rather similar, and there is a cross-transport key derivation for both protocol variants, which
also is vulnerable~\cite{antonioli2020blurtooth}.
\begin{table}[!b]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\caption{Authentication failure actions as defined by the Bluetooth 5.2 specification~\cite[p. 1314]{bt52}.}
\label{tab:authfail}
\vspace{-1em}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l P{0.7cm} p{5cm}}
\textbf{Link Key Type} & \textbf{Bonded} & \textbf{Action} \\
\hline
Combination & $\times$ & \emph{\underline{Option 1:}} Automatically initiate pairing. \vspace*{0.5em}\newline \emph{\underline{Option 2, recommended:}} Notify user and ask if pairing is ok.\\
\rowcolor{gray!20}
Combination & \checkmark & Notify user of security failure.\\
Unauthenticated & $\times$ & \emph{\underline{Option 1, recommended:}} Automatically initiate SSP.\vspace*{0.5em}\newline \emph{\underline{Option 2:}} Notify user and ask if SSP is ok.\\
\rowcolor{gray!20}
Unauthenticated & \checkmark & Notify user of security failure.\\
Authenticated & $\times$ & \emph{\underline{Option 1:}} Automatically initiate SSP.\vspace*{0.5em}\newline \emph{\underline{Option 2, recommended:}} Notify user and ask if SSP is ok.\\
\rowcolor{gray!20}
Authenticated & \checkmark & Notify user of security failure.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
From a user perspective, the underlying pairing mechanism is opaque.
No matter if \ac{SSP}, \ac{SC}, or \emph{LE Legacy Pairing} is used,
they all feature a \emph{Just Works} mode, which is vulnerable to active \ac{MitM}
attacks~\cite[p. 985]{bt52}.
They also have a \emph{Numeric Comparison} and \emph{Passkey Entry} mode, which can
prevent active \ac{MitM} attacks---assuming that all known vulnerabilities are fixed.
The \emph{Out Of Band} mode is not affected by these attacks, since it uses
a non-Bluetooth channel for exchanging keys. Its vendor-specific implementation may or may not have flaws,
and attacks on stages after pairing such as session key entropy reduction~\cite{knob} apply either way.
This attack history without possibility to secure the \emph{Just Works} mode led to
manufacturers implementing independent pairing solutions. \emph{Apple} uses so-called
\emph{MagicPairing}, which is undocumented but has been reverse-engineered~\cite{magicpairing}.
\emph{Google} has a similar protocol called \emph{Fast Pair}~\cite{fastpair}.
Both protocols bind Bluetooth keys to cloud accounts and share them across devices.
Users only pair a headset once and then can access it via all devices logged into
the same cloud account. This is not only more convenient but also reduces the amount of
pairing attempts during which \acp{MitM} could be present.
\subsection{Attacks Resulting in Different Keys}
The majority of attacks on Bluetooth pairing results in a setup with different
keys.
This applies to all devices using \emph{Just Works} mode as well as attacks
downgrading a pairing to this mode~\cite{hypponen2007nino}, mixing paring
modes~\cite{methodconfusion}, and reflecting messages~\cite{reflection}.
Besides direct attacks on protocols, implementation details such as a weak random number generator
can also enable \ac{MitM} attacks~\cite{rng}.
Even a successful attack on the pairing requires a \ac{MitM} to be omnipresent during
all follow-up connections.
\textbf{Otherwise, inconsistent keys lead to authentication and encryption errors.}
These errors can and should be used to detect attack attempts according to the Bluetooth
specification, as described in the following.
\subsubsection{Expected Authentication Failure Behavior}
If authentication fails, the host terminates the connection~\cite[p. 1959]{bt52}.
Moreover, the user should---in most cases---be warned~\cite[p. 1314]{bt52}.
The Bluetooth specification has a way more sophisticated decision process, as shown in \autoref{tab:authfail}.
A \emph{Combination} key is meant for \ac{BT} and \ac{BLE}, thus, initiating either \ac{SSP} or \ac{SC} upon a failure is valid.
\emph{Unauthenticated} keys are the result of \emph{Just Works} mode pairing~\cite[p. 1306]{bt52}, as it does not protect against \ac{MitM}.
In contrast, an \emph{Authenticated} key requires \emph{Numeric Comparison}, \emph{Passkey Entry}, or \emph{Out Of Band} pairing.
\emph{Bonded} devices permanently store the keys established during the initial pairing to create a trusted relationship.
If a key is \emph{Unauthenticated} and does not protect against active \ac{MitM}, the recommended option is to automatically
initiate a new \ac{SSP} for non-bonded devices. \textbf{This violates the trust on first use concept and \ac{MitM} attacks can successfully be
launched without any user interaction.} This is also the default option for non-bonded \emph{Combination} keys as well as the alternative
option for non-bonded \emph{Authenticated} keys.
Authentication might legitimately fail if one of the devices deleted the according key.
This requires the user to manually reset a device, meaning that the user is aware and can act accordingly.
\subsubsection{Expected Encryption Failure Behavior}
\ac{BLE} devices activate encryption using the \path{LE_Enable_Encryption} \ac{HCI}
command~\cite[p. 2322]{bt52}. Then, the \ac{BLE} link layer tries to initiate encryption.
After finishing this step, an \emph{Encryption Mode Change} event is sent to the host,
indicating if encryption is on or still off.
When replacing \ac{BLE} keys, this results in encryption being reported as off~\cite[p. 2299]{bt52}.
The specification considers encryption failures in \ac{BLE} in case that the
remote device does not support encryption~\cite[p. 3141]{bt52}, and there is no differentiation
to having an invalid key. Thus, for \ac{BLE} encryption failures, the overall behavior is not
specified in detail.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
While many researchers looked into cryptographic aspects of Bluetooth security,
little has been done to raise the bar for practical \ac{MitM} attacks.
Patching the newest cryptographic bugs within operating systems does not
structurally improve Bluetooth security, as peripherals remain outdated.
Users should be notified of security failures as proposed by the Bluetooth
specification. This would make the life of wireless attackers much harder, as it
significantly reduces attack stealthiness.
In addition, users should be warned if security-sensitive
peripherals like keyboards use a 10 year old Bluetooth version, vulnerable
to various known issues. On a long-term perspective, this would prevent vendors
from selling outdated peripherals.
Such structural improvements require everyone to contribute, admit flaws, and
indicate them towards the users---even if this might be inconvenient.
\section{Bluetooth Stack Test Framework}
\label{sec:frida}
As explained in the following, over-the-air \ac{BT} \ac{MitM} setups are still
rather expensive. To facilitate testing \ac{BT} and \ac{BLE} security, we instead
dynamically hook into \ac{HCI}.
\subsection{Over-the-Air Setups}
As of now, \acf{BLE} \ac{MitM} setups can be realized with the \texttt{btlejack}
toolsuite and three \emph{Micro:Bits}~\cite{btlejack}. This makes a \ac{BLE} setup as cheap as
USD 45.
There is still no
similar open-source tool for \acf{BT}, which has a more complex modulation scheme making
eavesdropping harder. Just in 2020, the first full-band \ac{BT} sniffer
for \acp{SDR} and more recent Bluetooth specifications was released~\cite{francescosniffer}. This sniffer supports
synchronization, dewhitening, decoding, as well as an algorithm to deanonymize
addresses.
This setup requires two USRP B210, totaling in approximately USD 3000.
For an active \ac{MitM} setup, even this advanced testing is insufficient,
since it does not support sending packets.
Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that strong attackers have a working \ac{MitM} setup.
From a technological standpoint a \ac{MitM} only needs a recent \ac{SDR} with \SI{80}{\mega\hertz} bandwidth---and move significant parts
of the implementation into an FPGA to fulfill real-time requirements.
Given the current progress of \acp{SDR}, it is to be expected that there will be
affordable \ac{BT} \ac{MitM} setups soon, meaning that devices should be proactively
secured against them.
\subsection{Hooking into Bluetooth Stacks}
Analyzing device behavior upon authentication failures due to changed keys
only requires changing the key locally on one of the paired devices. By changing
the key back and forth, it can even be tested if the original key is still trusted after
in between authentication failures.
There are two options to change a key:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Change the key within the host's file system.
\item Substitute the key within \ac{HCI} commands.
\end{enumerate}
The first option usually requires to restart the Bluetooth daemon. Moreover,
changing the key on the file system while Bluetooth is still running might
corrupt the local key database.
Replacing key information within \ac{HCI} commands, the second option, is more flexible. Most
Bluetooth chips only have a ROM and need to request the key either on first
usage or whenever they establish a connection, depending on the implementation.
\emph{Apple} \emph{MagicPairing} and \emph{Google Fast Pair}
use this property~\cite{magicpairing, fastpair}:
They manage keys bound to cloud accounts separately,
but still use the encryption mechanisms provided by the
Bluetooth chip. Thus, substituting keys as they are requested even allows
testing vendor-specific protocol additions.
Key change behavior can be tested by replacing the \path{HCI_Link_Key_Request_Reply}
command for \ac{BT}~\cite[p. 720]{bt52}, respectively the \path{LE_Enable_Encryption} command for
\ac{BLE}~\cite[p. 2322]{bt52}.
Note that it is not possible to use the original version of \emph{Internal\-Blue}~\cite{mantz2019internalblue}
for injecting different keys into the controller, because the controller would ask
the host for a key belonging to a specific address, expecting a single response.
Prior to the hooks we published along with this paper,
\emph{InternalBlue} only supported injecting commands but could not replace contents
of existing commands.
The \emph{Linux BlueZ}~\cite{bluez}
stack stores connection properties in separate files per connection, making
the first option suitable. The \ac{HCI}-based alternative
on \emph{Android} and \emph{iOS} enables us to also test vendor-specific additions,
which are not implemented on \emph{Linux}.
\subsubsection{Linux}
On \emph{Linux}, keys for \ac{BT} and \ac{BLE} connections are stored in
\path{/var/lib/bluetooth/mac1/mac2/info}, where \path{mac1} represents the
device address of the controller and \path{mac2} represents the
address of the paired device. After replacing the keys, the Bluetooth daemon
must be restarted to refresh information from these files.
Hooking \ac{HCI} in user space is infeasible on \emph{Linux}.
The Bluetooth daemon only parses a management
protocol, which further abstracts \ac{HCI}. The \emph{Linux}
kernel parses this custom management protocol and translates it into \ac{HCI}
commands and events. Having \ac{HCI} functionality in the kernel space
does not allow F\reflectbox{R}IDA-based hooks.
If needed, more flexible hooks could be achieved by modifying the \ac{HCI} layer in
\path{/net/bluetooth} in the kernel source~\cite{linuxkernelbt}.
\subsubsection{Android}
The \emph{Android Fluoride} Bluetooth stack is open-source. The \ac{HCI} implementation
is contained in the file \path{system/bt/hci/src/hci_layer.cc}~\cite{androidhci}.
Commands to the controller are sent using the \path{transmit_command} function, and
events from the controller pass the \path{filter_incoming_event} function.
After compilation, these functions end up in the \path{libbluetooth.so} binary.
Despite having source code access, recompiling the stack to swap the key would not
be a flexible solution for more generic \ac{HCI} analysis. Instead, we hook the stack
using F\reflectbox{R}IDA~\cite{frida} on a rooted \emph{Samsung Galaxy Note20 5G}
with the January 2021 patch level. On this device, \path{libbluetooth.so} does not
contain symbols. Thus, we locate the relative address of \path{transmit_command} manually
using \emph{IDA Pro 7.5}~\cite{ida}. Based on this initial \emph{IDA} database, the address of this function
can be found automatically using \emph{BinDiff}~\cite{bindiff} if \path{libbluetooth.so}
was compiled for the same architecture.
\subsubsection{iOS}
The closed-source \emph{iOS} Bluetooth stack can be reverse-engineered using
debug strings, which even contain some of the original function names.
The part of the Bluetooth stack responsible for \ac{HCI} is contained in the Bluetooth
daemon \texttt{bluetoothd} itself instead of using a separate library.
Since functions implementing \ac{HCI} play an important role, they all contain debug
strings. Every command passes the function \path{OI_HciIfc_CopyPayload}, and every
incoming event is processed by \path{OI_HCIIfc_DataReceived}.
Similar to the \emph{Android} setup, we jailbreak an \emph{iPhone 8} on
\emph{iOS 14.4} with \emph{checkra1n}~\cite{checkra1n}, and use a F\reflectbox{R}IDA script to hook \ac{HCI}. The function
names required for the functionality we need stayed the same since various \emph{iOS}
releases, at least since \emph{iOS 13.5}, meaning that it should be easy to port the
hook to future \emph{iOS} versions.
\section{Introduction}
Attacks on Bluetooth pairing often lead to two separate keys, as shown in \autoref{fig:mitmactive}.
Such attacks are either enabled by vulnerabilities in the specification and implementation~\cite{methodconfusion, rng, reflection}
or the insecure \emph{Just Works} mode used by most IoT devices and headsets~\cite[p. 985]{bt52}.
In practice, an attacker faces the following barriers:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Presence during the initial pairing or forcing a new pairing.
\item Presence in all future connections to re-encrypt traffic.
\end{enumerate}
In other network protocols, such as TLS, continuous presence can be achieved by placing a \ac{MitM} on, e.g.,
a router close to the target. Bluetooth is used on devices that move and have varying signal strength.
\textbf{A permanently successful attacker must be omnipresent and immediately reply with a strong signal to all connection attempts.} If the attacker only fails once---which is very likely in a mobile environment---devices under attack would use incompatible keys,
resulting in an authentication or encryption failure. According to the Bluetooth 5.2 specification,
the user shall be notified of security failures~\cite[p. 1314]{bt52}.
\textbf{We find that all major Bluetooth stacks skip warning the user, thereby violating the
specification.}
Warnings are independent from the underlying pairing method and technology, since pairing and connection
dialogues are implemented on top. We test user interfaces on a large variety of devices, ranging from Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR to 5.2,
including \ac{BT} and \ac{BLE} as well as the pairing extensions \emph{Google Fast Pair} and \emph{Apple MagicPairing}~\cite{fastpair,magicpairing}.
More precisely, the following platforms are affected:
\begin{itemize}
\item Both tested \emph{Android} flavors (\emph{Google} and \emph{Samsung}) do not indicate authentication failures to the remote device.
\item \emph{Google Android} further silently removes the pairing, which opens the door for enforcing new pairings.
\item \emph{iOS}, \emph{Samsung Android}, and \emph{Windows} display a message that they could not connect without explaining why, and \emph{macOS} as well as \emph{Ubuntu Gnome} indicate a failed connection via user interface button colors. The original key stays valid.
\item Various gadgets do not indicate any error and keys stay valid.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[minimum height=0.55cm, scale=0.8, every node/.style={scale=0.8}, node distance=0.7cm]
\node[inner sep=0pt] (iphone) at (-4,0)
{\includegraphics[height=2cm]{pics/iphone.pdf}};
\node[inner sep=0pt] (iphonex) at (-4,0.05)
{\includegraphics[height=1.6cm]{pics/iosbt.png}};
\node[color=darkred] (iphonetxt) at (-3.1, -1) {$K_{AM}$};
\node[inner sep=0pt] (sdr) at (0,0.2)
{\includegraphics[height=1cm]{pics/sdr.pdf}};
\node[color=darkred] (sdrtxt) at (0, -1) {$K_{AM}$, $K_{MB}$};
\node[inner sep=0pt] (headset) at (4,0)
{\includegraphics[height=1cm]{pics/headset.pdf}};
\node[color=darkred] (headsettxt) at (4, -1) {$K_{MB}$};
\draw[<->, color=darkred, dashed] (-3.35,0) -- (-1.1,0);
\draw[<->, color=darkred, dashed] (1.1,0) -- (3.3,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{Most MitM attacks result in two separate keys.}
\label{fig:mitmactive}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
We demonstrate stack and user interface failures against both \ac{BLE} and \ac{BT}, using F\reflectbox{R}IDA~\cite{frida} to dynamically hook the \emph{iOS} and \emph{Android} Bluetooth stacks and substitute keys in \ac{HCI} commands. In contrast to existing tools, this allows conditional interaction with the Bluetooth stack by altering commands and events. These scripts are now part of the \emph{InternalBlue} framework~\cite{mantz2019internalblue}, as they will be valuable for further Bluetooth-related research.
This paper is structured as follows.
\autoref{sec:background} explains Bluetooth pairing and security fundamentals.
Then, \autoref{sec:frida} continues with details on how to hook into Bluetooth stacks to test for security issues.
All identified vulnerabilities are detailed in \autoref{sec:vulns}.
\autoref{sec:conclusion} concludes this paper.
\section{Vulnerable Stacks}
\label{sec:vulns}
We find that under some circumstances controllers do not indicate
authentication failures (see \autoref{ssec:vulnlmp}).
Even if the controller issues such a failure, the user is not
notified on all tested stacks,
but they show varying behavior as shown in \autoref{tab:authfailvuln} (see \autoref{ssec:vulngoogle}--\ref{ssec:vulnperipherals}).
While testing popular peripherals, we discover that they use dangerously outdated Bluetooth versions (see \autoref{ssec:vulnoutdated}).
We disclosed all issues to the vendors (see \autoref{ssec:disclosure}).
\begin{table*}[tp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\newcommand{\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/wheel_blue.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em}}{\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/wheel_blue.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em}}
\newcommand{\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/abort.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em}}{\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/abort.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em}}
\newcommand{\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/trash.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em}}{\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/trash.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em}}
\newcommand{\textcolor{gray}{\CIRCLE}}{\textcolor{gray}{\CIRCLE}}
\caption{User notifications upon authentication and encryption failures due to invalid keys.}
\label{tab:authfailvuln}
\vspace{-1em}
\centering
\footnotesize
\hspace*{-6.4cm}\begin{tabular}{lccccccccccccc}
\textbf{Key Fault Injector}
& \rot{\textbf{Device Under Test}}
& \rot{MacBook \textcolor{gray}{(macOS 11.2.1, BT 5)}} &
\rot{Ubuntu+Gnome \textcolor{gray}{(Mar 21, BT 4.0)}} &
\rot{Windows 10 \textcolor{gray}{(Beta 21327, BT 4.0)}} &
\rot{iPhone 8 \textcolor{gray}{(iOS 14.4, BT 5)}} &
\rot{iPhone 12 \textcolor{gray}{(iOS 14.5 Beta, BT 5.2)}} &
\rot{Galaxy Note 20 5G \textcolor{gray}{(Jan 21, BT 5)}} &
\rot{Google Pixel 5 \textcolor{gray}{(Mar 21, BT 5.2)}} &
\rot{AirPods \textcolor{gray}{(BLE 5)}} &
\rot{Bose QC35 II \textcolor{gray}{(BT 4.2)}} &
\rot{MagicKeyboard \textcolor{gray}{(BT 3.0 + HS)}} &
\rot{Mini Keyboard \textcolor{gray}{(BT 2.1 + EDR)}} &
\rot{Xiaomi MI Band 2 \textcolor{gray}{(BLE 4.1)}} \\
\hline
Invalid Key Effect & & \includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/wheel_blue.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} & \includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/wheel_blue.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} & \includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/abort.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} & \includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/abort.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} & \includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/abort.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} & \includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/abort.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} & \includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/trash.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} &
\textcolor{gray}{\CIRCLE} & \textcolor{gray}{\CIRCLE} & \textcolor{gray}{\CIRCLE} & \textcolor{gray}{\CIRCLE} & \textcolor{gray}{\CIRCLE} \\
\hline
iPhone 8 & & & & & & & & &
& & & & $\times$\\
Samsung Galaxy Note 20 5G & & & & & & & & &
$\times$ & & & & \\
Ubuntu with Gnome & & & & & & & & &
$\times$ & & & & $\times$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\captionsetup{%
labelsep=newline,
justification=raggedright,
labelfont=bf,
singlelinecheck=off,
width=1.0\textwidth
}
\vspace{-1.85cm}\caption*{\normalfont\footnotesize{\hspace*{12cm}\textcolor{gray}{\CIRCLE} ~No indication, key stays valid.\\
\hspace*{12cm}\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/wheel_blue.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} ~Button color or symbol indication, key stays valid.\\
\hspace*{12cm}\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/abort.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} ~Connection error text message, key stays valid.\\
\hspace*{12cm}\includegraphics[width=0.7em]{pics/trash.pdf}\hspace*{0.15em} ~Pairing is removed without user notification.\\
~ \\
\hspace*{12cm}$\times$ \hspace*{-0.05em}~Connection type not supported.\\
}}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Bluetooth Controllers and LMP}
\label{ssec:vulnlmp}
While running the attacks, we capture traces using the \emph{Apple Packet\-Logger}
for \emph{iOS} and \emph{macOS}, \emph{Wireshark} on \emph{Linux}, and extract the
\path{btsnoop_hci.log} from \emph{Android} devices. All traces show that initiating \ac{BT}
controllers issue an \emph{Authentication Failure} event and \ac{BLE} controllers
issue an \emph{Encryption Failure} event. \textbf{This means that the underlying Bluetooth chips
are specification-compliant.}
Upon an authentication failure, the host shall terminate the connection~\cite[p. 1959]{bt52}.
The packet traces indicate that the Bluetooth hosts indeed follow this
procedure---none of the connections in \autoref{tab:authfailvuln} persisted after an
authentication failure.
Interestingly, while the \ac{BT} initiator always receives an \emph{Authentication Failure} via \ac{HCI}, some
responders only see a disconnect event with the reason \emph{Remote User Terminated Connection}.
We further analyze this by connecting the \emph{Samsung Galaxy Note20 5G} to a \emph{Google Nexus 5}.
The \emph{Nexus 5} is rather old, but supports \ac{LMP} sniffing via \emph{InternalBlue}~\cite{mantz2019internalblue}
and features \ac{SSP} with \ac{BT} 4.1.
During the secure authentication phase,
the initiator and responder can both end the connection with an \path{LMP_DETACH} packet containing the error code \emph{Authentication Failure}~\cite[p. 622]{bt52}.
The \ac{LMP} description of handling authentication errors is not in line with the \ac{HCI} part of the specification.
\ac{LMP} is only accessible by the controller and not the host, but if the host terminates the connection, it needs to issue
an \ac{HCI} command towards the controller. If authentication fails on the initiator,
the controller correctly issues an \ac{HCI} event to the host indicating an \emph{Authentication Failure}. Then, the host sends an
\ac{HCI} command to terminate the connection, falsely using the error code \emph{Remote User Terminated Connection}.
Thus, the follow-up \path{LMP_DETACH} packet falsely contains the same error code.
\textbf{As a result, the disconnect event on the responder does not indicate an authentication failure.}
This affects at least devices with \emph{Android} versions \emph{6.0.1}--\emph{11}.
In addition, the host shall notify the user of a security issue upon an \emph{Authentication Failure}~\cite[p. 1314]{bt52}.
When looking at popular user interfaces, we avoid that \emph{Android} will not notify
the responder of authentication failures by testing both ends in the initiator role.
\subsection{Android (Google)}
\label{ssec:vulngoogle}
The \emph{Pixel 5} on the March 2021 patch level shows the most unexpected behavior.
Upon an authentication failure, the pairing entry is deleted. This happens without an
additional explanation---the user taps the device they want to connect to and next it
disappears from the list of paired devices.
Under certain circumstances, deleting keys is legitimate. Following \autoref{tab:authfail},
the specification states:
\begin{mdframed}[innerleftmargin=2em,linecolor=white]
\emph{``Non-bonded authenticated or unauthenticated link keys may be considered
disposable by either device and may be deleted at any time.''}~\cite[p. 1314]{bt52}
\end{mdframed}
The grammar in the previous sentence is unclear, but we assume that non-bonded
link keys, no matter if authenticated or not, can be deleted.
All devices under test were paired with the \emph{Pixel 5} using the \emph{Numeric Comparison}
method. The \ac{BT} link keys were authenticated and bonded.
\textbf{Deleting bonded keys
enables \ac{MitM} attackers to remove existing pairings with minimal user interaction---and then launch an attack on
the initial pairing.}
The \emph{Nexus 5} shows the same behavior on \emph{Android 6.0.1}, meaning that this
issue is consistent throughout \emph{Google}-flavored \emph{Android} versions.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{1.0\columnwidth}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{pics/galaxy205g_iphone8.png}
\caption{Samsung-flavored Android error message when the tethering AP changes its key.}
\label{fig:sandroid_keychange}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{1.0\columnwidth}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{pics/iphone.png}
\caption{iOS error message when the tethering AP changes its key.}
\label{fig:ios_keychange}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{1.0\columnwidth}
\center
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{pics/windows_keychange.png}
\caption{Windows error message when the tethering AP changes its key.}
\label{fig:win_keychange}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{1.0\columnwidth}
\center
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{pics/windows_btoff.png}
\caption{Windows error message when the tethering AP is off.}
\label{fig:win_off}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Error messages with an iPhone for tethering.}
\label{fig:errormessages}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Android (Samsung)}
Using a F\reflectbox{R}IDA-based \ac{PoC} on the \emph{Samsung Galaxy Note20 5G} on a
January 2021 patch level, we test key change behavior over-the-air against all devices.
The \emph{Samsung}-flavored user interface looks differently than the \emph{Google} user interface,
including menu structures and texts. When a \ac{BT} connection fails due to a changed link key,
the message \emph{``Couldn't connect.''} is displayed. In case the paired device supports a special protocol or capability,
this is added to the text. For example, when using tethering with an \emph{iPhone}, the message
\emph{``Couldn't connect. Turn on Bluetooth tethering on iPhone.''} is shown, as depicted in \autoref{fig:sandroid_keychange}.
This \textbf{error message is the same as when the
paired device was switched off}, meaning that harmless connection issues and security-critical authentication errors are indistinguishable for users.
\emph{Google's Fast Pair} protocol substitutes pairing~\cite{fastpair}. Only a limited subset of devices
supports this protocol, such as the \emph{Bose QC35 II} headphones.
\emph{Fast Pair}
boils down to setting a link key via \ac{HCI}. Thus, we can use the same \ac{PoC} to replace the key.
The internal logic of key management is the same, independent from \emph{Fast Pair}, and the user is displayed
the same \emph{``Couldn't connect.''} message.
On \emph{Android}, \textbf{\ac{BLE} devices} usually require using the according app by the vendor,
since \ac{BLE} is mostly used by IoT devices and has very diverse use cases. Vendor apps
do not provide insights on the current pairing state. Thus, we use the
\emph{nRF Connect} app~\cite{nrfconnect}, which allows connecting to \ac{BLE} services and control
the bonding state.
The \emph{nRF Connect} app uses the \emph{Android} Bluetooth API, meaning that some error messages are displayed
by the system upon errors. For example, when changing the \ac{BLE} long-term key for encryption during the initial pairing,
the message \emph{``Couldn't pair with MI Band 2. Make sure that it's ready to pair.''} is displayed.
When changing the encryption key later on in the \path{LE_Start_Encryption} command, the following
\emph{Encryption Mode Change} event indicates that the encryption could not be switched on
while using the wrong encryption key.
Thus, \emph{Android}
\textbf{terminates the connection but does not display any error message}.
\subsection{iOS}
We hook the Bluetooth daemon with a F\reflectbox{R}IDA-based \ac{PoC} on an \emph{iPhone 8} on \emph{iOS 14.4}.
After installing a Bluetooth debug profile,
we can use \emph{PacketLogger} to observe all \ac{HCI} packets. This provides
us with a powerful debug tool for the \emph{Apple} ecosystem, supporting devices like \emph{AirPods} that only
function with other \emph{Apple} devices.
When connecting to a \ac{BT} device, the error message is always \emph{``Connection Unsuccessful''}, as shown in \autoref{fig:ios_keychange}.
This error message is the same no matter if the other device is turned off or if the link key changed. \textbf{When switching back to the
original key, connections are successful again.}
The same error message is shown when porting the \ac{PoC} to a jailbroken \emph{iPhone 12} on \emph{iOS 14.1} and connecting
it to another \emph{iPhone 12} on \emph{iOS 14.6 Beta}, because the issue is anchored in the user interface and not the hardware.
\emph{Apple} uses \emph{MagicPairing} for \emph{AirPods}~\cite{magicpairing}.
It leverages the same mechanism as \emph{Fast Pair}---exchanging a cloud-based key
and then setting it via an \ac{HCI} command.
When substituting the key in this command, the same error message is shown.
\emph{iOS} does not directly support third-party \ac{BLE} devices,
and does not show them in the scan results. The \emph{nRF Connect} app for \emph{iOS}
does not support bonding. Thus, we are not able to test non-\emph{Apple} \ac{BLE} devices on \emph{iOS} in a comparable fashion.
The \emph{Bose QC35 II} send \ac{BLE} advertisements and usually pair using \ac{BLE} followed by a cross-transport key derivation to
switch to \ac{BT}. However, after receiving the first \ac{BLE} advertisement from a \emph{Bose QC35 II},
\emph{iOS} requests further information via a \ac{BT} extended inquiry
and directly pairs or connects using \ac{BT}.
\subsection{macOS}
We test the \emph{macOS} stack by connecting it to devices that switch their key.
The version under test is \emph{macOS 11.2.1} on a \emph{2020 MacBook Pro}.
No matter if connecting to a device via the menu bar on top or via the full settings dialogue, \textbf{buttons temporarily change their
color to blue}, similar to a connect and disconnect action, for \SIrange{2}{3}{\second}.
As on \emph{iOS}, this dialog does not support non-\emph{Apple} \ac{BLE} devices.
\subsection{Ubuntu with Gnome}
A default \emph{Ubuntu 20.10} installation uses \emph{Gnome} as user interface on top of the \emph{BlueZ} Bluetooth stack.
We use a \emph{ThinkPad X240} with these packets:
\texttt{gnome-control-center (1:3.38.3-0ubuntu1)}, \texttt{bluez} \texttt{(5.55-0ubuntu1.1)},
and \texttt{linux-kernel (5.8.0-44-generic)}.
Instead of hooking into the Bluetooth daemon itself, we change keys within the file system.
For \ac{BT},
only button colors change to blue for a short moment.
We use the same \emph{ThinkPad X240} as for the \emph{Windows} setup, with the
only exception being the test between \emph{Linux} and \emph{Windows}, for which
we use a \emph{ThinkPad X1 Yoga} with \ac{BT} 4.2 as \emph{Linux} device.
When testing \ac{BLE} with the \emph{MI Band 2}, the initial pairing works, but even
without changing the key, reconnecting later on is not supported. Thus, we could not test the \ac{BLE}
behavior of this user interface, even though the underlying \emph{BlueZ} stack supports arbitrary
\ac{BLE} devices.
\textbf{The \emph{BlueZ} stack is by far the most unreliable Bluetooth stack.} While testing the listed devices,
we observed one crash in the kernel module and two crashes in the Bluetooth daemon.
\subsection{Windows}
We use the most recent \emph{Windows 10 Internal Build} as available in March 2021.
\emph{Windows} has two menus that can connect to devices. First, the connect side bar is
reachable via \includegraphics[width=0.65em]{pics/winlogo.pdf} + K. This is primarily meant for
audio devices and other devices are only shown as connection information. The \emph{Linux} laptop
is detected as audio device.
Upon a key change, audio devices in this menu show the following message: \emph{``That didn't work. Make sure your Bluetooth device is still discoverable, then try again.''}
To connect
\emph{Windows} to one of the smartphones that change their key, we need to pair them via the
\emph{Settings} menu, go to \emph{Control Panel $\rightarrow$ Hardware and Sound $\rightarrow$ Devices and Printers},
right-click the paired smartphone, and connect to it using the \emph{AP} option.
When connecting to a smartphone with a changed key, the message \emph{``An unexpected error occurred. Please
contact your system administrator.''} is shown (see \autoref{fig:win_keychange}).
\textbf{The authentication failure error message is not
helpful to determine the root cause} of not being able to connect to the smartphone.
Interestingly, \emph{Windows}
has the only interface where the message is different from the case of not being able to connect to
switched off device (see \autoref{fig:win_off}).
\subsection{Peripherals}
\label{ssec:vulnperipherals}
We test various types of peripherals: headphones, keyboards, and a \ac{BLE} fitness tracker.
\emph{AirPods} indicate connections with sounds, the \emph{Bose QC35 II} even reads out the
currently connected devices and pairing state, the \emph{Xiaomi MI Band 2} vibrates during the
initial pairing, the \emph{Mini Keyboard} indicates pairing states with an LED, and the
\emph{MagicKeyboard} lacks any kind of feedback mechanism.
Given these limited user interaction capabilities of peripherals, notifying the user of
a security failure, as suggested by the Bluetooth specification~\cite[p. 1314]{bt52}, requires special solutions.
While error sounds or status lights would be possible, \textbf{none of these devices indicate an error when using a wrong key}. When switching back to the correct
key, they accept the connection again.
\subsection{Outdated Bluetooth Versions}
\label{ssec:vulnoutdated}
Smartphones tend to have new Bluetooth chips supporting the most recent specification.
Yet, peripherals that require less throughput have surprisingly old chips.
The device labeled as \emph{Mini Keyboard} is the cheapest keyboard in the \emph{Adafruit}
store sold for USD 12.95~\cite{minikeyboard}. It is using Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR, which has been
released in 2007. At least, this keyboard implements \emph{Passkey Entry} authentication.
Even popular recent devices such as standalone
\emph{MagicKeyboard} sold by \emph{Apple} in 2021 only has Bluetooth 3.0 + HS, dating
back to 2009.
On \emph{Broadcom} chips, as used in this device, the firmware patching capabilities
are rather limited~\cite{frankenstein}. Issues that stem from the outdated Bluetooth
version in this chip cannot be fixed in software.
Most likely due to usability reasons, the \emph{MagicKeyboard} does not use
numeric verification during wireless pairing.
Keyboards are low-throughput, meaning that old chips do not have any noticeable effect for users.
However, security of keyboards is essential---users type confidential texts and passwords.
In addition to adding warnings on authentication failures as already required by the Bluetooth specification,
we suggest that \textbf{users should be warned about outdated Bluetooth versions.}
\subsection{Responsible Disclosure}
\label{ssec:disclosure}
We contacted the \emph{Bluetooth SIG}, \emph{Apple}, \emph{Google}, and \emph{Samsung}
on February 27th 2021. After building further \acp{PoC} and testing more devices, we
contacted \emph{Microsoft}, \emph{Bose}, \emph{Xiaomi}, and \emph{Gnome} on March 13th.
The \emph{Bluetooth SIG} will address the issue. Moreover, \emph{Apple}, \emph{Google}, and
\emph{Samsung} will integrate warnings in a future release, but classified the issue as feature request.
\emph{Microsoft} stated that they will not change their warnings. \emph{Xiaomi} misunderstood the
report despite multiple clarifications. \emph{Bose} and \emph{Gnome} did not reply.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Conformally invariant systems with mixed order and exponentially increasing nonlinearity in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$}
In this paper, we are mainly concerned with the following conformally invariant system with mixed order and exponentially increasing nonlinearity in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$:
\begin{equation}\label{PDE}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u(x)=e^{pv(x)}, \qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}, \\
(-\Delta) v(x)=u^{4}(x), \qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^{2},
\end{cases}\end{equation}
where $p\in(0,+\infty)$, $u\geq0$ and $v(x)$ satisfies the finite total curvature condition $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$.
\smallskip
We assume $(u,v)$ is a pair of classical solution to the planar system \eqref{PDE} in the sense that $u\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{2})\cap \mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ with arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$ and $v\in C^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$. The square root of the Laplacian $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is a particular case of general fractional Laplacians $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ with $\alpha=1$. For any $u\in C^{[\alpha],\{\alpha\}+\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\cap\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$, the nonlocal operator $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ ($0<\alpha<2$) is defined by (see \cite{CT,CG,CLL,CLM,DQ,S})
\begin{equation}\label{nonlocal defn}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(x)=C_{n,\alpha} \, P.V.\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\frac{u(x)-u(y)}{|x-y|^{n+\alpha}}dy:=C_{n,\alpha}\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\int_{|y-x|\geq\varepsilon}\frac{u(x)-u(y)}{|x-y|^{n+\alpha}}dy,
\end{equation}
where $[\alpha]$ denotes the integer part of $\alpha$, $\{\alpha\}:=\alpha-[\alpha]$, the constant $C_{n,\alpha}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \frac{1-\cos \left(2 \pi \zeta_{1}\right)}{|\zeta|^{n+\alpha}} d \zeta\right)^{-1}$ and the (slowly increasing) function space
\begin{equation}\label{0-1-space}
\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^{n}):=\left\{u: \mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\,\big|\,\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\frac{|u(x)|}{1+|x|^{n+\alpha}}dx<+\infty\right\}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
The fractional Laplacians $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ can also be defined equivalently (see \cite{CLM}) by Caffarelli and Silvestre's extension method (see \cite{CS}) for $u\in C^{[\alpha],\{\alpha\}+\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\cap\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$. For instance, the square root of the Laplacian $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ can be defined equivalently for any $u\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\cap\mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ by
\begin{equation}\label{extension}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u(x):=-C_{n}\lim_{y\rightarrow0+}\frac{\partial U(x,y)}{\partial y}
=-C_{n}\lim_{y\rightarrow0+}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\frac{|x-\xi|^{2}-ny^{2}}{\big(|x-\xi|^{2}+y^{2}\big)^{\frac{n+3}{2}}}u(\xi)d\xi,
\end{equation}
where $U(x,y)$ is the harmonic extension of $u(x)$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}_{+}=\{(x,y)| \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}, \, y\geq0\}$. The definition \eqref{nonlocal defn} of the fractional Laplacian $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ can also be extended further to distributions in the space $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ by
\begin{equation}\label{distribution}
\left\langle(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u,\phi\right\rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}u(x)(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\phi(x) dx, \qquad \forall\phi\in C^{\infty}_0(\mathbb{R}^n).
\end{equation}
\smallskip
Throughout this paper, we define $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u$ by definition \eqref{nonlocal defn} and its equivalent definition \eqref{extension} for $u\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{2})\cap\mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$. Due to the nonlocal virtue of $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}$, we need the assumption $u\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ with arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$ (merely $u\in C^{1}$ is not enough) to guarantee that $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u\in C(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ (see \cite{CLM,S}), and hence $u$ is a classical solution to the planar system \eqref{PDE} in the sense that $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u$ is pointwise well defined and continuous in the whole plane $\mathbb{R}^{2}$.
\smallskip
The fractional Laplacian $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ is a nonlocal integral-differential operator. It can be used to model diverse physical phenomena, such as anomalous diffusion and quasi-geostrophic flows, turbulence and water waves, molecular dynamics, and relativistic quantum mechanics of stars (see \cite{CV,Co} and the references therein). It also has various applications in conformal geometry, probability and finance (see \cite{Be,CT,CG} and the references therein). In particular, the fractional Laplacian can also be understood as the infinitesimal generator of a stable L\'{e}vy process (see \cite{Be}).
\medskip
Being different from higher dimensions $n\geq3$, one should notice that Liouville type theorem for super-harmonic functions (bounded from below) (cf. e.g. Theorem 3.1 in \cite{Farina}) only holds on the plane $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, hence $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ (endowed with the standard flat metric) is a parabolic Riemannian manifold. Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $n\gee 3$ (endowed with the standard flat metric) is not a parabolic Riemannian manifold. Indeed, for any $n\gee 3$, the non-constant positive function $u(x):=\Big(\frac{\sqrt{n(n-2)}}{1+|x|^{2}}\Big)^{\frac{n-2}{2}}$ solves the Yamabe equation $-\Delta u=u^{\frac{n+2}{n-2}}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Thus the Liouville type theorem for super-harmonic functions (bounded from below) does not hold in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $n\gee 3$.
\medskip
Consider fractional order or higher order geometrically interesting conformally invariant equation of the form
\begin{equation}\label{GPDE}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u=u^{\frac{n+\alpha}{n-\alpha}} \qquad \text{in} \,\, \mathbb{R}^{n},
\end{equation}
where $n\geq1$ and $\alpha\in(0,+\infty)$. We say \eqref{GPDE} has subcritical, critical or super-critical order if $\alpha<n$, $\alpha=n$ or $\alpha>n$ respectively. In the special case $n>\alpha=2$, equation \eqref{GPDE} is the the well-known Yamabe problem. In higher order case that $2\leq\alpha\neq n$ is an even integer, equation \eqref{PDE} arises from the conformal metric problems, prescribing $Q$-curvature problems, conformally covariant Paneitz operators and GJMS operators and so on ... (see e.g. \cite{Branson,CY,CL,CL1,CL2,FKT,Gra,GJMS,Juhl,Lin,Li,N,P,WX,Xu,Z} and the references therein). In the fractional order or fractional higher order case that $\alpha\in(0,n)\setminus 2\mathbb{N}$, conformally invariant equation \eqref{GPDE} is closely related to the fractional $Q$-curvature problems and the study of fractional conformally covariant Paneitz and GJMS operators and so on ... (cf. e.g. \cite{CC,CG,JLX1} and the references therein).
\smallskip
The quantitative and qualitative properties of solutions to conformally invariant equations \eqref{GPDE} have been extensively studied. In the special case $n>\alpha=2$, positive $C^2$ smooth solution to the Yamabe equation \eqref{GPDE} has been classified by Gidas, Ni and Nirenberg in \cite{GNN1}, and Caffarelli, Gidas and Spruck in \cite{CGS}. When $n>\alpha=4$, Lin \cite{Lin} proved the classification results for all the positive $C^{4}$ smooth solutions of \eqref{GPDE}. In \cite{WX}, among other things, Wei and Xu classified all the positive $C^{\alpha}$ smooth solutions of \eqref{GPDE} when $\alpha\in(0,n)$ is an even integer. In \cite{CLO}, by developing the method of moving planes in integral forms, Chen, Li and Ou classified all the positive $L^{\frac{2n}{n-\alpha}}_{loc}$ solutions to the equivalent integral equation of the PDE \eqref{GPDE} for general $\alpha\in(0,n)$, as a consequence, they obtained the classification results for positive weak solutions to PDE \eqref{GPDE}, moreover, they also derived classification results for positive $C^{\alpha}$ smooth solutions to \eqref{GPDE} provided $\alpha\in(0,n)$ is an even integer. Subsequently, Chen, Li and Li \cite{CLL} developed a direct method of moving planes for fractional Laplacians $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ with $0<\alpha<2$ and classified all the $C^{1,1}_{loc}\cap\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}$ positive solutions to the PDE \eqref{GPDE} directly as an application (see also \cite{CLZ} for the direct method of moving spheres for $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$).
\smallskip
One can observe that all the above mentioned classification results of nonnegative classical solutions are focused on the cases that $0<\alpha<2$ or $2\leq \alpha<n$ is an even integer. When $\alpha=3<n$, Dai and Qin \cite{DQ} derived the first classification result of nonnegative classical solutions to third order equation \eqref{GPDE} under weak integrability assumption. Subsequently, by taking full advantage of the Poisson representation formulae for $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ and introducing the outer-spherical average associated with $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$, among other things, Cao, Dai and Qin \cite{CDQ0} established super poly-harmonic property of nonnegative solutions and hence classified all $C^{\alpha}$ smooth nonnegative solutions to \eqref{GPDE} for any real number $\alpha\in(0,n)$. In the super-critical order cases, for classification results of positive classical solutions to equation \eqref{GPDE} and related IE with negative exponents, please refer to \cite{Li,N,Xu} and the references therein.
\medskip
In the limiting case (or the so-called critical order case) $n=\alpha=2$, by using the method of moving planes, Chen and Li \cite{CL1} classified all the $C^{2}$ smooth solutions with finite total curvature of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{0-1}\\\begin{cases}
-\Delta u(x)=e^{2u(x)}, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}, \\
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}e^{2u(x)}dx<+\infty.
\end{cases}\end{equation}
They proved that there exists some point $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$ and some $\lambda>0$ such that $u(x)=\ln\frac{2\lambda}{1+\lambda^{2}|x-x_{0}|^{2}}$. Equations of type \eqref{0-1} arise from a variety of situations, such as from prescribing Gaussian curvature in geometry and from combustion theory in physics.
\smallskip
Let us briefly review the geometry background of the planar equation \eqref{0-1}. Let $g_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}$ be the standard metric on the unit $2$-sphere $\mathbf{S}^{2}$. If we consider the conformal metric $\hat{g}:=e^{2w}g_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}$, then the Gaussian curvature $K_{\hat{g}}$ satisfies the following PDE:
\begin{equation}\label{a1}
\Delta_{g_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}}w+K_{\hat{g}}e^{2w}=1 \qquad \text{on} \,\, \mathbf{S}^{2},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{g_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}}$ denotes the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the standard metric $g_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}$ on the sphere $\mathbf{S}^{2}$. In particular, if we take $K_{\hat{g}}\equiv1$ in \eqref{a1}, then from the Cartan-Hadamard theorem, we can deduce that $w=12\ln\left|J\phi\right|$, where $J\phi$ denotes the Jacobian of the transformation $\phi$. That is, $\hat{g}:=e^{2w}g_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}$ is the pull back of the standard metric $g_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}$ through some conformal transformation $\phi$ (i.e., $\hat{g}$ is isometric to $g_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}$). Through the stereographic projection $\pi$ from $\mathbf{S}^{2}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, one can see that equation \eqref{0-1} on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ is equivalent to the equation \eqref{a1} on $\mathbf{S}^{2}$ with $K_{\hat{g}}\equiv1$.
\smallskip
In general, suppose $(M,g)$ is a smooth compact $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold, a metrically defined operator $A$ is said to be conformally covariant if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{a2}
A_{\hat{g}}(\phi)=e^{-bw}A_{g}(e^{aw}\phi)
\end{equation}
for all functions $\phi\in C^{\infty}(M)$, where $\hat{g}:=e^{2w}g$ is a conformal metric of $g$. When $n=2$, the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_{g}$ is conformally covariant with $a=0$ and $b=2$. When $n\geq 3$, the conformal Laplace-Beltrami operator $L^{n}_{g}:=-\Delta_{g}+\frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}R_{g}$ is conformally covariant with $a=\frac{n-2}{2}$ and $b=\frac{n+2}{2}$. Suppose $(M,g)$ is a smooth compact $4$-dimensional Riemannian manifold, Paneitz \cite{P} extended the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_{g}$ to the fourth order operator $P^{4}_{g}$ on $(M,g)$ which is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{P1}
P^{4}_{g}:=\Delta_{g}^{2}-\delta\left[\left(\frac{2}{3}R_{g}g-2Ric_{g}\right)d\right],
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is the divergent operator, $R_{g}$ is the scalar curvature of $g$ and $Ric_{g}$ is the Ricci curvature of $g$. The Paneitz operator $P^{4}_{g}$ has the conformally covariant property with $a=0$ and $b=4$. In \cite{Branson}, Branson generalized the Paneitz operator $P^{4}_{g}$ to conformally covariant operator $P^{n}_{g}$ on manifolds $(M,g)$ of other dimensions $n\gee3$ with $a=\frac{n-4}{2}$ and $b=\frac{n+4}{2}$.
\smallskip
On general compact Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ of dimension $n$, the existence of such a conformally covariant operator $P_{n,g}$ with $a=0$ and $b=n$ for even dimensional manifold (i.e., $n=2m$) was first derived by Graham, Jenne, Mason and Sparling in \cite{GJMS}. The authors in \cite{GJMS} discovered the conformally covariant GJMS operator with the principle part $(-\Delta_{g})^{\frac{n}{2}}$ (see also \cite{Branson,CY,Juhl,N}). However, it is only explicitly known for the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with standard metric $g$ and hence for the $n$-sphere $\mathbf{S}^{n}$ with standard metric $g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}$. The explicit formula for $P_{n,g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}$ on $\mathbf{S}^{n}$ with general integer $n\in\mathbb{N}^{+}$ is given by (cf. \cite{Branson,CY,GJMS,Juhl,N}):
\begin{equation}\label{GJMS-2}
P_{n,g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}\left(\cdot\right)=\prod_{k=1}^{\frac{n}{2}}\left[-\Delta_{g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}+\left(\frac{n}{2}-k\right)\left(\frac{n}{2}+k-1\right)\right]\left(\cdot\right), \qquad \text{if} \,\, n \,\, \text{is even},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{GJMS-1}
P_{n,g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}\left(\cdot\right)=\left[-\Delta_{g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}+\frac{(n-1)^{2}}{4}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\prod_{k=1}^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\left[-\Delta_{g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}+\frac{(n-1)^{2}}{4}-k^{2}\right]\left(\cdot\right), \qquad \text{if} \,\, n \,\, \text{is odd}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
On $(\mathbf{S}^{n},g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}})$, if we change the standard metric $g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}$ to its conformal metric $\hat{g}:=e^{2w}g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}$ for some smooth function $w$ on the $n$-sphere $\mathbf{S}^{n}$, since the GJMS operator $P_{n,g}$ is conformlly covariant, it turns out that there exists some scalar curvature quantity $Q_{n,g}$ of order $n$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{a3}
-P_{n,g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}(w)+Q_{n,\hat{g}}e^{nw}=Q_{n,g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}} \qquad \text{on} \,\, \mathbf{S}^{n}.
\end{equation}
When the metric $\hat{g}$ is isometric to the standard metric $g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}$, then $Q_{n,\hat{g}}=Q_{n,g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}=(n-1)!$, and hence \eqref{a3} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{a4}
-P_{n,g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}(w)+(n-1)!e^{nw}=(n-1)! \qquad \text{on} \,\, \mathbf{S}^{n}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
We reformulate the equation \eqref{a4} on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ by applying the stereographic projection. Let us denote by $\pi: \, \mathbf{S}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}$ the stereographic projection which maps the south pole on $\mathbf{S}^{n}$ to $\infty$. That is, for any $\zeta=(\zeta_{1},\cdots,\zeta_{n+1})\in\mathbf{S}^{n}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and $x=\pi(\zeta)=(x_{1},\cdots,x_{n})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, then it holds $\zeta_{k}=\frac{2x_{k}}{1+|x|^{2}}$ for $1\leq k\leq n$ and $\zeta_{n+1}=\frac{1-|x|^{2}}{1+|x|^{2}}$. Suppose $w$ is a smooth function on $\mathbf{S}^{n}$, define the function $u(x):=\phi(x)+w(\zeta)$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, where $\zeta:=\pi^{-1}(x)$ and $\phi(x):=\ln\frac{2}{1+|x|^{2}}=\ln\left|J_{\pi^{-1}}\right|$. Since the GJMS operator $P_{n,g_{\mathbf{S}^{n}}}$ is the pull back under $\pi$ of the operator $(-\Delta)^{\frac{n}{2}}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (see Theorem 3.3 in \cite{Branson1}), $w$ satisfies the equation \eqref{a4} on $\mathbf{S}^{n}$ if and only if the function $u$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{a5}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{n}{2}}u=(n-1)!e^{nu} \qquad \text{in} \,\, \mathbb{R}^{n}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
In \cite{CY}, for general integer $n$, Chang and Yang classified the $C^{n}$ smooth solutions to the critical order equations \eqref{a5} under decay conditions near infinity
\begin{equation}\label{a0}
u(x)=\log \frac{2}{1+|x|^2}+w\left(\zeta(x)\right)
\end{equation}
for some smooth function $w$ defined on $\mathbf{S}^n$. When $n=\alpha=4$, Lin \cite{Lin} proved the classification results for all the $C^{4}$ smooth solutions of
\begin{equation}\label{0-2}\\\begin{cases}
\Delta^{2}u(x)=6e^{4u}(x), \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{4}, \\
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{4}}e^{4u(x)}dx<+\infty, \,\,\,\,\,\, u(x)=o\left(|x|^{2}\right) \,\,\,\, \text{as} \,\,\,\, |x|\rightarrow+\infty.
\end{cases}\end{equation}
When $n=\alpha$ is an even integer, Wei and Xu \cite{WX} classified the $C^{n}$ smooth solutions of \eqref{a5} with finite total curvature $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}e^{nu(x)}dx<+\infty$ under the assumption $u(x)=o\left(|x|^{2}\right)$ as $|x|\rightarrow+\infty$. Zhu \cite{Z} classified all the classical solutions with finite total curvature of the problem
\begin{equation}\label{0-4}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{3}{2}}u(x)=2e^{3u}(x), \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}, \\
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}e^{3u(x)}dx<+\infty, \,\,\,\,\,\, u(x)=o(|x|^{2}) \,\,\,\, \text{as} \,\,\,\, |x|\rightarrow+\infty.
\end{cases}\end{equation}
The equation \eqref{0-4} can also be regarded as the following system with mixed order:
\begin{equation}\label{0-4s}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u(x)=2e^{3v(x)}, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}, \\
(-\Delta)v(x)=u(x), \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}, \\
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}e^{3v(x)}dx<+\infty, \,\,\,\,\,\, v(x)=o\left(|x|^{2}\right) \,\,\,\, \text{as} \,\,\,\, |x|\rightarrow+\infty.
\end{cases}\end{equation}
One should note that the planar system \eqref{PDE} has higher degree of nonlinearity than \eqref{0-4s}. Recently, Yu \cite{Yu} classified $(u,v)\in C^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{4})\times C^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{4})$ to the following conformally invariant system
\begin{equation}\label{Yu-s}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)u(x)=e^{3v(x)}, \,\,\quad u(x)>0, \qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^{4}, \\
(-\Delta)^{2}v(x)=u^{4}(x), \qquad\,\,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{4}, \\
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{4}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty, \quad \int_{\mathbb{R}^{4}}e^{3v(x)}dx<+\infty, \,\,\,\,\,\, v(x)=o\left(|x|^{2}\right) \,\,\,\, \text{as} \,\,\,\, |x|\rightarrow+\infty.
\end{cases}\end{equation}
For more literatures on the quantitative and qualitative properties of solutions to fractional order or higher order conformally invariant PDE and IE problems, please refer to \cite{BKN,BF,CT,C,CQ,CDQ,CL,CL2,DQ0,DQ3,DQ4,Fall,Farina,FK,FKT,FLS,JLX1,LZ1,LZ} and the references therein.
\medskip
In this paper, by using the method of moving spheres, we classify all the classical solutions $(u,v)$ to the conformally invariant planar system \eqref{PDE} with mixed order and exponentially increasing nonlinearity. One can observe that, if we assume the relationship $u=e^{\frac{v}{2}}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ between $u$ and $v$ in the following two conformally invariant equations:
\begin{equation}\label{a6}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u=u^{3} \qquad \text{and} \qquad (-\Delta)v=e^{2v} \qquad \text{in} \,\, \mathbb{R}^{2}
\end{equation}
with the finite total curvature $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}e^{2v(x)}dx<+\infty$, the resulting system is
\begin{equation}\label{PDE+}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u(x)=e^{\frac{3}{2}v(x)}, \qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}, \\
(-\Delta)v(x)=u^{4}(x), \qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}
\end{cases}\end{equation}
with the finite total curvature $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$, i.e., system \eqref{PDE} with $p=\frac{3}{2}$. For more literatures on the classification of solutions and Liouville type theorems for various PDE and IE problems via the methods of moving planes or spheres and the method of scaling spheres, please refer to \cite{CGS,CDQ0,CDZ,CQ,CY,CDQ,CL,CL1,CL0,CL2,CLL,CLO,CLZ,DHL,DLQ,DQ,DQ0,DQ3,DQ4,DGZ,DZ,FKT,GNN1,JLX,JLX1,Lin,Li,LZ1,LZ,NN,Pa,Serrin,WX,Xu,Yu,Z} and the references therein.
\smallskip
Our classification result for \eqref{PDE} is the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thm0}
Assume $p\in(0,+\infty)$ and $(u,v)$ is a pair of classical solutions to the planar system \eqref{PDE} such that $u\geq0$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$. Suppose there exists some $K\geq1$ arbitrarily large such that $u(x)=O\left(|x|^{K}\right)$ as $|x|\rightarrow+\infty$, then $(u,v)$ must take the unique form:
\begin{equation}\label{conclu1}
u(x)=\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-x_{0}|^{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} , \qquad v(x)=\frac{3}{2p}\ln\left[\frac{\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\mu}{1+\mu^2|x-x_{0}|^{2}}\right]
\end{equation}
for some $\mu>0$ and some $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$, and
\begin{equation}\label{conclu2}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx=\frac{6\pi}{p} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}e^{pv(x)}dx=\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{\mu}}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}\label{rem0}
One should note that, in Theorem \ref{thm0}, we do not need any assumption on $v$. The assumption ``$u(x)=O\left(|x|^{K}\right)$ at $\infty$ for some $K\geq1$ arbitrarily large" is an extremely mild condition, which is much weaker than the condition ``$u$ is bounded from above" and any other assumption in previous literatures mentioned above. In fact, the necessary condition for us to define $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u$ is $u\in\mathcal{L}_{1}$ (i.e., $\frac{u}{1+|x|^{3}}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$), which already indicates that $u$ grows slowly and must has strictly less than linear growth at $\infty$ in the sense of integral. In addition to \eqref{conclu2} in Theorem \ref{thm0}, by direct calculations, one can also find that
\begin{equation}\label{a13}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}e^{\frac{4}{3}pv(x)}dx=\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\pi.
\end{equation}
\end{rem}
\medskip
We would like to mention some key ideas and main ingredients in our proof of Theorem \ref{thm0}.
\smallskip
First, from the finite total curvature condition $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$, we can derive the integral representation formula for $u$ (see Lemma \ref{lem0}), that is,
\begin{equation}\label{e1}
u(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy,
\end{equation}
and hence $|x|^{-1}e^{pv}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$. Combining this with the assumptions $u(x)=O\left(|x|^{K}\right)$ at $\infty$ for some $K\geq1$ arbitrarily large and $u^{4}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$, by elliptic estimates and proving an $\exp^{L}+L\ln L$ inequality, we get $v^{+}=o(|x|^{\delta})$ at $\infty$ for arbitrarily small $\delta>0$ (see Corollary \ref{cor0}) and the asymptotic property $\lim\limits_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\zeta(x)}{\ln|x|}=-\alpha$, where $v^{+}:=\max\{v,0\}$, $\zeta(x):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ln\left[\frac{|y|}{|x-y|}\right]u^{4}(y)dy$ and $\alpha:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx$. Based on these properties, by Liouville type results in a corollary of Lemma 3.3 in Lin \cite{Lin} (see Lemma \ref{lem2} and Corollary \ref{cor1}), we can deduce the integral representation formula for $v$, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{e2}
v(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ln\left[\frac{|y|}{|x-y|}\right]u^{4}(y)dy+\gamma
\end{equation}
for some constant $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$, and hence the crucial asymptotic behavior $\lim\limits_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{v(x)}{\ln|x|}=-\alpha$ (see Lemma \ref{lem1}). The asymptotic behavior of $v$ implies that $\alpha\geq\frac{1}{p}$, and furthermore, $\beta:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}e^{pv(x)}dx<+\infty$ and the asymptotic behavior $\lim\limits_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}|x|u(x)=\beta$ provided that $\alpha>\frac{2}{p}$ (see Corollary \ref{cor2}).
\smallskip
Next, by making use of these properties, we can apply the method of moving spheres to the IE system for $(u,v)$ consisting of \eqref{e1} and \eqref{e2}. For any $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$ and $\lambda\in(0,\lambda_{x_{0}}]$ with $\lambda_{x_{0}}\in(0,+\infty]$, we prove that, $u_{x_{0},\lambda}\leq u$ and $v_{x_{0},\lambda}\leq v$ in $B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}$ if $\alpha\geq\frac{3}{p}$, $u_{x_{0},\lambda}\geq u$ and $v_{x_{0},\lambda}\geq v$ in $B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}$ if $\frac{1}{p}\leq\alpha\leq\frac{3}{p}$ (see \eqref{m0} for definitions of the Kelvin transforms $u_{x_{0},\lambda}$ and $v_{x_{0},\lambda}$). Then, in both the cases $\alpha<\frac{3}{p}$ and $\alpha>\frac{3}{p}$, we show the limiting radius $\lambda_{x_{0}}=+\infty$ for any $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$ and hence derive a contradiction from Lemma 11.2 in \cite{LZ1} (see Lemma \ref{lem10}), the finite total curvature condition and the system \eqref{PDE}. Finally, we must have $\alpha=\frac{3}{p}$ and $\lambda_{x_{0}}\in(0,+\infty)$ for any $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$, and hence $u_{x_{0},\lambda}\equiv u$ and $v_{x_{0},\lambda}\equiv v$ in $\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus\{0\}$ for $\lambda>0$ small and any $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$. As a consequence, Lemma 11.1 in \cite{LZ1} (see Lemma \ref{lem10}) and the asymptotic properties of $(u,v)$ yield the desired classification results in Theorem \ref{thm0}.
\medskip
\subsection{Conformally invariant systems with mixed order and Hartree type nonlocal nonlinearity in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$}
We also investigate the following conformally invariant system with mixed order and Hartree type nonlocal nonlinearity in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$:
\begin{equation}\label{PDEH}
\begin{cases}(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}} u(x)=\left(\frac{1}{|x|^{\sigma}}\ast v^{6-\sigma}\right)v^{4-\sigma}(x) & \text { in } \,\, \mathbb{R}^{3}, \\ \\
(-\Delta)v(x)=u^{\frac{5}{2}}(x) & \text {in} \,\, \mathbb{R}^{3}, \end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma\in(0,3)$, $u\geq0$ and $v\geq0$. We assume $(u,v)$ is a pair of classical solution to the system \eqref{PDEH} in the sense that $u\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\cap \mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$ with arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$ and $v\in C^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$.
\smallskip
Consider nonnegative solutions to the following physically interesting static Schr\"{o}dinger-Hartree-Maxwell type equations involving higher-order or higher-order fractional Laplacians
\begin{equation}\label{PDES}
(-\Delta)^{s}u(x)=\left(\frac{1}{|x|^{\sigma}}\ast u^{p}\right)u^{q}(x) \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \text{in} \,\,\, \mathbb{R}^{n},
\end{equation}
where $n\geq1$, $0<s:=m+\frac{\alpha}{2}<\frac{n}{2}$, $m\geq0$ is an integer, $0<\alpha\leq2$, $0<\sigma<n$, $0<p\leq\frac{2n-\sigma}{n-2s}$ and $0<q\leq\frac{n+2s-\sigma}{n-2s}$. When $\sigma=4s$, $p=2$, $0<q\leq1$, \eqref{PDE} is called static Schr\"{o}dinger-Hartree type equations. When $\sigma=n-2s$, $p=\frac{n+2s}{n-2s}$, $0<q\leq\frac{4s}{n-2s}$, \eqref{PDE} is known as static Schr\"{o}dinger-Maxwell type equations. When $p=\frac{2n-\sigma}{n-2s}$ and $q=\frac{n+2s-\sigma}{n-2s}$, we say equation \eqref{PDES} is conformally invariant or has critical growth (on nonlinearity).
\smallskip
One should observe that both the fractional Laplacians $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ and the convolution type nonlinearity are nonlocal in equation \eqref{PDES} and system \eqref{PDEH}, which is quite different from most of the known results in previous literature. PDEs of type \eqref{PDES} arise in the Hartree-Fock theory of the nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equations (see \cite{LS}). The solution $u$ to problem \eqref{PDES} is also a ground state or a stationary solution to the following dynamic Schr\"{o}dinger-Hartree equation
\begin{equation}\label{Hartree}
i\partial_{t}u+(-\Delta)^{m+\frac{\alpha}{2}}u=\left(\frac{1}{|x|^{\sigma}}\ast |u|^{p}\right)|u|^{q-1}u, \qquad (t,x)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}
\end{equation}
involving higher-order or higher-order fractional Laplacians. The higher order and fractional order Schr\"{o}dinger-Hartree equations have many interesting applications in the quantum theory of large systems of non-relativistic bosonic atoms and molecules and the theory of laser propagation in medium (see, e.g. \cite{FL,LMZ} and the references therein).
\smallskip
The qualitative properties of solutions to fractional order or higher order Hartree or Choquard type equations have been extensively studied, for instance, see \cite{AGSY,CD,CDZ,CL3,CW,DFHQW,DFQ,DL,DLQ,DQ,Lei,Lieb,Liu,MZ,MS,MS1} and the references therein. In \cite{DLQ}, Dai, Liu and Qin proved the super poly-harmonic properties of nonnegative classical solutions by using the outer-spherical average associated with $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ and classified all nonnegative classical solutions to Schr\"{o}dinger-Hartree-Maxwell type equations \eqref{PDES} in the full range $s:=m+\frac{\alpha}{2}\in(0,\frac{n}{2})$, $m\geq0$ is an integer, $0<\alpha\leq2$, $0<\sigma<n$, $0<p\leq\frac{2n-\sigma}{n-2s}$ and $0<q\leq\frac{n+2s-\sigma}{n-2s}$. In critical and super-critical order cases (i.e., $\frac{n}{2}\leq s:=m+\frac{\alpha}{2}<+\infty$ and $p,q\in(0,+\infty)$), they also derived Liouville type theorem.
\smallskip
In this paper, by using the method of moving spheres, we classify all the classical solutions $(u,v)$ to the conformally invariant 3D system \eqref{PDE} with mixed order and Hartree type nonlocal nonlinearity. One should observe that, if we assume the relationship $u=v^{2}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ between the nonnegative solutions $u$ and $v$ in the following two conformally invariant equations:
\begin{equation}\label{a7}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u(x)=\left(\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\ast u^{2}\right)u(x) \qquad \text{and} \qquad (-\Delta)v(x)=v^{5}(x) \qquad \text{in} \,\, \mathbb{R}^{3},
\end{equation}
the resulting system is
\begin{equation}\label{PDEH+}
\begin{cases}(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}u(x)=\left(\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\ast v^{4}\right)v^{2}(x) & \text { in } \,\, \mathbb{R}^{3}, \\ \\
(-\Delta)v(x)=u^{\frac{5}{2}}(x) & \text { in } \,\, \mathbb{R}^{3}, \end{cases}
\end{equation}
i.e., system \eqref{PDEH} with $\sigma=2$.
\smallskip
Our classification result for \eqref{PDEH} is the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thm1}
Assume $\sigma\in(0,3)$ and $(u,v)$ is a pair of nonnegative classical solution to the 3D system \eqref{PDE}. Then we have, either $(u,v)\equiv(0,0)$, or $(u,v)$ must take the unique form:
\begin{equation}\label{conclu-1}
u(x)=\left[\frac{2\times 3^{2(5-\sigma)}}{I\left(\frac{\sigma}{2}\right)}\right]^{\frac{1}{24-5\sigma}}\frac{\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-\bar{x}|^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{conclu-2}
v(x)=\left[\frac{3\times 2^{\frac{5}{2}}}{I\left(\frac{\sigma}{2}\right)^{\frac{5}{2}}}\right]^{\frac{1}{24-5\sigma}}{\left(\frac{\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-\bar{x}|^2}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
for some $\mu>0$ and some $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$, where $I(\gamma):=\frac{\pi^{\frac{3}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{3-2\gamma}{2}\right)}{\Gamma(3-\gamma)}$ for any $0<\gamma<\frac{3}{2}$.
\end{thm}
\medskip
The rest of our paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we will carry out our proof of Theorem \ref{thm0}. Section 3 is devoted to proving our Theorem \ref{thm1}.
\smallskip
In what follows, we will use $C$ to denote a general positive constant that may depend on $p$ and $\sigma$, and whose value may differ from line to line.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm0}}
In this section, we classify all the classical solutions $(u,v)$ to the planar system \eqref{PDE} and hence carry out our proof of Theorem \ref{thm0}.
Assume $(u,v)$ is a pair of classical solution to the planar system \eqref{PDE} with $u\geq0$. We first prove the following integral representation formula for $u(x)$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem0}
Assume $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$. Then we have, for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$,
\begin{equation}\label{1}
u(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy.
\end{equation}
Consequently, $u>0$ in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, $u(x)\geq\frac{c}{|x|}$ for some constant $c>0$ and $|x|$ large enough, and
\begin{equation}\label{15}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{e^{pv(x)}}{|x|}dx<+\infty.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For arbitrary $R>0$, let
\begin{equation}\label{2}
\eta_R(x)=\int_{B_R(0)}G_R(x,y)e^{pv(y)}dy,
\end{equation}
where Green's function for $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ on $B_R(0)\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{3}
G_R(x,y):=\frac{C_{0}}{|x-y|}\int_{0}^{\frac{t_{R}}{s_{R}}}\frac{1}{(1+b)\sqrt{b}}db
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \text{if} \,\, x,y\in B_{R}(0)
\end{equation}
with $s_{R}:=\frac{|x-y|^{2}}{R^{2}}$, $t_{R}:=\left(1-\frac{|x|^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)\left(1-\frac{|y|^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)$, $C_{0}:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\left[\int_{0}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{(1+b)\sqrt{b}}db\right]^{-1}$, and $G_{R}(x,y)=0$ if $x$ or $y\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus B_{R}(0)$ (see \cite{K}). Then, we can derive that $\eta_{R}\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}\left(B_{R}(0)\right)\cap C(\mathbb{R}^{2})\cap\mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{4}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}\eta_R(x)=e^{pv(x)}, \qquad x\in B_R(0),\\
\eta_R(x)=0,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ x\in \mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus B_R(0).
\end{cases}\end{equation}
Let $w_R(x):=u(x)-\eta_R(x)\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}\left(B_{R}(0)\right)\cap C(\mathbb{R}^{2})\cap\mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$. By system \eqref{PDE} and \eqref{4}, we have $w_R\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}\left(B_{R}(0)\right)\cap C(\mathbb{R}^{2})\cap\mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ and satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{5}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}w_R(x)=0, \qquad x\in B_R(0),\\
w_R(x)\geq0, \qquad x\in \mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus B_R(0).
\end{cases}\end{equation}
Now we need the following maximum principle for fractional Laplacians.
\begin{lem}\label{max}(Maximum principle, \cite{CLL,S})
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $n\geq2$ and $0<\alpha<2$. Assume that $u\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}\cap C^{[\alpha],\{\alpha\}+\epsilon}_{loc}(\Omega)$ with arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$ and is l.s.c. on $\overline{\Omega}$. If $(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u\geq 0$ in $\Omega$ and $u\geq 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\Omega$, then $u\geq 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Moreover, if $u=0$ at some point in $\Omega$, then $u=0$ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. These conclusions also hold for unbounded domain $\Omega$ if we assume further that
\[\liminf_{|x|\rightarrow\infty}u(x)\geq0.\]
\end{lem}
By Lemma \ref{max}, we deduce from \eqref{5} that for any $R>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{6}
w_R(x)=u(x)-\eta_{R}(x)\geq0, \qquad \forall \,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{equation}
Now, for each fixed $x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$, letting $R\rightarrow\infty$ in \eqref{6}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{7}
u(x)\geq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy=:\eta(x)>0.
\end{equation}
Taking $x=0$ in \eqref{7}, we get that $v$ satisfies the following integrability
\begin{equation}\label{8}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{|y|}dy\leq 2\pi u(0)<+\infty.
\end{equation}
One can observe that $\eta\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{2})\cap\mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ is a solution of
\begin{equation}\label{9}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}\eta(x)=e^{pv(x)}, \qquad \forall \, x\in \mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{equation}
Define $w(x)=u(x)-\eta(x)$, then by system \eqref{PDE} and \eqref{9}, we have $w\in C^{1,\epsilon}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{2})\cap\mathcal{L}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ and satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{10}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}w(x)=0, \,\quad \,\, x\in \mathbb{R}^{2},\\
w(x)\geq0, \,\,\quad \, x\in \mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{cases}\end{equation}
Now we need the following Liouville type theorem for $\alpha$-harmonic functions in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $n\geq 2$.
\begin{lem}\label{Liouville}(Liouville theorem, \cite{BKN})
Assume $n\geq2$ and $0<\alpha<2$. Let $u$ be a strong solution of
\begin{equation*}\\\begin{cases}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(x)=0, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}, \\
u(x)\geq0, \,\,\,\,\,\,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^{n},
\end{cases}\end{equation*}
then $u\equiv C\geq0$.
\end{lem}
For the proof of Lemma \ref{Liouville}, please refer to \cite{BKN}, see also e.g. \cite{CS,Fall}.
From Lemma \ref{Liouville}, we get $w(x)=u(x)-\eta(x)\equiv C\geq0$. Thus, we have proved that
\begin{equation}\label{11}
u(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy+C>C\geq0.
\end{equation}
Now, by the finite total curvature condition $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{12}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}C^{4}dx<\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty,
\end{equation}
from which we can infer immediately that $C=0$. Therefore, we arrived at
\begin{equation}\label{13}
u(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy,
\end{equation}
that is, $u$ satisfies the integral equation \eqref{1}.
In addition, from the integral representation formula \eqref{1} for $u$, we get, for any $|x|$ sufficiently large,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{31}
&& u(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy\geq\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{1\leq |y|<\frac{|x|}{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy \\
\nonumber && \qquad \geq \frac{1}{3\pi|x|}\int_{1\leq |y|<\frac{|x|}{2}}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{|y|}dy\geq \frac{1}{6\pi|x|}\int_{|y|\geq1}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{|y|}dy=:\frac{c}{|x|}.
\end{eqnarray}
This finishes our proof of Lemma \ref{lem0}.
\end{proof}
From Lemma \ref{lem0}, we can get immediately the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{cor0}
Assume $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$ and $u=O\left(|x|^{K}\right)$ at $\infty$ for some $K\geq1$ arbitrarily large. Then we have, for any $\delta>0$ small,
\begin{equation}\label{14}
v^{+}(x)=o\left(|x|^{\delta}\right) \qquad \text{as} \,\,\, |x|\rightarrow+\infty,
\end{equation}
where $v^{+}(x):=\max\{v(x),0\}$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
From \eqref{15}, we infer that, for any (bounded or unbounded) domain $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{2}$ and $k\in\mathbb{N}^{+}$,
\begin{equation}\label{16}
\frac{p}{k!}\int_{\Omega}\frac{\left[v^{+}(x)\right]^{k}}{|x|}dx\leq\int_{\Omega}\frac{e^{pv(x)}}{|x|}dx\leq\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{e^{pv(x)}}{|x|}dx<+\infty.
\end{equation}
For any $x$ such that $|x|$ sufficiently large, by the condition $u=O\left(|x|^{K}\right)$ at $\infty$ for some $K\geq 1$ arbitrarily large, \eqref{16} and standard elliptic estimates, we have, for arbitrary $0<\varepsilon<\frac{1}{16K^{2}}$ small and arbitrary $k\in\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}},+\infty\right)\cap\mathbb{N}^{+}$ large,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{17}
&& v^{+}(x)\leq \|v^{+}\|_{L^{\infty}\left(B_{\frac{1}{2}}(x)\right)}\leq C\left\{\|v^{+}\|_{L^{1}(B_{1}(x))}+\|u^{4}\|_{L^{1+\varepsilon}(B_{1}(x))}\right\} \\
\nonumber &&\qquad \,\,\, \leq C\left\{\pi\|v^{+}\|_{L^{k}(B_{1}(x))}
+\left(\max_{|y-x|\leq1}u(y)\right)^{\frac{4\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}}\left(\int_{B_{1}(x)}u^{4}(y)dy\right)^{\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}}\right\} \\
\nonumber &&\qquad\,\,\, \leq C\left\{\left(\int_{B_{1}(x)}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{|y|}dy\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}|x|^{\frac{1}{k}}
+O\left(|x|^{\frac{4K\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}}\right)\left(\int_{B_{1}(x)}u^{4}(y)dy\right)^{\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}}\right\} \\
\nonumber &&\qquad\,\,\, \leq o\left(|x|^{\frac{1}{k}}\right)+o\left(|x|^{\frac{4K\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}}\right)=o\left[|x|^{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $x$. This finishes our proof of Corollary \ref{cor0}.
\end{proof}
Since $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$, we can define
\begin{equation}\label{0}
\zeta(x):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ln\left[\frac{|y|}{|x-y|}\right]u^{4}(y)dy, \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{equation}
We can prove the following integral representation formula and asymptotic property for $v$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem1}
Assume $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$ and $u=O\left(|x|^{K}\right)$ at $\infty$ for some $K\geq1$ arbitrarily large. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{21}
v(x)=\zeta(x)+\gamma:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ln\left[\frac{|y|}{|x-y|}\right]u^{4}(y)dy+\gamma, \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ is a constant. Moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{22}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{v(x)}{\ln |x|}=-\alpha,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(y)dy\in(0,+\infty)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will first prove the following asymptotic property:
\begin{equation}\label{23}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\zeta(x)}{\ln |x|}=-\alpha.
\end{equation}
To this end, we only need to show that
\begin{equation}\label{24}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{\ln(|x-y|)-\ln |y|-\ln |x|}{\ln |x|}u^{4}(y)dy=0.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
We need the following useful $\exp^{L}+L\ln L$ inequality, which is itself of independent interest and can be regarded as a limiting form of Young's inequality or H\"{o}lder inequality.
\begin{lem}[$\exp^{L}+L\ln L$ inequality]\label{limiting inequality}
Assume $n\geq1$ and $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a bounded or unbounded domain. Suppose $f\in \exp^{L}(\Omega)$ and $g\in L\ln L(\Omega)$, then we have $fg\in L^{1}(\Omega)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eL-LlnL}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega}|f(x)g(x)|dx &\leq \int_{\Omega}\left(e^{|f(x)|}-|f(x)|-1\right)dx+\int_{\Omega}|g(x)|\ln\left(|g(x)|+1\right)dx \\
&=:\|f\|_{\exp^{L}(\Omega)}+\|g\|_{L\ln L(\Omega)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the spaces $\exp^{L}(\Omega):=\left\{f\mid \, f: \, \Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{C} \,\, \text{measurable}, \, f\in L^{1}(\Omega), \, \int_{\Omega}\left(e^{|f(x)|}-1\right)dx<+\infty\right\}$ and $L\ln L(\Omega):=\left\{g\mid \, g: \, \Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{C} \,\, \text{measurable}, \, g\in L^{1}(\Omega), \, \int_{\Omega}|g(x)|\ln\left(|g(x)|+1\right)dx<+\infty\right\}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
In order to prove Lemma \ref{limiting inequality}, we only need to show the following elementary inequality:
\begin{equation}\label{inequality}
ab\leq e^{a}-a-1+b\ln(b+1), \qquad \forall \, a,\, b\geq0.
\end{equation}
Indeed, one can verify that
\begin{equation}\label{a17}
\begin{aligned}
ab&\leq\int_{0}^{a}\left(e^{x}-1\right)dx+\int_{0}^{b}\ln(1+y)dy=e^{a}-1-a+\left(b+1\right)\ln\left(b+1\right)-b \\
&\leq e^{a}-a-1+b\ln(b+1).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This finishes our proof of Lemma \ref{limiting inequality}.
\end{proof}
By using the $\exp^{L}+L\ln L$ inequality \eqref{eL-LlnL} in Lemma \eqref{limiting inequality}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{a18}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{B_{1}(x)}\ln\left(\frac{1}{|x-y|}\right)u^{4}(y)dy&\leq \int_{B_{1}(x)}\frac{1}{|x-y|}dy+\int_{B_{1}(x)}u^{4}(y)\ln\left(u^{4}(y)+1\right)dy \\
&\leq 2\pi+\left[\max_{|y-x|\leq1}\ln\left(u^{4}(y)+1\right)\right]\int_{B_{1}(x)}u^{4}(y)dy.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As a consequence, by \eqref{a18}, the conditions $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$ and $u=O\left(|x|^{K}\right)$ at $\infty$ for some $K\geq1$ arbitrarily large, we have, for any $|x|\geq e^{2}$ large enough,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{25}
&& \quad \left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{\ln(|x-y|)-\ln |y|-\ln |x|}{\ln |x|}u^{4}(y)dy\right| \\
\nonumber &&\leq 3\int_{B_{1}(x)}u^{4}(y)dy+\frac{2\pi}{\ln|x|}+\frac{O\left(4K\ln|x|\right)}{\ln|x|}\int_{B_{1}(x)}u^{4}(y)dy \\
\nonumber && \quad +\frac{\max\limits_{|y|\leq\ln |x|}\left|\ln\left(\frac{|x-y|}{|x|}\right)\right|}{\ln |x|}\int_{|y|<\ln |x|}u^{4}(y)dy+\frac{1}{\ln |x|}\int_{|y|<\ln |x|}\left|\ln |y|\right|u^{4}(y)dy \\
\nonumber && \quad +\sup_{\substack{|y-x|\geq 1 \\ |y|\geq\ln |x|}}\frac{\left|\ln(|x-y|)-\ln |y|-\ln |x|\right|}{\ln |x|}\int_{|y|\geq\ln |x|}u^{4}(y)dy \\
\nonumber &&\leq o_{|x|}(1)+\frac{2\pi}{\ln|x|}+\frac{\ln 2}{\ln |x|}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx+\frac{1}{\ln |x|}\int_{|y|<1}\ln\left(\frac{1}{|y|}\right)u^{4}(y)dy \\
\nonumber &&\quad +\frac{\ln\left(\ln |x|\right)}{\ln |x|}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(y)dy+\left(2+\frac{\ln 2}{\ln |x|}\right)\int_{|y|\geq\ln |x|}u^{4}(y)dy
=o_{|x|}(1),
\end{eqnarray}
where we have use the fact $1>\frac{1}{|x|}+\frac{1}{|y|}\geq\frac{|x-y|}{|x|\cdot|y|}\geq\frac{1}{2|x|^{2}}$ for any $|y-x|\geq 1$ and $|y|\geq\ln |x|$. By letting $|x|\rightarrow+\infty$ in \eqref{25}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{26}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{\ln(|x-y|)-\ln |y|-\ln |x|}{\ln |x|}u^{4}(y)dy=0,
\end{equation}
and hence \eqref{23} holds.
\smallskip
Next, we aim to show \eqref{21}. We need the following Lemma from Lin \cite{Lin}.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 3.3 in \cite{Lin}]\label{lem2}
Assume $n\geq2$. Suppose that $w$ is a harmonic function in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $e^{w-c|x|^{2}}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ for some constant $c>0$. Then $w$ is a polynomial of degree at most $2$.
\end{lem}
From Lemma \ref{lem2}, we can derive the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{cor1}
Assume $n\geq2$. Suppose that $w$ is a harmonic function in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Then we have \\
(i) If $w^{+}=O(|x|^{2})$ at $\infty$, then $w$ is a polynomial of degree at most $2$. \\
(ii) If $w^{+}=o(|x|^{2})$ at $\infty$, then $w$ is a polynomial of degree at most $1$. \\
(iii) If $w^{+}=o(|x|)$ at $\infty$, then $w\equiv C$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ for some constant $C$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Conclusion (i) is a direct consequence of Lemma \ref{lem2}, we omit the details. For (ii), if $w^{+}=o(|x|^{2})$ at $\infty$, then $w$ must take the form
\begin{equation}\label{29}
w(x)=a_{0}+\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}x_{k}+\sum_{k=1}^{n}b_{k}x_{k}^{2},
\end{equation}
where $b_{k}\leq0$. If there is some $b_{k_{0}}<0$, then $\Delta w(x)\leq 2b_{k_{0}}<0$, which is absurd since $w$ is harmonic. Thus we must have $b_{k}=0$ for every $k=1,\cdots,n$ and hence $w$ is a polynomial of order at most $1$. As to (iii), if $w^{+}=o(|x|)$ at $\infty$, then we also have $a_{k}=0$ for every $k=1,\cdots,n$ and hence $w\equiv a_{0}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. This finishes our proof of Corollary \ref{cor1}.
\end{proof}
Note that
\begin{equation}\label{28}
-\Delta\left(v-\zeta\right)(x)=0, \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{23}, we infer that $\zeta=O(\ln |x|)$ at $\infty$. Since Lemma \ref{lem1} implies that $v^{+}=o\left(|x|^{\delta}\right)$ at $\infty$ for arbitrary $\delta>0$ small, Corollary \ref{cor1} (iii) yields immediately that, for some constant $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation}\label{27}
v(x)-\zeta(x)\equiv\gamma, \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{equation}
Thus the integral representation formula \eqref{21} for $v$ holds. The asymptotic property \eqref{22} follows immediately from \eqref{21} and \eqref{23}. This completes our proof of Lemma \ref{lem1}.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of Lemma \ref{lem1}, we have the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{cor2}
Assume $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx<+\infty$ and $u=O\left(|x|^{K}\right)$ at $\infty$ for some $K\geq1$ arbitrarily large. Then we have, for arbitrarily small $\delta>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{18}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{e^{pv(x)}}{|x|^{-\alpha p-\delta}}=+\infty \qquad \text{and} \qquad \lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{e^{pv(x)}}{|x|^{-\alpha p+\delta}}=0.
\end{equation}
Consequently,
\begin{equation}\label{19}
\alpha:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx\geq\frac{1}{p}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $\alpha>\frac{2}{p}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{20}
\beta:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}e^{pv(x)}dx<+\infty,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{33}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}|x|u(x)=\beta.
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The asymptotic property in \eqref{22} in Lemma \ref{lem1} implies that $v(x)=-\alpha\ln |x|+o(\ln |x|)$ at $\infty$. Therefore, as $|x|\rightarrow+\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{30}
e^{pv(x)}=e^{p\left[-\alpha\ln |x|+o(\ln |x|)\right]}=|x|^{-\alpha p}e^{o(\ln |x|)}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we have, for arbitrarily small $\delta>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{32}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{e^{pv(x)}}{|x|^{-\alpha p-\delta}}=+\infty \qquad \text{and} \qquad \lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{e^{pv(x)}}{|x|^{-\alpha p+\delta}}=0.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{32}, one can easily verify that the integrability $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{e^{pv(x)}}{|x|}dx<+\infty$ derived in \eqref{15} in Lemma \ref{lem0} implies that $\alpha p\geq 1$.
If we assume $\alpha p>2$, it follows immediately from the asymptotic property \eqref{18} that $\beta:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}e^{pv(x)}dx<+\infty$. Take $\delta:=\frac{\alpha p-2}{2}$, then \eqref{18} implies that, there exists a $R_{0}\geq1$ large enough such that
\begin{equation}\label{35}
e^{pv(x)}\leq \frac{1}{|x|^{\frac{\alpha p+2}{2}}}, \qquad \forall \,\, |x|\geq R_{0}.
\end{equation}
In order to prove \eqref{33}, by the integral representation formula \eqref{1} for $u$, we only need to show
\begin{equation}\label{34}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{|x|-|x-y|}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy=0.
\end{equation}
Indeed, by \eqref{20} and \eqref{35}, we have, for any $|x|>2R_{0}$ sufficiently large,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{36}
&&\quad \left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{|x|-|x-y|}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy\right| \\
\nonumber &&\leq \int_{|y-x|<\frac{|x|}{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y||y|^{\frac{\alpha p}{2}}}dy+3\int_{\substack{|y-x|\geq\frac{|x|}{2} \\ |y|\geq\frac{|x|}{2}}}e^{pv(y)}dy\\
\nonumber && \quad +\frac{2}{|x|}\int_{|y|<R_{0}}|y|e^{pv(y)}dy+\frac{2}{|x|}\int_{R_{0}\leq|y|<\frac{|x|}{2}}\frac{1}{|y|^{\frac{\alpha p}{2}}}dy \\
\nonumber &&\leq \frac{2^{\frac{\alpha p}{2}}\pi}{|x|^{\frac{\alpha p-2}{2}}}+o_{|x|}(1)+\frac{2}{|x|}\int_{|y|<R_{0}}|y|e^{pv(y)}dy+\frac{4\pi}{|x|}\tau(x)=o_{|x|}(1),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau(x):=\frac{2}{4-\alpha p}\left(\frac{|x|}{2}\right)^{\frac{4-\alpha p}{2}}$ if $2<\alpha p<4$, $\tau(x):=\ln\left(\frac{|x|}{2}\right)$ if $\alpha p=4$ and $\tau(x):=\frac{2}{\alpha p-4}R_{0}^{\frac{4-\alpha p}{2}}$ if $\alpha p>4$. Hence the asymptotic property \eqref{33} holds. This completes our proof of Corollary \ref{cor2}.
\end{proof}
\medskip
We have proved that classical solution $(u,v)$ to the PDE system \eqref{PDE} also solves the following IE system:
\begin{equation}\label{IE}\\\begin{cases}
u(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{1}{|x-y|}e^{pv(y)}dy, \qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}, \\ \\
v(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ln\Big[\frac{|y|}{|x-y|}\Big]u^{4}(y)dy+\gamma, \qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^{2},
\end{cases}\end{equation}
where $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ is a constant. Next, we will apply the method of moving spheres to show that $\alpha=\frac{3}{p}$ and derive the classification of $(u,v)$.
To this end, for arbitrarily given $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$ and any $\lambda>0$, we define the Kelvin transforms of $(u,v)$ centered at $x_{0}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{m0}
u_{x_{0},\lambda}(x):=\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_{0}|}u\left(x^{x_{0},\lambda}\right), \qquad v_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=v\left(x^{x_{0},\lambda}\right)+\frac{3}{p}\ln\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_{0}|}
\end{equation}
for arbitrary $x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus\{x_{0}\}$, where $x^{x_{0},\lambda}:=\frac{\lambda^{2}(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|^{2}}+x_{0}$.
Now, we will carry out the the method of moving spheres to the IE system \eqref{IE} with respect to arbitrarily given point $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$. Let $\lambda>0$ be an arbitrary positive real number. Define $w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x):=u_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)-u(x)$ and $w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x):=v_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)-v(x)$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus\{x_{0}\}$. We start moving the sphere $S_{\lambda}(x_{0}):=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\mid \, |x-x_{0}|=\lambda\}$ from near the point $x_{0}$ outward, until its limiting position. Therefore, the moving sphere process can be divided into two steps.
\medskip
In what follows, the two different cases $\alpha\geq\frac{3}{p}$ and $\frac{1}{p}\leq \alpha\leq\frac{3}{p}$ will be discussed separately.
\medskip
\emph{Step 1}. Start moving the circle $S_{\lambda}(x_{0})$ from near $\lambda=0$.
\medskip
\noindent \emph{Case (i)} $\alpha\geq\frac{3}{p}$. We will show that, for $\lambda>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}\label{m1}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\leq 0 \quad \text{and} \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\leq 0, \qquad \forall x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}.
\end{equation}
That is, we start moving the sphere $S_{\lambda}(x_{0}):=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\mid \, |x-x_{0}|=\lambda\}$ from near the point $x_{0}$ outward such that \eqref{m1} holds.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{m2}
B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0}):=\left\{x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\} \mid w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)>0\right\},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{m2'}
B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0}):=\left\{x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\} \mid w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)>0\right\}.
\end{equation}
We will show that, for $\lambda>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}\label{m3}
B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})=B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})=\emptyset.
\end{equation}
Since $(u,v)$ solves the IE system \eqref{IE}, through direct calculations, we get, for any $\lambda>0$ and all $x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$,
\begin{equation}\label{m4}
\begin{aligned}
u(x)=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{|x-y|}dy
+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv(y^{x_{0},\lambda})}}{\left|x-y^{x_{0},\lambda}\right|}\left(\frac{\lambda}{|y-x_{0}|}\right)^{4}dy \\
=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{|x-y|}dy
+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)}}{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}dy,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{m4'}
\begin{aligned}
v(x)=& \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})} \ln\left[\frac{|y|}{|x-y|}\right]u^{4}(y)dy \\
&+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})} \ln\left[\frac{|y^{x_{0},\lambda}|}{\left|x-y^{x_{0},\lambda}\right|}\right]u^{4}(y^{x_{0},\lambda})\left(\frac{\lambda}{|y-x_{0}|}\right)^{4}dy+\gamma \\
=& \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})} \ln\left[\frac{|y|}{|x-y|}\right]u^{4}(y)dy
+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})} \ln\left[\frac{|y^{x_{0},\lambda}|}{\left|x-y^{x_{0},\lambda}\right|}\right]u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{4}(y)dy+\gamma.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Consequently, we deduce from \eqref{m4} and \eqref{m4'} that, for arbitrarily given $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{2}$, any $\lambda>0$ and all $x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus\{x_{0}\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{m5}
\begin{aligned}
u_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_{0}|}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{|x^{x_{0},\lambda}-y|}dy \\
&+\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_{0}|}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv(y^{x_{0},\lambda})}}{\left|x^{x_{0},\lambda}-y^{x_{0},\lambda}\right|}\left(\frac{\lambda}{|y-x_{0}|}\right)^{4}dy \\
=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}dy
+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}}(y)}{|x-y|}dy,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{m5'}
\begin{aligned}
v_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=& \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})} \ln\left[\frac{|y|}{|x^{x_{0},\lambda}-y|}\right]u^{4}(y)dy \\
& +\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})} \ln\left[\frac{|y^{x_{0},\lambda}|}{\left|x^{x_{0},\lambda}-y^{x_{0},\lambda}\right|}\right]u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{4}(y)dy+\gamma+\frac{3}{p}\ln\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_{0}|}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{m4}, \eqref{m4'}, \eqref{m5} and \eqref{m5'} that, for any $x\in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{m6}
\begin{aligned}
& w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=u_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)-u(x) \\
=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\left[\frac{1}{|x-y|}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}\right]
\left(e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)}-e^{pv(y)}\right)dy,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{m6'}
\begin{aligned}
w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=&v_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)-v(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})} \ln\left[\frac{|x-y|}{|x^{x_{0},\lambda}-y|}\right]u^{4}(y)dy \\
&+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})} \ln\left[\frac{\left|x-y^{x_{0},\lambda}\right|}{\left|x^{x_{0},\lambda}-y^{x_{0},\lambda}\right|}\right]u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{4}(y)dy
+\frac{3}{p}\ln\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_{0}|} \\
=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}\ln\left[\frac{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}{\left|x-y\right|}\right]
\left(u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{4}(y)-u^{4}(y)\right)dy \\
& +\left(\frac{3}{p}-\alpha\right)\ln\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_{0}|},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx\in\Big[\frac{1}{p},+\infty\Big)$.
From \eqref{m6} and the mean value theorem, one can derive that, for any $x\in B^{+}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})$,
\begin{equation}\label{m7}
\begin{aligned}
0&<w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=u_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)-u(x) \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B^{+}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})}\left[\frac{1}{|x-y|}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}\right]
\left(e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)}-e^{pv(y)}\right)dy \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B^{+}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})}\frac{p}{|x-y|}e^{p\xi_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)}w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\leq \frac{p}{2\pi}\int_{B^{+}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)}}{|x-y|}w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $v(y)<\xi_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)<v_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)$ for any $y\in B^{+}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})$.
\smallskip
By direct calculations, one can obtain that, for any $x, y\in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}$ and $x\neq y$,
\begin{equation}\label{m8}
\begin{aligned}
0<2\ln\left[\frac{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}{\left|x-y\right|}\right] &=\ln \left[1+\frac{\left(\lambda-\frac{|x-x_{0}|^{2}}{\lambda}\right)\left(\lambda-\frac{|y-x_{0}|^{2}}{\lambda}\right)}{|x-y|^{2}}\right] \\
& \leq \ln \left(1+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{|x-y|^{2}}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It is obvious that, for arbitrary $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{m9}
\ln (1+t)=o\left(t^{\varepsilon}\right) \,\,\quad\,\, \text { as } \, t \rightarrow+\infty.
\end{equation}
This implies, for any given $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a $\delta(\varepsilon)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{m10}
\ln (1+t) \leq t^{\varepsilon}, \qquad \forall \, t>\frac{1}{\delta(\varepsilon)^{2}}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, from \eqref{m8} and \eqref{m10}, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{m11}
\ln\left[\frac{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}{\left|x-y\right|}\right]
\leq \frac{1}{2}\frac{\lambda^{2 \varepsilon}}{|x-y|^{2 \varepsilon}}, \qquad \forall \, 0<|x|,|y|<\lambda, \,\,|x-y|<\lambda \delta(\varepsilon),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{m12}
\ln\left[\frac{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}{\left|x-y\right|}\right]
\leq \frac{\ln \left[1+\frac{1}{\delta(\varepsilon)^{2}}\right]}{2}, \quad \forall \, 0<|x|,|y|<\lambda, \,\, |x-y| \geq \lambda \delta(\varepsilon).
\end{equation}
Due to $\alpha\geq \frac{3}{p}$, from \eqref{m6'}, \eqref{m11}, \eqref{m12} and the mean value theorem, one can derive that, for any given $\varepsilon>0$ small and all $x\in B^{+}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})$,
\begin{equation}\label{m13}
\begin{aligned}
0&<w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=v_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)-v(x) \\
&\leq\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B^{+}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})}\ln\left[\frac{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}{\left|x-y\right|}\right]
\left(u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{4}(y)-u^{4}(y)\right)dy \\
&\leq \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{B^{+}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})\cap B_{\lambda \delta(\varepsilon)}(x)} \frac{\lambda^{2 \varepsilon}}{|x-y|^{2 \varepsilon}}\eta_{x_{0},\lambda}^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\quad +\frac{\ln \left[1+\frac{1}{\delta(\varepsilon)^{2}}\right]}{\pi}\int_{B^{+}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})\setminus B_{\lambda \delta(\varepsilon)}(x)}\eta_{x_{0},\lambda}^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\leq \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{B^{+}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})\cap B_{\lambda \delta(\varepsilon)}(x)} \frac{\lambda^{2 \varepsilon}}{|x-y|^{2 \varepsilon}}u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\quad +C\left(\delta(\varepsilon)\right)\int_{B^{+}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})\setminus B_{\lambda \delta(\varepsilon)}(x)}u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $u(y)<\eta_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)<u_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)$ for any $y\in B^{+}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})$.
\medskip
Now we need the following Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality (cf. e.g. \cite{FL1,FL,Lieb}, see also \cite{DHL,DGZ,DZ,NN}).
\begin{lem}[Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality]\label{lem3}
Let $n\geq1$, $0<s<n$, and $1<p<q<+\infty$ be such that $s+\frac{n}{q}=\frac{n}{p}$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\left\|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \frac{f(y)}{|x-y|^{n-s}} d y\right\|_{L^{q}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)} \leq C_{n, s, p, q}\|f\|_{L^{p}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)}
\end{equation}
for all $f\in L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
\end{lem}
By Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, H\"{o}lder inequality, \eqref{m7} and \eqref{m13}, we have, for any given $\varepsilon\in (0,\frac{1}{6})$ small enough (to be chosen later) and any $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}<q<+\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{m14}
\begin{aligned}
&\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
\leq C\left\|e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}} \, w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6q}{5q+6}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C\left\|e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C\lambda^{\frac{2}{5}}\left(\int_{|x-x_{0}|\geq\lambda}\frac{e^{\frac{6}{5}pv(x)}}{|x-x_{0}|^{\frac{2}{5}}}dx\right)^{\frac{5}{6}}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C\lambda^{\frac{2}{5}}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{e^{\frac{6}{5}pv(x)}}{|x-x_{0}|^{\frac{2}{5}}}dx\right)^{\frac{5}{6}}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $r=\frac{3q}{q+3}\in\left(\frac{3}{1+3\varepsilon},3\right)$, and
\begin{equation}\label{m14'}
\begin{aligned}
&\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C \lambda^{2 \varepsilon}\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{3} \, w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{q}{1+(1-\varepsilon) q}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
&+C(\delta(\varepsilon))\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{q}}\int_{B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})}u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
\leq & C \lambda^{2 \varepsilon}\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{9}{2-3\varepsilon}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
&+C(\delta(\varepsilon))\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{q}}\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{3r}{r-1}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C \lambda^{-\frac{1}{3}-2\varepsilon}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}|x-x_{0}|^{\frac{1+12\varepsilon}{2-3\epsilon}}u^{\frac{9}{2-3\epsilon}}(x)dx\right)^{\frac{2-3\varepsilon}{3}}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
&+ C(\delta(\varepsilon))\lambda^{-\frac{1}{3}-\frac{2}{q}}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}|x-x_{0}|^{\frac{q+12}{2q-3}}u^{\frac{9q}{2q-3}}(x)dx\right)^{\frac{2q-3}{3q}}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since $\alpha\geq\frac{3}{p}$, by the asymptotic properties of $(u,v)$ in \eqref{18} and \eqref{33} in Corollary \ref{cor2}, we deduce that, for $\varepsilon\in(0,\frac{1}{6})$ sufficiently small and hence $q\in\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon},+\infty\right)$ large enough, $\frac{e^{\frac{6}{5}pv}}{|x-x_{0}|^{\frac{2}{5}}}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$, $|x-x_{0}|^{\frac{1+12\varepsilon}{2-3\epsilon}}u^{\frac{9}{2-3\epsilon}}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ and $|x-x_{0}|^{\frac{q+12}{2q-3}}u^{\frac{9q}{2q-3}}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$. Therefore, \eqref{m14} and \eqref{m14'} yields that
\begin{equation}\label{m15}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}\leq C_{q,\varepsilon}\max\left\{\lambda^{\frac{1}{15}-2\varepsilon},\lambda^{\frac{1}{15}-\frac{2}{q}}\right\}\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{m15'}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}\leq C_{q,\varepsilon}\max\left\{\lambda^{\frac{1}{15}-2\varepsilon},\lambda^{\frac{1}{15}-\frac{2}{q}}\right\}\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}.
\end{equation}
As a consequence, if we choose $\varepsilon\in\left(0,\frac{1}{30}\right)$ sufficiently small and hence $q\in\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon},+\infty\right)$ large enough, there exists a $\eta_{0}>0$ small enough such that
\begin{equation}\label{m16}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}\right)}\leq \frac{1}{2}\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}\right)}, \qquad \left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}\right)}\leq\frac{1}{2}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}\right)}
\end{equation}
for all $0<\lambda\leq\eta_{0}$. By \eqref{m16}, we arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{m17}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}=\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}=0,
\end{equation}
which means $B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})=B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})=\emptyset$ for any $0<\lambda\leq\eta_{0}$. Therefore, we have proved for all $0<\lambda\leq\eta_{0}$,
\begin{equation}\label{m18}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\leq0, \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\leq 0, \qquad \forall \, x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}.
\end{equation}
This completes Step 1 for the case $\alpha\geq\frac{3}{p}$.
\medskip
\noindent \emph{Case (ii)} $\frac{1}{p}\leq\alpha\leq\frac{3}{p}$. We will show that, for $\lambda>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}\label{m1-}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\geq 0 \quad \text{and} \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\geq 0, \qquad \forall x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}.
\end{equation}
That is, we start moving the sphere $S_{\lambda}(x_{0}):=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\mid \, |x-x_{0}|=\lambda\}$ from near the point $x_{0}$ outward such that \eqref{m1-} holds.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{m2-}
B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0}):=\left\{x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\} \mid w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)<0\right\},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{m2'-}
B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0}):=\left\{x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\} \mid w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)<0\right\}.
\end{equation}
We will show that, for $\lambda>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}\label{m3-}
B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})=B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})=\emptyset.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{m6} and the mean value theorem, one can derive that, for any $x\in B^{-}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})$,
\begin{equation}\label{m7-}
\begin{aligned}
0&>w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=u_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)-u(x) \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B^{-}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})}\left[\frac{1}{|x-y|}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}\right]
\left(e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)}-e^{pv(y)}\right)dy \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B^{-}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})}\frac{p}{|x-y|}e^{p\bar{\xi}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)}w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\geq \frac{p}{2\pi}\int_{B^{-}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})}\frac{e^{pv(y)}}{|x-y|}w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $v_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)<\bar{\xi}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)<v(y)$ for any $y\in B^{-}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})$. Due to $\frac{1}{p}\leq\alpha\leq\frac{3}{p}$, from \eqref{m6'}, \eqref{m11}, \eqref{m12} and the mean value theorem, one can derive that, for any given $\varepsilon>0$ small and all $x\in B^{-}_{\lambda,v}(x_{0})$,
\begin{equation}\label{m13-}
\begin{aligned}
0&>w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)=v_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)-v(x) \\
&\geq\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B^{-}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})}\ln\left[\frac{\left|\frac{\lambda(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda}(y-x_{0})\right|}{\left|x-y\right|}\right]
\left(u_{x_{0},\lambda}^{4}(y)-u^{4}(y)\right)dy \\
&\geq \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{B^{-}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})\cap B_{\lambda \delta(\varepsilon)}(x)} \frac{\lambda^{2 \varepsilon}}{|x-y|^{2 \varepsilon}}\bar{\eta}_{x_{0},\lambda}^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\quad +\frac{\ln \left[1+\frac{1}{\delta(\varepsilon)^{2}}\right]}{\pi}\int_{B^{-}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})\setminus B_{\lambda \delta(\varepsilon)}(x)}\bar{\eta}_{x_{0},\lambda}^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\geq \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{B^{-}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})\cap B_{\lambda \delta(\varepsilon)}(x)} \frac{\lambda^{2 \varepsilon}}{|x-y|^{2 \varepsilon}}u^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\quad +C\left(\delta(\varepsilon)\right)\int_{B^{-}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})\setminus B_{\lambda\delta(\varepsilon)}(x)}u^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $u_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)<\bar{\eta}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)<u(y)$ for any $y\in B^{-}_{\lambda,u}(x_{0})$.
Now we choose $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{9}\in\left(0,\frac{1}{6}\right)$ small enough and $q=12\in\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon},+\infty\right)$. Since $u\in L^{\infty}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ and $v\in L^{\infty}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$, from Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, H\"{o}lder inequality, \eqref{m7-} and \eqref{m13-}, we derive that
\begin{equation}\label{m14-}
\begin{aligned}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\leq& C\left\|e^{pv} \, w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{11}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C\left\|e^{pv}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C\lambda^{\frac{5}{3}}\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{m14'-}
\begin{aligned}
&\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C \lambda^{\frac{2}{9}}\left\|u^{3} \, w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{36}{35}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
+C\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{12}}\int_{B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})}u^{3}(y)w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(y)dy \\
\leq & C \lambda^{\frac{2}{9}}\left\|u\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{27}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)} \\
&+C\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{12}}\left\|u\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{36}{7}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq & C \lambda^{\frac{4}{3}}\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Consequently, \eqref{m14-} and \eqref{m14'-} yields that
\begin{equation}\label{m15-}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}\leq C\lambda^{3}\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{m15'-}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}\leq C\lambda^{3}\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}.
\end{equation}
As a consequence, there exists a $\epsilon_{0}>0$ small enough, such that
\begin{equation}\label{m16-}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}\right)}\leq \frac{1}{2}\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}\right)}}, \qquad \left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}\right)}\leq\frac{1}{2}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}\right)}
\end{equation}
for all $0<\lambda\leq\epsilon_{0}$. By \eqref{m16-}, we arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{m17-}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}=\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}=0,
\end{equation}
which means $B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})=B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})=\emptyset$ for any $0<\lambda\leq\epsilon_{0}$. Therefore, we have proved for all $0<\lambda\leq\epsilon_{0}$,
\begin{equation}\label{m18-}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\geq0, \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\geq 0, \qquad \forall \, x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}.
\end{equation}
This completes Step 1 for the case $\frac{1}{p}\leq\alpha\leq\frac{3}{p}$.
\bigskip
Step 2. Moving the sphere $S_{\lambda}$ outward until the limiting position.
\medskip
In what follows, we will derive contradictions in both the cases $\alpha>\frac{3}{p}$ and $\frac{1}{p}\leq \alpha<\frac{3}{p}$, and hence we must have $\alpha=\frac{3}{p}$.
\medskip
\noindent\emph{Case (i)} $\alpha>\frac{3}{p}$.
Step 1 provides a starting point to carry out the method of moving spheres for any given center $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^{2}$. Next we will continuously increase the radius $\lambda$ as long as \eqref{m1} holds. For arbitrarily given center $x_0$, the critical scale $\lambda_{x_0}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{m19}
\lambda_{x_0}:=\sup\left\{\lambda>0 \mid w^{u}_{x_0,\mu}\leq 0, \, w^{v}_{x_0,\mu}\leq 0 \,\, \text{in} \,\, B_\mu(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}, \,\, \forall \, 0<\mu\leq\lambda\right\}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
From Step 1, we know that $\lambda_{x_{0}}>0$ for any $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$. We first show that, in the case $\alpha>\frac{3}{p}$, it must hold $\lambda_{x_0}=+\infty$. Suppose on the contrary that $\lambda_{x_0}<+\infty$, we will prove that the the sphere can be moved a bit further, which contradicts the definition of $\lambda_{x_{0}}$.
\smallskip
By the definition of $\lambda_{x_{0}}$, we have $w^{u}_{x_{0}, \lambda_{x_{0}}}\leq 0$ and $w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_{0}}}\leq 0$ in $B_{\lambda_{x_{0}}}(x_{0}) \setminus\{x_{0}\}$. Then, we infer from \eqref{m6'} that, for any $x\in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{m20}
\begin{aligned} w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}(x)
=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_{0})}\ln\left[\frac{\left|\frac{\lambda_{x_0}(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda_{x_0}}(y-x_{0})\right|}{\left|x-y\right|}\right]
\left(u_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}^{4}(y)-u^{4}(y)\right)dy \\
& +\left(\frac{3}{p}-\alpha\right)\ln\frac{\lambda_{x_0}}{|x-x_{0}|}\\
\leq&\left(\frac{3}{p}-\alpha\right)\ln\frac{\lambda_{x_0}}{|x-x_{0}|}<0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which combined with \eqref{m6}, further implies that
\begin{equation}\label{m21}
\begin{aligned}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}(x)=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_{0})}\left[\frac{1}{|x-y|}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda_{x_0}(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda_{x_0}}(y-x_{0})\right|}\right] \\ &\times\left(e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}(y)}-e^{pv(y)}\right)dy<0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Now choose $\delta_1>0$ sufficiently small, which will be determined later. Define the narrow region
\begin{equation}\label{m22}
A_{\delta_1}:=\left\{x\in \mathbb{R}^2 \,|\,0<|x-x_0|<\delta_1 \,\, \text{or} \,\, \lambda_{x_0}-\delta_1<|x-x_0|<\lambda_{x_0}\right\}\subset B_{\lambda_{x_{0}}}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}.
\end{equation}
Since that $w^u_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}$ and $w^v_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}$ are continuous in $\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus\{x_0\}$ and $A_{\delta_1}^c:=\left(B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}\right)\setminus A_{\delta_1} $ is a compact subset, there exists a positive constant $C_0>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{m23}
w^u_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)<-C_0 \quad \text{and} \quad w^v_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)<-C_0, \quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in A_{\delta_1}^c.
\end{equation}
By continuity, we can choose $\delta_2>0$ sufficiently small such that, for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\delta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{m24}
w^{u}_{x_0, \lambda}(x)<-\frac{C_0}{2} \quad \text{and} \quad w^{v}_{x_0,\lambda}(x)<-\frac{C_0}{2}, \quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in A_{\delta_1}^c.
\end{equation}
Hence we must have
\begin{equation}\label{m25}
\begin{aligned}
B_{\lambda,u}^{+}\cup B_{\lambda,v}^{+}&\subset\left(B_{\lambda}(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}\right)\setminus A^{c}_{\delta_1} \\
&=\left\{x\in \mathbb{R}^2\,|\,0<|x-x_0|<\delta_1 \,\, \text{or} \,\, \lambda_{x_0}-\delta_1<|x-x_0|<\lambda\right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\delta_2]$. By \eqref{m14} and \eqref{m14'}, we conclude that, for $\varepsilon\in\left(0,\frac{1}{6}\right)$ small and $q\in\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon},+\infty\right)$ large,
\begin{equation}\label{m26}
\begin{aligned}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
\leq& C\left\|e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq& C_{\lambda,\varepsilon}\left\|e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
&\times\left(\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{9}{2-3\varepsilon}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
+\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{q}}\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{3r}{r-1}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}\right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{m27}
\begin{aligned}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}\leq & C_{\lambda,\varepsilon}\left\|e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)} \\
&\times \left(\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{9}{2-3\varepsilon}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}
+\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{q}}\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{3r}{r-1}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}\right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $r=\frac{3q}{q+3}$. Since $\alpha\geq\frac{3}{p}$, we can infer from the asymptotic properties of $(u,v)$ in \eqref{18} and \eqref{33} in Corollary \ref{cor2} that, for $\varepsilon\in\left(0,\frac{1}{6}\right)$ sufficiently small and hence $q\in\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon},+\infty\right)$ large enough, $e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}}\in L^{\frac{6}{5}}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ and $u_{x_{0},\lambda}\in L^{\frac{9}{2-3\varepsilon}}\cap L^{\frac{9q}{2q-3}}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$. Therefore, by \eqref{m25}, we can choose $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ sufficiently small such that, for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\delta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{m28}
C_{\lambda,\varepsilon}\left\|e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda}}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}\left[\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{9}{2-3\varepsilon}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}\right)}
+\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{+}\right|^{\frac{1}{q}}\left\|u_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{3r}{r-1}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}\right)}\right]<\frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation}
Combining this with \eqref{m26} and \eqref{m27}, we obtain that, for any $\lambda\in[\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\delta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{m29} \left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{r}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}=\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{+}(x_{0})\right)}=0,
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{m30}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\leq 0 \quad \text{and} \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\leq 0,\quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in B_{\lambda}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}.
\end{equation}
This contradicts the definition of $\lambda_{x_0}$. Therefore, we must have $\lambda_{x_0}=+\infty$ for any $x_0\in\mathbb R^2$.
\medskip
In order to derive a contradiction, we also need the following calculus Lemma (see Lemma 11.1 and Lemma 11.2 in \cite{LZ1}, see also \cite{Li,LZ,Xu}).
\begin{lem}[Lemma 11.1 and Lemma 11.2 in \cite{LZ1}]\label{lem10}
Let $n\geq 1$, $\nu\in\mathbb{R}$ and $u\in C^{1}({\mathbb{R}^n})$. For every $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\lambda>0$, define $u_{x_0,\lambda}(x):={\left(\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_0|}\right)}^{\nu}u\left(\frac{\lambda^2(x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|^2}+x_0\right)$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus\{x_{0}\}$. Then, we have\\
\emph{(i)} If for every $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$, there exists a $0<\lambda_{x_0}<+\infty$ such that
\begin{equation*}
u_{x_0,\lambda_{x_0}}(x)=u(x), \qquad \forall \,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{x_0\},
\end{equation*}
then for some $C\in\mathbb{R}$, $\mu>0$ and $\bar x\in \mathbb{R}^n$,
\begin{equation*}
u(x)=C{\left(\frac{\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-\bar x|^2}\right)}^{\frac{\nu}{2}}.
\end{equation*}
\emph{(ii)} If for every $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and any $0<\lambda<+\infty$,
\begin{equation*}
u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)\geq u(x), \qquad \forall \,\, x\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\},
\end{equation*}
then $u\equiv C$ for some constant $C\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}\label{rem11}
In Lemma 11.1 and Lemma 11.2 of \cite{LZ1}, Li and Zhang have proved Lemma \ref{lem2} for $\nu>0$. Nevertheless, their methods can also be applied to show Lemma \ref{lem2} in the cases $\nu\leq0$, see \cite{Li,LZ,Xu}.
\end{rem}
From the conclusion (ii) in Lemma \ref{lem10} (replacing $u$ by $-u$ therein), we deduce that $u\equiv C$ for some constant $C$. Since $u^4\in L^1{(\mathbb R^2)}$, we must have $u\equiv0$. However, by the first equation in the system \eqref{PDE}, we have
$$0=e^{pv(x)}>0 \qquad \text{in} \,\, \mathbb{R}^{2}.$$
This is a contradiction and hence $\alpha>\frac{3}{p}$ is impossible.
\medskip
\noindent\emph{Case (ii)} $\frac{1}{p}\leq \alpha<\frac{3}{p}$. In this case, for arbitrarily given center $x_0$, the critical scale $\lambda_{x_0}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{m31}
\lambda_{x_0}:=\sup\left\{\lambda>0\mid \, w^u_{x_0,\mu}\geq 0, \, w^v_{x_0,\mu}\geq 0 \,\, \text{in} \,\, B_\mu(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}, \,\, \forall \, 0<\mu\leq\lambda\right\}.
\end{equation}
Step 1 yields that $\lambda_{x_{0}}>0$ for any $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$. We will show that $\lambda_{x_0}=+\infty$, which will lead to a contradiction again as in Case (i) $\alpha>\frac{3}{p}$. Suppose on the contrary that $\lambda_{x_0}<+\infty$, we will prove that the sphere can be moved a bit further, which contradicts the definition of $\lambda_{x_0}$.
\smallskip
By the definition of $\lambda_{x_0}$, we have $w^u_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}\geq 0$ and $w^v_{x_0,\lambda_{x_0}}\geq 0$ in $B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0) \setminus\{x_0\}$. Then, we infer from \eqref{m6'} that, for any $x\in B_{\lambda_{x_{0}}}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{m32}
\begin{aligned}
w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}(x) =&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_{0})}\ln\left[\frac{\left|\frac{\lambda_{x_0}(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda_{x_0}}(y-x_{0})\right|}{\left|x-y\right|}\right]
\left(u_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}^{4}(y)-u^{4}(y)\right)dy \\
& +\left(\frac{3}{p}-\alpha\right)\ln\frac{\lambda_{x_0}}{|x-x_{0}|}\\
\geq&\left(\frac{3}{p}-\alpha\right)\ln\frac{\lambda_{x_0}}{|x-x_{0}|}>0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which combined with \eqref{m6}, further implies that
\begin{equation}\label{m33}
\begin{aligned}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}(x) =&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_{0})}\left[\frac{1}{|x-y|}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda_{x_0}(x-x_{0})}{|x-x_{0}|}-\frac{|x-x_{0}|}{\lambda_{x_0}}(y-x_{0})\right|}\right] \\
&\times \left(e^{pv_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}(y)}-e^{pv(y)}\right)dy>0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Now choose $\delta_1>0$ sufficiently small, which will be determined later. Define the narrow region $A_{\delta_1}\subset B_{\lambda_{x_{0}}}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}$ by \eqref{m22}. Since $w^u_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}$ and $w^v_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}$ are continuous in $\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus\{x_0\}$ and $A_{\delta_1}^c:=\left(B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}\right)\setminus A_{\delta_1}$ is a compact subset, there exists a positive constant $C_1>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{m34}
w^u_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)>C_1 \quad \text{and} \quad w^v_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)>C_1, \quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in A_{\delta_1}^c.
\end{equation}
By continuity, we can choose $\delta_2>0$ sufficiently small, such that, for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\delta_2]$, there holds
\begin{equation}\label{m35}
w^u_{x_0, \lambda}(x)>\frac{C_1}{2} \quad \text{and} \quad w^v_{x_0, \lambda}(x)>\frac{C_1}{2}, \quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in A_{\delta_1}^c.
\end{equation}
Hence we must have
\begin{equation}\label{m36}
\begin{aligned}
B_{\lambda,u}^{-}\cup B_{\lambda,v}^{-}&\subset \left(B_{\lambda}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}\right)\setminus A^{c}_{\delta_1} \\
&=\left\{x\in \mathbb{R}^2\,|\,0<|x-x_0|<\delta_1\,\, \text{or}\,\, \lambda_{x_0}-\delta_1<|x-x_0|<\lambda\right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\delta_2]$. By \eqref{m14-} and \eqref{m14'-}, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{m37}
\begin{aligned}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\leq& C\left\|e^{pv}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)} \\
\leq& C_{\lambda}\left\|e^{pv}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)} \\
&\times \left(\left\|u\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{27}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
+\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{12}}\left\|u\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{36}{7}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}\right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{m38}
\begin{aligned}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\leq& C_{\lambda}\left\|e^{pv}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)} \\
&\times \left(\left\|u\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{27}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
+\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{12}}\left\|u\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{36}{7}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By the local boundedness of $u$ and $v$, we can choose $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ sufficiently small such that, for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\delta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{m39} C_{\lambda}\left\|e^{pv}\right\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}\left(\left\|u\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{27}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
+\left|B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right|^{\frac{1}{12}}\left\|u\right\|^{3}_{L^{\frac{36}{7}}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)\right)<\frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation}
Then, by \eqref{m37} and \eqref{m38}, we obtain that, for any $\lambda\in[\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\delta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{m40} \left\|w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{\frac{12}{5}}\left(B_{\lambda,u}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}
=\left\|w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}\right\|_{L^{12}\left(B_{\lambda,v}^{-}(x_{0})\right)}=0,
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{m41}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\geq 0 \quad \text{and} \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\geq 0,\quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in B_{\lambda}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}.
\end{equation}
This contradicts the definition of $\lambda_{x_0}$. Therefore, we must have $\lambda_{x_0}=+\infty$ for any $x_0\in\mathbb R^2$.
\medskip
From the conclusion (ii) in Lemma \ref{lem10} and the fact that $u^4\in L^1{(\mathbb R^2)}$, we must have $u\equiv0$, which will lead to a contradiction again by the first equation in system \eqref{PDE}. Hence, the case $\frac{1}{p}\leq \alpha<\frac{3}{p}$ can not happen.
\medskip
From the contradictions derived in both Cases (i) and (ii), we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{a8}
\alpha:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}u^{4}(x)dx=\frac{3}{p}.
\end{equation}
In this case, we deduce from Step 1 that, for $\lambda>0$ small, there must holds
\begin{equation}\label{a9}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\leq 0 \quad \text{and} \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\leq 0, \qquad \forall x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\},
\end{equation}
as well as
\begin{equation}\label{a10}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\geq 0 \quad \text{and} \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\geq 0, \qquad \forall x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}.
\end{equation}
As a consequence, we arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{m42}
w^{u}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)= 0 \quad \text{and} \quad w^{v}_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)= 0, \qquad \forall x \in B_{\lambda}(x_{0})\setminus\{x_{0}\}
\end{equation}
for arbitrary $x_0\in\mathbb R^2$ and $\lambda>0$ small. Then, we infer from the conclusion (i) in Lemma \ref{lem10} that, for some $C\in\mathbb{R}$, $\mu>0$ and $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^2$, $u$ must be of the form
\begin{equation}\label{m43}
u(x)=C{\left(\frac{\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-x_0|^2}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}, \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2},
\end{equation}
which combined with the first equation in system \eqref{PDE} and the asymptotic behavior \eqref{22} imply
\begin{equation}\label{m44}
v(x)=\frac{3}{2p}\ln\left[\frac{C'\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-x_0|^2}\right], \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{equation}
Then, by the formula \eqref{a8} and direct calculations, we can obtain that $C=\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}$ and hence
\begin{equation}\label{a12}
u(x)=\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-x_{0}|^{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}, \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, by the asymptotic behavior \eqref{33} in Corollary \ref{cor2}, one has
\begin{equation}\label{a11}
\beta:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}e^{pv(x)}dx=\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}}.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{m44} and \eqref{a11} yields that $C'=\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}$ and hence
\begin{equation}\label{m45}
v(x)=\frac{3}{2p}\ln\left[\frac{\left(\frac{6}{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\mu}{1+\mu^2|x-x_{0}|^{2}}\right], \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}.
\end{equation}
In addition, one can verify by calculations that $(u,v)$ given by \eqref{a12} and \eqref{m45} is indeed a pair of solutions to the IE system \eqref{IE} and hence a solution to the PDE system \eqref{PDE}. This concludes our proof of Theorem \ref{thm0}.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}}
In this section, we carry out our proof of Theorem \ref{thm1} and derive the classification of nonnegative classical solutions $(u,v)$ to the system \eqref{PDEH} with mixed order and Hartree type nonlocal nonlinearity in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$.
\medskip
Through entirely similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem0}, by using Green's functions for $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $-\Delta$ on balls $B_{R}(0)$, one can deduce from the Liouville theorems and maximum principles for $(-\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $-\Delta$ that nonnegative solution $(u,v)$ of PDE system \eqref{PDEH} also solves the following IE system
\begin{equation}\label{6-2}
\begin{cases}u(x)=\frac{1}{2 \pi^{2}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \frac{v^{4-\sigma}(y) P(y)}{|x-y|^{2}} d y & \text { in } \mathbb{R}^{3}, \\ \\ v(x)=\frac{1}{4 \pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \frac{u^{\frac{5}{2}}(y)}{|x-y|} d y & \text { in } \mathbb{R}^{3},\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $P(y)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{6-3}
P(y):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{v^{6-\sigma}(z)}{|y-z|^\sigma} dz, \qquad \forall \, y\in\mathbb{R}^{3}.
\end{equation}
The proof of the integral representation formula \eqref{6-2} is quite similar to Lemma \ref{lem0}, so we omit the details here.
\smallskip
By the IE system \eqref{6-2}, it is easy to see that if $u\not\equiv0$ or $v\not\equiv0$, then we must have $u>0$ and $v>0$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Therefore, in what follows, we will consider positive solutions $(u,v)$ to the IE system \eqref{6-2} instead of the PDE system \eqref{PDEH}.
\smallskip
For arbitrary $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^3$ and $\lambda>0$, we define the Kelvin transforms for $u,v$ and $P$ by
\begin{equation}\label{6-4}
u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)=\frac{\lambda^{2}}{|x-x_0|^2}u(x^{x_0,\lambda}), \qquad
v_{x_0,\lambda}(x)=\frac{\lambda}{|x-x_0|}v(x^{x_0,\lambda}), \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{x_{0}\},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{6-4'}
P_{x_0,\lambda}(x)=\frac{\lambda^{\sigma}}{|x-x_0|^\sigma}P(x^{x_0,\lambda}), \qquad \forall \, x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{x_{0}\},
\end{equation}
where $x^{x_0,\lambda}=\frac{\lambda^2(x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|^2}+x_0$. By \eqref{6-2}, \eqref{6-4}, \eqref{6-4'} and straightforward calculations, one can verify that
\begin{equation}\label{6-5}
\begin{split}
u(x)&=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{P(y) v^{4-\sigma}(y)}{|x-y|^{2}}dy\\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{P(y) v^{4-\sigma}(y)}{|x-y|^{2}}dy+\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{P(y^{x_0,\lambda})v^{4-\sigma}(y^{x_0,\lambda})}{{\left|\frac{|y-x_0|(x-x_0)}{\lambda}-\frac{\lambda (y-x_0)}{|y-x_0|}\right|}^{2}} {\left( \frac{\lambda}{|y-x_0|}\right)}^{4} dy \\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{P(y) v^{4-\sigma}(y)}{|x-y|^{2}}dy+\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)}{{\left|\frac{|y-x_0|(x-x_0)}{\lambda}-\frac{\lambda (y-x_0)}{|y-x_0|}\right|}^{2}}dy,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{6-6}
\begin{split}
u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)&=\frac{\lambda^{2}}{2\pi^2|x-x_0|^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{P(y) v^{4-\sigma}(y)}{|x^{x_0,\lambda}-y|^{2}}dy \\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{P(y) v^{4-\sigma}(y)}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}dy \\ &\quad +\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{P(y^{x_0,\lambda})v^{4-\sigma}(y^{x_0,\lambda})}{|x-y|^{2}} {\left( \frac{\lambda}{|y-x_0|}\right)}^{4} dy \\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{P(y) v^{4-\sigma}(y)}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}dy+\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)}{{|x-y|}^{2}}dy.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Similarly, by direct calculations, we have
\begin{equation}\label{6-7}
v(x)=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{u^{\frac{5}{2}}(y)}{|x-y|}dy+\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{u_{x_0,\lambda}^{\frac{5}{2}}(y)}{{\left|\frac{|y-x_0|(x-x_0)}{\lambda}-\frac{\lambda (y-x_0)}{|y-x_0|}\right|}}dy,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{6-8}
v_{x_0,\lambda}(x)=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{u^{\frac{5}{2}}(y)}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|}dy+\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)} \frac{u_{x_0,\lambda}^{\frac{5}{2}}(y)}{{|x-y|}}dy.
\end{equation}
Define $\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}(x):=u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)-u(x)$ and $\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(x):=v_{x_0,\lambda}(x)-v(x)$ for $x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{x_0\}$. The moving sphere process can be divided into two steps.
\medskip
Step 1. Start moving the sphere $S_{\lambda}(x_{0})$ from near $\lambda=0$.
\smallskip
We will show that, for $\lambda>0$ sufficiently small, there holds
\begin{equation}\label{aim}
\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)\geq 0, \quad\, \omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(x)\geq 0, \qquad \forall \, x\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}.
\end{equation}
Obviously, it suffices to prove that $B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0)=B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)=\emptyset$ for $\lambda>0$ small, where $B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0):=\left\{x\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}|\, \omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)<0\right\}$ and $B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0):=\left\{x\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}|\, \omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(x)<0\right\}$.
\smallskip
By \eqref{6-5} and \eqref{6-6}, for any $x\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}$, we derive
\begin{equation}\label{6-9}
\begin{split}
&\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)=u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)-u(x)\\
=&\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{B_\lambda}\Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}\Bigg]\left[P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)-P(y) v^{4-\sigma}(y)\right]dy \\
\geq& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{Q_\lambda} \Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}\Bigg]\left[P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)-P(y) v^{4-\sigma}(y)\right]dy \\
=&\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{Q_\lambda(x_0)} \Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}\Bigg]P(y)\left(v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)- v^{4-\sigma}(y)\right)dy\\
& +\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{Q_\lambda(x_0)}\Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}\Bigg]\left(P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)- P(y)\right)v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)dy,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the subset $Q_\lambda(x_0)\subseteq B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{6-10}
Q_\lambda(x_0):=\left\{x\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}|\,P_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(x)<P(x)v^{4-\sigma}(x)\right\}.
\end{equation}
We have used the identity ${\left|\frac{|y-x_0|(x-x_0)}{\lambda}-\frac{\lambda (y-x_0)}{|y-x_0|}\right|}=\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|$ and the fact that $|x-y|<\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|$ for any $x,y\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}$.
\smallskip
Through direct calculations, one has, for any $y\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-11}
\begin{split}
&\quad P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)-P(y)\\
&=\int_{B_\lambda(x_0)}\Bigg[\frac{1}{|y-z|^{\sigma}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (y-x_0)}{|y- x_0|}-\frac{|y-x_0|(z-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{\sigma}}\Bigg]\left(v_{x_0,\lambda}^{6-\sigma}(z)- v^{6-\sigma}(z)\right)dz.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Then, we infer from \eqref{6-9}, \eqref{6-11} and mean value theorem that, for any $x\in B_{u,\lambda}^{-}(x_0)$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-12}
\begin{split}
0&>\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)\\
&\geq \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{Q_\lambda(x_0)} \Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}\Bigg]P(y)\left(v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)-v^{4-\sigma}(y)\right)dy\\
&\quad +\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_{Q_\lambda(x_0)} \Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}\Bigg]\left(P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)- P(y)\right)v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)dy\\
&\geq \frac{4-\sigma}{2\pi^2}\int_{Q_\lambda\cap B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)}\Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}\Bigg]P(y)v^{3-\sigma}(y)\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\quad +\frac{6-\sigma}{2\pi^2}\int_{Q_\lambda(x_0)}\Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{2}}\Bigg]v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)\\
&\quad\quad \times \Bigg[\int_{B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)}\Bigg(\frac{1}{|y-z|^{\sigma}}-\frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (y-x_0)}{|y-x_0|}-\frac{|y-x_0|(z-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|^{\sigma}}\Bigg)v^{5-\sigma}(z)\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(z)dz\Bigg]dy\\
&\geq \int_{Q_\lambda(x_0)\cap B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)}\frac{(4-\sigma)}{2\pi^2|x-y|^{2}}P(y)v^{3-\sigma}(y)\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(y)dy \\
&\quad +\int_{Q_\lambda(x_0)}\frac{(6-\sigma)v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(y)}{2\pi^2|x-y|^{2}} \left[\int_{B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)}\frac{v^{5-\sigma}(z)\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(z)}{|y-z|^{\sigma}}dz\right]dy
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Similarly, by \eqref{6-7}, \eqref{6-8} and mean value theorem, one can deduce that for any $x\in B_{v,\lambda}^{-}(x_0)$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-13}
\begin{split}
0&>\omega^v_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)\\
&\geq \frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda}(x_0)}\Bigg[\frac{1}{|x-y|}- \frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda}\right|}\Bigg]u^{\frac{3}{2}}(y)\omega_{x_0,\lambda}^{u}(y)dy \\
&\geq \frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{B^-_{u,\lambda}(x_0)} \frac{u^{\frac{3}{2}}(y)\omega_{x_0,\lambda}^{u}(y)}{|x-y|} dy.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Define $W_{x_0,\lambda}(y):=\int_{B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)}\frac{v^{5-\sigma}(z)\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(z)}{|y-z|^{\sigma}}dz$ for any $y\in Q_{\lambda}(x_{0})$. By \eqref{6-12}, \eqref{6-13}, Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality and H\"{o}lder inequality, we have, for any $q>\max\left\{3,\frac{3}{\sigma}\right\}$, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{6-15}
\begin{split}
&\quad \|\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}\|_{L^{q}(B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0))} \\
&\leq C{\left\|P(y)v^{3-\sigma}(y)\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(y)\right\|}_{L^{\frac{3q}{3+q}}\left(Q_{\lambda}(x_{0})\cap B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)\right)}+C{\left\|W_{x_0,\lambda} v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{\frac{3q}{3+q}}(Q_\lambda(x_0))}\\
&\leq C{\left\|P v^{3-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)) } {\left\|\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}\right\|}_{L^{q}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0))}+C{\left\|v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}(Q_\lambda(x_0))} {\left\|W_{x_0,\lambda} \right\|}_{L^{q}(Q_\lambda(x_0))}\\
&\leq C{\left\|P v^{3-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)) } {\left\|\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}\right\|}_{L^{q}( B_{v,\lambda}^{-})}+C{\left\|v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}(Q_\lambda(x_0))} {\left\|v^{5-\sigma} \omega^v_{x_0,\lambda} \right\|}_{L^{\frac{3q}{3+(3-\sigma)q}}(B_{v,\lambda}^{-})}\\
&\leq C{\left\|P v^{3-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)) } {\left\|\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}\right\|}_{L^{q}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0))} \\
&\quad +C{\left\|v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}(Q_\lambda(x_0))} {\left\|v^{5-\sigma} \right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{3-\sigma}}(B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0))} {\left\|\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda} \right\|}_{L^{q}(B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0))}\\
&\leq C_1\left({\left\|P v^{3-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)) } +{\left\|v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( Q_\lambda(x_0)) } {\left\|v^{5-\sigma} \right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{3-\sigma}}(B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0))}\right){\left\|\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}\right\|}_{L^{q}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0))},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{6-16}
\begin{split}
\|\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}\|_{L^{q}(B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0))} \leq C{\left\|u^{\frac{3}{2}}\omega_{x_0,\lambda} ^u\right\|}_{L^{\frac{3q}{3+2q}}( B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0))}\leq C_2{\left\|u^{\frac{3}{2}}\right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{2}}(B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0))}{\left\|\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda} \right\|}_{L^{q}( B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0))}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In order to continue, we need the upper bound of $v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}$ in $ Q_\lambda(x_0)$, which will be given by the lower bound of $P_{x_0,\lambda}$ in view of the definition of $ Q_\lambda(x_0)$. From the definition of $P(y)$, one can get the following lower bound:
\begin{equation}\label{6-17}
P(y)\geq \frac{C}{|y-x_{0}|^{\sigma}}\int_{|z-x_{0}|\leq\frac{1}{2}}v^{6-\sigma}(z)dz=:\frac{C}{|y-x_{0}|^{\sigma}}, \qquad \forall \,\, |y-x_{0}|\geq1,
\end{equation}
where $C>0$ is a positive constant depending on $x_0$ and $v$. Thanks to \eqref{6-17}, we can obtain the following lower bounds for $P_{x_0,\lambda}$ in $B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}$. We first consider $0<\lambda<1$. Note that if $0<|y-x_0|\leq\lambda^2$, then $|y^{x_{0},\lambda}-x_0|\geq1$. Then we infer from \eqref{6-17} that
\begin{equation}\label{6-18}
P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)={\left(\frac{\lambda}{|y-x_0|}\right)}^{\sigma}P(y^{x_0,\lambda})\geq \frac{C}{\lambda^{\sigma}}, \qquad \forall \,\, 0<|y-x_0|\leq\lambda^2.
\end{equation}
Now suppose $\lambda^2\leq|y-x_0|<\lambda$, then $|y^{x_{0},\lambda}-x_0|\leq1$, and we have
\begin{equation}\label{6-19}
P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)={\left(\frac{\lambda}{|y-x_0|}\right)}^{\sigma}P(y^{x_0,\lambda})\geq\left(\min_{\overline{B_1(x_0)}} P\right){\left(\frac{\lambda}{|y-x_0|}\right)}^{\sigma}\geq\min_{\overline{B_1(x_0)}}P=:C>0.
\end{equation}
For $\lambda\geq1$, it holds $|y^{x_{0},\lambda}-x_0|>\lambda\geq1$ for any $y\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}$, and hence \eqref{6-17} yields
\begin{equation}\label{6-20}
P_{x_0,\lambda}(y)={\left(\frac{\lambda}{|y-x_0|}\right)}^{\sigma}P(y^{x_{0},\lambda})\geq\frac{C}{\lambda^{\sigma}}, \qquad \forall \,\, y\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}.
\end{equation}
By the definition of $Q_{\lambda}(x_{0})$, the continuity of $v$ and $P$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, the lower bound estimates \eqref{6-18}, \eqref{6-19} and \eqref{6-20}, we obtain the following upper bounds: for any $x\in Q_{\lambda}(x_{0})$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-21}
v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(x)<\frac{P(x)v^{4-\sigma}(x)}{P_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)}\leq C(1+\lambda^{\sigma})\left(\max_{\overline{B_{1}(x_{0})}}Pv^{4-\sigma}\right)=:C(1+\lambda^{\sigma}), \qquad \text{if} \,\, 0<\lambda<1;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{6-22}
v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}(x)<\frac{P(x)v^{4-\sigma}(x)}{P_{x_{0},\lambda}(x)}\leq C(1+\lambda^{\sigma})\left(\max_{\overline{B_{\lambda}(x_{0})}}Pv^{4-\sigma}\right)=:C_{\lambda}(1+\lambda^{\sigma}), \qquad \text{if} \,\, \lambda\geq1.
\end{equation}
From the local boundedness of $u$, $v$ and $P$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, the upper bound \eqref{6-21} of $v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}$ in $Q_{\lambda}(x_{0})$, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{6-23}
\left({\left\|P v^{3-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)) } +{\left\|v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( Q_\lambda(x_0)) } {\left\|v^{5-\sigma} \right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{3-\sigma}}(B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0))}\right){\left\|u^{\frac{3}{2}}\right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{2}}(B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0))}\rightarrow 0,
\end{equation}
as $\lambda\rightarrow0$. Therefore, there exists $0<\epsilon_0<1$ small enough such that, for all $0<\lambda<\epsilon_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-24}
C_1 C_2\left[{\left\|P v^{3-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)) } +{\left\|v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( Q_\lambda(x_0)) } {\left\|v^{5-\sigma} \right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{3-\sigma}}(B_{v,\lambda}^{-})}\right]{\left\|u^{\frac{3}{2}}\right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{2}}(B_{u,\lambda}^{-})}<\frac{1}{2},
\end{equation}
where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are the constants in the last inequality of \eqref{6-15} and \eqref{6-16} respectively. Immediately, we conclude from \eqref{6-15} and \eqref{6-16} that, for any $0<\lambda<\epsilon_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{a14}
\|\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}\|_{L^{q}(B_{u,\lambda}^{-}(x_0))}=\|\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}\|_{L^{q}(B_{v,\lambda}^{-}(x_0))}=0,
\end{equation}
which implies that both $B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0)$ and $B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)$ have measure $0$. Then, due to the continuity of $\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}$ and $\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}$ in $B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}$, we must have $B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0)=B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)=\emptyset$ for any $0<\lambda<\epsilon_0$. Hence we have derived \eqref{aim} for all $0<\lambda<\epsilon_0$.
\medskip
Step 2. Moving the sphere $S_{\lambda}$ outward until the limiting position.
\smallskip
Step 1 provides a starting point to carry out the method of moving spheres for arbitrarily given center $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Next, we will continuously increase the radius $\lambda$ as long as \eqref{aim} holds. For arbitrarily given center $x_0$, the critical scale $\lambda_{x_0}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{6-25}
\lambda_{x_0}:=\sup\left\{\lambda>0\mid\,\omega^u_{x_0,\mu}\geq 0 \,\, \text{and}\,\,\omega^v_{x_0,\mu}\geq 0 \,\,\text{in} \,\, B_\mu(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}, \,\, \forall \,0<\mu\leq\lambda\right\}.
\end{equation}
Then it follows from Step 1 that $0<\lambda_{x_{0}}\leq+\infty$ for any $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$.
\smallskip
It seems that the critical scale $\lambda_{x_0}$ may depend on the center $x_0$. However, we have the following crucial Lemma on the synchronism of $\lambda_{x_{0}}$ with respect to $x_{0}$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem6-1}
One of the following two assertions holds, that is, either\\
\emph{(A)} For every $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, the corresponding critical scale $0<\lambda_{x_0}<+\infty$, \\ or \\
\emph{(B)} For every $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, the corresponding critical scale $\lambda_{x_0}=+\infty$.
\end{lem}
In order to prove Lemma \ref{lem6-1}, we need the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop6-2}
If $\lambda_{x_0}<+\infty$, then $u_{x_0,\lambda_{x_0}}(x)\equiv u(x)$ and $v_{x_0,\lambda_{x_0}}(x)\equiv v(x)$ for any $x\in B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0) \setminus\{x_0\}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop6-2}]
We will prove Proposition \ref{prop6-2} by contradiction arguments. By the definition of $\lambda_{x_0}$, we know that $\omega^u_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}\geq 0$ and $\omega^v_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}\geq 0$ in $B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}$.
Suppose on the contrary that Proposition \ref{prop6-2} is false. We first assume that $\omega^u_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}\not\equiv 0$ in $B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0) \setminus\{x_0\}$, then there exists $\bar{x}\in B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0) \setminus\{x_0\}$ and $\delta>0$ such that $B_\delta(\bar x)\subset B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0) \setminus\{x_0\}$ and $\omega^u_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}>C>0$ in $B_\delta(\bar x)$. Then, we derive by \eqref{6-13} that, for any $x\in B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-26}
\begin{split}
\omega^v_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)&\geq \frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0)}\left( \frac{1}{|x-y|}- \frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda_{x_0} (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda_{x_0}}\right|}\right)u^{\frac{3}{2}}(y)\omega_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}^u(y)dy \\
&\geq \frac{5 }{8\pi}\int_{B_{\delta}(\bar x)}\left( \frac{1}{|x-y|}- \frac{1}{\left|\frac{\lambda_{x_0} (x-x_0)}{|x-x_0|}-\frac{|x-x_0|(y-x_0)}{\lambda_{x_0}}\right|}\right)u^{\frac{3}{2}}(y)\omega_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}^u(y)dy \\
&>0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining this with \eqref{6-11} and \eqref{6-12} imply that
\begin{equation}\label{6-27}
\omega^u_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)>0, \qquad \forall \, x\in B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, if $\omega^v_{x_0,\lambda_{x_0}}\not\equiv 0$ one can also deduce that from \eqref{6-11}, \eqref{6-12} and \eqref{6-13} that
\begin{equation}\label{a15}
\omega^u_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)>0, \quad\, \omega^v_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)>0, \qquad \forall \, x\in B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}.
\end{equation}
Let $\eta_1>0$ be sufficiently small, which will be determined later. Define the narrow region
\begin{equation}\label{6-28}
A_{\eta_1}:=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^3 \,\mid\,0<|x-x_0|<\eta_1 \,\,\, \text{or} \,\,\, \lambda_{x_0}-\eta_1<|x-x_0|<\lambda_{x_0}\}.
\end{equation}
Since $\omega^u_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}$ and $\omega^v_{x_{0},\lambda_{x_0}}$ are continuous in $\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{x_0\}$ and $A_{\eta_1}^c:=\left(B_{\lambda_{x_0}}(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}\right)\setminus A_{\eta_1}$ is a compact subset, there exists a $C_0>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{4-11}
\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda_{x_0}}(x)>C_0, \,\quad \omega^v_{x_0, \lambda_{x_0}}(x)>C_0, \quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in A_{\eta_1}^c.
\end{equation}
By continuity, we can choose $\eta_2>0$ (depending on $\eta_{1}$) sufficiently small such that, for any $\lambda\in[\lambda_{x_0},\,\lambda_{x_0}+\eta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-29}
\omega^u_{x_0,\lambda}(x)>\frac{C_0}{2}, \quad\, \omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(x)>\frac{C_0}{2},\quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in A_{\eta_1}^c.
\end{equation}
Hence we must have, for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{x_{0}},\,\lambda_{x_{0}}+\eta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-30}
\begin{aligned}
B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0)\cup B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)&\subset \left(B_{\lambda}(x_0)\setminus\{x_{0}\}\right)\setminus A^{c}_{\eta_1} \\
&=\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\,\mid\,0<|x-x_0|<\eta_1 \,\, \text{or} \,\, \lambda_{x_0}-\eta_1<|x-x_0|<\lambda\right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{6-30}, the continuity of $u$, $v$ and $P$, the the upper bounds \eqref{6-21} and \eqref{6-22} of $v_{x_{0},\lambda}^{4-\sigma}$ in $B_{\lambda}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}$, we can choose $\eta_1$ sufficiently small (and $\eta_2$ more smaller if necessary) such that, for any $\lambda\in[\lambda_{x_{0}},\,\lambda_{x_{0}}+\eta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-31}
C_1 C_2\left[{\left\|P v^{3-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( B_{v,\lambda}^-(x_0)) } +{\left\|v_{x_0,\lambda}^{4-\sigma}\right\|}_{L^{3}( Q_\lambda(x_0)) } {\left\|v^{5-\sigma} \right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{3-\sigma}}(B_{v,\lambda}^{-})}\right]{\left\|u^{\frac{3}{2}}\right\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{2}}(B_{u,\lambda}^-(x_0))}<\frac{1}{2},
\end{equation}
where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are the constants in the last inequality of \eqref{6-15} and \eqref{6-16} respectively. Immediately, we conclude from \eqref{6-15} and \eqref{6-16} that
\begin{equation}\label{a16}
\|\omega^u_{x_0, \lambda}\|_{L^{q}(B_{u,\lambda}^{-}(x_0))}=\|\omega^v_{x_0, \lambda}\|_{L^{q}(B_{v,\lambda}^{-}(x_0))}=0,
\end{equation}
and hence $B_{u, \lambda}^-(x_0)=B_{v, \lambda}^-(x_0)=\emptyset$ for any $\lambda\in[\lambda_{x_{0}},\,\lambda_{x_{0}}+\eta_2]$. Consequently, we obtain that, for any $\lambda\in[\lambda_{x_{0}},\,\lambda_{x_{0}}+\eta_2]$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-32}
\omega^u_{x_0, \lambda}(x)\geq 0, \quad\, \omega^v_{x_0,\lambda}(x)\geq 0, \quad\quad \forall \,\, x\in B_{\lambda}(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\},
\end{equation}
which contradicts the definition of the critical scale $\lambda_{x_{0}}$. This completes our proof of Proposition \ref{prop6-2}.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to prove Lemma \ref{lem6-1}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem6-1}]
If there exists a $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ such that $\lambda_{x_0}=+\infty$, we have, for any $\lambda>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-33}
\omega^{u}_{x_0, \lambda}(x)\geq 0, \qquad \forall \,\, x\in B_\lambda(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\},
\end{equation}
which implies that, for any $\lambda>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{6-34}
u(x)\geq u_{x_{0},\lambda}(x), \qquad \forall \,\, |x-x_0|>\lambda.
\end{equation}
Then, due to the arbitrariness of $\lambda>0$, \eqref{6-34} yields that
\begin{equation}\label{6-35}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}|x|^{2}u(x)=+\infty.
\end{equation}
However, if we assume there exists another point $z_0\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ such that $\lambda_{z_0}<+\infty$, then by Proposition \ref{prop6-2}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{6-36}
u_{z_{0},\lambda_{z_0}}(x)=u(x), \qquad \forall \,\, x\in\mathbb{R}^3\setminus\{z_0\}.
\end{equation}
The above identity immediately implies that
\begin{equation}\label{6-37}
\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}|x|^{2}u(x)=\lambda_{z_{0}}^{2}u(z_{0})<+\infty,
\end{equation}
which contradicts \eqref{6-35}. This finishes our proof of Lemma \ref{lem6-1}.
\end{proof}
Now we are to complete our proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}. Suppose that for every $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$, the critical scale $\lambda_{x_0}=+\infty$. Then, by conclusion (ii) in Lemma \ref{lem10} and the integrability $\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\frac{v^{6-\sigma}(x)}{|x|^{\sigma}}dy<+\infty$, we conclude that $v\equiv 0$ and hence $u\equiv 0$, which contradicts $u>0$ and $v>0$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Therefore, we must have, for every $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^3$, the critical scale $\lambda_{x_0}<+\infty$. Then by Proposition \ref{prop6-2} and conclusion (i) in Lemma \ref{lem10}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{6-38}
u(x)=C\frac{\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-\bar{x}|^2}, \qquad v(x)=C'{\left(\frac{\mu}{1+\mu^{2}|x-\bar{x}|^2}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
for some $C$, $C'$, $\mu>0$ and $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^3$. Consequently, we have proved that any nontrivial nonnegative solutions $(u,v)$ to IE system \eqref{6-2} and PDE system \eqref{PDEH} must have the form \eqref{6-38} for some $C>0$, $C'>0$, $\mu>0$ and $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^3$.
Furthermore, from (37) in Lemma 4.1 in \cite{DFHQW}, we have the following integral formula:
\begin{equation}\label{formula}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\frac{1}{|x-y|^{2\gamma}}\left(\frac{1}{1+|y|^{2}}\right)^{n-\gamma}dy=I(\gamma)\left(\frac{1}{1+|x|^{2}}\right)^{\gamma}
\end{equation}
for any $n\geq1$ and $0<\gamma<\frac{n}{2}$, where $I(\gamma):=\frac{\pi^{\frac{n}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{n-2\gamma}{2}\right)}{\Gamma(n-\gamma)}$. By the IE system \eqref{6-2}, the integral formula \eqref{formula} with $n=3$ and direct calculations, we deduce that the constants $C$ and $C'$ in \eqref{6-38} can be calculated accurately by
\begin{equation}\label{6-39}
C=\left(\frac{2\times 3^{2(5-\sigma)}}{I\left(\frac{\sigma}{2}\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{24-5\sigma}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad C'=\left(\frac{3\times 2^{\frac{5}{2}}}{I\left(\frac{\sigma}{2}\right)^{\frac{5}{2}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{24-5\sigma}},
\end{equation}
where $I\left(\frac{\sigma}{2}\right)=\frac{\pi^{\frac{3}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{3-\sigma}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(3-\frac{\sigma}{2}\right)}$. This concludes our proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Galaxy interactions and mergers are thought to play an important role in galaxy evolution, impacting their
morphologies, gas kinematics, and star formation rates \citep{toom72, sand88, barn96, cons06}.
Cold dark matter models predict that
galaxies have accreted their mass through hierarchical mergers \citep{delu06}.
Mergers are also suspected to trigger luminosity increases, from
active galactic nuclei (AGNs, \citealt{sand96}) and
starbursts \citep{barn96,miho96,cox06}.
Enhanced star formation can
result from the tidal interactions of the galaxies that
compress/shock the gas,
causing it to collapse and form stars \citep{barn04,kim09,sait09}.
These merger-induced starbursts are sometimes observed as
luminous/ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs/ ULIRGs),
which have extreme far-infrared (FIR) luminosities of
10$^{11}$ L$_{\odot}$ and 10$^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$, respectively \citep{sand96}.
Several studies have shown that the infrared luminosity of galaxies is statistically correlated
with mergers \citep{elli13,lars16}.
These can be seen as morphological disturbances
in LIRGs and ULIRGs \citep{elbaz03,hwang07,hwang09,kart10,elli13}.
However, the merger contributions to starbursts in general is still unclear.
At high redshifts, average star formation rates
are higher.
LIRGs and ULIRGs are often found on the ``main sequence", that is, obeying the correlation between SFR
and stellar mass of typical galaxies at a given redshift \citep{dadd07,elbaz07}.
Thus, we will define starbursts by comparison
with the star formation of other galaxies of a given
stellar mass
in the same redshift bin.
Previous studies have defined starbursts as galaxies experiencing star formation
three or four times above the median of the SFRs of
main sequence of star-forming galaxies \citep{elbaz11,rodi11,schr15}.
In a similar way, we divide galaxies into three different star formation ``modes"
(i.e. starbursts, main sequence and quiescent galaxies) in each redshift bin.
It is challenging
to identify a large number of merger galaxies out to large redshifts.
There are two main methods to identify mergers -- selecting close pairs \citep{bund09,dera09,man16,dunc19}
or using morphological disturbances \citep{cons03,lotz08,lotz11}.
For example, \cite{kado18} used the Subaru/HSC images to select the merger galaxies at 0.05 $< z <$ 0.45 using visually identified tidal features (e.g. shell or stream features)
However, for using close pairs, spectroscopic velocities for both pairs are needed.
Because spectroscopic observations are expensive,
merger studies based on them will suffer from incompleteness.
Deep and high-resolution imaging (e.g. {\it Hubble Space Telescope})
could avoid that incompleteness, but
the merger fraction from galaxy imaging
may be ambiguous.
Morphological disturbances presented the late-stage of mergers
can be determined by visual inspection or
discriminate quantitative outliers of morphological disturbances.
Visual inspection is subjective and time-consuming.
High redshift galaxies can also be easily misclassified
because of wavelength-dependent morphology and
surface brightness effects \citep{bohl91,kuch00,wind02,kamp07}.
In general, morphological types of galaxies are classified by the light profiles of galaxies.
The measured profile is the average intensity of a galaxy as a function of radius,
and can be mathematically fitted (e.g. S{\'e}rsic profile, \citealt{sers63}).
These parametrizations historically have been used to classify galaxies
into Ellipticals, Spirals and Irregular galaxies.
There are also non-parametric measures for galaxy classification,
such as concentration, asymmetry, clumpiness (CAS, \citealt{cons00,cons03,mena06}).
In addition, there have been many studies of morphological classification using the parameters of Gini coefficient and M$_{20}$ \citep{lotz04,lotz08}. The Gini coefficient is a measure whether the flux of a galaxy is concentrated or spread out (to be formally defined in Section 3), and M$_{20}$ is the the second-order moment of the brightest 20 percent of a galaxy \citep{lotz04,lotz08}. The Gini coefficient is originally used in economics to statistically describe the distribution of wealth within a society. This coefficient was applied to astronomical images to quantify the spread of galaxy light \citep{abra03,lotz08}, which is now widely used for morphological analysis in astronomy.
Between these two approaches (parametric vs. non-parametric), non-parametric measurements may be less impacted by redshift.
Concentration, asymmetry, clumpiness
are used for merger-finding,
but asymmetry measurement is less sensitive to the late-stage of mergers \citep{lotz08}.
The Gini coefficient and M$_{20}$
are used for wide area surveys \citep{lotz04,lotz10a,lotz10b}.
These parameters are more effective in classifying galaxies and
identifying late-stage mergers than concentration and asymmetry,
and also more robust for galaxies with low signal-to-noise ratios \citep{lotz04,lotz08}.
Therefore, we use the Gini coefficient and M$_{20}$ for identifying mergers,
for quantitative comparison with other studies, and
to secure a large sample from our data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig1.png}
\caption{L$_{IR}$(MIR-FIR) versus L$_{TIR}$ from AKARI \( 9\ \mu \)m (Top).
L$_{IR}$(MIR-FIR) is fitted by CIGALE including at least one FIR band detection \citep{wan20}.
Diamonds and triangles represent AGNs classified with spectra and WISE colour cut, respectively.
(Middle) The ratio of the L$_{TIR}$ to L$_{IR}$(MIR-FIR) as a function of L$_{TIR}$.
(Bottom) The ratio of the L$_{TIR}$ to L$_{IR}$(MIR-FIR) as a function of redshift.
Colour codes represent galaxies in different redshift ranges.
}
\label{fig-lirtot}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we examine the evolution of merger fractions of galaxies with
redshifts up to $\it{z}$ = 0.6 in the AKARI North Ecliptic Pole (NEP)--Wide field,
and the variations in merger fractions of galaxies in three different star-formation modes
(i.e. starbursts, main sequence, and quiescent galaxies).
We also study how the FIR detection affects the merger fractions.
In Section 2, we summarise our observational data and sample selection.
Section 3 describes the morphological analysis
to classify the galaxies using the Gini and M$_{20}$.
We present the results and discussion in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.
\section{DATA
\subsection{Optical images}\label{sec:opt
We use deep optical images taken with the Hyper Supreme-Cam (HSC) on Subaru 8-m telescope
in the AKARI NEP--Wide field covering 5.4 deg$^2$ (\citealt{goto17}, Oi et al. in accepted).
The HSC has a 1.5 deg field of view (FoV) covered with 104 red-sensitive CCDs,
and the pixel scale is 0.17 arcsec.
It is the largest FoV among the 8-m telescopes,
and the size of FoV covered the AKARI NEP--Wide field with only four pointings
(see Figure 2 in \citealt{goto17}, Figure 1 in Oi et al. in accepted).
The observations of the NEP--Wide field were performed in June 30th 2014 and August 7-10th in 2015. The 5$\sigma$ detection limits are 28.6, 27.3, 26.7, 26.0, 25.6 AB mag,
and the median seeings are 0.68, 1.26, 0.84, 0.76, 0.74 for $\it{g, r, i, z}$ and $\it{y}$-band, respectively.
The total number of identified sources in 5 bands is 3.5 million and more detailed information on the data set is described in Oi et al. (accepted).
\subsection{Multi-wavelength Data
We have used the multi-wavelength data set based on the catalogue of AKARI mid-IR (MIR)
galaxies newly identified by an optical survey by Subaru/HSC \citep{oi21}.
The infrared galaxies detected by AKARI's NEP--Wide survey \citep{kim12}
were cross-matched against deep HSC optical data,
thereafter all available supplementary data over the NEP--Wide field
were merged together \citep{kim21}.
Data merging of these two catalogues were carried out by positional matching
with the matching radii defined by 3-sigma positional offsets,
which are more rigorous than using PSF sizes \citep{kim21}.
This band-merged catalogue has 91,000 objects including
$\sim$ 70,000 objects detected in N2, N3, N4 bands,
$\sim$ 20,000 objects detected in S7, S9, L11, L18, L24 bands,
and is the reference catalogue for our sample selection in this study.
Optical to submillimeter (submm) photometry for AKARI sources are also added.
Original AKARI NEP-Wide field catalogue \citep{kim12} includes
CFHT/MegaCam ${\it u^*, g', r', i', z'}$ \citep{hwan07},
Maidanak observatory/ SNUCAM B, R, I-band data \citep{jeon10}
and KPNO /FLAMINGOS J and H band data \citep{jeon14}.
Supplementally, the observed data from
CFHT/MegaPrime $\it{u}$-band \citep{huan20},
CFHT/MegaCam ${\it u^*, g', r', i', z'}$ \citep{oi14,goto18},
WIRCam Y, J and Ks band \citep{oi14} are
added to the main catalogue.
The main catalogue is also cross-matched with
the $\it{WISE}$ catalogue \citep{jarr11},
$\it{Spitzer}$/IRAC \citep{nayy18} and
$\it{Herschel}$/PACS and SPIRE \citep{pear17,pear19}.
This band-merged catalogue adopted spectroscopic redshifts for objects from several observations,
which include Keck/DEIMOS \citep{shog18,kim18} and
MMT/Hectospec and WIYN /Hydra \citep{shim13}.
Subaru/FMOS \citep{oi17}, GTC (Miyaji et al. in preparation) and
the SPICY survey \citep{ohya18} are also included.
Photometric redshifts are determined \citep{ho21}
using 26 bands from optical to NIR
with the public code LePhare \citep{arno99,ilbert06},
and the photo-z accuracy is $\sigma$ = 0.053.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of radius for galaxies.
Dotted line represents the seeing size, 0.6 arcsec in the HSC $\it{i}$-band image.
Blue and red histograms represent the galaxies with photo-z and spec-z. }
\label{fig-rhalf}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Total infrared luminosity distribution as a function of redshift for 9-$\micron$ selected galaxies.
Black circles and red crosses represent the galaxies with spec-z and photo-z. }
\label{fig-z}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Physical Parameters of Galaxies
We derive the total infrared luminosity ($L_{\rm TIR}$, 8--1000 \micron)
using a set of template spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of main sequence galaxies in \citet{elbaz11}
with each of AKARI bands, S7, S9, S11, L15, L18 and L24.
They defined a typical IR SED for main sequence
galaxies using $\it{Herschel}$ data,
this SED could extrapolate the total IR luminosity
for galaxies that only one measurement exists.
Although $L_{\rm TIR}$ derived with FIR data could be more accurate than that without FIR data, the latter case enables us to secure a large number of samples \citep{calz10,gala13}.
To assure the validity of the $L_{\rm TIR}$ from one-band,
we compare the $L_{\rm TIR}$ with infrared luminosity ($L_{\rm IR}$
derived from MIR-FIR bands, \citealt{wan20}).
They calculated the $L_{\rm IR}$ using SED modeling code CIGALE \citep{burg05,noll09}
with 36 bands ranging from optical to submm bands, which is represented as a sum of dust and AGN activities.
As seen in Figure \ref{fig-lirtot}, we compared the difference between $L_{\rm TIR}$ from one-band and $L_{\rm IR}$
from MIR--FIR bands as a functions of $L_{\rm TIR}$ and redshift.
$L_{\rm TIR}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$ up to around $L_{\rm TIR}$ = 10$^{13}$ L$_{\odot}$ show
good agreement below $\it{z}$ $\sim$ 0.8,
which may originate from the effect of galaxy evolution on the SED over the cosmic time.
The relation between the total IR luminosity and one-band IR lunminosity
could have discrepancy as redshift inceases
depending on which IR-band is used (e.g. 24 vs 8 \micron, \citealt{elbaz11}).
Since such a trend is commonly found in every AKARI MIR band (7 -- 24 \micron),
we used 9 $\micron$ band (S9) for sample selection
because of the largest number of sample.
In the middle panel, the standard deviation in $L_{\rm IR}$/$L_{\rm TIR}$ of galaxies except AGNs is 0.71.
A detailed sample selection is described in Section 2.4 and Table \ref{tab:sam}.
Since the $L_{\rm TIR}$ is usually used as good star formation indicator, we calculate the $L_{\rm TIR}$ from the initial mass function (IMF).
We adopt the \citet{salp55} initial mass function (IMF), which is also used for calculating $L_{\rm IR}$ with CIGALE in \citet{wan20}.
The star formation rates are calculated from the formula (12) in \citet{kenn12} which is
\begin{equation}
\rm{log \dot{ M_{*}} (M_{\odot} \rm{year^{-1}}) = {log} L_x - {log} C_x} ,
\end{equation}
where L$_x$ units are [ergs s$^{-1}$] and logC${_x}$ = 43.41
adopting the calibration factors from \citet{hao11,murp11}.
The stellar mass ($M_*$) is derived from SED fitting with LePhare \citep{arno99,ilbert06} using 13 multi-wavelength data of
CFHT/MegaCam $\it{u'}$, Subaru/HSC $\it{g, r, i, z, Y}$,
CFHT/Wircam $\it{J, Ks}$,
and AKARI N2, N3, N4, S7, S9 bands.
We convert $M_*$ from LePhare based on \citet{chab03} IMF
to $M_*$ based on \citet{salp55} IMF by dividing by a factor of 0.63
to fairly compare with others (e.g. \citealt{schr15,pear18}).
The star forming galaxies in the main sequence
follow an empirical power-law relation between the SFR and stellar mass.
However, \citet{smer18,drai20} showed that quiescent
galaxies have considerable scatter on this relation
when they compared different indicators such as L$_{TIR}$, H$\alpha$, neon lines, etc.
Thus, considering to adopt separate
conversion factor for deriving the SFR for each different star formation mode
might improve the relation.
However, because we have constrained galaxies with the range of 9.0 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$11.5 including relatively massive quiescent galaxies,
we do not apply the separate conversion factor for quiescent galaxies in this paper.
The star forming galaxies show tight correlations
between L$_{TIR}$ and SFR (e.g., \citealt{kenn12,hwang10,hwang12}).
However, this tight correlation can break down for quiescent galaxies,
especially for those with low infrared luminosities (e.g., \citealt{smer18,drai20}.
Thus, it is conceivable that this difference might affect our results.
However, the infrared luminosities of our sample galaxies (even for quiescent galaxies)
are generally high enough, the impact of this different correlation is insignificant.
\begin{table}
\centering \caption{Number of Galaxies with 5-sigma detection in different AKARI/IRC bands}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccc}
\hline
Band & S7 & S9 & S11 & L15 & L18 & L24 \\
\hline
Total & 5007& 9076 & 9099 & 8592 & 10133 & 2384 \\
spec-z & 1022 & 1417 & 1388 & 1117 & 1186 & 532 \\
photo-z & 5003 & 9072 & 9096 & 8589 & 10130 & 2382 \\
\hline
Total (z$<$0.8) & 3702 & 7236 & 7377 & 4640 & 5068 & 1349 \\
spec-z & 861 & 1239 & 1220 & 927 & 971 & 443 \\
photo-z & 3659 & 7173 & 7317 & 4580 & 5010 & 1320 \\
\hline
Total (z$<$0.6) & 3407 & 6425 & 6200 & 3392 & 3805 & 1150 \\
spec-z & 820 & 1169 & 1137 & 849 & 893 & 413 \\
photo-z & 3348 & 6331 & 6107 & 3307 & 3718 & 1108 \\
Herschel detection & 739 & 1048 & 1051 & 805 & 853 & 467 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sam}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig4.png}
\caption{Example of the morphological measurements for the galaxy performed by $\texttt{statmorph}$.
(a), (b), (c) are example images of mergers, Spiral, and Elliptical galaxies, respectively.
Black solid contours represent segmentation maps and
text labels represent the values of the Gini, M$_{20}$ and CAS.
F(G,M$_{20}$) and S(G,M$_{20}$) show that bulge statistic and merger statistic.
Detailed parameter description is in \citet{rodr19}.
}
\label{fig-statm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig5.png}
\caption{The Gini--M$_{20}$ diagram for galaxies at different redshift ranges.
Red and black dots represent galaxies in $\it{r}$ and $\it{i}$ band, respectively.
Dashed lines separate the regimes according to their morphological types; mergers in above the dashed line, Ellipticals in right regime, and Spirals in below the dashed line.
}
\label{fig-class}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sample Selection} \label{sample
Considering the total number of detected sources
at each AKARI band in the band-merged catalogue,
we selected the S9 (9 $\micron$) band for our study (see Table \ref{tab:sam}).
The total number of galaxies in Table \ref{tab:sam} presents
the number of galaxies with redshift information
estimated from either spectroscopic or photometric measurement.
Although the total number of galaxies with L18 is the largest in the whole redshift range,
we select 9 $\micron$ detected galaxies for our sample,
because the number of galaxies is the largest at the redshift below $\it{z}$ $=$ 0.6
where we finally analyse the data.
Note that the total number of 9 $\micron$ detected galaxies is 9,076 and
it is reduced to be 7,236 and 6,425 at $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.8 and $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.6, respectively.
To examine the contribution from AGNs in our analysis,
we overplot 190 AGNs in Figure \ref{fig-lirtot},
which were identified by Baldwin-Phillips-Terlevich (BPT) emission-line ratio diagrams \citep{shim13}.
In addition, 30 IR-bright AGNs are found through WISE W1 - W2 and W2 - W3 colour-colour diagrams
with the criteria of \cite{jarr11} and \cite{mate12}.
Figure \ref{fig-lirtot} shows that AGNs are significantly off
the linear correlation of $L_{\rm TIR}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$.
This is because AGN-dominant galaxies have higher MIR luminosities
compared to star-forming galaxies \citep{spin95}.
Due to these templates are based on star-forming galaxies,
we remove these 219 AGNs (73 AGNs in $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.6) from the further analysis,
and end up having 6,352 galaxies at $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.6.
Figure \ref{fig-rhalf} shows the normalised histogram of distributions of
seeing corrected half light radius ($R_h$) for galaxies
in each redshift bin, from top to the bottom.
We separate the redshift into the range of 0.2 bin and
find most of galaxies in size are larger than the seeing 0.6 arcsec
in the HSC $\it{i}$-band in all redshift bins.
Figure \ref{fig-z} shows the distribution of sample galaxies on the redshift and the total infrared luminosity.
Red and black circles represent the sample with spectroscopic and photometric redshifts, respectively.
Upper and right panels show histograms of redshift and $L_{\rm TIR}$, respectively.
\section{Measurement of morphological parameters
The morphological parameters allow us to classify the galaxy types. In order to quantify galaxy morphologies,
we used the Gini coefficient and M$_{20}$ classification method \citep{lotz04}.
The Gini coefficient is a statistical measure of distribution of income
in a population in economics, and recently has applied to astronomy as well \citep{abra03,lotz04}.
The Gini can be computed sorting the $\it{f_i}$ pixel value increasing order as
\begin{equation}
\rm{G= \frac{1}{|\overline{f}|n(n-1) }\sum_{i=1}^{n} (2i -n -1)|f_i|}
\end{equation}
where $\it{\overline{f}}$ is the mean over the pixel values and
$\it{n}$ is the number of pixels.
If all the flux of a galaxy is concentrated in one pixel, G = 1,
while a galaxy has a homogeneous surface brightness, G = 0 \citep{glas62}.
The M$_{20}$ is the second order moment of brightest regions of a galaxy.
The brightest 20 $\%$ of the light is normalised
to the total second-order central moment, M$_{tot}$ \citep{lotz04}.
These are defined as
\begin{equation}
\rm{M_{tot} = {\sum_{i}^{n} M_i} = \sum_{i}^{n} f_i[(x_i - x_c)^2 + ( y_i - y_c)^2]},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\rm{M_{20} = \rm{log}_{10}{\frac {\sum_{i} M_i}{M_{tot}}, while \sum_{i} f_i <0.2 f_{tot}}},
\end{equation}
where $\it{f_i}$ is the pixel flux value and $\it{x_c, y_c}$ is the galaxy centre.
The centre is the point where $\it{M_{tot}}$ is minimised.
The M$_{20}$ is anti-correlated with concentration;
low M$_{20}$ represents highly concentrated galaxy.
We derive the non-parametric Gini and M$_{20}$
using $\texttt{statmorph}$ python code \citep{rodr19}
on galaxies in cutouts of $\it{r}$ and $\it{i}$-band images.
It constructs a segmentation map for Gini measurements
to be insensitive to dimming surface brightness for distant galaxies \citep{lotz04}.
The image of a galaxy is convolved with the Gaussian kernel $\sigma$ = r$_{petro}$/5,
where r$_{petro}$ is the Petrosian radius.
The mean surface brightness within the r$_{petro}$ is used to define threshold of flux,
then the pixel value above the threshold is assigned to the galaxy in the segmentation map.
Both the Gini and M$_{20}$ are calculated on the segmentation map.
Figure \ref{fig-statm} shows the examples of segmentation maps of
three galaxies with measured Gini and M$_{20}$.
It should be noted that the high-column density of dust
could impact the morphological classification of galaxies in the Gini-M$_{20}$ space \citep{lotz08}.
To briefly test this effect, we examine the distributions of Gini and M$_{20}$
for Herschel detected and non-detected galaxies.
Because the Herschel detection requires larger submm flux densities
(i.e. larger amount of dust than those with similar M$_*$/SFRs/T$_{\rm{dust}}$; \citealt{hild83},
this comparison can show the impact of dust on the morphological measurements.
The comparison does not show any systematic differences of Gini and M$_{20}$ estimates
between the two samples (not shown here),
which is supported by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with high significance levels (p $<$ 0.35).
We therefore do not think that the dust introduces a systematic bias
in our measurements of Gini and M$_{20}$ parameter.
As \cite{lotz08} proposed criteria to separate galaxies into three galaxy types
on the Gini - M$_{20}$ diagram using galaxies at 0.2 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 1.2,
we adopt the classification criteria from the equation (4) of \citet{lotz08}
to divide galaxies into mergers, Spirals and Ellipticals
on the Gini and $M_{20}$ diagram:
Mergers: G $>$ --0.14 M$_{20}$ + 0.33, E/S0/Sa: G $<$ --0.14 M$_{20}$ + 0.33, and G $>$ 0.14 M$_{20}$ + 0.80,
Sb/Sc/Irr: G $\leq$ --0.14 M$_{20}$ + 0.33, and G $\leq$ 0.14 M$_{20}$ + 0.80.
Figure \ref{fig-class} shows the G--M$_{20}$ distribution of
our sample on $\it{r}$-, $\it{i}$-band images for different redshift bins.
We find that the distribution of these two morphological parameters
for galaxies on $\it{r}$-, $\it{i}$-band images are not significantly different.
We derive morphological parameters for both $\it{r}$- and $\it{i}$-band images
to select the one that gives similar rest-frame wavelengths
for the comparison of galaxies at different redshifts.
Therefore, we adopt the parameters from $\it{r}$-band images for the galaxies at $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.2,
and from $\it{i}$-band images for those at $\it{z}$ $>$ 0.2.
To verify our morphological classification based on the measurements of Gini and M$_{20}$, we also conduct the visual inspection of the optical images of all the galaxies in our sample. We find that only 1$\%$ of the galaxies classified as mergers in our sample turn out to be spirals, and 1.7$\%$ of ellipticals and 0.2 $\%$ of spirals based only on the G-M$_{20}$ classification are mergers. This contamination is small enough to have no significant impact on our result. We therefore decided to keep the results based on the automated classification based on the estimates of Gini and M$_{20}$ to avoid any possible subjective misclassification based on visual classification, especially for faint galaxies.
Also, since the FWHM of a point source in the i-band images is 0.84 arcsec corresponding to $\sim$ 3.8 kpc at our median redshift (i.e. z $\sim$ 0.3),
we could hardly find patchy features of star formation in the galaxy images that could affect the Gini during visual inspection of galaxies.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6.png}
\caption{Merger fractions as a function of L$_{TIR}$ at different redshift. Filled red circle, open green triangle, open blue rectangle represent galaxies at 0.0 $< \it{z} <$ 0.2, 0.2$< \it{z} <$ 0.4, 0.4$< \it{z} <$ 0.6, respectively.}
\label{fig-add}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig7.png}
\caption{ Star formation rates for 9-$\micron$ selected galaxies as a function of stellar mass at different redshift range.
Solid line represents the average SFR for main sequence galaxies \citep{schr15} and
upper and lower dashed lines represent a factor of two above and below of this fit at each redshift range.
Dash-dotted line represents log(M$_*$) = 10.5.
Blue solid line shows the best fits for the main sequence galaxies in SDSS \citep{elbaz07}.
Red and black dots represent the galaxies with spec-z and photo-z, respectively.}
\label{fig-sfmode}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results
It has been well known that the infrared luminosity of galaxies is closely related to the merger activity of galaxies \citep{hwang07, elli13,lars16}. However, the situation can differ if we consider a wide range of redshift. For example, Figure \ref{fig-add} shows the merger fraction of galaxies in our sample as a function of infrared luminosity at different redshift ranges.
As expected, the merger fraction increases with L$_{TIR}$ for a given redshift range. However, because the merger fraction could be different depending on the redshift despite similar L$_{TIR}$, we examine the merger fraction focusing on star formation mode.
\subsection{Merger fractions of galaxies at different star formation modes
The relation between star formation rate and stellar mass of galaxies is tightly
related to the star formation mode. To investigate the cosmic evolution out to $\it{z}$ $\sim$ 1
over the star formation mode, we divide our sample at each redshift bin (see Figure \ref{fig-sfmode}).
We adopt the average SFR of main sequence galaxies
with stellar mass and redshift from the equation (9) of \citet{schr15} to resolve star formation modes.
They present an analysis of statistical properties of star-forming galaxies
using the $\it{Herschel}$ and $\it{Hubble}$ $\it{H}$-band images
in the redshift range of $\it{z}$ $>$ 0.3.
We extrapolate their relation to 0 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.2 bin, but
found that the extrapolated SFRs are higher than those of previous studies \citep{brin04,elbaz07}.
Therefore, we used the relation derived from the galaxies at low redshifts
(i.e. SDSS galaxies z $\approx$ 0.1, \citealt{elbaz07}) to adjust the extrapolated relation;
we set the average SFR of main sequence to be equal to that of SDSS at log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) = 10.0
in the redshift range with 0.0 $< \it{z} <$ 0.2, as shown in the left top panel of Figure \ref{fig-sfmode}.
We define the galaxies within 2 and 0.5 times the average SFRs (dashed lines in Figure \ref{fig-sfmode})
as main sequence (MS) galaxies.
Galaxies above the upper dashed line are considered as starbursts (SB, SFR $>$ 2$\times$SFR$_{MS}$),
and galaxies below the lower dashed line as quiescent galaxies (QS, SFR $<$ 0.5$\times$SFR$_{MS}$).
Our samples are distributed in three different star formation modes at 0.0 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.2,
however there are fewer quiescent galaxies as redshift increases because of the MIR detection limit.
Note that quiescent galaxies becomes much fainter in the MIR ranges at higher redshift.
Therefore, we constrain the galaxies mass range of 9.0 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 11.5 as total sample
to avoid extreme mass range of galaxies and select the uniform sample over the star formation mode.
To better understand the overall star formation activity for galaxies
by minimising the mass effects, we plot the starburstiness (R$_{SB}$) distribution in Figure \ref{fig-sbn}.
Starburstiness represents the star formation activity which is a measure of the excess in specific
star formation rate of a galaxy compared to that of a main sequence
galaxy with the same stellar mass and is defined as R$_{SB}$ = sSFR/sSFR$_{MS}$ \citep{elbaz11}.
Figure \ref{fig-sbn} displays R$_{SB}$ of galaxies in
total mass range 9.0 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$11.5 (black solid histogram)
and those at 10.5 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$11.5 (blue dashed histogram).
The galaxies with R$_{SB}$ $<$ 0.5 and 2 $<$ R$_{SB}$ represent quiescent and starburst systems, respectively.
As expected, both samples show peaks around R$_{SB}$ =1.
However, the bin of 0.6 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.8 has fewer quiescent and
main sequence galaxies than other bins because of detection limit.
Therefore we remove the sample in 0.6 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.8 for further analysis.
Because the quiescent galaxies could be still affected by detection limits
at all redshifts bins except 0.0 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.2,
it should be noted that the merger fractions of quiescent galaxies mean upper limits.
Figure \ref{fig-merg} shows the evolution of merger fractions for starbursts,
main sequence, and quiescent galaxies as a function of the redshift.
We define the merger fraction as the ratio of a number of merging galaxies
to total number of galaxies in each star formation mode within the redshift range.
To minimise the mass effects on the comparisons of merger fractions between the samples,
we examine the trend of galaxies with total (9.0 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 11.5)
and narrow (10.5 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 11.5) mass range
in the left and right, respectively.
We find that merger fractions of all three different modes of
galaxies marginally increase with redshift
in both panels of different mass ranges.
The merger fractions of galaxies in the total mass range at 0.0 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.2
are higher compared to those of galaxies in the narrow mass range.
This is because there are more galaxy samples in the log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 10.5
as shown in Fig \ref{fig-sfmode}.
We also find that the merger fractions of galaxies differ for three star formation modes,
and the merger fractions of starbursts are higher than those of
main sequence and quiescent galaxies in both panels.
We fit the merger fractions evolution with power-law \citep{patt02,cons09},
which is given by f$_{m} = \alpha (1+z)^m + \rm{C}$.
We use six points of merger fraction with binsize 0.1 of redshift.
For starbursts and main sequence galaxies,
we obtain the index $\it{m}$ = 0.90 $\pm$ 0.18 and 2.04 $\pm$ 0.13 in total mass range, respectively,
and $\it{m}$ = 1.81 $\pm$ 0.12 and 1.21 $\pm$ 0.08 in narrow mass range, respectively.
These are relatively similar or lower than those of others \citep{cons03,lotz08,qu17}.
To examine whether our results are robust against different main sequence selections,
we also use the evolutionary trend of main sequence locus in \citet{pear18}.
Following the single power-law they used,
S = $\alpha$ [log(M$_*$) + 10.5] + $\beta$ \citep{pear18,whit12},
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is the slop and the normalisation, respectively,
we calculate the fit of SFR and $M_*$ of galaxies.
We fix the $\alpha$ as 0.5 and interpolate the $\beta$ using the parameters
from the table 2 in \citet{pear18},
and identify starbursts, main sequence and quiescent galaxies.
We analyse merger fractions of galaxies and find that
the increase trends of merger fractions for galaxies
in different star formation modes as the redshift increase,
when we use both the average SFRs of \citet{schr15} and \citet{pear18},
are consistent.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig8.png}
\caption{Starburstiness R$_{SB}$ distribution of galaxies at each redshift range. Black solid and blue dashed line represent the galaxies in the stellar mass range of 9.0 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 11.5 and 10.5 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 11.5, respectively.
Dotted and dash-dotted line represent the borders between starbursts and main sequence,
main sequence and quiescent galaxies, respectively.}
\label{fig-sbn}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig9.png}
\caption{Evolution of the merger fractions for starburst, main sequence, and quiescent galaxies.
Filled red circle, open green triangle, open blue rectangle represent starbursts, main sequence, and quiescent galaxies, respectively.
Left panel shows galaxies in the entire stellar mass range, and right panel shows the galaxies in 10.5 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$11.5.
}
\label{fig-merg}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Merger fraction of galaxies with and without $\it{Herschel}$ detections
It is well known that FIR bright galaxies tend to be found as mergers at low redshifts. However, this is not always true for high redshift galaxies; isolated disk galaxies at high redshifts can have high infrared luminosities without any merger events because of their large amount of gas \citep{drew20}. This suggests that the infrared luminosity may not reflect genuine physical conditions of galaxies when comparing galaxies at different redshifts. Instead, it is important to distinguish galaxies based on more physically motivated parameters including star formation mode, which is the main driver of this study. To better justify this point, we further examine the merger fraction of FIR detected galaxies depending on the redshift and star formation modes with that of FIR non-detected galaxies.
Here, the FIR detection means that the galaxies are
detected at least one band of $\it{Herschel}$/SPIRE 250,
350 and 500 $\micron$ wavelengths.
Because the $\it{Herschel}$/PACS covers only the
NEP-Deep field unlike the $\it{Herschel}$/SPIRE (see Fig. 1 in \citealt{kim21}),
we use the only the $\it{Herschel}$/SPIRE data to reduce the selection effect for the comparison.
We separate our 9 $\micron$ detected samples into $\it{Herschel}$ non-detected and detected ones,
and show their starburstiness at different redshift bins in Figure \ref{fig-herschelsbn}.
Black dashed and blue solid lines represent
$\it{Herschel}$ detected and non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected sample, respectively.
We find that $\it{Herschel}$ detected samples have higher R$_{SB}$
than those of non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected sample in all redshift bins as we can expect.
Figure \ref{fig-herschel} shows the evolution of galaxy merger fraction
for non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected and $\it{Herschel}$ detected samples
in upper and bottom panels, respectively.
Right and left panels show the total and narrow mass range, respectively.
In the total mass range, we find that the merger fraction of starburst galaxies with
$\it{Herschel}$ detections seemingly increase as the redshift increases
compared to those of non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies.
Also, the merger fraction of those with $\it{Herschel}$ detections is higher
than those of non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies,
because of $\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies have higher FIR luminosities.
We fit the merger fractions evolution with power-law \citep{patt02,cons09},
which is given by f$_{m} = \alpha (1+z)^m + \rm{C}$.
For non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies,
we obtain the index $\it{m}$ = 0.18 $\pm$ 0.62 and 0.81 $\pm$ 0.19 in total mass range
and $\it{m}$ = 0.46 $\pm$ 2.29 and 1.44 $\pm$ 2.12 in narrow mass range
for starbursts and main sequence galaxies, respectively.
For $\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies,
we obtain the index $\it{m}$ = 2.22 $\pm$ 0.72 and 1.09 $\pm$ 0.78 in total mass range
and $\it{m}$ = 2.71 $\pm$ 2.46 and 1.78 $\pm$ 2.04 in narrow mass range
for starbursts and main sequence galaxies, respectively.
The indices for merger fractions of
starbursts in $\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies
are significantly different compared to those in non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies.
The comparison of them are such as
$\it{m}$ = 0.18 $\pm$ 0.62 vs. $\it{m}$ = 2.22 $\pm$ 0.72 in total mass range,
and $\it{m}$ = 0.46 $\pm$ 2.29 vs. $\it{m}$ = 2.71 $\pm$ 2.46 in narrow mass range.
The differences of main sequence galaxies are relatively weak compared to those of starbursts
such as $\it{m}$ = 0.81 $\pm$ 0.19 vs. $\it{m}$ = 1.09 $\pm$ 0.78 in total mass range,
and $\it{m}$ = 1.44 $\pm$ 2.12 vs. $\it{m}$ = 1.78 $\pm$ 2.04 in narrow mass range.
We also examine that the $\it{Herschel}$ detected samples have large range of SFRs at low redshift,
and the SFRs of those galaxies become higher as the redshift increases.
Thus, the increase tendency of merger fractions for $\it{Herschel}$ detected samples
may includes the cosmic evolution.
To better compare the merger fractions between $\it{Herschel}$ detected and non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies
by minimising the mass effects,
we compare the results in narrow mass range in the right panels of Figure \ref{fig-herschel}.
Although errors are large,
we find that the fraction at the same star formation mode is not different
depending on the $\it{Herschel}$ detection considering the errors.
Of course, the merger fractions of different star formation modes
are still different for both samples.
This comparison shows the importance of star formation mode in determining the merger fraction
regardless of FIR luminosities.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{fig10.png}
\caption{Distribution of starburstiness for galaxies at each redshift range.
Black dashed line represents non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies
and blue solid line represents $\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies.
}
\label{fig-herschelsbn}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{fig11.png}
\caption{Evolution of the merger fraction of starburst, main sequence, and quiescent galaxies
for non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies (upper) and $\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies (bottom).
The left and right panels show galaxies with total and fixed mass range of
9.0 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 11.5 and 10.5 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 11.5.
Coloured symbols are same as Fig \ref{fig-merg}. }
\label{fig-herschel}
\end{figure*}
\section{DISCUSSION}\label{discuss}
\subsection{Merger fractions over the star formation modes and their evolution
The evolution of galaxy merger fraction over the cosmic time has been examined through numerical simulations and observational analysis. Some simulations assuming cold dark matter Universe
predicted a decreasing merger fraction of galaxies with cosmic time \citep{fakh08,rodr15},
while other simulations show that the increasing of merger fraction to $z$ $\sim$ 1.5 and then constant
as redshift increases \citep{kavi15,qu17,snyd17}.
In observations, \citet{cons08} showed that the merger fraction of very massive galaxies
with log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot})>$ 10 appears to increase up to $\it{z}$ $\sim$ 3,
while the merger fraction of less massive galaxies has a peak $\it{z}$ $\sim$ 1.5 -- 2.5
and decreases to high redshift. \citet{vent17} also showed that the merger fractions for galaxies
with log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}) >$ 9.5 increase to around $\it{z}$ $\sim$ 2 and slowly decrease after that.
Even in relatively low redshift range, some authors found an increasing merger fraction with redshift \citep{lope09,vent17}, however constant merger fraction at $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.6 is also suggested \citep{cons09,joge09}.
Our results are in agreement with the observations suggesting that
the merger fraction of galaxies slightly increases with redshift $\it{z}$ $<$ 0.6 \citep{lope09,man16,vent17}.
However, the absolute values of merger fractions could differ due to different methods of sample selections depending on luminosity, mass or definition of a merger, which will be discussed in Section \ref{method}.
As shown Figure \ref{fig-merg}, merger fractions of starburst, main sequence and quiescent galaxies are dependent of star formation mode. Although some authors suggested the dependency of merger fraction of galaxies on the distance from the main sequence \citep{cibi19,pear19}, the effect of star formation modes could not be evaluated quantitatively.
For the fair comparison, we try to investigate the evolution of merger fraction for galaxies with similar star formation activities.
Merger galaxies selected by morphology are mainly late-stage and disturbed systems \citep{pear19}.
Because our merger galaxy samples are also selected by morphology,
the higher merger fraction in this study than those in other studies can suggest that
the star formation enhancement is prominent at the late stage of merging \citep{sand96,haan11,cox06,hwang12}
and earlier stage of merging only cause mild increase of SFRs for close pairs \citep{lin07}.
Regarding the evolution of merger fraction, \citet{cons09} showed diverse results through the fitting with a power-law function. They found that the power-law slope changes from 1.5 to 3.8 depending on sample selection and different merger fraction at $\it{z}$ = 0.
The slope tend to be higher for more massive galaxies and lower for less massive galaxies \citep{cons03}.
\cite{qu17} used an exponential power-law function for the simulation predictions,
they found that the power-law slope, $\it{m}$, for close pairs with $\it{z}$ $<$ 4
changes from 2.8 to 3.7 depending on the mass limits.
Otherwise, others who used morphological disturbances for merger selections
and the redshift range of galaxies with $\it{z}$ $<$ 1.2 \citep{lotz08}
obtained the mild slope of $\it{m}$ = 1.26.
Considering similar merger selection and redshift range, our results on the power-law slope of $\it{m}$ = 0.18 -- 2.71
are consistent with those from \cite{lotz08}.
However, they showed that the slope of merger fraction could be easily
affected by morphological diagnostics and timescales to determine merger fractions.
\subsection{Mergers for $\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies
Galaxy merging is expected to drive star formation episodes \citep{barn96,miho96},
however, UV/optical light is dimmed and sources appear redder due to absorption and scattering by dust.
Since considerable amounts of the energy from star formations and AGNs have been absorbed by gas and dust and re-emitted in FIR wavelengths \citep{puge96,dole06}, FIR data set would be good for the study of star formation activity \citep{pei99,chary01}.
Some results for LIRGs and ULIRGs showed that FIR-bright galaxies are ongoing mergers and have disturbed morphology, which are the evidence for merger activities \citep{sand88,clem96,hopk06,hwang10}.
While these studies were mainly focused on FIR-bright galaxies, our samples selected from MIR detections have a wider range of L$_{TIR}$. As shown in Figure \ref{fig-merg} and \ref{fig-herschel}, the merger fractions are strongly dependent of star formation modes, irrespective of $\it{Herschel}$ detection.
We also find that the increasing slope of merger fraction for starbusrts detected in $\it{Herschel}$ is steeper
than that of non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected starbursts.
The difference of the slope for main sequence galaxies is not significant compared to those of starbursts.
Note that quiescent galaxies shows the steepest slope, however merger fractions at $\it{z}$ $>$ 0.2 are upper limit due to the lack of sample.
These results could support that $\it{Herschel}$ detected galaxies with high FIR luminosity such as LIRGs/UIRGs are more stochastically in the merging stage.
Although it is difficult to compare with other results in the effectiveness of FIR detection,
this can be interpreted that the merger fractions of galaxies are determined not only by the IR luminosity, but also by the star formation mode of galaxies at fixed redshift range.
\subsection{Comparison to other studies}\label{method}
To study the merger fraction of galaxies,
one has to define a galaxy sample along with redshift/mass range
and galaxy classification method \citep{lotz08,cons09,bund09,man16,dela17,wats19}.
Therefore, it is important to understand the sample selection
including the merger identification scheme to make fair comparison with other studies.
Although it is difficult to directly compare our results with other studies
because of these differences, we describe the similarity and
the difference between our study and other studies in this section.
Methodologically, merger galaxies can be identified by
using galaxy pairs or morphological disturbances.
As morphological cases,
\citet{lotz08} used Gini and M$_{20}$ for selecting merger galaxies
in 0.2 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 1.2 and volume limited sample with
B-band luminosity limits assuming the luminosity evolution.
They found weak evolution of the merger fractions of galaxies
in this redshift range.
\citet{cons09} derived the increasing merger fraction using asymmetry and clumpiness
with galaxies from COSMOS and EGS between 0.2 $<$ $\it{z}$ $<$ 1.2.
Although there are differences between our sample and theirs
such as redshift range and existence of MIR data,
our result is consistent with the previous ones \citep{lotz08,cons09}
that the merger fractions for galaxies mildly increase as redshift increases
with using morphological selection for merger galaxies.
In addition to morphological method, there are studies of merger fractions using galaxy pairs.
\citet{bund09} and \citet{dera09} use mass-selected pairs and
projected separation (R$_{proj}$) for selecting merger galaxies, respectively.
\citet{wats19} showed that
the merger fraction for paired galaxies in clusters is higher
than those in field environments \citep{bund09,dera09}.
\citet{cibi19} compared the results from the morphological classification
with those from the pair identification.
They found that most of the starbursts galaxies are morphologically disturbed,
but for galaxy pairs, the merger fractions were small in starburst galaxies.
Thus, this can suggest that
the merger fractions of this study could be higher than
that in other studies based on galaxy pairs.
Relatively high merger fractions of our results also
can be explained by sample selection criteria.
\citet{lotz08} used luminosity-size limits for selecting of massive galaxies.
\citet{cons09,lope09} used galaxies with M$_{*} >$ $10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$.
These criteria secure limited galaxies compared to our sample that
have mass range of 9.0 $<$ log(M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$11.5.
However, the largest difference of the sample selection between ours and others is
the use of the MIR detection in our study,
which can significantly affect the star formation activity.
Then, the number of sample can be limited,
this small total number of sample which is denominators of merger fractions
could affect that the merger fractions of galaxies become high compared to others.
The method also can affect results;
because Gini-M$_{20}$ are sensitive to the features of minor mergers \citep{lotz11},
our method may select more merger candidates
than other studies based on CAS or asymmetry criteria.
\citet{pear19} reported elevated merger fraction for galaxies at 0 $< \it{z} <$ 4
based on CANDELS data compared to other studies.
Such a result may be arisen
because the pixel size of galaxies within the images
becomes smaller and galaxies become fainter
as redshift increases,
then the suppressed galaxy features counted as merger galaxies.
Therefore, the direct comparison of absolute values of merger fractions
between different studies is difficult.
\section{SUMMARY}\label{sum
We used the galaxy sample detected at the MIR band (9 \micron) of AKARI
in the NEP--Wide field. In order to identify the merging galaxies, the morphological analyses were carried out
relying on the Gini and M$_{20}$ coefficients derived from deep Subaru/HSC ($\it{r}$-, $\it{i}$-band) images.
Using the spectroscopic and photometric redshifts, we derived total infrared luminosity and SFR from AKARI 9 $\micron$ detections. We compare the merger fractions between three different star formation modes at $\it{z} <$ 0.6:
starburst, main sequence and quiescent galaxies.
Our main results are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The merger fractions for starbursts, main sequence, and quiescent galaxies slightly increase with redshift at $\it{z} <$ 0.6.
\item
The galaxy merger fractions differ depending on the star formation mode.
The starbursts show higher merger fractions than those of main sequence and quiescent galaxies.
\item
The increasing slope of the merger fractions for $\it{Herschel}$ detected starbursts slightly steeper compared to those of non-$\it{Herschel}$ detected starbursts.
\end{enumerate}
Our results are in line with the idea that the merger fraction increases with redshift in local Universe \citep{lotz08,cons09,lope09} and galaxies in the different star formation modes such as starbursts,
main sequence and quiescent galaxies show different merger fractions \citep{cibi19,pear19}.
Regardless of the FIR detection, the increasing trends of the merger fraction over local universe ensure the consistency in all the different star formation modes.
These results underscore the importance of the star formation mode in the study of evolution of galaxy merger fraction.
To better understand the merger fraction evolution with different star formation activities,
it is important to secure a larger, unbiased sample of high-$\it{z}$ galaxies,
which does not suffer from observational selection effects on the star formation mode.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
W-SJ, EK and Y-SJ acknowledges support from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) of Korea (NRF-2018M1A3A3A02065645). HSH was supported by the New Faculty Startup Fund from Seoul National University.
HShim acknowledges the support from the National Research Foundation of Korea grant No. 2018R1C1B6008498.
TH is supported by the Centre for Informatics and Computation in Astronomy (CICA)
at National Tsing Hua University (NTHU) through a grant from the Ministry of Education
of the Republic of China (Taiwan).
\section*{Data Availability}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Moons around main-belt asteroids have been known to exist since the discovery in 1993 of Dactyl, the companion of (243)~Ida \citep{Binzel1995}. Since then, {using mostly lightcurve inversion, but also} with the use of adaptive optics (AO) on 8-10m class telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), $\sim$190 multiple systems have been discovered \citep{Johnston2020}, starting in 1998 with Petit-Prince, around (45) Eugenia \citep{Merline1999}, followed by the discovery of the first triple asteroid (87)~Sylvia a few
years later \citep{Marchis2005}. Today, about 30 of them have been observed by direct imaging (AO on 8-10m class telescopes, HST), providing insights into their formation and evolution \citep{Yang2016}. { The images bring indirect information about the interior based on direct information about mass and volume,} and hence density \citep{Margot2015,Scheeres2015}.\\
The arrival of a second generation of AO, such as the Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet Research instrument (SPHERE) at the Very Large Telescope \citep[VLT,][]{Beuzit2019} and the Gemini Planet Imager (GPI) at GEMINI-South \citep{Macintosh2014}, offers a great opportunity to constrain, via direct imaging, the 3D shape and mass of large multiple asteroid systems where the primary's diameter exceeds 100 km. In 2017, we started a survey of about forty large (D$\geq$100km) main-belt asteroids through a European Southern Observatory (ESO) large programme \citep[id: 199.C-0074,][]{Vernazza2018}, including the following six known multiple systems: (22)~Kalliope, (41)~Daphne \citep{Carry2019}, (45)~Eugenia, (87)~Sylvia \citep{Carry2021arXiv}, (130)~Elektra, and (216)~Kleopatra. In addition, our programme allowed the discovery of a new binary asteroid \citep[(31)~Euphrosyne,][]{Yang2020a, Yang2020b}.\\
Among the six known systems, (216)~Kleopatra is of particular interest because of the various density estimates reported for this object, ranging from $\sim$3.6 g.cm$^{-3}$ to $\sim$5 g.cm$^{-3}$ \citep{Descamps2011,Hanus2017b,Shepard2018}, and for its unique dumbbell shape so far {\citep{Ostro2000,Descamps2015,Shepard2018}}. (216)~Kleopatra is a {M/Xe-type \citep{DeMeo2009,Hardersen2011} triple asteroid system \citep{Descamps2011}
with a high radar albedo \citep{Shepard2018},} likely implying the presence of a substantial fraction of metal at its surface.
Here, we present new AO observations of (216)~Kleopatra with VLT/SPHERE/ZIMPOL (Zurich Imaging Polarimeter), which were obtained as part of our ESO large programme (Sect.~\ref{sec:data}). Combining these new observations, with disk-integrated photometry, stellar occultations, and delay-Doppler images, we derived two shape models with the \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} and MPCD reconstruction methods \citep{Viikinkoski2015,Capanna2012} (Sect.~\ref{sec:shape}). The images were further used to constrain the orbital properties of the two moons and thus constrain the mass of (216)~Kleopatra, and hence its density (see Sect.~\ref{sec:moon} and accompanying paper by Bro\v{z} et al.). In Sect.~\ref{sec:analysis}, we perform a thorough analysis of Kleopatra's shape and propose a formation scenario of this peculiar triple system in Sect.~\ref{sec:discussion}.
\section{Observations \& data reduction}\label{sec:data}
\subsection{Disk-resolved data with SPHERE}\label{sec:ao}
Asteroid (216)~Kleopatra was observed at two different epochs in July--August 2017 and December 2018{ -- January 2019}, { using ZIMPOL of SPHERE} \citep{Thalmann2008} in the classical imaging mode with the narrow band filter (N$\_$R filter; filter central wavelength = 645.9 nm, width = 56.7 nm). The angular size of Kleopatra was in the range of 0.09--0.11$\arcsec$. At the time of the observations, the asteroid was close to an equator-on geometry. Therefore, the SPHERE images of Kleopatra obtained from seven epochs allowed us to reconstruct a reliable 3D shape model with well defined dimensions. The reduced images were further deconvolved with the \texttt{Mistral}\xspace algorithm \citep{Fusco2003}, using a parametric point-spread function \citep{Fetick2019}.
Table~\ref{tab:ao} lists information about the images, while Figs.~\ref{fig:Deconv1} and~\ref{fig:Deconv2} display all obtained images with SPHERE.
We complemented our dataset with 14 disk-resolved images obtained by the NIRC2 camera mounted on the W. M. Keck II telescope {(Table~\ref{tab:aoKeck} and Fig.~\ref{fig:comparisonKeck})}. These data were already compiled and used for Kleopatra's shape modeling in the study of \citet{Hanus2017b}.
{The pixel scale of the Zimpol instrument is 3.6 mas, which is almost a factor of three improvement compared to the Keck's NIRC2 camera with a pixel scale of 9.942 mas. We also note that the pixel scale of the VLT/NACO instrument, the decommissioned predecessor of SPHERE, was 13.24 mas.}
\subsection{Disk-integrated optical photometry}\label{sec:lcs}
We compiled a rich dataset of Kleopatra's disk-integrated optical photometry (180 lightcurves from 15 different apparitions). The oldest data were obtained in 1977 \citep{Scaltriti1978} and the most recent ones in 2015 (St\'{e}phane Fauvaud). A large fraction of the data spans seven different apparitions in the 1980s \citep[e.g.,][]{Pilcher1982, Weidenschilling1987}. Additionally, we used data from apparitions in 1994 \citep{Fauvaud2001} and 2006 \citep{Warner2006c}. Finally, the largest dataset covering apparitions in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2013 comes from the SuperWASP survey \citep{Grice2017}. The list of lightcurves is summarized in Table~\ref{tab:lcs}{; a subset is then shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:comparisonLC1},~\ref{fig:comparisonLC2}. We did not use any sparse data for their redundancy. Each lightcurve densely sampled the brightness variations for several hours. We treated the lightcurves as relative only, so we normalized the fluxes to unity. We corrected the epochs on light-time effect. Because each lightcurve is only several hours long, it was not necessary to correct for the phase angle effect. }
\subsection{Stellar occultations}\label{sec:occ}
We utilized five stellar occultations of Kleopatra {(Table~\ref{tab:occ}, \citealt{Herald2020})}. While three (from 2009, 2015, and 2016) are of a sufficient quality to be utilized for the shape modeling (i.e., multiple chords sampling the object's projection well), the remaining two (from 1980 and 1991) served as validity checks. We note that the occultation in 1980 is of particular historical interest as two observers independently spotted a 0.9-second star disappearance too far from the primary to be related with it. At that time, the scientific community was not yet ready to accept the existence of tiny moons around asteroids. This, however, changed in 1994 when the Galileo probe sent images of asteroid (243)~Ida with its moon Dactyl. Fortunately, the awareness about these peculiar data persisted. The evident explanation of the data is the occultation by one of Kleopatra's two moons. We list the suspected moon position in Table~\ref{tab:positions}.
\subsection{Delay-Doppler images}\label{sec:radar}
Delay-Doppler images of Kleopatra were obtained in 2008 and 2013 using the 2380 MHz radar at the Arecibo observatory \citep{Shepard2018}. The 2008 observations were almost equatorial, but with a weak signal-to-noise ratio. {Therefore we did not include them in the modeling}. Higher quality observations in 2013 had an aspect angle of --50$^{\circ}$ from the equatorial plane. The nominal range resolution is {5.25} km in range and 10 Hz in frequency.
\section{3D shape modeling}\label{sec:shape}
\subsection{ADAM shape model}\label{sec:ADAM}
\begin{figure*
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.81\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{./figs/mosaic_216Kleopatra_split.png}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:compAO}Comparison between the VLT/SPHERE/ZIMPOL deconvolved images of Kleopatra and the corresponding projections of our MPCD and \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} shape models. The red arrow indicates the orientation of the spin axis. We used a realistic illumination to highlight the local topography of the model using the OASIS software \citep{Jorda2010}. The residuals of both models are shown in the two bottom rows, more specifically those are chi-square pixel residuals in units of the instrumental noise associated to each pixel (photon and readout noise).}
\end{figure*}
All-Data Asteroid Modeling \citep[\texttt{ADAM}\xspace{},][and references therein]{Viikinkoski2015} is an inversion algorithm commonly used for the reconstruction of shape models of asteroids from their combined disk-integrated and disk-resolved data \citep{Viikinkoski2015b, Viikinkoski2018, Hanus2017b}. The key elements of \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} are the a priori knowledge of the rotation state (i.e., sidereal rotation period and spin vector orientation) and the existence of disk-resolved data. The former is usually available as convex shape models have been derived for the majority of the largest asteroids \citep[see the Database of Asteroid Models from Inversion Techniques, DAMIT\footnote{ \url{https://astro.troja.mff.cuni.cz/projects/damit/}},][]{Durech2010}. The most common disk-resolved data are the {high-resolution angular} images obtained with the 8--10m class telescopes equipped with AO systems (Keck, VLT, Gemini), but also the more scarce delay-Doppler images \citep{Shepard2018} or the ALMA interferometry \citep{Viikinkoski2015b}. Finally, stellar occultations can also be considered as disk-resolved data; however, only those with multiple chords with proper timings, sampling the asteroid's on-sky projection well, are useful for constraining the shape.
We applied ADAM to our dataset of 180 optical lightcurves, 14 disk-resolved images from Keck, 55 disk-resolved images from SPHERE, three stellar occultations, and {15} delay-Doppler images from the Arecibo {Observatory} \citep{Shepard2018}. We used the rotation state \citep{Hanus2017b} as an initial value for the \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} modeling with a low shape model resolution {(1152 facets)} and the octantoid shape parametrization \citep{Viikinkoski2015}. Then, we increased the shape model resolution {(2048 facets)} and used the low-resolution model as a starting point for the shape model improvement. We also increased the relative weight of the SPHERE data with respect to other datasets. We show the comparison of the shape model projections with the corresponding SPHERE and Keck/NIRC2 images in Figs.~\ref{fig:compAO} { and \ref{fig:comparisonKeck},} and with the stellar occultations in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparisonOCC}. { The fit to a subset of optical lightcurves is shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:comparisonLC1},~\ref{fig:comparisonLC2}}. Our solution is robust against variations in data weighting and \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} regularization functions. We generated several models both with and without delay-Doppler images. {The optimization method used for radar images is described in detail in \citet{Viikinkoski2015}. We used the cosine scattering law with constant albedo.
By increasing the relative weight of radar data with respect to AO images, the shape solution approaches the shape presented in \citet{Shepard2018}. The choice of weights between different data sources is always a somewhat subjective matter. However, in this case, both the coverage and the resolution of AO images is clearly superior compared to radar images, so it seems prudent that the AO observations from SPHERE are given predominance.} The comparison between radar data and the shape model is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparisonRD}.
{Our final \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} shape model fits all datasets sufficiently well. Specifically, we have not identified any substantial disagreement between the model and the data. Considering the superior quality, the resolution, and the coverage of the SPHERE data, the shape model is already well constrained by them. The other data (Keck, occultations, radar) are usually fitted naturally and are mostly complementary. }
\subsection{MPCD shape model}\label{sec:MPCD}
The Multiresolution PhotoClinometry by Deformation \citep[MPCD,][]{Capanna2012,Jorda2016} is a 3D shape reconstruction method that utilizes an initial shape model to give a better fit to disk-resolved images. Therefore, our \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} shape model is further modified by MPCD by fitting solely the high-resolution SPHERE AO data.
The MPCD algorithm minimizes the chi-square pixel-to-pixel differences between a set of observed images and the synthetic images built from the shape model for optimization.
The reflectance function is Hapke's five-parameters function with the parameters listed in \citet{Descamps2011}.
The shape is optimized through shifts of the vertices along the local normal vector.
The method goes through several increasing steps of resolutions of both the observed images and shape before converging toward the final optimized model.
In the case of (216)~Kleopatra, we used the sample of 33 SPHERE images obtained during 11 visits.
The shape was reconstructed starting from a decimated \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} model with only 196 facets and ending with a final model of 3136 facets, after optimization in three levels.
Furthermore, we also optimized the Euler angles describing the orientation of the spin pole after noticing unusual systematic residuals between our sets of observed and synthetic images.
The shape was reoptimized with this new pole orientation in the same manner to produce the final MPCD model of (216)~Kleopatra.
As expected, the chi-square between observed and synthetic AO images decreases from 135 (\texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} model) to 50 (MPCD model).
A comparison between synthetic SPHERE images generated from the \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} and MPCD models and an observed image for each visit is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:compAO}.
The final MPCD model is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:compshapes} alongside the \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} model and the radar model of \cite{Shepard2018}. {The physical properties of those three models are listed in Tab. \ref{tab:param}.}
The MPCD method also provides an albedo map calculated together with the slope and height errors of each facet from their corresponding average residual pixel values.
However, the only significant albedo features are found near limbs and a careful inspection shows that they likely correspond to faint artifacts introduced by the deconvolution process \citep{Fetick2019} at the edges of the object.
\begin{figure*
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
Radar & \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} & MPCD \\
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{./figs/K-ShepardR-viewYM.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{./figs/K-ADAM-viewYM.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{./figs/K-MPCD-viewYM.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{./figs/K-ShepardR-viewZP.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{./figs/K-ADAM-viewZP.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{./figs/K-MPCD-viewZP.png} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:compshapes}Rendered views of the radar shape model of \cite{Shepard2018} (left panels), and \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} and MPCD models (middle and right panels) as seen from the $Y-$ (top panels) and $Z+$ (bottom panels) body axes. The mass deficit or crater is visible on the small lobe of the MPCD model.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:param}
Physical properties of (216)~Kleopatra based on \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} and MPCD shape modeling of our VLT/SPHERE images: Sidereal rotation period $P$, spin-axis ecliptic J2000 coordinates $\lambda$ and $\beta$, volume-equivalent diameter $D$, dimensions along the major axis $a$, $b$, $c$, their ratios $a/b$ and $b/c$, mass $M$ from Bro\v z et al. (accompanying paper), volume $V$, and bulk density $\rho$. Uncertainties correspond to 1\,$\sigma$ values. The values based on radar data \citep{Shepard2018} are also reported. { The $b$ and $c$ extents reported for the radar model are the maximum extents in those directions.}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
Parameter & S18 & \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} & MPCD\\ \hline
$P$ (h) & 5.385280(1) & 5.385282(1) & 5.385282(1) \\
$\lambda$ ($\degr$) & 74$\pm${ 2} & 73.5$\pm$0.5 & 74.1$\pm$0.5 \\
$\beta$ ($\degr$) & 20$\pm${ 2} & 20.8$\pm$0.5 & 21.6$\pm$0.5 \\
$D$ (km) & 122$\pm${ 10} & 119.3\,$\pm$\,2 & 118.2$\pm$0.8 \\
$a$ (km) & 276$\pm${ 14} & 270$\pm$4 & 267$\pm$6 \\
$b$ (km) & 94$\pm${ 5} & 62$\pm$4 & 61$\pm$6 \\
$c$ (km) & 78$\pm${ 4} & 38$\pm$4 & 48$\pm$6 \\
$a/b$ & { 2.9} & 4.35$\pm$0.3 & 4.4$\pm$0.4 \\
$b/c$ & 1.20 & 1.63$\pm$0.2 & 1.3$\pm$0.2 \\
$V$ ($10^5$~km$^3$) & { 9.56} & 8.90$\pm$0.45 & 8.65$\pm$0.17 \\
$M$ ($10^{18}$~kg) & 4.64$\pm$0.02 & 2.97$\pm$0.32 & 2.97$\pm$0.32 \\
$\rho$ (g cm$^{-3}$)& 4.9$\pm$0.5 & 3.34$\pm$0.53 & 3.43$\pm$0.38 \\
\hline
$\chi^2$ & {209} & 135 & 50 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Mass and bulk density}\label{sec:moon}
In the first step, each image obtained with SPHERE/ZIMPOL was further processed to remove the bright halo surrounding Kleopatra, following the procedure described in detail in \cite{Yang2016} and \cite{Pajuelo2018}, and {shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:figsat}}. The residual structures after the halo removal were minimized using the processing techniques introduced in \cite{Wahhaj_etal_2013ApJ...779...80W}, where the radial structures were removed using a running median in a $\sim\,$30-pixel box in the radial direction and the images were smoothed by convolving a Gaussian function with a FWHM of $\sim\,$8~pixels.
In the second step, we measured the relative positions on the plane of the sky between Kleopatra
and its satellites. We used the unmodified images (i.e., without halo removal) and we fit both photocenters by a suitable 2D Gaussian (see \citealt{Carry2019}).
The dispersion of the Gaussian function for the moons was chosen
conservatively as comparable to the residual (AO-corrected) PSF.
The astrometric positions are reported in Table~\ref{tab:positions}.
Sometimes, the identification of the two satellites was ambiguous.
Nevertheless, it was possible to recover the correct identification
later (see Bro\v z et al.). We report the corrected data here.
Furthermore, we estimated the offsets between the photocenter
and the center of mass for Kleopatra. Because the central body
is so extended and irregular, the offset may reach up to a few
milli-arcseconds, as reported in Table~\ref{tab:offset}.
We use these offset adjustments for further analysis of orbits
because our dynamical model requires the centers of mass,
not the centers of light. Alternatively, one can use
a relative astrometry of the two moons (second with respect to the first),
which is unaffected by these photocenter motions.
Uncertainties in the measurements are approximately 0.01\,arcsec,
based on repeated and/or close-in-time measurements. As of now,
we do not account for the orbital motion of the satellites during
five consecutive exposures and we take their average position,
although in principle that motion could be detected. It would however require
a fitting by an asymmetric PSF, elongated along the orbital motion.
The dynamical model required to interpret the motion of the moons is more complex due to the irregular shape of
Kleopatra, and the mutual interactions of the moons and the solar tides.
We thus used an advanced n-body model with the multipole expansion
up to the order of $\ell = 10$,
which is described in detail in Bro\v z et al.,
in order to determine the orbital elements.
Our best solution fits the observed positions
with a root mean square (RMS) residuals of 17\,mas.
Most importantly, the phase coverage of new VLT/SPHERE observations
allowed us to derive the true periods
$P_1 = (1.822359\pm0.004156)\,{\rm d}$ and
$P_2 = (2.745820\pm0.004820)\,{\rm d}$,
which results in the revised mass
$m_1 = (2.97\pm0.32)\cdot10^{18}\,{\rm kg}$ for Kleopatra.
This is significantly lower than the previously reported value of $4.64\cdot10^{18}\,{\rm kg}$ \citep{Descamps2011}.
The orbits of both satellites are circular, prograde, and equatorial, similar to most known satellites around large main belt asteroids.
(e.g., \citealt{Marchis2008a,Berthier2014,Margot2015,Carry2019,Yang2020a}).
Taking the average volume of the \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} and MPCD models (Table 1), the density of Kleopatra amounts to $(3.38 \pm 0.50)\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$.
A comparison with the previous estimate (3.6 ${\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$, \citealt{Descamps2011}) is not pertinent given that both the mass and the volume were revised.
This density has important implications for the interpretation
of the shape in Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./figs/compilation_moon.png}
\caption{Processed ZIMPOL images on the left, revealing the presence of the satellites, CleoSelene and AlexHelios around (216)~Kleopatra at two epochs (bottom: 2017-07-14, top: 2017-08-22). To reveal the moons which are as faint as the halo (due to imperfect AO correction), we subtracted a rotational average of the image centered on the primary (right image). The circle points to the location of the satellites in the images. {The other dots in the images are bad pixels.}}
\label{fig:figsat}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:positions}Positions of Kleopatra's satellites with respect to its photocenter. Uncertainties are approximately 0.01\,arcsec. The position from 1980 is based on the stellar occultation and those from 2008 are taken from \citet{Descamps2011}.}
\begin{tabular}{ccrr}
\multicolumn{4}{c} {AlexHelios}\\\hline
Date & UT & $u$ [arcsec] & $v$ [arcsec] \\\hline
1980-10-10 & 07:00 & $0.2711$ & $0.4564$ \\
2008-09-19 & 11:38:00 & $-0.18\phantom{00}$ & $0.35\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-09-19 & 11:51:00 & $-0.20\phantom{00}$ & $0.36\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-10-05 & 09:13:00 & $-0.27\phantom{00}$ & $0.37\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-10-05 & 09:49:00 & $-0.29\phantom{00}$ & $0.39\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-10-05 & 10:03:00 & $-0.32\phantom{00}$ & $0.39\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-10-09 & 05:46:00 & $-0.32\phantom{00}$ & $0.29\phantom{00}$ \\
2017-07-14 & 05:00:59 & $-0.4158$ & $ 0.2952$ \\
2017-07-22 & 04:18:07 & $-0.4262$ & $ 0.2444$ \\
2017-07-22 & 05:00:55 & $-0.4291$ & $ 0.2614$ \\
2017-08-22 & 01:42:34 & $ 0.1843$ & $-0.3150$ \\
2018-12-10 & 06:47:17 & $-0.4894$ & $-0.0958$ \\
2018-12-19 & 06:45:02 & $ 0.1871$ & $-0.2869$ \\
2018-12-22 & 05:58:43 & $-0.2540$ & $-0.3438$ \\
2018-12-26 & 08:14:42 & $-0.4973$ & $-0.0428$ \\
2019-01-14 & 04:57:43 & $-0.5319$ & $-0.1177$ \\
\multicolumn{4}{c} {CleoSelene}\\\hline
2008-09-19 & 06:17:00 & $-0.25\phantom{00}$ & $ 0.50\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-09-19 & 08:44:00 & $-0.34\phantom{00}$ & $ 0.54\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-09-19 & 11:38:00 & $-0.44\phantom{00}$ & $ 0.57\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-09-19 & 11:51:00 & $-0.44\phantom{00}$ & $ 0.57\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-09-19 & 12:02:00 & $-0.44\phantom{00}$ & $ 0.58\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-10-05 & 09:13:00 & $-0.29\phantom{00}$ & $ 0.46\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-10-05 & 09:49:00 & $-0.31\phantom{00}$ & $ 0.47\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-10-05 & 10:03:00 & $-0.32\phantom{00}$ & $ 0.46\phantom{00}$ \\
2008-10-09 & 09:36:00 & $ 0.28\phantom{00}$ & $-0.44\phantom{00}$ \\
2017-07-14 & 05:01:00 & $ 0.3070$ & $-0.2600$ \\
2017-07-22 & 04:18:07 & $-0.2714$ & $ 0.2941$ \\
2017-07-22 & 05:00:55 & $-0.2621$ & $ 0.2963$ \\
2017-08-22 & 01:42:34 & $ 0.4423$ & $-0.2401$ \\
2018-12-10 & 06:47:17 & $ 0.1949$ & $-0.1505$ \\
2018-12-19 & 06:45:02 & $ 0.3763$ & $ 0.0929$ \\
2018-12-22 & 05:58:43 & $ 0.4555$ & $-0.0119$ \\
2018-12-26 & 08:14:42 & $ 0.3937$ & $ 0.1271$ \\
2019-01-14 & 04:57:43 & $-0.1008$ & $-0.3298$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{{Positions of the photocenter minus the center of mass for Kleopatra.}}
\label{tab:offset}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccrr}
JD & UT & $u$ [mas] & $v$ [mas] \\\hline
2008-09-19 & 06:17:00 & $ 0.762$ & $ 0.789$ \\
2008-09-19 & 08:44:00 & $-0.948$ & $-1.395$ \\
2008-09-19 & 11:38:00 & $ 1.178$ & $ 1.069$ \\
2008-09-19 & 11:51:00 & $-1.462$ & $-0.737$ \\
2008-09-19 & 12:02:00 & $-3.723$ & $-1.784$ \\
2008-10-05 & 09:13:00 & $ 4.586$ & $ 2.911$ \\
2008-10-05 & 09:49:00 & $ 4.059$ & $ 1.363$ \\
2008-10-05 & 10:03:00 & $ 2.212$ & $-0.395$ \\
2008-10-09 & 05:46:00 & $ 0.548$ & $-2.190$ \\
2008-10-09 & 09:36:00 & $ 6.923$ & $ 5.164$ \\
2017-07-14 & 05:01:00 & $ 0.223$ & $-1.194$ \\
2017-07-22 & 04:18:07 & $ 0.609$ & $ 1.934$ \\
2017-07-22 & 05:00:55 & $ 0.666$ & $ 1.929$ \\
2017-08-22 & 01:42:34 & $ 0.288$ & $ 0.901$ \\
2018-12-10 & 06:47:17 & $-1.674$ & $-2.402$ \\
2018-12-19 & 06:45:02 & $ 0.391$ & $-3.132$ \\
2018-12-22 & 05:58:43 & $ 2.014$ & $-1.430$ \\
2018-12-26 & 08:14:42 & $-0.848$ & $ 0.791$ \\
2019-01-14 & 04:57:43 & $-0.455$ & $-1.266$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Shape analysis}\label{sec:analysis}
\subsection{ Lobes interpretation}
A visual inspection of the global shape confirms the presence of two lobes separated by a neck, at the first order similar to the shape derived in \cite{Ostro2000}.
For this reason, we extracted the individual shapes of the two lobes from the MPCD global shape model in order to characterize their physical
properties.
We used an approach similar to that applied to comet 67P/C-G \citep{Jorda2016}.
In this approach, the facets belonging to each lobe are manually selected in the ``Meshlab software'' \citep{Cignoni2008}.
The best-fit ellipsoid of each lobe is then computed by fitting the coordinates of the extracted
vertices.
Finally, the lobe models are merged with those of the best-fit ellipsoids to compute their closed shapes and
volumes (for details on the method, see \citealt{Jorda2016}).
This leads to the individual shapes of the two lobes shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lobes}.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:lobes}
Physical parameters (volume and diameters) of the two lobes computed from their reconstructed shape models,
as well as geometric parameters (center coordinates, Euler angles, and tilt of the lobes' Z-axis with respect to that of the object), resulting from the best-fit ellipsoid of the selected facets of the MPCD shape model belonging to each lobe.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
{\bf Parameter} & {\bf Lobe A} & {\bf Lobe B} \\
\hline
Diameter $a$ (km) & 118 & 126 \\
Diameter $b$ (km) & 94 & 79 \\
Diameter $c$ (km) & 66 & 61 \\
Volume ($10^5$ km$^3$) & 4.1 & 3.5 \\
Volume (\%) & 47 & 40 \\
Volume-equiv. diameter $D$ (km) & 91.9 & 87.1 \\
\hline
Center coordinate $X$ (km) & --69.9 & 79.8 \\
Center coordinate $Y$ (km) & 0.0 & --0.5 \\
Center coordinate $Z$ (km) & 0.2 & --0.9 \\
Euler angle $\psi$($\degr$) & 39.0 & --21.7 \\
Euler angle $\theta$($\degr$) & --5.6 & 5.0 \\
Euler angle $\phi$($\degr$) & --35.2 & 26.3 \\
Z-axis tilt($\degr$) & 5.6 & 5.0 \\
Ellipsoid fit residuals (km) & 2.2 & 1.8 \\
Ellipsoid fit residuals (\%) & 3.1 & 2.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We determined the diameters of the two lobes along the X-, Y-, and Z-axes and along their
principal axes of inertia, as well as their volume (summarized in Table~\ref{tab:lobes}).
It appears that the X- and Z- axes have the same diameters within their error bars.
However, the Y-axis is significantly different between the two lobes, leading to a volume difference of 16\,\% in favor of lobe~A.
Furthermore, both lobes appear highly ellipsoidal, with a deviation between the lobes
and their best-fit ellipsoids of only $\sim\!2.5-3\,\%$, a value comparable to those found for large asteroids
with equilibrium shapes, such as 10~Hygiea \citep{Vernazza2020} and 4~Vesta \citep{Ferrais2020}.
The size difference between the two lobes along the Y-axis can possibly be explained by a depression
observed on lobe B (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lobes}), possibly formed by an impact.
As a next step, we computed the length and mean radii of the neck as well as its volume from the parameters of Table~\ref{tab:lobes}.
Its volume appears to be 13~\% of the total volume of the object, whereas the minimum length of the neck along the X-axis is $\sim 25$ km.
\begin{figure*
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs/viewYP-snap-bk2-crop5.png}}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs/viewZP-snap-bk2-crop5.png}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:lobes}
{Views of the two lobes A (blue) and B (red) extracted from the shape model as seen from the Y+ (left) and Z+ (right) axes. The initial shape model is displayed as a wireframe for comparison, allowing one to visualize the neck between the two lobes.}
}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{{\bf Dumbbell interpretation}}
It is striking that in Fig.~\ref{fig:compshapes}, the shape of Kleopatra resembles the ``dumb-bell'' equilibrium shapes studied by \citet{Descamps2015}.
To test whether Kleopatra formed at equilibrium, we computed {the rms of the deviation} between the MPCD shape model of Kleopatra and several shape models of dumbbell equilibrium figures corresponding to different values of
the normalized angular velocity~$\Omega$ defined by \citet{Descamps2015} as $\omega\sqrt{3/(4\pi G\rho)}$,
where $\rho$ denotes the bulk density.
In order to perform this comparison, we rescaled the equilibrium shapes so that their lengths match that of Kleopatra and we shifted the center of the figure by $-3.8\,{\rm km}$ along the X-axis.
This shift leads to a displacement of the center of mass toward the larger lobe (lobe A), which is coherent if we assume that the two lobes have the same density.
The lowest final rms of the distance between the models is equal to $\sim3.5$~km for a normalized angular velocity $\Omega=0.32-0.33$, but figures with values of $\Omega$ in the range from $0.31-0.34$ remain compatible with the shape of Kleopatra (rms below 4~km), as illustrated { in Fig.~\ref{fig:dumbbell}.}
The $\Omega$ value calculated from Kleopatra's current rotation
period $5.385\,{\rm h}$ and density $3.38 \pm 0.50\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$
is $0.334$, which is in striking agreement with the values reported above.
We thus confirm that Kleopatra is an equilibrium shape.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs/db_31.png}}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs/db_32.png}}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs/db_33.png}}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs/db_34.png}}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs/db_adam.png}}
\resizebox{0.49\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs/db_mpcd.png}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:dumbbell}
Views of the dumbbell equilibrium shapes for values of the normalized angular velocity $\Omega$ equal to
$0.31$ (top left), $0.32$ (top right), $0.33$ (middle left), and $0.34$ (middle right).
The two bottom panels show the reconstructed ADAM (left) and MPCD (right) shapes.
All shape models are seen from the $Y-$ axis.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{{\bf Surface acceleration}}\label{sec:acc}
To probe the effect of the shape on the internal compaction, we computed the gravitational plus the centrifugal acceleration at each point of the surface and compared it with that of a sphere of equivalent mass (Fig.~\ref{fig:216_acceleration}). It appears that the mean acceleration at the surface of Kleopatra amounts to 76\% of that of a sphere of equivalent mass with values below 50\% locally. It follows that Kleopatra's highly elongated shape does not favor compaction and it supports a higher macroprosity compared to more spherical or ellipsoidal bodies of an equivalent mass.
{ We also computed tangential surface accelerations $|a_\mathrm{t}|$, which indicate possible material motion (Fig.~\ref{fig:tangential}). It seems that a convergence is located on the left lobe, at (x, y, z) = ($-$120, 20, 20) km, or on the neck ($\pm$20, 0, 20) km. On the other hand,
a divergence is on the "hill" at (50, 15, $-$35) km. These locations are
common to both ADAM and MPCD models. We do not report on the locations with
possible shape artifacts. The maximum accelerations reach $\sim$1 cm/s$^2$.
Whether this is sufficient to sustain global motion is uncertain
because it depends on local topography, regolith structure, roughness,
friction, impacts, seismicity, etc. Alternatively, cratering impacts
can initiate ballistic transport, with complex near-surface dynamics,
determined by the proximity of the critical L$_{1}$ equipotential.}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{figs/snapshot00.png}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{figs/snapshot03.png}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{figs/Kleopatra_LP_ESO_MPCD_v1-pai-sbd2-ACN-f-sca.png}
\caption{
Local acceleration at the surface of Kleopatra normalized by that of a sphere of an equivalent radius and
spin period. View from the $Z+$ (left) axis and oblique view along the equator (right). We note the very low value at the edges and
higher values around the two lobes.
}
\label{fig:216_acceleration}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{1.0\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs2/216_tangent_rho3.3_adam_gravity6_at_ARROW1-eps-converted-to.pdf}\includegraphics{figs2/216_tangent_rho3.3_adam_gravity6_at_ARROW2-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\resizebox{1.0\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figs2/216_tangent_rho3.5_mpcd_gravity6_at_ARROW1-eps-converted-to.pdf}\includegraphics{figs2/216_tangent_rho3.5_mpcd_gravity6_at_ARROW2-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{{ Tangential surface accelerations $|a_\mathrm{t}|$ computed for ADAM (top) and MPCD (bottom) models. Views on the left are north pole-on ($+z$), while those on the right are south pole-on ($-z$).}
}
\label{fig:tangential}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{{\bf Critical equipotentials}}
The effective potential
$U_{\rm eff} = U_{\rm g} - \frac{1}{2}\omega(x^2+y^2)$
was computed using the same algorithm as in Appendix~\ref{sec:slopes}.
We plotted its equipotentials together with the four critical points
in Fig.~\ref{216_bf_xy_rho3.3_adam_gravity3__5.385}.
The major result is that the shape extends to a distance that is very close to the
critical L$_1$ equipotential. In fact, the \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} shape model
almost touches it at one point in the $(x,y)$ plane.
At the same time, they are separated by several (or more) kilometers
in the $(x,z)$ plane. An analogous analysis of the MPCD shape shows a very similar result
(see Figs.~\ref{216_bf_xy_rho3.5_mpcd_gravity3__5.385} and
\ref{216_bf_xz_rho3.5_mpcd_gravity3__5.385}).
A minor difference is that the shape touches the equipotential
at two different points along its $(x,y)$ and $(x,z)$
circumference. The closest distance is less than a kilometer.
Our work includes three major differences with respect to
\cite{Hirabayashi_Scheeres_2014ApJ...780..160H}.
(i)~We used the currently observed $P = 5.385\,{\rm h,}$
together with $\rho = 3\,380\,{\rm kg}\,{\rm m}^{-3}$.
Consequently, we did not need any mechanism for a spin-down
(e.g., from $2.8\,{\rm h}$)
to explain why the shape is critical.
(ii)~We did not use any scaling. Instead, the absolute volume is
constrained by the AO observations.
(iii)~Our L$_1$ point is on the right ($+x$) and not on the left, implying that the shape model presented here is different to the previous one used by \cite{Hirabayashi_Scheeres_2014ApJ...780..160H} .
This possibly affects near-surface dynamics and
surface locations from which material is more likely to escape.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{figs2/216_bf_xy_rho3.3_adam_gravity3__5.385-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{
Effective potential $U_{\rm eff}$ in the $(x,y)$ plane (gray lines),
critical equipotentials (blue lines),
and the \texttt{ADAM}\xspace{} shape model (orange).
The density is $\rho = 3.34\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$
and the rotation period $P = 5.385\,{\rm h}$.
Four critical points are denoted: L$_1$, L$_2$, L$_3$, and L$_4$.
The L$_1$ critical point is on the right.
The L$_1$ equipotential touches the surface of Kleopatra.
}
\label{216_bf_xy_rho3.3_adam_gravity3__5.385}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{figs2/216_bf_xy_rho3.5_mpcd_gravity3__5.385-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Effective potential $U_{\rm eff}$ in the $(x,y)$ plane (gray lines),
critical equipotentials (blue lines),
for the MPCD model (orange) and density $3.43\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$.
}
\label{216_bf_xy_rho3.5_mpcd_gravity3__5.385}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{figs2/216_bf_xz_rho3.5_mpcd_gravity3__5.385-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{
Effective potential $U_{\rm eff}$ in the $(x,z)$ plane (gray lines),
critical equipotentials (blue lines),
for the MPCD model (orange) and density $3.43\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$.
}
\label{216_bf_xz_rho3.5_mpcd_gravity3__5.385}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
Our density estimate of $(3.38 \pm 0.50)\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ for Kleopatra is surprising, considering its high radar albedo of 0.43 $\pm$ 0.10 \citep{Shepard2018} that implies a high surface bulk density and a large metal content. In comparison, the density of metal-rich asteroid (16) Psyche is $(4.2 \pm 0.6)\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ \citep{Ferrais2020}. One possible explanation for such a low density for Kleopatra is the presence of substantial porosity within the body. \citet{Wilson1999} showed that gravitationally reaccreted asteroids should have porosities of $\sim$20--40\%. It is of great interest that the highly elongated shape of Kleopatra actually supports a higher macroporosity than that expected for a spherical or ellipsoidal body. Accordingly, acknowledging a rubble-pile structure of Kleopatra from its specific angular momentum, this range of porosities implies a grain density in the 4.2--5.8 ${\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ range, suggestive of a mixture of NiFe metal-rich with the inclusion of silicates \citep{Marchis2003}. The presence of silicates is supported by the presence of a 0.9 micron band in Kleopatra's spectrum \citep{Hardersen2011}.
This rubble-pile structure along with its near equilibrium shape is compatible with a formation scenario including a giant impact \citep{Sugiura2018}, followed by reaccumulation during which Kleopatra behaved as a fluid as suggested by \citet{Descamps2010}. The dumbbell equilibrium shape also explains the very unusual long neck between the two lobes.
The small volume deficit {due to the depression
observed on lobe B (see Figures ~\ref{fig:compshapes} and ~\ref{fig:lobes}}) is coherent with a later smaller impact.
{ The critical rotation would be 5.250 h (compared to 5.385 h) if we require the $L_1$ equipotential to be in contact with the surface. Similarly, the critical density should be 3.2 ${\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$.
The whole surface actually does not follow the $L_1$ equipotential exactly, since even very small impacts could eject fragments beyond the equipotential surface. Moreover, the critical value of $P$ (as well as $\rho$) is sensitive to small variations in the topography.}
Finally, the low gravity at the edges and along the equator of the body, together with its rubble-pile structure and the equatorial orbits of the moons, opens the possibility that the latter formed via mass shedding.
The large offset between the L1 equipotential and the surface at the edges of the asteroid supports this interpretation.
\section{Summary \& conclusion}\label{sec:conclusions}
New AO observations of the triple system (216) Kleopatra with VLT/SPHERE allowed us to constrain the 3D shape and mass of the primary with high accuracy (see Bro\v{z} et al., companion paper for the mass estimate). Both mass and volume estimates of (216)~Kleopatra imply a low density of $(3.38 \pm 0.50)\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$. Such low density for a metallic asteroid suggests the presence of substantial porosity {within the metal-rich primary or a significant content of silicate in the composition of the asteroid.}
This rubble-pile structure along with its near equilibrium shape is compatible with a formation scenario including a giant impact followed by reaccumulation. (216)~Kleopatra’s rotation period and dumbbell shape imply that it is in a critically rotating state. The low gravity at the edges and along the equator of the body, together with its rubble-pile structure and the equatorial orbits of the moons, opens the possibility that the latter formed via mass shedding as suggested by \cite{Descamps2008}.
Future observations of (216)~Kleopatra with current AO systems such as SPHERE/ZIMPOL could reveal long-term perturbations in the moon orbits related to the shape of the primary. Similar observations of the primary, but at low phase angles (less than 5 deg), could also provide more accurate contours and thus help refine its shape.
We can speculate that high resolution images of Kleopatra's surface could help to truly understand the origin of the moons by revealing the presence of surface heterogeneities (e.g., albedo variegations), or anomalies such as concavities, that would help to link the moons directly to their parent body. Future observations with high angular resolution imaging data provided by the next generation of extremely large telescopes could help marginally by providing color and spectroscopic constraints on the moons and refining the shape model of the primary. A future space mission to (216)~Kleopatra and its two moons CleoSelene and AlexHelios would definitively shed light on the origin and current dynamics of this complex system. In situ measurements could, for instance, reveal the ejection of particles from Kleopatra similar to what was recently seen on the near-Earth asteroid (101955) Bennu \citep{Lauretta2019}.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This material is partially based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1743015. This work has been supported by the Czech Science Foundation through grant 20-08218S (J. Hanu\v s, J. \v Durech), 21-11058S (M. Bro\v z) and by the Charles University Research program No. UNCE/SCI/023. P.~Vernazza, A.~Drouard, M. Ferrais and B.~Carry were supported by CNRS/INSU/PNP. M.M. was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under grant No. 80NSSC18K0849 issued through the Planetary Astronomy Program. The work of TSR was carried out through grant APOSTD/2019/046 by Generalitat Valenciana (Spain). This work was supported by the MINECO (Spanish Ministry of Economy) through grant RTI2018-095076-B-C21 (MINECO/FEDER, UE). The research leading to these results has received funding from the ARC grant for Concerted Research Actions, financed by the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. TRAPPIST is a project funded by the Belgian Fonds (National) de la Recherche Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS) under grant FRFC 2.5.594.09.F. TRAPPIST-North is a project funded by the University of Liège, and performed in collaboration with Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakesh. E.~Jehin is a FNRS Senior Research Associate.\\
The data presented herein were obtained partially at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Maunakea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
In many fields of study---from biophysics~\cite{Zhang2018} and medicine to astrophysics~\cite{Molina2001, Starck2002} and atomic physics~\cite{Ketterle96}---images are a key source of data, making high quality imaging systems essential.
In all cases experimenters desire the maximum possible information from their images: imaging apertures limit the detected information; system inefficiencies discard information; and aberrations obfuscate what is finally detected.
In optics, sophisticated multi-element (and high cost) objectives are able to image objects with resolutions approaching fundamental limits~\cite{Zhang2019}.
In many cases, either because of technical incompatibilities, conflicting requirements or simply expense, these objectives cannot be employed.
In quantum gas experiments the object is an atomic sample encased in an ultra-high vacuum system that introduces aberrations and limits optical access.
Here we describe a versatile microscope for cold-atom imaging that fully uses the available optical access with low-cost optical elements in conjunction with a novel image reconstruction method, giving a combined hardware/software system that recovers near-diffraction limited performance.
Even ``quantum gas microscopes''~\cite{Bakr2009,Sherson2010}, the highest resolution imaging systems employed in cold-atom experiments, use algorithmic reconstruction techniques.
These systems employ custom designed, high numerical aperture (NA) objectives to detect individual atoms in optical lattices by detecting their incoherent fluorescence.
The distribution of atoms can be reconstructed using algorithms similar to the CLEAN algorithm~\cite{Hogbom1974} from radio astronomy that construct distributions of point sources that are most consistent with the data given the system's point spread function (PSF).
In the case of coherent imaging, the observed aberrated images of cold atoms are related to the desired aberration-free images by multiplication of a contrast transfer function (CTF) in the spectral (Fourier) domain.
Because the CTF can reduce or eliminate the signal at some wavevectors, information is lost and direct inversion is not possible.
This can be resolved with a pseudo-inverse that uses a Bayesian prior in the vicinity of wavevectors with large information loss~\cite{Idier08, Demoment89}, but the resulting reconstructions suffer from artifacts and added noise~\cite{Turner2005,Wigley2016a,Perry2021}.
Inspired by the application of constraints to the phase retrieval problem in optics~\cite{Fienup1982, Fienup1993}, we present a new and versatile method that reduces artifacts in reconstructed images, while increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
Spatially compact systems have a finite spectral width.
In the vicinity of the zeros in the CTF, our method effectively uses as a prior the weighted average of data from nearby wavevectors that are unresolvable given the system's assumed spectral width.
As such we have introduced a finite size constraint to the problem of refocusing and correcting aberrations in images of ultracold atoms.
In many cold-atom experiments further information is contained in density fluctuations often parameterized by the power spectral density (PSD).
Examples sources of correlations include thermal noise at finite-temperature, quantum fluctuations at zero temperature, or quantum projection noise from the measurement process.
Other noise sources parasitically contribute to the PSD in experiments, and in our case photon shot noise is the largest such contributor.
In perfect imaging systems, this can be minimized by first windowing the data to contain only the region with atoms; however, in defocused or highly aberrated systems the atom signal is dispersed over much of the sensor and windowing becomes impractical.
We show that our aberration correction method overcomes this: by correcting for aberrations we first recover near-perfect images that then can be windowed to minimize the contribution of photon shot noise.
Our data consists of images of ultracold atom ensembles of roughly $10^5$ atoms that both phase-shift and absorb an illuminating probe beam.
Together the absorption and phase shift encode the density of atoms integrated along the propagation direction of the probe beam giving a 2D image of atomic density that we denote as an abstract ``data'' vector ${\bf d}$.
We focus on linear imaging systems where, as we describe below, aberrations and losses can be encoded as a linear transform described by the operator ${\bf H}$, the CTF.
Here the actual measurement outcome ${\bf m}$ is related to the desired data via the linear transformation ${\bf m} = {\bf H}\ {\bf d}$.
For aberrated or lossy imaging systems, information is lost going from ${\bf d}$ to ${\bf m}$ making ${\bf H}$ non-invertable, or leading to noise amplification.
We therefore face an ill-posed inverse problem and instead seek the pseudo-inverse ${\bf H}^{(\rm PI)}$ that most faithfully recovers ${\bf d}\approx {\bf H}^{(\rm PI)} {\bf m}$.
For example, the expression
\begin{align}
{\bf H}^{(\rm PI)}(\alpha) &= \frac{1}{{\bf H}^\dagger {\bf H} + |\alpha|^2} {\bf H}^\dagger\label{eq:Tikhonov}
\end{align}
defines a Tikhonov pseudo-inverse~\cite{Tikhonov77}.
The eigenvalue expansion for ${\bf H}^\dagger {\bf H}$ indicates that $|\alpha|^2$ introduces a minimum eigenvalue into the denominator of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Tikhonov}, thereby avoiding singular behavior when any eigenvalue of ${\bf H}^\dagger {\bf H}$ becomes zero.
Wiener deconvolution in signal processing~\cite{Wiener1949, Orieux2010} is an example of a Tikhonov pseudo-inverse, where different values of $|\alpha|^2$ are associated with each eigenvalue of ${\bf H}^\dagger {\bf H}$.
Here, we derive a pseudo-inverse of the Tikhonov form by combining a noise model of the measurement process with a Bayesian prior for the density distribution, asserting that the distribution is confined in a compact region of space.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sec.~\ref{sec:TheoryBeerLambert} we present a basic description of light propagating through a dilute atomic cloud.
Next, in Sec.~\ref{sec:ImagingTechniques} we provide a unified description of imaging cold-atom clouds, and identify absorption and phase contrast imaging methods in suitable limits.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:Regularization}, we discuss our aberration correction algorithm and test it on simulated data.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:Microscope}, we describe our microscope for imaging $^{87}{\rm Rb}$ Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) and detail our implementation of phase contrast imaging.
Lastly, in Sec.~\ref{sec:ExpResults}, we apply our regularization method to experimental data and compare with existing techniques, and demonstrate the utility of our method by non-destructively imaging the thermal to BEC phase transition {\it in-situ}.
\section{Fundamentals of Light Wave-Matter Interactions}
\label{sec:TheoryBeerLambert}
The majority of ultracold atom measurements rely on images of light that has interacted with an atomic ensemble.
As such, in this section we summarize the theoretical description of laser light propagating along $\ez$ through a dilute atomic cloud: a nonpermeable dielectric medium.
We relate the absorption and phase shift of the incident laser to a fundamental quantity in ultracold atom experiments: the 2D column density $\rho_{\rm 2D}({\bf r}_\perp) = \int \rho(\mathbf{r}) dz$, where $\rho(\mathbf{r})$ is the 3D atomic density with spatial coordinates ${\bf r} = x\ex + y\ey + z\ez$ and transverse coordinates ${\bf r}_\perp = x\ex + y\ey$.
\subsection{The Paraxial Helmholtz Equation}
\label{Section:Paraxial}
We consider a monocromatic laser with wavelength $\lambda$, wavenumber $k_{0}$\,=\,$2\pi / \lambda$, and angular frequency $\omega_0 = c k_0$ propagating in a medium with
complex relative permittivity $\varepsilon(\mathbf{r})=\epsilon/\epsilon_0$. Here $c$ is the free-space speed of light; $\epsilon$ is the permittivity; and $\epsilon_0$ is the electric constant.
The optical electric field $\bm{\mathcal{E}}(\bf r)$ is described by the vectorial wave equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla^{2} \bm{\mathcal{E}}({\bf r}) + k_{0}^{2} \varepsilon(\mathbf{r}) \bm{\mathcal{E}}(\bf r) = - \nabla [\bm{\mathcal{E}}({\bf r}) \cdot \nabla \ln\varepsilon(\mathbf{r})].
\label{Eqn:HelmholtzGen}
\end{equation}
The right-hand side of Eq.~\eqref{Eqn:HelmholtzGen} can be omitted when $\varepsilon(\mathbf{r})$ is slowly varying.
Since we consider an incident laser beam traveling along $\ez$, we isolate the $z$ derivative to obtain the scalar wave equation
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{E}\mathbf{(r)}}{\partial z^2} = \left [\nabla^2_\perp + k_0^2 \right] \mathcal{E}\mathbf{(r)} +k_0^2 \chi({\bf r}) \mathcal{E}(\mathbf{r}),
\label{HelmholtzDirZ}
\end{eqnarray}
for each polarization.
Here $\nabla_{\bot}^{2}$\,=\,$\partial^{2}/\partial x^{2} + \partial^{2}/\partial y^{2}$ is the transverse Laplacian and $\chi({\bf r}) = \varepsilon(\mathbf{r})-1$ is the relative susceptibility.
Next, we assume that the variations of the field along ${\bf r}_\perp$ are on a scale large compared to $\lambda$ and express the field as $\mathcal{E}({\bf r}_\perp,z) = { E}({\bf r}_\perp, z)e^{ik_0z}$ emphasizing the propagation axis $\mathbf{e}_z$.
Inserting this expression into Eq.~\eqref{HelmholtzDirZ} and making the paraxial approximation by dropping the $\partial^2 E ({\bf r}_\perp, z)/\partial z^2$ term, we obtain the paraxial Helmholtz equation
\begin{equation}
-2 i k_0\frac{\partial {E}({\bf r}_\perp, z)}{\partial z} = [\nabla^2_\perp +k_0^2 \chi({\bf r})] { E}({\bf r}_\perp, z),
\label{eqn:ParaxHelmholtz}
\end{equation}
describing the paraxial wave field ${ E}({\bf r}_\perp, z)$.
In free space, with $\chi=0$, Eq.~\eqref{eqn:ParaxHelmholtz} is exactly solved by the differential operator
\begin{align}
{\bf K}(\Delta z) &= \exp\left(i\frac{\nabla_\perp^2}{2 k_0} \Delta z \right),
\label{eqn:ParSpectral}
\end{align}
that transforms a field at position $z$ to position $z+\Delta z$ according to $E({\bf r}_\perp, z + \Delta z) = {\bf K}(\Delta z) E({\bf r}_\perp, z)$ for any $\Delta z$.
In the spectral domain ${\bf K}(\Delta z)$ is diagonal, allowing free-space propagation to be implemented by simple scalar multiplication.
By contrast, no general solution exists when $\chi({\bf r})\neq0$. However, for $\Delta z$ small compared to the depth of field (DoF) $d_{\rm dof} = 2 k_0/k_{\rm max}^2$, the operator
\begin{align}
{\bf R}(\Delta z) &= \exp \left[ i \frac{k_0}{2} \int_z^{z+\Delta z} \chi({\bf r})\mathrm{d}z\right],
\label{eqn:ParCoordinate}
\end{align}
approximately transforms the field a distance $\Delta z$ via $E({\bf r}_\perp, z +\Delta z) \approx {\bf R}(\Delta z) E({\bf r}_\perp, z)$.
Where $k_{\rm max}$ (bounded above by $k_0$) is the largest transverse wavevector in the detected optical field.
$k_{\rm max}$ is first set by the object plane field and then further limited by the NA of the imaging system (see Sec.~\ref{sec:Microscope}).
In the thin object limit $\delta z \ll d_{\rm dof}$, where $\delta z$ is the total thickness of the object, Eq.~\eqref{eqn:ParCoordinate} gives the field $E({\bf r}_\perp, z +\delta z)$ just following the object without further consideration.
To describe the propagation of $E({\bf r}_\perp, z)$ through extended objects, Eq.~\eqref{eqn:ParaxHelmholtz} can be evaluated numerically, for example with split-step Fourier techniques~\cite{Korpel86}.
For this purpose, we divide the evolution into spectral and coordinate steps~\cite{Putra2014}.
The symmetrized expression
\begin{equation}
E\left({\bf r}_\perp, z +\Delta z\right)\approx\mathbf{K}\left(\Delta z/2\right)\mathbf{R}(\Delta z)\mathbf{K}\left(\Delta z/2\right)E\left({\bf r}_\perp, z\right)
\label{eqn:SSFM}
\end{equation}
is valid through second order in $\Delta z$, as can be readily derived from the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff identity.
The optical field following the object $E_+$ travels through an imaging system to the image plane, where its time-averaged intensity $I_+({\bf r}) = c\epsilon_0\left|E_+({\bf r})\right|^2/2$ (not field) is detected by a charge-coupled device (CCD). The time-average results from the fact that a typical $\sim 10\ {\mu s}$ imaging time is vast compared to the $2\pi/\omega_0$ optical period.
\subsection{Depth of field effects}
\label{Section:DOF_effects}
In this section, we consider extended objects for which the thin object limit is inapplicable.
A realistic object is present only in some compact domain from $z_-$ to $z_+$ along the axis of light propagation ${\bf e}_z$.
We divide the field into two components
\begin{equation}
{E_+({\bf r}_\perp, z)} \equiv E_0({\bf r}_\perp, z) + \delta E({\bf r}_\perp, z),
\label{eqn:FieldDivide}
\end{equation}
where $E_0({\bf r}_\perp, z)$ describes the field with no object [$I_0({\bf r}_\perp, z)$ is the associated intensity.] and therefore obeys the free space paraxial wave equation, and $\delta E({\bf r}_\perp, z)$ describes the light scattered by the object.
We focus on the normalized scattered field
\begin{equation}
f({\bf r}_\perp, z) = \frac{\delta E({\bf r}_\perp, z)}{E_0({\bf r}_\perp, z)},
\label{eqn:Fscatt_Ratio}
\end{equation}
subject to the boundary condition $\delta f({\bf r}_\perp, z) =0$ for $z<z_-$.
When the DoF of $E_0({\bf r}_\perp, z)$ greatly exceeds the $\delta z= z_+-z_-$extent of the object~\footnote{Although an arbitrary field can have $k_{\rm max}$ up to $k_0$, a typical Gaussian probe beam has a large beam waist, giving small a $k_{\rm max}$ with a large DoF.}, $f({\bf r}_\perp, z)$ obeys
\begin{align*}
i \frac{\partial f({\bf r}_\perp, z)}{\partial z} + \frac{1}{2 k_0}[\nabla^2_\perp + k_0^2 \chi({\bf r}_\perp, z)] f({\bf r}_\perp, z) &= - \frac{k_0}{2} \chi({\bf r}_\perp, z),
\end{align*}
a paraxial wave equation as in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:ParaxHelmholtz} with a source term.
In the limit of small $\chi({\bf r}_\perp, z)$ and $f({\bf r}_\perp, z)$, we obtain the first order approximate expression
\begin{align}
i \frac{\partial f({\bf k}_\perp, z)}{\partial z} - \frac{1}{2 k_0} {k^2_\perp} f({\bf k}_\perp, z) &= - \frac{k_0}{2} \chi({\bf k}_\perp, z)
\label{eqn:dEratio_Fourier}
\end{align}
in the spectral domain~\footnote{We implicitly indicate Fourier transforms by a wavevector such as ${\bf k}_\perp$ as an argument.}.
This expression is exactly solved by
\begin{equation}
f({\bf k}_\perp, z_+) = \frac{i k_0}{2} \int_{z_-}^{z_+} \chi({\bf k}_\perp, z) \exp\left[-i\frac{k_\perp^2}{2 k_0} (z_+ - z) \right] \mathrm{d}z.
\label{eqn:f_ExactSol}
\end{equation}
In the following, we consider an imaging system focused at $z=0$ and ask ``What infinitely thin object located at $z=0$ yields the same scattered field as an extended object does?"
This is answered by first finding $f({\bf k}_\perp, z_+)$ ($z>z_+$ it obeys the free space paraxial equation), then back-propagating $f({\bf k}_\perp, z_+)$ to $z=0$, finally giving
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm{eff}}({\bf k}_\perp) = \frac{i k_0}{2} \int_{z_-}^{z_+} \chi({\bf k}_\perp, z) \exp\left(+i\frac{k_\perp^2}{2 k_0} z \right) \mathrm{d}z .
\label{eqn:f_eff_integral}
\end{equation}
Extending the bounds of integration to $\pm \infty$ converts the $z$ integral to a 1D Fourier transform with a wavevector $-{k}^2_\perp/2k_0$, leading to the final expression
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm{eff}}({\bf k}_\perp) = \frac{i k_0}{2} \tilde \chi\left({\bf k}_\perp, \frac{k_\perp^2}{2 k_0}\right) \equiv \frac{i k_0}{2} \chi_{\rm{eff}}({\bf k}_\perp).
\label{eqn:f_eff}
\end{equation}
The tilde in $\tilde \chi({\bf k}_\perp, k_{\perp}^2/2 k_0)$ emphasizes that the $z$ index is Fourier transformed as well.
Here we interpret the field $f_{\rm{eff}}$ as resulting from an effective 2D susceptibility $\chi_{\rm{eff}}({\bf k}_\perp)$.
In many cases of physical interest the 3D susceptibility can be expressed in the separable form $\chi({\bf r}) = Z(z)\times\chi_{\rm 2D}({\bf r}_\perp)$, where $Z(z)$ is a normalized real valued transverse mode function.
In this case $\chi_{\rm eff}({\bf k}_\perp) = h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp)\chi_{\rm 2D}({\bf k}_\perp)$ where, anticipating the notation that will be used in Sect.~\ref{Section:Aberrations}, we define the DoF contrast transfer function $h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp) \equiv \tilde Z(k_z)$ in terms of the Fourier transformed mode function, with $\tilde Z(0) = 1$ implied by $Z$'s normalization.
Throughout this paper we will take $Z(z)$ to be symmetric, implying $h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp) = h_{\rm dof}(-{\bf k}_\perp)$ is real valued.
For the special case of a Gaussian mode function with $1/e$ width $w_z$, the DoF transfer function is
\begin{align}
h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp) &=
\exp \left[ - \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{w_z}{d_{\rm dof}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{k_{\perp}}{k_{\rm{max}}}\right)^4\right].
\label{eqn:f_eff_2}
\end{align}
As a consequence the amplitude is suppressed for increasing $k_\perp$, but the phase is unaltered.
At $k_{\rm{max}}$ the suppression is $\exp \left[\left(-{w_z}/{2d_{\rm dof}}\right)^2\right]$, implying that there is negligible loss of information for objects appreciably thinner than the DoF, i.e., $w_z\ll d_{\rm dof}$.
\subsection{Atomic Susceptibility}
\label{Section:Susceptibility}
For an ensemble of two-level atomic systems, the atom-light interaction is captured by the electric susceptibility
\begin{equation}
\chi({\bf r}) = \frac{\sigma_{0}}{k_0}\left[\frac{i-2 \bar\delta}{1+ \bar I({\bf r}) + 4 {\bar\delta}^2}\right] \rho(\mathbf{r}),
\label{eqn:ASuscept}
\end{equation}
where $\bar\delta = \delta / \Gamma$
is the normalized detuning from atomic resonance in terms of the detuning $\delta = \omega_0 - \omega_{\rm ge}$ and the natural atomic linewidth $\Gamma$; $\hbar\omega_{\rm ge}$ is the atomic transition energy; $\bar I({\bf r}) = I({\bf r})/I_{{\rm sat}}$ is the optical intensity in units of the saturation intensity $I_{{\rm sat}}$; and $\sigma_{0} = 6\pi/k_0^2$ is the resonant scattering cross-section.
The atomic susceptibility $\chi({\bf r})$ is a complex quantity in which the real and imaginary parts result from distinct physical processes.
The real part derives from stimulated emission (i.e., forward scattering) resulting in a dispersive atomic medium with a density dependent index of refraction.
The imaginary part derives from spontaneous emission (i.e., nominally isotropic scattering) resulting in a density dependent absorption coefficient.
As a result, the optical field will be phase shifted and attenuated as it travels through the atomic cloud.
We correspondingly express the field just after interacting with the atomic medium
\begin{equation}
E_+({\bf r}_\perp, z +\delta z) = e^{-\alpha({\bf r}_\perp) + i\phi({\bf r}_\perp)} E_0({\bf r}_\perp, z)
\label{eqn:Field_RealImgnry}
\end{equation}
in terms of an absorption coefficient
\begin{align}
\alpha({\bf r}_\perp) &= \frac{\sigma_0 \rho_{2\rm D}({\bf r}_\perp)}{2} \frac{1}{1+\bar I({\bf r}_\perp) + 4 \bar \delta^2}
\label{eqn:Abs}
\end{align}
and a phase shift
\begin{align}
\phi({\bf r}_\perp) &= -2 \bar\delta \alpha({\bf r}_\perp).
\label{eqn:Phase}
\end{align}
These are both proportional to the optical depth
\begin{align}
{\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp) &\equiv -\ln\left[
\frac{I_+({\bf r}_\perp)}{I_0({\bf r}_\perp)}\right]
\label{eqn:OD_Intensity}
\end{align}
via the relations
\begin{align}
\alpha({\bf r}_\perp) &= \frac{{\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp)}{2} & {\rm and} && \phi({\bf r}_\perp) &=-\bar \delta {\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp).
\label{eq:ABS_Phase_OD}
\end{align}
The 2D column density is related to the optical depth in terms of both the detuning and intensity
\begin{equation}
\sigma_0 \rho_{\rm 2D}({\bf r}_\perp) = \left[1 + 4\bar\delta^2 \right]{\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp) + \bar I_0({\bf r}_\perp)\left[1 - e^{-{\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp)}\right].
\label{eqn:OD_2Dcolumn}
\end{equation}
This expression shows that irrespective of how it was obtained, the optical depth serves to define the column density.
In the limit of small optical depth, Eq.~\eqref{eqn:OD_2Dcolumn} reduces to
\begin{equation}
\sigma_0 \rho_{\rm 2D}({\bf r}_\perp) \approx \left[1 + \bar I_0({\bf r}_\perp) + 4\bar\delta^2 \right] {\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp);
\label{eqn:Small_OD}
\end{equation}
this could result from any combination of low density, large detuning or high intensity.
For a spatially thin medium ($\delta z\ll d_{\rm dof}$) and imaging with low intensity laser light ($I_0 \ll I_{\rm sat}$) on resonance ($\bar\delta=0$), the optical depth following Eq.~\eqref{eqn:OD_2Dcolumn} is ${\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp) = \sigma_0 \rho_{\rm 2D}({\bf r}_\perp)$.
\section{Imaging Techniques with Cold Atoms}
\label{sec:ImagingTechniques}
In this section, we describe two well-established imaging methods that are frequently employed in cold-atom experiments: phase contrast imaging (PCI) and absorption imaging (AI).
We begin with the analysis of the general imaging scheme illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Schematic_PCI}, which includes a small phase shifter (phase dot) that is absent (i.e. gives $0$ phase shift) for AI.
The object attenuates and diffracts the incident light, as described by Eq.~\eqref{eqn:Field_RealImgnry}, which can be re-expressed in terms of unscattered and scattered components.
Using Eq.~\eqref{eqn:FieldDivide} this gives the object plane field
\begin{align}
{E_+({\bf r}_\perp, z)} & \equiv E_0({\bf r}_\perp, z) + E_0({\bf r}_\perp, z)\left[e^{i \phi({\bf r}_\perp) - \alpha({\bf r}_\perp)}-1 \right].
\label{eqn:Field_Sc_USc}
\end{align}
A phase dot shifts the optical phase of the unscattered light by $\theta$, giving
the image plane field $E^\prime_0({\bf r}_\perp, z) = E_0({\bf r}_\perp, z) \exp(i\theta)$, while leaving the scattered component unchanged.
The resulting expression for the normalized image plane field after interacting with the atoms and the phase dot is
\begin{equation}
\frac{E^\prime_+({\bf r}_\perp, z)}{E^\prime_0({\bf r}_\perp, z)} = 1 + e^{-i\theta}\left[e^{i \phi({\bf r}_\perp) - \alpha({\bf r}_\perp)}-1 \right].
\label{eqn:Field_PhDot_OD}
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq:ABS_Phase_OD} leads to the relation
\begin{equation}
\frac{E^\prime_+({\bf r}_\perp, z)}{E^\prime_0({\bf r}_\perp, z)} = 1 + e^{-i\theta} \left\{ \exp\left[-\left(\frac{1}{2}+ i\bar\delta\right){\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp)\right]-1\right\}
\label{eqn:NormField_PhDot_OD}
\end{equation}
between the normalized field and the optical depth.
Experimentally we detect the intensities $I^\prime_0({\bf r}_\perp)$ and $I^\prime_+({\bf r}_\perp)$, the image plane intensities associated with the object plane intensities $I_0({\bf r}_\perp)$ and $I_+({\bf r}_\perp)$.
Equation~\eqref{eqn:NormField_PhDot_OD} leads to the normalized signal
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
g^{\prime}_{\theta}({\bf r}_\perp) &= 2 \cos(\theta) - e^{-{\rm OD({\bf r}_\perp)}} - 1 + 2e^{-{\rm OD({\bf r}_\perp)}/2} \\
& \times \left[\cos(\bar\delta {\rm OD({\bf r}_\perp)}) -\cos(\theta + \bar\delta {\rm OD({\bf r}_\perp)}) \right],
\end{split}
\label{eqn:g_General}
\end{equation}
where $g^{\prime}_{\theta}({\bf r}_\perp) \equiv 1 - {I_+^{\prime}({\bf r}_\perp)} / {I^\prime_0({\bf r}_\perp)}$.
This noninvertible expression is applicable to both AI and PCI.
In the following sections we derive the optical depth from this transcendental equation in limits appropriate for AI and PCI, and thereby leading to the column density through Eq.~\eqref{eqn:OD_2Dcolumn}.
\subsection{Phase Contrast Imaging}
\label{Section:PCI}
In 1932, Frits Zernike invented PCI as a phase sensitive imaging method utilizing the nonuniform refractive index of an object to reveal features that are invisible in other imaging techniques~\cite{ZERNIKE1942686, ZERNIKE1942974}.
Today, PCI has found application in various fields as a noninvasive {\it in-situ} imaging method~\cite{Oettle48, Fassett_PCI}.
In this section, we first introduce the basic principle of PCI and then derive the theoretical toolbox enabling a quantitative treatment of PCI in ultracold atom systems.
\subsubsection{Principle of phase contrast imaging}
\label{SubSec:PCIgen}
PCI is an interferometric technique sensitive to the phase shift of light having propagated through an object.
The extensive application of the technique stems from the elegant simplicity of the required instrumentation.
By imprinting a position dependent phase shift $\phi({\bf r})$ on to the incident field, the object diffracts part of that light (see Fig.~\ref{Schematic_PCI}).
PCI can be understood as an interferometer in which the unscattered component is the reference beam (the local oscillator) and the scattered component carries information about the object.
These two components share the same optical path making PCI robust against vibrations in the imaging system.
Both components are collected by an imaging lens that is positioned at its focal distance $f_1$ from the object.
The unscattered light comes to an intermediate focus at the back Fourier plane of the lens, spatially separating the scattered and the unscattered components.
A small dielectric dot (phase dot) just larger than the focused unscattered beam is positioned at the Fourier plane as shown in Fig.~\ref{Schematic_PCI}.
The phase dot shifts the phase of the unscattered light by $\theta$ but leaves the scattered component unchanged~\cite{Ketterle99}.
A second imaging lens with focal length $f_2$ forms an image plane where scattered and the unscattered components of the wave field interfere.
At the image plane intensity is detected, with an overall magnification $M = f_2/f_1$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.3in]{Fig1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption[Illustration of phase contrast imaging setup]{
Schematic illustrating the principle of phase contrast imaging.
A refractive object scatters light from an incident probe laser into
two components: unscattered (solid) and scattered (dashed).
An objective lens placed a focal distance $f_1$ from the object spatially separates the two components at the back Fourier plane a distance $f_1$ from the lens.
The phase dot is positioned at the Fourier plane and predominately phase shifts the unscattered light passing through it.
After the second lens with focal length $f_2$ the two components interfere in the image plane and a CCD records the resulting intensity.}
\label{Schematic_PCI}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Phase Contrast Imaging with Ultracold Atoms} \label{SubSec:PCI_Atoms}
The PCI intensity encodes information about the object-plane phase from which we extract the optical depth of the atomic cloud.
In the limit of large laser detuning, where PCI is typically applied, we neglect absorption because $\alpha \ll \phi$.
In this limit, Eq.~\eqref{eqn:g_General} for the normalized intensity reduces to
\begin{equation}
g^{\prime}_{\theta}({\bf r}_\perp) = 2\left\{ \cos\theta + \cos\phi({\bf r}_\perp) - \cos \left[\theta + \phi({\bf r}_\perp)\right]- 1 \right\}.
\label{eqn:PCI_Int}
\end{equation}
In the limit of small phase shift (i.e., $\phi\ll 1$) the normalized PCI intensity
\begin{equation}
g^{\prime}_{\theta}({\bf r}_\perp) \approx 2 \phi({\bf r}_\perp) \sin\theta \xrightarrow{\theta=\pi/2} 2\phi({\bf r}_\perp)
\label{eqn:PCI_Piover2}
\end{equation}
is linearly proportional to the phase shift imparted by the object and maximized for $\theta=\pi/2$.
PCI yields an increased sensitivity for weak phase objects compared to other dispersive imaging methods~\cite{Ketterle99}. Lastly, we obtain the optical depth
\begin{equation}
{\rm OD}_{\rm PCI}({\bf r}_\perp,\bar \delta \gg 1) = \frac{1}{2\bar \delta}g^{\prime}_{\theta=\pi/2}({\bf r}_\perp)
\label{eqn:OD_PCI_piOver2}
\end{equation}
using Eq.~\eqref{eq:ABS_Phase_OD}.
The minimally destructive nature of PCI measurement becomes evident for large detunings.
In the limit $\delta \gg \Gamma$ while the phase shift imparted by the atomic system is $\propto 1/\delta$, the spontaneous emission rate is $\propto 1/\delta^2$.
As a result, atom loss due to radiation pressure becomes negligible.
Hence, in ultracold atom experiments PCI is typically employed to non-destructively image high column density atomic clouds {\it in-situ} and at large detuning~\cite{Ketterle96, Ketterle97, Anderson2001}.
\subsection{Absorption Imaging}
\label{Section:Absorption Imaging}
AI of ultracold atoms usually employs resonant or near-resonant laser light, i.e., $|\delta|\lesssim\Gamma$, where the spontaneous scattering of photons creates a shadow in the outcoming light wave.
We measure this shadow and infer the column density of the object from the resultant images.
The imaging system in Fig.~\ref{Schematic_PCI}, introduced in the context of PCI, is applicable to AI provided the phase dot is removed.
Accordingly we apply the formalism in Equ.~\eqref{eqn:g_General}, with $\theta =0$.
The on resonance ($\bar \delta = 0$) optical depth in terms of the detected normalized intensity in the image plane is
\begin{equation}
{\rm OD}_{\rm AI}({\bf r}_\perp) = -\ln\left[1-g^{\prime}_{\theta=0}({\bf r}_\perp)\right].
\label{eqn:OD_AI}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Partial transfer absorption imaging}
\label{Section:PTAI}
The high-optical density of most BECs prevents the direct observation of their density {\it in-situ} using standard AI.
Dense clouds absorb the vast majority of the incident probe laser, leading to ODs greatly in excess of 1.
This compromises the SNR, and in practice the OD saturates around 4.
Although detuning the probe beam reduces the atomic cross-section, the cloud behaves like a gradient index lens leading to imaging distortions~\cite{Ketterle96, Reinaudi2007}.
Dispersive imaging techniques such as PCI~\cite{Ketterle99}, dark-field imaging~\cite{Ketterle96} and Faraday imaging~\cite{Gajdacz2013} can operate at large detuning $\delta \gg \Gamma$, where phase shifts are small and lensing effects are thereby reduced.
Partial transfer absorption imaging (PTAI) is an alternate approach for imaging high density atomic ensembles.
In PTAI, an RF or microwave pulse transfers a fraction of the atoms from a dark state to a bright detection state where they are absorption imaged~\cite{Freilich1182, Campbell2012}.
In this way, PTAI mitigates large OD effects and can yield minimally destructive repeated images of the same atomic system~\cite{Seroka2019}.
In our specific experiment PTAI has additional quantum projection noise effects.
For deeply degenerate interacting BECs, number fluctuations are greatly suppressed~\cite{Schley2013}; the RF/microwave transfer process in PTAI then leads to enhanced atom shot noise similar to how a beam splitter introduces vacuum port noise in quantum optics.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:ExpPupilFunc} we utilize this fact when measuring the pupil function of our microscope.
\subsection{Aberrations}
\label{Section:Aberrations}
Here we model aberrations as a Fourier pupil function that both phase-shifts and attenuates the optical field as a function of wavevector.
Importantly, this model can only treat aberrations where the PSF---the magnitude squared of the impulse response function---is the same everywhere in the observed field of view.
Motivated by our introduction of regularization, we introduce the forward transfer function
\begin{align}
h_E({\bf k}_\perp) &= e^{-\gamma(\mathbf{k}_\perp) + i\beta(\mathbf{k}_\perp)} \label{eq:transfer},
\end{align}
describing the navigation of fields through our imaging system (neglecting the PCI phase dot) via $E^\prime_{+/0}({\bf k}_\perp) = h_E({\bf k}_\perp) E_{+/0}({\bf k}_\perp)$.
Here $\gamma({\bf k}_\perp)$ describes attenuation and $\beta({\bf k}_\perp)$ describes phase shifts.
Even ideal imaging systems will have contributions from these terms.
For example, defocus will contribute a quadratic $\beta\propto k_\perp^2$ term, and the NA limits the maximum accepted wavevector to $k_{\rm NA} = {\rm NA} \times k_0 $, implying $\gamma(\mathbf{k}_\perp)\rightarrow\infty$ for $|\mathbf{k}_\perp| > k_{\rm NA}$.
In our discussion of PCI, we assumed that the field $E_0({\bf r}_\perp)$ with the atomic ensemble absent is slowly varying and therefore contains Fourier components only near $\mathbf{k}_\perp=0$. Thus following the imaging system it is transformed to $E^\prime_0({\bf r}_\perp) = h_E(0) E_0({\bf r}_\perp)$.
Including the impact of the phase dot as well as DoF effects introduced in Sect.~\ref{Section:DOF_effects}, we arrive at the image-plane field ratio
\begin{align}
f^\prime({\bf k}_\perp) &= h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp)\frac{h_E({\bf k}_\perp)}{h_E(0)} e^{-i\theta} \delta E({\bf k}_\perp).\label{eq:PCItransfer}
\end{align}
Linearizing Eq.~\eqref{eqn:Field_Sc_USc} connects the image-plane field ratio to the optical depth via
\begin{align}
f^\prime({\bf k}_\perp) &= h_{\rm tot}({\bf k}_\perp) {\rm OD}({\bf k}_\perp),\label{eq:field_transfer}
\end{align}
in terms of the total transfer function
\begin{align}
h_{\rm tot}({\bf k}_\perp) &= \sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+\bar\delta^2} h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp) \frac{h_E({\bf k}_\perp)}{h_E(0)} e^{i(\varphi-\theta)}
\label{eq:augtransfer}.
\end{align}
Here $\varphi$, defined via $\tan\varphi = 2\bar\delta$, describes the complex angle associated with the atomic susceptibility.
We see that the $\mathbf{k}_\perp=0$ contributions to the pupil function have no impact, implying that any inferred dc component to the pupil function only results from detuning and the PCI phase shift as parameterized by $\varphi-\theta$.
Expressing this ratio as an intensity in coordinate space and converting back to the spectral domain gives
\begin{align}
g^\prime({\bf k}_\perp) &=\overbrace{ \left[h_{\rm tot}({\bf k}_\perp) + h_{\rm tot}^*(-{\bf k}_\perp)\right]}^{h({\bf k}_\perp)} {\rm OD}(\mathbf{k}_\perp) \label{Eq:GeneralContrastTransfer},
\end{align}
where the quantity in square brackets is the contrast transfer function that encodes the optical depth as a change in fractional intensity.
This expression takes on a more conventional form when $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are expressed in terms of their symmetric and anti-symmetric contributions, i.e., $\gamma_\pm({\bf k}_\perp) = [\gamma({\bf k}_\perp) \pm \gamma(-{\bf k}_\perp)]/2$, and making the reasonable assumption of symmetric attenuation ($\gamma_- = 0$).
Then we obtain
\begin{align}
h({\bf k}_\perp) =& \sqrt{1+4\bar\delta^2} h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp) e^{-\gamma_+({\bf k}_\perp) + i \beta_-({\bf k}_\perp)} \nonumber\\
&\times \cos[\beta_+({\bf k}_\perp) + \varphi-\theta] \label{Eq:SimplifiedContrastTransfer}.
\end{align}
For absorption imaging ($\theta=0$) of thin objects [$h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp) = 1$] with no loses ($\gamma=0$) and a quadratic phase shift $\beta=z k_\perp^2 / 2 k_{0}$, we arrive at the well-known result $h({\bf k}_\perp) = \cos(z k_\perp^2 / 2 k_{0}) + 2\bar\delta \sin(z k_\perp^2 / 2 k_{0})$, which results from defocus by a distance $z$ [see Eq.~\eqref{eqn:ParSpectral}]~\cite{Turner2005,Perry2021}. Furthermore, our result shows that up to an overall sign far detuned PCI with $|\varphi|=|\theta|=\pi/2$ obeys the same CTF as resonant AI.
These pupil functions can be calibrated using the fluctuations $\delta {\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp) \equiv {\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp) - \langle {\rm OD}({\bf r}_\perp) \rangle$, where $\langle\cdots\rangle$ denotes the average over an ensemble of images of cold atoms~\cite{Hung_2011}.
Assuming spatially uncorrelated density correlations, i.e., $\langle \delta {\rm OD}({\bf r}) \delta {\rm OD}({\bf r}^\prime) \rangle \propto \delta^{(3)}({\bf r}-{\bf r}^\prime)$, where $\delta^{(3)}({\bf r}_\perp)$ denotes the 3D Dirac delta function, the power spectral density is
\begin{align}
\langle |\delta {\rm OD}({\bf k}_\perp) |^2 \rangle \propto &\ e^{-2\gamma_+({\bf k}_\perp)}\bigg\{\cosh[2\gamma_-({\bf k}_\perp)]\label{Eq:Pupil_PSD}\\
&+ h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp)\cos[2\beta_+({\bf k}_\perp) + 2(\varphi-\theta)]\bigg\}\nonumber.
\end{align}
This signal is sensitive to all components of the pupil function except $\beta_-$.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:ExpPupilFunc}, we use this signal obtained at a range of image planes to extract low noise maps of the pupil function.
\subsection{Signal-to-noise ratio}
\label{sec:SNR}
In this section we compare the SNR of PCI and AI.
In our measurements, we detect probe pulses of duration $\Delta t$ on a CCD sensor of square pixel size $\Delta x$ and quantum efficiency $\eta$.
The intensity at pixel coordinates $\bf i$ is $I_{\bf i} = N_{\bf i} I_{\rm pe}$, where $N_{\bf i}$ is the number of photo-electrons and $I_{\rm pe} = {\hbar\omega_0}/{\eta A \Delta t}$ is the intensity required to generate a single photo-electron given the single-photon energy $\hbar\omega_0 = c \hbar k_0$.
In a single experimental shot, our measurement techniques employ three images that yield (1) $I_{+,{\bf i}}$ of the probe in the presence of atoms, (2) $I_{0,\bf i}$ of the probe field without the atoms, (3) $I_{D, {\bf i}}$ with no probe light.
For the remainder of the manuscript, we will omit the prime notation that distinguishes the image plane from the object plane.
We subtract $I_{D,{\bf i}}$ from $I_{+,{\bf i}}$ and $I_{0,{\bf i}}$ to eliminate any baseline from background illumination.
In bright field detection techniques, photon shot noise is the dominant source of noise, thereby we neglect other sources of technical noise such as dark current and read noise.
Photon counting can be modeled as a classical Poisson process where individual photon detections are treated as independent events with an uncorrelated temporal distribution.
Photon shot noise (more specifically the shot noise of the detected photo-electrons) explains the width of this distribution, which has its variance equal to its mean.
We model each detected image $I_{\bf i} = \langle I_{\bf i}\rangle+\delta I_{\bf i}$ as the sum of its mean $\langle I_{\bf i}\rangle$ and measurement noise $\delta I_{\bf i}$ (we will only consider zero mean random variables, i.e., $\langle\delta I_{\bf i}\rangle = 0$).
Then the spatially uncorrelated photon shot noise is described by
\begin{equation}
\langle\delta I_{\bf i}\delta I_{\bf i^\prime} \rangle = \delta_{{\bf i},{{\bf i}^\prime}} I_{\rm pe} \langle I_{\bf i} \rangle,
\label{Eq:PSNoise}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^\prime}$ is the Kronecker $\delta$ function.
Next we consider the noise in the fractional intensity $g_\theta$.
In practice, we construct the background image $I_{0,{\bf i}}$ by averaging many images of the probe beam with no atoms present, and as a result it contributes negligible photon shot noise.
With this assumption and following Eq.~\eqref{Eq:PSNoise}, the noise in the fractional intensity is
\begin{equation}
\langle\delta g_{\bf i} \delta g_{\bf i^\prime}\rangle = \delta_{{\bf i},{\bf i^\prime}} \frac{I_{\rm pe}}{I_{0,\bf i}}\left[1-\langle g_{\bf i}\rangle\right].
\label{eq:gNoise}
\end{equation}
Assuming that both the phase shift and OD are small, the noise variance of the OD deduced from PCI using Eq.~\eqref{eqn:OD_PCI_piOver2} is
\begin{equation}
\langle\delta {\rm OD}_{\bf i} \delta {\rm OD}_{\bf i^\prime} \rangle_{\rm PCI} = \delta_{{\bf i},{\bf i^\prime}} \frac{1}{4\bar\delta^2}\langle\delta g_{\bf i}^2\rangle.
\label{PCI_Noise}
\end{equation}
For AI using Eq.~\eqref{eqn:OD_AI} noise variance is
\begin{equation}
\langle\delta {\rm OD}_{\bf i} \delta {\rm OD}_{\bf i^\prime} \rangle_{\rm AI} = \delta_{{\bf i},{\bf i^\prime}} \frac{\langle\delta g_{\bf i}^2\rangle}{[1-\langle g_{\bf i}\rangle]^2}.
\label{AI_Noise}
\end{equation}
Together these expressions show that near resonance the SNR of AI exceeds that of PCI, while far from resonance PCI has the larger SNR~\cite{Perry2021}.
In addition, the noise variance for AI diverges at large optical depth (where $\langle g_{\bf i}\rangle\rightarrow 1$) because the fractional photon shot noise increases with increasing absorption; this emphasizes the importance of PCI or PTAI for large OD systems.
Comparing the expressions for PCI and AI, we see that for fixed $I_{0,\bf i}$ (fixed back-action on atoms) the noise variance in PCI is lower by a factor of $\bar\delta$ compared to that of AI for large detuning and small absorption, i.e., low optical depth.
This implies that AI cannot be a back-action limited measurement in this limit.
\section{Regularization}
\label{sec:Regularization}
We consider the general inversion problem where the linear operator ${\bf H}$ describes a forward transformation to the measurement basis described by vectors ${\bf m}$, according to ${\bf m} = {\bf H}\ {\bf d}$, where we read ${\bf m}$ as the measurement outcome and ${\bf d}$ as the desired data.
Our approach follows a Bayesian line of reasoning, where we include a pair of priors and seek the most likely vector ${\bf d}$ given these priors.
\subsection{Bayesian framework}
\label{sec:BayesFramework}
Before moving forward, we introduce a Gaussian prior distribution function
\begin{align}
P_d({\bf d} ; {\bf p}, {\boldsymbol \Delta}) &\propto \exp\left[- \frac{({\bf d} - {\bf p})^\dagger {\boldsymbol \Xi}^{-1} ({\bf d} - {\bf p})}{2} \right],
\label{eq:prior}
\end{align}
giving the probability of finding the data vector ${\bf d}$ conditioned on knowing a prior ${\bf p}$ with confidence expressed by the covariance matrix ${\boldsymbol \Xi}$.
The diagonal entries of the covariance matrix $\Xi_{jj} = \xi_{j}^2$ derive from the conventional single-sigma uncertainties $\xi_j$.
An analogous distribution $P_m({\bf m}_0 ; {\bf m}, {\boldsymbol \Sigma})$ applies for measurements, giving the probability that the ``true'' measurement outcome was ${\bf m}_0$ conditioned on having observed ${\bf m}$ and knowing the covariance matrix ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}$, with diagonal entries $\sigma^2_i$.
By combining these expressions we obtain
\begin{align}
P({\bf d}) &\propto P_d({\bf d} ; {\bf p}, {\boldsymbol \Xi}) \times P_m({\bf H}\ {\bf d} ; {\bf m}, {\boldsymbol \Sigma}),
\end{align}
the probability of finding the data vector ${\bf d}$, with forward transform ${\bf H}\ {\bf d}$, conditioned on both ${\bf p}$ and ${\bf m}$.
Here we select the most likely ${\bf d}$ as our pseudo-inverse, i.e., we employ maximum likelihood estimation.
By taking $-2\ln P({\bf d})$ we recast the inversion problem as a minimization problem with the quadratic objective function
\begin{align}
E =& \alpha^2 ({\bf d} - {\bf p})^\dagger \bar{\boldsymbol \Xi}^{-1} ({\bf d} - {\bf p}) \label{eq:objective}\\
&+ ({\bf H}\ {\bf d} - {\bf m})^\dagger \bar{\boldsymbol \Sigma}^{-1} ({\bf H}\ {\bf d} - {\bf m}).\nonumber
\end{align}
Here we introduced normalized covariance matrices $\bar{\boldsymbol \Xi} = {\boldsymbol \Xi} / \xi^2_{\rm max}$ and $\bar{\boldsymbol \Sigma} = {\boldsymbol \Sigma}/\sigma^2_{\rm min}$, where $\xi^2_{\rm max}$ is the largest eigenvalue of ${\boldsymbol \Xi}$; $\sigma^2_{\rm min}$ is smallest eigenvalue of ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}$; and $\alpha^2 = \sigma^2_{\rm min} / \xi^2_{\rm max}$ will function as a regularization parameter.
The first term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:objective} describes the uncertainty-weighted difference between the prior ${\bf p}$ and the reconstruction ${\bf d}$, and the second term measures the uncertainty-weighted difference between the measurements ${\bf m}$ and the prediction of the reconstruction ${\bf H}\ {\bf d}$.
The objective function can be simplified by making use of the Cholesky decomposition, where the symmetric covariance matrices are expressed as $\bar {\boldsymbol\Sigma} = {\bf C}_\Sigma {\bf C}_\Sigma^\dagger$ and $\bar {\boldsymbol\Xi} = {\bf C}_\Xi {\bf C}_\Xi^\dagger$.
This leads to the simplified objective function
\begin{align}
E &= |{\bf J}{\bf d}^\prime - {\bf m}^\prime|^2 + \alpha^2 |{\bf d}^\prime-{\bf p}^\prime|^2 \label{eq:objective_simple}
\end{align}
in terms of a new operator ${\bf J} = {\bf C}_\Sigma^{-1} {\bf H} {\bf C}_\Xi$, and new vectors ${\bf m}^\prime = {\bf C}_\Sigma^{-1} {\bf m}$, ${\bf d}^\prime={\bf C}_\Xi^{-1}{\bf d}$ and ${\bf p}^\prime={\bf C}_\Xi^{-1}{\bf p}$.
Since Eq.~\eqref{eq:objective_simple} is a quadratic form it has a unique minimum, which we obtain by setting the gradient
\begin{align}
{\boldsymbol \nabla}_{{\bf d}^\prime} E &= 2\left[\left(\alpha^2+ {\bf J}^\dagger {\bf J}\right) {\bf d}^\prime - {\bf J}^\dagger {\bf m}^\prime - \alpha^2{\bf p}^\prime\right] \label{eq:gradient}
\end{align}
equal to zero, where ${\boldsymbol \nabla}_{{\bf d}^\prime}$ is the gradient with respect to the ${\bf d}^\prime$ vector.
This gives the root
\begin{align}
{\bf d}^\prime_0 &= \left(\alpha^2+ {\bf J}^\dagger {\bf J}\right)^{-1}\left({\bf J}^\dagger {\bf m}^\prime + \alpha^2{\bf p}^\prime\right) \\
&\rightarrow \left(\alpha^2+ {\bf J}^\dagger {\bf J}\right)^{-1} {\bf J}^\dagger {\bf m}^\prime\label{eq:MinErrorZero}
\end{align}
where in the second line we selected the ${\bf p}^\prime=0$ null prior, thereby replicating the generic Tikhonov form presented in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Tikhonov}.
\subsection{Specific implementation}
Having employed a standard Bayesian framework to obtain a maximum-likely reconstruction, we now specialize to our imaging application.
Our method uses this framework by adding new information: {\it outside} some window no atoms exist, but the atomic distribution within that window is completely unknown.
We thereby accept the ${\bf p} = 0$ prior outside the window by setting $\xi_j\rightarrow0$ in that region, and reject the prior inside the window by setting $\xi_j=1$ with $\alpha\ll 1$, implying that ${\boldsymbol \Xi}$ is diagonal in the final spatial basis.
In principle ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}$ includes all known sources of uncertainty: in our case only photon-shot noise in the detection system is significant, making ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}$ diagonal in the initial detection basis.
Lastly, we constrain our implementation to imaging imperfections described by Eq.~\eqref{Eq:GeneralContrastTransfer}, giving a forward transfer function $h_{\bf k}$ that is diagonal in the spectral basis.
Typical images are on the scale of $\approx10^3\times10^3$ pixels and therefore reside in a $\approx10^6$ dimensional vector space.
Since the resulting $\approx10^6\times10^6$ matrices in Eq.~\eqref{eq:MinErrorZero} are too large to manipulate directly with today's desktop computers, in the following we describe implementations that do not require their explicit construction.
In addition, Appendix~\ref{app:grid} discusses further considerations involved in selecting a real-space grid large enough for artifact free reconstruction.
In general, padding the measured image ${\bf m}$ may be required.
\subsubsection{Spectral Tikhonov from uniform uncertainties}
\label{subsec:Tikhonov}
In the special case of uniform uncertainties---with $\bar\Sigma_{{\bf i}_1,{\bf i}_2} = \bar\Xi_{{\bf i}_1,{\bf i}_2} = \delta_{{\bf i}_1,{\bf i}_2}$, and $\alpha = \sigma/\xi$---it is natural to work in the spectral basis where ${\bf H}$ is diagonal and Eq.~\eqref{eq:MinErrorZero} reduces to
\begin{align}
d_{\bf k} &= \frac{h^*_{\bf k}}{\alpha^2 + |h_{\bf k}|^2} m_{\bf k}. \label{eq:Tikhonov_2}
\end{align}
This special-case expression is again of the Tikhonov form, but by contrast to the general solution in Eq.~\eqref{eq:MinErrorZero} it is diagonal in the spectral basis, making its deployment straightforward.
In practice, the regularization parameter $\alpha$ is empirically chosen and this inversion approach has been previously used to correct for the quadratic order aberrations resulting from defocus in cold-atom systems~\cite{Turner2005,Wigley2016a,Perry2021} as well as electron microscopy of biological systems~\cite{Penczek1997}.
\subsubsection{Ad hoc convolution approximation}
\label{subsec:adhoc}
Motivated by the simplicity of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Tikhonov_2}, we now derive an approximation to Eq.~\eqref{eq:MinErrorZero} that can still be implemented by multiplication in the spectral basis.
We again assume uniform detection uncertainties, but now allow $\bar{\bf \Xi}$ to be a window function which is diagonal in real space (and therefore implemented by a convolution in the spectral basis via the Fourier convolution theorem).
In the following discussion we use explicit summations rather than linear-algebra notation for an unambiguous presentation.
These assumptions lead to the simplification $\sum_{{\bf k}_2,{\bf k}_3}\bar\Xi_{{\bf k}_1 {\bf k}_2} H_{{\bf k}_2 {\bf k}_3} m_{{\bf k}_3}= \sum_{{\bf k}_2} \bar\Xi_{{\bf k}_1 - {\bf k}_2} h_{{\bf k}_2} m_{{\bf k}_2}$, allowing zero-gradient condition to be written as
\begin{align*}
\sum_{{\bf k}_2}\left(\alpha^2 \delta_{{\bf k}_1 {\bf k}_2} + \bar \Xi_{{\bf k}_1-{\bf k}_2} |h_{{\bf k}_2}|^2\right) d_{{\bf k}_2} = \sum_{{\bf k}_2} \bar \Xi_{{\bf k}_1-{\bf k}_2} h^*_{{\bf k}_2} m_{{\bf k}_2}.
\end{align*}
We then make the ad hoc approximation of pulling $d_{{\bf k}}$ outside of the convolution, giving the simplified result
\begin{align}
d_{{\bf k}} &\approx \frac{\sum_{{\bf k}_1} \bar \Xi_{{\bf k}-{\bf k}_1} h^*_{{\bf k}_1} m_{{\bf k}_1}}{\alpha^2 + \sum_{{\bf k}_1} \bar \Xi_{{\bf k}-{\bf k}_1} |h_{{\bf k}_1}|^2}.\label{eq:SelfBayesianFinal}
\end{align}
The intuition behind this expression is that any zeros in the denominator are lifted by convolving with the Fourier transform of the window function---a smoothing process---thereby providing a form of regularization even for $\alpha=0$.
\begin{algorithm}[tbhp]
\footnotesize
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetAlgoCaptionLayout{leftalign}
\label{alg:adhoc}
\caption{Ad hoc approximation.}
\KwData{\;
\qquad $m_x$: Measured vector\;
\qquad $H_k$: Forward transform\;
\qquad $\bar\xi_x$: Normalised prior uncertainties\;
\qquad $\alpha$: Regularization parameter}
\KwResult{\;
\qquad $d_x$: Data vector
}
\tcp{Compute numerator}
$d_k = {\rm FT}_k(\bar\xi^2_x \ {\rm IFT}_x( H^*_{k^\prime} \ {\rm FT}_{k^\prime}(m_{x^\prime})))$\;
\tcp{Divide by denominator}
$d_k\ /\!= \alpha^2 + {\rm FT}_k(\bar\xi^2_x \ {\rm IFT}_x( |H_{k^\prime}|^2 ))$\;
$d_x = {\rm IFT}_x( d_k)$
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:adhoc} outlines the computational steps to implement the ad hoc convolution approximation.
In this pseudo-code, the Fourier transform ${\rm FT}_k(m_x)$ indicates that the resulting vector will have the momentum index $k$.
Expressions such as $\bar\Xi_x \ {\rm IFT}_x( |H_k|^2 )$ describe element-by-element multiplication and do {\it not} follow the Einstein summation convention, which would contract this quantity to a scalar.
We evaluate the required convolutions via the Fourier transform-convolutions theorem, and hence Algorithm~\ref{alg:adhoc} does not require the explicit construction of large matrices.
\subsubsection{Full method}\label{subsec:full}
In the full evaluation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:MinErrorZero}, we employ a conjugate-gradient algorithm~\cite{Press2007}, an efficient method that can be implemented without explicit construction of large matrices. Appendix~\ref{app:series} details a convergent infinite series expansion of Eq.~\eqref{eq:MinErrorZero}.
However this approach yielded poor performance compared to conventional numerical methods and we did not use it.
\begin{algorithm}[tbhp]
\footnotesize
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetAlgoCaptionLayout{leftalign}
\label{alg:conjugate gradient}
\caption{Conjugate gradient implementation solving $0 = {\bf Q} {\bf d} - {\bf b}$.
Here ${\bf Q} = \alpha^2 + \bar{\boldsymbol\Xi} {\bf H}^\dagger\bar{\boldsymbol\Sigma}^{-1}{\bf H}$ and ${\bf b} = \bar{\boldsymbol\Xi} {\bf H}^\dagger\bar{\boldsymbol\Sigma}^{-1} {\bf m}$.
This algorithm assumes that $\bar{\boldsymbol\Xi}$ and $\bar{\boldsymbol\Sigma}$ are diagonal matrices with entries given by the vectors $\bar\xi_j^2$ and $\bar\sigma_j^2$ respectively. }
\KwData{\;
\qquad $m_x$: Measured vector\;
\qquad $H_k$: Forward transform\;
\qquad $\bar\xi_x$: Normalised prior uncertainties\;
\qquad $\bar\sigma_x$: Normalised measurement uncertainties\;
\qquad $\alpha$: Regularization parameter\;
\qquad $L$: Number of iterations
}
\KwResult{\;
\qquad $d_x$: Data vector
}
\tcp{Initialize algorithm}
$b_x = \bar\xi^2_x\ {\rm IFT}_x(H^*_k\ {\rm FT}_k(\bar\sigma_{x^\prime}^{-2}\ m_{x^\prime}))$\;
$r_x = p_x = b_x$\;
$\epsilon = {\bf r}^\dagger {\bf r}$\;
\tcp{Implement algorithm}
\While{$L > 0$}
{
\qquad \tcp{Precompute ${\bf Q} {\bf p}$}
\qquad $Q^{p}_x = \bar \xi_x^2\ {\rm IFT}_x(H^*_k\ {\rm FT}_k(\bar\sigma_{x^\prime}^{-2}\ {\rm IFT}_{x^\prime} (H_{k^\prime}\ {\rm FT}_{k^\prime}(p_{x^{\prime\prime}}))))$\;
\qquad $Q^{p}_x\ +\!= \alpha^2 p_x$\;
\qquad $\gamma = \epsilon / ({\bf p}^\dagger {\bf Q}^{p})$\;
\qquad $d_x\ +\!=\gamma p_x$\;
\qquad $r_x\ -\!=\gamma Q^p_x$\;
\qquad $\epsilon^\prime = {\bf r}^\dagger {\bf r}$\;
\qquad $\beta = \epsilon^\prime / \epsilon$\;
\qquad $p_x = r_x + \beta p_x$\;
\qquad $L\ -\!=1$\;
}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:conjugate gradient} charts our conjugate gradient approach implementation. Using this method the objective function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:objective} converges to within $\approx0.1\%$ of its asymptomatic value within 50 iterations.
We also implemented an adaptive step size gradient descent method with similar performance, but added complexity.
Therefore we use the conjugate gradient algorithm to implement the full method reconstruction, both for simulations and experimental data.
\subsection{Numerical comparison: images}
\label{sec:NumImages}
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig_Pub_Images.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Numerically modeled PCI images of $1.1\times10^5$ atoms in a 3D Thomas-Fermi distribution as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:ExpResults}.
In all cases the modeling included photon and atom shot noise and used parameters matching those in our experiments with:
probe detuning $\bar\delta=106$, intensity $\bar I = 2.0$, overall system efficiency of $0.6$ (corresponding to about 400 photo-electrons detected per pixel), and a $20\ \mu{\rm s}$ pulse duration.
Full images are depicted in the left column and vertical cross sections are plotted in the right.
(a) Image following an ideal NA-limited imaging system.
(b) Aberrated image from an imperfect imaging system.
(c) Reconstruction using the Tikhonov method with $\alpha=0.1$.
(d) Reconstruction using the ad hoc method with $\alpha=0.1$.
(e) Reconstruction using the full method with $\alpha=0.1$.
The dashed curve in each cross section replots the ideal NA-limited case for reference and the dashed black ellipses denote real-space window functions that are relevant both for reconstruction (ad hoc and full method) as well as the computation of the PSD (ideal imaging, imperfect imaging, and Tikhonov method).
}
\label{Fig:Summary}
\end{figure}
In this section we numerically compare the reconstruction methods described above: the conventional spectral ``Tikhonov'' method (Sec.~\ref{subsec:Tikhonov}), the ad hoc method (Sec.~\ref{subsec:adhoc}), and the full method (Sec.~\ref{subsec:full})].
We modeled PCI imaging of an anisotropic BEC with $1.2\times10^5$ atoms and Thomas-Fermi (TF) radii of $R_x = 43.6\ \mu{\rm m}$ and $R_y = 3.5\ \mu{\rm m}$.
In our model, we simulated the imaging system described in Sec.~\ref{sec:Microscope}, with aberration coefficients given in Table~\ref{Table:FitParameters}, and used representative experimental measurement parameters (see Sec.~\ref{sec:ExpResults}); both photon and atom shot noise were included as Poisson random processes.
We use the same overall analysis procedure both for simulated and experimental data:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each measurement $j$, we obtain three raw images $I^{(j)}_+$, $I^{(j)}_0$, and $I^{(j)}_D$ (for simulated data $I^{(j)}_D$ is not needed).
\item We compute the averaged dark frame $I_D = \langle I^{(j)}_D\rangle$, and remove it from the remaining images: $I^{(j)}_+\rightarrow I^{(j)}_+ - I_D$ and $I^{(j)}_0\rightarrow I^{(j)}_0 - I_D$.
\item To reduce noise and artifacts $I^{(j)}_{\rm PCA}$ is reconstructed using principle component analysis (PCA) techniques~\cite{Li2007,Segal2010} from the full set of $\{I^{(j)}_0\}_j$.
For simulated data there are no imaging artifacts and $I^{(j)}_{\rm PCA}$ is replaced with a modeled shot-noise noise-free probe.
\item We construct the PCI signal $g^{(j)}_{\rm PCI} = 1 - I^{(j)}_+/ I^{(j)}_{\rm PCA}$.
\item Except when otherwise stated, we apply a Fourier window to $g^{(j)}_{\rm PCI}$ describing the known aperture to eliminate photon shot noise present at wavevectors where no signal is present.
\item An image recovery technique of choice (or none at all) is applied to $g^{(j)}_{\rm PCI}$.
\end{enumerate}
The left column of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Summary} depicts modeled PCI data under different conditions.
Panel (a) begins by showing an image from an ideal NA-limited imaging system, while
(b) introduces aberrations.
Panel (c) shows that conventional Tikhonov reconstruction using $\alpha=0.1$ gives significant added noise and introduces small artifacts parallel to the main reconstitution~\footnote{The regularization parameter $\alpha$ was selected to make the noise and artifacts similar in amplitude.}.
Panels (d) and (e) show reconstructions from the ad hoc and full methods respectively, using an elliptical Tukey window with major and minor axes $(1.25\times R_x, 1.5\times R_y)$ depicted by black ellipses, and Tukey parameter $0.25$.
Both methods appear virtually indistinguishable from the ideal case in (a).
The vertical cross sections plotted in the right column of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Summary} compare the uncorrected data and our three reconstruction methods to the ideal data in more detail; the regularization parameter $\alpha=0.1$ was used in all cases.
The uncorrected data [(b) orange curve] bares virtually no resemblance to the true signal (dashed curve), while the reconstructed signals approximate the true signal with differing degrees of accuracy.
The Tikhonov method [(c) blue curve] accurately recovers the overall shape of the desired distribution, but adds significant noise; increasing $\alpha$ decreases the added noise at the expense of reduced accuracy in the recovered signal.
The ad hoc method [(d) green curve] has greatly reduced noise but introduces artifacts at the edge of the Thomas-Fermi distribution.
Lastly, the full method [(e) red curve] retains the low noise of the ad hoc method while eliminating its artifacts, thereby recovering the true signal with even increased accuracy.
We note that all three of these methods underestimate the PCI signal; this results from the small signal linearization leading to Eqs.~\eqref{eq:field_transfer} and \eqref{Eq:GeneralContrastTransfer}.
In principle this is not needed, but the resulting minimization problem is non-linear and beyond the scope of this paper.
\subsection{Numerical comparison: correlations}
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig_Pub_PSDs.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Numerically modeled PSDs from images computed as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Summary} averaged over 100 repetitions.
The left column of figures plot the modeled PSD with atoms present; the next column is the PSD computed with no atoms; and the third column shows their difference.
The right column plots a horizontal cross-section through the difference.
(a) Ideal imaging system.
(b) Aberrated imaging system modeling experimental imperfections.
These data were processed with a window $10\times$ larger along $\ey$. To compare with the remaining images, this data was simulated with a pulse duration increased by a factor of 10 to an unrealistic $200\ \mu{\rm s}$.
(c)-(e) show the PSD computed following Tikhonov, ad hoc, and full reconstructions, respectively.
}
\label{Fig:SummaryPSD}
\end{figure}
Density-density correlations present in the fluctuations (noise) of cold-atom images can be directly related to the static structure factor~\cite{Hung_2011}.
As established in the previous section, our ad hoc and full methods produce low noise reconstructions; this section takes the next step by analyzing correlations in these reconstructions.
Here we quantify structure in the fluctuations in terms of the PSD given by ${\rm PSD}({\boldsymbol \delta} {\bf d}) \equiv \langle|{\rm FT}({\boldsymbol \delta}{\bf d})|^2\rangle$, where ${\boldsymbol \delta} {\bf d} = {\bf d} - \langle{\bf d}\rangle$ describes the fluctuations observed in a single experiment.
Artifacts in the PSD introduced by imperfect imaging systems can be compensated for~\cite{Hung_2011}; however, previous work did not consider refocusing images.
It is far from clear if refocusing techniques correct correlations, indeed, contrast transfer functions introduce correlations in otherwise uncorrelated noise~\cite{Perry2021}, potentially rendering these methods unsuitable for correlation analyses.
Figure~\ref{Fig:SummaryPSD} illustrates the viability of these refocusing methods via simulations of systems with spatially uncorrelated atom shot noise giving uniform PSDs.
The left panel in Fig.~\ref{Fig:SummaryPSD}(a) plots the PSD resulting from an ideal NA-limited imaging system evidencing signal within a central circle defined by the system's NA, i.e., $|{\bf k}| < k_{\rm NA}$.
Outside this circle, the PSD takes on a non-zero background value from photon shot noise.
The central image plots the PSD when no atoms are present, showing that the photon shot noise signal is constant: as is expected for spatially uncorrelated noise unaffected by the microscope's NA or aberrations.
In these simulations the photon shot noise contribution is minimized by applying the elliptical Tukey window plotted in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Summary}a.
In this way, photon shot noise from regions with no atoms is eliminated.
Lastly the right image plots the atom-signal alone, obtained by subtracting the PSD with no-atoms (photon shot noise only), from that with atoms (containing signal and photon shot noise).
The final panel plots a horizontal cross-section illustrating the ${\rm SNR}\approx 10$ of the correlations.
Figure~\ref{Fig:SummaryPSD}(b) plots the same quantities computed for our aberrated imaging system showing the appearance of structure in the PSD from aberrations.
These data required a real-space window function $\times 10$ larger along $\ey$ to capture the full diffraction pattern [Fig.~\ref{Fig:Summary}(b)].
To compensate for the added photon shot noise, we increased the imaging pulse duration from $20\ \mu{\rm s}$ to $200\ \mu{\rm s}$.
In practice this imaging time is unrealistically large, so further averaging would be required instead; this makes correlation analyses of highly aberrated PCI images impractical.
Figure~\ref{Fig:SummaryPSD}(c)-(e) addresses the degree to which our regularization methods recover the PSD of the ideal imaging system.
Figure~\ref{Fig:SummaryPSD}(c) shows that the Tikhonov method adds significant structure to the photon shot noise background as well as greatly reducing the SNR of the differenced PSD.
By contrast, (d) and (e) show that the ad hoc and full methods imprint sequentially less structure to the photon shot noise and recover the ideal PSD with increased fidelity.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig_Pub_Detuning.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Noise analysis of integrated PSD.
Each symbol marks the PSD (computed as described in Fig.~\ref{Fig:SummaryPSD}) integrated within the NA-limited disk.
The black, green, blue and red data respectively plot the results for ideal imaging, the Tikhonov method, the ad hoc method and the full method.
The dashed lines show the expected $1/\bar\delta^2$ scaling of the PSD signal, with a factor of 2 scale factor between the lines.
}
\label{Fig:IntegratedPSD}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Fig:IntegratedPSD} plots the integrated PSD within the allowed NA window as a function of detuning $\bar\delta$ along with a pair of dashed lines showing the expected $1/\bar\delta^2$ scaling.
The dashed lines differ only by a factor of two, showing that the three reconstruction methods yield a signal about a factor of two below the ideal case, resulting from the actual information last in the process of being aberrated.
As was anticipated by the individual PSDs, the Tikhonov (green) method exhibits excess noise somewhat in excess of the ad hoc (black) and full (red) methods.
The reduced PSD signal of the reconstructions at small $\bar\delta$ result from the PCI signal $g^\prime_{\pi/2}>1$, invalidating the small-signal approximation used in deriving the CTF.
\section{Ultracold Atom Microscope}
\label{sec:Microscope}
We imaged BECs at high resolution using an ultracold atom microscope based on a single low cost and NA aspheric lens as the objective lens, shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:UltracoldMicroscope}.
The optical system consisted of back-to-back Keplerian telescopes with total magnification $\rm{M}=36.3$.
The first stage used an objective lens (L1, with focal length $f_1$, Edmund Optics part number 49-115~\footnote{Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.}) with numerical aperture ${\rm NA}=0.32$.
The second lens (L2) with $f_2 = 300\ {\rm mm}$ was an achromat with a $50.8\ {\rm mm}$ diameter, selected to minimize vignetting effects.
The second Keplerian telescope consisted of a pair of lenses (L3 and L4) with focal lengths $f_3 = 100\ {\rm mm}$ and $f_4 = 400~{\rm mm}$.
The resolution of our microscope, defined by the Rayleigh criterion~\footnote{The Rayleigh criterion is the radius of the first minimum of the NA limited intensity pattern of an imaged point source, i.e., an Airy pattern.}, was diffraction limited with $\approx0.61\lambda/\rm{NA} = 1.5~\mu{\rm m}$ at the imaging wavelength of $\lambda = 780\ {\rm nm}$.
An electron multiplying CCD (EMCCD) with $1024\!\times\!1024$ square pixels (with 13~$\mu$m pixel size) was placed at the image plane located at the focus of L4, where a diffraction limited spot was about $4$ pixels in radius.
Our imaging system included an adjustable mask at the intermediate image plane, allowing us to image elongated atomic ensembles while leaving the majority of the sensor dark.
This enables repeated minimally destructive (ideally quantum back-action limited) measurements of the same ensemble, using the ``fast kinetics mode'' available on some CCD sensors.
All PCI images reported in this paper were taken with the mask fully open, i.e., non-masked and hence the mask is not shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:UltracoldMicroscope}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig2_Microscope.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption[Ultracold atom microscope]{Diagram of the ultracold atom microscope.
The cold atoms reside in a vacuum system with a square cross-section glass cell with $\approx50\ {\rm mm}$ sides.
The ${\rm NA} = 0.32$ objective lens maximizes the NA given the constraint of the illustrated coil holders.
Not shown are three additional dichroic mirrors that center the probe beam on the final lens and the EMCCD.
}
\label{Fig:UltracoldMicroscope}
\end{figure}
We implemented PCI using a $25.4\ {\rm mm}$ diameter phase plate (manufactured by Lexitek, Inc.) containing a phase dot $37\ \mu{\rm m}$ in radius and $19.5\ \mu{\rm m}$ thick.
This plate was positioned at the Fourier plane of the second Keplerian telescope.
The nominally Gaussian probe beam, i.e., light which has not been scattered by the atoms was focused by L3 to a $26\ \mu{\rm m}$ $1/e^2$ radius in the phase dot.
By contrast the scattered light was confined to a much larger $\approx 3.8\ {\rm mm}$ radius disk.
As a result virtually all of the unscattered light traveled through the phase dot, while nearly none of the scattered light did.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:ExpResults}
We imaged highly elongated $^{87}$Rb BECs {\it in-situ} using PCI and PTAI.
The $N=1.2(2)\times10^5$ atom BECs were created in the $\left|F = 1, m_{F} = 1\right\rangle$ electronic ground state, and were confined in an elongated crossed optical dipole trap (ODT) with frequencies $(\omega_x, \omega_y, \omega_z) = 2\pi \times \left[ 12.2(1), 153.2(3), 175.4(5) \right]$ Hz.
We obtained $N$ from the {\it in-situ} longitudinal TF radius $R_x = 43.6(9)~\mu{\rm m}$~\cite{Dalfovo1999}, resulting in $R_y = 3.5(1)~\mu{\rm m}$ and $R_z = 3.0(1)~\mu{\rm m}$.
In addition we applied the Castin-Dum scaling theory~\cite{CastinDum96} to separately measured time-of-flight (TOF) images, and found $N=1.9(3)\times10^5$, which would imply an $R_x = 48(2)~\mu{\rm m}$ that is inconsistent with our {\it in-situ} observations.
Our probe laser couples the ground $\ket{F=2,m_F=2}$ state to the excited $\ket{F^\prime=3,m_F^\prime=3}$ state.
As a result, we transferred the atoms from $\ket{F=1,m_F=1}$ to $\ket{F=2,m_F=2}$ using a $68\ \mu{\rm s}$ resonant microwave pulse prior to PCI imaging.
For PTAI we used a weaker microwave pulse to transfer $\approx10~\%$ of the population to $\ket{F=2,m_F=2}$.
In both cases, the imaging pulse was $20\ \mu{\rm s}$ in duration and had intensity $I/I_{\rm{sat}}\approx 2$, where $I_{\rm{sat}} \approx 1.67~\rm{mW/cm^2}$.
Our near-resonance ``absorption imaging'' measurements were altered by the presence of a phase dot in our microscope.
The OD in this case is given by
\begin{equation}
{\rm OD}_{\rm AI}({\bf r}_\perp) = \frac{1}{2\bar \delta}g^{\prime}_{\theta=\pi/2}({\bf r}_\perp),
\label{eqn:OD_AI_phaseDot}
\end{equation}
where we evaluated Eq.~\eqref{eqn:g_General} assuming both ${\rm OD} \ll 1$ and $\bar\delta \ll 1$.
Interestingly this is the same expression as for PCI given in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:OD_PCI_piOver2}, although the resulting signal is from absorption not phase shift.
The remainder of this section proceeds as follows.
First we describe our experimental protocol extending Eq.~\eqref{Eq:Pupil_PSD} for characterizing the microscope's Fourier pupil function using PSDs obtained from near resonant PTAI images.
We then contrast high-resolution PCI images of our BEC reconstructed using the standard Tikhonov method with those from our full method.
We conclude by applying our full method to {\it in-situ} imaging of the thermal to BEC phase transition, which is difficult to resolve in our aberrated raw data.
\subsection{Fourier pupil function measurements}
\label{sec:ExpPupilFunc}
We experimentally characterized the Fourier pupil function of our ultracold atom microscope utilizing density-density correlations and the BEC's TF distribution.
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{Section:Aberrations}, PSDs provide information about aberrations present in imaging systems.
We extracted density correlations in the fluctuations of cold-atom images and obtained experimental PSD similar to the numerical model shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:SummaryPSD} (b).
The PSD contains no information about the anti-symmetric phase $\beta_-$ contributions to the pupil function, and instead we used the difference between the reconstruction and the expected TF distribution to constrain $\beta_-$.
Our strategy for measuring the Fourier pupil function via PSDs combines two critical elements to deliver increased precision.
First, we obtained the PSD from {\it in-situ} PTAI images.
As described in Sec.~\ref{Section:Absorption Imaging}, PTAI introduces uncorrelated atom shot noise to deeply degenerate BECs; the observed PSDs then carry the imprint of our microscope's aberrations upon a featureless background.
Second, we deliberately defocused our microscope by translating L4, the lens immediately preceding the EMCCD (see Fig.~\ref{Fig:UltracoldMicroscope}), away from the established focal position at $\delta z_{\rm{L}4} = 0\ \rm{cm}$.
Changing the focus by a small distance $z$ adds a quadratic phase shift $z k_\perp^2 / 2 k_{0}$ to the pupil function as introduced in Sec.~\ref{Section:Aberrations}.
Then PSD measurements taken at different image planes differ only in their $k_\perp^2$ terms.
Consequently by performing a joint fit to a family of such PSDs we quantified the imaging system's even-order aberrations with increased precision.
\subsubsection{Correlations fit function}
Following the aberration model discussed in Sec.~\ref{Section:Aberrations}, we employed a fit function that accounts for optical aberrations as well as unwanted ``surface effects'' (including reflections, along with losses within the optical elements), and aperture limits.
The attenuation parameter $\gamma_+({\bf k}_\perp)= \gamma_+^{\rm S}({\bf k}_\perp) + \gamma_+^{\rm A}({\bf k}_\perp)$ describes the exit pupil apodization, where we have introduced surface and aperture contributions $\gamma_+^{\rm S}$ and $\gamma_+^{\rm A}$.
Because our imaging system is well aligned on the optical axis, we assume $\gamma_-({\bf k}_\perp)$ has no surface components, i.e., $\gamma_-({\bf k}_\perp) \equiv \gamma_-^{\rm A}({\bf k}_\perp)$.
These variables allow us to re-express Eq.~\eqref{Eq:Pupil_PSD} as
\begin{align}
\langle |\delta {\rm OD}({\bf k}_\perp) |^2 \rangle \propto &\ e^{-2\gamma_+^{\rm S}({\bf k}_\perp)}\bigg\{\frac{1}{2}[ A^2({\bf k}_\perp) + A^2(- {\bf k}_\perp)]\nonumber\\
&+ h_{\rm dof}({\bf k}_\perp)
[A({\bf k}_\perp) A(- {\bf k}_\perp)] \nonumber\\
&\times \cos[2\beta_+({\bf k}_\perp) + 2(\varphi-\theta)]\bigg\}
\label{Eq:PupilPSD_fitFunc},
\end{align}
where $A({\bf k}_\perp) \equiv e^{-\gamma^{\rm A}({\bf k}_\perp)}$.
We interpret $A({\bf k}_\perp)$ as a window describing the aperture~\footnote{We model $A({\bf k}_\perp)$ as a boxcar window function that takes on values of either $1$ (inside) or $0$ (outside) so $A^2=A$.}.
We empirically determined $A({\bf k}_\perp)$ based on prominent structures in the measured PSD that result from the known experimental geometry of our apparatus.
The details of this procedure are given in the following section.
Second, we characterize the phase shift of the Fourier pupil function using the polynomial representation
\begin{equation}
\beta({\bf k}_\perp) = \sum_{m,n} c_{mn} \left(\frac{k_x}{k_0}\right)^m \left(\frac{k_y}{k_0}\right)^n.
\label{Eqn:PupilPhasePoly}
\end{equation}
The PSD depends on $\beta_+$, thus our fit function contains only symmetric terms, i.e., those with even $m+n$.
We thereby model even-order aberrations such as astigmatism, defocus and spherical aberrations manifested in our microscope.
Because our experimental aperture (described below) is not circular, the conventional Zernike basis has no particular meaning.
While it would in principle be possible to construct an orthogonal polynomial basis for our aperture, we adopt a simple order-by-order polynomial expansion.
We performed a global fit of all $\langle |\delta {\rm OD}({\bf k}_\perp) |^2 \rangle$ measurements discussed in the next section to Equ.~\eqref{Eq:PupilPSD_fitFunc} using the following criteria.
The degree of defocus is quantified by $c_{20}$ and $c_{02}$; these change by the same amount as $\delta z_{{\rm L}4}$ changes, but the remaining $c_{mn}$ are fixed.
As a result, the global fit designates $c_{20}$ and $c_{02}$ as unshared parameters (constrained to change by the same amount as $\delta z_{{\rm L}4}$ changes) while the remaining $c_{mn}$ are held constant across the data sets.
We performed two supplementary measurements at $\delta z_{{\rm L}4} = 0$ by changing the detuning to $\bar \delta \approx \pm 0.5$.
Equation~\eqref{Eq:PupilPSD_fitFunc} shows that $c_{00}=(\varphi-\theta)$ results from detuning and the PCI phase shift.
The fits to these supplementary measurements share all their parameters with the $\bar\delta=0$ dataset except $c_{00}$.
The surface term in Eq.~\eqref{Eq:PupilPSD_fitFunc} is independent of $\delta z_{{\rm L}4}$ and $\bar\delta$, and we represent it as a Gaussian using $\gamma_+^{\rm S}({\bf k}_\perp) = {g_{\rm S}}^2 [(k_x/k_0)^2 + (k_y/k_0)^2]$, where ${g_{\rm S}}$ is a shared fit parameter in our aberrations model.
Finally, following Eq.~\eqref{eqn:f_eff_2}, the DoF term $h_{\rm dof}$ is parameterized by the shared fit coefficient $c_{\rm dof} \equiv w_z k_0/4$, which depends on the thickness of the cloud $w_z$ in the imaging direction.
We include this effect in our fits, but the resulting $w_z\approx 18 ~\mu\rm{m}$ is far from $R_z$, implying that oscillatory structure is lost for reasons other than the DoF effect.
For example the field of view discussion in Appendix~\ref{app:grid} implies such an effect.
\subsubsection{Density correlation measurements}
Figure~\ref{Fig:ExpdPSD_L4_adjusted} shows PSDs measured from {\it in-situ} PTAI images of BECs taken at a range of image planes (left half of plots, i.e., $k_y<0$) along with global fit to the aberrations model in Eq.~\eqref{Eq:PupilPSD_fitFunc} (right half of plots, i.e., $k_y>0$).
The best-fit values for the shared parameters are reported in Table~\ref{Table:FitParameters}.
The defocus parameters $c_{20}$ and $c_{02}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:xyDefocus_parameters} as a function of $\delta z_{\rm{L}4}$~\footnote{In total, the global fit to 11 data sets had 40 fit parameters - including overall amplitude and background offset terms for each data set that are not reported.}.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig6_DataModel_8DS.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{PSDs $\langle |\delta {\rm OD}_{{\bf k}_\perp}|^2 \rangle$ at differing degrees of defocus including experimental data (left, $k_y<0$) and fits (right, $k_y>0$).
These data represent our full set of $\delta z_{\rm{L}4}$ values, and each measurement was averaged over 100 to 200 images.
The dashed arcs on the top and bottom plot the NA limit $|{\bf k}_\perp| = k_{\rm NA}$ expected for our objective lens.
The values for the model parameters in the fits are given in Table~\ref{Table:FitParameters} and Fig.~\ref{Fig:xyDefocus_parameters}.
}
\label{Fig:ExpdPSD_L4_adjusted}
\end{figure}
We determined the aperture term $A({\bf k}_\perp)$ for the fit via the following procedure.
The overall numerical aperture of the main objective lens limits the maximum accepted wavevector to $k_{\rm{NA}}$ (dashed cyan arcs in Fig.~\ref{Fig:ExpdPSD_L4_adjusted}) and thereby $\langle|\delta {\rm OD}({\bf k}_\perp)|^2\rangle\rightarrow 0$ for $|\mathbf{k}_\perp| > k_{\rm NA}$.
We observe a non-zero background outside the NA circle, as expected from photon shot noise.
Our PSD measurements exhibit additional structures, and we focus on the pair at positive $k_y$ giving additional limits to the effective vertical NA (because the PSD derives from the Fourier transform of a real valued quantity, the structures at $k_y < 0$ replicate those at $k_y>0$).
First, the horizontal cutoff at $k_y \approx 0.26~\mu\rm{m}^{-1}$ results from an in-vacuum ``atom-chip'' in our apparatus that intercepts wave-vectors at large $k_y$.
A second rectangle carved into the aperture results from screw heads extending down from the atom-chip holder.
Extending the dashed cyan curves in Figure~\ref{Fig:ExpdPSD_L4_adjusted} shows that the expected NA limited disk is present for small $|k_y|$ where the atom-chip NA limitations are not present.
In our fit $A({\bf k}_\perp)$ is modeled as a window function that combines the NA disk of the objective lens with the two additional vertical aperture limits resulting from the atom-chip assembly at positive ${\bf k}_\perp$.
While all the data in Fig.~\ref{Fig:ExpdPSD_L4_adjusted}(a) have NA limits from the atom-chip assembly, the effects are most visible in (a) which is nearly in focus along $\ey$.
We therefore determined the aperture window function from the PSD signal in Fig.~\ref{Fig:ExpdPSD_L4_adjusted}(a).
\begin{table*}[tb!]
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
Parameter & $c_{00}$ & $c_{11}$ & $c_{03}$ & $c_{31}$ & $c_{13}$ & $c_{22}$ & $c_{40}$ & $c_{04}$ & $\rm{c}_{\rm dof}$ & ${g_{\rm S}}$ \\
\hline
Value & 1.590(4) & -43.3(4) & -0.52(2)\e{3} & 1.82(2)\e{3} & 2.71(3)\e{3} &
-0.26(4)\e{3} & -1.85(2)\e{3} & -3.35(2)\e{3} & 35.9(1) & 3.033(2) \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Best-fit parameter values.
The shared global parameters ${g_{\rm S}}$, $\rm{c}_{\rm dof}$ and $c_{mn}$ (for $n,m\geq0$ and even $n+m$) result from our PSD fits.
We additionally include $c_{03}$ derived from coordinate space TF fits.
All coefficients are dimensionless.
}
\label{Table:FitParameters}
\end{table*}
Equation~\eqref{Eq:PupilPSD_fitFunc} describes two key features of the aperture limits that stem from the atom-chip assembly.
First, although only up-going scattered light is blocked by then atom-chip assembly, we observe the atom-chip NA limit for both positive and negative $k_y$.
In Eq.~\eqref{Eq:PupilPSD_fitFunc}, the first term in curly brackets is a symmetrized aperture that terminates the non-oscillatory contribution to the PSD.
This eliminates correlations outside $k_{\rm NA}$ disk in the experimental data.
In the second term, the product $A({\bf k}_\perp) A(-{\bf k}_\perp)$ predicts that the oscillatory structure given by $\cos(\cdots)$ terminates at the aperture boundaries.
This is observed at the aperture limit from the atom chip assembly as well as the NA limit near $k_y = 0$.
The magnification of our microscope changes as a function of $\delta z_{{\rm L}4}$; at $\delta z_{\rm{L}4} = 0\ \rm{cm}$ the resolution is given by the design magnification $M=36.3$.
We empirically identified the magnification at each $\delta z_{\rm{L}4} \neq 0$ by aligning the observed and expected NA circles.
All of our data is presented including these calibrated magnifications.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig7_XYdefocus.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Best-fit values for $c_{20}$ and $c_{02}$, extracted from fits to PSD measurements, plotted as a function of $\delta z_{\rm{L}4}$.
At the nominal $\ex$ focal position $\delta z_{\rm{L}4} = 0$ the coefficients are $c_{20} = 24.9(5)$ and $c_{02} = -500(1)$.
}
\label{Fig:xyDefocus_parameters}
\end{figure}
Similar to the simulated data analysis, photon shot noise was subtracted from the experimental PSD to isolate the atom shot noise.
We begin by masking out the signal inside the expected NA circle, where atom shot noise is dominant.
We then average the masked data along $k_y$ and subtract it from the signal (eliminating structured noise along $k_x$).
Next we repeat the same subtraction procedure by averaging along $k_x$ (eliminating structured noise along $k_y$).
As demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig:ExpdPSD_L4_adjusted}, our aberrations model, using coefficients from our global fit, accurately characterizes our microscope and consistently describes the observed aspects in all PSD measurements.
The imaging system is astigmatic: Figs.~\ref{Fig:ExpdPSD_L4_adjusted}(a) and (f) show data nearly focused along $\ey$ and $\ex$ respectively, where the $c_{02}$ and $c_{20}$ coefficients approach zero in Fig~\ref{Fig:xyDefocus_parameters}.
Hence panel (a) has relatively little oscillatory structure along $\ey$, but significant structure along $\ex$; this pattern reverses progressively from (a) to (f) as $\delta z_{{\rm L}4}$ decreases.
The remaining data (g) and (h) show increasing oscillatory structure in both directions as $\delta z_{\rm{L}4}$ becomes more negative.
Our global fit provides a measure of our phase dot's phase shift $\theta$ using $c_{00}$ obtained for $\bar\delta=0$ along with those measured at $\bar\delta=\pm1/2$.
The best-fit values of $c_{00}$ are $\left\{1.510(6), 1.590(4), 1.812(5) \right\}$ for detunings $\left\{0.5, 0, -0.5\right\}$ respectively.
The fit function linearizes Eq.~\eqref{eqn:g_General} around a non-zero optical depth, avoiding the $1/\bar\delta$ divergence in the small OD expression.
Combining these data gives $\theta = -1.6(1)\ {\rm rad}$, which is in good agreement with the design value of $|\pi/2|$ further demonstrating the accuracy of our measurement protocol and aberrations model.
We also note that the detunings are offset by $\bar \delta = -0.03(6)$.
\subsubsection{Determining anti-symmetric pupil phase contributions}
Imaging aberrations determined from PSD measurements yield all components of the pupil function except the anti-symmetric $\beta_-$ described by the odd order $c_{mn}$ parameters.
In our data, images reconstructed with $\beta_-=0$ have asymmetric dips above and below the central density peak.
We determined $c_{03}$ term by minimizing the difference between reconstructed images and the expected TF distribution.
We omitted the first-order terms as they describe real-space translations.
Because our BEC's density distribution is highly elongated along $\ex$, its spectral distribution contains only small $k_x$ components.
As a result, only coefficients $c_{0m}$ significantly alter the overall density distribution.
We then fit reconstructed images to the 2D TF distribution
\begin{align}
\rho(y) &= \rho_0 \left[1-\left(\frac{x-x_0}{R_x}\right)^2 -\left(\frac{y-y_0}{R_y}\right)^2 \right]^{3/2}
\end{align}
with $c_{03}$ (the lowest order remaining contributor to $\beta_-$) included as a fit parameter.
The best-fit value for $c_{03}$ is given in Table~\ref{Table:FitParameters}.
\subsubsection{Final pupil model}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig8_PupilWavefront_c03.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Final pupil wavefront model at $\delta z_{{\rm L}4} = 0\ {\rm cm}$.
(a) Pupil phase wavefront mean and (b) standard deviation.
The red dashed curve outlines the complete aperture limit due to the ultra-high vacuum apparatus geometry.
Contour lines (black) are spaced approximately every $8\lambda$ in (a) and $\lambda/20$ in (b).
}
\label{Fig:PupilWavefront_BestFocus}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Fig:PupilWavefront_BestFocus}(a) presents our final model for the pupil phase wavefront $\beta$ evaluated at $\delta z_{\rm{L}4} = 0\ \rm{cm}$.
Figure~\ref{Fig:PupilWavefront_BestFocus}(b) plots the uncertainty $\delta_{\beta}({\bf k}_\perp)$ computed from our fits' combined covariance matrix (with a total of 41 parameters including shared parameters) assuming a multivariate normal distribution of parameters.
For a complete model of $\beta$, this would imply an rms wavefront error $0.03 \lambda$ associated with reconstructed images.
In our demonstrated fourth-order model, we were unable to model the $c_{12}$, $c_{21}$ and $c_{30}$ coefficients, which contribute unknown wavefront errors, implying that $0.03 \lambda$ is a lower bound for the rms wavefront error of our reconstructions.
\subsection{Digitally enhanced non-destructive imaging with far-detuned PCI}
\label{sec:ExpRegularized}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig9_SingleShot_PCI.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Far detuned {\it in-situ} PCI images of BECs showing raw and reconstructed signals.
(a) Raw PCI signal at probe detuning $\bar\delta \approx 106$.
(b) Reconstructed PCI signal with the Tikhonov approach with $\alpha = 0.1$.
(c) Reconstructed PCI signal using the full method.
For each case a vertical cross section is shown on the right.
}
\label{Fig:RegularizedPCI}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{Fig10_BEC_transition.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Direct {\it in-situ} observation of BEC phase transition.
Top and middle: raw and refocused images.
Bottom: horizontal cross sections for the raw (black) and reconstructed (red) data, and the fits (purple dashed) to 1D Gaussian, bimodal and TF distributions respectively for each regime.
Each raw image was acquired at probe detuning $\bar\delta \approx 106$ and averaged over 20 images.
(a) Thermal cloud at $T>T_c$.
(b) Partially condensed system at $T\lesssim T_c$, with both thermal and condensate components visible.
(c) Pure condensate at $T\ll T_c$.
(d) Condensate fraction measured from {\it in-situ} images plotted as a function of temperature obtained separately from TOF data.
}
\label{Fig:inSitu_BEC_obs}
\end{figure*}
With the aberrations of our ultracold atom microscope quantified, we proceed to aberration compensation of images of BECs taken {\it in-situ} with far-detuned PCI.
Figure~\ref{Fig:RegularizedPCI}(a) presents the raw aberrated image, while (b) and (c) compare reconstructions using the Tikhonov (with $\alpha = 0.1$) and full methods.
The observed background noise in the aberrated image (a) is consistent with that predicted by our numerical model [Fig.~\ref{Fig:Summary}(b)].
The full method used a 2D elliptical Tukey window function with semi-major and semi-minor axes $(1.25\times R_x, 1.5\times R_y)$, and with Tukey parameter $0.25$; $R_x$ and $R_y$ are the TF radii determined {\it in-situ}.
The Tikhonov reconstruction contains multiple artifacts and added noise, and as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:NumImages}, $\alpha$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Tikhonov_2} presents a trade-off: noise is reduced, but the accuracy of the reconstruction is sacrificed.
On the other hand, the full method reduces both noise and spectral artifacts while recovering the TF distribution with increased accuracy.
Our reconstruction does not include the experimentally determined aperture $A({\bf k}_\perp)$ in the contrast transfer function $h({\bf k}_\perp)$.
Both with experimental and simulated data, including the rectangular structure from the atom chip assembly led to significant artifacts in the ad hoc reconstruction and somewhat degraded the performance of the full method.
\subsubsection{{\it In-situ} Observation of BEC Phase Transition}
\label{sec:MethodApplication}
Here we demonstrate an application of increased accuracy of the full regularization method by directly and non-destructively observing condensate formation in a crossed ODT using far-detuned PCI.
Figure~\ref{Fig:inSitu_BEC_obs} reveals the BEC phase transition in the refocused images (middle row) as we decrease the ODT depth, cooling to lower temperatures from above the critical temperature $T>T_c$ in (a), to just below $T\lesssim T_c$ in (b) and to well below $T\ll T_c$ in (c).
We independently imaged the cold cloud in time-of-flight using AI to calibrate the temperature.
In raw aberrated images (Fig.~\ref{Fig:inSitu_BEC_obs} top row) only very qualitative features of the density distribution are visible, stymieing quantitative analysis.
The bottom row of Fig.~\ref{Fig:inSitu_BEC_obs} compares the horizontal cross sections of raw images (black curves) and refocused images (red curves) and the fits (purple dashed curves) to the expected density profile for each case.
We observe that the refocused data are generally in good agreement with the expected thermal plus TF distribution.
However, in both cases with $T<T_c$, we observe oscillatory structure in the density around $x\approx -20\ \mu{\rm m}$, potentially indicating a previously undetected fringe on our ODT laser beam.
Lastly, Fig.~\ref{Fig:inSitu_BEC_obs}(d) shows the condensate fraction obtained from our {\it in-situ} non-destructively measured yet aberrated images, illustrating the effectiveness of our reconstruction method to yield images suitable for quantitative analysis.
\section{Conclusion and outlook}
\label{sec:Conc}
In this paper we presented a versatile high-resolution ultracold atom microscope composed of two main components: 1) an economical and practical imaging system based on high NA of-the-shelf optics; and 2) a novel, high-fidelity digital aberration removal technique that is compatible with a wide range of imaging techniques.
The combination of these two elements yields an ultracold atom microscope that can be easily integrated to existing cold-atom apparati, this is in contrast with quantum gas microscopes, which necessitate costly and custom designed optics.
Imaging artifacts resulting from the geometrical constraints of an existing vacuum system or imperfections in the optical elements are mitigated using our digital aberration removal technique.
As such our high-resolution ultracold atom microscope is adaptable, simple and effective.
Furthermore, our reconstruction algorithms are not limited to cold-atom experiments and can be applied in any case where the real and imaginary parts of the susceptibility are proportional to the quantity of interest.
Our full method completely solves the minimization problem at the price of a numerically costly iterative algorithm.
We also showed that a simple ad hoc approximation leads to a method with only slightly degraded performance, suitable for real-time use in a lab setting.
All of our current implementations approximate the true relationship between the detected signal and the ideal recovered signal with a linear transformation that is valid only for small signals.
This leads to the visible underestimation of the true density in the simulated reconstructions which have peak signal $g\approx1$.
Although it is doubtful that algebraic progress beyond Eq.~\eqref{eq:objective} can be made for the true non-linear transformation, we expect that non-linear numerical methods would be able to find the recovered signal without the small $g$ approximation.
This would extend this method to be applicable to the full range of available data.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We benefited greatly from discussions with L.~Walker, R.~Lena, S.Flannigan, A.~Daley, and W. D. Phillips.
This work was partially supported by NIST, and the NSF through the Physics Frontier Center at the JQI.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Vela X-1 (4U 0900-40) is an eclipsing High mass X-ray binary (HMXB) discovered during rocket borne X-ray observations in 1967 \citep{chodil1967x}. It is located at a distance of $\sim$2.0 kpc \citep{sadakane1985ultraviolet,nagase1989accretion} in the Vela constellation. Recent estimates using \textit{Gaia} data infer distance of $2.42^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$ kpc \citep{bailer2018}. The system consists of a massive B0.5Ib supergiant HD 77581 \citep{hiltner1972binary,brucato1972optical,vidal1973hd,jones1973optical} having mass of about $\sim$ 23 $\rm{M_\odot}$ and radius of $\sim$ 34 $\rm{R_\odot}$ \citep{van1976mass,joss1984neutron,nagase1989accretion,van1995spectroscopy} and a neutron star with mass $\sim$ 1.8 $\rm{M_\odot}$ \citep{van1976mass,nagase1989accretion,barziv2001mass,rawls2011ref}. The orbital period of the binary system is about nine days \citep{hiltner1972binary,forman1973uhuru,vidal1973hd,watson1977ariel,van1995spectroscopy}. Due to the close proximity of about 1.7 $\rm{R_\star}$ \citep{conti1978stellar,quaintrell2003mass} between the neutron star and its companion, the neutron star is immersed in the dense stellar wind of the donor star having typical mass loss rate of about $\dot{M} \mathrm{\sim 10^{-6} ~{M_\odot} \,yr^{-1}}$ \citep{hutchings1974x,dupree1980simultaneous,nagase1986circumstellar,sako1999x}. A fraction of the stellar wind is captured and channelled along the strong magnetic field ($\sim 2.7 \times 10^{12}$\,G; \citep{kretschmar1996absorption,kreykenbohm2002confirmation,coburn2002magnetic} of the neutron star onto the magnetic poles, producing regular X-ray pulsations caused by the spin period $\sim 283$\,s \citep{rappaport1975discovery,mcclintock1976discovery} of the neutron star. Although Vela X-1 is known to be a persistent source having luminosity of about ${4}\times 10^{36}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{mccray1984spectral,sadakane1985ultraviolet,nagase1986circumstellar,kreykenbohm2002confirmation}, it shows a plethora of X-ray variabilities such as sudden flares lasting a few minutes to several hours wherein the luminosity increases by several folds within very short time-scales of a few tens of seconds \citep{lapshov1992two,staubert2004integral,kreykenbohm2008high}. Occurrence of sudden flares in this system are not so well understood and is believed to be due to enhanced accretion rate due to variabilities in the stellar wind from the companion star \citep{nagase1983light,haberl1990x} or accretion of clumpy stellar wind \citep{staubert2004integral,ducci2009,furst2010x,odaka2013short}. Some studies suggest that sudden flares might be related to formation of transient accretion disc \citep{inoue1984sudden,taam1989numerical,haberl1990x,kreykenbohm2008high}. Another bizzare manifestation seen in Vela X-1 is occurrence of abrupt ``off-states'' wherein X-ray pulsations cessation (within less than the pulse period) is observed for several tens of minutes at a time \citep{inoue1984sudden,lapshov1992two,kreykenbohm1999,kreykenbohm2008high,doroshenko2011witnessing,sidoli2015probing}. These states are poorly understood and might be caused by changes in the accretion rate due to variabilities in the stellar wind \citep{lapshov1992two,coburn2002magnetic}. Some earlier studies also suggest that ``off-states'' might be associated with formation of transient accretion discs \citep{inoue1984sudden} or the accretion is choked due to the sudden onset of propeller effect \citep{kreykenbohm2008high}. It has also been suggested that the onset of these ``off-states'' can be caused due to transition from the higher luminosity Compton cooling regime to the lower luminosity radiative cooling regime \citep{shakura2013nature} or due to unstable hydrodynamic flows in the vicinity of the neutron star \citep{manousakis2015origin}. Recent numerical studies suggest formation of temporary accretion discs in wind-fed X-ray pulsars \citep{el2019formation,el2019wind,karino2019stellar} but conclusive evidence of their existence has been elusive. Interestingly, \citet{liao2020spectral} infer presence of temporary accretion disc in Vela X-1 during an extended low state lasting at least 30 ks which was accompanied by unusual spin-up event and similar Fe K $\alpha$ fluxes compared to the preceding flaring period. \\
Long-term monitoring of the spin period of Vela X-1 since 1975 has shown erratic spin period variations over time which is an archetype of wind-fed X-ray pulsars \citep{deeter1989vela,bildsten1997observations}. Spin excursions on short time-scales are considered to be caused by the dynamic accretion torque acting on the neutron star as a result of changes in the stellar wind from the donor star \citep{kreykenbohm2008high}. Vela X-1 is known to show variable episodes of spin-up and spin-down \citep{nagase1981spin}. The evolution of spin period is most appropriately described by a random walk model \citep{tsunemi1989all,ziolkowski1985rotational}. Although the source shows strong pulse to pulse variations which is a tell-tale manifestation of fluctuating rate of accretion \citep{staubert1980hard,nagase1984secular,kretschmar1997phase}, pulse profiles folded over several pulse periods show remarkable stability (for 10 pulses or more; \citet{staubert1980hard}, even over decades \citep{raubenheimer1990pulsed}). This suggests that the magnetic environment of the neutron star is very stable on long time-scales. Recent measurements of surface magnetic fields of X-ray pulsars using detection of cyclotron resonance scattering effects suggest that the magnetic field of neutron stars are almost constant on very long time-scales of about $10^8$ yr \citep{makishima1999cyc}. However, recent studies have found changes in cyclotron line energies in Vela X-1 on long time-scales using the \textit{Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory}/BAT observations \citep{la2016swift,ji2019long}. This suggests that the inferred magnetic field decays at the rate of about $3\times10 ^{10}$\,G\, yr$^{-1}$ \citep{la2016swift}. The most recent spin evolution study of Vela X-1 found the pulsar showing spin-down behaviour \citep{kreykenbohm1999}.\\
Investigations of spin period variations on various time-scales (few tens of days to several hundred days) have been carried out in several X-ray pulsars and at least one torque reversal has been detected in some of these pulsars (Cen X-3 \citep{tsunemi1989pulse}; several pulsars studied by \citet{nagase1989accretion} and
references therein; OAO 1657-415 \citep{chakrabarty1993discovery}; several pulsars monitored and studied by the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) \citep{bildsten1997observations}; 4U 1626–67 \citet{wilson1993observations}, \citet{chakrabarty1997torque}, \citet{camero2009new}; GX 1+4 \citet{makishima1988spin}, \citet{chakrabarty1997correlation}, \citet{gonzalez2012spin}; 4U 1907+09 \citet{fritz2006torque}, \citet{inam2009recent}; 4U 0114+650 \citep{hu2016evolution}; LMC X-4 \citep{molkov2016near}; NGC 300 ULX1 \citep{vasilopoulos2019ngc}; 2S 1845-024 and several other pulsars monitored and studied by the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) aboard the \textit{Fermi} Gamma-ray Space Telescope \citep{malacaria2020ups}). A long-term periodicity of about 9 yr and 6.8 yr has been detected in the spin evolution of Cen X-3 \citep{tsunemi1989pulse} and LMC X-4 \citep{molkov2016near} respectively. It is intriguing to note that GX 1+4, which is a disc-fed pulsar, has shown only one transition from secular spin-up to monotonic spin-down behaviour \citep{makishima1988spin,chakrabarty1997correlation,gonzalez2012spin} during its spin evolution monitored over almost five decades. Cen X-3 has a massive O6-8 III type companion star V779 Cen \citep{krzeminski1974identification} which has a strong wind. However, presence of an accretion disc has been detected in this system \citep{tjemkes1986optical} which suggests that accretion induced spin changes in this pulsar are mainly driven by accretion from the disc. This makes Cen X-3 a predominantly disc-fed pulsar. The companion star of LMC X-4 is an O8 III type massive star \citep{kelley1983discovery,falanga2015ephemeris} and the neutron star accretes from an accretion disc in this system \citep{lang1981discovery} making this a disc-fed source. It should be noted that though Cen X-3 and LMC X-4 are disc-fed pulsars unlike Vela X-1 which is a wind-fed pulsar, they also exhibit long-term periodicity in their spin evolution. This makes Vela X-1 to be the first wind-fed X-ray pulsar where such a long-term periodicity (on time-scales of years) in the spin evolution has been detected.\\
In this paper, we investigate the long-term ($\sim$ 46 yr) spin evolution of Vela X-1 using spin period measurements from 24 different observatories. Most of the spin period measurements are taken from literature and we deduce spin periods, not reported earlier, from using the \textit{Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE)}/Proportional Counter Array (PCA) and the \textit{AstroSat}/Large Area X-ray Proportional Counter (LAXPC) observations. The complete list of spin period measurements is shown in the appendix \ref{appendix:a}. The paper is organized as follows. After the introduction, in section 2 we first describe observations and data analysis from archival \textit{RXTE}/PCA observations of Vela X-1. Then we describe recent observations from the \textit{AstroSat} mission and LAXPC data analysis procedures. In section 3 we describe our main results related to the detection of long-term spin-down trend in Vela X-1 and detection of nearly periodic spin period reversals on long time-scales. In section 4 we discuss possible changes in the accretion landscape of this wind-fed X-ray pulsar using current ideas which can explain nearly periodic long-term torque reversals. A summary of all our findings is presented in section 5.
\section{Observations and data analysis}
The main goal of our work is to explore the long-term spin period evolution of Vela X-1 since its discovery almost five decades ago. To the best of our knowledge, such a long-term ($\sim$ 46 yr) spin evolution study of a wind-fed X-ray pulsar is being reported for the first time. It should be noted that the spin period evolution over periods of $\sim$10 to 20 yr has been studied earlier in Cen X-3 \citep{tsunemi1989pulse} and LMC X-4 \citep{molkov2016near} which are both disc-fed pulsars. We use all the spin period measurements reported in literature and infer new spin periods using archival data from the \textit{Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer} mission (\textit{RXTE}, \citet{bradt1993rxte} and the currently operational \textit{AstroSat} mission \citep{agrawal2006broad}.
\subsection{\textit{RXTE} observations and data reduction}
The \textit{Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer} (\textit{RXTE}) was operational for about 16 yr from 1996 February until 2012 January. During its lifetime it observed Vela X-1 numerous times and about a hundred archival \textit{RXTE} observations are available for
this star, with each observation ranging from about a thousand seconds to $\sim$ 40 ks.
We have analysed some of these archival observations to obtain the spin period of Vela X-1 at different epochs. The log of \textit{RXTE} observations used in our study are shown in Table ${\ref{t1}}$. Three science instruments were flown onboard this mission viz.
the Proportional Counter Array (PCA, \citet{jahoda1996euv}), the High Energy Timing Experiment (HEXTE; \citet{rothschild1998flight})
and the All Sky Monitor (ASM; \citet{levine1996first}). In our present
work, we have used archival data from the PCA instrument. The PCA consists of five co-aligned Xenon proportional counter units (PCUs) with total effective area of about $6500 ~\rm{cm^2}$ and sensitive in the energy range
from $2 ~\rm{keV}$ to $\sim 60 ~\rm{keV}$ \citep{jahoda1996euv}. We used data only from the PCU2 as it was functional most of the time during the \textit{RXTE} lifespan, while other PCUs suffered occasional breakdowns.
We analysed the \textit{RXTE} data using the standard NASA \texttt{HEASOFT} software package (version 6.12) released by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive
Research (HEASARC) Center.\footnote{\url{http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/}}
The detailed procedure of data analysis using \texttt{FTOOLS} are illustrated
in \textquotedblleft The \textit{RXTE} Cook Book: Recipes for Data Analysis and Reduction \textquotedblright
\footnote{\url{https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/recipes/cook\_book.html}} and \textquotedblleft {The ABC of XTE} \textquotedblright \footnote[3]{\url{http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/abc/contents.html}}, written and maintained
by \textit{RXTE} Guest Observer Facility (\textit{RXTE} GOF).\\
The X-ray light curves with $125~ \rm{ms}$ resolution were extracted using standard \textit{RXTE} analysis software \texttt{FTOOLS} ver. 6.13.
All the light curves were rebinned in 1.0 s bins before further processing. When determining the source ``goodtime'' intervals, the following data selection criteria were used
for the extraction of source counts. To avoid possible contamination due to X-rays from the Earth's limb, data was extracted
only when the satellite was pointing more than $10^{\circ}$ above the horizon. To avoid possible contamination from activation in the detectors due
to the high particle rates in the SAA (South Atlantic Anomaly) passages, data were rejected from a 40 min interval beginning with the satellite entering the SAA. It was also
ensured that the satellite pointed within $0.02^{\circ}$ of the source position.
Some of the observations had low exposure time ($\rm{\sim 3000 ~s}$) and so they were merged with other close observations to generate a light curve with long
exposure. In order to remove the effect caused by the motion of the satellite and the Earth, the observed times of arrival of the pulse were converted to those of the barycentre of the solar system. The barycentric corrections to the event data files were applied using the \texttt{FTOOLS} utility \lq \texttt{FAXBARY}\rq. ~The light curves were rebinned to 16 s to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) before periodicity searches.
The resulting light curve has data gaps in between and so we used the method of Scargle \citep{scargle1982} for periodicity searches in \textit{RXTE} data. The derived pulse periods are tabulated in the appendix $\ref{appendix:a}$.
\subsection{LAXPC observations and data reduction}
We have analysed observations from the Large Area X-ray Proportional Counter (LAXPC) instrument onboard the \textit{AstroSat} mission \citep{agrawal2006broad}. The \textit{AstroSat}/LAXPC observations were carried out on 2015 November 25 and 2015 November 26 covering orbits 869-874, during the Performance Verification (PV) phase of \textit{AstroSat}. We have also analysed the Target of Opportunity (ToO) observations of Vela X-1 from 2019 March 12 to 2019 March 16 covering 13 orbits available on the ISRO Science Data Archive for the \textit{AstroSat} mission \footnote[4]{\url{https://www.issdc.gov.in/astro.html}}. The log of \textit{AstroSat} observations used in our study is shown in Table ${\ref{t2}}$.\\
LAXPC consists of 3 identical collimated detectors (LAXPC10, LAXPC20 and LAXPC30), having 5 anode
layer geometry with 15 cm deep X-ray detection volume providing an effective area of about 4500 cm$^2$ at 5 keV, 6000 cm$^2$ at 10 keV and about 5600 cm$^2$ at about 40 keV \citep{roy2019laxpc,chandra2020study}.
The arrival times of X-ray photons are recorded with a time resolution of 10 $\rm{\mu}$s.
The details of the characteristics of the LAXPC instrument are available in \citep{yadav2016large,agrawal2017large,roy2016}. The calibration details of LAXPC instrument are given in \citet{antia2017calibration}. We have used softwares available from the \textit{AstroSat} Science Support Cell \footnote[5]{\url{http://astrosat-ssc.iucaa.in/?q=laxpcData}} to reduce Level-1 data to Level-2 data. Level-2 data contains (i) light curve in broad band counting mode (modeBB) and (ii) event mode data (modeEA) with information about arrival time, pulse height and layer of origin of each detected X-ray and (iii) housekeeping data and parameter files are stored in mkf file. We have used laxpc software tool having single routine to extract spectra, light curve and background, \textquotedblleft \texttt{LAXPCSOFT} \textquotedblright ~to extract light curves having 1 s resolution using the event mode data. Fig. $\ref{f1}$ shows light curve of Vela X-1 in the 3-80 keV energy band obtained using LAXPC20 data from orbit 869-874.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{Light curve of Vela X-1 in the 3-80 keV energy band using \textit{AstroSat} data from orbit 869-874. The light curve has been rebinned to 16 s. The gaps in the light curve are due to the passage of the satellite through the South Atlantic Anomaly regions.}
\label{f1}
\end{figure}
We correct X-ray photons arrival times to the solar system barycentre using the \textit{AstroSat} barycentric correction utility \lq \textit{as1bary}\rq. The orbit files for barycentric correction are generated using \textit{AstroSat} orbit file generator
\footnote[6]{\url{http://astrosat-ssc.iucaa.in:8080/orbitgen/}}. \lq \textit{as1bary}\rq ~requires \texttt{HEASOFT} software package (version 6.17 or higher) and so we have used the latest \texttt{HEASOFT} software package (version 6.26) for our analysis. The light curves were rebinned to 16 s to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) before searches for periodicity.
We use the \texttt{FTOOLS} subroutine \textit{efsearch} to obtain the best estimated pulse periods. The inferred pulse periods are shown in the appendix $\ref{appendix:a}$.\\
\begin{table*}
\caption{Log of \textit{RXTE} PCU2 observations used in this study.}
\label{t1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
S. no. & ObsID & Time of Observation & Exposure (s) & MJD (mid) & Useful exposure (s) \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
1 & 10141-01-02-00 & 1996-02-22 02:15:14.7 & 6567 & 50135.16 & 5952\\
2 & 10144-02-01-00 & 1996-03-11 15:36:59.6 & 9956 & 50153.74 & 9232 \\
3 & 10142-01-01-00 & 1996-07-27 16:31:40.2 & 31953 & 50291.86 & 16176 \\
4 & 30102-01-01-00 & 1998-01-21 19:20:41 & 40833 & 50834.98 &
15744 \\
5 & 40073-01-01-03 & 2000-02-03 05:04:25.8 & 2167 & 51577.30 & 5936 \\
& 40073-01-01-02 & 2000-02-03 06:34:33.6 & 2212 & & \\
& 40073-01-01-01 & 2000-02-03 08:13:07.7 & 2203 & & \\
6 & 40073-01-01-04 & 2000-02-03 22:37:04.2 & 3951 & 51578.33 & 27632 \\
& 40073-01-02-00 & 2000-02-04 00:00:06.9 & 10677 & & \\
& 40073-01-02-01 & 2000-02-04 05:10:02.8 & 1373 & & \\
& 40073-01-02-02 & 2000-02-04 06:36:04.3 & 1971 & & \\
& 40073-01-02-03 & 2000-02-04 08:12:04.6 & 2090 & & \\
& 40073-01-02-04 & 2000-02-04 09:48:04.9 & 16490 & & \\
7 & 40073-01-03-00 & 2001-05-14 20:03:16.7 & 14154 & 52044.12 & 23616 \\
& 40073-01-03-01 & 2001-05-15 03:47:05.3 & 12225 & & \\
8 & 90083-01-01-05 & 2005-01-01 00:08:48.8 & 1938 & 53371.22 & 18880 \\
& 90083-01-01-06 & 2005-01-01 01:20:03.8 & 2149 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-07 & 2005-01-01 02:51:00.9 & 13735 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-10 & 2005-01-01 09:08:58.3 & 3779 & & \\
9 & 90083-01-01-08 & 2005-01-02 02:52:52.3 & 13330 & 53372.50 & 32560 \\
& 90083-01-01-12 & 2005-01-02 08:44:59.7 & 4000 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-04 & 2005-01-02 10:20:00.4 & 17275 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-13 & 2005-01-02 18:27:57.9 & 2217 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-14 & 2005-01-02 20:05:00.4 & 2395 & & \\
10 & 90083-01-01-15 & 2005-01-03 00:54:19 & 2237 & 53373.52 & 33712 \\
& 90083-01-01-16 & 2005-01-03 02:30:29.7 & 2396 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-25 & 2005-01-03 03:47:29.5 & 3477 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-27 & 2005-01-03 05:22:29.3 & 3417 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-28 & 2005-01-03 06:51:29.7 & 3777 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-17 & 2005-01-03 08:26:29.5 & 2997 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-02 & 2005-01-03 09:56:00.1 & 17155 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-29 & 2005-01-03 18:03:00.6 & 2573 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-18 & 2005-01-03 19:41:01 & 2514 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-19 & 2005-01-03 22:55:38.8 & 1777 & & \\
11 & 90083-01-01-20 & 2005-01-04 01:59:05.3 & 2504 & 53374.54 & 30192\\
& 90083-01-01-21 & 2005-01-04 03:18:00.9 & 7195 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-30 & 2005-01-04 06:24:01.2 & 16000 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-03 & 2005-01-04 11:17:01 & 20034 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-22 & 2005-01-04 22:30:52.7 & 3000 & & \\
12 & 90083-01-01-23 & 2005-01-05 01:29:52.2 & 14531 & 53375.54 & 26160\\
& 90083-01-01-24 & 2005-01-05 07:35:03.3 & 4000 & & \\
& 90083-01-01-01 & 2005-01-05 09:11:01 & 14397 & & \\
13 & 90083-01-02-01 & 2005-01-09 05:18:41.2 & 8195 & 53379.29 & 6896 \\
14 & 93039-02-01-08 & 2007-12-03 02:56:10.2 & 995 & 54437.39 & 33600\\
& 93039-02-01-03 & 2007-12-03 04:12:18.1 & 2179 & & \\
& 93039-02-01-10 & 2007-12-03 05:15:33.7 & 16009 & & \\
& 93039-02-01-09 & 2007-12-03 11:34:03.1 & 3833 & & \\
& 93039-02-01-04 & 2007-12-03 13:16:18.3 & 17662 & & \\
15 & 93039-01-01-00 & 2007-12-07 11:24:19.9 & 17361 & 54442.42 & 67264 \\
& 93039-01-01-11 & 2007-12-07 19:53:23.1 & 8289 & & \\
& 93039-01-01-06 & 2007-12-08 00:15:02.9 & 2989 & & \\
& 93039-01-01-09 & 2007-12-08 01:49:19.5 & 3317 & & \\
& 93039-01-01-04 & 2007-12-08 03:09:17.3 & 20425 & & \\
& 93039-01-01-05 & 2007-12-08 11:31:03.4 & 952 & & \\
& 93039-01-01-01 & 2007-12-08 12:43:19.8 & 23777 & & \\
& 93039-01-01-07 & 2007-12-08 23:46:02.8 & 3049 & & \\
& 93039-01-01-10 & 2007-12-09 01:21:19.9 & 3437 & & \\
& 93039-01-01-02 & 2007-12-09 02:44:16.5 & 16883 & & \\
16 & 93039-01-02-02 & 2008-11-25 04:22:05.7 & 18403 & 54795.52 & 29184 \\
& 93039-01-02-08 & 2008-11-25 11:36:03.2 & 2451 & & \\
& 93039-01-02-05 & 2008-11-25 13:15:13.5 & 5551 & & \\
& 93039-01-02-03 & 2008-11-25 17:44:05.3 & 7430 & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:nonlin}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\renewcommand\thetable{}
\contcaption{Log of \textit{RXTE} PCU2 observations used in this study.}
\label{tab:continued}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
S. no. & ObsID & Time of Observation & Exposure (s) & MJD (mid) & Useful exposure (s) \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
17 & 93039-02-02-00 & 2008-11-30 01:27:03.7 & 22072 & 54801.04 & 42480 \\
& 93039-02-02-01 & 2008-11-30 10:55:37.9 & 2263 & & \\
& 93039-02-02-02 & 2008-11-30 14:01:03.6 & 8676 & & \\
& 93039-02-02-03 & 2008-11-30 20:18:58.5 & 15540 & & \\
& 93039-02-02-04 & 2008-12-01 02:36:03.2 & 10310 & & \\
& 93039-02-02-05 & 2008-12-01 07:18:58.2 & 5823 & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:nonlin}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Log of \textit{AstroSat} LAXPC observations used in this study.}
\label{t2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline\hline
S. no. & Orbit & Time of Observation & MJD (start) & Useful exposure (s) \\
& & (yyyy-mm-dd hr:min:sec) & & \\[0.5ex]
\hline
1 & 869 & 2015-11-25 18:37:25-2015-11-26 04:02:47 & 57351.78 & 22052 \\
& 870 & & & \\
& 871 & & & \\
& 872 & & & \\
& 873 & & & \\
& 874 & & & \\
2 & 18673 & 2019-03-12 16:31:52-2019-03-13 06:28:17 & 58554.68 & 34148 \\
& 18674 & & & \\
& 18675 & & & \\
& 18676 & & & \\
& 18677 & & & \\
& 18680 & & & \\
3 & 18716 & 2019-03-15 14:42:44-2019-03-16 03:30:05 & 58557.61 & 36697 \\
& 18717 & & & \\
& 18718 & & & \\
& 18719 & & & \\
& 18720 & & & \\
& 18721 & & & \\
& 18723 & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:nonlin}
\end{table*}
\section{Results}
\subsection{Long-term spin-down apparition in Vela X-1}
Making use of all the spin periods of Vela X-1 reported in literature as well as the values derived from our analysis of \textit{RXTE}/PCA and \textit{AstroSat}/LAXPC, we construct the long-term spin history of Vela X-1 which is shown in Fig. {\ref{f2}}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{Long-term spin history of Vela X-1 from 1975 February until 2021 June. The general trend of secular spin-down of the X-ray pulsar superposed on random episodes of spin-up and spin-down behaviour is discernible. The dashed curve shows the best fit polynomial to the spin evolution of Vela X-1.
A careful look at the long-term pulse period evolution also suggests presence of cyclic trend in the long-term spin evolution of Vela X-1. The different markers indicate spin period measurements from different observatories ($\pentagon$: \textit{Copernicus}, \textcolor{blue}{$\bigtriangledown$}: \textit{OAO 3}, \textcolor{black}{\ding{59}}: \textit{SAS 3}:, $\bigtriangleup$: \textit{Ariel V}, $\square$: \textit{COS B}, $\diamond$: \textit{OSO 8}, $\lhd$: \textit{HEAO 1}, $\Diamond$: AIT/MPI balloon X-ray detector, \textcolor{blue}{\ding{59}}: \textit{Hakucho}, x: \textit{Tenma}, $\hexagon$: \textit{EXOSAT}, $\rhd$: \textit{Ginga}, $\octagon$: \textit{KVANT}, *: \textit{GRANAT}, \textcolor{blue}{$\pentagon$}: \textit{ROSAT}, $\bigtriangledown$: \textit{CGRO}/BATSE, +: \textit{RXTE}, \textcolor{blue}{$\bigtriangleup$}: \textit{BeppoSAX},
\textcolor{blue}{$\square$}: \textit{INTEGRAL}, \textcolor{blue}{$\diamond$}: \textit{XMM-Newton}, \textcolor{blue}{$\lhd$}: \textit{Suzaku}, X: \textit{NuSTAR}, $\Circle$: Fermi/GBM, \textcolor{blue}{$\hexagon$}: \textit{AstroSat}). The symbols are shown in different colours for the various missions. The dark shaded patches are due to close cadence of BATSE and \textit{Fermi} observations such that they almost overlap
showing dark patches.}
\label{f2}
\end{figure}
The spin history spans a period of 46 yr (1975 February until 2021 June) and this is probably the longest time period over which the spin period for an accretion powered pulsar has been measured.
So far, long-term trends in spin period have been observed only in X-ray pulsars harbouring an accretion disc \citep{tsunemi1989pulse,gonzalez2012spin,molkov2016near,vasilopoulos2019ngc}. The
remarkable long-term secular spin-down trend of Vela X-1 is clearly discernible, albeit it shows random alterations between spin-up and spin-down regimes on shorter time-scales, which is
the paradigm of wind-fed pulsars \citep{deeter1989vela,bildsten1997observations}. Vela X-1 was found to be on a spin-up evolutionary track after its discovery in 1975. This trend continued for four years until 1979 and then Vela X-1 experienced an abrupt transition to spin-down regime, which lasted about
three years. It is intriguing to note that the culmination of this spin-down phase has spin period value comparable to that when its spin period was first measured in 1975.
Vela X-1 continued its spin adventure and thereafter switched into a bizzare mode, wherein the pulse period was more or less stable on time-scale of about 3-4 yr. This almost constant spin period phase is really intriguing for a wind-fed pulsar as wind-fed accretion powered pulsars are known to show random variations in spin period
on short time-scales (as short as within a few days, \citet{boynton1984new,boynton1986vela,deeter1989vela,baykal1993empirical,de1993simple}). Thereafter, the pulsar switched to a remarkable long-term spin-down behaviour (with superposed sporadic episodes of spin-up and spin-down behaviour on relatively shorter time-scales) lasting almost three decades or so. A careful
examination of the Fig. \ref{f2} suggests that the rate of spin-up and spin-down can vary significantly on various time-scales during the entire recorded spin history of Vela X-1. We observe dips in spin period around MJD 44000, 50000, 52000, 54000, 57000 and 59000 which hints that there might be cyclic transitions between spin-up and spin-down on
time-scales of about a few thousand days or so. Fig. \ref{f3} shows the spin evolution of Vela X-1 for about 46 yr and we identify three distinct episodes of torque reversals from spin-down to spin-up regimes around MJD 44000, 50000 and 57000. These torque reversals occur nearly in a cyclic manner after about 6000-7000 d ($\sim$ 16.5-19.4 yr) which is really intriguing for a wind-fed pulsar which are known to show random torque reversals on much smaller time-scales. Interestingly, the radius of curvatures of the parabolas fitted to the spin evolution around these epochs are different and asymmetric. This suggests that the pulsar spends different durations in these states and the rate of spin-up and spin-down are markedly different during these torque reversals.
\subsection{Nearly periodic spin period reversals in Vela X-1 on long time-scales }
We further probe possible cyclic variations in the spin period of Vela X-1 by constructing the long-term averaged spin history using a smoothing window of 300 d (Fig. \ref{f4}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{Long-term spin history of Vela X-1 from February, 1975 until June, 2021 (upper panel, same as shown in Fig. \ref{f2}). Three distinct episodes of torque reversals from spin-up to spin-down occur around MJD 44000, 50000 and 57000 which have been fitted using a parabola shown in dashed green, blue and red curve respectively (bottom panel). The radius of curvatures of the parabolas fitted to the torque reversals around these epochs are different and show asymmetricity.}
\label{f3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig4.pdf}
\caption{Long-term averaged spin history of Vela X-1 from 1975 February until 2021 June. The spin periods have been averaged using a time window of 300 d. The presence of quasiperiodic episodes of spin-up and spin-down (on time-scales of about 2000 d) superposed on long-term spin-down trend stands out.}
\label{f4}
\end{figure}
This averages out random transitions in spin period on short time-scales and clearly brings out the nearly cyclic variations in spin period on long time-scales. We observe prominent dips in the spin period around MJD 44000, 48000, 50000, 52000, 54000, 57000 and 59000. It is really intriguing that the long-term averaged spin variations in Vela X-1 is almost cyclic having periodicity of about 2000 d. The tiny dip in spin period around MJD 46000 is likely an artefact of smoothing.
Besides, the rate of spin-up and spin-down varies significantly and quite differently during each of these
slow transitions in spin period as is evident from the asymmetric nature of these gradual spin period changes occurring on long time-scales. These subtle observations gleaned from averaged spin history in Vela X-1 can be helpful in probing the underlying phenomena causing nearly cyclic spin changes in this pulsar on time-scale of about 2000 d. In case the spin-down rate is smaller than the spin-up rate during
these gradual transitions (e.g. notice transitions in spin period around MJD 48000, 50000 and 52000), it may suggest a phenomena involving some kind of relaxation effect such as a complex interplay of slow changes in the accretion rate of the neutron star, internal torques acting on the crust of the neutron star and/or magnetospheric state variations of the neutron star.
We notice from Fig. \ref{f2} that the cyclic modulation in spin period is superposed on a long-term spin-down trend (starting around MJD 44000 until around MJD 53000). Fig. \ref{f5} shows the Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the long-term spin evolution of Vela X-1. We obtain the time-scale of nearly cyclic spin period evolution to be 2154.58 d ($5.90^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$ yr). Table $\ref{t3}$ lists salient parameters of X-ray pulsars in which nearly cyclic spin period evolution on time-scales of years has been detected.
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of known X-ray pulsars which show nearly periodic spin period changes on long time-scales.}
\label{t3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
Name of X-ray pulsar & Spin period (s) & Orbital period (d) & Spin change periodicity (yr) & wind/disc-fed & Reference\\
\hline
Cen X-3 & $\sim 4.8$ & $\sim 2.1$ & $\sim 9.2$ & disk-fed & 1\\
LMC X-4 & $\sim 13.5$ & $\sim 1.4$ & $\sim 6.8$ & disk-fed & 2\\
Vela X-1 & $\sim 283$ & $\sim 8.9$ & $\sim 5.9$ & wind-fed & 3 (this work)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:nonlin}
\\(1) \cite{tsunemi1989pulse}, (2) \cite{molkov2016near}
and (3) this work.
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth,angle =-90]{Fig5.pdf}
\caption{Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the long-term spin evolution of Vela X-1 shown earlier in Fig. \ref{f2}. The periodogram peaks at 2154.58 d (about 5.9 yr). The detected period is found to have more than 5$\sigma$ confidence.}
\label{f5}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussions}
From the spin period measurements over a period of 46 yr, one can discern an overall trend of spin-down of the source though it will be noticed from Fig. \ref{f2} that since MJD 51000 the spin period has largely stayed at $\sim$283.4 s with erratic episodes of spin-up and spin-down. The results in the previous section show nearly periodic spin
period variations in Vela X-1 on time-scales of about 5.9 yr which is superposed on long-term spin-down trend since its discovery in 1975.
We also find nearly cyclic turnover from spin-up to spin-down regimes on decadal time-scales of about 17-19 yr (three cycles clearly identified in about 46 yr of spin period evolution of this X-ray pulsar) which, to the best of our knowledge, has been detected in any accretion powered pulsar for the very first time. In the following section, we discuss possible mechanisms which can lead to nearly cyclic spin period variations on time-scales of years in wind-fed pulsars like Vela X-1. We would like to emphasize that as the temporal variation of accretion torques in wind-fed accretion powered pulsars is complex and depends on many parameters such as the stellar wind velocity, stellar wind density, magnetospheric state of the pulsar, energetics of the plasma flow in the vicinity of the neutron star etc. a combination of the following mechanisms may operate simultaneously in this wind-fed X-ray pulsar.
\subsection{Cyclic mass loss in the donor star HD 77581?}
Variations in the spin period of an accretion powered pulsar is the manifestation of the interplay of two torques acting on the compact object viz. the accretion torque exerted
by the accreting matter captured from the stellar wind of the donor star (for a wind-fed pulsar such as Vela X-1) and the internal torque due to the dynamic coupling between the solid crust and the superfluid matter in the core of the neutron star \citep{nagase1989accretion}. To decouple these two torques acting on a neutron star is
a challenging exercise. It is believed that spin wandering on short time-scales can be caused either by variations in the accretion torque \citep{elsner1976accretion,ghosh1979accretion} and/or by variations in the internal torque applied by the superfluid core \citep{lamb1978period,ghosh1979accretion} on the crust of the neutron star. It has also been suggested in some earlier studies that variations in spin period over sufficiently long time-scales is the manifestation of the external torque acting on the neutron star \citep{pringle1972accretion,lamb1973model,ghosh1979accretion}. \citet{nagase1984secular} suggest that the long-term (about 3 yr or longer) spin-down trend in Vela X-1 during 1979-81 is not caused due to the internal torque because it is less likely that the coupling between the crust and the superfluid core of the neutron star can sustain for such a long time. In addition, they also discuss about ineffectiveness of the internal torque in causing short-term, abrupt spin period changes. In the light of the above arguments, we surmise that the (external) accretion torque is the dominant torque acting on the neutron star over long time-scales (a few tens of years) and variations in this torque manifest as dynamic changes in the accretion torque and ultimately spin changes in Vela X-1 on long time-scales. Variations in this torque occur due to fluctuations in the accretion rate of matter from the stellar wind of the donor star. It is known that the stellar wind from early-type stars vary irregularly on time-scales from minutes to years and so it has been suggested that variations in the stellar wind from the donor star can cause reversals in the accretion torque acting on the neutron star on time-scales of days to years \citep{nagase1989accretion}. Interestingly, \citet{tsunemi1989pulse} surmise that the 9.2 yr cyclic spin period variations detected in Cen X-3 maybe caused by changes in the activity of the massive O6-8 III companion star. Variations in the stellar activity of the companion star may lead to changes in the stellar wind velocity and density. This will result in varying mass loss rate
which may modulate the accretion rate and hence correlate with spin period changes detected in Cen X-3 by \citet{tsunemi1989pulse}. Vela X-1 is a wind-fed pulsar accreting from an early-type star and therefore variations in mass-loss from the donor star will manifest as spin changes in the compact object on long time-scales. Thus, we infer that nearly periodic spin variations in Vela X-1 on long time-scales of about 5.9 yr occur possibly due to cyclic mass-loss/stellar wind variations from the donor star HD 77581. Long-term optical monitoring of the companion star on decadal time-scales might shed light on this plausible mechanism.\\
Changes in X-ray luminosity of the compact object are a tell-tale signatures of variations in the accretion rate of captured matter from the stellar wind. We compare the luminosity and the pulse periods of Vela X-1 obtained using \textit{RXTE} PCU2 data and those reported in literature (Fig. \ref{f6}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig6.pdf}
\caption{Plot showing spin period vs X-ray luminosity of Vela X-1. Different symbols indicate results obtained from our work and those available in the literature. Circles indicate luminosity in the range 2-80 keV (this work), inverted triangle indicates luminosity in the range 2-30 keV \citep{nagase1986circumstellar}, squares indicate luminosity in the range 3-100 keV \citep{lutovinov2009timing}, triangle indicates luminosity in the range 0.3-70 keV \citep{maitra2013pulse} and diamonds indicate luminosity in the range 3-79 keV \citep{fuerst2013nustar}. Please note that energy ranges of luminosities are different and can be compared because the contribution to X-ray luminosity at higher energies decreases significantly.}
\label{f6}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that the range of energies for comparing luminosities are not identical but still we can compare them as the
contribution of high energy photons to the X-ray luminosity, diminishes significantly with energy. We compute Pearson correlation coefficient
for possible correlation between the spin period and X-ray luminosity and find it to be 0.2 indicating weak or no correlation between these parameters shown in Fig. \ref{f6}. It has been observed that the luminosity and pulse period in Vela X-1 are not clearly correlated \citep{malacaria2020ups}. However, some studies suggest that changes in the count rate on short time-scales can affect the spin of the neutron star on short time-scales of a few days \citep{kretschmar1997phase}. Interestingly, a correlated behaviour between count rate in 11-40 keV energy range (not affected by photoelectric absorption) and spin period has been observed approximately over 50 d or so which suggests possible correlation between accretion torque and spin period on time-scales of about a couple of months (refer Table 1 in \citet{kretschmar1997phase}). \citet{lutovinov2009timing} find using \textit{INTEGRAL} observations that the luminosity of Vela X-1 enhances almost threefold during an outburst which is accompanied by remarkable changes in the spin period and suggests that episodic enhanced accretion during flares can cause tangible changes in the spin period. Interestingly, the source spectrum and the position of cyclotron lines did not vary during this period \citep{lutovinov2009timing} which strongly suggests that the fluctuations in accretion rate was primarily responsible for sudden changes observed in the spin period during this period. However, these observed changes are detected at much shorter time-scales of about a few hours to few tens of days. Long-term X-ray monitoring of the pulsar at regular intervals using pointed mode instruments is required to investigate this premise in detail.\\
One can infer from Fig. \ref{f6} that there are variations in the pulsar period within the range $\rm{{\delta P}/P \sim 1/300}$ while the corresponding X-ray luminosity also changes by a factor of $\sim$ 3 in the range $\sim 1.5-4\times 10^{36}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$. It has been shown by \citet{shakura2012theory,shakura2014theory, shakura2018quasi} that the quasi-spherical settling accretion regime is feasible when the X-ray luminosity $\rm{L_X} \lesssim 4\times 10^{36}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$. At higher luminosities, the accretion proceeds in the supersonic Bondi regime. The following discussion is applicable for those states of the source when the $\rm{L_X} \lesssim 4\times 10^{36}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$. The equilibrium period for quasi-spherical accretion is given by \citep{postnov2015spin}
\begin{equation}
P^{*}_{eq}\sim 940[s]\mu^{12/11}_{30}\left({\frac{P_b}{10~d}}\right) \dot{M}^{-4/11}_{16}v^{4}_{8},
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{30}=\mu/10^{30} [\rm{G~cm^3}]$ is the dipole magnetic moment given by $\mu=\rm{BR^3/2}$ where R is the radius of the neutron star having typical value of 10 km, $\dot{M}_{16}=\dot{M}/10^{16}[\rm{g~s^{-1}}]$ is the accretion rate onto the neutron star, $P_b$ is the orbital period and $v_{8}=v/10^{8}[\rm{cm~s^{-1}}]$ is the characteristic stellar wind velocity. Using equation 1, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta P}{P} =\frac{-4}{11} \frac{\delta L}{L} +4 \frac{\delta v}{v}.
\end{equation}
For the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton wind accretion \citep{hoyle1939effect,bondi1944mechanism,bondi1952spherically},
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta L}{L}=-4 \frac{\delta v}{v}+\frac{\delta{\dot{M}_o}}{\dot{M}_o},
\end{equation}
where $\dot{M}_o$ is the wind mass-loss rate from the optical companion star. Using equation 2 and 3 we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta P}{P}=\frac{-4}{11} \frac{\delta{\dot{M}_o}}{\dot{M}_o}+\frac{60}{11} \frac{\delta v}{v} \sim 3\times 10^{-3}.
\end{equation}
Equation 4 suggests $\delta{\dot{M}_o}/{\dot{M}_o} \sim 15 \delta v/v$. Then from equation 2 and using ${\delta L}/L \sim 2$ (${\delta L}/L = 2(L_{max}-L_{min})/(L_{max}+L_{min})$) for the X-ray luminosity excursion, we get ${\delta v}/v \sim 2/11$ which implies from equation 3, $\delta{\dot{M}_o}/{\dot{M}_o} \sim 30/11 \sim 3$.
The mass-loss rate from the companion star has been estimated using different models and lie in the range of about $0.5 \times 10^{-6} {~\rm{M_\odot}}$ \,yr$^{-1}$ to $7 \times 10^{-6} {~\rm{M_\odot}}$ \,yr$^{-1}$ \citep{lamers1976stellar, hutchings1976stellar,conti1978stellar,dupree1980simultaneous,mccray1984spectral,sadakane1985ultraviolet,sato1986x,prinja1990photospheric,sako1999x,van2001modelling,watanabe2006x,krtivcka2012x,falanga2015ephemeris,manousakis2015stellar,gimenez2016measuring,sander2018coupling}. A detailed comparison of the mass-loss rates from the literature is given in Table 7 in \citet{kretschmar2021revisiting}. The mass-loss rate is estimated to within a factor of about $6$ comparing recent estimates from literature \citep{krtivcka2012x,falanga2015ephemeris,manousakis2015stellar,gimenez2016measuring,sander2018coupling}. The fractional mass-loss rate variations (${\delta {\dot{M}}}/ \dot{M} = 2(\dot{M}_{max}-\dot{M}_{min})/(\dot{M}_{max}+\dot{M}_{min})$) estimated from literature is about 2 using $\dot{M}_{min}=0.5 \times 10^{-6} {~\rm{M_\odot}}$ \,yr$^{-1}$ \citep{lamers1976stellar} and $\dot{M}_{max}=7 \times 10^{-6} {~\rm{M_\odot}}$ \,yr$^{-1}$ \citep{hutchings1976stellar}. Using recent estimates for $\dot{M}_{min}=0.65 \times 10^{-6} {~\rm{M_\odot}}$ \,yr$^{-1}$ \citep{sander2018coupling} and $\dot{M}_{max}=5.3 \times 10^{-6} {~\rm{M_\odot}}$ \,yr$^{-1}$ \citep{falanga2015ephemeris}, we obtain estimated fractional wind mass-loss rate variability of about 2. It should be noted that different indirect methods of the mass-loss estimate have their own systematics, which are difficult to take into account. Interestingly, the estimated fractional wind mass-loss rate variability from observations (about a factor of 2 from recent estimates) agrees to within a factor of about 1.5 from the value estimated using equation 3. This corroborates that the nearly periodic spin variations in Vela X-1 on time-scales of about 5.9 yr occur most likely due to cyclic mass-loss from the companion star HD 77581.
\subsection{Switching magnetosphere model}
We explore another mechanism which can possibly result in torque reversals in the neutron star on long time-scales. It has been known for a long time that radio pulsars (which are usually isolated systems) show unexplained stochastic deviations in their spin-down behaviour (known as ``timing noise'') on varied time-scales of a few hundred days to a few tens of years. This manifestation is akin to the random-walk behaviour in spin frequency observed in wind-fed accretion powered pulsars like Vela X-1. In an interesting study of timing irregularities of a sample of 366 pulsars, \citet{hobbs2010analysis} found some radio pulsars showing quasiperiodic structures in their long-term timing residuals. From power spectrum analysis, significant periodicities ranging from about 1.4 yr to 10 yr were found in PSR B1540-06, PSR B1642-03, PSR B1818-04, PSR B1826-17, PSR B1828-11 and PSR B2148+63 \citep{hobbs2010analysis}. Interestingly, we also find quasiperiodic variations in the long-term spin evolution of Vela X-1 on time-scales of about 5.9 yr which is comparable to those inferred for radio pulsars showing quasiperiodic changes in their timing residuals. The underlying phenomena causing quasiperiodic structures in timing noise of radio pulsars is elusive. However, it has been suggested that these changes are driven by changes in the magnetosphere of the neutron star \citep{lyne2010switched}. In this ``state-switching model'', the magnetosphere of the neutron star is suggested to harbour two or more magnetospheric states which can be stable on time-scales of years but the pulsar can switch abruptly between these states driven by changes in the parameters regulating the spin-down \citep{lyne2010switched}. This can possibly happen in Vela X-1 where the coupling between the dynamic magnetosphere and the neutron star can change in a quasiperiodic fashion. Interestingly, the disk-fed pulsar LMC X-4 has been found showing a near cyclic spin period evolution on time-scales of about 6.8 yr \citep{molkov2016near} which is within a factor of 1.2 of the inferred time-scale in wind-fed pulsar Vela X-1. Recent observations of transient pulsar V0332+53 suggests switching of coupling between the accretion disc and the neutron star magnetosphere in a disk-fed pulsar \citep{doroshenko2017luminosity}.
\subsection{Episodic accretion from transient accretion disc in Vela X-1?}
Vela X-1 is known to accrete from the dense, strong stellar wind from its supergiant companion star (typical mass loss rate of about $\dot{M} \sim 10^{-6} {~\rm{M_\odot}}$ \,yr$^{-1}$ \citep{hutchings1974x,dupree1980simultaneous,nagase1986circumstellar,sako1999x}) which most likely does not fill its Roche lobe. However, \citet{kretschmar2021revisiting} suggest that the mass transfer in Vela X-1 might happen due to both accretion from the stellar wind all throughout the orbit and frequent episodic Roche lobe overflow near the periastron passage. Possible observational signatures of intermittent Roche lobe overflow near periastron passage might be formation of short-lived transient accretion disc around the compact object which forms and dissipates on time-scales much lesser than the orbital period of the system and manifests as sudden spin-up/down of the neutron star showing correlation or anti-correlation between spin changes and X-ray luminosity. It is believed that transient accretion disks might fuel the sparse spin-up/spin-down episodes detected by the \textit{Fermi}/GBM at irregular intervals \citep{malacaria2020ups}. The spin-up rates observed during such events are an order of magnitude higher than the spin-down rates \citep{malacaria2020ups}. However, conclusive signatures of formation of transient accretion disc in this system has evaded so far. The long-term impact of possible recurrent formation of transient accretion discs on the spin history of this pulsar is unclear. Earlier investigations of the spin evolution of the pulsar on shorter time-scales of a few days found random switches between spin-up and spin-down regimes, which is the well-known hallmark of wind-fed
pulsars \citep{boynton1984new,boynton1986vela,deeter1989vela,baykal1993empirical,de1993simple, bildsten1997observations}. However, recent numerical studies suggest formation of temporary accretion discs in wind-fed X-ray pulsars \citep{el2019formation,el2019wind,karino2019stellar} but compelling evidence of their existence has been elusive. In a recent study, \citet{liao2020spectral} infer presence of temporary accretion disc in Vela X-1 during an extended low state lasting at least 30 ks which was accompanied by an unusual spin-up event and similar Fe K $\alpha$ fluxes compared to the preceding flaring period.
\subsection{Quasi-spherical accretion in Vela X-1}
The spin-up/spin-down variations in this pulsar can be explained using the theory of quasi-spherical accretion from the stellar wind of the companion star. The theory of quasi-spherical settling accretion has been discussed in detail by \citet{shakura2012theory} and \citet{shakura2014theory}. According to this theory, two very different regimes of mass accretion onto the neutron star are possible depending on the X-ray luminosity of the pulsar. For high enough luminosity of about $4\times 10^{36}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$, the
plasma in the bow shock cools rapidly by Compton process and so the matter falls freely (supersonically) toward the
magnetosphere forming a shock in the vicinity of the magnetosphere. For lower luminosities, cooling is slightly quenched and hence the matter approaches the neutron star magnetosphere subsonically and forms a hot quasi-static shell around the magnetosphere which is referred to as the settling accretion. The accretion rate in this mode is determined by the ability of plasma to penetrate the magnetosphere via instabilities.
Vela X-1 observations satisfy the conditions for application of this model viz. slow spin period ($\rm{P_s \sim 283 ~s}$) and X-ray luminosity of about ${4}\times 10^{36}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$. The luminosity of Vela X-1 is about ${4}\times 10^{36}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$ \citep{kreykenbohm2002confirmation} and occasionally exceeds this threshold during flares and outbursts. The measured surface magnetic field of the pulsar is $\rm{\sim 2.7 \times 10^{12} ~G}$ \citep{kreykenbohm2002confirmation,coburn2002magnetic} which is consistent with the expected equilibrium period of quasi-spherical accretion onto a neutron star in the regime of settling accretion \citep{postnov2015spin} given by equation 1.
In equation 1, $P^{*}_{eq}$ depends strongly on the stellar wind velocity (proportional to the fourth power of the wind velocity). Assuming that the Vela X-1 rotates about its equilibrium spin period and given that the surface magnetic field is measured using cyclotron resonance scattering features we can use it to estimate the stellar wind velocity of the matter captured by the neutron star.
\begin{equation}
v_{8}\sim 0.57\mu^{-3/11}_{30}\dot{M}^{1/11}_{16}\left({\frac{P^{*}_{eq}/100~\rm{s}}{P_b/10~\rm{d}}}\right)^{1/4}.
\end{equation}
Using $\mu_{30}=1.35$, $\dot{M}_{16}=4.44$ (using $\mathrm{L_X}=0.1\dot{M}\mathrm{c^2}$ and $\mathrm{L_X}={4}\times 10^{36}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$), $P^{*}_{eq}\rm{=283 ~s}$ and $P_{b}\rm{=8.96 ~d}$, we obtain $v_{8}\sim 0.8$ ($v\rm{=800 ~km~s^{-1}}$) which is approximately equal to that of $v\rm{=700 ~km~s^{-1}}$ inferred from observations \citep{gimenez2016measuring}.\\
In the following discussion, we estimate the spin-up/spin-down rates from the quasi-settling accretion theory \citep{shakura2012theory,shakura2014theory, shakura2018quasi} and compare it with the measured spin-up/spin-down rates. The estimated spin-up rate from the quasi-settling accretion theory is given by \citep{postnov2015spin}
\begin{equation}
{\dot{\omega}^*}_{su}\sim 10^{-9} \frac{\mathrm{Hz}}{\mathrm{d}} \Pi_{su} {v_{8}}^{-4} \mu^{1/11}_{30}\dot{M}^{7/11}_{16}\left({\frac{P_b}{10~\mathrm{d}}}\right)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
We obtain ${\dot{\omega}^*}_{su} \sim 1.11 \times 10^{-7}$ Hz/d using $\Pi_{su} \sim 9$ \citep{shakura2012theory, shakura2014theory, postnov2015spin, shakura2018quasi}, $\dot{M}_{16}=4.44$, $\mu_{30}=1.35$, $v_{8}\sim 0.7$ and $P_{b}=8.96 ~\rm{d}$.
The estimated spin-down rate from the quasi-settling accretion theory is given by \citep{postnov2015spin}
\begin{equation}
{\dot{\omega}^*}_{sd}\sim 10^{-8} \frac{\mathrm{Hz}}{\mathrm{d}} \Pi_{sd} \mu^{13/11}_{30}\dot{M}^{3/11}_{16}\left({\frac{P^*}{100~\mathrm{s}}}\right)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
We obtain ${\dot{\omega}^*}_{sd} \sim -6.8 \times 10^{-8}$ Hz/d (using $\Pi_{sd} \sim 9$ \citep{shakura2012theory, shakura2014theory, postnov2015spin, shakura2018quasi}, $\dot{M}_{16}=4.44$, $\mu_{30}=1.35$, $P^{*}_{eq}\rm{=283 ~s}$ and $P_{b}\rm{=8.96 ~d}$) which is smaller than the deduced spin-up rate by a factor of about two. Fig. \ref{f7} shows the observed spin-up/down rates obtained from linear fit of \textit{BATSE} and \textit{Fermi}/GBM observations of this pulsar. It is clearly seen that the observed spin-up rate is usually higher than the spin-down rate. The average spin-up rate is $\sim 7.45 \times 10^{-8}$ Hz/d which is a factor of 1.5 lower than that estimated using the quasi-settling accretion model. The average spin-down rate is $\sim -4.64 \times 10^{-8}$ Hz/d which is also about a factor of 1.5 lower than that estimated using the quasi-settling accretion model. Thus quasi-spherical accretion model can within a factor of $\sim$2 reproduce the spin rates and may be the model that at least qualitatively explains the behaviour of Vela X-1.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig7.pdf}
\caption{Plot showing estimated spin-up and spin-down rates spread over about four decades. The horizontal dotted lines show the estimated spin-up and spin-down rates using the quasi-spherical settling accretion theory \citep{shakura2012theory,shakura2014theory}.}
\label{f7}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
We have investigated the spin period evolution of Vela X-1 over a period of about five decades and detect the long-term spin-down apparition in this pulsar. We also find random, episodic spin changes on short time-scales superposed on the long-term spin-down manifestation. To our knowledge this is the first detection of spin evolution on such a long time-scale in a wind-fed pulsar. We have also detected periodic spin period variations in Vela X-1 on time-scales of about
5.9 yr. Our study might have useful ramifications for future explorations of long-term changes in accretion history/environment in other wind-fed X-ray pulsars and help to investigate and understand the underlying phenomena causing long-term nearly cyclic spin-changes in accretion powered pulsars.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Shashikumar Madhusudan Chitre, who sadly passed away on Monday 2021 January 11. We are extremely thankful to the reviewer for carefully going through the manuscript and making detailed, valuable and constructive suggestions which have greatly improved the presentation of this paper.
This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC) online service, provided by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
This publication uses the data from the \textit{AstroSat} mission of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), archived at the Indian Space Science Data Centre (ISSDC).
We thank members of LAXPC
instrument team at TIFR and the \textit{AstroSat} project team at URSC for their contributions to the development of the LAXPC instrument. We thank the LAXPC POC at TIFR for verifying and releasing the data. \texttt{LAXPCSOFT} software is used for analysis in this paper. This research has made use of software provided by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), which is a service of the Astrophysics Science Division at NASA/GSFC.
This research has also made use of the \textit{Fermi}/GBM \citep{meegan2009fermi} pulsar spin evolution history provided by the \textit{Fermi} team. This research has also made use of the \textit{CGRO}/BATSE pulsar spin evolution history provided by the BATSE team.
This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System. ADC acknowledges support of the INSPIRE scholarship of the DST, Govt. of India as an undergraduate student and computing resources in the X-ray astronomy lab, UM-DAE CEBS. ADC acknowledges support of the INSPIRE fellowship of the DST, Govt. of India. JR acknowledges ISRO for funding support and IUCAA for their facilities.
\section*{Data availability}
This research has made use of archival data from the \textit{RXTE} and the \textit{AstroSat} mission. The \textit{CGRO}/BATSE pulsar spin evolution history for Vela X-1 provided by the BATSE team is available at\\ \url{https://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/batse/pulsar/data/sources/velax1.html}. The \textit{Fermi}/GBM pulsar spin evolution history for Vela X-1 provided by the \textit{Fermi} team is available at\\ \url{https://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/gbm/science/pulsars/lightcurves/velax1.html}.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{chap:intro}
Over the past decade, topological spin textures such as magnetic skyrmions
have been in the focus of many experimental and theoretical studies due to their intriguing properties \cite{back2020,Fert2017,wiesendanger2016}.
After being predicted theoretically \cite{bogdanov1994}, the first experimental evidence of a skyrmion lattice was obtained in cubic B20 compounds\cite{muhlbauer2009,Yu2010}.
The broken inversion symmetry in these crystals induces
the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI)\cite{dzyaloshinsky1957,moriya1960} favoring noncollinear magnetic structures\cite{heide2008, perini2018}. %
Interfaces or surfaces naturally break the inversion symmetry, too, leading to interfacial DMI in ultrathin transition-metal films on substrates with significant spin-orbit coupling \cite{bode2007,ferriani2008}. %
This class of skyrmionic systems was established by the discovery of a nanoscale skyrmion lattice in monolayer Fe films on Ir(111)\cite{heinze2011}, and later enriched by experimental observation of skyrmions in ultrathin film systems such as Pd/Fe/Ir(111)~\cite{romming2013,romming2015},
Pd/Pd/Fe/Ir(111)~\cite{romming2019}, 3Fe/Ir(111)~\cite{hsu2017},
Co/Ru(0001)~\cite{herve2018}, and Rh/Co/Ir(111)~\cite{Meyer2019}. %
In ultrathin films, the magnetic interactions such as magnetic exchange, DMI and magnetocrystalline anisotropy can be tuned over a wide range via various mechanisms~\cite{parkin1991,ferriani2007,hardrat2009,blizak2012,Dupe2014,yang2015,Bellabes2016,beutier2017,yang2018,Meyer2019}, making these systems a convenient platform for realizing skyrmions with controlled properties\cite{juge2019}. %
Moreover, due to their pseudomorphic growth and the possibility of direct observation of their magnetic structures by surface-sensitive measurement techniques, ultrathin films became well-established model systems for the understanding of skyrmion properties\cite{heinze2011,romming2013,romming2015,grenz2017,herve2018,Meyer2019}.
One major issue for the technological application of magnetic skyrmions is thermal stability, which is especially limited in ultrathin-films. %
Previous theoretical calculations applied to magnetic monolayers have predicted that a skyrmion state in the system coupled to the heat bath could decay into the topologically-trivial state via radially symmetric shrinking~\cite{lobanov2016,malottki2017,bessarab2015} or asymmetric collapse involving local rotation of magnetization at an excentric point of the skyrmion -- so called chimera mode~\cite{Meyer2019,desplat2019}. Both collapse modes have subsequently been discovered by means of spin-polarized scanning-tunneling microscopy in the Pd/Fe/Ir(111) system subject to an oblique external magnetic field~\cite{muckel2021}. Additionally, skyrmions are expected to be able to escape through the system's boundaries~\cite{bessarab2018} or even duplicate~\cite{muller2018}.
The decay processes ultimately define the skyrmion lifetime, a quantitative measure of the skyrmion stability, which is usually described by an Arrhenius law \cite{bessarab2018,malottki2019,desplat2018}
\begin{equation}
\tau=\tau_0 \exp \left( \frac{\Delta E}{k_\mathrm{B} T} \right),
\label{Eq:arrhenius}
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the mean skyrmion lifetime, $\tau_0$ the pre-exponential factor, $\Delta E$ the energy barrier and $k_{\mathrm{B}} T$ the thermal energy. %
Recent atomistic simulations, either parameterized by \textit{first-principles}
density functional theory (DFT) calculations or as systematic parameter studies, revealed, that a large DMI, strong exchange frustration \cite{malottki2017}, the occurrence of higher order exchange interaction \cite{heinze2011,paul2020} or tuning of the skyrmion shape \cite{varentcova2020} can enhance skyrmion stability drastically. %
Furthermore, a decisive entropic stabilization effect has been found, increasing the prefactor of the Arrhenius law and thus, the skyrmion lifetime \cite{malottki2019,desplat2019,ritzmann2018,wild2017,varentcova2020}. %
Another theoretically predicted \cite{dupe2016} design strategy for improved skyrmion stability is the repeated stacking of additional magnetic layers, increasing the amount of magnetic material in the system. %
By sandwiching the magnetic layers between two different heavy metals, an additional enhancement of the effective DMI can be achieved as a result of additive interfacial chiral interactions, which additionally favors the stability of magnetic skyrmions \cite{MoreauLuchaire2016}.
Indeed, by following the idea of multilayer systems, room-temperature stability of skyrmion has been achieved in different materials \cite{MoreauLuchaire2016,woo2016,boulle2016,soumyanarayanan2017}. %
In contrast to skyrmions in ultrathin film systems, however, skyrmions in multilayers have been found to be larger in size, typically on the order of $100$~nm \cite{MoreauLuchaire2016,woo2016,boulle2016,soumyanarayanan2017}. %
More recently, room-temperature skyrmions with sizes down to $30$~nm have been accomplished by using a compensated ferrimagnetic material \cite{caretta2018}. %
An additional advantage of multilayers compared to monolayer systems is the suppressed skyrmion Hall effect \cite{nagaosa2013} in antiferromagnetically coupled layers, as it hast been demonstrated by Legrand \textit{et al.} at room-temperature conditions and without external magnetic fields \cite{legrand2019}. Recently Rana \textit{et al.} also succeeded in stabilizing skyrmions at zero field at room temperature using the exchange-bias effect\cite{rana2020}. %
In contrast to the great success of its experimental realization, very little is understood about thermal stability of skyrmions in multilayer systems. %
In 2017, Stosic \textit{et al.} \cite{stosic2017} investigated the stability and collapse mechanisms of skyrmions in trilayers, focusing on the variation of DMI in the different layers. They showed that magnetic interactions differ significantly in a multilayer structure with varying thickness of the magnetic material due to the different interfaces the individual magnetic layers experience. The layer resolved and thus reduced DMI led to more realistic but less stable skyrmions than previously considered.
More recently, Hoffmann \textit{et al.} found an increasing skyrmion stability for an increasing number of magnetic layers. They assumed similar magnetic properties in each layer, a strong interlayer exchange coupling and a simultaneous radial symmetric collapse of skyrmions in all layers\cite{hoffmann2020}. Consistent with these general assumptions, Heil \textit{et al.} suggested in 2019 that the energy barrier for skyrmions in such systems is a multiple of the energy barrier of skyrmion collapse in the corresponding monolayer system\cite{Heil2019}, which reads
\begin{equation}
\Delta E\, =\, L\, \Delta E_{\text{mono}},
\label{Eq:l_emono_conjecture}
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the number of stacked layers and $\Delta E_{\text{mono}}$ the energy barrier of the monolayer system. %
In this work, we systematically study the role of the interlayer exchange for skyrmion stability and the different regimes and effects it induces. %
For this purpose, we investigate bilayer and multilayer systems consisting of an artificial repetition of the famous Pd/Fe/Ir(111)\cite{malottki2017,malottki2019,Bottcher2018,Dupe2014, hagemeister2015,hanneken2015,leonov2016,romming2013,romming2015,rosza2016,simon2014} monolayer system. %
Since Dup\'e \textit{et al.} \cite{dupe2016} showed
based on DFT calculations
that the magnetic interactions are primarily affected by the interfaces of the magnetic material, one can expect the properties of the magnetic layers in such a stacking to be comparable to the monolayer system. %
In order to obtain a broader view of the emerging effects, we vary the strength of the interlayer exchange coupling, $J^\perp$ systematically from zero to $20$~meV, coping indirectly and weakly coupled to directly and strongly coupled systems. %
Further, we explore two different crystal structures of the multilayer-stackings, revealing an exchange-bias-like effect in fcc and hcp structured systems, strongly affecting skyrmion stability.
The paper is structured as follows: Sec.~\ref{chap:model} describes the model and Sec.~\ref{chap:method} the method
and computational details of our calculations. The presentation of our results in Sec.~\ref{Kap: Ergebnisse} starts with a brief discussion of the phase diagram (Sec.~\ref{ssec:phase_dia}) for magnetic bilayer systems under the influence of interlayer exchange. In Sec.~\ref{ssec:introduction_to_mechanisms} we discuss collapse mechanisms of skyrmions in magnetic bilayers into the field-polarized state, increasing the interlayer exchange stepwise and analyzing the occurring changes of the collapse mechanism. These results are subsequently condensed in Sec.~\ref{ssec:barriers} by studying the corresponding energy barriers. In Sec.~\ref{ssec:stacks_effective_model} we explain a crossover between two collapse mechanisms for critical interlayer exchange couplings. To understand these critical parameters in more detail, we then vary the DMI and hence the energy barrier of skyrmions in the underlying monolayer system in Sec.~\ref{ssec:vary_monolayer_barrier}. Afterwards we demonstrate that our results transfer to systems with more than two magnetic layers in Sec.~\ref{ssec:beyond2lay}. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{ssec:lifetime} we discuss calculations of the lifetime of bilayer skyrmions for a generic example. In Sec.~\ref{chap:conclusion}, we briefly conclude.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{(a) Magnetic bilayer systems built from two units of the system Pd/Fe/Ir(111). Two different stackings ($\alpha\alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$) are considered which correspond to atoms of the two hexagonal Fe
layers being on top of each other or shifted with respect to each other
as in fcc stacking, respectively. (b,c) Schematic representation of the
nearest-neighbor
intralayer ($J_1^\parallel$) and interlayer ($J_1^\perp$) exchange bounds for the $\alpha\alpha$-stacked and $\alpha\beta$-stacked magnetic bilayer, respectively. The bonds are indicated through the connections of the red magnetic moments.}
\label{fig:model_stacking}
\end{figure}
\section{Model}\label{chap:model}
The model for our spin simulations is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:model_stacking}. We treat different
stacking possibilities of the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir.
Note, that only the hexagonal Fe layers of the system are included in our
atomistic spin model.
The effect of the nonmagnetic Pd and Ir layers is included within the framework of the first-principles parametrization of the
magnetic interactions given
in Ref.\cite{malottki2017} for the magnetic monolayer system (cf.~Sec.~\ref{chap:heisenberg}). Two different bilayers were studied. The system in which the magnetic moments in both Fe layers occupy the same lattice sites is called $\alpha\alpha$-system in the following (Fig. \ref{fig:model_stacking}(b)). In contrast, the magnetic moments of the $\alpha\beta$-system occupy the lattice sites of an fcc- or hcp-stacking of the Fe layers
(Fig.~\ref{fig:model_stacking}(c)).
We systematically vary the strength of the interlayer exchange between the Fe layers in our simulations.
Therefore, the obtained results can be applied to systems in the
strong interlayer exchange coupling regime such as
directly adjacent Fe layers, e.g.~in the system Rh/Pd/2Fe/2Ir\cite{dupe2016},
as well as in the weak or intermediate regime such as magnetic layers in which
the interlayer exchange is mediated by a number of spacer layers.
\subsection{Extended Heisenberg model}\label{chap:heisenberg}
The magnetic bilayer systems are built based on the magnetic interactions of the monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111) and described through normalized magnetic moments $\mathbf{m}_i$ localized in each Fe layer at the sites of a hexagonal lattice.
The energy of the $N$-spin system is derived within the extended Heisenberg model and the Hamiltonian can be written as
\begin{align}
H=&E_\text{ex} + E_\text{DMI} + E_\text{Ani} + E_\text{Zee}\notag\\
=&-\sum\limits_{\substack{i,j=1 \\ i\neq j}}^N J_{ij} (\mathbf{m}_i\cdot\mathbf{m}_j)-\sum\limits_{\substack{i,j=1 \\ i\neq j}}^N \mathbf{D}_{ij}\cdot(\mathbf{m}_i\times\mathbf{m}_j)\notag\\
-&\sum\limits_{i=1}^N K (m_i^z)^2-\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\mu_i (\mathbf{m}_i\cdot\mathbf{B}_\text{ext}),
\label{gl:energy_model}
\end{align}
which are in the order of appearance the Heisenberg exchange, the DMI, the uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy and the Zeeman interaction. The interaction constants $J_{ij}$, $\mathbf{D}_{ij}$ and the anisotropy constant $K$ are defined per atom. Therefore each pair of magnetic moments appears twice in the calculation of the exchange and DMI energy. Note, that we consider intralayer DMI here, but not interlayer DMI~\cite{vedmedenko2019,han2019}.
The exchange term can be split into intralayer exchange $J_{ij}^{\parallel}$ and interlayer exchange $J_{ij}^\perp$ for pairs of magnetic moments from the same layer and from different layers, respectively.
\begin{align}
E_\text{ex} &= E_\text{ex}^{\parallel} + E_\text{ex}^{\perp}\notag\\
&= -\sum\limits_{l=1}^{2}\sum\limits_{\substack{i,j=1 \\ i\neq j}}^{N_l}J_{ij}^{\parallel}(\mathbf{m}_i^l\cdot\mathbf{m}_j^l)
-\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{N_1, N_2}J_{ij}^{\perp}(\mathbf{m}_i^1\cdot\mathbf{m}_j^2)
\end{align}
Here $N_l$ denotes the number of spins in the layer $l$.
Motivated by the finding of Dupé \textit{et al.}\cite{dupe2016}
that the magnetic interactions in multilayers built from Pd/Fe/Ir stacks are very similar to
those of the film system Pd/Fe/Ir(111)
all intralayer interaction constants, i.e.~within a single Fe layer,
and the magnetic moments $\mu_i$
were taken from Pd/Fe/Ir(111)~\cite{malottki2017} as obtained via DFT
calculations using the {\tt FLEUR} code
\cite{Dupe2014,Kurz2004,Heide2009,Zimmermann2014}.
In Ref.~\onlinecite{malottki2017}
two different models were used to illustrate the influence of intralayer exchange frustration. On one hand, exchange constants were determined from DFT up to the interaction of ninth neighbors ($J_1^{\parallel}$,$\dots$,$J_9^{\parallel}$). We will refer to this set of parameters as the neighbor resolved exchange (NRE) model. On the other hand, the magnetic interactions of the system were parameterized with only the nearest-neighbor exchange interaction, which
resembles a micromagnetic description of the interactions. The resulting
parameter set is referred to as the effective model. %
The values of all parameters used in this work are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab: Pd_Fe_Ir_parameters} in the Appendix.
We treat the interlayer exchange coupling in our magnetic Fe bilayers
in nearest-neighbor approximation
and systematically vary its strength, $J_{1}^\perp$.
As visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:model_stacking} the magnetic unit cell of the $\alpha\beta$-system contains three interlayer bonds while in the unit cell of the $\alpha\alpha$-system only one bond appears. We define the interlayer exchange per unit cell $J^{\perp}$ for better comparability of the different systems as the following:
\begin{align}
J^\perp=\begin{cases}J_1^\perp \text{,}&\alpha\alpha\text{-system}\\3\cdot J_1^\perp \text{,}&\alpha\beta\text{-system}\end{cases}.
\end{align}
\section{Computational details}\label{chap:method}
We use atomistic spin dynamics simulations to solve the Landau-Lifshitz-equations
for the spin model introduced in the previous section
numerically and to relax spin structures such as bilayer skyrmions into local energy minima. The knowledge of the separating energy barrier $\Delta E$ between meta-stable spin structures on the energy surface is crucial for the description of the thermal stability of these states following an Arrhenius law for the skyrmion lifetime $\tau$ (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:arrhenius})).
The geodesic nudged elastic band method\cite{bessarab2015}(GNEB) provides a possibility to calculate the energy barrier and the first-order saddle point of skyrmions regarding a transition to the topologically trivial ferromagnetic state. We use the harmonic approximation of the transition-state theory (HTST) for determining the Arrhenius pre-exponential factors and the lifetimes of magnetic states\cite{bessarab2012}. While the phase diagrams presented in Sec.~\ref{ssec:phase_dia} are calculated with simulation boxes of $100~\times~100$ magnetic atoms per layer, all other results of this work are obtained with boxes of $50~\times~50$ magnetic atoms per layer. We applied periodic boundary conditions in in-plane direction, while open boundaries are assumed in out-of-plane direction.
Consistency tests for $70~\times~70$ and $100~\times~100$ magnetic moments per layer demonstrated that the shown results are not dependent on the system size.
\begin{figure}
\begin{overpic}[scale=1
{figure2.pdf}
\end{overpic}
\caption{(a) Representation of a bilayer skyrmion (initial state, A) collapsing into the field polarized state (final state, B). (b) Partially relaxed energy paths for the collapse mechanism of a bilayer skyrmion (A) for the $\alpha\alpha$-system for various interlayer exchange couplings $J^\perp$ (visualized by the color code). The shown paths are the results of 500 iterations of a GNEB calculation an do not display the converged minimum energy path. They are the starting point for treating paths with an intermediate energy minimum (M), which are marked with the empty squares. The insets show spin configurations for two interlayer exchange couplings. For $J^\perp=3.0$~meV the configuration with the highest energy is shown while for $J^\perp=0.5$~meV the spin configuration of the intermediate minimum is displayed.
}
\label{fig:GNEB_method}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Minimum energy path calculations}\label{ssec:method_GNEB}
The GNEB method is a valuable approach\cite{malottki2017,malottki2019,bessarab2018,bessarab2015, stosic2017, Rybakov2015} to calculate the minimum energy path (MEP) between magnetic configurations corresponding to local energy minima.
As schematically illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:GNEB_method}(a) we consider the collapse
of an initial magnetic state (A), which is a bilayer skyrmion, to the final magnetic state (B), which is the ferromagnetic or field polarized state.
In Sec.~\ref{Kap: Ergebnisse} we
discuss the occurrence of different collapse mechanisms and the associated MEPs caused by the variation of the interlayer exchange.
For
weak interlayer exchange, paths with additional local minima between the initial and final states occur
(cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:GNEB_method}(a)).
These intermediate minima (M) are associated with a successive collapse of the skyrmion in the different layers. We split up the paths at the states M after short GNEB calculations (500 iterations), as suggested in Ref. \cite{bessarab2015}. %
The energies of these partially relaxed paths are visualized on the example of bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$ system in Fig.~\ref{fig:GNEB_method}(b).
After the splitting, the M configuration is relaxed into its local energy minimum via spin dynamics. Afterwards, we calculate the MEPs for $A\rightarrow M$ and $M\rightarrow B$ transitions separately with the GNEB method and finally connect them to create the complete paths $A\rightarrow B$. Consequently, there are paths with two first order saddle points (Sp) ($\text{Sp}_1$, $\text{Sp}_2$) for low values of the interlayer exchange couplings and paths with one saddle point for strong interlayer exchange couplings. These saddle points are determined with the climbing-image GNEB method (CI-GNEB)\cite{bessarab2015}. A calculation is considered converged when the force on each magnetic moment has dropped below $10^{-8}$~eV/rad.
\subsection{Harmonic transition-state theory}\label{ssec:method_HTST}
We determine the pre-exponential factor $\tau_0$ within the harmonic approximation of the TST. This implies the description of the curvature of the multidimensional energy surface of the spin configuration room via the eigenvalues $\epsilon_{\text{A},i}$ and $\epsilon_{\text{Sp},i}$ of the Hessian matrices $H_\text{A}$ and $H_\text{Sp}$ for the bilayer skyrmion configuration (A) and the saddle point configuration (Sp), respectively. In the general form the pre-exponential factor is given by\cite{bessarab2018,bessarab_uzdin2012, stephan_phd}
\begin{align}
\tau_0^{-1}=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi}\left(2\pi k_B T\right)^{(P_\text{A}-P_\text{Sp})/2}\frac{V_{\text{Sp}}}{V_\text{A}}\sqrt{\frac{\operatorname{det}H_{\text{A}}}{\operatorname{det}'H_\text{Sp}}}.
\label{gl:HTST}
\end{align}
The determinants of the Hessian matrices at the bilayer skyrmion and the saddle point state are computed as the product of the corresponding nonzero eigenvalues, while the prime indicates that the negative eigenvalue for the saddle point is omitted. The information about the velocity of the system at the transition state is contained by the dynamical factor $\lambda$ (see Ref.~\cite{varentcova2020} for details).
Not all eigenmodes are suited for a description in harmonic approximation. Alternatively, Goldstone modes can be defined and calculated as such \cite{bessarab2018}, yielding the Goldstone mode volumes $V_\text{A}$, $V_\text{Sp}$, while the corresponding eigenvalues are omitted in the determinants of Eq.~(\ref{gl:HTST}) as well. The number of Goldstone mode for the initial state (saddle point) is given by $P_\text{A}$ ($P_\text{Sp}$). %
In the case of skyrmion annihilation in bilayers, this applies to the two skyrmion translation modes in in-plane direction as the movement of skyrmions over the lattice does not change their energy, similar to the translation of skyrmions in monolayer systems \cite{malottki2019,varentcova2020}. %
Throughout this work, we investigate the skyrmion lifetime only in cases, in which the simultaneous radial symmetric collapse mechanism \cite{malottki2017,bessarab2018,muller2018, hoffmann2020} is dominant for the annihilation process. %
The corresponding saddle point structures contain three neighboring magnetic moments pointing almost towards each other, creating a Bloch-like point (see Fig. \ref{fig:overview_collapses})~(p).
For low temperatures, this Bloch-like point cannot be moved without noticeable energy costs over the atomic lattice. %
For elevated temperatures, the eigenmodes corresponding to this movement are potential Goldstone modes in the spectrum of the saddle point state, as discussed in Ref. \cite{varentcova2020,desplat2019}. %
For the sake of clarity, however, here we treat all eigenmodes of the saddle point structures in harmonic approximation and thereby exclude the high temperature regime. %
The unequal number of Goldstone modes found for the skyrmion and saddle point states leads to a linear temperature dependence for the inverse of the pre-exponential factor\cite{malottki2019}:
\begin{align}
\tau_0^{-1}=\frac{2\lambda k_B T}{V_\text{A}}\sqrt{\frac{\operatorname{det}H_{\text{A}}}{\operatorname{det}'H_\text{Sp}}}.
\label{eq:prefactor_radial}
\end{align}
The factor of two arises from the two possible realizations of the Bloch-like point per unit cell, as discussed in Ref.~\cite{malottki2019}.
\section{Results}\label{Kap: Ergebnisse}
\subsection{Zero temperature phase diagrams}\label{ssec:phase_dia}
To study the metastability of skyrmions in the field-polarized phase, first we have to determine the critical fields
which correspond to
the phase transition between the skyrmion lattice and the field-polarized phase. %
Therefore, obtaining the zero temperature magnetic phase diagrams\cite{Dupe2014,malottki2017,Bottcher2018} of the $\alpha\alpha$- and $\alpha\beta$-system as a function of interlayer exchange coupling is the starting point for our investigations. In the following, we present the phase diagrams calculated within the NRE~model of intralayer exchange interaction.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:phasedia}~(b), the energies of relaxed bilayer spin spirals (SS), bilayer skyrmion lattices (SkX) and the field polarized phase (FM) are shown over varying magnetic field strength for the $\alpha\beta$-system without interlayer coupling ($J^\perp=0$~meV). %
Similar to Ref.~\cite{malottki2017} we chose the energy reference as the minimum energy of the dispersion of homogeneous spin spirals,
$E_{\text{hom, SS}}$,
calculated in a $100\,\times\,100$ simulation box.
Further, we consider the
SkX~state
with the energetically most favorable skyrmion density on the $100\,\times\,100$ lattice.
The critical magnetic field values $B_{C_1}$ and $B_{C_2}$ mark the phase transitions from the SS~state to the SkX~state and from the SkX~state to the FM~state, respectively.
As the energy is defined per unit cell and the interlayer exchange is switched off, these critical fields exactly coincide with the fields reported in Ref.~\cite{malottki2017} for the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111).
When we increase the interlayer exchange to $J^\perp=15$~meV for the $\alpha\beta$-system (See Fig.~\ref{fig:phasedia}(a)) the critical fields $B_{C_1}$ and $B_{C_2}$ shift to lower fields and thereby introduce a shift of the SkX phase. The origins of these energy shifts can be understand by considering the horizontal displacements between the layers (See Fig.~\ref{fig:model_stacking}(c)). A parallel alignment of two magnetic moments in different layers leads to a minimal exchange energy for ferromagnetic interlayer exchange. Therefore, the FM state
gains more energy than the SS
state, in which small angles between the magnetic moments
of adjacent Fe atoms in the two layers occur that
are unfavorable with respect to the interlayer exchange.
These angles arise due to the horizontal displacement of the magnetic layers in the $\alpha\beta$-system. The SkX-phase lies between those two extremes as there are collinear aligned regions between the skyrmions
in the two layers
and therefore its energy shift is smaller than for the FM
state but greater than for the SS state
which leads to a decrease of both $B_{C_1}$ and $B_{C_2}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:phasedia}(c) underlines this behavior as it displays the decrease of the critical fields with increasing interlayer exchange $J^\perp$. In addition, it is noteworthy that the skyrmion density of the SkX~phase is slightly reduced for high interlayer exchange couplings. These effects can be summarized in the observation that even small angles between the magnetic moments of interacting magnetic layers lead to an exchange bias effect mediated by interlayer exchange\cite{chen2015,nandy2016}.%
In contrast, for $\alpha\alpha$ systems for each magnetic moment the next neighbor regarding the interlayer exchange coupling is directly above or below the corresponding moment. Therefore the magnetic moment and its neighbor are aligned parallel for each magnetic structure considered in the phase diagram and the shifts in the energy are equal when varying the interlayer exchange. Fig.~\ref{fig:phasedia}~(c) presents these results by visualizing the critical fields $B_{C_1}$ and $B_{C_2}$. The dashed lines indicate the corresponding fields as determined for the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111)\cite{malottki2017}. Therefore the phase diagram remains unchanged for $\alpha\alpha$-systems when varying the interlayer exchange and this will also hold true for systems with more magnetic layers if the atoms of each layer occupy the same lattice sites.
\begin{figure}
\begin{overpic}[scale=1
{figure3.pdf}
\end{overpic}
\caption{(a) Zero temperature phase diagram for the $\alpha\beta$ system for $J^\perp=15.0$~meV. The critical fields $B_{C_1}$ and $B_{C_2}$ define the phase transitions between the spin spiral phase (SS, blue), the skyrmion lattice phase (SkX, red) and the field polarized phase (FM, green), respectively. The energy is defined per unit cell and displayed relative to the energy of the minimum of the dispersion of homogeneous spin spirals.
The background color represents the phases in a certain magnetic field range. (b) Analog visualization of the phase diagram for the $\alpha\beta$ system for $J^\perp=0$~meV. (c) Critical magnetic fields $B_{C_1}$ or $B_{C_2}$ for different values of $J^\perp$ for the $\alpha\alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ system. The reference of the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111) is plotted as a dashed line.}
\label{fig:phasedia}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Skyrmion collapse mechanisms in magnetic bilayers}
\label{ssec:introduction_to_mechanisms}
For a detailed understanding of the thermal stability of magnetic bilayer skyrmions (A) in the field polarized phase the MEP regarding a collapse to the ferromagnetic aligned structure (B) is crucial
(Fig.~\ref{fig:GNEB_method}).
To be consistent with the calculations of the underlying monolayer\cite{malottki2017} system we chose an out of plane magnetic field of $B=4.0$~T. It has be shown that the skyrmion sizes for the effective and the NRE model are similar for $B=4.0$~T\cite{malottki2017}, which allows a reasonable comparison between the NRE and the effective model. Our phase diagram calculations in the previous sections demonstrated that $B_C(J^\perp)<B$ holds true for all interlayer exchange couplings for both stackings of the system (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:phasedia}(c)).
Therefore, we expect isolated bilayer skyrmions to be meta-stable in both systems at $B=4.0$~T. Note, that in the case of the $\alpha\beta$ system the distance $B-B_C(J^\perp)$ increases with increasing interlayer exchange. A decreased stability of skyrmions in the $\alpha\beta$ system with increasing interlayer exchange can be expected, as elucidated in Sec.~\ref{ssec:barriers} in more detail. In that context it is worth mentioning that the skyrmion radius of the bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\beta$-system is marginally reduced when increasing $J^\perp$, which follows the relation between skyrmion size and stability\cite{varentcova2018}. For the highest values of $J^\perp$ in our work the reduction in the skyrmion size is less than one in-plane lattice constant. However, the radius of the bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$-system agrees for all values of $J^\perp$ with the radius reported for monolayer skyrmions in Pd/Fe/Ir(111)\cite{malottki2017}.
This section demonstrates how the interlayer exchange affects the collapse mechanisms of bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$- and $\alpha\beta$-system. We use the NRE~model throughout this section. Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses} presents an overview over the variety of collapse mechanisms of bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$-system for different interlayer exchange couplings. The MEPs are shown in the top row with the spin configurations of the saddle point below. In the high interlayer exchange regime ($J^\perp=15$~meV, Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(m-p)) we predict a bilayer skyrmion collapse with a single saddle point configuration which corresponds to twice the energy barrier of a skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer Pd/Fe/Ir(111)\cite{malottki2017}. The spin configuration obeys a radial collapse mechanism in both layers where three spins point towards each other. This collapse mechanism is widely investigated for magnetic monolayer skyrmions\cite{malottki2017,bessarab2018,muller2018,Heil2019} and agrees with the assumption in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:l_emono_conjecture}).
The other limit of the uncoupled system is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(a-d). Here the collapse of the bilayer skyrmion consists
of two independent collapses of the skyrmions in the different layers each of them resembling the radial collapse of a skyrmion in the monolayer system. The energy barriers of both decays coincide with the energy barrier reported for the skyrmion in Pd/Fe/Ir(111)\cite{malottki2017}.
Collapse mechanisms for the intermediate coupling regime as displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(e-h) for $J^\perp=0.15$~meV and in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(i-l) for $J^\perp=2.5$~meV already demonstrate the increased complexity as opposed to monolayer skyrmions. This regime yields saddle point configurations following the chimera collapse mechanism predicted
recently \cite{Heil2019,Meyer2019,desplat2019}. During this collapse process the radial symmetric magnetic structure of the skyrmion changes through tilting the spins in one part of the edge
(Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(h)). Meyer \textit{et al.} found meta-stable skyrmions at zero external magnetic field in the magnetic monolayer system Rh/Co/Ir(111) and predicted them to collapse via the chimera transition mechanism \cite{Meyer2019}. Very recently the chimera collapse of a skyrmion in a ultrathin magnetic film system was identified experimentally\cite{muckel2021}. Here, we observe the chimera transition as part of a successive decay of skyrmions in different layers for $J^\perp=0.15$~meV where the first transition presents a chimera saddle point configuration while the second skyrmion follows the radial mechanism.
For slightly higher interlayer exchange $J^\perp=2.5$~meV the MEP of the bilayer skyrmion collapse exhibits a single saddle point. The corresponding spin configuration shows a chimera-type configuration in one layer while a skyrmion of reduced size compared to the initial state is obtained for the other layer
(Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(j-l)).
In the following we analyze the MEPs for the bilayer skyrmions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses} in detail to achieve understanding of the origin of the variety of the collapses. Although we discuss bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$-system these are representative for the corresponding skyrmions in the $\alpha\beta$-system as we find analog collapse mechanisms for the same interlayer exchange parameters there. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that we
always find
two MEPs for collapse mechanisms which include changing first the magnetization in one layer followed by a change in the other layer as the order of the collapses is exchangeable.
\begin{figure}
\begin{overpic}[scale=1.0
{figure4.pdf}
\end{overpic}
\caption{Representation of collapse mechanisms for bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$-system for different interlayer exchange couplings $J^\perp$. The top row shows the total energy along the minimum energy path, while the first occurring saddle point is marked in red. The blue (red) dashed line represents the energy barrier (twice the energy barrier) of a skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111)\cite{malottki2017}. Below the spin configuration of the corresponding saddle point is visualized. (a-d) Successive radial collapses of the bilayer skyrmion for $J^\perp=0$ meV. (e-h) Successive chimera collapse for $J^\perp=0.15$ meV. (i-l) Chimera type collapse in one layer with shrunken skyrmion in the other layer for $J^\perp=2.5$ meV. (m-p) Simultaneous radial collapse for $J^\perp=15$ meV.}
\label{fig:overview_collapses}
\end{figure}
Starting with the uncoupled bilayer ($J^\perp=0$~meV) we
decompose the total energy of the MEP
into the different energy contributions of Eq.~(\ref{gl:energy_model})
(Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_cubic_path}). As highlighted in Sec.~\ref{ssec:method_GNEB} the MEP of a bilayer skyrmion in this system contains an intermediate minimum (M). This minimum is associated with a skyrmion in one Fe layer, which is unchanged concerning the corresponding layer for the A state, and one collinear aligned Fe layer. This indicates that the skyrmions in the different layers collapse independent from each other for the uncoupled Fe layers. Hence, we find two saddle point configurations with the energies $E_{\text{Sp}_1}$ and $E_{\text{Sp}_2}$, respectively. These energies correspond to energy barriers equal to the barrier of the skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer Pd/Fe/Ir(111) (Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(a)).
Both the anisotropy and the Zeeman term favor a parallel out-of-plane alignment of the spins in both layers.
For the sake of completeness we show all energy contributions to the total energy of the MEP in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_cubic_path}. In the following figures we restrict the decomposition to the intralayer exchange energy $E_\text{ex}^{\parallel}$ and the DMI energy $E_\text{DMI}$ since they dominate the energy of the saddle points $E_{\text{Sp}_{1/2}}$ and therefore the energy barriers (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_cubic_path}). Further the interlayer exchange energy $E_\text{ex}^\perp$ is included.
Note, that the large contribution of $E_\text{ex}^{\parallel}$ to $E_{\text{Sp}_{1/2}}$ originates from the intralayer exchange frustration within the NRE model
(Tab.~\ref{tab: Pd_Fe_Ir_parameters}), as reported in Ref.~\cite{malottki2017}. Below we will call this mechanism the successive radial (SR) collapse. We predict the SR collapse only for very low values of the interlayer exchange coupling.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure5.pdf}
\caption{Minimum energy path for a bilayer skyrmion in the $\alpha\alpha$-system without interlayer exchange coupling ($J^\perp=0.0$~meV). The total energy is plotted in black. The energy contributions of the different interactions are represented by the color code (see legend). Open circles represent the top Fe layer while filled circles symbolize the bottom Fe layer. The spin configurations of the initial bilayer skyrmion $A$, the intermediate minimum $M$ and the final field polarized state $B$ are shown in the insets.}
\label{fig:J_0_cubic_path}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path}(a) shows the MEP when one increases the interlayer exchange to $J^\perp = 0.15$~meV. Now the intermediate configuration M becomes less favorable due to the increasing interlayer energy costs.
One can also recognize that the shape of the total energy of the MEP changes
for the first collapsing layer
with respect to that observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_cubic_path}.
This can be attributed to the appearance of the chimera collapse. The first part of the collapse (reaction coordinate $<25$) corresponds to a side wards movement of the initial skyrmion, which does not lead to an increase in the energy. This movement can be explained as a consequence of the initial geodesic path as described in Ref.~\cite{stephan_phd}. The energy barrier of the chimera collapse is dominated by the intralayer exchange, while the amount of the DMI energy at the saddle point is relatively low compared to the radial collapse mechanism. This is due
to the fact that the noncollinear alignment is preserved for the most part of the skyrmion and only the spins in one part of the margin of the skyrmion are tilted as visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(h). After the skyrmion in one layer has collapsed to a parallel alignment the second skyrmion follows a radial mechanism with the corresponding saddle point $\text{Sp}_2$.
Although the interlayer exchange energy does not contribute to the saddle point corresponding to the chimera collapse in one layer ($\text{Sp}_1$) it can explain the appearance of this collapse mechanism. If $N_{1}$ is the number of magnetic moments in layer $1$ the energy costs due to interlayer exchange can be written as:
\begin{align}
E_\text{costs}^\perp&=2\cdot J_1^\perp\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_1}\sum\limits_{\text{NN}_i^\perp}\left(1-\mathbf{m}_i\cdot\mathbf{m}_{\text{NN}_i^\perp}\right)\notag \\
&=2\cdot J_1^\perp\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_1}\sum\limits_{\text{NN}_i^\perp}\left(1-\cos\vartheta_i^{\text{NN}_i^\perp}\right)\notag \\
&=2\cdot J_1^\perp\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_1}\sum\limits_{\text{NN}_i^\perp}f(\vartheta_i^{\text{NN}_i^\perp}),
\label{gl:interlayer_ex_costs}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure6.pdf}
\caption{(a) Minimum energy path for a bilayer skyrmion in the $\alpha\alpha$ system with interlayer exchange coupling ($J^\perp=0.15$~meV). The energy contributions of the different interactions are represented by the color code (see legend). Open circles represent the top Fe layer while filled circles symbolize the bottom Fe layer. The first saddle point corresponds to a chimera collapse
(cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(e-h)). The energy barrier corresponding to the meta-stable radial saddle point configuration is visualized
by the dashed gray line. (b,c) The interlayer exchange energy costs $f(\vartheta_i^{\text{NN}_i^\perp})$ are presented by the color code
versus the in-plane directions, where $a$ is the in-plane lattice constant. The skyrmion radius $R_\text{Sk}^\text{top}$ and the position of the unchanged layer (top layer in this example)
during the first part of the collapse is represented by a circle.
While (b) belongs to the chimera collapse saddle point configuration (c) represents the saddle point of the meta-stable SR collapse for $J^\perp=0.15$ meV.}
\label{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path}
\end{figure}%
while $i$ represents the magnetic moments of one layer, $\text{NN}_i^\perp$ numerates the next interlayer neighbors of the magnetic moment $i$. The angle between a magnetic moment $i$ and its neighbor $\text{NN}_i^\perp$ is expressed by $\vartheta_i^{\text{NN}_i^\perp}$ and the factor of two arises due to the definition of the exchange constant as per atom. The interlayer exchange costs are proportional to the introduced function $f(\vartheta_i^{\text{NN}_i^\perp})$. In this formulation it becomes visible that increased angles between the magnetic configurations of the different layers lead to increased interlayer exchange costs. Therefore, the intermediate minimum M becomes less favorable, when the interlayer exchange increases.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path}(b) we visualize $f(\vartheta_i^{\text{NN}_i^\perp})$ for the saddle point configuration $\text{Sp}_1$ across the in-plane directions of the system, which is a direct measure for the interlayer exchange energy costs. These costs concentrate mainly on one point of the edge of the skyrmion where the spins are tilting as described above. The rest of the skyrmion is still parallel aligned to the nearly unchanged skyrmion in the other layer, which reduces the interlayer exchange costs. In Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path} the nearly unchanged skyrmion during the first part of the collapse corresponds to the top layer and is represented by its radius $R_\text{Sk}^\text{top}$. The radius was determined through applying the definition of Bogdanov and Hubert\cite{bogdanov1994} onto the skyrmion profile\cite{varentcova2018} gained through a fit to the magnetization of the top layer.
The role of the interlayer exchange favoring the chimera saddle point can be underlined by a comparison with the SR collapse mechanism. For $J^\perp=0.15$~meV it is still possible
within the simulation to meta-stabilize the SR collapse mechanism. As indicated by the dashed gray line in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path}(a) the corresponding energy barrier of the SR collapse is slightly larger than the energy barrier of the chimera collapse. Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path}(c) shows the interlayer exchange costs of the SR collapse mechanism for $J^\perp=0.15$~meV and one can identify the increased energy costs due to the symmetric shrinking of the skyrmion in one layer compared to the asymmetric chimera collapse
(Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path}(b)).
Comparing the radius of the skyrmion in the top layer ($R_\text{Sk}^{\text{top, chim}}=7.84a$) for the chimera collapse with the radius for the SR mechanism ($R_\text{Sk}^{\text{top, rad}}=7.32a$) the skyrmion in the top layer is slightly smaller for the SR collapse. Here $a$ is the in-plane lattice constant. This indicates that the radial collapse mechanism already involves a small part of simultaneous shrinking of both skyrmions in the first part of the collapse, which is also related to reducing interlayer exchange costs.
It is noteworthy that the chimera collapse also occurs in the monolayer system but at lower magnetic fields\cite{stephan_phd}. Therefore the interlayer exchange interaction shifts the transition of the radial to the chimera collapse so that it can occur also at higher fields. In the following we assign the name successive chimera (SC) collapse to transitions which show a chimera collapse for the first layer followed by a radial collapse for the skyrmion in the other layer.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure7.pdf}
\caption{Minimum energy path for a bilayer skyrmion in the $\alpha\alpha$-system with interlayer exchange coupling ($J^\perp=2.5$~meV). The energy contributions of the different interactions are represented by the color code (see legend). Open circles represent the top Fe layer while filled circles symbolize the bottom Fe layer. An exemplary spin configuration in the region of the collapse of the second skyrmion is shown as an inset. For the spin configuration of the actual saddle point see Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(i-l)}.
\label{fig:J_2_5_cubic_path}
\end{figure}
Increasing the interlayer exchange to $J^\perp=2.5$~meV
(Fig.~\ref{fig:J_2_5_cubic_path}), we enter the regime of intermediate interlayer coupling.
The initial GNEB calculations as described in Sec.~\ref{ssec:method_GNEB}
do not show any intermediate minimum and
the path has only one saddle point configuration (Sp). This saddle point configuration includes a chimera saddle point
(cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(l)) for one layer while the other layer has a radial structure of reduced radius compared to the initial configuration
(cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(j)). Thus the part of the collapse, which reduces the size of the skyrmion,
occurs simultaneously in both Fe layers.
The region of the saddle point describes a successive chimera collapse of the skyrmion in one layer followed by a radial collapse of the skyrmion in the other layer. This is underlined by the inset in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_2_5_cubic_path}. Although this is not the saddle point configuration the second skyrmion collapse appears to be radial symmetric. To emphasize the fact that this collapse mechanism is partly simultaneous and partly successive we call this mechanism semi-successive chimera (SSC) collapse.
Comparing the interlayer exchange energy for the path for $J^\perp=2.5$~meV with the one for $J=0.15$~meV it is striking that it varies only slightly. The lifting of the intermediate minimum M occurs rather due to the more concurrent DMI~energy curves for the two layers. The difference between the
DMI energy of the bottom and top layer along the reaction coordinate could thus be used as a quantity to define how simultaneous a collapse proceeds in the bilayer.
The SSC collapse mechanism changes to a different
semi-successive mechanism for $J^\perp=4.9$~meV, where the transition of the bilayer skyrmion is simultaneous for most parts of the collapse but the region of the saddle point reveals two successive radial mechanisms. Due to the similarity of this transition to the SSC collapse we
do not discuss this mechanism in detail here, but as it becomes important for the effective model later we assign the name semi-succesive radial (SSR) collapse.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure8.pdf}
\caption{(a) Minimum energy path for a bilayer skyrmion in the $\alpha\alpha$-system with interlayer exchange coupling ($J^\perp=15.0$~meV). The energy contributions of the different interactions are represented by the color code (see legend). Open circles represent the top Fe layer while filled circles symbolize the bottom Fe layer. Twice the energy barrier of a skyrmion in the corresponding monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111) is shown as dashed gray line. The inset displays schematically the stacking of the Fe layers. (b) Analog visualization of the minimum energy path for the $\alpha\beta$-system for $J^\perp=15$ meV. (c) The spin configuration of the saddle point for the collapse of the bilayer skyrmion in the $\alpha\beta$-system is shown. For the corresponding configuration of the $\alpha\alpha$-system see Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}(m-p).}
\label{fig:J_9_comp_J_7}
\end{figure*}
Finally increasing the interlayer exchange coupling to $J^\perp=15$~meV we end up in the high interlayer coupling regime for both the $\alpha\alpha$ and the $\alpha\beta$ system. The MEPs of the bilayer skyrmions in both systems are presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:J_9_comp_J_7}(a,b). In this regime, significant differences occur in the MEP between the $\alpha\alpha$ system and the $\alpha\beta$ system. We start with the description of the bilayer skyrmion in the $\alpha\alpha$-system in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_9_comp_J_7}(a). The difference between the DMI~energy of the bottom and top layers disappears, indicating a simultaneous collapse of both layers. The simultaneous change of both layers during the skyrmion collapse avoids interlayer exchange costs, which can be seen through the vanishing energy contribution $E_\text{ex}^{\perp}$. The consequence of this simultaneous collapse is that the energy barrier is equal to twice the energy barrier of a skyrmion in the monolayer system ($2\Delta E_\text{mono}$). Moreover, the mechanism in both layers corresponds to the radial collapse of the monolayer skyrmion.
If we compare this with the collapse of the bilayer skyrmion in the $\alpha\beta$ system (Fig.~\ref{fig:J_9_comp_J_7}(b)), we also find that the DMI energy contributions of both layers to the MEP are identical. Again, the collapse is simultaneous in both Fe layers. However, if we look at the energy barrier, we find a slight reduction compared to $2\Delta E_\text{mono}$, which is explained by the interlayer exchange. If we analyze the contribution of $E_\text{ex}^\perp$ to the MEP in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_9_comp_J_7}(b), we find that the saddle point is energetically favored over the initial state. Furthermore, the field-polarized state is clearly favored with respect to the interlayer exchange. The explanation for this is analogous to the cause of the shift of the critical fields in the magnetic phase diagram discussed in Sec.~\ref{ssec:phase_dia}.
The insets in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_9_comp_J_7}(a) and (b) contrast the horizontal shift of the Fe layers in the case of the $\alpha\beta$ system with the directly superimposed layers of the $\alpha\alpha$ system. This shift causes noncollinear regions of magnetization within one layer to be slightly tilted with respect to the same structure in the other layer. Collinear regions are therefore favored in terms of interlayer exchange and in this sense the bilayer skyrmion is unfavorable relative to the field polarized state. Since the saddle point state has a smaller noncollinear fraction than the skyrmion, the energetic order with respect to interlayer exchange in the $\alpha\beta$-system results in $E_\text{ex}^\perp(\text{A})>E_\text{ex}^\perp(\text{Sp})>E_\text{ex}^\perp(\text{B})$. The collapse mechanism, on the other hand, is very similar for the bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$- (Fig.~\ref{fig:overview_collapses}~(m-p)) and $\alpha\beta$-system (Fig.~\ref{fig:J_9_comp_J_7}~(c)). Only the three central spins of the radial saddle point for the skyrmion in the $\alpha\beta$-system have a slightly larger out-of-plane fraction (See App.~\ref{sec:app_minmz}). We will call this collapse mechanisms for high interlayer exchange simultaneous collapse in the following.
\subsection{Energy barriers for bilayer skyrmions}
\label{ssec:barriers}
To understand the role of interlayer exchange for
the stability of bilayer skyrmions, a detailed discussion of the corresponding energy barriers is inevitable (cf.~Eq.~(\ref{Eq:arrhenius})). We therefore systematically varied the interlayer exchange ($J^\perp\in[0, 30]$~meV) for bilayer skyrmions (A) in the $\alpha\alpha$- and $\alpha\beta$-systems and calculated the energy barriers for the collapse to the field-polarized state (B). As described in Sec.~\ref{ssec:introduction_to_mechanisms}, MEPs with an intermediate minimum occur in the low interlayer exchange coupling region. These MEPs are associated with two energy barriers. While the first barrier describes the transition of the skyrmion in one layer ($A\rightarrow M$), the second barrier is associated with the collapse of the skyrmion in the other layer ($M\rightarrow B$). In contrast, for high interlayer exchange, we find transitions of the bilayer skyrmion to the field polarized state of the bilayer with just one energy barrier ($A\rightarrow B$). Our goal is to study the energy barriers $\Delta E$ of bilayer skyrmions relative to the energy barrier of a skyrmion $\Delta E_\text{mono}$ in the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111)\cite{malottki2017}. Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize}
displays the ratio
$\Delta E/\Delta E_\text{mono}$
as a function of
$J^\perp$ for the $\alpha\alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ system. To provide increased resolution for low $J^\perp$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize}, the corresponding axis was provided with two different scales. The collapse mechanisms introduced in Sec.~\ref{ssec:introduction_to_mechanisms} are illustrated by the background color in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize}. In the following, we will discuss the determination of these areas and the behavior of the energy barrier with increasing $J^\perp$.
For very low interlayer exchange, the SR collapse is preferred. This mechanism is associated with large interlayer exchange costs, as discussed in the context of Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path}. The SC collapse minimizes these costs and is therefore preferred for increasing interlayer exchange. However, it is possible to meta-stabilize the SR mechanism up to $J^\perp=0.2$~meV
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize}.
This was calculated using the following methodology. Since the GNEB method calculates the local MEP closest to the initial path, it is possible to increase (decrease) the interlayer exchange piecewise and always use the result of the previous GNEB calculation as the initial path for calculating the collapse for the next larger (lower) interlayer exchange. The
orange arrows in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize} symbolize such calculations for the SR collapse starting from $J^\perp=0$~meV. The steps were chosen to be $\Delta J^\perp=0.01$~meV but for better visibility only a few data points are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize}. Similarly, a calculation of the SC collapse starting from $J^\perp=0.3$~meV was performed for piecewise smaller interlayer exchange. This is indicated by the green arrows in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize}. From the intersection of the curve for the SR collapse and the curve for the SC collapse, the change of mechanism for $J^\perp=(0.03\pm 0.01)$~meV for the $\alpha\alpha$- and for $J^\perp=(0.027\pm 0.009)$~meV for the $\alpha\beta$ system is obtained, where the error results from the distance of the data points in the $J^\perp$ direction.
The further one increases the interlayer exchange, the more energetically unfavorable the intermediate minimum becomes. This leads to the fact that above a certain $J^\perp$ only MEPs with a single saddle point exist. This transition defines the change of the SC-collapse to the SSC mechanism. For the $\alpha\alpha$ system this happens at $J^\perp=(1.1\pm0.2)$~meV and for the $\alpha\beta$ system at $J^\perp=(1.5\pm0.6)$~meV, as indicated by the change of the background colors in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_9_comp_J_7}.
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{ssec:introduction_to_mechanisms}, a chimera-like saddle point is energetically favorable for successive collapsing skyrmions. Considering the SSC collapse mechanism for increasing interlayer exchange, we find that the magnetization changes in both layers become more and more similar during the collapse, except for the region of the saddle point (see Fig.~\ref{fig:J_2_5_cubic_path}). However, as the shrinkage of the skyrmion proceeds simultaneously
in both layers, the noncollinear part of the magnetization for the saddle point becomes smaller. Above a certain interlayer exchange, the saddle point size is small enough that the tilting of the spins at the edge discussed in the context of Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_15_cubic_path}(b,c) for the chimera-like saddle point means only small savings of the interlayer exchange costs. From this point on, the SSR collapse is preferred. The corresponding limit of the regimes in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize} is indicated by renewed change of background color. However, the position of
this transition cannot be inferred
from the behavior of the energy barrier, because the curve
in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize} is continuous. Instead, the central spins of the saddle point configurations are analyzed. This approach is described in App.~\ref{sec:app_minmz} and Fig.~\ref{fig:app_minmz}. For the $\alpha\alpha$ system as well as for the $\alpha\beta$ system the change of the regimes happens for $J^\perp=(4.9\pm 0.05)$~meV.
It is remarkable how closely the collapse mechanisms in the $\alpha\alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ system match in the regimes discussed so far. Let us now consider the regime of SSR collapse. Here the energy barrier of the bilayer skyrmion reaches a maximum and the first differences between the $\alpha\alpha$-system and $\alpha\beta$-system appear. While the energy barrier for the bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$-system converges towards twice the value of the energy barrier of the skyrmion in the monolayer system, the curve for the $\alpha\beta$-system only reaches a maximum of about $\operatorname{max}(\Delta E_{\alpha\beta})\approx 1.86\Delta E_{\text{mono}}$ with a decrease afterwards. Increasing the interlayer exchange further finally leads to the simultaneous collapse regime. The determination of the border is again described in App.~\ref{sec:app_minmz} and we observe the change for $J^\perp=(10.0\pm 0.05)$~meV for the $\alpha\alpha$- and for $J^\perp=(11.9\pm 0.05)$~meV for the $\alpha\beta$-system.
The decrease in the energy barrier for skyrmions in the $\alpha\beta$ system occurs already before the transition to the completely simultaneous collapse mechanism happens. As the interlayer exchange is increased
within the simultaneous regime for the $\alpha\beta$ system the difference between the saddle point configuration and the bilayer skyrmion in terms of interlayer exchange energy increases favoring the saddle point. This leads to a linear decline of the energy barrier as the spin configurations along the MEP
do not change anymore in this regime but only the interlayer exchange constant $J^\perp$ varies linear the energy in Eq.~(\ref{gl:energy_model}). This is in sharp contrast to the behavior of the bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$ system. Here, the interlayer exchange energy contribution to the MEP reduces to zero when the collapse is simultaneous in both layers as all neighbors coupled via interlayer exchange are aligned parallel. Therefore, the energy barrier of the bilayer skyrmion equals twice the monolayer skyrmion energy barrier and is not affected by further changes in $J^\perp$.
From the decrease of the energy barrier of the skyrmion in the $\alpha\beta$-system for high interlayer exchange couplings we can draw the conclusion that stability of bilayer skyrmions not inevitable enlarges for increased interlayer exchange. Based on these results, it is important to understand for which interlayer exchange coupling $J_C^\perp$ a fully simultaneous collapse of the bilayer skyrmion occurs. The detailed investigation of these critical interlayer exchange parameters is given in Sec.~\ref{ssec:stacks_effective_model}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure9.pdf}
\caption{(a) Energy barriers $\Delta E$ of bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$ system relative to the energy barrier of a skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111) for various interlayer exchange couplings $J^\perp$. For clarity the shown data point density is reduced and the $J^\perp$ axis has an enlarged scale for small values.
We used the NRE model for these calculations (cf.~Tab.~\ref{tab: Pd_Fe_Ir_parameters}). The background color represents the type of the collapse mechanism as described in App.~\ref{sec:app_minmz} and Fig.~\ref{fig:app_minmz}. For collapse mechanisms with two saddle point configurations the corresponding energy barriers of the first (second) collapse are labeled with filled (open) circles, while the energy barriers corresponding to a collapse mechanism with a single saddle point configuration are symbolized with squares. The solid (dashed) black line represents the energy barrier (twice the energy barrier) of a skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111). The arrows indicate the directions of the piecewise GNEB calculations as described in
detail in the text. (b) Analog visualization to (a) for bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\beta$ system.}
\label{fig:compare_stacks_summarize}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Critical interlayer exchange couplings}\label{ssec:stacks_effective_model}
During the preceding section the question arises for which interlayer exchange $J^\perp$ the collapse of bilayer skyrmions becomes fully simultaneous and which underlying physical properties determine this transition. %
To answer these questions, we reduced the complexity of the system by turning to the more simple representation of the intralayer interaction in effective nearest-neighbor approximation, with a value of $J_{1}^{||}=3.68$~meV, as reported in Ref.~\cite{malottki2017}. %
This excludes the effect of exchange frustration on the energy barrier which is now solely dominated by the DMI, with $D_\text{1}=1.39$~meV (See Tab.~\ref{tab: Pd_Fe_Ir_parameters}). With these parameters, we performed calculations of the magnetic bilayer system analog to the preceding section, yielding the energy barriers, $\Delta E$, over varying interlayer exchange coupling, $J^\perp$, for both the $\alpha\alpha$ and the $\alpha\beta$ stacking as displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition} (a) and (c), respectively. %
Similar to the case of frustrated intralayer exchange interaction, we observe an initially strong increase and a subsequent convergence of the energy barrier to twice the value of the corresponding monolayer system for the $\alpha\alpha$-stacked bilayer. %
This value is again not reached by the skyrmion annihilation in the $\alpha\beta$ stacking, as the barrier starts to decrease with $J^{\perp}$ after a maximum has been reached around $J^\perp\approx2$~meV. %
Note, that within nearest-neighbor approximation no chimera collapse mechanism occurs in the low and intermediate interlayer exchange regimes, highlighting the crucial role of the intralayer exchange frustration for the formation of the chimera saddle point state \cite{Meyer2019,muckel2021,stephan_phd}. %
Without this additional stabilization, the energy difference between the radial symmetric and chimera saddle point structures in the monolayer system is larger than the potential energy gain of an occurring chimera saddle point in the bilayer skyrmion collapse.
This demonstrates that frustration effects of the intralayer interactions can increase the complexity and variety of transitions in magnetic bilayer systems.
In the following we focus on the eigenspectra of saddle point states in the interlayer exchange interval $J^\perp\in[2.0, 3.5]$~meV, in which the transition of the semi-successive radial collapse (SSR) to the completely simultaneous radial collapse takes place. %
The eigenvalues of the Hessian $\mathcal{H}_\text{Sp}$ correspond to the curvature of the energy landscape in the vicinity of the saddle point in the basis of the eigenvectors.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}~(b), the spectra of the eigenvalues, $\epsilon_{\text{Sp},i}\in\{\epsilon_{\text{Sp},1},\dots,\epsilon_{\text{Sp},N}\}$,
are shown for the saddle points of the $\alpha\alpha$-stacked bilayer versus
$J^\perp$. %
The eigenvalues of the monolayer system are added as a reference and agree with the eigenvalues published in Ref.~\cite{malottki2019, stephan_phd}. %
Both transition mechanisms exhibit a first order saddle point as they have exactly one negative eigenvalue shown in the lower part of the panel. %
The negative eigenvalue of the SSR mechanism increases with $J^\perp$ until it reaches the value of the monolayer close to the critical interlayer exchange of $J_C^\perp\approx2.6$~meV. %
In the regime of simultaneous coupling, the eigenvalue of the unstable mode lies exactly on the value of the monolayer, which can be expected since the magnetic structures of both layers are identical with the monolayer saddle point structure.%
In comparison to the monolayer system, a new saddle point eigenmode appears in the bilayer system, which connects the SSR and the simultaneous collapse mechanisms and is therefore coined layer-aligning mode (Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}(b)).
For increasing $J^\perp$, its eigenvalue approaches zero at $J_C^\perp$ before it steeply rises again in the simultaneous collapse regime. %
This mode softening around $J_C^\perp$ is responsible for the transition between the SSR and the simultaneous collapse mechanisms in both the $\alpha\alpha$ and the $\alpha\beta$-stacking. %
The spectrum of the latter is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition} (d). %
It resembles the spectrum of the $\alpha\alpha$-stacking except for a larger critical interlayer exchange of $J_C^\perp\approx3.0$~meV and eigenvalues that slightly deviate from their monolayer counterparts with increasing $J^\perp$. %
In order to deepen the understanding of the layer-aligning mode, we display the spin structure of the SSR saddle point
for a value of $J^\perp=2.3$~meV in Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}~(e).
The spin structure of both layers is quite similar, but shows small deviations especially in the three central spins, which are slightly rotated downward in the top layer, but point almost toward each other in the bottom layer, implying that radial collapse is more advanced in the bottom layer than in the top layer as it is expected for the SSR collapse mechanism. %
By looking at the corresponding
eigenvector (Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}(f)), one can already guess that
its application to the top layer would push the magnetic structure in this layer further in the direction of the radial collapse. %
In contrast, the application of the eigenvector to the bottom layer would rotate the central moments in the opposite direction, resulting in more similar saddle points and thus a more simultaneous collapse in both layers.
However, the visual examination of the eigenvector is limited and we apply the mode following method as proposed in Ref. \cite{stephan_phd}. %
Each mode following step consists of the calculation of the desired eigenvector by partial diagonalisation of the Hessian matrix and the subsequent rotation of the magnetic structure in the direction of this eigenvector. %
The resulting magnetic state is then the starting point for the next mode following step. %
A mode tracking algorithm which compares the previous eigenvector with the newly calculated ones ensures that always the eigenvector that is the most similar to the followed eigenmode is chosen. %
With this technique, the energy landscape in the direction of the eigenmode can be determined. %
See movies in the Supplemental Material for a visualization of this technique\cite{*[{See Supplemental Material }] [{for movies visualizing the application of mode following technique for the layer-aligning mode.}] SuppMov}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:transitionmode} (a) shows the energy over the coordinate $q$, which determines the displacement of the magnetic structure along the layer-aligning mode, where a value of $q=0$ corresponds to the simultaneous collapse. %
The color encodes the geodesic distance between the magnetic structures in the top and bottom layer. %
Thus, the more blue (red) the color is, the more simultaneous (successive) the collapse mechanism is. The mode following calculations are performed for varying values of the interlayer exchange, $J^\perp$, resulting in one line per calculation. %
As starting points, the relaxed saddle point structures as obtained by CI-GNEB have been used. %
For small values of $J^\perp$, the energy profiles show two degenerate minima for both possible realizations of the SSR collapse mechanism. %
By following the layer-aligning mode from one minimum to the other, the saddle point of the simultaneous collapse is passed as an intermediate local energy maximum. %
With increasing $J^\perp$, the two degenerate energy minima become more shallow until they vanish at $J_C^\perp\approx2.6$~meV and a single minimum at $q=0$~rad emerges for even larger $J^\perp$.%
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure10.pdf}
\caption{(a,c) Energy barriers of bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$ and the $\alpha\beta$ system relative to the energy barrier of skyrmions within the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111) for various interlayer exchange constants $J^\perp$. The effective parameter set (cf.~Tab.~\ref{tab: Pd_Fe_Ir_parameters}) is used and the background colors follow the definition of the collapse mechanisms as defined in Fig.~\ref{fig:compare_stacks_summarize} for the NRE model. For better visibility every third data point is displayed. (b,d) Visualization for the $\alpha\alpha$ and
$\alpha\beta$ system, respectively, of the lowest eigenvalues of the Hessian of the saddle point configuration which belong to the energy barriers displayed in (a,b) for various $J^\perp$.
The identified eigenmodes calculated for the bilayer system are labeled with BL. For a detailed description see the
text. The dashed lines indicate the eigenvalues for a skyrmion in the monolayer system at $B=4.0$~T described with the effective model\cite{malottki2019}. In (d) a fit following Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_curvature}) is presented by a red line. (e) Representation of the saddle point configuration for the bilayer skyrmion in the $\alpha\alpha$ system for $J^\perp=2.3$~meV. (f) Visualization of the eigenvector for the layer-aligning mode of the saddle point presented in (e). The color code represents the z-component of the orientation of the vectors.}
\label{fig:eig_transition}
\end{figure*}
This behavior can be discussed analog to Landau's Theory for continuous phase transitions by modeling the energy to the fourth power along the mode:
\begin{align}
E(q, J^\perp)-E_\text{sim} = a(J^\perp)\cdot q^2+\frac{b(J^\perp)}{2}q^4,
\label{gl:landau_energy}
\end{align}
where the displacement along the mode $q$ takes the role of the ordering parameter, $E(q, J^\perp)$ is the energy along this ordering parameter for some value $J^\perp$ of the parameter provoking the phase transition and $E_\text{sim}$ is the zero point of this energy, which will be defined below.
In order to prohibit indefinite negative energies for indefinite order parameters $b(J^\perp)> 0$ has to hold and it will be further assumed that $b(J^\perp)=b_0$ is valid near $J^\perp$. Calculating the stationary points $q_0$ of Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_energy}) yields:
\begin{align*}
q_0^2 = -\frac{a}{b_0}.
\end{align*}
We obtain one local minimum ($q_0=0$) for $a>0$ and two local minima for $a<0$, which mimics exactly the behaviour of the energy landscape of the layer-aligning mode near $J_C^\perp$. Therefore, one can model $a(J^\perp)\approx a_0(J^\perp-J_C^\perp)$ for $a_0>0$ and $J^\perp$ close to $J_C^\perp$ and the positions of the minima follow
\begin{align}
q_{0,\pm}=\pm \frac{a_0}{b_0}|J^\perp-J_C^\perp|^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\label{gl:landau_minpos}
\end{align}
Further, the energy of the local minima can be determined through
\begin{align}
E(q_{0,\pm})=-\frac{a_0^2}{2b_0}(J^\perp-J_C^\perp)^2.
\label{gl:landau_minenergy}
\end{align}
Fitting Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_minpos}) and Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_minenergy}) to the data obtained by the mode-following method yields $a_0=(2.98\pm0.04)~\text{meV}/\text{rad}^2$, $b_0=(1.61\pm0.03)~\text{meV}/\text{rad}^4$ and $J_C^\perp=(2.613\pm0.003)~\text{meV}$ (See Fig.~\ref{fig:transitionmode}~(b),(c)). A phase transition implies a symmetric configuration above $J_C^\perp$ which splits up into two configurations with lower symmetry below $J_C^\perp$. The nature of this symmetry can be revealed through visualizing the geodesic distance\cite{bessarab2015} between the magnetization of the top Fe layer $\vec{M}^{\text{top}}$ to the magnetization of the bottom Fe layer $\vec{M}^{\text{bot}}$:
\begin{align}
L(\vec{M}^\text{top},\vec{M}^\text{bot})=\sqrt{(l_1^{\text{top,bot}})^2+(l_2^{\text{top,bot}})^2+\dots+(l_{N/2}^{\text{top,bot}})^2},
\label{eq:linfit}
\end{align}
where $N/2$ is the number of spins per layer and the $l_i^{\text{top, bot}}$ are geodesic distances between the points of the unit sphere, which correspond to the spins in the top and bottom layer, respectively. This quantity is represented by the color code in Fig.~\ref{fig:transitionmode}(a). While blue represents parallel aligned layers, red indicates a net angle between the magnetization of the different layers. Therefore one can conclude that indeed the simultaneous collapse mechanism matches with the high symmetry configuration for interlayer exchange couplings above $J_C^\perp$. Below $J_C^\perp$ two collapse mechanisms are possible with saddle point configurations obeying a successive transgression of the Bloch-like points in each layer and thus representing a lower symmetry.
Note, that the energy for each slice (each $J^\perp$) in Fig.~\ref{fig:transitionmode}(a) is meant relative to the simultaneous configuration $E_\text{sim}$. This simultaneous configuration is a local minimum for $J^\perp>J_C^\perp$ and a local maximum for $J^\perp < J_C^\perp$. The displacement along the mode $q$ is also expressed relative to this simultaneous configuration.
All these consideration were done for the bilayer skyrmion collapse within the $\alpha\alpha$-system. For the purpose of substantiating the same mechanism in the $\alpha\beta$-system, we show that $a_0$ and $J^\perp$ can already be derived from the eigenvalue spectrum in Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}(c). The second derivative of Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_energy}) yields the curvature at the minimum along the energy reach along the layer-aligning mode $c$ and thus the corresponding eigenvalue
\begin{align}
\epsilon_{\text{Sp},c} = \begin{cases}2a_0|J^\perp -J_C^\perp|, &J^\perp >J_C^\perp\\ -4a_0|J^\perp -J_C^\perp|, &J^\perp<J_C^\perp\end{cases}
\label{gl:landau_curvature}
\end{align}
for $J^\perp$ close to $J_C^\perp$. A fit of Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_curvature}) to the layer-aligning mode for $J^\perp>J_C^\perp$ results $a_0=1.71~\text{meV}/\text{rad}^2$ and $J_C^\perp=3.06$~meV for the $\alpha\beta$ system. This fit is displayed by a line
in Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}~(d).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure11.pdf}
\caption{(a) Local energy landscape along the layer-aligning mode for different $J^\perp$ around the saddle point configurations of bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$-system. An example for a corresponding eigenvector is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}(f). The energy is displayed relative to the energy of the simultaneous saddle point configuration $E_\text{sim}$ and visualized over the displacement $q$ along the mode. The color code represents the geodesic distance between the magnetizations of the top layer $\vec{M}^\text{top}$ and the the bottom layer $\vec{M}^\text{bottom}$. (b,c) Position and value of the local energy minima from (a) recorded over $J^\perp$. The purple lines indicate fits of Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_minpos}) and Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_minenergy}), respectively.}
\label{fig:transitionmode}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Varying the monolayer barrier}
\label{ssec:vary_monolayer_barrier}
Addressing the issue of designing a magnetic bilayer system which yields maximum skyrmion stability an estimation of
the critical interlayer exchange strength
$J_C^\perp$ from the properties of the underlying monolayer system is important. We assume that the energy barrier of the skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer system may influence
$J_C^\perp$ of the bilayer system. Therefore, we
varied the barrier of each skyrmion in the bilayer
by systematically varying
the DMI within the effective model ($D_\text{eff}\in[1.19, 1.59]$~meV).
Fig.~\ref{fig:zero_paths}(a) shows the obtained MEPs for five values of the DMI for $J^\perp=0$~meV. The collapses are similar to the MEP of the skyrmion in the underlying monolayer system as discussed in Fig.~\ref{fig:J_0_cubic_path}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:zero_paths}(b) presents the energy barrier of the first collapse and the radius of bilayer skyrmions for switched off interlayer exchange depending on the corresponding value of the DMI. In agreement with Ref.~\cite{varentcova2018} the radius and the energy barrier increase as the DMI strengthens. Since $J^\perp=0$~meV this energy barrier corresponds to the energy barrier of the underlying magnetic monolayer system $\Delta E_\text{mono}$. Therefore, the variation of the DMI-parameter yields a variation of the energy barrier of the magnetic monolayer skyrmion in the interval $\Delta E_\text{mono}\in[25, 130]$~meV.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure12.pdf}
\caption{(a) Minimum energy paths of bilayer skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$-system based on the effective parameters from the monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111) for different values of the DMI (see color code in legend). The interalyer exchange constant is set to zero ($J^\perp=0.0$~meV). For comparison the energy barrier of the skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer for $D_\text{eff}=1.39$~meV\cite{malottki2017} is indicated as dashed line. (b) Energy barriers and radius of the bilayer skyrmions in the magnetic monolayer systems for different values of the DMI. The radius is given in units of the lattice constant $a$.}
\label{fig:zero_paths}
\end{figure}
After defining $\alpha\alpha$- and $\alpha\beta$-stacked systems for these DMI values, we vary the interlayer exchange coupling and calculate the energy barriers of the bilayer skyrmions analog to Sec.~\ref{ssec:barriers}. We have to mention that during this variation no chimera type saddle points appear, which we attribute to the lack of intralayer frustration for the effective parameter set. In App.~\ref{sec:app_vary_mono} in Fig.~\ref{fig:app_vary_mono} we present, similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}(a) and (c), the energy barriers of the bilayer skyrmions relative to the energy barrier of the skyrmion in the corresponding monolayer system for the $\alpha\alpha$- and $\alpha\beta$-stacks, respectively.
Further we determined the critical interlayer exchange parameters $J_C^\perp$ by calculating the eigenvalue spectrum and applying a fit following Eq.~(\ref{gl:landau_curvature}) for $J^\perp>J_C^\perp$ as presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}(c). The obtained values of
$J_C^\perp$ are displayed for the $\alpha\alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ system in Fig.~\ref{fig:tune_barrier} as a function
of the energy barrier of a skyrmion in the corresponding monolayer system $\Delta E_\text{mono}$.
Note, that the determination of $J_C^\perp$ for $D_\text{eff}=1.19$~meV was not possible for the $\alpha\beta$ system as the divergence of the layer-aligning mode is overlapping in the eigenvalue spectrum with another collapse mechanism of the low interlayer exchange regime here.
Although the critical parameter $J_C^{\perp}$ is always a bit larger for skyrmions in the $\alpha\beta$-stacked system than for the skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$-system
both follow the same trend. As the monolayer barrier increases a higher interlayer exchange coupling is needed to force the system into a simultaneous collapse, which is indicated by the increase of $J_C^\perp$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:tune_barrier}. For comparison we observed $J_C^\perp=10.0$~meV for the $\alpha\alpha$ and $J_C^\perp=11.9$~meV for the $\alpha\beta$ system treated with the NRE-parameter set
in Sec.~\ref{ssec:barriers}. This corresponded to an energy barrier $\Delta E_\text{mono}\approx 143$~meV of the underlying monolayer system.
It is striking that for systems examined with the effective parameter set the critical interlayer exchange parameters are significantly smaller than for the systems treated with the NRE model. This is an indication that in real systems with exchange frustration a much larger interlayer exchange is needed to force a simultaneous collapse of the skyrmions in the different layers. Therefore if one aims to design a magnetic bilayer system with maximum skyrmion stability two aspects have to be considered. On the one hand a higher energy barrier of a skyrmion in the underlying monolayer system provides a higher energy barrier for the simultaneously collapsing bilayer skyrmion. On the other hand one needs higher interlayer couplings to realize this simultaneous transition.
\subsection{Energy barriers for multilayer skyrmions}
\label{ssec:beyond2lay}
Our previous results for skyrmions in bilayers carry over to systems with more layers. For this purpose, we again use the effective parameter set to exclude exchange
frustration effects within the layers.
Energy barriers for skyrmions were obtained in three layer and four layer systems, with the magnetic atoms of the different layers all occupying the same lattice sites. Following our notation, these system are of the $\alpha\alpha$ type. We also studied a system with four layers and six layers with an $\alpha\beta$ stacking. For
weak interlayer exchange, we calculated increased multiplicity of collapse mechanisms, in agreement with the bilayer results. Presenting this complexity is beyond the aim of this paper. We therefore present here only the regime of large interlayer exchange coupling. The energy barriers depending on the interlayer exchange $J^\perp$ of the skyrmions in the multilayer systems studied are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:beyond2lay}(a) relative to the energy barrier of the skyrmion of the monolayer system.
As expected, the energy barriers for the three layer (four layer) skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$ system converge to three (four) times the energy barrier of the skyrmion in the monolayer system. However, it can be observed in Fig~\ref{fig:beyond2lay}(a) that a larger interlayer exchange coupling $J_C^\perp$ is needed in the case of the three and four layer system to force a simultaneous collapse of the skyrmions than in the bilayer. If we extrapolate the results obtained here for the skyrmions in the $\alpha\alpha$ systems (Fig~\ref{fig:beyond2lay}(b))
to a system with $L$ layers in which the atoms of all layers occupy the same lattice sites, we confirm the conjecture $\Delta E=L\Delta E_\text{mono}$ for the skyrmion in the multilayer system as long as $J^\perp> J_C^\perp$ holds. This is in agreement with the prediction in Ref.~\cite{Heil2019}.
It is the general view that an increase in magnetic material leads to an increase in the stability of skyrmions in magnetic multilayers. To ensure simultaneous behavior of these skyrmions, it is often concluded that the largest possible interlayer exchange is desirable. Our calculations for the $\alpha\alpha$ systems confirm this. If we move to the $\alpha\beta$ systems, which are relevant for real layered materials, we also find that increasing the number of layers increases the energy barrier of the skyrmions (Fig~\ref{fig:beyond2lay}(a))
consistent with the studies of Hoffmann \textit{et al.}\cite{hoffmann2020}.
However, the situation is more complicated. What can be deduced from the data shown in Fig~\ref{fig:beyond2lay}(a)
is that the maximum stability for skyrmions in multilayers is achieved for a certain value of interlayer exchange. The maximum of the energy barrier for the skyrmion in the four layer $\alpha\beta$ system is below $3.5$ times the energy barrier of the skyrmion in the monolayer system and is obtained for $J^\perp\approx 6$~meV. The maximum achievable energy barrier for the skyrmion in the six layer $\alpha\beta$ system is even below $5$ times the energy barrier in the monolayer system. This is in contrast to the common belief that interlayer exchange coupling does not affect the stability of multilayer skyrmions as long as it is strong enough to allow simultaneous behavior of the skyrmion.
Comparing the different $\alpha\beta$ systems also indicates that the decrease of the energy barrier for high interlayer exchange couplings occurs with a more negative slope the more layers are involved. This leads to the fact that the energy gain in terms of skyrmion stability by adding another layer decreases with increasing interlayer exchange coupling (Fig.~\ref{fig:beyond2lay}(b)). We propose that the energy barrier of skyrmions in fcc- or hcp-stacked multilayer systems with $L$
layers is thus given by
$\Delta E= g(J^\perp)\cdot L \Delta E_\text{mono}$. Where the function $g(J^\perp)<1$ attributes to the fact that optimizing the skyrmion stability through adding more layers relies on the choice of the optimal interlayer exchange. This counterintuitive result provides an important contribution to the understanding of skyrmion stability in magnetic multilayers and is visualized in Fig.~\ref{fig:beyond2lay}(b). Here we extracted the energy barriers for fixed values of $J^\perp$ from Fig.~\ref{fig:beyond2lay}(a) and plotted versus the number of layers.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure13.pdf}
\caption{Critical interlayer exchange $J_C^\perp$ for skyrmions in magnetic bilayer systems based on the effective parameter set (Tab.~\ref{tab: Pd_Fe_Ir_parameters}) for different values of the DMI. The color code indicates the different values of the DMI which define the energy barrier of a skyrmion in the corresponding magnetic monolayer system
(cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:zero_paths}).
Circles denote the $\alpha\alpha$ system and diamonds represent the values of $J_C^\perp$
for the $\alpha\beta$ system. See Fig.~\ref{fig:app_vary_mono} for the corresponding visualization of the energy barriers of the bilayer skyrmions.}
\label{fig:tune_barrier}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure14.pdf}
\caption{(a) Energy barriers of skyrmions in magnetic multilayer systems for various interlayer exchange couplings $J^\perp$ relative to the energy barrier of the skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer Pd/Fe/Ir(111). The effective parameter set is used for these calculations. The energy barriers for the skyrmions in the two-, three- and four-layer systems obeying a $\alpha\alpha$-stacking sequence are shown in magenta. The barriers for the two-, four- and sixlayer systems with $\alpha\beta$-stacking are shown in black. (b) Energy barriers from (a) as a function of the number of layers for fixed values of $J^\perp$. The corresponding data points are indicated by empty squares in (a). For the $\alpha\alpha$ systems the layer-dependent energy barrier is presented for $J^\perp=10$~meV,
while it is shown for
the $\alpha\beta$ systems
for $J^\perp=12$~meV, $J^\perp=15$~meV, $J^\perp=18$~meV and $J^\perp=21$~meV.
}
\label{fig:beyond2lay}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Lifetime of bilayer skyrmions}
\label{ssec:lifetime}
In the preceding sections we discussed the dependence of the energy barrier on the interlayer exchange in magnetic bilayer systems, which is the dominant contribution to the lifetime at low temperatures due to the exponential term in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:arrhenius}). But, as reported in Ref.~\cite{malottki2019,varentcova2020}, the effect of the change of the pre-exponential factor should not be underestimated. Therefore, we present the calculation of the pre-exponential factor $\tau_0$ for the generic example of the bilayer stacks based on the effective parameter set as discussed in Sec.~\ref{ssec:stacks_effective_model}. For the purpose of underlining our results concerning the stability of skyrmions in the high interlayer exchange coupling regime we only discuss here the regime where one saddle point configuration appears. The description of collapses containing an intermediate minimum should be done with Master's equation and lies beyond the scope of this paper.
The diagonalization of the Hessian matrix for the bilayer skyrmion and the saddle point configuration gives us the eigenvalues of the initial bilayer skyrmion $\epsilon_{A,i}$ and the saddle point configuration $\epsilon_{\text{Sp},i}$. The determined eigenvalues allow the calculation of the prefactors following Eq.~(\ref{eq:prefactor_radial}).
Fig.~\ref{fig:prefactor_lifetime}(a) shows a highly similar behavior for the $\alpha\alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ stack regarding the pre-exponential factor $\tau_0$. A sharp decline of $\tau_0$ occurs around $J^\perp=3.0$~meV followed by an increase towards prefactor of the magnetic monolayer system, which is indicated by the dashed line. This narrow sink is produced by the softening of layer-aligning saddle point mode which approaches zero in this regime (See Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}). The softening leads to a division by zero
in Eq.~(\ref{eq:prefactor_radial}) and therefore $\tau_0$ approaches zero for $J^\perp\approx J_C^\perp$. In this region the applicability of the harmonic approximation is questionable. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the prefactor reduces the stability of the bilayer skyrmions for both stackings compared to the prefactor of the skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer system
(dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:prefactor_lifetime}). We
attribute this to an increased entropic difference between the transition state and the skyrmion state for intermediate interlayer exchange couplings as the number of possible transition mechanisms reduces with increased exchange couplings between the layers.
In 2017 Wild \textit{et al.}\cite{wild2017} investigated the lifetime of skyrmions in B20-compounds. Changes in the magnetic field which lead to an increased energy barrier were counterbalanced by changes in the pre-exponential factor by 30 orders of magnitude leading to a substantial reduction of the lifetime of skyrmions by entropic effects\cite{wild2017}. However we expect that the increase in the energy barrier for skyrmions in systems with multiple magnetic layers always goes along with such a entropic induced decrease of the pre-exponential-factor $\tau_0$ for low $J^\perp.$ As the interlayer exchange coupling increases above $J^\perp\approx 15$~meV the prefactor of the bilayer systems reaches the prefactor for skyrmions in the monolayer system (Fig.~\ref{fig:prefactor_lifetime}(a)). Note, that the visualization in Fig.~\ref{fig:prefactor_lifetime}(a) is valid for all temperatures
$T$ since the linear dependance in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:prefactor_radial}) allows to display $\tau_0 \cdot T$.
Since the order of collapses does not matter for the SR collapses for $J^\perp<J_C^\perp$ two saddle points exist here and we multiplied $\tau_0^{-1}$ by a further factor of two in this regime.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:prefactor_lifetime}(b) we calculated the lifetime $\tau$ for the exemplary temperature $T=30$ K. For the shown parameter range
of $J^\perp$ the stability of the bilayer skyrmion is always enhanced compared to the skyrmion in the magnetic monolayer system. The results of this section exemplify that the effects of changing the pre-exponential factor are relatively small when varying the interlayer exchange compared to the influence of the energy barrier on the lifetime of the bilayer skyrmions discussed here.
Therefore, one can associate the results of the previous sections regarding the energy barriers of bilayer skyrmions directly with the stability of these skyrmions.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{figure15.pdf}
\caption{(a) Temperature independent pre-exponential factor $\tau_0 \cdot T$ (Eq.~(\ref{gl:HTST})) for skyrmions in magnetic bilayer systems based on the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111) in $\alpha\alpha$- and $\alpha\beta$-stacking for various interlayer exchange couplings $J^\perp$. The dashed line indicates pre-exponential factor for skyrmions within the magnetic monolayer system Pd/Fe/Ir(111)\cite{malottki2019} for $B=4.0$~T. (b) Skyrmion lifetime $\tau$ for $T=30$ K calculated with the Arrhenius law (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:arrhenius})) using the energy barriers $\Delta E$ from Fig.~\ref{fig:eig_transition}~(a) and the prefactor $\tau_0$ displayed in part (a) of this figure.}
\label{fig:prefactor_lifetime}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}\label{chap:conclusion}
In this work, we investigated fundamental properties of skyrmion stability in magnetic multilayer systems.
We considered multilayers built from single Fe layers with the magnetic properties taken from
the well-studied film system Pd/Fe/Ir(111) and coupled by interlayer exchange of variable
strength $J^\perp$.
The layers are either stacked in $\alpha\alpha$ order, in which the magnetic atoms are placed on top of each other, or in $\alpha\beta$ order, as it appears for fcc or hcp stacked systems. %
It turns out that for $\alpha\beta$-stacking, the interlayer exchange coupling acts as an exchange-bias to the system affecting the magnetic phase and skyrmion stability, while no such effect occurs for the $\alpha\alpha$ stacking.
For both stacking orders of magnetic bilayers, we found the expected simultaneous collapse of skyrmions in both Fe layers when $J^\perp$ exceeds a critical interlayer exchange, $J_C^\perp$. %
The collapse
splits
into the successive annihilation of skyrmions in individual layers for small $J^\perp$, which can be seen as the bilayer analogue to the occurrence of chiral magnetic bobbers in bulk systems \cite{Rybakov2015}. %
For intermediate strengths of $J^\perp$, a rich phase space of collapse mechanisms arises, in which the interlayer exchange interaction can favor a mix of semi-successive chimera and radial symmetric mechanisms. %
Our analysis of the eigenvalue spectrum of the bilayer system revealed the layer-aligning eigenmode, which is responsible for the transition from the semi-successive radial (SSR) collapse to the simultaneous collapse. %
We found, that this transition can be described accurately by Landau's theory for continuous phase transitions, which provides a stable definition of the critical interlayer exchange $J_C^\perp$. %
This can help to design multilayer systems in the simultaneous collapse regime, which is desirable for most applications since the annihilation processes become more complex and thus harder to control for
less strongly coupled systems. %
Harmonic transition state theory calculations show a small dependence of the prefactor of the interlayer exchange constant and the number of magnetic layers which indicates only a minor role of entropic effects in the investigated parameter space. %
However, the situation could be different for couplings below $J_C^\perp$ where the role of additional multilayer eigenmodes is more complex as well as for other systems, in which the exchange bias induced by interlayer exchange could lead to more drastic changes of the entropy at the skyrmion or saddle point state. %
As expected, the energy barriers of the $\alpha\alpha$-stacking order
increase linear with the number of magnetic layers, L, as long as $J>J_C^\perp$.
The critical value $J_C^\perp$, on the other hand, is increasing with $L$ as well and is thus limiting the number of layers in the simultaneous collapse regime for a given $J^\perp$. %
These results
are consistent
with
the notion
that a strong interlayer exchange is desirable for increasing skyrmion stability. %
However,
for an $\alpha\beta$ stacking, collinear structures are favored by the nearest-neighbor interlayer exchange interaction. %
This leads to the existence of a sweet spot for the strength of $J^\perp$, at which the increase of the total energy barrier due to the increased number of layers and the reduction of the energy barrier caused by strong interlayer coupling is optimized. %
It turns out, that the optimal choice of $J^\perp$
changes
drastically with the number of coupled magnetic layers, the other interaction parameters, and the crystal structure of the multilayer. %
These results occur systematically and consistent for our model systems with and without intralayer exchange frustration and over a large interval of interlayer exchange parameters. %
Therefore, we expect these effects to apply rather general and that they have to be taken into account in order to accurately predict skyrmion stability in magnetic multilayer systems.
In contrast to the common assumption that the total energy barrier of
skyrmion collapse in a multilayer scales as
$\Delta E=L\Delta E_\mathrm{Mono}$, we have demonstrated that it
is only an upper boundary
and that the actual energy barrier can be much below this desired value. %
\begin{acknowledgments} We gratefully acknowledge financial
support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)
via project no.~414321830 (HE3292/11-1) and no.~418425860 (HE3292/13-1), the Icelandic Research Fund (Grant No. 217750 and 184949), and the Russian Science Foundation (Grant No. 19-72-10138).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
A set $S \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is said to be in \emph{general position} if, for any $k < d$, there are at most $k+1$ points in any $k$-dimensional subspace, while it is in \emph{convex position} if the points of $S$ form the vertices of a convex polytope. A classic result of Erd\H{o}s and Szekeres~\cite{ESz35} then states that for any $\ell$ there exists $n$ such that any set of $n$ points in general position in the plane contains $\ell$ points in convex position. The analogous statement in higher dimensions also follows as a simple corollary.
Our concern here will be with a variant introduced by Erd\H{o}s~\cite{E78, E81}. Given a set $S \subset \mathbb{R}^d$, we say that points $s_1, \dots, s_\ell \in S$ form an \emph{$\ell$-hole} if they are in convex position and no point of $S$ is contained in the interior of the convex polytope formed by $s_1, \dots, s_\ell$. Erd\H{o}s' question was whether, for each $\ell$, there exists $n$ such that any set of $n$ points in general position in the plane contains an $\ell$-hole. That such an $n$ exists for $\ell = 5$ was proved by Harborth~\cite{H78} in 1978, though it took almost thirty years more for the $\ell = 6$ to be solved in the affirmative by Nicol\'as~\cite{N07} and, independently, Gerken~\cite{G08}. At least in the plane, this is where the story ends, since there is a remarkable construction, due to Horton~\cite{H83}, of arbitrarily large point sets in general position with no $7$-hole.
In higher dimensions, Horton-type sets were first constructed by Valtr~\cite{V92}, who found arbitrarily large $T \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ in general position containing no $B_d$-hole, where $B_d = d^{d + o(d)}$. Very recently, a more efficient construction was given by Bukh, Chao and Holzman~\cite{BCH21} (see also~\cite{BC21}), who showed that one may take $B_d = 4^{d +o(d)}$. Surprisingly, the best lower bound remains that of Valtr~\cite{V92}, which says that sufficiently large point sets in general position in $\mathbb{R}^d$ contain $(2d+1)$-holes.
Suppose, however, that one starts with a large hole or, say, a large random point set, which are known~\cite{BGS13} to contain many large holes. Is it then possible to add points to the set to obtain a set with no large holes? It is this natural question that we address here, our main result saying that any finite $S \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ may be filled out to form a set without large holes. Note that here and throughout, we will say that a set $S \subset \mathbb{R}^d$, which need not be in general position, is {\it $\ell$-hole-free} if, for any set of $\ell$ points $s_1,\ldots,s_\ell\in S$, there is a point $s\in S$ in the interior of the convex hull of $\{s_1, s_2, \dots, s_\ell\}$.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main}
For any integer $d \geq 2$, there exists an integer $C_d=d^{O(d^3)}$ such that if $S \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is a finite set in general position, then there are arbitrarily large supersets $T \supseteq S$ in general position with the property that $T$ is $C_d$-hole-free. In particular, when $d = 2$, one may take $C_2 = 9$.
\end{thm}
We suspect that this theorem may remain true in two dimensions with $C_2 = 7$. Our methods do not suffice to show this, so we leave it instead as a tantalising open problem.
In practice, Theorem~\ref{thm:main} will follow from another theorem of independent interest, saying that there is a set with no large holes which approximates the set of lattice points $[n]^d$. For $d = 2$, such a theorem is already implicit in work of Valtr~\cite{V92-2}. The main technical result of this paper is the analogous result for higher dimensions.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:lattice}
For any integers $n \geq 1$ and $d \geq 2$ and any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists an integer
$C_d'=d^{O(d^3)}$ and a set of points $\mathcal{P}=\setcond{P_{\vec{x}}}{\vec{x}\in [n]^d}\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ that is $C_d'$-hole-free and satisfies $\norm{P_{\vec{x}}-\vec{x}}<\varepsilon$ for all $\vec{x}\in [n]^d$. In particular, when $d = 2$, one may take $C_2' = 7$.
\end{thm}
Given finite sets $A,B\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\varepsilon>0$, we call a bijection $f:A\to B$ an \emph{$\varepsilon$-perturbation} if $\norm{x-f(x)}<\varepsilon$ for all $x\in A$. With this notation, Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice} can be reformulated as saying that for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists an $\varepsilon$-perturbation of $[n]^d$ which is $C'_d$-hole-free. For brevity, we will usually discuss Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice} in these terms.
Notice that if a finite set $T\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ is $\ell$-hole-free (where $T$ may not be in general position), then any sufficiently small perturbation of $T$ will still be $\ell$-hole-free. Indeed, this is why we define $\ell$-hole-free as we do rather than simply saying it is $\ell$-hole-free if it contains no $\ell$-hole. Moreover, for any $T$, there are arbitrarily small perturbations of $T$ which put $T$ in general position. Hence, to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we only need to find arbitrarily large $\ell$-hole-free supersets $T$ of $S$ without worrying about whether or not they are in general position. With this observation, we can quickly show how Theorem~\ref{thm:main} follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} given Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice}]
Let $n$ be sufficiently large in terms of $S$ and let $\mathcal{P}$ be as given by Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice} with this $n$ and $\varepsilon = 1/10$. Set $C_d=C_d'+d$. Since $S$ is in general position and $n$ (and, hence, $|\mathcal{P}|$) is sufficiently large in terms of $S$, we can scale and translate $\mathcal{P}$ in such a way that any $d+1$ point subset of $S$ has a point of this homothetic copy $\mathcal{Q}$ of $\mathcal{P}$ in the interior of its convex hull. We then set $T=S\cup \mathcal{Q}$. Suppose now that $A\subset T$ is such that $\Int\conv A$ does not contain a point of $T$. Then $A$ cannot contain $d+1$ points of $S$, since otherwise the interior of its convex hull will contain a point of $\mathcal{Q}$. $A$ also cannot contain $C_d'$ points of $\mathcal{Q}$, since $\mathcal{Q}$ is $C_d'$-hole-free. Thus, $|A|\leq C_d'+d-1=C_d-1$ and $T$ is $C_d$-hole-free. If $T$ is not in general position, then, following the paragraph above, we can move it to general position with a sufficiently small perturbation while preserving the fact that it is $C_d$-hole-free.
\end{proof}
Though it already appears in similar terms in the work of Valtr~\cite{V92-2}, we begin by taking a close look at the planar case of Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice}, since it will inform our arguments in higher dimensions.
\section{The planar case}
The following definition will be important throughout the paper.
\begin{defn}
A \emph{levelled set} $L$ is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$ together with a surjective affine map $\phi_L:\mathbb{R}^d\to \mathbb{R}$ such that $\phi_L(L)\subset\mathbb{Z}$. We say that $\phi_L$ is the \emph{level map} of $L$.
\end{defn}
Note that a subset of a levelled set is also a levelled set with the same level map. In practice, we will often be interested in a particular type of subset.
\begin{defn}
Given a levelled set $L\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ and integers $a$ and $p$ with $p \geq 1$, define the set
$$L_{a,p}=\setcond{x\in L}{\phi_L(x)\equiv a \; (\bmod{\; p})}.$$
We can make $L_{a,p}$ into a levelled set with the level map $\phi_{L_{a,p}}(x)=(\phi_L(x)-a)/p$. Note that this level map is not the same as when $L_{a,p}$ is simply viewed as a levelled subset of $L$.
\end{defn}
We also fix some notation that we will use throughout, writing $\vec{e}_1,\vec{e}_2,\ldots,\vec{e}_d$ for the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\pi_i:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}$ for the projection onto the $i$-th coordinate for any $i = 1, 2, \dots, d$.
Now we make some definitions which are more specific to two dimensions, only generalising to higher dimensions later.
\begin{defn} \label{def:2ha}
For finite sets $A,B\subset\mathbb{R}^2$, we say that \emph{$A$ lies high above $B$} and that \emph{$B$ lies deep below $A$} if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for any pair of points $p,q\in A$ with distinct $x$-coordinates, the entire set $B$ lies below the line joining $p$ and $q$;
\item for any pair of points $p,q\in B$ with distinct $x$-coordinates, the entire set $A$ lies above the line joining $p$ and $q$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
It is not hard to see that given two finite sets $A$ and $B$ we can always shift $A$ upwards so that $A$ lies high above $B$. More precisely, there is some $M$ such that, for $m>M$, the set $A+m\vec{e}_2$ lies high above $B$.
Our definition of a Horton set is similar to that in \cite{V92} and \cite{V92-2}, but rephrased in terms of levelled sets.
\begin{defn}
\label{def:2horton}
Let $H\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ be a levelled set with level map of the form $\phi_H=a\pi_1+b$ for some $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ with $a\neq 0$ and suppose that $\phi_H$ is injective on $H$ with $\phi_H(H)$ a consecutive set of integers. We say that $H$ is \emph{Horton} if it is Horton according to a finite number of applications of the following rules:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The empty set or any singleton levelled set is Horton.
\item If $H_{0,2}$ and $H_{1,2}$ are Horton and $H_{0,2}$ lies deep below or high above $H_{1,2}$, then $H$ is Horton.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:2horton}
Following \cite{H83, V92, V92-2}, we can construct Horton sets as follows. For any positive integer $N$, write it in binary as $N=\sum_{k\geq 0} a_k 2^k$, where $a_k\in\{0,1\}$. Denote by $(N)_\varepsilon$ the real number
$$(N)_\varepsilon=\sum_{k\geq 0} a_k \varepsilon^{k+1},$$
noting that $0<(N)_\varepsilon<2\varepsilon$ for $\varepsilon<1/2$. Consider the set $S=\{P_x\mid x\in [n]\}$, where $P_x=(x,(x)_\varepsilon)$. Observe that, for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small, $S_{0,2}$ lies deep below $S_{1,2}$. By recursively applying this observation to the sets $S_{0,2}$ and $S_{1,2}$, we can easily see that $S$ is Horton for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small.
\end{example}
To say something about the properties of Horton sets, we require some further definitions.
\begin{defn}
A sequence of points $p_1,\ldots,p_r\in\mathbb{R}^2$ with $\pi_1(p_1)<\cdots<\pi_1(p_r)$ is said to be
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{convex} if, for all $i, j, k$ with $1 \leq i < j < k \leq r$, the point $p_j$ lies below the straight line $p_ip_k$,
\item \emph{concave} if, for all $i, j, k$ with $1 \leq i < j < k \leq r$, the point $p_j$ lies above the straight line $p_ip_k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
A convex sequence of $r$ points $p_1, p_2,\ldots,p_r \in\mathbb{R}^2$ with $\pi_1(p_1)<\cdots<\pi_1(p_r)$ is \emph{upper closed} by a point $p$ if $\pi_1(p_1)< \pi_1(p)< \pi_1(p_r)$ and the point $p$ lies above the polygonal line $p_1p_2\ldots p_r$. Similarly, a concave sequence of $r$ points $p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_r \in\mathbb{R}^2$ with $\pi_1(p_1)<\cdots<\pi_1(p_r)$ is \emph{lower closed }by a point $p$ if $\pi_1(p_1)< \pi_1(p)< \pi_1(p_r)$ and the point $p$ lies below the polygonal line $p_1p_2\ldots p_r$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
Let $A\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ be a finite set of points for which $\pi_1$ is injective. $A$ is said to be
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{upper $r$-closed} if every convex sequence of $r$ points from $A$ is upper closed by some point of $A$,
\item \emph{lower $r$-closed} if every concave sequence of $r$ points from $A$ is lower closed by some point of $A$,
\item \emph{$r$-closed} if it is both upper and lower $r$-closed.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Given these definitions, we can record the following results from \cite{V92-2}.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:rshole}
Let $A, B \subset\mathbb{R}^2$ be finite sets of points which are each $(r+s-1)$-hole-free. Suppose that $\pi_1$ is injective on $A$ and $B$, that $A$ is upper $r$-closed, that $B$ is lower $s$-closed and that $A$ lies deep below $B$. Then the set $A\cup B$ is also $(r + s - 1)$-hole-free.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:subhorton2}
If $H$ is Horton, then, for any integers $a$ and $p$ with $p \geq 1$, the set $H_{a,p}$ is also Horton.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:7hole}
Any Horton set is 4-closed and 7-hole-free.
\end{lem}
We also note one further result about Horton sets.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:double7hole}
Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be Horton and suppose $H_1$ lies deep below $H_2$. Then $H_1\cup H_2$ is 7-hole-free.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:7hole}, $H_1$ and $H_2$ are 4-closed and 7-hole-free. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem:rshole}, $H_1\cup H_2$ is 7-hole-free.
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be Horton and $S\subset H$ be a set of size 7. We may (after translating horizontally) label the points of $H$ as $P_1,P_2,\ldots,P_n$ where $\pi_1(P_i)=i$. If $H$ is empty or singleton, then there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, suppose $H_{0,2},H_{1,2}$ are Horton and without loss of generality that $H_{0,2}$ lies deep below $H_{1,2}$ and they are both non-empty. We may also assume that $H_{0,2},H_{1,2}$ satisfies the given lemma. If $S\subset H_{0,2}$ or $S\subset H_{1,2}$, then we use the assumption. Otherwise $S$ contains points in both $H_{0,2},H_{1,2}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $|S\cap H_{0,2}|\geq 4$. Let $S_i=S\cap H_{i,2}$ for $i=0,1$.
We split $H_{0,2}$ into two Horton sets $(H_{0,2})_{0,2}=H_{0,4},(H_{0,2})_{1,2}=H_{2,4}$. If $S_0$ lies in one of them, we further split that into two Horton sets, and so on. We cannot do this forever, since $S_0$ contains points with different $x$-coordinates. Therefore, there is some $k\geq 0$ and integer $a$ such that $S_0\subset (H_{0,2})_{a,2^k}$ but $S_0$ does not lie entirely in each of the sets $(H_{0,2})_{a,2^{k+1}},(H_{0,2})_{a+2^k,2^{k+1}}$. Again without loss of generality we assume that $(H_{0,2})_{a,2^{k+1}}$ lies deeply below $(H_{0,2})_{a+2^k,2^{k+1}}$. Since $S_0$ has at least 4 points, either $(H_{0,2})_{a,2^{k+1}}$ contains at least 2 points of $S_0$ or $(H_{0,2})_{a+2^k,2^{k+1}}$ contains at least 3 points of $S_0$.
If $(H_{0,2})_{a,2^{k+1}}$ contains at least 2 points of $S_0$, say $P_i,P_j$ with $i<j$, then $i<i+2^k<j$ and $P_{i+2^k}\in (H_{0,2})_{a+2^k,2^{k+1}}$ lies above the line $P_iP_j$. For any point $P\in S_1$, it lies above any line formed by the points $P_i,P_{i+2^k},P_j$, hence $P_{i+2^k}$ lies in the convex hull of $P_iP_jP$, so $\Int\conv S$ contains a point of $H$.
If $(H_{0,2})_{a+2^k,2^{k+1}}$ contains at least 3 points of $S_0$, say $P_i,P_j,P_k$, $i<j<k$, then picking any point $P\in S_1$ and $Q\in (H_{0,2})_{a,2^{k+1}}\cap S_0$, we see that $P_j$ lies in the interior of the convex hull of $P_iPP_kQ$.
\end{proof}
\fi
The following lemma characterises those finite sets of lattice points (that is, those finite subsets of $\mathbb{Z}^2$) which contain no lattice point in the interior of their convex hull. Once again, this result may be found in~\cite{V92-2}. However, since finding an appropriate generalisation of this result is one of the key steps in higher dimensions, we give the proof in full.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:parallel}
Let $S$ be a finite set of lattice points of size at least 7. Then either the interior of the convex hull of $S$ contains a lattice point or $S$ is covered by 2 parallel lines.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the interior of the convex hull does not contain any lattice point. Then $S$ forms a non-strictly convex polygon.
Colour the points of $S$ with 4 colours based on the parities of their $x$ and $y$-coordinates. Then, by the pigeonhole principle, there are 2 points of the same colour, so their midpoint is a lattice point. Let $l_0$ be the line through these 2 points. By applying an appropriate invertible affine transformation that takes the set of lattice points $\mathbb{Z}^2$ to itself, we can assume that $l_0$ is the line $y=0$ and there are two points of $S$ on $l_0$, namely, $P_0=(0,0)$ and $P_1=(x_1,0)$, with $x_1>0$ even. Let $l_m$ be the line $y=m$. Note that there cannot be points of $S$ in both the upper and lower half plane, since otherwise the midpoint of $P_0$ and $P_1$ lies in the interior of the convex hull. So we may assume that all the points of $S$ lie in the upper half plane. There cannot be a point on $l_m$ for $m\geq 3$, since if there is some point $Q\in l_m$, then the triangle $P_0P_1Q$ contains an interior point from the line $l_1$ (since the triangle intersects $l_1$ on a segment of length $>1$). There also cannot be 2 points on $l_2$, since otherwise the trapezium formed by those 2 points together with $P_0$ and $P_1$ intersects $l_1$ in a line segment of length greater than 1 and there will again be an interior point on $l_1$. Finally, if there is a point $Q\in l_2$, then we must have $x_1=2$, since otherwise the triangle $QP_0P_1$ intersects the line $l_1$ in a line segment of length greater than 1. But then there can be at most 6 points in $S$: 3 on $l_0$, 2 on $l_1$ and 1 on $l_2$. Thus, there are no points on $l_2$ and all points of $S$ lie on the pair of parallel lines $l_0$ and $l_1$.
\end{proof}
We are now almost ready to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice} in the $d = 2$ case, though we need one more key definition.
\begin{defn}
Given finite sets $A,B\subset \mathbb{R}^d$,
a bijection $f:A\to B$
is \emph{negligible} if, whenever $S\subset A$ and $x\in A$ with $x\in \Int\conv S$, then $f(x)\in \Int\conv f(S)$.
\end{defn}
It is not hard to see that for any finite set $A\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ and any sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$
every $\varepsilon$-perturbation $f:A\to B$ is negligible. We will use this fact repeatedly in both the proof below and its generalisation to higher dimensions.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice} for $d = 2$]
To construct the required set $\mathcal{P}$, we start with the lattice square $\mathcal{P}^{(0)}=[n]^2$. Then we shift each column vertically by a small amount to get the set $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}$, shifting them in such a way that each row of points is Horton, which will also imply that any non-vertical line of lattice points corresponds to a subset of $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}$ that is Horton. Finally, we shift each row horizontally by an even smaller amount to get $\mathcal{P}$, so that each column of points is also Horton. In other words, $\mathcal{P}$ will be a Minkowski sum of two Horton sets, one of them resembling $[n]$ along the $x$-axis, the other along the $y$-axis.
Let $\mathcal{P}^{(0)}=\setcond{P^{(0)}_{x,y}}{x,y\in [n]}$, where $P^{(0)}_{x,y}=(x,y)$. Define the points $P^{(1)}_{x,y}=P^{(0)}_{x,y}+(x)_\varepsilon\vec{e}_2$ and the set $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}=\setcond{P^{(1)}_{x,y}}{x,y\in [n]}$. Note that the natural bijection $\mathcal{P}^{(0)}\to \mathcal{P}^{(1)}$ is a $2\varepsilon$-perturbation. From Example~\ref{ex:2horton}, we see that for fixed $y$ and small enough $\varepsilon$, the set
$$H=\setcond{P^{(1)}_{x,y}\in \mathcal{P}^{(1)}}{x\in [n]}$$
is Horton and, hence, so is $H_{a,p}$ for any integers $a$ and $p$ with $p \geq 1$, by Lemma~\ref{lem:subhorton2}. For any non-vertical line $L$, the set
$$\setcond{P^{(1)}_{x,y}\in \mathcal{P}^{(1)}}{(x,y)\in L\cap [n]^2}$$
is just an affine transformation of $H_{a,p}$ for some $a$ and $p$
of the form $(x,y)\mapsto (x,y+cx+d)$
and so is also Horton.
Now, for some $\delta>0$, define the points $P_{x,y}=P^{(1)}_{x,y}+(y)_\delta\vec{e}_1$ and the set $\mathcal{P}=\{P_{x,y}\mid x,y\in [n]\}$. Here $\delta$ is chosen small enough that the natural bijection $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}\to \mathcal{P}$ is negligible and, for any fixed $x$, the set
$$\Phi\paren{\setcond{P_{x,y}\in \mathcal{P}}{y\in [n]}}$$
is Horton, where $\Phi:\mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}^2$ is the map that swaps both coordinates. Note that $[n]^2\to \mathcal{P}$ is a $(2\varepsilon+2\delta)$-perturbation.
Since we can take $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$ arbitrarily small, we may also assume that this map is negligible.
It remains to show that $\mathcal{P}$ is 7-hole-free.
For any $T\subset\mathbb{R}^2$, let
$$\mathcal{P}_T = \setcond{P_{x,y}\in \mathcal{P}}{(x,y)\in T\cap [n]^2}.$$
We can similarly define the set $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}_T$. Now let $S\subset [n]^2$ be of size 7. We wish to show that $\Int\conv \mathcal{P}_S$ contains a point of $\mathcal{P}$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:parallel}, either $S$ contains a lattice point in the interior of its convex hull (in which case $\Int\conv \mathcal{P}_S$ contains a point of $\mathcal{P}$, since $[n]^2\to \mathcal{P}$ is negligible)
or $S$ is contained in 2 parallel lines. Suppose, therefore, that $S$ is contained in 2 parallel lines $L_1$ and $L_2$. If these lines are vertical, then $\Phi(\mathcal{P}_{L_1})$ and $\Phi(\mathcal{P}_{L_2})$ are Horton and, for $\delta$ sufficiently small, one of them lies deep below the other, so $\mathcal{P}_{L_1\cup L_2}$ is 7-hole-free by Lemma~\ref{lem:double7hole}. If instead $L_1$ and $L_2$ are not vertical, then $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}_{L_1}$ and $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}_{L_2}$ are Horton and, similarly, $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}_{L_1\cup L_2}$ is 7-hole-free for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small. But then, since $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}\to \mathcal{P}$ is negligible, $\mathcal{P}_{L_1\cup L_2}$ is also 7-hole-free. Thus, $\Int\conv \mathcal{P}_S$ will always contain a point of $\mathcal{P}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Higher dimensions}
\subsection{Lattice subsets with few points on a hyperplane}
As we have seen in the plane, a set of lattice points does not necessarily have a lattice point in the interior of its convex hull, since they could all lie on a hyperplane. However, if such a set has many points on a hyperplane, then we may work in that sublattice of lower dimension. We may therefore assume that no hyperplane contains too many points. We will show below (Lemma~\ref{lem:basic}) that in this case the interior of the set's convex hull contains not just one, but many lattice points.
Unfortunately,
having a lattice point which is in the interior of the convex hull with respect to the affine space spanned by the set does not guarantee a point in the interior of the convex hull with respect to the whole space $\mathbb{R}^d$. This problem does not really matter in two dimensions, since the only non-trivial lattice of lower dimension is $\mathbb{Z}$ and we already know how to construct Horton sets that look like $\mathbb{Z}$ in two (or more) dimensions. In higher dimensions, we solve the problem by showing (Lemma~\ref{lem:well-spread}) that a set of lattice points with few points on any hyperplane must contain ``enough'' lattice points in the interior of its convex hull that when embedded in a higher-dimensional lattice and carefully perturbed, it
has a point which is the interior of the convex hull with respect to the larger space.
We will work throughout this section with two notions of cubes, defined as follows.
\begin{defn}
Let $d$ and $r$ be positive integers. A \emph{cube of length $r$} in $\mathbb{Z}^d$ is a set of the form
$$\{a+i_1v_1+i_2v_2+\cdots+i_dv_d\mid 0\leq i_1,\ldots,i_d\leq r\}$$
for some $a,v_1,\ldots,v_d\in \mathbb{Z}^d$ with $\{v_1,\ldots,v_d\}$ an $\mathbb{R}$-basis of $\mathbb{R}^d$. We say that $\{v_1,\ldots,v_d\}$ is the \emph{basis} of the cube and $a$ is the \emph{origin} of the cube. If $\{v_1,\ldots,v_d\}$ is in fact a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $\mathbb{Z}^d$, then we say that $S$ is a \emph{basic cube of length $r$}.
\end{defn}
The following lemma shows that cubes contain basic cubes in their convex hulls.
\begin{lem}
A cube of length $r$ in $\mathbb{Z}^d$ contains a basic cube of length $\lfloor r/d\rfloor$ in its convex hull.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we may assume that the origin of the cube is 0. Suppose that the basis of the cube is $v_1,\ldots,v_d$ and let $L_k=\ang{v_1,\ldots,v_k}_{\mathbb{R}}\cap \mathbb{Z}^d$ be the $k$-dimensional lattice spanned by the first $k$ elements of the basis, so we have a flag of lattices $L_1\subset L_2\subset\dots\subset L_d=\mathbb{Z}^d$. For $k=1,\ldots,d$, we inductively pick vectors $u_k\in L_k$ such that $\ang{u_1,\ldots,u_k}_{\mathbb{Z}}=L_k$ as follows. To begin, note that there are two possible choices for $u_1$. Pick the one for which $u_1=c_{11}v_1$ for some $c_{11}>0$. Then we also have $c_{11}\leq 1$. For $k>1$, first pick any valid $u_k$ such that $\ang{u_1,\ldots,u_{k-1},u_k}_{\mathbb{Z}}=L_k$ and write it as a linear combination $u_k=c_{k1}v_1+\dots+c_{kk}v_k$ with $c_{kk}\neq 0$. If $c_{kk}<0$, replace $u_k$ by $-u_k$, so we may assume that $c_{kk}>0$. By adding integer multiples of $v_1,\ldots,v_{k-1}$ to $u_k$, we may also assume that $0\leq c_{ki}<1$ for $i=1,\ldots,k-1$. Note that $[u_k]$ is a generator of the quotient $L_k/L_{k-1}\cong \mathbb{Z}$, so $[v_k]=n[u_k]$ for some integer $n$. Thus, $c_{kk}=1/n\leq 1$.
In the end, we obtain a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis $\{u_1,\ldots,u_d\}$ of $\mathbb{Z}^d$ such that $u_k=c_{k1}v_1+\dots+c_{kd}v_d$ and $0\leq c_{ki}\leq 1$ for all $1 \leq k, i \leq d$. Hence, the basic cube of length $\floor{r/d}$ with basis $\{u_1,\ldots,u_d\}$ and origin 0 lies in the convex hull of the cube of length $r$ with basis $\{v_1,\ldots,v_d\}$.
\end{proof}
Our next lemma, already referenced in the discussion above, may be seen as a higher-dimensional analogue of Lemma~\ref{lem:parallel}. It is a Ramsey-type statement showing that, for any sufficiently large set of lattice points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, either many of them lie on a common hyperplane or the interior of the set's convex hull contains a basic cube.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:basic}
Let $d$, $r$ and $m$ be positive integers with $m > d \geq 2$. Then, for any integer $N \geq m(r+1)^d d^{2d}$ and any set of lattice points $S\subset \mathbb{Z}^d$ of size $N$, either there is a hyperplane containing at least $m$ points of $S$ or the interior of the convex hull of $S$ contains a basic cube of length $r$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $p= r d^2 + 2d$, so that $N \geq mp^d$. Assume that no hyperplane contains $m$ points of $S$. Look at the coordinates of each point of $S$ modulo $p$. Since there are only $p^d$ different choices of congruence class over all $d$ coordinates, the pigeonhole principle implies that there is a subset $T\subset S$ of size at least $N/p^d$ such that, for any two points $u_1,u_2\in T$, the difference $u_1-u_2$ has all coordinates divisible by $p$. Since $N/p^d\geq m$, not all points of $T$ lie on a hyperplane. In other words, $d+1$ of them lie in general position and so are of the form $a,a+pv_1,a+pv_2,\ldots,a+pv_d$ for some $a,v_1,\ldots,v_d\in \mathbb{Z}^d$ such that $\{v_1,\ldots,v_d\}$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-basis. $\Int\conv T$ thus contains the points $a+i_1v_1+\dots+i_dv_d$ for each $1\leq i_1,\ldots,i_d<p/d$, so we have a cube of length at least $p/d-2$. By the previous lemma, we then obtain a basic cube of length $\lfloor\frac{p/d-2}{d}\rfloor\geq r$ in the interior of $\conv T$.
\end{proof}
As mentioned before, simply knowing that a lattice subset contains a single lattice point in the interior of its convex hull is not enough and we instead require it to contain ``enough'' lattice points. Here we make precise what it means to be ``enough''.
\begin{defn}
Let $N$ and $r$ be positive integers and $L\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ a levelled set. We say that $H\subset L$ is \emph{$(N,r)$-spread in $L$} if, for any $S\subset H$ with at least $N$ points and any integer $a$, $\Int\conv S$ contains a point of $L_{a,r}$. We say that $H\subset L$ is \emph{$(N,r)$-well-spread in $L$} if, for any integers $a$ and $p$ with $p\geq 1$, the set $H_{a,p}$ is $(N,r)$-spread in $L_{a,p}$.
\end{defn}
To get some feel for this definition, we note that saying that $L$ is $(N,1)$-spread in itself is the same as saying that $L$ is $N$-hole-free. Moreover, if the level map is just projection onto the $x$-axis, then $H$ is $(N,r)$-spread in $L$ if any subset of $H$ of size $N$ contains points of $L$ in the interior of its convex hull with any $x$-coordinate modulo $r$.
Our next lemma is the promised result showing that any sufficiently large set of lattice points in $\mathbb{R}^d$ either has many points on a hyperplane or ``enough'' points in the interior of its convex hull. For us, this latter statement will mean that the point set is well-spread in the lattice.
Note that any lattice $L\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ with $L\cong \mathbb{Z}^d$ can be viewed as a levelled set whose level map is projection onto the span of one of the $\mathbb{Z}$-basis elements of $L$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:well-spread}
Let $d$, $r$ and $m$ be positive integers with $m > d \geq 2$. Then, for any integer $N \geq m(r+1)^d d^{2d}$ and any $d$-dimensional lattice $L\subset\mathbb{R}^d$, any $H\subset L$ either has at least $m$ points on a hyperplane or is $(N,r)$-well-spread in $L$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $H\subset L$ has no $m$ points on any hyperplane. Then, for any $a$ and $p$ with $p\geq 1$, the set $H_{a,p}$ also has no $m$ points on any hyperplane. Hence, without loss of generality, it suffices to show that $H$ is $(N,r)$-spread in $L$.
By applying an invertible affine transformation, we may assume that $L$ is $\mathbb{Z}^d$ and its level map is simply the projection $\pi_1$ onto the first coordinate.
Without loss of generality, we may also assume that $H\subset L=\mathbb{Z}^d$ has size $N$. We wish to show that $\Int\conv H$ contains a point of $L_{a,r}$ for any integer $a$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:basic}, $\Int\conv H$ contains a basic cube of length $r$ with basis $v_1,\ldots,v_d$ and origin $v$. Let $x'\in\mathbb{Z}^d$ be any lattice point with $\pi_1(x')\equiv a\pmod{r}$. We can write $x'=v+c_1'v_1+\dots+c_d'v_d$ for some integers $c_1',\ldots,c_d'$. Set $x=v+c_1v_1+\dots+c_dv_d$, where $c_i\equiv c_i'\pmod{r}$ and $0\leq c_i<r$ for each $i$. Then $\pi_1(x)\equiv a\pmod{r}$ and $x$ is in the basic cube, which is itself contained in $\Int\conv H$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Horton sets}
In this section, building on Valtr's work~\cite{V92}, we define Horton sets in higher dimensions and note some of their properties. We first generalise to $\mathbb{R}^d$ what it means for a finite set $A$ to lie high above or deep below another finite set $B$.
For $k\leq d$, we write $\pi_{[k]}:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}^k$ for projection onto the first $k$ coordinates.
\begin{defn}
Let $S,T\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be non-empty finite sets with $|S|+|T|=d+1$. We say that the pair $(S,T)$ is \emph{generic} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi_{[d-1]}$ is injective on $S$ and on $T$;
\item $\pi_{[d-1]}(S)$ and $\pi_{[d-1]}(T)$ are in general position in $\mathbb{R}^{d-1}$ (and, therefore, $S$ and $T$ are in general position in $\mathbb{R}^d$);
\item the affine subspaces spanned by $\pi_{[d-1]}(S)$ and $\pi_{[d-1]}(T)$ intersect at a unique point (i.e., they intersect transversely).
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
For a generic pair $(S,T)$, we say that \emph{$S$ lies above $T$} and that \emph{$T$ lies below $S$} if the unique pair of points $(s,t)$ with $s$ in the affine subspace spanned by $S$ and $t$ in the affine subspace spanned by $T$ satisfying $\pi_{[d-1]}(s)=\pi_{[d-1]}(t)$ also satisfies $\pi_d(s)>\pi_d(t)$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn} \label{def:dha}
For finite sets $A,B\subset\mathbb{R}^d$, we say that \emph{$A$ lies high above $B$} and \emph{$B$ lies deep below $A$} if, for any generic pair $(S,T)$ with $S\subset A$ and $T\subset B$, $S$ lies above $T$.
\end{defn}
For $d = 2$, Definition~\ref{def:dha} is easily seen to agree with Definition~\ref{def:2ha}. However, in higher dimensions, it differs somewhat from Valtr's definition~\cite[Definition 3.4]{V92}. He only requires that the bottom set lies below any hyperplane defined by the top set and the top set lies above any hyperplane defined by the bottom set. At first glance, this seems to require that both sets have size at least $d$, but Valtr extends the definition to smaller sets by saying that one lies high above or deep below the other if they can be extended to larger sets with the same property. Our definition here is arguably more natural since it avoids this latter step.
The next lemmas, which we record for later use, give conditions under which we can deduce that a point lies in the interior of the convex hull of a set.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:above}
Let $S\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be a set with $|S|=d$ and let $p,q\in \mathbb{R}^d$ be such that $q$ lies high above (or deep below) $S\cup\{p\}$. If $\pi_{[d-1]}(p)\in \Int\conv \pi_{[d-1]}(S)$ and $p$ lies above (resp., below) the hyperplane determined by $S$, then $p\in \Int\conv (S\cup \{q\})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will assume that $q$ lies high above $S\cup\{p\}$; the deep below case can be handled similarly. Move $q$ continuously, fixing its first $d-1$ coordinates and increasing the last coordinate to infinity. Since $q$ lies high above $S\cup \{p\}$, at no point during the movement do any $d$ points of $S\cup \{p\}$ lie on a hyperplane with $q$. Thus, the statement that $p\in \Int\conv (S\cup \{q\})$ does not change as we move $q$. As $\pi_d(q)\to\infty$, the region $\Int\conv (S\cup \{q\})$ approaches the set of points $x$ such that $\pi_{[d-1]}(x)\in \Int\conv \pi_{[d-1]}(S)$ and $x$ lies above the hyperplane determined by $S$. But $p$ lies in this region by assumption, so $p\in \Int\conv (S\cup \{q\})$ holds true.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:uphull}
Let $S_0,S_1,S_2\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be non-empty sets such that $S_1$ lies deep below $S_2$ and $S_0$ lies deep below $S_1\cup S_2$. If there is a point $p\in S_1$ such that $\pi_{[d-1]}(p)\in \Int\conv (\pi_{[d-1]}(S_1\cup S_2))$, then $p\in \Int\conv (S_0\cup S_1\cup S_2)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $T\subset S_1\cup S_2$ be a subset of size $d$ such that $\pi_{[d-1]}(p)\in \Int\conv \pi_{[d-1]}(T)$. Then any partition of $T\cup\{p\}$ into 2 non-empty sets gives a generic pair. If $p$ lies below the hyperplane determined by $T$, then any point $x\in S_0$ lies deep below $T\cup \{p\}$, which, by Lemma \ref{lem:above}, implies that $p\in \Int\conv (T\cup \{x\})$.
Suppose now that $p$ lies above or on the hyperplane determined by $T$. Let $T_1=T\cap S_1$ and $T_2=T\cap S_2$. If $T_2\neq \emptyset$, then $T_2$ lies above $T_1\cup \{p\}$. In particular, $p$ does not lie on the hyperplane determined by $T$. For any $r\geq 0$, let $T_2^r$ be the translate of $T_2$ obtained by increasing the last coordinate by $r$. Since $T_2$ lies above $T_1\cup \{p\}$, the set $T_2^r\cup T_1\cup \{p\}$ does not lie on a hyperplane for any $r \geq 0$. Thus, the statement that $p$ lies above the hyperplane $T_2^r\cup T_1$ does not change as we vary $r$ continuously. Since this statement is true when $r=0$, it remains true for all $r \geq 0$. However, as $r\to\infty$, we see that $p$ must lie below $T_2^r\cup T_1$, a contradiction.
Thus, $T_2=\emptyset$. If $p$ lies on the hyperplane determined by $T$, then, picking any $x\in S_2$ (which lies above $T$) and any $y\in S_0$ (which lies below $T$), we have $p\in\Int\conv (T\cup \{x,y\})$. Otherwise, $p$ lies above the hyperplane determined by $T$. But then, by Lemma \ref{lem:above}, for any $x\in S_2$, $p\in\Int\conv (T\cup \{x\})$, as required.
\end{proof}
We now come to our definition of higher-dimensional Horton sets. For the remainder of this section, we fix a sequence $p_2,p_3,p_4,\ldots$ of prime numbers.
\begin{defn}
\label{def:horton}
For $k\leq d$, a finite levelled set $H\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ whose level map is of the form $\phi_H=a\pi_1+b$ for some $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ with $a\neq 0$ is called \emph{$(d,k)$-Horton with respect to the sequence $p_{k+1},\ldots,p_d$} (though we will just say $(d,k)$-Horton if the sequence is clear from context) if $\pi_{[k]}$ is injective on $H$ and $H$ is $(d,k)$-Horton according to a finite number of applications of the following rules:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Any finite levelled set in $\mathbb{R}^k$ with level map of the form $\phi_H=a\pi_1+b$ is $(k,k)$-Horton.
\item If $|\pi_1(H)|\leq 1$, then $H$ is $(d,k)$-Horton.
\item If $d>k$ and $H$ is a finite levelled set in $\mathbb{R}^d$ whose level map is of the form $\phi_H=a\pi_1+b$ satisfying the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi_{[d-1]}(H)$ is $(d-1,k)$-Horton,
\item the sets $H_{i,p_d}$ are $(d,k)$-Horton for $i=0,1,\ldots,p_d-1$,
\item any index set $I\subset\set{0,1,\ldots,p_d-1}$ with $|I|\geq 2$ can be decomposed into a pair of non-empty sets $(J, I-J)$ such that the set $\bigcup_{i\in J} H_{i,p_d}$ lies deep below the set $\bigcup_{i\in I-J} H_{i,p_d}$,
\end{enumerate}
then the set $H$ is $(d,k)$-Horton.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Notice that if $H$ is $(d,k)$-Horton, then, for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small, any $\varepsilon$-perturbation $H'$ of $H$ preserving the first coordinate is also $(d,k)$-Horton.
\begin{rmk}
This definition does not generalise our previous definition of a Horton set in dimension 2. Indeed, Definition~\ref{def:2horton} required that $\phi_H(H)$ be a consecutive set of integers, but our definition of a $(d,k)$-Horton set does not. However, if a set $H$ is $(2,1)$-Horton with respect to the sequence $p_2=2$ and satisfies this property, then it is Horton as previously defined.
\end{rmk}
Though we draw heavily on Valtr's definition~\cite[Definition 5.1]{V92},
our definition of higher-dimensional Horton sets differs from his in several ways. Firstly, just like in the plane, it is defined in terms of levelled sets and so, in that way, is less general. However, our definition is more general in some other ways. For one thing, we do not require that the set be in strongly general position, which, in particular, means that there may be points with the same $x$-coordinate. This is essential for us, as we will be studying Horton sets that resemble sets of lattice points. Our definition also has a new parameter $k$, which allows us to build Horton sets starting from a $k$-dimensional set. The definition of a $d$-Horton set in \cite{V92} is instead akin to a $(d,1)$-Horton set.
We now generalise Lemma~\ref{lem:subhorton2} to higher dimensions. Here and below, we use a notion of \emph{complexity} for $(d, k)$-Horton sets $H$, where those $H$ with $|\pi_1(H)|\leq 1$ have complexity $0$ and $H$ has complexity $c$ if the sets $H_{i,p_d}$ in condition 3(b) each have complexity at most $c-1$ and at least one of them has complexity $c-1$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:subhorton}
If $k\leq d$ and $H\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is $(d,k)$-Horton, then, for any integers $a$ and $p$ with $p\geq 1$, the set $H_{a,p}$ is also $(d,k)$-Horton.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will induct on $p$, $d$ and the complexity of the $(d,k)$-Horton set $H$. More precisely, we induct on the lexicographic ordering of $(d, p+c)$, where $c$ is the complexity. If $d=k$, then $H$ is $(d,k)$-Horton by rule 1 of Definition~\ref{def:horton}, so $H_{a,p}$ is also $(d,k)$-Horton by the same rule. If $H$ has complexity 0, i.e., $|\pi_1(H)|\leq 1$, then the result is also clear. Thus, we may assume that $H$ has been built from sets of lower complexity as in rule 3.
If $p_d\mid p$, then $H_{a,p}=(H_{a,p_d})_{a',p/p_d}$ for some integer $a'$, where $H_{a,p_d}$ is $(d,k)$-Horton by assumption. Since $H_{a, p_d}$ has lower complexity and $p/p_d<p$, our induction hypothesis implies that $(H_{a,p_d})_{a',p/p_d}$ is $(d,k)$-Horton. So we only need to consider the case where $p_d$ and $p$ are coprime. To check that $H_{a,p}$ is $(d,k)$-Horton, we need to check that conditions 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of Definition~\ref{def:horton} are satisfied.
For 3(a), since $\pi_{[d-1]}(H)$ is $(d-1,k)$-Horton, our induction hypothesis implies that $\pi_{[d-1]}(H_{a,p}) = \pi_{[d-1]}(H)_{a,p}$ is also $(d-1,k)$-Horton.
For 3(b), $(H_{a,p})_{i,p_d}=(H_{i',p_d})_{a',p}$ is also $(d,k)$-Horton by the induction hypothesis for some integers $i'$ and $a'$.
For 3(c), suppose $I\subset\set{0,1,\ldots,p_d-1}$ with $|I|\geq 2$. Note that $(H_{a,p})_{i,p_d}=(H_{i',p_d})_{a_i,p}=H_{x,pp_d}$ for some $i', a_i, x$ such that $x=a+ip=i'+a_ip_d$ and $i'\in\{0,1,\ldots,p_d-1\}$, where $i'$ is uniquely determined by $i'\equiv a+ip\pmod{p_d}$. Since $p$ and $p_d$ are coprime, as $i$ ranges over $0,\ldots,p_d-1$, so does $i'$, in some permutation. Let $I'\subset\set{0,1,\ldots,p_d-1}$ be the image of $I$ under this permutation.
Since $H$ is $(d,k)$-Horton, $I'$ can be decomposed into non-empty sets $(J',I'-J')$ such that $\bigcup_{i'\in J'} H_{i',p_d}$ lies deep below the set $\bigcup_{i'\in I'-J'} H_{i',p_d}$, so, taking subsets, $\bigcup_{i'\in J'} (H_{i',p_d})_{a_i,p}$ lies deep below the set $\bigcup_{i'\in I'-J'} (H_{i',p_d})_{a_i,p}$. The partition $(J',I'-J')$ of $I'$ corresponds to a partition $(J,I-J)$ of $I$, so $\bigcup_{i\in J} (H_{a,p})_{i,p_d}$ lies deep below the set $\bigcup_{i\in I-J} (H_{a,p})_{i,p_d}$ and 3(c) is satisfied.
\end{proof}
We now show that any $(d-1, k)$-Horton set can be lifted to a $(d, k)$-Horton set.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:horton}
Let $k< d$ and $B\subset \mathbb{R}^{d-1}$ be $(d-1,k)$-Horton with level map of the form $a\pi_1+b$.
Let $\overline{B}\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be the copy of $B$ with the last coordinate of all points equal to 0. Then there are real numbers $a_x$ for each $x\in \pi_1(B)$ such that the set
$$H=\setcond{\vec{x}+a_{x_1}\vec{e}_d}{\vec{x}\in \overline{B}}$$
is $(d,k)$-Horton, where $x_1 = \pi_1(\vec{x})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We shall induct on the complexity of the $(d-1,k)$-Horton set $B$. If $|\pi_1(B)|\leq 1$, then there is nothing to prove. For higher complexity $B$ and any $0 \leq i \leq p_d-1$, the set $B_i=B_{i,p_d}$ is $(d-1,k)$-Horton and has lower complexity, so, by our induction hypothesis, there are $(d,k)$-Horton sets $H_i$ of the required form corresponding to the $(d-1,k)$-Horton sets $B_i$. We shift the sets $H_i$ along the $d$-th axis in such a way that $H_i$ lies high above $\bigcup_{j=0}^{i-1} H_j$, where $H_1, \dots, H_{i-1}$ have already been shifted. We then take $H=\bigcup_{j=0}^{p_d-1} H_j$. This set is of the required form. To show that $H$ is $(d,k)$-Horton, we only need to check condition 3(c) of Definition~\ref{def:horton}. But, for any $I\subset\{0,1,\ldots,p_d-1\}$, if $z=\max I$, then we may set $J=I\setminus \{z\}$.
\end{proof}
A similar result holds for lifting many Horton sets simultaneously.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:unif-horton}
Let $k\geq 0$ and $B_i\subset\mathbb{R}^{d_i-1}$ be $(d_i-1,k)$-Horton with the same level map of the form $a\pi_1+b$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$, where $d_i>k$. Let $\overline{B}_i\subset\mathbb{R}^{d_i}$ be the copy of $B_i$ with the last coordinate of all points equal to 0. Then there are real numbers $a_x$ for each $x\in \bigcup_i \pi_1(B_i)$ such that the sets
$$H_i=\setcond{\vec{x}+a_{x_1}\vec{e}_{d_i}}{\vec{x}\in \overline{B}_i}$$
are $(d_i,k)$-Horton for $i=1,\ldots,n$. Furthermore, the numbers $a_x$ can be chosen to be bounded above in absolute value by any positive real number.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is exactly the same as for Lemma~\ref{lem:horton}, except that we must be careful to shift the different $B_i$ in a consistent manner. For the final assertion, note that if the numbers $a_x$ work, then the rescaled numbers formed by multiplying by any non-zero number will also work, so we can make all the terms as small as we please.
\end{proof}
The final result of this section says that, under appropriate conditions, if a certain projection of a subset of a Horton set is well-spread, then so is the subset itself.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:goup}
Given $k\leq d$ and positive integers $N$ and $r$ such that $r$ is coprime to $p_{k+1}p_{k+2}\cdots p_d$, let $L\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be $(d,k)$-Horton and $H\subset L$ be such that $\pi_{[k]}(H)$ is $(N,rp_{k+1}p_{k+2}\cdots p_d)$-well-spread in $\pi_{[k]}(L)$. Then $H$ is $(2^{d-k}N,r)$-well-spread in $L$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The case $k=d$ is clear.
Suppose now that we have proved the lemma for all $d$ in the case where $k=d-1$. Then, for general $d>k$, since $\pi_{[k+1]}(L)$ is $(k+1,k)$-Horton, the case where $d=k+1$ implies that $\pi_{[k+1]}(H)$ is $(2N, rp_{k+2}\cdots p_d)$-well-spread in $\pi_{[k+1]}(L)$. Repeating this argument using the fact that an $(\ell, k)$-Horton set is also $(\ell, \ell-1)$-Horton for each $k+2 \leq \ell \leq d$, we see that $H$ is $(2^{d-k}N, r)$-well-spread in $L$. Thus, we only have to consider the case where $k=d-1$.
Suppose that the lemma is false. Let $H\subset L$ be the smallest pair, in the sense that $(|L|,|H|)$ is lexicographically smallest, that is a counterexample to the lemma. That is, $\pi_{[d-1]}(H)$ is $(N,rp_d)$-well-spread in $\pi_{[d-1]}(L)$, but $H$ is not $(2N,r)$-well-spread in $L$. In particular, $|L_{a,p_d}|\geq 1$ for all $a$, so that $|L_{a,p_d}|<|L|$ for all $a$.
Note that for any integers $a$ and $p$ with $p \geq 1$, $\pi_{[d-1]}(H_{a,p})$ is $(N,rp_d)$-well-spread in $\pi_{[d-1]}(L_{a,p})$ and, by Lemma~\ref{lem:subhorton}, $L_{a,p}$ is $(d,k)$-Horton, so we only have to show that $H$ is $(2N,r)$-spread in $L$. Suppose $S\subset H$ is any subset of size $2N$ and $a'$ is any integer. Then we wish to show that $\Int\conv S$ contains a point of $L_{a',r}$. Let $I=\setcond{i\in [p_d]}{S_{i,p_d}\neq\emptyset}$. If $|I|=1$, say $I=\{i\}$, then, since $\pi_{[d-1]}(H_{i,p_d})$ is $(N,rp_d)$-well-spread in $\pi_{[d-1]}(L_{i,p_d})$, our minimality assumption implies that $H_{i,p_d}$ is $(2N,r)$-well-spread in $L_{i,p_d}$. Hence, $\Int\conv S$ contains a point of $(L_{i,p_d})_{z,r}\subset L_{a',r}$ for some integer $z$, where we used that $p_d$ and $r$ are coprime.
So assume that $|I|>1$. Then we can partition $I$ into $J$ and $I-J$ so that $L_{lo}=\bigcup_{i\in J} L_{i,p_d}$ lies deep below the set $L_{hi}=\bigcup_{i\in I-J} L_{i,p_d}$. Set $S_{lo}=S\cap L_{lo}$ and $S_{hi}=S\cap L_{hi}$ and suppose, without loss of generality, that $|S_{lo}|<|S_{hi}|$, so $|S_{hi}|\geq N$. View $S_{hi}$ as a level set with the same level map as $L$. Let $I_m=\setcond{i\in [p_d^m]}{(S_{hi})_{i,p_d^m} \neq \emptyset}$ and let $m$ be the smallest positive integer such that $|I_m|>1$. Such an $m$ exists, since $\pi_{[d-1]}(H)$ is $(N,rp_d)$-spread in $\pi_{[d-1]}(L)$ and $|\pi_{[d-1]}(S_{hi})|=|S_{hi}|\geq N$, so $\pi_{[d-1]}(S_{hi})$ contains at least one point of $\pi_{[d-1]}(L)$ in the interior of its convex hull, which in turn implies that $S_{hi}$ cannot lie on a hyperplane perpendicular to the first axis, i.e., $|\phi_L(S_{hi})|>1$.
Let $i,j\in I_m$ be two distinct elements. By the minimality of $m$, $(S_{hi})_{i,p_d^{m-1}}$ is the same set as $S_{hi}$, so $i\equiv j\pmod{p_d^{m-1}}$. Since $L$ is $(d,k)$-Horton, so is $L_{i,p_d^{m-1}}$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:subhorton} and, therefore, one of $L_{i,p_d^m},L_{j,p_d^m}$ lies high above the other. Suppose, without loss of generality, that $L_{i,p_d^m}$ lies high above $L_{j,p_d^m}$.
We have $L_{j,p_d^m}\cap L_{a',r}=L_{z,rp_d^m}=(L_{i,p_d^{m-1}})_{z',rp_d}$ for some integers $z$ and $z'$. But $\pi_{[d-1]}((H)_{i,p_d^{m-1}})$ is $(N,rp_d)$-spread in $\pi_{[d-1]}(L_{i,p_d^{m-1}})$ and, hence, since $|\pi_{[d-1]}((S_{hi})_{i,p_d^{m-1}})| = |\pi_{[d-1]}(S_{hi})| \geq N$,
$\Int\conv \pi_{[d-1]}((S_{hi})_{i,p_d^{m-1}})$ contains a point of $\pi_{[d-1]}(L_{z,rp_d^m})$, say $\pi_{[d-1]}(\vec{x})$ with $\vec{x}\in L_{z,rp_d^m}$. Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:uphull} with $S_0=S_{lo}$, $S_1=(S_{hi})_{j,p_d^{m-1}}\cup\{\vec{x}\}$ and $S_2=(S_{hi})_{i,p_d^{m-1}}$, we get that $\vec{x}\in\Int\conv S$ with $\vec{x}\in L_{z,rp_d^m}\subset L_{a',r}$.
\end{proof}
Note that if $L$ is a $(d, 1)$-Horton set with level map $\pi_1$ and $\pi_1(L)$ is a consecutive set of integers, then $\pi_1(L)$ is $(N, p_2 \cdots p_d)$-well-spread in itself provided $N \geq p_2 \cdots p_d + 2$. But then Lemma~\ref{lem:goup} implies that $L$ is $(2^{d-1} N, 1)$-spread in itself, which is the same as saying that $L$ is $2^{d-1} N$-hole-free. This is the essence of Valtr's construction of high-dimensional hole-free sets.
\subsection{The construction}
We now come to the proof of our main technical result, Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice}, which, we recall, is a construction of point sets in $\mathbb{R}^d$ which lie arbitrarily close to the lattice cube $[n]^d$ and are $C'_d$-hole-free for some constant $C'_d$ depending only on $d$.
Fix $n>1$, let $p_1<p_2<\cdots<p_d$ be the first $d$ primes and recall that $\vec{e}_1,\ldots,\vec{e}_d$ is the standard basis for $\mathbb{R}^d$. Let $I=[n]^d$, which we will use as an indexing set. We start with the lattice cube $\mathcal{P}^{(1,0)}=[n]^d=\setcond{P^{(1,0)}_{\vec{x}}}{\vec{x}\in I}$, where $P^{(1,0)}_{\vec{x}}=\vec{x}$. For any such set $\mathcal{P}=\setcond{P_{\vec{x}}}{\vec{x}\in I}$ indexed by $I$ and any set $J\subset \mathbb{R}^d$, we denote by $\mathcal{P}_J$ the set
$$\setcond{P_{\vec{x}}}{\vec{x}\in J\cap I}.$$
Given the set $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j-1)}=\setcond{P^{(i,j-1)}_{\vec{x}}}{\vec{x}\in I}$ for some $1\leq j\leq d$, we construct $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}=\setcond{P^{(i,j)}_{\vec{x}}}{\vec{x}\in I}$ as follows. If $j=i$, then there is no change, i.e., $P^{(i,j)}_{\vec{x}}=P^{(i,j-1)}_{\vec{x}}$. For $j\neq i$, we perturb the planes perpendicular to $\vec{e}_i$ in the $j$-th direction, setting
$$P^{(i,j)}_{\vec{x}}=P^{(i,j-1)}_{\vec{x}}+a_{x_i}\vec{e}_j$$
for $\vec{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in I$,
where $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ will be some carefully chosen constants. Before deciding their values, we make some definitions.
Let $V$ be any affine subspace of dimension $k$ such that
$V$ is perpendicular to $\vec{e}_1,\ldots,\vec{e}_{i-1}$ but not to $\vec{e}_i$ and $V\cap\mathbb{Z}^d$ is a $k$-dimensional lattice.
Let $1\leq j_{k+1}<j_{k+2}<\cdots<j_d$ be such that, for $k+1\leq l\leq d$, $V+\mathbb{R}\vec{e}_1+\cdots +\mathbb{R}\vec{e}_{j_l-1}$ is of dimension $l-1$ but $V_l=V+\mathbb{R}\vec{e}_1+\cdots +\mathbb{R}\vec{e}_{j_l}$ is of dimension $l$, so we have a flag of affine subspaces $V=V_k\subset V_{k+1}\subset\cdots\subset V_d=\mathbb{R}^d$. We define an affine isomorphism $\varphi_V:\mathbb{R}^d\to \mathbb{R}^d$ in steps using the flag $V_k\subset\cdots\subset V_d$ by defining $\varphi_V:V_l\to\mathbb{R}^l\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ (the embedding $\mathbb{R}^l\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ is given by taking all but the first $l$ coordinates to be 0). Note that $V\cap I$ is a levelled set with level map $\pi_i$. We begin by defining $\varphi_V:V\to\mathbb{R}^k$ to be any affine isomorphism which sends this level map to $\pi_1$ (in other words, $\pi_1\circ \varphi_V=\pi_i$ on $V$). To define $\varphi_V:V_l\to \mathbb{R}^l$ for $l > k$, note that any vector in $V_l$ can be written uniquely as $\vec{x}+r\vec{e}_{j_l}\in V_l$ with $\vec{x}\in V_{l-1}$ and $r\in\mathbb{R}$, so we may set $\varphi_V(\vec{x}+r\vec{e}_{j_l})=\varphi_V(\vec{x})+r\vec{e}_l$.
Now $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ are chosen such that the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The natural bijection $\Phi:\mathcal{P}^{(i,j-1)}\to \mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}$ is negligible.
\item For any affine subspace $V$ of dimension $k$ which is parallel to $\vec{e}_j$ and any set $S\subset \mathcal{P}^{(i,j-1)}\cap V$, the bijection $S\to \Phi(S)$ is negligible in the ambient space $V\cong\mathbb{R}^k$.
\item For any $V,k,\varphi_V$ as above, the bijection $\pi_{[k]}(\varphi_V(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j-1)}_V))\to \pi_{[k]}(\varphi_V(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_V))$ is negligible.
\item For any $V,k,\varphi_V, j_{k+1},\ldots,j_d$ as above and any
$m\geq k+1$, there is some $\vec{v}\in\mathbb{R}^d$, depending only on $V$, such that the set $\varphi_V(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j_m)}_{V}-\vec{v})\subset \mathbb{R}^m$ is $(m,k)$-Horton with respect to the sequence $p_{j_{k+1}},\ldots,p_{j_{m}}$.
\end{enumerate}
Properties 1, 2 and 3 will be satisfied for any sufficiently small sequence $a_1,\ldots,a_n$. To show that property 4 may also be satisfied, note that $\mathcal{P}^{(i,0)}_{V}$ is a translate of $V\cap I$, say $\mathcal{P}^{(i,0)}_{V}=(V\cap I)+\vec{v}$. So $\varphi_V(\mathcal{P}^{(i,0)}_{V}-\vec{v})=\varphi_V(V\cap I)\subset \mathbb{R}^{k}$ is $(k,k)$-Horton. Suppose now that we have shown inductively that $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j_{m-1})}_{V}-\vec{v}\subset V_{m-1}$ and that $\varphi_V(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j_{m-1})}_{V}-\vec{v})\subset \mathbb{R}^{m-1}$ is $(m-1,k)$-Horton with respect to the sequence $p_{j_{k+1}},\ldots,p_{j_{m-1}}$. From property 2 above, $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j_{m-1})}_{V}\to \mathcal{P}^{(i,j_m-1)}_V$ is negligible in the ambient space $V_{m-1}+\vec{v}$, so that $\varphi_V(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j_m-1)}_{V}-\vec{v})\subset \mathbb{R}^{m-1}$ is also $(m-1,k)$-Horton. $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j_m)}_{V}-\vec{v}\subset V_{m}$ will always hold, no matter the choice of $a_1,\ldots,a_n$, so we only need to choose $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ so that $\varphi_V(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j_m)}_{V}-\vec{v})\subset \mathbb{R}^{m}$ is $(m,k)$-Horton with respect to the sequence $p_{j_{k+1}},\ldots,p_{j_{m}}$. But Lemma~\ref{lem:unif-horton} guarantees that such a choice exists and that $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ can be taken to be arbitrarily small.
For $i>1$, we set $\mathcal{P}^{(i,0)}=\mathcal{P}^{(i-1,d)}$. Thus, we have constructed a collection of sets and bijections
$$\mathcal{P}^{(1,0)}\to \mathcal{P}^{(1,1)}\to\cdots\to \mathcal{P}^{(1,d)}=\mathcal{P}^{(2,0)}\to\cdots\to \mathcal{P}^{(2,d)}=\mathcal{P}^{(3,0)}\to\cdots\to \mathcal{P}^{(d,d)},$$
where, for any affine subspace $V$ of dimension $k$ such that $V\cap\mathbb{Z}^d$ is a $k$-dimensional lattice, there are $i$ and $j$ such that $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_{V}$ is affine isomorphic to a $(d,k)$-Horton set with respect to some subsequence of $p_1,\ldots,p_d$. Moreover, since all the bijections above are negligible by property 1 and the composition of negligible bijections is itself negligible, the bijection $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}\to \mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}$ is also negligible.
We remark that just as $[n]^d$ is the Minkowski sum of $[n]$ along each of the $d$ axes, $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}$ is also the Minkowski sum of some perturbation of $[n]$ along each of the $d$ axes.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:hdd}
The set $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}$ constructed above is $C_d'$-hole-free for some constant $C_d'$.
\end{thm}
Our proof goes as follows. We inductively find constants $N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_d$ such that, for each $k$, for any $k$-dimensional affine subspace $V_k\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ and any $S \subset I_k = I\cap V_k$ of size $N_k$, the set $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_S\subset \mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}$ contains some element of $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_k}$ in the interior of its convex hull. Then we may set $C_d'$ to be $N_d$.
At each step, Lemma~\ref{lem:well-spread} tells us that either there are $N_{k-1}$ points of $S$ on a hyperplane $V_{k-1}$, in which case we are done by induction, or $S$ is well-spread in $I_k$. In the latter case, using the fact that, by property 4 of our construction, the set $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_k}$ is (up to a negligible perturbation) affine isomorphic to a $(d, k)$-Horton set, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:goup} to conclude that there is a point of $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_k}$ in the interior of the convex hull of $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_S$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:hdd}]
Let $V_1\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be any 1-dimensional affine subspace, so that $I_1=I\cap V_1$ is a consecutive subset of (i.e., the intersection of a line segment with) a 1-dimensional lattice $L$. We first show that $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_1}$ is $N_1$-hole-free for some $N_1$. Let $i\geq 1$ be the smallest integer such that $L$ is not perpendicular to $\vec{e}_i$ and $j\geq 1$ the smallest integer such that $V_1+\mathbb{R}\vec{e}_1+\cdots+\mathbb{R}\vec{e}_j$ is of dimension $d$.
By property 4 of the construction, $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_{I_1}$ is affine isomorphic to a $(d,1)$-Horton set $H$ with respect to some subsequence $q_2,\ldots,q_d$ of $p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_d$.
Note that $\pi_1(H)$ is a consecutive subset of a sublattice of $\mathbb{Z}$, so, by modifying the level map of $H$ if necessary, we may assume that $\phi_H(H)$ is a set of consecutive integers. Since any consecutive subset of the 1-dimensional lattice $\mathbb{Z}\subset\mathbb{R}$ is $(m+2,m)$-well-spread in itself for any $m$, $\pi_{[1]}(H)$ is $(q_2\cdots q_d+2,q_2\cdots q_d)$-well-spread in itself, so, by Lemma~\ref{lem:goup}, $H$ is $(2^{d-1}(q_2\cdots q_d+2),1)$-well-spread in itself. Therefore, setting $N_1=2^{d-1}(p_2\cdots p_d+2)$, we have that the interior of the convex hull of any $N_1$ points of $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_{I_1}$ contains a point of $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_{I_1}$. Since $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_{I_1}\to \mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_1}$ is negligible, $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_1}$ is $N_1$-hole-free.
Suppose we have found $N_1,\ldots,N_{k-1}$ such that, for $j=1,\ldots,k-1$, any $j$-dimensional affine subspace $V_j\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ for which $I_j=I\cap V_j$ is part of a $j$-dimensional lattice has the property that the set $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_j}$ is $N_j$-hole-free. By Lemma~\ref{lem:well-spread}, if $N = N_{k-1} (p_{k+1}\cdots p_d+1)^k k^{2k}$, then any subset of $\mathbb{Z}^k$ either has at least $N_{k-1}$ points on a hyperplane of $\mathbb{R}^k$ or is $(N,q_{k+1}\cdots q_d)$-well-spread in $\mathbb{Z}^k$ for any subsequence $q_{k+1},\ldots, q_d$ of $p_1,\ldots,p_d$. Consider a $k$-dimensional affine subspace $V_k\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $I_k=I\cap V_k$ is part of a $k$-dimensional lattice. Let $i\geq 1$ be the smallest integer such that $V_k$ is not perpendicular to $\vec{e}_i$ and $j\geq 1$ the smallest integer such that $V_k+\mathbb{R}\vec{e}_1+\cdots+\mathbb{R}\vec{e}_j$ is of dimension $d$. By property 4 of the construction, there is some $\vec{v}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $H=\varphi_{V_k}(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_{I_k}-\vec{v})$ is $(d,k)$-Horton with respect to some subsequence $q_{k+1},\ldots,q_d$ of $p_1,\ldots,p_d$.
We will find some $N_k>N_{k-1}$ such that $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_k}$ is $N_k$-hole-free. View $V_k\cap \mathbb{Z}^d$ as a levelled set with level map of the form $\phi=a\pi_i+b$ such that $\phi(V_k\cap \mathbb{Z}^d)=\mathbb{Z}$. Note that $\phi$ may be seen as the projection onto a basis element of some $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $V_k\cap \mathbb{Z}^d$. Suppose $S\subset I_k$. If $S$ contains $N_{k-1}$ points on a hyperplane $V_{k-1}\subset V_k$, then the interior of the convex hull of $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{S}$ contains a point of $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_{k-1}}$ by our induction hypothesis. Otherwise, by the application of Lemma~\ref{lem:well-spread} discussed above, $S$ is $(N,q_{k+1}\cdots q_d)$-well-spread in $V_k\cap \mathbb{Z}^d$ (in the ambient space $V_k\cong \mathbb{R}^k$)
for any subsequence $q_{k+1},\ldots, q_d$ of $p_1,\ldots,p_d$. By intersecting with the convex hull of $I_k$, $S$ is $(N,q_{k+1}\cdots q_d)$-well-spread in $I_k$. Applying $\varphi_{V_k}$, we have that $\varphi_{V_k}(S)=\pi_{[k]}(\varphi_{V_k}(\mathcal{P}^{(i,0)}_S-\vec{v}))$ is $(N,q_{k+1}\cdots q_d)$-well-spread in $\varphi_{V_k}(I_k)=\pi_{[k]}(\varphi_{V_k}(\mathcal{P}^{(i,0)}_{I_k}-\vec{v}))$. Let $K=\varphi_{V_k}(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_S-\vec{v})\subset H$.
By property 3 of the construction, $\pi_{[k]}(\varphi_{V_k}(\mathcal{P}^{(i,0)}_{I_k}))\to \pi_{[k]}(\varphi_{V_k}(\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_{I_k}))$ is negligible. Therefore, since negligible maps preserve well-spreadness,
$\pi_{[k]}(K)$ is $(N,q_{k+1}\cdots q_d)$-well-spread in $\pi_{[k]}(H)$.
Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:goup}, $K$ is $(2^{d-k}N,1)$-well-spread in $H$. Setting $N_k=2^{d-k}N$, we see that any subset of $K$ of size $N_k$ contains a point of $H$ in the interior of its convex hull and, hence, that $H$ is $N_k$-hole-free. This implies that $\mathcal{P}^{(i,j)}_{I_k}$ and, hence, $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I_k}$ is also $N_k$-hole-free.
Following the induction to $k = d$, we see that $\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}_{I}=\mathcal{P}^{(d,d)}$ is $N_d$-hole-free, so taking $C_d'=N_d$ suffices to complete the proof.
\end{proof}
To complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice}, we note that $N_1=2^{d-1}(p_2\cdots p_d+2) = d^{d + o(d)}$ and $N_k = 2^{d-k} N_{k-1} (p_{k+1}\cdots p_d+1)^k k^{2k} \leq N_{k-1} d^{kd + o(kd)}$. Therefore,
\[C'_d = N_d \leq \prod_{k=1}^d d^{kd + o(kd)} \leq d^{d^3/2 + o(d^3)},\]
as required. A slightly more careful analysis improves this to $d^{d^3/6 + o(d^3)}$, but we suspect that even this is quite far from the true bound.
\section{Concluding remarks}
If $\mathcal{P}$ is a finite set of points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, define the \emph{spread} $q_d(\mathcal{P})$ of $\mathcal{P}$ to be the maximum distance between any two points of $\mathcal{P}$ divided by the minimum distance between any two points of $\mathcal{P}$. A simple volume argument shows that if $\mathcal{P}$ has $k$ points, then $q_d(\mathcal{P}) \geq \gamma_d k^{1/d}$ for some $\gamma_d > 0$ depending only on $d$, while the lattice $[n]^d$ shows that this bound is tight up to the constant. Answering a question of Alon, Katchalski and Pulleyblank~\cite{AKP89} inspired by the fact that Horton's original construction of $7$-hole-free sets has very large spread, Valtr~\cite{V92-2} showed that there is a constant $\alpha$ and, for every natural number $k$, a set $\mathcal{P}$ of $k$ points in the plane such that $q_2(\mathcal{P}) \leq \alpha \sqrt{k}$ but $\mathcal{P}$ is still $7$-hole-free. In fact, this is a simple corollary of his result showing that there are $7$-hole-free sets which are $\varepsilon$-perturbations of the set of lattice points $[n]^2$. Similarly, our Theorem~\ref{thm:lattice} easily implies the following result.
\begin{cor}
For any integer $d \geq 2$, there exist constants $\alpha_d$ and $C'_d = d^{O(d^3)}$ such that, for every natural number $k$, there is a set $\mathcal{P}$ of $k$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $q_d(\mathcal{P}) \leq \alpha_d k^{1/d}$ and $\mathcal{P}$ is $C'_d$-hole-free. In particular, when $d = 2$, one may take $C_2' = 7$.
\end{cor}
In~\cite{V92-2}, Valtr also
answered another question of Alon, Katchalski and Pulleyblank~\cite{AKP89}, namely, given a set of $k$ points $\mathcal{P}$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ in general position with $q_2(\mathcal{P}) \leq \alpha \sqrt{k}$ for some constant $\alpha$, how large of a convex subset must $\mathcal{P}$ contain? If we write $c_\alpha(k)$ for the size of the largest such subset, Valtr proved that $c_{\alpha}(k) \geq \beta k^{1/3}$ for some $\beta > 0$ depending only on $\alpha$ and also that this is best possible up to the constant. His construction showing that this is best possible is again just his construction of an $\varepsilon$-perturbation of the set of lattice points $[n]^2$ with no large holes, though the analysis requires significant additional work. It would be interesting to decide if our construction also impinges on the analogous problem in higher dimensions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
The current 5G networks are designed to support a wide range of services, including \gls{embb}, \gls{urllc} and \gls{mmtc}, which in turn will support an important growth in the number of applications.
This upsurge in novel services and applications is expected to also happen with 6G \cite{6g_vision}.
This heterogeneity of wireless networks may represent a challenge to protocol design.
Therefore, protocols tailored to specific applications may perform better than general-purpose solutions \cite{pasandi2021}.
\Gls{ml} can be used to design protocols, boost the network capacity \cite{hoydis20216g} and reduce the efforts and costs for future standardization \cite{6g_standardization}.
It is possible to view a protocol as the language of a network, since the network nodes have to negotiate how to transmit data by exchanging messages.
Then, the idea of emerging a new protocol would be similar to emerging communication between the network nodes.
\Gls{rl} is one category of \gls{ml} that provides the means to reach this goal.
During the last years, research on how to emerge communication in order to achieve collaboration between multiple agents received a growing attention \cite{lazaridou2020emergent}.
This growth partly relies on recent advances in \gls{marl} for cooperative problems \cite{dafoe2020open}.
Learning to cooperate by leveraging communication is about teaching agents to either learn existing natural languages or to emerge a fully new communication protocol that would help them collaborate to solve a task.
\textbf{Contribution:}
Our proposal is to leverage cooperative \gls{marl} augmented with communication to allow a fully new \gls{mac} protocol to emerge.
The idea of learning a given protocol has already been addressed in a previous work \cite{alvaro2021}, but to the best of the authors' knowledge, there is no previous work on studying the emergence of a new \gls{mac} protocol (signalling included) with \gls{marl}.
In the future, this idea may be used to develop application-tailored protocols that could perform better than the human-designed ones.
This work is structured as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:rel-work}, we briefly review the literature.
In Section~\ref{sec:background}, we give a short background overview of \gls{marl} and the algorithm used in this work.
Section~\ref{sec:system-model} describes the system model used and in Section~\ref{sec:proposed}, we present a new framework allowing the emergence of \gls{mac} protocols with \gls{marl}.
Finally, Section~\ref{sec:simulation} illustrates the performance of our algorithm with our numerical results, where we compare the proposed solution with a baseline.
The main conclusions are drawn in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:rel-work}
Several papers have applied \gls{rl} to the \gls{mac} layer, mostly to solve \gls{rrm} problems such as scheduling (\cite{leasch, rrs_deep_pointer}) and dynamic spectrum access (\cite{rl_for_spectrum_access, wong2020dynamic}).
In \cite{alvaro2021}, \gls{marl} is used to learn a predefined protocol and a new channel access policy.
This is done by having a \gls{bs} which uses a predefined protocol while the \glspl{ue} are \gls{rl} agents.
The \glspl{ue} are trained to learn the signaling and how to access the channel without any prior knowledge.
This way, they can learn their own channel-access policy, while respecting the target signaling policy.
However, in this case the agents only learn to use an already known \gls{mac} signaling, rather than developing a new one.
In \cite{pasandi2021}, a framework to design a protocol is proposed by considering the different functions a \gls{mac} protocol must perform.
An \gls{rl} agent designs a protocol by selecting which building function to use according to the network conditions.
However, in this case, the \gls{rl} agent still has a prior knowledge due to the use of the predefined protocol functions.
In \cite{learning_phy, remote_rl}, cooperative \gls{marl} is used to emerge a coding scheme by joint learning of communication and cooperation to solve a task with the help of a noisy communication channel.
The proposition of both works is to emerge a coding scheme that is tailored to the application.
None of these works address the question of learning a new signaling protocol.
\section{Background on MARL}
\label{sec:background}
\Gls{rl} is an area of \gls{ml} that aims to find the best behavior for an agent interacting with a dynamic environment in order to maximize a notion of accumulated reward \cite{Bishop07}.
The goal of the \gls{rl} agent is to find the best policy, which is the mapping of the perceived states to the actions to be taken.
The action-value function $Q^{\pi}(s_t,a_t)$, also known as Q-function, is the overall expected reward for taking action $a_t$ in state $s_t$ and then following a policy $\pi$.
MARL is an extension of RL for to \gls{mas}, where multiple agents interact with a system, i.e the environment.
In this work, we use the \gls{dec-pomdp} formulation \cite{oliehoek2008optimal}, augmented with communication.
A \gls{dec-pomdp} for $n$ agents is defined by the global state space $\mathcal{S}$, an action space $\mathcal{A}_1 , \ldots , \mathcal{A}_n $, and an observation space $\mathcal{O}_1 , \ldots , \mathcal{O}_n $ for each agent.
In \gls{dec-pomdp}, the agent observation does not fully describe the environment state.
All agents share the same reward and the action space of each agent is subdivided into one environment action space and a communication action space.
The communication action represents the message sent by an agent and it does not affect the environment directly, but it may be passed to other agents.
This formulation is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:marl-scheme}, where $o_i$ represents the observation received by the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ agent, $r$ represents the reward, $a_i$ and $c_i$ represent the environment and communication actions, respectively.
In this work, the agent internal state $x_i$ may comprise not only the agent's current observation, but also previous observations, actions and received messages.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\vspace*{3pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/marl-diag.pdf}
\caption{Cooperative MA-RL scheme with communication,}
\label{fig:marl-scheme}
\end{figure}
\Gls{marl} introduces some new challenges, such as partial observability and non-stationarity \cite{MARL_Challenges}.
In this work, we adopt the \gls{maddpg} algorithm \cite{lowe2017multi}, an extension of the \gls{ddpg} algorithm \cite{ddpg} to multi-agent problems with \gls{ctde}.
It addresses the non-stationarity problem by using a centralized critic.
Each agent has an actor network that depends only on its own agent's state in order to learn a decentralized policy $\mu_i$ with parameters $\theta_i$.
During the training, each agent has a centralized critic that receives the agent states and actions of all agents in order to learn a joint action value function $Q_i (x,a)$ with parameters $\varphi_i$, where $x = (x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n)$ is a vector containing all the agents' states and $a = (a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n)$ contains the actions taken by all of the agents.
The critic network parameters $\varphi$ are updated by minimizing the loss given by the temporal-difference error
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.:critic}
L^i \coloneqq \E_{x, a, r, x^{\prime} \thicksim \mathcal{D} } \left[ y^i - Q_i (x, a_1, \ldots, a_n ; \varphi_i) \right]
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mathcal{D}$ denotes the experience replay buffer in which the transition tuples $ (x, a, r, x^{\prime})$ are stored, $Q^{\prime}$ and $\mu^{\prime}$ represent the target critic network and the value of the target actor network, with parameters $\theta^{\prime}$ and $\varphi^{\prime}$, respectively, and $y^i$ is the temporal-difference target, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.:td-error}
y^i \coloneqq r + \left. \gamma Q^{\prime}_i ( x^{\prime}, a^{\prime}_1, \ldots, a^{\prime}_n; \varphi^{\prime}_i ) \right|_{a^{\prime}_k = \mu^{\prime}_k (x_k)}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\gamma$ is the discount factor.
The actor network parameters $\theta$ are updated using the sampled policy gradient
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.:actor}
\nabla_{\theta_i} J = \E_{x, a \thicksim \mathcal{D} } \left[ \nabla_{a_i} Q_i (x,a) \nabla_{\theta_i} \mu_i (x_i) \mid a_i=\mu_i (x_i) \right] .
\end{equation}
The target networks parameters are updated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.:target-critic}
\varphi^{\prime}_i \leftarrow \tau \varphi_i + (1-\tau) \varphi^{\prime}_i
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.:target-actor}
\theta^{\prime}_i \leftarrow \tau \theta_i + (1-\tau) \theta^{\prime}_i
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\tau \in \left[ 0 , 1 \right]$ is the soft-update parameter.
Smaller values of $\tau$ lead to slow target network changes and are generally preferred \cite{ddpg}.
\section{System Model}
\label{sec:system-model}
We consider a single cell with a \gls{bs} serving \gls{not:nUE} \glspl{ue} operating according to a \gls{tdma} scheme, where each \gls{ue} needs to deliver \gls{not:total-packets} \glspl{sdu} to the \gls{bs}.
We assume that each \gls{mac} \gls{pdu} contains only one \gls{sdu}.
The network nodes can communicate, i.e. exchange information, using messages through the control channels.
In the rest of this paper, we use the expressions \gls{ue} and \gls{bs} to refer to the \gls{ue} \gls{mac} agent and the \gls{bs} \gls{mac} agent, respectively.
The channel for the uplink data transmission is modeled as a packet erasure channel, where a \gls{tb} is incorrectly received with a probability given by a \gls{tbler}.
The \glspl{dcm} and \glspl{ucm} are transmitted over the \gls{dl} and \gls{ul} control channels, which are assumed to be error free and without any contention or collision.
We assume that the sets of possible \gls{dl} and \gls{ul} control messages have cardinality \gls{not:dl-vocabulary-size} and \gls{not:ul-vocabulary-size}, respectively.
For example, the \glspl{ucm} in an \gls{ul} control vocabulary of size $\gls{not:dl-vocabulary-size} = 8$ would have a bitlength of $\log_2 {\gls{not:dl-vocabulary-size}}=3$.
This exchange is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sys-model}, where dashed lines indicate control information and solid lines indicate user data.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\vspace*{3pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\columnwidth]{figs/system-model.pdf}
\caption{System model example with two \glspl{ue}.}
\label{fig:sys-model}
\end{figure}
Each \gls{ue} has a transmission buffer of capacity \gls{not:buffer-size} \gls{mac} \glspl{sdu} that starts empty.
At each time step \gls{not:time-step}, a new \gls{sdu} is added to the buffer with probability \gls{not:p-arrival}, until a maximum of \gls{not:total-packets} \glspl{sdu} have been generated for each \gls{ue}.
At each time step \gls{not:time-step}, the \gls{bs} can send one control message to each \gls{ue} and each \gls{ue} can send one control message to the \gls{bs} while being able to send data \glspl{pdu} through the \gls{ulsch}.
Furthermore, the \glspl{ue} can also delete a \gls{sdu} from the buffer at each time step.
The transmission task is considered finished once all \glspl{sdu} are received and all transmission buffers are empty.
We define the goodput $G$ (in \glspl{sdu}/TTIs) as the number of \gls{mac} \glspl{sdu} received by the \gls{bs} per unit of time, without considering the retransmissions:
\begin{equation}
G = \frac{N_{\mathrm{RX}}} {N_{\mathrm{TTIs}}}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $N_{\mathrm{RX}}$ represents the number of \glspl{sdu} received and $N_{\mathrm{TTIs}}$ is the total time taken to finish the transmission task.
The delivery-rate $\Gamma_{\mathrm{RX}}$ is the percentage of \glspl{sdu} correctly received by the \gls{bs}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delivery-rate}
\Gamma = \frac{N_{\mathrm{TX}}}{\gls{not:total-packets} \gls{not:nUE}} \text{.}
\end{equation}
\section{Emerging a MAC Protocol with MARL}
\label{sec:proposed}
\subsection{MARL Formulation}
We can formulate the problem defined above as a \gls{marl} cooperative task, where the \gls{mac} layers of the network nodes (\glspl{ue} and \gls{bs}) are \gls{rl} agents that need to learn how to communicate with each other to solve an uplink transmission task.
In addition, the \gls{ue} agents need to learn when to send data through the \gls{ulsch} and when to delete an \gls{sdu}, in other words, to learn how to correctly manage the buffer.
In order to decide how to act, an agent needs to consider the messages received from the other agents. %
In addition, the \glspl{ue} also take into account their buffer status when taking actions, while the \gls{bs} takes into account the state of the \gls{ulsch}, i.e idle, busy or collision-free reception.
We use the following notations:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}$: Observation received by the $u$\textsuperscript{th} \gls{ue} at time step \gls{not:time-step}.
\item $\gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{b}}_{t}$: Observation received by the \gls{bs} at time step \gls{not:time-step}.
\item $\gls{not:ul-message}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}$: The \gls{ucm} sent from the $u^{\mathrm{th}}$ \gls{ue} at time step $t$.
\item $\gls{not:dl-message}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}$: The \gls{dcm} sent to the $u^{\mathrm{th}}$ \gls{ue} at time step $t$.
\item $\gls{not:ue-action}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}$: Environment action of the $u^{\mathrm{th}}$ \gls{ue} at time step $t$.
\item $\gls{not:state}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}$: Agent internal state of the $u^{\mathrm{th}}$ \gls{ue} at time step $t$.
\item $\gls{not:state}^{\mathrm{b}}_{t}$: Agent internal state of the \gls{bs} at time step $t$.
\end{itemize}
The observation $\gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t} \in \left\{ 0, \dots, \gls{not:buffer-size} \right\} $ is a integer representing the number of \glspl{sdu} in the buffer of the \gls{ue} $u$ at that time $t$.
Similarly, the observation $\gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{b}}_{t} $ received by the \gls{bs} is a discrete variable with $\gls{not:nUE} + 2$ possible states:
\begin{equation}\label{eq.:base-obs}
\gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{b}}_{t} = \begin{cases}
0, \text{ if the \gls{ulsch} is idle} \\
\mathrm{u}, \text{ } \parbox[t]{.33\textwidth}{ if the \gls{ulsch} is detected busy with a single \gls{pdu} from \gls{ue} $\mathrm{u}$, correctly decoded} \\
\gls{not:nUE} + 1, \text{ non-decodable energy in the \gls{ulsch}} \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mathrm{u} \in \left\{ 0, \dots, \gls{not:nUE} \right\}$.
The environment action $\gls{not:ue-action}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t} \in \{0, 1, 2\}$ is interpreted as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.:action}
\gls{not:ue-action}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t} = \begin{cases}
0 \text{: do nothing} \\
1 \text{: transmit the oldest \gls{sdu} in the buffer} \\
2 \text{: delete the oldest \gls{sdu} in the buffer} \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We assume the episode ends when all the \glspl{sdu} are correctly received by the \gls{bs} or when a maximum number of steps \gls{not:episode-duration} is reached.
The reward given at each time step is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.:reward}
r_{t} = \begin{cases}
+\gls{not:reward-signal}, \text{ if a new \gls{sdu} was received by the \gls{bs} } \\
-\gls{not:reward-signal}, \text{ } \parbox[t]{.25\textwidth}{ if a \gls{ue} deleted a \gls{sdu} that has not been received by the \gls{bs}} \\
-1, \text{ else,}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent where \gls{not:reward-signal} is a positive integer.
This choice of reward is possible by leveraging the \gls{ctde}.
During the centralized training, a centralized reward system can be used to observe the buffers of the \gls{bs} and \glspl{ue} in order to assign the reward.
\subsection{Training Algorithm}
\label{sec:solution}
The proposed \gls{rl} solution is based on the \gls{maddpg} algorithm \cite{lowe2017multi}.
Each entity of the system has its own actor network which outputs the action of an agent given its state.
Each agent also has a centralized critic network which outputs the Q-value given the actions and states of all agents.
The critic networks are only used during the centralized training.
The actor and critic networks have the same architecture; a fully connected \gls{mlp} with two hidden layers, of $64$ neurons each.
The activation function of all hidden layers is the \gls{relu}.
The agent state at time step $t$ is a tuple comprising the most recent $k$ observations, actions and received messages:
\begin{itemize}
\item \Gls{ue} $\mathrm{u}$: $\gls{not:state}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t} = ( \gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}, \ldots , \gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t-k} , \gls{not:ue-action}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}, \ldots, \gls{not:ue-action}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t-k}, \gls{not:ul-message}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}, \ldots, \gls{not:ul-message}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t-k} , \\ \gls{not:dl-message}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t}, \ldots, \gls{not:dl-message}^{\mathrm{u}}_{t-k} ) $
\item \Gls{bs}: $ \gls{not:state}^{\mathrm{b}}_{t} = ( \gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{b}}_{t}, \ldots , \gls{not:obs}^{\mathrm{b}}_{t-k} , \mathbf{\gls{not:ul-message}}_{t}, \ldots, \mathbf{\gls{not:ul-message}}_{t-k} , \mathbf{\gls{not:dl-message}}_{t}, \ldots, \mathbf{\gls{not:dl-message}}_{t-k} ) $, with $ \mathbf{\gls{not:ul-message}}$ and $\mathbf{\gls{not:dl-message}}$ containing the messages from all the \glspl{ue}.
\end{itemize}
In order to improve training of our \gls{maddpg} solution, we make use of parameter sharing \cite{foerster2016learning} for similar network nodes, in this case the \glspl{ue}.
Similarly to the original work \cite{lowe2017multi}, we use the Gumbel-softmax \cite{gumbel-softmax} trick to soft-approximate the discrete actions to continuous ones.
The Gumbel-softmax reparameterization also works to balance exploration and exploitation.
The exploration-exploitation trade-off is controlled by the temperature factor $\zeta$.
After training finishes, we have successfully trained a population of $\gls{not:repetitions}=32$ protocols.
We then select the protocol that performed best during the last $\gls{not:episodes-eval}=500$ evaluation episodes.
This selection step can be seen as a "survival of the fittest" approach because only one protocol of the population of \gls{not:repetitions} is chosen going forward.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:simulation}
\subsection{Simulation Parameters}
\begin{figure*}[!tb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/goodput_1pkt.pdf}
\caption{Number of SDUs: $\gls{not:total-packets}=1$}
\label{fig:goodput-1-sdu}
\end{subfigure}%
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/goodput.pdf}
\caption{Number of SDUs: $\gls{not:total-packets}=2$}
\label{fig:goodput-2-sdu}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Goodput comparison.}
\label{fig:train-results-goodput}
\end{figure*}
For simplicity, we assess the performance of a system with one \gls{bs} and two \glspl{ue}.
The transmission buffer of each user starts empty and the \gls{sdu} arrival probability \gls{not:p-arrival} is $0.5$.
The system is trained for a fixed number of episodes \gls{not:episodes-train}.
At some points during the training, we evaluate the policy on a total of \gls{not:episodes-eval} evaluation episodes with disabled exploration and disabled learning in order to assess the current performance of the \gls{mac} protocol.
The set of evaluation episodes remain the same in order to effectively compare the performance on the same set.
At the end of the training procedure, we further evaluate the learned protocol by assessing its performance in \gls{not:episodes-test} episodes with exploration and learning disabled.
This whole procedure represents a single training repetition.
We evaluate a total of \gls{not:repetitions} repetitions, each with a different random seed.
A summary of the main simulation parameters is provided in Table~\ref{tab:sim-params}, while the parameters of the \gls{maddpg} and \gls{ddpg} algorithms are listed in Table~\ref{tab:rl-params}.
\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
\caption{Simulation Parameters}
\label{tab:sim-params}
\begin{tabularx}{0.98\columnwidth}{l c c}
\toprule
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Value} \\
\midrule
Number of \glspl{ue} & \gls{not:nUE} & $2$ \\
Size of transmission buffer & \gls{not:buffer-size} & $5$ \\
Number of \glspl{sdu} to transmit & \gls{not:total-packets} & $\left[ 1, 2 \right]$ \\
\Gls{sdu} arrival probability & \gls{not:p-arrival} & $0.5$ \\
Transport block error rate & \gls{tbler} & $\left[ 10^{-1}, 10^{-2}, 10^{-3}, 10^{-4} \right]$ \\
\gls{dcm} vocabulary size & \gls{not:dl-vocabulary-size} & $3$ \\
\gls{ucm} vocabulary size & \gls{not:ul-vocabulary-size} & $2$ \\
Max. duration of episode (\glspl{tti}) & \gls{not:episode-duration} & $24$ \\
Reward function parameter & \gls{not:reward-signal} & $3$ \\
Number of training episodes & \gls{not:episodes-train} & $300 \si{k}$ \\
Number of evaluation episodes & \gls{not:episodes-eval} & $500$ \\
Number of test episodes & \gls{not:episodes-test} & $5000$ \\
Number of randomized repetitions & \gls{not:repetitions} & $32$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\subsection{Baseline Solutions}
We compare the proposed solution with a contention-free baseline.
We also compare the proposed solution to two simplified approaches where either the communication between agents is not permitted or the centralized critic is disabled, i.e the \gls{ddpg} algorithm.
The ablation comparison helps to evaluate if communication and the centralized critic are needed to solve this task.
In the contention-free protocol, the \gls{ue} sends an \gls{sr} if its transmission buffer is not empty and it only transmits if it has received a \gls{sg}.
Similarly, it only deletes a \gls{tb} from the transmission buffer after the reception of an \gls{ack}.
At each time step, the \gls{bs} receives zero or more \glspl{sr}.
It then chooses one of the requesters at random to transmit in the next time-step, sending a \gls{sg} to the selected \gls{ue}.
However, if the \gls{ue} had made a successful data transmission simultaneously with an \gls{sr}, the \gls{bs} will send an \gls{ack} to this \gls{ue} and its \gls{sr} is ignored.
\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
\caption{Training Algorithm Parameters}
\label{tab:rl-params}
\begin{tabularx}{0.8\columnwidth}{X c}
\toprule
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Value} \\
\midrule
Memory length & 3 \\
Replay buffer size & $10^5$ \\
Batch size & 1024 \\
Number of neurons per hidden layer & $\{ 64, 64 \} $ \\
Interval between updating policies & 96 \\
Optimizer algorithm & Adam \cite{kingma2014adam} \\
Learning rate & $10^{-3}$ \\
Discount factor & $0.99$ \\
Policy regularizing factor & $10^{-3}$ \\
Gumbel-softmax temperature factor & $1$ \\
Target networks soft-update factor & $10^{-3}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure*}[!tb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/episode_duration.pdf}
\caption{Episode duration in TTIs}
\label{fig:episode-duration}
\end{subfigure}%
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/reception.pdf}
\caption{Pct. of Packets received}
\label{fig:pct-packets}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Performance comparison for two SDUs.}
\label{fig:train-results-deep}
\end{figure*}
We compare the \gls{maddpg} solution with three other solutions, the contention-free baseline, the \gls{maddpg} solution without communication, and the \gls{ddpg} version of the proposed solution, i.e. the proposed solution without the centralized critic.
For the \gls{rl} solutions, the solid lines in Figs.~\ref{fig:train-results-goodput} and~\ref{fig:train-results-deep} show the average performance in the evaluation episodes during the training and the shaded areas represent the $95 \%$ \gls{ci}.
The dashed lines show the average performance of the baseline.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:train-results-goodput}, we compare the performance in terms of goodput for the \gls{tbler} of $10^{-1}$.
Figures~\ref{fig:goodput-1-sdu} and~\ref{fig:goodput-2-sdu} show the results when the \glspl{ue} have to transmit one and two \glspl{sdu}, respectively.
After assessing the performance on the last \gls{not:episodes-eval} evaluation episodes, we select the best performing repetitions for each solution in terms of average goodput to compare using boxplots of the test episodes.
By comparing the \gls{rl} solutions in both cases, the \gls{maddpg} has the best performance and the ablation without communication has the worst performance overall.
In addition, the \gls{maddpg} shows a more stable performance during training, with less variation than both other \gls{rl} solutions.
The ablation without communication has the greatest variation of performance, demonstrated by the \glspl{ci} and by the boxplots, indicating that communication helps achieving a more robust solution.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:goodput-1-sdu}, both the \gls{maddpg} and \gls{ddpg} solutions outperform the contention-free baseline, whereas the ablation without communication fails to effectively solve the task in this case.
When we move from one \gls{sdu} to two \glspl{sdu}, in Fig.~\ref{fig:goodput-2-sdu}, the \gls{ddpg} solution does not outperform the baseline.
Moreover, the difference in performance between the \gls{maddpg} and the baseline is reduced.
To better understand the goodput results of Fig.~\ref{fig:goodput-2-sdu}, Fig.~\ref{fig:train-results-deep} shows the performance in terms of episode duration, Fig.~\ref{fig:episode-duration}, and of percentage of the total \glspl{sdu} received during the episode as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:delivery-rate}, Fig.~\ref{fig:pct-packets}.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pct-packets}, the \gls{ddpg} algorithm achieves a high performance in terms of delivery-rate, but it takes more time to solve the task, thus the lower performance in terms of goodput when compared with the \gls{maddpg} and the baseline.
Comparing the \gls{maddpg} with the contention-free solution in Fig.~\ref{fig:episode-duration}, the proposed solution achieves a better goodput by finishing the task in less \glspl{tti}.
The proposed solution has a delivery-rate lower than the contention-free baseline, although it is also very close to $100 \%$.
By applying "survival of the fittest" to pick the best protocol in terms of goodput, the delivery-rate difference becomes even lower than shown in Fig~\ref{fig:pct-packets}.
The best protocol produced by the proposed solution has an average delivery-rate on the test episodes of $\Gamma_{\textsc{maddpg}} = 99.973 \% $, whereas the average of the contention-free baseline is of $\Gamma_{\mathrm{base}} = 99.998 \% $
In Fig.~\ref{fig:goodput-bler}, we compare the proposed \gls{maddpg} framework with the contention-free baseline for different \glspl{tbler} and with each \gls{ue} having to transmit two \glspl{sdu}.
The performance is evaluated on \gls{not:episodes-test} test episodes by comparing the average goodput achieved.
For the \gls{maddpg} solution, we also show the $95\%$ \gls{ci} across randomized repetitions.
The proposed solution maintains a better performance than the baseline across the different \glspl{tbler}.
Moreover, the lowest difference in performance between the baseline and the proposed solution occurs when the \gls{tbler} is equal to $0.1$, showing that the proposed solution adapts well to lower \gls{tbler} regimes.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\columnwidth]{figs/goodput_per_bler.pdf}
\caption{Performance in terms of goodput for different \glspl{tbler} with each \gls{ue} having to transmit two \glspl{sdu}.}
\label{fig:goodput-bler}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and Perspectives}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have proposed a novel framework based on cooperative \gls{marl} augmented with communication, that provides us with the means to emerge a new protocol.
In essence, the agents have to learn the signaling policy, representing the control messages they exchange, and the channel-access policy, representing the \gls{phy} control of the agents.
Comparing with two ablations and a baseline, the results show that a solution capable to overcome the challenges in multi-agent systems is needed in order to emerge a protocol.
The results also indicate that enabling communication between agents is needed in order to solve a transmission task.
In addition, the results illustrate that the proposed solution can produce a protocol tailored to all \gls{tbler} regimes that outperforms a more general one.
Concerning future work, we highlight a study on the effect of the different parameters, such as the vocabulary sizes and \glspl{tbler}
Moreover, we envision a comparison with different \gls{marl} algorithms.
Finally, the application of this framework to a more complex system model is planned.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\label{sec:ack}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgment}
The work of Mateus P. Mota is funded by Marie Sklodowska-Curie actions (MSCA-ITN-ETN 813999 WINDMILL).
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{se1}
The magnetic force felt by a charge moving parallel to a fixed
current-carrying wire is in fact an electrostatic force when it is observed in
the rest frame of the charge. E.M.~Purcell provided a basic explanation of this
occurrence~\cite{pur}: in the rest frame of the moving charge, the lattice
positive charges of the wire are seen as moving and then their density is
modified by Lorentz contraction differently than the density of the
moving electrons which constitute the current. This charge unbalance is
allegedly at the origin of the magnetic force (i.e.~the Lorentz force).
We now explicitly derive Purcell's result referring to the classical
derivations that can be found in the literature~\cite{pur,born,fey,sexl}.
Consider a charge $q$ moving with velocity $v_0$, close by and parallel to a
current-carrying wire at rest in the laboratory system $S$. Let $I$ be the
current flowing in the wire.
In the $S$-frame, charge $q$ feels only the magnetic (Lorentz) force
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}=q{\bf v_0}\times {\bf B}.
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
Using Amp\`ere's law, the magnetic field generated by a current $I$ at distance
$r$ from the current-carrying wire is
$B=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0 c^2}\frac{2I}{r}$, where $\epsilon_0$ is the vacuum
permittivity and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum, and then the
magnitude of the force felts by the charge $q$ is
\begin{equation}
F=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0 c^2}\frac{2|Iqv_0|}{r}.
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
The force is repulsive if $q<0$ and $v_0$ is in the same direction as $I$, or
if $q>0$ and $v_0$ is in the opposite direction of $I$.
In the typical atomic description of a metal wire carrying a current, the
electric current comes from the motion of some of the negative electrons
(conduction electrons) while the positive charges of the metal stay fixed.
Let the density of the conduction electrons be $n_{-}$ ($<0$) and their velocity
in $S$ be $v$. The density of the positive charges at rest in $S$ is $n_{+}$,
which is always considered to be equal to the negative of $n_{-}$ since we are
considering an originally neutral wire and the wire remains uncharged also
when the current passes through it.
Thus, the current $I$ can be written as $n_-vA$, where $A$ is the area of the
cross-section of the wire (notice that the direction of the current $I$ is
opposite to the velocity of the conduction electrons). Then
\begin{equation}
F=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0 c^2}\frac{2|qn_-Avv_0|}{r}.
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
Without loss of generality, we take the velocity $v_0$ of the charge $q$ equal
to the velocity $v$ of the conduction electrons, same direction and magnitude.
Thus, with $v_0=v$ eq.~(\ref{eq3}) becomes
\begin{equation}
F=\frac{|q|}{2\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{|n_-|A}{r}\frac{v^2}{c^2}.
\label{eq4}
\end{equation}
If $q>0$ then $F$ is repulsive, while if $q<0$ then $F$ is attractive.
Now let turn our attention to what happens in the reference frame $S'$, in
which the particle is at rest and the wire is running past with velocity $-v$
(the frame $S'$ moves in the same direction as the conduction electrons and
with the same speed).
The particle is now at rest, so there is no magnetic force on it. However,
there must be a force and Purcell's explanation comes into play.
If we take a length $L_0$ of the wire (with cross-section $A_0$), in which there
is a charge density $n_0$ of stationary charges, it will contain a total charge
of $Q=n_0L_0A$. If the same charges are observed in a different frame to be
moving with velocity $v$, they will be all contained in a piece of the
material with the shorter (Lorentz contracted) length
\begin{equation}
L=L_0\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2},
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
but with the same area $A_0$ (since, according to special relativity,
dimensions perpendicular to the motion are unchanged). If we call $n$ the
density of charges in the frame in which they are moving, the total charge
$Q$ will be $nLA_0$. This must be also equal to $n_0L_0A_0$ since the charge is
frame invariant, so that $nL=n_0L_0$ or, from eq.~(\ref{eq5}),
\begin{equation}
n=\frac{n_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}.
\label{eq6}
\end{equation}
We can use this result for the positive charge density $n_+$ of our wire. In
the frame $S$, these charges are at rest. In $S'$, however, where the wire moves
with velocity $-v$, the positive charge density becomes
\begin{equation}
n'_+=\frac{n_+}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}.
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
The negative charges, on the other hand, are at rest in $S'$. Their rest
density is $n'_-$ and then
\begin{equation}
n_-=\frac{n'_-}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}, \qquad {\textrm{or}}\qquad
n'_-=n_-\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}.
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
We now see that, according to these calculations, there is an electric field
in $S'$ because in this frame the net charge density $n'$ is equal to
\begin{equation}
n'=n'_++n'_-=\frac{n_+}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}+n_-\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}
=n_+\frac{v^2/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}>0,
\label{eq9}
\end{equation}
since in $S$ the wire is neutral and $n_-=-n_+$.
The moving wire is thus positively charged and will produce an electric field
$E'$. This field is the same generated by a stationary wire uniformly charged
with linear charge density $\lambda'=n'A$.
The electric field at the distance $r$ from the axis of the wire is
\begin{equation}
E'=\frac{\lambda'}{2\pi\epsilon_0 r}=\frac{n'A}{2\pi\epsilon_0 r}=
\frac{n_+A v^2/c^2}{{2\pi\epsilon_0 r\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}}.
\label{eq10}
\end{equation}
The electrostatic force acting upon the charge $q$ at rest in $S'$ is then
\begin{equation}
F'=qE'=\frac{q}{2\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{n_+A}{r}\frac{v^2/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}.
\label{eq11}
\end{equation}
Since we have taken the velocity of the frame $S'$ equal to the (drift)
velocity $v$ of the conduction electrons and since $v\ll c$ in ordinary
current-carrying wires, equation~(\ref{eq11}) can be approximated to
\begin{equation}
F'=\frac{q}{2\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{n_+A}{r}\frac{v^2/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}
\simeq \frac{q}{2\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{|n_-|A}{r}\frac{v^2}{c^2},
\label{eq12}
\end{equation}
which is exactly the magnetic force calculated in $S$ (eq.~(\ref{eq4})) because
of $n_+=|n_-|$.
If we take into account the relativity fact that forces also
Lorentz transform when we go from one system the other, it can
be found that the two ways of looking at the phenomenon do give the
same physical result for any velocity of the particle.
Purcell thus succeeded in showing {\em why} the magnetic (Lorentz)
force experienced by a charge moving parallel to a current-carrying wire is a
purely electrostatic force in the rest frame of the
charge: this force can be ``mechanically'' explained with relativistic
length contraction and the consequent charge density modification in the wire.
No abstract Lorentz transformations of fields are involved in the derivation
of the result.
This explanation appears to be one of the most striking successes of special
relativity: the calculations fit perfectly with the Lorentz force law and this
seems to be one of the few relativity consequences affecting physical
phenomena in everyday life.
\section{Some inconsistencies deriving from Purcell's explanation}
\label{se2}
There are a few aspects of Purcell's explanation that appear to be problematic.
Inside a metal wire at rest in the laboratory and passed through
by a current, only conduction electrons move (drift). To an observer in the
laboratory, their density should appear augmented with respect to the density
of the stationary lattice positive charges (which is the same density of
the electrons when the current is off) by a suitable Lorentz
factor. Instead, in every quantitative treatment of the problem we have seen,
even when the current is on, in the frame of the wire the charge density of
the moving electrons is considered to be equal to the charge density of the
stationary lattice positive charges ($n_+=|n_-|$) and, to all accounts, the
wire is consistently treated as to be neutral in the laboratory frame.
Unless we are ready to accept that no Lorentz contraction takes place on the
moving electrons with respect to the laboratory frame, we have to explain this
behavior as though, in the laboratory frame, the electrons with a Lorentz
augmented density rearrange themselves in order to restore the zero net charge
that was on the wire before the current was on, more or less according to the
same principle by which negative charges, separated from the positive ones
over a metallic surface, move to cancel out the overall electric potential
difference.
But then the question is: why do electrons not do the same to cancel out the
overall electric potential difference (charge unbalance) also in the reference
frame of the charge moving parallel to the wire? We see in all this a lack of
reciprocity, the same reciprocity demanded by the principle of relativity.
If the relativistic excess of positive charge on the wire, when seen by the
moving charge, is real enough to attract that charge to the wire, then this
same excess of positive charge should be real enough (again, when seen in the
reference frame of the moving charge) to attract more electrons along the wire
from the device that generates the current, in order to reestablish the zero
net charge that was there before the current was on~\cite{prob}.
Why does it not happen? The only possibility is that the wire and the current
generator, when seen from the reference frame of the moving charge, appear
{\em overall} positively charged (non-zero net charge in the whole system).
However, this generates a paradox that shall be discussed more extensively
in Section~\ref{se3}.
There are few doubts that Purcell's relativistic explanation is quite
impressive. However, can this same relativistic approach explain Amp\`ere's
force law between, for instance, two parallel wires passed through by currents
in opposite directions? Purcell gives an affirmative answer in that
regard. See, for instance, the Example and Fig.~5.23 on pages~263-264 in
\cite{pur}, where Purcell shows how his derivation ``explains the mutual
repulsion of conductors carrying currents in opposite directions''.
We believe that Purcell's approach probably explains why an electron moving in
one of the wires sees a repulsive force exerted by the other wire. If we
consider, for a moment, what an external observer at rest in the
same reference frame of the conduction electrons sees (the observer moves at
the same velocity of the conduction electrons), things become more intricate
in the two-wire case. According to this observer, the wires result overall
oppositely charged. We simply apply the contraction argument to both wires: in
the reference frame of the conduction electrons of a wire, that wire appears
overall positively charged, while the other wire, where conduction
electrons are seen to be moving faster than the associated positive charges,
appears overall negatively charged. Then, they should attract one another,
exactly the contrary of what Amp\`ere's force law and experience tell us.
The same discrepancy occurs in the case of two parallel wires carrying currents
in the same direction: from Amp\`ere's force law and laboratory experience we
expect attraction, while Purcell's approach predicts that in the reference
frame of the moving electrons both wires become overall positively charged and
then they should repel each other.
If to explain what happens between two current-carrying wires
we need to resort anyway to Amp\`ere's force law, then the
relativistic explanation of the magnetic force made by Purcell is not general
and thus it cannot be a basic, fundamental explanation of magnetic forces.
Amp\`ere's force is a magnetic force (closely related to the Lorentz force law)
and Purcell's approach cannot explain it with the sole relativistic
modification of the densities of the conduction electrons and the fixed
positive charges, as has been done to successfully explain the
Lorentz force law. The exclusive application of Purcell's relativistic
explanation predicts the opposite result and we need always to resort to
the Amp\`ere force law to match the observations.
In the following section, we provide a further simple argument against the
interpretation of Purcell's derivation as something that physically
happens in the wire.
\section{Superconducting ring paradox}
\label{se3}
Consider a superconducting ring of radius $R$ in which a direct current $I$
circulates clockwise. In the reference frame of the laboratory, the
ring is uncharged, $Q_{tot}=0$. The ring, when properly cooled, is able to
maintain the current with no applied voltage for years without any
measurable degradation\footnote{The fact that the ring is made of
superconducting material is not essential for the derivation of our main result.
One may also consider a ring made from metal with
extremely low ohmic resistance. In this case, the current will last only for a
few seconds.}. The current generates a magnetic field that
can be very intense. The current $I$ is the result of conduction electrons
moving counterclockwise.
Consider further a reference frame $S'$ with origin $O$ that coincides with
the center of the ring, and rotating counterclockwise with an angular velocity
$\omega=v/R$ with $v\ll c$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}). An observer at rest in $S'$ will
see the conduction electrons as slowed down and the lattice positive charges
of the ring as moving clockwise with velocity $v$. The centripetal acceleration
experienced by $S'$ can me made so small that we can treat this example with
the machinery of special relativity (for instance, for $v<1\,$m/s and
$R\gtrsim 1\,$m $a=\frac{v^2}{R}< 1\,$m/s$^2$). General relativity becomes
special relativity at the limit of a weak field.
If we apply Purcell's approach to the current in the ring, the observer in $S'$
will detect on the whole ring a net positive charge density equal to that
obtained in Section~\ref{se1}, eq.~(\ref{eq9}),
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{ring.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Superconducting ring and rotating reference frame $S'$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation*}
n'=n_+\frac{v^2/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}.
\label{eq13}
\end{equation*}
Here, in some sense, the observer is taking the place of the test particle
described in Section~\ref{se1}.
If we multiply $n'$ by the volume of the ring, we notice that in $S'$ the ring
is not uncharged, $Q'_{tot}\neq 0$ \footnote{The conclusion does not change if
in $S'$ we consider a Lorentz contracted ring volume.}.
This result is at odds with the universal principle of charge conservation in
isolated systems. The total charge of the ring must be the same in both
reference frames. What we have just shown represents also a corroboration
of the heuristic observations made in the first part of Section~\ref{se2} about
the electrical neutrality of a rectilinear wire in different reference frames.
For those who still complain that $S'$ is not an inertial frame and thus special
relativity cannot be applied, consider the following variant. The reference
frame $S'$ is now at rest and the ring is set in rotation clockwise with
angular velocity $\omega=v/R$. To an observer at rest in $S'$, the conduction
electrons in the ring appear as slowed down, while the lattice positive
charges move clockwise with velocity $v$.
By applying the contraction argument, this time from an inertial reference
frame, the ring appears overall positively charged to the observer in $S'$.
This is again in contradiction with the universal principle of charge
conservation in isolated systems. It is not possible to charge a neutral
current-carrying ring by simply setting it into rotation.
In physics, it is well known that one can generate a potential difference
between the center and the edge of a neutral metallic disk by simply setting
the disk into rotation, but the overall charge of the disk remains always zero
in this case.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{se4}
We have shown that it is not possible to completely (and exclusively) explain
the magnetic force experienced by a charge moving in a static magnetic field
with relativistic length contraction, as has been proposed by E.M.~Purcell in
the case of a field generated by a current-carrying wire.
His explanation results to be at odds with basic physics principles like the
conservation of total charge in isolated systems and even the principle of
relativity.
We maintain that, despite its suggestive agreement with the phenomenological
laws of magnetic forces (the Lorentz force law but not the Amp\`ere force law),
Purcell's basic explanation has only an illustrative and expository value and
cannot be considered as a real physical theory describing what happens in a
current-carrying wire. We believe that the difficulties pointed out here
should be explicitly presented and discussed when introducing Purcell's
approach in physics courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Electric and magnetic fields are interrelated, and this fact is implicit in
Maxwell's equations, but Purcell's relativistic explanation of this
interrelatedness does not work.
The Lorentz transformations of the electric and magnetic fields already tell
that a magnetic field Lorentz transforms into an electric field (and, by
necessity, also into a magnetic field since a purely magnetic field cannot be
transformed into a purely electric field). Here, though, we show that the
electric field coming from the Lorentz transformation of the purely magnetic
field generated by a current-carrying wire cannot be simply and
``mechanically'' explained with charge density unbalance in the wire
due to relativistic length contraction.
Our conclusions, although coming from an analysis limited to the very specific
approach of Purcell, agree with the allegedly more general result obtained by
Jefimenko~\cite{je} according to which neither the magnetic nor the electric
field is a relativistic effect.
\ack
The author is indebted to Dr.~Assunta Tataranni and Dr.~Gianpietro Summa for
key improvements of the manuscript. The author acknowledges anonymous
reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
This document provides a brief description of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) speaker recognition evaluation (SRE) \cite{greenberg2020two} conversational telephone speech (CTS) Superset. The CTS Superset has been created in an attempt to provide the research community with a large-scale dataset along with uniform metadata that can be used to effectively train and develop telephony (narrowband) speaker recognition systems. It contains a large number of telephony speech segments from more than 6800 speakers with speech durations distributed uniformly in the [10s, 60s] range. The segments have been extracted from the source corpora used to compile prior SRE datasets (SRE1996-2012), including the Greybeard corpus as well as the Switchboard and Mixer series collected by the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC\footnote{https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/}). In addition to the brief description, we also report speaker recognition results on the NIST 2020 CTS Speaker Recognition Challenge, obtained using a system trained with the CTS Superset. The results will serve as a reference baseline for the challenge.
\section{CTS Superset (LDC2021E08)}
The NIST SRE CTS Superset is the largest most comprehensive dataset available to date for telephony speaker recognition. It has been extracted from the source corpora (see Table~\ref{tab:source}) used to compile prior SRE datasets (SRE1996-2012). Table~\ref{tab:stats} summarizes the data statistics for the CTS Superset. There are a total of 605,760 segments originating from 6867 speakers (2885 male and 3992 female). Each segment contains approximately 10 to 60 seconds of speech \footnote{As determined using a speech activity detector (SAD).}, and each speaker has at least three sessions/calls (hence at least 3 segments). Note that some speakers appear in more than one source corpus, therefore the sum of the speakers in the table is greater than 6867. Although the vast majority of the segments in the CTS Superset are spoken in English (including both native and accented English), there are more than 50 languages represented in this dataset.
The procedure for extracting segments from the original sessions/calls is as follows; given a session of arbitrary duration (typically 5--12 minutes) and speech time marks generated using a speech activity detector (SAD), we start extracting non-overlapping segments by repeatedly sampling a speech duration from the uniform distribution [10, 60], until we exhaust the duration of that session.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Original source corpora used to create the NIST SRE CTS Superset}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Source corpus} & \textbf{LDC Catalog ID} & \textbf{corpusid} \\ \hline\hline
Switchboard1 release2 & LDC97S62 \cite{swb1} & swb1r2\\ \hline
Switchboard2 Phase I & LDC98S75 \cite{swb2p1} & swb2p1 \\ \hline
Switchboard2 Phase II & LDC99S79 \cite{swb2p2} & swb2p2 \\ \hline
Switchboard2 Phase III & LDC2002S06 \cite{swb2p3} & swb2p3 \\ \hline
Switchboard Cellular Part 1 & LDC2001S13 \cite{swbcellp1} & swbcellp1 \\ \hline
Switchboard Cellular Part2 & LDC2004S07 \cite{swbcellp2} & swbcellp2 \\ \hline
Mixer3 & LDC2021R03 \cite{ldc2007} & mx3 \\ \hline
Mixer4--5 & LDC2020S03 \cite{mx45} & mx45\\ \hline
Mixer6 & LDC 2013S03 \cite{mx6} & mx6 \\ \hline
Greybeard & LDC2013S05 \cite{gb1} & gb1\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:source}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Data statistics for the NIST SRE CTS Superset}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{corpusid} & \textbf{\#segments} & \textbf{\#speakers} & \textbf{\#sessions} \\ \hline\hline
swb1r2 & 26,282 & 442 & 4757 \\ \hline
swb2p1 & 33,746 & 566 & 7134 \\ \hline
swb2p2 & 41,982 & 649 & 8895 \\ \hline
swb2p3 & 22,865 & 548 & 5187 \\ \hline
swbcellp1 & 13,496 & 216 & 2560 \\ \hline
swbcellp2 & 20985 & 378 & 3966 \\ \hline
mx3 & 317,950 & 3033 & 37,759 \\ \hline
mx45 & 40,313 & 486 & 4997 \\ \hline
mx6 & 70,174 & 526 & 8727 \\ \hline
gb1 & 17,967 & 167 & 2188 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:stats}
\end{table}
The LDC2021E08 package contains the following items:
\begin{itemize}
\item Audio segments from 6867 subjects located in the \texttt{data/\{subjectids\}/} directories
\item Associated metadata located in the \texttt{docs/} directory
\end{itemize}
The metadata file contains information about the audio segments and includes the following fields:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{filename} (segment filename including the relative path)
\item \texttt{segmentid} (segment identifier)
\item \texttt{subjectid} (LDC speaker id)
\item \texttt{speakerid} (zero indexed numerical speaker id)
\item \texttt{speech\_duration} (segment speech duration)
\item \texttt{sessionid} (segment session/call identifier)
\item \texttt{corpusid} (corpus identifier as defined in Table~\ref{tab:source})
\item \texttt{phoneid} (anonymized phone number)
\item \texttt{gender} (male or female)
\item \texttt{language} (language spoken in the segment)
\end{itemize}
For future releases of the CTS Superset we plan to extend the source corpora to include Mixer 1, 2, and 7 as well.
\section{Speaker Recognition System}
In this section, we describe the baseline speaker recognition system setup including speech and non-speech data used for training the system components as well as the hyper-parameter configurations used. Figure~\ref{fig:blockdiag_xvec} shows a block diagram of the x-vector baseline system. The embedding extractor is trained using Pytorch\footnote{https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch}, while the NIST SLRE toolkit is used for front-end processing and back-end scoring.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55, clip, trim=70mm 80mm 50mm 50mm]{blockdiag_xvec}
\caption{Block diagram of the baseline system.}
\label{fig:blockdiag_xvec}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data}
The baseline system is developed using the CTS Superset described in the previous section. In order to increase the diversity of the acoustic conditions in the training set, two different data augmentation strategies are adopted. The first strategy uses noise-degraded (using babble, general noise, and music) versions of the original recordings, while the second strategy uses spectro-temporal masking applied directly on spectrograms (aka spectrogram augmentation \cite{specaug}). The noise samples for the first augmentation approach are extracted from the MUSAN corpus \cite{musan}. For spectrogram augmentation, the mild and strong policies described in \cite{specaug} are used.
\subsection{Configuration}
For speech parameterization, we extract 64-dimensional log-mel spectrograms from 25 ms frames every 10 ms using a 64-channel mel-scale filterbank spanning the frequency range 80~Hz--3800~Hz. After dropping the non-speech frames using SAD, a short-time cepstral mean subtraction is applied over a 3-second sliding window.
For embedding extraction, an extended TDNN \cite{snyder2019} with 11 hidden layers and parametric rectified linear unit (PReLU) non-linearities is trained to discriminate among the nearly 6800 speakers in the CTS Superset set. A cosine loss with additive margin \cite{cosface} is used in the output layer (with $m=0.2$ and $s=40$). The first 9 hidden layers operate at frame-level, while the last 2 operate at segment-level. There is a 3000-dimensional statistics pooling layer between the frame-level and segment-level layers that accumulates all frame-level outputs from the 9\textsuperscript{th} layer and computes the mean and standard deviation over all frames for an input segment. The model is trained using Pytorch and the stochastic gradient descent (SGD) optimizer with momentum ($0.9$), an initial learning rate of $10^{-1}$, and a batch size of $512$. The learning rate remains constant for the first $5$ epochs, after which it is halved every other epoch.
To train the network, a speaker-balanced sampling strategy is implemented where in each batch 512 unique speakers are selected, without replacement, from the pool of training speakers. Then, for each speaker, a random speech segment is selected from which a 400-frame (corresponding to 4 seconds) chunk is extracted for training. This process is repeated until the training samples are exhausted.
After training, embeddings are extracted from the 512-dimensional affine component of the 10\textsuperscript{th} layer (i.e., the first segment-level layer). Prior to dimensionality reduction through linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to 250, 512-dimensional embeddings are centered, whitened, and unit-length normalized. The centering and whitening statistics are computed using the CTS Superset data. For backend scoring, a Gaussian probabilistic LDA (PLDA) model with a full-rank Eigenvoice subspace is trained using the embeddings extracted from only the original (as opposed to degraded) speech segments in the CTS Superset. No parameter/domain adaptation or score normalization/calibration is applied.
\section{Results}
In this section, we present the experimental results on the NIST 2020 CTS Challenge progress and test sets obtained using the baseline system. Results are reported in terms of the equal error rate (EER) and the minimum cost (denoted as min\_C) and defined in the CTS Challenge evaluation plan \cite{ctsplan}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{NIST baseline system performance using on the 2020 CTS Challenge progress and test sets.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{System} & \textbf{Approach} & \textbf{Training Data} & \textbf{Backend} &\textbf{Set} & \textbf{EER [\%]} & \textbf{min\_C} \\
\hline\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{NIST baseline} & \multirow{4}{*}{x-vector} & \multirow{4}{*}{CTS Superset} & \multirow{2}{*}{Cosine} & Progress & 4.37 & 0.190 \\
& & & & Test & 4.74 & 0.206 \\\cline{4-7}
& & & \multirow{2}{*}{PLDA} & Progress & 4.62 & 0.221 \\
& & & & Test & 4.67 & 0.224 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tbl:results1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tbl:results1} summarizes the baseline results on the 2020 CTS Challenge progress and test sets. Note that no calibration is applied to the baseline system output. It is also worth emphasizing here that one could potentially exploit publicly available and/or proprietary data such as the VoxCeleb to further improve the performance; nevertheless, this is beyond the scope of the baseline system, and therefore not considered in this report.
\section{Acknowledgement}
Experiments and analyses were performed, in part, on the NIST Enki HPC cluser.
\section{Disclaimer}
The NIST baseline system was developed to support speaker recognition research. Comparison of systems and results against this system and its results are not to be construed or represented as endorsements of any participant's system or commercial product, or as official findings on the part of NIST or the U.S. Government. The reader of this report acknowledges that changes in the data domain and system configurations, or changes in the amount of data used to build a system, can greatly influence system performance.
Because of the above reasons, this system should not be used for commercial product testing and the results should not be used to make conclusions regarding which commercial products are best for a particular application.
\break
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this note we consider topics generalising the localisation technique and stemming from the optimal transport theory. Let us describe these connections.
\subsection{Optimal transport}
In 1781 Gaspard Monge (see \cite{Monge}) asked the following question: given two probability distributions $\mu,\nu$ on a metric space $(X,d)$, how to transfer one distribution onto the other in an optimal way. The criterion of optimality was to minimise the average transported distance. Since then the topic has been developed extensively and much of this development has been done recently. We refer the reader to the books of Villani (see \cite{Villani2}, \cite{Villani1}) and to the lecture notes of Ambrosio (see \cite{Ambrosio3}) for a thorough discussion, history and applications of the optimal transport problem.
The modern mathematical treatment of the problem has been initiated in 1942 by Kantorovich \cite{KantorovichURSS}, \cite{Kantorovich}. He proposed to consider a relaxed problem of optimising
\begin{equation*}
\int_{X\times X}d(x,y)d\pi(x,y)
\end{equation*}
among all transference plans $\pi$ between $\mu$ and $\nu$, i.e., the set $\Pi(\mu,\nu)$ of Borel probability measures on $X\times X$ with respective marginal distributions equal to $\mu$ and to $\nu$.
The existence of an optimal transference plan is a straightforward consequence of the Prokhorov's theorem, provided that $X$ is separable.
The main question that has attracted a lot of attention is whether there exists an optimal transport plan, i.e., a Borel map $T\colon X\to X$ such that $T_{\#}\mu=\nu$ and the integral
\begin{equation*}
\int_Xd(x,T(x))d\mu(x)
\end{equation*}
is minimal.
If we knew that an optimal transference plan is concentrated on a graph of a Borel measurable function then we could infer the existence of an optimal transport plan. The first complete answer on Euclidean space, under regularity assumptions on the considered measures, was presented in a seminal paper \cite{Evans-Gangbo} of Evans and Gangbo. However, before that, Sudakov in \cite{Sudakov} presented a solution of the problem that contained a flaw. The flaw has been remedied by Ambrosio in \cite{Ambrosio3} and later by Trudinger and Wang in \cite{Trudinger} for the Euclidean distance and by Caffarelli, Feldman and McCann in \cite{Caffarelli} for distances induced by norms that satisfy certain smoothness and convexity assumptions. In \cite{Caravenna1} Caravenna has carried out the original strategy of Sudakov for general strictly convex norms and eventually Bianchini and Daneri in \cite{Bianchini1} accomplished the plan of a proof of Sudakov for general norms on finite-dimensional normed spaces. Let us note here also a paper \cite{Caravenna2}, which deals with a related problem in the context of faces of convex functions.
Let us describe briefly the strategy of Sudakov in the context of Euclidean spaces. We assume that the two Borel probability measures $\mu,\nu$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
Let us recall the paramount Kantorovich--Rubinstein duality formula
\begin{equation*}
\sup\Big\{\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}u d(\mu-\nu)\mid u\text{ is }1\text{-Lipschitz}\Big\}=\inf\Big\{\int_{\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n}\norm{x-y}d\pi(x,y)\mid \pi\in\Pi(\mu,\nu)\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
Let us take an optimal $u$ and an optimal $\pi$ in the two above optimisation problems. We may infer that
\begin{equation*}
u(x)-u(y)=\norm{x-y}\text{ for }\pi\text{-almost every }(x,y)\in X\times X.
\end{equation*}
Consider the maximal sets on which $u$ is an isometry, called the \emph{transport rays}. We see that all transport has to occur on these sets. Careful analysis of the Lipschitz function $u$ shows that the transport rays form a foliation of the underlying space $\mathbb{R}^n$, up to Lebesgue measure zero. It turns out that the direction of the transport rays is itself locally Lipschitz. This allows us to use of the area formula, which yields that the conditional measures of the disintegration of the Lebesgue measure with respect to the aforementioned foliation are absolutely continuous with respect to the one-dimensional Hausdorff measures on the transport rays. This is exactly the place where Sudakov's proof in \cite{Sudakov} contained a defect. He claimed that any foliation into segments is such that the conditional measures are absolutely continuous with respect to the one-dimensional Hausdorff measure. It was later shown by Ambrosio, Kirchheim and Preiss (see \cite{Ambrosio2}) that there exists a foliation consisting of segments and an atomic distributions on each segment such that the averaged measure is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, refuting the claim of Sudakov.
Knowing that the conditional measures are absolutely continuous with respect to the one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, we may apply the well understood one-dimensional theory, where an optimal transport plan is known to exist and may be given by a certain formula, provided that at least one of the measures is non-atomic.
Then the optimal transport plan on the whole space is defined separately on each transport ray.
The ideas of Sudakov have been applied also to other settings than normed spaces. The strategy has been carried out also in the context of Riemannian manifolds by Feldman and McCann in \cite{Feldman}.
\subsection{Localisation technique}
In \cite{Klartag} Klartag has observed that the above described strategy of Sudakov, in its instances in works of Caffarelli, Feldman and McCann \cite{Caffarelli} and of Feldman and McCann \cite{Feldman}, may be applied to adapt the \emph{localisation technique} from convex geometry to the setting of Riemannian manifolds.
The technique allows to reduce certain high dimensional problems with one linear constraint to a collection of one-dimensional problems with an analogous constraint.
Let us include a brief description of the technique based on \cite{Klartag}.
It first appeared in works of Payne and Weinberger \cite{Payne} and was developed in the context of convex geometry by Gromov and Milman \cite{Gromov}, Lov\'asz and Simonovits \cite{Lovasz1} and by Kannan, Lov\'asz and Simonovits \cite{Lovasz2}. Later, Klartag \cite{Klartag} adapted the technique to the setting of weighted Riemannian manifolds satisfying the curvature-dimension condition in the sense of Bakry and \'Emery \cite{Bakry1}, \cite{Bakry}. Subsequently, Ohta \cite{Ohta} generalised these results to Finsler manifolds and Cavalletti and Mondino \cite{Cavalletti3}, \cite{Cavalletti2} generalised them to metric measure spaces satisfying the synthetic curvature-dimension condition. The latter was introduced in the foundational papers by Sturm \cite{Sturm1}, \cite{Sturm2} and by Lott and Villani \cite{Villani3} and allowed for development of a far-reaching, vast theory of metric measure spaces. The curvature-dimension condition may be thought of as lower bound on the curvature and an upper bound on the dimension of the considered space. We refer also to Ambrosio \cite{Ambrosio4} for a recent account on the spaces satisfying the curvature-dimension condition. Let us note that the curvature-dimension condition is also related to Bochner's inequality; see \cite{Sturm3}.
The technique developed by Payne and Weinberger has no clear analogue for an abstract Riemannian manifold. This is the point where the optimal transport plays its r\^ole in localisation. Let us cite below a theorem from \cite{Klartag}, presented there in a general setting of Riemannian manifolds and measures that satisfy the curvature-dimension condition; see Definition \ref{defin:curv}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:localisation}
Let $n\geq 2$, $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$ and $N\in (-\infty,1)\cup[n,\infty]$. Assume that $(\mathcal{M},d,\mu)$ is a geodesically convex, $n$-dimensional weighted Riemannian manifold satisfying the curvature-dimension condition $CD(\kappa,N)$ w. Let $g\colon \mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a $\mu$-integrable function such that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathcal{M}}gd\mu=0\text{ and }\int_{\mathcal{M}}\abs{g(x)}d(x,x_0)d\mu(x)<\infty\text{ for some }x_0\in\mathcal{M}.
\end{equation*}
Then there exists a partition $\Omega$ of $\mathcal{M}$ into pairwise disjoint sets, a measure $\nu$ on $\Omega$ and a family $(\mu_I)_{I\in\Omega}$ of measures on $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item\label{i:mixture} for any Lebesgue measurable set $A\subset\mathcal{M}$ the map $I\mapsto \mu_I(A)$ is well-defined $\nu$-almost everywhere, is $\nu$-measurable and
\begin{equation*}
\mu(A)=\int_{\Omega}\mu_I(A)d\nu(I),
\end{equation*}
\item\label{i:geodesic} for $\nu$-almost every $I\in\Omega$ the set $I\subset\mathcal{M}$ is a minimising geodesic and $\mu_I$ is supported on $I$ and is a $CD(\kappa,N)$-needle or else it is a singleton,
\item\label{i:balance} for $\nu$-almost every $I\in\Omega$ we have $\int_Igd\mu_I=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Let us remark that the above theorem has been known before in the context of Euclidean spaces. Let us note that the proof presented in \cite{Klartag} differs much from the previously known proofs of Gromov \cite{Gromov} or of Lov\'asz and Simonovits \cite{Lovasz1}, which employed the Borsuk--Ulam theorem.
The purposes of this article is to continue along this line of research and investigate multi-dimensional analogue of the localisation technique, as proposed in \cite[Chapter 6]{Klartag}, thus further generalising ideas of Sudakov.
To this end, we shall consider finite-dimensional linear spaces equipped with Euclidean norm and $1$-Lipschitz map $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$. In Section \ref{sec:partition} we define a partition of $\mathbb{R}^n$, up to a set of Lebesgue measure zero, associated to such a map and prove its basic properties; see Lemma \ref{lem:diff}, Lemma \ref{lem:boundary}, Corollary \ref{col:unique}. The elements of the partition are maximal sets $\mathcal{S}$ such that the restriction of $u$ to $\mathcal{S}$ is an isometry, i.e. preserves the Euclidean distance. Each such set we shall call a \emph{leaf} of $u$. We prove that each leaf of $u$ is closed and convex (see Corollary \ref{col:convex}) hence it has a well-defined dimension. This is a multi-dimensional generalisation of \ref{i:geodesic}) of Theorem \ref{thm:localisation} and of the ideas concerning transport rays from optimal transport. Thanks to Lemma \ref{lem:important} and Corollary \ref{col:strength} we will provide a significantly simpler proof of Lemma \ref{lem:efge} than the proof of the analogous result in \cite{Caffarelli}.
In Theorem \ref{thm:dis} we show that we may decompose the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ into a mixture of measures, each supported on a leaf of $u$. In particular, the same is true for any measure $\mu$ such that $(\mathbb{R}^n,\norm{\cdot},\mu)$ satisfies the $CD(\kappa,N)$ condition, as any such measure is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. It is a step towards a conjecture of Klartag \cite[Chapter 6]{Klartag} and a generalisation of \ref{i:mixture}) of Theorem \ref{thm:localisation}.
Suppose now that $m\leq n$ and that $(\mathbb{R}^n,\norm{\cdot},\mu)$ is a weighted Riemannian manifold, satisfying the curvature-dimension condition $CD(\kappa,N)$ for some $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$ and $N\in (-\infty,1)\cup [n,\infty]$; see Definition \ref{defin:curv}. Here $\norm{\cdot}$ denotes the Euclidean metric on $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mu$ is a Borel finite measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$.
A partial affirmative answer to the conjecture of Klartag is provided by Theorem \ref{thm:discd}, where we prove that, for the leaves $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ of dimension $m$, the conditional measures $\mu_{\mathcal{S}}$ are supported on the relative interiors $\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}$ and are such that $(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S},\norm{\cdot},\mu_{\mathcal{S}})$ satisfies $CD(\kappa,N)$. This further developes the generalisation of \ref{i:geodesic}) of Theorem \ref{thm:localisation}.
Note that in \cite[Chapter 6]{Klartag}, it is conjectured that also the above theorem holds true also for leaves of $u$ of arbitrary dimension.
Let us note that Theorem \ref{thm:discd}, described above, proves in particular that if we disintegrate the Lebesgue measure with respect to the partition obtained from a $1$-Lipschitz map, then $(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S},\norm{\cdot},\mu_{\mathcal{S}})$ will satisfy the curvature-dimension condition $CD(0,n)$ for leaves $\mathcal{S}$ of dimension $m$. This complements the results of \cite{Ambrosio3}, \cite{Sudakov}; see also \cite{Caravenna1}, \cite{Caravenna2} and \cite{Bianchini1}. Note that our result tells in particular that the conditional measures are equivalent to the $m$-dimensional Hausdorff measure, which provides a strengthening of the previously known results. Note also that the condition $CD(0,\infty)$ is equivalent to log-concavity of the considered measure.
The possible applications of the results of the article are in the localisation or dimensional reduction arguments, where the disintegration is an effective tool. A similar result to ours in case $m=1$ has been used to derive new proofs and generalisations of isoperimetric inequality, Poincar\'e's inequality and others to the setting of metric measure spaces satisfying curvature bounds. We refer the reader to \cite{Cavalletti3}, \cite{Cavalletti2}, \cite{Klartag}, \cite{Ohta}.
The proof relies on the area formula and Fubini's theorem and is based on a work of Caffarelli, Feldman and McCann \cite{Caffarelli} and of Klartag \cite{Klartag}. See also \cite{Ambrosio3} and \cite{Feldman} for similar approach to the Monge--Kantorovich problem.
Another tool that we use is the Wijsman topology \cite{Wijsman} on the convex and closed subsets $CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$ which makes it a Polish space, so we may apply disintegration theorem. This use is inspired by a paper of Ob\l\'oj and Siorpares \cite{Siorpaes}.
Let us mention here a development \cite{Ciosmak1}, where a generalisation of optimal transport to vector measures is studied. In there, it is shown that the mass-balance condition, of vital importance for the classical optimal transport problem, does not hold for absolutely continuous vector measures, thus resolving another conjecture of Klartag \cite[Chapter 6]{Klartag} in the negative. This is to say, the proposed generalisation of \ref{i:balance}) of Theorem \ref{thm:localisation} does not hold true in the multiple-dimensional setting. Let us note that the outline of a proof from \cite{Klartag} of the conjecture has a gap, as follows by the results of \cite{Ciosmak}.
\subsection{Waist inequalities}
The waist inequality, proved by Gromov \cite{Gromov3}, \cite{Gromov2}, states that if $f\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$, $m\leq n$ is a continuous function, then there exists $t\in\mathbb{R}^m$ such that the fibre $L=f^{-1}(t)$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_n(L+rB_n)\geq \gamma_m(rB_m)\text{ for all }r>0.
\end{equation*}
Here $\gamma_n$ and $\gamma_m$ are the $n$ and $m$ dimensional standard Gaussian measures, $B_n$ and $B_m$ are the unit balls in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathbb{R}^m$ respectively. This inequality may be seen as a generalisation of the Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. Gromov \cite{Gromov2} has provided a proof of this inequality with use of the localisation method \cite{Gromov3}, \cite{Lovasz2}, \cite{Lovasz1}, \cite{Payne} combined with a Borsuk--Ulam type theorem. Later, Klartag \cite{Klartag2} has proved the theorem for the unit cube also with use of localisation methods, confirming a conjecture of Guth \cite{Guth}.
One of the future possible applications of the research initiated in this article is to prove a general version of the inequality for spaces satisfying the curvature-dimension condition. This would imply the version for convex bodies and, in turn, would help answering the Bourgain’s hyperplane conjecture \cite{Bourgain} and the isoperimetric conjecture of Kannan, Lov\'{a}sz and Simonovits \cite{Lovasz2}.
\subsection{Multi-bubble conjectures}
The Gaussian multi-bubble conjecture is a generalisation of isoperimetric inequality that states that among all decompositions of $\mathbb{R}^n$ into $2\leq k\leq n+1$ sets of prescribed Gaussian measure the minimal Gaussian-weighted perimeter is uniquely attained by the Voronoi cells of $k$ equidistant points. The conjecture has been recently confirmed by E. Milman and Neeman \cite{Milman2} (c.f. \cite{Milman1}). Another possible application of the multi-dimensional localisation is a generalisation of this inequality for spaces satisfying the curvature-dimension condition.
\subsection{Outiline of the article}
In Section \ref{sec:partition} we provide a definition of the partition associated to any $1$-Lipschitz map $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$. We prove that certain components of $u$ are differentiable on certain leaves, see Lemma \ref{lem:diff}. Moreover we investigate the regularity of the derivative on the leaves and provide a strengthening of $1$-Lipschitz property of $u$; see Lemma \ref{lem:important} and Remark \ref{rmk:strength}.
See also Lemma \ref{lem:boundary}, Corollary \ref{col:unique} for results concerning disjointness of the elements of the partition.
In Section \ref{sec:varia} we define a Lipschitz change of variables on so-called clusters of leaves, that will allow us to use the area formula and then Fubini's theorem to prove the regularity properties of the conditional measures; see Lemma \ref{lem:efge}.
In Section \ref{sec:measur} we prove measurability properties of the partition; see Corollary \ref{col:borel}. We also prove that the union of boundaries of leaves of maximal dimension is a Borel set of the Lebsegue measure zero; see Lemma \ref{lem:measurable}. The material included here concerning leaves of non-maximal dimension is not employed in further investigations.
In Section \ref{sec:disin} we provide a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dis}, that the partition induces a disintegration of the Lebesgue measure.
In Section \ref{sec:curv} we prove that the weighted Riemannian manifolds $(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S},d,\mu_{\mathcal{S}})$ satisfy the curvature-dimension condition, provided that $(\mathbb{R}^n, d, \mu)$ did; see Theorem \ref{thm:discd}. This partially resolves in the affirmative a conjecture of Klartag \cite[Chapter 6]{Klartag}.
\section{Partition and its regularity}\label{sec:partition}
If $A\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ let us denote by $\mathrm{Conv}A$ the \emph{convex hull} of $A$, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{Conv}A=\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i x_i\mid k\in\mathbb{N},\lambda_1,\dotsc,\lambda_k\geq 0, \sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_i=1,x_1,\dotsc,x_k\in A\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
We define the \emph{affine hull} $\mathrm{Aff}A$ of a set $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ to be
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{Aff}A=\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i x_i\mid k\in\mathbb{N},\lambda_1,\dotsc,\lambda_k\in\mathbb{R}, \sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_i=1,x_1,\dotsc,x_k\in A\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:coordinates2}
Let $z_1,\dotsc,z_k\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
Let $x,y\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Suppose that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{x-z_i}\leq\norm{y-z_i},
\end{equation*}
for $i=1,\dotsc, k$. Then for all $z\in\mathrm{Conv}\{z_1,\dotsc.z_k\}$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\norm{x-z}\leq\norm{y-z}.
\end{equation*}
In particular, if $y\in\mathrm{Conv}\{z_1,\dotsc.z_k\}$, then $x=y$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
\begin{equation*}
Z=\mathrm{Conv}\{z_1,\dotsc,z_k\}.
\end{equation*}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{x}^2+\norm{z_i}^2-2\langle x,z_i\rangle\leq \norm{y}^2+\norm{z_i}^2-2\langle y,z_i\rangle
\end{equation*}
for all $i=1,\dotsc,k$. Hence, for these $i$'s, we have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{x}^2-2\langle x,z_i\rangle\leq\norm{y}^2-2\langle y,z_i\rangle
\end{equation*}
Thus, adding up these inequalities multiplied by non-negative coefficients that sum up to one, we get
\begin{equation*}
\norm{x}^2-2\langle x,z\rangle\leq\norm{y}^2-2\langle y,z\rangle
\end{equation*}
for all $z\in Z$. Hence also
\begin{equation*}
\norm{x-z}\leq\norm{y-z}.
\end{equation*}
Putting $z=y$ yields $\norm{x-y}=0$.
\end{proof}
Let $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$. We shall say that a map $v\colon A\to\mathbb{R}^m$ is an isometry provided that for all $x,y\in A$ there is $\norm{v(x)-v(y)}=\norm{x-y}$.
\begin{definition}
Let $u\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map. A set $\mathcal{S}\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is called a \emph{leaf} of $u$ if $u|_{\mathcal{S}}$ is an isometry and for any $y\notin \mathcal{S}$ there exists $x\in\mathcal{S}$ such that $\norm{u(y)-u(x)}<\norm{y-x}$.
\end{definition}
In other words, $\mathcal{S}$ is a leaf if it is a maximal set, with respect to the order induced by inclusion, such that $u|_{\mathcal{S}}$ is an isometry.
\begin{definition}
If $C\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a convex set, then we shall call the \emph{tangent space} of $C$ the linear space $\mathrm{Aff}(C)-\mathrm{Aff}(C)$.
We shall call the \emph{relative interior} of $C$ the relative interior with respect to the topology of $\mathrm{Aff}(C)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:unique}
Let $\mathcal{S}\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be an arbitrary subset. Let $u\colon \mathcal{S}\to \mathbb{R}^m$ be an isometry. Then there exists a unique $1$-Lipschitz function $\tilde{u}\colon \mathrm{Conv}(\mathcal{S})\to \mathbb{R}^m$ such that $\tilde{u}|_{\mathcal{S}}=u$. Moreover $\tilde{u}$ is an isometry.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that, by the polarisation formula, $u$ preserves the scalar product, that is for all points $p,q,r,s\in \mathcal{S}$ there is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:polarisation}
\begin{aligned}
&\langle u(p)-u(q), u(r)-u(s)\rangle =\\
&=\frac 12 \big( \norm{u(p)-u(s)}^2+\norm{u(q)-u(r)}^2-\norm{u(p)-u(r)}^2-\norm{u(q)-u(s)}^2\big)=\\
&=\frac 12 \big( \norm{p-s}^2+\norm{q-r}^2-\norm{p-r}^2-\norm{q-s}^2\big)=\langle p-q,r-s\rangle.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Suppose that $y_1,\dotsc,y_k, z_1,\dotsc, z_l\in \mathcal{S}$ and that $s_1,\dotsc,s_k$, $t_1,\dotsc,t_l$ are non-negative real numbers such that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^ks_i=\sum_{j=1}^l t_j=1.
\end{equation*}
Then, by (\ref{eqn:polarisation}),
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:affinity}
\begin{aligned}
&\Big\lVert\sum_{i=1}^k s_iu(y_i)-\sum_{j=1}^lt_j u(z_j)\Big\rVert^2=\Big\lVert\sum_{i=1}^k\sum_{j=1}^l s_it_j(u(y_i)-u(z_j))\Big\rVert^2=\\
&=\sum_{i,i'=1}^k\sum_{j,j'=1}^l s_is_{i'}t_jt_{j'} \langle u(y_i)-u(z_j),u(y_{i'})-u(z_{j'})\rangle=\\
&=\sum_{i,i'=1}^k\sum_{j,j'=1}^l s_is_{i'}t_jt_{j'} \langle y_i-z_j,y_{i'}-z_{j'}\rangle=\Big\lVert\sum_{i=1}^k s_iy_i-\sum_{j=1}^lt_jz_j\Big\rVert^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We may now affinely extend $u$ to $\mathrm{Conv}(\mathcal{S})$. That is, if $x_1,\dotsc,x_k\in \mathcal{S}$ and $s_1,\dotsc,s_k$ are any non-negative real numbers that sum up to one, we set
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{u}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^k s_ix_i\bigg)=\sum_{i=1}^k s_iu(x_i).
\end{equation*}
Now, (\ref{eqn:affinity}) shows that $\tilde{u}$ is a well-defined affine map on $\mathrm{Conv}(\mathcal{S})$ and that it is an isometry.
Suppose now that we have another $1$-Lipschitz extension $v\colon \mathrm{Conv}(\mathcal{S})\to\mathbb{R}^m$. To prove that $v=\tilde{u}$ it is enough to show that $v$ is affine. Choose non-negative real numbers $s_1,\dotsc,s_k$ summing up to one and any points $x_1,\dotsc,x_k\in \mathcal{S}$.
Then, by $1$-Lipschitzness and by the fact that $v$ is isometric on $\mathcal{S}$, we get, as in (\ref{eqn:affinity}),
\begin{equation*}
\Big\lVert v\Big(\sum_{i=1}^ks_ix_i\Big)-v(x_j)\Big\rVert\leq \Big\lVert \sum_{i=1}^ks_ix_i-x_j\Big\rVert =\Big\lVert\sum_{i=1}^ks_iv(x_i)-v(x_j)\Big\rVert.
\end{equation*}
By Lemma \ref{lem:coordinates2} we see that
\begin{equation*}
v\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^ks_ix_i\bigg)=\sum_{i=1}^ks_iv(x_i).
\end{equation*}
It follows that $v$ is affine on $\mathrm{Conv}(\mathcal{S})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{col:convex}
Any leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ is a closed convex set and $u|_{\mathcal{S}}$ is an affine isometry.
\end{corollary}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a leaf of $u$. Let $P$ denote the orthogonal projection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ onto the tangent space $V$ of $\mathcal{S}$. Let
\begin{equation*}
T\colon V\to\mathbb{R}^m
\end{equation*}
be a linear isometry such that
\begin{equation*}
u(x)-u(y)=T(x-y)
\end{equation*}
for any $x,y\in\mathcal{S}$. Let $Q$ denote the orthogonal projection of $\mathbb{R}^m$ onto $T(V)$.
Below by $\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}$, $\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{S}$, $\partial\mathcal{S}$ we understand the relative interior, the relative closure and the relative boundary of $\mathcal{S}$ respectively.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:important}
Let $u\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map. Let $\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2$ be two leaves of $u$. Let $V_1,V_2$ be their respective tangent spaces and let $P_1,P_2$ be orthogonal projections onto $V_1,V_2$ respectively. Let $T_1,T_2$ be isometric maps such that
\begin{equation*}
u(x)-u(y)=T_i(x-y)\text{ for all }x,y\in\mathcal{S}_i, i=1,2.
\end{equation*}
Let $x_i\in\mathcal{S}_i$ and $\sigma_i=\mathrm{dist}(x_i,\partial \mathcal{S}_i)$ for $i=1,2$. Then
\begin{equation*}
2\sigma_1\sigma_2\norm{P_1P_2-P_1T_1^*T_2P_2}\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2,
\end{equation*}
and for $i=1,2$
\begin{equation*}
2\sigma_i\norm{P_iT_i^*(u(x_1)-u(x_2))-P_i(x_1-x_2)}\leq\norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $y_i\in\mathcal{S}_i$ for $i=1,2$. Let $v_i=y_i-x_i$ for $i=1,2$. Then we may write
\begin{equation*}
u(y_1)-u(y_2)=u(x_1)-u(x_2)+T_1v_1-T_2v_2.
\end{equation*}
Hence $\norm{u(y_1)-u(y_2)}^2$ is equal to
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2+\norm{v_1}^2+\norm{v_2}^2+2\langle u(x_1)-u(x_2),T_1v_1-T_2v_2\rangle-2\langle T_1v_1,T_2v_2\rangle.
\end{equation*}
We also have
\begin{equation*}
y_1-y_2=x_1-x_2+v_1-v_2,
\end{equation*}
yielding
\begin{equation*}
\norm{y_1-y_2}^2=\norm{x_1-x_2}^2+\norm{v_1}^2+\norm{v_2}^2+2\langle x_1-x_2,v_1-v_2\rangle-2\langle v_1,v_2\rangle.
\end{equation*}
As $u$ is $1$-Lipschitz, $\norm{u(y_1)-u(y_2)}\leq\norm{y_1-y_2}$. By the two identities above we get therefore that
\begin{equation*}
2\langle v_1,v_2\rangle-2\langle T_1v_1,T_2v_2\rangle+2\langle u(x_1)-u(x_2),T_1v_1-T_2v_2\rangle-2\langle x_1-x_2,v_1-v_2\rangle
\end{equation*}
is bounded above by
\begin{equation*}
\norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2.
\end{equation*}
Suppose that $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$ are both positive. As $y_1,y_2$ were arbitrary points of $\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2$ respectively, the above inequality holds true for any $v_1\in V_1$ and any $v_2\in V_2$ of norm at most $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ respectively. If we add two such inequalities with $v_1,v_2$ replaced by $-v_1,-v_2$ then we get that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inequalityimportant}
2\langle v_1,v_2\rangle-2\langle T_1v_1,T_2v_2\rangle\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2.
\end{equation}
Equivalently, for any $w_1,w_2\in\mathbb{R}^n$ of norm at most one, we have
\begin{equation*}
2\sigma_1\sigma_2\big\langle w_1,(P_1P_2-P_1T_1^*T_2P_2)w_2\big\rangle\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2.
\end{equation*}
Taking supremum over all $w_1,w_2\in\mathbb{R}^n$ of norm at most one yields the first desired inequality.
For the next inequalities, we assume that $\sigma_2>0$ and we take $v_1=0$ to get that
\begin{equation*}
-2\langle u(x_1)-u(x_2),T_2v_2\rangle+2\langle x_1-x_2,v_2\rangle\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2.
\end{equation*}
Analogously for $v_2=0$ and $\sigma_1>0$
\begin{equation*}
2\langle u(x_1)-u(x_2),T_1v_1\rangle-2\langle x_1-x_2,v_1\rangle\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2.
\end{equation*}
Hence for any $w_1,w_2\in\mathbb{R}^n$ of norm at most one there is
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_2\Big\langle\big( P_2T_2^*\big(u(x_1)-u(x_2)\big)-P_2(x_1-x_2)\big),w_2\Big\rangle\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_1\Big\langle\big( P_1T_1^*\big(u(x_1)-u(x_2)\big)-P_1(x_1-x_2)\big),w_1\Big\rangle\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2.
\end{equation*}
Taking suprema over $w_1,w_2$ in the unit ball of $\mathbb{R}^n$ yields the desired results.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:strength}
Lemma \ref{lem:important} tells us that if $x_1,x_2$ belong to relative interiors of leaves $\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2$ respectively, then the $1$-Lipschitzness of map $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ is strengthened to the condition that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2+2\sigma_1\sigma_2\norm{P_1P_2-P_1T_1^*T_2P_2}\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2
\end{equation*}
for all $x_1\in\mathcal{S}_1$ and all $x_2\in\mathcal{S}_2$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:diff}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a leaf of a $1$-Lipschitz map $u\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$. Then $Qu$ is differentiable in the relative interior of $\mathcal{S}$. Moreover, if $z_0$ belongs to the relative interior of $\mathcal{S}$, then
\begin{equation*}
DQu(z_0)=TP.
\end{equation*}
If $u$ is differentiable in $z_0$ for some $z_0\in\mathcal{S}$, then
\begin{equation*}
QDu(z_0)=TP.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $Q=TT^*$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{lem:important}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
2\sigma \norm{Q (u(z_1)-u(z_0))-TP(z_1-z_0)}\leq \norm{z_1-z_0}^2-\norm{u(z_1)-u(z_0)}^2.
\end{equation*}
for all $z_0\in\mathcal{S}$ and $z_1\in\mathbb{R}^n$. Here $\sigma=\mathrm{dist}(z_0,\partial\mathcal{S})$. Hence if $\sigma>0$ we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{z_1\to z_0} \frac{\norm{Q(u(z_1)-u(z_0))-TP(z_1-z_0)}}{\norm{z_1-z_0}}\leq \limsup_{z_1\to z_0} \frac{\norm{z_1-z_0}}{2\sigma}=0.
\end{equation*}
This yields the asserted differentiability.
Now, suppose that $u$ is differentiable at $z_0\in\mathcal{S}$. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:important} we see that for all $z_2\in \mathcal{S}$ and $z_1\in\mathbb{R}^n$ we have
\begin{equation*}
2\big\langle T^*(u(z_0)-u(z_1))-(z_0-z_1),z_2-z_0\big\rangle\leq \norm{z_1-z_0}^2-\norm{u(z_1)-u(z_0)}^2.
\end{equation*}
Take any $w\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and let $z_1=z_0-tw$, $t> 0$. Then the above inequality implies that
\begin{equation*}
\Big\langle T^*\Big(\frac{u(z_0)-u(z_0-tw)}{t}\Big)-w,z_2-z_0\Big\rangle\leq \frac{t\norm{w}^2}2.
\end{equation*}
Letting $t$ tend to zero yields
\begin{equation*}
\langle T^* Du(z_0)w-w,z_2-z_0\rangle\leq 0.
\end{equation*}
As this holds true for any $w\in\mathbb{R}^n$, applying this inequality to $-w$, we infer that the above inequality is an equality, i.e. for all $w\in\mathbb{R}^n$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\langle T^* Du(z_0)w-w,z_2-z_0\rangle= 0.
\end{equation*}
If follows that for all $v\in \mathrm{span}\{z_2-z_0\mid z_2\in\mathcal{S}\}=V$
\begin{equation*}
\langle T^* Du(z_0)w-w,v\rangle= 0,
\end{equation*}
and, consequently, for all such $v$ there is $\langle Q Du(z_0)w- TPw, Tv\rangle=0$. The assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{col:diff}
Suppose that $\mathcal{S}$ is of dimension $m$. Then $u$ is differentiable in the relative interior of $\mathcal{S}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If the dimension of $\mathcal{S}$ is $m$, then the respective orthogonal projection $Q$ is the identity. The claim follows now by Lemma \ref{lem:diff}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{col:strength}
Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map. Let $x_i\in\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}_i$ belong to the relative interior of leaf $\mathcal{S}_i$ of $u$, for $i=1,2$. Let $\sigma_i=\mathrm{dist}(\partial\mathcal{S}_i,x_i)$ for $i=1,2$. Then for any $s_1,s_2\in\mathbb{R}^n$ of norm at most one there is
\begin{equation*}
\big|\norm{P_1s_1-P_2s_2}^2-\norm{Du(x_1)s_1-Du(x_2)s_2}^2\big|\leq\frac{\norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2}{2\sigma_1\sigma_2}.
\end{equation*}
Here $P_i$ denote the orthogonal projection onto the tangent subspace of the leaf $\mathcal{S}_i$ for $i=1,2$.
Moreover for any $w_1,w_2\in\mathbb{R}^m$ of norm at most one there is
\begin{equation*}
\big|\norm{Q_1w_1-Q_2w_2}^2-\norm{\big(DQ_1u(x_1)\big)^*w_1-\big(DQ_2u(x_2)\big)^*w_2}^2\big|\leq \frac{\norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2}{2\sigma_1\sigma_2}.
\end{equation*}
Here $Q_i$ denote the orthogonal projection onto the image of $T_i$, for $i=1,2$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Formula (\ref{eqn:inequalityimportant}), Lemma \ref{lem:important}, tells us that for any $v_1\in V_1$ and any $v_2\in V_2$ of norm at most one, there is
\begin{equation*}
\big|\norm{v_1-v_2}^2-\norm{T_1v_1-T_2v_2}^2\big|\leq\frac{\norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2}{2\sigma_1\sigma_2}.
\end{equation*}
Lemma \ref{lem:diff} tells us that $DQ_iu(x_i)=T_iP_i$ for $i=1,2$. Hence the first asserted inequality follows.
Let $v_i=(T_iP_i)^*w_i$ for $w_i\in \mathbb{R}^m$, $i=1,2$, of norm at most one. Then the above formula yields
\begin{equation*}
\big|\norm{(T_1P_1)^*w_1-(T_2P_2)^*w_2}^2-\norm{Q_1w_1-Q_2w_2}^2\big|\leq\frac{\norm{x_1-x_2}^2-\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2}{2\sigma_1\sigma_2}.
\end{equation*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:boundary}
Let $\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2$ be two distinct leaves of a $1$-Lipschitz map $u\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_2\subset\partial\mathcal{S}_1\cap\partial\mathcal{S}_2.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We shall first show that there is no point belonging to $ \mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}_1\cap \mathcal{S}_2$.
For this, suppose that $x_0\in\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_2$. Let $x_1\in\mathcal{S}_1$ and $x_2\in\mathcal{S}_2$. There exists isometries $T_1$ and $T_2$ on the tangent spaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ respectively such that
\begin{equation*}
u(x_1)-u(x_0)=T_1(x_1-x_0)\text{ and }u(x_2)-u(x_0)=T_2(x_2-x_0).
\end{equation*}
We may write
\begin{align*}
&\norm{x_1-x_0}^2+\norm{x_2-x_0}^2-2\langle T_1(x_1-x_0),T_2(x_2-x_0)\rangle=\norm{u(x_1)-u(x_2)}^2 \leq\\
&\leq \norm{x_1-x_2}^2=\norm{x_1-x_0}^2+\norm{x_2-x_0}^2-2\langle x_1-x_0,x_2-x_0\rangle.
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{equation*}
\langle x_1-x_0,x_2-x_0\rangle\leq \langle T_1(x_1-x_0),T_2(x_2-x_0)\rangle.
\end{equation*}
As $x_0\in\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}_1$ and the inequality holds true for all $x_1\in\mathcal{S}_1$, we actually have equality above for $x_1$ sufficiently close to $x_0$.
It follows that for all $v_1\in V_1$ and $v_2\in V_2$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:eqiso}
\langle v_1,v_2\rangle=\langle T_1v_1,T_2v_2\rangle.
\end{equation}
Hence, there exists an isometry that extends both $T_1$ and $T_2$.
Indeed, define a linear map
\begin{equation*}
S\colon V_1+V_2 \to\mathbb{R}^m
\end{equation*}
by the formula
\begin{equation*}
S(v_1+v_2)=T_1(v_1)+T_2(v_2)\text{ for }v_1\in V_1, v_2\in V_2.
\end{equation*}
We claim that $S$ is a well-defined isometry. Indeed, by (\ref{eqn:eqiso}) and by orthogonality we see that if $v_2\in V_1\cap V_2$, then
\begin{equation*}
\norm{v_2}^2=\langle T_1v_2,T_2v_2\rangle
\end{equation*}
which implies, by the equality cases in the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, that $T_1v_2=T_2v_2$. Thus $S$ is well-defined. It is an isometry, as for $v_1\in V_1$ and $v_2\in V_2$,
\begin{equation*}
\norm{S(v_1+v_2)}^2=\norm{v_1}^2+\norm{v_2}^2+2\langle T_1v_1,T_2v_2\rangle=\norm{v_1+v_2}^2.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, by the definition, $S$ is an extension of both $T_1$ and $T_2$.
Define an affine map $v\colon x_0+V_1 +V_2\to\mathbb{R}^m$ by the formula
\begin{equation*}
v(x)=S(x-x_0)+u(x_0).
\end{equation*}
Then $v|_{\mathcal{S}_1}=u$ and $v|_{\mathcal{S}_2}=u$.
Choose any points $x\in\mathcal{S}_1$ and $y\in\mathcal{S}_2$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u(x)-u(y)}=\norm{v(x)-v(y)}=\norm{S(x-y)}=\norm{x-y}.
\end{equation*}
Thus $u$ is isometric on $\mathcal{S}_1\cup\mathcal{S}_2$. By maximality of leaves, $\mathcal{S}_1=\mathcal{S}_1\cup\mathcal{S}_2=\mathcal{S}_2$, contradicting the distinctness of the two leaves.
Hence
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_2\subset \partial \mathcal{S}_1\cap \mathcal{S}_2.
\end{equation*}
Repeating the above argument with $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ interchanged, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_2\subset \big(\partial \mathcal{S}_1\cap \mathcal{S}_2\big) \cap \big(\partial \mathcal{S}_2\cap \mathcal{S}_1\big)=\partial \mathcal{S}_1\cap\partial\mathcal{S}_2.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:notdif}
Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be $1$-Lipschitz. If $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ belongs to at least two distinct leaves of $u$, then $u$ is not differentiable at $x_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, any zero-dimensional leaf does not intersect any other leaf. Hence, $x_0$ belongs to two distinct leaves $\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2$ of non-zero dimensions. Suppose that $u$ is differentiable at $x_0\in\mathcal{S}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_2$.
Then Lemma \ref{lem:diff} implies that $Q_1u$ is differentiable at $x_0$ with the derivative given by
\begin{equation*}
DQ_1u(x_0)=T_1P_1,
\end{equation*}
where $T_1$ is an isometry such that $u(x)-u(x_0)=T_1(x-x_0)$ for all $x\in\mathcal{S}_1$, $P_1$ is the orthogonal projection onto the tangent space $V_1$ of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $Q_1$ is the orthogonal projection onto the image of $T_1$. In other words
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:limit}
\lim_{x\to x_0}\frac{Q_1u(x)-Q_1u(x_0)-T_1P_1(x-x_0)}{\norm{x-x_0}}=0.
\end{equation}
For $x\in\mathcal{S}_2$ we may write
\begin{equation*}
u(x)-u(x_0)=T_2(x-x_0)
\end{equation*}
for an isometry $T_2$. If $x\in\mathcal{S}_2$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:difference}
\frac{Q_1u(x)-Q_1u(x_0)-T_1P_1(x-x_0)}{\norm{x-x_0}}=(Q_1T_2-T_1P_1)\bigg(\frac{x-x_0}{\norm{x-x_0}}\bigg).
\end{equation}
For $x\in\mathcal{S}_2$ and $t\in [0,1]$ let
\begin{equation*}
x_t=x_0+t(x-x_0).
\end{equation*}
By convexity of leaves, $x_t\in\mathcal{S}_2$. Observe also that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:conv}
\lim_{t\to 0}x_t=x_0.
\end{equation}
It follows by (\ref{eqn:limit}), (\ref{eqn:difference}) and by (\ref{eqn:conv}) that
\begin{equation*}
Q_1T_2(x-x_0)=T_1P_1(x-x_0)\text{ for all }x\in \mathcal{S}_2.
\end{equation*}
As $V_2=\mathrm{span}\{x-x_0\mid x\in\mathcal{S}_2\}$ is the tangent space of $\mathcal{S}_2$, we infer that
\begin{equation*}
Q_1T_2v=T_1P_1v\text{ for all }v\in V_2.
\end{equation*}
Hence, for $v_1\in V_1$ and for $v_2\in V_2$
\begin{equation*}
\langle T_1v_1,T_2v_2\rangle=\langle T_1v_1,Q_1T_2v_2\rangle=\langle T_1v_1,T_1P_1v_2\rangle=\langle v_1,v_2\rangle.
\end{equation*}
We continuue the proof as in Lemma \ref{lem:boundary} and arrive at a contradiction that $\mathcal{S}_1=\mathcal{S}_2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:altern}
We may proceed in the first part of the above proof of Lemma \ref{lem:boundary} alternatively. Namely, we may conclude from Lemma \ref{lem:diff} that for at point in $\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}$ the map $Qu$ is differentiable with $DQu=TP$. Then we proceed as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:notdif}.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}\label{defin:bu}
The set of points belonging to at least two distinct leaves of a $1$-Lipschitz map $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ we shall denote by $B(u)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{corollary}\label{col:unique}
For any $1$-Lipschitz function $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ the set $B(u)$ is of Lebesgue measure zero.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem:notdif} implies that $B(u)$ is contained in the set of non-differentiability of $u$. Rademacher's theorem (see e.g. \cite{Federer}) states that the latter is of Lebesgue measure zero.
\end{proof}
\section{Lipschitz change of variables}\label{sec:varia}
Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map. The aim of this section is to provide a countable partitioning the union of all $m$-diimensional leaves of $u$ together with a suitable change of variables, which will be useful in the proof of regularity of conditional measures in Section \ref{sec:curv}.
We assume throughout the section that $m\leq n$. Let us recall a lemma taken from \cite[3.2.9]{Federer}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:coo}
Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a continuous function. Then the set
\begin{equation*}
\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mid u\text{ is differentiable at }x\text{ and }Du(x)\text{ has maximal rank}\}
\end{equation*}
admits a countable Borel cover $(G_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ such that for any $i\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists an orthogonal projection $\pi_i\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ and Lipschitz maps
\begin{equation*}
w_i\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m\times\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\text{, }v_i\colon\mathbb{R}^m\times\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\to\mathbb{R}^n
\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{equation*}
w_i(x)=(u(x),\pi_i(x))\text{ and }v_i(w_i(x))=x\text{ for all }x\in G_i.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:cover}
Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a Lipschitz function. Let $s\in\mathbb{R}^m$ and let
\begin{equation*}
S_s=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mid u(x)=s\}
\end{equation*}
be the level set. Then the set
\begin{equation*}
S_s\cap\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mid u\text{ is differentiable at }x\text{ and }Du(x)\text{ has maximal rank}\}
\end{equation*}
admits a countable Borel covering $(S_s^i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ of bounded sets such that for all $i\in\mathbb{N}$ there exist Lipschitz functions $w\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ and $v\colon\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\to\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
v(w(x))=x \text{ for all }x\in S_s^i.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We apply Lemma \ref{lem:coo} and obtain a countable covering consisting of Borel sets $G_i$, orthogonal projections $\pi_i\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ and Lipschitz maps
\begin{equation*}
w_i\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m\times\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\text{, }v_i\colon\mathbb{R}^m\times\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\to\mathbb{R}^n
\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{equation*}
w_i(x)=(u(x),\pi_i(x))\text{ and }v_i(w_i(x))=x\text{ for all }x\in G_i.
\end{equation*}
The sets $G_i\cap S_s$ form a countable Borel cover of $S_s$. For any $i\in\mathbb{N}$ define
\begin{equation*}
w\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\text{ and }
v\colon \mathbb{R}^{n-m}\to\mathbb{R}^n
\end{equation*}
by $w=\pi\circ w_i$, where $\pi\colon \mathbb{R}^m\times\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\to \mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ is the projection on the second variable, and $v(x)=v_i(s,x)$ for $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$.
Then, if $u(x)=s$, then
\begin{equation*}
v(w(x))=v_i(s,w(x))=v_i(u(x),\pi_i(x))=x.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Pick a countable dense set $S\subset\mathbb{R}^m$. Let $s\in S$. Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map. Let $(S_s^i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be the Borel cover of Lemma \ref{lem:cover} associated to the level set
\begin{equation*}
S_s=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mid u(x)=s\}.
\end{equation*}
For each $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$ let the \emph{cluster}
\begin{equation*}
T_{sij}
\end{equation*}
denote the union of all $m$-dimensional leaves $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ such that there exists $z\in \mathcal{S}\cap S_s^i$ for which $\mathrm{dist}(z,\partial\mathcal{S})\geq \frac1j$.
Denote by
\begin{equation*}
T_{sij}^0
\end{equation*}
the union of the relative interiors of all $m$-dimensional leaves $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ as above.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:cluster}
The union of all $m$-dimensional leaves is covered by the clusters
\begin{equation*}
(T_{sij})_{s\in S,i,j\in\mathbb{N}}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover for each $m$-dimensional leaf $\mathcal{S}$ and each cluster $T_{sij}$ either
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{int} \mathcal{S}\cap T_{sij}=\emptyset\text{ or }\mathcal{S}\subset T_{sij}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a $m$-dimensional leaf of $u$. Then $u$, if restricted to $\mathcal{S}$, is an isometry onto a convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^m$. Thus, there exists $s\in S\cap \mathrm{int} u(\mathcal{S})$. There exist $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$ and $z\in \mathcal{S}\cap S_s^i$ such that $\mathrm{dist}(z,\partial\mathcal{S})>1/j$. That is $\mathcal{S}\subset T_{sij}$.
If the interior of some leaf $\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}$ intersects one of the leaves comprising the cluster $T_{sij}$, then Lemma \ref{lem:boundary} implies that they are equal and hence $\mathcal{S}\subset T_{sij}$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The lemma below provides the aforementioned change of variables subordinate to the given $1$-Lipschitz map $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ and studies it's regularity properties.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:efge}
Each cluster $T_{sij}\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ admits maps
\begin{equation*}
G\colon T_{sij}^0\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\times\mathbb{R}^m
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
F\colon G( T_{sij}^0) \to T_{sij}^0
\end{equation*}
such that:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item\label{i:lambda} for each $\lambda>0$, $G$ is a Lipschitz map on the set
\begin{equation*}
T^{\lambda}_{sij}=\Big\{x\in T_{sij}\mid \mathrm{dist}(x,\partial \mathcal{S}(x))>\lambda\Big\};
\end{equation*}
here $\mathcal{S}(x)$ is the unique leaf of $u$ such that $x\in\mathcal{S}(x)$ and $z\in \mathcal{S}(x)$ is the unique point in $\mathcal{S}(x)$ such that $u(z)=s$,
\item $F$ is Lipschitz on the set $G(T_{sij}^0)$,
\item $F(G(x))=x$ for each $x\in T_{sij}^0$,
\item if a leaf $\mathcal{S}\subset T_{sij}$ intersects $S_s^i$ at a point $z$, then each interior point $x\in \mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}$ of the leaf satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:giem}
G(x)=(w(z),u(x)-u(z)),
\end{equation}
where $w\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ is the map from Lemma \ref{lem:cover}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem:boundary} shows that the relative interiors of leaves do not intersect any other leaf. Moreover $u$ is an isometry on each leaf. Therefore, every point $x\in T_{sij}^0$ belongs to a unique leaf and each leaf in the cluster $T_{sij}$ intersects the level set $S_s$ in a single point $z\in S_s^i$. It follows that (\ref{eqn:giem}) defines a map
\begin{equation*}
G\colon T_{sij}^0\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\times\mathbb{R}^m,
\end{equation*}
on the cluster $T_{sij}^0$. Let $(a,b)\in G(T_{sij}^0)$ and let $v$ be the map parametrising $S_s^i$ from Lemma \ref{lem:cover}. Then $v(a)\in S_s^i$ belongs to the relative interior of some leaf $\mathcal{S}$ and lies in a distance at least $1/j$ from the relative boundary of the leaf. Define
\begin{equation*}
F(a,b)=v(a)+Du(v(a))^*(b).
\end{equation*}
Let $x\in T_{sij}^0$ belong to a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ that intersects $S_s^i$ at a point $z$. Then $v(w(z))=z$
and there exists an isometry $T$ such that $u(x_1)-u(x_2)=T(x_1-x_2)$ for all $x_1,x_2\in\mathcal{S}$ and $Du(z)=TP$, where $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto the tangent space of $\mathcal{S}$. We infer that
\begin{equation*}
F(G(x))=F(w(z),u(x)-u(z))=z+PT^*T(x-z)=x.
\end{equation*}
We shall now prove that $F$ is Lipschitz on $G(T_{sij}^0)$. Define
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:lambda}
\Lambda=\big\{a\in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\mid (a,0)\in G(T_{sij}^0)\big\}.
\end{equation}
We first claim that
\begin{equation*}
(a,b)\mapsto Du(v(a))^*b
\end{equation*}
is Lipschitz. Recall that $v(a)\in S_s^i$ is in a distance at least $1/j$ from the relative boundary of a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ that contains $v(a)$. Thus, by Corollary \ref{col:strength}, we infer that for points $(a,b),(a',b')\in G(T_{sij}^0)$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\norm{Du(v(a))^*b-Du(v(a'))^*b'}^2
\leq \frac{j^2}{2} \norm{v(a)-v(a')}^2+ \norm{b-b'}^2\leq \frac12C^2j^2\norm{a-a'}^2+\norm{b-b'}^2,
\end{equation*}
where $C$ is the Lipschitz constant of $v$.
It follows immediately that $F$ is Lipschitz on $G(T_{sij}^0)$.
It remains to prove assertion \ref{i:lambda}) of the lemma. Let $\lambda>0$.
Let now $x,x'\in T_{sij}^{\lambda}$ belong to the leaves $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}'$ respectively. By the definition (\ref{eqn:giem}) and by Lipschitzness of $w$ to prove that $G$ is Lipschitz it is enough to show that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{z-z'}\leq C\norm{x-x'}
\end{equation*}
for some constant $C$. As $u$ is an affine isometry on the leaves we see that
\begin{equation*}
z=x+Du(x)^*(u(z)-u(x))\text{ and }z'=x'+Du(x')^*(u(z')-u(x')).
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\norm{z-z'}\leq \norm{x-x'}+\Big\rVert Du(x)^*(u(z)-u(x))-Du(x')^*(u(z')-u(x'))\Big\lVert.
\end{equation*}
Now, by Corollary \ref{col:strength}, taking into account that $u(z)=s=u(z')$, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\Big\rVert Du(x)^*(u(z)-u(x))-Du(x')^*(u(z')-u(x'))\Big\lVert^2\leq \frac1{2\lambda^2}\norm{x-x'}^2+\norm{u(x)-u(x')}^2.
\end{equation*}
Therefore
\begin{equation*}
\norm{z-z'}\leq \norm{x-x'}\bigg(1+\sqrt{1+\frac1{2\lambda^2}}\bigg).
\end{equation*}
This concludes the proof that $G$ is Lipschitz on $T_{sij}^{\lambda}$ and completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Measurability}\label{sec:measur}
Below $G_{n,k}$ denotes the set of all $k$-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^n$. For $V\in G_{n,k}$ we denote by $O_m(V)$ the set of all isometries on $V$ with values in $\mathbb{R}^m$, i.e. the set of all linear maps $T\colon V\to\mathbb{R}^m$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{T(x)-T(y)}=\norm{x-y}\text{ for all }x,y\in V.
\end{equation*}
By $P_V\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^n$ we denote the orthogonal projection onto $V$. Then $G_{n,k}$ is a compact if equipped with the metric $d$ given by the formula
\begin{equation*}
d(V,V')=\norm{P_V-P_{V'}}\text{, }V,V'\in G_{n,k}.
\end{equation*}
Here $\norm{\cdot}$ denotes the operator norm with respect to the Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{R}^n$.
For a point $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and a real number $r>0$ we shall denote by $B(x,r)$ the closed ball centred at $x$ of radius $r$.
\begin{definition}
For $k\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$ we define $\alpha_k\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}$ by the formula
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_k(x)=\sup\Big\{r\geq 0\mid\exists_{V\in G_{n,k}} \exists_{T\in O_m(V)}\forall_{y\in (x+V)\cap B(x,r)}
\quad u(x)-u(y)=T(x-y) \Big\}
\end{equation*}
for $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
We define $\alpha_{m+1}\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ by $\alpha_{m+1}(x)=0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{definition}
The value of function $\alpha_k(x)$ denotes the greatest radius of a ball such that $u$ is isometric on the intersection of the ball with some $k$-dimensional subspace.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:alpha}
For any $k\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$ the functions $\alpha_k\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}$ are upper semicontinuous.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $k\in \{1,\dotsc,m\}$. Pick $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and a sequence $(x_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ that converges to $x_0$ such that there exists a limit
\begin{equation*}
\lambda=\lim_{l\to\infty}\alpha_k(x_l).
\end{equation*}
We need to show that $\lambda\leq \alpha_k(x_0)$. Suppose first that $\lambda<\infty$. We may assume that $\alpha_k(x_l)\in\mathbb{R}$ for each $l\in\mathbb{N}$. From the definition of $\alpha_k(x_l)$ it follows that there exist
\begin{equation*}
V_l\in G_{n,k}\text{ and }T_l\in O_m(V_l)
\end{equation*}
such that for all $y\in (x_l+V_l)\cap B\Big(x_l,\big(1-\frac1l\big)\alpha_k(x_l)\Big)$ we have
\begin{equation*}
u(x_l)-u(y)=T_l(x_l-y).
\end{equation*}
By compactness of $G_{n,k}$ we may assume that the sequence $(V_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ is convergent to some $V_0\in G_{n,k}$. Moreover, we may assume that
\begin{equation*}
(T_lP_{V_l})_{l=1}^{\infty}\text{ converges to }T_0P_{V_0},
\end{equation*}
where $T_0\in O_m(V_0)$. Indeed, we may assume that there exists $S_0$ such that $(T_lP_{V_l})_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $S_0$. For $v_0\in V_0$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{v_0}=\lim_{l\to\infty} \norm{P_{V_l}v_0}=\lim_{l\to\infty} \norm{T_lP_{V_l}v_0}=\norm{S_0v_0}.
\end{equation*}
This is to say, $S_0$ is an isometry on $V_0$. As for each $l$ there is $T_lP_{V_l}=T_lP_{V_l}P_{V_l}$, we infer that $S_0=S_0P_{V_0}$. Setting $T_0=S_0P_{V_0}$ proves the claim.
Choose now any $v_0\in V_0$ of norm $\norm{v_0}< \lambda$. By the definition of metric on $G_{n,k}$, the sequence $(P_{V_l}v_0)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $v_0$. Moreover, for sufficiently large $l$,
\begin{equation*}
x_l+P_{V_l}v_0\in (x_l+V_l)\cap B\Big(x_l,\big(1-\frac1l\big)\alpha_k(x_l)\Big).
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
u(x_l)-u(x_l+P_{V_l}v_0)=-T_lP_{V_l}v_0.
\end{equation*}
Passing to the limits we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
u(x_0)-u(x_0+v_0)=-T_0v_0.
\end{equation*}
It follows that $\lambda\leq \alpha_k(x_0)$. Thus, the proof is complete provided $\lambda$ is finite.
Suppose now that $\lambda$ is infinite. Assume again that $\alpha_k(x_l)\in\mathbb{R}$ for each $l\in\mathbb{N}$ and that $(\alpha_k(x_l))_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to infinity monotonically. Then there exist $V_l\in G_{n,k}$ and $T_l$ as above, i.e. such that $(V_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $V_0$ and $(T_lP_{V_l})_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $T_0P_{V_0}$, $T_0\in O_m(V_0)$. Taking any $v_0\in V_0$ of norm at most $l\in\mathbb{N}$ we may show that
\begin{equation*}
u(x_0)-u(x_0+v_0)=-T_0v_0.
\end{equation*}
Hence $\alpha_k(x_0)\geq l$ for each $l\in\mathbb{N}$ and thus $\alpha_k(x_0)=\infty$.
\end{proof}
Below we shall denote the unit ball centred at the origin by $B=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mid\norm{x}\leq 1\}$. For $r\geq 0$ we denote by $C_{n,k}(r)$ the set of all $k$-dimensional convex cones $C$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that there exist $c_1,\dotsc,c_k\in C\cap B$ such that the $n\times k$ matrix $D$ with columns $c_1,\dotsc,c_k$ satisfies $\mathrm{det}D^*D\geq r$, i.e. their Gram matrix has determinant at least $r$.
For a cone $C$ we denote by $V_C$ its linear span.
\begin{definition}
For $k\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$ we define $\beta_k\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ by the formula
\begin{equation*}
\beta_k(x)=\sup\Big\{r\geq 0\mid\exists_{C\in C_{n,k}(r)}\exists_{T\in O_m(V_{C})}\forall_{y\in (x+C)\cap B(x,r)} \quad
u(x)-u(y)=T(x-y) \Big\},
\end{equation*}
where $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
Let $\beta_{m+1}\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ be defined by $\beta_{m+1}(x)=0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{definition}
The functions $\beta_k(x)$ indicate the maximal radius $r$ such that there is a convex cone $C$, of size in its linear span bounded from below, such that $u$ is isometric on the intersection of the ball centred at $x$ of radius $r$ with the shifted cone $x+C$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:upperbeta}
For any $k\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$ the function $\beta_k\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ is upper semicontinuous.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $k\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$. Pick $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and a sequence $(x_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ that converges to $x_0$ and such that there exists a limit
\begin{equation*}
\lambda=\lim_{l\to\infty}\beta_k(x_l).
\end{equation*}
We need to show that $\lambda\leq \beta_k(x_0)$. Observe that $\lambda<\infty$, as the determinant of a Gram matrix of vectors in the unit ball is bounded above by the volume of the $k$-dimensional unit ball. It follows from the definition of $\beta_k(x_l)$ that there exist
\begin{equation*}
C_l\in C_{n,k}\Big(\big(1-\frac1l\big)\beta_k(x_l)\Big) \text{ and }T_l\in O_m(V_{C_l})
\end{equation*}
such that for all $y\in (x_l+C_l)\cap B\Big(x_l,\big(1-\frac1l\big)\beta_k(x_l)\Big)$
\begin{equation*}
u(x_l)-u(y)=T_l(x_l-y).
\end{equation*}
For each $l$ pick points $(c_j^l)_{j=1}^k$ in $C_l\cap B$ such that their Gram matrix has determinant at least $(1-1/l)\beta_k(x_l)$. Passing to subsequences, we may assume that the sequences $(c_j^l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converge to some points $c_j$, for $j=1,\dotsc,k$, for which the determinant of the Gram matrix is at least $\lambda$. Let $C_0$ be the convex cone in $\mathbb{R}^n$ spanned by $(c_j)_{j=1}^k$, that is
\begin{equation*}
C_0=\Big\{\sum_{j=1}^k\lambda_jc_j\mid\lambda_j\geq 0\text{ for }j=1,\dotsc, k\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
Clearly, $C_0$ has dimension equal to $k$. It follows that $C_0\in C_{n,k}(\lambda)$.
Passing to a subsequence, we may assume that $(V_{C_l})_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to some $V_0\in G_{n,k}$. We claim that $V_0=V_{C_0}$.
Choose any $v_0\in V_{C_0}$. Then there exist real numbers $(\lambda_j)_{j=1}^k$ such that
\begin{equation*}
v_0=\sum_{j=1}^k\lambda_jc_j.
\end{equation*}
For $l\in\mathbb{N}$ set $v_l=\sum_{j=1}^k\lambda_jc_j^l$.
Then $(v_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converge to $v_0$ and $v_l\in V_{C_l}$. Hence
\begin{equation*}
v_0=\lim_{l\to\infty} v_l=\lim_{l\to\infty} P_{V_{C_l}}v_l=P_{V_0}v_0.
\end{equation*}
Thus $V_{C_0}\subset V_0$, and the claim follows, as dimension of $V_{C_0}$ is equal to $k$.
As in Lemma \ref{lem:alpha} we show that there exists $T_0\in O_m(V_{C_0})$ such that
\begin{equation*}
(T_lP_{V_{C_l}})_{l=1}^{\infty}\text{ converges to }T_0P_{V_{C_0}}.
\end{equation*}
Take $\epsilon>0$ and choose any $y_0\in (x_0+C_0)\cap B(x_0,(1-\epsilon)\lambda)$. Then there exist $(\lambda_j)_{j=1}^k$ such that
\begin{equation*}
y_0=x_0+\sum_{j=1}^k\lambda_jc_j.
\end{equation*}
Set $y_l=x_l+\sum_{j=1}^k\lambda_jc_j^l$. Then $(y_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $y_0$ and for sufficiently large $l$,
\begin{equation*}
y_l\in(x_l+ C_l)\cap B\Big(x_l,\big(1-\frac1l\big)\beta_k(x_l)\Big).
\end{equation*}
For such $l$ we have $u(x_l)-u(y_l)=T_l(x_l-y_l)$.
It follows that also $u(x_0)-u(y_0)=T_0(x_0-y_0)$.
That is, $\beta_k(x_0)\geq (1-\epsilon)\lambda$ for any $\epsilon>0$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:beta}
A point $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ belongs to a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ of dimension at least $k$ if and only if $\beta_k(x)>0$. A point $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ belongs to a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ of dimension exactly $k$ if and only if $\beta_k(x)>0$ and $\beta_{k+1}(x)=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ belongs to a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ of dimension $l\in\{k,\dotsc,m\}$. Let $V$ denote the tangent space of $\mathcal{S}$. Choose a point $x_1\in\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}$ and $\epsilon_0>0$ so that the intersection $B(x_1,\epsilon_0)\cap (x_1+V)$ is contained in $\mathcal{S}$. For $\epsilon\in (0,\epsilon_0)$ let
\begin{equation*}
C=\big\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mid x=\lambda (x_2-x_0)\text{ for some }\lambda\geq 0, x_2\in B(x_1,\epsilon)\cap(x_1+ V)\big\}.
\end{equation*}
Then $C$ is a convex cone of dimension $l$ containing the origin. Thus, it contains $k$ linearly independent vectors, which have Gram matrix of non-zero determinant. This is to say, the intersection of $C$ with the linear span of these vectors belongs to $C_{n,k}(\epsilon)$ for $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small.
Moreover, by convexity of $\mathcal{S}$, $u$ is isometric on the set $(x_0+C)\cap B(x_0,\epsilon)$, if $\epsilon>0$ is sufficiently small. Therefore $\beta_l(x_0)>\epsilon>0$, whenever $\epsilon$ satisfies the two upper bounds.
Conversely, suppose that $\beta_k(x_0)>0$. Then there exist
\begin{equation*}
r>0\text{, a cone }C\in C_{n,k}(r)\text{ and an isometry }T\in O_m(V_{C})
\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{equation*}
u(x_0)-u(y)=T(x-y)\text{ for all }y\in (x_0+C)\cap B(x_0,r).
\end{equation*}
With use of the Kuratowski--Zorn lemma choose a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ containing $(x_0+\mathcal{C})\cap B(x_0,\epsilon)$.
Then the dimension of $\mathcal{S}$ is at least $k$.
The second assertion is a trivial consequence of the first assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:interior}
A point $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ belongs to relative interior of a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ of dimension $k$ if and only if $\alpha_k(x)>0$ and $\beta_{k+1}(x)=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x_0$ belongs to the relative interior of a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of~$u$ of dimension $k$. By the previous lemma $\beta_k(x_0)>0$ and $\beta_{k+1}(x_0)=0$.
Let $V$ denote the tangent space of $\mathcal{S}$. Then, as $x_0$ is in the relative interior, there exist $\epsilon>0$, $T\in O_m(V)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
u(x_0)-u(y)=T(x_0-y)\text{ for all }y\in (x_0+V)\cap B(x_0,\epsilon).
\end{equation*}
That is $\alpha_k(x_0)\geq \epsilon>0$.
Conversely, suppose that $\alpha_k(x_0)>0$ and $\beta_{k+1}(x_0)=0$.
Then there exist $V\in G_{n,k}$ and $T\in O_m(V)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
u(x_0)-u(y)=T(x_0-y)\text{ for all }y\in (x_0+V)\cap B(x_0,\epsilon).
\end{equation*}
It follows from the Kuratowski--Zorn lemma that $x_0$ belongs to a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ that contains $(x_0+V)\cap B(x_0,\epsilon)$. As $\beta_{k+1}(x_0)=0$, this leaf is of dimension $k$ and thus $x_0$ belongs to the relative interior of $\mathcal{S}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{col:borel}
Let $k\in\{0,\dotsc,m\}$. Then the union of all leaves of $u$ of dimension $k$ is a Borel set. Moreover, the union of all relative interiors of leaves of $u$ of dimension $k$ is a Borel set and so is the union of all relative boundaries of leaves of $u$ of dimension $k$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The proof readily follows by Lemma \ref{lem:alpha}, Lemma \ref{lem:upperbeta} and Lemma \ref{lem:beta}, Lemma \ref{lem:interior}.
\end{proof}
Note that whenever $\alpha_k(x)>0$ and $\beta_{k+1}(x)=0$, then Lemma \ref{lem:interior} tells us that $x$ belongs to the relative interior of a leaf of $u$. This leaf in unique, by Lemma \ref{lem:boundary}. We shall denote it by $\mathcal{S}(x)$.
Below we adapt a convention that $\inf\emptyset=\infty$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:gamma}
Let $k\in \{0,\dotsc,m\}$. We define $\gamma_k\colon \mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^m\to \mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}$ by the formula
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_k(x,y)=\inf\Big\{t>0\mid y\in t\big(u(\mathcal{S}(x))-u(x)\big)\Big\}
\end{equation*}
for $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\alpha_k(x)>0$ and $\beta_{k+1}(x)=0$
and
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_k(x,y)=\infty
\end{equation*}
otherwise.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
For any $k\in \{0,\dotsc,m\}$ the function $\gamma_k$ is Borel measurable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $\alpha_k$ and $\beta_{k+1}$ are Borel measurable, it is enough to show that the function $\gamma_k$ is Borel measurable on
\begin{equation*}
A_k=\big\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^m\mid\alpha_k(x)>0\text{ and }\beta_{k+1}(x)=0\big\}.
\end{equation*}
Observe that $\gamma_k$ is a limit, as $\rho$ converges to infinity, of functions
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_{k,\rho}(x,y)=\inf\Big\{t>0\mid y\in t\big(u(\mathcal{S}(x))-u(x)\big),\norm{y}\leq t\rho\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
We claim that $\gamma_{k,\rho}$ is lower semicontinuous on $A_k$. This will yield the asserted measurability.
Indeed, let $(x_l,y_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence in $A_k$ such that there exists $(x_0,y_0)\in A_k$ with
\begin{equation*}
(x_0,y_0)=\lim_{l\to\infty} (x_l,y_l) \text{ and such that there exists }\lim_{l\to\infty}\gamma_{k,\rho}(x_l,y_l)=\lambda.
\end{equation*}
We shall show that $\gamma_{k,\rho}(x_0,y_0)\leq\lambda$. If $\lambda=\infty$, then there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, there exist sequences $(z_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $(t_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ in $\mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:equality3}
y_l=t_l\big(u(z_l)-u(x_l)\big)\text{ and }\norm{y_l}\leq t_l \rho\text{, where }z_l\in \mathcal{S}(x_l)\text{ and }0<t_l<\gamma_k(x_l,y_l)+1/l.
\end{equation}
Observe that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{z_l-x_l}=\norm{u(z_l)-u(x_l)}=\frac{\norm{y_l}}{t_l}\leq \rho
\end{equation*}
Thus, passing to a subsequence, we may assume that $(z_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to some $z_0\in\mathcal{S}(x_0)$ and that $(t_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to some $t_0\geq 0$. Taking limits in (\ref{eqn:equality3}) we see that
\begin{equation*}
y_0=t_0\big(u(z_0)-u(x_0)\big)\text{ with }z_0\in \mathcal{S}(x_0)\text{ and }0\leq t_0\leq \lambda.
\end{equation*}
Hence
\begin{equation*}
y_0\in t_0 \big(u(\mathcal{S}(x_0))-u(x_0)\big)\text{ and }\norm{y_0}\leq t_0\rho.
\end{equation*}
This is to say, $\gamma_{k,\rho}(x_0,y_0)\leq t_0\leq\lambda$.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
For a convex set $K\subset\mathbb{R}^m$, such that $0\in \mathrm{int}K$, we define its \emph{Minkowski functional} $\norm{\cdot}_K\colon\mathbb{R}^m\to\mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}$ by the formula
\begin{equation*}
\norm{y}_K=\inf\big\{t>0\mid y\in tK\big\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
The following proposition can be found e.g. in \cite[Theorem 5.3.3]{Narici}.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:minkowski}
Let $K\subset \mathbb{R}^m$ be a closed, convex set that contains the origin in its interior. A point $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$ belongs to the interior of $K$ if and only if $\norm{y}_K<1$.
Moreover, a point $y\in \mathbb{R}^m$ belongs to the boundary of $K$ if and only if $\norm{y}_K=1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:minkowski}
If $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ belongs to relative interior of a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ of dimension $k$, then $\gamma_k(x,\cdot)$ is the Minkowski functional of the closed, convex set $u(\mathcal{S})-u(x)$.
If $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ does not belong to relative interior of any leaf of dimension $k$, then
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_k(x,\cdot)=\infty.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ does not belong to relative interior of a leaf of $u$ of dimension $k$. Then Lemma \ref{lem:interior} and Definition \ref{def:gamma} tells us that $\gamma_k(x,\cdot)=\infty$.
Let now $x\in\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is a $k$-dimensional leaf. By Lemma \ref{lem:boundary}, such leaf $\mathcal{S}$ is unique. The assertion of the lemma follows readily from the definitions.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Let $k\in \{0,\dotsc,m\}$. We shall denote by $T_k$ the union of all $k$-dimensional leaves of $u$, by $\mathrm{int}T_k$ the union of all relative interiors of all $k$-dimensional leaves of $u$ and by $\partial{T}_k$ the union of all relative boundaries of all $k$-dimensional leaves of $u$.
\end{definition}
Below we shall denote by $\lambda$ the Lebesgue measure. The space on which $\lambda$ is considered will be clear from the context.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:measurable}
For each $s\in S$ and each $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$ the cluster $T_{sij}^0$ and its image $G(T_{sij}^0)$ are Borel sets. Moreover $\partial T_m$ is a Borel set of Lebesgue measure zero.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $s\in S$ and $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$. Recall the Borel set $S_s^i\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and Lipschitz mapping $w\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ from Lemma \ref{lem:cover}. Since $w$ is injective on $S_s^i$ it follows from \cite[2.2.10]{Federer} that $w(S_s^i)$ is a Borel subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$. Moreover, the set $\Lambda$, defined in (\ref{eqn:lambda}), is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:lam}
\Lambda=\Big\{a\in w(S_s^i)\mid \alpha_m(w^{-1}(a))>1/j\Big\}
\end{equation}
as follows by the definition (\ref{eqn:giem}) and Lemma \ref{lem:cover}.
Clearly, $\Lambda$ is a Borel set.
Definition of the cluster $T_{sij}^0$ implies that
\begin{equation*}
G(T_{sij}^0)=\bigg\{(a,b)\in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\times\mathbb{R}^m\mid a\in \Lambda, b\in u\Big(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}\big(v(a)\big)\Big)-u\big(v(a)\big)\bigg\}.
\end{equation*}
Here $\mathcal{S}(v(a))$ is the unique $m$-dimensional leaf of $u$ containing $v(a)$.
Observe that Proposition \ref{pro:minkowski} and Lemma \ref{lem:minkowski} tells us that if $a\in\Lambda$, then $b$ belongs to the interior of
\begin{equation*}
u(\mathcal{S}(v(a)))-u(v(a))\text{ if and only if }
\gamma_m(v(a),b)<1.
\end{equation*}
This is to say,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:image}
G(T_{sij}^0)=\Big\{(a,b)\in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\times\mathbb{R}^m\mid a\in \Lambda,\gamma_m(v(a),b)<1\Big\}.
\end{equation}
As $\gamma_m$ is Borel measurable, it follows that $G(T_{sij}^0)$ is a Borel set.
Lemma \ref{lem:efge} shows that $F$, the inverse of $G$ on its image, is well-defined, injective and Lipschitz on $G(T_{sij}^0)$.
Moreover
\begin{equation*}
T_{sij}^0=F(G(T_{sij}^0)).
\end{equation*}
Using \cite[2.2.10]{Federer}, we see that $T_{sij}^0$ is a Borel set.
We shall show that $\partial T_m$ has Lebesque measure zero. Recall that Corollary \ref{col:borel} tells us that $\partial T_m$ is a Borel set.
Consider the set
\begin{equation*}
B=\Big\{(a,b)\in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\times\mathbb{R}^m\mid a\in\Lambda,\gamma_m(v(a),b)=1\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
By Fubini's theorem, $\lambda(B)=0$, as boundaries of convex sets have Lebesgue measure zero.
Recall that $F$ is a Lipschitz map on $G(T_{sij}^0)$. Using the Kirszbraun theorem (see e.g \cite{Kirszbraun, Schoenberg}) we extend $F$, defined on $G(T_{sij}^0)$, to a Lipschitz map $\tilde{F}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\times\mathbb{R}^m$.
We claim that for any such extension
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:exten}
\tilde{F}(B)\supset\partial T_m.
\end{equation}
Indeed, let $x\in \partial T_m$.
There exists a leaf $\mathcal{S}\subset T_{sij}$ of $u$ and a sequence $(x_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ in $\mathrm{int}S$ that converges to $x$. Let $\tilde{G}$ be a Lipschitz extension of $G$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$. The sequence $(G(x_l))_{l=1}^{\infty}$ converges to $\tilde{G}(x)=(a,b) \in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\times\mathbb{R}^m$. We claim that $(a,b)\in B$. This follows by the continuity of $\gamma_m$ in the second variable. Now, $x=\tilde{F}(\tilde{G}(x))\in \tilde{F}(B)$ and (\ref{eqn:exten}) is proven.
Therefore we can use $\lambda(B)=0$ and the fact that images under Lipschitz maps of sets of Lebesgue measure zero have Lebesgue measure zero (see \cite[3.2.3]{Federer}), to infer that $\lambda(\partial T_m\cap T_{sij} )=0$
and hence $\partial T_m\cap T_{sij}$ is Lebesgue measurable. By Lemma \ref{lem:cluster} the sets $T_{sij}$ form a countable cover of $\partial T_m$. It follows that $\lambda(\partial T_m)=0$. This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
For any $s\in S$, $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$, the set $T_{sij}$ is Lebesgue measurable.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
$T_{sij}$ is a union of a Borel set $T_{sij}^0$ and a set $\partial T_m\cap T_{sij}$ of Lebesgue measure zero.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:cluster}
The clusters $T_{sij}$ may be taken to be disjoint. Indeed, let $(T_k)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ be a renumbering of the set of clusters. Set for $l\in\mathbb{N}$
\begin{equation*}
T_l'=T_l\setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^{l-1}T_j
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{int}T_l'=\mathrm{int}T_l\setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^{l-1}\mathrm{int}T_j.
\end{equation*}
Note that the structure of the clusters $T'_{sij}$ remains the same. For each $T_{sij}$ there exists a Borel subset $S_{sij}=T_{sij}\cap S_s^i$ of $S_s^i\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ on which there are Lipschitz maps
\begin{equation*}
w\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\text{ and }v\colon\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\to\mathbb{R}^n\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{equation*}
v(w(x))=x\text{ for all } x\in S_{sij}
\end{equation*}
Indeed, the new cluster is a subset of the old one, so the former maps suffice. From the modification procedure it follows also that Lemma \ref{lem:cluster} still holds true. Moreover, the leaf $\mathcal{S}$ corresponding to a point $z\in S_{sij}$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{dist}(z,\partial\mathcal{S})>1/j.
\end{equation*}
Also the assertions of Lemma \ref{lem:efge} hold true with the old maps and so does the assertions of Lemma \ref{lem:measurable}, as follows from the modification procedure.
\end{remark}
\section{Disintegration with respect to partition}\label{sec:disin}
Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map with respect to the Euclidean norms. In the previous sections we have associated to $u$ a partitioning of $\mathbb{R}^n$, up to a set of Lebesgue measure zero, into maximal sets $\mathcal{S}$ on which $u$ is an isometry. It was conjectured by Klartag in \cite[Chapter 6]{Klartag} that given a measure $\mu$, such that $(\mathbb{R}^n,\norm{\cdot},\mu)$ is a weighted Riemannian manifold satisfying the curvature-dimension condition $CD(\kappa,N)$ (see Definition \ref{defin:curv}), then $\mu$ may be decomposed into a mixture of measures $\mu_{\mathcal{S}}$, each supported on a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$, such that $(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S},\norm{\cdot},\mu_{\mathcal{S}})$ is a weighted Riemannian manifold that satisfies $CD(\kappa,N)$.
Below we denote by $CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$ the space of closed, convex, non-empty subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$. It is a closed subspace of $CL(\mathbb{R}^n)$ -- the space of closed non-empty subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ equipped with the Wijsman topology (see \cite{Wijsman}). The Wijsman topology is the weakest topology such that for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ function
\begin{equation*}
A\mapsto \mathrm{dist}(x,A)
\end{equation*}
is continuous. By a result of Beer (see \cite{Beer2}), the space $CL(\mathbb{R}^n)$, equipped with this topology, is Polish. Hence so is $CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
Let us recall that $B(u)$ denotes the set of points in $\mathbb{R}^n$ that belong to at least two distinct leaves of $u$. By Corollary \ref{col:unique}, it is contained in the Borel set $N(u)$ of points at which $u$ is not differentiable. The latter is of Lebesgue measure zero. We define a map
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to CC(\mathbb{R}^n)
\end{equation*}
in such a way that for $x\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus N(u)$ the set $\mathcal{S}(x)$ is the unique leaf of $u$ containing $x$ and for $x\in N(u)$ we put $\mathcal{S}(x)=\{x\}$.
The aim of this section is to prove the following disintegration theorem, which is a step towards the conjecture.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:dis}
Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map with respect to the Euclidean norms. Then there exists a Borel measure $\nu$ on $CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$, supported on the set of leaves of $u$, and Borel measures $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item for every Borel set $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ the function $\mathcal{S}\mapsto \lambda_{\mathcal{S}}(A)$ is Borel measurable,
\item for $\nu$-almost every leaf $\mathcal{S}$ the measure $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}$ is concentrated on $\mathcal{S}$,
\item for every Borel set $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$
\begin{equation*}
\lambda(A)=\int_{CC(\mathbb{R}^n)} \lambda_{\mathcal{S}}(A)d\nu(\mathcal{S}).
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Let $X$ be a measurable space. In \cite{Beer3} it is proven that a map $f\colon X\to CL(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is measurable if and only if it is measurable as a multifunction. The latter is defined by the condition that for any open set $U\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ the set
\begin{equation*}
\{x\in X\mid f(x)\cap U\neq \emptyset\}
\end{equation*}
is measurable in $X$.
Let us recall a theorem that follows readily from \cite[Example 10.4.11, Definition 10.4.1]{Bogachev2}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:disinteg}
Let $X,Y$ be two Polish spaces. Let $\pi\colon X\to Y$ be a Borel map and let $\mu$ be a non-negative finite Borel measure on $X$. Let $\nu$ be the push-forward of measure $\mu$ via $\pi$. Then there exist Borel measures $(\mu_y)_{y\in Y}$ on $X$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item for every Borel set $B\subset X$ the function $y\mapsto\mu_y(B)$ is Borel measurable,
\item for $\nu$-almost every $y\in \pi(X)$ the measure $\mu_y$ is concentrated on $\pi^{-1}(y)$,
\item for every Borel sets $B\subset X$ and $E\subset Y$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\mu(B\cap \pi^{-1}(E))=\int_E \mu_y(B) d\nu(y).
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dis}]
We have a well-defined map $\mathcal{S}\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$ that assigns to any $x\in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus N(u)$ a unique leaf $\mathcal{S}(x)$ that contains $x$ and for $x\in N(u)$ we set $\mathcal{S}(x)=\{x\}$.
We would like to prove that $\mathcal{S}\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is Borel measurable with respect to the Wijsman topology on $CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$, which is equivalent to its measurablity as a multifunction.
Note that for any compact set $K\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ the set $A_K=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid \mathcal{S}(x)\cap K\neq \emptyset\}$ is equal to
\begin{equation*}
\Big\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus (K\cup N(u))\mid \sup\Big\{\frac{\norm{u(x)-u(y)}}{\norm{x-y}}\mid y\in K\Big\}=1\Big\}\cup K.
\end{equation*}
Observe that the function
\begin{equation*}
x\mapsto \sup\Big\{\frac{\norm{u(x)-u(y)}}{\norm{x-y}}\mid y\in K\Big\}
\end{equation*}
is lower semicontinuous. Hence $A_K$ is a Borel set. As any open set $U\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a countable union of compact sets, it follows that the map $\mathcal{S}$ is Borel measurable.
Recall that $CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $\mathbb{R}^n$ are Polish spaces.
We partition $\mathbb{R}^n$ into countably many closed sets of finite Lebesgue measure such that the measure of the set of points that belong to at least two elements of this partition is zero. To each element of the partition we apply Theorem \ref{thm:disinteg}. Summing up the resulting conditional measures, and taking into account that the set $N(u)$ has Lebesgue measure zero, we obtain the desired disintegration.
\end{proof}
\section{Curvature-dimension condition}\label{sec:curv}
Suppose that we are given a measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $(\mathbb{R}^n,\norm{\cdot},\mu)$ is a weighted Riemannian manifold satisfying $CD(\kappa, N)$. We shall investigate the behaviour of the conditional measures of $\mu$, see Section \ref{sec:disin}, with respect to the partition introduced in Section \ref{sec:partition}. We shall concentrate on the leaves of maximal dimension.
Let us recall the notion of the curvature-dimension condition $CD(\kappa,n)$. We shall say that an $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies the $CD(\kappa,n)$ condition provided that the Ricci tensor $Ric_M$ is bounded below by the Riemannian metric tensor $g$, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
Ric_{\mathcal{M}}(p)(v,v)\geq\kappa g(p)(v,v)\text{ for any }p\in \mathcal{M}\text{ and any }v\in T_p\mathcal{M}.
\end{equation*}
We shall study weighted Riemannian manifolds, which are triples $(\mathcal{M},d,\mu)$, where $d$ is the Riemannian metric on $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mu$ is a measure on $\mathcal{M}$ with smooth positive density $e^{-\rho}$ with respect to the Riemannian volume. The generalised Ricci tensor of the weighted Riemannian manifold is defined by the formula
\begin{equation*}
Ric_{\mu}=Ric_\mathcal{M}+D^2\rho,
\end{equation*}
where $D^2\rho$ is the Hessian of smooth function $\rho$. The generalised Ricci tensor -- or the $N$-Bakry-\'Emery tensor -- with parameter $N\in (-\infty,1)\cup [n,\infty]$ is defined by the formula
\begin{equation*}
Ric_{\mu,N}(v,v)=\begin{cases}
Ric_{\mu}(v,v)-\frac{D\rho(v)^2}{N-n},& \text{if } N>n\\
Ric_{\mu}(v,v)&\text{if }N=\infty\\
Ric_{\mathcal{M}}(v,v) &\text{if }N=n\text{ and }\rho\text{ is constant.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Note that if $N=n$, then $\rho$ is required to be a constant function.
\begin{definition}\label{defin:curv}
For $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$ and $N\in (-\infty,1)\cup [n,\infty]$ we say that $(\mathcal{M},d,\mu)$ satisfies the curvature-dimension condition $CD(\kappa,N)$ if
\begin{equation*}
Ric_{\mu,N}(p)(v,v)\geq \kappa g(p)(v,v)\text{ for all }p\in \mathcal{M}\text{ and all }v\in T_p\mathcal{M}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
We refer the reader to \cite{Bakry1}, \cite{Bakry}, \cite{Ledoux} and to \cite{Ambrosio4}, \cite{Sturm3} \cite{Sturm1}, \cite{Sturm2}, \cite{Villani1} for background on the curvature-dimension condition.
In all cases we consider in this paper it will always hold that $Ric_{\mathcal{M}}=0$.
The aim of the section is to prove the following theorem which partially resolves the conjecture of Klartag \cite[Chapter 6]{Klartag} in the affirmative. In particular, if a measure $\mu$ is concentrated on leaves of $u$ of dimension $m$, then the conjecture holds true for $\mu$ and $u$.
Let us recall that $T_m$ denotes the union of leaves of dimension $m$. This is a Borel set by Corollary \ref{col:borel}.
We shall denote by $T^m\subset CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$ the set of leaves of $u$ of dimension $m$.
Below we present a generalisation of Theorem \ref{thm:localisation}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:discd}
Let $m\leq n$. Let $N\in (-\infty,1)\cup [n,\infty]$ andl let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map with respect to the Euclidean norms. Let $\mu$ be a Borel measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $(\mathbb{R}^n,\norm{\cdot},\mu)$ satisfies the curvature-dimension condition $CD(\kappa,N)$.
Then there exists a Borel measure $\nu$ on $CC(\mathbb{R}^n)$, supported on the set $T^m$ of leaves of dimension $m$, and for each leaf $\mathcal{S}$ of $u$ of dimension $m$, there exists a Borel measure $\mu_{\mathcal{S}}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item\label{i:measur} for every Borel set $B\subset T_m$ the function $\mathcal{S}\mapsto \mu_{\mathcal{S}}(B)$ is $\nu$-measurable,
\item\label{i:concent} for $\nu$-almost every leaf $\mathcal{S}$ the measure $\mu_{\mathcal{S}}$ is concentrated on $\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}$
\item\label{i:curv} for $\nu$-almost every leaf $\mathcal{S}$ the space $(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S},\norm{\cdot},\mu_{\mathcal{S}})$ satisfies the $CD(\kappa,N)$ condition,
\item\label{i:disinteg} for every Borel set $A\subset T_m$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\mu(A)=\int_{T^m} \mu_{\mathcal{S}}(A)d\nu(\mathcal{S}).
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Let us note that in \cite[Lemma 3]{Ciosmak1} it is proven that the set of trivial leaves of a $1$-Lipschitz map is of Lebesgue measure zero. Therefore, the above theorem is indeed a generalisation of Theorem \ref{thm:localisation}.
In what follows, we shall use the notation from Section \ref{sec:measur}. Observe that it suffices to prove the theorem under the assumption that $\mu$ is concentrated on a single cluster $T_{sij}$, $s\in S$ and $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$, of leaves of $u$; see Lemma \ref{lem:measurable} and Remark \ref{rem:cluster}. Recall the definitions of maps $F$ and $G$ (see Lemma \ref{lem:efge}) and a map $v$ (see Lemma \ref{lem:cover}). Below $\mathcal{H}_m$ is the $m$-dimensional Hausdorff measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:density}
Let $m\leq n$ and let $u\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a $1$-Lipschitz map. Fix $s\in S$, $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$. Then for any Borel set $A\subset T_{sij}$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\lambda(A)=\int_{\Lambda}\Big(\int_{\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}(v(a))}\mathbf{1}_A J_nF\circ G d\mathcal{H}_m\Big) d\lambda(a),
\end{equation*}
where $J_nF$ denotes the $n$-dimensional Jacobian of $F$ and
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda=\big\{a\in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\mid (a,0)\in G(T_{sij}^0)\big\}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, the map
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda\ni a\mapsto \int_{\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}(v(a))}\mathbf{1}_A J_nF\circ G d\mathcal{H}_m\in\mathbb{R}
\end{equation*}
is $\lambda$-measurable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:efge}, the map $F$ is a bijection of $G(T_{sij}^0)$ and of $T_{sij}^0$. As $F$ is Lipschitz on $G(T_{sij}^0)$ we may apply the area formula \cite[3.2.5]{Federer} to infer that for any measurable, non-negative $\phi\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:area}
\int_{G(T_{sij}^0)}\phi\circ F J_nF d\lambda=\int_{T_{sij}^0}\phi d\lambda.
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation*}
f=J_nF\mathbf{1}_{G(T_{sij}^0)}.
\end{equation*}
Observe that $f$ is non-negative and Borel measurable as $G(T_{sij}^0)$ is a Borel set by Lemma \ref{lem:efge} and the fact that images of Borel sets via Lipschitz maps are Borel.
By Tonelli's theorem, the functions $f(a,\cdot)$ are measurable for almost every $a\in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ and we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:fubini}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-m}\times\mathbb{R}^m}\phi\circ Ffd\lambda=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-m}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^m}\phi (F(a,b))f(a,b)d\lambda(b)d\lambda(a).
\end{equation}
Observe now that $(a,b)\in G(T_{sij}^0)$ if and only if for some $a\in\Lambda$
\begin{equation*}
a=w(v(a))\text{ and }b=u(x)-u(v(a)).
\end{equation*}
Note that $F$ on $G(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}(v(a)))$ is an isometry. Therefore by a linear change of variables
\begin{equation*}
\int_{G(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}(v(a)))}\phi(F(a,b))f(a,b)d\lambda(b)=\int_{\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}(v(a))}\phi f\circ G d\mathcal{H}_m.
\end{equation*}
Tonelli's theorem implies that the map
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda\ni a\mapsto \int_{\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}(v(a))}\phi f\circ G d\mathcal{H}_m
\end{equation*}
is measurable. Moreover, by (\ref{eqn:area}) and by (\ref{eqn:fubini}), for any non-negative function $\phi$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\int_{T_{sij}^0}\phi d\lambda=\int_{\Lambda}\Big(\int_{\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}(v(a))}\phi f\circ G d\mathcal{H}_m\Big) d\lambda(a).
\end{equation*}
By the fact that $\partial T_m$ has Lebesgue measure zero (see Lemma \ref{lem:measurable}), we see that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{T_{sij}}\phi d\lambda=\int_{\Lambda}\Big(\int_{\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}(v(a))}\phi f\circ G d\mathcal{H}_m\Big) d\lambda(a).
\end{equation*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Let us recall a lemma from \cite{Klartag} that we shall need in what follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:tri}
Let $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$, $b>0$ and $a\notin [-b,0]$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\frac{x^2}{a}+\frac{y^2}{b}\geq\frac{(x-y)^2}{a+b}
\end{equation*}
for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\abs{a}}{\abs{b}}x^2\pm 2xy+\frac{\abs{b}}{\abs{a}}y^2\geq 0.
\end{equation*}
From this we see that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{x^2}{a}+\frac{y^2}{b}-\frac{(x-y)^2}{a+b}= \frac1{a+b}\Big(\frac{b}{a}x^2+2xy+\frac{a}{b}y^2\Big)\geq 0
\end{equation*}
whenever $b>0$ and $a\notin [-b,0]$.
\end{proof}
Let us also recall formulae for differentiation of matrices. If $R(t)= \log\abs{\det A(t)}$ and $A$ is differentiable in $t\in\mathbb{R}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:formula}
\frac{dR}{dt}(s)=\mathrm{tr}\Big(A(s)^{-1}\frac{ dA}{dt}(s)\Big).
\end{equation}
Moreover
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:formula2}
\frac{d^2R}{dt^2}(s)=\mathrm{tr}\Big(A(s)^{-1}\frac{ d^2A}{dt^2}(s)\Big)-\mathrm{tr}\Bigg(\Big(A(s)^{-1}\frac{ dA}{dt}(s)\Big)^2\Bigg).
\end{equation}
We should also need the following version of the Whitney extension theorem (see \cite{Whitney} or \cite{Stein}).
\begin{theorem}
Let $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be an arbitrary set, let $f\colon A\to\mathbb{R}$ and $V\colon A\to\mathbb{R}^n$. Suppose that there exists $M\in\mathbb{R}$ such that for all $x,y\in A$
\begin{align*}
&\abs{f(x)}\leq M, \norm{V(x)}\leq M,\\
& \norm{V(x)-V(y)}\leq M\norm{x-y},\\
&\abs{f(y)-f(x)-\langle V(x),y-x\rangle}\leq M\norm{x-y}^2.
\end{align*}
Then there exists a differentiable function $\tilde{f}\colon\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ with locally Lipschitz derivative such that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{f}(x)=f(x), Df(x)(y)=\langle V(x),y\rangle\text{ for all }x\in A\text{ and all }y\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:discd}]
By Lemma \ref{lem:measurable} and Remark \ref{rem:cluster} it is enough to prove Theorem \ref{thm:discd} assuming that there is a single cluster of leaves $T_{sij}$.
Thus, let us fix a cluster $T_{sij}$.
Note that, by Corollary \ref{col:strength}, on $T_{sij}^{\lambda}$, $Du$ is Lipschitz; see Lemma \ref{lem:efge} for the definition of $T_{sij}^{\lambda}$. Moreover, by the second assertion of Lemma \ref{lem:important}, for any $x,y\in T_{sij}^{\lambda}$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u(y)-u(x)-Du(x)(y-x)}\leq \frac1{\lambda}\norm{x-y}^2.
\end{equation*}
By the Whitney extension theorem there exists a differentiable map $\tilde{u}$ with locally Lipschitz derivative on $\mathbb{R}^n$ that coincides with $u$ on $T_{sij}^{\lambda}$ and such that $D\tilde{u}=Du$ on $T_{sij}^{\lambda}$. By \cite[Lemma 3.2.4]{Klartag}, the second derivative of $\tilde{u}$ exists almost everywhere and is symmetric, in the sense that the second derivative of any of its components is symmetric. We will abuse the notation and assume that $u$ has Lipschitz derivative, is defined on $\mathbb{R}^n$, and its second derivative is symmetric $\lambda$-almost everywhere.
Since $F\colon G(T_{sij}^0)\to\mathbb{R}^n$ has locally Lipschitz inverse, it follows that for $\lambda$-almost every $(a,b)\in G(T_{sij}^0)$ there exists $D^2u(F(a,b))$ and is symmetric.
By Fubini's theorem we infer that there exists a Borel cover $(\Lambda_l)_{l=1}^{\infty}$ of $\Lambda$ such that for each $l\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists $b_l$ such that $(a,b_l)\in G(T_{sij}^0)$ for all $a\in\Lambda_l$. Moreover for $\lambda$-almost every $a\in \Lambda_l$, there exists $D^2u(F(a,b_l))$ and it is symmetric. Note that for $a\in\Lambda_l$
\begin{equation*}
u(F(a,b_l))=u(v(a))+b_l=s+b_l.
\end{equation*}
Hence, on the level set of $u$ corresponding to $s+b_l$, there exists $D^2u$ and it is symmetric.
Therefore, without loss of generality, passing to a refinement of initial cover and modifying the clusters $T_{sij}$, we assume that $D^2u(v(a))$ exists for $\lambda$-almost every $a\in\Lambda$ and it is symmetric.
Let $\mu$ have density $e^{-\rho}$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$. For a leaf $\mathcal{S}$ such that $\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}\subset T_{sij}^0$ and any Borel set $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ set
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:mudef}
\mu_{\mathcal{S}}(A)=\int_{\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S}}\mathbf{1}_A e^{-\rho}J_nF\circ G d\mathcal{H}_m.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:density} it follows now that for any Borel set $A\subset T_{sij}$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\mu(A)=\int_{\Lambda}\mu_{\mathcal{S}(v(a))}(A)d\lambda(a),
\end{equation*}
where $v\colon \mathbb{R}^{n-m}\to\mathbb{R}^n$ is the map from Lemma \ref{lem:cover}. Neglecting a set of Lebesgue measure zero, we may assume that $v$ is differentiable on the set $\Lambda$.
Let $\nu$ denote the push-forward of $\lambda$ via the map
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:map}
\Lambda\ni a\mapsto \mathcal{S}(v(a))\in T^m.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:density} and the definition of $\nu$ the condition \ref{i:measur}) is satisfied.
Note that the map (\ref{eqn:map}) is Borel measurable, by the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dis}. Hence $\nu$ is a Borel measure. For any Borel set $A\subset T_{sij}$ there is
\begin{equation*}
\mu(A)=\int_{T^m}\mu_{\mathcal{S}}(A)d\nu(\mathcal{S}).
\end{equation*}
Hence the condition \ref{i:disinteg}) of Theorem \ref{thm:discd} is satisfied. Condition \ref{i:concent}) holds true by the definition (\ref{eqn:mudef}). We shall prove that \ref{i:curv}) holds true as well.
Note that the density of a measure $\mu_{\mathcal{S}}$ for an $m$-dimensional leaf $\mathcal{S}$ is equal to
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d\mu_{\mathcal{S}}}{d\mathcal{H}_m}= J_nF\circ Ge^{-\rho}\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{S}}.
\end{equation*}
Recall (see Lemma \ref{lem:efge}) that $F,G$ are given by the formulae
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:formu}
F(a,b)=v(a)+Du(v(a))^*(b)\text{ and }G(x)=(w(z),u(x)-u(z)),
\end{equation}
where $w\colon \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ and $v\colon \mathbb{R}^{n-m}\to\mathbb{R}^n$ are maps from Lemma \ref{lem:cover}. Let us recall that $v(a)\in S_s^i$ for all $a\in\Lambda$.
It follows by the definition of $S_s$ that $u(v(a))=s$ for all $a\in\Lambda$. Recall that, by Lemma \ref{lem:diff}, $u$ is differentiable in $T_{sij}^0$. Thus, as we assumed that $v$ is differentiable in $\Lambda$, for every $a\in\Lambda$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:compo}
Du(v(a))Dv(a)=0.
\end{equation}
For $(a,b)\in G(T_{sij}^0)$ the derivative of $F$ at $(a,b)$ is equal to
\begin{equation*}
DF(a,b)=[Dv(a)+D^2u(v(a))^*(Dv(a)(\cdot))(b),Du(v(a))^*].
\end{equation*}
Note that for any vectors $z\in\mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ and $w\in\mathbb{R}^m$ the derivatives $Dv(a)z$ and $Du(v(a))^*w$ are orthogonal.
Indeed, by (\ref{eqn:compo}),
\begin{equation*}
\Big\langle Du(v(a))^*(w),Dv(a)(z)\Big\rangle=\Big\langle w, Du(v(a))Dv(a)(z)\Big\rangle=0.
\end{equation*}
Let $P$ denote the orthogonal projection onto the tangent space $V$ of the leaf $\mathcal{S}$ containing $v(a)$. Then by Lemma \ref{lem:diff} $Du(v(a))=TP$.
Let $P^{\perp}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto the orthogonal complement of $V$. Then
\begin{equation*}
DF(a,b)=[Dv(a)+D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}Dv(a)(\cdot))(b),Du(v(a))^*].
\end{equation*}
Therefore, by the formula for block matrices, and as $Du(v(a))^*$ is isometric, we have
\begin{equation*}
\abs{\det(DF(a,b))}=\Big\lvert\det\Big(Dv(a)+P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}Dv(a)(\cdot))(b)\Big)\Big\rvert,
\end{equation*}
which is equal to
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:det}
\abs{\det \big(P^{\perp}Dv(a)\big)}\Big\lvert\det\Big(\mathrm{Id}+P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}(\cdot))(b)\Big)\Big\rvert.
\end{equation}
Note that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ha}
H(b)=\Big(\mathrm{Id} +P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}(\cdot))(b)\Big)
\end{equation}
is a linear operator on the image of $P^{\perp}$, which is of dimension $n-m$. Moreover it is symmetric and invertible for any $b$ such that $(a,b)\in G(\mathrm{int}T_{pij})$, as $F$ is a bijection. Consider for some $b'\in\mathbb{R}^m$
\begin{equation*}
P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}(\cdot))(b').
\end{equation*}
Let $A$ be such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:aa}
P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}(\cdot))(b')=A\Big(\mathrm{Id} +P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}(\cdot))(b)\Big).
\end{equation}
Then $A$ is conjugate to a symmetric operator of rank at most $n-m$, as
\begin{equation*}
H(b)^{-\frac12}AH(b)^{\frac12}=H(b)^{-\frac12}P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}(\cdot))(b')H(b)^{-\frac12}.
\end{equation*}
In consequence, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:bac}
(\mathrm{tr}A)^2\leq (n-m)\mathrm{tr}(A)^2.
\end{equation}
Let $x=F(a,b)$. Let $q$ belong to the tangent space of $\mathcal{S}$. It is necessarily of the form $q=Du(v(a))^*(b')$ for some $b'\in\mathbb{R}^m$. Then by (\ref{eqn:formu}), (\ref{eqn:det}) and (\ref{eqn:ha})
\begin{align*}
D\log\abs{\det DF\circ G}(x)(q)&=\frac{d}{dt}\log \abs{\det\big( DF(G(F(a,b)+tDu(v(a))^*(b')\big)}=\\
&=\frac{d}{dt}\log\abs{\det (DF(a,b+tb'))}=\frac{d}{dt}\log\abs{\det H(b+tb')}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, by (\ref{eqn:formula}), (\ref{eqn:formula2}) and by (\ref{eqn:aa})
\begin{equation*}
D\log\abs{\det DF\circ G}(x)(q)=\mathrm{tr}\Big(H(b)^{-1}P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}(\cdot))(b')\Big)=\mathrm{tr}A
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
D^2\log\abs{\det DF\circ G}(x)(q,q)=-\mathrm{tr}\Big(H(b)^{-1}P^{\perp}D^2u(v(a))^*(P^{\perp}(\cdot))(b')\Big)^2=-\mathrm{tr}(A^2).
\end{equation*}
By (\ref{eqn:bac}) and by Lemma \ref{lem:tri}, if $N\notin [m, n]$, then
\begin{align*}
-D^2 \log\abs{\det DF\circ G}(x)(q,q)&=\mathrm{tr}(A^2)\geq \\
&\geq\frac{1}{n-m}(\mathrm{tr}A)^2\geq \frac1{N-m}(D\rho(x) (q)-\mathrm{tr} A)^2-\frac{(D\rho(x)(q))^2}{N-n}.
\end{align*}
Note that by the assumption on $\mu$, c.f. Definition \ref{defin:curv}, for all $p\in\mathbb{R}^n$
\begin{equation*}
D^2{\rho}(x)(p,p)-\frac{D\rho(x)(p)^2}{N-n}\geq \kappa \norm{p}^2.
\end{equation*}
Thus for all $q$ in the tangent space of $\mathcal{S}$ there is
\begin{equation*}
D^2\rho(x)(q,q)-D^2 \log\abs{\det DF\circ G}(x)(q,q)-\frac{\big(D\rho(x)(q)-D(\log\abs{\det DF\circ G})(x)(q)\big)^2}{N-m}\geq \kappa \norm{q}^2.
\end{equation*}
We infer that $(\mathrm{int}\mathcal{S},\norm{\cdot},\mu_{\mathcal{S}})$ satisfies the curvature-dimension condition $CD(\kappa,N)$, provided that $N\notin[m,n]$.
If $N=n$, then $\rho$ is required to be a constant function, and thus in this case the inequality is also satisfied. If $N=\infty$, then the desired estimates follow readily.
\end{proof}
For the historical remarks on similar estimates we refer to \cite{Klartag}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author wishes to thank Bo'az Klartag for proposing to work on this problem and for useful discussions.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{S:Introduction}
Network-based models have been used extensively to describe the spread of a contagious state through a population via the connections between individuals.
Such models are particularly important in describing the spread of disease \cite{Danon2011,KissMillerSimonEpidemics,Miller2014,PastorSatorras2015} but have also been used to study social contagion \cite{Hill2010,Zadeh2014,Zanette2002}, financial contagion \cite{Gai2010,Leventides2019}, and cascading failure in power systems \cite{Guo2017,Zhang2017}.
Network contagion is also a rich field for theoreticians;
exact solutions to network contagion models are mostly unavailable and so both efficient numerical methods and good approximate models are valuable \cite{PastorSatorras2015}.
In many contagion models on networks, each node represents an individual and each edge represents a contact or connection that facilitates the spread of contagion between nodes.
At any given time, each node has a state (\textit{e.g.}, susceptible, infectious
or recovered in the classic SIR model \cite{NewmanNetworks,PastorSatorras2015}) and the node states evolve over time according to the rules that constitute the contagion model.
In many such models, node state evolution is probabilistic and occurs over continuous time;
in these cases, the spread of contagion through the network is a continuous-time discrete-space stochastic process where the state space is the set of states for all nodes in the network.
One challenge with stochastic network contagion models is to determine the node state probabilities as functions of time.
Even for very simple contagion models, this is difficult on large networks because the node states do not evolve independently.
In the most general case, node state probabilities can only be determined exactly from network state probabilities, which in turn can only be determined exactly by solving the master equations for the stochastic process.
Since the size of the state space increases geometrically with the number of nodes
this is not computationally feasible on any but the smallest networks.
Instead, various methods have been developed for estimating---and, in some cases, bounding---node state probabilities in network contagion models.
The simplest of these is the node-based mean field approximation \cite{PastorSatorras2015} (also called the first-order model \cite{NewmanNetworks}, the individual-based model \cite{KissMillerSimonEpidemics}, or the $N$-intertwined mean field approximation \cite{Simon2018,VanMieghem2009}).
In this approach, node state probabilities are assumed to be independent of each other, so that joint probabilities can be expressed as the product of individual node state probabilities.
While this is a useful assumption that closes the evolution equations for node state probabilities, it is not perfectly accurate.
In reality, the states of neighbouring nodes are positively correlated: \emph{e.g.}, the neighbours of a susceptible node are more likely to be susceptible than would be expected from assuming independence \cite{Donnelly1993}.
As a result, the node-based mean field approximation applied to standard contagion models will typically overestimate rates of infection and hence underestimate the probability that a given node is susceptible.
Two other approaches used to estimate and bound node state probabilities are the pair-based approximation \cite{Cator2012,PastorSatorras2015} and the message passing approximation \cite{Karrer2010}.
To develop the pair-based approximation, Cator and Van Mieghem \cite{Cator2012} introduced variables for the joint probabilities of the states of neighbouring nodes and they derived evolution equations for these probabilities using a closure approximation to exclude the dependence on higher-order moments.
To develop the message-passing approximation, Karrer and Newman \cite{Karrer2010} considered the directed edges of the network and developed expressions for the probabilities that infection has not yet been transmitted along each edge.
While these two approaches are conceptually very different, Wilkinson and Sharkey \cite{Wilkinson2014} showed that they are equivalent for Markovian SIR dynamics.
Pair-based and message-passing approximations are more computationally demanding than node-based approximations but are generally more accurate than the node-based mean field approximation.
When the underlying network is a tree, both approaches yield exact results for the SIR model \cite{Karrer2010,Sharkey2015}.
In this paper, we develop and analyse a new approximate model of network contagion that can be applied to Markovian SIR and SEIR (susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered) contagion models, including SEIR models with multiple distinct exposed states.
The approximation we derive is a `node-based' approximation; it takes the form of a closed system of differential equations for node state probabilities.
As such, our approximation has a similar level of computational complexity to the node-based mean field approximation and is considerably simpler than the pair-based or message-passing approximations.
We refer to our approximation as the `rooted-tree approximation' because it yields exact results on trees with a single initially-infectious node.
This contrasts with both the node-based mean field model, which can never give exact results, and the pair-based and message-passing approximations, which give exact results on any tree regardless of the number of initially-infectious nodes \cite{Karrer2010,Sharkey2015}.
The exact differential equations obtained using our approximation are very simple and lead to explicit closed-form solutions for node state probabilities on rooted trees.
We believe that these explicit solutions have not previously been reported.
On other networks (non-trees or trees with multiple initially-infectious nodes), we prove that the rooted-tree approximation gives \textit{upper} bounds on the probabilities that nodes are susceptible.
This contrasts with the other approximations described above, which give \textit{lower} bounds on the probabilities that nodes are susceptible;
this lower bound result is generally understood to hold for node-based mean field approximation of SIR models \cite{Cator2018,Cator2014,Donnelly1993} and
has been proved for node-based mean field approximation of SIS models \cite{Donnelly1993,Simon2018}
and for pair-based/message-passing approximation of SIR models \cite{Karrer2010,Wilkinson2014}
The development of our approximation exploits the fact that neither the SIR nor SEIR models permit the possibility of reinfection.
In the case of an SIR model on a tree with a single initially-infectious node, this enables us to formulate an exact expression for the rate of infection in terms of the probabilities that nodes are susceptible.
For other networks and initial conditions, a similar approach enables us to formulate a cooperative system of differential equations
where the approximate rate of infection is a lower bound on the true rate of infection.
This enables us to use Simon and Kiss's methods from \cite{Simon2018} to prove that our approach yields upper bounds on the probablilities that nodes are susceptible.
Our main contribution in this paper can be summarised as the rooted-tree approximation systems given in \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} and \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR} for SIR and SEIR models respectively.
In \cref{S:SIR}, we develop \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} for SIR models and prove that it is exact on rooted trees and otherwise yields an upper bound on the probability of being susceptible.
In \cref{S:SEIR}, we repeat this analysis for SEIR models to develop \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR}.
Finally, in \cref{S:Discussion}, we discuss the merits and limitations of our approach and make comparisons with other theoretical approaches to network contagion.
We conclude by offering avenues for further exploration and extension of the rooted-tree approximation.
\section{Rooted-tree approximation for the SIR model}
\label{S:SIR}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{S:Prelims-SIR}
Let $\{\mathbf{X}(t)\}$ represent the stochastic process for network contagion dynamics on a network of $N$ nodes.
Any realisation of this process can be represented as a time-dependent $N$-dimensional vector of node states, $\mathbf{X}(t)$, so that $\nodeState{k}(t)$ gives the state of the $k$th node at time $t$.
Following various other authors \cite{Sharkey2015,Sharkey2015a,Simon2018,Wilkinson2014}, we use angle brackets to indicate probabilities.
Specifically, we define $\Sus{k}(t) = P\left[X_k(t) = \text{S}\right]$ to be the probability that node $k$ is susceptible at time $t$,
we define $\InfSus{j}{k}(t) = P\left[X_j(t) = \text{I} \cap X_k(t) = \text{S}\right]$ to be the probability that node $j$ is infectious and node $k$ is susceptible at time $t$, and we define other probabilities and joint probabilities similarly.
In this section, we focus on the standard network SIR model as described in \cite{NewmanNetworks} and elsewhere.
At any time, each node can either be susceptible (S), infectious (I) or recovered (R) and node states change over time according to a Markovian process.
Susceptible nodes in contact with infectious nodes become infected at rate $\lamtotn{}$;
that is, the probability that a susceptible node in contact with an infectious node becomes infectious in the next $\Delta t$ is given by $\lamtotn{} \Delta t + o(\Delta t)$.
Infection rates are taken to be additive over neighbours, so that additional infectious neighbours will increase the probability that a susceptible node becomes infectious in a given $\Delta t$.
Infectious nodes recover at rate $\gamman{}$ regardless of the states of their neighbours.
As a further generalisation, we assume that $\lamtotn{}$ can depend on the associated directed edge, and that $\gamman{}$ can depend on the associated node.
Thus, we assume that the rate of infection can depend on the nodes involved
and that the rate of recovery from infection can vary from node to node.
We represent this using subscripts, so that $\lamtotnp{k}{j}$ is the rate at which node $k$ becomes infected given that node $k$ is susceptible and node $j$ is infectious, and $\gamman{k}$ is the rate at which node $k$ would recover given that it is currently infectious.
With this notation, the following is an exact description of node probability dynamics for an SIR model on a network:
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:GeneralEvol-SIR}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &= - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)} \lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k}, \label{E:SusEvol-SIR}\\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t} &= \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)} \lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, \label{E:InfEvol-SIR}\\
\diff{\Rec{k}}{t} &= \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, \label{E:RecEvol-SIR}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\mathcal{N}(k)$ represents the set of upstream neighbours of node $k$ (\emph{i.e.}, the set of nodes $j$ for which $\lamtotnp{k}{j}$ is nonzero).
\subsection{Exact SIR dynamics on a rooted tree}
\label{S:RootedTree-SIR}
Consider the case where the underlying network is a tree and where a single node is infectious at $t = 0$ and all other nodes are susceptible.
We assign the the label $k = 0$ to the initially-infectious node and identify it as the root of the tree.
We will use the term `rooted tree' throughout our analysis (including for SEIR models) to refer to a tree where there is a unique node that is not in a susceptible or recovered state at $t = 0$.
For any other node $k \neq 0$, it is possible to identify a unique parent node $\parn{k}$ as the neighbour of $k$ that lies between node $k$ and the root.
Since all infection spreads from the root node
it follows that node $k$ can only be infected by node $\parn{k}$.
This enables us to simplify our notation and analysis in this section: we define $\lamtotn{k} = \lamtotnp{k}{\parn{k}}$ as the rate at which node $k$ is infected by its parent node, and we omit the sums in equations \eqref{E:SusEvol-SIR} and \eqref{E:InfEvol-SIR}.
Thus, the evolution of node state probabilities on a rooted tree is given by
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:RootedEvol-SIR}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &=
\begin{cases}
0, & k = 0, \\
-\lamtotn{k} \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}, & k \neq 0;
\end{cases}
\label{E:SusEvol-SIR-Rooted}\\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t} &=
\begin{cases}
- \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, & k = 0, \\
\lamtotn{k} \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, & k \neq 0;
\end{cases}
\label{E:InfEvol-SIR-Rooted}\\
\diff{\Rec{k}}{t} &= \gamman{k} \Inf{k}. \label{E:RecEvol-SIR-Rooted}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
These equations need to be solved subject to initial conditions
\begin{align}
\Sus{k}(0) &=
\begin{cases}
0, & k=0, \\
1, & k\neq 0;
\end{cases}, &
\Inf{k}(0) &=
\begin{cases}
1, & k=0, \\
0, & k\neq 0;
\end{cases}, &
\Rec{k}(0) &= 0. \label{E:RootedICs-SIR}
\end{align}
This system of equations is not closed; in order to construct a node-based model of contagion dynamics, we need expressions for the pair probabilities $\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ in terms of the node state probabilities.
The analysis below shows how this can be achieved exactly.
Consider any node $k \neq 0$.
The law of total probability gives
\begin{equation}
\Sus{k}
= \SusSus{\parn{k}}{k}
+ \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}
+ \RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}
\label{E:SusExhaustionSIR}
\end{equation}
Since infection can only spread from node $\parn{k}$ to node $k$ and not \textit{vice versa}, we find that $\nodeState{\parn{k}} = \text{S}$ implies $\nodeState{k} = \text{S}$ (\emph{i.e.}, if the parent of node $k$ is susceptible then node $k$ must also be susceptible).
Hence, $\SusSus{\parn{k}}{k} = \Sus{\parn{k}}$
and \eqref{E:SusExhaustionSIR} can be rearranged as
\begin{equation}
\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} = \Sus{k} - \Sus{\parn{k}} - \RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}.
\label{E:InfSusFromRecSus-SIR}
\end{equation}
This indicates that an expression for $\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ in terms of node state probabilities could be used to obtain an expression for $\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ in terms of node state probabilities.
We note that the only way to achieve a state where $X_{\parn{k}} = \text{R}$ and $X_{k} = \text{S}$ is for node $\parn{k}$ to recover while node $k$ is susceptible.
Once such a state is achieved, it will persist permanently since node $\parn{k}$ will remain recovered and node $k$ cannot become infected except via node $\parn{k}$.
Expressed mathematically, this means that
\begin{equation}
\diff{\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}}{t} = \gamman{\parn{k}} \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}, \qquad k \neq 0,
\end{equation}
which can be rearranged using \eqref{E:SusEvol-SIR-Rooted} to yield
\begin{equation}
\diff{\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}}{t} = - \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}} \diff{\Sus{k}}{t}, \qquad k \neq 0. \label{E:RecSusEvol-SIR}
\end{equation}
Integrating \eqref{E:RecSusEvol-SIR} and applying the initial conditions $\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}(0) = 0$ and $\Sus{k}(0) = 1$ for $k \neq 0$, we find that
$ \RecSus{\parn{k}}{k} = \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}} - \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}} \Sus{k}$.
Substituting this into \eqref{E:InfSusFromRecSus-SIR} then yields
\begin{equation}
\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} = \frac{\lamtotn{k}+\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}} \Sus{k} - \Sus{\parn{k}} - \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}}, \qquad k \neq 0.
\label{E:InfSus-SIR}
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{E:InfSus-SIR} gives an expression for $\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ purely in terms of the node state probabilities $\Sus{k}$ and $\Sus{\parn{k}}$.
Substituting into system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR}, we obtain the following closed system for the node state probabilities:
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &=
\begin{cases}
0, & k = 0, \\
-(\lamtotn{k}+\gamman{\parn{k}}) \Sus{k} + \lamtotn{k} \Sus{\parn{k}} + \gamman{\parn{k}}, & k \neq 0;
\end{cases}
\label{E:SusEvol-SIR-RootedFull}\\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t} &=
\begin{cases}
- \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, & k = 0, \\
(\lamtotn{k}+\gamman{\parn{k}}) \Sus{k} - \lamtotn{k} \Sus{\parn{k}} - \gamman{\parn{k}} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, & k \neq 0;
\end{cases}
\label{E:InfEvol-SIR-RootedFull}\\
\diff{\Rec{k}}{t} &= \gamman{k} \Inf{k}. \label{E:RecEvol-SIR-RootedFull}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
This system can be solved subject to the initial conditions in \eqref{E:RootedICs-SIR} to yield an exact representation of node state probabilities on a rooted tree.
\subsection{Closed form solutions}
\label{S:Solutions-SIR}
The system in \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full} is amenable to further analysis leading to explicit closed form solutions.
We observe that the differential equations in \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full} are all linear and have constant coefficients.
Moreover, the system is partially decoupled:
the equations for $\diff{\Sus{k}}{t}$ are independent of $\Inf{k}$ and $\Rec{k}$,
the equations for $\diff{\Inf{k}}{t}$ are independent of $\Rec{k}$,
and all equations for node state probabilities at a given node are independent of the states of the node's children and siblings.
It follows that the differential equations in \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full} can be solved sequentially using standard methods for first-order constant coefficients linear differential equations.
For example, consider the case where $\lamtotn{}$ and $\gamman{}$ are constant for all nodes.
In this case, the symmetry of the system implies that node state probabilities will be identical for nodes of equal depth (\emph{i.e.}, equal distance from the root node).
Thus, we can obtain all node state probabilities by considering a chain of nodes labelled 0, 1, 2, \textit{etc.} where each node is connected to its ordinal neighbours.
Rearranging \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full} and exploiting the fact that $\Sus{k} + \Inf{k} + \Rec{k} = 1$, the system to be solved for this `chain' problem is
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:ChainEvol-SIR}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} + (\lamtotn{}+\gamman{}) \Sus{k} &=
\begin{cases}
0, & k = 0, \\
\lamtotn{} \Sus{k-1} + \gamman{}, & k \neq 0;
\end{cases}
\label{E:SusEvol-SIR-Chain}\\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t} + \gamman{} \Inf{k} &=
-\diff{\Sus{k}}{t};
\label{E:InfEvol-SIR-Chain}\\
\Rec{k} &= 1 - \Sus{k} - \Inf{k}, \label{E:RecEvol-SIR-Chain}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
subject to the initial conditions \eqref{E:RootedICs-SIR}.
This system can be solved explicitly using a range of different methods (\emph{e.g.}, operator $D$ methods or Laplace transforms).
Applying any of these solution methods, we find that
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:ClosedFormSolution}
\begin{align}
\Sus{k}(t) &= 1
- \frac{\lamtotn{}^k}{(\lamtotn{} + \gamman{})^k}
+ \frac{\lamtotn{}^k}{(\lamtotn{} + \gamman{})^k} \mathrm{e}^{-(\lamtotn{} + \gamman{})t}
\sum_{n=0}^{k-1} \frac{(\lamtotn{} + \gamman{})^n t^n}{n!},
\label{E:ClosedFormSolution-S} \\
\Inf{k}(t) &= \mathrm{e}^{-\gamman{}t}
- \mathrm{e}^{-(\lamtotn{} + \gamman{})t} \sum_{n=0}^{k-1} \frac{\lamtotn{}^n t^n}{n!},
\label{E:ClosedFormSolution-I} \\
\Rec{k}(t) &= \frac{\lamtotn{}^k}{(\lamtotn{} + \gamman{})^k}
- \mathrm{e}^{-\gamman{}t}
+ \mathrm{e}^{-(\lamtotn{} + \gamman{})t} \sum_{n=0}^{k-1} \left[\left(\lamtotn{}^{n} - \frac{\lamtotn{}^k}{(\lamtotn{}+\gamman{})^{k-n}}\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!} \right].
\label{E:ClosedFormSolution-R}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that this simple, closed-form solution has been reported in the literature on contagion on networks.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SIR-Chain-SusAllNodes}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SIR-Chain-SusAllNodes-DE-A.txt}\deSolutionTable
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SIR-Chain-SusAllNodes-Gil-A.txt}\gilSolutionTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=1,xmin=0,xmax=10,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={$\Sus{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=blue, very thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \deSolutionTable;
\addplot[color=blue, mark=+, only marks] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \gilSolutionTable;
\foreach \figLineMaker in {2,3,...,10} {
\addplot[color=black] table[x index = 0, y index = \figLineMaker] from \deSolutionTable;
\addplot[color=black, mark=+, only marks] table[x index = 0, y index = \figLineMaker] from \gilSolutionTable;
}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SIR-Chain-SusAllNodes}
\end{subfigure
\hspace{\fill}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SIR-Chain-InfAllNodes}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SIR-Chain-InfAllNodes-DE-A.txt}\deSolutionTable
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SIR-Chain-InfAllNodes-Gil-A.txt}\gilSolutionTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=0.8,xmin=0,xmax=15,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={$\Inf{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=blue, very thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \deSolutionTable;
\addplot[color=blue, mark=+, only marks] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \gilSolutionTable;
\foreach \figLineMaker in {2,3,...,10} {
\addplot[color=black] table[x index = 0, y index = \figLineMaker] from \deSolutionTable;
\addplot[color=black, mark=+, only marks] table[x index = 0, y index = \figLineMaker] from \gilSolutionTable;
}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SIR-Chain-InfAllNodes}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small
Comparision of the rooted-tree solutions for $\Sus{k}$ and $\Inf{k}$ in \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution} with simulation results from the average of $10^5$ Gillespie algorithm simulations of the full stochastic SIR model.
Subfigure (a) shows results for $\Sus{k}$ while subfigure (b) shows results for $\Inf{k}$.
In both cases, the rooted tree solutions are shown as continuous lines and the numerical results are shown as points marked $+$.
Results are shown for the first ten nodes; results from $k = 1$ are indicated with a thicker blue line and subsequent nodes produce curves further to the right.
Parameters used are $\lamtotn{} = 1$ and $\gamman{} = 0.1$.} \label{fig:SIR-Chain-SusInfAllNodes}
\end{figure}
\cref{fig:SIR-Chain-SusInfAllNodes} shows comparisons of $\Sus{k}(t)$ and $\Inf{k}(t)$ from \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution} with empirical node state probabilities based on averaging $10^5$ Gillespie algorithm simulations of the underlying stochastic model.
All calculations were performed in \textsc{Matlab} and code is provided at \url{https://github.com/cameronlhall/rootedtreeapprox}.
These figures illustrate the fact that \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution} are exact results; the theoretical results for $\Sus{k}(t)$ and $\Inf{k}(t)$ are virtually indistinguishable from results obtained using Gillespie simulations.
\cref{fig:SIR-Chain-SusInfAllNodes} also illustrates some properties of SIR dynamics on a chain that can be derived from analysis of \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution}.
For example, \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution-I} can be rearranged as
\begin{equation}
\Inf{k}(t) = \mathrm{e}^{-\gamman{}t}\left(1
- \mathrm{e}^{-\lamtotn{}t} \sum_{n=0}^{k-1} \frac{\lamtotn{}^n t^n}{n!} \right). \label{E:ClosedFormSolution-IAlt}
\end{equation}
Since the sum in \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution-IAlt} is the first $k$ terms in the Maclaurin series of $\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}$, we see that $\Inf{k}(t)$ will initially be close to zero and will remain close to zero for longer for larger values of $k$.
Additionally, we observe that the term in brackets in \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution-IAlt} will asymptotically approach $1$ as $t \to \infty$, which implies that $\Inf{k}(t) \sim \mathrm{e}^{-\gamman{}t}$ as $t \to \infty$.
Both the early time behaviour where $\Inf{k}$ is close to zero and the late time behaviour where $\Inf{k}\sim \mathrm{e}^{-\gamman{}t}$ are visible in \cref{fig:SIR-Chain-InfAllNodes}.
While \eqref{E:ChainEvol-SIR} and \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution} are simple and elegant results, they are of limited practical use because they are specific to rooted trees.
Results that only hold on trees are not useful for describing contagion on contact networks or social networks because such networks tend to be highly clustered \cite{NewmanNetworks} and the clustering coefficient of a tree is necessarily zero.
However, \eqref{E:ChainEvol-SIR} can be adapted to obtain a node-based approximation of contagion dynamics that gives a bound on $\Sus{k}$ for all networks.
\subsection{Bounds for SIR dynamics on a general network}
\label{S:Bounds-SIR}
In \cref{S:RootedTree-SIR}, we showed that the closed system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full} is equivalent to the system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR}, which describes the evolution of node state probabilities for SIR dynamics on a rooted tree.
In this section, we develop an analogue of \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full} that can be applied to a general network.
We show that this new formulation yields upper bounds on the functions $\Sus{k}(t)$.
We begin by assuming that no node is recovered at $t = 0$, and so we can specify initial conditions where $\Sus{k}(0)$ is given for each node and
\begin{align}
\Inf{k}(0) &= 1 - \Sus{k}(0), & \Rec{k}(0) &= 0.
\end{align}
We make this assumption without loss of generality since the recovered state is permanent in the SIR model; SIR dynamics on a network with initially-recovered nodes will be equivalent to SIR dynamics on a network where those nodes and associated edges have been removed.
The analysis that follows is analogous to the derivation of the exact solution for rooted trees in \cref{S:RootedTree-SIR}, but we derive inequalities throughout.
Let $j$ and $k$ be chosen so that $j \in \mathcal{N}(k)$.
From the laws of probability, we note that $\SusSus{j}{k} + \InfSus{j}{k} + \RecSus{j}{k} = \Sus{k}$, and that $\SusSus{j}{k} \leq \Sus{j}$.
Combining these gives
\begin{equation}
\InfSus{j}{k} \geq \Sus{k} - \Sus{j} - \RecSus{j}{k}. \label{E:InfSusInequal-SIR}
\end{equation}
Now consider the dynamics of $\RecSus{j}{k}$.
We note that a state where $\nodeState{j} = \text{R}$ and $\nodeState{k} = \text{S}$ can only arise from a state where node $\nodeState{j} = \text{I}$ and $\nodeState{k} = \text{S}$.
Additionally, a state where $\nodeState{j} = \text{R}$ and $\nodeState{k} = \text{S}$ can change to another state only if node $k$ becomes infected from one of its neighbours. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\diff{\RecSus{j}{k}}{t} = \gamman{j} \InfSus{j}{k} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{N}(k)} \lamtotnp{k}{i} \InfRecSus{i}{j}{k},
\end{equation}
and, since all probabilities are nonnegative, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\diff{\RecSus{j}{k}}{t} \leq \gamman{j} \InfSus{j}{k}. \label{E:RecSusInequal-SIR}
\end{equation}
Noting that the terms inside the summation in \eqref{E:SusEvol-SIR} are all nonnegative, we observe that
\begin{equation}
-\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} \geq \lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k}. \label{E:SusEvolInequal-SIR}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{E:RecSusInequal-SIR} and \eqref{E:SusEvolInequal-SIR} then gives
\begin{equation}
\diff{\RecSus{j}{k}}{t} \leq - \frac{\gamman{j}}{\lamtotnp{k}{j}} \diff{\Sus{k}}{t}.
\label{E:RecSusDE-Temp}
\end{equation}
Using the assumption that no nodes are recovered at $t = 0$, we recall that $\RecSus{j}{k}(0) = 0$.
This enables us to integrate \eqref{E:RecSusDE-Temp} from $t = 0$ to obtain
$
\RecSus{j}{k}(t) \leq \frac{\gamman{j}}{\lamtotnp{k}{j}} \left[\Sus{k}(0) - \Sus{k}(t)\right],
$
and hence \eqref{E:InfSusInequal-SIR} becomes
\begin{equation}
\InfSus{j}{k} \geq \Sus{k} - \Sus{j} - \frac{\gamman{j}}{\lamtotnp{k}{j}} \left[\Sus{k}(0) - \Sus{k}(t)\right].
\end{equation}
Since $\InfSus{j}{k}$ is also nonnegative, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\InfSus{j}{k}(t) \geq \left[\Sus{k}(t) - \Sus{j}(t) - \frac{\gamman{j}}{\lamtotnp{k}{j}} \left[\Sus{k}(0) - \Sus{k}(t)\right] \right]^{+}, \label{E:MainInfSusInequal-SIR}
\end{equation}
where $[x]^{+}$ is defined so that
\begin{equation}
[x]^{+} =\begin{cases}
0, & x \leq 0, \\
x, & x > 0.
\end{cases} \label{E:PosPartDefn-SIR}
\end{equation}
Substituting into \eqref{E:SusEvol-SIR}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} \leq - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)}
\Big[
- \gamman{j} \Sus{k}(0)
+ (\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}) \Sus{k}(t)
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \Sus{j}(t)
\Big]^{+}. \label{E:MainSusEvolInequal-SIR}
\end{equation}
The differential inequality \eqref{E:MainSusEvolInequal-SIR} holds for the true node state probabilities $\Sus{k}(t)$.
Based on this inequality, we now consider the relationship between the true solutions $\Sus{k}(t)$ and approximate solutions $\SusApprox{k}(t)$ that satisfy the system
\begin{equation}
\diff{\SusApprox{k}}{t} = - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)}
\Big[
- \gamman{j} \SusApprox{k}(0)
+ (\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}) \SusApprox{k}(t)
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \SusApprox{j}(t)
\Big]^{+}, \label{E:ApproxSusEvol-SIR}
\end{equation}
subject to initial conditions
\begin{equation}
\SusApprox{k}(0) = \Sus{k}(0). \label{E:ApproxSusICs-SIR}
\end{equation}
We will show that $\SusApprox{k}(t) \geq \Sus{k}(t)$ for all $k$ and for all $t$.
This follows from the application of Lemma 1 from Simon and Kiss \cite{Simon2018}.
In order to use this result, we need to show that \eqref{E:ApproxSusEvol-SIR} is a cooperative system of differential equations.
This can be done using the Kamke--M{\"{u}}ller sufficient conditions \cite{Donnelly1993,Simon2018}, which state that an autonomous system
$
\diff{\mathbf{x}}{t} = \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}),
$
will be cooperative as long as $\vecfk{k}$ is a nondecreasing function of $\vecxk{j}$ for all $j \neq k$.
In our case, we define $\mathbf{x}$ so that $\vecxk{k} = \SusApprox{k}$, and we define $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x})$ so that
\begin{equation}
\vecfk{k}(\mathbf{x}) =
- \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)}
\Big[
- \gamman{j} \SusApprox{k}(0)
+ (\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}) \vecxk{k}
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \vecxk{j}
\Big]^{+}.
\end{equation}
Since $\vecfk{k}(\mathbf{x})$ is continuous and the constants $\lamtotnp{k}{j}$ are nonnegative, it is clear that $\vecfk{k}$ is a nondecreasing function of $\vecxk{j}$ for all $j$.
Hence, the Kamke--M{\"{u}}ller conditions are satisfied and \eqref{E:ApproxSusEvol-SIR} is a cooperative system.
Using this fact alongside the initial conditions in \eqref{E:ApproxSusICs-SIR}, we apply Lemma 1 from \cite{Simon2018} to conclude that $\SusApprox{k}(t) \geq \Sus{k}(t)$ for all $k$ and for all $t$.
To summarise this result, we can combine \eqref{E:ApproxSusEvol-SIR} with an equation for $\InfApprox{k}$ based on \eqref{E:InfEvol-SIR} to obtain
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR}
\begin{align}
\diff{\SusApprox{k}}{t} &= - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)}
\Big[
- \gamman{j} \SusApprox{k}(0)
+ (\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}) \SusApprox{k}(t)
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \SusApprox{j}(t)
\Big]^{+}, \label{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR-Sus}\\
\diff{\InfApprox{k}}{t} &= \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)}
\Big[
- \gamman{j} \SusApprox{k}(0)
+ (\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}) \SusApprox{k}(t)
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \SusApprox{j}(t)
\Big]^{+} -\gamman{k}\InfApprox{k}(t). \label{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR-Exp}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
If we also introduce $\RecApprox{k} = 1 - \SusApprox{k} - \InfApprox{k}$, this gives a closed system of equations for the approximate dynamics of all node state probabilities.
We refer to system \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} as the rooted-tree approximation for SIR dynamics.
If the underlying network is a rooted tree, we can show that \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} is equivalent to \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full}.
To see this, we note that $\SusApprox{k}(t) \leq \SusApprox{k}(0)$ for all time and that $\SusApprox{j}(t) \geq \SusApprox{k}(t)$ for any $j \in \mathcal{N}(k)$ other than $j = \parn{k}$.
Hence, the terms inside the square brackets in \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} will be nonpositive for any $j \neq \parn{k}$ and applying the positive part operator yields \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full}.
If a network is known to be a rooted tree but the root is not identified, \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} will yield an exact solution without it being necessary to compute the parent of each node, as would be needed in order to use \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes-All-D.txt}\mainTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=1,xmin=0,xmax=2.5,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={$\Sus{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=black,mark=o] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=black,mark=o,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 6] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,mark=+] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,mark=+,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 7] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,mark=square] table[x index = 0, y index = 3] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,mark=square,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 8] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=olive,mark=triangle] table[x index = 0, y index = 4] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=olive,mark=triangle,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 9] from \mainTable;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SIR-ER-AvgSusInf}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SIR-ER-AvgSusInfRec-All-C.txt}\mainTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=1,xmin=0,xmax=12,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={Averaged $\Sus{k}$, $\Inf{k}$, $\Rec{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=black,ultra thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=black,ultra thick,dashed] table[x index = 0, y index = 4] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,dashed,thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 5] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,thin] table[x index = 0, y index = 3] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,dashed,thin] table[x index = 0, y index = 6] from \mainTable;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SIR-ER-AvgSusInf}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{12pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SIR-AlmostTree-SusSelectedNodes}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SIR-AlmostTree-SusSelectedNodes-All-B.txt}\mainTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=1,xmin=0,xmax=6,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={$\Sus{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=black,mark=o] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=black,mark=o,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 7] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,mark=+] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,mark=+,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 8] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,mark=square] table[x index = 0, y index = 4] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,mark=square,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 10] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=olive,mark=triangle] table[x index = 0, y index = 3] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=olive,mark=triangle,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 9] from \mainTable;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SIR-AlmostTree-SusSelectedNodes}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SIR-AlmostTree-AvgSusInf}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SIR-AlmostTree-AvgSusInfRec-All-B.txt}\mainTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=1,xmin=0,xmax=12,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={Averaged $\Sus{k}$, $\Inf{k}$, $\Rec{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=black,ultra thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=black,ultra thick,dashed] table[x index = 0, y index = 4] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,dashed,thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 5] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,thin] table[x index = 0, y index = 3] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,dashed,thin] table[x index = 0, y index = 6] from \mainTable;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SIR-AlmostTree-AvgSusInf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small
Comparisions of the rooted-tree approximation in \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} with simulation results from the average of $10^5$ Gillespie algorithm simulations of the full stochastic SIR model.
Two different networks are illustrated: subfigures (a) and (b) show results from an Erd{\H o}s--R\'enyi random graph of 100 nodes with probability of connection 0.05; subfigures (c) and (d) show results from a 30-node random tree (generated from a random Pr\"{u}fer sequence) with 10 additional edges added at random.
Subfigures (a) and (c) show $\Sus{k}$ for four different nodes: results from the rooted-tree approximation are shown as continuous lines and results from Gillespie simulations are shown as dashed lines;
different nodes are distinguished using different colours and marker styles.
Subfigures (b) and (d) show $\Sus{k}$ (thick black lines), $\Inf{k}$ (medium thickness blue lines) and $\Rec{k}$ (thin red lines) averaged over all nodes in the network:
results from the rooted-tree approximation are shown as continuous lines and results from Gillespie simulations are shown as dashed lines.
Parameters used are $\lamtotn{} = 1$ and $\gamman{} = 0.1$.
There is a single node that is infectious at $t=0$ and all other nodes are susceptible.
} \label{fig:SIR-Comparisons}
\end{figure}
\cref{fig:SIR-Comparisons} shows comparisons of the solution of \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} with results obtained from averaging $10^5$ simulations using the Gillespie algorithm.
As previously, \textsc{Matlab} code is available at \url{https://github.com/cameronlhall/rootedtreeapprox}.
Two different networks are shown: an Erd{\H o}s--R\'enyi (ER) random graph (\cref{fig:SIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes,fig:SIR-ER-AvgSusInf}) and a network that is `almost' a tree (\cref{fig:SIR-AlmostTree-SusSelectedNodes,fig:SIR-AlmostTree-AvgSusInf}) in the sense that it was constructed from a random tree by adding some additional edges at random.
If we think of the Gillespie algorithm results as being the `true' solution, we see from \cref{fig:SIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes,fig:SIR-AlmostTree-SusSelectedNodes} that the rooted-tree approximation does indeed give an upper bound on $\Sus{k}$ for each individual node $k$.
Throughout \cref{fig:SIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes,fig:SIR-AlmostTree-SusSelectedNodes} we see that the rooted-tree approximation deviates from the true solutions by different amounts at different times for different nodes, but the difference is typically substantial as time goes on.
This deviation is observed for the `almost tree' in \cref{fig:SIR-AlmostTree-SusSelectedNodes} as well as for the ER graph in \cref{fig:SIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes}, although we note that the difference between the approximation and the true solution grows faster and becomes larger in the case of the ER graph.
The overall differences between the rooted-tree approximation and the true solution are best seen in \cref{fig:SIR-ER-AvgSusInf,fig:SIR-AlmostTree-AvgSusInf}.
These show $\Sus{k}(t)$, $\Inf{k}(t)$ and $\Rec{k}(t)$ averaged over all nodes in the network.
As may be anticipated from \cref{fig:SIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes,fig:SIR-AlmostTree-SusSelectedNodes}, the rooted-tree approximation gives a overestimate of $\Sus{k}$ (including the equilibrium $\Sus{k}$ as $t \to \infty$) and underestimates the peak in $\Inf{k}$.
Overall, we see that \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} does indeed give bounds on $\Sus{k}$ but that these bounds are not generally very tight.
\section{Rooted-tree approximation for a generalised SEIR model}
\label{S:SEIR}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{S:Prelims-SEIR}
The Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR) model is a well-established compartment model in the epidemiological literature \cite{BrauerEpidemiology}.
The SEIR model differs from the SIR model by the introduction of an `exposed' or `latent' state representing individuals that have encountered the disease but are not yet infectious.
Some SEIR models involve multiple classes of exposed state; such models have been analysed mathematically \cite{Bame2008,Diekmann2010,Guo2012} and applied to modelling certain diseases \cite{Cunniffe2012}.
As with the SIR model, the SEIR model has also been extended to networks \cite{Kang2020,Liu2017,NewmanNetworks,PastorSatorras2015}.
For the most part, network SEIR models in the published literature involve a single exposed state; however, they can be extended to multiple classes of exposed state in an analogous way to compartment models.
Our analysis of SIR models in \cref{S:SIR} can be extended to SEIR models, including in a general setting with arbitrarily many distinct exposed states.
In this section, we replicate our analysis from the previous section but for generalised SEIR models: we construct a node-based approximation of SEIR contagion dynamics that is exact on rooted trees and that yields an upper bound on $\Sus{k}(t)$ on more general graphs.
In our generalised network SEIR model, each node represents an individual, so that at any time a node can either be susceptible (S), exposed of class $u$ (E$^{(u)}$), infectious (I), or recovered (R).
We assume that there are finitely many ($N_u$) different classes of exposed nodes.
Susceptible nodes in contact with infectious nodes may become exposed (in any class) or infectious;
we refer to the process of a susceptible node changing its state as `infection' regardless of whether the node becomes exposed or infectious.
Exposed nodes may change to a different class of exposed, become infectious, or recover; we assume that exposed nodes cannot become susceptible.
Infectious nodes may recover, but cannot become exposed or susceptible.
Once a node has recovered, it remains recovered for all time.
Each of these transitions is governed by a different rate parameter.
The rate of infection (\emph{i.e.}, the total rate at which a susceptible node in contact with an infectious node becomes exposed or infectious) is given by $\lamtotn{}$.
The probability that a susceptible node becomes exposed of class $u$ when infection occurs is given by $\phijn{u}{}$; hence, the probability that a susceptible node becomes infectious when infection occurs is $1 - \sum_{u} \phijn{u}{}$.
The rate at which an exposed node of class $u$ becomes an exposed node of class $v$ is given by $\ajkn{v}{u}{}$.
The rate at which an exposed node of class $u$ becomes infectious is given by $\mujn{u}{}$.
The rate at which an exposed node of class $u$ recovers is given by $\nujn{u}{}$.
The rate at which an infectious node recovers is given by $\gamman{}$.
These different transitions are summarised below:
\begin{align*}
\text{S (with I)} &\xrightarrow[\qquad \qquad \quad]{\lamtotn{} \phijn{u}{}} \text{E}^{(u)} &
\text{E}^{(u)} &\xrightarrow[\qquad \qquad \quad]{\ajkn{v}{u}{}} \text{E}^{(v)} &
\text{E}^{(u)} &\xrightarrow[\qquad \qquad \quad]{\nujn{u}{}} \text{R} \\
\text{S (with I)} &\xrightarrow[\qquad \qquad \quad]{\lamtotn{} (1 - \sum \phijn{u}{})} \text{I} &
\text{E}^{(u)} &\xrightarrow[\qquad \qquad \quad]{\mujn{u}{}} \text{I} &
\text{I} &\xrightarrow[\qquad \qquad \quad]{\gamman{}} \text{R}
\end{align*}
As in \cref{S:Prelims-SIR}, we assume that the model parameters can depend on the relevant edge or node, and we represent this using subscripts.
The most general approach would be to permit both $\lamtotn{}$ and $\phijn{u}{}$ to be edge-dependent;
however, this level of generality in $\phijn{u}{}$ would lead to a problem with the bounding argument in \cref{S:Bounds-SEIR}.
To circumvent this, we permit $\phijn{u}{}$ to depend on the recipient node but not on the infecting node;
that is, we assume $\phijnp{u}{k}{j} = \phijn{u}{k}$.
Physically, this would correspond to a situation where
individual responses to infection (\emph{e.g.}, whether an individual immediately becomes infectious or whether they first enter an exposed state) may vary between individuals but do not depend on the source of infection.
To assist with the analysis of the $N_u$ different classes of exposed state, we introduce the $N_u$-dimensional vectors $\ExpVec{k}(t)$, $\phivecn{k}$, $\nuvecn{k}$, $\muvecn{k}$, $\mathbf{e}$, and $\boldsymbol{0}$ so that
\begin{align}
\ExpVec{k}(t) &=
\begin{bmatrix}
\Exp{k}{1}(t) \\
\Exp{k}{2}(t) \\
\vdots \\
\Exp{k}{N_u}(t)
\end{bmatrix},
&
\phivecn{k} &=
\begin{bmatrix}
\phijn{1}{k} \\
\phijn{2}{k} \\
\vdots \\
\phijn{N_u}{k}
\end{bmatrix},
&
\nuvecn{k}&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\nujn{1}{k} \\
\nujn{2}{k} \\
\vdots \\
\nujn{N_u}{k}
\end{bmatrix},
\\
\muvecn{k}&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mujn{1}{k} \\
\mujn{2}{k} \\
\vdots \\
\mujn{N_u}{k}
\end{bmatrix}, &
\mathbf{e}&=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 \\
1 \\
\vdots \\
1
\end{bmatrix}, &
\boldsymbol{0} &=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
\vdots \\
0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align}
We note that $0 \leq \mathbf{e} \cdot \phivecn{k} \leq 1$ for all $k$, and that the rate at which a susceptible node $k$ in contact with an infectious node $j$ becomes infectious is given by
\begin{equation}
\lamtotnp{k}{j} \left(1 - \sum_{u=1}^{N_u} \phijn{u}{k}\right) = \lamtotnp{k}{j} \left(1 - \mathbf{e} \cdot \phivecn{k} \right).
\end{equation}
Lastly, we define the $N_u$-by-$N_u$ matrix $\An{k}$ so that
\begin{equation}
\left[\An{k}\right]_{uv} =
\begin{cases}
\mujn{v}{k} + \nujn{v}{k} + \displaystyle \sum_{\substack{w = 1 \\ w \neq v}}^{N_u} \ajkn{w}{v}{k}, & u = v, \\
-\ajkn{u}{v}{k}; & u \neq v. \label{E:AnDefn}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
With this notation, the dynamics of contagion on any network can be described using the following equations:
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:GeneralEvol-SEIR}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &= - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)} \lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k}, \label{E:SusEvol-SEIR}\\
\diff{\ExpVec{k}}{t} &= \phivecn{k} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)} \lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k} - \An{k} \ExpVec{k}, \label{E:ExpEvol-SEIR} \\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t} &= (1 - \mathbf{e} \cdot \phivecn{k}) \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)} \lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k} + \muvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVec{k} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, \label{E:InfEvol-SEIR}\\
\diff{\Rec{k}}{t} &= \nuvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVec{k} + \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, \label{E:RecEvol-SEIR}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
which must be solved subject to suitable initial conditions.
Note that if $\phivecn{}$ were permitted to depend on the source of infection as well as on the node that becomes infected then the corresponding $\phivecn{k \leftarrow j}$ terms would need to be included inside the summations in equations \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIR} and \eqref{E:InfEvol-SEIR}.
Note also that \eqref{E:SusEvol-SEIR} can be used to express \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIR} and \eqref{E:InfEvol-SEIR} in the equivalent forms
\begin{subequations}
\setcounter{equation}{1}
\label{E:GeneralEvol-SEIRAlt}
\begin{align}
\diff{\ExpVec{k}}{t} &= -\phivecn{k} \diff{\Sus{k}}{t} - \An{k} \ExpVec{k}, \label{E:ExpEvol-SEIRAlt} \\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t} &= -(1 - \mathbf{e} \cdot \phivecn{k}) \diff{\Sus{k}}{t} + \muvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVec{k} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k}. \label{E:InfEvol-SEIRAlt}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Given the length of the expressions that we obtain for $\lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k}$ in our analysis, we will sometimes prefer \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIRAlt} and \eqref{E:InfEvol-SEIRAlt} over \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIR} and \eqref{E:InfEvol-SEIR} for concision.
\subsection{Exact SEIR dynamics on a rooted tree}
\label{S:RootedTree-SEIR}
As in \cref{S:RootedTree-SIR}, we begin by considering contagion dynamics on a rooted tree, where there is a single node, $k = 0$, which is the source of infection.
This node may either be exposed or infectious at $t = 0$.
Introducing equivalent notation and following the same logic as for the derivation of \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR}, we find that the evolution equations for node state probabilities on a rooted tree are
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:RootedEvol-SEIR}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &=
\begin{cases}
0, & k = 0, \\
-\lamtotn{k} \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}, & k \neq 0;
\end{cases} \label{E:SusEvol-SEIR-Rooted} \\
\diff{\ExpVec{k}}{t} &=
\begin{cases}
- \An{k} \ExpVec{k}, & k = 0, \\
\lamtotn{k} \phivecn{k} \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} - \An{k} \ExpVec{k}, & k \neq 0;
\end{cases} \label{E:ExpEvol-SEIR-Rooted} \\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t} &=
\begin{cases}
\muvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVec{k} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, & k = 0, \\
\lamtotn{k}(1 - \mathbf{e} \cdot \phivecn{k}) \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} + \muvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVec{k} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k}, & k \neq 0 ;
\end{cases} \label{E:InfEvol-SEIR-Rooted}\\
\diff{\Rec{k}}{t} &= \nuvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVec{k} + \gamman{k} \Inf{k}. \label{E:RecEvol-SEIR-Rooted}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
These equations need to be solved subject to initial conditions where
\begin{align}
\Sus{k}(0) &= 1, & \ExpVec{k}(0) &= \boldsymbol{0}, & \Inf{k}(0) &= \Rec{k}(0) = 0, & k &\neq 0, \label{E:MainICs}
\end{align}
and where $\ExpVec{0}(0) = \langle \mathbf{E}_0 \rangle^\text{init}$ and $\Inf{0}(0) = \langle I_0 \rangle^\text{init}$ are specified, but $\Sus{0}(0) = \Rec{0}(0) = 0$.
We note that $\phivecn{0}$ does not appear in system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR} or in the initial conditions.
As we will see, it will be convenient to define $\phivecn{0}$ so that $\phivecn{0} = \langle \mathbf{E}_0 \rangle^\text{init}$, and hence $\langle I_0 \rangle^\text{init} = 1 - \mathbf{e} \cdot \phivecn{0}$.
System \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR} is not closed because of the presence of $\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}$.
As in \cref{S:RootedTree-SIR}, we exploit the properties of a rooted tree to find an expression for $\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ in terms of the node state probabilities and hence obtain a closed system. Since the parent node of node 0 is not defined, we assume (unless otherwise specified) that $k \neq 0$ in all analysis below where $\parn{k}$ is mentioned.
We begin by noting that the law of total probability gives
\begin{equation}
\Sus{k} = \SusSus{\parn{k}}{k} + \sum_{u=1}^{N_u} \ExpSus{\parn{k}}{u}{k} + \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} + \RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}. \label{E:SusExhaustionSEIR}
\end{equation}
The fact that infection can only spread from node $\parn{k}$ to node $k$ and not \textit{vice versa} means that if either $X_{\parn{k}} = \text{S}$ or $X_{\parn{k}} = \text{E}^{(j)}$ then $X_{k} = \text{S}$.
Hence, $\SusSus{\parn{k}}{k} = \Sus{\parn{k}}$ and $\ExpSus{\parn{k}}{u}{k} = \Exp{\parn{k}}{u}$.
Thus, \eqref{E:SusExhaustionSEIR} can be rearranged to give
\begin{align}
\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}(t) &= \Sus{k} - \Sus{\parn{k}}(t) - \sum_{u=1}^{N_u} \Exp{\parn{k}}{u} - \RecSus{\parn{k}}{k} \notag \\
&= \Sus{k} - \Sus{\parn{k}} - \mathbf{e} \cdot \ExpVec{\parn{k}} - \RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}. \label{E:InfSusFromRecSus}
\end{align}
As previously, we now seek a differential equation for $\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ that can be directly integrated to obtain $\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ in terms of node state probabilities.
The only way to achieve a state where $X_{\parn{k}} = \text{R}$ and $X_{k} = \text{S}$ is for node $\parn{k}$ to recover (either form an exposed state or an infectious state) while node $k$ is susceptible.
Once node $\parn{k}$ has recovered, this state will then be permanent.
Since $\ExpSus{\parn{k}}{u}{k} = \Exp{\parn{k}}{u}$, it therefore follows that
\begin{align}
\diff{\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}}{t} &= \nuvecn{\parn{k}} \cdot \ExpVec{\parn{k}} + \gamman{\parn{k}} \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}.
\end{align}
Using \eqref{E:SusEvol-SEIR-Rooted}, this rearranges to give
\begin{align}
\diff{\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}}{t} &= \nuvecn{\parn{k}} \cdot \ExpVec{\parn{k}} - \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}} \diff{\Sus{k}}{t}, \label{E:RecSusEvol-SEIR}
\end{align}
The next step is to rewrite $\nuvecn{\parn{k}} \cdot \ExpVec{\parn{k}}(t)$ in terms of the derivatives of node state probabilities.
For any node $k$ (including $k = 0$), let $\Mn{k}$ be the block matrix defined by
\begin{equation}
\Mn{k} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & \boldsymbol{0}^T \\
- \phivecn{k} & \An{k}
\end{bmatrix},
\label{E:MDefn}
\end{equation}
so that the block matrix inversion formula \cite{MatrixCookbook} gives
\begin{equation}
\Mn{k}^{-1} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & \boldsymbol{0}^T \\[12pt]
\An{k}^{-1} \phivecn{k} & \An{k}^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Using $\Mn{k}$, we can rewrite equations \eqref{E:SusEvol-SEIR-Rooted} and \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIR-Rooted} together as
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} \\[6pt]
\diff{\ExpVec{k}}{t}
\end{bmatrix}
=
- \Mn{k}
\begin{bmatrix}
\lamtotn{k} \InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} \\[6pt]
\ExpVec{k}
\end{bmatrix}. \label{E:SusAndExpEvol}
\end{equation}
If we assert that $\InfSus{p(0)}{0}(t) \equiv 0$, then
\eqref{E:SusAndExpEvol} also applies when $k = 0$.
We now use $\Mn{\parn{k}}$ to express $\nuvecn{\parn{k}} \cdot \ExpVec{\parn{k}}$ in terms of derivatives as follows:
\begin{align}
\nuvecn{\parn{k}} \cdot \ExpVec{\parn{k}}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\lamtotn{\parn{k}}\InfSus{\pparn{k}}{\parn{k}} \\[6pt]
\ExpVec{\parn{k}}
\end{bmatrix} \label{E:nuDotExpTemp}\\[6pt]
&=
- \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T
\end{bmatrix}
\Mn{\parn{k}}^{-1}
\begin{bmatrix}
\diff{\Sus{\parn{k}}}{t} \\[6pt]
\diff{\ExpVec{\parn{k}}}{t}
\end{bmatrix} \notag \\[6pt]
&= -\nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}} \diff{\Sus{\parn{k}}}{t} - \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \diff{\ExpVec{\parn{k}}}{t}. \label{E:nuDotExpTemp2}
\end{align}
Note that equation \eqref{E:nuDotExpTemp2} applies even when $\parn{k} = 0$; even though the value of $\InfSus{\pparn{k}}{\parn{k}}$ would be undefined in \eqref{E:nuDotExpTemp}, it is multiplied by zero and does not affect the final result.
Substituting \eqref{E:nuDotExpTemp2} into \eqref{E:RecSusEvol-SEIR} yields
\begin{equation}
\diff{\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}}{t} = -\nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}} \diff{\Sus{\parn{k}}}{t} - \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \diff{\ExpVec{\parn{k}}}{t} - \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}} \diff{\Sus{k}}{t},
\end{equation}
and hence we find that
\begin{equation}
\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k} = \Cn{k} -\nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}} \Sus{\parn{k}} - \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \ExpVec{\parn{k}} - \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}} \Sus{k},
\label{E:RecSusTemp1}
\end{equation}
where $\Cn{k}$ is a constant to be determined from the initial conditions.
In the case where $\parn{k} \neq 0$, the initial conditions in \eqref{E:MainICs} yield
\begin{equation}
\Cn{k} = \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}} + \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}}. \label{E:CnFormula}
\end{equation}
In the case where $\parn{k} = 0$, the initial conditions yield
\begin{equation}
\Cn{k} = \nuvecn{0}^T \An{0}^{-1} \langle \mathbf{E}_0 \rangle^\text{init} + \frac{\gamman{0}}{\lamtotn{k}}.
\end{equation}
As noted previously, this motivates us to define $\phivecn{0} = \langle \mathbf{E}_0 \rangle^\text{init}$ so that \eqref{E:CnFormula} can be used to give the constant $\Cn{k}$ for all nodes $k \neq 0$.
Combining \eqref{E:RecSusTemp1} and \eqref{E:CnFormula}, we obtain
an expression for $\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ that can be substituted into \eqref{E:InfSusFromRecSus} to yield
\begin{multline}
\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} =
- \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T\An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}}
- \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}}
+ \frac{\lamtotn{k} + \gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}}\Sus{k} \\
- \left(1 - \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^{T} \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}} \right)\Sus{\parn{k}}
- \left( \mathbf{e} - \An{\parn{k}}^{-T} \nuvecn{\parn{k}} \right) \cdot \ExpVec{\parn{k}}.
\label{E:InfSusTemp1}
\end{multline}
We note that \eqref{E:AnDefn} implies that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{u=1}^{N_u} \left[\An{k}\right]_{uv} = \mujn{v}{k} + \nujn{v}{k},
\end{equation}
and hence
$\An{k}^T \mathbf{e} = \muvecn{k} + \nuvecn{k}$. This rearranges to yield
$
\An{k}^{-T} \muvecn{k} = \mathbf{e} - \An{k}^{-T} \nuvecn{k}
$
so that \eqref{E:InfSusTemp1} becomes
\begin{multline}
\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k} =
- \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T\An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}}
- \frac{\gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}}
+ \frac{\lamtotn{k} + \gamman{\parn{k}}}{\lamtotn{k}}\Sus{k} \\
- \left(1 - \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^{T} \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}} \right)\Sus{\parn{k}}
- \muvecn{\parn{k}}^T\An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \ExpVec{\parn{k}}.
\label{E:InfSusTemp2}
\end{multline}
As an aside, we note from \eqref{E:AnDefn} that $\An{k}^T$ is a strictly diagonally dominant matrix with positive diagonal entries. From \cite{BermanNonnegativeMatrices}, it follows that $\An{k}^T$ is inverse-positive.
Hence, the elements of $\An{k}^{-T} \muvecn{k}$ and $\An{k}^{-T} \nuvecn{k}$ are all between 0 and 1 (inclusive) and we note that the coefficients of $\Sus{\parn{k}}$ and $\Exp{\parn{k}}{u}$ in \eqref{E:InfSusTemp2} are all nonpositive.
Using \eqref{E:InfSusTemp2} and \eqref{E:GeneralEvol-SEIRAlt}, system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR} can be rearranged to give
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:RootedEvol-SEIR-Full}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &=0,
& k&=0, \label{E:Sus0EvolTreeFull} \\
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &= - \left(\lamtotn{k} + \gamman{\parn{k}}\right) \Sus{k}
+\lamtotn{k} \left(1 - \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^{T} \An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}} \right)\Sus{\parn{k}} \notag \\
&\qquad + \lamtotn{k} \muvecn{\parn{k}}^T\An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \ExpVec{\parn{k}}
+ \gamman{\parn{k}}
- \lamtotn{k} \nuvecn{\parn{k}}^T\An{\parn{k}}^{-1} \phivecn{\parn{k}}, & k&\neq0, \label{E:SusEvol-SEIR-TreeFull} \\
\diff{\ExpVec{k}}{t} &= -\phivecn{k} \diff{\Sus{k}}{t} - \An{k} \ExpVec{k}, \label{E:ExpEvol-SEIR-TreeFull} \\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t}
&=
-(1 - \mathbf{e}\cdot \phivecn{k}) \diff{\Sus{k}}{t} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k} + \muvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVec{k}, \label{E:InfEvol-SEIR-TreeFull} \\
\diff{\Rec{k}}{t}
&=
\nuvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVec{k} + \gamman{k} \Inf{k}. \label{E:RecEvol-SEIR-Tree}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
As for the SIR model in \cref{S:RootedTree-SIR}, this is a partially-decoupled system.
To see this, we observe that the dynamics of $\Sus{k}$ in \eqref{E:SusEvol-SEIR-TreeFull} are independent of $\ExpVec{k}$; instead, $\diff{\Sus{k}}{t}$ depends only on $\Sus{k}$ and the node state probabilities at the parent node.
Since equations \eqref{E:SusEvol-SEIR-TreeFull} and \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIR-TreeFull} are both independent of $\Inf{k}(t)$ and $\Rec{k}(t)$, this implies that \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR-Full} can be solved from the root outwards, with $\Sus{k}$ solved before $\ExpVec{k}$ at each subsequent node.
Moreover, consider the case where exposed states are traversed in order---that is, where $\ajkn{u}{v}{k}$ is zero whenever $u < v$).
This situation is physically plausible, since it corresponds to a case where a diseased individual can progress through different exposed ``stages'' before becoming infectious or recovering, but can never return to an earlier class of exposed state from a more advanced class.
In this case, the matrix $\An{k}$ will be lower triangular and hence the scalar equations that constitute \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIR-TreeFull} will also be partially decoupled.
Since system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR-Full} is linear, this implies that the full solution can be obtained exactly by the sequential solving of linear scalar ordinary differential equations;
it is not even necessary to solve an eigenvalue problem in order to obtain the exact solution to SEIR dynamics on a rooted tree.
While we do not present closed-form solutions here, it is theoretically possible to obtain results analogous to \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR-Full} using standard methods for nonhomogeneous constant-coefficients differential equations.
As in \cref{S:Solutions-SIR}, we test the rooted-tree formulation in system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR-Full} by considering SEIR dynamicson a chain.
For simplicity, we consider the case where there is a single class of exposed state and so the vectors and matrices in \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR-Full} can be replaced by scalars.
Noting that the equivalent of $\An{k}$ will be $\musimpn{k} + \nusimpn{k}$, this leads to the system
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:ChainEvol-SEIR-Simp}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &=0,
& k&=0, \label{E:Sus0EvolTreeSimp} \\
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &=
\frac{\lamtotn{k} \musimpn{k-1} }{\musimpn{k-1} + \nusimpn{k-1}} \left(\phin{k-1}\Sus{k-1} + \ExpSimp{k-1} \right) \notag \\
&\qquad - \left(\lamtotn{k} + \gamman{k-1}\right) \Sus{k} + \gamman{k-1}
- \frac{\lamtotn{k} \nusimpn{k-1} \phin{k-1} }{\musimpn{k-1} + \nusimpn{k-1}}, & k&\neq0, \label{E:SusEvol-SEIR-TreeSimp} \\
\diff{\ExpSimp{k}}{t} &= -\phin{k} \diff{\Sus{k}}{t} - (\musimpn{k} + \nusimpn{k}) \ExpSimp{k}, \label{E:ExpEvol-SEIR-TreeSimp} \\
\diff{\Inf{k}}{t}
&=
-(1 - \phin{k}) \diff{\Sus{k}}{t} - \gamman{k} \Inf{k} + \musimpn{k} \ExpSimp{k}, \label{E:InfEvol-SEIR-TreeSimp}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\cref{fig:SEIR-Chain-SusInfAllNodes} shows a comparison of $\Sus{k}(t)$ and $\Inf{k}(t)$ obtained from the numerical solution of \eqref{E:ChainEvol-SEIR-Simp} with the average of $10^5$ Gillespie algorithm simulations of the underlying stochastic model
(code again available at \url{https://github.com/cameronlhall/rootedtreeapprox}).
As in \cref{fig:SIR-Chain-SusInfAllNodes}, this exemplifies the fact that system \eqref{E:ChainEvol-SEIR-Simp} is exact; the two sets of results are virtually indistinguishable.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SEIR-Chain-SusAllNodes}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SEIR-Chain-SusAllNodes-DE-B.txt}\deSolutionTable
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SEIR-Chain-SusAllNodes-Gil-B.txt}\gilSolutionTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=1,xmin=0,xmax=15,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={$\Sus{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=blue, very thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \deSolutionTable;
\addplot[color=blue, mark=+, only marks] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \gilSolutionTable;
\foreach \figLineMaker in {1,3,4,5,...,11} {
\addplot[color=black] table[x index = 0, y index = \figLineMaker] from \deSolutionTable;
\addplot[color=black, mark=+, only marks] table[x index = 0, y index = \figLineMaker] from \gilSolutionTable;
}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SEIR-Chain-SusAllNodes}
\end{subfigure
\hspace{\fill}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SEIR-Chain-InfAllNodes}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SEIR-Chain-InfAllNodes-DE-B.txt}\deSolutionTable
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SEIR-Chain-InfAllNodes-Gil-B.txt}\gilSolutionTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=0.8,xmin=0,xmax=30,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={$\Inf{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=blue, very thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \deSolutionTable;
\addplot[color=blue, mark=+, only marks] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \gilSolutionTable;
\foreach \figLineMaker in {1,3,4,5,...,11} {
\addplot[color=black] table[x index = 0, y index = \figLineMaker] from \deSolutionTable;
\addplot[color=black, mark=+, only marks] table[x index = 0, y index = \figLineMaker] from \gilSolutionTable;
}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SEIR-Chain-InfAllNodes}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small
Comparision of the rooted-tree solutions for $\Sus{k}$ and $\Inf{k}$ based on numerical solution of \eqref{E:ChainEvol-SEIR-Simp} with simulation results from the average of $10^5$ Gillespie algorithm simulations of the full stochastic model.
Subfigure (a) shows results for $\Sus{k}$ while subfigure (b) shows results for $\Inf{k}$.
In both cases, the rooted tree solutions are shown as continuous lines and the numerical results are shown as points marked $+$.
Results are shown for the first eleven nodes (from $k = 0$ to $k = 10$); results from $k = 1$ are indicated with a thicker blue line and subsequent nodes produce curves further to the right.
Parameters used are $\lamtotn{} = 1$, $\phin{} = 0.8$, $\musimpn{} = 1.2$, $\nusimpn{} = 0.05$, and $\gamman{} = 0.1$.
For consistency with the value of $\phin{}$, the initial conditions are $\langle I_0 \rangle^\text{init} = 0.2$ and $\langle E_0 \rangle^\text{init} = 0.8$.} \label{fig:SEIR-Chain-SusInfAllNodes}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bounds for SEIR dynamics on a general network}
\label{S:Bounds-SEIR}
We now replicate the argument in \cref{S:Bounds-SIR} to obtain bounds on the solution of generalised SEIR dynamics on a general network.
In this case our starting point is system \eqref{E:GeneralEvol-SEIR} and we assume without loss of generality that $\Rec{k}(0) = 0$ for all nodes.
By analogous arguments to \cref{S:Bounds-SIR}, we observe that
\begin{equation}
\InfSus{j}{k} \geq \Sus{k} - \Sus{j} - \mathbf{e} \cdot \ExpVec{j} - \RecSus{j}{k}, \label{E:InfSusInequal-SEIR}
\end{equation}
that
\begin{equation}
\diff{\RecSus{j}{k}}{t} \leq \nuvecn{j} \cdot \ExpVec{j} + \gamman{j} \InfSus{j}{k}, \label{E:RecSusInequal-SEIR}
\end{equation}
and that
\begin{equation}
-\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} \geq \lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k} \label{E:SusEvolInequal-SEIR}
\end{equation}
for any $j \in \mathcal{N}(k)$.
We also replicate some of the analysis from \cref{S:RootedTree-SEIR}.
We define $\Mn{k}$ as in \eqref{E:MDefn} and we observe that equations \eqref{E:SusEvol-SEIR} and \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIR} can be rearranged to give
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} \\[6pt]
\diff{\ExpVec{k}}{t}
\end{bmatrix}
=
- \Mn{k}
\begin{bmatrix}
\displaystyle \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)} \lamtotnp{k}{j} \InfSus{j}{k} \\[6pt]
\ExpVec{k}
\end{bmatrix}. \label{E:SusAndExpEvolBnd-SEIR}
\end{equation}
Note that \eqref{E:SusAndExpEvolBnd-SEIR} is only valid because $\phivecn{k}$ depends only on $k$ not on the possible sources of infection.
If this were not the case, then it would not be possible to collect the summation terms in the vector on the right hand side of \eqref{E:SusAndExpEvolBnd-SEIR}.
Repeating the manipulations from \cref{S:RootedTree-SEIR}, we find that
\begin{equation}
\nuvecn{j} \cdot \ExpVec{j} = -\nuvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \phivecn{j} \diff{\Sus{j}}{t} - \nuvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \diff{\ExpVec{j}}{t}. \label{E:NuDotExp-BoundArgument}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{E:RecSusInequal-SEIR}, \eqref{E:SusEvolInequal-SEIR}, and \eqref{E:NuDotExp-BoundArgument}, we find that
\begin{equation}
\diff{\RecSus{j}{k}}{t} \leq
-\nuvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \phivecn{j} \diff{\Sus{j}}{t} - \nuvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \diff{\ExpVec{j}}{t}
- \frac{\gamman{j}}{\lamtotnp{k}{j}} \diff{\Sus{k}}{t}.
\end{equation}
Integrating from $t = 0$ and using the fact that $\RecSus{j}{k}(0) = 0$, we obtain an upper bound on $\RecSus{j}{k}$ that can be substituted into \eqref{E:InfSusInequal-SEIR} and rearranged to obtain
\begin{multline}
\InfSus{j}{k} \geq
\frac{\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}}{\lamtotnp{k}{j}} \Sus{k}
- (1-\mathbf{e}\cdot\phivecn{j})\Sus{j}(t)
- \muvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \left[ \phivecn{j} \Sus{j} + \ExpVec{j} \right]
\\
-\nuvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \left[ \phivecn{j} \Sus{j}(0) + \ExpVec{j}(0) \right]
- \frac{\gamman{j}}{\lamtotnp{k}{j}}\Sus{k}(0).
\end{multline}
Since it is also true that $\InfSus{j}{k} \geq 0$, we can use $[x]^+$ as defined in \eqref{E:PosPartDefn-SIR} to obtain a bound on $\InfSus{j}{k}$ analogous to \eqref{E:MainInfSusInequal-SIR}.
Substituting into \eqref{E:SusEvol-SEIR} then yields
\begin{multline}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} \leq
- \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)}
\Big[(
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \nuvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \left[ \phivecn{j} \Sus{j}(0) + \ExpVec{j}(0) \right]
- \gamman{j}\Sus{k}(0)
\\
+ (\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}) \Sus{k}
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} (1-\mathbf{e}\cdot\phivecn{j}) \Sus{j}(t)
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \muvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \left[ \phivecn{j} \Sus{j} + \ExpVec{j} \right]
\Big]^{+}. \label{E:MainSusEvol-SEIR-Inequal}
\end{multline}
We note that \eqref{E:MainSusEvol-SEIR-Inequal} depends only on the probabilities of nodes being susceptible or exposed.
Hence, \eqref{E:MainSusEvol-SEIR-Inequal} can be coupled with \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIRAlt} to obtain a closed system.
As in \cref{S:Bounds-SIR}, we will use this closed system to show that
In this case, however, we need to rearrange the system before we can apply the Kamke--M{\"u}ller conditions.
Based on the forms of \eqref{E:MainSusEvol-SEIR-Inequal} and \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIRAlt}, we define $\QuuVec{k}(t) = \An{k}^{-1} \left[ \phivecn{k}\Sus{k}(t) + \ExpVec{k}(t)\right]$.
We note that all entries of $\An{k}^{-1}$ are nonnegative and so $\QuuVec{k}$ is nonnegative.
Rearranging to obtain $\ExpVec{k} = \An{k} \QuuVec{k} - \phivecn{k} \Sus{k}$ and substituting into \eqref{E:MainSusEvol-SEIR-Inequal} and \eqref{E:ExpEvol-SEIRAlt} then yields
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:SusQuuSystem}
\begin{align}
\diff{\Sus{k}}{t} &\leq
- \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)}
\Big[(
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \nuvecn{j} \cdot \QuuVec{j}(0)
- \gamman{j}\Sus{k}(0)
+ (\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}) \Sus{k}
\notag \\[-12pt]
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad - \lamtotnp{k}{j} (1-\mathbf{e}\cdot\phivecn{j}) \Sus{j}(t)
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \muvecn{j} \cdot \QuuVec{j}
\Big]^{+}, \label{E:SusQuuSystem-Sus} \\
\diff{\QuuVec{k}}{t} &= -\An{k} \QuuVec{k} + \phivecn{k} \Sus{k}. \label{E:SusQuuSystem-Quu}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
System \eqref{E:SusQuuSystem} is a system of differential inequalities and equations;
as in \cref{S:Bounds-SIR}, we now consider the relationship between the true solutions $\Sus{k}$ and $\QuuVec{k}$ and the approximate solutions $\SusApprox{k}$ and $\QuuVecApprox{k}$ that satisfy the equivalent of \eqref{E:SusQuuSystem} where the inequality in \eqref{E:SusQuuSystem-Sus} is replaced with an equation.
Since the off-diagonal elements of $\An{k}$ are all nonpositive, since $1-\mathbf{e}\cdot\phivecn{k} \geq 0$, and since the elements of $\phivecn{k}$ and $\muvecn{k}$ are all nonnegative, this system will satisfy the Kamke--M\"{u}ller conditions and be cooperative.
Hence, we can again apply Lemma 1 from \cite{Simon2018} to conclude that $\SusApprox{k}(t) \geq \Sus{k}(t)$ and that $\QuuVecApprox{k}(t) \geq \QuuVecApprox{k}(t)$ for all $k$ and for all $t$.
While $\QuuVec{k}$ is a useful theoretical construct, we will generally formulate and solve the SEIR rooted-tree approximation using $\ExpVec{k}$ rather than $\QuuVec{k}$.
Using stars to indicate approximate solutions as previously, we use \eqref{E:MainSusEvol-SEIR-Inequal} and \eqref{E:GeneralEvol-SEIRAlt} to obtain the following system as the SEIR rooted-tree approximation:
\begin{subequations}
\label{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR}
\begin{align}
\diff{\SusApprox{k}}{t} &=
- \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(k)}
\Big[(
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \nuvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \left[ \phivecn{j} \SusApprox{j}(0) + \ExpVecApprox{j}(0) \right]
- \gamman{j}\SusApprox{k}(0)
\notag \\[-12pt]
&\qquad \qquad \qquad
+ (\lamtotnp{k}{j} + \gamman{j}) \SusApprox{k}
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} (1-\mathbf{e}\cdot\phivecn{j}) \SusApprox{j}(t)
\notag \\[-4pt]
&\qquad \qquad \qquad
- \lamtotnp{k}{j} \muvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \left[ \phivecn{j} \SusApprox{j} + \ExpVecApprox{j} \right]
\Big]^{+}, \label{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR-Sus} \\
\diff{\ExpVecApprox{k}}{t} &= -\phivecn{k} \diff{\SusApprox{k}}{t} - \An{k} \ExpVecApprox{k}, \label{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR-Exp} \\
\diff{\InfApprox{k}}{t}
&=
-(1 - \mathbf{e}\cdot \phivecn{k}) \diff{\SusApprox{k}}{t} - \gamman{k} \InfApprox{k} + \muvecn{k} \cdot \ExpVecApprox{k}. \label{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR-Inf}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Just as \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SIR} is equivalent to \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full} for a rooted tree, we can show that \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR} is equivalent to \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SEIR-Full} for a rooted tree.
To see this, we again use the fact that $\SusApprox{j}(t) \geq \SusApprox{k}(t)$ for any $j \in \mathcal{N}(k)$ other than $j = \parn{k}$, and we also use the fact that $\An{k}^{-T} \muvecn{k} + \An{k}^{-T} \nuvecn{k} = \mathbf{e}$.
Given that $\SusApprox{k}(t)$ is a decreasing function of $t$, it follows from these observations that
\begin{equation}
\nuvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \phivecn{j} \SusApprox{j}(0)
+ (1-\mathbf{e}\cdot\phivecn{j}) \SusApprox{j}(t)
+ \muvecn{j}^T \An{j}^{-1} \phivecn{j} \SusApprox{j}(t)
\geq \SusApprox{j}(t)
\end{equation}
and hence the term inside the square brackets in \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR-Sus} will be nonpositive whenever $j \neq \parn{k}$.
As a result, \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR} will yield exact solutions for rooted trees without it being necessary to compute the parent of each node.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SEIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SEIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes-All-A.txt}\mainTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=1,xmin=0,xmax=5,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={$\Sus{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=black,mark=o] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=black,mark=o,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 5] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,mark=+] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,mark=+,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 6] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,mark=square] table[x index = 0, y index = 3] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,mark=square,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 7] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=olive,mark=triangle] table[x index = 0, y index = 4] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=olive,mark=triangle,dashed,mark options=solid] table[x index = 0, y index = 8] from \mainTable;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SEIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{SEIR-ER-AvgSusInf}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotstableread{fig-SEIR-ER-AvgSusExpInfRec-All-A.txt}\mainTable
\begin{axis}[
ymin=0,ymax=1,xmin=0,xmax=12,
xlabel={$t$},
ylabel={Averaged $\Sus{k}$, $\ExpSimp{k}$, $\Inf{k}$, $\Rec{k}$},
width={\textwidth},
height={0.8\textwidth}
]
\addplot[color=black,ultra thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 1] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=black,ultra thick,dashed] table[x index = 0, y index = 5] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=olive,thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 2] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=olive,dashed,thick] table[x index = 0, y index = 6] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue] table[x index = 0, y index = 3] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=blue,dashed] table[x index = 0, y index = 7] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,thin] table[x index = 0, y index = 4] from \mainTable;
\addplot[color=red,dashed,thin] table[x index = 0, y index = 8] from \mainTable;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:SEIR-ER-AvgSusExpInf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small
Comparisions of the rooted-tree approximation in \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR} with simulation results from the average of $10^5$ Gillespie algorithm simulations of the full stochastic SEIR model for an Erd{\H o}s--R\'enyi random graph with 100 nodes and probability of connection 0.05.
Subfigure (a) shows $\Sus{k}$ for four different nodes: results from the rooted-tree approximation are shown as continuous lines and results from Gillespie simulations are shown as dashed lines;
different nodes are distinguished using different colours and marker styles.
Subfigure (b) show $\Sus{k}$ (very thick black lines), $\ExpSimp{k}$ (thick olive lines), $\Inf{k}$ (medium thickness blue lines) and $\Rec{k}$ (thin red lines) averaged over all nodes in the network:
results from the rooted-tree approximation are shown as continuous lines and results from Gillespie simulations are shown as dashed lines.
Parameters used are $\lamtotn{} = 1$, $\phin{} = 0.8$, $\musimpn{} = 1.2$, $\nusimpn{} = 0.05$, and $\gamman{} = 0.1$.
There is a single node that is infectious at $t=0$ and all other nodes are susceptible.
} \label{fig:SEIR-Comparisons}
\end{figure}
\cref{fig:SEIR-Comparisons} is analogous to \cref{fig:SIR-Comparisons} and it enables equivalent conclusions to be drawn.
\cref{fig:SEIR-Comparisons} shows comparisons of the rooted-tree approximation \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR} with estimates of the true solution obtained from averaging $10^5$ simulations using the Gillespie algorithm for an ER random graph.
Code is available at \url{https://github.com/cameronlhall/rootedtreeapprox} and the ER graph used to generate \cref{fig:SEIR-Comparisons} is different from the ER graph used in \cref{fig:SIR-Comparisons}.
From \cref{fig:SEIR-ER-SusSelectedNodes} we verify that the rooted-tree approximation gives an upper bound on $\Sus{k}$ for the nodes $k$ illustrated.
From \cref{fig:SEIR-ER-AvgSusExpInf}, we see that there is a reasonably large difference between the true solution (dashed lines) and the rooted-tree approximation (continuous lines) and so once again the bounds provided by \eqref{E:RootedTreeApprox-SEIR} are not generally very tight.
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{S:Discussion}
In this paper, we have developed and analysed a new approximation method, the rooted-tree approximation, that can be applied to SIR and generalised SEIR models on networks.
In the case of a tree with a unique initially-infected node, our approximation is exact and leads to a partially-decoupled system of linear differential equations for the node-state probabilities.
As demonstrated in \cref{S:Solutions-SIR}, we can obtain explicit closed-form solutions for the node state probabilities for SIR models and, in theory, equivalent results can also be obtained for SEIR models.
Since the pair-based and message-passing approximations are both exact on \textit{all} trees (not just rooted trees) but closed-form solutions for these are not well known, it is instructive to compare our system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full} with appropriate rooted tree simplifications of the pair-based SIR approximation in \cite{Sharkey2015} and the message-passing SIR approximation in \cite{Karrer2010}.
For the pair-based approximation (\emph{e.g.}, system (3) in \cite{Sharkey2015}), we find that we can use proof by induction from the leaves to the root to show that $\InfSus{k}{\parn{k}} = 0$ on a rooted tree.
Subsequently, we can use the fact that $\SusSus{\parn{k}}{k} = \Sus{k}$ to convert the remaining equations of the pair-based approximation into a linear system equivalent to \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full}.
For the message-passing model in \cite{Karrer2010} applied to a rooted tree, we can work from the leaves to the root to show that $H^{\parn{k}\leftarrowk} = 0$ and then work back out from the root to the leaves to obtain expressions for $H^{k\leftarrow\parn{k}}$ that are analogous to an integrated form of our system \eqref{E:RootedEvol-SIR-Full}.
As a result, we find that the explicit solutions in \eqref{E:ClosedFormSolution} could have been obtained from the pair-based or message-passing approximations;
while we believe that this is the first time that these explicit solutions have been reported, they are consistent with---and theoretically obtainable from---established results in the existing literature.
One important feature of our rooted-tree approximation is that it provides upper bounds on $\Sus{k}$ at every node.
This is an important strength of our method since it provides a contrast from other methods that yield lower bounds on $\Sus{k}$.
One promising avenue for further research is to combine the rooted-tree approximation with other approximations in order to obtain better estimates of node-state probabilities.
Such hybrid approximations are likely to be more practical than the rooted-tree approximation because the bounds on $\Sus{k}$ are rarely very tight.
As we see from \cref{fig:SIR-Comparisons,fig:SEIR-Comparisons}, there are often large differences between the node-state probabilities obtained from the rooted-tree approximation and estimates of the true node-state probabilities based on Gillespie algorithm simulations.
Another limitation of the rooted-tree approximation is that it is reliant on assumptions that there can be no return to a susceptible state and that there can only be one variety of infectious state.
Both of these assumptions are necessary in order to express $\InfSus{\parn{k}}{k}$, and hence the rate of infection, in terms of a linear combination of the node-state probabilities and $\RecSus{\parn{k}}{k}$ for rooted trees.
One avenue for further research would be to explore whether the rooted-tree approximation can be extended to SIRS and SEIRS models or SIR models with multiple infecious states.
Perhaps this would involve developing new approximations that are not exact on rooted trees but would still provide a consistent upper bound on $\Sus{k}$, analogous to the $W(x,y) = \min(x,y)$ approximation for SIS models introduced in \cite{Simon2018}.
Overall, the rooted-tree approximation presented in this paper is a new way of analysing SIR and SEIR dynamics on networks that has advantages and disadvantages over existing methods.
The principal strengths of the rooted-tree approximation are that it is simple (leading to a cooperative, piecewise-linear system of equations for node-state probabilities), that it yields exact closed-form solutions in certain situations, and that it yields upper bounds on $\Sus{k}$ in contrast with the lower bounds provided by other approximations.
The principal weakness of the rooted-tree approximation is that the bounds on $\Sus{k}$ are not very tight unless the underlying network is a tree with a single initially-infected node.
Despite this limitation, the simplicity of the rooted-tree approximation means that it has the potential to be a useful tool in developing new computational methods for analysing contagion dynamics on networks.
\bibliographystyle{siamplain}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
In high energy physics, the common practice is to express quantities in a system where
a basis of
physical constants ($c$, $\hbar$, ...) are defined to be dimensionless with a value of 1, a system referred to as \textit{natural units}.
This practice allows for quantities that would otherwise be dimensionally incompatible
in the SI, such as length and time, or mass, momentum, and energy, to be expressed in the same
units and treated as dimensionally equivalent. While such a system greatly eases the complexity of physical calculations, trouble can
occur when attempting to convert quantities from a system such as the SI to a system of
natural units, or vice versa. One has to determine the correct combination of factors of each
of the unit constants, a process that is both tedious and prone to error. To address
this issue, we introduce \texttt{NatPy}{}, a Python package capable of determining the correct
conversion to and from a defined system of natural units.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{BVerbatim}
>> import natpy as nat
>> P = 1 * nat.MeV * nat.fm**(-3)
>> P.convert(nat.Pa)
<Quantity 1.60217663e+32 Pa>
\end{BVerbatim}
\caption{Converting \SI{1}{MeV.fm^{-3}} to pascals using
\texttt{NatPy}{}, two units that are dimensionally equivalent when $c=\hbar=1$. }
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\texttt{NatPy}{} leverages the \texttt{astropy.units.core.Unit} and \texttt{astropy.units.quantity.Quantity} classes from the \texttt{astropy} package \cite{refId0,2018} in order to allow users to define syntax friendly unit objects for seamless integration into any Python workflow. The power of \texttt{NatPy}{} manifests when large and/or complicated expressions are functions
of many dimensional quantities. In \cref{section::Intall} we summarise the installation and usage of \texttt{NatPy}{}. In \cref{section::conversion_methos} we outline a generic method for determining the necessary combination of factors of the unit constants for a conversion before finally discussing the implementation of this method in \cref{sections::algebra_imp,sections::tech_imp}.
\section{Installation and Usage}
\label{section::Intall}
\texttt{NatPy}{} requires $\texttt{python}\geq3.7$ and can be installed via pip:
\begin{center}
\begin{BVerbatim}
pip install natpy
\end{BVerbatim}
\end{center}
For instructions on usage, readers can refer to a presentation given at PyHEP 2021, which includes a Binder tag for an interactive tutorial \url{https://github.com/AndreScaffidi/Natpy_pyhep_2021}, as well as the package repository \url{https://github.com/AndreScaffidi/NatPy} and PyPI page \url{https://pypi.org/project/NatPy/}.
\section{Conversion}
\label{section::conversion_methos}
This method aims to determine the necessary factor required to convert a physical
quantity from one set of units to another. This assumes of the use of a generalised natural unit convention
(e.g. $\hbar = c = ... = 1$), and includes determining the necessary combination of
factors of these natural units required to obtain desired units. The outlined method
provides a rigorous 2--step process to determine a conversion factor, without the
trouble of remembering the correct non--natural unit versions of physical quantities. For example, converting energy to mass as $\si{eV}\to \si{eV}/ c^{2}$.
\subsection{Notation}
The quantity $[q]$ with square brackets is defined as the units of the physical quantity $q$. This includes exact units maintaining metric prefixes and other normalisations. So for example
\begin{equation}
m_e = \SI{512}{keV} \implies [m_e]=[\si{keV}]
\end{equation}
Second, the quantity $\{q\}$ with curly brackets is the dimensions of the quantity $q$. In the same example \begin{equation}
m_e = \SI{512}{keV} \implies \{m_e\} = \{\mathrm{mass}\}.
\end{equation}
Importantly, dimensions removes any overall factors ($\{\mathrm{years}\} = \{\mathrm{seconds}\}=\{\mathrm{time}\}$), but $\{\mathrm{length}\}\neq \{\mathrm{time}\}$ regardless of natural units.
Finally, we have $\abs{q}$ as the value of the quantity in units of $[q]$ (not absolute value), so \begin{equation}
m_e = \SI{512}{keV} \implies \abs{m_e}=512.
\end{equation}
As a result, a quantity may be decomposed as \begin{equation}
q = \abs{q}[q]
\end{equation}
\subsection{Method}
Our method from here outlines a two-step process to determine the conversion
factor from one set of units to another. The process begins with extracting the initial
units, dropping the value of quantity and maintaining the precise units, including
overall multipliers. Consider the example quantity conversion: \begin{equation*}
\SI{1}{MeV}\qq{to}\SI{5.07d+3}{nm^{-1}}
\end{equation*}
This quantity is given in units of megaelectronvolts (\si{MeV}). We
wish to display this quantity in units of inverse nanometres (\si{nm^{-1}}). Such a conversion requires determining a relevant factor of $c$ and $\hbar$ as well as an overall scalar factor, which can
be troublesome to determine. We let $\abs{q}_i$, $[q]_i$ be the pre--conversion value and units of $q$, and $\abs{q}_f$, $[q]_f$ the post--conversion.
A conversion aims to solve the expression \begin{equation}
\abs{q}_f[q_f]=\abs{q}_i[q]_i.
\label{constant}
\end{equation}
The method aims to find a conversion factor $x$ such that \begin{equation}
\abs{q}_f = x\cdot \abs{q}_i,
\end{equation}
by solving \begin{equation}
[q]_f = x^{-1}\cdot [q]_i,
\end{equation}
The factor $x$ has two contributions; one from the overall conversion factor between
``same dimensional'' quantities, denoted $f$ (e.g. metres to centimetres, seconds to
years), and a factor due to the ``natural dimensions" denoted $d$ (e.g. metres to
seconds, mass to energy). The first step in this method is to determine the ``natural dimensionality" of our conversion, i.e. the combination of factors of basis physical constants ($\hbar$, $c$, etc.) necessary to achieve our desired conversion. We determine the necessary product of natural units that has the same dimension of $\{q\}_f/\{q\}_i$, so \begin{equation}
d=\hbar^{n_{\hbar}}c^{n_c}...,\qq{such that} \{d\}=\{q\}_f/\{q\}_i.
\end{equation}
Hence we must first obtain $d$ from $\{q\}_f/\{q\}_i$, which in our example is \begin{gather*}
\{d\}=\frac{\{\si{nm^{-1}}\}}{\{\si{MeV}\}}\\
=\frac{1}{\{\mathrm{length}\}\{\mathrm{energy}\}} = \frac{1}{\{\mathrm{energy}\}\{\mathrm{time}\}}\frac{\{\mathrm{time}\}}{\{\mathrm{length}\}}=\{\hbar\}^{-1}\{c\}^{-1}\\
\implies d = (\hbar c)^{-1}
\end{gather*}
From here we carefully consider $d$, as this can be expressed in a variety of units. We have from the convention of natural units, that $d=\abs{d}[d]=1$ for any $d$ composed of basis physical constants. Due to this, equation (\ref{constant}) can be written \begin{equation}
\abs{q}_f [q]_f = \abs{d}[d]\cdot\abs{q}_i [q]_i,
\end{equation}
giving our conversion equations \begin{equation}
\abs{q}_f = f \abs{d}\abs{q}_i,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{finv}
[q]_f = f^{-1}[d][q]_i,
\end{equation}
where $\abs{d}$ corresponds to the value of $d$ in units of $[d]$.
The second step from here is to determine the multiplicative factor $f$ to match the remaining units. We have by construction of $d$ that $[q]_f$ and $[d]\cdot [q]_i$ have the same dimensions, so any difference in units is simply a scalar multiplicative factor. So $f$ is determined as in equation (\ref{finv}).
In our original example, if $d=(\hbar c)^{-1} = \SI{5.07}{eV^{-1}.\micro m^{-1}}$,\begin{gather*}
f = [q]_f^{-1} [d][q]_i \\
= ([\si{nm}]) ([\si{eV}]\cdot [\si{\micro m}])^{-1}([\si{MeV}])\\
=\frac{[\si{nm}]}{[\si{\micro m}]}\frac{[\si{MeV}]}{[\si{eV}]}
= \num{d-3}\times\num{d+6}=\num{d+3}
\end{gather*}
Finally, we have that $x = \overline{d}\cdot f$, which is our final conversion factor. In our example,
\begin{gather*}
x = \num{5.07d+3}.
\end{gather*}
So as a result,
\begin{gather*}
\overline{q}_f = \num{5.07d+3} \overline{q}_i,\\
\mathrm{where}\quad[q]_i=\si{MeV},\qq{and}
[q]_f = \si{nm^{-1}},\\
\implies \SI{1}{MeV}=\SI{5.07d+3}{nm^{-1}}
\end{gather*}
To summarise the method;
\begin{enumerate}
\item Find the dimensions of the quotient of the final and initial units, $\{d\}=\{q\}_f/\{q\}_i$,
\item Determine the combination of factors that has the same dimensions as that
quotient, $d=\hbar^{n_{\hbar}}c^{n_{c}}...$,
\item Find the resulting scaling factor from cancelling any remaining units,
$f=[q]^{-1}_f [d][q]_i$,
\item Obtain the final conversion factor, $x=\abs{d}\cdot f$.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Algebraic Implementation}
\label{sections::algebra_imp}
The method expressed above is still somewhat tedious. While it does give a systematic
framework from which to find conversion factors, step 2 in which $d$ is determined
from the dimensionality is not automatic, requiring somewhat arbitrary algebraic manipulations until
the correct factor is found. Instead, we propose a direct computation to determine
the factor $d$ using simple linear algebra. It is this implementation on which \texttt{NatPy}{} is
developed, applying this computation to dimensional quantities to obtain conversion factors.
\subsection{Notation}
In this algebraic framework, we shall define two sets of vectors; The powers of
dimensionality (PoD) of a quantity $q$, denoted $\widetilde{q}$, and the powers of natural
units (PoNU) of a dimensional conversion factor $d$, denoted $\vec{d}$. The PoD of a quantity $q$ is the vector of multiplicities of
the dimensions of $q$ in terms of a set of base units. The seven SI base units are used in
\texttt{NatPy}{}. \begin{equation}
\{q\}=\{\mathrm{length}\}^{n_{\mathrm{length}}}\{\mathrm{time}\}^{n_{\mathrm{time}}}\{\mathrm{mass}\}^{n_{\mathrm{mass}}}...
\implies \widetilde{q}:=\begin{pmatrix}
n_{\mathrm{length}} \\n_{\mathrm{time}}\\n_{\mathrm{mass}}\\\vdots
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
For example, a force $F$ has a PoD given by: \begin{gather*}
\{F\} =
\{\mathrm{newton}\}=\frac{\{\mathrm{mass}\}\{\mathrm{length}\}}{\{\mathrm{time}\}^2}\\
\implies \widetilde{F}=\begin{pmatrix}
F_{\mathrm{length}} \\F_{\mathrm{time}}\\F_{\mathrm{mass}}
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\-2\\1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{gather*}
The powers of natural units (PoNU) of the dimensional conversion factor $d$ is defined
similarly, but by the powers of the basis physical constants rather than base units. So \begin{equation}
d=\hbar^{n_{\hbar}}c^{n_{c}}... \implies \vec{d}:=\begin{pmatrix}
n_{\hbar} \\n_{c}\\\vdots
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Implementation}
Given the previously defined notation, the goal of the outlined method is
simple; find $\vec{d}$ given $\widetilde{d}$. Since $d$ is defined entirely by $\vec{d}$, the PoNU is now the target quantity to calculate. The dimensionality factor $d$ is found such that $\{d\} = \{q\}_f/\{q\}_i.$ Due to the
property that $a^ba^c = a^{b+c}$, it follows that $\widetilde{d}=\widetilde{q}_f -
\widetilde{q}_i$, giving a simple method to determine $\widetilde{d}$. Furthermore,
applying this same property to the definition of $d=\hbar^{n_{\hbar}}c^{n_{c}}...$, we
have that \begin{gather*}
\begin{pmatrix}
d_{\mathrm{length}} \\
d_{\mathrm{time}} \\
d_{\mathrm{mass}} \\
\vdots
\end{pmatrix} = n_{\hbar}\begin{pmatrix}
\hbar_{\mathrm{length}} \\
\hbar_{\mathrm{time}} \\
\hbar_{\mathrm{mass}} \\
\vdots
\end{pmatrix} + n_c\begin{pmatrix}
c_{\mathrm{length}} \\
c_{\mathrm{time}} \\
c_{\mathrm{mass}} \\
\vdots
\end{pmatrix} + ...\\
\widetilde{d} =\begin{pmatrix}
\hbar_{\mathrm{length}} & c_{\mathrm{length}} & ... \\
\hbar_{\mathrm{time}} & c_{\mathrm{time}} & ... \\
\hbar_{\mathrm{mass}} & c_{\mathrm{mass}} & ... \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
n_{\hbar} \\n_c\\\vdots
\end{pmatrix} = A\vec{d}\\
\implies \vec{d}=A^+\widetilde{d}
\end{gather*}
We shall define $A$ the change of dimensionality (CoD) matrix. The final result depends on calculating the left pseudo--inverse
of $A$, denoted $A^+$, obtainable as the Moore--Penrose inverse of $A$. Notice the CoD matrix is
entirely independent of the initial or final units, being a function only of the chosen
system of natural units. This results in $A^+$ needing only to be calculated once, and
is usable for all natural dimensional conversions in a given system of natural units.
The goal of determining $\vec{d}$ from $\widetilde{d}$ has become one of simple algebra;
\begin{enumerate}
\item The CoD matrix $A$ is constructed from the PoD vectors of each of the basis physical constants,
($\widetilde{\hbar}$, $\widetilde{c}$,...),
\item The Moore--Penrose pseudo--inverse $A^+$ of $A$ is calculated,
\item Apply $A^+$ to the PoD vector of the dimensionality factor $\widetilde{d}$
to obtain the the PoNU vector of this conversion, $\vec{d}$,
\item Calculate $d$ from $\vec{d}$.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Technical Implementation}
\label{sections::tech_imp}
\texttt{NatPy}{} implements the above conversion process by leveraging the \texttt{astropy} Python module. It makes use of the \texttt{astropy.units.core.Unit} and \texttt{astropy.units.quantity.Quantity} classes to define dimensional objects. It then draws on the \texttt{astropy.constants} submodule to define the list of constants on which to form the natural unit basis. From this list the change of dimensionality (CoD) matrix is constructed, and pseudo--inverted by the \texttt{numpy.linalg} submodule \cite{numpy}. The \texttt{natpy.convert} method is constructed to calculate the power of dimensionality (PoD) vector between initial and target units, so as to find the power of natural units (PoNU) vector of the dimensional conversion factor $d$. The correct factors of natural units are multiplied to the initial quantity, and \texttt{astropy} is used for the final scalar conversion to the target units.
By utilising the \texttt{astropy} module, \texttt{numpy} is fully incorporated. \texttt{Quantity} objects may store \texttt{numpy.ndarray} objects as the quantity, providing full access to \texttt{numpy}'s \texttt{ufunc} functionality. In storing an array of quantities with the same units, such an array may be converted between compatible units by only calculating a conversion factor once, applying the same factor across the array.
\section{Summary}
\texttt{NatPy}{} provides a computational framework for calculations involving dimensional quantities in a way that properly considers equivalences due to the conventions of a given natural units scheme. Quantities may be converted from the conventional units of high energy physics, such as masses in \si{GeV} or times in \si{fm}, to the standard SI units \si{kg} and \si{s} and vice versa, when considering a system of natural units. \texttt{NatPy}{} automates this process, reducing the likelihood of simple algebraic errors. The framework provided can be incorporated into existing analysis, either by using \texttt{NatPy}{} to find relevant conversion factors, or by storing quantities in \texttt{Quantity} objects and using \texttt{NatPy}{} to convert such an object between compatible units. \texttt{NatPy}{} is fully incorporated with \texttt{numpy} to allow for powerful functionality.
\section{Acknowledgements}
TLH acknowledges support from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. AS acknowledges support from the research grant “The Dark Universe: A Synergic Multimessenger Approach” No. 2017X7X85K funded by MIUR and the project “Theoretical Astroparticle Physics (TAsP)” funded by the INFN. We thank all funding agencies.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sIntro}
The study of forbidden induced subgraphs in relation to perfectness of graphs goes back to
Berge~\cite{B} who conjectured that perfect graphs can be characterised
by forbidding all induced odd cycles of length at least five and their complements;
this was later proven by
the first author and Robertson, Seymour and Thomas~\cite{CRST}
(and the result is referred to as the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem).
For the sake of brevity, we ought to say that
graph perfectness is one of the classical topics in graph theory
and refer the reader to
a monograph by Ram\'{i}rez-Alfons\'{i}n and Reed~\cite{JR}
and to surveys by Hougardy~\cite{H}
and by Roussel, Rusu and Thuillier~\cite{RRT}.
In the spirit of graph perfectness,
Gy\'arf\'as~\cite{G} initiated the study of hereditary classes of graphs whose
chromatic number can be bounded by a function of their clique number.
This topic (referred as $\chi$-boundedness) is also widely investigated,
in particular for classes of graphs defined by forbidden induced subgraphs.
One of the major open conjectures in this area, stated by Gy\'arf\'as~\cite{G}
and by Sumner~\cite{Sumner}, asserts that
for every forest $F$, the class of all $F$-free graphs is $\chi$-bounded.
We refer the reader to surveys by Schiermeyer and Randerath~\cite{SR}
and by Scott and Seymour~\cite{SandS}
(see also the recent result of Bonamy and Pilipczuk~\cite{BP}).
Similarly, conditions on forbidden induced subgraphs are investigated in relation
to the computational complexity of colourability.
In particular, Kr\'{a}{l\kern-0.035cm\char39\kern-0.03cm}, Kratochv\'{i}l, Tuza and Woeginger~\cite{KKTW}
characterised graphs $H$ such that,
given an $H$-free graph and an integer $k$,
the question whether the graph is $k$-colourable can be decided in polynomial time
(namely, for $H$ chosen as an induced subgraph of $K_1 \cup P_3$ or $P_4$,
and for every other graph $H$ the problem is NP-complete),
and they initiated the investigation of forbidden pairs.
More results on the topic can be found surveyed by
Golovach, Johnson, Paulusma and Song~\cite{GJPS}
who also asked for the complete classification of
forbidden pairs in relation to the complexity of colourability.
This question is still open.
For perfect graphs the fact that $k$-colourability
is decidable in polynomial time
follows from the study of Gr\"otschel, Lov\'asz and Schrijver~\cite{GLS}.
In relation to the present paper,
we recall that every $P_4$-free graph is perfect by Seinsche~\cite{Seinsche}
(it also follows from the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem).
On the other hand,
if the chromatic number is bounded by a linear function of the clique number
for the class of graphs defined by a forbidden induced subgraph $H$,
then $H$ is an induced subgraph of $P_4$
(for instance, this follows by combining the result of Erd\H{o}s~\cite{E}
who showed that there are graphs of arbitrarily large girth and chromatic number
and the result Brause, Randerath, Schiermeyer and Vumar~\cite{BRSV}
who showed that there is no linear binding function
for the class of $\{ 3K_1, 2K_2 \}$-free graphs).
On the other hand,
particular forbidden induced subgraphs (and sets of subgraphs)
are known to give polynomial binding functions,
and there is a number of pairs of forbidden induced subgraphs giving linear binding functions.
The results and open questions
of this type can be found surveyed in~\cite{SR};
in particular, the question of characterising
the pairs of connected forbidden subgraphs
giving that the chromatic number is at most the clique number plus one.
It seems natural to also ask about the improvement of a binding function
when restricting a class by additional constraints.
For instance,
the first author and Seymour~\cite{CS} showed that
the chromatic number of a connected $K_{1,3}$-free graph of independence at least $3$
is at most twice its clique number;
whereas $K_{1,3}$-free graphs in general
admit a polynomial binding function
(for instance, see~\cite{SR}).
Considering forbidden pairs $\{ K_{1,3}, Y \}$,
Brause et al.~\cite{BHKRSV} showed that, depending on the choice of~$Y$,
the class of all connected $\{ K_{1,3}, Y \}$-free graphs distinct from an odd cycle
(and of independence at least $3$)
either consists of perfect graphs
or contains infinitely many graphs which are not $\omega$-colourable
(see Theorem~\ref{alpha3} in Section~\ref{sOne}).
The dichotomic nature of this result is non-trivial
(since the classes are non-hereditary,
perfectness and $\omega$-colourability are different concepts),
and it motivates the general question of forbidden pairs $\{ X, Y \}$,
which is answered by the present study.
As the main results,
we characterise the pairs of forbidden induced subgraphs
in relation to perfectness and $\omega$-colourability
for classes of graphs restricted by additional constraints.
The basic characterisations concern pairs $\{ X, Y \}$ such that
every $\{ X, Y \}$-free graph (distinct from $C_5$) is perfect,
and pairs
such that every $\{ X, Y \}$-free graph (distinct from $C_5$) is $\omega$-colourable
(see Theorem~\ref{main} in Section~\ref{sMain}).
More generally,
we present characterisations of pairs $\{ X, Y \}$
giving perfectness ($\omega$-colourability)
of all connected $\{ X, Y \}$-free graphs of independence at least $3$
distinct from an odd cycle,
and analogous characterisations subject to
each subset of the additional constraints
(stated formally in Theorem~\ref{mainNoExceptions}).
Furthermore,
we characterise pairs $\{ X, Y \}$ in relation to
perfectness ($\omega$-colourability) of all but finitely many
$\{ X, Y \}$-free graphs satisfying the constraints
(see Theorem~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}).
In other words, there is $n_0$ (depending on $\{ X, Y \}$) such that
all considered $\{ X, Y \}$-free graphs on at least $n_0$ vertices
are perfect ($\omega$-colourable).
The present characterisations related to perfectness
are, in fact, different from those related to $\omega$-colourability
due to the consideration of the additional constraints.
(The constraints are discussed in Section~\ref{sOne}.)
We note that the present conditions on forbidden pairs
(without the additional constraints on a class)
were studied in relation to $\chi$-boundedness and to computational complexity of colourability.
In fact, under each of the conditions (or its generalisation),
the class is known to be $\chi$-bounded
and the $k$-colourability is decidable in polynomial time
(see the known results surveyed in~\cite{SR} and~\cite[Theorem 21 (ii)]{GJPS},
respectively).
We remark that for some pairs,
the $\chi$-boundedness and the fact that $k$-colourability is decidable in polynomial time
can also be deduced
using the present results
(for details, see Section~\ref{sOne}).
In this sense, Theorems~\ref{mainNoExceptions} and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}
show that these forbidden pairs yield a stronger property.
The paper is structured as follows.
In~Section~\ref{sPre}, we recall basic notation.
In~Section~\ref{sMain}, we state the main results on the forbidden pairs
(see Theorems~\ref{main}, \ref{mainNoExceptions} and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}).
In addition, we use the fact that a collection of pairs of graphs
can be represented by a graph and we provide figures depicting the collections.
In Section~\ref{sOne},
we discuss the additional constraints and the pairings given by the characterisations,
and we comment on the connections to known results.
The key steps for proving the main results are broken down
in Sections~\ref{sForb}, \ref{sPerf}, \ref{sOmega} and~\ref{sFam}.
In Section~\ref{sForb}, we show several structural lemmas
for classes defined by particular forbidden induced subgraphs.
We use the classical result of Ramsey~\cite{R} (recalled in Theorem~\ref{Ramsey})
and the characterisation of connected $Z_1$-free graphs by Olariu~\cite{O}
(recalled in Lemma~\ref{olariu}).
In Section~\ref{sPerf},
we show a detailed statement on how conditions on forbidden pairs imply perfectness.
Using the structural lemmas shown in the previous section, the perfectness
follows either directly (for most pairs) or with the aid of the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem
(recalled in Theorem~\ref{tSPGT}).
Similarly in Section~\ref{sOmega},
we show how conditions on forbidden pairs imply $\omega$-colourability.
We use the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem and one of the structural lemmas
(shown in Section~\ref{sForb})
and also Ramsey's Theorem.
In Section~\ref{sFam}, we exclude all possible remaining pairs.
In particular, we recall that the pairs containing $K_{1,3}$ were resolved in~\cite{BHKRSV},
and we eliminate the remaining cases
with the help of several constructions of families of graphs which are
not perfect (not $\omega$-colourable)
and structural properties observed in Section~\ref{sForb}.
Finally in Section~\ref{sProving}, we combine the ingredients
(assembled in Sections~\ref{sOne} and \ref{sPerf}, \ref{sOmega} and~\ref{sFam})
and prove the main results.
\section{Notation}
\label{sPre}
In this short section, we recall basic definitions and concepts.
We refer the reader to~\cite{BM} for additional notation
and for a detailed introduction to the concepts of subgraphs and graph colourings.
We recall that a graph $G$ is \emph{$k$-colourable}
if the vertices of $G$ can be coloured with $k$ colours
so that adjacent vertices obtain distinct colours;
and the smallest integer $k$ with this property
is called the \emph{chromatic number} of $G$, and denoted $\chi(G)$.
We let $\omega(G)$ denote the \emph{clique number} of a graph $G$,
that is, the number of vertices of a maximum complete subgraph of $G$.
Clearly, $\chi(G) \geq \omega(G)$ for every graph $G$.
For the sake of simplicity,
we say that a graph $G$ is \emph{$\omega$-colourable} if $\chi(G) = \omega(G)$.
We recall that a graph $G$ is \emph{perfect} if $\chi(G')=\omega(G')$
for every induced subgraph $G'$ of $G$.
Given a family $\mathcal H$ of graphs, we say that a graph $G$ is \emph{$\mathcal H$-free}
if $G$ contains no member of $\mathcal H$ as an induced subgraph
(and we write $\{ H_1, H_2, \dots, H_k \}$-free for a family $\{ H_1, H_2, \dots, H_k \}$,
and $H$-free as a short for $\{ H \}$-free).
We let $K_n, P_n, C_n$ denote the complete graph, the path, the cycle on $n$ vertices, respectively.
We let $K_{n_1, \dots, n_k}$ denote the complete $k$-partite graph
whose partities are of sizes $n_1, \dots, n_k$.
We let $K_{1,3}^+$ denote the graph obtained from $K_{1,3}$ by subdividing an edge,
and $D$ the graph obtained from $K_4$ by removing an edge,
and $Z_1$ the graph obtained from $K_3$ by adding a pendant edge,
and $Z_2$ the graph obtained from $Z_1$ by subdividing the pendant edge
(see graphs $K_{1,3}^+, D, Z_1$ and $Z_2$ depicted in the bottom part of Figure~\ref{figPairsX};
the graphs are commonly referred to as chair, diamond, paw and hammer, respectively).
We let $G \cup H$ denote the disjoint union of graphs $G$ and $H$,
and we write $k G$ for the disjoint union of $k$ copies of $G$.
We say that $G$ is of independence at least $k$ if $G$ contains induced $k K_1$;
and the largest such integer $k$ is called the \emph{independence number} of $G$.
We let $\overline{G}$ denote the complement of a graph $G$
that is, the graph on the same vertex set as $G$ whose vertices are adjacent if and only if
the corresponding vertices of $G$ are not.
(For instance see graph $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$ depicted in Figure~\ref{figPairsX}.)
\section{Main results}
\label{sMain}
We present characterisations of the pairs of forbidden induced subgraphs
in relation to perfectness and $\omega$-colourability of graphs,
see Theorems~\ref{main}, \ref{mainNoExceptions} and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}.
The pairs of interest are collected in Definitions~\ref{d1}, \ref{d2} and~\ref{d3},
and the class notation is given in Definition~\ref{dc}.
We invite the reader to consult Figures~\ref{f1},~\ref{figPairsX},~\dots,~\ref{fc}.
\begin{definition}\label{d1}
Consider graphs $3K_1, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_3, Z_1$ and $D$
(defined in Section~\ref{sPre}).
Let $\mathcal P_1$ be the collection of all pairs $\mathcal X$ of graphs
such that at least one of the following conditions is satisfied.
\begin{itemize}
\item
At least one of the graphs of $\mathcal X$ is an induced subgraph of $P_4$.
\item
$\mathcal X$ is either $\{ 3K_1, K_3 \}$ or $\{ 3K_1, Z_1 \}$ or $\{ 3K_1, D \}$.
\item
$\mathcal X$ is either $\{ K_1 \cup P_3, K_3 \}$ or $\{ K_1 \cup P_3, Z_1 \}$ or $\{ K_1 \cup P_3, D \}$.
\item
$\mathcal X$ is either $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_3 \}$ or $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, Z_1 \}$.
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, let $\Omega_1$ be the collection consisting of $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$
and all pairs of $\mathcal P_1$.
\end{definition}
The following are the basic characterisations
(see also Figure~\ref{f1}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{main}
Let $\mathcal X$ be a pair of graphs and
$\mathcal P_1$ and $\Omega_1$ be the collections described in Definition~\ref{d1}.
Then every $\mathcal X$-free graph (distinct from $C_5$) is perfect
if and only if
$\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_1$.
Similarly, every $\mathcal X$-free graph (distinct from $C_5$) is $\omega$-colourable
if and only if
$\mathcal X$ belongs to $\Omega_1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.82]{pairsX0.pdf}
\caption{Depicting collections $\mathcal P_1$ and $\Omega_1$
described in Definition~\ref{d1}.
The graph in the picture represents collection $\Omega_1$ of pairs of graphs as follows.
Every vertex represents a graph and two vertices are adjacent if and only if
the corresponding graphs form a pair.
(Each of the bold vertices represents a family of graphs
and the bold edge represents the collection of all pairs given by the families.)
The dashed edge represents the pair belonging to $\Omega_1$ but not to $\mathcal P_1$.
(We note that $3K_1, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_1 \cup K_2$ is the complement of
$K_3, Z_1, D$, respectively.)
}
\label{f1}
\end{figure}
As the main results, we extend the characterisations of Theorem~\ref{main}
in relation to classes of graphs given by particular sets of additional constraints.
The extended characterisations are presented in Theorems~\ref{mainNoExceptions}
and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}.
In particular,
we note that Theorem~\ref{main}
is implied by the combination of items (1) and (6) of Theorem~\ref{mainNoExceptions}.
\begin{definition}\label{dc}
For the sake of brewity, we use the following notations.
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\mathcal G$ is the class of all graphs,
\item
$\mathcal G_{5}$ is the class of all graphs distinct from $C_5$,
\item
$\mathcal G_{o}$ is the class of all graphs distinct from an odd cycle,
\item
$\mathcal G_{c}$ is the class of all connected graphs,
\item
$\mathcal G_{c, 5}$ is the class of all connected graphs distinct from $C_5$,
\item
$\mathcal G_{\alpha}$ is the class of all graphs of independence at least $3$,
\item
$\mathcal G_{o, \alpha}$ is the class of all graphs of independence at least $3$
distinct from an odd cycle,
\item
$\mathcal G_{c, \alpha}$ is the class of all connected graphs of independence at least $3$,
\item
$\mathcal G_{c, o}$ is the class of all connected graphs distinct from an odd cycle,
\item
$\mathcal G_{c, o, \alpha}$ is the class of all connected graphs of independence at least $3$
distinct from an odd cycle.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[hb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.53]{pairsX.pdf}
\caption{Collections $\Omega_1, \Omega_{2c}, \Omega_3, \Omega_4$ and $\mathcal P_1, \mathcal P_{2c}, \mathcal P_3, \mathcal P_4$
of pairs of graphs described in Definition~\ref{d2} (top part of the figure),
and graphs
$Z_1, D, K_{1,3}^+, Z_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4}$ and $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$
(bottom part).
In the top part,
the vertices represent graphs
and the edges represent pairs of graphs
(similarly as in Figure~\ref{f1}).
The grey rectangles represent the belonging of the pairs
to collections $\Omega_1, \Omega_{2c}, \Omega_3, \Omega_4$,
and also to collections $\mathcal P_1, \mathcal P_{2c}, \mathcal P_3, \mathcal P_4$
when not considering the pairs depicted by dashed edges.
}
\label{figPairsX}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}\label{d2}
Consider graphs
$\splitatcommas{3K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2, K_{1,3}, K_{1,3}^+, P_5, K_3, K_1 \cup K_3, D, Z_1, Z_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4}}$ and $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$
defined in Section~\ref{sPre}
(some of the graphs are also depicted in Figure~\ref{figPairsX}),
and collections $\mathcal P_1$ and $\Omega_1$ described in Definition~\ref{d1}.
Let $\mathcal I$ be the collection of all pairs of graphs
such that at least one member of the pair is $3K_1$.
Let $\mathcal P_2, \mathcal P_{2c}, \mathcal P_3$ and $\mathcal P_4$ be the collections of pairs of graphs
defined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\mathcal P_2$ consists of all pairs $\mathcal X$ such that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_1$ or to $\mathcal I$
or such that one member of $\mathcal X$ is $K_1 \cup P_3$ and the other is
an induced subgraph of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$.
\item
$\mathcal P_{2c}$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_2$ and $\{ K_{1,3}, 2K_2 \}$ and $\{ K_{1,3}, P_5 \}$.
\item
$\mathcal P_{3}$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_1$ and
$\{ K_{1,3}, K_3 \}$ and
$\{ K_{1,3}, Z_1 \}$ and
$\{ K_{1,3}^+, K_3 \}$ and
$\{ K_{1,3}^+, Z_1 \}$.
\item
$\mathcal P_{4}$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_{2c}$ and $\mathcal P_3$ and
$\{ K_{1,3}, K_1 \cup K_3 \}$ and
$\{ K_{1,3}, Z_2 \}$.
\end{itemize}
Similarly,
let $\Omega_2, \Omega_{2c}, \Omega_3, \Omega_4$ be the collections of pairs of graphs
defined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\Omega_2$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_2$ and
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$ and
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$.
\item
$\Omega_{2c}$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_{2c}$ and
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$ and
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$.
\item
$\Omega_3$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_3$ and
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$.
\item
$\Omega_4$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_4$ and
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$ and
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{pairsX2.pdf}
\caption{Collections $\Omega_2$ and $\mathcal P_2$ described in Definition~\ref{d2}.
The vertices represent graphs and the edges represent pairs of graphs
and the dashed edges represent the pairs belonging to $\Omega_2$ but not to $\mathcal P_2$
(similarly as in Figure~\ref{f1}).
}
\label{figPairsX2}
\end{figure}
The first of the main results is the following
(see also Figures~\ref{figPairsX}, \ref{figPairsX2} and~\ref{fc}
and the commentary in Section~\ref{sOne}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{mainNoExceptions}
Let $\mathcal X$ be a pair of graphs,
and consider the class notation of Definition~\ref{dc}
and the collections described in Definitions~\ref{d1} and~\ref{d2}.
For each of the following choices of a class,
every $\mathcal X$-free graph of the class is perfect
if and only if $\mathcal X$ belongs to the corresponding collection.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For each of $\mathcal G_5$, $\mathcal G_{o}$, $\mathcal G_{c,5}$, the collection is $\mathcal P_1$.
\item
For each of $\mathcal G_{\alpha}$, $\mathcal G_{o,\alpha}$, it is $\mathcal P_2$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, \alpha}$, it is $\mathcal P_{2c}$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o}$, it is $\mathcal P_3$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o, \alpha}$, it is $\mathcal P_4$.
\end{enumerate}
Similarly,
every $\mathcal X$-free graph of the class is $\omega$-colourable
if and only if $\mathcal X$ belongs to the collection as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{5}
\item
For each of $\mathcal G_5$, $\mathcal G_{o}$, $\mathcal G_{c,5}$, it is $\Omega_1$.
\item
For each of $\mathcal G_{\alpha}$, $\mathcal G_{o,\alpha}$, it is $\Omega_2$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, \alpha}$, it is $\Omega_{2c}$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o}$, it is $\Omega_3$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o, \alpha}$, it is $\Omega_4$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[hb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.58]{pairsXplus.pdf}
\caption{Collections
$\Omega_{1c}^+, \Omega_{2c}^+, \Omega_3^+, \Omega_4^+$ and $\mathcal P_{1c}^+, \mathcal P_{2c}^+, \mathcal P_3^+, \mathcal P_4^+$
described in Definition~\ref{d3}.
The edges represent pairs of graphs and
the grey rectangles represent the belonging to collections
(similarly as in Figure~\ref{figPairsX}).
}
\label{figPairsXplus}
\end{figure}
In the final definition,
we extend the collections as follows.
\begin{definition}\label{d3}
Consider collections $\mathcal P_1, \dots, \mathcal P_4$ and $\mathcal P_{2c}$
described in Definitions~\ref{d1} and~\ref{d2}.
Let $\mathcal R$ be the collection of all pairs of the form
$\{k K_1, K_\ell \}$
where $k \geq 4$ and $\ell \geq 3$.
Let $\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}, \mathcal A_1, \mathcal A_c, \mathcal A_3$ and $\mathcal P_1^+, \dots, \mathcal P_4^+$ and $\mathcal P_{1c}^+, \mathcal P_{2c}^+$
be the collections of pairs of graphs defined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal R$ and
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$ and
all pairs of the form $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, K_3 \}$
where $k \geq 3$.
\item
$\mathcal A_1$ consists of all pairs
$\{ 3K_1, K_{k+1} \}$ and $\{ 3K_1, \overline{ kK_1 \cup K_2 } \}$ where $k \geq 3$
(note that these pairs belong to $\mathcal I$ and thus to $\mathcal P_2, \mathcal P_{2c}, \mathcal P_4$
and $\Omega_2, \Omega_{2c}, \Omega_4$).
\item
$\mathcal A_c$ consists of
all pairs
$\{ (k+1)K_1, Z_1 \}$ and
$\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, Z_1 \}$
where $k \geq 3$.
\item
$\mathcal A_3$ consists of
$\{ K_1 \cup K_{1,3}, K_3 \}$ and
$\{ K_1 \cup K_{1,3}, Z_1 \}$.
\item
$\mathcal P_1^+$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_1$ and $\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}$ and $\mathcal A_1$.
\item
$\mathcal P_{1c}^+$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_1$ and $\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}$ and $\mathcal A_1$ and $\mathcal A_c$.
\item
$\mathcal P_2^+$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_2$ and $\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}$.
\item
$\mathcal P_{2c}^+$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_{2c}$ and $\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}$ and $\mathcal A_c$.
\item
$\mathcal P_3^+$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_3$ and $\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}$ and $\mathcal A_1$ and $\mathcal A_c$ and $\mathcal A_3$.
\item
$\mathcal P_4^+$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_4$ and $\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}$ and $\mathcal A_c$ and $\mathcal A_3$.
\end{itemize}
Similarly, let $\mathcal A_{\Omega}$ and $\Omega_1^+, \dots, \Omega_4^+$ and $\Omega_{1c}^+, \Omega_{2c}^+$
be the collections of pairs of graphs defined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\mathcal A_{\Omega}$ consists of all pairs of $\mathcal A_{\mathcal P}$ and $\mathcal A_c$
(except for the pair $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$ which is not necessary since it belongs
to $\Omega_1$ already)
and all pairs of the form
$\{ (k+1) K_1, D \}$ and
$\{ k K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$
where $k \geq 3$
and
$\{ k K_1, \overline{ \ell K_1 \cup K_2 } \}$
where $k \geq 4$ and $\ell \geq 3$.
\item
$\Omega_1^+$ consists of all pairs of $\Omega_1$ and $\mathcal A_{\Omega}$ and $\mathcal A_1$.
(In other words, it consists of all pairs of $\mathcal P_{1c}^+$ and all pairs of the form
$\{ (k+1) K_1, D \}$ and
$\{ k K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$
and
$\{ (k+1) K_1, \overline{ \ell K_1 \cup K_2 } \}$
where $k \geq 3$ and $\ell \geq 3$.)
\item
$\Omega_{1c}^+$ is the same as $\Omega_1^+$.
\item
$\Omega_2^+$ consists of all pairs of $\Omega_2$ and $\mathcal A_{\Omega}$.
\item
$\Omega_{2c}^+$ consists of all pairs of $\Omega_{2c}$ and $\mathcal A_{\Omega}$.
\item
$\Omega_3^+$ consists of all pairs of $\Omega_3$ and $\mathcal A_{\Omega}$ and $\mathcal A_1$ and $\mathcal A_3$.
\item
$\Omega_4^+$ consists of all pairs of $\Omega_4$ and $\mathcal A_{\Omega}$ and $\mathcal A_3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pairsX12plus.pdf}
\caption{Collections $\Omega_1^+, \Omega_2^+$ and $\mathcal P_1^+, \mathcal P_2^+$ described in Definition~\ref{d3}.
}
\label{figPairsX12plus}
\end{figure}
The second of the main results is the following
(see also Figures~\ref{figPairsXplus}, \ref{figPairsX12plus} and~\ref{fc}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{mainFiniteExceptions}
Let $\mathcal X$ be a pair of graphs,
and consider the class notation of Definition~\ref{dc}
and the collections described in Definition~\ref{d3}.
For each of the following choices of a class,
the set of all non-perfect $\mathcal X$-free graphs in the class is finite
if and only if $\mathcal X$ belongs to the corresponding collection.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For each of $\mathcal G$, $\mathcal G_{o}$, the collection is $\mathcal P_1^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c}$, it is $\mathcal P_{1c}^+$.
\item
For each of $\mathcal G_{\alpha}$, $\mathcal G_{o,\alpha}$, it is $\mathcal P_2^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, \alpha}$, it is $\mathcal P_{2c}^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o}$, it is $\mathcal P_3^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o, \alpha}$, it is $\mathcal P_4^+$.
\end{enumerate}
Similarly,
the class contains only finitely many $\mathcal X$-free graphs
which are not $\omega$-colourable
if and only if $\mathcal X$ belongs to the collection.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{6}
\item
For each of $\mathcal G$, $\mathcal G_{o}$, $\mathcal G_{c}$, it is $\Omega_1^+$.
\item
For each of $\mathcal G_{\alpha}$, $\mathcal G_{o,\alpha}$, it is $\Omega_2^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, \alpha}$, it is $\Omega_{2c}^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o}$, it is $\Omega_3^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o, \alpha}$, it is $\Omega_4^+$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{characterisations.pdf}
\caption{The bipartite graphs depicting the characterisations
of Theorems~\ref{mainNoExceptions} and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}.
Each black vertex represents a class of graphs,
each white vertex represents a collection of pairs,
and each edge represents a characterisation.
}
\label{fc}
\end{figure}
\section{Additional commentary on the main results}
\label{sOne}
In this short section,
we comment on the pairings and the additional constraints,
and on the present characterisations in the context of known results.
The basic intuition on the forbidden pairs in Theorem~\ref{main} is as follows.
As recalled in Section~\ref{sIntro}, if $X$ or $Y$ is an induced subgraph of $P_4$,
then all $\{ X, Y \}$-free graphs are perfect.
Assuming that $\{ X, Y \}$ contains no such graph,
we note that if there are only finitely many $\{ X, Y \}$-free graphs
which are not perfect (not $\omega$-colourable), then
there are only finitely many $X$-free odd cycles and
only finitely many $Y$-free graphs which are complements of an odd cycle
(possibly for $X$ and $Y$ swapped),
and furthermore $C_5$ is $\{ X, Y \}$-free.
In particular, we view the exclusion of $C_5$
as a natural additional constraint for the present study
and we consider classes $\mathcal G_5$ and $\mathcal G_{c,5}$ in Theorem~\ref{mainNoExceptions}
(rather than $\mathcal G$ and $\mathcal G_c$).
Strengthening this additional constraint,
we also consider graphs
of independence at least $3$ and graphs distinct from an odd cycle
(the motivation comes from~\cite{CS,BHKRSV}).
In this regard, the present study is a direct continuation of
the paper of Brause et al.~\cite{BHKRSV}
who showed the following result on forbidden pairs
(and a similar result considering induced subgraphs of $Z_1$ and $P_4$
and no constraint on the independence).
\begin{theorem}\label{alpha3}
Let $Y$ be a graph and $\mathcal{G}$ be the class of all connected $\{ K_{1,3}, Y \}$-free
graphs of independence at least $3$ distinct from an odd cycle.
If $Y$ is an induced subgraph of $P_5$ or of $Z_2$,
then all graphs of $\mathcal{G}$ are perfect.
Otherwise, there are infinitely many graphs of $\mathcal{G}$ which are not
$\omega$-colourable.
\end{theorem}
In a sense, the dichotomic nature of Theorem~\ref{alpha3} says that
`the perfect-and-only partners' for $K_{1,3}$
are $P_5$ and $Z_2$ and their induced subgraphs.
With Theorems~\ref{mainNoExceptions} and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions} on hand,
we can see that this dichotomy also works the other way around, that is,
$P_5$ and $Z_2$ (and also $2K_2$ and $K_1 \cup K_3$) are partnered with~$K_{1,3}$
(and $P_4$).
Similarly,
$K_1 \cup P_3$ is partnered with $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$ (and its induced subgraphs),
and $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$
(and each of its induced subgraphs on at least $5$ vertices, and $C_4$)
is partnered with $K_1 \cup P_3$
(some details on induced subgraphs of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$
can be found in Observations~\ref{cK3P4on5} and~\ref{cK3P4}).
In addition, we recall that a graph is perfect if and only if its complement is perfect
by the result of Lov\'{a}sz~\cite{L}
(it also follows from the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem).
In particular,
we note that there is certain symmetry about collection $\mathcal P_1$.
Specifically, a pair $\{ X, Y \}$ belongs to $\mathcal P_1$
if and only if $\{ \overline{X}, \overline{Y} \}$ does
(see Figure~\ref{f1}).
Also, there is a similar symmetry about $\mathcal P_1^+$.
Furthermore, we can readily obtain the characterisation of the forbidden pairs
in relation to perfectness of graphs of clique number at least $3$
by taking the collection of all pairs which are complementary
to the pairs of $\mathcal P_2$ (and similarly for $\mathcal P_2^+$).
For completeness, we note that the collection $\mathcal I$
arises as a formal consequence of the additional constraint,
and similarly for collection $\mathcal R$.
As remarked in Section~\ref{sIntro}, the present conditions on forbidden pairs
were studied in relation to $\chi$-boundedness and deciding $k$-colourability in polynomial time,
and for some pairs these properties can also be deduced using the present results.
In particular, we note that applying the `if part' of item (10) of Theorem~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}
to connected components of a graph yields the following corollary.
For every pair $\mathcal X$ of $\Omega_3^+$,
there exists a constant $c$ such that every $\mathcal X$-free graph is
$(\omega + c)$-colourable.
Similarly, a combination of item (6) of Theorem~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}
and the results of Kr\'{a}{l\kern-0.035cm\char39\kern-0.03cm} et al.~\cite{KKTW}
and Gr\"otschel et al.~\cite{GLS} gives the following.
For every pair $\mathcal X$ of $\mathcal P_4^+$,
the $k$-colourablity of an $\mathcal X$-free graph can be decided in polynomial time.
We note that, for each of these corollaries, a more general result is known
(see~\cite{SR} and~\cite[Theorem 21 (ii)]{GJPS}).
We only mention the corollaries to put the present study in context
and to note that some forbidden pairs
(known from the investigation of $\chi$-boundedness and computational complexity of $k$-colourability),
in fact,
imply a stronger property given by the hypotheses and conclusions of
Theorems~\ref{mainNoExceptions} and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}.
We conclude the section with a comment on
conditions giving that the chromatic number is at most the clique number plus one
(results of this type can be found in~\cite{SR}).
Considering connected graphs (of independence at least $3$),
we note that such conditions follow from
the `if part' of items (9), (10) of Theorem~\ref{mainNoExceptions}
and items (10), (11) of Theorem~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}.
\section{Structure given by forbidden subgraphs}
\label{sForb}
In this section, we investigate structural properties of graphs
given by particular forbidden subgraphs,
and we assemble several auxiliary statements.
In particular, we outline the structure of $\{ X, K_3 \}$-free and
$\{ X, Z_1 \}$-free graphs for several choices of $X$,
and we characterise $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free
graphs containing induced $C_5$.
We start the exposition by recalling the classical result of Ramsey~\cite{R}.
\begin{theorem}[Ramsey's Theorem]\label{Ramsey}
Let $k$ and $\ell$ be positive integers.
There is an integer $r$ such that every graph
(on at least $r$ vertices)
contains induced $kK_1$ or~$K_\ell$.
\end{theorem}
We let $R(k, \ell)$ denote the \emph{Ramsey number} corresponding to the pair $\{ k, \ell \}$,
that is,
the smallest integer $r$ satisfying Theorem~\ref{Ramsey}.
We also recall the following result of Olariu~\cite{O}.
\begin{lemma}[Olariu's Characterisation]\label{olariu}
Every connected $Z_1$-free graph is $K_3$-free or complete multipartite.
\end{lemma}
With the structural similarity of $K_3$-free and $Z_1$-free graphs on hand
(given by Lemma~\ref{olariu}),
we show several statements.
\begin{obs}
\label{bip}
Every connected $\{ K_{1,3}^+, K_3 \}$-free graph
(distinct from an odd cycle) is bipartite.
\end{obs}
\begin{proof}
For the sake of a contradiction, we suppose that
there is a set of vertices $C$ inducing an odd cycle in $G$.
Clearly, $G$ contains a vertex, say $x$,
not belonging to $C$ but adjacent to a vertex of $C$
(since $G$ is connected and distinct from an odd cycle).
Furthermore, two adjacent vertices of $C$ cannot both belong to $N(x)$
(since $G$ is $K_3$-free),
and therefore at most $\frac{|C|-1}{2}$ vertices belong to $C \cap N(x)$
(since $|C|$ is odd).
Consequently, we note that $G$ contains $K_{1,3}^+$ as an induced subgraph, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{indep5}
Let $G$ be a connected $\{ K_1 \cup K_{1,3}, K_3 \}$-free graph.
If $G$ is of independence at least~$5$, then
$G$ is either a path or a cycle or a complete bipartite graph.
In particular, there is an integer $n$ so that if $G$ has at least $n$
vertices, then it satisfies the condition.
For instance, we can choose $n = R(5, 3)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider a maximum independent set, say $I$, of vertices of $G$ (assuming that $|I| \geq 5$).
In addition, we can assume that $G$ is neither a path nor a cycle.
In particular, $G$ contains a vertex of degree at least $3$ (since $G$ is connected).
Clearly, every such vertex is the centre of an induced copy of $K_{1,3}$
(since $G$ is $K_3$-free).
Furthermore, we observe that $G$ contains such vertex, say $x$, not belonging to $I$
(since $G$ is $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$-free and $|I| \geq 5$).
In the remainder of the proof,
we shall use the fact that every vertex adjacent to at least three vertices of $I$
is, in fact, adjacent to all vertices of $I$ (since $G$ is $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$-free).
We show that $x$ is adjacent to at least three vertices of $I$ (and thus to all).
To the contrary, we suppose that $x$ is adjacent to at most two vertices of $I$.
Clearly, $x$ is adjacent to at least one vertex of $I$
(by the choice of $x$ and $I$).
Since $G$ is $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$-free,
there is a vertex $x'$ adjacent to $x$ and to at least three vertices of~$I$.
Thus, $x'$ is adjacent to all vertices of~$I$,
which contradicts the fact that $G$ is $K_3$-free.
We consider a vertex $y$ not belonging to $I \cup \{ x \}$.
Clearly, $y$ is adjacent to a vertex of $I$,
and thus $y$ is not adjacent to~$x$
(since $G$ is $K_3$-free).
Consequently, we get that $y$ is adjacent to at least $|I| - 2$ vertices of $I$
(since $G$ is $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$-free),
and thus $y$ is adjacent to all vertices of $I$.
It follows that $G$ is a complete bipartite graph.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{applyRamsey}
For every positive integer $k$, there exists $n$ such that
every $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, K_3 \}$-free graph
(on at least $n$ vertices) is bipartite.
For instance,
$n = R \left( k - 1, 3 \right) + \frac{8k(k^2-1)}{2k + 1} + 2k + 2$
will do.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider $n$ chosen as suggested and a $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, K_3 \}$-free graph $G$
which is not bipartite, and we show that $G$ has at most $n-1$ vertices.
Since $G$ is not bipartite, there is an induced cycle $C_\ell$ where $\ell$ is odd.
Clearly, this cycle contains
$\frac{\ell - 3}{2} K_1 \cup K_2$ as an induced subgraph.
Hence, we have $5 \leq \ell \leq 2k + 2$.
We fix a set, say $C$, of vertices inducing $C_\ell$,
and let $O$ be the set of all vertices of $G$
which are adjacent to no vertex of $C$.
We note that the graph induced by $O$ is
$\{ (k - \frac{\ell - 3}{2})K_1, K_3 \}$-free.
By Theorem~\ref{Ramsey},
we get
\begin{equation*}
|O| \leq R \left( k - \frac{\ell - 3}{2}, 3 \right) - 1 \leq R \left( k - 1, 3 \right) - 1.
\end{equation*}
In addition, we let $N = V(G) \setminus (C \cup O)$,
and we show that $|N| \leq \frac{8k(k^2-1)}{2k+1}$.
We consider a pair $\{ v, e \}$ such that
$v$ is a vertex of $C$
and $e$ is an edge of the cycle induced by $C$ and $v$ is not incident with $e$.
For each such pair,
we let $N_{v,\overline{e}}$ denote the set of all vertices of $N$
adjacent to $v$ and adjacent to none of the vertices incident with $e$.
We note that $N_{v,\overline{e}}$ is an independent set
(since $G$ is $K_3$-free),
and $|N_{v,\overline{e}}| \leq k - 1$
(since $G$ is $kK_1 \cup K_2$-free).
We observe that there are $\ell(\ell-2)$ distinct such pairs $\{ v, e \}$,
and thus $\ell(\ell-2)$ sets $N_{v,\overline{e}}$.
Furthermore, we observe that every vertex of $N$
belongs to at least $\frac{\ell-1}{2}$ of these sets.
Consequently, we get
\begin{equation*}
|N| \leq \frac{2 \ell (\ell-2) (k-1)}{\ell-1} \leq \frac{8k(k^2-1)}{2k+1}.
\end{equation*}
We conclude that $G$ has $|O| + |N| + \ell$ vertices,
and $|O| + |N| + \ell \leq n - 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{obs}\label{cm}
Let $k$ and $\ell$ be positive integers
and $G$ be a $k K_1$-free graph (on at least $(k - 1)(\ell -1) + 1$ vertices)
whose every component is a complete multipartite graph.
Then $G$ contains $K_{\ell}$ as a subgraph.
\end{obs}
\begin{proof}
For the sake of a contradiction, we suppose that $G$ is $K_{\ell}$-free.
We let $G_1, \dots, G_p$ denote the graphs given by components of $G$
and $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_p$ denote their independence numbers.
We note that $\alpha_1 + \dots + \alpha_p \leq k - 1$,
and $G_i$ has at most $\alpha_i (\ell - 1)$ vertices for every $i = 1, \dots, p$.
Thus, $G$ has at most $(k - 1)(\ell -1)$ vertices, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{applyRamsey2}
Let $k$ be an integer greater than $2$
and let $n$ be an integer given by Lemma~\ref{applyRamsey}
(with respect to $k$).
Let $G$ be a $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, Z_1 \}$-free graph,
and $M$ be the subgraph of $G$ (possibly empty) given by all components of $G$
which are complete multipartite (possibly trivial),
and $N$ be the subgraph given by the remaining components.
Then at least one of the following statements is satisfied.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$N$ is bipartite (possibly empty).
\item
$N$ has at most $n - 1$ vertices; and furthermore
if $M$ has at least $n(k - 2) - 2k + 5$ vertices,
then $M$ contains $K_{n - 1}$ as a subgraph.
\end{enumerate}
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
We recall that every component of $G$ is $K_3$-free or complete multipartite
(by Lemma~\ref{olariu}),
and hence $N$ is $K_3$-free.
We can assume that $N$ is not bipartite.
In particular, $N$ has at most $n - 1$ vertices (by Lemma~\ref{applyRamsey}).
Furthermore,
$N$ contains induced $K_1 \cup K_2$, and so
$M$ is $(k-1)K_1$-free.
We conclude that
if $M$ has at least $(k - 2)(n - 2) + 1$ vertices,
then it contains $K_{n - 1}$
(by Observation~\ref{cm}).
\end{proof}
In addition, we state the following characterisation
(a similar result was shown by Rao~\cite{Rao}).
The proof is given at the end of the present section.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l4}
Let $G$ be a graph containing $C_5$ as an induced subgraph.
Then $G$ is $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free
if and only if
it can be obtained from some of the graphs $G_1, \dots, G_{14}$
(depicted in Figure~\ref{figStructureOfG})
by blowing-up vertex $i$ to an independent set and
blowing-up vertices $c_1, \dots, c_5$ to complete graphs.
More precisely, the blow-up process is as follows.
For vertex $i$ (if present in the graph),
add any number of new vertices (possibly none)
adjacent precisely to the neighbours of $i$;
and then similarly for each $c_j$ in sequence (where $1 \leq j \leq 5$),
add in sequence any number of new vertices
adjacent precisely to $c_j$ and to the neighbours of $c_j$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{structureOfG.pdf}
\caption{Graphs $G_1, \dots, G_{14}$
whose particular vertices are labelled $i$ and $c_1, \dots, c_5$.
We distinguish vertex $i$ by depicting it as a large
empty circle, and vertices $c_1, \dots, c_5$ by depicting them as large
full circles.
%
The graphs encode possible structure
of a non-perfect $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free graph
where each empty, full circle represents blowing-up a vertex
to an independent set, to a complete graph, respectively.}
\label{figStructureOfG}
\end{figure}
We also show the following technical statement
on particular forbidden subgraphs of a forest
(it will be used for forests and for complements of forests).
\begin{lemma}\label{forest}
Let $F$ be a forest (on at least $4$ vertices)
distinct from $P_4$ and $K_{1,3}$.
The following statements are satisfied.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $F$ is $\{ 4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, 2K_2 \}$-free,
then $F$ is precisely the graph $K_1 \cup P_3$.
\item If $F$ is $\{ 2K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2, K_{1,4} \}$-free,
then $F$ is either
$K_1 \cup P_3$ or $K_1 \cup P_4$ or $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$ or $K_{1,3}^+$
or $(k + 2)K_1$ or $kK_1 \cup K_2$
(for some $k \geq 2$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In order to show statement (1), we observe the following facts.
\begin{itemize}
\item
The maximum degree of $F$ is at most $2$
(since $F$ is a $\{ 4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2 \}$-free forest distinct from $K_{1,3}$).
\item
$F$ has at most two components,
(since it has at least $4$ vertices, and it is $\{ 4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2 \}$-free).
\item
If $F$ has two components, then one is trivial
(since it is $2K_2$-free).
\end{itemize}
Consequently, we get that all edges of $F$ belong to a common path
and that $F$ has at most two components.
Thus, $F$ contains induced $K_1 \cup P_3$
(since $F$ has at least $4$ vertices, and it is distinct from $P_4$).
Furthermore, $F$ cannot contain more vertices
(since it is $2K_1 \cup K_2$-free).
We show (2).
We can assume that $F$ has at least two edges
(otherwise $F$ is $(k + 2)K_1$ or $kK_1 \cup K_2$ for some $k \geq 2$,
and the statement is satisfied).
We note that $F$ has precisely one non-trivial component
(since it is $2K_2$-free); and we let $T$ denote the tree given by this component.
In addition, we can assume that $F$ is distinct from $K_1 \cup P_3$ and $K_1 \cup P_4$.
We observe that $T$ is not a path
(since $F$ has at least $4$ vertices
and it is distinct from $P_4$ and it is $\{ 2K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2 \}$-free).
Hence, $T$ contains $K_{1,3}$, and so
$F$ contains induced $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$ or $K_{1,3}^+$
(since $F$ is distinct from $K_{1,3}$ and it is $K_{1,4}$-free).
We conclude that $F$ is, in fact, $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$ or $K_{1,3}^+$
(since it is $\{ 2K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2, K_{1,4} \}$-free).
\end{proof}
We also state the following two facts on induced subgraphs of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$,
and we give short proofs.
(This could also be shown simply by checking all graphs on at most $8$ vertices
with the help of a computer.)
\begin{obs}
\label{cK3P4on5}
There are precisely five distinct induced subgraphs of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$ on $4$ vertices,
and precisely five such subgraphs on $5$ vertices.
Namely,
$\splitatcommas{
P_4, K_{1,3}, Z_1, D, C_4
}$
and
$\splitatcommas{
\overline{K_1 \cup P_4}, K_{1,2,2}, \overline{K_2 \cup P_3}, K_{1,1,3}, K_{2,3}
}$.
\end{obs}
\begin{proof}
We discuss graphs obtained from $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$
by removing $3$ vertices.
We consider the maximum independent set of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$
and let $i$ be the number of vertices of this set which are being removed.
For the case that $i = 3$, we note that the resulting graph is $P_4$.
For $i = 2$, we get $Z_1$ or $D$,
and for $i = 1$, we get $D$ or $C_4$.
Finally $i = 0$, gives $K_{1,3}$.
Similarly for removing $2$ vertices, we discuss the cases
and get the subgraphs on $5$ vertices.
\end{proof}
\begin{obs}
\label{cK3P4}
A graph is an induced subgraph of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$
if and only if
it is
$\splitatcommas{
\{ 4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2, K_1 \cup K_3, K_4, C_5,
\overline{P_5}, K_{3,3}, K_{2,2,2} \}
}$-free.
\end{obs}
\begin{proof}
We note that $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$ satisfies the property,
and hence it is satisfied by each of its induced subgraphs.
We consider a
$\splitatcommas{
\{ 4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2, K_1 \cup K_3, K_4, C_5,
\overline{P_5}, K_{3,3}, K_{2,2,2} \}
}$-free graph $G$,
and we discuss two cases and show that
it is an induced subgraph of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$.
First, we suppose that $G$ contains an independent set, say $I$, of size $3$.
We note that every vertex of $V(G) \setminus I$ is adjacent to all vertices of $I$
(since $G$ is $\{ 4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3 \}$-free),
and that the graph $G - I$ is $\{ K_3, C_4, C_5, 3K_1, 2K_2 \}$-free
(since $G$ is $\{ K_4, K_{2,2,2}, C_5, K_{3,3}, 2K_2 \}$-free).
In particular, $G - I$ is a $\{ 3K_1, 2K_2 \}$-free forest,
and thus an induced subgraph of $P_4$ and the statement follows.
Next, we suppose that $G$ is $3K_1$-free, and we consider the complement of $G$.
Similarly, we note that $\overline{G}$ is a forest
(since $G$ is $\{ 3K_1, 2K_2, C_5, \overline{P_5} \}$-free).
Furthermore, $\overline{G}$ is $\{ 4K_1, 3K_2, K_{1,3}, P_5 \}$-free
(since $G$ is $\{ K_4, K_{2,2,2}, K_1 \cup K_3, \overline{P_5} \}$-free).
We observe that $\overline{G}$ is an induced subgraph of
$K_2 \cup P_4$, and the statement follows.
\end{proof}
We conclude this section by proving Lemma~\ref{l4}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{l4}]
\setcounter{claim}{0}
\setcounter{claimprefix}{\getrefnumber{l4}}
We consider the graphs obtained by the construction.
The `if part' of the statement follows by observing that they are
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free.
We show the `only if part' of the statement.
We consider a set of vertices, say $C$, inducing $C_5$.
For every vertex $u$ of $V(G) \setminus C$,
we get that $2 \leq |N(u) \cap C| \leq 3$
(since $G$ is $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free);
and we say that $u$ is \emph{blue} if $N(u) \cap C$ induces $P_3$,
and $u$ is \emph{red} if $N(u) \cap C$ induces $K_2$ or $K_1 \cup K_2$
(see Figure~\ref{figBlueOrRed}).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{blueOrRed.pdf}
\caption{Possible graphs induced by $C \cup \{u\}$.
Edge $uu'$ (depicted as dashed grey) may or may not be present in the graph;
and so the picture on the right-hand side, in fact, represents two graphs.
Depending on $N(u) \cap C$, vertex $u$ is blue (left-hand side) or red (right-hand side).}
\label{figBlueOrRed}
\end{figure}
In addition, we consider a set, say $A$, consisting of two vertices of $V(G) \setminus C$,
and we shall discuss the graph induced by $C \cup A$.
We let $X = C \cup A$, and let
$r$ be the number of red vertices in $A$,
and $H_1, \dots, H_8$ be the graphs depicted in Figure~\ref{figC++}
(considered with the dashed grey edges).
We show three claims.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{C++.pdf}
\caption{Graphs $H_1, \dots, H_8$.
The vertices of $A$ are labelled $u$ and $v$,
and one particular vertex of $C$ is labelled $u'$ in graphs $H_4, H_5, H_6$ and $H_8$.
We distinguish edge $uv$ of $H_5$ and all edges $uu'$
by depicting them as dashed grey.}
\label{figC++}
\end{figure}
\begin{claim}
\label{ci}
If $r = 0$, then $X$ induces either $H_1$ or $H_2$ or $H_3$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{ci}]
For the sake of a contradiction,
we suppose that $X$ induces none of $H_1, H_2, H_3$.
Considering the number of vertices of $C$ which are adjacent to both vertices of $A$,
we discuss three cases, see Figure~\ref{figForbiddenC++} (first row),
and we observe that the graph induced by
$X$ is not
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free,
a contradiction.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{claim}
\label{cii}
If $r = 1$, then the graph induced by $X$
can be obtained from either $H_4$ or $H_5$ by removing some of the dashed grey edges (possibly none).
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{cii}]
For the sake of a contradiction,
we suppose that the graph induced by $X$
violates the claim.
We discuss all cases,
see Figure~\ref{figForbiddenC++} (second row),
and we observe that the graph is not
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free,
a contradiction.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{forbiddenC++.pdf}
\caption{Particular adjacencies among the vertices of $A$ (labelled $u$ and $v$)
and~$C$, and among $A$ and $C'$ (third row),
and among $A$ and $C'$ and vertex $w$ (fourth row).
The dashed grey edges indicate that the vertices may or may not be adjacent;
for instance, the first picture in the second row represents two graphs
(both containing induced $\overline{K_1 \cup P_4}$).
In each picture, induced $2K_1 \cup K_2$ or $\overline{K_1 \cup P_4}$ is
highlighted (the vertices and edges are depicted as bold).}
\label{figForbiddenC++}
\end{figure}
We use the similarity of the adjacencies of blue vertices and vertices of
$C$ given by Claims~\ref{ci} and~\ref{cii}, and we consider
a set, say~$C'$, of five non-red vertices inducing $C_5$
(so that $C'$ and $A$ are disjoint).
We let $X' = C' \cup A$ and consider the graph induced by $X'$.
\begin{claim}
\label{ciii}
If $r = 2$, then the graph induced by $X'$ is either $H_7$ or
it can be obtained from $H_6$ or $H_8$ by removing some of the dashed grey edges (possibly none).
Furthermore, if $X'$ induces $H_7$, then $G$ has precisely two red vertices.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{ciii}]
Similarly as above, we suppose that the graph induced by $X'$
violates the first statement of the claim,
and we observe that it is not
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free,
see Figure~\ref{figForbiddenC++} (third row).
The second statement of the claim is also shown by contradiction.
We suppose that $X'$ induces $H_7$ and that there is another red vertex, say $w$,
and we discuss the graph induced by $X' \cup \{w\}$.
We apply the first statement of the claim to
all $2$-element subsets of $A \cup \{w\}$ and
observe how this reduces the number of cases.
We discuss the remaining cases, see Figure~\ref{figForbiddenC++} (fourth row),
and we conclude that the graph induced by
$X' \cup \{w\}$ is not $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free,
a contradiction.
\end{proofcl}
In addition, we consider an edge $e$ whose both ends belong to $C$
and the set, say $R_e$, of all red vertices adjacent to both ends of $e$;
and we choose $e$ so that $|R_e|$ is maximised.
Using Claim~\ref{ciii}, we observe that
at most one red vertex does not belong to $R_e$.
We let $o$ be the vertex of $C$ which is adjacent to no end of $e$,
and we let $O$ be the set consisting of vertex $o$ and all vertices added for $o$
by the blow-up process.
We show the following.
\begin{claim}
\label{civ}
At most two vertices of $R_e$ have the property that they are not adjacent to all vertices of $O$.
Furthermore, if there are two such vertices, then every red vertex belongs to $R_e$
and every vertex of $O$ is adjacent to precisely one of the two.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{civ}]
We note that the first statement of the claim follows from the second statement.
Hence, it is sufficient to show the second statement,
and proceed by contradiction.
We consider two distinct vertices $u,v$ of $R_e$, and two vertices $u',v'$ of $O$
such that $u$ is not adjacent to $u'$ and $v$ is not adjacent to $v'$
(and note that $u'$ and $v'$ are distinct by Claim~\ref{ciii}).
For the sake of a contradiction, we suppose that there is a vertex $x$
such that either $x$ is red and not belonging to $R_e$,
or $x$ belongs to $O$ and it is not true that $x$ is adjacent to precisely one of $u,v$
(and thus it is adjacent to both by Claim~\ref{ciii}).
Using Claims~\ref{ci}, \ref{cii} and~\ref{ciii},
we note that $\{u, v, u',v'\}$ induces $P_4$ and
that $x$ is adjacent to $u,v, u'$ and $v'$, a contradiction
(see Figure~\ref{figDisjointUnion}).
\end{proofcl}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{disjointUnion.pdf}
\caption{Graphs induced by $C \cup \{u, v, u',v', x\}$.
In both pictures, induced $\overline{K_1 \cup P_4}$ is highlighted.}
\label{figDisjointUnion}
\end{figure}
We apply Claims~\ref{ci}, \ref{cii} and~\ref{ciii}
to all $2$-element subsets of $V(G) \setminus C$,
and we discuss what we know about the structure of $G$.
We recall that Claim~\ref{ci} gives the adjacencies between all non-red vertices.
In particular, if $G$ has no red vertex, then it can be obtained from $G_1$
by the blow-up process (described in Lemma~\ref{l4}); and so we can assume that $G$ has a red vertex.
We note that Claim~\ref{cii} restricts the relative positions of red and blue vertices (viewed from $C$).
Finally, Claim~\ref{ciii} gives the adjacencies between all red vertices,
and also some of the adjacencies between red and non-red vertices.
It remains to discuss the adjacencies
corresponding to dashed grey edges of graphs $H_6$ and $H_8$,
see Figure~\ref{figC++}.
Since at most one red vertex does not belong to $R_e$,
most of the remaining adjacencies are given by Claim~\ref{civ}.
We discuss two cases.
For the case that every red vertex belongs to $R_e$,
we observe that $G$ can be obtained from some of
$G_2, \dots, G_8$ by the blow-up process.
Otherwise,
we similarly conclude that $G$ can be obtained from some of $G_9, \dots, G_{14}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Showing perfectness}
\label{sPerf}
In the present section,
we collect sufficient conditions for a graph to be perfect
and we show the following.
\begin{prop}
\label{perf}
Let $G$ be a graph.
If some of the following conditions is satisfied,
then $G$ is perfect.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$G$ is a $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$-free graph
distinct from $C_5$ and from the graphs $E_1, \dots, E_4$ depicted in Figure~\ref{figE}.
\item
$G$ is a $\{ K_1 \cup P_3, \overline{K_3 \cup P_4} \}$-free graph
of independence at least $3$.
\item
$G$ is a connected $\{ K_{1,3}^+, Z_1 \}$-free graph
distinct from an odd cycle.
\item
$G$ is a connected $\{ K_1 \cup K_{1,3}, Z_1 \}$-free graph
distinct from an odd cycle
and $G$ has at least $n$ vertices
where $n$ is given by Lemma~\ref{indep5}.
\item
$G$ is a connected $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, Z_1\}$-free graph (where $k \geq 3$)
on at least $n$ vertices where $n$ is given by Lemma~\ref{applyRamsey}.
\item
$G$ is a $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, K_3 \}$-free graph (where $k \geq 3$)
on at least $n$ vertices where $n$ is given by Lemma~\ref{applyRamsey}.
\item
$G$ is a $\{ 3K_1, \overline{kK_1 \cup K_2} \}$-free graph (where $k \geq 3$)
on at least $n$ vertices where $n$ is given by Lemma~\ref{applyRamsey}.
\item
$G$ is a $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, Z_1\}$-free graph
distinct from $C_5$.
\item
$G$ is a $\{ K_1 \cup P_3, Z_1\}$-free graph
distinct from $C_5$.
\item
$G$ is a $\{ K_1 \cup P_3, D \}$-free graph
distinct from $C_5$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{E.pdf}
\caption{Graphs $E_1, \ldots, E_4$.
We note that $E_1$ is, in fact, the complement of $E_2$,
and $E_3$ is the complement of $E_4$.
(The graphs are also included in Figure~\ref{figStructureOfG}.
Namely, $E_1, E_2, E_3, E_4$ is isomorphic to $G_2, G_5, G_9, G_{10}$, respectively.)}
\label{figE}
\end{figure}
For conditions (3), (4) \dots, (10)
we argue using the structural statements shown in Section~\ref{sForb},
and for (1) and (2) using the following result shown in~\cite{CRST}.
\begin{theorem}[Strong Perfect Graph Theorem]
\label{tSPGT}
A graph is perfect if and only if neither the graph nor its complement
contain an induced cycle whose length is odd and at least $5$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{perf}]
We let $\mathcal C$ denote the family of all cycles whose length is odd and at least $7$,
and $\overline{\mathcal C}$ denote the family of all graphs whose complement belongs to $\mathcal C$.
We show that each of the conditions (1), (2), \dots, (10)
implies that $G$ is perfect.
First, we suppose that condition (1) is satisfied.
For the sake of a contradiction, we suppose that $G$ is not perfect.
By Theorem~\ref{tSPGT},
$G$ contains a graph from
$\{C_5\} \cup \mathcal C \cup \overline{\mathcal C}$ as an induced subgraph.
Furthermore, we note that $G$ is $\mathcal C \cup \overline{\mathcal C}$-free
(since no graph of $\mathcal C$ is $2K_1 \cup K_2$-free
and no graph of $\overline{\mathcal C}$ is $D$-free),
and hence, $G$ contains $C_5$ as an induced subgraph.
(Now, the statement can be deduced using Lemma~\ref{l4}.
For the sake of clarity, we give a short proof not using the lemma.)
We consider a set $C$ of vertices inducing $C_5$ in $G$.
We note that every vertex of $G$ is adjacent to a vertex of $C$
(since $G$ is $2K_1 \cup K_2$-free),
and that $G$ contains a vertex not belonging to $C$
(since $G$ is distinct from $C_5$).
Considering such vertex $x$,
we observe that the graph induced by $C \cup \{x\}$
is either $E_1$ or $E_2$ (since $G$ is $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$-free).
In addition, we consider two vertices, say $x$ and $x'$, not belonging to $C$,
and we discuss the graph induced by $C \cup \{x, x'\}$
(see Figure~\ref{figCcupxx}).
We observe that $C \cup \{x, x'\}$ induces either $E_3$ or $E_4$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Ccupxx.pdf}
\caption{Possible ways of connecting $x$ and $x'$ to $C$
(the edges depicted as dashed grey may or may not be present in the graph).
Some of the resulting graphs contain induced $2K_1 \cup K_2$ or induced $D$
(highlighted in the picture by depicting the vertices and edges as bold).}
\label{figCcupxx}
\end{figure}
Clearly, this reasoning applies to every pair of vertices not belonging to $C$,
and thus $G$ has at most $7$ vertices.
We conclude that $G$ is one of the graphs $E_1, \dots, E_4$, a contradiction.
We suppose that (2) is satisfied.
For the sake of a contradiction, we suppose that
$G$ is not perfect, that is, contains a graph from
$\{C_5\} \cup \mathcal C \cup \overline{\mathcal C}$ as an induced subgraph (by Theorem~\ref{tSPGT}).
Clearly, $G$ is $\mathcal C$-free (since it is $K_1 \cup P_3$-free).
Hence, $G$ contains a graph from $\{C_5\} \cup \overline{\mathcal C}$
as an induced subgraph;
and let $A$ be a set of vertices inducing such subgraph.
We note that every vertex of $G$ is adjacent to a vertex of~$A$
(since $G$ is $K_1 \cup P_3$-free).
In addition, we consider a set $I$ of three independent vertices of $G$,
and a pair $N$ of non-adjacent vertices of $A$.
For every vertex $x$ of $I \setminus N$,
we observe that $x$ is adjacent to at least one vertex of $N$
(otherwise,
there would be a pair $N'$ of non-adjacent vertices of $A \setminus N(x)$ so that
there is a vertex of $N(x)$ which is adjacent to precisely one vertex of $N'$,
contradicting the assumption that $G$ is $K_1 \cup P_3$-free).
Consequently, we note that no vertex of $N$ belongs to $I$
(since $G$ is $K_1 \cup P_3$-free).
In particular, a vertex of $N$ is adjacent
to at least two vertices of $I$,
and hence to all vertices of $I$ (since $G$ is $K_1 \cup P_3$-free).
It follows that the other vertex of $N$ is
also adjacent to all vertices of $I$.
We recall that the choice of $N$ was arbitrary,
and thus every vertex of $A$ is, in fact, adjacent to all vertices of $I$.
We consider a subset, say $P$, of $A$ inducing $P_4$,
and we conclude that $I \cup P$ induces $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$,
a contradiction.
We suppose that (3) or (4) or (5) is satisfied.
In either case, $G$ is $K_3$-free or complete multipartite
by Lemma~\ref{olariu}.
Furthermore if $G$ is $K_3$-free, then we get that it is bipartite
(we apply Observation~\ref{bip} or Lemma~\ref{indep5}
or Lemma~\ref{applyRamsey}, respectively).
Clearly, every bipartite or complete multipartite graph is perfect.
Similarly, for the case that (6) is satisfied,
we get that $G$ is bipartite (by Lemma~\ref{indep5}),
and thus perfect.
We suppose that (7) is satisfied.
We note that the complement of $G$ is $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, K_3 \}$-free,
and so it satisfies condition (6).
We recall that a graph is perfect if and only if its complement is perfect
(by~\cite{L} or by Theorem~\ref{tSPGT}), and the perfectness of $G$ follows.
We suppose that (8) is satisfied.
If $G$ is connected, then we note that condition (3) is satisfied
and the statement follows.
Otherwise,
we get that every component of $G$ is $K_1 \cup K_2$-free.
In particular, $G$ is $P_4$-free, and we recall that this implies perfectness
(for instance, by~\cite{Seinsche} or by Theorem~\ref{tSPGT}).
A similar argument applies for the case that condition (8) is satisfied.
Finally, if (9) is satisfied, then
we note that the complement of $G$ satisfies (8),
and the statement follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Showing $\omega$-colourability}
\label{sOmega}
Considering sufficient conditions for $\omega$-colourability,
we show the following.
\begin{prop}
\label{p1}
Every $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free graph
of independence at least~$3$
is $\omega$-colourable.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
\label{omega}
Let $k, \ell$ and $n$ be integers so that $k \geq 3$ and $\ell \geq 2$,
and $G$ be a graph on at least $n$ vertices.
If some of the following conditions is satisfied,
then $G$ is $\omega$-colourable.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$G$ is $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, Z_1 \}$-free and $n$ is sufficiently large.
For instance, we can choose
$n = (k - 1) \left( R \left( k - 1, 3 \right) + \frac{8k(k^2-1)}{2k + 1} + 2k \right) + 2$.
\item
$G$ is $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, D \}$-free and $n$ is sufficiently large.
For instance, $n = R(2k, R(k, k) + k)$ will do.
\item
$G$ is $\{ (k+1)K_1, \overline{\ell K_1 \cup K_2} \}$-free and $n$ is sufficiently large.
For instance, $n = R(k+1, R(k, k(\ell - 1)) + k(\ell - 1))$ will do.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
The proofs of Propositions~\ref{p1} and~\ref{omega} are given below.
For Proposition~\ref{p1}, the proof follows easily
by using Theorem~\ref{tSPGT}
and the `only if part' of Lemma~\ref{l4}
(a similar reasoning and deeper results can be found in
the paper of Karthick and Maffray~\cite{KM}).
For each item of Proposition~\ref{omega},
we examine the structure of a major part of a graph and colour it,
and we show that the remaining part is small and the colouring extends.
For condition (1), the statement follows from Corollary~\ref{applyRamsey2}.
For conditions (2) and (3), we repeatedly apply Theorem~\ref{Ramsey}.
The core of the proof is to show the following lemma on a slightly more general class of graphs.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l5}
Let $k \geq 3$ and $\ell \geq 2$
and $G$ be a $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, \overline{\ell K_1 \cup K_2} \}$-free graph
and $\omega$ be its clique number.
If $\omega$ is sufficiently large,
then $G$ is $\omega$-colourable.
For instance, $\omega \geq R(k, k(\ell - 1)) + k(\ell - 1)$ will do.
\end{lemma}
We start by showing Proposition~\ref{p1}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{p1}]
We let $G$ be a $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free graph
of independence at least~$3$.
Clearly, we can assume that $G$ is not perfect.
Combining Theorem~\ref{tSPGT}
and the fact that $G$ is $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free,
we note that $G$ contains $C_5$ as an induced subgraph;
and we consider a set, say $C$, of vertices inducing it.
We recall the blow-up process described in Lemma~\ref{l4}
and note that $G$ can be obtained
from some of the graphs $G_2, \dots, G_{14}$
(since $G$ is of independence at least $3$).
To reduce the number of cases, we observe that $G$ can be extended by adding edges
so that the resulting graph
can, in fact, be obtained from $G_5, G_9$ or $G_{12}$
(recalling the notation used in the proof of Lemma~\ref{l4},
we add edges so that every vertex of $R_e$ is adjacent to all vertices of $O$
for a particular choice of $e$).
We let $G^+$ denote the resulting extended graph,
and we observe that $\omega(G) = \omega(G^+)$.
Hence, it is sufficient to
find an $\omega$-colouring of $G^+$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{colouring.pdf}
\caption{Possible structure of graph $G^+$ given by graphs $G_5, G_9, G_{12}$,
and particular $3$-colourings of these graph.}
\label{figColouring}
\end{figure}
To this end, we consider a set of vertices of $G^+$
inducing $G_5, G_9$ or $G_{12}$
(a subgraph giving the structure of $G$).
We colour the vertices as indicated in Figure~\ref{figColouring},
and we extend this to a proper colouring of $G^+$ as follows.
We recall that vertex $i$ is blown-up to an independent set
and each of vertices $c_1, c_2$ and $c_3$ is blown-up to a complete graph,
and we refer to the new vertices as clones of $i, c_1, c_2$ and $c_3$, respectively.
We colour the clones of $i$ using colour $1$,
and the clones of $c_1$ and $c_2$ using colours $4, \dots, \omega$,
and the clones of $c_3$ (for the case of graph $G_5$) using colours $3, \dots, \omega$.
We conclude that this yields an $\omega$-colouring of $G^+$.
\end{proof}
We show Lemma~\ref{l5}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{l5}]
\setcounter{claim}{0}
\setcounter{claimprefix}{\getrefnumber{l5}}
We let $m = k(\ell - 1)$ and we suppose that $\omega \geq R(k, m) + m$.
We consider a set of vertices, say $V_1$,
inducing a maximum complete subgraph of $G$
(clearly, $|V_1| = \omega$),
and we check whether the graph $G - V_1$ contains $K_m$ as a subgraph.
If it does, then we consider a set of vertices, say $V_2$,
inducing a maximum complete subgraph in $G - V_1$
and we proceed by checking the graph $G - V_1 - V_2$ for $K_m$.
We continue this process until we obtain sets $V_1, \dots, V_p$
so that the graph $G - V_1 - \dots - V_p$ is $K_m$-free
(and $|V_p| \geq m$).
We show two claims.
\begin{claim}
\label{ca}
Let $i$ be an integer satisfying $1 \leq i \leq p$.
Then every vertex of $V(G) \setminus (V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_i)$ is adjacent to at most $\ell - 1$ vertices of $V_i$.
Furthermore, we get that $p \leq k$ and that the graph $G - V_1 - \dots - V_p$ is $(k-p+1)K_1$-free.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{ca}]
We consider a vertex $v$ of $V(G) \setminus (V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_i)$,
and we note that at least one vertex of $V_i$ is not adjacent to $v$
(by the maximality of $V_i$).
Thus, $v$ is adjacent to at most $\ell - 1$ vertices of $V_i$
(since $G$ is $\overline{\ell K_1 \cup K_2}$-free).
We prove the second part of the claim by contradiction.
To this end,
we consider a maximum independent set (possibly empty), say $I$, of $G - V_1 - \dots - V_p$
and suppose that $p > k$ or $|I| > k-p$.
We will repeatedly use the first statement of the claim.
First, we show that there is an independent set of size $k$ in $G - V_1$
(this is clearly satisfied if $|I| \geq k$).
We suppose that $|I| < k$, and we let $j = k - |I|$.
In particular, we have $j < p$ (since $p > k$ or $|I| > k-p$).
We note that
$I$ can be extended to a larger independent set by adding (in sequence)
one vertex from each of $V_{j+1}, V_j, \dots, V_{2}$
(since $j < p$), and the resulting independent set is of size $k$.
Now, we use that there is an independent set of size $k$ in $G - V_1$,
and we note that it can be extended by adding two vertices of $V_1$
so that the resulting set induces $kK_1 \cup K_2$, a contradiction.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{claim}
\label{cb}
Let $i$ be an integer satisfying $2 \leq i \leq p$.
If $X$ is a subset of $V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_{i-1}$
such that each vertex of $X$ has at least $\ell$ neighbours in $V_i$,
then $X \cup V_i$ induces a complete graph.
In particular, we have $\omega - |X| \geq |V_i|$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{cb}]
Since $G$ is $\overline{\ell K_1 \cup K_2}$-free,
we get that each vertex of $X$
is adjacent to all vertices of $V_i$,
and consequently that all vertices of $X$ are adjacent.
Thus, $X \cup V_i$ induces a complete graph
and the inequality follows.
\end{proofcl}
Finally, we show that $G$ is $\omega$-colourable.
We start by colouring the subgraph induced by $V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_p$.
Clearly, the complete subgraph given by $V_1$ is $\omega$-colourable.
We suppose that there is an $\omega$-colouring of the subgraph induced by $V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_{i-1}$,
and we show that it can be extended to $V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_i$.
To~this end, we construct an auxiliary bipartite graph $(A, B)$ such that
the vertices of $A$ encode the vertices of $V_i$ and
the vertices of $B$ encode the colours,
and two vertices are adjacent if and only if the corresponding member of $V_i$
has no neighbour in $V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_{i-1}$ coloured by the corresponding colour.
We use Claims~\ref{ca} and~\ref{cb}
and show that set $A$ satisfies Hall's condition
(that is, $|N(S)| \geq |S|$ for every subset $S$ of $A$).
Claim~\ref{ca} implies that every vertex of $V_i$
has at most $\ell - 1$ neighbours in each of $V_1, \dots, V_{i-1}$, and hence
every vertex of $A$ has degree at least $\omega - (i-1)(\ell - 1)$.
In particular, we get $|N(S)| \geq \omega - (i-1)(\ell - 1)$
for every subset $S$ of $A$,
and thus $|N(S)| \geq (i-1)(\ell - 1)$
(since $\omega \geq 2k(\ell - 1)$ and $k \geq i$).
On the other hand,
every vertex of $B \setminus N(S)$ encodes a colour such that
each vertex of $V_i$ belonging to $S$ is adjacent to a vertex of
$V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_{i-1}$ coloured by this colour.
In particular if $|S| > (i-1)(\ell - 1)$, then
one of these vertices has at least $\ell$ neighbours in $V_i$
(since there are at most $i-1$ vertices of the same colour in
$V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_{i-1}$).
We note that the inequality from Claim~\ref{cb} translates to $|N(S)| \geq |A|$
(since $|A| = |V_i|$ and $|B| = \omega$).
Thus, we can apply Hall's theorem and obtain a matching covering~$A$,
and we note that the matching translates back to the desired extension of the colouring.
Hence, there is an $\omega$-colouring of the subgraph induced by $V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_p$,
and we extend it to $G$ as follows.
We recall that the graph $G - V_1 - \dots - V_p$ is $\{kK_1, K_m\}$-free,
and so it has fewer than $R(k,m)$ vertices (by Theorem~\ref{Ramsey}).
By Claim~\ref{ca}, each of these vertices has at most $p(\ell - 1)$ neighbours in $V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_p$,
and thus they can be readily coloured
(since $\omega \geq R(k,m) + m \geq R(k,m) + p(\ell - 1)$).
\end{proof}
Finally, we show Proposition~\ref{omega}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{omega}]
We suppose that condition (1) is satisfied, and we choose $n$ as suggested.
We apply Corollary~\ref{applyRamsey2}
and we view $G$ as a disjoint union of graphs $M$ and $N$ (defined in Corollary~\ref{applyRamsey2}).
Clearly, $M$ is $\omega$-colourable,
and we get that $N$ is bipartite or small.
For the latter case, we note that
$N$ has at most $n' - 1$ vertices where
$$n' = R \left( k - 1, 3 \right) + \frac{8k(k^2-1)}{2k + 1} + 2k + 2,$$
and so $M$ has at least $n'(k - 2) - 2k + 5$ vertices
(since $n = n'(k - 1) - 2k + 4$),
and hence $M$ contains a complete subgraph of order $n' - 1$.
We conclude that the disjoint union of $M$ and $N$ is $\omega$-colourable.
We suppose that (2) is satisfied.
We choose $n$ as suggested,
and we consider a $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, D \}$-free graph $G$ on at least $n$ vertices.
By Theorem~\ref{Ramsey},
$G$ contains an independent set of size $2k$
or a complete subgraph of order $R(k, k) + k$,
and we discuss these two cases.
First, we consider a maximum independent set, say $I$,
and suppose that $|I| \geq 2k$.
Clearly, every vertex of $V(G) \setminus I$
is adjacent to a vertex of $I$ (by definition),
and so it is adjacent to more than $|I| - k$ vertices of $I$
(since $G$ is $kK_1 \cup K_2$-free).
Consequently, if $u$ and $v$ are vertices of $V(G) \setminus I$,
then $u$ and $v$ have at least two common neighbours in $I$;
and hence $u$ and $v$ are non-adjacent
(since $G$ is $D$-free).
It follows that $G$ is bipartite, and thus $\omega$-colourable.
Next, we suppose that $\omega \geq R(k, k) + k$.
We note that graph $D$ can be viewed as $\overline{\ell K_1 \cup K_2}$ for $\ell = 2$,
and the $\omega$-colourability follows by Lemma~\ref{l5}.
Lastly, we suppose that (3) is satisfied.
By the choice of $n$ and by Theorem~\ref{Ramsey},
we get $\omega \geq R(k, k(\ell - 1)) + k(\ell - 1)$.
Thus, the statement follows by Lemma~\ref{l5}.
\end{proof}
\section{Discussing all remaining pairs}
\label{sFam}
In order to prove the `only if part' of
Theorems~\ref{mainNoExceptions} and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions},
we exclude all possible remaining pairs of forbidden subgraphs.
To this end, we consider families $\mathcal F_1, \dots, \mathcal F_{13}$ of graphs
depicted in Figures~\ref{figFamilies123}, \ref{figFamilies4to10} and~\ref{figFamilies11to13}.
In addition, we use Lemma~\ref{forest} and Observations~\ref{cK3P4on5} and~\ref{cK3P4},
and Theorem~\ref{alpha3} which resolves the pairs containing $K_{1,3}$.
As the main result of this section, we show the following.
\begin{prop}
\label{notOmega}
Let $\mathcal X$ be a pair of graphs,
and consider the class notation of Definition~\ref{dc}
and the collections described in Definition~\ref{d3}.
For each of the following choices of a class,
if $\mathcal X$ does not belong to the corresponding collection,
then the class contains infinitely many $\mathcal X$-free graphs
which are not $\omega$-colourable.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o, \alpha}$, the collection is $\Omega_4^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, o}$, it is $\Omega_{3}^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{c, \alpha}$, it is $\Omega_{2c}^+$.
\item
For $\mathcal G_{o, \alpha}$, it is $\Omega_{2}^+$.
\item
For each of $\mathcal G_{c}$, $\mathcal G_{o}$, it is $\Omega_{1}^+$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
The proof of Proposition~\ref{notOmega} is given below.
In addition, we show the following two observations.
\begin{obs}
\label{4K1D}
Each of the following conditions
is satisfied by infinitely many non-perfect graphs of independence $3$ which are distinct from an odd cycle.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The graphs are $\{ 4K_1, Z_1 \}$-free.
\item
The graphs are connected and $\{ 4K_1, D\}$-free.
\item
The graphs are connected and $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{ K_1 \cup P_4} \}$-free.
\end{enumerate}
\end{obs}
\begin{proof
We consider the graphs belonging to $\mathcal F_{1}, \mathcal F_{2}$ and $\mathcal F_{3}$
(depicted in Figure~\ref{figFamilies123}),
and we note that the statement is satisfied subject to condition (1), (2) and (3), respectively.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{families123.pdf}
\caption{Families $\mathcal F_1, \mathcal F_2$ and $\mathcal F_3$ of graphs.
The grey ovals depict complete subgraphs $K_k$,
and every choice of a positive integer $k$ gives a graph belonging to the family.
%
The graphs of $\mathcal F_1, \mathcal F_2$ and $\mathcal F_3$ are non-perfect and of independence~$3$.
}
\label{figFamilies123}
\end{figure}
\begin{obs}
\label{anException}
Each of the following conditions
is satisfied by some connected graph which is not $\omega$-colourable
and distinct from an odd cycle.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The graph is $\{ 3K_1, K_4 \}$-free.
\item
The graph is $\{ 4K_1, K_3 \}$-free and of independence $3$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{obs}
\begin{proof
For instance,
we consider graphs $F_6$ and $F_{10}$ depicted in Figure~\ref{figAnException},
and we note that they have the desired properties and
$F_6$ satisfies condition (1) and $F_{10}$ satisfies (2).
\end{proof}
We remark that there are precisely $13$, $14$ graphs satisfying
Observation~\ref{anException} subject to condition (1), (2), respectively.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{F6andF10.pdf}
\caption{Graphs $F_6$ and $F_{10}$.
(In fact, they are the smallest members of families
$\mathcal F_6$ and $\mathcal F_{10}$, respectively.)
}
\label{figAnException}
\end{figure}
In the remainder of the section, we show Proposition~\ref{notOmega}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{notOmega}]
\setcounter{claim}{0}
\setcounter{claimprefix}{\getrefnumber{notOmega}}
We consider families $\mathcal F_{4}, \dots, \mathcal F_{13}$ of graphs
(depicted in Figures~\ref{figFamilies4to10} and~\ref{figFamilies11to13}),
and we observe that no graph of $\mathcal F_4, \dots, \mathcal F_{13}$ is $\omega$-colourable.
We let $X$ and $Y$ denote the graphs of $\mathcal X$,
and we show statements (1) \dots (5).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{families4to10.pdf}
\caption{Family $\mathcal F_4$ of graphs (given by complements)
and families $\mathcal F_5, \dots, \mathcal F_{10}$.
Similarly to Figure~\ref{figFamilies123},
each grey oval depicts a complete subgraph.
The graphs of $\mathcal F_4, \dots, \mathcal F_{10}$ are connected
and of independence at least $3$
and not $\omega$-colourable.
}
\label{figFamilies4to10}
\end{figure}
We show statement (1), that is,
if $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4^+$, then
$\mathcal G_{c, o, \alpha}$ contains infinitely many $\mathcal X$-free graphs
which are not $\omega$-colourable.
For the sake of clarity and efficiency of the proof, we show several claims.
\begin{claim}
\label{c1}
No member of $\mathcal X$ is $3K_1$ or an induced subgraph of $P_4$,
and we can assume that no member is $K_{1,3}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{c1}]
The first part of the claim follows from the assumption
that $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4^+$.
For the case that $K_{1,3}$ belongs to $\mathcal X$,
we recall that the other member of $\mathcal X$ is not an induced subgraph of $P_5$ or of $Z_2$
(since $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4^+$),
and so the statement of the proposition follows
by Theorem~\ref{alpha3}.
Thus, we can assume that $K_{1,3}$ does not belong to $\mathcal X$.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{claim}
\label{c2}
We can assume that $X$ is a forest and $Y$ is not.
Furthermore, we can assume that $X$ is $K_{1,4}$-free.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{c2}]
We suppose that either both members of $\mathcal X$ are forests or none of them is,
and we show that the statement of the proposition is satisfied.
For the case that both are forests,
we note that each member of $\mathcal X$ has at least four vertices
and is distinct from $P_4$ and $K_{1,3}$ (by Claim~\ref{c1}).
Hence, each member of $\mathcal X$
contains some of $4K_1$, $2K_1 \cup K_2$, $K_1 \cup P_3$, $2K_2$
as an induced subgraph
(by item (1) of Lemma~\ref{forest}).
We consider family $\mathcal F_4$ and note that it consists of
$\{4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2\}$-free graphs.
Thus, every graph of $\mathcal F_4$ is $\mathcal X$-free,
and the statement is satisfied.
In the latter case, we have that both members of $\mathcal X$ contain a cycle,
and we consider family $\mathcal F_5$
and observe that it contains infinitely many $\mathcal X$-free graphs.
Consequently, we can assume that $X$ is a forest and $Y$ is not.
The `furthermore part' of the claim follows similarly by
considering~$\mathcal F_5$.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{claim}
\label{c3}
In addition, we can assume that $X$ is either $K_1 \cup P_3$ or contains some of
$4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, 2K_2$ as an induced subgraph,
and that $Y$ is $\{ 4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2, K_1 \cup K_3, C_5 \}$-free.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{c3}]
The first part of the claim follows by Claims~\ref{c1} and~\ref{c2}
and item (1) of Lemma~\ref{forest}.
For the case that $Y$ contains some of
$4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2, K_1 \cup K_3, C_5$
as an induced subgraph,
we consider family $\mathcal F_4$ and observe that the statement is satisfied.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{claim}
\label{c4}
In addition, we can assume that
$X$ is distinct from $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$ and $K_{1,3}^+$
and that $Y$ is $K_4$-free.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{c4}]
We suppose that $X$ is either $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$ or $K_{1,3}^+$.
We recall that $Y$ is not a forest (by Claim~\ref{c2})
and that $Y$ is $K_1 \cup K_3$-free (by Claim~\ref{c3})
and distinct from $K_3$ and from $Z_1$
(since $X$ is $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$ or $K_{1,3}^+$ and $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4^+$).
Thus, $Y$ is not an induced subgraph of $P_5$ or of $Z_2$,
and the statement follows by Theorem~\ref{alpha3}.
Next, we suppose that $Y$ contains $K_4$ as a subgraph.
If $X$ contains some of
$2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2$
as an induced subgraph, then we consider family $\mathcal F_6$
and note that the statement is satisfied.
Hence, we can assume that $X$ is $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3, 2K_2 \}$-free,
and so it contains induced $4K_1$ (by Claim~\ref{c3}).
Furthermore, $X$ is a forest and it is $K_{1,4}$-free (by Claim~\ref{c2}).
Consequently, we get that $X$ contains no edge.
In other words, $X$ is $kK_1$ (for some $k \geq 4$).
Thus, $Y$ has at least two non-edges (since $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4^+$).
Furthermore, we recall that $Y$ is $K_1 \cup K_3$-free (by Claim~\ref{c3}).
We consider the graphs of $\mathcal F_7$ and observe that they are $\mathcal X$-free.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{claim}
\label{c5}
In addition, we can assume that $X$ is distinct from $K_1 \cup P_3$
and that $Y$ is $C_4$-free and that $Y$ contains $K_3$ as a subgraph.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{c5}]
We suppose that $X$ is $K_1 \cup P_3$.
In particular $Y$ is not an induced subgraph of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$
(since $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4^+$).
We recall that $Y$ is
$\{
4K_1,\allowbreak
2K_1 \cup K_2,\allowbreak
K_1 \cup P_3,\allowbreak
2K_2,\allowbreak
K_1 \cup K_3,\allowbreak
K_4,\allowbreak
C_5
\}$-free (by Claims~\ref{c3} and~\ref{c4}).
Consequently, $Y$ contains some of
$\overline{P_5}, K_{3,3}, K_{2,2,2}$ as an induced subgraph
(by Observation~\ref{cK3P4}),
and we consider family $\mathcal F_6$.
Thus, we can assume that $X$ is distinct from $K_1 \cup P_3$.
In particular, $X$ contains some of
$4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, 2K_2$ as an induced subgraph
(by Claim~\ref{c3}),
and we use this for showing the second part of the claim.
We suppose that $Y$ contains induced $C_4$, and we note that the statement is satisfied
by discussing two cases.
For the case that $X$ contains induced $2K_1 \cup K_2$, we consider family $\mathcal F_8$.
Otherwise, we consider family $\mathcal F_9$.
Hence, we can assume that $Y$ is $C_4$-free.
We recall that $Y$ is $\{ 2K_2, C_5 \}$-free (by Claim~\ref{c3}),
and so it is, in fact, $\{ C_4, C_5, C_6, \dots \}$-free.
Furthermore, $Y$ is not a forest (by Claim~\ref{c2}),
and thus it contains $K_3$.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{claim}
\label{c6}
In addition, we can assume that $X$ is
$(k + 2)K_1$ or $k K_1 \cup K_2$ (for some $k \geq 2$)
and that $Y$ is $3K_1$-free.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{c6}]
We recall that $Y$ contains $K_3$ (by Claim~\ref{c5}).
If $X$ contains some of
$2K_1 \cup P_3, K_1 \cup P_4, 2K_2$ as an induced subgraph,
then we consider family $\mathcal F_{10}$.
Hence, we can assume that $X$ is
$\{ 2K_1 \cup P_3, K_1 \cup P_4, 2K_2 \}$-free.
Furthermore, we recall that $X$ is $K_{1,4}$-free
(by Claim~\ref{c2})
and that $X$ is distinct from
$K_1 \cup P_3$, $K_1 \cup K_{1,3}$ and $K_{1,3}^+$
(by Claims~\ref{c4} and~\ref{c5}).
Consequently, we get that $X$ is
$(k + 2)K_1$ or $k K_1 \cup K_2$ for some $k \geq 2$
(by item (2) of Lemma~\ref{forest}).
We suppose that $Y$ contains induced $3K_1$.
We note that $Y$ contains at least one additional vertex (by Claim~\ref{c1}),
and hence it contains induced $K_{1,3}$
(since $Y$ is $\{ 4K_1, 2K_1 \cup K_2, K_1 \cup P_3\}$-free by Claim~\ref{c3}).
We conclude that the statement follows by Theorem~\ref{alpha3}.
\end{proofcl}
\begin{claim}
\label{c7}
Consequently, we get that $Y$ is $\overline{K_1 \cup P_4}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proofcl}[Proof of Claim~\ref{c7}]
We recall that $Y$ is $\{ 3K_1, 2K_2, C_4, C_5\}$-free
(by Claims~\ref{c3}, \ref{c5} and~\ref{c6}),
and we consider the complement of $Y$.
In particular, we get that $\overline{Y}$ is a forest.
Furthermore, $\overline{Y}$ is $\{ 4K_1, 2K_2, K_{1,3}\}$-free
(since $Y$ is $\{ K_1 \cup K_3, K_4, C_4 \}$-free
by Claims~\ref{c3}, \ref{c4} and~\ref{c5}).
Also, $\overline{Y}$ is distinct from $P_4$
(since $Y$ is distinct from $P_4$ by Claim~\ref{c1})
and distinct from $3K_1$ and $K_1 \cup P_3$
(since $Y$ is distinct from $K_3$ and $Z_1$ by the assumptions on $\mathcal X$).
We note that we can apply item (2) of Lemma~\ref{forest}
and conclude that $\overline{Y}$ is $K_1 \cup P_4$.
\end{proofcl}
In particular, $X$ is distinct from $2K_1 \cup K_2$
(since $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4^+$).
Thus, $X$ contains induced $4K_1$ (by Claim~\ref{c6}).
The desired statement follows by considering family $\mathcal F_7$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{families11to13.pdf}
\caption{Families $\mathcal F_{11}, \mathcal F_{12}$ and $\mathcal F_{13}$ of graphs.
%
(The grey ovals depict complete subgraphs.)
The graphs are not $\omega$-colourable.
%
}
\label{figFamilies11to13}
\end{figure}
Next, we show (2).
We note that if $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4^+$,
then the statement follows from~(1).
Hence, we can assume that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\Omega_4^+$ but not to $\Omega_3^+$,
that is, we assume that at least one of the following is satisfied.
\begin{itemize}
\item
$X$ is $2K_1 \cup K_2$ and $Y$ is $\overline{ K_1 \cup P_4}$.
\item
$X$ is $K_{1,3}$ and $Y$ is either $K_1 \cup P_3$ or $2K_2$ or $P_5$ or $K_1 \cup K_3$ or $Z_2$.
\item
$X$ is $K_1 \cup P_3$ and $Y$ is an induced subgraph of
$\overline{ K_3 \cup P_4}$
such that $Y$ is not an induced subgraph of $P_4$
and is distinct from $K_3$ and $Z_1$ and $D$.
\item
$X$ is $3K_1$ and $Y$ is not an induced subgraph of $P_4$
and is distinct from $K_k$ (for every $k \geq 3$) and from
$\overline{ \ell K_1 \cup K_2}$ (for every $\ell \geq 2$)
and from $Z_1$.
\end{itemize}
We note that $X$ contains $3K_1$ as an induced subgraph,
and we discuss $Y$ in more detail.
We observe that if the statement of the third item is satisfied,
then $Y$ contains some of $C_4, \overline{ K_1 \cup P_4}, K_{1,3}$
as an induced subgraph (by Observation~\ref{cK3P4on5}).
Furthermore, we show that if the statement of the last item is satisfied,
then $Y$ contains some of
$3K_1,\allowbreak
2K_2,\allowbreak
K_1 \cup K_3,\allowbreak
C_4,\allowbreak
C_5,\allowbreak
\overline{ K_1 \cup P_4},\allowbreak
\overline{ 2K_1 \cup P_3}$
as an induced subgraph.
For the sake of a contradiction, we suppose that $Y$ is
$\{
3K_1,\allowbreak
2K_2,\allowbreak
K_1 \cup K_3,\allowbreak
C_4,\allowbreak
C_5,\allowbreak
\overline{ K_1 \cup P_4},\allowbreak
\overline{ 2K_1 \cup P_3}
\}$-free.
In other words,
$\overline{Y}$ is
$\{
K_3,\allowbreak
C_4,\allowbreak
K_{1,3},\allowbreak
2K_2,\allowbreak
C_5,\allowbreak
K_1 \cup P_4,\allowbreak
2K_1 \cup P_3
\}$-free,
and so it is a
$\{
K_{1,3},\allowbreak
2K_2,\allowbreak
K_1 \cup P_4,\allowbreak
2K_1 \cup P_3
\}$-free forest.
Furthermore, $\overline{Y}$ is
not an induced subgraph of $P_4$
and it is distinct from
$k K_1$ (for every $k \geq 3$) and from
$ \ell K_1 \cup K_2$ (for every $\ell \geq 2$)
and from $K_1 \cup P_3$.
A contradiction follows by item (2) of Lemma~\ref{forest}.
We recall that $X$ contains induced $3K_1$,
and we discuss three cases for~$Y$.
For the case that $Y$ contains induced
$\overline{ K_1 \cup P_4}$ or $\overline{ 2K_1 \cup P_3}$,
we consider family~$\mathcal F_{11}$ and observe that the statement is satisfied.
If $Y$ contains $C_5$ as an induced subgraph, then we consider the
family of all graphs whose complement is an odd cycle of length at least~$7$.
Otherwise, we conclude that $Y$ contains some of
$3K_1, 2K_2, K_1 \cup K_3, C_4$ as an induced subgraph
and consider family~$\mathcal F_{12}$.
We show (3).
Similarly as above,
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\Omega_4^+$ but not to $\Omega_{2c}^+$.
Hence, $X$ contains $K_{1,3}$ as an induced subgraph
and $Y$ contains $K_3$,
and the desired statement follows by
considering the family of all odd cycles of length at least~$7$.
We show (4).
We can assume that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\Omega_4^+$ but not to $\Omega_{2}^+$,
and hence $X$ contains induced $K_{1,3}$
and $Y$ contains induced $2K_2$ or $K_3$,
and we consider family~$\mathcal F_{13}$.
Lastly, we show the two statements given by (5).
We note that for $\mathcal G_{c}$,
the statement follows from (2) and (3)
(since if $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_{1}^+$,
then it does not belong to $\Omega_{2c}^+$ or $\Omega_3^+$).
Similarly, for $\mathcal G_{o}$ the statement follows from (2) and (4).
\end{proof}
\section{Proving the main results}
\label{sProving}
Finally, we put together the statements shown in
Sections~\ref{sPerf}, \ref{sOmega} and~\ref{sFam}
and Theorem~\ref{alpha3},
and we prove
Theorems~\ref{mainNoExceptions} and~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{mainNoExceptions}]
For the sake of efficiency,
we shall first show the `if part' subject to items (1), (2), \dots, (10),
and then the `only if part' subject to items (10), (9), \dots, (1).
For the `if part' of item (1), we need to show that
if $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_1$,
then every $\mathcal X$-free graph of $\mathcal G_5$ is perfect.
We recall that every $P_4$-free graph is perfect
(for instance, by Theorem~\ref{tSPGT}).
Hence, we can consider a graph of
$\mathcal G_5$ and assume that it is
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, Z_1 \}$-free or
$\{ K_1 \cup P_3, Z_1 \}$-free or
$\{ K_1 \cup P_3, D \}$-free,
and the perfectness follows by
item (8), (9), (10) of Proposition~\ref{perf}, respectively.
For the `if part' of item (2), we need to show that
if $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_2$,
then every $\mathcal X$-free graph of $\mathcal G_{\alpha}$ is perfect.
We note that if $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_1$,
then the statement follows by
the `if part' of (1) shown above.
Also, if $\mathcal X$ contains $3K_1$, then the considered restricted class is empty
and the statement is satisfied trivially.
Hence, we can assume that $\mathcal X$
belongs to $\mathcal P_2$ but neither to $\mathcal P_1$ nor to $\mathcal I$.
In particular, one member of $\mathcal X$ is $K_1 \cup P_3$
and the other is an induced subgraph of $\overline{K_3 \cup P_4}$,
and the statement follows by item (2) of Proposition~\ref{perf}.
We show the `if part' of (3).
Similarly as above,
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_{2c}$ but not to $\mathcal P_2$.
Hence,
$\mathcal X$ is either $\{ K_{1,3}, 2K_2 \}$ or $\{ K_{1,3}, P_5 \}$.
We note that every connected $\mathcal X$-free graph of independence at least $3$
is, in fact, distinct from an odd cycle,
and the perfectness follows by Theorem~\ref{alpha3}.
For the `if part' of (4),
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_3$ but not to $\mathcal P_1$.
Thus, $\mathcal X$ is
either $\{ K_{1,3}^+, K_3 \}$ or $\{ K_{1,3}^+, Z_1 \}$
or $\{ K_{1,3}, K_3 \}$ or $\{ K_{1,3}, Z_1 \}$,
and the perfectness follows by item (3) of Proposition~\ref{perf}.
Similarly considering the `if part' of (5),
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ is
either $\{ K_{1,3}, K_1 \cup K_3 \}$ or $\{ K_{1,3}, Z_2 \}$,
and the statement follows by Theorem~\ref{alpha3}.
Next, we show the `if part' of items (6), \dots, (10).
We note that for most pairs $\mathcal X$,
the $\omega$-colourability follows by the
`if part' of items (1), \dots, (5).
In~particular considering (6),
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ is $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$.
We note that the statement follows by item (1) of Proposition~\ref{perf}
(since each of the graphs $E_1, \dots, E_4$ depicted in Figure~\ref{figE} is $\omega$-colourable).
The `if part' of (9) follows by the same argument.
Consequently for (7), (8) and (10),
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ is $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$.
We conclude that the statement follows by Proposition~\ref{p1}.
In order to show the `only if part' of (10),
we need to show that if
$\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\Omega_4$,
then $\mathcal G_{c, o, \alpha}$ contains an
$\mathcal X$-free graph which are not $\omega$-colourable.
We note that for every pair $\mathcal X$ not belonging to $\Omega_4^+$,
the statement follows by item (1) of Proposition~\ref{notOmega}.
Hence,
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ is
either $\{ kK_1, K_{\ell} \}$
(for some $k \geq 4$ and $\ell \geq 3$),
or $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, K_3 \}$
or $\{ (k+1)K_1, Z_1 \}$
or $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, Z_1 \}$
or $\{ (k+1) K_1, D \}$
or $\{ k K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$
(for some $k \geq 3$),
or $\{ kK_1, \overline{ \ell K_1 \cup K_2 } \}$
(for some $k \geq 4$ and $\ell \geq 3$),
or $\{ K_1 \cup K_{1,3}, K_3 \}$
or $\{ K_1 \cup K_{1,3}, Z_1 \}$.
In all cases, the statement follows
by item (2) of Observation~\ref{anException}.
Consequently for the `only if part' of (9),
we can assume that
$\mathcal X$ is none of the aforementioned pairs, and so $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\Omega_4$.
In addition, we can assume that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\Omega_3^+$
(by item (2) of Proposition~\ref{notOmega}).
Hence,
$\mathcal X$ is either $\{ 3K_1, K_{k+1} \}$
or $\{ 3K_1, \overline{ kK_1 \cup K_2 } \}$
(for some $k \geq 3$)
and the statement follows by item (1) of Observation~\ref{anException}.
Similarly for (8), (7) and (6),
the statement follows by using item (3), (4) and (5) of Proposition~\ref{notOmega},
respectively.
Regarding the `only if part' of (5), \dots, (1),
we note that for most pairs $\mathcal X$,
the existence of a desired non-perfect graph follows by
the `only if part' of items (10), \dots, (6).
In particular, we can assume that $\mathcal X$ is either
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$ or
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$.
We consider graphs $E_1, \dots, E_4$ depicted in Figure~\ref{figE},
and we note that they have the desired properties.
\end{proof}
We show Theorem~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{mainFiniteExceptions}]
We show the `if part' of the statement subject to items (1), (2), \dots, (11),
and then the `only if part' subject to items (11), (10), \dots, (1).
In order to show the `if part' of (1),
we need to show that
if $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_1^+$,
then the set of all non-perfect $\mathcal X$-free graphs is finite.
We recall that if $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_1$,
then all $\mathcal X$-free graphs (except for $C_5$) are perfect
by item (1) of Theorem~\ref{mainNoExceptions}.
Also, if $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal R$
or $\mathcal X$ is $\{ 3K_1, K_k \}$ (for some $k \geq 4$),
then there are only finitely many $\mathcal X$-free graphs
by Theorem~\ref{Ramsey}, and so the statement is satisfied trivially.
Hence, we can assume that $\mathcal X$ is
either $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$
or $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, K_3 \}$
or $\{ 3K_1, \overline{ kK_1 \cup K_2 } \}$
(for some $k \geq 3$),
and the statement follows by items (1), (6) and (7) of Proposition~\ref{perf},
respectively.
For the `if part' of (2),
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\mathcal P_{1c}^+$ but not to $\mathcal P_1^+$.
Hence, $\mathcal X$ is
either $\{ (k+1)K_1, Z_1 \}$
or $\{ kK_1 \cup K_2, Z_1 \}$
(for some $k \geq 3$),
and the statement follows by item (5) of Proposition~\ref{perf}.
For the `if part' of (3) and (4),
we observe that the statement follows similarly as for (1) and (2).
Consequently for (5) and (6),
we can assume that $\mathcal X$ is
either $\{ K_1 \cup K_{1,3}, K_3 \}$ or $\{ K_1 \cup K_{1,3}, Z_1 \}$.
The statement follows by item (4) of Proposition~\ref{perf}.
For the `if part' of (7),
we need to show that if $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\Omega_1^+$,
then the set of all $\mathcal X$-free graphs which are not $\omega$-colourable is finite.
We can assume that $\mathcal X$ does not belong to $\mathcal P_1^+$,
and hence $\mathcal X$ is
either $\{ (k+1) K_1, Z_1 \}$
or $\{ k K_1 \cup K_2, Z_1 \}$
or $\{ (k+1) K_1, D \}$
or $\{ k K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$
(for some $k \geq 3$),
or
$\{ k K_1, \overline{ \ell K_1 \cup K_2 } \}$
(for some $k \geq 4$ and $\ell \geq 3$),
and the statement follows by Proposition~\ref{omega}.
For (8), \dots, (11),
we note that the statement follows similarly
(in addition, using item (7) of Theorem~\ref{mainNoExceptions}
for the pair
$\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{K_1 \cup P_4} \}$).
Regarding the `only if part' of (11), \dots, (7),
we note that the statement follows by item (1), \dots, (5) of Proposition~\ref{notOmega},
respectively.
We show the `only if part' of (6).
We can assume that $\mathcal X$ belongs to $\Omega_4^+$
(otherwise, the statement is satisfied by the `only if part' of (11) discussed above).
Hence, we can assume that $\mathcal X$ is
either $\{ (k+1) K_1, D \}$
or $\{ k K_1 \cup K_2, D \}$
(for some $k \geq 3$),
or
$\{ k K_1, \overline{ \ell K_1 \cup K_2 } \}$
(for some $k \geq 4$ and $\ell \geq 3$),
or $\{ 2K_1 \cup K_2, \overline{ K_1 \cup P_4 } \}$,
and we note that the statement follows by
items (2) and (3) of Observation~\ref{4K1D}.
We conclude that
for items (5), \dots, (1), the statement follows similarly
(using items (1), (2) and (3) of Observation~\ref{4K1D}).
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous referee for their helpful comments.
The work of the first author was partially supported by DMS-EPSRC grant DMS-2120644.
The work of the second and fourth author was supported by projects 17-04611S and 20-09525S of the Czech Science Foundation.
The second author was also supported by the MUNI Award in Science and Humanities of the Grant Agency of Masaryk University.
The work of the third author was supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos.~12171393, 12071370)
and the Natural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi (Nos.~2021JM-040, 2020JQ-099).
\small{
|
\section{Introduction}
Computationally-intensive R packages are typically implemented using C, Fortran,
or C++ for the sake of performance. The R Core Team maintains a document called
``Writing R Extensions'' which describes R's API for creating packages.
This paper supplements that official guide by (i) discussing issues
involved in the integration of R and Rust and (ii) providing an R package to help those
interested in writing R packages based on Rust.
While both R and Rust provide
foreign function interfaces (FFI) based on C \citep{C}, each language has its
own idiosyncrasies that require some care when interfacing with the other. Packages published on CRAN (\url{https://cran.r-project.org/}) are
subject to the CRAN Repository Policy. This paper also describes how to avoid pitfalls which may prevent acceptance of a Rust-based
package on CRAN or waste time of CRAN maintainers and package contributors.
The paper introduces the newly-released \CRANpkg{cargo} \citep{cargo}
package which provides a framework for developing CRAN-compliant R packages
using Rust and shows how to make Rust-based wrappers for R's C API. It is
important to emphasize that a package developed with the \pkg{cargo} framework
does \emph{not} depend on the \pkg{cargo} package, either in source or binary
form. That is, the \pkg{cargo} package produces an R package structure with all
the necessary Rust code and scripts such that the package is then independent of
the \pkg{cargo} package. Developers can then extend the framework for their own
purposes within the generated package structure. Further, although a source
package will obviously depend on Rust, there are no runtime dependencies on
Rust or any other libraries, resulting in a binary package that is easy
for others to use.
Separate from package development, the \pkg{cargo} package also allows Rust code to be directly embedded in an R script.
One of the purposes of this paper is to encourage developers to consider Rust
for writing high-performance R packages. A second purpose
is to discuss technical issues which arise when interfacing R and Rust and to
document the design choices of the \pkg{cargo} framework. The \pkg{cargo} framework seeks to: (i) provide a Rust interface
for commonly used parts of the R API, (ii) show the developer how they can
easily extend the framework to cover other parts of the R API, (iii) minimize
the runtime overhead when interfacing between R and Rust, and (iv) be as
transparent as possible on how the framework interfaces R and Rust. This paper
assumes some familiarity with ``Writing R Extensions'' and package
development using R's API.
The paper also assumes some familiarity with Rust. The interested reader is
directed to a plethora of resources online, including ``The Rust Programming
Language'' (\url{https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/}).
The paper is organized as follows. A brief history on Rust and its use in R
is outlined.
Setting up the Rust toolchain for R package
development is discussed next, followed by an overview of the various parts of
an R package using the \pkg{cargo} framework. Low-level and high-level
interfaces between R and Rust are introduced. Threading issues and
seeding a random number generator are also discussed. Defining a R function by
embedding Rust code directly in an R script is shown. Finally, the paper ends
with benchmarks and concluding comments.
\section{Background on Rust and its use in R}
Rust (\url{https://www.rust-lang.org/}) is a statically-typed, general-purpose
programming language which emphasizes memory safety without compromising runtime
performance. Its memory safety guarantees (against, e.g., buffer overflows,
dangling pointers, and race conditions) are achieved through the language's
design and the compiler's borrow checker. This avoids the memory and CPU
overhead inherent in garbage-collected languages. Concurrent programming is
straightforward in Rust, where most concurrency errors are compile-time errors
rather than difficult-to-reproduce runtime errors. Developer productivity is
aided by rustup (toolchain installer and upgrader), Cargo (package manager for
downloading dependencies, publishing code, and building dependencies and code),
Rustfmt (automatic code formatter), and Clippy (linting tool to catch common
mistakes and improve performance and readability).
Rust first appeared in 2010 as a Mozilla project, had its first stable release
in 2015, and has been rated the ``most loved programming language'' in the Stack
Overflow Annual Developer Survey
(\url{https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/}) every year since 2016. The
Rust Foundation was formed in 2021 with the founding members Amazon Web Services,
Google, Huawei, Microsoft, and Mozilla. Google recently announced support for
Rust within Android Open Source Project (AOSP) as an alternative to C and C++.
Experimental Rust support for developing subsystems and drivers for the Linux
kernel has been submitted. Linus Torvalds has been quoted on several occasions
as being welcoming of the possibility of using Rust alongside C for kernel
development.
Members of the R community have also been interested in Rust. The first major
effort to integrate R and Rust appears to have started in early 2016 with the
now-deprecated \url{https://github.com/rustr} project. The first Rust-based
package appeared on CRAN in 2018 with Jeroen Ooms' \CRANpkg{gifski} package
\citep{gifski}, with an accompanying presentation at the 2018 European R Users
Meeting (eRum2018) describing how a developer can use Rust code in an R package.
The approach requires the package developer to write C code which then calls
Rust code. Under this approach, the Rust code itself does not have access to
R's API.
In 2019, my \CRANpkg{salso} package \citep{salso} was the second Rust-based
package on CRAN. It followed \pkg{gifski}'s approach of writing C code that
calls Rust code. Around the time that the third Rust-based package
\CRANpkg{baseflow} \citep{baseflow} was accepted to CRAN, the CRAN maintainers
noted that \pkg{gifski}, \pkg{salso}, and \pkg{baseflow} violated the policy
that ``packages should not write ... on the file system apart from the R
session’s temporary directory'' since Cargo caches downloaded dependencies by
default and uses all available CPU cores. This inspired me in early 2021 to
write the \pkg{cargo} package to facilitate using Cargo in conformance with
CRAN's policies and to download precompiled static libraries in case the
required version of the Rust toolchain is not available on a particular CRAN
build machine. It also became clear that writing C code that glues the R and
Rust code is tedious, error prone, and difficult to refactor. As such, I
expanded the \pkg{cargo} package to facilitate developing Rust-based packages
that avoid the need to write the C glue code, allowing R to call directly into
Rust code and allowing Rust code to callback into R's API directly. In 2021,
CRAN accepted \CRANpkg{caviarpd} \citep{caviarpd} as another package developed
using the \pkg{cargo} framework and the \pkg{salso} package was ported to the
framework.
Another exciting project that interfaces R and Rust is the extendr
project (\url{https://github.com/extendr}). Andy Thomason started working on the
extendr project in 2020, attracting Claus Wilke and several other developers.
The extendr project seeks not
only to facilitate writing R packages in Rust, but also to embed the R
interpreter in a Rust program. In 2021, the project released the
\CRANpkg{rextendr} package \citep{rextendr} on CRAN to facilitate developing
Rust-based packages. In 2021, the \pkg{baseflow} package was ported to use
\pkg{rextendr}, and the \CRANpkg{string2path} package \citep{stringpath} became
another package on CRAN developed with the aid of \pkg{rextendr}.
Those interested in interfacing Rust and R should keep an eye on the extendr project as it continues to evolve.
The project is working
to provide extensive automatic conversion between R types (e.g., vectors,
lists, data.frames, environments, etc.) and Rust types, including attempts to
handle thorny issues such as R's missing value \code{NA} and R's fluidity in vectors
of storage mode \samp{double} and \samp{integer}. It aspires to eventually provide a Rust interface for all
of the functionality provided by the R API to alleviate the Rust developer from
having to dive into the details of R's API.
The \pkg{rextendr} package and the \pkg{cargo} package both seek to provide functionality to develop R packages
which can call directly into Rust and call back to R from Rust.
The extendr project is hosted on public GitHub repositories and is under
rapid development; their project shows what is possible and their open discussion influenced some of my choices for the \pkg{cargo} package.
The \pkg{rextendr} package and the \pkg{cargo} package address various technical issues
differently and choose different design trade-offs.
The advantage of the \pkg{cargo} package is its transparency and extendability,
whereas the benefit of the \pkg{rextendr} package is that it provides many
behind-the-scenes type conversions and aims to be more comprehensive. The lean nature of the
\pkg{cargo} framework makes it simple to understand how R and Rust interface.
\section{Installing the Rust toolchain}
Developing Rust-based R packages requires the installation of several tools.
The first step is to install the usual
toolchain bundle to compile C/C++/Fortran packages for the chosen operating system.
For example, on Windows, install Rtools
(\url{https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/Rtools/}). On MacOS, follow the
instructions here: \url{https://mac.r-project.org/tools/}.
Next, install the Rust toolchain;
the recommended way is rustup
(\url{https://rustup.rs}). On MacOS and Linux, this entails executing a single
shell command. There are a few more steps on Windows. One must download
rustup‑init.exe from \url{https://rustup.rs}, execute \samp{rustup-init.exe -y
--default-host x86\_64-pc-windows-gnu}, and then (in a new terminal so the
changes to the PATH are picked up), execute \samp{rustup target add
i686-pc-windows-gnu}.
Rust has a six-week release cycle and the Rust toolchain is easily upgraded with
\samp{rustup update}. Incompatible changes are opt-in only, so new releases are
always guaranteed to run old code. Because there are immediate benefits and no
costs to upgrading, Rust developers frequently develop against the latest Rust
version to take advantage of new features, optimizations, and bug fixes.
Rust's rapid release cycle, however, presents challenges when submitting
Rust-based packages to CRAN, as a CRAN build server may not have a recent
version of the Rust toolchain. Moreover, the toolchain may not even be
available on a particular CRAN
build machine. A solution to this problem is
to host precompiled static libraries, which
is a common practice for packages unrelated to Rust. (See, for
example, \url{https://github.com/rwinlib}.)
The \pkg{cargo} framework provides tools to download a precompiled static library for the Rust component of an R package when a sufficient version of the Rust toolchain
cannot be found during installation. Compiling from source is completely
supported by the \pkg{cargo} framework if the Rust toolchain meets the minimum
version specified in the package's \file{DESCRIPTION} file.
\section{Overview of package development using the \pkg{cargo} framework}
The \pkg{cargo} package facilitates the development of R packages based on Rust.
Install \pkg{cargo} from CRAN using \code{install.packages("cargo")}.
Development starts by creating a new package using, for example,
\code{cargo::new\_package("/path/to/package/foo")} to generate the package
\pkg{foo} at the filesystem path \file{/path/to/package/}. If using RStudio,
this can be accomplished using "File" -> "New Project..." -> "New Directory" ->
"R Package Using Rust and the 'cargo' Framework". This generates and installs a
complete working package that developers can modify for their own needs.
The directory structure of the new \pkg{foo} package is:
\begin{example}
foo
├── DESCRIPTION
├── INSTALL
├── LICENSE
├── NAMESPACE
├── R
│ ├── convolve2.R
│ ├── myrnorm.R
│ ├── rustlib.R
│ └── zero.R
├── man ...
├── src
│ ├── Makevars
│ ├── Makevars.win
│ ├── rustlib
│ │ ├── Cargo.toml
│ │ ├── roxido ...
│ │ ├── roxido_macro ...
│ │ └── src
│ │ ├── lib.rs
│ │ └── registration.rs
│ └── shim.c
└── tools
├── cargo.R
└── staticlib.R
\end{example}
Several of the resulting files and directories are specific to packages
developed with the \pkg{cargo} framework. The \file{src/Makevars} and
\file{src/Makevars.win} direct R to use the \file{tools/staticlib.R} script to
compile the static Rust library defined in \file{src/rustlib} or, as a fallback,
to download a precompiled static library. The download URL needs to be
provided in the \file{tools/staticlib.R} script. Notice that the
\file{DESCRIPTION} file has an entry \samp{SystemRequirements: Cargo (>= 1.54)
for installation from sources: see INSTALL file}. The minimum required Cargo
version should be updated and the developer can determine this using cargo-msrv
(\url{https://crates.io/crates/cargo-msrv}). The \file{tools/cargo.R} script
finds and runs the Cargo package manager according to CRAN policies by, for
example, using no more than two CPU threads and downloading dependencies to a
temporary directory. Unfortunately, the dependencies must then be redownloaded
and recompiled every time the package is reinstalled, which is a hassle during package
development. To avoid these limitations on a local development machine, the
package developer can add the followings to their personal \file{.Rprofile} file:
\begin{example}
Sys.setenv(R_CARGO_SAVE_CACHE="TRUE")
Sys.setenv(R_CARGO_BUILD_JOBS="0")
\end{example}
As an aid to other Rust-based packages \emph{not} using the \pkg{cargo} framework, the
functionality provided by the \file{tools/cargo.R} script is also available as
the \code{run} function in the \pkg{cargo} package.
There are several calls to the \code{.Call} function among the
scripts in the \file{R} directory. The function in \file{R/myrnorm.R}, for
example, has \code{.Call(.myrnorm, n, mean, sd)} which calls the Rust function
\code{myrnorm} defined in \file{src/rustlib/src/lib.rs}:
\begin{example}[numbers=left,xleftmargin=6.2mm]
mod registration;
use roxido::*;
#[roxido]
fn myrnorm(n: Rval, mean: Rval, sd: Rval) -> Rval {
unsafe {
use rbindings::*;
use std::convert::TryFrom;
let (mean, sd) = (Rf_asReal(mean.0), Rf_asReal(sd.0));
let length = isize::try_from(Rf_asInteger(n.0)).unwrap();
let vec = Rf_protect(Rf_allocVector(REALSXP, length));
let slice = Rval(vec).slice_double().unwrap();
GetRNGstate();
for x in slice { *x = Rf_rnorm(mean, sd); }
PutRNGstate();
Rf_unprotect(1);
Rval(vec)
}
}
\end{example}
Notice that the \code{myrnorm} function has the \code{\#[roxido]} attribute and
takes three arguments \code{n}, \code{mean}, and \code{sd}, all of type
\code{Rval}, and returns a value of type \code{Rval}. The \code{\#[roxido]}
attribute is a procedural macro defined in
\file{src/rustlib/roxido\_macro/src/lib.rs} which adds the qualifiers
\code{\#[no\_mangle] extern "C"} when compiling to tell the Rust compiler to
make the \code{myrnorm} function callable directly from R. The attribute also
ensures that all arguments are of type \code{Rval} and that the return type is
\code{Rval}. The \code{\#[roxido]} attribute also wraps the body of the
function in a call to Rust's \code{std::panic::catch\_unwind} since unwinding
from Rust code into foreign code is undefined behavior and likely crashes R.
When a panic is caught, it is turned into an R error which gives the
corresponding message from Rust and the line number of the panic. The package
developer is encouraged to study the definition of the \code{\#[roxido]}
attribute in \file{src/rustlib/roxido\_macro/src/lib.rs} to better understand
the interface between R and Rust.
When a developer wants to make another Rust function callable by R, say a
function named \code{bar} taking two arguments \code{x} and \code{y}, the
developer adds the \code{.Call(.bar, x, y)} in a script under the \file{R}
directory of the package and then runs
\code{cargo::register\_calls("/path/to/package/foo")}. This automatically
regenerates the \file{src/rustlib/src/registration.rs} file and does two things.
First, the updated file provides a stub for a
Rust function \code{bar} with arguments \code{x} and \code{y} in a commented-out block. This stub
can then be copied to the \file{src/rustlib/src/lib.rs} file and the function
can be implemented. Second, code is generated to register functions when R loads
the shared library. Again, the package developer is encouraged to study the
\file{src/rustlib/src/registration.rs} to see examples of how to call R's API
functions from Rust.
\section{Low-level interface to R's API}
The \code{myrnorm} function in Rust illustrates directly using R's API in Rust.
Line 7 of the listing is \samp{use rbindings::*}, which provides direct
access to R's API through Rust bindings. These are automatically generated by
the bindgen utility (\url{https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-bindgen/}) from the
following R header files: \file{Rversion.h}, \file{R.h}, \file{Rinternals.h},
\file{Rinterface.h}, \file{R\_ext/Rdynload.h}, and \file{Rmath.h}, although only
those definitions and functions that are documented to be part of R's API (as
specific by ``Writing R Extensions'') should be used. The documentation for the
Rust bindings can be browsed by executing \samp{cargo doc --open} when in the
\file{src/rustlib/roxido} directory. Note that most of the functions in the
\code{rbindings} module require an \code{SEXP} value, i.e., a pointer to R's
internal \code{SEXPREC} structure. The \code{Rval} is defined as \samp{pub
struct Rval(pub SEXP)}, a \dfn{newtype} pattern that wraps the \code{SEXP}
value. The newtype pattern provide type safety and encapsulation, which we
utilize in the high-level interface described in the next section. Because of
zero-cost abstraction, the Rust compiler generates code as if \code{SEXP} were
used directly. The upshot is that, when calling R API functions, the
\code{SEXP} must be extracted from an \code{Rval} value, e.g., if \code{mean} is
an \code{Rval}, use \code{mean.0} to extract its \code{SEXP}, as in line 9.
Conversely, when returning from a function marked with \code{\#[roxido]}
attribute, wrap the \code{SEXP} value \code{x} in \code{Rval(x)}, as in line 17.
When accessing an R API function from Rust, care should be taken so that the R
function does not throw an error. If Rust code calls an R function that throws
an error, a long jump occurs over Rust stack frames, which prevents Rust from
doing its usual freeing of heap allocations, resulting in a memory leak. For
example, before calling \code{REAL(x)} to receive a pointer of type \code{*mut
f64} (i.e., \code{*double} in C), the developer should check that the storage
mode of \code{x} is indeed \samp{double} by checking against
\code{Rf\_isReal(x)}. If not, a long jump will occur when calling
\code{REAL(x)}.
Care must also be taken when calling R API functions that might catch a user
interrupt (e.g, pressing \code{Ctrl-C} or hitting the stop button in RStudio)
because an interrupt also produces a long jump and leaks memory. One R API
function that catches interrupts, for example, is the \code{Rprintf} function
for printing to R's console.
\section{High-level interface wrapping R's API}
To avoid the pitfalls of R API functions throwing errors or catching interrupts
when called from Rust, the \pkg{cargo} package also provides a high-level
interface defined in the \code{r} module. This high-level
interface also alleviates the developer from deciding when results from R API
functions should be protected from the R's garbage collection and the necessary
bookkeeping involved in calling the \code{Rf\_unprotect} function. Finally, the
high-level interface provides a more idiomatic API for Rust developers. The
high-level interface is not a comprehensive wrapper over R's API, but it covers
common use cases and the developer can easily expand it by adding to the
\file{src/rustlib/roxido/src/r.rs} in the package. That is, the developer does
not need to wait for the release of a new version of the \pkg{cargo} package.
The high-level interface provides a \code{check\_user\_interrupt} function to
test whether the user has tried to interrupt execution. The \code{rprintln!}
macro behaves just like Rust's standard \code{println!} macro, but prints to the
R console and returns \code{true} if the user interrupted. Much of the
interface is provided by associated functions for the \code{Rval} structure.
Recall that the
API can be browsed by executing \samp{cargo doc --open} when in the
\file{src/rustlib/roxido} directory.
The package generated by the \code{cargo::new\_package} function provides two
examples of the high-level interface. These are translations of examples in
``Writing R Extensions''. Consider first the \code{convolve2} function from
Section 5.10.1 ``Calling .Call''. The translation is provided in
\file{src/rustlib/src/lib.rs} and shown below.
\begin{example}[numbers=left,firstnumber=21,xleftmargin=6.2mm]
#[roxido]
fn convolve2(a: Rval, b: Rval) -> Rval {
let (a, xa) = a.coerce_double(&mut pc).unwrap();
let (b, xb) = b.coerce_double(&mut pc).unwrap();
let (ab, xab) = Rval::new_vector_double(a.len() + b.len() - 1, &mut pc);
for xabi in xab.iter_mut() { *xabi = 0.0 }
for (i, xai) in xa.iter().enumerate() {
for (j, xbj) in xb.iter().enumerate() {
xab[i + j] += xai * xbj;
}
}
ab
}
\end{example}
Notice on lines 23 and 24 the calls to \code{Rval}'s \code{coerce\_double} method.
The developer is encouraged to read the definition of this method in
\file{src/rustlib/roxido/src/r.rs}, but the gist of the method is to check R's
type of the \code{Rval} and convert it to R's storage mode \samp{double}, if
needed and if possible. The method returns either a tuple giving a
(potentially-new) \code{Rval} and an \code{f64} slice into it, or an error. If
the developer is confident that the method will not fail, the developer can
simply call the \code{unwrap} method, as in lines 23 and 44, but more formal error
handling can be implemented in the usual Rust manner. If \code{unwrap} is
called on an error message, the code will panic and a helpful message regarding
the location of the panic is displayed in the R console. No memory leak occurs
and the R session is still valid. Thus, panics in the \pkg{cargo} framework are
controlled events.
In contrast to the \code{coerce\_double} method, a slice into R's memory for
vectors of doubles, integers, and logicals can be obtained without a potential
memory allocation using \code{x.slice\_double()}, \code{x.slice\_integer()}, and
\code{x.slice\_logical()} when \code{x} is an \code{Rval}. In any case, these
slices are views into R's internal memory. Care should be taken when dealing
with R's special values. For example, R's \code{NA} value for an element of an
\samp{integer} vector corresponds to Rust's \code{i32::MIN} (which is not a
special value in Rust). So, for example, \code{NA\_integer\_ * 0L} in R equals
\code{NA\_integer\_}, but it equals \code{0} in Rust. Associated functions,
such as \code{Rval::is\_na\_integer}, are provided to test against R's special
values. See Section 5.10.3 ``Missing and special values'' in ``Writing R
Extensions'' for a discussion of this issue.
Notice the argument to the \code{coerce\_double} method on lines 23 and 24 is
\code{\&mut pc}. The wrapper code provided by the \code{\#[roxido]} attribute
includes \code{let mut pc = Pc::new()}. Many of the functions take a shared
mutable reference to a \code{Pc} structure. The purpose of the \code{Pc}
structure is to handle the bookkeeping associated with \code{Rf\_protect} and
\code{Rf\_unprotect} calls related to R's garbage collection. It has a single public
method \code{protect} which takes an \code{SEXP}, calls \code{Rf\_protect} on
it, increments an interval counter, and returns the \code{SEXP}. When an
instance of the \code{Pc} structure goes out of scope, the Rust compiler
automatically inserts a call to its associated \code{drop} function which calls
\code{Rf\_unprotect(x)} using its interval counter \code{x}. Not only does the
developer not need to manually track the number of protected items, the
developer does not need to worry about when a value should be protected. If the
method requires a shared mutable reference to a \code{Pc}, then protection is
needed and automatically handled by the function and not the developer.
Now consider the \code{zero} function described in Section 5.11.1
``Zero-finding'' of ``Writing R Extensions''. The translation to the
\pkg{cargo} framework is provided in the package generated by the
\code{new\_package} function. The code is provided in
\file{src/rustlib/src/lib.rs} and shown below. As with the previous \code{convolve2}
function, this is a ``drop-in'' replacement for the function defined in
``Writing R Extensions''.
\begin{example}[numbers=left,firstnumber=35,xleftmargin=6.2mm]
#[roxido]
fn zero(f: Rval, guesses: Rval, stol: Rval, rho: Rval) -> Rval {
let slice = guesses.slice_double().unwrap();
let (mut x0, mut x1, tol) = (slice[0], slice[1], stol.as_f64());
if tol <= 0.0 { panic!("non-positive tol value"); }
let symbol = Rval::new_symbol("x", &mut pc);
let feval = |x: f64| {
let mut pc = Pc::new();
symbol.assign(Rval::new(x, &mut pc), rho);
f.eval(rho, &mut pc).unwrap().as_f64()
};
let mut f0 = feval(x0);
if f0 == 0.0 { return Rval::new(x0, &mut pc); }
let f1 = feval(x1);
if f1 == 0.0 { return Rval::new(x1, &mut pc); }
if f0 * f1 > 0.0 { panic!("x[0] and x[1] have the same sign"); }
loop {
let xc = 0.5 * (x0 + x1);
if (x0 - x1).abs() < tol { return Rval::new(xc, &mut pc); }
let fc = feval(xc);
if fc == 0.0 { return Rval::new(xc, &mut pc); }
if f0 * fc > 0.0 { x0 = xc; f0 = fc; } else { x1 = xc; }
}
}
\end{example}
This example shows the creation of new R objects from Rust values (e.g., lines
40, 43, 47, etc.) and extracting Rust values from R objects (e.g., 37, 38, and 44).
Line 44 demonstrates evaluating an R expression such that errors are caught
rather than causing a long jump. Again, the full high-level API can be browsed
by executing \samp{cargo doc --open} when in the \file{src/rustlib/roxido}
directory.
\section{Miscellaneous: Threading issues and seeding a RNG}
Rust supports ``fearless concurrency,'' making it safe and easy to harness the
power of multiple CPU cores. One should bear in mind, however, that R's
internals are fundamentally designed for single-threaded access. Any callbacks
into R (using the low-level or high-level interface) should come from the same
thread from which R originally called the Rust code.
R users expect to get reproducible results from simulation code when they use
R's \code{set.seed} function. There are two options for Rust code to achieve
this: (i) produce random numbers using R's API (as in the previous
\code{myrnorm} example) or (ii) seed a Rust random number generator from R's
random number generator. To aid with the second approach, the \pkg{cargo}
framework provides the \code{random\_bytes} function.
\section{Embedding Rust code in an R script}
Beyond package development, the \pkg{cargo} package also supports defining
functions by embedding Rust code directly in an R script. This facilitates
experimentation and avoids the need to set up a new R package. The approach,
however, loses the developer aids of an integrated development environment. As
such, it is only recommended to use this for small code snippets. To
demonstrate, consider the balanced linear assignment problem, a combinatorial
optimization problem in which $N$ workers are assigned to $N$ tasks such that
the sum of costs of getting all tasks completed is minimized. Suppose there are
four workers and tasks and the cost matrix in R is as follows, with each row being
the costs of the four tasks for a particular worker.
\begin{example}
cost_matrix <- matrix(c(
5, 9, 4, 6,
8, 7, 8, 6,
6, 7, 9, 3,
2, 3, 3, 1
), nrow=4, byrow=TRUE)
\end{example}
The Hungarian algorithm \citep{kuhn1955hungarian} solves the linear assignment
problem and is implemented in the \CRANpkg{RcppHungarian} package
\citep{rcpphungarian} on CRAN. The Jonker-Volgenant algorithm
\citep{jonker1987shortest}, however, is faster and available in the lapjv Rust
crate \citep{pkg.lapjv}. The following code uses the \code{rust\_fn} from the
\pkg{cargo} package to define an R function based on embedded Rust code
utilizing the lapjv crate.
\begin{example}
library("cargo")
lapjv <- rust_fn(weights, dependencies='lapjv = "0.2.0"', '
if !weights.is_square_matrix() || !weights.is_double_or_integer() {
panic!("The weights argument must be a square numeric matrix.");
}
let weights_vec = weights.coerce_double(&mut pc).unwrap().1.to_vec();
let n = weights.nrow();
let weights = lapjv::Matrix::from_shape_vec((n, n), weights_vec).unwrap();
let solution = lapjv::lapjv(&weights).unwrap().0;
let cost = lapjv::cost(&weights, &solution[..]);
let (pairs, slice) = Rval::new_matrix_integer(n, 2, &mut pc);
for (i, x) in slice[..n].iter_mut().enumerate() { *x = i as i32 + 1; }
let s = &mut slice[n..];
for (i, y) in solution.into_iter().enumerate() { s[y] = i as i32 + 1; }
let result = Rval::new_list(2, &mut pc);
result.names_gets(Rval::new(["cost", "pairs"], &mut pc));
result.set_list_element(0, Rval::new(cost, &mut pc));
result.set_list_element(1, pairs);
result
')
lapjv(cost_matrix)
\end{example}
The \code{lapjv} function takes one unnamed argument \code{weights}, which is
passed to the embedded Rust code as the variable \code{weights} of type
\code{Rval}. This code depends on version 0.2.0 of the lapjv crate and is
automatically downloaded and compiled by Cargo because of the argument
\code{dependencies='lapjv = "0.2.0"'} in the call to the \code{rust\_fn}
function. Downloading and compiling the dependencies can take several seconds,
but subsequent compilations are very fast due to caching. For example, on our
machine, the first compilation took 12.95 CPU seconds and 6.57 elapsed seconds,
whereas recompilation of slightly changed code only took 1.81 CPU seconds and
0.97 elapsed seconds. This caching persists between R sessions.
When a function defined by \code{rust\_fn} is garbage collected, its associated
shared library is automatically unloaded.
Running the code produces a list giving the total cost and a matrix which pairs
each worker to a task. Note that when the cost matrix is 1000 $\times$ 1000
of standard normal values, this implementation takes only 0.068 seconds whereas
the \pkg{RcppHungarian} package finds the same solution in 4.866 seconds, i.e., 70 times slower. The
point is not that C++ is slower than Rust, rather that the choice of
algorithms can be important and that the \pkg{cargo} package makes it easy to
pull in high quality Rust code from others with little effort.
\section{Benchmarks}
Here the overhead of calling a Rust function from R using our \pkg{cargo}
framework is investigated. Benchmarks are shown against the \pkg{rextendr}
framework and the standard mechanism for calling a C function from R. For this
benchmark, we use version 0.1.37 of \pkg{cargo} and version 0.2.0 of
\pkg{rextendr}, running in R version 4.1.0. An algorithm that executes quickly
is purposefully used to benchmark the overhead of calling into and returning
from compiled code. Rust and C themselves are not benchmarked here, but the
reader is referred to The Computer Language Benchmarks Game
(\url{https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/}), which
shows Rust beating GCC's C in about half of the benchmarks.
Consider various implementations to compute the Euclidean norm
\code{sqrt(sum(x\string^2))}. Several versions based on \pkg{rextendr} are
provided to account for the following: (i) \pkg{rextendr} can automatically
convert \code{Robj} (its wrapper over an \code{SEXP} value) and many Rust types, and
(ii) when defining embedded functions, \pkg{rextendr} does not cache the lookup
of the function pointer.
\begin{example}
writeLines(con="f_C.c", "
#include <Rinternals.h>
SEXP f_C(SEXP x) {
int n = Rf_length(x); double *y = REAL(x); double ss = 0.0;
for ( int i=0; i<n; i++ ) ss += y[i];
return Rf_ScalarReal(sqrt(ss));
}")
system("R CMD SHLIB f_C.c")
dyn.load("f_C.so")
.f_C <- getNativeSymbolInfo("f_C", "f_C")$address
f_C <- function(x) .Call(.f_C, x)
f_cargo <- cargo::rust_fn(x, '
let ss = x.slice_double().unwrap().iter().fold(0.0, |s,z| s + (*z)*(*z));
Rval::new(ss.sqrt(), &mut pc)
')
rextendr::rust_function('fn f_rextendr1(x: Robj) -> Robj {
let ss = x.as_real_slice().unwrap().iter().fold(0.0, |s,z| s + (*z)*(*z));
Robj::from(ss.sqrt())
}')
rextendr::rust_function('fn f_rextendr2(x: &[f64]) -> f64 {
let ss = x.iter().fold(0.0, |s,z| s + (*z)*(*z));
ss.sqrt()
}')
.f1 <- getNativeSymbolInfo("wrap__f_rextendr1", "librextendr1")$address
f_rextendr1_cached <- function(x) .Call(.f1, x)
.f2 <- getNativeSymbolInfo("wrap__f_rextendr2", "librextendr2")$address
f_rextendr2_cached <- function(x) .Call(.f2, x)
x <- rnorm(10)
microbenchmark::microbenchmark(f_C(x), f_cargo(x), f_rextendr1(x), f_rextendr2(x),
f_rextendr1_cached(x), f_rextendr2_cached(x), times=1000000)
\end{example}
A summary of the performance is included below. Notice that the implementation
based on \pkg{cargo} is competitive with the C version and faster than the
\pkg{rextendr} implementations.
\begin{example}
Unit: nanoseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
f_C(x) 349 504 616.3403 545 597 2329566 1e+06
f_cargo(x) 389 523 684.6221 563 625 54627019 1e+06
f_rextendr1(x) 4918 5818 6282.8506 6011 6226 3925556 1e+06
f_rextendr2(x) 3789 4504 4941.8917 4707 4918 6396105 1e+06
f_rextendr1_cached(x) 4244 5197 5606.6939 5391 5586 6669919 1e+06
f_rextendr2_cached(x) 3145 3849 4256.3246 4070 4278 6602903 1e+06
\end{example}
\section{Summary}
The hope is that this paper contributes to interest in developing R packages
with Rust. The paper highlights idiosyncrasies of R and Rust that must be
addressed by any integration. The \pkg{cargo} framework provides a Rust
interface for commonly used parts of the R API that can easily be extended to
cover other parts of the R API. The framework minimizes the runtime overhead and
seeks to be transparent on how it interfaces R and Rust.
|
\section{Introduction}
After having been proposed by Bloch in the 1930s,\cite{blochZurTheorieFerromagnetismus1930} the propagation of spin waves (SWs) -- the elementary excitations in magnetically ordered systems -- has been studied extensively in the past. Because of their peculiar linear and nonlinear characteristics, SWs promise great potential in information transport and processing as, \textit{e.g.}, the magnon transistor \cite{chumakMagnonTransistorAllmagnon2014} and the magnonic diode \cite{lanSpinWaveDiode2015} for multifunctional spin-wave logic applications. Spin waves (including the spatially uniform ferromagnetic resonance precession) have also been proven to be an excellent tool to probe the magnetic characteristics of solids as they are sensitive to spin currents,\cite{vlaminckCurrentInducedSpinWaveDoppler2008,chauleauSelfconsistentDeterminationKey2014,gladiiSpinwavePropagationSpinpolarized2017}
impurities,\cite{callawayScatteringSpinWaves1964,abeedEffectMaterialDefects2019,mohseniBackscatteringImmunityDipoleexchange2019} crystal anisotropies \cite{gurevichMagnetizationOscillationsWaves1996} or asymmetric exchange interactions, among others. For example, the presence of an asymmetric interaction such as the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction (DMI) leads to an asymmetric dispersion and consequently to a nonreciprocal propagation of spin waves, therein.\cite{udvardiChiralAsymmetrySpinwave2009,zakeriAsymmetricSpinWaveDispersion2010,kezsmarkiEnhancedDirectionalDichroism2011a,bordacsChiralityMatterShows2012a,szallerSymmetryConditionsNonreciprocal2013,moonSpinwavePropagationPresence2013,cortes-ortunoInfluenceDzyaloshinskiiMoriya2013,kostylevInterfaceBoundaryConditions2014,kezsmarkiOnewayTransparencyFourcoloured2014a,kornerInterfacialDzyaloshinskiiMoriyaInteraction2015,kezsmarkiOpticalDiodeEffect2015} Similar non-reciprocal spin-wave propagation is observed in magnetic bilayers. \cite{grunbergMagnetostaticSpinWave1981,henryPropagatingSpinwaveNormal2016,gallardoReconfigurableSpinWaveNonreciprocity2019}
Therefore, the study of spin-wave propagation is both of a technological as well as a fundamental interest.
While many of the aforementioned effects have been investigated mostly in bulk or in flat thin-film samples, over the last decade, curvature-induced effects have been uncovered as a new way to manipulate magnetic equilibria and spin dynamics. Numerous analytic and numerical works have already shown that the surface curvature and geometry of three-dimensional magnetic membranes leads to phenomena not present in flat specimen of the same material.\cite{landerosReversalModesMagnetic2007,yanChiralSymmetryBreaking2012,otaloraBreakingChiralSymmetry2013,yanSpinCherenkovEffectMagnonic2013,kravchukCurvatureEffectsThin2014,pylypovskyiGeometryinducedEffectsDomain2015,otaloraCurvatureInducedAsymmetricSpinWave2016,otaloraAsymmetricSpinwaveDispersion2017,otaloraFrequencyLinewidthDecay2018,kravchukMultipletSkyrmionStates2018} For example, in conventional soft magnetic materials, exotic non-collinear magnetic textures such as skyrmions\cite{kravchukTopologicallyStableMagnetization2016} may be stabilized by bending the magnetic material. Moreover, magnetization dynamics can be influenced, leading to symmetry breaking of domain-wall motion,\cite{yanChiralSymmetryBreaking2012,landerosReversalModesMagnetic2007} asymmetric spin-wave transport\cite{hertelCurvatureInducedMagnetochirality2013,otaloraCurvatureInducedAsymmetricSpinWave2016} or the emergence of a topological Berry phase.\cite{dugaevBerryPhaseMagnons2005}
The influence of curvature on magnetic equilibria has been shown to be mainly due to a renormalization of the magnetic exchange interaction. \cite{kravchukCurvatureEffectsThin2014,shekaNonlocalChiralSymmetry2020} However, as shown in Ref.~\citenum{shekaNonlocalChiralSymmetry2020}, the long range dipole-dipole interaction can also lead to chiral symmetry breaking effects and thus introducing handedness in an intrinsically achiral material.
In our recent works Refs.~\citenum{otaloraCurvatureInducedAsymmetricSpinWave2016,otaloraAsymmetricSpinwaveDispersion2017,salazar-cardonaNonreciprocitySpinWaves2021}, we predicted that curvature-induced effects, both of dipolar and exchange origin, lead to an asymmetric dispersion of SWs in round magnetic nanotubes being in the helical state.
In this manuscript we show that magnetization in 3D nano-objects is not only governed by the curvature and topology. At the example of hexagonal nanotubes we present that the discrete rotational symmetry induces drastic changes in the spin-wave spectra. In particular, the mode spectrum is non-trivially split into standing waves (singlets) and running waves (duplets).
In the previously investigated round nanotubes the modes with the same $k$ but opposite sign of azimuthal quantization index form duplets, except for the uniform mode, which is a singlet. Moreover, in contrast to round magnetic nanotubes, which are extremely difficult to fabricate with sufficiently low damping, we succeeded to fabricate hexagonal nanotubes and prepare them in the vortex magnetic state.\cite{zimmermannOriginManipulationStable2018} This allowed us, for the first time, to directly image magnetization dynamics in curved 3D nanostructures, using time-resolved scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (TR-STXM).\cite{vanwaeyenbergeMagneticVortexCore2006,acremannSoftwareDefinedPhoton2007,wintzMagneticVortexCores2016} Prior to this work, experimental evidence in curved samples was restricted to equilibrium effects, such as the spiral Landau pattern in bent rectangular elements~\cite{dietrichInfluencePerpendicularMagnetic2008} or the domain wall pinning by a curvature gradient, shown in parabolic stripes.\cite{volkovExperimentalObservationExchangeDriven2019}
For the quantitative analysis of the experiments, we have conducted an extensive numerical study using standard micromagnetic simulations as well as our recently developed finite-element propagating-wave dynamic-matrix approach.\cite{korberFiniteelementDynamicmatrixApproach2021} We find that the mode spectrum of vortex-state hexagonal tubes is asymmetric and quite complex in nature. The polygonal shape introduces localization of the modes into the highly curved corners and flat facets. Moreover, the degenerate nature of the modes with azimuthal wave vectors known from round tubes is lifted in the polygonal case, resulting in singlet and duplet modes. The singlet-duplet differentiation is related to the discrete symmetry resulting from the hexagonal cross section of the waveguide housing a vortex magnetic ground state. Using the spin-wave profiles resulting from our eigensolver, we calculated the dispersion relation with the microwave absorption for two different antenna field profiles, namely for a current loop and a stripline antenna. The numerical results show that the stripline antenna used in the TR-STXM experiments excites multiple modes at a fixed frequency, though with different intensity, thus the resulting spin waves propagating in the nanotube form a beating pattern instead of a single wave with a well defined wavelength. Therefore to measure and eventually exploit the asymmetry of the dispersion a stripline antenna is not satisfactory. Instead, a proper design of the microwave antenna is needed to couple and thus excite only single modes with well defined frequency and wavelength.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:methods}, we briefly discuss the sample fabrication followed by the description of the micromagnetic methods used in the manuscript, employed both in the time domain and in the frequency domain. The experimentally measured spin-wave propagation together with finite-element micromagnetic simulations is shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}. To understand the spin-wave propagation in hexagonal tubes the dispersion relation is discussed in detail, showing the localization of modes and their singlet-duplet nature related to the combined symmetry of the tube geometry and its ground magnetic state. The predicted microwave absorption and its effect on the spin-wave excitation depending on the antenna geometry is discussed to allow for a realistic comparison of the numerical and experimental results. The conclusions of the study and a possible outlook, with suggestions for further experimental investigations, will be discussed lastly in Sec.~\ref{sec:outlook}.
\section{Methods}\label{sec:methods}
In this section we will shortly summarize the numerical as well as the experimental methods, including the sample fabrication involved in the current study.
\subsection{Sample fabrication and STXM experiments}
The nanotube fabrication involves a two step routine: First, GaAs rods are grown on oxidized Si(111) wafers via molecular-beam epitaxy (MBE) in a III-V MBE using Ga droplets as catalysts. After in situ transfer to a metallic MBE chamber in a pressure lower than $1\times 10^{-10}$ mbar, the coating layers composed of the permalloy magnetic layer and an Al capping layer to avoid oxidation are deposited at pressures around $1\times 10^{-10}$ mbar (base pressure of $5\times 10^{-11}$ mbar). Details of the sample preparation are described in Ref.~ \citenum{zimmermannOriginManipulationStable2018}. As a result of the growth-induced easy-plane magnetic anisotropy perpendicular to the symmetry axis, the equilibrium magnetization is a vortex state, as confirmed by STXM measurements.\cite{zimmermannOriginManipulationStable2018}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{FIG1}
\caption{\label{fig:fig1}(a) Scanning-electron-transmission-microscopy image of a hexagonal permalloy nanotube with \SI{250}{\nano\meter} outer diameter, \SI{30}{\nano\meter} thickness and \SI{12}{\micro\meter} length on a GaAs wire. The gold stripline antenna (here, colored for visual purposes) was patterned on a SiN membrane and the nanotube was placed on the top using a focused ion beam (FIB) tool and a micro manipulator. The Oersted field of an rf-current is used to excite SWs. (b) Cross-sectional sketch of the hexagonal nanotube showing the layer structure. The permalloy layer is directly evaporated on the GaAs wire \textit{in situ} and capped with Al to avoid oxidation. A relative angle of 60 degree was used between the X-ray beam and the symmetry axis of the nanotube. This configuration allows for being sensitive to the in-plane dynamic magnetization of the top- and bottom surfaces of the tube, which is expected to be larger than the out-of-plane dynamic magnetization component.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The TR-STXM measurements were performed to directly image the magnetization dynamics in the tubes in hope for experimentally obtain the spin-wave dispersion. The time-resolved measurements were mostly performed at the MAXYMUS endstation of BESSY II at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin, Germany. The static and low-frequency (up to 6 GHz) measurements have been done at the POLLUX endstation of the PSI, Villigen, Switzerland.
An exemplary scanning-electron-transmission-microscopy image of a \SI{250}{\nano\meter} outer diameter nanotube used for the measurements is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig1} together with a sketch of the nanotube and its cross-sectional view. The magnetic nanotube is placed on the top of a gold stripline antenna patterned on a SiN membrane. The nanotube is usually oriented such that one of the flat facets is parallel to the substrate surface thus the top facet normal is parallel to the X-ray beam. The absorption spectra were collected by exploiting the X-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) effect~\cite{schtutzAbsorptionCircularlyPolarized1987} of the transmitted soft X-ray radiation at the L3-edge of iron (708 eV). The dynamic magnetization contrast to visualize the real space spin-wave propagation was obtained with left circularly polarized light. A Fresnel zone plate is used to focus the X-rays to a single spot on the sample, allowing for a lateral resolution of approximately \SI{25}{\nano\meter} when the sample is raster scanned through the beam. The acquired magnetic contrast scales with the projection of the magnetic orientation on the direction of photon propagation. Hence, in normal incidence, our STXM set-up is sensitive to the dynamic magnetization component in the propagation direction perpendicular to the top and bottom surfaces. While the 30 degree inclined sample mounting, compared to the surface normal, used in the experiments also allows for detecting in-plane magnetization components at the same time. The spin waves were excited with the stripline antenna at various frequencies between a frequencies of \SI{1}{GHz} and \SI{10}{GHz}. Every excitation yielded a 7 frame movie; each frame contains the real-space profiles of the excited spin waves at equidistant phases with respect to the excitation signal.
\subsection{Micromagnetic modeling}
In this Section we introduce the micromagnetic methods used to investigate the spin-wave propagation and dispersion in our hexagonal nanotubes.
\subsubsection{Finite-element time-domain simulations}
In the framework of micromagnetism the magnetization dynamics is described by the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation of motion,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:llg}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{m}}{\mathrm{d}t} = -\omega_M (\bm{m} \times \bm{h}_\mathrm{eff}) + \alpha_\mathrm{G} \left(\bm{m}\times \frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{m}}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\bm{m}$ is the reduced magnetization $\bm{m}(\bm{r},t) = \bm{M}(\bm{r},t)/M_\mathrm{s}$, $M_\mathrm{s}$ the saturation magnetization, $\bm{h}_\mathrm{eff}$ the normalized effective field, $\omega_M = \gamma \mu_0 M_\mathrm{s}$ the characteristic frequency and $\alpha_\mathrm{G}$ the Gilbert damping parameter. In order to study the propagation of the spin waves in the hexagonal tubes we have solved numerically the equation of motion using our custom developed GPU accelerated finite-element micromagnetic code \textsc{TetraMag}.\cite{kakaySpeedupFEMMicromagnetic2010} For the simulations we have considered an \SI{8}{\micro\meter} long hexagonal tube with \SI{30}{\nano\meter} thickness assuming permalloy material parameters. The exact values can be seen in Table~\ref{tab:matparam}. The equilibrium state, which is a flux-closure state is computed using a conjugate-gradient energy minimization starting from a circular vortex initial state. The uniaxial anisotropy along the long axis of the tube with a negative constant will prefer a flux-closure (vortex) state. In order to mimique the experimental excitation scheme, monochromatic spin waves were excited at the center of the hexagonal tube using a microwave field of \SI{1.0}{\milli\tesla} magnitude, with components in the $yz$ plane, and with the spatial profile of the field corresponding to the stripline antenna of \SI{250}{\nano\meter}. The rf field with a sinusoidal time variation was applied for 100 periods for all simulated frequencies.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{\label{tab:matparam}Parameters used for micromagnetic modeling.
}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
exchange stiffness ($A_\mathrm{ex}$) & \SI{13}{\pico\joule/\meter}\\
saturation ($M_\mathrm{s}$) & \SI{820}{\kilo\ampere/m}\\
reduced gyromagnetic ratio ($\gamma/2\pi$) & \SI{28}{\giga\hertz/\tesla}\\
Gilbert damping ($\alpha_\mathrm{G}$) & 0.007\\
uniaxial anisotropy constant ($K_{\mathrm{u},1}$) & \SI{-20}{\kilo\joule\per\cubic\meter} \\
uniaxial anisotropy direction ($\bm{e}_{\mathrm{u}}$) & $\bm{e}_z$ \\
tube outer diameter ($D$) & \SI{250}{\nano\meter}\\
tube shell thickness ($T$) & \SI{30}{\nano\meter}\\
tube length, $(L)$ & \SI{8,0}{\micro\meter}\\
edge length along tube& \SI{5}{\nano\meter}\\
edge length along cross-section & \SI{3}{\nano\meter}
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Propagating-wave dynamic-matrix approach}\label{sec:dynmat}
To numerically calculate the spin-wave dispersion for waves travelling along the hexagonal nanotube we utilize our recently developed finite-element dynamic-approach for propagating waves. This approach uses the same spatial discretization method as \textsc{TetraMag}\cite{kakaySpeedupFEMMicromagnetic2010} and relies on the numerical solution of the eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:linllg}
\frac{\omega_\nu(k)}{\omega_M} \bm{\eta}_{\nu k} = i\bm{m}_0 \times \hat{\mathbf{\Omega}}_k \bm{\eta}_{\nu k} \quad\text{with}\quad \bm{m}_0 \perp \bm{\eta}_{\nu k}
\end{equation}
which is the non-dissipative ($\alpha_\mathrm{G}=0$) version of the LLG equation \eqref{eq:llg}, linearized in the vicinity of some (stable) equilibrium state $\bm{m}_0(\bm{r})$ and transformed into a single cross section of the nanotube for the case of plane waves propagating along the $z$ direction with wave vector $k$ and angular frequency $\omega_\nu (k)$. Note, the $z$ axis in this study is the axis along the long axis of the hexagonal nanotube. The eigenvectors $\bm{\eta}_{\nu k} \equiv \bm{\eta}_{\nu k}(\bm{\rho})$ represent the (complex) lateral mode profiles which only depend on the coordinates $\bm{\rho} = (x,y)^T$ and can be denoted additionally by some lateral mode index $\nu$ which labels the respective branch of the dispersion.
The plane-wave Hamiltonian operator $\hat{\mathbf{\Omega}}_k$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{\Omega}}_k = h_0 \hat{\mathbf{I}} + \hat{\mathbf{N}}_k = h_0 \hat{\mathbf{I}} + e^{-ikz}\hat{\mathbf{N}}e^{ikz}.
\end{equation}
with $h_0$ being the projection of the unitless static effective field (including any static external field) onto to equilibrium direction, $\Hat{\mathbf{I}}$ the identity operator and $\Hat{\mathbf{N}}$ the self-adjoint operator describing the magnetic self interactions, which, in our case, are exchange and dipolar interaction, as well as uniaxial magnetic anisotropy (see Ref.~\citenum{korberFiniteelementDynamicmatrixApproach2021}). All operators and vectors are discretized in the framework of the finite-element method. The resulting linear system is numerically diagonalized for each $k$ value using the iterative Arnoldi-L\'anczos method which yields a desired number of lowest-magnitude eigenvalues $\omega_\nu(k)$ as well as their corresponding eigenvectors $\bm{\eta}_{\nu k}$. In our case, the lowest 30 modes for each $k$ were calculated for a total number of 201 wave vectors between \SI{\pm35}{\radian/\micro\meter}. To account for the dipolar potential generated by the individual spin-wave modes we employ a modified version of the hybrid FEM/BEM Fredkin-Koehler method which was recently extended to plane-wave potentials in Ref.~\citenum{korberFiniteelementDynamicmatrixApproach2021}. The equilibrium state $\bm{m}_0$ is found by energy minimization, the same way as for the time-domain simulations.
In contrast to a full 3D time-domain simulation, the magnetic nanotube only needs to be modeled in a single cross section which drastically reduces the computational load. The spin-wave frequencies and mode profiles are directly obtained (within minutes), without the need of additional post processing. Moreover, as an additional benefit, degenerate modes can be detected which is not easily possible using a single field pulse followed by an FFT-based analysis.
\section{Results and Discussion}\label{sec:results}
In this section we will first show the spin-wave propagation measured experimentally using time-resolved STXM and compare it with those from micromagnetic simulations. We would like to emphasize that according to our knowledge these are the first experiments directly showing real space spin-wave propagation in 3D nano objects.
\subsection{Mode localization}
To obtain a first overview of the spin-wave transport in hexagonal nanotubes we excite monochromatic waves using a stripline microwave antenna at the center of the tube and at different fixed frequencies.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{FIG2}
\caption{\label{fig:fig2}{Numerical (red-blue) and experimental (gray scale) snapshots of the dynamic magnetization at fixed times for modes propagating in the corners of the hexagonal tube (a) at \SI{5.571}{\giga\hertz} and (b) at \SI{4.571}{\giga\hertz}, and for modes mostly propagating in the top and bottom facets (c) at \SI{8.571}{\giga\hertz} and (d) at \SI{9.571}{\giga\hertz}. For the numerical profiles, a side view is shown next to the projection of the upper half the nanotube. For better illustration, they have been stretched in the width direction. Below we show all frames of the respective STXM movies. In addition to each last frame, we show an average linescans along the tube, together with sinusoidal fits used to obtain the wave lengths. The position of the antenna is in all cases marked with a translucent gold-colored patch.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\figref{fig:fig2}{a-d}, we show for exemplary snapshots of two counter-propagating spin-wave modes at \SI{4.571}{\giga\hertz}, \SI{5.571}{\giga\hertz}, \SI{8.571}{\giga\hertz} and \SI{9.571}{\giga\hertz}, obtained by TR-STXM and time-domain micromagnetic simulation. For the experiments, we show a full oscillation cycle as seven frames. As seen especially from the simulation profiles, the modes exhibit different localization within the cross section of the hexagonal tube, \textit{e.g.}, there are modes more localized in the corners of the tube (\SI{5.571}{\giga\hertz} in Fig.~\figref{fig:fig2}{a} and \SI{4.571}{\giga\hertz} in Fig.~\figref{fig:fig2}{b}) or on the facets of the tube (\SI{8.571}{\giga\hertz} and \SI{9.571}{\giga\hertz} in Fig.~\figref{fig:fig2}{c,d}). We also would like to refer to the {animated} experimental movies of these modes, provided in the supplemental material, which {may show the localization of the modes at \SI{4.571}{\giga\hertz} and \SI{5.571}{\giga\hertz} in the corners better than the static frames}. We observe an intensity asymmetry of the modes at large frequencies. This is a commonly known effect for Damon-Eshbach SWs (with $\bm{k}\perp\bm{m}_0$) excited with a stripline antenna in magnetic thin films,\cite{demidovExcitationMicrowaveguideModes2009} and is also present here as our tubes are in the vortex state ($\bm{k}\perp\bm{m}_0$). Moreover, in the numerical mode {snapshots at \SI{5.571}{\giga\hertz} (Fig.~\figref{fig:fig2}{a}) and \SI{4.571}{\giga\hertz} (Fig.~\figref{fig:fig2}{b})}, one can already clearly see a wave-vector asymmetry for the two counter-propagating modes which is the evidence for an asymmetric SW dispersion.
To obtain the wavelenghts of the counter-propagating spin waves from the experimental data, we average the measured data for different excitation frequencies along the width of the tube (shown for each last STXM frame in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}) and fit these curves for individual time frames with decaying sinusoidal functions along the long axis of the tube (propagation direction) on either side of the antenna. Between 2 and 18 fits could be obtained per frequency and direction. The resulting wave vectors were obtained as the averages of all associated fits. This method was chosen because only a few wavelengths are observed in the measurements, and a Fourier analysis to obtain the wave vectors at a given frequency was not conclusive. {Note, that from the two-sided fit presented for the corner mode at \SI{5.571}{\giga\hertz} in Fig.~\figref{fig:fig2}{a}, one can also see a wave-vector asymmetry in the experimental data}
\subsection{Dispersion and mode symmetry}
For a more detailed analysis of the modal spectrum, we calculate the full dispersion for all modes below \SI{12}{\giga\hertz} and with wave vectors between \SI{\pm35}{\radian/\micro\meter} using the FEM propagating-wave dynamic matrix approach outlined in Sec.~\ref{sec:methods} and explained in detail in Ref.~\citenum{korberFiniteelementDynamicmatrixApproach2021}. We would like to point out again that, in contrast to usual time-domain simulations based on microwave excitation, this analysis provides access to modes which might have a nontrivial spatial profile and which therefore do not couple to commonly used microwave-field distributions. Moreover, it becomes possible to always separate degenerate modes. The resulting dispersion including all modes is shown in Fig.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{a}. As suggested by the varying mode localization at different excitation frequencies in the previous section, the spectrum is divided into several, in certain cases, even degenerate branches. We will see in the next section, that only a few of them are easily accessible in experiments. The different branches $\nu$ can be categorized by analyzing the corresponding (complex-valued) lateral mode profiles $\bm{\eta}_{\nu k}(\bm{\rho})$ within the hexagonal-tube cross section. To visualize these, we plot the magnitude $\abs{\eta_z}$ and the phase $\mathrm{arg}(\eta_z)$ of the $z$ component of the mode profiles as color maps in Fig.~\ref{fig:fulldisp}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{FIG3}
\caption{Dispersion relation and modes profiles directly resulting from the dynamic-matrix approach for propagating spin-waves. (a) Full dispersion for all modes below \SI{12}{\giga\hertz}. The modes can be categorized based on their localization position as corner \textsc{c}, facet \textsc{f} and corner-facet \textsc{cf} modes, shown in (b). A second categorization can be made based on their singlet and duplet nature, by looking at the phase of the wave along the azimuthal direction in (c); singlets are standing spin-wave solutions while duplets are two degenerate solutions of counter propagating waves along the azimuthal direction. In panels (d) and (e) the mode magnitude as well as its phase is shown for several examples of the singlet and duplet solutions. Below the modes, we annotate the corresponding irreducible representations which they belong to.}
\label{fig:fulldisp}
\end{figure}
As indicated by the magnitudes of the spatial profiles in Fig.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{b}, the branches can be categorized by their localization either to the corners (\textsc{c}) or to the facets (\textsc{f}) of the hexagonal tube. Moreover, there are also several hybrid-corner-facet modes (\textsc{cf}). Apart from their localization, the modes differ in the number of periods along the hexagonal circumference. In this sense, the spin waves in a hexagonal tube are similar to the ones in round nanotubes or rings in the vortex state where the azimuthal dependence of the mode profiles is given by $\exp(im\phi)$ with $m$ being an integer number often called the azimuthal mode index. In such cylindrical or tubular systems, modes with the same $k$ but opposite sign of $m$ are degenerate, i.e. they form duplets, except for the m=0 mode, which is a singlet. In the phase plots such as Fig.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{c}, loosely speaking, the number of periods is given by the number of times how often a color reappears as one goes along the circumference of the hexagonal cross section. As an important difference to the cylindrical systems, that are characterized by full rotational symmetry about the tube axis, the phase around the hexagonal cross sections does not increase linearly along the circumference. In fact, the discrete sixfold rotational symmetry induces drastic qualitative changes. We observe that, depending on the number of periods, the modes can be either doubly degenerate or non-degenerate, respectively forming duplets or singlets.
Singlets form standing waves along the circumference, as can be seen in the $\pi$ jumps of the phase of the C3 mode in Fig.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{c}.
In contrast to this, the duplets consist of two solutions which have equal localization (magnitude) but are propagating in opposite directions along the circumference, as depicted for C2+ and C2- in Fig. 3(c).
Albeit the phase does not increase in a linear fashion as in cylindrical systems, it still changes continuously. In Fig.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{d,e}, we show the mode profiles close to $k=0$ for all branches whose dispersion is plotted in Fig.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{a}. Notably, for all the modes the profile of the magnitude obey the sixfold rotational symmetry of the hexagonal tube. The observed splitting of the spectrum into singlets and duplets has also been observed in a similar way for whispering gallery modes in hexagonal optical cavities.\cite{yangWhisperinggalleryModeHexagonal2019}
In the following, we show how the splitting of some of the duplets to singlet pairs upon lowering the symmetry of the vortex tube from cylindrical to hexagonal can be understood via a basic group theory approach, even without considering the form of the magnetic interactions. The symmetry of the hexagonal vortex tube is described by the magnetic point group 6/m'mm. The generators of the group are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:generators}: The 6-fold rotational symmetry about the axis of the tube, two sets of mirror planes (m) containing the axis of the tube and the mirror plane perpendicular to the tube axis (/m'). Due to the magnetic vortex pattern, the latter are only symmetries when combined with the time reversal operation ('). This magnetic point group has only one and two dimensional irreducible representations, thus the excitations of the hexagonal magnetic vortex can only form singlets and duplets. No modes with triple or higher degeneracy can emerge. The singlet solutions listed up in Fig.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{d}, can be classified according to the one dimensional representations of 6/m'mm.\cite{IrreducibleCorepresentationsMagnetic} Since the amplitude map of all modes obey all symmetries in this group, one needs to check how the phase pattern of the modes change upon the different symmetry operations. For singlets, the phase pattern can either be invariant upon a symmetry operation or acquire a pi shift. Modes CF0, CF6 and C6 belongs to the fully symmetric $A_1$ irreducible representation, as their phase pattern is invariant upon all symmetry operations of the 6/m'mm group. The phase pattern of the F6 mode is invariant upon all symmetry operation but the reflections to the mirror planes containing the tube axis, thus it belongs to the $A_2$ irreducible representation. The classification is indicated for all the modes in Figs.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{d,e}.
In case of duplets, some of the symmetry operations interrelate the phase patterns of the two modes, leading to a zero entry in the character table.\cite{IrreducibleCorepresentationsMagnetic}
One can easily find a correspondence between the modes of the cylindrical and the hexagonal vortex. The CF0 singlet corresponds to only singlet mode of the cylindrical tube, which is nothing but the simple ferromagnetic resonance for k=0. When the hexagonal symmetry is increased to cylindrical, the rest of the singlets become doubly degenerate, i.e. arrange into pairs, such as C6-F6, C3-F3, etc. This is because modes localized to corners and facets become non-distinguishable once the cylindrical symmetry is restored.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{FIG4}
\caption{Generators of the symmetry group 6/m'mm shown for the hexagonal tube containing a vortex state.}
\label{fig:generators}
\end{figure}
We observe that modes with different periods around the circumference are hybridized, while it seems that singlets (duplets) only hybridize with singlets (duplets). In Fig.~\figref{fig:fulldisp}{a}, the hybridization can be seen for the branches $\textsc{cf}5$ and $\textsc{cf}7$ and was confirmed by analyzing the mode profiles of the two branches on different sides of the crossings. To avoid visual clutter, we refrained from double labeling the branches twice. Let us also note that the dynamic-matrix approach used here can only yield the already hybridized normal modes of the system. Therefore, presenting a dispersion with the non-hybridized branches as well as a proper treatment of the hybridization would require an analytic theory which is not available at the moment.
The same holds if one would like to disentangle the contributions resulting in the strongly asymmetric dispersion for some of the spin-wave modes. Based on our knowledge from the thin-shell cylindrical nanotubes we can state that the asymmetric dispersion has its origin in the dynamic charges associated to the dipole-dipole interaction. Let us note, that the antiparallel alignment of the equilibrium magnetization in opposite facets would alone lead to an asymmetry, resulting in a linear shift of the dispersion in the small $k$ limit.\cite{gallardoReconfigurableSpinWaveNonreciprocity2019} However, in our case the asymmetry is far stronger than a linear shift and therefore suggests the presence of a geometrical volume charge due to the strongly curved regions between the flat facets. The concept of geometrical charges and its relation to possible magnetochiral effects is discussed in detail in Ref.~\citenum{shekaNonlocalChiralSymmetry2020}. The detailed discussion of the origin of the asymmetric dispersion as well as the presence of singlet and duplet states and their relation to the magnetic point group of our system is out of the purpose of the current manuscript and will be investigated in a forthcoming work.
\subsection{Predicted microwave absorption and comparison with experiments}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{FIG5}
\caption{Predicted microwave absorption calculated using the mode profiles from the dynamic-matrix approach for two different antenna geometries. (a) The zeroth-order peak of the excitation efficiency at the surface of the antennas is shown on the top of the full dispersion relation including all modes up to \SI{16}{\giga\hertz}. The dispersion relation obtained when exciting spin-wave modes with a current loop antenna is shown in (b). Only a number of singlet branches are susceptible to the spatial distribution of such a field. The dispersion relation for a stip-line antenna used in the experiments is summarized in panel (c). The usual asymmetry of the excitation efficiency known for Damon-Eshbach modes is recovered. This antenna will excite simultaneously a multiple of modes with the same frequency. The white dashed lines indicate the excitation frequencies for which the experimental spatial spin-wave profiles are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}.}
\label{fig:absorption}
\end{figure*}
The dispersion branches excited in an experimental setup can drastically depend on the spatial distribution of the oscillating excitation field $\bm{h}(\bm{r})$, \textit{i.e.} on the microwave antenna at hand. In the case of propagating waves, the microwave power absorbed by the magnetic system is determined by the overlap
\begin{equation}
h_\nu (k) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{N}_\nu} \left\langle \bm{\eta}^*_{\nu k}\cdot \tilde{\bm{h}}(k) \right\rangle_A
\end{equation}
with $\tilde{\bm{h}}(k)$ denoting the Fourier transform of the spatial distribution of the microwave field with respect to the $z$ coordinate (long axis of the tube), $\langle...\rangle_A$ denotes the spatial average in the hexagonal-tube cross section and $\mathcal{N}_\nu$ is a normalization factor (see Appx.~\ref{appx:absorption}). The full frequency- and wave-vector-dependent absorption is then given by summing up the response of all branches $\nu$, as
\begin{equation}
P(k,\omega) \propto \sum\limits_\nu \frac{\abs{h_\nu}^2(k)}{[\omega_\nu(k) - \omega]^2 - \Gamma_\nu^2(k)}.
\end{equation}
Here $\Gamma_\nu=\alpha_\mathrm{G} \epsilon_\nu \omega_\nu$ is the life time of the spin-wave modes which is determined by the Gilbert damping factor $\alpha_\mathrm{G}$ and by the mode ellipticity $\epsilon_\nu(k)$ (see Ref.~\citenum{verbaDampingLinearSpinwave2018} and again Appx.~\ref{appx:absorption})
In the following, we present the predicted absorption calculated for two different important antenna geometries, a single current loop wrapped around the nanotube and for a single stripline antenna attached to one of the facets, as the one used in our experiments. We fix both antennae width to $W = \SI{250}{\nano\meter}$. In Fig.~\figref{fig:absorption}{a}, on-top of the dispersion, we show the zeroth-order peak of the excitation efficiency at the surface of both antenna types, which is approximately given by $\abs{\mathrm{sinc}(\Lambda k)}$, with $\Lambda\approx W/2$. Exact expressions for the Fourier components of $\tilde{\bm{h}}(k)$ for the presented antennae are found in Appx.~\ref{appx:expressions}. As an important difference between the antenna geometries, the microwave field produced by a stripline antenna is inhomogeneous within the hexagonal cross section and is, therefore, not rotationally symmetric. While the microwave field produced by a current loop can be assumed to have a homogeneous magnitude along all facets. As a result, the spin-wave modes of particular symmetry propagating in the hexagonal tubes couple differently to the microwave excitation, depending on the specific field distribution. This knowledge is crucial when designing and interpreting experiments (and even classic time-domain micromagnetic simulations). To this end, in Fig.~\figref{fig:absorption}{b}, we show the absorption $P(k,\omega)$ for a current-loop microwave antenna. As can be seen, only a number of singlet branches (\textsc{c}6, \textsc{cf}0 and \textsc{cf}12) are susceptible to such a field. These are the only modes, which, according to their symmetry, exhibit a non-vanishing absorption in a rotiationally symmetric microwave field in the observed frequency range. The period of these modes is an integer multiple of 6 and in general the period of the singlets is $3n$, with $n \geq 0$.
In contrast to this, the stripline antenna used in our experiments will couple to the singlet as well as to the duplet modes, as shown in Fig.~\figref{fig:absorption}{c}. Note, that the excitation efficiency of the spin-wave modes is asymmetric, therefore for the considered vortex state and antenna geometry the spin waves propagating with negative wave vector are excited stronger than the counter propagating ones. As mentioned before, this is a commonly known effect for spin waves excited in the Damon-Eshbach geometry, namely $\bm{k}\perp\bm{m}_0$ and is also seen when analyzing the individual frames of the spin-wave spatial profiles obtained from the TR-STXM experiments. The white dashed lines mark the excitation frequencies for which the experimental and micromagnetic simulation spatial profiles of the spin waves are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}. The consequences of the stripline antenna microwave source are that multiple modes with the same frequency are excited simultaneously, leading to a beating pattern instead of a plane wave propagation pattern with well-defined wave length. The presence of multiple wave lengths can already be seen when carefully looking at the propagating spin-wave profiles taken at given snapshots in time from the time-domain micromagnetic simulations presented in Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}. Especially for the \SI{4.571}{\giga\hertz} and \SI{5.571}{\giga\hertz} frequencies it is quite obvious that multiple wavelengths are present. On one hand this explains why only certain frames from the experimental measurements could be used to approximately evaluate a wavelength for the excited spin waves. On the other hand, with this information in mind we need to emphasis that the determination of the wavelengths are rather imprecise. Still, without drawing conclusions, on Fig.~\figref{fig:absorption}{c} we have overlaid the experimentally determined dispersion with the one yielding from the predicted microwave absorption using the spin-wave mode profiles of the dynamic-matrix approach simulations.
\section{Conclusions and outlook}\label{sec:outlook}
We have investigated spin-wave propagation in hexagonal nanotubes using time-resolved STXM measurements and micromagnetic simulations. The experimental results show that spin waves can be excited with a simple stripline antenna. Using a finite element dynamic-matrix approach for propagating spin waves, we calculated the dispersion relation for the hexagonal tube with geometrical and material parameters as in the experiments. The dispersion relation turned out to be asymmetric and complex. Due to the hexagonal cross section, spin waves can be localized to the highly curved corners, to the flat facets as well as to both sites at the same time. The hexagonal symmetry lifts the azimuthal mode degeneracy known from round nanotubes and result in singlet and duplet spin-wave solutions. The singlets are always standing spin-wave solutions and their azimuthal mode index is an integer multiple of 3. The duplets consists of two degenerate spin-wave solutions counter propagating along the azimuthal direction. We have shown that, using the spin-wave profiles resulting from the eigensolver, the frequency- and wave-vector-dependent microwave absorption of different antennae field profiles can be calculated. These numerical results show that the stripline antenna used in the TR-STXM experiments will simultaneously excite modes with the same frequency but different wave vectors. Therefore, the resulting spatial profile of the spin waves propagating in the nanotube form a beating pattern instead of a single wave solution with a well-defined wavelength. These experimental results are not suitable to draw conclusions on the spin-wave dispersion asymmetry that is present in the dispersion calculated by micromagnetic simulations, both in the time- or frequency domain. We can conclude that the antenna design in further experiments needs to be changed and if possible a single current loop should be used to allow for the excitation of single modes with a well defined wave length. Alternatively one could use a CPW antenna which selectively excites spin waves with specific wave vectors. We hope that with the recent developments in materials research and fabrication methods the production of high quality 3D nano-structures and waveguides (magnetic for this purpose) will be standardized and the investigation of exciting effects as the curvature-induced magnetochiral effects on the magnetization statics and dynamics will become feasible.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The experiments were mainly performed at the MAXYMUS endstation of BESSY II at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin, Germany. We thank HZB for the allocation of synchrotron radiation beam time. Some experiments were performed at the PolLux endstation of the Swiss Light Source. We acknowledge the Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen PSI, Switzerland for provision of synchrotron radiation beamtime. The PolLux end station was financed by the German Ministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) through contracts 05K16WED and 05K19WE2. Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the program KA 5069/1-1, KA 5069/3-1 and the project ID 422 314695032-SFB1277 is gratefully acknowledged. We also gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Fondecyt Iniciacion grant number 11190184. We thank M. Bechtel (MPI-IS) and B. Sarafimov (PSI) for technical support.
\end{acknowledgements}
\section*{Appendix}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Microwave absorption and linewidths}\label{appx:absorption}
Here, we briefly describe how the microwave absorption is calculated from the lateral mode profiles $\bm{\eta}_{\nu k}$ obtained with our propagating-wave dynamic-matrix approach. As mentioned in the main text, the microwave power absorbed by the spin-wave system is determined by the overlap of the spin-wave mode profile with the spatial profile of the microwave field. Our formalism here is a special case of the general cases \textit{e.g.} discussed in Refs. \citenum{naletovIdentificationSelectionRules2011} and \citenum{verbaDampingLinearSpinwave2018}. For a general volumentric spin-wave mode profile $\bm{m}_\nu(\bm{r})$ denoted only with the mode index $\nu$, the microwave absorption is obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3doverlap}
h_\nu = \frac{1}{\mathcal{M}_{\nu} V}\int\limits_V \mathrm{d}V^\prime \, \bm{m}^*_{\nu}(\bm{r}^\prime)\cdot {\bm{h}}(\bm{r}^\prime)
\end{equation}
with $V$ being the volume of the magnetic specimen, $\bm{h}$ being the spatial profile of the microwave field and $\mathcal{M}_\nu$ being the normalization factor of the mode with respect the volume, which is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3dnormalizationfactor}
\mathcal{M}_\nu = \frac{i}{V}\int\limits_V \mathrm{d}V^\prime \, \bm{m}^*_{\nu}(\bm{r}^\prime)\cdot [\bm{m}_0(\bm{r})^\prime\times \bm{m}_{\nu}(\bm{r}^\prime)].
\end{equation}
In our case, the mode profiles are given as $\bm{m}_\nu (\bm{r}) = \bm{\eta}_{\nu k} \exp(ikz)$ and the equilibrium magnetization is translationally invariant along the $z$ direction, $\bm{m}_0(\bm{r}) = \bm{m}_0(\bm{\rho})$. For a very long waveguide with finite length $L$, one can now insert these mode profiles into Eqs.~\eqref{eq:3doverlap} and \eqref{eq:3dnormalizationfactor}, perform the integral along the $z$-direction and then let $L\rightarrow\infty$. One then obtains the wave-vector dependent overlap
\begin{equation}
h_\nu (k) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{N}_{\nu k} A}\int\limits_A \mathrm{d}A^\prime \, \bm{\eta}^*_{\nu k}(\bm{\rho}^\prime)\cdot \tilde{\bm{h}}(\bm{\rho^\prime},k)
\end{equation}
with $\tilde{\bm{h}}(\bm{\rho},k)$ being the Fourier transform of the microwave field along the $z$ direction and $\mathcal{N}_{\nu k} = \mathcal{M}_{\nu k}/L$ being the normalization factor of the mode with respect the cross section area $A$, which is given as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_{\nu k} = \frac{1}{ A}\int\limits_A \mathrm{d}A^\prime \, \bm{\eta}^*_{\nu k} (\bm{\rho}^\prime) \cdot [\bm{m}_0(\bm{\rho}^\prime) \times \bm{\eta}_{\nu k} (\bm{\rho}^\prime)].
\end{equation}
In order to obtain the full microwave absorption, one also needs to know the linewidths of the modes, $\Gamma_{\nu k }= \alpha_\mathrm{G}\epsilon_{\nu k}\omega_{\nu k} $, which depend on the Gilbert damping parameter $\alpha_\mathrm{G}$ and the mode ellipticity $\epsilon_{\nu k}$. A general formalism to obtain the linear spin-wave damping from the mode ellipticities was presented in Ref.~\citenum{verbaDampingLinearSpinwave2018}, which can be applied to our case in the same way as above. For our case we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\epsilon_{\nu k} & = \frac{1}{\mathcal{N}_{\nu k} A}\int\limits_A \mathrm{d}A^\prime \,\abs{ \bm{\eta}_\nu(\bm{\rho}^\prime)}^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\section{Expressions for microwave-field wave-vector spectra}\label{appx:expressions}
In our specific study, we calculated the microwave absorption for a current-loop antenna around and a stripline antenna attached to the hexagonal nanotube. In the case of a current-loop the wave-vector spectrum of the microwave field can be approximated as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm{h}}^{\mathrm{(loop)}} \approx (\bm{e}_\xi(\bm{\rho}) + \bm{e}_z) \abs{\mathrm{sinc}(\Lambda k)} e^{-\beta_0 k}
\end{equation}
with $\Lambda \approx \SI{125}{\nano\meter}$ being approximately equal to half of the width of the antenna and $\beta_0 = \SI{0.5}{\nano\meter/\radian}$ being some decay factor. The unit vector field $\bm{e}_\xi $ can be approximated as being the one locally perpendicular to both $\bm{m}_0$ and $\bm{e}_z$, which, in the case of a hexagonal vortex state, gives the "radial" direction.
In the case of a stripline antenna which is attached to on the facets of the hexagonal tube (w.l.o.g. a facet which is parallel to the $xz$ plane) the wave-vector spectrum can be approximated as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm{h}}^{\mathrm{(strip)}} \approx (\bm{e}_x + \bm{e}_z) \abs{\mathrm{sinc}(\Lambda k)} e^{-\beta(s)k}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\beta(s)$ is now function which depends on the distance $s$ to the center plane of the antenna. To obtain this dependence we calculated the full 3D profile of the stripline antenna and performed a Fourier transform in $z$ direction for different distances from the antenna. A simple linear approach gave a reasonable fit $\beta(s) = \beta_1 s + \beta_0$ with $\beta_1 \approx 1 $ and again $\beta_0 = \SI{0.5}{\nano\meter/\radian}$.
\end{appendix}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
\input{main.bbl}
\end{document}
|
\subsection{Representation learning without label noise}
\label{sec:repr-learn-no-lbl-noise}
The choice of inductive biases incorporated in a model affects
representations and introduces desirable and possibly even undesirable
(cf.~\citep{Liu2018}) invariances; for example, training convolutional
networks are invariant to (some) translations, while training fully
connected networks are invariant to permutations of input features.
This means that fully connected networks can learn even if the pixels
of each training image in the training set are permuted with a fixed
permutation~\citep{Zhang2016}. This invariance is worrying as it means
that such a network can effectively classify a matrix~(or tensor) that
is visually nothing like a real image into an image category.
In this section, we present a result to show that there exists a data
distribution where proper representation is necessary for small adversarial
error as well as small test error whereas another representation can provide low
test error but necessarily have large adversarial error. Interestingly, the
representation that can achieve small adversarial error can look visually more
complex due to the larger number of distinct linear regions in its decision
boundary. However, statistically, it will have a smaller VC dimension than its
counterpart. We first present the theorems with a proof sketch for ease of
understanding and the more detailed proofs in~\Cref{sec:proof-22}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.67\linewidth}
\scalebox{0.9}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (1.,0) -- (9,0); \filldraw [gray] (2,0) circle (2pt);
\filldraw [gray] (4,0) circle (2pt); \filldraw [gray] (6,0)
circle (2pt); \filldraw [gray] (8,0) circle (2pt);
\draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt] (1.35,0.5) --
(1.75,0.5); \draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt] (1.85,0.5)
-- (2.35,0.5); \draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt]
(2.45,0.5) -- (2.65,0.5);
\draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt] (1.35,1.5) --
(2.65,1.5);
\draw (1.4,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw (1.6,0 )
node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw (2.2,0 )
node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw (2.6,0 )
node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {};
\draw[blue, line width=1pt] (1.8,0 ) circle (2.5pt); \draw[blue,
line width=1pt] (2.4,0 ) circle (2.5pt); \node at (2,-0.5)
{001};
\draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt] (3.55,0.5) --
(3.65,0.5);
\draw (2+1.4,0 ) node[cross,blue,line width=1pt] {}; \draw
(2+1.8,0 ) node[cross,blue,line width=1pt] {}; \draw (2+2.2,0 )
node[cross,blue,line width=1pt] {};
\draw (2+2.4,0 ) node[cross,blue,line width=1pt] {}; \draw
(2+2.6,0 ) node[cross,blue,line width=1pt] {}; \draw[red, line
width=1pt] (2+1.6,0 ) circle (2.5pt); \node at (4,-0.5) {010};
\draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt] (2+2+1.35,1.5) --
(2+2+2.65,1.5);
\draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt] (2+2+1.35,0.5) --
(2+2+1.55,0.5); \draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt]
(2+2+1.65,0.5) -- (2+2+2.35,0.5); \draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line
width=1pt] (2+2+2.45,0.5) -- (2+2+2.65,0.5);
\draw (2+2+1.8,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw
(2+2+1.4,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw (2+2+2.2,0
) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {};
\draw (2+2+2.6,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {};
\draw[blue, line width=1pt] (2+2+1.6,0 ) circle (2.5pt);
\draw[blue, line width=1pt] (2+2+2.4,0 ) circle (2.5pt); \node
at (6,-0.5) {011};
\draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt] (2+2+2+1.35,1.5) --
(2+2+2+2.65,1.5);
\draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt] (2+2+2+1.35,0.5) --
(2+2+2+2.15,0.5); \draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt]
(2+2+2+2.25,0.5) -- (2+2+2+2.65,0.5);
\draw (2+2+2+1.4,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw
(2+2+2+1.6,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw
(2+2+2+1.8,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw
(2+2+2+2.4,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw
(2+2+2+2.6,0 ) node[cross,red,line width=1pt] {}; \draw[blue,
line width=1pt] (2+2+2+2.2,0 ) circle (2.5pt); \node at (8,-0.5)
{ 100};
\node[text width=1.5cm,color=cadmiumgreen,line width=2pt] at
(0.5,0.5) {Union of Intervals}; \node[text
width=1.5cm,color=cadmiumgreen,line width=2pt] at (0.5,1.5)
{Parity Classifier}; \end{tikzpicture}}\caption{Both Parity and
Union of Interval classifier predict {\color{red} red} if
inside any {\color{cadmiumgreen}~green} interval and
{\color{blue} blue} if outside all intervals. The $\times$-es
are correctly labelled and the $\circ$-es are mislabeled
points. Reference integer points on the line labelled in
\emph{binary}.}\label{fig:thm-3} \end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\linewidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thin, dashed] (-0.5,0) -- (3,0);
\draw[thin, dashed] (-0.5,1) -- (3,1);
\draw[thin, dashed] (2,-0.6) -- (2,1.6);
\draw[thin, dashed] (1,-0.6) -- (1,1.6);
\draw[thin, dashed] (0,-0.6) -- (0,1.6);
\filldraw[color=red!60, fill=red!5, very thick](0,0) circle
(.15); \filldraw[color=red!60, fill=red!5, very thick](1,1)
circle (.15); \filldraw[color=blue!60, fill=blue!5, very
thick](1,0) circle (.15); \filldraw[color=blue!60, fill=blue!5,
very thick](2,1) circle (.15); \draw[orange, dashed, very thick,
name path=plane] (-0.1, -0.6) -- (1.5, 1) -- (2.1, 1.6);
\draw[cadmiumgreen, thick] (0.5, -0.5) -- (0.5, 0.5) -- (1.5,
0.5) -- (1.5, 1.5);
\draw[|-|, cadmiumgreen, line width=1pt]
(1.5,0.3) -- (1.9,0.3);
\draw[|-|, orange, line width=1pt]
(1.5,-0.2) -- (1.9,-0.2);
\filldraw [gray] (0,0) circle (1pt); \filldraw [gray] (0,1)
circle (1pt); \filldraw [gray] (1,0) circle (1pt); \filldraw
[gray] (1,1) circle (1pt); \filldraw [gray] (2,0) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [gray] (2,1) circle (1pt); \node[text
width=2.3cm,color=cadmiumgreen] at (3.2,0.3) {\scriptsize Parity
Classifier}; \node[text width=2.3cm,color=orange] at (3.2,-0.2)
{\scriptsize Linear Classifier};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Robust generalisation needs more complex boundaries}
\label{fig:complex_simple}
\end{subfigure}\caption[Illustration
of~\Cref{thm:parity_robust_repre_all,thm:repre-par-inter}]{Visualisation
of the distribution and classifiers used in the Proof
of~\Cref{thm:parity_robust_repre_all,thm:repre-par-inter}.~The
{\color{red}Red} and {\color{blue}Blue} indicate the two classes.}
\end{figure}
\begin{restatable}[Representation Learning for Adversarial Robustness]{thm}{parityrobustrepre}
\label{thm:parity_robust_repre_all} For some universal constant $c$,
and any $0 < \gamma_0 < 1/\sqrt{2}$, there exists a family of
distributions $\cD$ defined on $\cX\times\bc{0,1}$ where
$\cX\subseteq\reals^2$ such that for all distributions $\cP\in\cD$,
and denoting by $\cS_m
=\bc{\br{\vec{x}_1,y_1},\cdots,(\vec{x}_m,y_m)}$ a sample of size
$m$ drawn i.i.d. from $\cP$,
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=-0.3em,leftmargin=*]
%
\item[(i)] For any $m \geq 0$, $\cS_m$ is linearly separable i.e.,
$\forall(\vec{x}_i, y_i) \in \cS_m$, there exist
$\vec{w}\in\reals^2, w_0\in\reals$ s.t.
$y_i\br{\vec{w}^\top\vec{x}_i+w_0}\ge 0$. Furthermore, for every
$\gamma > \gamma_0$, any linear separator $f$ that perfectly
fits the training data $\cS_m$ has $\radv{\gamma}{f; \cP} \geq
0.0005$, even though $\risk{\cP}{f} \rightarrow 0$ as $m
\rightarrow \infty $.
%
\item[(ii)] There exists a function class $\cH$ such that for some
$m \in O(\log(\delta^{-1}))$, any $h \in \cH$ that perfectly
fits the $\cS_m$, satisfies with probability at least $1 -
\delta$, $\risk{\cP}{h} = 0$ and $\radv{\gamma}{h; \cP} = 0$,
for any $\gamma \in [0, \gamma_0 + 1/8]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{restatable}
A complete proof of this result appears in~\Cref{sec:proof-22}, but
first, we provide a sketch of the key idea here.%
~The distributions in family $\cD$ will be supported on balls of radius at most
$1/\sqrt{2}$ on the integer lattice in $\reals^2$. The \emph{true} class label
for any point $\vec{x}$ is provided by the parity of $a + b$, where $(a, b)$ is
the lattice point closest to $\vec{x}$. However, the distributions in $\cD$ are
chosen to be such that there is also a linear classifier that can separate these
classes, e.g. a distribution only supported on balls centred at the points $(a,
a)$ and $(a, a+1)$ for some integer $a$~(See~\Cref{fig:complex_simple}).
\emph{Visually} learning the classification problem using the parity of $a + b$
results in a seemingly more complex decision boundary, a point that has been
made earlier regarding the need for more complex boundaries to achieve
adversarial robustness~\citep{degwekar19a,Shah2020}. However, it is worth noting
that this complexity is not rooted in any \emph{statistical theory}, e.g. the VC
dimension of the classes considered in Theorem~\ref{thm:parity_robust_repre_all}
is essentially the same (even lower for $\cH$ by $1$). This \emph{visual}
complexity arises purely because the linear classifier looks at a geometric
representation of the data whereas the parity classifier looks at the binary
representation of the sum of the nearest integer of the coordinates. In the case
of neural networks, recent works~\citep{kamath2020invariance} have indeed
provided empirical results to support that excessive invariance (eg. rotation
invariance) increases adversarial error.
\subsection{Representation learning with label noise}
\label{sec:repr-theorey-lbl-noise}
In this section, we show how the choice of representation is
important in the presence of label noise to learn an adversarially
robust classifier. Informally, we show that if the \emph{correct}
representation is used, then in the presence of label noise, it will
be impossible to fit the training data perfectly, but the
classifier that best fits the training data
will have good test accuracy and adversarial accuracy. However, using an
``incorrect'' representation, we show that it is possible to find a classifier
that has zero training error, has good test accuracy, but has a high
\emph{adversarial error}.
We posit this as a (partial) explanation of why classifiers trained on real data
(with label noise) have good test accuracy, while still being vulnerable to
adversarial attacks.
\begin{restatable}[Representation Learning in the Presence of Noise]{thm}{robustpossibleful}~\label{thm:repre-par-inter}
For any $n\in\bZ_+$, there exists a family of distributions $\cD^n$
over $\reals \times \{0, 1\}$ and function classes $\cC,\cH$, such
that for any $\cP$ from
$\cD^n$, and for any $0 < \gamma < 1/4$, and $\eta \in (0, 1/2)$ if $\cS_m =
\{(\vec{x}_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^m$ denotes a sample of size $m$
drawn from $\cP$ where
\[m=\bigO{\mathrm{max}\bc{
n\log{\frac{n}{\delta}}
\br{\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}+1},
\frac{n}{\eta\gamma^2}
\log\br{\frac{n}{\gamma\delta}}}}\]
and if $\cS_{m, \eta}$ denotes the sample where each
label is flipped independently with probability $\eta$.
\begin{enumerate}[labelsep=-0.3em,leftmargin=*]
\item[(i)]~~the classifier $c \in \cC$ that minimises the training
error on $\cS_{m, \eta}$, has $\risk{\cP}{c} = 0$ and
$\radv{\gamma}{c; \cP} = 0$ for $0 \leq \gamma < 1/4$.
%
\item[(ii)]~~there exist $h \in \cH$, $h$ has zero training error on
$\cS_{m, \eta}$, and $\risk{\cP}{h} = 0$. However, for any $\gamma > 0$, and
any $h \in \cH$ with zero training error on $\cS_{m, \eta}$,
$\radv{\gamma}{h; \cP} \geq 0.1$.
\end{enumerate}
Furthermore, the required $c ,h \in \cC,\cH$ can be
computed in $\bigO{\poly{n},\poly{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}-\eta}},
\poly{\frac{1}{\delta}}}$.
\end{restatable}
We sketch the proof here and present the complete proof in~\Cref{sec:proof-22};
as in~\Cref{thm:parity_robust_repre_all}, we will make use of parity functions,
though the key point is the representations used. Let $\cX = [0, N]$, where $N =
2^n$, we consider distributions that are supported on intervals $(i - 1/4, i +
1/4)$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, N-1 \}$~(See~\Cref{fig:thm-3}), but any such
distribution will only have a small number, $O(n)$, intervals on which it is
supported. The \emph{true} class label is given by a function that depends on
the parity of some hidden subsets $S$ of bits in the bit-representation of the
closest integer $i$, e.g. as in~\Cref{fig:thm-3} if $S = \{0, 2\}$, then only
the least significant and the third least significant bit of $i$ are examined
and the class label is $1$ if an odd number of them are $1$ and $0$ otherwise.
Despite the noise, the \emph{correct} label on any interval can be guessed by
using the majority vote and as a result, the correct parity learnt using
Gaussian elimination. (This corresponds to class $\cC$ in
~\Cref{thm:repre-par-inter}.) On the other hand, it is also possible to learn the
function as a union of intervals, i.e. find intervals, $I_1, I_2, \ldots, I_k$
such that any point that lies in one of these intervals is given the label $1$
and any other point is given the label $0$. By choosing intervals carefully, it
is possible to fit \emph{all the training data}, including noisy examples, but
yet not compromise on \emph{test accuracy} (Fig.~\ref{fig:thm-3}). Such a
classifier, however, will be vulnerable to adversarial examples by applying
Theorem~\ref{thm:inf-label}. A classifier such as a union of intervals ($\cH$ in
Theorem~\ref{thm:repre-par-inter})%
is translation-invariant, whereas the parity classifier is not. This suggests
that using classifiers, such as neural networks, that are designed to have too
many built-in invariances might hurt its robustness accuracy.
In~\Cref{sec:robust-train-creat}, we present further experimental
evidence that neural networks trained with SGD learn more
linear-like~(simpler) decision boundaries than is necessary for
obtaining adversarial robustness.
\section{Theoretical result on the impact of memorising label noise}
\label{sec:overfit-theoretical-setting}
\input{adv_cause_folder/overfitting_noise_intro}
\input{adv_cause_folder/overfitting_noise_theory}
\input{adv_cause_folder/overfitting_noise_exps}
\section{Theoretical results on the impact of representation learning}
\label{sec:theoretical-setting}
\input{adv_cause_folder/representation_intro}
\input{adv_cause_folder/representation_theory}
\input{adv_cause_folder/representation_exps}
\section{Experimental results on the impact of representation learning}
This section discusses the importance of representation learning for adversarial
robustness in the context of neural networks. In particular, we show that neural
networks are more linear-like than is required for them to be adversarially
robust. Then, we suggest a way to learn richer representations and show that
this helps with adversarial robustness.
\subsection{Complexity of decision boundaries}
\label{sec:robust-train-creat}
When neural networks are trained using SGD like algorithms they create
classifiers whose decisions boundaries are geometrically much simpler than they
need to be for being adversarially robust. A few recent
studies~\citep{Shah2020,schmidt2018adversarially} have discussed that robustness
might require more complex classifiers.
In~\Cref{thm:parity_robust_repre_all,thm:repre-par-inter} we discussed this
theoretically and also why this might not violate the traditional wisdom of
Occam's Razor. In particular, complex decision boundaries does not necessarily
mean more complex classifiers in statistical notions of complexity like the VC
dimension. In this section, we show through a simple experiment how the decision
boundaries of neural networks are not ``complex'' enough to provide large enough
margins and are thus adversarially much more vulnerable than is possible.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/shallow_nn_decision_region.pdf_tex}
\caption{Shallow NN}
\label{fig:dec_shallow}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/wide_shallow_nn_decision_region.pdf_tex}
\caption{Shallow-Wide NN}
\label{fig:dec_shallow_wide}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/deep_nn_decision_region.pdf_tex}
\caption{Deep NN}
\label{fig:dec_deep}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/knn_decision_region.pdf_tex}
\caption{Large Margin}
\label{fig:dec_knn}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Simplicity of Neural Network decision boundaries]{Decision boundaries of neural networks are much simpler
than they should be.}\label{fig:dec_reg_app_fig}
\end{figure}
We train three different neural networks with ReLU activations, a shallow
network~(Shallow NN) with 2 layers and 100 neurons in each layer, a shallow
network with 2 layers and 1000 neurons in each layer~(Shallow-Wide NN), and a
deep network with 4 layers and 100 neurons in each layer. We train them for 200
epochs on a binary classification problem as constructed
in~\Cref{fig:dec_reg_app_fig}. The distribution is supported on blobs and the
colour of each blob represents its label. On the right side, we have the
decision boundary of a large margin classifier, which is represented by a
1-nearest neighbour algorithm.
From~\Cref{fig:dec_reg_app_fig}, it is evident that the decision boundaries of
neural networks trained with standard optimisers have far \emph{simpler}
decision boundaries than is needed to be robust~(eg. the 1- nearest neighbour is
much more robust than the neural networks.). In particular, the distinction
between neural networks and the large margin classifier can be noticed clearly
in the decision boundary between the blue and the orange balls in the top left
part of the images in~\Cref{fig:dec_reg_app_fig}. In an effort to have a less
jagged decision boundary for neural networks, the boundary passes very close to
the data~(the blue and orange balls) for the neural networks than it does for
the large margin classifier. This bias towards simplicity for NNs trained using
SGD, we hypothesise, is partly responsible for the increased vulnerability of neural networks.
\subsection{Accounting for sub-populations leads to better
robustness}
\label{sec:fine-coarse}
One way to evaluate whether more meaningful representations lead to better
robust accuracy is to use training data with more fine-grained labels (e.g.
subclasses of a class); for example, one would expect that if different breeds
of dogs are labelled differently the network will learn features that are
relevant to that extra information. We show using synthetic data,
CIFAR100~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, and Restricted
Imagenet~\citep{tsipras2018robustness} that training on fine-grained labels does
increase robust accuracy.
\begin{figure}[t]%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/mc_parity_nat_wide_shallow_nn_decision_region.pdf_tex}
\caption{MULTICLASS}
\label{fig:thm_mc}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/parity_nat_shallow_wide_nn_decision_region.pdf_tex}
\caption{NATURAL}
\label{fig:thm_nat}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.60\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/error_pert.pdf_tex}
\caption{ CIFAR-100. %
}
\label{fig:fine2coarse}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/restricted_imagenet.pdf_tex}
\caption{Restricted Imagenet %
}
\label{fig:fine2coarse-img}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Learning better representation provides better robustness]{Assigning
a separate class to each sub-population within the original class
during training increases robustness by learning more meaningful
representations.}
\end{figure}
We hypothesise that learning more meaningful representations by accounting for
fine-grained sub-populations within each class may lead to better robustness.
We use the theoretical setup presented in~\Cref{fig:complex_simple} to conduct
our synthetic data experiment.
Recall that the data distributions for the binary learning problem
in~\Cref{fig:complex_simple} is supported on balls of radius at most
$1/\sqrt{2}$ on the integer lattice in $\reals^2$. The \emph{true} class label
for any point $\vec{x}$ is provided by the parity of $a + b$, where $(a, b)$
is the lattice point closest to $\vec{x}$. As we noted in the proof
of~\Cref{thm:parity_robust_repre_all}, the distribution is separable by a {\em
simple} linear classifier by a small margin. However, if each of the circles
belonged to a separate class then the decision boundary would have to be
necessarily more complex as it needs to, now, separate the balls that were
previously within the same class. We test this hypothesis with two
experiments. First, we test it on the distribution defined
in~\Cref{thm:parity_robust_repre_all} where for each ball with label $1$, we
assign it a different label~(say $\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_{k}$) and similarly
for balls with label $0$, we assign it a different
label~($\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_k$). Now, we solve a multi-class classification
problem for $2k$ classes with a deep neural network and then later aggregate
the results by reporting all $\alpha_i$s as $1$ and all $\beta_i$s as $0$. The
resulting decision boundary is drawn in~\Cref{fig:thm_mc} along with the
decision boundary for natural training in~\Cref{fig:thm_nat}. Clearly, the
margin for the multi-class model (and thus robustness) is greater than the
naturally trained model.
Second, we also repeat the experiment with CIFAR-100 and Restricted
Imagenet~\citep{tsipras2018robustness} in~\Cref{fig:fine2coarse}
and~\Cref{fig:fine2coarse-img} respectively.~(see~\cref{sec:expr-settings} for
details on the datasets). For CIFAR-100, we train a ResNet50~\citep{HZRS:2016}
on the fine labels of CIFAR100 and then aggregate the fine labels corresponding
to a coarse label by summing up the logits of the fine classes corresponding to
each coarse class. For restricted imagenet, we use the fine-coarse division
mentioned in~\Cref{tab:fine-grained-classs}. We call this model the
\emph{Fine2Coarse} model and compare the adversarial risk of this network to a
ResNet-50 trained directly on the coarse labels. Note that the model is
end-to-end differentiable as the only addition is a layer to aggregate the
logits corresponding to the fine classes of each coarse class. Thus
PGD adversarial attacks can be applied off the
shelf.~\Cref{fig:fine2coarse,fig:fine2coarse-img} show that for all
perturbation budgets, \emph{Fine2Coarse} has a smaller adversarial risk than the
naturally trained model.
\subsection{Discussion and other relevant works} A related result by~\citet{montasser19a} shows that certain
hypothesis classes are only \emph{improperly} robustly PAC learnable despite
having a finite VC dimension. Thus, learning the problem with small adversarial
error requires using a different class of models~(or representations) whereas,
for small natural test risk, the original model class~(or representation) can be
used~(it is properly learnable due to its finite VC dimension). In particular,
the examples from~\citet{montasser19a} that uses improper learning to learn a
robust classifier has a much higher sample complexity. In our example, learning
algorithms for both the hypotheses classes that we use have polynomial sample
complexity. Another point of distinction is that~\Cref{thm:repre-par-inter} uses
a training set induced with random classification noise and hypothesis class
$\cH$ obtains zero training on this noisy training set whereas the examples
in~\citet{montasser19a} do not have any label noise.
\citet{Hanin2019} have shown that though the number of possible linear regions
that can be created by a deep ReLU network is exponential in depth, in practice
for networks trained with SGD this tends to grow only linearly thus creating
much simpler decision boundaries than is possible due to sheer expressivity of
deep networks. Experiments on the data models from our theoretical settings show
that adversarial training indeed produces more ``complex'' decision boundaries
\citet{Jacobsen2019} have discussed that excessive
invariance in neural networks might increase adversarial
error. However, they argue that excessive invariance
can allow sufficient changes in the semantically important
features without changing the network's prediction. They
describe this as Invariance based adversarial examples as
opposed to perturbation based adversarial examples. We show
that excessive ~(incorrect) invariance might also result in
perturbation based adversarial examples.
Another contemporary work~\citep{Geirhos2020} discusses a phenomenon they refer
to as~\emph{Shortcut Learning} where deep learning models perform very well on
standard tasks like reducing classification error but fail to perform in more
difficult real-world situations. We discuss this in the context of models that
have small test error but large adversarial error and provide theoretical and
empirical to discuss why one of the reasons for this is sub-optimal
representation learning.
\section{Experimental results on the impact of memorising label noise}
\label{sec:exp-overfit-mislbl}
This section will look at empirical results on synthetic data, inspired
by the theory and on the standard datasets: MNIST~\citep{LBBH:1998} and
CIFAR10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, that shows the impact of memorising label noise on adversarial vulnerability.
\subsection{Memorisation of label noise hurts adversarial accuracy}
\paragraph{Experiments on toy-MNIST}
We design a simple binary classification problem, \emph{toy-MNIST}, and show
that when fitting a complex classifier on a training dataset with label noise,
adversarial vulnerability increases with the amount of label noise and that this
vulnerability is caused by the label noise. The problem is constructed by
selecting two images from MNIST: one ``0'' and one ``1''. Each training/test
example is generated by selecting one of these images and adding i.i.d. Gaussian
noise sampled from $\cN\br{0,\sigma^2}$ for some \(\sigma>0\). We create a
training dataset of $4000$ samples by sampling uniformly from either class.
Finally, $\eta$ fraction of the training data is chosen randomly and its labels
are flipped.
We train a neural network with four fully connected layers followed by a softmax
layer and minimise the cross-entropy loss using an SGD optimiser until the
training error becomes zero. Then, we attack this network with a ~\emph{strong}
$\ell_\infty$ PGD adversary~(discussed
in~\Cref{sec:adv-attack-bg})~\citep{madry2018towards} with
$\epsilon=\frac{64}{255}$ for $400$ steps with a step size of $0.01$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/error_vs_random_01.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/error_vs_random_03.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/error_vs_random_05.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Toy-MNIST , $\epsilon=\frac{64}{255}$}
\label{fig:risk_vs_noise}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/001_20_mnist_mis_adv_risk.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/005_20_mnist_mis_adv_risk.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/01_20_mnist_mis_adv_risk.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Full-MNIST}
\label{fig:mnist_lbl_noise_adv}
\end{subfigure}\vspace{10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/R18_adv_noise.pdf_tex}
\caption{ResNet18~(CIFAR10)}
\label{fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_r18}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/D121_adv_noise.pdf_tex}
\caption{DenseNet121~(CIFAR10)}
\label{fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_d121}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/VGG19_adv_noise.pdf_tex}
\caption{VGG19~(CIFAR10)}
\label{fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_vgg}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Adversarial error increases with label noise]{Adversarial Error
increases with increasing label noise~$\eta$. The shaded region indicates a
$95\%$ confidence interval. The absence of a shaded region indicates that it
is invisible due to low variance.}
\end{figure}
In~\Cref{fig:risk_vs_noise}, we plot the adversarial error, natural test error
and training error as the amount of label noise $(\eta)$ varies, for three
different values of sample variance~($\sigma^2$). For low values of
$\sigma^2$~($\sigma^2=0.1$), the training data from each class are all
concentrated around the same point; as a result, these models are unable to
memorise the label noise and the training error is high. In this case,
over-fitting label noise is impossible and the test error, as well as the
adversarial error, is low. This does not contradict~\Cref{thm:inf-label}, which
requires zero training error on the mislabelled dataset. However, as $\sigma^2$
increases to~$\sigma^2=0.5$, the neural network is flexible enough to use the
``noise component'' to extract features\todo[color=red]{Can we prove it or show evidence in support of this ?} that allow it to memorise label noise
and fit the training data perfectly. This brings the training error down to
zero while causing the test error to increase, and the adversarial error even
more so. This is in line with Theorem~\ref{thm:inf-label}. \begin{remark} The
case when $\sigma^2=0.3$ is particularly interesting; when the label noise is
low and the training error is high, there is no overfitting and the test error
and the adversarial error is zero. When the network starts memorising label
noise~(i.e. train error gets lesser than label noise), test error remains
very low but adversarial error increases rapidly. \end{remark}
\paragraph{Experiments on the full MNIST and CIFAR10 dataset}
We perform a similar experiment on the full MNIST dataset trained on a 4-layered
Convolutional Neural Network. The model architecture consists of four
convolutional layers, followed by two fully connected layers. The first four
convolutional layers have $32,64, 128$, and $256$ output filters with kernels of width $3,4,3,$ and $3$ respectively. The two fully connected
layers have a width of $1024$. The network is optimised with SGD with a batch
size of $128$ and an initial learning rate of $0.1$ for a total of $60$ epochs.
The learning rate is decreased to $0.01$ after $50$ epochs. For varying values
of $\eta$, we assign a uniformly randomly label to a randomly chosen $\eta$
fraction of the training data. We compute the natural test accuracy and the
adversarial test accuracy on a clean test-set with no label noise for when the
network is attacked with an $\ell_\infty$ bounded PGD adversary for varying
perturbation budget $\epsilon$, with a step size of $0.01$ and for $20$ steps
and plot the results in~\Cref{fig:mnist_lbl_noise_adv}. We repeat the same
experiment for CIFAR10 with a DenseNet121~\citep{HZWV:2017},
ResNet18~\citep{HZRS:2016}, and VGG19~\citep{simonyan2014very} to test the
phenomenon across multiple state-of-the-art architectures and plot the results
in~\Cref{fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_r18,fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_d121,fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_vgg}.
Please refer to~\Cref{sec:expr-settings} for more details on the architectures
and datasets. The results on both datasets show that the effect of over-fitting
label noise on adversarial error is even more clearly visible here; for the
same PGD adversary, the adversarial error jumps upwards sharply with increasing
label noise, while the growth of natural test error is much slower. This
confirms the hypothesis that benign overfitting may not be so benign when it
comes to adversarial error.
\subsection{Representations of label noise and adversarial examples}
For the toy-MNIST problem, we plot a 2-d projection~(using PCA) of the learned
representations~(activations before the last layer) at various stages of
training in~\Cref{fig:represen}. We remark that the simplicity of the data model
ensures that even a 1-d PCA projection suffices to perfectly separate the
classes when there is no label noise; however, the representations learned by a
neural network in the presence of noise may be very different! We highlight two
key observations:
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.15\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/legend_representation.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.8\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/representation.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Representation of mislabelled and adversarial examples]{Two dimensional PCA projections of the original correctly
labelled~(blue and orange), original mislabelled~(green and red),
and adversarial examples~(purple and brown) at different stages of
training. The correct label for~\emph{True 0}~(blue),~\emph{Noisy 0}~(green),~\emph{Adv
0}~(purple +) are the same i.e. 0 and similar for the other class.}
\label{fig:represen}
\end{figure}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The bulk of adversarial examples~(``$+$''-es) are
concentrated around the mislabeled training data~(``$\circ$''-es) of the
opposite class. For example, the purple $+$-es~(Adversarially
perturbed: True: 0, Pred:1 ) are very close to the green
$\circ$-es~(Mislabelled: True:0, Pred: 1). This provides empirical
validation for the hypothesis that if
there is a mislabeled data point in the vicinity that has been fit by the
model, an adversarial example is created by moving towards that data point
as predicted by~\Cref{thm:inf-label}.
\item The mislabeled training data take longer to be fit by the classifier.
For example, by iteration 20, the network learns a fairly good representation
and classification boundary that correctly fits the clean training data (but not
the noisy training data). At this stage, the number of adversarial examples is
much lower as compared to Iteration 160, by which point the network has
completely fit the noisy training data. Thus early stopping helps in avoiding
\emph{memorising} the label noise, and consequently also reduces adversarial
vulnerability. Early stopping has indeed been used as a defence in quite a few
recent papers in the context of adversarial
robustness~\citep{Wong2020Fast,hendrycks2019pretraining}, as well as learning in
the presence of label-noise~\citep{Li2019}. Our work shows \emph{why} early
stopping may reduce adversarial vulnerability by avoiding fitting noisy training
data.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Robust training avoids memorisation of rare examples}
\label{sec:robust-avoid-mem}
Robust training methods like AT~\citep{madry2018towards} and
TRADES~\citep{Zhang2019} are commonly used data-augmentation based techniques to
increase the adversarial robustness of deep neural networks. However, it has been
pointed out that this comes at a cost to clean
accuracy~\citep{Raghunathan2019,tsipras2018robustness}. When trained with these
methods, both the training and test accuracy (on clean data) for commonly used
deep learning models drops with increasing strength of the PGD adversary used in
the adversarial training~(see~\Cref{tab:accs-robust-models}). In this section, we
provide evidence to show that robust training avoids memorisation of label
noise and this also results in the drop of clean train and test accuracy. Before
going further, we will first describe how we measure memorisation and related
concepts. We borrow these two concepts from~\citet{Zhang2020} who measure the
label memorisation phenomenon using two related measures: {\em memorisation} and
{\em influence}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|ccc|}\toprule
$\epsilon$&Train-Acc.~($\%$)&Test-Acc~($\%$)\\\midrule
0.0&99.98&95.25\\
0.25&97.23&92.77\\
1.0&86.03&81.62\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Robust Training decreases clean train and test
accuracies]{Train and Test Accuracies on Clean Dataset for
ResNet-50 models trained using $\ell_2$ adversaries}
\label{tab:accs-robust-models}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Memorisation or Self-Influence:} Self influence of an example
$\br{\vec{x}_i,y_i}$ for a dataset $\cS$ and learning algorithm
$\cA$~(including model, optimiser etc) can be defined as how unlikely it is for
the model learnt by $\cA$ to be correct on $\br{\vec{x}_i,y_i}$ if the training
dataset $\cS$ does not contain $\br{\vec{x}_i,y_i}$ compared to if $\cS$
contains $\br{\vec{x}_i,y_i}$. It can be formalised as follows which is
borrowed from Eq~(1) in~\citet{Zhang2020}
Memorisation by $\cA$ on example $(x_i,y_i) \in \cS$ is measured as
\[{\mathrm{mem}(\cA,\cS,i) := \bP_{h\sim \cA(\cS)}[h(x_i) = y_i] -
\bP_{h\sim \cA(\cS^{\setminus i})}[h(x_i) = y_i]}\]
where $\cS^{\setminus i}$ denotes the dataset $\cS$ with $(x_i,y_i)$ removed,
$h\sim \cA(\cS)$ denotes the model $h$ obtained by training using
algorithm $\cA$~(which includes the model architecture) on the dataset $\cS$ and
the probability is taken over the randomisation inherent in the training
algorithm $\cA$.
\paragraph{Influence of a training example on a test example:} Given a training
example $\br{\vec{x}_i, y_i}$, a test example $\br{\vec{x}'_j,y'_j}$, a training
dataset $\cS$ and a learning algorithm $\cA$, the influence of $\br{\vec{x}_i,
y_i}$ on $\br{\vec{x}'_j,y'_j}$ measures the probability that
$\br{\vec{x}'_j,y'_j}$ would be classified correctly if the training set $\cS$
does not contain $\br{\vec{x}_i, y_i}$ compared to if it does. This can be
defined as follows which is borrowed from Eq 2 in~\citet{Zhang2020}. Using a
similar notation as memorisation, the influence of $(x_i, y_i)$ on $(x'_j,y'_j)$
for the learning algorithm $\cA$ with training dataset $\cS$ can be measured as
\[\mathrm{infl}(\cA,\cS,(x_i,y_i),(x'_j,y'_j)) := \bP_{h\sim
\cA(\cS)}[h(x'_j) = y'_j] -
\bP_{h\sim \cA(\cS^{\setminus i})}[h(x'_j) = y'_j]\]
\paragraph{Robust training ignores label noise}
~\Cref{fig:mislabelled_ds} shows that label noise is not uncommon in standard
datasets like MNIST and CIFAR10. In fact, upon closely monitoring the
misclassified training set examples for both~\AT and TRADES, we found that
neither AT nor TRADES predicts correctly on the training set labels for any of
the examples identified in~\Cref{fig:mislabelled_ds}, all examples that have a
wrong label in the training set, whereas natural training does. Thus, in line
with~\Cref{thm:inf-label}, robust training methods ignore fitting noisy labels.
We also observe this in a synthetic experiment on the full MNIST dataset where
we assigned random labels to 15\% of the dataset. A naturally trained CNN model
achieved $100\%$ train accuracy on this dataset whereas an adversarially trained
model~(standard setting with $\epsilon=0.3$ for $30$ steps) misclassified $997$
examples in the training set after the same training regime. Out of these $997$
samples, $994$ examples belonged to that \(15\%\) of the examples that were
mislabelled in the dataset.
\paragraph{Robust training ignores rare examples}
Certain examples in the training set belong to rare sub-populations~(eg. a
special kind of cat) and this sub-population is sufficiently distinct from the
rest of the examples of that class in the training dataset~(other cats in the
dataset). Next, we show that though ignoring rare samples possibly helps in
adversarial robustness, it hurts the natural test accuracy. We hypothesise
that one of the effects of robust training is to not \emph{memorise rare
examples}, which would otherwise be memorised by a naturally trained model.
As~\citet{Feldman2019} points out,\emph{ if these sub-populations are very
infrequent in the training dataset, they are indistinguishable from data points
with label noise with the difference being that examples from that
sub-population are also present in the test-set}. Natural training by
\emph{memorising} those rare training examples reduces the test error on the
corresponding test examples. Robust training, by not memorising these rare
samples~(and label noise), achieves better robustness but sacrifices the test
accuracy on the test examples corresponding to those training points.
\paragraph{Experiments on MNIST, CIFAR10, and ImageNet} We visually demonstrate
this effect in~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class} with examples from CIFAR10,
MNIST, and ImageNet and then provide more statistical evidence using the notions
of memorisation score and influence~\citep{Zhang2020}
in~\Cref{fig:infl-cifar10-mem}. Each pair of images contains a
misclassified~(by robustly trained models) test image and the misclassified
training image ``responsible'' for it.
Importantly both of
these images were correctly classified by a naturally trained
model. Visually, it is evident that the training images are
extremely similar to the corresponding test image. Inspecting the
rest of the training set, they are also very different from other
images in the training set. We can thus refer to these as rare
sub-populations.
We found the images in~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class} by manually searching
for each test image, the training image that is misclassified and is visually
close to it. Our search space was shortened with the help of the influence
scores of each training image on the test image. We searched in the set of
top-$10$ most influential misclassified train images for each misclassified
test image. The model used for~\cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class} is a) an \AT
ResNet50 model for CIFAR10 with $\ell_2$-adversary with an $\epsilon=0.25$, b)
a model trained with TRADES for MNIST with $\lambda=\frac{1}{6}$ and
$\epsilon=0.3$, and c) and \AT ResNet50 model for Imagenet with $\ell_2$
adversary with $\epsilon=3.0$. ~\citet{Zhang2020} provided us the with the
memorisation scores for each image in CIFAR10 as well as the influence score of
each training image on each test image for each class in CIFAR-10. High
Influence pairs of Imagenet were obtained
from~\url{https://pluskid.github.io/influence-memorization/}. This was used to
obtain the figures for the Imagenet dataset
in~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.53\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/ostrich.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/water_birds.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/wheat_bird.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/cat_eye.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/b54.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/wheel_truck.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/red_truck.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/eye_deer.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/yellow_cat.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/boeing.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/green_wall_cat.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/water_deer.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption*{CIFAR10}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te_mnist.pdf_tex}
\caption*{MNIST}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_1_lbl_6_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_82_lbl_199_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_161_lbl_419_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_173_lbl_439_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_193_lbl_480_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_207_lbl_506_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_404_lbl_823_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_411_lbl_828_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_444_lbl_859_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_441_lbl_855_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_304_lbl_697_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_346_lbl_751_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption*{ImageNet}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Adversarial Training Ignores High Influence Train-test Pairs]{Each pair is a training~(left)
and test~(right) image misclassified by the adversarially
trained model. They were both correctly classified
by the naturally-trained model.}
\label{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class}
\end{figure}
A precise notion of
measuring if a sample is~\emph{rare} is through the concept of
self-influence or memorisation. Self-influence for a~\emph{rare
example}, that is unlike other examples of that class, will be high as
the rest of the dataset will \emph{not} provide relevant information
that will help the model to
correctly predict on that particular example.
In~\cref{fig:cifar_self_influence}, we show that the self-influence of
training samples that were misclassified by adversarially trained models but
correctly classified by a naturally trained model is higher compared to the
distribution of self-influence on the entire train dataset. In other words, it
means that the self-influence of the training examples misclassified by the
robustly trained models is larger than the average self-influence of ~(all)
examples belonging to that class. This supports our hypothesis that
adversarial training excludes fitting these rare~(or ones that need to be
memorised) samples.
The notion that certain test examples were not classified correctly due to a particular training example not being classified correctly is measured by the
\emph{influence} a training image has on the test image~(c.f. definition 3
in~\citet{Zhang2020}). We obtained the influence of each training image on each
test image for that class from~\citet{Zhang2020} and the training images in
~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class} has a disproportionately higher influence
on the corresponding test image compared to influences of other train-test image
pairs in CIFAR10.
In ~\Cref{fig:infl-cifar10_tr_te_adv}, we show that the influence of training
images are higher on test images that are misclassified by adversarially
trained models as compared to an average test image from the dataset. In other
words, this means that adversarially trained models misclassify test examples
that are being heavily influenced by some particular training example. As we saw
in~\Cref{fig:cifar_self_influence}, AT models do not memorise atypical train
examples; consequently, they misclassify test examples that are heavily
influenced by those atypical train examples~(visualised
in~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class}). This confirms our hypothesis that the
loss in test accuracy of robustly trained models is due to test images that
are~\emph{rare} and thus have a particularly high influence from a training
image.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.7\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_plane.pdf_tex}
\caption*{PLANES}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_car.pdf_tex}
\caption*{CAR}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_bird.pdf_tex}
\caption*{BIRD}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_cat.pdf_tex}
\caption*{CAT}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_deer.pdf_tex}
\caption*{DEER}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_dog.pdf_tex}
\caption*{DOG}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_frog.pdf_tex}
\caption*{FROG}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_horse.pdf_tex}
\caption*{HORSE}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_ship.pdf_tex}
\caption*{SHIP}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_truck.pdf_tex}
\caption*{TRUCK}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Fraction of train points that have a
self-influence greater than $s$ is plotted versus $s$. }
\label{fig:cifar_self_influence}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.29\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_train_test_infl.pdf_tex}
\caption{Distribution of the influence of training point on
all test points compared to the distribution of influence on test
points mis-classified by adversarially trained points. }
\label{fig:infl-cifar10_tr_te_adv}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Adversarial
training ignores high training points with high self-influence]{The blue represents the points misclassified by an
adversarially trained model. The orange represents the distribution
for all points in the dataset~(of the concerned class for CIFAR10).
}
\label{fig:infl-cifar10-mem}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}\todo[color=green]{Comment how any method that does not memorise will suffer from this}
We remark that this behaviour of \AT and TRADES seemingly induces a tradeoff
between natural test error and adversarial error in the presence of label noise.
However, this is under the assumption that the learning algorithm cannot
distinguish between examples with label noise and atypical examples. Our
experiments indicate that \AT and TRADES is unable to distinguish between them.
However, if an algorithm can distinguish between them then this
specific kind of tradeoff should not arise although there might still be
tradeoffs for other reasons.
This drop in test accuracy due to not memorising rare or atypical samples is not
specific to \AT and TRADES but seen in other learning algorithms, that avoid
memorisation, as well. In particular, this has been observed in differentially
private training~\citep{bagdasaryan19} and sparse training~\citep{hooker2019compressed} as well.\todo[color=green]{COmplete
this citation}
\end{remark}
\section{Experimental results on the impact of memorising label noise}
\label{sec:exp-overfit-mislbl}
This section will look at empirical results on synthetic data, inspired
by the theory and on the standard datasets: MNIST~\citep{LBBH:1998} and
CIFAR10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, that shows the impact of memorising label noise on adversarial vulnerability.
\subsection{Memorisation of label noise hurts adversarial accuracy}
\paragraph{Experiments on toy-MNIST}
We design a simple binary classification problem, \emph{toy-MNIST}, and show
that when fitting a complex classifier on a training dataset with label noise,
adversarial vulnerability increases with the amount of label noise and that this
vulnerability is caused by the label noise. The problem is constructed by
selecting two images from MNIST: one ``0'' and one ``1''. Each training/test
example is generated by selecting one of these images and adding i.i.d. Gaussian
noise sampled from $\cN\br{0,\sigma^2}$ for some \(\sigma>0\). We create a
training dataset of $4000$ samples by sampling uniformly from either class.
Finally, $\eta$ fraction of the training data is chosen randomly and its labels
are flipped.
We train a neural network with four fully connected layers followed by a softmax
layer and minimise the cross-entropy loss using an SGD optimiser until the
training error becomes zero. Then, we attack this network with a ~\emph{strong}
$\ell_\infty$ PGD adversary~(discussed
in~\Cref{sec:adv-attack-bg})~\citep{madry2018towards} with
$\epsilon=\frac{64}{255}$ for $400$ steps with a step size of $0.01$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/error_vs_random_01.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/error_vs_random_03.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/error_vs_random_05.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Toy-MNIST , $\epsilon=\frac{64}{255}$}
\label{fig:risk_vs_noise}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/001_20_mnist_mis_adv_risk.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/005_20_mnist_mis_adv_risk.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/01_20_mnist_mis_adv_risk.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Full-MNIST}
\label{fig:mnist_lbl_noise_adv}
\end{subfigure}\vspace{10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/R18_adv_noise.pdf_tex}
\caption{ResNet18~(CIFAR10)}
\label{fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_r18}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/D121_adv_noise.pdf_tex}
\caption{DenseNet121~(CIFAR10)}
\label{fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_d121}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/VGG19_adv_noise.pdf_tex}
\caption{VGG19~(CIFAR10)}
\label{fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_vgg}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Adversarial error increases with label noise]{Adversarial Error
increases with increasing label noise~$\eta$. The shaded region indicates a
$95\%$ confidence interval. The absence of a shaded region indicates that it
is invisible due to low variance.}
\end{figure}
In~\Cref{fig:risk_vs_noise}, we plot the adversarial error, natural test error
and training error as the amount of label noise $(\eta)$ varies, for three
different values of sample variance~($\sigma^2$). For low values of
$\sigma^2$~($\sigma^2=0.1$), the training data from each class are all
concentrated around the same point; as a result, these models are unable to
memorise the label noise and the training error is high. In this case,
over-fitting label noise is impossible and the test error, as well as the
adversarial error, is low. This does not contradict~\Cref{thm:inf-label}, which
requires zero training error on the mislabelled dataset. However, as $\sigma^2$
increases to~$\sigma^2=0.5$, the neural network is flexible enough to use the
``noise component'' to extract features\todo[color=red]{Can we prove it or show evidence in support of this ?} that allow it to memorise label noise
and fit the training data perfectly. This brings the training error down to
zero while causing the test error to increase, and the adversarial error even
more so. This is in line with Theorem~\ref{thm:inf-label}. \begin{remark} The
case when $\sigma^2=0.3$ is particularly interesting; when the label noise is
low and the training error is high, there is no overfitting and the test error
and the adversarial error is zero. When the network starts memorising label
noise~(i.e. train error gets lesser than label noise), test error remains
very low but adversarial error increases rapidly. \end{remark}
\paragraph{Experiments on the full MNIST and CIFAR10 dataset}
We perform a similar experiment on the full MNIST dataset trained on a 4-layered
Convolutional Neural Network. The model architecture consists of four
convolutional layers, followed by two fully connected layers. The first four
convolutional layers have $32,64, 128$, and $256$ output filters with kernels of width $3,4,3,$ and $3$ respectively. The two fully connected
layers have a width of $1024$. The network is optimised with SGD with a batch
size of $128$ and an initial learning rate of $0.1$ for a total of $60$ epochs.
The learning rate is decreased to $0.01$ after $50$ epochs. For varying values
of $\eta$, we assign a uniformly randomly label to a randomly chosen $\eta$
fraction of the training data. We compute the natural test accuracy and the
adversarial test accuracy on a clean test-set with no label noise for when the
network is attacked with an $\ell_\infty$ bounded PGD adversary for varying
perturbation budget $\epsilon$, with a step size of $0.01$ and for $20$ steps
and plot the results in~\Cref{fig:mnist_lbl_noise_adv}. We repeat the same
experiment for CIFAR10 with a DenseNet121~\citep{HZWV:2017},
ResNet18~\citep{HZRS:2016}, and VGG19~\citep{simonyan2014very} to test the
phenomenon across multiple state-of-the-art architectures and plot the results
in~\Cref{fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_r18,fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_d121,fig:risk_vs_noise_cifar10_vgg}.
Please refer to~\Cref{sec:expr-settings} for more details on the architectures
and datasets. The results on both datasets show that the effect of over-fitting
label noise on adversarial error is even more clearly visible here; for the
same PGD adversary, the adversarial error jumps upwards sharply with increasing
label noise, while the growth of natural test error is much slower. This
confirms the hypothesis that benign overfitting may not be so benign when it
comes to adversarial error.
\subsection{Representations of label noise and adversarial examples}
For the toy-MNIST problem, we plot a 2-d projection~(using PCA) of the learned
representations~(activations before the last layer) at various stages of
training in~\Cref{fig:represen}. We remark that the simplicity of the data model
ensures that even a 1-d PCA projection suffices to perfectly separate the
classes when there is no label noise; however, the representations learned by a
neural network in the presence of noise may be very different! We highlight two
key observations:
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.15\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/legend_representation.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.8\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/representation.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Representation of mislabelled and adversarial examples]{Two dimensional PCA projections of the original correctly
labelled~(blue and orange), original mislabelled~(green and red),
and adversarial examples~(purple and brown) at different stages of
training. The correct label for~\emph{True 0}~(blue),~\emph{Noisy 0}~(green),~\emph{Adv
0}~(purple +) are the same i.e. 0 and similar for the other class.}
\label{fig:represen}
\end{figure}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The bulk of adversarial examples~(``$+$''-es) are
concentrated around the mislabeled training data~(``$\circ$''-es) of the
opposite class. For example, the purple $+$-es~(Adversarially
perturbed: True: 0, Pred:1 ) are very close to the green
$\circ$-es~(Mislabelled: True:0, Pred: 1). This provides empirical
validation for the hypothesis that if
there is a mislabeled data point in the vicinity that has been fit by the
model, an adversarial example is created by moving towards that data point
as predicted by~\Cref{thm:inf-label}.
\item The mislabeled training data take longer to be fit by the classifier.
For example, by iteration 20, the network learns a fairly good representation
and classification boundary that correctly fits the clean training data (but not
the noisy training data). At this stage, the number of adversarial examples is
much lower as compared to Iteration 160, by which point the network has
completely fit the noisy training data. Thus early stopping helps in avoiding
\emph{memorising} the label noise, and consequently also reduces adversarial
vulnerability. Early stopping has indeed been used as a defence in quite a few
recent papers in the context of adversarial
robustness~\citep{Wong2020Fast,hendrycks2019pretraining}, as well as learning in
the presence of label-noise~\citep{Li2019}. Our work shows \emph{why} early
stopping may reduce adversarial vulnerability by avoiding fitting noisy training
data.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Robust training avoids memorisation of rare examples}
\label{sec:robust-avoid-mem}
Robust training methods like AT~\citep{madry2018towards} and
TRADES~\citep{Zhang2019} are commonly used data-augmentation based techniques to
increase the adversarial robustness of deep neural networks. However, it has been
pointed out that this comes at a cost to clean
accuracy~\citep{Raghunathan2019,tsipras2018robustness}. When trained with these
methods, both the training and test accuracy (on clean data) for commonly used
deep learning models drops with increasing strength of the PGD adversary used in
the adversarial training~(see~\Cref{tab:accs-robust-models}). In this section, we
provide evidence to show that robust training avoids memorisation of label
noise and this also results in the drop of clean train and test accuracy. Before
going further, we will first describe how we measure memorisation and related
concepts. We borrow these two concepts from~\citet{Zhang2020} who measure the
label memorisation phenomenon using two related measures: {\em memorisation} and
{\em influence}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|ccc|}\toprule
$\epsilon$&Train-Acc.~($\%$)&Test-Acc~($\%$)\\\midrule
0.0&99.98&95.25\\
0.25&97.23&92.77\\
1.0&86.03&81.62\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Robust Training decreases clean train and test
accuracies]{Train and Test Accuracies on Clean Dataset for
ResNet-50 models trained using $\ell_2$ adversaries}
\label{tab:accs-robust-models}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Memorisation or Self-Influence:} Self influence of an example
$\br{\vec{x}_i,y_i}$ for a dataset $\cS$ and learning algorithm
$\cA$~(including model, optimiser etc) can be defined as how unlikely it is for
the model learnt by $\cA$ to be correct on $\br{\vec{x}_i,y_i}$ if the training
dataset $\cS$ does not contain $\br{\vec{x}_i,y_i}$ compared to if $\cS$
contains $\br{\vec{x}_i,y_i}$. It can be formalised as follows which is
borrowed from Eq~(1) in~\citet{Zhang2020}
Memorisation by $\cA$ on example $(x_i,y_i) \in \cS$ is measured as
\[{\mathrm{mem}(\cA,\cS,i) := \bP_{h\sim \cA(\cS)}[h(x_i) = y_i] -
\bP_{h\sim \cA(\cS^{\setminus i})}[h(x_i) = y_i]}\]
where $\cS^{\setminus i}$ denotes the dataset $\cS$ with $(x_i,y_i)$ removed,
$h\sim \cA(\cS)$ denotes the model $h$ obtained by training using
algorithm $\cA$~(which includes the model architecture) on the dataset $\cS$ and
the probability is taken over the randomisation inherent in the training
algorithm $\cA$.
\paragraph{Influence of a training example on a test example:} Given a training
example $\br{\vec{x}_i, y_i}$, a test example $\br{\vec{x}'_j,y'_j}$, a training
dataset $\cS$ and a learning algorithm $\cA$, the influence of $\br{\vec{x}_i,
y_i}$ on $\br{\vec{x}'_j,y'_j}$ measures the probability that
$\br{\vec{x}'_j,y'_j}$ would be classified correctly if the training set $\cS$
does not contain $\br{\vec{x}_i, y_i}$ compared to if it does. This can be
defined as follows which is borrowed from Eq 2 in~\citet{Zhang2020}. Using a
similar notation as memorisation, the influence of $(x_i, y_i)$ on $(x'_j,y'_j)$
for the learning algorithm $\cA$ with training dataset $\cS$ can be measured as
\[\mathrm{infl}(\cA,\cS,(x_i,y_i),(x'_j,y'_j)) := \bP_{h\sim
\cA(\cS)}[h(x'_j) = y'_j] -
\bP_{h\sim \cA(\cS^{\setminus i})}[h(x'_j) = y'_j]\]
\paragraph{Robust training ignores label noise}
~\Cref{fig:mislabelled_ds} shows that label noise is not uncommon in standard
datasets like MNIST and CIFAR10. In fact, upon closely monitoring the
misclassified training set examples for both~\AT and TRADES, we found that
neither AT nor TRADES predicts correctly on the training set labels for any of
the examples identified in~\Cref{fig:mislabelled_ds}, all examples that have a
wrong label in the training set, whereas natural training does. Thus, in line
with~\Cref{thm:inf-label}, robust training methods ignore fitting noisy labels.
We also observe this in a synthetic experiment on the full MNIST dataset where
we assigned random labels to 15\% of the dataset. A naturally trained CNN model
achieved $100\%$ train accuracy on this dataset whereas an adversarially trained
model~(standard setting with $\epsilon=0.3$ for $30$ steps) misclassified $997$
examples in the training set after the same training regime. Out of these $997$
samples, $994$ examples belonged to that \(15\%\) of the examples that were
mislabelled in the dataset.
\paragraph{Robust training ignores rare examples}
Certain examples in the training set belong to rare sub-populations~(eg. a
special kind of cat) and this sub-population is sufficiently distinct from the
rest of the examples of that class in the training dataset~(other cats in the
dataset). Next, we show that though ignoring rare samples possibly helps in
adversarial robustness, it hurts the natural test accuracy. We hypothesise
that one of the effects of robust training is to not \emph{memorise rare
examples}, which would otherwise be memorised by a naturally trained model.
As~\citet{Feldman2019} points out,\emph{ if these sub-populations are very
infrequent in the training dataset, they are indistinguishable from data points
with label noise with the difference being that examples from that
sub-population are also present in the test-set}. Natural training by
\emph{memorising} those rare training examples reduces the test error on the
corresponding test examples. Robust training, by not memorising these rare
samples~(and label noise), achieves better robustness but sacrifices the test
accuracy on the test examples corresponding to those training points.
\paragraph{Experiments on MNIST, CIFAR10, and ImageNet} We visually demonstrate
this effect in~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class} with examples from CIFAR10,
MNIST, and ImageNet and then provide more statistical evidence using the notions
of memorisation score and influence~\citep{Zhang2020}
in~\Cref{fig:infl-cifar10-mem}. Each pair of images contains a
misclassified~(by robustly trained models) test image and the misclassified
training image ``responsible'' for it.
Importantly both of
these images were correctly classified by a naturally trained
model. Visually, it is evident that the training images are
extremely similar to the corresponding test image. Inspecting the
rest of the training set, they are also very different from other
images in the training set. We can thus refer to these as rare
sub-populations.
We found the images in~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class} by manually searching
for each test image, the training image that is misclassified and is visually
close to it. Our search space was shortened with the help of the influence
scores of each training image on the test image. We searched in the set of
top-$10$ most influential misclassified train images for each misclassified
test image. The model used for~\cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class} is a) an \AT
ResNet50 model for CIFAR10 with $\ell_2$-adversary with an $\epsilon=0.25$, b)
a model trained with TRADES for MNIST with $\lambda=\frac{1}{6}$ and
$\epsilon=0.3$, and c) and \AT ResNet50 model for Imagenet with $\ell_2$
adversary with $\epsilon=3.0$. ~\citet{Zhang2020} provided us the with the
memorisation scores for each image in CIFAR10 as well as the influence score of
each training image on each test image for each class in CIFAR-10. High
Influence pairs of Imagenet were obtained
from~\url{https://pluskid.github.io/influence-memorization/}. This was used to
obtain the figures for the Imagenet dataset
in~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.53\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/ostrich.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/water_birds.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/wheat_bird.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/cat_eye.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/b54.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/wheel_truck.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/red_truck.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/eye_deer.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/yellow_cat.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/boeing.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/green_wall_cat.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te/water_deer.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption*{CIFAR10}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_mis_tr_te_mnist.pdf_tex}
\caption*{MNIST}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_1_lbl_6_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_82_lbl_199_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_161_lbl_419_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_173_lbl_439_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_193_lbl_480_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_207_lbl_506_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_404_lbl_823_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_411_lbl_828_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_444_lbl_859_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_441_lbl_855_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_304_lbl_697_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.16\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/imagenet_high_inf/high_infl_346_lbl_751_cropped.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption*{ImageNet}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Adversarial Training Ignores High Influence Train-test Pairs]{Each pair is a training~(left)
and test~(right) image misclassified by the adversarially
trained model. They were both correctly classified
by the naturally-trained model.}
\label{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class}
\end{figure}
A precise notion of
measuring if a sample is~\emph{rare} is through the concept of
self-influence or memorisation. Self-influence for a~\emph{rare
example}, that is unlike other examples of that class, will be high as
the rest of the dataset will \emph{not} provide relevant information
that will help the model to
correctly predict on that particular example.
In~\cref{fig:cifar_self_influence}, we show that the self-influence of
training samples that were misclassified by adversarially trained models but
correctly classified by a naturally trained model is higher compared to the
distribution of self-influence on the entire train dataset. In other words, it
means that the self-influence of the training examples misclassified by the
robustly trained models is larger than the average self-influence of ~(all)
examples belonging to that class. This supports our hypothesis that
adversarial training excludes fitting these rare~(or ones that need to be
memorised) samples.
The notion that certain test examples were not classified correctly due to a particular training example not being classified correctly is measured by the
\emph{influence} a training image has on the test image~(c.f. definition 3
in~\citet{Zhang2020}). We obtained the influence of each training image on each
test image for that class from~\citet{Zhang2020} and the training images in
~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class} has a disproportionately higher influence
on the corresponding test image compared to influences of other train-test image
pairs in CIFAR10.
In ~\Cref{fig:infl-cifar10_tr_te_adv}, we show that the influence of training
images are higher on test images that are misclassified by adversarially
trained models as compared to an average test image from the dataset. In other
words, this means that adversarially trained models misclassify test examples
that are being heavily influenced by some particular training example. As we saw
in~\Cref{fig:cifar_self_influence}, AT models do not memorise atypical train
examples; consequently, they misclassify test examples that are heavily
influenced by those atypical train examples~(visualised
in~\Cref{fig:adv-train-test-mis-class}). This confirms our hypothesis that the
loss in test accuracy of robustly trained models is due to test images that
are~\emph{rare} and thus have a particularly high influence from a training
image.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.7\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_plane.pdf_tex}
\caption*{PLANES}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_car.pdf_tex}
\caption*{CAR}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_bird.pdf_tex}
\caption*{BIRD}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_cat.pdf_tex}
\caption*{CAT}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_deer.pdf_tex}
\caption*{DEER}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_dog.pdf_tex}
\caption*{DOG}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_frog.pdf_tex}
\caption*{FROG}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_horse.pdf_tex}
\caption*{HORSE}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_ship.pdf_tex}
\caption*{SHIP}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.19\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/self_influence_truck.pdf_tex}
\caption*{TRUCK}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Fraction of train points that have a
self-influence greater than $s$ is plotted versus $s$. }
\label{fig:cifar_self_influence}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.29\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./adv_cause_folder/figures/adv_train_test_infl.pdf_tex}
\caption{Distribution of the influence of training point on
all test points compared to the distribution of influence on test
points mis-classified by adversarially trained points. }
\label{fig:infl-cifar10_tr_te_adv}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Adversarial
training ignores high training points with high self-influence]{The blue represents the points misclassified by an
adversarially trained model. The orange represents the distribution
for all points in the dataset~(of the concerned class for CIFAR10).
}
\label{fig:infl-cifar10-mem}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}\todo[color=green]{Comment how any method that does not memorise will suffer from this}
We remark that this behaviour of \AT and TRADES seemingly induces a tradeoff
between natural test error and adversarial error in the presence of label noise.
However, this is under the assumption that the learning algorithm cannot
distinguish between examples with label noise and atypical examples. Our
experiments indicate that \AT and TRADES is unable to distinguish between them.
However, if an algorithm can distinguish between them then this
specific kind of tradeoff should not arise although there might still be
tradeoffs for other reasons.
This drop in test accuracy due to not memorising rare or atypical samples is not
specific to \AT and TRADES but seen in other learning algorithms, that avoid
memorisation, as well. In particular, this has been observed in differentially
private training~\citep{bagdasaryan19} and sparse training~\citep{hooker2019compressed} as well.\todo[color=green]{COmplete
this citation}
\end{remark}
\section{Proofs for~\Cref{sec:repr-learn-no-lbl-noise}}
\label{sec:proof-22}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{thm:parity_robust_repre_all}]
We define a family of distribution $\cD$, such that each
distribution in $\cD$ is supported on balls of radius $r$ around
$\br{i,i}$ and $\br{i+1,i}$ for positive integers $i$. Either all the balls around
$\br{i,i}$ have the labels $1$ and the balls around $\br{i+1,i}$ have
the label $0$ or vice versa. ~\cref{fig:complex_simple} shows an
example where the colours indicate the label.
Formally, for $r>0$,
$k\in\bZ_+$, the $\br{r,k}$-1 bit parity class
conditional model is defined over
$\br{x,y}\in\reals^2\times\bc{0,1}$ as follows. First, a label $y$
is sampled uniformly from $\bc{0,1}$, then and integer $i$ is
sampled uniformly from the set $\bc{1,\cdots,k}$ and finally
$\vec{x}$ is generated by sampling uniformly from the $\ell_2$
ball of radius $r$ around $\br{i+y,i}$.
In~\Cref{thm:linear_parity_all} we first show that a set of $m$
points sampled iid from any distribution as defined above for
$r<\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}$ is with probability $1$ linear separable
for any $m$. In addition, standard VC bounds show that any linear classifier that
separates $S_{m}$ for large enough $m$ will have
small test error.~\Cref{thm:linear_parity_all} also proves that
there exists a range of $\gamma,r$ such that for any distribution
defined with $r$ in that range, though it is possible to obtain a
linear classifier with $0$ training and test error, the minimum
adversarial risk will be bounded away from $0$.
However, while it is possible to obtain a linear classifier with $0$ test
error, all such linear classifiers has a large adversarial vulnerability.
In~\Cref{thm:parity_robust}, we show that there exists a different
representation for this problem, which also achieves zero training and
test error, and in addition has zero adversarial risk for a range of \(r\)
and \(\gamma\) where the linear classifier's adversarial error was at
least a non-zero positive constant.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Robustness of Linear Classifier]
\label{thm:linear_parity_all}
There exists universal constants $\gamma_0,\rho$, such
that for any perturbation $\gamma>\gamma_0$,
radius $r\ge\rho$, and $k\in\bZ_+$, the following holds. Let $\cD$ be the family of $\br{r,k}$-
1-bit parity class conditional model, $\cP\in\cD$ and
$\cS_n=\bc{\br{\vec{x}_1,y_1},\cdots,\br{\vec{x}_n,y_1}}$ be a set
of $n$ points sampled i.i.d. from
$\cP$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1)] For any $n>0$, $S_n$ is linearly separable with probability $1$
i.e. there exists a $h:\br{\vec{w},w_0}$,
$\vec{w}\in\reals^2,w_0\in\reals$ such that the linear hyperplane
$\vec{x}\rightarrow\vec{w}^\top\vec{x}+w_0$ separates $\cS_n$ with
probability $1$:
\[\forall \br{\vec{x},y}\in\cS_n\quad
z\br{\vec{w}^\top\vec{x}+w_0}>0\quad\text{where}~ z=2y-1\]
\item[2)] Further there exists an universal constant $c$ such that for
any $\epsilon,\delta>0$ with
probability $1-\delta$ for any $\cS_n$ with
$n=c\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\log\frac{1}{\delta}$, any linear classifier
$\tilde{h}$ that separates $\cS_n$ has
$\risk{\cP}{\tilde{h}}\le\epsilon$.
\item [3)] Let $h:\br{\vec{w},w_0}$ be any linear classifier that has
$\risk{\cP_P}{h}=0$. Then, $\radv{\gamma}{h;\cP}>0.0005$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
We will prove the first part for any $r<\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}$ by
constructing a $\vec{w},w_0$ such that it
satisfies the constraints of linear separability. Let
$\vec{w}=\br{1,-1},~w_0=-0.5$. Consider any point
$\br{\vec{x},y}\in\cS_n$ and $z=2y-1$. Converting to the polar coordinate system
there exists a $\theta\in\bs{0,2\pi},j\in\bs{0,\cdots,k}$ such that
$\vec{x}=\br{j+\frac{z+1}{2}+r\mathrm{cos}\br{\theta},j+r\mathrm{sin}\br{\theta}}$
\begin{align*}
z\br{\vec{w}^\top\vec{x}+w_0}&=z\br{j+\frac{z+1}{2}+r\mathrm{cos}\br{\theta}-j
- r\mathrm{sin}\br{\theta}-
0.5}&&\vec{w}=\br{1,-1}^\top\\
&=z\br{\frac{z}{2}+0.5+r\mathrm{cos}\br{\theta} -
r\mathrm{sin}\br{\theta}-0.5}\\
&=\frac{1}{2} +
zr\br{\mathrm{cos}\br{\theta}-\mathrm{sin}\br{\theta}}&&\abs{\mathrm{cos}\br{\theta}-\mathrm{sin}\br{\theta}}<\sqrt{2}\\
&>\frac{1}{2} - r\sqrt{2}\\
&>0 &&r<\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}
\end{align*}
Part 2 follows from a simple application of VC bounds for linear
classifiers.
Let the universal constants $\gamma_0,\rho$ be $0.02$ and
$\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}-0.008$ respectively. Note that there is nothing special
about this constants except that \emph{some} constant is required to bound the
adversarial risk away from $0$. Now, consider a distribution $\cP$ 1-bit
parity model where the radius of each ball is at least $\rho$. This is smaller
than $\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}$ and thus satisfies the linear separability
criterion.
Consider $h$ to be a hyper-plane that has $0$ test error. Let the
$\ell_2$ radius of adversarial perturbation be
$\gamma>\gamma_0$. The region of each circle that will be vulnerable
to the attack will be a circular segment with the chord of the
segment parallel to the hyper-plane. Let the minimum height of
all such circular segments be $r_0$. Thus,
$\radv{\gamma}{h;\cP}$ is greater than the mass of the circular
segment of radius $r_0$. Let the radius of each ball in the support
of $\cP$ be $r$.
Using the fact that $h$ has zero test error; and thus classifies the
balls in the support of $\cP$ correctly and simple geometry
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}&\ge r +\br{\gamma-r_0}+r\nonumber\\
r_0&\ge 2r + \gamma- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\label{eq:radii}
\end{align}
To compute
$\radv{\gamma}{h;\cP}$ we need to compute the ratio of the area of a circular
segment of height $r_0$ of a circle of radius $r$ to the area of the
circle. The ratio can be written
\begin{align}\label{eq:circ-seg}
A\br{\frac{r_0}{r}} =\frac{{cos}^{-1}\br{1-\frac{r_0}{r}} - \br{1 -
\frac{r_0}{r}}\sqrt{2\frac{r_0}{r} - \frac{r_0^2}{r^2}}}{\pi}
\end{align}
As~\Cref{eq:circ-seg} is increasing with $\frac{r_0}{r}$, we can evaluate
\begin{align*}\label{eq:c_1_eq}
\frac{r_0}{r}&\ge\frac{2r - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\gamma}{r}&&\text{Using}~\Cref{eq:radii}\\
&\ge 2 - \frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}-0.02}{r}&&\gamma
>\gamma_0
= 0.02\\
&\ge 2 -
\frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}-0.02}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}-0.008}>0.01&&r>\rho=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}-0.008
\end{align*}
Substituting $\frac{r_0}{r}>0.01$ into Eq.~\Cref{eq:circ-seg}, we
get that $A\br{\frac{r_0}{r}}>0.0005$. Thus, for all
$\gamma>0.02$, we have $\radv{\gamma}{h;\cP}>0.0005$.
\begin{lem}[Robustness of parity
classifier]
\label{thm:parity_robust}
There exists a concept class $\cH$ such that for any
$\gamma\in\bs{\gamma_0,\gamma_0+\frac{1}{8}}$,
$k\in\bZ_+$, $\cP$ being the
corresponding $\br{\rho,k}$ 1-bit parity class distribution where
$\rho,\gamma_0$ are the same as in~\Cref{thm:linear_parity_all} there
exists $g\in\cH$ such that
\[\risk{\cP}{g} = 0\qquad\radv{\gamma}{g;\cP}=0\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{thm:parity_robust}]
We will again provide a proof by construction. Consider the
following class of concepts $\cH$ such that $g_b\in\cH$ is defined
as \begin{equation}
\label{eq:2}
g\br{\br{x_1,x_2}^\top}=\begin{cases}
1&\text{if} \bs{x_1}+\bs{x_2} =b \br{\text{mod 2}}\\
1-b &\text{o.w.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation} where $\bs{x}$ rounds $x$ to the nearest integer and
$b\in\bc{0,1}$. In~\Cref{fig:complex_simple}, the
green staircase-like classifier belongs to this class. Consider the
classifier $g_1$. Note that by construction $\risk{\cP}{g_1}=0$. The
decision boundary of $g_1$ that are closest to a ball in the support
of $\cP$ centred at $\br{a,b}$ are the lines $x=a\pm 0.5$ and
$y=b\pm 0.5$.
As $\gamma<\gamma_0 + \frac{1}{8}$, the adversarial perturbation is
upper bounded by $\frac{1}{50} + \frac{1}{8}$. The radius of
the ball is upper bounded by $\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}$, and as we noted
the center of the ball is at a distance of $0.5$ from the decision
boundary. If the sum of the maximum adversarial perturbation and the
maximum radius of the ball is less than the minimum distance of the
center of the ball from the decision boundary, then the adversarial
error is $0$. Substituting the values, \[\frac{1}{50} +
\frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}
< 0.499 <\frac{1}{2} \]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs for~\Cref{sec:repr-theorey-lbl-noise}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{thm:repre-par-inter}]
We will provide a constructive proof to this theorem by
constructing a distribution $\cD$, two concept classes~$\cC$ and $\cH$
and provide the ERM algorithms to learn the concepts and then
use~\Cref{lem:parity_repre,lem:uni_int_repre} to complete the proof.
\textbf{Distribution:} Consider the family of distribution $\cD^n$
such that $\cD_{S,\zeta}\in\cD^n$ is defined on $\cX_\zeta\times\bc{0,1}$ for
$S\subseteq\bc{1,\cdots,n},\zeta\subseteq\bc{1,\cdots,2^n-1}$ such that the support of $\cX_\zeta$ is a union of
intervals.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dist_union_int}
\mathrm{supp}\br{\cX}_\zeta=\bigcup_{j\in\zeta}I_j\text{ where }
I_j:=\br{j-\frac{1}{4}, j+\frac{1}{4}}
\end{equation}
We consider distributions with a relatively small
support i.e. where $\abs{\zeta}=\bigO{n}$. Each sample $\br{\vec{x},y}~\sim\cD_{S,\zeta}$ is created by sampling
$\vec{x}$ uniformly from $\cX_\zeta$ and assigning $y=c_S\br{\vec{x}}$ where
$c_S\in\cC$ is defined below~(\cref{eq:parity_concept}). We define the
family of distributions $\cD =
\bigcup_{n\in\bZ_+}\cD^n$. Finally, we create
$\cD_{S,\zeta}^\eta$ -a noisy version of $\cD_{S,\zeta}$, by flipping $y$ in each sample
$\br{x,y}$ with probability $\eta<\frac{1}{2}$. Samples from
$\cD_{S,\zeta}$ can be obtained using the example oracle
$\mathrm{EX}\br{\cD_{S,\zeta}}$ and samples from the noisy
distribution can be obtained through the noisy oracle $\mathrm{EX}^\eta\br{\cD_{S,\zeta}}$
\textbf{Concept Class $\cC$:} We define the concept class $\cC^n$ of concepts
$c_S:\bs{0,2^n}\rightarrow
\bc{0,1}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:parity_concept}
c_S\br{\vec{x}}=\begin{cases}
1,
&\text{if}\br{\langle\bs{\vec{x}}\rangle_b~\mathrm{XOR}~S}~\text{
is odd.}\\
0 &~\text{o.w.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\bs{\cdot}:\reals\rightarrow\bZ$ rounds a decimal
to its nearest
integer,~$\langle\cdot\rangle_b:\bc{0,\cdots,2^n}\rightarrow\bc{0,1}^n$
returns the binary encoding of the integer,~and
$\br{\langle\bs{\vec{x}}\rangle_b~\textrm{XOR}~S} = \sum_{j\in S}
\langle\bs{x}\rangle_b\bs{j}~\textrm{mod}~2$. $\langle\bs{x}\rangle_b\bs{j}$
is the $j^{\it th}$ least significant bit in the binary encoding of
the nearest integer to $\vec{x}$. It is essentially the
class of parity functions defined on the bits corresponding to the
indices in $S$ for the binary
encoding of the nearest integer to $\vec{x}$. For example, as
in~\Cref{fig:thm-3} if $S = \{0, 2\}$, then only the least significant and
the third least significant bit of $i$ are examined and the class label is
$1$ if an odd number of them are $1$ and $0$ otherwise.
\textbf{Concept Class $\cH$:} Finally, we define the concept class
$\cH=\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty\cH_k$ where $\cH_k$ is the class of union of
$k$ intervals on the real line $\cH^k$. Each concept $h_I\in\cH^k$
can be written as a set of $k$ disjoint intervals
$I=\bc{I_1,\cdots,I_k}$ on the real line i.e. for $1\le j\le k$,
$I_j=\bs{a,b}$ where $0\le a\le b$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:union_int-defn_class}
h_I\br{\vec{x}} =\begin{cases}
1&\text{if}~\vec{x}\in\bigcup_j I_j\\
0&\text{o.w.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Now, we look at the algorithms to learn the concepts from $\cC$ and
$\cH$ that minimise the train error. Both of the algorithms will use a
majority vote to determine the correct~(de-noised) label for each interval, which
will be necessary to minimise the test error. The intuition is that if
we draw a sufficiently large number of samples, then the majority of
samples on each interval will have the correct label with a high
probability.
~\Cref{lem:parity_repre} proves that there exists an algorithm $\cA$
such that $\cA$ draws
$m=\bigO{\abs{\zeta}^2\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}\log{\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}}$
samples from the noisy oracle $\mathrm{EX}^\eta\br{\cD_{s,\zeta}}$ and with probability $1-\delta$
where the probability is over the randomisation in the oracle, returns
$f\in\cC$ such that $\risk{\cD_{S,\zeta}}{f}=0$ and
$\radv{\gamma}{f;\cD_{S,\zeta}}=0$ for all
$\gamma<\frac{1}{4}$. As~\Cref{lem:parity_repre} states, the algorithm
involves gaussian elimination over $\abs{\zeta}$ variables and
$\abs{\zeta}$ majority votes~(one in each interval) involving a total
of $m$ samples. Thus the
algorithm runs in $\bigO{\poly{m}+\poly{\abs{\zeta}}}$ time. Replacing
the complexity of $m$ and the fact that $\abs{\zeta}=\bigO{n}$, the
complexity of the algorithm is
$\bigO{\poly{n,\frac{1}{1-2\eta},
\frac{1}{\delta}}}$.
~\Cref{lem:uni_int_repre} proves that there
exists an algorithm $\widetilde{A}$ such that $\widetilde{A}$ draws \[m>\mathrm{max}\bc{
2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}
\br{8\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}+1},
\frac{0.1\abs{\zeta}}{\eta\gamma^2}
\log\br{\frac{0.1\abs{\zeta}}{\gamma\delta}}}\] samples and returns
$h\in\cH$ such that $h$ has $0$ training error, $0$ test error and an
adversarial test error of at least $0.1$. We can replace $\abs{\zeta} =
\bigO{n}$ to get the required bound on $m$ in the theorem. The
algorithm to construct $h$ visits every point at most twice - once
during the construction of the intervals using majority voting, and
once while accommodating for the mislabelled points. Replacing
the complexity of $m$, the
complexity of the algorithm is $\bigO{\poly{n,\frac{1}{1-2\eta},\frac{1}{\gamma},\frac{1}{\delta}}}$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Parity Concept Class]\label{lem:parity_repre}
There exists a learning algorithm $\cA$ such that given
access to the noisy example oracle
$\mathrm{EX}^\eta\br{\cD_{S,\zeta}}$, $\cA$ makes
$m=\bigO{\abs{\zeta}^2\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}\log{\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}}$
calls to the oracle and returns a
hypothesis $f\in\cC$ such that with probability
$1-\delta$, we have that $\risk{\cD_{S,\zeta}}{f}=0$ and
$\radv{\gamma}{f;\cD_{S,\zeta}}=0$ for all $\gamma<\frac{1}{4}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The algorithm $\cA$ works as follows. It makes $m$ calls to the oracle
$\mathrm{EX}\br{\cD_s^m}$ to obtain a set of
points~$\bc{\br{x_1,y_1},\cdots,\br{x_m,y_m}}$ where
$m\ge 2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}\br{8\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}+1}$
. Then, it replaces each $x_i$ with $\bs{x_i}$~($\bs{\cdot}$ rounds a
decimal to the nearest integer) and then removes duplicate
$x_i$s by preserving the most frequent label $y_i$ associated with each
$x_i$.
For example, if $\cS_5 = \bc{\br{2.8,1}, \br{2.9, 0}, \br{3.1,
1},\br{3.2, 1}, \br{3.9, 0}}$ then after this operation, we will
have $\bc{\br{3,1}, \br{4,0}}$.
As $m\ge 2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}
\br{8\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}+1}$, using
$\delta_2=\frac{\delta}{2}$ and
$k=\frac{8\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}\log\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}$
in
~\Cref{lem:min-wt} guarantees that with probability $1-\frac{\delta}{2}$, each
interval will have at least
$\frac{8\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}\log\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}$
samples.
Then for any specific interval, using
$\delta_1=\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}$ in ~\Cref{lem:majority_lem} guarantees that with
probability at least $1-\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}$, the majority
vote for the label in that interval will succeed in returning
the de-noised label. Applying a union bound~(\Cref{ineq:union-bound}) over all $\abs{\zeta}$ intervals, will
guarantee that with probability at least $1-\delta$, the majority
label of every interval will be the denoised label.
Now, the problem reduces to solving a parity problem on this reduced
dataset of $\abs{\zeta}$ points~(after denoising, all points in that
interval can be reduced to the integer in the interval and the
denoised label). We know that there exists a polynomial
algorithm using Gaussian Elimination that finds a consistent
hypothesis for this problem. We have already guaranteed that there is a
point in $\cS_m$ from every interval in the
support of $\cD_{S,\zeta}$. Further, $f$ is consistent on $\cS_m$ and $f$ is
constant in each of these intervals by design. Thus, with
probability at least $1-\delta$ we have that $\risk{\cD_{S,\zeta}}{f}=0$.
By construction, $f$ makes a constant
prediction on each interval $\br{j-\frac{1}{2},j+\frac{1}{2}}$ for
all $j\in\zeta$. Thus, for any perturbation radius
$\gamma<\frac{1}{4}$ the adversarial risk
$\radv{\cD_{S,\prime{\zeta}}}{f}=0$. Combining everything, we have shown that there is an algorithm
that makes $2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}\br{8\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}+1}$ calls to the
$\mathrm{EX}\br{\cD_{S,\zeta}^\eta}$ oracle, runs in time polynomial in $\abs{\zeta},\frac{1}{1-2\eta},\frac{1}{\delta}$ to return
$f\in\cC$ such that $\risk{\cD_{S,\zeta}}{f}=0$ and
$\radv{\gamma}{f;\cD_{S,\zeta}}=0$ for $\gamma<\frac{1}{4}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Union of Interval Concept Class]\label{lem:uni_int_repre}
There exists a learning algorithm $\widetilde{\cA}$ such that given
access to a noisy example oracle makes
$m=\bigO{\abs{\zeta}^2\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}
\log{\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}}$ calls to the oracle and
returns a hypothesis $h\in\cH$
such that training error is $0$ and with probability
$1-\delta$, $\risk{\cD_{S,\zeta}}{f}=0$.
Further for any $h\in\cH$ that has zero training error on
$m^\prime$ samples drawn from $\mathrm{EX}^\eta\br{\cD_{S,\zeta}}$
for $m^\prime > \frac{\abs{\zeta}}{10\eta\gamma^2}
\log\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{10\gamma\delta}$ and
$\eta\in\br{0,\frac{1}{2}}$ then
$\radv{\gamma}{f;\cD_{S,\zeta}}\ge 0.1$ for all $\gamma>0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{lem:uni_int_repre}]
The first part of the algorithm works similarly
to~\Cref{lem:parity_repre}. The algorithm $\widetilde{\cA}$ makes
$m$ calls to the oracle $\mathrm{EX}\br{\cD_s^m}$ to obtain a set of
points~$\cS_m = \bc{\br{x_1,y_1},\cdots,\br{x_m,y_m}}$ where
$m\ge 2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}
\br{8\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}+1}$. $\widetilde{\cA}$
computes $h\in\cH$ as follows. To begin, let the list of
intervals in $h$ be $I$ and $\cM_z=\bc{}$ Then do the following for every
$\br{x,y}\in\cS_m$.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.5cm,itemsep=0ex]
\item let $z := \bs{x}$,
\item Let $\cN_z\subseteq\cS_m$ be the set of all $\br{x,y}\in\cS_m$ such that
$\abs{x-z}<0.5$.
\item Compute the majority label $\tilde{y}$ of $\cN_z$.
\item Add all $\br{x,y}\in\cN_z$ such that $y\neq \tilde{y}$ to $\cM_z$
\item If $\tilde{y}=1$, then add the interval $(z-0.5,z+0.5)$ to $I$.
\item Remove all elements of $\cN_z$ from $\cS_m$ i.e. $\cS_m:=\cS_m\setminus\cN_z$.
\end{enumerate}
For reasons similar to~\Cref{lem:parity_repre}, as $m\ge
2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}
\br{8\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}+1}$, ~\Cref{lem:min-wt} guarantees
that with probability $1-\frac{\delta}{2}$, each interval will have at least
$\frac{8\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}\log\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}$ samples.
Then for any specific interval, ~\Cref{lem:majority_lem} guarantees that with
probability at least $1-\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}$, the majority vote for
the label in that interval will succeed in returning the de-noised label.
Applying a union bound~(\Cref{ineq:union-bound}) over all intervals, will
guarantee that with probability at least $1-\delta$, the majority label of
every interval will be the denoised label. As each interval in$\zeta$ has at
least one point, all the intervals in $\zeta$ with label $1$ will be
included in $I$ with probability $1-\delta$. Thus,
$\risk{\cD_{S,\zeta}}{h}=0$.
Now, for all $\br{x,y}\in\cM_z$, add the interval $\bs{x}$ to $I$ if
$y=1$. If $y=0$ then $x$ must lie a interval $(a,b)\in
I$. Replace that interval as follows $I:= I\setminus(a,b)\cup
\bc{(a,x),(x,b)}$. As only a finite number of sets with Lebesgue
measure of $0$ were added or deleted
from $I$, the net test error of $h$ doesn't change and is still
$0$ i.e. $\risk{\cD_{S,\zeta}}{h}=0$
For the second part, we will invoke~\Cref{thm:inf-label}. To avoid
confusion in notation, we will use $\Gamma$ instead of $\zeta$ to
refer to the sets in~\Cref{thm:inf-label} and reserve $\zeta$ for
the support of interval of $\cD_{S,\zeta}$. Let $\Gamma$ be any set of
disjoint intervals of width $\frac{\gamma}{2}$ such that $\abs{\Gamma}=
\frac{0.1\abs{\zeta}}{\gamma}$. This is always possible as the total
width of all intervals in $\Gamma$ is $
\frac{0.1\abs{\zeta}}{\gamma}\frac{\gamma}{2} =
0.1\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{2}$ which is less than the total width of the
support $\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{2}$. $c_1,c_2$ from
Eq.~\Cref{eq:balls_density} is \[c_1 =
\bP_{\cD_{S,\zeta}}\bs{\Gamma} =
\frac{2*0.1\abs{\zeta}}{2\abs{\zeta}} = 0.1,\quad
c_2=\frac{2\gamma}{2\abs{\zeta}}\abs{\zeta}=\gamma\]
Thus, if $h$ has an error of zero on a set of $m^\prime$ examples
drawn from $\mathrm{EX}^{\eta}\br{\cD_{S,\zeta}}$ where $m^\prime>
\frac{0.1\abs{\zeta}}{\eta\gamma^2}
\log\br{\frac{0.1\abs{\zeta}}{\gamma\delta}}$, then
by~\Cref{thm:inf-label}, $\radv{\gamma}{h;\cD_{S,\zeta}}>0.1$.
Combining the two parts for \[m>\mathrm{max}\bc{
2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{2\abs{\zeta}}{\delta}}
\br{8\frac{\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}+1},
\frac{0.1\abs{\zeta}}{\eta\gamma^2}
\log\br{\frac{0.1\abs{\zeta}}{\gamma\delta}}}\] it is possible to
obtain $h\in\cH$ such that $h$ has zero training error,
$\risk{h}{\cD_{S,\zeta}}=0$ and $\radv{\gamma}{h;\cD_{S,\zeta}}>0.1$
for any $\gamma>0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:min-wt}
Given $k\in\bZ_+$ and a distribution $\cD_{S,\zeta}$, for any
$\delta_2 > 0$ if
$m>2\abs{\zeta}^2k + 2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{\delta_2}}$ samples are
drawn from $\mathrm{EX}\br{\cD_{S,\zeta}}$ then with probability
at least $1 - \delta_2$ there are at least $k$ samples in each
interval $\br{j-\frac{1}{4},j+\frac{1}{4}}$ for all $j\in\zeta$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{lem:min-wt}]
We will repeat the following procedure $\abs{\zeta}$ times once for
each interval in $\zeta$ and show that with probability
$\frac{\delta}{\abs{\zeta}}$ the $j^{\it{th}}$ run will result in
at least $k$ samples in the $j^{\it th}$ interval.
Corresponding to each interval in $\zeta$, we will sample at least $m^\prime$ samples where $m^\prime=2\abs{\zeta}k +
2\abs{\zeta}\log{\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{\delta_2}}$. If $z_i^j$ is the
random variable that is $1$ when the $i^{\it th}$
sample belongs to the $j^{\it th}$ interval, then $j^{\it th}$
interval has at least $k$ points out of the $m^\prime$ points sampled
for that interval with probability less
than $\frac{\delta_2}{\abs{\zeta}}$.
\begin{align*}
\bP\bs{\sum_i z_{i}^j \le k} &= \bP\bs{\sum_i z_{i}^j \le \br{1 -
\delta}\mu} &&\delta = 1 - \frac{k}{\mu}, \mu = \bE\bs{\sum_i
z_i^j}\\
&\le \exp\br{-\br{1-\frac{k}{\mu}}^2\frac{\mu}{2}} &&\text{By
Chernoff's
inequality~(\Cref{ineq:hoeffding})}\\
&\le
\exp\br{-\br{\frac{m^\prime}{2\abs{\zeta}}-k+\frac{k^2\abs{\zeta}}{2m^\prime}}}
&& \mu=\frac{m^\prime}{\abs{\zeta}}\\
&\le
\exp\br{k-\frac{m^\prime}{2\abs{\zeta}}}\le \frac{\delta_2}{\abs{\zeta}}
\end{align*}\todo[color=green]{Refer to chernoff in app} where the last step follows from $m^\prime>2\abs{\zeta}k +
2\abs{\zeta}\log{\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{\delta_2}}$. With probability
at least $\frac{\delta}{\abs{\zeta}}$, every interval will have
at least $k$ samples. Finally, an union
bound~(\Cref{ineq:union-bound}) over each interval gives the desired result. As we repeat the
process for all $\abs{\zeta}$ intervals, the total
number of samples drawn will be at least $\abs{\zeta}m^\prime =
2\abs{\zeta}^2k + 2\abs{\zeta}^2\log{\frac{\abs{\zeta}}{\delta_2}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Majority Vote]\label{lem:majority_lem}
For a given $y\in\bc{0,1}$, let $S=\bc{s_1,\cdots,s_m}$ be a set of size $m$ where each element is $y$ with
probability $1-\eta$ and $1-y$ otherwise. If
$m>\frac{8\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}\log\frac{1}{\delta_1}$ then with
probability at least $1-\delta_1$ the majority of $S$ is $y$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{lem:majority_lem}]
Without loss of generality let $y=1$. For the majority to be $1$ we
need to show that there are more than $\frac{m}{2}$ ``$1$''s in $S$
i.e. we need to show that the following probability is less than $\delta_1$.
\begin{align*}
\bP\bs{\sum s_i< \frac{m}{2}} &= \bP\bs{\sum s_i <
\frac{m}{2\mu}*\mu +\mu -
\mu}&&\mu = \bE\bs{\sum s_i}\\
&= \bP\bs{\sum s_i < \br{1 - \br{1
- \frac{m}{2\mu}}}\mu}\\
&\le
\exp{\br{-\frac{\br{1-2\eta}^2}{8\br{1-\eta}^2}\mu}}
&&\text{By Chernoff's
Inequality~(\Cref{ineq:hoeffding})}\\
&=\exp{\br{-\frac{\br{1-2\eta}^2}{8\br{1-\eta}}m}}
&&\because \mu=\br{1-\eta}m\\
&\le \delta_1
&&\because m>\frac{8\br{1-\eta}}{\br{1-2\eta}^2}\log{\frac{1}{\delta_1}}
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\chapter{Proofs for~\Cref{sec:math-prer-notat}}
\label{sec:proof-sect-eqrefs}
\clearpage
\section{Proofs for \ref{sec:generalisation}}
\label{sec:proofs-refs-gen}
\input{generalization_proofs}
\clearpage
\subsection*{Convergence graphs of $\vec{G}\vec{G}^\top$}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/bigplot.pdf}
\caption{Results of CNN and RNN experiments. $\vec{G}\vec{G}^\top$ shows faster progress towards the beginning in the case of RNNs and towards the end in CNNs.
}
\label{fig:cnn-rnn}
\end{figure}
\clearpage\subsection{Margin Distributions from~\cite{bartlett2017spectrally}}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{paperplots_3_cifar_mnist-crop.pdf}
\caption{MNIST is easier than CIFAR10.\label{fig:mnist:1}}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{paperplots_3_cifar_mnist_2-crop.pdf}
\caption{Random MNIST is as hard as random CIFAR10!\label{fig:mnist:2}}
\end{subfigure}
\vfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{paperplots_3_cifar100-crop.pdf}
\caption{CIFAR100 is as hard as CIFAR10
with random labels! \label{fig:cifar100} }\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{paperplots_3_rand_input-crop.pdf}
\caption{Random inputs are harder than random labels.\label{fig:randim}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{A variety of margin distributions. Axes are re-scaled in \ref{fig:mnist:1},
but identical in the other subplots;
the CIFAR10 (blue) and random CIFAR10 (green) distributions are the same each time.}
\label{fig:spectral-images}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection*{Normal and Encrypted Prediction As a Service paradigms}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{normal_paas.pdf}
\caption{Prediction As a Service}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{prediction_as_a_service.pdf}
\caption{Prediction As a Service}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Normal and Encrypted Prediction As a Service}
\label{fig:paas-epaas}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Adversarial Robustness of LR Networks}
\label{sec:advers-robustn-lr}
The figure below shows the performance of ResNet~\citep{HZRS:2016} and the modified LR ResNet from~\citet{Sanyal2018} on two different attacks; the dotted lines represent the F-LR, which is a factored linear model, with same colour coding as other models for low-rank layer placement, the dashed line represents a black box attack on the same model. Below we plot certain properties of these networks and observe that higher adversarial robustness has a positive correlation with these structures, which in turn have a positive correlation with the generalisation bounds from ~\citet{bartlett2017spectrally} and~\citet{arora18b}.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{legend.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.38\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth, trim={0cm, 0cm, 0cm, 0cm}, clip]{iter_fsgm_fact_lin.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.38\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth, clip]{iter_ll_fact_lin.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Adversarial Robustness of LR models}
\label{fig:adversarial-robust-lr-model}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\subsection{Layer Cushion}
\label{sec:layer-cushion}
Here we plot the \textit{layer cushion} quantities for various layers
in ResNet. The quantity was first mentioned in~\citet{arora18b}. We look
at ResNet models from ~\citet{Sanyal2018}, normal ResNet~\citep{HZRS:2016} and randomly
initialized ResNet.
For any layer $i$, the layer cushion is defined as the largest
number $\mu_i$ such that the following holds for all examples
$\vec{x}\in \cS$ where $\cS$ is the training set.
\[ \mu_i\norm{\vec{A}_i}_F\norm{\phi\br{\vec{x}_{i-1}}} \le
\norm{\vec{A}_i\phi\br{\vec{x}_{i-1}}}\]
$\vec{A}_i$ is the weight matrix of the $i^{\it{th}}$ layer,
$\vec{x}_i$ is the pre-activation of the layer and $\phi$ is the
activation function. As observed i~\citet{arora18b}, higher the value
of $\mu_i$, better is the generalisation ability of the model.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/legend.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/fc.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}\caption{The last fully connected layer of Resnet.}
\end{figure}
The following correspond to ResNet blocks. Each block has two smaller
sub-blocks where each sub-block has two convolutional layers. The
value of layer cushion for these modules of one block are plotted below.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr1_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr1_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr1_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr1_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 1}
\label{fig:int_lyr_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr2_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr2_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr2_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr2_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 2}
\label{fig:int_lyr2_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr3_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr3_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr3_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr3_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 3}
\label{fig:int_lyr3_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\vspace{-50pt}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr4_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr4_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr4_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/lyr4_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 4}
\label{fig:int_lyr4_cush}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data dependent Spectral Norm}
\label{sec:data-depend-spectr}
Here we plot the data dependent form of spectral norm for various layers
in ResNet. This is the measure used in the experiments in~\citet{bartlett2017spectrally}. We look
at ResNet models from ~\citet{Sanyal2018}, normal ResNet and randomly
initialized ResNet.
For any layer $i$, the spectral norm defines how much the output of a single layer blows up in $\ell_2$ norm given an input that - unrolled into a single vector - has $\ell_2$ norm $1$. The following plot shows the average value of the magnification of the $\ell_2$ norm of the input defined as \[ \dfrac{1}{n} \dfrac{\ip{\norm{\vec{A}_i}}{\vec{x}_i}}{\norm{\vec{x}_i}} \]
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/legend.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_fc.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}\caption{The last fully connected layer of Resnet.}
\end{figure}
The following correspond to ResNet blocks. Each block has two smaller
sub-blocks where each sub-block has two convolutional layers. The
value of layer cushion for these modules of one block are plotted below.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr1_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr1_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr1_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr1_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 1}
\label{fig:int_spec_lyr_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr2_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr2_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr2_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr2_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 2}
\label{fig:int_spec_lyr2_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr3_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr3_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr3_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr3_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 3}
\label{fig:int_spec_lyr3_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\vspace{-50pt}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr4_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr4_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr4_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/spec_lyr4_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 4}
\label{fig:int_spec_lyr4_cush}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data dependent Stable Rank}
\label{sec:data-depend-spectr}
Here we plot the data dependent form of stable rank for various layers
in ResNet. This is the measure used in the experiments in~\citet{bartlett2017spectrally}. We look
at ResNet models from ~\citet{Sanyal2018}, normal ResNet and randomly
initialized ResNet.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/legend.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_fc.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}\caption{The last fully connected layer of Resnet.}
\end{figure}
The following correspond to ResNet blocks. Each block has two smaller
sub-blocks where each sub-block has two convolutional layers. The
value of layer cushion for these modules of one block are plotted below.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr1_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr1_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr1_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr1_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 1}
\label{fig:int_stable_lyr_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr2_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr2_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr2_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr2_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 2}
\label{fig:int_stable_lyr2_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr3_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr3_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr3_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr3_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 3}
\label{fig:int_stable_lyr3_cush}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\vspace{-50pt}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr4_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr4_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr4_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.245\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./figs/stable_lyr4_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer 4}
\label{fig:int_stable_lyr4_cush}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Types of calibration}\label{sec:types-of-calibration} A strong
notion of calibration is discussed
in~\citet{Kull2019,Widmann2019,Vaicenavicius2019}, and~\citet{Kumar2019a}. Let
$h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{y}$ be the conditional probability that the model $h$
attributes to the $y^{\it th}$ class on seeing the input $\vec{x}$. Strong
calibration requires that for a fully calibrated model $h$, the following holds
for all $y\in\cY$ and all $p\in\bs{0,1}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:strong-calib}
\bP\bs{\cY=y~\vert h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{y}=p } = p.
\end{equation}
This implies that for any class $y$, for all examples to which the model assigns
a conditional likelihood of $p$ for belonging to that class, the model should be
correct on a $p$ fraction of those examples. This is an especially strong notion
of calibration as it accounts for all classes for every example even when it is
not the correct class for that example.
A relatively weaker notion of calibration, known as {\em weak calibration}, is
discussed in~\citet{Guo2017}. This notion only requires that the conditional
probability for the predicted class be calibrated as opposed to all the
classes being calibrated. This notion of calibration requires that for all
$p_{max}\in\bs{0,1}$, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:weak-calibration}
\bP\bs{\cY=\argmax_{y}h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{y} \biggl\vert \max_{y}h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{y} = p_{max} }= p_{max}.
\end{align}
~\citet{Kull2019} also consider another measure, known as {\em class-specific
calibration}, that is not as restrictive as strong calibration but is stronger
than weak calibration. Under this measure, calibration is enforced only for a
specific class. Class-specific calibration is ensured for the class $c^*$ if
the following holds for all values $p_{c^*}\in\bs{0,1}$:
\begin{equation}
\bP\bs{\cY=c^*\biggl\vert h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{c^*}=p_{c^*}} = p_{c^*}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Measuring miscalibration}\label{sec:measuring-calibration} The
previous section discusses three notions of calibration expressed as conditional
probabilities. However, the conditional probabilities cannot be computed
accurately with a finite number of samples since the conditional likelihood is a
continuous random variable. The natural way of dealing with issues like these
in practice is through discretisation of the continuous random variable.
Ideally, weak calibration, as defined in~\Cref{eq:weak-calibration}, would be
measured by grouping all examples $\vec{x}$ whose likelihood of the predicted
class is exactly $p$ and then measuring the absolute difference between the
accuracy of the model in that group and the value $p$. If the difference is zero
for all values of $p$, then the model is perfectly weakly-calibrated. However,
as mentioned before this is impractical as the value $p$ is continuous. So, the
problem is usually tackled through discretisation of the $\bs{0,1}$ interval for
values of $p$.
\paragraph{Expected calibration error} One of the most commonly used metrics to
measure calibration in practice is the Expected Calibration
Error~(ECE)~\citep{Naeini2015}. The measure is characterised by an integer
hyper-parameter $M>1$ that is used for discretisation. The $\bs{0,1}$ interval
is divided into $M$ equal-width bins~$\bc{B_1,\ldots,B_M}$ where
$B_i=\bs{\frac{i-1}{M},\frac{i}{M}}$. Then, all predictions on the test-set are
categorised into one of these bins depending on the conditional likelihood~(i.e.
the softmax value) of the predicted class. For example, if an example is
predicted to be in class $c$ with probability $p$, that example is placed in the
bin $B_i$ such that $\frac{i-1}{M}\le p< \frac{i}{M}$. Then, the confidence
$C_i$ and accuracy $A_i$ of bin $B_i$ are computed as the average
conditional likelihoods and the average accuracy respectively of the examples in
that bin. ECE is measured as
\begin{equation}
\textrm{ECE}\br{h} = \sum_{i=1}^M \frac{\abs{B_i}}{N}\abs{A_i - C_i},
\end{equation}
where $\abs{B_i}$ represents the number of examples in the bin $B_i$ and $N$ is
the total number of examples in the test-set.
\paragraph{Maximum Calibration Error} While ECE can be thought of as the $L_1$
calibration error, another popular measure of calibration error is $L_\infty$
calibration error, otherwise known as the Maximum Calibration
Error~(MCE)~\citep{Naeini2015}. To compute MCE, the bins $B_i$, their
corresponding accuracies $A_i$, and confidences $C_i$ are computed as above.
Then, MCE is computed as
\begin{equation}
\textrm{MCE}\br{h} = \max_i\abs{A_i - C_i}.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Modifications to the calibration errors} Other versions, including
the $L_2$ version~\citep{Kumar2019a}, have also been used in literature to
measure the calibration error. A consequence of discretising $p$ uniformly is
that each bin can end up with a wildly varying number of samples. For neural
networks, most examples end up in a bin with a high value of $p$. Thus, the low
confidence bins consist of very few samples and this can heavily impact the
measures of both ECE and MCE. To overcome this, both~\citet{Nixon2019} and our
work~(discussed in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}) propose the use of adaptive binning
strategies~(Adaptive ECE or AdaECE) where the bins are created to ensure that
every bin is equally populated.
\paragraph{Classwise expected calibration error} Another drawback of the
calibration errors is that they are designed to only measure weak calibration as
they account for the confidence of only the predicted class. Stronger
definitions of calibration require that all the classes be
calibrated.~\citet{Nixon2019} propose a new metric called the Static Calibration
Error~(SCE) to overcome this. We will refer to this as classwise ECE instead. To
compute this metric, $M$ separate bins indexed as $B_{i,j}$ are created for
each of the $K$ classes. The bin $B_{i,j}$ represents the $i^{\it th}$ bin for
the $j^{\it th}$ class. Once all the examples have been binned into their
respective bins, the accuracies $A_{i,j}$ and confidences $C_{i,j}$ are computed
for each bin. Then, classwise ECE is measured as follows
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Classwise-ECE}\br{h} = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{i=1}^M\sum_{j=1}^K\dfrac{\abs{B_{i,j}}}{N}\abs{A_{i,j}-C_{i,j}}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Reliability plots} These metrics of calibration error summarise the
error into a single statistic without offering an insight into which of the bins
were more mis-calibrated and which were less. A useful visual tool for this is
the reliability plot introduced in~\citet{NiculescuMizil2005}. The reliability
plot is a bar plot where the x-axis measures the confidence and the y-axis
measures the accuracy. Each bar in the reliability plot represents a bin and is
put on the X-axis in increasing order of the average confidence of that bin. The
height of the bar denotes the average accuracy of the examples in that bin. For
a fully calibrated model, the height of each bar should be the same as its
X-axis label. If the height is more than its X-axis label, then the model is
said to be under-confident and if the height is less than the X-axis label, then
the model is said to be over-confident.
\paragraph{Other metrics of calibration} While the ECE, its variants, and
reliability plots have remained the most widely used metrics for
mis-calibration, several other loss functions are also used to measure
mis-calibration of models. The most popular of these are the Negative Loss
Likelihood and the Brier Score~\citep{Brier1950verification}. While some works
have looked at minimizing these measures directly to boost both accuracy and
calibration, those techniques have also led to an apparent trade-off between
accuracy and calibration. It is easy to see that a model can be extremely
inaccurate while being fully calibrated and sometimes, this solution is
preferred over the more desirable one of being nearly accurate with very low
calibration error~\citep{Guo2017}.
\subsection{Approaches for calibrating deep neural networks}
\label{sec:approaches-calibration}
Multiple approaches have been proposed in the literature for calibrating a
neural network in practice. They can be broadly categorised into approaches for
post-hoc calibration, and approaches for calibration during training.
\paragraph{Post-hoc calibration} The basic idea for post-hoc calibration is to
learn a function that maps the uncalibrated output of the machine learning model
into calibrated likelihoods. Different approaches for post-hoc calibration vary
in the nature of this function. Without any restriction on the nature of the
function, the function itself can overfit to the training data and not
generalise to new data. Thus various strategies of post-hoc calibration
restrict this function to different classes of parametric and non-parametric
functions.
\paragraph{Platt scaling}~\citet{Platt1999} proposed a post-hoc calibration
technique through scaling the output of the model via a sigmoid function
parameterised by two learnable scalars $a$ and $b$. In this approach, the output
of the machine learning model $h\br{\vec{x}}$ is replaced by
$\dfrac{1}{1+\exp{\br{ah\br{\vec{x}}+b}}}$. Their initial approach was applied
for SVMs and was motivated by the empirical observation that a sigmoid function
captured the relationship between SVM scores and empirical conditional
likelihoods for many commonly used datasets .
~\citet{Guo2017} modified Platt scaling for use in neural networks by removing
the bias term in the affine transformation and extending it to multi-class
classification. They termed this approach {\em temperature scaling}, which
operates on the pre-softmax vector~(also referred to as the logit vector) by
replacing the original softmax function~\Cref{eq:softmax-fn}
with~\Cref{eq:TS-softmax-fn}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:TS-softmax-fn}
\mathrm{softmax}_{\mathrm{TS}}\br{\vec{z}; T}_i = \dfrac{\exp{\br{\nicefrac{\vec{z}_i}{T}}}}{\sum_{i=1}^K \exp{\br{\nicefrac{\vec{z}_i}{T}}}}
\end{equation}
This approach, however, suffers from multiple drawbacks. For example, while it
scales the logits to reduce the network's confidence in incorrect predictions,
it also reduces the network's confidence in predictions that are
correct~\citep{Kumar2018}. Moreover, it has been observed that temperature
scaling does not calibrate a model under data distribution
shift~\citep{Ovadia2019}. Despite these drawbacks, temperature scaling is
perhaps the most commonly used method for post-hoc calibration. This is due to
its simplicity and impressive performance on a wide range of neural network
architectures~\citep{Guo2017}.
However, when the exact nature of the mapping function is unknown it makes
little sense to use a sigmoid function with a fixed structure. For this
purpose,~\citet{Zadrozny2001} proposed a non-parametric technique referred to
as binning. In this technique, the outputs of the function on the training set
are sorted in decreasing order of magnitude of the conditional likelihood and
then placed into bins of equal size. When a test example is evaluated, it is
first placed into one of the bins depending on the output of the model on that
example. Then the output of the model on that test example is replaced with the
average accuracy of training examples in that bin.
Another approach that is mid-way between a parametric model and a fully
non-parametric method is {\em isotonic regression}~\citep{Nueesch1991}, which
is a form of non-parametric regression. In isotonic regression, the learned
function is chosen from the class of all non-decreasing~(or isotonic) functions.
The underlying intuition for why this is suitable for calibration is that even
though the base machine learning classifier might not output the correct
conditional likelihoods, it should still rank the classes properly. In that
case, the correct mapping from the space of model outputs to the true
conditional likelihood is an isotonic function.
Several other post-hoc calibration techniques have been proposed in recent
literature. These include further modifications to temperature scaling like
Bin-wise Temperature Scaling~(BTS)~\citep{Ji2019}, learning sample-wise
temperature parameters~\citep{Ding2020}, and Dirichlet
Calibration~\citep{Kull2019}.
\paragraph{Calibrating during training} While post-hoc calibration techniques
are easy to implement and can be used to calibrate a model without interfering
in its training process, there are multiple issues associated with these
techniques. First, post-hoc methods require a considerably large validation set
to tune themselves on. Second, there is an extra computational overhead
associated with training the calibration technique once the training of the
base model is complete. Methods that calibrate the model during training
overcome these issues by producing a calibrated model at the end of training
without requiring an extra calibration phase of training. One popular way of
calibrating during training is by training a network using modified loss
functions.
The brier Score, introduced by~\citet{Brier1950verification}, is a loss
function that measures the accuracy of probabilistic predictions. It can
intuitively be thought of as a squared error between the predicted likelihood
vector and the one-hot target. Let the $K$-dimensional one-hot representation
of the label $y$ be $y^{01}$. Then, the brier score of a model $h$ on the
example $\br{\vec{x},y}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:brier-score-defn}
BS\br{h;\vec{x},y} = \sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^K\br{h\br{\vec{x}_i}\bs{j} - y_i^{01}\bs{j}}^2.
\end{equation}
The Brier score can be algebraically decomposed into two components associated
with accuracy and calibration. Thus, minimizing Brier loss provides a
simultaneously accurate and calibrated model as we observe
in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}. However, we also observe that while minimizing the
Brier score provides better calibration error than NLL, it still trades off
calibration error for test error.
We could try to minimise the calibration errors we saw in the previous sections
directly, but most of the errors like ECE and MCE are non-differentiable
metrics.~\citet{Kumar2018} propose a differentiable proxy for the calibration
error, called {\em Maximum Mean Calibration Error~(MMCE)}, which they add as an
extra regulariser during training in addition to the negative log-likelihood
loss.
Several other approaches have been proposed for calibration during
training.~\citet{muller2019does} adapt label smoothing for calibration for
reasons similar to those discussed in the context of adversarial robustness.
Similarly,~\citet{Thulasidasan2019} show that using mixup~\citep{Zhang2018a}
training also leads to a drop in calibration error.
In~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}, we propose the use of focal loss~\citep{Lin2017} as
a loss function that can simultaneously provide high accuracy and low
calibration errors. We show that minimizing focal loss is approximately
equivalent to minimizing a regularised Bregman divergence where the
regularisation component helps with calibration and the Bregman divergence is
associated with the usual negative log-likelihood classification loss. Our
experiments show that our method performs better than the other methods
mentioned in this section. Combining focal loss with temperature scaling
further boosts its performance. We use the various metrics discussed in this
section to report the performance.
\paragraph{Model ensembles and other approaches}
An approach that combines post-hoc calibration and calibration during training
are model ensembles. Model ensembles combine the predictions of multiple
models, trained on different subsets of the data, and they have long been known
to improve generalisation~\citep{Hansen1990} of machine learning models. The
diversity of the models in an ensemble have been known to help in
generalisation and recent works~\citep{Sinha2020diversity,Kim2018attention}
have developed approaches to increase this diversity in
practice.~\citet{Raftery2005} and ~\citet{Stickland2020} have shown that
ensemble diversity also helps with improved model
calibration.~\citet{Zhong2013ensemble} uses ensembles of SVMs, logistic
regressors, and boosted decision trees for improved calibration.
In the case of neural networks, various works
including~\citet{Lakshminarayan2017} and~\citet{Ovadia2019} have shown that
ensemble of neural networks can also help with calibration in deep learning.
Calibration of neural networks is closely related to estimating predictive
uncertainty, which is something bayesian neural networks~(eg. Variational
inference or MCMC techniques) excel at. However, bayesian neural networks are
computationally intensive and hard to implement. In contrast, {\em deep
ensembles} proposed by~\citet{Lakshminarayan2017} is a simple approach that
scales well and uses a combination of ensembles and proper scoring
functions.~\citet{Ashukha2020Pitfalls} provides empirical evidence that deep
ensembles outperform some bayesian neural networks approaches in regards to
calibration.~\citet{Wilson2020} develops an approach called MultiSWAG which
combines the benefits of bayesian deep learning and deep ensembles to propose
an approach that is not computationally more expensive than deep ensembles~(at
train time) but provides better calibration than deep ensembles. However, their
approach is indeed more expensive to use at test time.~\citet{Wenzel2020HowGI}
provides empirical evidence that the posterior predictive induced by the Bayes
posterior yields systematically worse predictions compared to point estimates
obtained from SGD. Interestingly, we have not found papers that propose
ensemble techniques and bayesian neural networks for calibration to also report
results on calibration metrics like ECE and MCE, as we discussed above.
Nevertheless, all of these approaches are complementary to the usage of a
different loss function, which is the approach we take in this thesis.
\section{Main contributions}
Overall, we make the following contributions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We study the link that~\citet{Guo2017} observed between miscalibration
and NLL overfitting; show that NLL overfitting is associated with the
predicted distributions for misclassified test samples becoming peakier as the
learning algorithm increases the magnitude of the network's weights to reduce
the training NLL.
\item We propose the use of focal loss for training better-calibrated networks
and provide both theoretical and empirical justifications for our approach. In
addition, we provide a principled method for automatically choosing the
hyper-parameter $\gamma$ for each data point during training.
\item We show, via experiments on a variety of classification datasets and
network architectures, that DNNs trained with focal loss are more calibrated
than those trained with cross-entropy loss (both with and without label
smoothing), MMCE, and Brier loss.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Understanding the cause of miscalibration}
\label{sec:cause_cali}
\paragraph{Problem Formulation}
Let $\cS_N = \bc{\br{\vec{x}_1,
y_1},\br{\vec{x}_2,y_2},\ldots,\br{\vec{x}_N,y_N}}$ denote a dataset consisting
of $N$ samples from a data distribution $\cD$ over $\cX\times\cY$, where for
each sample $i$, $\mathbf{x}_i \in \mathcal{X}$ is the input and $y_i \in
\mathcal{Y} = \{1, 2, ..., K\}$ is the target class label. Let $\hat{p}_{i,y} =
f_\theta\br{\vec{x}_i}\bs{y}$ be the probability that a neural network $f$ with
model parameters $\theta$ assigns to a class $y$ on a given input $\vec{x}_i$.
The class that $f$ predicts for $\vec{x}_i$ is computed as $\hat{y}_i =
\mathrm{argmax}_{y \in \mathcal{Y}} \; \hat{p}_{i,y}$, and the predicted
confidence is computed as $\hat{p}_i = \mathrm{max}_{y \in \mathcal{Y}} \;
\hat{p}_{i,y}$. The network is said to be \emph{perfectly~(weakly) calibrated}
when, for each sample $\br{\vec{x}_j, y_j} \in \cS_N$, the confidence
$\hat{p}_j$ is equal to the model accuracy $\bP\bs{\cY = \hat{y}_j~\vert
f_\theta\br{\vec{x}_j}\bs{\hat{y}_j}=\hat{p}_j}$, i.e. the probability that the
predicted class is correct. For instance, of all the samples to which a
perfectly calibrated neural network assigns a confidence of $0.8$, $80\%$ should
be correctly predicted.
We will use the various metrics described in~\Cref{sec:measuring-calibration} to
measure calibration in our experiments in this chapter. This includes Expected
Calibration Error~(ECE), Classwise Expected Calibration Error, Adaptive
ECE~(AdaECE), and reliability plots.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/rel_plot_epoch_100.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/rel_plot_epoch_200.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/rel_plot_epoch_300.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/rel_plot_epoch_350.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/bin_strength_plot_epoch_100.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/bin_strength_plot_epoch_200.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/bin_strength_plot_epoch_300.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/bin_strength_plot_epoch_350.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Confidence values for training samples during NLL training]{The confidence values for training samples at different
epochs during the NLL training of a ResNet-50 on CIFAR-10 (see
\Cref{sec:cause_cali}). Top row: reliability plots using $25$
confidence bins; bottom row: \% of samples in each bin. As training
progresses, the model gradually shifts all training samples to the
highest confidence bin. Notably, it continues to do so even after
achieving 100\% training accuracy by the $300$ epoch point.}
\label{fig:rel_conf_bin_plot}
\end{figure}
We now discuss why large networks, despite achieving low classification errors
on well-known datasets, tend to be miscalibrated. A key empirical observation
made by \cite{Guo2017} was that poor calibration of such networks appears to be
linked to overfitting on the negative log-likelihood (NLL) during training. In
this section, we discuss what we mean by NLL overfitting and further inspect how
NLL overfitting impacts calibration.
For the analysis, we train a ResNet-50 network on CIFAR-10 with state-of-the-art
performance settings as discussed in~\Cref{sec:expr-settings}.
We minimise cross-entropy loss (a.k.a.\ NLL) $\mathcal{L}_c$, which, in a
standard classification context, is $-\log \hat{p}_{i,y_i}$, where
$\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$ is the probability assigned by the network to the correct
class $y_i$ for the i$^{th}$ sample. Note that the NLL is minimised when for
each training sample $i$, $\hat{p}_{i,y_i} = 1$, whereas the classification
error is minimised when $\hat{p}_{i,y_i} > \hat{p}_{i,y}$ for all $y \neq y_i$.
This indicates that even when the classification error is $0$, the NLL can be
positive, and the optimisation algorithm can still try to reduce it to $0$ by
further increasing the value of $\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$ for each sample.
To empirically observe this, we divide the confidence range $\bs{0, 1}$ into 25
bins, and present reliability plots computed on the training set at training
epochs $100$, $200$, $300$ and $350$ (see the top row of
Figure~\ref{fig:rel_conf_bin_plot}). In Figure~\ref{fig:rel_conf_bin_plot}, we
also show the percentage of samples in each confidence bin. It is quite clear
from these plots that over time, the network gradually pushes all of the
training samples towards the highest confidence bin. Furthermore, even though
the network has achieved $100\%$ accuracy on the training set by epoch $300$, it
still pushes some of the samples lying in lower confidence bins to the highest
confidence bin by epoch $350$.
To study how miscalibration occurs during training, we plot the
average NLL for the train and test-sets at each training epoch in
Figures~\ref{fig:nll_entropy_ece}(a) and \ref{fig:nll_entropy_ece}(b).
We also plot the average NLL and the entropy of the softmax
distribution produced by the network for the correctly and incorrectly
classified samples. In Figure \ref{fig:nll_entropy_ece}(c), we plot
the classification errors on the train and test datasets, along with the
test-set ECE.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/train_nll_entropy_correct_incorrect.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/test_nll_entropy_correct_incorrect.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/train_test_error_ece.pdf}
\caption[Calibration metrics during training of a ResNet-50 with NLL]{Metrics related to calibration plotted whilst training a ResNet-50 network on CIFAR-10.}
\label{fig:nll_entropy_ece}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Curse of misclassified samples:} Figures \ref{fig:nll_entropy_ece}(a)
and \ref{fig:nll_entropy_ece}(b) show that although the average train NLL (for
both correctly and incorrectly classified training samples) broadly decreases
throughout training, after the $150^{th}$ epoch (where the learning rate drops
by a factor of $10$), there is a marked rise in the average test NLL, indicating
that the network starts to overfit on average NLL. This increase in average test
NLL is caused only by the incorrectly classified samples, as the average NLL for
the correctly classified samples continues to decrease even after the $150^{th}$
epoch. This phenomenon is referred to as NLL overfitting. We also observe that
after epoch $150$, the test-set ECE rises, indicating that the network is
becoming miscalibrated. This corroborates the link between NLL overfitting and
miscalibration observation in \cite{Guo2017}.
\textbf{Peak at the wrong place:} We further observe that the
entropies of the softmax distributions for both the correctly and
incorrectly classified {\em test} samples decrease throughout training
(in other words, the distributions get peakier). This observation,
coupled with the one we made above, indicates that {\em for the
wrongly classified test samples, the network gradually becomes more
and more confident about its incorrect predictions}.
\textbf{Weight magnification:} The increase in confidence of the network's
predictions can happen if the network increases the norm of its weights $W$ to
increase the magnitudes of the logits. In fact, the cross-entropy loss is
minimised when for each training sample $i$, $\hat{p}_{i,y_i} = 1$, which is
possible only when $||W|| \to \infty$. Cross-entropy loss thus inherently
induces this tendency of weight magnification in neural network optimisation.
The promising performance of weight decay \citep{Guo2017} (regularising the norm
of weights) on the calibration of neural networks can perhaps be explained using
this. This increase in the network's confidence during training is one of the
key causes of miscalibration.
\section{Improving calibration using focal loss}
\label{sec:focalloss}
As discussed in the previous section, overfitting on NLL, which is observed as
the network grows more confident on all of its predictions irrespective of their
correctness, is strongly related to poor calibration. One cause of this is that
minimising the cross-entropy loss function minimises the difference between the
softmax distribution and the ground-truth one-hot encoding for all samples,
irrespective of how well a network classifies individual samples. In this
chapter, we study an alternative loss function, popularly known as \textit{focal
loss} \citep{Lin2017}, that tackles this by weighting loss components generated
from individual samples by how well the model classifies each of them. For
classification tasks where the target distribution is one-hot encoding, it is
defined as $\mathcal{L}_f = -(1 - \hat{p}_{i,y_i})^\gamma \log \hat{p}_{i,y_i}$,
where $\gamma$ is a user-defined hyperparameter.
\begin{remark}
We note in passing that, unlike cross-entropy loss, focal loss in its general
form is not a proper loss function, as minimising it does not always lead to
the predicted distribution $\hat{p}$ being equal to the target distribution
$q$. However, when $q$ is a one-hot encoding (as in our case, and for most
classification tasks), minimising focal loss does lead to $\hat{p}$ being
equal to $q$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Focal loss as a regularised Bregman divergence}
We know that the cross-entropy loss forms an upper bound on the KL-divergence
between the target distribution $q$ and the predicted distribution $\hat{p}$,
i.e.\ $\mathcal{L}_c \geq \mathrm{KL}(q||\hat{p})$, so minimising cross-entropy
minimises $\mathrm{KL}(q||\hat{p})$. Interestingly, a general form of focal loss
can be shown to be an upper bound on the regularised KL-divergence, where the
regulariser is the negative entropy of the predicted distribution $\hat{p}$, and
the regularisation parameter is $\gamma$, the hyperparameter of focal loss.
\begin{restatable}[Focal Loss minimises a regularised Bregman divergence]{thm}{regularisedKL}
\label{thm:focal-reg-Bregman}
Let $q$ and $\hat{p}$ denote the target class probabilities and predicted
posterior class probabilities respectively and $\mathcal{L}_f$ denote the
focal loss with parameter $\gamma$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:focal-reg-Bregman}
\mathcal{L}_f \geq \mathrm{KL}(q||\hat{p})+ \underbrace{\mathbb{H}[q]}_{constant} - \gamma \mathbb{H}[\hat{p}].
\end{equation}\\
Proof in~\Cref{sec:calibration-proof}
\end{restatable}
~\Cref{thm:focal-reg-Bregman} shows that minimising focal loss minimises the KL
divergence between $\hat{p}$ and $q$, whilst simultaneously increasing the
entropy of the predicted distribution $\hat{p}$. Thus replacing cross-entropy
with focal loss has the effect of adding a maximum-entropy regulariser
\citep{Pereyra2017} to the implicit minimisation of the KL-divergence that was
previously being performed by the cross-entropy loss. Encouraging the predicted
distribution $\hat{p}$ to have higher entropy can help avoid the overconfident
predictions produced by neural networks trained with NLL loss (see the `Peak at
the wrong place' paragraph of \Cref{sec:cause_cali}), and thereby improve
calibration.
In the case of one-hot target labels~(i.e. Dirac delta distribution for $q$),
the entropy of the target label probabilities $\bH\bs{q}$ is equal to $0$ and
the KL-divergence term reduces to $-\log \hat{p}_y$, where $y$ is the ground
truth class. So, focal loss maximises $-\log \hat{p}_y - \bH\bs{\hat{p}}$ and
prefers learning $\hat{p}$ such that $\hat{p}_y$ is assigned a high value
(because of the KL term $-\log \hat{p}_y$), but not too high (because of the
entropy term), and will ultimately avoid preferring overconfident models (by
contrast to cross-entropy loss). We solved the cross-entropy and focal loss
equations numerically, i.e. the value of the predicted probability $\hat{p}$
which minimises the loss, for various values of $q$ in a binary classification
problem and plotted it in Figure~\ref{fig:soln_p}. As expected, focal loss
favours a more entropic solution for $\hat{p}$ that is closer to the uniform
distribution. In other words,~\Cref{fig:soln_p} shows that solutions to
focal loss~(\Cref{eq:fc_loss}) will always have higher entropy than
cross-entropy.
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Solution for Focal Loss:}~\hat{p} = \mathrm{argmin}_x \; -(1-x)^\gamma q \log{x} - x^\gamma (1-q) \log{(1 - x)}\quad 0\le x\le 1\label{eq:fc_loss}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/soln_p_fl.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption[Numerical solutions to NLL and focal loss]{Optimal $\hat{p}$ for various values of $q$. FL-$1$, FL-$2$, and FL-$3$ indicate Focal Loss with $\gamma=1,2,$ and $3$ respectively.}
\label{fig:soln_p}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Empirical observations on training with focal loss} To analyse the behaviour of neural
networks trained on focal loss, we use the same framework as mentioned above and
train four ResNet-50 networks on CIFAR-10: one using cross-entropy loss and
three using focal loss with $\gamma = 1, 2,$ and $3$. We plot various training
statistics related to these four networks in~\Cref{fig:nll_corr_incorr_entropy}.~\Cref{fig:test-nll-all} shows that the test NLL for the
cross-entropy model significantly increases towards the end of training (before
plateauing), whereas the test NLL for the focal loss models remains low. To
better understand this, we analyse the behaviour of these models separately for
correctly and incorrectly classified samples.
~\Cref{fig:test-nll-correct} shows that even though the NLL for
the correctly classified samples~(mostly) decreases over the course of training
for all models, the NLL for the focal loss models remain consistently higher
than that for the cross-entropy model throughout training, implying that the
focal loss models are relatively less confident than the cross-entropy model for
samples that they do predict correctly. This is important, as we have already
discussed that it is overconfidence that normally makes deep neural networks
miscalibrated.~\Cref{fig:test-nll-incorrect} shows that in
contrast to the cross-entropy model, for which the NLL for misclassified test
samples increases significantly after epoch $150$, the rise in this value for
the focal loss models is much less severe and almost absent for $\gamma=3$.
Additionally, in~\Cref{fig:test-nll-entropy}, we notice that the
entropy of the softmax distribution for misclassified test samples is
consistently (if only marginally) higher for focal loss than for cross-entropy.
This is consistent with~\Cref{thm:focal-reg-Bregman}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/test_nll.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:test-nll-all}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/test_nll_correct.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:test-nll-correct}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/test_nll_incorrect.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:test-nll-incorrect}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/test_entropy_incorrect.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:test-nll-entropy}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/weight_norm.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:test-nll-weight}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Calibration metrics during training of a ResNet-50 with Focal Loss]{How metrics related to model calibration change whilst training several ResNet-50 networks on CIFAR-10, using either cross-entropy loss or focal loss with $\gamma$ set to 1, 2 or 3.}
\label{fig:nll_corr_incorr_entropy}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Early Stopping}~\Cref{fig:test-nll-all} suggests that applying early
stopping when training a model on cross-entropy provides better calibration
scores. However, we could not find an ideal way of doing early stopping that
provides both the best calibration error and the best test-set accuracy. For a
fair comparison, we trained ResNet50 networks on CIFAR-10 using both
cross-entropy and focal loss with the best possible (in hindsight) early
stopping. We trained each model for 350 epochs and chose the 3 intermediate
models with the best validation set ECE, NLL, and classification error,
respectively. We present the test-set performance in
Table~\ref{table:early_stopping_table}.
From the table, we can observe that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For every early stopping criterion, focal loss outperforms cross-entropy
in both test-set accuracy and ECE,
\item When using the validation set ECE as a stopping criterion,
the intermediate model for cross-entropy indeed improves its test-set ECE, but
at the cost of a significantly higher test error.
\item Even without early stopping, focal loss achieves
consistently better error and ECE compared to cross-entropy using any
stopping criterion.
\end{enumerate}
As per \Cref{sec:cause_cali}, an increase in the test NLL and a decrease in the
test entropy for misclassified samples, along with no corresponding increase in
the test NLL for the correctly classified samples, can be interpreted as the
network predicting softmax distributions for the misclassified samples that are
ever more {\em peaky in the wrong place}. Notably, our results
in~\Cref{fig:test-nll-correct,fig:test-nll-incorrect,fig:test-nll-entropy}
clearly show that this effect is significantly reduced when training with focal
loss rather than cross-entropy, leading to a better-calibrated network whose
predictions are less peaky in the wrong place.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Criterion} & \textbf{Loss} & \textbf{Epoch} & \textbf{Error} & \textbf{ECE \%}\\
\midrule
ECE & NLL & 151 & 7.34 & 1.69 \\
ECE & Focal Loss & 257 & 5.52 & 0.85 \\
NLL & NLL & 153 & 6.69 & 2.28 \\
NLL & Focal Loss & 266 & 5.34 & 1.33 \\
Error & NLL & 344 & 5.0 & 4.46 \\
Error & Focal Loss & 343 & 4.99 & 1.43 \\
\midrule
Full & NLL & 350 & 4.95 & 4.35 \\
Full & Focal Loss & 350 & 4.98 & 1.55 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Test error and ECE with different early stopping
criteria]{Classification errors and ECE scores obtained from ResNet-50
models trained using cross-entropy and focal loss with different early
stopping criteria (best in hindsight ECE, NLL and classification error on
the validation set) applied during training. In the table, the {\em Full}
Criterion indicates models where early stopping has not been applied.}
\label{table:early_stopping_table}
\end{table}
\subsection{Theoretical justifications for focal loss}
As mentioned previously, once a model trained using cross-entropy reaches high
training accuracy, the learning algorithm tries to further reduce the training
NLL by increasing the confidences of the correctly classified samples. It
achieves this by magnifying the network weights to increase the magnitudes of
the logits. To verify this hypothesis, we plot the $L_2$ norm of the weights of
the last linear layer for all four networks from the previous section as a
function of the training epoch in~\Cref{fig:test-nll-weight}. Notably, although
the norms of the weights for the models trained on focal loss are initially
higher than that for the cross-entropy model, \textit{a complete reversal} in
the ordering of the weight norms occurs between epochs $150$ and $250$. In other
words, as the networks start to become miscalibrated, the weight norm for the
cross-entropy model also starts to become greater than those for the focal loss
models. This is because focal loss, by design, starts to regularise the
network's weights once the model has gained a certain amount of confidence in
its predictions. To better understand this, we consider the following Lemma
\begin{restatable}[Relation between the gradients of cross-entropy and focal loss]{thm}{gradientfocalnll}
\label{pro1}
For focal loss $\cL_f$, with hyper-parameter $\gamma$, and cross-entropy loss
$\cL_c$ as defined before, the gradients with respect to the parameters for the
last linear layer $\vec{w}$ can be related as
\[\frac{\partial \cL_{\mathrm{f}}}{\partial \vec{w}} = \frac{\partial \cL_c}{\partial
\vec{w}} g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma)\] where $g(p, \gamma) = (1-p)^\gamma -
\gamma p (1-p)^{\gamma - 1} \log(p)$ and $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+$ is the focal
loss hyperparameter. Thus,
\[\norm{\frac{\partial \cL_f}{\partial \vec{w}}} \leq
\norm{\frac{\partial \cL_c}{\partial \vec{w}}}\] if $g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma)
\in [0, 1]$.\\
Proof in~\Cref{sec:calibration-proof}
\end{restatable}
~\Cref{pro1} shows the relationship between the norms of the gradients of the
last linear layer for focal loss and cross-entropy loss, for the same network
architecture. This relation depends on the function $g(p, \gamma)$, which we
plot in~\Cref{fig:g_pt-vs-p}. It shows that for every $\gamma$, there exists a
unique threshold $p_0$ such that for all $p \in [0,p_0]$, $g(p,\gamma) \ge 1$,
and for all $p \in (p_0, 1]$, $g(p,\gamma) < 1$. (For example, for $\gamma = 1$,
$p_0 \approx 0.4$.) We use this insight to further explain why focal loss
provides implicit weight regularisation.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/g_p_t_gamma.png}
\caption{$g(p, \gamma)$ vs.\ $p$ }
\label{fig:g_pt-vs-p}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Implicit weight regularisation:} For a network trained using focal
loss with a fixed $\gamma$, during the initial stages of the training, when
$\hat{p}_{i,y_i} \in (0,p_0)$, $g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma) > 1$. Thus, the
confidences of the focal loss model's predictions initially increase faster
than cross-entropy. However, as soon as $\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$ crosses the threshold
$p_0$, $g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma)$ falls below $1$ and reduces the magnitude of
the gradient updates made to the network's weights, thereby having a
regularising effect on the weights. This is why, in~\Cref{fig:test-nll-weight},
we find that the norms of weights of the models trained with focal loss are
initially higher than that for the model trained using cross-entropy. However,
as training progresses, focal loss starts regularising the network weights and
the ordering of the weight norms reverses. We can draw similar insights
from~\Cref{fig:g_pt_grad_norms-10,fig:g_pt_grad_norms-100,fig:g_pt_grad_norms-200},
in which we plot histograms of the gradient norms of the last linear layer (over
all samples in the training set) at epochs $10$, $100$ and $200$, respectively.
At epoch $10$, the gradient norms for cross-entropy and focal loss are similar,
but as training progresses, those for cross-entropy decrease less rapidly than
those for focal loss, indicating that the gradient norms for focal loss are
consistently lower than those for cross-entropy throughout training.
\begin{figure}\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/grad_norm_10_epochs.png}
\caption{Epoch 10}
\label{fig:g_pt_grad_norms-10}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.3\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/grad_norm_100_epochs.png}
\caption{Epoch 100}
\label{fig:g_pt_grad_norms-100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.3\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/grad_norm_200_epochs.png}
\caption{Epoch 200}
\label{fig:g_pt_grad_norms-200}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Distribution gradient norms for NLL and Focal Loss]{Histograms of the gradient norms of the last linear layer for both cross-entropy and focal loss.}
\label{fig:g_pt_grad_norms}
\end{figure}
Finally, observe in~\Cref{fig:g_pt-vs-p} that for higher $\gamma$ values, the
fall in $g(p,\gamma)$ is steeper. We would thus expect a greater weight
regularisation effect for models that use higher values of $\gamma$. This
explains why, among the three models we trained using focal loss, the one with
$\gamma = 3$ outperforms (in terms of calibration) the one with $\gamma = 2$,
which in turn outperforms the model with $\gamma = 1$. Based on this
observation, one might think that a higher value of gamma always leads to a more
calibrated model. However, this is not the case, as we notice
from~\Cref{fig:g_pt-vs-p} that for $\gamma \ge 7$, $g(p,\gamma)$ reduces to
nearly $0$ for a relatively low value of $p$ (around $0.5$). As a result, using
values of $\gamma$ that are too high will cause the gradients to vanish~(i.e.\
reduce to nearly $0$) early, at a point at which the network's predictions
remain ambiguous, thereby causing the training process to fail.
\subsection{How to choose the focal loss hyper-parameter $\gamma$}\label{sec:choose-gamma} We discussed that
focal loss provides implicit entropy and weight regularisation and $\gamma$
behaves akin to a regularisation coefficient.~\citet{Lin2017} fixed a $\gamma$,
chosen by cross-validation, for all samples in the dataset. However, as we saw
in~\Cref{pro1}, the regularisation effect for a sample $i$ depends on
$\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$, the predicted probability for the ground truth label for the
sample. It thus makes sense to choose $\gamma$ for each sample based on the
value of $\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$. To this end, we provide~\Cref{pro:gamma}.
\begin{restatable}[Choosing the focal loss hyper-parameter]{thm}{choosinggamma}
\label{pro:gamma}
For a given $p_0>0$ and for all $1\ge p\ge p_0$ and $\gamma \ge \gamma^* = \frac{a}{b} +
\frac{1}{\log a}W_{-1} \big(-\frac{a^{(1-a/b)}}{b} \log a \big)$
where $a = 1-p_0$, $b = p_0 \log p_0$, and $W_{-1}$ is the
Lambert-W function~\citep{Corless1996}, the following holds
\[g(p, \gamma) \leq 1\]
Moreover, for $p \geq p_0$ and $\gamma \geq \gamma^*$, the equality $g(p,
\gamma) = 1$ holds only if $p = p_0$ and $\gamma = \gamma^*$.\\
Proof in ~\Cref{sec:calibration-proof}
\end{restatable}
It is worth noting that for all values of $p\ge p_0$ there exist multiple values of $\gamma$ where $g(p, \gamma) \leq 1$. For a given $p_0$, ~\Cref{pro:gamma} allows us to compute $\gamma$ such that
\[ g(p,\gamma) = \begin{cases}
1 & p = p_0 \\
>1 & p \in [0,p_0) \\
<1 & p \in (p_0, 1]
\end{cases}
\]
This allows us to control the magnitude of the gradients for a particular sample
$i$ based on the current value of $\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$, and gives us a way of
choosing a value of $\gamma$ for each sample. For instance, a reasonable policy
might be to choose $\gamma$ s.t.\ $g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma) > 1$ if
$\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$ is small (say less than $0.25$), and \ $g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i},
\gamma) < 1$ otherwise. Such a policy will have the effect of making the weight
updates larger for samples having a low predicted probability for the correct
class and smaller for samples with a relatively higher predicted probability for
the correct class.
Following the aforementioned arguments, we choose a threshold of $p_0=0.25$ and
use~\Cref{pro:gamma} to obtain a policy for $\gamma$ such that $g(p, \gamma)$ is
observably greater than $1$ for $p \in [0, 0.2)$ and $g(p, \gamma) < 1$ for $p
\in (0.25, 1]$. In particular, we use the following schedule: if
$\hat{p}_{i,y_i} \in [0,0.25)$, then $\gamma = 5$, otherwise $\gamma = 3$ (note
that $g(0.2, 5) \approx 1$ and $g(0.25, 3) \approx 1$:
see~\Cref{fig:g_pt-vs-p}). We find this policy for $\gamma$ to perform
consistently well across multiple classification datasets and network
architectures. Having said that, one can calculate multiple such schedules for
$\gamma$ following Proposition~\ref{pro:gamma}, using the intuition of having a
relatively high $\gamma$ for low values of $\hat{p}_{i, y_i}$ and a relatively
low $\gamma$ for high values of $\hat{p}_{i, y_i}$.
\section{Training a linear model with focal loss and NLL}
\label{linear_model}
The behaviour of deep neural networks is generally quite different from linear
models and the problem of calibration is more pronounced in the case of deep
neural networks. Hence we focus on analysing the calibration of deep networks in
this chapter. However, weight norm analysis for the various layers in a deep
neural network is complex due to components of the training process like
batchnorm and weight decay. Hence, to see the effect of weight magnification on
miscalibration, first, we use a generalised linear model on a simple data
distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.34\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/logits_norm.pdf}
\caption{Norm of logits}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.34\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/weights_norm.pdf}
\caption{Norm of weights.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Training a linear model with NLL and focal loss]{Norm of logits and weights of Linear Classifiers trained
with Focal Loss~(FL) and Cross-Entropy~(CE)}
\label{fig:norms_linear}
\end{figure}
We consider a binary classification problem. The data matrix
$\vec{X}\in\reals^{2\times N}$ is created by assigning each class, two normally
distributed clusters such that the means of the clusters are linearly separable.
The means of the clusters are situated on the vertices of a two-dimensional
hypercube of side length 4. The standard deviation for each cluster is $1$ and
the samples are randomly linearly combined within each cluster to add
covariance. Further, for $10\%$ of the data points, the labels are flipped.
$4000$ samples are used for training and $1000$ samples are used for testing.
The model consists of a simple 2-parameter logistic regression model. For a
given $\vec{x}=\br{x_1,x_2}$, the model returns $f_{\br{w_1,w_2}}(\vec{x}) =
\sigma(w_1x_1+w_2x_2)$. We train this model using both cross-entropy and focal
loss with $\gamma = 1$.
\paragraph{Weight magnification} We have argued that focal loss implicitly
regularises the weights of the model by providing smaller gradients as compared
to cross-entropy. This helps in calibration as, if all the weights are large,
the logits are large and thus the confidence of the network is large on all test
points, even on the misclassified points. Consequently, when the model
misclassifies, it misclassifies with high confidence.
Figure~\ref{fig:norms_linear} shows that the norms of the logits and the
weights are much larger for the model trained with the cross-entropy loss as
compared to the model trained with the focal loss.
\paragraph{High confidence for mistakes}
~\Cref{fig:dec-bound-ce,fig:dec-bound-fl} show that gradient descent with
cross-entropy (CE) and focal loss (FL) learns similar decision regions i.e. the
weight vector of the linear classifier points in the same direction. However, as
we have seen that the norm of the weights is much larger for CE as compared to
FL, we would expect the confidence of misclassified test points to be large for
CE as compared to FL. A histogram of the confidence of the misclassified points,
plotted in~~\Cref{fig:conf-linear} shows that CE almost always misclassifies
with greater than $90\%$ confidence whereas the confidence of misclassified
samples is much lower for the FL model.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.28\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/conf_wrong.pdf}
\caption{Confidence of mis-classifications}\label{fig:conf-linear}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/dec_bound_ce.pdf}
\caption{Decision boundary of linear classifier trained using cross-entropy}\label{fig:dec-bound-ce}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./calibration_main/figs/dec_bound_fl.pdf}
\caption[Decision boundary of a linear classifier trained using focal loss]{Decision boundary of linear classifier trained using focal loss}\label{fig:dec-bound-fl}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Decision Boundary and confidences of Linear Classifiers.}
\label{fig:conf_wrong_dec_bound}
\end{figure}
\todo[color=blue]{Remove 1. conf intervals, 2. OoD, 3. Figure F.5}
\section{Experiments on real-world datasets}
\label{sec:experiments}
We conduct image and document classification experiments to test the performance
of focal loss on more realistic models and datasets. For the former, we use
CIFAR-10/100 \citep{krizhevsky2009learning} and Tiny-ImageNet
\citep{imagenet_cvpr09} and train ResNet-50, ResNet-110 \citep{HZRS:2016},
Wide-ResNet-26-10 \citep{Zagoruyko2016}, and DenseNet-121 \citep{Huang2017}
models. For document classification experiments, we use the 20 Newsgroups
\citep{Lang1995} and Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST) \citep{Socher2013}
datasets and train Global Pooling CNN \citep{Lin2014} and
Tree-LSTM~\citep{Tai2015} models. Further details on the datasets and training
can be found in~\Cref{sec:expr-settings}.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Cross-Entropy}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Brier Loss}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MMCE}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{LS-0.05}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FL-3 (Ours)}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FLSD-53 (Ours)}} \\
&& Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-100} & ResNet-50&17.52&3.42(2.1)&6.52&3.64(1.1)&15.32&2.38(1.8)&7.81&4.01(1.1)&\tikzmark{top left}5.13&\textbf{1.97(1.1)}&\textbf{4.5}&2.0(1.1)\\
& ResNet-110&19.05&4.43(2.3)&\textbf{7.88}&4.65(1.2)&19.14&\textbf{3.86(2.3)}&11.02&5.89(1.1)&8.64&3.95(1.2)&8.56&4.12(1.2)\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&15.33&2.88(2.2)&4.31&2.7(1.1)&13.17&4.37(1.9)&4.84&4.84(1)&\textbf{2.13}&2.13(1)&3.03&\textbf{1.64(1.1)}\\
& DenseNet-121&20.98&4.27(2.3)&5.17&2.29(1.1)&19.13&3.06(2.1)&12.89&7.52(1.2)&4.15&\textbf{1.25(1.1)}&\textbf{3.73}&1.31(1.1)\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-10} & ResNet-50&4.35&1.35(2.5)&1.82&1.08(1.1)&4.56&1.19(2.6)&2.96&1.67(0.9)&\textbf{1.48}&1.42(1.1)&1.55&\textbf{0.95(1.1)}\\
& ResNet-110&4.41&1.09(2.8)&2.56&1.25(1.2)&5.08&1.42(2.8)&2.09&2.09(1)&\textbf{1.55}&\textbf{1.02(1.1)}&1.87&1.07(1.1)\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&3.23&0.92(2.2)&\textbf{1.25}&1.25(1)&3.29&0.86(2.2)&4.26&1.84(0.8)&1.69&0.97(0.9)&1.56&\textbf{0.84(0.9)}\\
& DenseNet-121&4.52&1.31(2.4)&1.53&1.53(1)&5.1&1.61(2.5)&1.88&1.82(0.9)&1.32&1.26(0.9)&\textbf{1.22}&\textbf{1.22(1)}\\
\midrule
Tiny-ImageNet & ResNet-50&15.32&5.48(1.4)&4.44&4.13(0.9)&13.01&5.55(1.3)&15.23&6.51(0.7)&1.87&1.87(1)&\textbf{1.76}&\textbf{1.76(1)}\\
\midrule
20 Newsgroups & Global Pooling CNN&17.92&2.39(3.4)&13.58&3.22(2.3)&15.48&6.78(2.2)&\textbf{4.79}&2.54(1.1)&8.67&3.51(1.5)&6.92&\textbf{2.19(1.5)}\\
\midrule
SST Binary & Tree-LSTM&7.37&2.62(1.8)&9.01&2.79(2.5)&5.03&4.02(1.5)&\textbf{4.84}&4.11(1.2)&16.05&1.78(0.5)&9.19&\textbf{1.83(0.7)}\tikzmark{bottom right}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
} \caption[ECE for different approaches]{ECE $(\%)$ computed for different approaches both pre and post
temperature scaling (cross-validating T on ECE). The optimal temperature for
each method is indicated in brackets. $T\approx 1$ indicates an innately
calibrated model. }
\label{table:ece_tab1}
\end{table*}
\paragraph{Baselines} Along with cross-entropy loss, we compare our method
against the following baselines: \begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{MMCE} (Maximum Mean Calibration Error) \citep{Kumar2018}, a
continuous and differentiable proxy for calibration error that is used
as a regulariser alongside cross-entropy,
\item \textbf{Brier loss}~\citep{Brier1950verification}, the squared error
between the predicted softmax vector and the one-hot ground truth encoding, and
\item \textbf{Label smoothing}~\citep{muller2019does} (LS): given a one-hot
target label distribution $\bm{\mathrm{q}}$ and a smoothing factor $\alpha$
(hyperparameter), the smoothed vector $\bm{\mathrm{s}}$ is obtained as
$\bm{\mathrm{s}}_i = (1-\alpha)\bm{\mathrm{q}}_i +
\alpha(1-\bm{\mathrm{q}}_i)/(K-1)$, where $\bm{\mathrm{s}}_i$ and
$\bm{\mathrm{q}}_i$ denote the $i^{th}$ elements of $\bm{\mathrm{s}}$ and
$\bm{\mathrm{q}}$ respectively, and $K$ is the number of classes. Instead of
$\bm{\mathrm{q}}$, $\bm{\mathrm{s}}$ is treated as the target label distribution
during training. We train models using $\alpha = 0.05$ and $\alpha = 0.1$, but
find $\alpha = 0.05$ to perform better. Thus, we report the results obtained
from LS-$0.05$ with $\alpha = 0.05$.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Focal loss}: We looked at different variants of focal loss, which
varies in the way $\gamma$ is assigned a value. When \(\gamma\) is fixed
throughout training, we found \(\gamma=3\) to outperform \(\gamma=1\) and
\(\gamma=2\). Thus, we use \(\gamma=3\) for our experiments and use the
abbreviation FL-3 to report its experimental results.
We also tried multiple variants of the Sample-Dependant
$\gamma$~(c.f.~\Cref{sec:choose-gamma}) and found the variant which uses the
following strategy to be most competitive --- when $\hat{p}_{i,y_i} \in [0, 0.25)$
, the value of \(\gamma\) is set to \(5\) and when $\hat{p}_{i,y_i} \in [0.25,
1)$, \(\gamma\) is set to \(3\). We call this approach Focal Loss
(sample-dependent $\gamma$ 5,3) and use the abbreviation FLSD-53 to report its experimental results.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{Cross-Entropy} &
\textbf{Brier Loss} & \textbf{MMCE} & \textbf{LS-0.05} & \textbf{FL-3 (Ours)} & \textbf{FLSD-53 (Ours)} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-100} & ResNet-50&23.3&23.39&23.2&23.43&22.75&23.22\\
& ResNet-110&22.73&25.1&23.07&23.43&22.92&22.51\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&20.7&20.59&20.73&21.19&19.69&20.11\\
& DenseNet-121&24.52&23.75&24.0&24.05&23.25&22.67\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-10} & ResNet-50&4.95&5.0&4.99&5.29&5.25&4.98\\
& ResNet-110&4.89&5.48&5.4&5.52&5.08&5.42\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&3.86&4.08&3.91&4.2&4.13&4.01\\
& DenseNet-121&5.0&5.11&5.41&5.09&5.33&5.46\\
\midrule
Tiny-ImageNet & ResNet-50&49.81&53.2&51.31&47.12&49.69&49.06\\
\midrule
20 Newsgroups & Global Pooling CNN&26.68&27.06&27.23&26.03&29.26&27.98\\
\midrule
SST Binary & Tree-LSTM&12.85&12.85&11.86&13.23&12.19&12.8\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption[Test error $(\%)$ for different approaches]{Test set error $(\%)$ computed for different approaches. }
\label{table:error_tab1}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Temperature scaling:} To compute the optimal temperature for
temperature scaling, we use two different methods: (a) learning the temperature
by minimising validation set NLL and (b) performing grid search over
temperatures between 0 and 10 with a step size of 0.1, and choosing the one that
minimises validation set ECE. We find the second approach to produce {\em
stronger baselines} and report all our results obtained using this approach.
\subsection{Calibration and test accuracy} We report ECE$\%$ (computed using 15
bins) along with optimal temperatures in~\Cref{table:ece_tab1}, and test-set
error in~\Cref{table:error_tab1}. Firstly, for all dataset-network pairs, we
obtain very competitive classification accuracies (shown
in~\Cref{table:error_tab1}). This is important as it is easy to obtain a highly
calibrated model while incurring a large test error by simply predicting a
random class label with a uniform distribution over the classes. Secondly, {\em
it is clear from~\Cref{table:ece_tab1} that focal loss with sample-dependent
$\gamma$ and with $\gamma = 3$ outperforms all the baselines: cross-entropy,
label smoothing, Brier loss, and MMCE.} They produce the lowest calibration
errors {\em both before and after temperature scaling}. This observation is
particularly encouraging as it also indicates that a principled method for
obtaining values of $\gamma$ for focal loss can produce a very calibrated model
with no need to use a validation set for tuning $\gamma$.
In~\Cref{table:ada_ece_tab1,table:sce_tab1,table:mce}, we present the
AdaECE, Classwise-ECE, and MCE scores for our models and compare it with all the baselines discussed above. The optimal temperature for each model is obtained by cross-validating it on ECE.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Cross-Entropy}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Brier Loss}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MMCE}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{LS-0.05}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FL-3 (Ours)}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FLSD-53 (Ours)}} \\
&& Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-100} & ResNet-50&17.52&3.42(2.1)&6.52&3.64(1.1)&15.32&2.38(1.8)&7.81&4.01(1.1)&\tikzmark{top left}5.08&2.02(1.1)&\textbf{4.5}&\textbf{2.0(1.1)}\\
& ResNet-110&19.05&5.86(2.3)&\textbf{7.73}&4.53(1.2)&19.14&4.85(2.3)&11.12&8.59(1.1)&8.64&4.14(1.2)&8.55&\textbf{3.96(1.2)}\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&15.33&2.89(2.2)&4.22&2.81(1.1)&13.16&4.25(1.9)&5.1&5.1(1)&\textbf{2.08}&2.08(1)&2.75&\textbf{1.63(1.1)}\\
& DenseNet-121&20.98&5.09(2.3)&5.04&2.56(1.1)&19.13&3.07(2.1)&12.83&8.92(1.2)&4.15&\textbf{1.23(1.1)}&\textbf{3.55}&\textbf{1.24(1.1)}\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-10} & ResNet-50&4.33&2.14(2.5)&1.74&\textbf{1.23(1.1)}&4.55&2.16(2.6)&3.89&2.92(0.9)&1.95&1.83(1.1)&\textbf{1.56}&1.26(1.1)\\
& ResNet-110&4.4&1.99(2.8)&2.6&1.7(1.2)&5.06&2.52(2.8)&4.44&4.44(1)&\textbf{1.62}&\textbf{1.44(1.1)}&2.07&1.67(1.1)\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&3.23&1.69(2.2)&1.7&1.7(1)&3.29&1.6(2.2)&4.27&2.44(0.8)&1.84&1.54(0.9)&\textbf{1.52}&\textbf{1.38(0.9)}\\
& DenseNet-121&4.51&2.13(2.4)&2.03&2.03(1)&5.1&2.29(2.5)&4.42&3.33(0.9)&\textbf{1.22}&1.48(0.9)&1.42&\textbf{1.42(1)}\\
\midrule
Tiny-ImageNet & ResNet-50&15.23&5.41(1.4)&4.37&4.07(0.9)&13.0&5.56(1.3)&15.28&6.29(0.7)&1.88&1.88(1)&\textbf{1.42}&\textbf{1.42(1)}\\
\midrule
20 Newsgroups & Global Pooling CNN&17.91&\textbf{2.23(3.4)}&13.57&3.11(2.3)&15.21&6.47(2.2)&\textbf{4.39}&2.63(1.1)&8.65&3.78(1.5)&6.92&2.35(1.5)\\
\midrule
SST Binary & Tree-LSTM&7.27&3.39(1.8)&8.12&2.84(2.5)&\textbf{5.01}&4.32(1.5)&5.14&4.23(1.2)&16.01&2.16(0.5)&9.15&\textbf{1.92(0.7)}\tikzmark{bottom right}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption[AdaECE for different approaches]{Adaptive ECE $(\%)$ computed for
different approaches both pre and post temperature scaling
(cross-validating T on ECE). Optimal temperature for each method
is indicated in brackets. }
\label{table:ada_ece_tab1}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Cross-Entropy}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Brier Loss}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MMCE}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{LS-0.05}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FL-3 (Ours)}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FLSD-53 (Ours)}} \\
&& Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-100} & ResNet-50 & 0.38 & 0.22(2.1)&0.22&0.20(1.1)&0.34&0.21(1.8)&0.23&0.21(1.1)&\tikzmark{top left}\textbf{0.20}&\textbf{0.20(1.1)}&\textbf{0.20}&\textbf{0.20(1.1)}\\
& ResNet-110&0.41&0.21(2.3)&0.24&0.23(1.2)&0.42&0.22(2.3)&0.26&0.22(1.1)&\textbf{0.24}&0.22(1.2)&\textbf{0.24}&\textbf{0.21(1.2)}\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&0.34&0.20(2.2)&0.19&0.19(1.1)&0.31&0.20(1.9)&0.21&0.21(1)&\textbf{0.18}&\textbf{0.18(1)}&\textbf{0.18}&0.19(1.1)\\
& DenseNet-121&0.45&0.23(2.3)&0.20&0.21(1.1)&0.42&0.24(2.1)&0.29&0.24(1.2)&0.20&0.20(1.1)&\textbf{0.19}&\textbf{0.20(1.1)}\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-10} & ResNet-50&0.91&0.45(2.5)&0.46&0.42(1.1)&0.94&0.52(2.6)&0.71&0.51(0.9)&0.43&0.48(1.1)&\textbf{0.42}&\textbf{0.42(1.1)}\\
& ResNet-110&0.91&0.50(2.8)&0.59&0.50(1.2)&1.04&0.55(2.8)&0.66&0.66(1)&\textbf{0.44}&\textbf{0.41(1.1)}&0.48&0.44(1.1)\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&0.68&0.37(2.2)&0.44&0.44(1)&0.70&0.35(2.2)&0.80&0.45(0.8)&0.44&0.36(0.9)&\textbf{0.41}&\textbf{0.31(0.9)}\\
& DenseNet-121&0.92&0.47(2.4)&0.46&0.46(1)&1.04&0.57(2.5)&0.60&0.50(0.9)&0.43&0.41(0.9)&\textbf{0.41}&\textbf{0.41(1)}\\
\midrule
Tiny-ImageNet & ResNet-50&0.22&0.16(1.4)&0.16&0.16(0.9)&0.21&0.16(1.3)&0.21&0.17(0.7)&0.16&0.16(1)&\textbf{0.16}&\textbf{0.16(1)}\\
\midrule
20 Newsgroups & Global Pooling CNN&1.95&0.83(3.4)&1.56&\textbf{0.82(2.3)}&1.77&1.10(2.2)&\textbf{0.93}&0.91(1.1)&1.31&1.05(1.5)&1.40&1.19(1.5)\\
\midrule
SST Binary & Tree-LSTM&5.81&3.76(1.8)&6.38&2.48(2.5)&\textbf{3.82}&\textbf{2.70(1.5)}&3.99&3.20(1.2)&6.35&2.81(0.5)&4.84&3.24(0.7)\tikzmark{bottom right}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption[Classwise-ECE for different approaches]{Classwise-ECE $(\%)$ computed for
different approaches both pre and post temperature scaling
(cross-validating T on ECE). Optimal temperature for each method
is indicated in brackets. }
\label{table:sce_tab1}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\footnotesize
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Cross-Entropy}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Brier Loss}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MMCE}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{LS-0.05}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FL-3 (Ours)}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FLSD-53 (Ours)}} \\
&& Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T & Pre T & Post T \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-100} & ResNet-50&44.34&12.75(2.1)&36.75&21.61(1.1)&39.53&11.99(1.8)&26.11&18.58(1.1)&\textbf{13.02}&\textbf{6.76(1.1)}&16.12&27.18(1.1)\tikzmark{top right}\\
& ResNet-110&55.92&22.65(2.3)&24.85&12.56(1.2)&50.69&19.23(2.3)&36.23&30.46(1.1)&26&13.06(1.2)&\textbf{22.57}&\textbf{10.94(1.2)}\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&49.36&14.18(2.2)&14.68&13.42(1.1)&40.13&16.5(1.9)&23.79&23.79.1(1)&\textbf{9.96}&9.96(1)&10.17&\textbf{9.73(1.1)}\\
& DenseNet-121&56.28&21.63(2.3)&15.47&8.55(1.1)&49.97&13.02(2.1)&43.59&29.95(1.2)&11.61&6.17(1.1)&\textbf{9.68}&\textbf{5.68(1.1)}\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-10} & ResNet-50&38.65&20.6(2.5)&31.54&22.46(1.1)&60.06&23.6(2.6)&35.61&40.51(0.9)&21.83&\textbf{15.76(1.1)}&\textbf{14.89}&26.37(1.1)\\
& ResNet-110&44.25&29.98(2.8)&25.18&22.73(1.2)&67.52&31.87(2.8)&45.72&45.72(1)&25.15&37.610(1.1)&\textbf{18.95}&\textbf{17.35(1.1)}\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&48.17&26.63(2.2)&77.15&77.15(1)&36.82&32.33(2.2)&24.89&37.53(0.8)&\textbf{23.86}&\textbf{25.64(0.9)}&74.07&36.56(0.9)\\
& DenseNet-121&45.19&32.52(2.4)&19.39&19.39(1)&43.92&27.03(2.5)&45.5&53.57(0.9)&77.08&76.27(0.9)&\textbf{13.36}&\textbf{13.36(1)}\\
\midrule
Tiny-ImageNet & ResNet-50&30.83&13.33(1.4)&8.41&12.82(0.9)&26.48&12.52(1.3)&25.48&17.2(0.7)&6.11&6.11(1)&\textbf{3.76}&\textbf{3.76(1)}\\
\midrule
20 Newsgroups & Global Pooling CNN&36.91&36.91(3.4)&31.35&31.35(2.3)&34.72&34.72(2.2)&\textbf{8.93}&\textbf{8.93(1.1)}&18.85&18.85(1.5)&17.44&17.44(1.5)\\
\midrule
SST Binary & Tree-LSTM&71.08&88.48(1.8)&92.62&91.86(2.5)&68.43&32.92(1.5)&39.39&\textbf{35.72(1.2)}&\textbf{22.32}&74.52(0.5)&73.7&76.71(0.7)\tikzmark{bottom right}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption[MCE $(\%)$ for different approaches]{MCE $(\%)$ computed for
different approaches both pre and post temperature scaling
(cross-validating T on ECE). Optimal temperature for each method
is indicated in brackets. }
\label{table:mce}
\end{table*}
Finally, calibrated models should have a higher logit score (or softmax
probability) on the correct class even when they misclassify, as compared to
models which are less calibrated. Thus, intuitively, such models should have a
higher Top-5 accuracy. Top-5 accuracy is the probability that one of the five
classes with the top five conditional likelihoods is the correct class. In
Table~\ref{table:top5}, we report the Top-5 accuracies for all our models on
datasets where the number of classes is relatively high (i.e., on CIFAR-100 with
100 classes and Tiny-ImageNet with 200 classes). We observe focal loss with
sample-dependent $\gamma$ to produce the highest top-5 accuracies on all models
trained on CIFAR-100 and the second-best top-5 accuracy (only marginally below
the highest accuracy) on Tiny-ImageNet.
\begin{table}[t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\centering
\footnotesize
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Cross-Entropy}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Brier Loss}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MMCE}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{LS-0.05}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{FLSD-53 (Ours)}}\\
&& Top-1 & Top-5 & Top-1 & Top-5 & Top-1 & Top-5 & Top-1 & Top-5 & Top-1 & Top-5 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{CIFAR-100} & ResNet-50&76.7&93.77&76.61&93.24&76.8&93.69&76.57&92.86&76.78&\textbf{94.44}\\
& ResNet-110&77.27&93.79&74.9&92.44&76.93&93.78&76.57&92.27&77.49&\textbf{94.78}\\
& Wide-ResNet-26-10&79.3&93.96&79.41&94.56&79.27&94.11&78.81&93.18&79.89&\textbf{95.2}\\
& DenseNet-121&75.48&91.33&76.25&92.76&76&91.96&75.95&89.51&77.33&\textbf{94.49}\\
\midrule
Tiny-ImageNet & ResNet-50&50.19&74.24&46.8&70.34&48.69&73.52&52.88&\textbf{76.15}&50.94&76.07\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies for different approaches.}
\label{table:top5}
\end{table}
\subsection{Confident and calibrated models} It is worth noting that focal loss with sample-dependent $\gamma$ has optimal temperatures that are very close to 1, mostly lying between 0.9 and 1.1 (see Table~\ref{table:ece_tab1}). This property is shown by the Brier loss and label smoothing models as well, albeit with worse calibration errors. By contrast, the temperatures for cross-entropy and MMCE models are significantly higher, with values lying between 2.0 and 2.8. An optimal temperature close to 1 indicates that the model is innately calibrated and cannot be made significantly more calibrated by temperature scaling. In fact, a temperature much greater than 1 can make a model underconfident in general as it is applied to all predictions irrespective of the correctness of the model's outputs.
We follow the approach adopted in~\citet{Kumar2018} and measure the percentage
of test samples that are predicted with a confidence of 0.99 or more (we call
this set of test samples $S99$). In~\Cref{table:side_table}, we report $|S99|$
as a percentage of the total number of test samples, along with the accuracy of
the samples in $S99$ for ResNet-50 and ResNet-110 trained on CIFAR-10, using
cross-entropy loss, MMCE loss, and focal loss. We observe that $|S99|$ for the
focal loss model is much lower than for the cross-entropy or MMCE models before
temperature scaling. However, after temperature scaling, $|S99|$ for focal loss
is significantly higher than for both MMCE and cross-entropy. The reason is that
with an optimal temperature of 1.1, the confidence of the temperature-scaled
model for focal loss does not reduce as much as it does for models trained with
cross-entropy and MMCE, for which the optimal temperatures lie between 2.5 and
2.8. We thus conclude that models trained on focal loss are not only more
calibrated, but also preserve their confidence on predictions, even after being
post-processed with temperature scaling.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Cross-Entropy (Pre T)}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Cross-Entropy (Post T)}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MMCE (Pre T)}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{MMCE (Post T)}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Focal Loss (Pre T)}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Focal Loss (Post T)}} \\
&& |S99|$\%$ & Accuracy & |S99|$\%$ & Accuracy & |S99|$\%$ & Accuracy & |S99|$\%$ & Accuracy & |S99|$\%$ & Accuracy & |S99|$\%$ & Accuracy \\
\midrule
CIFAR-10 & ResNet-110 & $97.11$ & $96.33$ & $11.5$ & $97.39$ & $97.65$ & $96.72$ & $10.62$ & $99.83$ & $61.41$ & $99.51$ & $31.10$ & $99.68$ \\
CIFAR-10 & ResNet-50 & $95.93$ & $96.72$ & $7.33$ & $99.73$ & $92.33$ & $98.24$ & $4.21$ & $100$ & $46.31$ & $99.57$ & $14.27$ & $99.93$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption[Percentage of test samples predicted with
confidence higher than $99\%$]{Percentage of test samples predicted with
confidence higher than $99\%$ and the corresponding accuracy for Cross
Entropy, MMCE and Focal loss computed both pre and post temperature
scaling (represented in the table as pre T and post T respectively).}
\label{table:side_table}
\end{table}
\section{Proofs for~\Cref{sec:focalloss}}
\label{sec:calibration-proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{thm:focal-reg-Bregman}]
let $K$ denotes the number of classes, $\mathcal{L}_f$ denote the
focal loss with parameter $\gamma$, $\cL_c$ denote the cross entropy
between $\hat{p}$ and $q$, and let $q_y$ denotes the ground-truth
probability assigned to the $y^{th}$ class (similarly for
$\hat{p}_y$). We consider the following simple extension of focal
loss:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_f &= -\sum_{y=1}^K (1 - \hat{p}_{y})^\gamma q_{y} \log{\hat{p}_{y}}\\
&\ge -\sum_{y=1}^K(1 - \gamma \hat{p}_{y})q_{y} \log{\hat{p}_{y}} &&\text{By Bernoulli's inequality $\forall \gamma \ge 1$, since $\hat{p}_{y} \in [0,1]$}\\
&=- \sum_{y=1}^K q_{y} \log{\hat{p}_{y}} - \gamma \left|\sum_{y=1}^K q_{y} \hat{p}_{y} \log{\hat{p}_{y}}\right|&& \text{$\forall y$, $\log{\hat{p}_{y}}\le 0$}\\
&\ge-\sum_{y=1}^K q_{y} \log{\hat{p}_{y}} - \gamma\max_j q_{j} \sum_{y=1}^K |\hat{p}_{y} \log{\hat{p}_{y}}|&&\text{By H\"older's inequality $||fg||_1 \leq ||f||_{\infty}||g||_1$}\\
&\ge-\sum_{y=1}^K q_{y} \log{\hat{p}_{y}} + \gamma\sum_{y=1}^K \hat{p}_{y} \log{\hat{p}_{y}}&&\forall j, q_j \in [0,1]\\
&= \mathcal{L}_c - \gamma\mathbb{H}[\hat{p}].
\end{align*}
We know that $\mathcal{L}_c = \mathrm{KL}(q||\hat{p})+
\mathbb{H}[q]$. Combining this equality with the above inequality
leads to:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_f \geq \mathrm{KL}(q||\hat{p})+ \underbrace{\mathbb{H}[q]}_{constant} - \gamma \mathbb{H}[\hat{p}].
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Here we provide the proofs of both the Lemmas presented in the main
text. While~\Cref{pro1} helps us understand the regularisation effect
of focal loss,~\Cref{pro:gamma} provides the $\gamma$ values in a principled
way such that it is sample-dependent. Implementing the
sample-dependent $\gamma$ is very easy as implementation of the
Lambert-W function~\citep{Corless1996} is available in
standard libraries (e.g.\ python scipy).
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{pro1}]
Let $\vec{w}$ be the linear layer parameters connecting the feature
map to the logit $s$. Then, using the chain rule, $\frac{\partial
\cL_f}{\partial \vec{w}} = \Big( \frac{\partial s}{\partial \vec{w}}
\Big) \Big( \frac{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}}{\partial s} \Big) \Big(
\frac{\partial \cL_f}{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}} \Big)$. Similarly,
$\frac{\partial \cL_c}{\partial \vec{w}} = \Big( \frac{\partial
s}{\partial \vec{w}} \Big) \Big( \frac{\partial
\hat{p}_{i,y_i}}{\partial s} \Big) \Big( \frac{\partial
\cL_c}{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}} \Big)$. The derivative of the focal
loss with respect to $\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$, the softmax output of the
network for the true class $y_i$, takes the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial \cL_f}{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}} & = - \frac{1}{\hat{p}_{i,y_i}} \Big( (1-\hat{p}_{i,y_i})^\gamma - \gamma \hat{p}_{i,y_i} (1-\hat{p}_{i,y_i})^{\gamma -1} \log(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}) \Big) \nonumber \\
& = \frac{\partial \cL_c}{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}} g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in which $g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma) = (1-\hat{p}_{i,y_i})^\gamma -
\gamma \hat{p}_{i,y_i} (1-\hat{p}_{i,y_i})^{\gamma -1}
\log(\hat{p}_{i,y_i})$ and $ \frac{\partial \cL_c}{\partial
\hat{p}_{i,y_i}} = -\frac{1}{\hat{p}_{i,y_i}}$. It is thus
straightforward to verify that if $g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma) \in
[0,1]$, then $\norm{\frac{\partial \cL_f}{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}}}
\leq \norm{\frac{\partial \cL_c}{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}}}$, which
itself implies that $\norm{\frac{\partial \cL_f}{\partial \vec{w}}}
\leq \norm{\frac{\partial \cL_c}{\partial \vec{w}}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{pro:gamma}]
We derive the value of $\gamma > 0$ for which $g(p_0, \gamma)=1$ for a given $p_0 \in [0, 1]$. From Proposition 4.1, we already know that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \cL_f}{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}} = \frac{\partial \cL_c}{\partial \hat{p}_{i,y_i}} g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma),
\end{equation}
where $\cL_f$ is focal loss, $\cL_c$ is cross entropy loss, $\hat{p}_{i,y_i}$ is the probability assigned by the model to the ground-truth correct class for the $i^{th}$ sample, and
\begin{equation}
g(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}, \gamma) = (1-\hat{p}_{i,y_i})^\gamma - \gamma \hat{p}_{i,y_i} (1-\hat{p}_{i,y_i})^{\gamma -1} \log(\hat{p}_{i,y_i}).
\end{equation}
For $p \in [0, 1]$, if we look at the function $g(p, \gamma)$, then we can clearly see that $g(p, \gamma) \rightarrow 1$ as $p \rightarrow 0$, and that $g(p, \gamma) = 0$ when $p = 1$. To observe the behaviour of $g(p, \gamma)$ for intermediate values of $p$, we first take its derivative with respect to $p$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:11}
\frac{\partial g(p, \gamma)}{\partial p} = \gamma (1-p)^{\gamma-2} \big[-2(1-p)-(1-p)\log p + (\gamma-1) p \log p\big]
\end{equation}
In Equation \ref{eq:11}, $\gamma(1-p)^{\gamma-2} > 0$ except when $p = 1$ (in which case $\gamma(1-p)^{\gamma-2} = 0$). Thus, to observe the sign of the gradient $\frac{\partial g(p, \gamma)}{\partial p}$, we focus on the term
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:12}
-2(1-p)-(1-p)\log p + (\gamma-1)p \log p.
\end{equation}
Dividing Equation \ref{eq:12} by $(-\log p)$, the sign remains unchanged and we get
\begin{equation}
k(p, \gamma) = \frac{2(1-p)}{\log p} + 1 - \gamma p.
\end{equation}
We can see that $k(p,\gamma) \rightarrow 1$ as $p \rightarrow 0$ and $k(p,\gamma) \rightarrow -(1+\gamma)$ as $p \rightarrow 1$ (using l'H{\^o}pital's rule). Furthermore, $k(p, \gamma)$ is monotonically decreasing for $p \in [0, 1]$. Thus, as the gradient $\frac{\partial g(p, \gamma)}{\partial p}$ is positive initially starting from $p = 0$ and negative later till $p = 1$, we can say that $g(p, \gamma)$ first monotonically increases starting from $1$ (as $p\rightarrow 0$) and then monotonically decreases down to $0$ (at $p = 1$). Thus, if for some threshold $p_0 > 0$ and for some $\gamma > 0$, $g(p, \gamma) = 1$, then $\forall p > p_0$, $g(p, \gamma) < 1$. We now want to find a $\gamma$ such that $\forall p \geq p_0$, $g(p, \gamma) \le 1$. First, let $a=(1-p_0)$ and $b=p_0\log p_0$. Then:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:exp_gamma}
&g(p_0, \gamma) = (1-p_0)^\gamma-\gamma p_0 (1-p_0)^{\gamma-1}\log p_0 \le 1\\
\implies &(1-p_0)^{\gamma-1}[(1-p_0)-\gamma p_0\log p_0] \le 1\\
\implies &a^{\gamma -1}(a-\gamma b) \le 1\\
\implies &(\gamma -1)\log a + \log (a-\gamma b) \le 0\\
\implies &\Big( \gamma-\frac{a}{b} \Big) \log a+\log(a-\gamma b) \le \Big( 1-\frac{a}{b} \Big)\log a\\
\implies &(a-\gamma b)e^{(\gamma -a/b)\log a} \le a^{(1-a/b)}\\
\implies &\Big( \gamma-\frac{a}{b} \Big) e^{(\gamma -a/b)\log a} \le -\frac{a^{(1-a/b)}}{b}\\
\implies &\Big( \Big( \gamma-\frac{a}{b} \Big) \log a\Big) e^{(\gamma -a/b)\log a} \ge -\frac{a^{(1-a/b)}}{b}\log a
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $a=(1-p_0)$ and $b=p_0\log p_0$. We know that the inverse of $y=x e^x$ is defined as $x=W(y)$, where $W$ is the Lambert-W function~\citep{Corless1996}. Furthermore, the r.h.s. of the inequality in Equation \ref{eq:exp_gamma} is always negative, with a minimum possible value of $-1/e$ that occurs at $p_0=0.5$. Therefore, applying the Lambert-W function to the r.h.s.\ will yield two real solutions (corresponding to a principal branch denoted by $W_0$ and a negative branch denoted by $W_{-1}$). We first consider the solution corresponding to the negative branch (which is the smaller of the two solutions):
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:exp_gamma_cont}
&\Big((\gamma-\frac{a}{b})\log a\Big) \le W_{-1}\Big(-\frac{a^{(1-a/b)}}{b}\log a\Big)\\
\implies &\gamma \ge \frac{a}{b}+\frac{1}{\log a}W_{-1}\Big(-\frac{a^{(1-a/b)}}{b}\log a\Big)\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If we consider the principal branch, the solution is
\begin{equation}
\gamma \le \frac{a}{b}+\frac{1}{\log a}W_{0}\Big(-\frac{a^{(1-a/b)}}{b}\log a\Big),
\end{equation}
which yields a negative value for $\gamma$ that we discard. Thus Equation \ref{eq:exp_gamma_cont} gives the values of $\gamma$ for which if $p>p_0$, then $g(p,\gamma) < 1$. In other words, $g(p_0, \gamma) = 1$, and for any $p < p_0$, $g(p, \gamma) > 1$.
\end{proof}
\section{The Learning from Data Problem}
\label{sec:clt}
This chapter will first discuss the various components of the {\em Learning from
data} problem and then formally state the learning problem.
Let $\cX$ and $\cY$ be two random variables defined over the instance space and
the label space, respectively. With a slight abuse of notation, we use the same
notations \(\cX\) and \(\cY\) to refer to the instance space and the label
space, as well. For most problems in this thesis, $\cX$ will be a compact domain
in $\reals^d$ where $d$ is the dimension of the problem and $\cY$ will be an
unordered finite set. %
In an image classification problem, the space of vector representations of
natural images is an example of the instance space %
and the set of one-hot representations of the classes in a multi-class
classification problem is an example of the label space. A distribution $\cD$,
commonly referred to as the {\em data distribution}, is defined on the product
space $\cX\times\cY$. Importantly, this distribution is fixed but unknown to the
learner.~A finite sample
$\cS_m=\bc{\br{\vec{x}_1,y_1},\ldots,\br{\vec{x}_m,y_m}}$, referred to as a
{\em training dataset}, is created by sampling $m$ independently and identically
distributed~(i.i.d.) points from $\cD$.
The next component of the learning problem is the {\em hypothesis class} or the
{\em concept class }$\cH$ over the instance space $\cX$. The hypothesis class
over $\cX$ is defined as the space of functions from $\cX$ to $\cY$ i.e.
$f:\cX\rightarrow\cY$. An element of this set is referred to as a hypothesis or
a concept. Examples of $\cH$ include all linear separators and all neural
networks that have a fixed architecture. For example, the class of multi-layer
perceptrons defined below is an example of a hypothesis class and one that we
will use throughout the rest of the thesis.
\begin{restatable}[Multi-Layer Perceptron]{defn}{mlpnet}\label{defn:net-mlp} A
Multi-Layer Perceptron~(MLP) is a hierarchial model with a sequence of
$L$ layers. The $i^{\it th}$ layer is parameterized by a
matrix~$\vec{W}_i\in\reals^{\ell_{i-1}\times\ell_i}$ where \(\ell_i\)
represents the width of the \(i^{\it th}\) layer and \(W=\max_{1\le L}
\ell_i\) is the width of the MLP. The hypothesis class of MLPs
\(\cM\) is
\[\cM: \bc{h_\theta~\vert
h_\theta\br{\vec{x}}=
{\vec{W}_1\phi_{1}\br{\cdots\phi_{l-1}\br{\vec{W}_{L-1}\phi_L\br{\vec{W}_L\vec{x}}}}}, \theta=\bc{\vec{W}_1,\cdots,\vec{W}_L}}
\]
Each $\phi_i$ is an activation function and can all be identical or
different depending on the network configuration. In practice, they are
usually the same. When $\phi$ operates on a vector, it operates element-wise
on each element of the vector.
\end{restatable}
Finally, we also define the {\em loss function}
$\ell:\cY\times\cY\rightarrow\reals$, which is used to measure the goodness of
the functions in the hypothesis class. Intuitively, a loss function denotes the
price we pay when a function $f\in\cH$ sees $\vec{x}\in\cX$ and guesses the
output to be $f\br{\vec{x}}\in\cY$ when it is actually $y\in\cY$. The price paid
is small when $f\br{\vec{x}}$ and $y$ are close and large when they are
far. The goodness of the
function $f\in\cH$ on the whole distribution is measured with the notion of
Expected Risk.
\begin{restatable}[Expected risk]{defn}{emprisk}
\label{defn:exp_loss}
For a distribution $\cD$, loss function $\ell$, and a hypothesis $h\in\cH$,
the expected risk is defined as \[\riskOne{h;\cD,\ell} =
\int_{\vec{z}=\br{\vec{x},y}\sim\cD} \ell(h\br{\vec{x}},y)~dD(\vec{z})\]
When we omit $\ell$ from the definition of the expected risk, we will refer to the expected error for the $0/1$ loss function $\ell_{0,1}\br{y,\hat{y}}=\bI\bc{y\neq \hat{y}}$
\[ \risk{\cD}{f}=\riskOne{h;\cD,\ell_{0,1}}=\bP_{\br{\vec{x},y}\sim\cD}\bs{f\br{\vec{x}}\neq y},\]
\end{restatable}
Now, we are ready to define the learning problem. Given a hypothesis class
$\cH$, a loss function $\ell$, and a training set $\cS_m$ consisting of $m$
i.i.d points sampled from an unknown but fixed {\em data distribution} $\cD$,
the objective of a learning algorithm $\cA$ is to return a hypothesis
$h=\cA\br{\cS_m}\in\cH$ that, with high probability, minimizes the expected
risk $\riskOne{h;\cD,\ell}$. For simplicity, we will omit $\cD$ and $\ell$ from
the definition of expected risk when they will be clear from the context.
\subsection{PAC Learning}
We will provide the formal definition of the learning problem using the Probably
Approximate Correct~(PAC)~\citep{Valiant1984} learning framework. Let the
distribution $\cD_{\cX}$ be the restriction of the distribution $\cD$ on the
instance space $\cX$ such that there is a {\em target} concept class $\cC$ along
with a target concept $c\in\cC$, which labels the data drawn from $\cD_{\cX}$.
The objective of the learning problem is to capture $c$ as closely as possible.
To highlight that the generation of the training dataset is a random process and
that depends on the target concept $c$, the training dataset is obtained as
follows. First, an instance $\vec{x}\in\cX$ is sampled from $\cD_{\cX}$ and is
then assigned a label by the target concept $c$. This process is referred to
as a call to the example oracle, denoted as $EX\br{c;D_{\cX}}$. Therefore,
drawing an $m$-sized dataset $\cS_m$ can be simulated with $m$ calls to
$EX\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$.
\begin{defn}[PAC-Learnability] \label{defn:pac-learning}
A concept class $\cC$ is said to be PAC-learnable using the hypothesis class $\cH$, if there exists a~(possibly randomized) algorithm $\cA$ such that the following holds true. For every $c\in\cC$, for every distribution $\cD_{\cX}$ over $\cX$, for every $0<\epsilon,\delta<1$, if $\cA$ is given access to $EX\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$ and is given as input $\epsilon,\delta$, then $\cA$ makes $m$ calls to $EX\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$ and returns $h\in\cH$ such that with probability at least $1-\delta$, $\riskOne{h;\cD}\le\epsilon$. The probability is over the randomization in the calls to the example oracle and the internal randomization of $\cA$.
The number of calls made to $EX\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$ is referred to as the sample complexity~(denoted by $m$) and must be bounded by a polynomial in $\frac{1}{\epsilon},\frac{1}{\delta}$, and some parameters depending on the size of $c$ and the size of the instance space~$\cX$. Further, all hypotheses in $\cH$ must also be evaluable in polynomial time~(in the size of the input).
\end{defn}
Without diving too deep into the details of PAC Learning\footnote{For a more
detailed expose into this topic, please refer to the excellent lecture notes
in~\url{http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/varun.kanade/teaching/CLT-HT-TT2021/lectures/CLT.pdf}},
we will discuss the importance of the various components of the PAC learning
framework. It is important to note at this stage that our main goal in this
thesis is to control not just the classification error, but also to improve
certain additional properties of reliability~(which will be discussed in detail
in~\Cref{sec:trml}) in machine learning. Thus, our discussion will diverge, at
places, from the original PAC learning framework even though the essential
components like sample complexity, error and confidence parameter and choice of
hypothesis class remain equally relevant. Below, we discuss some of the
important points.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The sample complexity for learning should be relatively small i.e.
polynomial in problem parameters. When learning from real-world data, it is
usually not possible to see more than a fixed number of samples, so it might
not be practical to expect our learning algorithm to achieve arbitrarily low
error or very high confidence in the low data regime. Thus, it is important
to understand what error and confidence are achievable in the low data
regime.
Further, when along with classification error the learning problem also
requires controlling an additional metric of reliability like adversarial
vulnerability or mis-calibration, the sample complexity of the problem might
increase. We will identify theoretically and experimentally when this
increase in sample complexity happens and if necessary, design learning
algorithms where this increase is small or absent.
\item Choosing the hypothesis class $\cH$ that is used to learn the target
concept $c$ is perhaps the most relevant component of PAC learning for this
thesis. This is important for multiple reasons. First, the sample complexity
of learning the same target concept can be large or small depending on the
choice of hypothesis class it is being learnt from. This is discussed
further in~\Cref{sec:erm}.
Second, we are looking to control not just the classification error but also
other metrics of reliability. Depending on the choice of hypothesis class,
it might be impossible to control both the test error and the metric of
reliability simultaneously. Even in situations where they can both be
controlled simultaneously, it might lead to an increase in sample
complexity. We will investigate which combined choice of an additional
metric of reliability and hypothesis class can pose such
problems.%
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Learning with noise}
\label{sec:lbl-noise-pac}
One of the important restrictions of the PAC learning framework, as defined
in~\Cref{defn:pac-learning}, is the assumption that the example oracle always
faithfully returns unblemished examples drawn from the target distribution and
labels them according to the target concept. Often, for the data given to
training algorithms, this is too strict a requirement as label noise is
ubiquitous in real-world data. Such noise can arise from multiple sources
including a malicious or careless data annotator, faulty communication equipment
transmitting the data, or faulty recording equipment recording the data. This
necessitates the design of a formal framework that can capture noise in the data
generation process. The noisy PAC learning framework of~\citet{Angluin1988} is
an example of such a framework.
The important change from the noiseless framework is in the way data is
generated using the example oracle. Let $0\le\eta<\frac{1}{2}$ be the noise
rate. A simple framework to simulate the noise is through the Random
Classification Noise~(RCN) oracle denoted as $EX_{\eta}\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$. To
generate an instance using this oracle, first, an instance is generated using the original example oracle $EX\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$ and then with probability
$\eta$ the label is flipped to an arbitrary incorrect label.
PAC-Learnability with Random Classification Noise is defined exactly as PAC
Learnability but with the example oracle $EX(c;\cD_{\cX})$ replaced with the
noisy example oracle $EX_{\eta}\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$ and $\frac{1}{1-2\eta}$ added to the set of parameters the sample complexity should be polynomial in.
\begin{defn}[PAC-Learnability with Random Classification Noise] \label{defn:noisy-pac-learning}
A concept class $\cC$ is said to be PAC-learnable in the presence of random classification noise using the hypothesis class $\cH$, if there exists a~(possibly randomized) algorithm $\cA$ such that the following holds. For every $c\in\cC$, for every distribution $\cD_{\cX}$ over $\cX$, for every $0<\epsilon,\delta<1$, and for every $0\le\eta< \frac{1}{2}$, if $\cA$ is given access to $EX_{\eta}\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$ and is given as input $\epsilon,\delta$ and $\eta$, then $\cA$ makes $m$ calls to $EX_\eta\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$ and returns $h\in\cH$ such that with probability at least $1-\delta$, $\riskOne{h;\cD}\le\epsilon$, where the probability is over the randomization in the calls to the example oracle and the internal randomization of $\cA$.
The number of calls made to $EX\br{c;\cD_{\cX}}$, referred to as the sample
complexity~(denoted with $m$), must be bounded by a polynomial in
$\frac{1}{\epsilon},\frac{1}{\delta},\frac{1}{1-2\eta}$ and some parameters
depending on the size of $c$ and size of the instance space~$\cX$. Further, all
hypotheses in $\cH$ must also be evaluable in polynomial time~(in the size of
the input).
\end{defn}
While the presence of Random Classification Noise~(RCN) is an added challenge,
several hypothesis classes that are PAC learnable in the original definition of
PAC learning~(c.f.~\Cref{defn:pac-learning}) have also been shown to be PAC
learnable with random classification noise. One of the only problems for which
no algorithm is known in the noisy setting of~\Cref{defn:noisy-pac-learning} but
is known to be learnable in the noiseless PAC setting
of~\Cref{defn:pac-learning} is the parity problem~\citep{Kearns1998}. However,
even for problems that are learnable in the noisy setting, the learning
algorithm might be different from the noiseless setting.
In~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}, we discuss and provide experimental evidence
for how a learning algorithm can impose additional structure on the hypothesis
class to aid learning in the presence of random classification noise.
When the learning task must also satisfy additional metrics of
reliability like robustness and calibration, the presence of random classification noise can pose further
challenges. In~\Cref{chap:causes_vul}, we discuss this for the specific case of
adversarial robustness.
\section{Datasets}
We use the following image and document classification datasets in our experiments:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
\item \textbf{MNIST} ~\citep{LBBH:1998}: This dataset has $60,000$ training and
$10,000$ test images. Each image has a dimension of 28x28. This dataset is used
in~\Cref{chap:causes_vul,chap:TAPAS}. For experiments in~\Cref{chap:TAPAS}, we
use the model (torch7) described in \cite{CHSEB:2016} whereas the model used
in~\Cref{chap:causes_vul} is described in the chapter itself.
\item \textbf{CIFAR-10} \citep{krizhevsky2009learning}: This dataset
has 60,000 colour images of size $32 \times 32$, divided equally into
10 classes. For all experiments other than the ones in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}, we use the standard train/test split of $50,000/10,000$ images. In~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}, we use a train/validation/test split of
$45,000/5,000/10,000$ images. Furthermore, we augment the training images by applying
random crops and random horizontal flips. This dataset is used in the experiments for~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main,chap:causes_vul,chap:low_rank_main,chap:focal_loss}
\item \textbf{CIFAR-100} \citep{krizhevsky2009learning}: This dataset has 60,000
colour images of size $32 \times 32$, divided equally into 100 fine classes.
There is also a fixed partitioning of the $100$ classes into $20$ coarse classes.
Note that the images in this dataset are not the same images as in CIFAR-10. We
also augment the training images by applying random crops and random horizontal
flips. We again use a train/validation/test split of 45,000/5,000/10,000
images. For all experiments other than the ones in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}, we
again use the standard train/test split of $50,000/10,000$ images.
In~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}, we use a train/validation/test split of
$45,000/5,000/10,000$ images. This dataset is used in the experiments
for~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main,chap:causes_vul,chap:low_rank_main,chap:focal_loss}
\item \textbf{SVHN}~\citep{Netzer2011}: The Street View House Number or SVHN dataset has $73,257$ digits for training, $26,032$ digits for testing, and $531,131$ additional easier samples, to be used as extra training data. There are $10$ classes like MNIST and CIFAR10. We use this dataset in~\Cref{chap:low_rank_main}.
\item \textbf{Restricted Imagenet Settings}~\citep{tsipras2018robustness}
Restricted-Imagenet is a subset of ImageNet with 64 x 64 dimensional
images. There are $60$ fine classes and $10$ coarse classes with each coarse
class having $6$ distinct fine classes in them. The train set size is 77237 and
the test-set size is 3000. The fine classes within each coarse are balanced i.e.
given a coarse class all the fine classes in it are equally represented in this
dataset. This dataset is used in the experiments for~\Cref{chap:causes_vul}.
\begin{table}[!htb]\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}[!htb]{|l@{\quad}l@{}|}\toprule
Coarse Class& Fine Classes\\\midrule
Dog&Chihuahua, Japanese spaniel, Maltese dog, Pekinese,\\ & Shih-Tzu,Blenheim spaniel\\
Bird&cock, hen, ostrich, brambling, goldfinch, house finch\\
Insect&tiger beetle,ladybug,ground beetle, long-horned beetle, \\ &leaf
beetle, dung beetle\\
Monkey&guenon, patas, baboon, macaque, langur, colobus\\
Car&jeep, limousine,cab, beach wagon, ambulance, convertible\\
Feline&leopard, snow leopard, jaguar, lion, cougar, lynx\\
Truck&tow truck, moving van, fire engine, garbage truck,\\& pickup,police van\\
Fruit&Granny Smith, rapeseed, corn, acorn, hip, buckeye\\
Fungus&gyromitra, hen-of-the-woods, coral fungus,stinkhorn,\\ & agaric, earthstar\\
Boat&gondola, fireboat, speedboat, lifeboat, yawl, canoe\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Fine-grained classes in Restricted Imagenet}
\label{tab:fine-grained-classs}
\end{table}
\item \textbf{Tiny-ImageNet} \citep{imagenet_cvpr09}: Tiny-ImageNet is
a subset of ImageNet with 64 x 64 dimensional images, 200 classes and
500 images per class in the training set and 50 images per class in
the validation set. The image dimensions of Tiny-ImageNet are twice
that of CIFAR-10/100 images.
For Tiny-ImageNet, we train for 100 epochs with a learning rate of 0.1 for the
first 40 epochs, 0.01 for the next 20 epochs and 0.001 for the last 40 epochs.
We use a training batch size of 64. It should be noted that for Tiny-ImageNet,
we saved 50 samples per class (i.e., a total of 10000 samples) from the training
set as our own validation set to fine-tune the temperature parameter (hence, we
trained on 90000 images) and we use the Tiny-ImageNet validation set as our test
set. This dataset is used in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}.
\item \textbf{CelebA}~\citep{liu2015faceattributes} The CelebA dataset contains $202,599$ coloured images scaled to a size of $64\times64$. We use this dataset for the experiments on image generation in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}.
\item \textbf{20 Newsgroups} \citep{Lang1995}: This dataset contains
20,000 news articles, categorised evenly into 20 different newsgroups
based on their content. It is a popular dataset for text
classification. Whilst some of the newsgroups are very related (e.g.\
rec.motorcycles and rec.autos), others are quite unrelated (e.g.\
sci.space and misc.forsale). We use a train/validation/test split of
15,098/900/3,999 documents.
On this dataset, we train the Global Pooling Convolutional Network
\citep{Lin2014} using the Adam optimiser, with learning rate $0.001$, and betas
$0.9$ and $0.999$.\footnote{The code is a PyTorch adaptation of~\url{https://github.com/aviralkumar2907/MMCE}}. We
used Glove word embeddings \citep{Pennington2014} to train the network. We
trained all the models for 50 epochs and used the models with the best
validation accuracy. This dataset is used in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}.
\item \textbf{Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST)} \citep{Socher2013}: This dataset contains movie reviews in the form of sentence parse trees, where each node is annotated by sentiment. We use the dataset version with binary labels, for which 6,920/872/1,821 documents are used as the training/validation/test split. In the training set, each node of a parse tree is annotated as positive, neutral or negative. At test time, the evaluation is done based on the model classification at the root node, i.e.\ considering the whole sentence, which contains only positive or negative sentiment.
On this dataset, we train the Tree-LSTM~\citep{Tai2015} using the AdaGrad
optimiser with a learning rate of $0.05$ and a weight decay of $10^{-4}$, as
suggested by the authors. We used the constituency model, which considers binary
parse trees of the data and trains a binary Tree-LSTM on them. The Glove word
embeddings \citep{Pennington2014} were also tuned for best results. The code
framework we used is inspired by \cite{TreeLSTM}. We trained these models for 25
epochs and used the models with the best validation accuracy. This dataset is
used in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}.
\item \textbf{Cancer}~\citep{Dua:2019}%
The Cancer dataset\footnote{https://tinyurl.com/gl3yhzb} contains $569$ data
points where each point has $30$ real-valued features. The task is to predict
whether a tumor is malignant (cancerous) or benign. We use this dataset
in~\Cref{chap:TAPAS}. Similar to \citet{MLH:2018} we divide the dataset into a
training set and a test in a $70:30$ ratio. For every real-valued feature, we
divide the range of the feature into three equal-spaced bins and one-hot encode
each feature by its bin-membership.
This creates a $90$-dimensional binary vector for each example. We use
a single fully connected layer $90 \rightarrow 1$ followed by a batch
normalization layer, as is common practice for BNNs \cite{CHSEB:2016}.
\textbf{Diabetes}~\citep{Strack2014}%
This dataset\footnote{https://tinyurl.com/m6upj7y} contains data on
$100,000$ patients with diabetes.
The task is to predict one of three possible labels regarding hospital
readmission after release: 1. a patient is readmitted to the hospital after
release in less than or equal to $30$ days; 2. readmission happens after $30$
days;3. a patient is not readmitted. We use this dataset in~\Cref{chap:TAPAS}.
We divide patients into a $80/20$ train/test split. We ensure that the same
patient does not appear in both the training and test dataset by splitting patients
who appear more than once by putting them in either the training or the test dataset
in a $80:20$ split ratio. As this dataset contains real and categorical
features, we bin them as in the Cancer dataset. We obtain a $1,704$ dimensional
binary data point for each entry. Our network (selected by cross validation)
consists of a fully connected layer $1704 \rightarrow 10$, a batch normalization
layer, a \textsc{sign} activation function, followed by another fully connected
layer $10 \rightarrow 3$, and a batch normalization layer.
\item \textbf{Labeled Faces in the Wild-a}~\citep{LFWTech,Wolf2011}
The \textit{Labeled Faces in the Wild-a} dataset contains $13,233$ gray-scale
face images. We use the binary classification task of gender identification from
the images. We use this dataset in~\Cref{chap:TAPAS}. We use the \textit{LFW-a}
version~\footnote{https://www.openu.ac.il/home/hassner/data/lfwa/} of the
dataset where the images are aligned using a commercial alignment software and
are grayscale. We resize the images to size $50\times 50$. Our network
architecture (selected by cross-validation) contains $5$ convolutional layers,
each of which is followed by a batch normalization layer and a $\textsc{sign}$
activation function (except the last which has no activation). All convolutional
layers have unit stride and filter dimensions $10\times 10$. All layers except
the last layer have $32$ output channels (the last has a single output channel).
The output is flattened and passed through a fully connected layer $25
\rightarrow 1$ and a batch normalization layer.
\end{enumerate}
For all our experiments, we use the PyTorch framework, setting any
hyperparameters not explicitly mentioned to the default values used in the
standard models.
\section{Neural network architectures}
We use the following neural network architectures throughout the thesis.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{ResNet-18/50/110} The ResNet-18/50/100 are standard $18,50,$
and $110$ layered ResNets respectively with batch Norm and ReLU. Each of
these networks have a convolution layer followed by four residual blocks and
a final fully connected layer. The depth of these blocks vary depending on
the total number of layers.
When using these networks to learn CIFAR10 and CIFAR100, we train with
stochastic gradient descent for a total of $350$ epochs with an initial
learning rate of $0.1$, which is multiplied $0.1$ after $150$ and $250$
epochs respectively, a weight decay of $5e-4$ and a momentum of $0.9$. We use ResNet-18 in~\Cref{chap:causes_vul,chap:low_rank_main}, ResNet-50 in~\Cref{chap:causes_vul,chap:low_rank_main,chap:focal_loss}, and ResNet-100 in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main,chap:focal_loss}
\item \textbf{WideResNet-28/26-10} We use a standard WideResNet with $28$
and $26$ layers and a growth factor of $10$. In total, the network has
36,539,124 trainable parameters. The network is the standard configuration
with batchnorm and ReLU activations and is trained with a weight decay of
$1e-4$. The learning rate was multiplied by $0.2$ after $60,120$, and $160$
epochs respectively. We use WideResNet-28-10 in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}
and WideResNet-26-10 in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}.
\item \textbf{Densenet-100/121} The DenseNet-100 is a standard $100$-layered
densenet with Batchnorm and ReLU and has a total of $800,032$ trainable
parameters. We train the network on CIFAR10/100 for a total of $350$ epochs
with SGD using an initial learning rate of $0.1$, which is multiplied by
$0.1$ after $150$ and $250$ epochs respectively, a weight decay of $1e-4$,
and a momentum of $0.9$. We use Densenet-100 in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main} and Densenet-121 in~\Cref{chap:causes_vul,chap:focal_loss}.
\item \textbf{VGG19} The VGG19 model is the standard 19-layered VGG model
with Batchnorm and ReLU. It has three fully connected~(FC)
layers after sixteen convolution layers. It has a total of $20,548,392$
trainable parameters and is trained with SGD with a momentum of $0.9$ and a
weight decay of $5e-4$. The initial learning rate is $0.1$ and is multiplied
by $0.1$ after $150$ and $250$ epochs respectively. We use this network for
experiments
in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main,chap:causes_vul}. For the
shattering experiments in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}, we used the same
architecture and the same training recipe except the initial learning rate,
which was deceased to $0.01$ as the model failed to learn the random labels
with a large learning rate.
\item \textbf{AlexNet} The Alexnet model is the standard ALexNet model with
$4,965,092$ trainable parameters. It was trained with SGD, with a
momentum of $0.9$, with an initial learning rate is $0.01$, which is
multiplied by $0.1$ after $150$ and $250$ epochs respectively. The
optimiser was further augmented with a weight decay rate of $5e-4$. We use this network for the experiments in~\Cref{chap:causes_vul}.
\item \textbf{GAN Architecture} The model architecture for both the
generator and the discriminator was chosen to be a 32 layered
ResNet~\citep{HZRS:2016}~(similar to ResNet-18 above) due to its previous
superior performance in other works~\citep{miyato2018spectral}. We use Adam
optimiser~\citep{kingma2014adam} which depends on three main
hyper-parameters $\alpha$- the initial learning rate, $\beta_1$- the first
order moment decay rate and $\beta_2$- the second order moment decay rate.
We cross-validate these parameters in the set $\alpha\in\{0.0002,
0.0005\},~\beta_1\in\{0, 0.5\},~\beta_2\in\{0.9, 0.999\}$ and chose
$\alpha=0.0002$, $\beta_1=0.0$ and $\beta_2=0.999$ which performed
consistently well in all of the experiments.
\item \textbf{Neural Divergence Setup} We train a new classifier inline with
the architecture in~\citet{gulrajani2018towards}. It includes three
convolution layers with 16, 32 and 64 channels, a kernel size of $5\times~5$
and a stride of $2$. Each of these layers are followed by a Swish
activation~\citep{ramachandran2018searching} and then finally a linear layer
that gives a single output. The network is initialised using normal
distribution with zero mean and the standard deviation of $0.02$, and
trained using Adam optimiser with $\alpha=0.0002,~\beta_1=0.,~\beta_2=0.9$
for a total of $100,000$ iterations with mini-batch of $128$ generated
samples and $128$ samples from the test-set\footnote{For CelebA, we used the
training set.}. We use the standard WGAN-GP loss function, $\log\br{1 +
\exp\br{f\br{\vec{x}_{\mathrm{fake}}}}} + \log{\br{1 +
\exp\br{-\vec{x}_{\mathrm{real}}}}}$, where $f$ represents the network
described above. Finally, we generate $1~\mathrm{Million}$ samples from the
generator and report the average $\log\br{1 +
\exp\br{f\br{\vec{x}_{\mathrm{fake}}}}}$ over these samples. Higher average
value implies better generation as the network in this case is unable to
distinguish the generated and the real samples.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Importance of structures for generalisation in neural networks}
\label{sec:struc-gn-nn}
Guaranteeing generalisation for models obtained via ERM using results akin to~\Cref{eq:gen-erm} requires
\begin{enumerate}
\item an upper-bound on the true complexity of the model and
\item a dataset, whose size is proportionally large to match the upper-bound
on model complexity.
\end{enumerate}
If the proposed upper-bound on the model complexity is loose, the corresponding
number of samples required to theoretically guarantee generalisation
using~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm} will be large even if the true complexity of the
model is low and thus, in practice, generalisation will be observed with a
smaller dataset.
In the case of neural networks, it has been difficult to find accurate
definitions of the complexity measure $C$ in~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm}. In fact,
definitions of $C$ from most recent works prescribe a value of $N$ that is too
large to justify the generalisation we see in real life with an amount of data
that is orders of magnitude less than the prescribed amount.~\citet{arora18b}
shows~(See Figure 3 in~\citet{arora18b}) that when recent measures of
complexity~\citep{bartlett2002rademacher,neyshabur2015norm,bartlett2017spectrally,neyshabur2018a,arora18b}
are applied to VGG-19, the resultant prescribed sample complexities are many
orders of magnitude larger than the actual number of trainable parameters, let
alone the number of training examples.~\citet{Dziugaite2017} also show~(see
Appendix D in~\citet{Dziugaite2017}) that Rademacher complexity bounds computed
using the complexity bound of~\citet{neyshabur2015norm} are vacuous for deep
neural networks i.e. the bounds predict that the test error will be less than
one, which is trivially satisfied by the definition of test error.
While existing works in generalisation theory for neural networks seem to be
unable to prescribe the absolute amount of data~(even approximately) required
for generalisation in practice, it is natural to ask whether the {\em
structures}, identified by these works as being important for generalisation, do
in fact causally impact generalisation in practice\footnote{In this thesis, we
use the term {\em structure} to loosely refer to properties of both --- neural
networks and the data distribution eg. rank of the weight matrices, entropy of
the probability distribution over classes, rank of representations, and noise in
data.}. To address this, ~\citet{Jiang2020Fantastic} conduct a large-scale
empirical study to find out if there are causal relationships between recently
proposed complexity measures and generalisation in neural networks. They train
more than 2000 models on CIFAR10 in a controlled setup by systematically varying
important hyper-parameters, optimisation algorithms, and stopping criterion, and
investigate whether there is a strong correlation between generalisation and any
of the over 40 complexity measures that they study. Their results indicate that
a large number of them do indeed appear to be causally related to generalisation
even though the bounds themselves are vacuous i.e. the test error of different
learnt models maintain the same ordering as predicted by applying the
generalisation bounds on the the learnt models though the exact upper-bound on
the test error predicted by the generalisation bounds are greater than one,
which is true by the definition of test error. Despite the bounds being vacuous,
the causal relationship between the generalisation error and the complexity
bounds explored in their work suggests that regularising these complexity
measures might benefit generalisation in practice.
However, their study also suggests, somewhat counterintuitively and without a
causal explanation, that a large number of these complexity measures are
negatively correlated with generalisation. One of the limitations of their study
in identifying correlation between complexity measures and generalisation is
that they do not explicitly penalise the complexity measures in their
experiments. Without explicit penalties, the complexity measures of the learnt
models have higher magnitudes than what would be the case with said penalty. They compute the correlation between generalisation and complexity
measures by studying only the distribution on the complexity measures induced by
training without explicit penalties~(natural training). Thus, it is possible
that when the complexity measures lie in a range of larger magnitudes via
natural training, they do not show a strong correlation with generalisation but
lower magnitudes obtained through direct penalisation will show a strong
correlation. We show in ~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main} that explicit penalisation
of the structures identified by these complexity measures indeed shows a greater
impact on the generalisation behaviour in practice.
Thus our focus in this thesis is on studying the structures identified by these
complexity bounds and designing optimisation algorithms or regularisation
techniques to constrain them in practice in an efficient way.
As the main purpose of this thesis is not to propose new tighter generalisation
bounds, we will not delve deep into defining the complexity measure~$C$.
However, a general introduction to this topic is necessary to demonstrate the
context and significance of some of the future chapters,
especially~\cref{chap:low_rank_main,chap:stable_rank_main}.
\subsection{Norm-based complexity measures}
\label{sec:common-gen}
Ultimately, the objective of designing complexity measures for neural networks
is to use them in some variant of~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm} and obtain
generalisation guarantees for these networks. One well-known instantiation of
the theorem involves Rademacher complexities~(\Cref{defn:radem-compl}).
Rademacher complexity~\citep{Koltchinskii2001} is a relatively modern notion of
complexity that is ~(data) distribution dependent and is defined for any class
of real-valued functions. The Rademacher complexity of a hypothesis class $\cH$
over sets, of size $N$, drawn i.i.d from a distribution $\cD$~($\cD$ is usually
omitted from the notation) is denoted by $\rad{\cH}{m}$.
\begin{defn}[Rademacher
Complexity~\citep{Koltchinskii2001}]\label{defn:radem-compl} Let a sample $\cS
= \bc{\vec{x}_1,\cdots,\vec{x}_m}$ be drawn i.i.d. from a data distribution
$\cD_{\cX}$ over the instance space $\cX$ and consider a hypothesis class
$\cH$, then the \emph{empirical rademacher complexity} of $\cH$ on the sample
$\cS$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\emprad{\cH}{m} = \bE\bs{\sup_{h\in\cH}\dfrac{1}{m}
\sum_{i=1}^m\sigma_ih(\vec{x_i}) }
\end{equation} where the expectation is over the
rademacher variables $\sigma_i$, which are independent, uniform,
$\bc{\pm 1}$ valued random variables
The rademacher complexity is then defined as the expectation of the
empirical rademacher complexity over the selection of the sample set
using the underlying distribution.
\begin{equation}
\rad{\cH}{m} = \bE_{\cS\sim\cD_{\cX}^m}\bs{\emprad{\cH}{m}}
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
Recall the second learning task in the thought experiment from
~\Cref{sec:gen_nn} where the target concept is a random labelling function.
Clearly, this is a meaningless learning problem. The empirical rademacher
complexity in~\Cref{defn:radem-compl} captures (in expectation over the
labelling) how well the best hypothesis from the hypothesis class \(\cH\) can
fit these random labels on the given dataset. In other words, it measures how
well \(\cH\) can fit noise. Experiments in~\citet{Zhang2016}, showing that
certain classes of deep neural networks like ResNet can memorise noise,
suggests that these classes have a very large empirical rademacher complexity.
\begin{thmL}[Rademacher Complexity Generalisation
Bound]\label{thm:gen-radem-error} Consider a hypothesis class $\cH$ of
hypothesis $h:\reals^d\rightarrow\bs{0,1}$ and, $\riskOne{h}$ and
$\empRisk{h}{N}$ are the expected and empirical risks as defined
in~\Cref{defn:exp_loss,defn:emp_loss}. Then $\forall\delta\ge 0$, with
probability $1-\delta$ ,the following holds\footnote{Proof can be found in~\url{http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/varun.kanade/teaching/CLT-HT2018/lectures/lecture08.pdf}. \todo[color=green]{Find the proof}} $\forall h\in\cH$
\[\riskOne{h}\le \empRisk{h}{N}+ 2\rad{\cH}{N} + \sqrt{\dfrac{\log{\br{\frac{1}{\delta}}}}{2N}}\]
\end{thmL}
To use~\Cref{thm:gen-radem-error} for neural networks, we need to compute the
rademacher complexities of classes of neural networks. A series of
papers~\citep{bartlett2002rademacher,neyshabur2015norm,golowich18a} has
designed Rademacher complexity bounds for neural networks. These bounds
primarily depend on the product of the Frobenius norm of the weight parameters
of each layer $\norm{\vec{W}_i}_\mathrm{F}$ and the depth of the network $L$.
As~\Cref{thm:simpl-radm-nn} shows, some of these
bounds~(c.f.~\Cref{ineq:rad-exp-depth-frob-simple}) have an exponential
dependence on network depth $L$ while others~\citep{golowich18a} avoid the
exponential dependence but still have an indirect dependence on the network
depth through the product of the norms. Note that the only term
in~\Cref{thm:simpl-radm-nn} that contains learnable parameters and can be
controlled through regularisation are the Frobenius norms
$\norm{\vec{W}_i}_\mathrm{F}$ of each weight matrix. Thus, explicit
regularisation of the norms of each weight parameter in a neural network
through regularisers like weight decay might help with generalisation.
Experiments in~\citet{Zhang2016}~(c.f. Table 1,2 in~\citet{Zhang2016}) show
that while this has a positive effect on generalisation, the effect is
small. Thus, there is a need to identify further structures which have
stronger impact on generalisation.
\begin{thmL}[Simplified Rademacher Complexity of MLP~\citep{bartlett2002rademacher,neyshabur2015norm,golowich18a}]
\label{thm:simpl-radm-nn} Consider a class of real-valued
Multi-Layer Perceptrons~(~\Cref{defn:net-mlp}) $\cN$ with ReLU activation
function and $L$ layers.
The Rademacher complexity of $\cN$ scales as
follows~\citep{neyshabur2015norm}\footnote{~\Cref{thm:simpl-radm-nn}
uses Empirical Rademacher Complexity while the generalisation bound
in~\Cref{thm:gen-radem-error} is with Rademacher complexities. However,
one can be transferred to the other.
See~\url{https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/james.worrell/rademacher.pdf}
for further information.}
\begin{equation}
\emprad{\cN}{N} \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}2^{L+1}
\br{\prod_{j=1}^L\norm{\vec{W}_j}_F} \br{\max_{x\in\cX}\norm{x}}
\label{ineq:rad-exp-depth-frob-simple}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{W}_j$ is the weight parameter for the $j^{\it th}$ layer of the neural network and $\cX$ is the instance space.~\citet{golowich18a} further improved bounds of this form to
\begin{equation} \emprad{\cN}{N} \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}
\br{\sqrt{2\log{\br{2}L}}+1} \br{\prod_{j=1}^L\norm{W_j}_F} \br{\max_{x\in\cX}\norm{x}}
\label{ineq:rad-depth-indep-simple} \end{equation}
\end{thmL}
\subsection{Rank and margin-based complexity measures}
\label{sec:marg-based-gener-main}
Despite its~(marginal) impact on generalisation in practice through explicit
penalisation, these bounds fail to explain some simple behaviours of neural
networks. Multi-layer perceptrons~(MLPs) and even convolutional neural
networks~(without special structures like skip connections) show the interesting
property of positive homogeneity. A function $f$ is $k$-positive homogenous if
there exists an integer $k$ such that for any positive constant $c$ and an
element $x$ in the domain of $f$, we have $f\br{cx}=c^k\br{x}$. It is easy to
verify that a $k$-layer MLP is $k$-positive homogenous in the space of
parameters. An important consequence of this fact is that, for a $k$-layer MLP,
multiplying all the weights of the network with a positive constant does not
alter the test error of the model even though it increases the norm of the
weights. Thus, using a suitably large positive number and the positive
homogeneity of MLPs, the complexity measures in~\Cref{thm:simpl-radm-nn} can be
increased to any arbitrarily large number without altering the generalisation
error of the model, which is a direct contradiction to what a generalisation
bound is supposed to achieve. This shows a simple failure case of norm-based
complexity measures like in~\Cref{thm:simpl-radm-nn}. Margin-based measures,
discussed below, can be used to overcome this particular failure case.
Before progressing further we will first define the concept of margin. Consider
a hypothesis class $\cH$ and the learning task to be multi-class classification.
Every hypotheses $h\in\cH$ takes a vector $\vec{x}$ from $\cX\subset\reals^d$
and generates a probability distribution over the classes identified by the $k$
dimensions of $\cY\subseteq\Delta^k$, the $k$-dimensional simplex. The standard
strategy for prediction using this model is to output the index of
$h\br{\vec{x}}$ which has the largest magnitude i.e.
$\argmax_i{h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{i}}$. In~\cref{defn:margin,defn:margin-loss}, we
define the concept of margin and margin loss respectively.
\begin{restatable}[Margin]{defn}{margin}\label{defn:margin} The margin of a
hypothesis $h$ at a data sample $\br{\vec{x},y}$ is defined as
\[\gamma\br{h;\vec{x},y} = h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{y} - \max_{j\neq
y}h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{j}\] where \(h\br{\vec{x}}\bs{j}\) indexes the \(j^{\it
th}\) element of \(h\br{\vec{x}}\).
\end{restatable}
\begin{restatable}[Margin Loss]{defn}{marginloss}\label{defn:margin-loss}
The margin loss is defined as
\begin{equation}
\ell_{\gamma^*}\br{h; \vec{x}, y} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \gamma\br{h;\vec{x},y} \ge \gamma^*\\
1 & \gamma\br{h;\vec{x},y} < \gamma^*
\end{cases}
\end{equation} where $\gamma$ is the margin defined in~\Cref{defn:margin}.
We will use $\empRisk{h}{\gamma,N}$ and $ \cR_{\gamma}\br{h}$ to represent the
empirical and the expected margin risk, respectively, of the classifier $h$.
The normal classification risk is simply $\cR_{0}\br{h}$.
\end{restatable}
\paragraph{Spectrally normalized margin bounds}
Consider an MLP $g\in\cN$ as defined in~\Cref{defn:net-mlp}.
Let the network $g$ be parameterised by a sequence of weight matrices
$\vec{W}_1,\cdots,\vec{W}_L$ with $l_k$ neurons in the $k^{\it{th}}$ layer. The
width of the network $W$ is the maximum of $\{l_1,\ldots,l_L\}$.
\begin{defn}[Spectral Complexity
from~\citet{bartlett2017spectrally,neyshabur2018a}] \label{eq:spec_comp_nn} The
\emph{spectral complexity} $ R_g$ of such a network $g\in\cN$ %
is defined as\footnote{For simplicity, we assume 1-Lipschitz
Activation functions}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defn-ins-spec-compl}
R_{g} = \br{\prod_{i=1}^L \norm{\vec{W_i}}_2}
\br{\sum_{i=1}^L \frac{ \norm{\vec{W}_i^{\top}}_{2,1}^{2/3}}{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^{2/3}}}^{3/2}
\end{equation} where $\norm{\cdot}_{p,q}$ is the entry-wise $p,q$ norm and is defined in~\Cref{eq:entry-wise-pq-norm} along with other basic linear algebra concepts.
\end{defn}
The following theorem provides a generalisation bound for neural
networks $g$ whose
weight matrices $\bc{\vec{W}_1,\cdots,\vec{W}_L}$ have bounded
spectral complexity $R_g$\footnote{The authors~\citep{bartlett2017spectrally} also defines a collection of \emph{reference matrices} $(\vec{M}_1,\ldots,\vec{M}_L)$ with the same dimensions as
$\vec{W}_1,\ldots,\vec{W}_L$. This can be adjusted for various network
structures to get the best bound. Then, the spectral complexity is defined as \begin{equation}
R_{g} = \br{\prod_{i=1}^L \norm{\vec{W_i}}}
\br{\sum_{i=1}^L \frac{ \norm{\vec{W}_i^{\top} -\vec{M}_i^\top}_{2,1}^{2/3}}{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^{2/3}}}^{3/2}.
\end{equation}}.
\begin{thmL}[Spectrally Normalized Margin Bounds from~\citet{bartlett2017spectrally}]
\label{thm:spec-norm-marg-main}
For any MLP $g\in\cN$ with width $W$ and whose weight matrices
$\bc{\vec{W}_1,\cdots,\vec{W}_L}$ have bounded spectral complexity $R_g$, any
$\bc{(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_N,y_N)}$ drawn i.i.d. from a distribution over
$\reals^d\times\{1,\ldots,k\}$, and for any $\gamma > 0$ , the following holds
with probability at least $1-\delta$:
\begin{equation}
\riskOne{g}
\le
\empRisk{g}{\gamma,N} + \tildeO{ \frac
{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^N\norm{\vec{x}_i}^2} R_g}{\gamma N} \log{W} +
\sqrt{\frac{\log{\frac{1}{\delta}}}{N}} }
\end{equation}
\end{thmL}
Though the bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:spec-norm-marg-main} does not have a direct
exponential dependence on the depth of the network $L$,~\citet{neyshabur2018a}
points out that for any matrix $\vec{W}_i$,
\[\dfrac{\norm{\vec{W}_i^\top}_{2,1}}{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2}\ge 1.\] Thus if
$\max_{i\le N}\norm{\vec{x}_i} = R_\cX$ and $R_g$ is the spectral
complexity as defined above, then the excess error term in~\Cref{thm:spec-norm-marg-main} can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bartlett-excess-error}
\frac{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^N\norm{\vec{x}_i}^2} R_g}{N} =
\tildeO{\br{R_\cX\prod_{i=1}^L\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2}\sqrt{\dfrac{L^3}{N}}}.
\end{equation}
The expression in~\Cref{eq:bartlett-excess-error} still depends exponentially on
$L$ if the spectral norm of the individual matrices $\vec{W}_i$ is not bounded
below one. Even if the norms are bounded, the bound becomes trivial when $L\ge
N^{\frac{1}{3}}$. In contrast,~\citet{golowich18a} shows a bound, which under
suitable bounds on various norms, is independent of the size of the network.
~\citet{neyshabur2018a} develop a slightly different expression for spectral
complexity through a Pac-bayesian analysis. The original paper gives a
qualitative comparison between the two bounds. Their form of spectral complexity
can be written as follows where $\norm{\cdot}_\forb$ is the Frobenius norm and
$\norm{\cdot}_2$ is the $2$-operator norm~(see~\Cref{defn:induced_norm}).
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stable-spec-compl}
R_g = \br{\prod_{i=1}^L \norm{\vec{W_i}}_2^2
\sum_{i=1}^L \frac{ \norm{\vec{W}_i^{\top}}_{\forb}^2}{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^{2}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
The term $\frac{\norm{\vec{W}_i^{\top}}_\forb^{2}}{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^{2}}$
in~\Cref{eq:stable-spec-compl} is also known as the stable rank of matrices.
In~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}, we develop an algorithm to directly control the
spectral complexity~(see~\Cref{eq:stable-spec-compl}) of neural
networks during training. Our experiments on a wide range of settings show that this indeed helps generalisation in practice.
\subsection{Complexity measures based on compression}
\label{sec:compression-compl}
Next, we discuss a slightly different idea for formulating generalisation bounds
of neural networks. The main idea in~\citet{arora18b} is that if the performance
of a \emph{large} network on the training set can be copied very closely by a
\emph{small} network, then one can use the low empirical risk of the
\emph{large} network to guarantee that the smaller network will also have a low
empirical risk. Then, standard complexity based generalisation bounds can
leverage the low complexity of the \emph{small} network to guarantee a better
generalisation guarantee for the small network. As the small network behaves
similar to the large network, this generalisation guarantee can then be
transferred to the large network. To be able to use results of this kind in
practice, we need to a) obtain a large network that gets small training error
and b) show that the large network can be closely emulated by a smaller
network. We will refer to the copying of the large network by a small network as
{\em compressing} the network. The first is easy to obtain in practice as neural
networks often train to very small training error. For the
second,~\citet{arora18b} defines a set of sufficient properties for the neural
network to be compressible. We list these properties below and then evaluate
them in later chapters to show that neural networks obtained via our
regularisations enjoy some of these desirable properties.
~\Cref{defn:gamma-s-compressible} defines $\br{\gamma,S}$-compressible
functions. A function $h$ is $\br{\gamma,S}$-compressible with respect to a set
of functions $\cG$ if one of the functions in $G$ can simulate $h$ within an
error tolerance of $\gamma$. Then, assuming that $\cG$ is a set of
low-complexity functions and $h$ has a low empirical error on a fixed
dataset,~\Cref{thm:comp-bound-main} guarantees that the function from $\cG$ that
closely simulates $h$ will have a low expected risk.
\begin{restatable}[($\gamma$,$S$)-compressible using helper string $s$~(see~\citet{arora18b})]{defn}{gammacompressible}
\label{defn:gamma-s-compressible} Let $\cA$ be the set of all possible
parameters and $G_{\mathcal{A},s} =\{g_{A,s}|A\in \mathcal{A}\}$ be a class of
classifiers indexed by trainable parameters $A$ and a fixed string $s$. Then,
for $\gamma>0$, a classifier $h$ is ($\gamma,S$)-compressible with respect to
$G_{\mathcal{A},s}$ using helper string $s$ if there exists $A\in \mathcal{A}$
such that for any $x\in S$ and all $y$.
\[\abs{h(\vec{x})[y] - g_{A,s}(\vec{x})[y]} \le \gamma.\]
\end{restatable}
\begin{restatable}{thmL}{generalisationcompressed}\label{thm:comp-bound-main}
Suppose $G_{\mathcal{A},s} =\{g_{A,s}|A\in \mathcal{A}\}$ where $A$ is a set
of $q$ parameters each of which can have at most $r$ discrete values and $s$
is a helper string. Let $S$ be a training set with $N$ samples. If the trained
classifier $f$ is $(\gamma_c,S)$-compressible via $G_{\mathcal{A},s}$ with
helper string $s$, then there exists $A\in\mathcal{A}$ such that $\forall
\gamma\ge2\gamma_c$ with probability at-least $1-\delta$ over the training
set,
\[L_0(g_A) - \hat{L}_\gamma(f)\le \sqrt{\frac{1}{2N}\br{q\log{r} +
\log{\frac{1}{\delta}}}} = \tildeO{\sqrt{\frac{q\log r}{m}}}.\]
\end{restatable}
The problem with Theorem~\ref{thm:comp-bound-main} is that it does not
provide a generalisation guarantee for the original classifier but only for the
compressed version. Below, we will identify some properties of neural networks
which will allow us to circumvent this problem. These properties have been
presented in~\citet{arora18b}.
\paragraph{Compression based bounds and data dependent properties}
\label{data-dependent-properties}
Let $\cS$ be a set of $N$ examples drawn i.i.d. from any probability
distribution on $\reals^d\times \bc{1\cdots k}$ and let $g$ be an MLP as
described above with $L$ layers. In particular, let $\vec{W}_i$ be the weight
matrix of the linear transformation of the $i^{\it th}$ layer, let $\vec{z}_i$
be the pre-activation representation of the $i^{\it th}$ layer, and let $\phi$
be the activation function. For any two layers $i\le j$, denote by $M^{i,j}$ the
operator for composition of these layers and by $J^{i,j}_{\vec{x}}$ the Jacobian
of this operator at input $\vec{x}$. Then, the following data-dependent
properties of the network are defined for a given network. We empirically
evaluate these properties later in the thesis to understand the impact of our
regularisations on the behaviour of the network and how they affects properties
like noise-sensitivity and generalisation.
\begin{defn}[Layer Cushion]\label{defn:lyr-cushion}
For any layer $i$, the layer cushion is defined as the largest number $\mu_i$
such that for any $x\in S$:
\[\mu_{i}\norm{\vec{W}_i}_F \norm{\phi(\vec{z}_{i-1})} \leq
\norm{\vec{W}_i\phi(\vec{z}_{i-1})}. \]
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}[Inter-Layer Cushion]
For any two layers $i\leq j$, the inter-layer cushion is defined as the
largest number $\mu_{i,j}$ such that for any $x\in S$:
\[ \mu_{i,j}\norm{\vec{J}^{i,j}_{\vec{z}_i}}_F \norm{\vec{z}_i} \leq
\norm{\vec{J}^{i,j}_{\vec{z}_i}\vec{z}_i}. \] Furthermore, define the minimal
inter-layer cushion \(\icu\) as \(\min_{i\leq j\leq d} \mu_{i,j} =
\min\{1/\sqrt{l_i},\min_{i< j\leq d} \mu_{i,j}\}\).
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}[Activation Contraction]
The activation contraction is defined as the smallest number \(c\) such that
for any layer $i$ and any $x\in S$,
\[ \norm{\vec{z}_i} \leq c \norm{\phi(\vec{z}_i)}.\]
\end{defn}
\begin{thmL}[Bounds Based on
Compression,~\citep{arora18b}]\label{thm:comp-class-gen}
For any MLP $g$ as defined above\footnote{The result also requires some
additional assumption on a property known as Inter-Layer Smoothness~(c.f.
Definition 7 in~\citet{arora18b})}, any probability $0<\delta\le 1$, and any
margin $\gamma$, Algorithm 1 in~\citet{arora18b} generates $\widehat{g}$ such
that with probability at least $1 - \delta$ over the training set and the
randomness in creating $\widehat{g}$, the following holds
\[ \riskOne{\hat{g}} \le \empRisk{g}{\gamma,N} +
\tildeO{\sqrt{\dfrac{c^2L^2\cR_{\cX}^2
\sum_{i=1}^L \frac{1}{\mu_i^2\icu^2} }{\gamma^2N}}}, \] where
$c,\mu_i,\rho_d,$ and $\mu_{i\rightarrow}$ are defined above, and
$L$ is the number of layers. This $\widehat{g}$ can be thought of as the compressed version of $g$.
\end{thmL}
Through these properties, this bound captures more data-dependent
characteristics than the other generalisation bounds discussed above. The sample
complexity obtained using~\Cref{thm:comp-class-gen} for standard neural networks
is also more realistic than any of the other results discussed in the earlier
paragraphs. This suggests that we need to find structures in the data and
training algorithm that play a role in determining the generalisability of
neural networks trained on real-world data as opposed to just considering
the architecture of the neural network. One way of doing this is to identify
what properties of the learned network reflect said properties of the data and
the algorithm. In~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}, we look at {\em Empirical
Lipschitzness} to measure the sensitivity of the network on the dataset.
In~\Cref{chap:low_rank_main}, we look at layer
cushion~(see~\Cref{defn:lyr-cushion}) to measure the noise-sensitivity of neural
networks, and in~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}, we look at the entropy of the predicted
distribution over target class labels to understand causes of mis-calibration of
neural networks. We find that these data-dependent properties of neural networks
are a better indicator of the network's behaviour than data-agnostic properties.
\section{Challenges with the reliability of deep learning}
However, as recent works have pointed out, state-of-art deep neural
networks, while providing impressive performance, suffer from a range
of issues that hurt their reliability:\begin{itemize}
\item~\textbf{Generalisation}:~\citet{Zhang2016} observed that neural
networks, that achieve small test errors, are also equally capable of
memorising a random labelling of the observed data. This is troubling as
in deep learning, future performance on unseen data is usually estimated
from performance on observed data. However, the experiments
of~\citet{Zhang2016} indicate that such trust in a neural network
performance on the observed data might be mis-placed. This calls for
further research into certifying the generalisability of a learnt model
on unseen data.
\item~\textbf{Robustness}:~\citet{szegedy2013intriguing} pointed out
that deep neural networks are extremely vulnerable to imperceptible
perturbations to input images. They show that, with minimal
adversarially crafted distortions to input images, a network's error
could be increased from \(2.1\%\) to \(100\%\) on a commonly used
computer vision dataset called MNIST~\citep{LBBH:1998}. This
vulnerability is referred to as adversarial vulnerability. Subsequent
works have shown that this phenomenon is seen across a wide variety of
deep learning models and datasets.
\item~\textbf{Calibration}:~Deep neural networks, used for
classification tasks, do not just output a class label but also a
probability distribution over the possible classes. The probability
value, associated with a class, is supposed to indicate the likelihood of
that class being the correct output. When this property is satisfied by
a machine learning model, the machine learning model is said to be
calibrated. In 2005,~\citet{NiculescuMizil2005} showed that neural
networks are well-calibrated compared to other prevalent classifiers at
the time. However, in 2017,~\citet{Guo2017} showed that with increasing
focus towards producing highly accurate classifiers, state-of-the-art
neural networks are extremely miscalibrated and as a result, are over-confident on their incorrect predictions.
\item~\textbf{Privacy}:~Apart from these issues, which relate to the
quality of the prediction of a deep neural network, modern deep learning
models have also been built without considering the privacy of the user.
If these machine learning models are to be deployed in the real world to
cater to the needs of a large number of people, the privacy of the users
needs to be guaranteed. One such guarantee of privacy could be to allow
users to use a machine learning model, operated by a private company, by
sending over an encrypted version of their private data to the private
company and receiving an encrypted result, computed by the machine
learning model. However, this is computationally very expensive with
modern deep learning architectures and thus unappealing for private
companies who want their systems to have a high throughput, so that they
can cater to a large number of requests.
\end{itemize}
In this thesis, we consider the above-mentioned issues with reliability in
deep neural networks, identify metrics to measure them in practice and
propose ways to mitigate them. To do this, we investigate specific causes
for these vulnerabilities, pinpoint structures in the data and the model
architecture, which can be exploited to mitigate the recognised cause, and
design easy-to-use algorithms to implement to exploit these structures in
practice and verify whether it improves on the metrics of reliability. Our
approach is similar to what has been used to boost performance-based metrics
of deep neural networks but instead of focusing on metrics like test
accuracy, we look at metrics of reliability like avoiding memorisation,
increasing adversarial robustness and calibration, and enabling privacy of
data. In the next section, we briefly comment on how our contributions to each of these topics are organised in this thesis.
\section{Summary of contributions and organisation}
\label{sec:organization}
~\Cref{sec:slt} defines the main problem of learning from data and discusses the
importance of the various components of the learning problem. This chapter
provides the necessary background required to understand the rest of the thesis
and puts it in the context of the existing scientific research in the field of
machine learning.~\Cref{sec:trml} discusses the issues with the reliability of
deep learning methods, which are briefly mentioned in the previous section, in
greater detail along with a brief survey of the existing works in this field.
In~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}, we look at the problem of generalisation in
deep learning. Inspired by recent theoretical research~\citep{neyshabur2018a},
we identify a structure called stable rank~\citep{Rudelson2007}, measured for
individual weight matrices of a neural network, as being important for the
generalisation of deep neural networks. Then we propose an algorithm called
Stable Rank Normalization~(SRN), with theoretical guarantees, to control the
stable rank of neural networks. Finally, we devise principled experimental
methods to measure generalisation in practice and show, through experiments on a
wide range of datasets and architectures, that SRN indeed improves the
generalisation of deep neural networks.
~\Cref{chap:causes_vul} identifies two specific reasons for the lack of
adversarial robustness in machine learning models. In particular, we show
theoretically and experimentally how overfitting label noise can give a false
sense of security in that it might not increase test error but can drastically
increase adversarial error. We identify the second cause to be improper
representation learning and show that using incorrect representations can get
low test error but can never get small adversarial error whereas using a
different representation can achieve both low test and adversarial error
simultaneously even without needing more data. Continuing from this,
in~\Cref{chap:low_rank_main}, we show that a low-rank prior on the
representation space of neural networks, if applied properly, can impart better
adversarial robustness for deep neural networks. We propose a computationally
efficient algorithm that scalably learns a neural network with low rank
representations without significant modifications to the architecture. Along
with a large boost to adversarial robustness, while maintaining test accuracy,
our experiments show that this has implications for compression of the learned
representations and the model as well.
We find that minimising the cross-entropy loss function minimises the difference
between the softmax distribution and the one-hot encoding of the labels for all
samples, irrespective of how well the model classifies individual samples.
This leads to a phenomenon referred to as {NLL overfitting}~\citep{Guo2017},
which is responsible for miscalibration in deep neural networks.
In~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}, we propose the use of an alternative loss function,
popularly known as \textit{focal loss} \citep{Lin2017}, that tackles this by
weighting loss components generated from individual samples by how well the
model classifies each of them. We show, through experiments on a diverse set of
datasets and model architectures, that focal loss is much better than its
competitors at producing calibrated models without sacrificing test accuracy.
In~\Cref{chap:TAPAS}, we look at the problem of preserving the privacy of the
data while being able to do prediction on it using a machine learning model. To
this end, we define a framework called {\em Encrypted Prediction As A
Service~(EPAAS)} along with a set of privacy and computational requirements that
an EPAAS framework should satisfy. We find that a cryptography protocol called
{\em Fully Homomorphic Encryption~(FHE)}~\citep{Gen:2009} while being perfectly
suited to satisfy our conditions for EPAAS, is computationally very expensive
when applied to deep neural networks. We propose the use of binary neural
networks, which along with a set of algebraic and computational tricks, makes
the application of FHE on deep neural networks feasible. We show,
experimentally, that our approach suffers very little in terms of accuracy while
satisfying all the criterion of EPAAS.
~\Cref{sec:math-prer-notat} lists some mathematical preliminaries including
inequalities and definitions that are used elsewhere in the thesis and is meant
to save time for the reader by not having to look up external
resources.~\Cref{sec:expr-settings} describes the datasets and neural network
architectures, along with details of training algorithms, that have been used in
the main chapters of the thesis. These are mostly details a deep learning
practitioner would be familiar with but have been provided for the sake of
completeness and
reproducibility.~\Cref{app:stable_rank,sec:appendix_adv_causes,app:low_rank,app:focal_loss}
contains formal proofs and additional figures and tables for the material
presented
in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main,chap:causes_vul,chap:low_rank_main,chap:focal_loss}
respectively.
\paragraph{Notations}
\label{sec:notation}
All vectors are denoted with lower case bold $\vec{v}, \vec{x}$ letters and all
matrices are represented by upper case bold $\vec{A}, \vec{B}$ letters. Some
commonly used vectors are $\vec{x}_i$ to represent the \(i^{\it th}\) example in
the dataset and, \(\vec{z}_l\) and \(\vec{a}_l\) to represent the pre-activation
and post-activation vectors of the \(l^{\it th}\) layer in a neural network,
respectively. Commonly used matrices include \(\vec{W}_l\) to represent the
weight matrix of the \(l^{\it th}\) layer and \(\vec{A}_l\) to represent the
matrix of activations for the \(i^{\it th}\) layer on the entire dataset. A
collection of objects is represented by upper case scripted $\cX,~\cY$ letters.
An example of a collection is a set or a vector space. When we define a random variable to
take a value from a set, with a slight abuse of notation, we will also denote
that random variable with the same notation.
Any lemmas or theorems that are borrowed from existing literature are numbered
alphabetically~(eg.~\Cref{lem:ineq:frob_sing} and ~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm}) and any
result that is original to this thesis are numbered
numerically~(eg.~\Cref{lem:upper-bound-nn-lip} and ~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal}).
Unless otherwise stated, \(d\) represents the dimensionality of the input domain
of a machine learning model, \(k\) represents the number of classes in a
multi-class classification problem, \(\eta\) represents the uniform label noise
rate, \(L\) represents the depth of a neural network and \(W\) represents the
width i.e. the maximum width of any of its layers. The rest of the notations that are specific to each chapter are defined within the chapter itself.
\subsection{Noise stability}
To gain some understanding of this visibly better adversarial robustness of LR
models, in this section, we study the noise stability behaviour of LR models in
detail. Specifically, we show that LR models~(and their representations) are
significantly more stable to input perturbations at test time even when training
is performed using clean data. %
%
%
%
%
%
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Pert. Prob.~($p$)}& 0.4 & 0.6 & 0.8 & 1.0 \\\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{R50}&N-LR& $69.7$ & $26.1$ & $12.6$ & $11.3$\\
&1-LR&$\mathbf{75.1}$&$\mathbf{34.2}$&$\mathbf{15.8}$
&$\mathbf{13.0}$&\\\addlinespace
\multirow{3}{*}{R18}&N-LR &$57.7$&$27.3$&$13.0$&$7.2$&\\
&1-LR&$\mathbf{75.1}$&$33.0$&$15.2$&$11.0$\\
&2-LR&$74.1$&$\mathbf{35.5}$&$\mathbf{16.4}$&$\mathbf{11.5}$\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Robustness to random additive pixel perturbations]{Test accuracy of ResNet50~(R50) and ResNet18(R18) to
Gaussian noise~$\cN\br{0,\nicefrac{128}{255}}$ introduced at
each pixel with probability $p$. Evaluated on CIFAR10.}\vspace{-2ex}
\label{tab:rand-noise-robust}
\end{table}
\textbf{Random Pixel Perturbations} In ~Table~\ref{tab:rand-noise-robust}, we measure the test accuracy
when the input is perturbed with random additive noise. Specifically, for a given pixel and a given \emph{pixel perturbation
probability} $p\in\bc{0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0}$, we toss a biased coin~(with
bias $p$)~%
and if heads, add to the pixel a Gaussian noise drawn from~$\cN\br{0,
\nicefrac{128}{255}}$. This is done for all the pixels in the test-set and the
test accuracy is measured over this perturbed dataset. For varying levels of
perturbation,~Table~\ref{tab:rand-noise-robust} shows that LR models are
significantly more stable to Gaussian noise than N-LR. Our experiments indicate
that learning a model that cancels out irrelevant directions in the
representations suppresses the propagation of the input noise in a way to reduce
its effect on the output of the model. Interestingly, the level of Gaussian
noise seems to not vary the test accuracy as much as the value of $p$ does.
\paragraph{Stability of representations}
In~\Cref{fig:perturbation_spaces,fig:perturbation_spaces_svhn}, we show
how the input adversarial perturbations propagate and impact the feature space
representations. Specifically, for a given adversarial perturbation $\delta$ to
an input $\vec{x}$, the $x$-axis is the normalized $L_2$ dissimilarity score in
the input space i.e. ${\norm{\delta}^2}/{\norm{\vec{x}}^2}$ and the $y$-axis
represents the corresponding quantity in the representation space i.e.
$\norm{f_{\ell}^{-}\br{\vec{x+\delta} } - f_{\ell}^{-}\br{\vec{x}}}^2
/{\norm{f_{\ell}^{-}\br{\vec{x}}}^2}$. The representations $f_{\ell}^{-}(.)$
here are taken from before the last fully connected layer. As our experiments
suggest, the LR model significantly attenuates the adversarial perturbations
thus making it harder to fool the softmax classifier. This observation further
supports the increased robustness of LR.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/legend_cushion.pdf_tex}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.8\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/spec_fc.pdf_tex}\caption*{FC Layer}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/no_leg_spec_lyr3_b2_c2.pdf_tex}\caption*{Third ResNet block}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/no_leg_spec_lyr4_b2_c2.pdf_tex}\caption*{Fourth ResNet block}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Layer cushion of ResNet layers. (Right is better) }
\label{fig:Arora}
\end{subfigure}\vspace{10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.99\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/perturbation_space.pdf_tex}
\caption{Adversarial Perturbation in Input~(x-axis) and Representation~(y-axis) Space for CIFAR10. (Lower is better)}\label{fig:perturbation_spaces}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.99\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/perturbation_space_svhn.pdf_tex}
\caption{Adversarial Perturbation in Input~(x-axis) and Representation~(y-axis) Space for SVHN. (Lower is better)}\label{fig:perturbation_spaces_svhn}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Noise-sensitivity of ResNet-18 on CIFAR10 and SVHN]{ Layer cushion of
the last fully connected layer, last convolution layer of the third residual
block, and last convolution layer of the fourth residual blocks are plotted,
respectively, in~\Cref{fig:Arora}. Noise-sensitivity of ResNet-18 trained on
is showed via plotting the propagation of perturbation from the input to the
representation space for CIFAR10 in~(\Cref{fig:perturbation_spaces}) and SVHN in~\Cref{fig:perturbation_spaces_svhn}.}
\label{fig:noise_sensitivity_cifar}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Layer cushion}
~\citet{arora18b} gives empirical
evidence that deep networks are stable towards injected Gaussian noise
and use a variation of this noise stability property to derive more
realistic generalisation bounds. They capture the noise-sensitivity through a term called layer cushion, which we define in~\Cref{defn:lyr-cushion}. It is measured for each example in the training dataset.
The higher the value of the layer cushion, the better is the generalisation
ability of the model.~\Cref{fig:Arora} shows histogram plots of the distribution
of this term for the examples in CIFAR10 for four models---2-LR, 1-LR, N-LR and
a {\em random network} (randomly initialised, no training done) with the same
architecture.
As~\Cref{fig:Arora} shows, the histograms of the
LR models are to the right of the N-LR model, which is further to the
right of the randomly initialised network thus indicating that LR
models have the highest layer cushion. %
\subsection*{Low-rank weights} With respect to compression, it is natural to
look at low-rank approximations of network
parameters~\citep{Denton2014,jaderberg2014}. By factorizing the weight matrix
$\vec{W}$ as the product of a wide and a tall matrix, we can get low-rank
\emph{pre-activations}. This however does not lead to low-rank
\emph{activations} as demonstrated both mathematically (by the counter-example
below) and empirically.
\paragraph{Mathematical counter-example}: Consider a rank 1
\emph{pre-activation} matrix $\vec{A}$ and its corresponding
\emph{post-activation}(ReLU) matrix as below. It is easy to see that
the rank of \emph{post-activation} has increased to $2$. \[ \vec{A}
= \begin{bmatrix} &1 &-1 &1\\ &-1 &1
&-1\end{bmatrix}\qquad\text{Relu}(\vec{A}) = \begin{bmatrix} &1 &0 &1\\ &0
&1 &0\end{bmatrix} \]
\textbf{Empirical Result}: To see if techniques for low-rank approximation of
network parameters like ~\citet{Denton2014} would have produced low-rank
activations, we experimented by explicitly making the \emph{pre-activations}
low-rank using SVD. Our experiments showed that despite setting a rank of $100$
to the \emph{pre-activation} matrix, the \emph{post-activation} matrix had full
rank. Though all but the first hundred singular values of the
\emph{pre-activation} matrix were set to zero, the \emph{post-activation}
matrix’s \(101^{\it{st}}\) and $1000^\th$ singular values were $49$ and $7.9$
respectively, and its first $100$ singular values explained only $94\%$ of the
variance.
Theoretically, a bounded activation function lowers the Frobenius norm
of the \emph{pre-activation} matrix i.e. the sum of the squared
singular values. However, it also causes a smoothening of the singular
values by making certain zero singular values non-zero to compensate for
the significant decrease in the larger singular values. This leads to
an increase in rank of the \emph{post-activation} matrix.
In Table~\ref{tab:adv-pert-compre}, we compare against
SRN~\citep{sanyal2020stable} a simple algorithm for reducing the stable rank~(a
softer version of rank) of linear layers in neural networks and observe that the
increase in adversarial robustness is not as high as provided by LR models.
\subsection*{Nuclear norm}
Nuclear norm regularisation is a convex relaxation to the hard rank
regularisation approach that we have adopted. Nuclear norm can be
regularised by adding the nuclear norm of $\vec{A}_\ell$ to the loss
function, i.e. minimizing
$\cL\br{\vec{X},\vec{Y};\theta,\phi}+\lambda\norm{\vec{A}_\ell}_\ast$.
However, there are a few problems with it. First, it runs into the
same problem as the hard rank minimisation - a) unfeasible to optimize for the large whole
activation matrix, b) unclear why batch-wise optimisation should
ensure low-rank for the entire dataset, and c) sensitivity towards the
hyper-parameter. Its sensitivity to hyper-parameter arises for reasons
similar to the hyper-parameter sensitivity of ridge-regression as
discussed at the end of~\Cref{sec:what-low-rank}.
We performed batch-wise nuclear norm minimisation for all \(\lambda\in \bc{1,
0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001}\) and observed that only 0.001 gave comparable
performance to LR. All other settings gave either a trivial test accuracy or
much worse adversarial robustness thus showing its extreme sensitivity to
hyper-parameters, unlike our method.
\section{Additional figures and tables in appendix}
~\Cref{fig:cifar10-resnet18-lyr-cushion}
compares the layer cushion of the four different residual blocks of a ResNet18
on CIFAR10. Note that only 2-LR shows an increased cushion in Layer 3 whereas
both 1-LR and 2-LR have higher cushions in all other layers.
Similarly,~\Cref{fig:svhn-resnet18-lyr-cushion}
plots the layer cushion of a ResNet-18 trained on SVHN.
\section{Deep Low-Rank Representations Layer~(LR Layer)}
\label{sec:low_rank}
\input{low_rank_folder/idea}
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:lr_experiments}
\input{low_rank_folder/experiments}
\subsection{Adversarial robustness}
\label{sec:adversarial-attacks-1}
\input{low_rank_folder/adversarial}
\subsection{Discriminative properties of embeddings}
\input{low_rank_folder/compression}
\section{Alternative algorithms for low-rank representations}
\label{sec:alt_algs}
\input{low_rank_folder/alternative_algs}
\subsection{Formulating the LR Layer problem} Let $\vec{X} = \{\vec{x}_i\}_{i=1}^N$
and $\vec{Y} = \{{\bf y}_i\}_{i=1}^N$ be the set of inputs and target outputs of
a given training dataset. By slight abuse of notation, we define $\vec{A}_\ell =
f^{-}_\ell(\vec{X}; \phi) =\bs{\vec{a}_1,\cdots,\vec{a}_N}^\top\in \mathbb{R}^{N
\times m}$ to be the activation matrix of the entire dataset, so that
$\vec{a}_i$ is the activation vector of the $i$-th sample. Note that for most
practical purposes $N\gg m$. In this setting, the problem of learning low-rank
representations can be formulated as a constrained optimisation problem as
follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:opt_prob}
\min_{\theta, \phi}\mathcal{L}(\vec{X}, \vec{Y}; \theta,
\phi),~\text{s.t.}~~&\rank{\vec{A}_\ell} = r,\end{align}
where $\mathcal{L}(.)$ is the loss function and $r < m$ is the desired rank of
the representations at layer $\ell$. The rank $r$ is a hyperparameter (though
empirically not a sensitive one as observed in our experiments). Throughout this
section, we discuss the problem of imposing low-rank constraints over a single
intermediate layer, however, it can trivially be extended to any number of
layers. Note that both the loss and the constraint set of the above objective
function are non-convex. One approach to optimising this would be to perform an
alternate minimisation style algorithm~(eg.~\citep{Lloyd1982,Dempster1977}),
first over the loss (gradient descent) and then projecting onto the non-convex
set to satisfy the rank constraint.
Since $N \gg m$, ensuring $\rank{\vec{A}_\ell} = r$ would be practically
infeasible as it would require performing SVD in every iteration at a cost
$\mathcal{O}(N^2m)$. A feasible, but incorrect, approach would be to do this on
mini-batches, instead of the entire dataset. Projecting each mini-batch onto the
space of rank $r$ matrices does not guarantee that the activation matrix of the
entire dataset will be of rank $r$, as each of these mini-batches can lie in
very different subspaces. As a simple example, consider the set of coordinate
vectors which can be looked at as rank one matrices corresponding to activations
in batches of size one. However, when these coordinate vectors are stacked
together to form a matrix they create the identity matrix, which is a full rank
matrix.
Computational issues aside, another crucial problem stems
from the fact that the activation matrix $\vec{A}_\ell = f^{-}_\ell(.;
\phi)$ is itself parameterised by $\phi$ and thus $\phi$ needs to be
updated in a way such that the generated $\vec{A}_\ell$ is low
rank. It is not immediately clear how to use the low-rank projection
of $\vec{A}_\ell$ to achieve this.
One might suggest to first fully train the network and then obtain low-rank
projections of the activations. Our experiments show that this procedure does
not provide the two main benefits we are looking for: preserving accuracy under
compression and robustness.
\paragraph{Low-Rank regulariser:} We now describe our regulariser that
encourages learning low-rank activations, and, if optimised properly, guarantees that the rank of the activation matrix (of any
size) will be bounded by $r$. %
The primary ingredient of our approach is the introduction of an auxiliary
parameter~$\vec{W}\in\reals^{m\times m}$ in a way that allows us to
shift the low-rank constraint from the activation
matrix $\vec{A}_\ell$~(as in~\Cref{eq:opt_prob}) to
$\vec{W}$ providing the following two advantages: The rank constraint is now
\begin{enumerate}
\item on a matrix that is independent
of the batch/dataset size, and
\item on a parameter as opposed to a
data-dependent intermediate tensor~(like activations), and can thus be updated
directly at each iteration.
\end{enumerate}
Combining these ideas, our final augmented objective function, with the
regulariser, is:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:aug_opt_2}
&\min_{\theta, \phi, \vec{W}, \vb} \mathcal{L}(\vec{X}, \vec{Y}; \theta, \phi) + \lambda_1\mathcal{L}_c(\vec{A}_\ell; \vec{W},\vb) + \lambda_2\mathcal{L}_n(\vec{A}_\ell) \\
&\text{s.t.,} \vec{W}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times m}, \rank{\vec{W}} = r,~ \vb\in \mathbb{R}^m,\vec{A}_\ell=f^{-}_\ell(\vec{X}; \phi),\nonumber
\end{align}
where,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:aug_opt_3}
\mathcal{L}_c(\vec{A}_\ell; \vec{W}, \vb) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\norm{\vec{W}^\top(\va_i+\vb) - (\va_i+\vb)}_2^2,
&\text{and} \; \; \mathcal{L}_n(\vec{A}_\ell) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Big|1 - \norm{\va_i}\Big|.\nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent Here, $\mathcal{L}_c$ is the projection loss that
ensures that the affine low-rank mappings~($\vec{A}\vec{W}$) of the activations
are close to the original ones i.e. $\vec{AW} \approx \vec{A}$. As the constraint \((\rank{\vec{W}} = r)\) ensures that $\vec{W}$ is
low-rank, $\vec{A}\vec{W}$ is also low-rank and thus implicitly~(due to
$\vec{A}\vec{W}\approx\vec{A}$), $\mathcal{L}_c$ forces the original activations $\vec{A}$ to
be low-rank. The bias $\vb$ allows for the activations to be translated before
projection.%
\footnote{We use the term \emph{projection} loosely as we do not strictly
constrain $\vec{W}$ to be a projection matrix.}
However, note that setting $\vec{A}$ and $\vb$ close to zero trivially minimises
$\mathcal{L}_c$, especially when the activation dimension is large. Also, due to
the positive homogeneity of each layer, the magnitude of the activations can be
minimised in a layer by multiplying the weights of that layer by a small
constant $c$ and then maximised in the next layer by multiplying the weights of
that layer with $\frac{1}{c}$ thereby preserving the final logit magnitudes. We
observed this to happen in practice as it is easier for the network to learn
$\phi$ such that the activations and the bias are very small to
minimise $\mathcal{L}_c$ as compared to learning a low-rank representation space. To prevent this, we use $\mathcal{L}_n$ that acts as a
norm constraint on the activation vector to keep the activations sufficiently
large. Lastly, as the rank constraint is now over $\vec{W}$ and $\vec{W}$ is a
{\em global} parameter independent of the dimension~$n$~(i.e. size of
mini-batch/dataset), we can use mini-batches to optimise~\Cref{eq:aug_opt_2}.
Since $\rank{\vec{AW}} \leq r$ for any $\vec{A}$, optimizing over mini-batches
still ensures that the entire activation matrix is low-rank. Intuitively, this
is because the basis vectors of the low-rank affine subspace are
now captured by the low-rank parameter $\vec{W}$. Thus, as long as $\cL_c$ is
minimised for all mini-batches, $\vec{A} \approx \vec{A}\vec{W}$ holds for
the entire dataset, leading to the low-dimensional support. Thus, the overall
goal of the augmented objective function in~\Cref{eq:aug_opt_2}, is to jointly
penalise the activations~($\vec{A}_\ell$) to make them low-rank and learn the
corresponding low-rank identity map~$\br{\vec{W},b}$. Note, implementation wise,
our regulariser requires adding a virtual (does not modify the main network)
branch with parameters $\br{\vec{W},b}$ at layer $\ell$. This branch is removed
at the time of inference as the activations learned, by virtue of our objective
function, are already low-rank.
\begin{remark}
The reason we need to minimise both the reconstruction loss $\cL_c$ and the
norm constraint loss $\cL_n$ simultaneously is the same as why the spectral
norm and the stable rank can be independently minimised in
~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main} without affecting each other. To see why, note
that the rank and the stable rank of the matrix is independent of the scale of
the matrix i.e. the matrix can be multiplied by any non-zero scalar without
affecting the rank or the stable rank of the matrix whereas multiplying the
matrix by a scalar affects the spectral norm proportionally.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Hyper-parameters}
While our algorithm has three hyper-parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ and $r$, in
practice, our approach is insensitive to $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ and thus, we
set $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=1$. This is an added advantage given the resources
needed to do hyper-parameter optimisation. In the classical view of
regularisation e.g. ridge regression, the regularisation coefficient induces a
bias-variance trade-off i.e. as $\norm{W}_{\mathrm{F}}\rightarrow 0$, the
accuracy decreases. In our case, under the assumption that there exist
low-rank representations achieving zero classification error, even as the
terms $\cL_n$ and $\cL_c$ go to 0, the original classification loss $\cL$ does
not (necessarily) increase. One way of thinking about this is that the terms
$\cL_n$ and $\cL_c$ are guiding the optimisation to specific minimisers of the
empirical classification loss, of which there will necessarily be several
because of overparameterisation. To verify this empirically, we ran
experiments with all combinations of $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ chosen from
$\bc{1., 0.1, 0.01}$. We observe that for all these settings, the terms
$\cL_n$ and $\cL_c$ go to 0 while the original loss does not degrade at all.
\begin{algorithm}[t] \centering
\caption{Low-Rank (LR) regulariser}
\label{alg:lr_layer_main}
\begin{algorithmic}
\INPUT Activation Matrix $\vec{A}_l$, gradient input ${\bf g}_l$
\STATE ${\bf Z} \gets (\vec{A}_l+\vb)^\top \vec{W}$
\COMMENT {forward propagation towards
the virtual LR layer}
\STATE $\mathcal{L}_c \gets \frac{1}{b} \norm{{\bf Z} - (\vec{A}_l +
\vb)}_2^2$ \COMMENT{the reconstruction loss}
\STATE $\mathcal{L}_n \gets
\frac{1}{b}\sum_{i=1}^{b}\big\vert\mathbf{1} - \norm{\va_i}
\big\vert$ \COMMENT{norm constraint loss}
\STATE ${\bf g}_W \gets \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_c}{\partial
\vec{W}},\enskip {\bf g}\gets {\bf g}_l +
\frac{1}{b}\sum_{i=1}^{b}\frac{\partial (\mathcal{L}_c +
\mathcal{L}_n)}{\partial \va_i}$
\STATE $\vec{W} \gets \vec{W} - \lambda {\bf
g}_W$ %
\STATE $\vec{W} \gets
\prnk{k}{\vec{W}}$ \label{alg:hard_thresh_step} \COMMENT{hard
thresholds the rank of $\vec{W}$}
\OUTPUT ${\bf g}$
\COMMENT{the gradient to be passed to the layer before}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\scalebox{0.49}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node [tensors] (data) {
\Large$\mathbf{X}$}; \node [tensors, above=3cm of data]
(activations) { \large$\mathbf{A}$}; \node [rectangle,
rounded corners, above right=0.8cm of data, yshift=-0.4cm,
xshift=-0.5cm] (fwd_lbl) { \Large Forward Pass}; \node
[tensors, above=2.5cm of activations] (output) {
\large$\mathcal{L}$}; \node [temp_tensors, above right
=3.5cm of activations, yshift=-1cm] (recons) {
\large$\mathcal{L}_c$}; \node [temp_tensors, above left
=3.5cm of activations, yshift=-1cm] (normed) {
\large$\mathcal{L}_n$};
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] ([xshift=1 *
0.1 cm]data.north)-- node[midway, parameters]
{\normalsize$f_{\ell}^{-}(\mathbf{X};\phi)$} ([xshift=1 *
0.1 cm]activations.south); \draw[->, dotted, color=black,
line width=1pt] ([xshift=-1 * 0.1 cm]data.north)--
([xshift=-1 * 0.1 cm]activations.south);
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] ([xshift=1 *
0.1 cm]activations.north) -- node[parameters, align=center,
midway] {\normalsize$f_{\ell}^{+}(\mathbf{X};\theta)$}
([xshift=1 * 0.1 cm]output.south); \draw[->, dotted,
color=black, line width=1pt] ([xshift=-1 * 0.1
cm]activations.north) -- ([xshift=-1 * 0.1 cm]output.south);
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (activations)
-- node[parameters, midway,above, sloped]
{\normalsize$\mathbf{W},\mathbf{b}$} (recons); \draw[->,
thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (activations) --
(normed);
\end{tikzpicture}}\hspace{15pt}
\scalebox{0.49}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node [tensors] (data) {
\Large$\mathbf{X}$}; \node [tensors, above=3cm of data]
(activations) { \Large$\mathbf{A}$}; \node [tensors,
above=2.5cm of activations] (output) { \Large$\mathcal{L}$};
\node [temp_tensors, above right=3.5cm of activations,
yshift=-1cm] (recons) { \Large$\mathcal{L}_c$}; \node
[temp_tensors, above left=3.5cm of activations, yshift=-1cm]
(normed) { \Large$\mathcal{L}_n$}; \node [ rounded corners,
dashed, above right=0.8cm of data, xshift=-0.5cm,
yshift=-0.4cm] (fwd_lbl) {\Large Backward
Pass}
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] ([yshift=0 *
0.1 cm]activations.south) -- node[midway, parameters, below,
sloped, rotate=180]
{$\mathbf{g} =\mathbf{g}_c + \mathbf{g}_\ell +\mathbf{g}
_n$} node[parameters, above, sloped,
rotate=180]{$\phi=\phi-\eta\frac{\partial
\mathcal{A}}{\partial \phi}\cdot \mathbf{g}$} ([yshift=0
* 0.1 cm]data.north);
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (output) --
node[parameters, below, sloped, rotate=180]
{\normalsize$\mathbf{g}_l=\frac{\partial
\mathcal{L}}{\partial A}$} node[parameters, above,
sloped, rotate=180, allow upside
down]{$\theta=\theta-\eta\frac{\partial
\mathcal{L}}{\partial \theta}$}(activations) ;
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (recons) --
node[parameters, midway,above, sloped,
align=center]{$\mathbf{W}=\mathbf{W}-\eta\mathbf{g}_W$ }
node[parameters, midway,below, sloped, align=center,
sloped]{\normalsize
$\mathbf{g}_c = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_C}{\partial A}$
} (activations);
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (normed) --
node[parameters,
midway,sloped,below,align=center]{\normalsize
$\mathbf{g}_n = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_n}{\partial A}$
} (activations);
\end{tikzpicture} }
\caption[Illustration of forward and backward propagation of the LR
Layer]{{\small \bf The LR layer}. The left figure shows the {\em forward
pass}, {\em solid edges} show the flow of data during training, {\em dashed
edges}- the flow of data during inference, and {\em dashed nodes} are the {\em
virtual layer}. The right figure shows the {\em backward pass}.}
\label{fig:LRtikz}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Algorithm for LR Layer}
\label{sec:alg-lr}
We solve our optimisation problem~(\Cref{eq:aug_opt_2}) by adding a
\emph{virtual} low-rank layer that penalises representations that are far from
their closest low-rank affine representation. Algorithm~\ref{alg:lr_layer_main}
describes the operation of the low-rank virtual layer for a mini-batch of size
$b$. We present a flow diagram for the same in Figure~\ref{fig:LRtikz}. This
layer is virtual in the sense that it only includes the parameters $\vec{W}$ and
$\vb$ that are not used in the NN model itself to make predictions, but
nonetheless, the corresponding loss term $\mathcal{L}_c$ does affect the model
parameters through gradient updates.~\Cref{fig:illus-lr-train} provides an
illustration of how the LR-Layer is added during training as a plug-and-play
layer and then removed during testing, and the generated features are already
low rank. Algorithm~\ref{alg:lr_layer_main} alternately minimises the augmented
loss function in~\Cref{eq:aug_opt_2} and projects the auxiliary parameter
$\vec{W}$ to the space of low-rank matrices.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.65\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./low_rank_folder/figs/lr_training.png}
\caption{Training}
\label{fig:illus-train}
\end{subfigure}\vspace{10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.65\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./low_rank_folder/figs/lr_inference.png}
\caption{Testing}
\label{fig:illus-test}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\Cref{fig:illus-train} shows an illustration of how the LR-Layer is added as a plug-and-play layer during training.~\Cref{fig:illus-test} shows an illustration that the LR layer is removed during testing and the generated representations are already low-rank.}
\label{fig:illus-lr-train}
\end{figure}
The rank projection step in~\Cref{alg:lr_layer_main} is executed by a hard
thresholding operator $\prnk{r}{W}$, which finds the best $r$-rank approximation
of $W$. Essentially, $\prnk{r}{W}$ solves the following optimisation problem,
which can be solved using singular value decomposition (SVD).
\begin{equation}
\prnk{r}{W} = \argmin_{\rank{Z} = r}\norm{W
- Z}_F^2
\end{equation}
However, the projection can be very expensive due to the large dimension of the
representations space~(e.g. $16000$). To get around this, we use the ensembled
Nystr\"om SVD algorithm~\citep{williams2001using, halko2011finding,
kumar2009ensemble}.
\paragraph{Handling large activation
matrices}:
Singular Value Projection~(SVP) introduced in ~\citet{jain2010guaranteed} is an
algorithm for rank minimisation under affine constraints. In each iteration, the
algorithm performs gradient descent on the affine constraints alternated with a
rank-k projection of the parameters and it provides recovery guarantees under
weak isometry conditions. However, the algorithm has a complexity of $O(mnr)$
where $m, n$ are the dimensions of the matrix and $r$ is the desired low rank.
Faster methods for SVD of sparse matrices are not applicable as the matrices in
our case are not necessarily sparse. We use the ensembled Nystr\"om
method~\citep{williams2001using, halko2011finding, kumar2009ensemble} to boost
our computational speed at the cost of the accuracy of the low-rank
approximation. It is essentially a sampling-based low-rank approximation to a
matrix. The algorithm is described in detail in~\Cref{sec:ensembl-nystr-meth}.
Though the overall complexity for projecting $W$ remains $O(m^2r)$, the
complexity of the hard-to-parallelise SVD step is now $O(r^3)$, while the rest
is due to matrix multiplication, which is fast on modern GPUs.
The theoretical guarantees of the Nystr\"om method hold only when the weight
matrix of the \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layer}\)\xspace is symmetric and positive semi-definite (SPSD) before each
$\prnk{r}{\cdot}$ operation. Note that the PSD constraint is actually not a
restriction as all projection matrices are PSD by definition. For example, on
the subspace spanned by columns of a matrix $\vec{X}$, the projection matrix is
$\vec{P} = \vec{X}(\vec{X}^\top \vec{X})^{-1}\vec{X}^\top$, which is always PSD.
We know that a symmetric diagonally dominant real matrix with non-negative
diagonal entries is PSD. With this motivation, the matrix $\vec{W}$ is
smoothened by repeatedly adding $0.01\vec{I}$ until the \textsf{SVD} algorithm
converges where $\vec{I}$ is the identity matrix.\footnote{The computation of
the singular value decomposition sometimes fail to converge if the matrix is
ill-conditioned}. This is a heuristic to make the matrix well-conditioned as
well as diagonally dominant and it helps in the convergence of the algorithm
empirically.
\paragraph{Symmetric Low-Rank Layer
The symmetricity constraint restricts the projections allowed in our
optimisation, but empirically this restriction does not seem to hurt its
performance. Implementation wise, gradient updates may make the matrix parameter
asymmetric, even if we start with a symmetric matrix. Reparameterising the \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layer}\)\xspace
fixes this issue; the layer is parameterised using $\vec{W}_s$ (to which
gradient updates are applied), but the layer projects using $\vec{W} =
(\vec{W}_s + \vec{W}_s^\top)/2$, which is by definition a symmetric matrix.
After the rank projection is applied to the (smoothed version of) $\vec{W}$,
$\vec{W}_s$ is set to be $\prnk{r}{\vec{W}}$. By~\Cref{thm:nystrom_sym}, if we
start with an SPSD matrix $\vec{W}_s$, the updated $\vec{W}_s$ is an SPSD
matrix. As a result, the updated $\vec{W}$ is also SPSD.
\begin{restatable}[Column Sampled Nystr\"om approximation preserves SPSD matrices]{lem}{spsdnystrom}
\label{thm:nystrom_sym} If $\vec{X}\in\reals^{m\times m}$ is an SPSD matrix
and $\vec{X}_r\in\reals^{m\times m}$ is the best Nystr\"om ensembled, column
sampled r-rank approximation of $\vec{X}$, then $\vec{X}_r$ is SPSD as
well.
Proof in~\Cref{sec:lr-spsd-proof}
\end{restatable}
\subsection{Ensembled Nystr\"om method}
\label{sec:ensembl-nystr-meth}
Let $\vec{W}\in \reals^{m\times m}$ be a symmetric positive semidefinite matrix
(SPSD). We want to generate a matrix $\vec{W}_r$ which is an r-rank approximation
of $\vec{W}$ without performing SVD on the full matrix $\vec{W}$ but only on a
principal submatrix of $\vec{W}$. A principal submatrix of a matrix $\vec{W}$ is
a square matrix formed by removing some columns and the corresponding rows from
$\vec{W}$~\citep{Meyer2000MAA}. Let the principal submatrix be $\vec{Z}\in
\reals^{l\times l}$, where $l\ll m$. We construct $\vec{Z}$ by first sampling
$l$ indices from the set $\{1\ldots m\}$ and selecting the corresponding columns
from $\vec{W}$ to form a matrix $\vec{C}\in \reals^{m\times l}$. Then, we select
the $l$ rows with the same indices from $\vec{C}$ to get $\vec{Z}\in
\mathbb{R}^{l \times l}$. We can rearrange the columns of $\vec{W}$ and
$\vec{C}$ so that \[W =
\begin{bmatrix} \vec{Z} \quad \vec{W}_{21}^T \\
\vec{W}_{21}\quad \vec{W}_{22} \end{bmatrix} \quad \quad \vec{C} =
\begin{bmatrix} \vec{Z} \\ \vec{W}_{21}
\end{bmatrix}
\] According to the Nystr\"om approximation, the low-rank
approximation of $\vec{W}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:nystrom_approx} \vec{W}_r = \vec{C} \vec{Z}_r^{+}\vec{C}^T
\end{equation} where $\vec{Z}_r^{+}$ is the pseudo-inverse of the best $r$
rank approximation of $\vec{Z}$. Hence, the entire algorithm is as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $\vec{C}$ and $\vec{Z}$ as stated above.
\item Compute the top $r$ singular vectors and values of $\vec{Z}$ : $\vec{U}_r,~\mathbf{\Sigma}_r,~\vec{V}_r$.
\item Invert each element of $\mathbf{\Sigma}_r$ to get the Moore pseudo-inverse of
$\vec{Z}_r$.
\item Compute $\vec{Z}_r^{+} = \vec{U}_r\mathbf{\Sigma}_r^{-1} \vec{V}_r$ and $\vec{W}_r = \vec{C}
\vec{Z}_r^{+}\vec{C}^T$.
\end{itemize} Though by trivial computation, the complexity of the
algorithm seems to be $O(l^2r + ml^2 + m^2l) = O(m^2r)$~(in our
experiments $l = 2r$), however the complexity of the SVD
step is only $O(r^3)$ which is much lesser than $O(m^2r)$ and while
matrix multiplication is easily parallelisable, SVD is not.
To improve the accuracy of the approximation, we use the ensembled Nystr\"om
sampling-based methods~\citep{kumar2009ensemble} by averaging the outputs of $t$
runs of the Nystr\"om method. The $l$ indices for selecting columns and rows are
sampled from a uniform distribution and it has been
shown~\citep{kumar2009sampling} that uniform sampling performs better than most
other sampling methods. Theorem 3 in ~\citet{kumar2009ensemble} provides a
probabilistic bound on the Frobenius norm of the difference between the exact
best r-rank approximation of $\vec{W}$ and the Nystr\"om sampled r-rank
approximation.
\section{Dimensionality of representations and adversarial robustness}
The vulnerability of deep neural networks towards adversarial perturbations
raises concerns regarding the robustness of the factors captured by these
learned representations. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, dimensionality
reduction techniques capture factors that are, while being discriminative,
robust to input perturbations. This motivates the thesis behind this
chapter---{\em if we enforce DNNs to learn representations that lie in a
low-dimensional subspace (for the entire dataset), we might be able to obtain
more robust classifiers while preserving their discriminative power.}
\paragraph{Principal and un-principal components of representation space}
\label{sec:princ-unprin-comp}
To get further insights into why restricting the dimensionality of
representation space is helpful for adversarial robustness, we perform a simple
experiment that indicates that adversarial attacks exploit ``un-principal"
components, i.e. components corresponding to the smallest eigenvalues of the
covariance matrix of the data. We first train a six-layer neural network with
four convolutional and two fully connected layers on the MNIST dataset to
convergence and attack it with a PGD adversary~(see~\Cref{sec:robustness}) to
obtain adversarial examples. Then, we project the adversarial examples on the
{\em top} $k$ and the {\em bottom} $k$ PCA components of the full MNIST dataset,
for all $1\le k\le 784$, to obtain $k$ sets each of projections of the
adversarial examples on the top and bottom $k$ components, respectively. We will
refer to these \(2k\) sets of projections as the {\em principal} and {\em
un-principal} components of the adversarial examples, respectively. Then for
varying $k$, we train $k$ separate linear classifiers to predict the adversarial
labels using just the $k$ principal components of the adversarial examples and
measure its training accuracy. Similarly, we train $k$ separate classifiers to
predict the adversarial label\footnote{An adversarial label is the incorrect
label the model predicts for the adversarial example.} using just the $k$
un-principal components. We plot these training accuracies in blue
in~\Cref{fig:mnist_adv_all_principal} (starting from the principal $k$
components in the left figure, and un-principal $k$ components in the right
figure). Training accuracy for the $k$ components is a measure of how
\emph{easy} it is to fit the data with just those $k$ components and is thus, a
measure of the amount of discriminatory information contained in them. A similar
procedure is done for a randomly sub-sampled set~(of the same size as the number
of adversarial examples) of~(clean) training images and their training accuracy
on the clean labels is plotted in orange.
~\Cref{fig:mnist_adv_all_principal} shows that for the $k$ principal components,
the training accuracy increases much faster on the clean images for a relatively
small number of principal components. For the \(k\) un-principal components,
the training accuracy increases faster for the adversarial examples. For
\emph{clean examples}, almost all the \emph{discriminatory information} lies in
the principal components. For adversarial examples, a significant amount of the
discriminatory information for predicting the adversarial labels are contained
in the un-principal components. This suggests that we should find
low-dimensional representations that retain the discriminatory information
needed for high test accuracy while removing ``noisy'' components that could be
exploited by an adversary. While for simple data, PCA can be used to do this,
when using deep neural networks, a method to induce low-rankness in some hidden
layers (learned representations) is needed, which is what this chapter provides.
\begin{figure}\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.8\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/principal_adv_mnist.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Top k~(Larger Variance)}
\label{fig:mnist_adv_un_principal}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering \def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/un_principal_adv_mnist.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Bottom k~(Lesser variance)}
\label{fig:mnist_adv_un_principal}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Adversarial Noise exploits directions of lesser
variance]{ Adversarial Noise manipulates the principal
components with lesser
variance.}
\label{fig:mnist_adv_all_principal}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Challenges to obtain low-dimensional
representations}\label{sec:challenges-low-dim} Ideally, to encourage learning
low-dimensional representations, we would like to insert a \emph{dimensionality
reduction} ``module'' in deep neural networks and develop an end-to-end training
method that simultaneously does supervised training and dimensionality
reduction. At first glance, using SVD to project representations onto a
low-dimensional subspace seems viable. However, this approach encounters
multiple challenges.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The SVD algorithm needs to operate on a matrix one of whose dimensions
is as large as the number of examples in the dataset. As the number of
examples is usually very large, executing the SVD algorithm can be
computationally prohibitive in practice.
\item The representations themselves are not learnable parameters but just
parametric functions of the input data; as a consequence, they change after every
parameter update. It is not straightforward how to preserve the low rank of the representations, after doing the SVD, from one iteration to the next.
\end{enumerate}
A workaround could be to design architectures with bottlenecks similar to
auto-encoders~\citep{Hinton2006}. The fact that most of the state-of-the-art
networks do not have such bottlenecks limit their usability. Further, as we discuss in~\Cref{sec:alt_algs}, it also doesn't improve adversarial robustness in practice. We discuss this and other alternate algorithms in~\Cref{sec:alt_algs}.
\section{Main contributions}
This algorithm proposed in this chapter provides the benefits of dimensionality reduction by inserting a
\emph{virtual layer} (not used at prediction time) and augmenting the loss
function to induce low-rank representations.
\paragraph{Algorithmic Contributions}
We propose a novel low-rank regulariser (LR) to control the intrinsic
dimensionality of the representations that
\begin{enumerate}
\item does not put any restriction on the network
architecture,%
\footnote{It puts no \emph{direct} restriction, though of course, any
extra regularisation will produce an inductive bias.}
\item is end-to-end trainable, and
\item is efficient in that it allows
mini-batch training.
\end{enumerate}
LR explicitly {\em enforces} representations to lie in a linear subspace with
low {\em intrinsic} dimension and is guaranteed to provide low-rank
representations for the entire dataset even when trained using mini-batches. As
LR is a virtual layer~(discussed in later sections), it can be applied to any
intermediate representations of DNNs.
\paragraph{Experimental Contributions}
Experimentally, apart from successfully reducing the dimensionality of learned
representations, neural networks trained with LR turn out to be significantly
more robust to input perturbations, both adversarial and random, while providing
modest improvements over the natural~(unperturbed) test accuracy. This is of
particular interest as it provides empirical evidence that adding well-thought
priors over factors influencing the representation space (e.g. low-rank prior
over representations) might further improve the robustness of DNNs, without
encountering a trade-off\todo[color=green]{Discuss the different tradeoffs in
Chap 3} with, be it
computational~\citep{goodfellow2014explaining,madry2018towards},
statistical~\citep{schmidt2018adversarially} or a loss in
accuracy~\citep{tsipras2018robustness}. See~\Cref{sec:robustness-tradeoffs} for
a discussion on the various tradeoffs associated with this. This is in line
with recent works, including~\Cref{chap:causes_vul} of this thesis, suggesting
that a ``correct'' representation may avoid the perceived trade-off between
robustness and accuracy~(see~\citep{madry2018towards,Zhang2019,montasser19a}).
Lastly, because of the low dimensionality, we can compress
representations by a significant factor without losing its discriminative
power. Thus, discriminative features of the data can be stored using very
little memory. For example, we show in one of our experiments that, even with a
$5$-dimensional embedding~(400x compression), a model with LR loses only $6\%$
in accuracy.
\subsection{Compression of model and embeddings}
\label{sec:comp}
Further, due to the low
dimensionality of the representation space, these learned representations can
be compressed without losing their discriminative power. Among other things,
we show that low dimensional projections of our embeddings, {\em with a size of
less than $2\%$ of the original embeddings}, can be used for classification
with significantly higher accuracy than similar-sized projections of
embeddings from a model trained without our training
modification~(N-LR) on the CIFAR100 dataset.
\paragraph{Representation compression:}
In the first experiment, reported in Table~\ref{tbl:low_dim_emb_pred},
we trained two ResNet-50 hybrid max-margin models -with and without the \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layer}\)\xspace
respectively- on the 20 super-classes of CIFAR-100. As our objective
here is to see if the embeddings and their low dimensional projections
could be effectively used for discriminative tasks, we used PCA, with
standard pre-processing of scaling the input, to project the
embeddings onto a low dimensional space and then trained a linear
maximum margin classifier on it.
Table \ref{tbl:low_dim_emb_pred} shows
that even with sharply decreasing embedding dimension, the hybrid model trained
using the LR preserves the accuracy significantly more so than N-LR. \emph{Even
with a $5$-dimensional embedding~(400x compression), the LR model loses
only $6\%$ in accuracy, but the N-LR model loses
$27\%$}. In~\Cref{tab:max_margin_adv}, we show that compressed
representations are also more robust to adversarial attacks.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{subtable}[t]{0.46\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{}}\toprule
Model & Dim & Accuracy($\%$) \\ \toprule
R50 1-LR & $2k$ & $\mathbf{78.1}$ \\
R50 N-LR & $2k$ & $75.6$ \\ \midrule
R50 1-LR & \(10\) & $\mathbf{76.5}$ \\
R50 N-LR & \(10\) & $68.4$ \\ \midrule
R50 1-LR & \(5\) & $\mathbf{72}$ \\
R50 N-LR & \(5\) & $48$ \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Representation before FC layer, trained on
CIFAR-100. Original dimension is $2k$.}
\label{tbl:low_dim_emb_pred}
\end{subtable}\hfill
\begin{subtable}[t]{0.50\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{}}
\toprule
Model &Dim & Accuracy($\%$)\\ \toprule
R18 2-LR & $16k$ & $\mathbf{91.14}$ \\
R18 N-LR & $16k$ & $90.7$ \\\midrule
R18 2-LR & $20$ &$ \mathbf{88.5}$ \\
R18 N-LR & $20$ & $76.9$ \\\midrule
R18 2-LR & $10$ & $\mathbf{75}$ \\
R18 N-LR & $10$ & $61.7$\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Representation before last ResNet block, trained
on CIFAR10. Original dimension is $16k$.}
\label{tbl:low_dim_lyr_rem}
\end{subtable}\hspace{10pt}
\caption[Accuracy preserved under compression of representations]{\textit{Dim} is the
size of the \textit{compressed embedding} on which linear
classifier is trained. }\label{tbl:low_dim_proj_emb}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Model compression:} A consequence of forcing the activations of
the $\ell^{th}$ layer of the model to lie in a low dimensional subspace
with minimal reconstruction error, is that a simpler model can
replace the latter parts of the original model without significant
reduction in accuracy. Essentially, if we train the hybrid max-margin
classifier on the representations obtained from after the third ResNet
block, we can replace the entire fourth ResNet block and the last FC
layer~(with 8.4M parameters) with a small linear classifier with only $0.02$ times the number of parameters.
In this experiment, we trained two ResNet-18 hybrid max-margin classifiers- with
and without the \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layer}\)\xspace respectively- on CIFAR-10. The representations were obtained
from before the fourth ResNet block and had a dimension of 16,384.
This yields a significant reduction in model size at the cost of a very slight
drop in accuracy~($< 1\%$). The second benefit is that as the low dimensional
embeddings still retain most of the \emph{discriminative} information, the
inputs fed to the linear model also have a small number of features.
\subsection{Adversarial robustness of maximum margin model}
\label{sec:advers-attack-maxim}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{table}[!htb]\small\centering
\begin{tabular}[h!]{l@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{}}
\toprule
&R18 &DFL &ILL & IFGSM \\\hline
\multirow{3}{1cm}{White Box}&2-LR&$\mathbf{0.43}$&$\mathbf{0.55}$&$\mathbf{0.55}$\\%\cline{2-5}
& 1-LR&$0.38$&$0.35$&$0.48$\\%\cline{2-5}
& N-LR&$0.01$&$0.04$&$0.02$\\\hline
\multirow{2}{1cm}{Black Box}& 2-LR&$\mathbf{0.44}$&$\mathbf{0.50}$&$\mathbf{0.48}$\\%\cline{2-5}
&1-LR&$0.29$&$0.31$&$0.33$\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[Adversarial accuracy of hybrid max-margin classifier]{Accuracy of classification of adversarial examples, constructed by attacking ResNet18, by ResNet18 Max-Margin Classifiers.}
\label{tab:max_margin_adv}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Robustness of Max-Margin Classifiers} Finally, we show that the
features learned by our models are inherently more linearly discriminative i.e.
there exists a linear classifier that can be used to classify these features
with a wide margin. To this end, in Table~\ref{tab:max_margin_adv}, we show that
for LR models, the max-margin hybrid models are significantly more robust to
adversarial attacks than the corresponding original models. Hybrid max-margin
models with \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layers}\)\xspace are particularly more robust than hybrid max-margin models
without \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layers}\)\xspace against adversarial attacks. Specifically, as seen in
Table~\ref{tab:max_margin_adv}, \emph{a hybrid model with an \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layer}\)\xspace correctly
classifies $50\%$ of the examples that had fooled the original classifier while
for a similar amount of noise, an N-LR hybrid model has negligible accuracy}.
We train a variety of hybrid max-margin models with ResNet18-1-LR,
ResNet18-2-LR, and ResNet18-N-LR along with black box versions of the same. Then
we generate adversarial examples for all three attacks (both black box and white
box) on the trained ResNet models~(not the hybrid models). Then we use these
adversarial examples to attack the corresponding max-margin models
To perform a fair comparison with the hybrid ResNet18-N-LR, it is essential
to add a similar amount of noise to generate the examples for the hybrid
ResNet18-N-LR as is added to hybrid ResNet18-1-LR. The adversarial
examples are hence generated by obtaining the gradient using
ResNet18-N-LR but stopping the iteration only when the adversarial
example could fool ResNet18-1-LR.
\subsection{Effective rank of learned representations}
Before we discuss our primary findings, first we
empirically show the effect of LR on the effective rank of activations. We use
the standard \emph{variance ratio}, defined as
$\sum_{i=1}^r\sigma_i^2/\sum_{i=1}^p\sigma_i^2$, where $\sigma_i$'s are the
ordered singular values of the given activation matrix $\vec{A}$, $p$ is the
rank of the matrix, and $r\leq p$. Given $r$, a higher value of variance ratio
indicates that a larger fraction of the total variance in the data is captured
in the $r$ dimensional subspace.
\paragraph{Effective Rank}
~\Cref{fig:var_1} shows the variance ratio for the activations before the last
FC layer in ResNet18. Note that even for NLR, the effective rank is as low as
10. A similar low-rank structure was also observed empirically
by~\citet{Oyallon_2017_CVPR}. %
However, the LR-models have almost
negligible variance leakage. Variance leakage for a certain $r$ is defined as $1 - $(variance ratio at $k$).
~\Cref{fig:var_2} shows the variance ratio for the activations before the
4\th ~ResNet block. The activation vector is $16,384$-dimensional and the use of
the Nystr\"om method ensures computational feasibility. ResNet 2-LR is the
only model that has an LR-layer in that position and these figures show that
\emph{2-LR is the only model that shows a (reasonably) low-rank structure on
that layer}.
In~\Cref{fig:var_3,fig:var_4}, we plot the variance ratio of representations
obtained before and after the last resnet block of ResNet18 models trained on
SVHN. The LR models show a better low-rank structure than N-LR models and this
is consistent with our experiments on CIFAR10.
\begin{table}[t]\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{llllllllllllc}
\toprule
&&&&\multicolumn{8}{c}{Adversarial Test Accuracy($\%)$} &
Test Accuracy ($\%$) \\ \midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$L_\infty$ radius} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$8/255$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$10/255$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$16/255$} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$20/255$}& \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Attack iterations} & $7$ & $20$ &$7$ &$20$ &$7$ &$20$ &$7$ &$20$ & \\\toprule
\multirow{10}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{White Box}} &
\multirow{5}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\footnotesize C10}}& \multirow{2}{*}{R50} &N-LR & 43.1 & 31.0 & 38.5 & 21.8 & 31.2 & 7.8 & 28.9 & 4.5 & $\mathbf{95.4}$ \\
&&&1-LR & $\mathbf{79.1}$ & $\mathbf{78.5}$ & $\mathbf{78.6}$ & $\mathbf{78.1}$ & $\mathbf{77.9}$ & $\mathbf{77.0}$ & $\mathbf{77.1}$ & $\mathbf{76.6}$ & $\mathbf{95.4}$ \\\addlinespace
&& \multirow{3}{*}{R18} &N-LR & 40.9 & 26.7 & 35.1 & 16.6 & 26.7 & 4.4 &24.3&2.3 & 94.6 \\
&&&1-LR & 48 & 31.3 & 44.4 & 25.4 & 39.6 & 17.9 & 38.2 & 15.7 & $\mathbf{94.9}$ \\
& & &2-LR & $\mathbf{54.7}$ & $\mathbf{37.6}$ & $\mathbf{52.4}$ & $\mathbf{33.1}$ & $\mathbf{48.7}$ & $\mathbf{25.7}$ & $\mathbf{48.0}$ & $\mathbf{23.6}$ & 94.5 \\\cmidrule{4-13}
& \multirow{5}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\footnotesize C100}}& \multirow{2}{*}{R50} &N-LR & 37.2 & 29.9 & 34.1 & 24.6& 29.8 & 15.9 & 34.1 & 13.3 & $\mathbf{85.8}$ \\
& & &1-LR& $\mathbf{45.3}$ & $\mathbf{38.7}$ & $\mathbf{43.7}$ & $\mathbf{35.8}$ & $\mathbf{40.9}$ & $\mathbf{31.5}$ & $\mathbf{40.0}$ & $\mathbf{29.8}$ &$\mathbf{85.8}$ \\\addlinespace
& & \multirow{2}{*}{R18} &N-LR& 30.6 & 23.2 & 26.4 & 16.9 & 20.5 & 7.42 & 18.4 & 5.1 & 84.1 \\
& & &1-LR& $\mathbf{34.5}$\ & $\mathbf{25.4}$ & $\mathbf{31.3}$ & $\mathbf{20.2}$ & $\mathbf{27.3}$ & $\mathbf{13.1}$ & $\mathbf{25.7}$ & $\mathbf{10.8}$ & $\mathbf{84.2}$ \\
& & &2-LR& 33.82&24.37 & 30.9 & 19.1& 26.8 & 11.83 & 25.41& 9.9 & 84 \\\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c-10]{90}{ Black Box}} &\multirow{4}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\footnotesize C10}} & \multirow{1}{*}{R50} &1-LR& 64.7 & 56.8 & 59.0 & 47.5 & 51.2 & 28.0 & 48.3 & 20.6 & 95.4 \\\addlinespace
& & \multirow{2}{*}{R18} &1-LR& 66.6 & 60.8 & 61.1 & 51.0 & 52.2 & 31.52 & 49.8 & 23.6 & 94.9 \\
& & &2-LR & 68.0 & 62.5 & 62.3 & 53.4 & 53.8 & 33.5 & 50.8 & 25.8 & 94.5 \\\cmidrule{4-13}
&\multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\footnotesize C100}} & R50&1-LR& 52.4 & 46.2 & 48.1 & 38.8 & 42.0 & 25.4 & 48.1 & 20.9 & 85.8 \\\addlinespace
& & \multirow{2}{*}{R18} &1-LR& 53.0 & 48.6 &47.9 & 41.0 & 41.1 & 26.3 & 38.7 & 20.4 & 84.2 \\
& & &2-LR & 51.3 & 47.2 & 46.9 & 39.9 & 39.5 & 24.3 & 37.2 & 19.2 & 84 \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\caption[Adversarial Test Accuracy on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100]{Adversarial Test Accuracy against an
$\ell_\infty$ constrained PGD adversary with the $\ell_\infty$
radius bounded by $\epsilon$ and the number of attack steps bounded
by $\tau$. R50 and R18 denotes ResNet50 and ResNet18
respectively. C10 and C100 refer to CIFAR10 and CIFAR100~(Coarse
labels) respectively. Black box attacks are generated using the N-LR model.}\label{tab:adv-robust-cifar}
\end{table}
\subsection{Formulating the LR Layer problem} Let $\vec{X} = \{\vec{x}_i\}_{i=1}^N$
and $\vec{Y} = \{{\bf y}_i\}_{i=1}^N$ be the set of inputs and target outputs of
a given training dataset. By slight abuse of notation, we define $\vec{A}_\ell =
f^{-}_\ell(\vec{X}; \phi) =\bs{\vec{a}_1,\cdots,\vec{a}_N}^\top\in \mathbb{R}^{N
\times m}$ to be the activation matrix of the entire dataset, so that
$\vec{a}_i$ is the activation vector of the $i$-th sample. Note that for most
practical purposes $N\gg m$. In this setting, the problem of learning low-rank
representations can be formulated as a constrained optimisation problem as
follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:opt_prob}
\min_{\theta, \phi}\mathcal{L}(\vec{X}, \vec{Y}; \theta,
\phi),~\text{s.t.}~~&\rank{\vec{A}_\ell} = r,\end{align}
where $\mathcal{L}(.)$ is the loss function and $r < m$ is the desired rank of
the representations at layer $\ell$. The rank $r$ is a hyperparameter (though
empirically not a sensitive one as observed in our experiments). Throughout this
section, we discuss the problem of imposing low-rank constraints over a single
intermediate layer, however, it can trivially be extended to any number of
layers. Note that both the loss and the constraint set of the above objective
function are non-convex. One approach to optimising this would be to perform an
alternate minimisation style algorithm~(eg.~\citep{Lloyd1982,Dempster1977}),
first over the loss (gradient descent) and then projecting onto the non-convex
set to satisfy the rank constraint.
Since $N \gg m$, ensuring $\rank{\vec{A}_\ell} = r$ would be practically
infeasible as it would require performing SVD in every iteration at a cost
$\mathcal{O}(N^2m)$. A feasible, but incorrect, approach would be to do this on
mini-batches, instead of the entire dataset. Projecting each mini-batch onto the
space of rank $r$ matrices does not guarantee that the activation matrix of the
entire dataset will be of rank $r$, as each of these mini-batches can lie in
very different subspaces. As a simple example, consider the set of coordinate
vectors which can be looked at as rank one matrices corresponding to activations
in batches of size one. However, when these coordinate vectors are stacked
together to form a matrix they create the identity matrix, which is a full rank
matrix.
Computational issues aside, another crucial problem stems
from the fact that the activation matrix $\vec{A}_\ell = f^{-}_\ell(.;
\phi)$ is itself parameterised by $\phi$ and thus $\phi$ needs to be
updated in a way such that the generated $\vec{A}_\ell$ is low
rank. It is not immediately clear how to use the low-rank projection
of $\vec{A}_\ell$ to achieve this.
One might suggest to first fully train the network and then obtain low-rank
projections of the activations. Our experiments show that this procedure does
not provide the two main benefits we are looking for: preserving accuracy under
compression and robustness.
\paragraph{Low-Rank regulariser:} We now describe our regulariser that
encourages learning low-rank activations, and, if optimised properly, guarantees that the rank of the activation matrix (of any
size) will be bounded by $r$. %
The primary ingredient of our approach is the introduction of an auxiliary
parameter~$\vec{W}\in\reals^{m\times m}$ in a way that allows us to
shift the low-rank constraint from the activation
matrix $\vec{A}_\ell$~(as in~\Cref{eq:opt_prob}) to
$\vec{W}$ providing the following two advantages: The rank constraint is now
\begin{enumerate}
\item on a matrix that is independent
of the batch/dataset size, and
\item on a parameter as opposed to a
data-dependent intermediate tensor~(like activations), and can thus be updated
directly at each iteration.
\end{enumerate}
Combining these ideas, our final augmented objective function, with the
regulariser, is:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:aug_opt_2}
&\min_{\theta, \phi, \vec{W}, \vb} \mathcal{L}(\vec{X}, \vec{Y}; \theta, \phi) + \lambda_1\mathcal{L}_c(\vec{A}_\ell; \vec{W},\vb) + \lambda_2\mathcal{L}_n(\vec{A}_\ell) \\
&\text{s.t.,} \vec{W}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times m}, \rank{\vec{W}} = r,~ \vb\in \mathbb{R}^m,\vec{A}_\ell=f^{-}_\ell(\vec{X}; \phi),\nonumber
\end{align}
where,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:aug_opt_3}
\mathcal{L}_c(\vec{A}_\ell; \vec{W}, \vb) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\norm{\vec{W}^\top(\va_i+\vb) - (\va_i+\vb)}_2^2,
&\text{and} \; \; \mathcal{L}_n(\vec{A}_\ell) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \Big|1 - \norm{\va_i}\Big|.\nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent Here, $\mathcal{L}_c$ is the projection loss that
ensures that the affine low-rank mappings~($\vec{A}\vec{W}$) of the activations
are close to the original ones i.e. $\vec{AW} \approx \vec{A}$. As the constraint \((\rank{\vec{W}} = r)\) ensures that $\vec{W}$ is
low-rank, $\vec{A}\vec{W}$ is also low-rank and thus implicitly~(due to
$\vec{A}\vec{W}\approx\vec{A}$), $\mathcal{L}_c$ forces the original activations $\vec{A}$ to
be low-rank. The bias $\vb$ allows for the activations to be translated before
projection.%
\footnote{We use the term \emph{projection} loosely as we do not strictly
constrain $\vec{W}$ to be a projection matrix.}
However, note that setting $\vec{A}$ and $\vb$ close to zero trivially minimises
$\mathcal{L}_c$, especially when the activation dimension is large. Also, due to
the positive homogeneity of each layer, the magnitude of the activations can be
minimised in a layer by multiplying the weights of that layer by a small
constant $c$ and then maximised in the next layer by multiplying the weights of
that layer with $\frac{1}{c}$ thereby preserving the final logit magnitudes. We
observed this to happen in practice as it is easier for the network to learn
$\phi$ such that the activations and the bias are very small to
minimise $\mathcal{L}_c$ as compared to learning a low-rank representation space. To prevent this, we use $\mathcal{L}_n$ that acts as a
norm constraint on the activation vector to keep the activations sufficiently
large. Lastly, as the rank constraint is now over $\vec{W}$ and $\vec{W}$ is a
{\em global} parameter independent of the dimension~$n$~(i.e. size of
mini-batch/dataset), we can use mini-batches to optimise~\Cref{eq:aug_opt_2}.
Since $\rank{\vec{AW}} \leq r$ for any $\vec{A}$, optimizing over mini-batches
still ensures that the entire activation matrix is low-rank. Intuitively, this
is because the basis vectors of the low-rank affine subspace are
now captured by the low-rank parameter $\vec{W}$. Thus, as long as $\cL_c$ is
minimised for all mini-batches, $\vec{A} \approx \vec{A}\vec{W}$ holds for
the entire dataset, leading to the low-dimensional support. Thus, the overall
goal of the augmented objective function in~\Cref{eq:aug_opt_2}, is to jointly
penalise the activations~($\vec{A}_\ell$) to make them low-rank and learn the
corresponding low-rank identity map~$\br{\vec{W},b}$. Note, implementation wise,
our regulariser requires adding a virtual (does not modify the main network)
branch with parameters $\br{\vec{W},b}$ at layer $\ell$. This branch is removed
at the time of inference as the activations learned, by virtue of our objective
function, are already low-rank.
\begin{remark}
The reason we need to minimise both the reconstruction loss $\cL_c$ and the
norm constraint loss $\cL_n$ simultaneously is the same as why the spectral
norm and the stable rank can be independently minimised in
~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main} without affecting each other. To see why, note
that the rank and the stable rank of the matrix is independent of the scale of
the matrix i.e. the matrix can be multiplied by any non-zero scalar without
affecting the rank or the stable rank of the matrix whereas multiplying the
matrix by a scalar affects the spectral norm proportionally.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Hyper-parameters}
While our algorithm has three hyper-parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ and $r$, in
practice, our approach is insensitive to $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ and thus, we
set $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=1$. This is an added advantage given the resources
needed to do hyper-parameter optimisation. In the classical view of
regularisation e.g. ridge regression, the regularisation coefficient induces a
bias-variance trade-off i.e. as $\norm{W}_{\mathrm{F}}\rightarrow 0$, the
accuracy decreases. In our case, under the assumption that there exist
low-rank representations achieving zero classification error, even as the
terms $\cL_n$ and $\cL_c$ go to 0, the original classification loss $\cL$ does
not (necessarily) increase. One way of thinking about this is that the terms
$\cL_n$ and $\cL_c$ are guiding the optimisation to specific minimisers of the
empirical classification loss, of which there will necessarily be several
because of overparameterisation. To verify this empirically, we ran
experiments with all combinations of $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ chosen from
$\bc{1., 0.1, 0.01}$. We observe that for all these settings, the terms
$\cL_n$ and $\cL_c$ go to 0 while the original loss does not degrade at all.
\begin{algorithm}[t] \centering
\caption{Low-Rank (LR) regulariser}
\label{alg:lr_layer_main}
\begin{algorithmic}
\INPUT Activation Matrix $\vec{A}_l$, gradient input ${\bf g}_l$
\STATE ${\bf Z} \gets (\vec{A}_l+\vb)^\top \vec{W}$
\COMMENT {forward propagation towards
the virtual LR layer}
\STATE $\mathcal{L}_c \gets \frac{1}{b} \norm{{\bf Z} - (\vec{A}_l +
\vb)}_2^2$ \COMMENT{the reconstruction loss}
\STATE $\mathcal{L}_n \gets
\frac{1}{b}\sum_{i=1}^{b}\big\vert\mathbf{1} - \norm{\va_i}
\big\vert$ \COMMENT{norm constraint loss}
\STATE ${\bf g}_W \gets \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_c}{\partial
\vec{W}},\enskip {\bf g}\gets {\bf g}_l +
\frac{1}{b}\sum_{i=1}^{b}\frac{\partial (\mathcal{L}_c +
\mathcal{L}_n)}{\partial \va_i}$
\STATE $\vec{W} \gets \vec{W} - \lambda {\bf
g}_W$ %
\STATE $\vec{W} \gets
\prnk{k}{\vec{W}}$ \label{alg:hard_thresh_step} \COMMENT{hard
thresholds the rank of $\vec{W}$}
\OUTPUT ${\bf g}$
\COMMENT{the gradient to be passed to the layer before}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\scalebox{0.49}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node [tensors] (data) {
\Large$\mathbf{X}$}; \node [tensors, above=3cm of data]
(activations) { \large$\mathbf{A}$}; \node [rectangle,
rounded corners, above right=0.8cm of data, yshift=-0.4cm,
xshift=-0.5cm] (fwd_lbl) { \Large Forward Pass}; \node
[tensors, above=2.5cm of activations] (output) {
\large$\mathcal{L}$}; \node [temp_tensors, above right
=3.5cm of activations, yshift=-1cm] (recons) {
\large$\mathcal{L}_c$}; \node [temp_tensors, above left
=3.5cm of activations, yshift=-1cm] (normed) {
\large$\mathcal{L}_n$};
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] ([xshift=1 *
0.1 cm]data.north)-- node[midway, parameters]
{\normalsize$f_{\ell}^{-}(\mathbf{X};\phi)$} ([xshift=1 *
0.1 cm]activations.south); \draw[->, dotted, color=black,
line width=1pt] ([xshift=-1 * 0.1 cm]data.north)--
([xshift=-1 * 0.1 cm]activations.south);
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] ([xshift=1 *
0.1 cm]activations.north) -- node[parameters, align=center,
midway] {\normalsize$f_{\ell}^{+}(\mathbf{X};\theta)$}
([xshift=1 * 0.1 cm]output.south); \draw[->, dotted,
color=black, line width=1pt] ([xshift=-1 * 0.1
cm]activations.north) -- ([xshift=-1 * 0.1 cm]output.south);
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (activations)
-- node[parameters, midway,above, sloped]
{\normalsize$\mathbf{W},\mathbf{b}$} (recons); \draw[->,
thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (activations) --
(normed);
\end{tikzpicture}}\hspace{15pt}
\scalebox{0.49}{\begin{tikzpicture} \node [tensors] (data) {
\Large$\mathbf{X}$}; \node [tensors, above=3cm of data]
(activations) { \Large$\mathbf{A}$}; \node [tensors,
above=2.5cm of activations] (output) { \Large$\mathcal{L}$};
\node [temp_tensors, above right=3.5cm of activations,
yshift=-1cm] (recons) { \Large$\mathcal{L}_c$}; \node
[temp_tensors, above left=3.5cm of activations, yshift=-1cm]
(normed) { \Large$\mathcal{L}_n$}; \node [ rounded corners,
dashed, above right=0.8cm of data, xshift=-0.5cm,
yshift=-0.4cm] (fwd_lbl) {\Large Backward
Pass}
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] ([yshift=0 *
0.1 cm]activations.south) -- node[midway, parameters, below,
sloped, rotate=180]
{$\mathbf{g} =\mathbf{g}_c + \mathbf{g}_\ell +\mathbf{g}
_n$} node[parameters, above, sloped,
rotate=180]{$\phi=\phi-\eta\frac{\partial
\mathcal{A}}{\partial \phi}\cdot \mathbf{g}$} ([yshift=0
* 0.1 cm]data.north);
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (output) --
node[parameters, below, sloped, rotate=180]
{\normalsize$\mathbf{g}_l=\frac{\partial
\mathcal{L}}{\partial A}$} node[parameters, above,
sloped, rotate=180, allow upside
down]{$\theta=\theta-\eta\frac{\partial
\mathcal{L}}{\partial \theta}$}(activations) ;
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (recons) --
node[parameters, midway,above, sloped,
align=center]{$\mathbf{W}=\mathbf{W}-\eta\mathbf{g}_W$ }
node[parameters, midway,below, sloped, align=center,
sloped]{\normalsize
$\mathbf{g}_c = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_C}{\partial A}$
} (activations);
\draw[->, thick, color=black, line width=1pt] (normed) --
node[parameters,
midway,sloped,below,align=center]{\normalsize
$\mathbf{g}_n = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_n}{\partial A}$
} (activations);
\end{tikzpicture} }
\caption[Illustration of forward and backward propagation of the LR
Layer]{{\small \bf The LR layer}. The left figure shows the {\em forward
pass}, {\em solid edges} show the flow of data during training, {\em dashed
edges}- the flow of data during inference, and {\em dashed nodes} are the {\em
virtual layer}. The right figure shows the {\em backward pass}.}
\label{fig:LRtikz}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Algorithm for LR Layer}
\label{sec:alg-lr}
We solve our optimisation problem~(\Cref{eq:aug_opt_2}) by adding a
\emph{virtual} low-rank layer that penalises representations that are far from
their closest low-rank affine representation. Algorithm~\ref{alg:lr_layer_main}
describes the operation of the low-rank virtual layer for a mini-batch of size
$b$. We present a flow diagram for the same in Figure~\ref{fig:LRtikz}. This
layer is virtual in the sense that it only includes the parameters $\vec{W}$ and
$\vb$ that are not used in the NN model itself to make predictions, but
nonetheless, the corresponding loss term $\mathcal{L}_c$ does affect the model
parameters through gradient updates.~\Cref{fig:illus-lr-train} provides an
illustration of how the LR-Layer is added during training as a plug-and-play
layer and then removed during testing, and the generated features are already
low rank. Algorithm~\ref{alg:lr_layer_main} alternately minimises the augmented
loss function in~\Cref{eq:aug_opt_2} and projects the auxiliary parameter
$\vec{W}$ to the space of low-rank matrices.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.65\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./low_rank_folder/figs/lr_training.png}
\caption{Training}
\label{fig:illus-train}
\end{subfigure}\vspace{10pt}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.65\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{./low_rank_folder/figs/lr_inference.png}
\caption{Testing}
\label{fig:illus-test}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\Cref{fig:illus-train} shows an illustration of how the LR-Layer is added as a plug-and-play layer during training.~\Cref{fig:illus-test} shows an illustration that the LR layer is removed during testing and the generated representations are already low-rank.}
\label{fig:illus-lr-train}
\end{figure}
The rank projection step in~\Cref{alg:lr_layer_main} is executed by a hard
thresholding operator $\prnk{r}{W}$, which finds the best $r$-rank approximation
of $W$. Essentially, $\prnk{r}{W}$ solves the following optimisation problem,
which can be solved using singular value decomposition (SVD).
\begin{equation}
\prnk{r}{W} = \argmin_{\rank{Z} = r}\norm{W
- Z}_F^2
\end{equation}
However, the projection can be very expensive due to the large dimension of the
representations space~(e.g. $16000$). To get around this, we use the ensembled
Nystr\"om SVD algorithm~\citep{williams2001using, halko2011finding,
kumar2009ensemble}.
\paragraph{Handling large activation
matrices}:
Singular Value Projection~(SVP) introduced in ~\citet{jain2010guaranteed} is an
algorithm for rank minimisation under affine constraints. In each iteration, the
algorithm performs gradient descent on the affine constraints alternated with a
rank-k projection of the parameters and it provides recovery guarantees under
weak isometry conditions. However, the algorithm has a complexity of $O(mnr)$
where $m, n$ are the dimensions of the matrix and $r$ is the desired low rank.
Faster methods for SVD of sparse matrices are not applicable as the matrices in
our case are not necessarily sparse. We use the ensembled Nystr\"om
method~\citep{williams2001using, halko2011finding, kumar2009ensemble} to boost
our computational speed at the cost of the accuracy of the low-rank
approximation. It is essentially a sampling-based low-rank approximation to a
matrix. The algorithm is described in detail in~\Cref{sec:ensembl-nystr-meth}.
Though the overall complexity for projecting $W$ remains $O(m^2r)$, the
complexity of the hard-to-parallelise SVD step is now $O(r^3)$, while the rest
is due to matrix multiplication, which is fast on modern GPUs.
The theoretical guarantees of the Nystr\"om method hold only when the weight
matrix of the \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layer}\)\xspace is symmetric and positive semi-definite (SPSD) before each
$\prnk{r}{\cdot}$ operation. Note that the PSD constraint is actually not a
restriction as all projection matrices are PSD by definition. For example, on
the subspace spanned by columns of a matrix $\vec{X}$, the projection matrix is
$\vec{P} = \vec{X}(\vec{X}^\top \vec{X})^{-1}\vec{X}^\top$, which is always PSD.
We know that a symmetric diagonally dominant real matrix with non-negative
diagonal entries is PSD. With this motivation, the matrix $\vec{W}$ is
smoothened by repeatedly adding $0.01\vec{I}$ until the \textsf{SVD} algorithm
converges where $\vec{I}$ is the identity matrix.\footnote{The computation of
the singular value decomposition sometimes fail to converge if the matrix is
ill-conditioned}. This is a heuristic to make the matrix well-conditioned as
well as diagonally dominant and it helps in the convergence of the algorithm
empirically.
\paragraph{Symmetric Low-Rank Layer
The symmetricity constraint restricts the projections allowed in our
optimisation, but empirically this restriction does not seem to hurt its
performance. Implementation wise, gradient updates may make the matrix parameter
asymmetric, even if we start with a symmetric matrix. Reparameterising the \(\mathsf{LR}\)-\(\mathrm{layer}\)\xspace
fixes this issue; the layer is parameterised using $\vec{W}_s$ (to which
gradient updates are applied), but the layer projects using $\vec{W} =
(\vec{W}_s + \vec{W}_s^\top)/2$, which is by definition a symmetric matrix.
After the rank projection is applied to the (smoothed version of) $\vec{W}$,
$\vec{W}_s$ is set to be $\prnk{r}{\vec{W}}$. By~\Cref{thm:nystrom_sym}, if we
start with an SPSD matrix $\vec{W}_s$, the updated $\vec{W}_s$ is an SPSD
matrix. As a result, the updated $\vec{W}$ is also SPSD.
\begin{restatable}[Column Sampled Nystr\"om approximation preserves SPSD matrices]{lem}{spsdnystrom}
\label{thm:nystrom_sym} If $\vec{X}\in\reals^{m\times m}$ is an SPSD matrix
and $\vec{X}_r\in\reals^{m\times m}$ is the best Nystr\"om ensembled, column
sampled r-rank approximation of $\vec{X}$, then $\vec{X}_r$ is SPSD as
well.
Proof in~\Cref{sec:lr-spsd-proof}
\end{restatable}
\subsection{Ensembled Nystr\"om method}
\label{sec:ensembl-nystr-meth}
Let $\vec{W}\in \reals^{m\times m}$ be a symmetric positive semidefinite matrix
(SPSD). We want to generate a matrix $\vec{W}_r$ which is an r-rank approximation
of $\vec{W}$ without performing SVD on the full matrix $\vec{W}$ but only on a
principal submatrix of $\vec{W}$. A principal submatrix of a matrix $\vec{W}$ is
a square matrix formed by removing some columns and the corresponding rows from
$\vec{W}$~\citep{Meyer2000MAA}. Let the principal submatrix be $\vec{Z}\in
\reals^{l\times l}$, where $l\ll m$. We construct $\vec{Z}$ by first sampling
$l$ indices from the set $\{1\ldots m\}$ and selecting the corresponding columns
from $\vec{W}$ to form a matrix $\vec{C}\in \reals^{m\times l}$. Then, we select
the $l$ rows with the same indices from $\vec{C}$ to get $\vec{Z}\in
\mathbb{R}^{l \times l}$. We can rearrange the columns of $\vec{W}$ and
$\vec{C}$ so that \[W =
\begin{bmatrix} \vec{Z} \quad \vec{W}_{21}^T \\
\vec{W}_{21}\quad \vec{W}_{22} \end{bmatrix} \quad \quad \vec{C} =
\begin{bmatrix} \vec{Z} \\ \vec{W}_{21}
\end{bmatrix}
\] According to the Nystr\"om approximation, the low-rank
approximation of $\vec{W}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:nystrom_approx} \vec{W}_r = \vec{C} \vec{Z}_r^{+}\vec{C}^T
\end{equation} where $\vec{Z}_r^{+}$ is the pseudo-inverse of the best $r$
rank approximation of $\vec{Z}$. Hence, the entire algorithm is as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $\vec{C}$ and $\vec{Z}$ as stated above.
\item Compute the top $r$ singular vectors and values of $\vec{Z}$ : $\vec{U}_r,~\mathbf{\Sigma}_r,~\vec{V}_r$.
\item Invert each element of $\mathbf{\Sigma}_r$ to get the Moore pseudo-inverse of
$\vec{Z}_r$.
\item Compute $\vec{Z}_r^{+} = \vec{U}_r\mathbf{\Sigma}_r^{-1} \vec{V}_r$ and $\vec{W}_r = \vec{C}
\vec{Z}_r^{+}\vec{C}^T$.
\end{itemize} Though by trivial computation, the complexity of the
algorithm seems to be $O(l^2r + ml^2 + m^2l) = O(m^2r)$~(in our
experiments $l = 2r$), however the complexity of the SVD
step is only $O(r^3)$ which is much lesser than $O(m^2r)$ and while
matrix multiplication is easily parallelisable, SVD is not.
To improve the accuracy of the approximation, we use the ensembled Nystr\"om
sampling-based methods~\citep{kumar2009ensemble} by averaging the outputs of $t$
runs of the Nystr\"om method. The $l$ indices for selecting columns and rows are
sampled from a uniform distribution and it has been
shown~\citep{kumar2009sampling} that uniform sampling performs better than most
other sampling methods. Theorem 3 in ~\citet{kumar2009ensemble} provides a
probabilistic bound on the Frobenius norm of the difference between the exact
best r-rank approximation of $\vec{W}$ and the Nystr\"om sampled r-rank
approximation.
\section{Proofs for~\Cref{sec:alg-lr}}\label{sec:lr-spsd-proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{thm:nystrom_sym}] By the Construction of the Nystr\"om SVD algorithm, we know that
$vec{X}_r = \vec{C}\vec{W}_r^{+}\vec{C}^T$. We will first show that
$\vec{W}_r^{+}$ is a symmetric matrix.
We know that $\vec{X}$ is SPSD. Let $\vec{I}$ be a sorted list of distinct
indices of length $l$. Then by construction of $\vec{W}$, \[\vec{W}_{i,j} =
\vec{X}_{I[i],\vec{I}[j]}\] As $\vec{X}_{\vec{I}[i],\vec{I}[j]} =
\vec{X}_{\vec{I}[j], \vec{I}[i]}$, $\vec{W}$ is symmetric. At this step, our
algorithm adds $\delta\cdot \vec{I}$ to $\vec{W}$ where $\delta\ge 0$. We show
that $W + \delta\cdot\mathcal{I}$ is positive semidefinite. Consider a vector
$\vec{a}\in \reals^{|X|}$. Create a vector $\bar{\vec{a}}\in\reals^m $ where \[\bar{\vec{a}}_i =
\begin{cases} 0 &\text{if } i\not\in I\\ \vec{a}_i & \text{o.w.}
\end{cases}
\]
\begin{equation} \vec{a}^\top \br{\vec{W} + \delta\cdot \cI}\vec{a}= \bar{\vec{a}}^\top
X\bar{\vec{a}} + \delta\cdot \vec{a}^\top\vec{I} \vec{a} \ge 0 + \delta\norm{\vec{a}}^2\ge 0 \label{eq:spsd_proof}
\end{equation}
Let $\vec{W} + \delta\vec{I}$ be the new $\vec{W}$;~\Cref{eq:spsd_proof} shows
that the updated $\vec{W}$ is also positive semidefinite.
Now we will show that $\vec{X}_r$ is symmetric as well. As $\vec{W}$ is
symmetric, there exists an orthogonal matrix $\vec{Q}$ and a non-negative
diagonal matrix $\Lambda$ such that \[W = Q\Lambda Q^T\]
We know that $\vec{W}_r = \vec{Q}_{[1:r]}\Lambda_{[1:r]}
\vec{Q}_{[1:r]}^T$ and $\vec{W}_r^{+} = \vec{Q}_{[1:r]}\Lambda_{[1:r]}^{-1}
\vec{Q}_{[1:r]}^T$.\\ Hence,
\begin{align*}
\vec{X}_r &= \vec{C} \vec{W}_r^{+}\vec{C}^T\\
&=\vec{C} \vec{Q}_{[1:r]}\Lambda_{[1:r]}^{-1} \vec{Q}_{[1:r]}^T \vec{C}^T\\ \vec{X}_r^T &= (\vec{C}\vec{Q}_{[1:r]}\Lambda_{[1:r]}^{-1} \vec{Q}_{[1:r]}^T \vec{C}^T)^T\\
&= \vec{C}\vec{Q}_{[1:r]}\Lambda_{[1:r]}^{-1} \vec{Q}_{[1:r]}^T \vec{C}^T\\ &= \vec{X}_r\\
\end{align*} $\therefore \vec{X}_r$ is symmetric. We can also see that the
$\vec{X}_r^T$ is positive semi definite by pre-multiplying and post
multiplying it with a non-zero vector and using the fact that
$\vec{W}_r^{+}$ is positive semi-definite.
\end{proof}
\section{Additional Results}
\begin{figure}[H]\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr1_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr1_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr1_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr1_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cushion of ResNet-18 Block 1 on CIFAR10}
\label{fig:int_spec_lyr_cush}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr2_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr2_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr2_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr2_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cushion of ResNet-18 Block 2 on CIFAR10}
\label{fig:int_spec_lyr2_cush}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr3_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr3_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr3_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr3_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cushion of ResNet-18 Block 3 on CIFAR10}
\label{fig:int_spec_lyr3_cush}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr4_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr4_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr4_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder//figs/spec_lyr4_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cushion of ResNet-18 Block 4 on CIFAR10.}
\label{fig:int_spec_lyr4_cush}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Layer Cushion of ResNet-18 on CIFAR10]{Layer Cushion of various layers of a ResNet-18 trained on CIFAR10. Each ResNet-18 has
four blocks with each block containing four convolutional layers. }
\label{fig:cifar10-resnet18-lyr-cushion}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr1_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr1_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr1_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr1_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cushion of ResNet-18 Block 1 on SVHN.}
\label{fig:int_svhn_spec_lyr_cush}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr2_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr2_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr2_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr2_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cushion of ResNet-18 Block 2 on SVHN.}
\label{fig:int_svhn_spec_lyr2_cush}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr3_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr3_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr3_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr3_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cushion of ResNet-18 Block 3 on SVHN.}
\label{fig:int_svhn_spec_lyr3_cush}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{1.0\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr4_b1_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{.//low_rank_folder/figs/svhn_spec_lyr4_b1_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder//figs/svhn_spec_lyr4_b2_c1.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.24\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/svhn_spec_lyr4_b2_c2.pdf_tex}
\caption*{Conv Layer 4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cushion of ResNet-18 Block 4 on SVHN.}
\label{fig:int_svhn_spec_lyr4_cush}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Layer Cushion of ResNet-18 on SVHN]{Layer Cushion of various layers of a ResNet-19 trained on SVHN. Each ResNet-18 has
four blocks with each block containing four convolutional layers. }
\label{fig:svhn-resnet18-lyr-cushion}
\end{figure}
\chapter*{Acknowledgements}%
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\numberline{}Acknowledgements\protect\vspace{-10pt}}%
\input{acknowledgement}
\newpage
\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\numberline{}Table of Contents\protect\vspace{-10pt}}%
\tableofcontents
\newpage
\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\numberline{}Abstract\protect\vspace{-10pt}}%
\chapter*{Abstract}%
\input{abstract}
\doublespacing
\newpage
\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\numberline{}Bibliographic Notes\protect\vspace{-10pt}}%
\chapter*{Bibliographic Notes}
\input{bibliographic_notes}
\newpage
\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\normalfont\numberline{}List of Theorems\protect\vspace{-10pt}}%
\listoftheorems[ignoreall,show={thm}]
\newpage
\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\normalfont\numberline{}List of Figures\protect\vspace{-10pt}}%
\listoffigures
\newpage
\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\normalfont\numberline{}List of Tables\protect\vspace{-10pt}}%
\listoftables
\newpage
\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\normalfont\numberline{}List of Algorithms\protect}%
\listofalgorithms
\clearpage
\newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\raggedright\let\newline\\\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}m{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\centering\let\newline\\\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}m{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{>{\raggedleft\let\newline\\\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}m{#1}}
\newcolumntype{H}{>{\setbox0=\hbox\bgroup}c<{\egroup}@{}} %
\cleardoublepage
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\chapter{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\input{introduction}
\chapter{Preliminaries of Learning Theory}
\label{sec:slt}
\input{prelim_theory}
\chapter{Background for Reliable Deep Learning}
\label{sec:trml}
\input{prelim_reliability}
\clearpage
\chapter{Improving Generalization via Stable Rank Normalization}
\label{chap:stable_rank_main}
\input{stable_rank_folder/stable_rank_main}
\chapter{Impact of Label Noise and Representation Learning on Adversarial Robustness}
\label{chap:causes_vul}
\input{adv_cause_folder/adv_cause_main}
\chapter{Improving Adversarial Robustness via low-rank representations}
\label{chap:low_rank_main}
\input{low_rank_folder/low_rank_main}
\chapter{Improving Calibration via Focal Loss}
\label{chap:focal_loss}
\input{calibration_main/calibration_main}
\chapter{Accelerating Encrypted Prediction via Binary Neural Networks}
\label{chap:TAPAS}
\input{privatenet_folder/private_main}
\newpage
\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\normalfont\bfseries\numberline{}Epilogue\protect}%
\chapter*{Epilogue}
\input{conclusion}
\section{Generalisation in Neural Networks}
\label{sec:gen_nn}
\input{generalization_measures}
\section{Adversarial Robustness of Neural Networks}
\label{sec:robustness}
\input{robustness}
\section{Calibration of Neural Networks}
\label{sec:prelim_calibration}
\input{calibration}
\section{Privacy in deep learning}
\label{sec:privacy}
\input{privacy}
\section*{Basic Linear Algebra}
\label{sec:basic-linear-algebra}
We start by assuming that the reader has a basic knowledge of vector spaces and
linear operators on the elements of vector spaces. As this is not the main
topic of discussion, we only skim over topics that are indispensable to the
understanding of this document. For a broader introduction to the basics of
Linear Algebra, the reader is directed to~\citet{strang1993introduction}.
Specifically, a vector is an element of a vector space and a matrix is a linear
operator on vectors\footnote{Only true for finite vector spaces but we will
avoid the mathematical complexities for simplicity.} i.e. it transfers vectors
from one vector space to another. In most cases, we will deal with the vector
space $\reals^d$ where $d$.
Wherever the dimension of the matrix~(or the domain
of the linear transformation) is not mentioned, it should be clear
from the context.
\paragraph{Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors}
If $\vec{W}$ is a square matrix and $\vec{x}$ is a non-zero vector, such that
the vector $\vec{W}\vec{x}$ is a scalar multiple of $\vec{x}$, i.e.
$\vec{W}\vec{x} = \lambda\vec{x}$, then $\vec{x}$ is an eigenvector of $\vec{A}$
and $\lambda$ is the corresponding eigenvalue. However, eigenvectors and
eigenvalues only exist for square matrices. Singular Value Decomposition or SVD
is a decomposition for any general rectangular matrix $\vec{A}$,
$\mathrm{SVD}\br{\vec{A}}=\vec{U}\vec{\Sigma} \vec{V}^\top$ where $\vec{U}$ and
$\vec{V}$ are unitary matrices~(i.e. $\vec{U}^\top\vec{U} = I$) and
$\vec{\Sigma}$ is a non-negative diagonal matrix. Its diagonal entries are
usually arranged in descending order and are known as singular values. We use
$\lambda_i(\vec{A})$ and $\sigma_i(\vec{A})$ to denote the $i^{\it{th}}$ largest
eigenvalue and singular value of $\vec{A}$ respectively. Specifically,
\(\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}\br{\vec{A}}\) and
\(\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}\br{\vec{A}}\) represents the largest and smallest
eigenvalues of $\vec{A}$, and \(\sigma_{\mathrm{max}}\br{\vec{A}}\) and
\(\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}\br{\vec{A}}\) denotes the largest and smallest singular
values of $\vec{A}$.
\paragraph{Vector norms}
For a vector \(\vec{x}\in\reals^d\), $\norm{\vec{x}}_p$ represents its $\ell_p$
norm, defined as $\norm{\vec{x}}_p = \sqrt[p]{\sum_{i=1}^{d}x_i^p}$ where
\(\vec{x}_i\) indexes the \(i^{\it th}\) element of \(\vec{x}\). By default,
$\norm{\vec{x}}$ represents the $\ell_2$ norm of $\vec{x}$. \(\norm{\cdot}_0\)
is not strictly a norm but it often referred to as the \(\ell_0\) norm and
measures the sparsity of its argument vector.
\paragraph{Matrix operator norms}
The most common matrix norms are the induced operator norms. If
$\norm{\cdot}_{\alpha}$ is a vector norm then the induced operator norm is
defined as
\begin{equation}\label{defn:induced_norm} \norm{\vec{A}}_{\alpha} =
\sup_{x\neq\vec{0}}
\dfrac{\norm{\vec{A}\vec{x}}_{\alpha}}{\norm{\vec{x}}_{\alpha}}
\end{equation} Perhaps, the most common operator norm is the \(\ell_2\) operator norm, also known as the spectral norm and is induced by \(\norm{\cdot}_2\). In~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}, we discuss~\gls{lip}ness using the \(\alpha,\beta\)-operator norm which is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{defn:p_q-induced_norm} \norm{\vec{A}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\mathrm{op}} =
\sup_{x\neq\vec{0}}
\dfrac{\norm{\vec{A}\vec{x}}_{\beta}}{\norm{\vec{x}}_{\alpha}}
\end{equation}
The notation with \(\mathrm{op}\) in the super-script is necessary to differentiate it from the entry-wise \(p,q\) matrix norm defined below.
\paragraph{\(\ell_p\)-schatten norms}
The $\ell_p$ schatten norm is applied on a matrix by applying the corresponding
$\ell_p$ norm on the vector of singular values of the matrix. We do not use this
norm in this thesis to avoid confusion with other matrix norms. However, it is
interesting to note that the \(\ell_2\) operator norm defined above is equivalent to the \(\ell_\infty\)-schatten norm. The \(\ell_2\)-schatten norm is the \(\ell_2\) norm of the singular values and is also known as the Frobenius norm~(\(\norm{\cdot}_\forb\) of the matrix. The rank of a matrix, which is equal to the number of non-zero singular values can be thought of as the \(\ell_0\)-schatten norm though neither the rank nor the \(\ell_0\) {\em norm} is a true norm.
\paragraph{Entry-wise matrix norms}
Finally, the last kind of matrix norms we look at are the entry-wise norms. The
$\ell_p$ entry-wise norms are applied on a matrix by unrolling the matrix as one
long vector and applying the norm on that vector. The most common entry-wise norms for matrices is the \(\ell_2\) entry-wise norm, also known as the Frobenius norm, and is denoted as \(\norm{\cdot}_\forb\). The Frobenius norm of a matrix \(\vec{A}\) is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:frob-norm}
\norm{\vec{A}}_\forb = \sqrt{\sum_{i}\sum_j \vec{A}_{i,j}^2}
\end{equation}
where \(\vec{A}_{i,j}\) represents the $\br{i,j}^{\it{th}}$ entry of the matrix
\(\vec{A}\). \Cref{{eq:defn-ins-spec-compl}}, uses a slightly different variant of the entry-wise norm known as the \(p,q\) entry-wise norm
\begin{equation}\label{eq:entry-wise-pq-norm} \norm{\vec{A}}_{p,q} =
\sqrt[q]{\sum_{j=1}^n\br{\sqrt[p]{\sum_{i=1}^m\br{\vec{A}_{i,j}}^p}}^q}
\end{equation}
To summarize, we use the following norms frequently in this thesis. The spectral
norm of a matrix \(\vec{A}\) is represented by both $\norm{\vec{A}}$ and
$\norm{\vec{A}}_2$~(its operator norm notation). $\norm{\vec{A}}_F$ represents
the Frobenius norm of a matrix $\vec{A}$. $\rank{\vec{A}}$ denotes the rank of
$\vec{A}$ i.e. the number of non-zero singular values of $\vec{A}$ or the
$\ell_0$ schatten norm of $A$\footnote{$\ell_0$ norms are not true norms.
Mathematically, this is a misuse of notation.}. The \(p,q\) operator norm is
denoted as \(\norm{\cdot}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}}\) and the \(p,q\) entry-wise norm
is denoted as \(\norm{\cdot}_{p,q}\).
\paragraph{Positive semi-definiteness of matrices}
An important kind of matrix that often appears in learning are
matrices $\vec{M}$ such that $\forall x,~ x^\top Mx ~\& 0$ where
$\&\in\bc{<, \le, >, \ge }$, Such a matrix is called negative
definite, negative semi-definite, positive definite and positive
semi-definite respectively. Clearly, a matrix with all positive
eigenvalues is positive definite~(PD), a matrix with all non-negative
eigenvalues is positive semi-definite~(PSD) and similarly for negative
definite~(ND) and negative semi-definite matrix~(NSD).
A commonly used PSD matrix is the outer-product matrix. For any vector
\(\vec{z}\in\reals^{d\times 1}\), the outer product matrix \(\vec{z} \vec{z}^\top\) is PSD. This can be shown as follows
\begin{equation}\label{lem:outer-prod-psd}
\forall \vec{x}\in\reals^{d\times 1},\quad \vec{x}^\top\vec{z}\vec{z}^\top\vec{x} = \ip{\vec{z}^\top\vec{x}}{\vec{z}^\top,\vec{x}} = \norm{\vec{z}^\top\vec{x}}_2^2\ge 0
\end{equation}
\todo[color=red]{Maybe worth writing a section on Lagrangian}
\section*{Common Inequalities}
\label{sec:basic-inequalities-1}
The following inequalities are used in various parts of the thesis and are listed here for ease of reference.
\begin{ineq}\label{lem:exp_ineq} For any \(x\in\reals,\)
\[ 1 + x\le e^x\]
\end{ineq}
While this can be easily proved through differentiation, a proof
without using differentiation is presented below.
\begin{proof}
We know that $e^x$ can be expanded as follows \[e^x = 1 + x + \sum_{k=2}^{\infty}\frac{x^k}{k!}\] We will look at the following three cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item $x\le - 1$ We know $e^x$ is always positive and in this case $1+x$ is non-positive. Hence, the inequality trivially holds.
\item $x\ge 0 $ By the expansion above, we can write $e^x = 1 + x + p$, where $p$ is some non-negative term. Hence, the inequality trivially holds.
\item $x\in\br{-1, 0}$ Rewriting the expansion as follows completes the proof. \[e^x - (1 + x) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{x^{2k}}{2k!} + \frac{x^{2k+1}}{\br{2k+1}!} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{x^{2k}}{\br{2k+1}!} \br{2k+1 - |x| } \ge 0 \]
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{ineq}[Union bound]\label{ineq:union-bound}
Consider any finite or countable collection of events denoted as \(\br{A_1,A_2,A_3\ldots,}\), then the probability of occurring of at least one of the events from that collection is no more than the sum of the individual probabilities of all the events in that collection i.e.
\[\bP\bs{\bigcup_i A_i }\le \sum_i \bP\bs{A_i}\]
\end{ineq}
\todo[color=green]{Make the notation of probability consistent \(\bP\) and not \(P\)}
\begin{ineq}[Jensen's Inequality]\label{ineq:ineq-jensen} For a convex
real-valued function $f:\reals^n\rightarrow \reals$ and an integrable function
\(g\) defined on \(\bs{a,b}\), such that \(f\) is defined on, at least, the
co-domain of \(g\), the following holds ---
\[f\br{\frac{1}{b-a}\int_{a}^b g}\le\frac{1}{b-a}\int_{a}^{b} g\br{f} \]
\end{ineq}
\begin{ineq}[Holder's Inequality and the Cauchy Schwartz
Inequality]\label{lem:holders_inequality} Let \(\vec{f},\vec{g}\) be
real-valued vectors and consider any $p,q \in [1,\infty)$ such that
$\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} = 1$, then
\[ \abs{\ip{\vec{f}}{\vec{g}}} \le \norm{\vec{f}}_p\norm{\vec{g}}_q\] For
$p=q=2$, this reduces to the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality
\[ \abs{\ip{\vec{f}}{\vec{g}}}\le \norm{\vec{f}}\norm{\vec{g}}|\]
\end{ineq}
\begin{ineq}[Markov's Inequality]\label{ineq:markov} For a non-negative
random variable $X$ with its mean $\mu = \bE\bs{X}$ and a positive
number $a$,
\[\bP\bs{X\ge a}\le \dfrac{\mu}{a}\]
\end{ineq}
\begin{ineq}[Chernoff Bound]\label{ineq:hoeffding} Suppose
$X_1\cdots X_m$ are $m$ $\bc{0,1}$-valued independent random with $\bP\bs{X_i
= 1} = p_i$ where $0\le p_i \le 1$. Denote $X = \sum_{i=1}^m X_i $
and $\mu = \bE\bs{X} = \sum_{i=1}^mp_i$. Then
\(\forall\delta,~0\le\delta\le 1\) the Chernoff bound states that
\[ \bP \bs{X \ge \br{1+\delta}\mu }\le
\exp{\br{-\frac{\delta^2\mu }{\br{3}}}}\]
\[ \bP\bs{X \le \br{1- \delta}\mu} \le
\exp{\bs{-\frac{\delta^2\mu }{2}}}\]
Combining them together, we can write
\[ \bP\bs{\abs{X -\mu} \ge \delta\mu} \le
2\exp{\br{-\frac{\delta^2\mu }{3}}}\]
\end{ineq}
\subsection{Techniques for Privacy-Preserving Inference}
Consider a medical diagnosis company that provides a service where customers can
upload chest radiographs and the company's algorithms diagnose whether the
patient is suffering from a bone fracture. If the algorithms are accurate and
reliable under the notions of reliability that we have seen in the previous
sections, this can be a very valuable service with the ability to rapidly
diagnose multiple patients without human intervention. However, without
sufficient trust between the company and the customer, the customer might be
disinclined to upload their chest radiographs to the service. For example, a
dishonest company can use the images to estimate their general lung health and
sell that information to insurance companies or predict whether the customer
smokes and sell that information to tobacco companies. Both of these outcomes
can have very damaging financial and health consequences for the customer. To
prevent these possibilities, the machine learning algorithms should protect the
privacy of the user while making accurate predictions. The broad field concerned
with this is commonly referred to as {\em Privacy-Preserving Inference}. The
following paragraphs discuss three generic techniques for tackling this
problem.
\paragraph{Trusted Execution Environments} Broadly, the problems discussed above
arise due to the execution of a machine learning algorithm on private data in an
untrusted environment. Trusted Execution Environments~(TEE)~like Intel
SGX~\citep{McKeen2016}, ARM TrustZone~\citep{Alves2004}, and
Sanctum~\citep{Costan2016} present a solution to this problem by providing a
secure environment to run the code. TEEs are a secure area within the main
processor of a computer. They are an isolated environment that runs in parallel
with the operating system and guarantees that code and data loaded inside is
protected with respect to integrity and confidentiality. TEEs use hardware and
software protections to guarantee that any code and data stored in that secure
enclave can be accessed only by code in that enclave irrespective of privileges
in the software stack. Therefore, even the OS or the hypervisor cannot access
the information stored in the enclave.
However, there are significant computational and security challenges associated
with this approach. First, the secure enclave is usually extremely limited in
memory and computation. Large models cannot be loaded on it due to memory
limitations and computations using large model require significant paging, which
introduces computational overheads. Second, these enclaves do not have a large
number of parallel threads, which further slows down the computation. Finally, the
enclave is maintained by a {\em trusted} third party. If the third party is
dishonest, the third party can use its admin privileges on the system to mount
side-channel attacks on the enclave~(see Section 6 in~\citet{Hunt2018}).
\paragraph{Multi-Party Computation~(MPC)} Another way of approaching the problem
is by designing a protocol that itself emulates the secure third party, which
collects the data from multiple parties, evaluates the function, and returns the
result to all~(or a specific set of) parties. This allows two or more parties to
evaluate a function without disclosing their data to one another or anyone else.
Garbled Circuits~\citep{Yao1986} and the GMW protocol~\citep{Goldreich1987} are
examples of protocols that aim to solve this problem. They look at the following
scenario. There are $n$ players each having a piece of secret information
$\bc{x_1, \ldots, x_n}$ and there is a boolean function $g$ that needs to be
evaluated on these $n$ inputs. However, the function needs to be evaluated
without any of the players learning anything more from the process than they
would have learned from just observing the output $g\br{x_1,\ldots, x_n}$.
While this seems to provide the required security guarantees, there are multiple
issues associated with this technique especially if the protocol is used in the
Prediction As A Service framework. First, the protocol assumes a level of honesty
among the players which might not hold in the real world. In particular, it
requires that the players stick to the given protocol. Ideally, we would like a
protocol that protects against a malicious adversary. Second, MPC requires
multiple rounds of communication between the players and it requires all the
parties to execute some components of the computation. In the Prediction As A
Service framework, customers might have low capacity devices and be unable to
execute complex computations on their device, and depending on their internet
access, multiple rounds of communication can be prohibitively expensive or
time-consuming. Ideally, we would like a protocol where the customer operates
once on the data at the beginning and sends it to the service provider and then
receives the output. Third, all parties in the protocol need to have access to
the function being evaluated. Thus, if one o the players is the service
provider and the other is the user, it requires the user to have access to
the~(possibly encrypted) machine learning model on their private device so that
they can do some of the evaluation on their private device. This is often
undesirable as service providers would be unwilling to share their models with
customers. In addition, the service providers would have to share a new model
every time they update their model.
\paragraph{Homomorphic Encryption} While TEEs and MPC schemes provide some
level of privacy and reliability in using Prediction As A Service, these
approaches protect against weaker threat models than we would like. TEEs do not
provide cryptographic privacy guarantees in the execution environment, thus
their computations are vulnerable to side-channel attacks and rely on the third
party being honest. MPC schemes also rely on partial honesty among the parties
and require multiple rounds of communication between the service provider and
the user. Further, MPCs require the function that is going to be evaluated to
be shared between the different users. Ideally, we would like to develop a
protocol that can overcome all of these disadvantages.
One particular way to achieve this is if the data provided by the customer is
cryptographically hidden from the machine learning model while still enabling
the model to make accurate, albeit encrypted, predictions. This protection is
exactly what "Encrypted Prediction As A Service~(EPAAS)" defined by us
in~\Cref{chap:TAPAS} provides. The basic service required by EPAAS is that the
service provider has access to a learned machine learning model in plaintext.
The customer encrypts the private personal data and sends the encrypted data to
the service provider, along with the public key but not the private key. The
service provider computes an encrypted prediction on the received data using
their model and sends the encrypted prediction back to the customer, who then
decrypts it. The framework of {\em Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE)} is ideal
for this paradigm. {\em Homomorphic encryption}, first proposed
by~\citet{RAD:1978}, is an encryption methodology that allows certain operations
on it without decrypting it first. ~\citet{Gen:2009} proposed the first FHE
scheme that allows performing arbitrarily
many operations on the encrypted data. Since then several other schemes have
been proposed~\citep{GHS:2012,GSW:2013,BV:2014a,DM:2015,CGGI:2016}.
\subsection{Challenges in using Homomorphic Encryption}
While EPAAS using homomorphic encryption schemes offer powerful privacy
protections, the major challenge associated with using homomorphic encryption is
its computational inefficiency. Without significant changes to the machine
learning model and improved algorithmic tools, homomorphic encryption does not
scale to modern deep neural networks.
Indeed, already there have been several recent works trying to accelerate
predictions of machine learning models on fully homomorphically encrypted data.
In general, the approach has been to approximate all or parts of a machine
learning model to accommodate the restrictions of an FHE framework. Often,
certain kind of FHE schemes
is preferred because they allow for ``batched'' parallel encrypted computations,
called SIMD operations~\citep{SV:2014}. This technique is exemplified by the
CryptoNets model %
\citep{G-BDL+:2016}. While these models allow for high-throughput (via SIMD),
they are not particularly suited for the Prediction As A Service framework for
individual users, as single predictions are slow. Further, because they employ a
leveled homomorphic encryption scheme, they are unable to perform many nested
multiplications, a requirement for state-of-the-art deep learning models~\citep{HZRS:2016,HZWV:2017}.
In~\Cref{chap:TAPAS}, we will look at a novel solution that demonstrates how
existing work on Binary Neural Networks (BNNs) \citep{KS:2015,CHSEB:2016} can be
adapted to produce efficient and highly accurate predictions on encrypted data.
We show that a recent %
FHE encryption scheme~\citep{CGGI:2016} which only supports operations on binary
data can be leveraged to compute all of the operations of BNNs. To do so, we
develop specialised circuits for fully-connected, convolutional, and batch
normalization layers~\citep{IS:2015}. Additionally, we design tricks to sparsify
encrypted computation that reduces computation time even further. We lay down
some important computational and privacy criteria that need to be satisfied by
an EPAAS framework and we discuss why most recent approaches fail them. Then
we discuss various types of Homomorphic Encryption schemes and why our
particular choice of encryption scheme is suitable for our method.
\section{Main contributions}
\label{ssec:contrib}
In this chapter, our focus is on achieving speed-ups when using complex models
with fully homomorphically encrypted data. To achieve these speed-ups,
we propose several methods to modify the training and design of neural networks,
as well as algorithmic tricks to parallelise and accelerate computation on
encrypted data. In particular, we propose the following techniques
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose the use of binary neural networks to make EPAAS faster
without sacrificing much on its test accuracy.
\item We propose two types of circuits for performing inner products between
unencrypted and encrypted data: reduce tree circuits and sorting
networks. We give a runtime comparison of each method.
\item We introduce an easy trick, which we call the \emph{+1 trick} to
sparsify encrypted computations.
\item We demonstrate that our techniques are easily parallelisable and we report
timing for a variety of computation settings on real-world datasets,
alongside classification accuracies.
\end{itemize}
Most similar to our work is \citet{BMM+:2017} who use neural networks with
signed integer weights and binary activations to perform encrypted predictions.
However, their method is only evaluated on MNIST and achieves accuracy
comparable to a linear classifier ($92\%$)~\citep{LBBH:1998}, and the encryption
scheme parameters depend on the structure of the model, potentially requiring
clients to re-encrypt their data if the service provider updates their model.
Our framework allows the service provider to update their model at any time and
allows one to use binary neural networks of~\citet{CHSEB:2016} which, in
particular, achieve high accuracy on MNIST ($99.04\%$). Another closely related
work is \citet{MLH:2018} who design encrypted adder and multiplier circuits so
that they can implement machine learning models on integers. This can be seen as
complementary to our work on binary networks: while they achieve improved
accuracy because of greater precision, they are less efficient than our methods
(on MNIST we achieve the same accuracy with a $29\times$ speedup, via
our sparsification and parallelisation tricks).
\paragraph{Private training.}
In this thesis, we do not address the question of training machine learning
models with encrypted data. There has been some recent work in this area
\citep{HHI-LNPST:2017,AHWM:2017}. However, as of now, it appears possible only
to train very small models using fully homomorphic encryption. We leave this for
future work. %
\subsection{Fully Homomorphic Encryption}
\label{ssec:fhe}
In 1978, cryptographers posed the question: \emph{Does an encryption
scheme exist that allows one to perform arbitrary computations on
encrypted data?} The implications of this, called a \emph{Fully
Homomorphic Encryption} (FHE) scheme, would enable clients to send
computations to the cloud while retaining control over the secrecy of
their data.
This was still an open problem however 30 years later. Then, in 2009,
a cryptosystem \citep{Gen:2009} was devised that could, in principle,
perform such computations on encrypted data. Similar to previous
approaches, in each computation, noise is introduced into the
encrypted data. And after a certain number of computations, the noise
grows too large so that the encryptions can no longer be decrypted.
The key innovation was a technique called \emph{bootstrapping}, which
allows one to reduce the noise to its original level without
decrypting.
At a high level, the idea is as follows. Assume the cryptosystem can evaluate a version of its decryption function where the secret key is also encrypted: $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{E}(x, k_\textsc{pub}),\mathcal{E}(k_\textsc{sec},k_\textsc{pub}))$. \citet{Gen:2009} showed that if the secret key was newly encrypted then the output of this function would be an encrypted version of data $x$ \emph{with all of the noise removed}. Finally, also assume this cryptosystem can homomorphically evaluate a \texttt{NAND} gate on encrypted data. %
Then because via \texttt{NAND} one can express all possible logical operations, such a cryptosystem would be fully homomorphic. \citet{Gen:2009} subsequently derived such a scheme, the first FHE scheme.
That result constituted a massive breakthrough, as it established, for
the first time, a fully homomorphic encryption scheme
\citep{Gen:2009}.
Unfortunately, the original bootstrapping procedure was highly
impractical, %
as massive noise was introduced in each homomorphic operation.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{privatenet_folder/both_circuits.pdf}}
\caption[Binary Circuits for reduce-tree and sorting networks]{Binary circuits used for inner product: reduce tree
(\emph{Left}) and sorting network (\emph{Right}). RC is short for
ripple-carry.}
\label{figure.binary_ops}
\end{figure*}
Consequently, much of the research since the first FHE scheme has been
devoted to reducing the growth of noise so that the scheme never has
to perform bootstrapping. Indeed, even in recent FHE schemes
bootstrapping is slow
(roughly six minutes in a highly optimised implementation of a recent popular scheme \citep{HS:2015}) and bootstrapping many times increases the memory requirements of encrypted data.
\subsubsection{Encrypted prediction with levelled HE}
Thus, one common technique to implement encrypted prediction was to take an
existing ML algorithm and approximate it with as few operations as possible, to
never have to bootstrap. This involved careful parameter tuning to ensure that
the security of the encryption scheme was sufficient, that it didn't require too
much memory, and that it ran in a reasonable amount of time. One prominent
example of this is Cryptonets \citep{G-BDL+:2016}. If a practitioner wanted to
add a few layers to the neural network model, they would need to ensure that all
of the operations could still be performed without bootstrapping. Otherwise,
security parameters or previous layers would need to be adjusted to account for
the added layers.
\subsubsection{Encrypted prediction with FHE}
Recent developments in cryptography call for rethinking this approach.
\citet{DM:2015} devised a scheme that that could bootstrap a single
Boolean gate in under one second with reduced memory. Recently,
\citet{CGGI:2016} introduced optimisations implemented in the TFHE
library, which further reduced bootstrapping to under 0.1 seconds.
In this chapter, we demonstrate that this change has a huge impact on
designing encrypted machine learning algorithms. Specifically,
encrypted computation is now modular: the cost of adding a few layers
to an encrypted neural network is simply the added cost of each layer
in isolation. This is particularly important as recent developments in
deep learning such as Residual Networks \citep{HZRS:2016} and Dense
Networks \citep{HZWV:2017} have shown that networks with many layers
are crucial to achieving state-of-the-art accuracy.
\subsection{Binary Neural Networks}
\label{ssec:binary}
The cryptosystem that we will use in this chapter, TFHE, is however restricted
to computing binary operations. We note that, concurrent to the work that led to
TFHE, was the development of neural network models that perform binary
operations between binary weights and binary activations. These models, called
Binary Neural Networks (BNNs), were first devised by~\citet{KS:2015}
and~\citet{CHSEB:2016}, and were motivated by the prospect of training and
testing deep models on limited memory and limited compute devices, such as
mobile phones.
\paragraph{Technical details.}
We now describe the technical details of binary networks that we will
aim to replicate on encrypted data. In a \emph{Binary Neural Network}
(BNN) every layer maps a binary input $\mathbf{x} \in \{-1,1\}^{d}$ to
a binary output $\mathbf{z} \in \{-1,1\}^p$ using a set of binary
weights $\mathbf{W} \in \{-1,1\}^{(p,d)}$ and a binary activation
function $\texttt{sign}(\cdot)$ that is $1$ if $x \geq 0$ and $-1$
otherwise.
Although binary nets do not typically use a bias term, applying
batch-normalization~\citep{IS:2015} when evaluating the model means that a
bias term $\vec{b} \in \bZ^p$ may need to be added before applying the
activation function (cf. Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:bn}). Thus, when evaluating the
model, a fully connected layer in a BNN implements the following transformation
$\mathbf{z} := \mathrm{sign}(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{x} + \vec{b})$. From now on we
will call all data represented as $\{-1,1\}$ \emph{non-standard binary} and
data represented as $\{0,1\}$ as \emph{binary}. \citet{KS:2015,CHSEB:2016} were
the first to note that the above inner product nonlinearity in BNNs could be
implemented using the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Transform data and weights from non-standard binary to
binary: $\mathbf{w},\mathbf{x} \rightarrow
\overline{\mathbf{w}},\overline{\mathbf{x}}$ by replacing $-1$
with $0$. Now all data is in $\{0,1\}$.
\item Apply element-wise multiplication by using the logical \texttt{XNOR}
operator$(\overline{\mathbf{w}},\overline{\mathbf{x}})$ for each element
of $\overline{\mathbf{w}}$ and $\overline{\mathbf{x}}$.
\item Sum the result of the previous step by using \texttt{popcount}
operation (which counts the number of 1s), call this $S$.
\item If the bias term is $b$, check if $2 S \geq d - b$, if so
the activation is positive and return $1$, otherwise return
$-1$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus we have that,
\begin{align*}
z_i = \sgn{2 \cdot \mathrm{popcount}(\mathrm{XNOR}(\overline{\mathbf{w}}_{i},\overline{\mathbf{x}})) - d + b}
\end{align*}
\paragraph{Related binary models.}
Since the initial work on BNNs there has been a wealth of work on
binarising, ternarising, and quantizing neural networks
\citet{CWTWC:2015,CBD:2015,HMD:2016,HCSEB:2016,ZHMD:2016,CWMMP:2017,CHZX:2017}.
Our approach is currently tailored to methods that have binary
activations and we leave the implementation of these methods on
encrypted data for future work.
\section{Encrypted prediction as a Service}
\label{sec:problem-definition}
\input{privatenet_folder/setup}
\section{Background}
\label{sec:prelim}
\input{privatenet_folder/background}
\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
\input{privatenet_folder/methods}
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:results}
\input{privatenet_folder/results}
\subsection{Reduce tree vs. sorting network}
We show timings of reduce tree and sorting network for a different
number of input bits, with and without parallelisation in
Figure~\ref{Figure.timings} (parallelisation is over 16 CPUs). We
notice that the reduce tree is strictly better when comparing parallel
or non-parallel timings of the circuits. As such, from now on we use
the reduce tree circuit for inner product.
It should be mentioned that at the outset this result was not obvious because
while sorting networks have more levels of computation, they have fewer gates.
Specifically, the sorting network used for encrypted sorting is the bitonic
sorting network which for $n$ bits has $O(\log^2 n)$ levels of computation
whereas the reduce tree only has $O(\log n)$ levels. On the other hand, the
reduce tree requires $2$ gates for each half adder and $5k$ gates for each
$k$-bit RC adder, whereas a sorting network only requires $2$ gates per
\textsc{SWAP} operation. Another factor that may slow down sorting networks is
that our implementation of sorting networks is recursive, whereas the reduce
tree is iterative.
\paragraph{Datasets}
We evaluate on four datasets, three of which have privacy implications
due to health care information (datasets Cancer and Diabetes) or
applications in surveillance (dataset Faces). We also evaluate on the
standard benchmark MNIST dataset. All of the datasets and the corresponding model architectures are described in~\Cref{sec:expr-settings}.
\subsection{Timing}
\label{sec:parall-strat}
We give timing results for the classification of an instance in different
computational settings.
All of the strategies use the parallel implementations of the reduce tree
circuit computed across 16 CPUs (the solid line orange line in
Figure~\ref{Figure.timings}). The \textit{Out Seq} strategy computes each
operation of a BNN sequentially (using the parallel reduce tree circuit). Notice
that for any layer of a BNN mapping $d$ inputs to $p$ output nodes, the
computation over each of the $p$ output nodes can be parallelised. From this, we
can easily estimate the effect of further parallelisation over the outputs of
BNN layers, as the encrypted computation will remain identical. The \textit{Out
16-P} strategy estimates parallelizing the computation of the $p$ output nodes
across a cluster of $16$ machines (each with $16$ CPUs). The \textit{Out Full-P}
strategy estimates complete parallelisation, in which each output node can be
computed independently on a separate machine. We note that for companies that
already offer prediction as a service, both of these parallel strategies are not
unreasonable requirements. Indeed it is not uncommon for such companies to run
hundreds of CPUs/GPUs over multiple days to tune hyperparameters for deep
learning models\footnote{https://tinyurl.com/yc8d79oe}. Additionally, we report
how timings change with the introduction of the \textit{+1-trick} is described
in Section \ref{ssec:methods-sparsification}.
\begin{table}[h!]\centering
\begin{tabular}[h!]{lrrrr}
\toprule
{\bf Parallelism} & {\bf Cancer} & {\bf Diabetes} & {\bf Faces} & {\bf MNIST} \\\midrule
Out Seq & 3.5s & 283s & 763.5h & 65.1h\\%\hline
+1-trick & 3.5s & 250s & 564h & 37.22 h \\%\hline
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}} Out 16-P.\\ +1 trick\end{tabular}& 3.5s & 31.5 s & 33.1h& 2.41 h \\%\hline
Out Full-P&3.5s&29s&1.3h& 147s\\%\hline
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Neural Network timings for different techniques of parallelism]{Neural Network timings on various datasets using different forms of parallelism. \label{tbl:EXP.TIME}}
\end{table}
These timings are given in Table~\ref{tbl:EXP.TIME} (computed with Intel Xeon
CPUs @ 2.40GHz, processor number E5-2673V3). We notice that without
parallelisation over BNN outputs, the predictions on datasets that use fully
connected layers: Cancer and Diabetes, finish within seconds or minutes. While
for the datasets that use convolutional layers: Faces and MNIST, predictions
require multiple days. The \textit{+1-trick} cuts the time of MNIST prediction
by half and reduces the time of Faces prediction by $200$ hours. With only a bit
of parallelism over outputs (\textit{Out 16-Parallel}) prediction on the Faces
dataset now requires less than 1.5 days and MNIST can be done in $2$ hours. With
complete parallelism (\textit{Out N-Parallel}) all methods reduce to under $2$
hours.
\subsection{Accuracy}
\label{ssec:accuracy}
We wanted to ensure that BNNs can still achieve similar test-set accuracies to
floating-point networks. To do so, for each dataset we construct similar
floating-point networks. For the Cancer dataset, we use the same network except
we use the original $30$ real-valued features, so the fully connected layer is
$30 \rightarrow 1$, as was used in \citet{MLH:2018}. For Diabetes and Faces,
just like for our BNNs we cross-validate to find the best networks (for Faces:
$4$ convolutional layers, with filter sizes of $5 \times 5$ and $64$ output
channels; for Diabetes the best network is the same as used in the BNN). For
MNIST we report the accuracy of the best performing method as reported
in~\citet{WZZ+:2013}\footnote{https://tinyurl.com/knn2434}. Additionally, we
report the accuracy of the weight-dropping method described in
Section~\ref{sec:methods}.
\begin{table}[h!]\centering
\begin{tabular}[h!]{lrrrr}
\toprule
& {\bf Cancer} & {\bf Diabetes} & {\bf Faces} & {\bf MNIST} \\
\midrule
Floating & 0.977 & 0.556 & 0.942 & 0.998 \\%\hline
BNN & 0.971 & 0.549 & 0.891 & 0.986 \\%\hline
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}} BNN \\ drop $10\%$ \end{tabular}& 0.976 & 0.549 & 0.879 & 0.976 \\%\hline
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}} BNN \\ drop $20\%$ \end{tabular}&0.912 & 0.541 & 0.878 & 0.973\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Accuracy of floating-point networks compared with BNNs]{The accuracy of floating-point networks compared with BNNs, with and without weight dropping. The Cancer dataset floating-point accuracy is given by \cite{MLH:2018}, the MNIST floating-point accuracy is given by \cite{WZZ+:2013}, and the MNIST BNN accuracy (without dropping) is given by \cite{CHSEB:2016}.\label{tbl:ACC}}
\end{table}
The results are shown in Table~\ref{tbl:ACC}. We notice that apart from the
Faces dataset, the difference in accuracies between the floating-point networks
and BNNs are at most $1.2\%$ (on MNIST). The face dataset uses a different
network in floating-point which seems to be able to exploit the increased
precision to increase accuracy by $5.1\%$. We also observe that weight dropping
by $10\%$ reduces the accuracy by at most $1.2\%$ (on Faces). Dropping $20\%$ of
the weights seem to have a small effect on all datasets except Cancer, which has
only a single layer and so likely relies more on every individual weight.
\subsection{Binary OPs}
\label{ssec:binaryops}
The three primary circuits we need are for the following tasks: 1.
computing the inner product; 2. computing the binary activation
function (described in the previous section) and; 3. dealing with the
bias.
\subsubsection{Encrypted inner product}
As described in the previous section, BNNs can speed up an inner
product by computing \textsc{XNOR}s (for element-wise multiplication)
followed by a \textsc{popcount} (for summing). In our case, we compute
an inner product of size $d$ by computing \textsc{XNOR}s element-wise
between $d$ bits of encrypted data and $d$ bits of unencrypted data,
which results in an encrypted $d$ bit output. To sum this output, the
\textsc{popcount} operation is useful when weights and data are
unencrypted because \textsc{popcount} is implemented in the
instruction set of Intel and AMD processors, but when dealing with
encrypted data we simply resort to using shallow circuits. We consider
two circuits for summation, both with sublinear depth: a reduce tree
adder and a sorting network.
\paragraph{Reduce tree adder.}
We implement the sum using a binary tree of half and ripple-carry (RC)
adders organised into a reduction tree, as shown in
Figure~\ref{figure.binary_ops} (\emph{Left}). All these structures can
be implemented to run on encrypted data because TFHE allows us to
compute \textsc{XNOR}, \textsc{AND}, and \textsc{OR} on encrypted
data. The final number returned by the reduction tree $\tilde{S}$ is
the binary representation of the number of $1$s resulting from the
$\textsc{XNOR}$, just like \textsc{popcount}. Thus, to compute the BNN
activation function $\sgn{\cdot}$ we need to check whether
$2\tilde{S} \geq d - b$, where $d$ is the number of bits in
$\tilde{S}$ and $b$ is the bias. Note that if the bias is zero we
simply need to check if $\tilde{S} \geq d/2$. To do so we can simply
return the second-to-last bit of $\tilde{S}$. If it is $1$ then
$\tilde{S}$ is at least $d/2$. If the bias $b$ is non-zero (because of
batch-normalization, described in Section~\ref{subsubsec:bn}), we can
implement a circuit to perform the check $2\tilde{S} \geq d - b$. The
bias $b$ (which is available in the clear) may be an integer as large
as $\tilde{S}$. Let $\mathbb{B}[(d-b)/2]$ and $\mathbb{B}[\tilde{S}]$ be
the binary representations of $\br{d-b}/2$ and $\tilde{S}$ respectively.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:compare} describes a comparator circuit that
returns an encrypted value of $1$ if the above condition holds and
(encrypted) $0$ otherwise (where $\textsc{MUX}(s,a,b)$ returns $a$ if
$s=1$ and $b$ otherwise). As encrypted operations dominate the running
time of our computation, in practice this computation essentially
corresponds to evaluating $d$ MUX gates. This gate has a dedicated
implementation in TFHE, which results in a very efficient comparator
in our setting.
\begin{algorithm}[htb]
\caption[Comparator Circuit]{Comparator}
{\bf Inputs:}~~Encrypted $\mathbb{B}[\tilde{S}]$, unencrypted
$\mathbb{B}[(d-b)/2]$, size $d$ of
$\mathbb{B}[(d-b)/2]$,$\mathbb{B}[\tilde{S}]$ \\
{\bf Output:}~~Result of $2\tilde{S} \geq d - b$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\label{alg:compare}
\STATE $o = 0$ \FOR{$i = 1,\ldots,d$} \IF{$\mathbb{B}[(d-b)/2]_i =
0$}
\STATE $o = \textsc{MUX}(\mathbb{B}[\tilde{S}]_i, \tilde{1},
o)$
\ELSE
\STATE $o = \textsc{MUX}(\mathbb{B}[\tilde{S}]_i, o,
\tilde{0})$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE {\bf Return:} $o$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\paragraph{Sorting network.}
We do not technically care about the sum of the result of the element-wise
$\textsc{XNOR}$ between $\bar{\mathbf{w}}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{x}}$. In fact, all
we care about is if the result of the comparison: $2\tilde{S} \geq d - b$. Thus,
another idea is to take the output of the (bitwise) $\textsc{XNOR}$ and sort it.
Although this sorting needs to be performed over encrypted data, the rest of the
computation does not require any homomorphic operations; after sorting we hold a
sequence of encrypted $1$s, followed by encrypted $0$s. To output the correct
value, we only need to select one of the (encrypted) bit in the correct position
and return it. If $b=0$ we can simply return the encryption of the central bit
in the sequence; indeed, if the central bit is $1$, then there are more $1$s
than $0$s and thus $2\tilde{S} \geq d$ and we return $1$. If $b\neq0$ we need to
offset the returned index by $b$ in the correct direction depending on the sign
of $b$. To sort the initial array we implement a sorting network, shown
in Figure~\ref{figure.binary_ops} (\emph{Right}). The sorting network is a
sequence of swap gates between individuals bits, where $\textsc{SWAP}(a,b) =
(\textsc{OR}(a,b), \textsc{AND}(a,b))$. Note that if $a \geq b$ then
$\textsc{SWAP}(a,b) = (a,b)$, and otherwise is $(b,a)$. More specifically, we
implement Batcher's sorting network~\cite{batcher_sorting_1968}, which consists
of $O(n \log^2(n))$ swap gates, and has depth $O(\log^2(n))$.
\subsubsection{Batch normalization}
\label{subsubsec:bn}
Batch normalization is mainly used during training; however, during the
evaluation of a model, this requires us to scale and translate and scale the input
(which is the output of the previous layer). In practice, when our activation
function is the $\sgn{\cdot}$ function, this only means that we need to update
the bias term (the actual change to the bias term is an elementary calculation).
As our circuits are designed to work with a bias term, and the scaling and
translation factors are available as plaintext (as they are part of the model),
this operation is easily implemented during test time.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./privatenet_folder/sorter_compare.pdf}
\caption[Timing of sorting network and reduce tree addition]{Timing of sorting network and reduce tree addition for different sized vectors, with and without parallelisation.}
\label{Figure.timings}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sparsification via ``+1''-trick}
\label{ssec:methods-sparsification}
Since we have access to the weight matrix $\mathbf{W} \in \{-1, 1\}^{p \times d}$ and
the bias term $\vec{b} \in \bZ^p$ in the clear (only data $\mathbf{x}$ and
subsequent activations are encrypted), we can exploit the fact that
$\mathbf{W}$ always has values $\pm 1$ to, roughly, halve the cost
computation. We consider $\mathbf{w} \in \{-1, 1\}^d$ which is a single row of
$\mathbf{W}$ and observe that:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{w}^\top\mathbf{x} = (\vec{1} + \mathbf{w})^\top (\vec{1} + \mathbf{x}) - \sum_{i} w_i - (\vec{1} + \mathbf{x})^\top \vec{1}, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\vec{1}$ denotes the vector in which every entry is $1$. Further note
that $(\vec{1} + \mathbf{w}) \in \{0,2\}^{d}$ which means that the product $(\vec{1} +
\mathbf{w})^\top (\vec{1} + \mathbf{x})$ is simply the quantity $4 \sum_{i: w_i = 1} \bar{x}_i$,
where $\bar{\mathbf{x}}$ refers to the standard binary representation of the
non-standard binary $\mathbf{x}$. Assuming at most half of the $w_i$s were originally
$+1$, if $w \in\{-1, 1\}^d$, only $d/2$ encrypted values need to be added. We
also need to compute the encrypted sum $\sum_{i} x_i$; however, this latter sum
need only be computed once, no matter how many output units the layer has. Thus,
this small bit of extra overhead roughly {\em halves} the amount of computation
required. We note that if $\mathbf{w}$ has more $-1$s than $+1$s, $\mathbf{w}^\top \mathbf{x}$ can be
computed using $(\vec{1} - \mathbf{w})$ and $(\vec{1} - \mathbf{x})$ instead. This guarantees
that we never need to sum more than half the inputs for any output unit. The
sums of encrypted binary values can be calculated as described in
Sec.~\ref{ssec:binaryops}. The overheads are two additions required to compute
$(\vec{1} + \mathbf{x})^\top \vec{1}$ and $(\vec{1} - \mathbf{x})^\top \vec{1}$, and then a
subtraction of two $\log(d)$-bit long encrypted numbers. (The multiplication by
$2$ or $4$ as may be sometimes required is essentially free, as bit shifts
correspond to dropping bits, and hence do not require homomorphic operations).
As our experimental results show this simple trick roughly halves the
computation time of one layer; the actual savings appear to be even more than
half as in many instances the number of elements we need to sum over is
significantly smaller than half.
It is worth emphasizing the advantage of binarising and then using
the above approach to making the sums sparse. By default, units in a
neural network compute an affine function to which an activation
function is subsequently applied. The affine map involves an inner
product that involves $d$ multiplications. Multiplication under fully
homomorphic encryption schemes is, however, significantly more expensive
than addition. By binarising and applying the above calculation, we've
replaced the inner product operation by selection (which is done in
the clear as $\mathbf{W}$ is available in plaintext) and (encrypted)
addition.
\subsection{Ternarisation (Weight Dropping)}
Ternary neural networks use weights in $\{-1, 0, 1\}$ rather than
$\{-1, 1\}$; this can alternatively be viewed as dropping connections
from a BNN. Using ternary neural networks rather than binary reduces
the computation time as encrypted inputs for which the corresponding
$w_i$ is $0$ can be safely dropped from the computation, before the
method explained in section~\ref{ssec:methods-sparsification} is
applied to the remaining elements. Our experimental results show that
a binary network can be ternarised to maintain the same level of test
accuracy with roughly a quarter of the weights being $0$ (cf.
Sec.~\ref{ssec:accuracy}).
\subsection{Privacy and computational guarantees}
If data $\mathbf{x}$ is sensitive (e.g., $\mathbf{x}$ may be the health record of client $C$, and $f(\mathbf{x})$ may be the likelihood of heart disease), then we would like to have the following privacy guarantees:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[P1.] Neither the server $S$ nor any other party, learn anything about
client data $\mathbf{x}$, other than its size {\em (privacy of the data)}.
\item[P2.] Neither the client $C$ nor any other party, learn anything about
model $f$, other than the prediction $f(x)$ given client data $\mathbf{x}$ (and
whatever can be deduced from it) {\em (privacy of the model)}.
\end{enumerate}
Further, the main attraction of EPAAS is that the client is involved as little as possible. More concretely, we wish to have the following computational guarantees:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[C1.] No external party is involved in the computation.
\item[C2.] The rounds of communication between client and server should be limited to $2$ (send data \& receive prediction).
\item[C3.] Communication and computation at the client-side
should be independent of model $f$. In particular,
(i) the server should be able to update $f$ without communicating with any client,
and (ii) clients should not need to be online during the computation of $f(\mathbf{x})$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that these requirements rule out protocols with preprocessing stages or
that involve third parties.
Generally speaking, a satisfactory solution based on FHE would proceed as follows:
(1) a client generates encryption parameters, encrypts their data $\mathbf{x}$ using
the private key, and sends the resulting encryption $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}$, as well as the
public key to the server. (2) The server evaluates $f$ on $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}$ leveraging the homomorphic
properties of the encryption, to obtain an encryption $\tilde{f}(\mathbf{x})$
without learning anything whatsoever about $\mathbf{x}$, and sends $\tilde{f}(\mathbf{x})$
to the client. (3) Finally, the client decrypts and recovers the prediction
$f(\mathbf{x})$ in the clear. A high-level depiction of these steps is shown in Figure~\ref{figure.service}.
\subsection{Existing approaches}
Table~\ref{table.existing} describes whether prior work satisfies the above
privacy and computational guarantees. First, note that
Cryptonets~\cite{G-BDL+:2016} violates C3(i) and P2. This is because the clients
would have to generate parameters for the encryption according to the structure
of $f$, so the client can make inferences about the model (violating P2)
and the client is not allowed to change the model $f$ without telling the client
(violating C3(i)). The same holds for the work of \citet{CWMMP:2017}. The
approach of \citet{BMM+:2017} requires the server to calibrate the parameters of
the encryption scheme according to the magnitude of intermediate values, thus
C3(i) is not necessarily satisfied. Closely related to our work is that of
\citet{MLH:2018} which satisfies our privacy and computational requirements. We
will show that our method is significantly faster than this method, with very
little sacrifice in accuracy.
\paragraph{Multi-Party Computation (MPC).}
It is important to distinguish between approaches based purely on homomorphic
encryption (described above), and those involving Multi-Party Computation (MPC)
techniques, such
as~\cite{MZ:2017,LJL+:2017,RRK:2017,RWT+:2017,CG-BLLR:2017,JVC:2018}. While
generally, MPC approaches are faster, they crucially rely on all parties being
involved in the whole computation, which conflicts with requirement C3(ii).
Additionally, in MPC the structure of the computation is public to both parties,
which means that the server would have to communicate basic information such as
the number of layers of $f$. This conflicts with requirements P2, C2, and C3(i).
In this work, we propose to use a very tailored homomorphic encryption technique
to guarantee all privacy and computational requirements. In the next section, we
give background on homomorphic encryption. Further, we motivate the encryption
protocol and the machine learning model class we use to satisfy all guarantees.
\subsection{Characterising an adversary}
Before formally defining adversarial error, we need to first
characterise what it means for the adversary to a) {\em imperceptibly
change the data} and b) {\em be successful in forcing the model in
making a mistake}.
\paragraph{Threat model} The first part is captured by defining a {\em threat
model} - which puts a constraint on what the adversary is allowed to do while
perturbing the data. There are different types of constraints the adversary can
enforce:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Computational Constraint -- A computational constraint restricts the
number of operations the adversary is allowed to execute while perturbing the
data point. For example, if an adversary is allowed to do only $k$ steps of
gradient ascent while constructing the perturbed data point, that is an example
of a computational constraint on the adversary.
\item Information Theoretic Constraint -- An information theoretic constraint
restricts the adversary to ensure that the information contained in the
perturbed data is not too different from that in the original data. For example,
an $\ell_p$ bounded adversary ensures that the $\ell_p$ norm of the induced
perturbation is small.
\item Knowledge Constraint -- The adversary can also be constrained by the
information it has access to while constructing the attack. Some adversaries
might have full knowledge of the model they are attacking whereas others may not
and have to construct their proxy of the model while crafting the attack.
Examples of this distinction can be seen between white box and black box attacks
respectively.
\end{enumerate}
Formally, the threat model of the adversary can be defined as a function
$\cA:\cX\rightarrow\cP^{\cX}$ where $\cP^{\cX}$ denotes the power set of $\cX$.
$\cA$ is a function that maps a point in $\cX$ to a set of points in $\cX$ that
can be feasibly obtained by the constrained adversary. For an $\ell_p$ bounded
adversary with radius $r$, $\cA\br{\vec{x}}$ is the set of all points within an
$\ell_p$ ball of radius $r$ around $\vec{x}$. \[\cA\br{\vec{x}} = \bc{\vec{z}:
\norm{\vec{z}-\vec{x}}_p\le r}\]
\begin{remark}
For real application purposes, ``imperceptibly changing the data'' usually means to be imperceptible to a human. The definition of the threat model above (a function from a single example to a set of examples) is powerful enough to represent this. However, it is difficult to provide a precise mathematical definition of such a threat model. Thus, research in adversarial robustness has stuck to easy-to-define and computationally tractable threat models. However, neither does this mean that more powerful threat models do not exist nor does it mean that this simple threat model is of no practical utility.
\end{remark}
The second component of characterizing an adversary is defining what it means
to be successful in forcing the model to make a mistake. Generally, this
corresponds to forcing the value of the loss function of the attacked model to
increase on the perturbed data point as compared to the original data point.
Usually, adversarial robustness is discussed in the context of supervised
classification problems. Forcing the model to make a mistake in this context
corresponds to forcing the model to make a classification error on the
adversarially perturbed data point despite being correct on the original data
point.
Combining these two components, the job of an adversary is to find a perturbed
data point within its threat model that maximally increases the loss value of
the perturbed data point. Given an adversary $\cA:\cX\rightarrow\cP^{\cX}$, a
learned classification model $h:\cX\rightarrow\cY$, a loss function
$\ell:\cY\times\cY\rightarrow\reals$, and an {\em original data point}
$\br{\vec{x}_d,y}$, the {\em adversarially perturbed data point} $\vec{x}_a$ is
the solution of the following optimisation problem.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gen_adv_att}
\vec{x}_a = \max_{\vec{x}\in\cA\br{\vec{x}_d}}\ell\br{h\br{\vec{x}},y}
\end{equation}
Even for relatively simple threat models like $\ell_p$ bounded adversaries, the
maximisation problem can be difficult to solve exactly. Especially in neural
networks, the classifier $h$ is a non-convex function and thus the inner
maximisation problem is non-convex. Thus, attacks are usually created
by considering various approximations to the problem. The most common approach
to solve this is projected gradient ascent.
\begin{restatable}[$\ell_p$ Adversarial
Error]{defn}{advrisk}\label{defn:adv_risk} For any distribution $\cD$
defined over $\br{\vec{x},y}\in\reals^d\times\cY$, any classifier
$h:\reals^d\rightarrow\cY$, and any $\gamma>0$,
the $\gamma$-\emph{adversarial} error is
\begin{equation}
\radv{\gamma}{h;\cD}=\bP_{\br{\vec{x},y}
\sim\cD}\bs{\exists \vec{z}\in\cB_{\gamma}
\br{\vec{x}};h\br{\vec{z}}\neq y},
\end{equation}
where $\cB_\gamma^p\br{\vec{x}}$ is the $\ell_p$ ball of radius $\gamma \ge
0$ around $\vec{x}$ under the $\ell_p$ norm.
\end{restatable}
In the adversarial robustness literature, the adversarial error is usually defined
by~\Cref{defn:adv_risk}. This particular definition measures the risk when the
adversary is only constrained by information theoretic constraints, more
specifically an $\ell_p$ norm ball. Most work has looked at $\ell_\infty$~\citep{goodfellow2014explaining,madry2018towards}
constraints though some have considered $\ell_2$~\citep{Carlini2017}, $\ell_1$~\citep{chen2018ead}, and
$\ell_0$~\citep{Carlini2017}\todo[color=green]{Cite three papers for the diff kinds} balls as well. However, when
reporting empirical results, computational constraints are also necessarily
included for practical reasons. Thus most practical evaluations of adversarial
robustness use a combination of computational, information theoretic, and
knowledge constraints.~\citet{Gluch2020} discuss a generalisation of the
knowledge constraint where the adversary is characterised by the number of
queries it is allowed to make to the attacked model while constructing the
attack. If this number is unbounded, then the adversary is called a white box
adversary and if the number is zero, the adversary is called a black box
adversary. Any finite non-zero number characterises the strength of the
adversary.
We will now discuss some commonly used adversaries, which we will also use later in~\Cref{chap:causes_vul,chap:low_rank_main} and then discuss some
commonly used adversarial defence methods.
\subsection{Adversarial attacks}
\label{sec:adv-attack-bg}
One of the first instances of adversarial attacks with Neural Networks is in the
work of~\citet{goodfellow2014explaining} where the adversary is constrained both
computationally and information theoretically, in terms of $\ell_p$ bounds. When
the perturbed data point is constrained to lie within an $\ell_p$ norm of a
certain radius, we will refer to the radius as the perturbation budget of the
adversary. The adversary in~\citet{goodfellow2014explaining} is allowed to do
one step of gradient ascent while ensuring that the perturbed point is within an
$\ell_\infty$ perturbation budget of the original data point. Here, the
magnitude of the perturbation budget defines the strength of the adversary.
Known as Fast Sign Gradient Method~(FGSM), this adversary is characterised by
the perturbation budget $\epsilon$ and attacks a point $\vec{x}_d$ by generating
the adversarially perturbed $\vec{x}_a$ as\todo[color=green]{FGSM vs FGSM}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fgsm_one_step}
\vec{x}_a = \vec{x}_d + \epsilon\cdot\sgn{\nabla_x\ell\br{h\br{\vec{x}_d},
y}}.
\end{equation}
This is in fact one step of projected gradient descent on the cross-entropy loss
function $\ell$ where the projection set is an $\ell_\infty$ ball of radius
$\epsilon$ around $\vec{x}_d$. The other important characteristic of this attack
is that the sole aim of the adversary is to force $h$ to misclassify
$\vec{x}_a$ without any specific target for what $\vec{x}_a$ should be
misclassified to.
\paragraph{Multi-step adversaries}
\Cref{eq:fgsm_one_step} and the FGSM adversary describe an attack threat model
where the adversary is constrained to only one step of projected gradient
ascent; a stronger version of this allows the adversary is allowed to take
\(T\ge 1\) steps of length $\alpha$~\citep{kurakin2016} while satisfying the
constraint of being within the \(\ell_\infty\) perturbation
budget.~\Cref{alg:fgsm_pgd} describes this process. In this case, the definition
of the threat model includes a computational constraint hyper-parameter $T$ to
control the number of allowed gradient ascent steps, a hyper-parameter $\alpha$
for the length of each gradient step, and an information theoretic parameter
$\epsilon$ for the perturbation budget. We will refer to this as the~Iter-FGSM\xspace
adversary. It is one of the most commonly used threat models as it allows
varying the computational and the information theoretic constraints
independently. It has been used in a series of works
including~\citet{madry2018towards} and~\citet{Zhang2019}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Multi-Step Fast Gradient Sign Method}
\label{alg:fgsm_pgd}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\INPUT Original Data~($\vec{x}_d,y$), classification
model~($h$), loss function~($\ell$), Threat model~($T, \epsilon,\alpha$)
\STATE
$\vec{x}_a^0 \gets \vec{x}_d$
\FOR{$t\in\bc{0,\cdots
T-1}$}
\STATE $\vec{x}_a^{t+1} \gets
\clipBig{\vec{x}_d}{\epsilon}{\vec{x}_a^t+\alpha\nabla_x\ell\br{h\br{\vec{x}_a^t},
y}}$ \label{step:update_adv}
\ENDFOR
\OUTPUT $\vec{x}_a^T$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The $\mathrm{Clip}$ operation in~\Cref{alg:fgsm_pgd} is specific to the
$\ell_\infty$ bounded adversary and image data where each pixel ranges between
$0$ and $255$ and is defined as
\[\clipBig{x}{\epsilon}{z} = \mathrm{min}\br{255, x + \epsilon,
\mathrm{max}\br{0, x - \epsilon, z}}\] However, these attacks can also be
extended to norms other than the $\ell_\infty$ norm by changing the projection
operator to a different operator depending on the norm. For example,~\citet{szegedy2013intriguing} used the $\ell_2$ norm.
\paragraph{Minimum-Norm unbounded attacks}
\Cref{eq:min_norm_unb_att} describes a generic form of such attacks where
$\norm{\cdot}$ is a particular norm and $h\br{\vec{x}}\neq
h\br{\vec{x}+\vec{r}}$ can be cast into our generic adversarial example
formulation of~\Cref{eq:gen_adv_att} by considering the loss function $\ell$ to
be the classification error function $\ell_{01}\br{y,\hat{y}}=\bI\bc{y\neq
\hat{y}}$. Another form of attack where there is no specific computational or
information-theoretic constraints are minimum norm unbounded attacks.
\begin{align}\label{eq:min_norm_unb_att}
\min_{\vec{r}\in\reals^d}&\norm{\vec{r}}\\
\text{s.t.}&~h\br{\vec{x}}\neq h\br{\vec{x}+\vec{r}}.\nonumber
\end{align}
A specific instantiation of this with the $\ell_2$ norm is the DeepFool
adversary by~\citet{mosaavi2016}. However, measuring the success of these
unbounded attacks is different from measuring the success of bounded attacks
as, by design, these unbounded attacks are more likely to succeed.
Thus~\citet{mosaavi2016} measure the ratio $\dfrac{\norm{r}}{\norm{\vec{x}}}$
for successful misclassifications, which indicates how far the attack had to
move the original data point for the classification algorithm to fail.
\paragraph{Targeted attacks} The attacks we saw so far are known as {\em
untargeted attacks}; the sole aim of the adversary is to make the target model
misclassify the data point without any constraint on what it should be
misclassified as. In a $k$-class multiclass classification problem, this means
that the adversary is satisfied if the model classifies the perturbed data point
into one of the $k-1$ incorrect classes. A {\em Targeted adversarial attack}
changes the data point imperceptibly with the aim that the classifier model
classifies the perturbed data point into a label of the adversary's choosing.
In addition to the arguments of~\Cref{alg:fgsm_pgd}, a targeted
adversarial attack adversary would also usually take a target label
$y_t$. The only change in the algorithm would be the update step,
where instead of increasing the loss value for the correct label, the
adversary would now decrease the loss value for the target label as
follows:
\[\vec{x}_a^{t+1} \gets
\clipBig{\vec{x}_d}{\epsilon}{\vec{x}_a^t-\alpha\nabla_x\ell\br{h\br{\vec{x}_a^t},
y_t}}.\]
\citet{kurakin2016} observed that for datasets with a large number of classes
and varying degrees of significance in the difference between classes,
untargeted adversarial attacks can result in {\em uninteresting}
misclassifications, such as mistaking one breed of sled dog for another breed of
sled dog. Thus, in order to create visually striking adversarial
mis-classifications, they developed a method which they refer to as {\em
Iteratively Least Likely Class Method}~(Iter-LL-FGSM\xspace). Their adversary forces the
classifier to classify the perturbed data point to a label that would have been
the least likely class for the original data point. For a given data point
$\vec{x}$ and a classifier $h:\cX\rightarrow\cY$, they choose the least likely
class as $y_{\mathrm{LL}}$ as
\[y_{\mathrm{LL}} = \argmax_{y\in\cY}\ell\br{h\br{\vec{x}}, y}.\]
The algorithm for the Iteratively Least Likely Class Method is described
in~\Cref{alg:ill}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Iterative Least Likely Class Method}
\label{alg:ill}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\INPUT Original Data~($\vec{x}_d,y$), classification
model($h, \ell$), Threat model~($T, \epsilon,\alpha$)
\STATE
$\vec{x}_a^0 \gets \vec{x}_d$
\FOR{$t\in\bc{0,\cdots
T-1}$}
\STATE $y_{\mathrm{LL}} = \argmax_{y\in\cY}\ell\br{h\br{\vec{x}}, y}$
\STATE $\vec{x}_a^{t+1} \gets
\clipBig{\vec{x}_d}{\epsilon}{\vec{x}_a^t-\alpha\nabla_x\ell\br{h\br{\vec{x}_a^t},
y_{\mathrm{LL}}}}$ \label{step:update_adv}
\ENDFOR
\OUTPUT $\vec{x}_a^T$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\paragraph{Unstability of fixed steps adversarial attacks}
\label{sec:fixed-number-steps}
Both~Iter-FGSM\xspace and~Iter-LL-FGSM\xspace run for a fixed number of steps \(T\). An adaptive version
of these attacks add the adversarial noise for a maximum of \(T\) steps but
stops early upon successful misclassification even before \(T\) steps. We show
empirical evidence that an attack that adds noise for a fixed number of
steps~\citep{kurakin2016adversarial,kurakin2016} to the input is significantly
weaker than one that stops on successful misclassification. While it would be
natural to expect that once a classifier has misclassified an example, adding
more adversarial perturbation will only preserve the
misclassification,~\Cref{fig:adv_fix_step} suggests that a misclassified example
can be possibly classified correctly upon further addition of noise.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.4\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth} \input{./low_rank_folder/figs/ll_inst_cum_adv.pdf_tex}
\caption{Iter-LL-FGSM\xspace \label{sfig:ll_inst_cum_adv}}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.4\linewidth} \centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\input{./low_rank_folder/figs/fsgm_inst_cum_adv.pdf_tex}
\caption{Iter-FGSM\xspace \label{sfig:fsgm_inst_cum_adv}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Instability of Adversarial Attacks]{An adversarial example that has
successfully fooled the classifier in a previous step can be
classified correctly upon adding more
perturbation. Figure~\ref{sfig:ll_inst_cum_adv} and
~\ref{sfig:fsgm_inst_cum_adv} refers to the two attack schemes - Iter-LL-FGSM\xspace
and Iter-FGSM\xspace respectively.}
\label{fig:adv_fix_step}
\end{figure}
Let $y_{a}(\vec{x}; k)$ be the label given to $\vx$ after adding
adversarial perturbation to $\vx$ for $k$ steps. We define
\emph{instantaneous accuracy} ($a_{\cI}(k)$) and \emph{cumulative
accuracy} ($a_{\cC}(k)$) as
\begin{align}
a_{\cI}(k) &= 1 -
\dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \cI_{0,1}\bc{y_{a}(\vx; k) \neq y_{a}(\vx;
0)}\label{eq:instantaneous-acc}\\
a_{\cC}(k) &=1 - \dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \max_{1\le j\le
k}\bc{ \cI_{0,1} \bc{y_{a}(\vx; j) \neq y_{a}(\vx; 0)}}.\label{eq:cumulative-acc}
\end{align}
In Figure~\ref{fig:adv_fix_step}, we see the \emph{instantaneous accuracy} and
the \emph{cumulative accuracy} for a ResNet model trained on the CIFAR10
dataset~(see~\Cref{sec:expr-settings} for a description of the model and the
dataset) where $\alpha=0.01,\epsilon=0.1$, and $T$ is plotted in the x-axis. The
cumulative accuracy is by definition a non-increasing sequence. However,
surprisingly the instantaneous accuracy is not monotonic and has a lower rate of
decrease than the cumulative accuracy. It also appears to stabilise at a value
much higher than the cumulative accuracy.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of proposed adversarial attacks but
merely a brief list of the main categories of these attacks. We discuss them
because we use them in later chapters to measure adversarial vulnerability.
Similarly, the defences proposed in the next section are not an exhaustive list
of all defence approaches that have been proposed against adversarial attacks.
\subsection{Adversarial defences}
There are various types of defences that have been proposed in the literature.
Some of them are based on the regularisation of the neural network~\citep{cisse17a},
some on data-augmentation~\citep{madry2018towards,Zhang2019}, and others on
theoretical guarantees~\citep{Lecuyer2019DP,pmlr-v97-cohen19c}.
\paragraph{Regularisation-based defences}
One of the main causes of adversarial vulnerability in neural networks is their
high sensitivity to input perturbations in certain directions. This means that
when the input is slightly perturbed in that direction there is an unexpectedly
large change in the output of the neural network. Sensitivity of the network is
commonly measured with various measures of lipschitzness\footnote{We discuss
lipschitzness in greater detail in~\Cref{sec:lipschitz}}.
Multiple works have discussed constraining these measures of lipschitzness of
neural networks in the context of adversarial vulnerability. The product of
operator norms of linear transformations of the individual layers of neural
networks is one way of measuring lipschitzness of neural
networks.~\citet{szegedy2013intriguing} discuss how linear and convolution
layers, whose operator norms are greater than one, magnify the adversarial
perturbation as the perturbation propagates through the layers. If the operator
norms are smaller than one then the transformations will attenuate the magnitude
of the perturbation as it propagates through the layers and protect against high
sensitivity in neural networks. To obtain this in practice,~\citet{cisse17a}
implement {\em Parseval tight frames}, which are extensions of orthogonal
matrices to non-square matrices. By constraining the parameters of linear and
convolutional layers to remain in Parseval tight frames, they guarantee that the
lipschitzness of these layers will be smaller than one. While~\citet{cisse17a}
and~\citet{szegedy2013intriguing} use properties of individual weight matrices
to calculate the lipschitzness of the entire network, ~\citet{Tsuzuku2018} use
zeroth-order information of the network to approximate the
lipschitzness.~\citet{Tsuzuku2018} introduce lipschitz margin training, where
they directly regularise a differentiable approximation of the lipschitzness of
the network. Another way of approximating the lipschitzness is through first-order information obtained via the Jacobian of the network. Multiple
works~\citep{roth2019adversarially,Ross2018,Jakubovitz_2018_ECCV,Lyu2015} use
Jacobian regularisation to constrain the lipschitzness and thus the sensitivity
of the neural networks. All of these approaches based on regularising the
lipschitzness of neural networks provide empirical boosts to adversarial
robustness.
However, such regularisations pose a problem with regards to the faithful
measurement of the true robustness of neural networks. As pointed out
by~\citet{athalye2018obfuscated}, directly penalizing gradients around points
from the training data sets up gradient-based attacks to fail without
regularising the loss surface outside the immediate vicinity of that point.
These approaches protect against the computation of successful gradient-based
adversarial attacks around the training points but the network still remains
vulnerable to other attacks, for example, attacks that do not use first-order
information at training points. This phenomenon is called "Obfuscated Gradients"
and~\citet{athalye2018obfuscated} show that multiple defences that exhibit this
phenomenon can be overcome with specially designed attacks.
\todo[color=green]{Check all paragraph heading are consistent}
\paragraph{Noisy training-based defence}
Another way of regularising a neural network is to add noise to the training
procedure.~\citet{bishop1995training} show that training with noise is,
sometimes, equivalent to a form of Tikhonov
regularisation.~\citet{Jin2015robust} show that adding stochastic noise to the
input and model parameters during training improves the adversarial robustness of
convolutional neural network~(CNN) models.~\citet{dhillon2018stochastic}
propose randomly pruning activations and their experiments indicate that this
strategy improves the robustness of networks without requiring further
fine-tuning.~\citet{Sankaranarayanan2018} perturb intermediate layer
activations and use this as a regulariser during training to impart robustness
to trained networks.
\paragraph{Defence based on smooth training}
In regularisation-based defences, we saw that regularising a network to
constrain the operator norm of each layer improves robustness of the network in
practice. The reason why the operator norm of different layers increases in
practice is a combination of positive homogeneity of neural networks and
exponential loss functions like cross-entropy with one-hot target labels.
Positive homogeneity means that multiplying the weights by a positive constant
does not alter the accuracy of the network but can change the logits in the
penultimate layer. A key property of exponential loss functions with one-hot
target labels is that the only way to reduce the loss to zero is by increasing
the magnitude of weights and consequently the logits to infinity. Thus, neural
network training is inherently biased towards magnifying the operator norms of
each layer of the network, and this leads to heightened sensitivity and worse
robustness of neural networks.
A natural defence to control this behaviour is to prevent the exponential loss
function from encouraging the magnification of the operator norms of the weight
matrices in a neural network. One way to do this is by replacing the one-hot
target vectors with smoothed vectors. Two common techniques in the literature to
achieve this are {\em defensive distillation}~\citep{Hinton2015distillation} and
{\em label smoothing}~\citep{SzegedyVISW16}. In defensive distillation, a neural
network is first trained on the classification problem, and then the one-hot
target label vectors in the training dataset are replaced with class
probability\todo[color=green]{replace data point with data instance everywhere} vectors
obtained from the trained network's prediction on the points from the
training dataset. Then a new network is trained on the modified dataset~(where
the label vectors are smoothed). First proposed
in~\citet{Hinton2015distillation} as a method for transferring knowledge from
larger networks to smaller networks,~\citet{papernot2016distillation} adapted
this strategy for imparting adversarial robustness and renamed it~{\em defensive
distillation}.
Another form of regularisation that directly prevents models from increasing the
operator norms of their layers is through {\em label
smoothing}~\citep{SzegedyVISW16}. It is a regularisation technique that
introduces noise for the labels. For a small constant $\epsilon$, in a
$k$-class classification problem, label smoothing regularises a model by
replacing the hard $0$ and $1$ classification targets in the one-hot target
label vector with $\frac{\epsilon}{k-1}$ and $1-\epsilon$ respectively. Its
benefits were initially observed for calibration
in~\citet{muller2019does}.~\citet{Goibert2019smoothing} conducted a more
systematic study in the context of adversarial robustness and explored various
smoothing techniques especially those that are more suited for adversarial
robustness.
\paragraph{Data-augmentation-based defences}
The most popular form of adversarial defence by far is {\em adversarial
training}~\citep{madry2018towards} and its more sophisticated
variants~\citep{Zhang2019}. Essentially, it exploits the fact that adversarial
examples are so ubiquitous in deep neural networks that constructing them is
relatively straightforward using gradient-based attacks as discussed in the
previous section. Adversarial training augments the training procedure by
replacing the original training point with an adversarial training point
constructed by an adversary. It can be viewed as minimizing an approximate
minimisation of the adversarial risk defined in~\Cref{defn:adv_risk}.
However, it has been observed empirically that adversarial training causes a
perceived tradeoff between robustness and
accuracy~\citep{kurakin2016adversarial}.~\citet{Zhang2019} provide a
differentiable upper bound on the combined adversarial and natural test error
and term the algorithm for minimizing this upper bound TRADES. Using TRADES
instead of adversarial training, they show that this perceived trade-off can be
avoided to a certain extent. This is perhaps the most commonly used variant of
adversarial training in practice.
\paragraph{Defences based on detection}
Another line of defence is based on detecting adversarial examples so that the
classifier is not forced to predict a label for an example if a detector can
detect the example to be an adversarial example. ~\citet{Hendrycks2016detecting}
present three methods to detect adversarial examples which rely on properties
like identifying the subspaces in the image space exploited by the adversary and
abnormal softmax values for adversarial examples as compared to natural
examples. ~\citet{yang2018characterizing} use temporal dependency in audio
signals to detect adversarial examples specifically for Automated Speech
Recognition tasks. In a \(k\)-class classification
problem,~\citet{Yin2019detection} use \(k\) different detectors to do the
detection. In particular, if the model predicts the class to be $i$, the $i^{\it
th}$ detector is used to confirm that the image is not adversarially
perturbed.~\citet{akhtar2018defence} learn both a detector network and a
Perturbation Rectification Network~(PRN) and use the PRN to rectify the
perturbation when a perturbation is detected by the detector network.
However, such detection methods usually suffer a great deal from incorrect and
weak evaluations. ~\citet{Carlini2017a} and~\citet{Tramer2020} show how a dozen
of these detection methods can be successfully bypassed by designing better
adversaries. This suggests that a lot of these properties that were thought to
be inherent to adversarial examples are in fact not inherent to the problem of
adversarial robustness but rather artefacts of the particular techniques used
for constructing the adversaries in their evaluation techniques. This calls for
developing defence methods with theoretical guarantees for robustness agnostic
to the particular technique used for generating adversarial attacks during
empirical evaluation.
\paragraph{Defence with guarantees}
The famous Goodhart's law~\citep{goodhart1984problems} states that
\begin{displayquote}[Goodhart]
Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once
pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.
\end{displayquote}
Arguably, the cat and dog race that has prevailed in the realm of adversarial
attacks and defences can be attributed to this law. As discussed, the
minimisation of the true adversarial risk is a difficult problem. Thus most
defence techniques tend to minimise one particular approximation of the risk.
Future attacks that break the defence usually succeed by breaking that
assumption inherent to that approximation.
However, recent work has looked at creating provable defences against
adversarial vulnerability. In terms of guarantees of robustness, the most
powerful of those come from the verification literature. Verification, in the
context of adversarial robustness, means to provide a theoretical guarantee that
if inputs to the neural network belong to a pre-defined set of inputs~(eg.
inputs within a norm ball), then the outputs of the network satisfy a desired
property~(eg. the logit corresponding to the correct label has a higher value
than all the other logits). Research from the formal verification community has
used Satisfiability Modulo Theory~(SMT) solvers to provide guarantees against
bounded norm perturbation
attacks~\citep{ehlers2017formal,huang2017safety,katz2017reluplex}. However, the
verification bounds from these approaches, while sufficient to guarantee
robustness, ends up guaranteeing robustness against only very weak adversaries.
Thus, they might be of little practical significance.
To make these bounds more useful, a line of research has tried to alter the
training process of neural networks so that the bounds obtained from these
trained networks are more practically
relevant~\citep{Raghunathan2018verification,wong2018provable}. Another line of
research has proposed approaches that use {\em branch and bound} algorithms
~\citep{bunel2018verification,cheng2017maximum,Tjeng2017} to provide stronger
bounds. However, all of these methods are usually hard to adapt for large
networks as the computational complexity of these approaches depends directly on
the SMT problem instances. Moreover, they are usually limited to problems with
piecewise linear activation functions like ReLU and maxpooling and it has proved
hard to adapt them to general architectures and activation functions unless
further approximations are made. Consequently, this is an active direction of
future research with a potentially significant impact on certifying the
robustness of deep neural networks.
Another approach to providing guaranteed robustness is through the approach of
PixelDP~({\em Pixel Differential Privacy})~\citep{Lecuyer2019DP,Li2018smoothing}
or randomised smoothing~\citep{pmlr-v97-cohen19c}. While verification
techniques, as discussed in the previous paragraph, prove the robustness of an
existing classifier, randomised smoothing techniques construct a new classifier
that is smooth within a {\em certified radius}; the {\em certified radius} of
the smoothed classifier depends on a hyper-parameter of the smoothing process
and properties of the original model.
Specifically, consider a classification problem from $\reals^d$ to the set of
labels $\cY$ and a base classifier $f:\reals^d\rightarrow\cY$ that has been
trained to do the classification. The objective of randomised smoothing is to
use a smoothing distribution $\cN_S$ to obtain a smoothed classifier
$g:\reals^d\rightarrow\cY$ from $f$, such that when queried at
$\vec{x}\in\reals^d$, the smoothed classifier $g$ returns whichever class $f$ is
most likely to return when $\vec{x}$ is perturbed by noise drawn from the
smoothing distribution $\cN_S$.
The larger the variance of the smoothing distribution, the greater the magnitude
of the radius that can be certified for the smoothed classifier. One of the key
questions of research in this direction is what kind of smoothing distribution
should be used for a particular kind of adversary.~\citet{Lecuyer2019DP}
and~\citet{pmlr-v97-cohen19c} used the gaussian distribution to certify against
an adversary with an $\ell_2$ perturbation bound.~\citet{yang2020randomized}
generalised this to other kinds of adversaries and proposed a generic technique
to find the best possible distribution for multiple $\ell_p$ perturbation
bounds.~\citet{Awasthi2020} further improved these approaches by leveraging
natural low-rank representations of data to provide improved guarantees.
It is easy to see that if the variance of the smoothing distribution is very
large, then the classifier may become a constant
predictor.~\citet{Mohapatra2020} shows that with increasing noise variance, the
decision regions shrink in size and the classifier becomes overwhelmingly likely
to always predict one specific class and ignore the others. Thus, there seems to
be a tradeoff between robustness and accuracy when randomised smoothing is used
as a technique to guarantee robustness.
\subsection{Tradeoffs associated with robustness}\label{sec:robustness-tradeoffs}
Several works have suggested that robustness is inherently at odds with other
measures that are important in the learning problem or even unavoidable,
entirely.
~\citet{fawzi18} constructs a distribution where data~\(\cX\) is generated from
a generative model \(\cX=g\br{\vec{r}}\), where \(\vec{r}\in\reals^d\) is
sampled from an isotropic gaussian and is, roughly, of euclidean norm
\(\sqrt{d}\). They show that due to isoperimetry of gaussian distribution, no
classifier is robust to adversarial perturbations of euclidean norm~\(\bigO{1}\)
irrespective of its (clean) expected error~(\Cref{defn:exp_loss}). When \(g\) is
an \(L\)-\gls{lip} function, this corresponds to perturbations of at most
\(\bigO{L}\). ~\citet{tsipras2018robustness} show a slightly more optimistic
setting, where robust classification is possible but not simultaneously
achievable with low expected error. In particular, they construct a simple
setting where, for any classifier, as expected error approaches \(0\%\),
adversarial error~(\Cref{defn:adv_risk}) tends towards \(100\%\). They use a
distinction between {\em robust} and {\em non-robust} features, where the
classifier needs to use the non-robust features to attain a low expected error
at the cost of a large adversarial error. Similarly, using the robust features
leads to low adversarial error at the cost of large expected
error.~\citet{Zhang2019} show another simple setting where the bayes-optimal
classifier obtains a low expected error but a large adversarial error whereas
the optimal adversarial error is obtained by a constant classifier at the cost
of a large expected error.
Interestingly, in both of these examples, neither additional data nor choosing a
different representation of data can help in making the classifiers more robust.
However, humans are considered to be robust as well as accurate classifiers at
least for natural images. Thus, any result that rejects the possibility of a
robust and accurate classifier entirely is highly unlikely to apply to
real-world data. ~\citet{schmidt2018adversarially} consider a setting where
learning with low adversarial error is possible without being at odds with
expected error but requires more data than learning a classifier with low
expected error. In their setting, learning a classifier with low expected error
requires just one sample whereas learning a classifier with low adversarial
error requires \(\Omega\br{\sqrt{d}}\) samples where \(d\) is the dimensionality
of the input space i.e. a polynomial separation in sample
complexity.~\citet{bpr18} show that this gap is tight, in the sense that if
non-robust learning~(low expected error) is possible with polynomial sample
complexity then robust learning is also possible with polynomial sample
complexity. While this might seem like an optimistic result, empirical evidence
suggests that this is not observed in practice.
~\citet{blpr18} and ~\citet{degwekar19a} showed~(under some cryptographic
assumptions) that there exist learning tasks where a computationally efficient
robust and accurate classifier exists, can be learnt from a small number of
samples, but the learning algorithm will necessarily be computationally
expensive. A computationally efficient classifier is defined as a classifier
that can compute the output, given the input in time polynomial in the size of
the input.~\citet{degwekar19a} further extend along this direction showing
settings where robust classification is possible but only via a computationally
expensive classifier. Their results show that, for certain distributions,
computationally simple hypothesis classes do not admit a robust classifier
whereas robust learning is possible using a different, more
complex~(computationally) hypothesis class. ~\citet{madry2018towards} provide
some empirical validation of the hypothesis in~\citet{degwekar19a} in the sense
that choosing wider and deeper neural networks have generally led to lower
adversarial error even when simpler models~(shallower or narrower neural networks)
models suffice for low expected risk.
~\citet{montasser19a} establish that there are hypothesis classes with finite
VC dimensions i.e. are \emph{properly} PAC-learnable but are only
\emph{improperly} robustly PAC learnable. This implies that to learn the problem
with small adversarial error, a different concept class is required whereas for
low expected risk, the original hypothesis class suffices.
Unlike~\citet{degwekar19a}, the difference in complexity between the two concept
classes here is not that of computational complexity but rather statistical~(or
sample) complexity.
All of these works indicate that for different distributions learning tasks
robustness might be at odds with different quantities --- accuracy, statistical
complexity, computational complexity of learning, and computational complexity
of the hypothesis class. However, real-world data distributions and learning
tasks might not possess the same hardness as the distributions and learning
tasks used in the construction of these examples. This presents a hope that
these tradeoffs, despite appearing in practice, are not inherent to the real
world learning problems but are only artefacts of the algorithms and hypothesis
classes we use in practice.
\todo[color=blue]{Another section on robustness tradeoffs}
\section{Empirical Risk Minimisation}
\label{sec:erm}
The most common approach to solving the learning problem described above is the
Empirical Risk Minimisation~\citep{vapnik1992principles} approach. In this
approach, instead of minimizing the expected risk, which is harder as $\cD$ is
unknown, the learning algorithm instead minimises the empirical risk
$\empRisk{h, \ell}{N}$~(defined in~\Cref{defn:emp_loss}) on the observed
training dataset. Like the expected risk, we will ignore $\ell$ from the
definition of empirical risk when it will be clear from context\footnote{Please refer to~\cite{vapnik1998statistical} for a more detailed
description of statistical learning theory that discusses the properties of
minimizing the empirical risk.}.
\begin{defn}[Empirical risk]
\label{defn:emp_loss}
If the training set consists of $\{(\vec{x}_i, y_i)\}$ for $i \in \{1\cdots
N\}$ then the empirical loss is defined as
\[\empRisk{h}{N} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \ell(h\br{\vec{x}_i}, y_i)\]
\end{defn}
The theory of minimizing this empirical risk is usually tackled via the theory
of optimisation. The main purpose of the theory of optimisation is to find a
model $h$ and guarantee that for some small $\epsilon$, the empirical risk of
$h$ is close to the best possible empirical risk i.e.
\[\empRisk{h}{N} - \min_{h\in\cH}\empRisk{h}{N}\le \epsilon.\]
However, the task of \emph{learning} requires us to perform well not only on
the seen dataset $\cS_N$ but also on unseen data from the entire distribution
$\cD$, which is measured using the expected risk from~\Cref{defn:exp_loss}.
The theory of generalisation guarantees with a high probability, that for any
hypothesis $h$ in the hypothesis class $\cH$, the empirical and the expected
risk are close i.e.
\[|\empRisk{h}{N} - \riskOne{h}|\le \sup_{h\in\cH} |\empRisk{h}{N} - \riskOne{h}| = \zeta(N; \cH), \]
where $\zeta(N; \cH)$ decreases with increasing $N$.
The main focus of the theory is two-fold:
\begin{itemize}
\item To guarantee that with an increasing number $N$ of observations, the difference of the two quantities goes to zero for
any model i.e. $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\zeta\br{N,\cH}\rightarrow 0$.
\item To estimate the difference $\zeta\br{N;\cH}$, when
only a finite number $N$ of samples are available.
\end{itemize}
It turns out that the second property is more important for our purposes when
dealing with neural networks. Not only does it have more practical relevance,
but while the first property almost always holds~\footnote{The asymptomatic
behaviour of the empirical error functions is captured by the Glivenko–Cantelli
theorem as the number of i.i.d samples goes to infinity}, the second property is
mathematically more complicated especially for complex hypothesis classes like
neural networks. For example, if the empirical and expected risks are bounded
between $0$ and $1$, which is a very reasonable assumption, then any value of
$\zeta\br{N;\cH}$ that is greater than $1$ is a vacuous upper bound. The main goal
of generalisation theories is to get accurate estimates of $\zeta\br{N,\cH}$ for
moderate values of $N$ and some useful hypothesis class $\cH$. This is usually
done through theorems like~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm} referred to as the
\emph{basic theorem of generalisation}. However, this is not necessarily the
only way~(c.f.~\citet{bousquet2002stability}).
\todo[color=blue]{Convert \(h\) to \(\cH\) in the theorems}
\begin{thmL}[Basic Theorem of Generalisation]\label{thm:basic-gen-thm}
Let $\cH$ be a set of hypotheses from the space $\cX$ to $\bc{0,1}$ and
the rest of the terms be as defined in the previous sections. Then
$\forall \delta \in\br{0,1}$, with a probability of at least $1 - \delta,
~\forall h\in\cH$
\[\abs{\empRisk{h}{N} - \riskOne{h}} \le \zeta\br{N;\cH}=
\tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}}, \] where $C(\cH)$ denotes a measure of
complexity for the hypothesis class \(\cH\)\footnote{For example, if \(\cH\)
is a finite set of hypotheses, then the cardinality function is a valid instance of \(C\br{\cdot}\). We will look into more examples of the
complexity function in~\Cref{sec:trml}.}. $\tildeO{\cdot}$ is a big-Oh notation
that omits logarithmic terms.
\end{thmL}
Using this theorem, we can argue that empirical risk minimisation yields a hypothesis whose expected risk is close to the best possible expected risk as long as the complexity of the classifier is low. Let the hypothesis returned by the algorithm $\cA$ be $h_L\in\cH$. We know
that $\empRisk{h_L}{N}\le \min_{h\in\cH} \empRisk{h}{N} +
\epsilon$ for some $\epsilon$. Define
$h^* = \argmin_{h\in\cH}\riskOne{h}$.
According to Theorem~\ref{thm:basic-gen-thm}, with probability
at least $1 - \frac{\delta}{2}$ each of~\Cref{eq:use-gen-thm-1,eq:use-gen-thm-2} holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:use-gen-thm-1}
\riskOne{h_L} - \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}} \le \empRisk{h_L}{N} \le \riskOne{h_L} + \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}}
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:use-gen-thm-2}
\riskOne{h^*} - \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}} \le \empRisk{h^*}{N} \le \riskOne{h^*} + \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}}.
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\riskOne{h_L} &\le \empRisk{h_L}{N} + \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}}\\
&\le \min_{h\in\cH} \empRisk{h_L}{N} + \epsilon + \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}}\\
&\le \empRisk{h^*}{N} + \epsilon + \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}}\\
&\le \riskOne{h^*} + \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}} + \epsilon + \tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, with probability at least $\br{1 - \delta}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gen-erm}
\riskOne{h_L} - \riskOne{h^*} \le 2\tildeO{\dfrac{\sqrt{C(\cH)}}{N}}
+ \epsilon.
\end{equation}
As discussed before,
it is the purpose of optimisation algorithms to minimise $\epsilon$.
In fact, neural networks usually obtain $\epsilon=0$ as has been
shown empirically in multiple papers including the seminal paper
of~\citet{Zhang2016}. So, the real difficulty is in coming up with
estimations of $C\br{\cH}$, that are practically useful and not
vacuous.
\subsection{ERM in the presence of Label Noise}
Label noise is ubiquitous in real-world data. In fact, common datasets like
MNIST, CIFAR10, and CIFAR100 contain label noise in the training dataset as we
show in~\Cref{chap:causes_vul}. In~\Cref{defn:noisy-pac-learning}, we discussed
a variant of PAC learning which allows for noise in the data generation process
and we made a note that most problems that are learnable in the noiseless
setting are also learnable in the noisy setting. However, even in cases where
the problem is learnable in the noisy setting, it does not automatically imply
that the algorithm for learning in the noiseless setting is still adequate for
learning in the noisy setting. Therefore, understanding whether algorithms and
frameworks that are useful for learning in the noiseless setting can also be
used in the noisy setting and identifying the associated risks is important for deploying learning algorithms in the real world.
Empirical Risk Minimisation~(ERM) is the most commonly used framework for
learning in the noiseless setting and enjoys formal generalisation guarantees as
shown in~\Cref{eq:gen-erm}. However, the guarantees do not immediately apply to
learning in the presence of noise. To see this, note that the distribution, the
noisy example oracle samples from in~\Cref{defn:noisy-pac-learning}, is
different from the original distribution $\cD$. ~\citet{belkin18akernel} provide
more rigorous arguments for why under conventional statistical generalisation
theory, one would expect empirical risk minimisation on noisy data to cause
generalisation error to increase rapidly with increasing noise. They show that
for a certain class of kernel classifiers, the RKHS norm of any classifier that
overfits noisy training data grows nearly exponentially with dataset
size\footnote{Note that for a constant noise rate the amount of noise increases
with increasing dataset size}. As most generalisation bounds for kernel
classifiers depend at most polynomially on the RKHS norm of the classifier, they
diverge to infinity as the dataset size increases.
However,~\citet{belkin18akernel} observe empirically that the generalisation
performance of these classifiers does not deteriorate as quickly in practice as
the existing theory suggests.~They observe that as training loss tends towards
zero even in the presence of label noise, test error either remains stable or
decreases and then stabilises. Similar behaviour, albeit in the less rigorous
setting of over-parameterised deep neural networks, has been observed
in~\citet{Zhang2016} where deep neural networks were trained on CIFAR10 with
varying levels of random classification noise. The results reported in Figure
1(c) in~\citet{Zhang2016} show that when neural networks fit the noisy dataset,
even for large noise levels, test accuracy remains high on clean test-sets.
Some recent works look at characterizing learning problems where fitting noisy
labels does not cause the test error to blow up, a phenomenon referred to as
\emph{benign overfitting}.~\citet{Chatterji2020} show that if a linear
classifier fits noisy data then the test error will be close to the noise
rate~(i.e. have a decent test accuracy) only if the model is highly
over-parameterised. In Theorem 3.1, they show that, under some conditions, the
error rate is upper bounded by (label noise rate~($\eta$)) + (a term depending
on $e^{-\nicefrac{p}{C}}$), where $p$ is the dimensionality of the parameters
and $C$ is a constant. Thus for small $p$, the model that overfits the noisy
training set can have a very large test error whereas for large p, this error
will be close to the noise level.~\citet{Bartlett2020} look at this in the
setting of linear regression. In Theorem 4, they provide matching lower and
upper bounds for the test risk when the linear regression achieves zero
regression error. Their result shows that the dimensionality of the problem
determines whether the test risk will be good for a regressor that perfectly
fits a noisy training set. Thus, depending on the properties of the problem such
as its dimensionality, the perfectly fit model may get very bad or very good
test loss.
These works provide support for the applicability of ERM in the presence of
noisy labels for large deep neural networks and highly over-parameterised
models in general. However, even in the favourable scenario where ERM with noisy
labels yields a generalisable model, the model may suffer in
other notions of reliability that we care about.
In~\Cref{chap:causes_vul,chap:focal_loss}, we show how empirical risk
minimisation can provide good test error and yet suffer in adversarial
robustness and calibration.
\section{Regularisation}
\label{sec:regularisation}
To guarantee generalisation of models based on empirical error using the Basic
Theorem of Generalisation~(\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm}), one solution is obviously
to just obtain a large amount of data~(i.e. large $N$). However, often this is
infeasible as data collection is expensive, time-consuming, and sometimes it is
impossible.
On the other hand, if we have the right definitions of the complexity measure
$C$ in~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm}, we can prescribe the amount of data required to
guarantee generalisation. Similarly, if a limited amount of data is available,
then one can prescribe the maximum value \(r\in\reals_+\) of the complexity
measure $C$ for which the available data is sufficient to guarantee
generalisation. In that case, the search of hypothesis can be restricted to a
subset \(H^\prime\subseteq\cH\) that satisfies the prescribed constraint on
model complexity i.e. \(C\br{\cH^\prime}\le r\). It is this problem of
restricting the search of the hypothesis that regularisation tries to solve.
Regularisation can be implemented through a regularisation function
$\Omega:\cH\rightarrow\reals_+$ that assigns a complexity value to every
hypothesis $h$ in $\cH$. One can think of $\Omega$ as a proxy of the complexity
function $C$ in~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm}. Note that schemes like early stopping
in gradient-based training, that do not directly use a regularisation function,
are also referred to as regularisation because they have been shown to control
some kind of complexity like a regularisation function~\citep{Yao07onearly}. In
the rest of this section, we will see different notions of optimisation with
regularisations i.e. different ways of imposing the constraints on the
identified structures in neural networks.
\subsection*{Ivanov regularisation}
The purpose of regularisation is to restrict the hypothesis space $\cH$ by
imposing further constraints. For example, if $\cH$ were originally the class
of linear predictors in $\reals^2$, a valid form of regularisation would be to
consider only those linear predictors that are parallel to one of the coordinate
axes. This particular example is called $\ell_0$ regularisation. Effectively,
this reduces the complexity of $\cH$. In machine learning literature, such a
regularisation is referred to as Ivanov regularisation.~\Cref{eq:ivanov-erm}
defines an Ivanov-regularised ERM problem.
\begin{defn}[Ivanov regularisation]\label{eq:ivanov-erm} Let
$\Omega:\cH\rightarrow\reals_+$ be the regularisation function and $r\ge 0$ be
the maximum allowed value of the regularisation function. Then the regularised
ERM problem is defined as obtaining a hypothesis $h_r^*$:
\begin{align*}
h_r^* &= \min_{h\in\cH} \empRisk{h}{N}\\
&\text{s.t.}~\Omega\br{h}\le r
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
In Neural networks, regularisations like spectral
normalization~\citep{miyato2018spectral} and Parseval networks~\citep{cisse17a}
can be thought of as an attempt to solve this problem\footnote{I have referred
to this as an attempt because they solve the problem of projection onto the set
of classifiers with correct spectral norm approximately}. Some prominent
instances are problems in low rank matrix approximation~\citep{PCA2002a}, matrix
recovery~\citep{candes2009exact},and sparse
recovery~\citep{blumensath2009iterative}.
In~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main}, we devise a novel Ivanov regularisation called
Stable Rank Normalization~(SRN). Interestingly, we also obtain a closed-form
optimal solution to the projection problem which is not very common among
problems of this type which are solved only approximately.
In terms of generalisation theory, solving an Ivanov-regularised optimisation
problem can immediately provide meaningful guarantees on generalisation error.
If the capacity function $C$ is monotonically dependent on the regularisation
function $\Omega$, then constraining $\Omega$ provides an upper bound on the
capacity $C$ which can be used to compute the generalisation error. The problem
referred to above and in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main} is motivated by this idea.
\subsection*{Tikhonov regularisation}
The more commonly used regularisation in machine learning and particularly
gradient-based learning is Tikhonov regularisation defined below in~\Cref{eq:tikhonov-erm}.
\begin{defn}[Tikhonov regularisation]\label{eq:tikhonov-erm} Let
$\Omega:\cH\rightarrow\reals_+$ be the regularisation function and $\lambda\ge
0$ be the regularisation coefficient. Then the Tikhonov regularised ERM
problem is defined as obtaining a hypothesis $h_\lambda^*$ as follows
\begin{align*}
h_\lambda^* &= \min_{h\in\cH} \empRisk{h}{N} + \lambda\Omega\br{h}
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
Regularisers like weight decay~\citep{KSH:2012}, $L_1$
regularisation~\citep{engelcke2017vote3deep,Sukhbaatar2019}, and spectral
regularisation~\citep{Yoshida2017} are examples of Tikhonov regularisation in
deep learning. While Ivanov and Tikhonov regularisations are equivalent for some
value of the coefficients, the main advantage of Tikhonov regularisation is that
it converts a constrained optimisation problem to an unconstrained optimisation
problem. Therefore, it is usually enough to apply gradient-based optimisation
methods. However, it must be noted that this is not ERM though it is sometimes
referred to as regularised Empirical Risk Minimisation.
\subsection*{Morozov regularisation}
Another form of commonly studied regularisation is residual learning
or also referred to as Morozov
regularisation~\citep{morozov2012methods}. The main objective here is
to minimise the regularisation function with constraints on the
original ERM loss. This is common in settings where the noise rate of
the problem is known and hence expecting a loss value lesser than the
noise rate would be unreasonable.
\begin{defn}[Morozov regularisation]\label{eq:morozov-erm} Let
$\Omega:\cH\rightarrow\reals_+$ be the regularisation function and $\delta\ge
0$ be the discrepancy parameter. Then the Morozov regularised ERM problem is
defined as obtaining a hypothesis $h_\epsilon^*$ that satisfies
\begin{align*}
h_\delta^* &= \min_{h\in\cH} \Omega\br{h}\\
&s.t.~\empRisk{h}{N} \le \delta
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
\subsection{Data-dependent regularisation}
Common examples of regularisations usually comprise data-independent
regularisations. In the formulation
of~\Cref{eq:tikhonov-erm,eq:ivanov-erm,eq:morozov-erm}, the value of the
regulariser term $\Omega\br{h}$ does not depend on the data directly unlike the
empirical loss term $\empRisk{h}{N}$. Thus, the
penalisation~(\Cref{eq:tikhonov-erm,eq:morozov-erm}) or the
feasibility~(\Cref{eq:ivanov-erm}) of a particular hypothesis $h$ is the same
regardless of the properties of the dataset. In some sense, these regularisers
solve learning problems with little or no assumptions about the data
distribution.
However, there are cases when information about the data-generating distribution
needs to be accounted for. As a toy example, consider a high dimensional
instance space where the information in the data is captured in a small number
of principal input features and the remaining nuisance features contain no
information. The purpose of the regulariser, in this problem, is to find a low
complexity model that fits the observed dataset from this distribution. As it is
known that the unseen test data from this distribution will also not have any
weight in the nuisance features, two models that behave identically on the
principal components but differently on the nuisance components should not be
penalised differently by the regulariser. However, to do this the regulariser
needs to be aware of the data distribution to identify the principal
and nuisance components.
In practice, one common setting where data-dependent regularisers are applied is
semi-supervised learning problems where most data samples have no labels and
thus further information about the data distribution is required to relate
available information from the labelled data to predict labels for the
unlabelled data. Information regularisation~\citep{Corduneanu2012} enforces
this by assuming that label predictions can be made by clustering points and
that each cluster is somewhat pure in its label. Their algorithm can be cast as
a modified data-dependent Tikhonov regularisation. Another prominent example of
data-dependent Tikhonov regularisation includes maximizing the entropy of the
predicted class-label distribution~\citep{Pereyra2017} to reduce the
confidence of the model on incorrect predictions.
In~\Cref{chap:low_rank_main}, we look at an optimisation problem with
data-dependent Ivanov regularisation. In particular, we look at constraining the
rank of the representation space of deep neural networks. The intuition is that
the model should exploit as small a number of features as possible to do the
classification, as unnecessary features can be exploited by an adversary to
construct adversarial attacks. We solve the problem by converting it to an
equivalent data-dependent Tikhonov regularisation problem.
In~\Cref{chap:focal_loss}, we discuss Focal Loss which is a modified loss
function but that can be shown to be also acting as maximizing the entropy of
the predicted class probabilities, inherently doing a form of data-dependent
Tikhonov regularisation. Further, while the stable rank normalization presented
in~\Cref{chap:stable_rank_main} is an Ivanov regularisation approach, we also
discuss its impact on some data-dependent Lipschitz terms.
\section{Main contributions}
Before going into a detailed discussion of the problem, in this section, we
briefly state the main contributions of this chapter. We divide the list of
contributions into two sections- a) theoretical and algorithmic contributions
and b) Experimental Results.
\paragraph{Theoretical and Algorithmic Contributions}
\begin{enumerate}
\item We propose Stable Rank Normalization~(\gls{srn})--- a novel normalization scheme for simultaneously controlling the \Gls{lip} constant and the stable rank of a linear operator.
\item We also present a unique and optimal solution to the provably
non-convex stable rank normalization problem.
\item Finally, we devise and efficient and easy algorithm to implement
\gls{srn} for \gls{nn}s.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Experimental Results} Although \gls{srn} is in principle applicable
to any problem involving a sequence of affine transformations, considering
recent interests, we show its effectiveness when applied to the linear layers of
deep neural networks. We also experiment with \gls{gan}s and show that
\gls{srn} prefers learning discriminators with low empirical \Gls{lip} while
providing improved Inception, FID and Neural Divergence
scores~\citep{gulrajani2018towards}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We perform extensive experiments on a wide variety of \gls{nn}
architectures (DenseNet, WideResNet, ResNet, Alexnet, and VGG) for the analyses
and show that \gls{srn} improves classification accuracy on a wide variety of
architectures.
\item While providing the best classification accuracy (compared against
standard training, vanilla training, and \gls{sn} training), neural networks
trained with~\Gls{srn} shows remarkably less memorisation, even on settings that
are known to be hard to generalise in.
\item Further, networks trained with \Gls{srn} show much smaller sample
complexity measured using complexity measures proposed in recent works.
\item Applying SRN to Generative Adversarial
Networks~(GANs)~\citep{goodfellow2014generative} improves the performance of
GANs measured via various metrics and makes them more resilient to memorisation.
\end{enumerate}
We also note that although \gls{sn} is widely used for training \gls{gan}s, its
effect on the generalisation behaviour over a wide variety of multi-class
classification neural networks has not yet been explored. To the best of our
knowledge, we are the first to do so.
\section{Stable Rank Normalization}
\label{sec:stable_rank_alg}
This section describes a technique, we call Stable Rank
Normalization~(\gls{srn}), to control the stable rank of linear operators. A big
challenge in stable rank normalization comes from the fact that stable rank is
scale-invariant~(refer to~\cref{def:stableRank}), thus, any normalization scheme
that modifies \(\vec{W} = \sum_i \sigma_i \vec{u}_i \vec{v}_i^{\top}\) to
$\widehat{\vec{W}} = \sum_i \frac{\sigma_i}{\eta} \vec{u}_i
\vec{v}_i^{\top}$~(for any \(\eta>0\) will not affect on the stable rank.
Examples of such schemes are \gls{sn}~\citep{miyato2018spectral} where $\eta =
\sigma_1$, and Frobenius normalization where $\eta = \norm{\vec{W}}_\forb$. But
first, we look at some conceptual motivation for controlling stable rank.
\subsection{Impact of stable rank on noise-sensitivity}
\label{sec:whyStable}
\paragraph{Stable rank controls the noise-sensitivity}
As shown by~\citet{arora18b}, one of the critical properties of generalisable \gls{nn}s
is low noise sensitivity--- the ability of a network to
preferentially carry over the true signal in the data. For a given
noise distribution $\cN$, it can be quantified as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stable-rank-noise-sensitivity}
\Phi_{f_{\theta},\cN} = \max_{\vec{x} \in \data}\Phi_{f_{\theta},\cN}\br{\vec{x}}, \quad \textit{where} \quad \Phi_{f_{\theta},\cN}\br{\vec{x}} :=
\bE_{\eta\sim\cN} \bs{\dfrac{\norm{f_\theta\br{\vec{x} +
\eta\norm{\vec{x}}} -
f_\theta\br{\vec{x}}}^2}{\norm{f_\theta\br{\vec{x}}}^2}}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.2\columnwidth}
\resizebox{0.3\linewidth}{!}{
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/res_noise.pdf_tex}
}
\caption[Noise Sensitivity of SRN, SN, and Vanilla NN]{Noise Sensitivity (lower the better). Test accuracy: SRN ($73.1\%$), SN ($71.5\%$), and Vanilla ($72.4\%$).
}\label{fig:noise_sensit}
\end{figure}
For a linear mapping with parameters $\vec{W}$ and the noise distribution
being normal-$\cN\br{0,\vec{I}}$, it can be shown that $\Phi_{f_\vec{W},\cN} \ge
\srank{\vec{W}}$~(see Proposition 3.1 in~\citet{arora18b}). Thus, decreasing the
stable rank decreases this lower bound on noise sensitivity.
In~\cref{fig:noise_sensit}, we show $\Phi_{f_\theta, \cN}$ of a ResNet110
trained on CIFAR100. Note that although the \Gls{lip} upper
bound~(\Cref{lem:upper-bound-nn-lip}) of \gls{srn} and \gls{sn} are the same,
\gls{srn} (algorithmic details in~\cref{sec:stable_rank_alg}) is much less
sensitive to noise than SN.
This can be possibly explained by~\Gls{srn}'s impact on the
empirical~\gls{lip} constant, which we discuss below.
\paragraph{Stable rank impacts empirical \gls{lip} constant}
Empirically,~\citet{novak2018sensitivity} provided results showing how local
empirical lipschitz $L_e$ (in the vicinity of train data) is correlated with the
generalisation error of neural networks. This observation is further supported
by the theoretical works of~\citet{wei2019,nagarajan2018deterministic},
and~\citet{arora18b} whereby variants of $L_e$ are used to derive generalisation
bounds for neural networks. Thus, a tool that favours low $L_e$ is likely to
provide better generalisation behaviour in practice. A low local empirical
lipschitz also decreases the noise-sensitivity of neural
networks~(c.f.~\Cref{eq:stable-rank-noise-sensitivity}).
To this end, we first consider a simple two layer linear neural network and show
that low rank transformations favour low $L_e$. A linear neural network is a
neural network with linear activation functions. Since direct minimisation of
rank for \gls{nn}s is non-trivial, the expectation is that learning weight
matrices with low stable rank (softer version of rank) might induce similar
behaviour. We experimentally validate this hypothesis by showing that, as we
decrease the stable rank, the empirical \Gls{lip} decreases. This shows
\gls{srn} indeed prefers learning transformations with low empirical \Gls{lip}
constant.
Let $f(\vec{x}) = \vec{W}_2 \vec{W}_1 \vec{x}$ be a two-layer linear neural
network with weights $\vec{W}_1$ and $\vec{W}_2$. The Jacobian, in this case, is
independent of $\vec{x}$. Thus, the local \Gls{lip} constant is the same for all
$\vec{x} \in \reals^d$, implying, local $L_e = L_l(\vec{x}) = L_l =
\norm{\vec{W}_2 \vec{W}_1} \leq \norm{\vec{W}_2} \norm{\vec{W}_1}$.
Note, in the case of the 2-matrix norm, reducing the rank of \(\vec{W_1}\) and
\(\vec{W}_2\) does not affect the upper bound
\(\norm{\vec{W}_1}_2\norm{\vec{W}_2}_2\). However, we discuss below that rank
reduction influences the global $L_e$.
Let $\vec{x}_i$ and $\vec{x}_j$ be a random pair from the dataset $\data$ and
$\Delta \vec{x} \neq \bf0$ be the difference $\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j$. Then, the
global $L_e$ is \( \max_{\{\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j\} \in \data}
\frac{\norm{\vec{W}_2 \vec{W}_1 \Delta \vec{x}}}{\norm{\Delta \vec{x}}} \).
Let $k_1$ and $k_2$ be the ranks, and $\sigma_1 \geq \cdots \geq \sigma_{k_1}$
and $\lambda_1 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_{k_2}$ be the singular values of the
matrices $\vec{W}_1$ and $\vec{W}_2$, respectively. Let $P_i = \vec{u}_i
\bar{\vec{u}}_i^\top$ be the orthogonal projection matrix corresponding to
$\vec{u}_i$ and $\bar{\vec{u}}_i$, the left and the right singular vectors of
$\vec{W}_1$. Similarly, we define $Q_i$ for $\vec{W}_2$ corresponding to
$\vec{v}_i$ and $\bar{\vec{v}}_i$. Then, the product of the two matrices can be
decomposed into $\vec{W}_2 \vec{W}_1 = \sum_{i=1}^{k_2} \sum_{j = 1}^{k_1}
\lambda_i \sigma_j Q_i P_j $. The largest singular value of the product is equal
to its maximum possible value $\lambda_1 \sigma_1$ if and only if
$\Delta \vec{x} = \bar{\vec{u}}_1 \norm{\Delta \vec{x}}$ and $\vec{u}_1 =
\bar{\vec{v}}_1$ , i.e. a perfect alignment of the top most singular vectors of
\(\vec{W}_1\) and \(\vec{W}_2\) occurs, which is highly unlikely. In practice,
not just the maximum singular values, unlike the case with the \Gls{lip}
upper-bound in~\Cref{lem:upper-bound-nn-lip}, rather the combination of the
projection matrices and the singular values play a crucial role in providing an
estimate of global $L_e$.
Thus, zeroing out certain singular values, which is equivalent to minimizing the
rank (or stable rank), reduces $L_e$. For example, assigning $\sigma_j = 0$,
which in effect reduces the rank of $\vec{W}_1$ by one, nullifies the
contribution of all projections of \(\vec{W}_2\) on $P_j$. Thus, all $k_2$
projections $\sigma_j (\sum_{i=1}^{k_2} \lambda_i Q_i) P_j$ that would have
propagated the input via $P_j$ are blocked. This influences $\norm{\vec{W}_2
\vec{W}_2 \Delta \vec{x}}$ and hence, the global $L_e$. In a more general
setting, if $k_i$ is the rank of the $i^{\it th}$ linear layer, then, each singular
value of the $j$-th layer can influence a maximum of $\prod_{i=1}^{j-1} k_i
\prod_{i=j+1}^{l} k_i$ many paths through which an input can propagate. Thus,
transformations with low rank (stable) reduce the global $L_e$. Similar
arguments can be drawn for local $L_e$ in the case of \gls{nn} with
non-linearity.
\subsection{Solution to the Stable Rank Normalization problem}
\label{sec:optimalSrank}
In this section, we will define and solve the stable rank normalization problem.
\paragraph{The \gls{srn} problem statement} Given a matrix $\vec{W}
\in \reals^{m \times n}$ with rank $p$ and a spectral partitioning index
$k$ ($0 \leq k < p$), we formulate the SRN problem as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:srankProblem}
& \argmin_{\widehat{\vec{W}}_k\in\reals^{m\times n}} \norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_k}_{\forb}^2 \quad \textit{s.t.} \quad \underbrace{\srank{\widehat{\vec{W}}_k} = r}_{\textrm{stable rank constraint}}, \; \underbrace{\lambda_i = \sigma_i, \forall i \in \{1, \cdots, k\}}_{\textrm{spectrum preservation constraints}}.
\end{align}
where, $1 \leq r < \srank{\vec{W}}$ is the desired stable rank, $\lambda_i$s and
$\sigma_i$s are the singular values of $\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$ and $\vec{W}$,
respectively. The partitioning index $k$ is the {\em singular value (or the
spectrum) preservation constraint}. It gives us the flexibility to obtain
$\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$ such that its top $k$ singular values are the same
as that of the original matrix. Note that the problem statement is more general
in the sense that putting $k=0$ removes the spectrum preservation constraint
entirely.
\paragraph{The solution to \gls{srn}} The optimal unique solution to the above
problem is provided in~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal} and proved
in~\cref{sec:srankProof}. At $k=0$, the problem~\eqref{eq:srankProblem} is
non-convex, otherwise convex.
\begin{restatable}[Solution to the Stable Rank Problem]{thm}{optimalthm}
\label{thm:srankOptimal}
Given a real matrix $\vec{W}\in\reals^{m\times n}$ with rank $p$, a target
spectrum (or singular value) preservation index $k$ $(0\le k < p)$, and a target
stable rank $r$ $(1 \leq r < \srank{\vec{W}})$, the optimal solution
$\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$ to the optimisation problem in~\cref{eq:srankProblem} is
$\widehat{\vec{W}}_k = \gamma_1\vec{S}_{1} + \gamma_{2} \vec{S}_{2}$, where
$\vec{S}_1 = \sum_{i=1}^{\mathrm{max}\br{1,k}} \sigma_i \vec{u}_i
\vec{v}_i^\top$, $\vec{S}_{2} = \vec{W} - \vec{S}_{1}$.
$\{\sigma_i\}_{i=1}^k$, $\{\vec{u}_i\}_{i=1}^k$ and $\{\vec{v}_i\}_{i=1}^k$ are
the top $k$ singular values and vectors of $\vec{W}$, and, depending on $k$,
$\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are defined below. For simplicity, we first define
$\gamma = \frac{\sqrt{r \sigma_1^2 -
\norm{\vec{S}_1}_\forb^2}}{\norm{\vec{S}_2}_\forb}$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)]If $k=0$ (no spectrum preservation), the problem is non-convex, the
optimal solution to which is obtained for $\gamma_2 = \dfrac{\gamma + r -
1}{r}$ and $\gamma_1 = \dfrac{\gamma_2}{\gamma}$, when $r>1$. If $r=1$, then
$\gamma_2 = 0$ and $\gamma_1 = 1$. In particular as
$\norm{\vec{S}_1}_{\forb}^2 = \sigma_1^2$, we get \( \gamma = \frac{\sqrt{r-1}
\sigma_1}{\norm{\vec{S}_2}_\forb}\).
\item[b)] If $k\ge 1$, the problem is convex. If $r\ge
\frac{\norm{\vec{S}_1}_\forb^2}{\sigma_1^2}$ the optimal solution is
obtained for $\gamma_1 = 1$, and $\gamma_2=\gamma$ and if not, the
problem is not feasible.
\item [c)] Also, $\norm{\widehat{\vec{W}}_k - \vec{W}}_\forb$
monotonically increases with $k$ for $k \geq 1$.
\end{enumerate}
Proof in~\Cref{sec:srankProof}
\end{restatable}
Intuitively,~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal} partitions the given matrix into two parts,
depending on $k$, and then scales them differently to obtain the
optimal solution. The value of the partitioning index $k$ is a design choice. If
there is no particular preference for $k$, then $k=0$ provides the most optimal
solution in terms of closeness to the original matrix. We provide a simple
example to demonstrate this. Given $\vec{W} = \vec{I}_3$ (rank =
$\srank{\vec{W}}$ = 3), the objective is to project it to a new matrix with
stable rank of $2$. Consider the following three solutions to the problem.
$\widehat{\vec{W}}_1$ is obtained using the standard rank minimisation
(Eckart-Young-Mirsky~\citep{Eckart1936}) while $\widehat{\vec{W}}_2$ and
$\widehat{\vec{W}}_3$ are the solutions of~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal} with $k=1$
and $k=0$, respectively.
\begin{align}\small
\label{eq:srnExample}
\widehat{\vec{W}}_1=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
, \;
\widehat{\vec{W}}_2=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{bmatrix}
, \;
\widehat{\vec{W}}_3=
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\sqrt{2}+1}{2} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \frac{\sqrt{2}+1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \frac{\sqrt{2}+1}{2\sqrt{2}}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align}
It is easy to verify that the stable rank of all the above solutions
is $2$. However, the Frobenius distance (lower the better) of these
solutions from the original matrix follows the order
\(
\norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_1}_{\forb} > \norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_2}_{\forb} > \norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_3}_{\forb}
\). Thus,~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal} with $k=0$ provides the closest solution followed by $k=1$ and then the hard rank solution $\widehat{\vec{W}}_1$.
As evident from the example, the solution to \gls{srn}, instead of completely
removing a particular singular value like \(\widehat{\vec{W}_1}\), scales them
(depending on $k$) such that the new matrix has the desired stable rank. Note
that for $\widehat{\vec{W}}_1$ and $\widehat{\vec{W}}_2$ (true for any
$k\geq1$), the spectral norm of the original and the normalized matrices are the
same, implying, $\gamma_1 = 1$. However, for $k=0$, the spectral norm of the
optimal solution is greater than that of the original matrix. It is easy to
verify from~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal} that as $k$ increases, $\gamma_2$ decreases.
Thus, the amount of scaling required for the second partition $\vec{S}_2$ is
more aggressive. In all situations, the following inequality holds: $\gamma_2
\leq 1 \leq \gamma_1$.
\paragraph{Optimal Spectral Normalization}
\label{sec:spectralNormOptimal}
The widely used spectral normalization~\citep{miyato2018spectral} where the given matrix $\vec{W} \in \reals^{m \times n}$ is divided by the maximum singular value is an approximation to the optimal solution of the spectral normalization problem defined as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:spectralNormProb}
\argmin_{\widehat{\vec{W}}} & \norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}}_{\forb}^2 \\
\textit{s.t.} \quad & \sigma(\widehat{\vec{W}}) \leq s, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\sigma(\widehat{\vec{W}})$ denotes the maximum singular value and $s>0$ is a hyperparameter. The optimal solution to this problem is shown in~\cref{alg:spectralNormOptimal}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Spectral Normalization}
\label{alg:spectralNormOptimal}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\INPUT $\vec{W} \in \reals^{m \times n}$, $s$
\STATE $\vec{W}_1 \gets \mathbf{0}$, $p \gets \min(m,n)$
\FOR {$k \in \{1, \cdots, p\}$}
\STATE $\{\vec{u}_k, \vec{v}_k, \sigma_k\} \gets SVD(\vec{W}, k)$
\COMMENT{perform power method to get $k$-th singular value}
\IF{$\sigma_k \geq s$}
\STATE $\vec{W}_1 \gets \vec{W}_1 + s \; \vec{u}_k \vec{v}_k^{\top}$
\STATE $\vec{W} \gets \vec{W} - \sigma_k \; \vec{u}_k \vec{v}_k^{\top}$
\ELSE
\STATE break
\COMMENT{exit for loop}
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\\
\OUTPUT $\vec{W} \gets \vec{W}_1 + \vec{W}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\noindent
Here, we provide the proof of optimality of~\cref{alg:spectralNormOptimal} for
the sake of completeness.
Let $\mathrm{SVD}\br{\vec{W}} =
\vec{U}\vec{\Sigma}\vec{V}^\top$ and let us assume that $\vec{Z} =
\vec{S}\Lambda\vec{T}^\top$ is a solution to the
problem~\ref{eq:spectralNormProb}. Trivially, $\vec{X} =
\vec{U}\Lambda\vec{V}^\top$ also satisfies $\sigma\br{\vec{X}}\le s$. Now,
$\norm{\vec{W}-\vec{X}}_{\forb}^2 = \norm{\vec{U}\br{\Sigma -
\Lambda}\vec{V}^\top}_{\forb}^2 = \norm{\br{\Sigma - \Lambda}}_{\forb}^2 \leq
\norm{\vec{W}-\vec{Z}}_{\forb}^2$, where the last inequality directly comes
from~\Cref{lem:ineq:frob_sing}. Thus the singular vectors of the optimal
solution must be the same as that of $\vec{W}$. This boils down to solving the
following problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spectralNormProb_vec}
\argmin_{\vec{\Lambda}\in\reals^{\mathrm{min}\br{m,n}}_{+}} \norm{\vec{\Lambda} - \vec{\Sigma}}_{\forb}^2 \; \textit{s.t.} \; \vec{\Lambda}\bs{i} \leq s\enskip \forall i\in\bc{0, {\mathrm{min}\br{m,n}}}.
\end{equation}
Here, without loss of generality, we abuse notations by considering
$\vec{\Lambda}$ and $\vec{\Sigma}$ to represent the diagonal vectors of the
original diagonal matrices $\vec{\Lambda}$ and $\vec{\Sigma}$, and
$\vec{\Lambda\bs{i}}$ as its $i$-th index. It is trivial to see that the
optimal solution with minimum Frobenius norm is achieved when
\[\vec{\Lambda}\bs{i} = \begin{cases}
\vec{\Sigma\bs{i}}, & \text{if} \; \; \vec{\Sigma}\bs{i} \le s \\
s, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases} \]
This is exactly what~\cref{alg:spectralNormOptimal} implements.
\subsection{Algorithm for Stable Rank Normalization~(SRN)}
\label{sec:alg_srn}
We provide a
general procedure in~\cref{alg:stablerankNorm} to solve the stable
rank normalization problem for $k \geq 1$ (the solution for $k=0$ is
straightforward
from~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal}).~\cref{claim:stableRankAlgo} provides
the properties of the algorithm. The algorithm is constructed so that
the prior knowledge of the rank of the matrix is not necessary.
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:stableRankAlgo}
Given a matrix $\vec{W}$, the desired stable rank $r$, and the
partitioning index $k\ge 1$,~\cref{alg:stablerankNorm} requires
computing the top $l$ $(l \leq k)$ singular values and vectors of
$\vec{W}$. It returns $\widehat{\vec{W}}_l$ and the scalar $l$ such
that $\srank{\widehat{\vec{W}}_l} = r$, and the top $l$ singular
values of $\vec{W}$ and $\widehat{\vec{W}}_l$ are the same. If $l=k$,
then the solution provided is the optimal solution to the
problem~\eqref{eq:srankProblem} with all the constraints satisfied,
otherwise, it returns the largest $l$ up to which the spectrum is
preserved. %
\end{claim}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\centering
\caption{Stable Rank Normalization}
\label{alg:stablerankNorm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]\footnotesize
\INPUT $\vec{W} \in \reals^{m \times n}$, $r$, $k \geq 1$
\STATE $\vec{S}_1 \gets \mathbf{0}$, $\beta \gets \norm{\vec{W}}_\forb^2$, $\eta \gets 0$, $l \gets 0$
\FOR {$i \in \{1, \cdots, k\}$}
\STATE $\{\vec{u}_i, \vec{v}_i, \sigma_i\} \gets SVD(\vec{W}, i)$\\
\COMMENT{Power method to get $i$-th singular value}
\IF{$r \geq \br{\sigma_i^2 + \eta}/\sigma_1^2$}
\label{eq:stableIf}
\STATE $\vec{S}_1 \gets \vec{S}_1 + \sigma_i \vec{u}_i \vec{v}_i^{\top}$
\label{eq:greedyStep}
\STATE $\eta \gets \eta + \sigma_i^2, \beta \gets \beta - \sigma_i^2$
\STATE $l \gets l+1$
\ELSE
\STATE break
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE $\eta \gets r\sigma_1^2 - \eta$ \\
\OUTPUT $\widehat{\vec{W}}_l \gets \vec{S}_1 +\sqrt{\frac{ \eta}{\beta}} (\vec{W} - \vec{S}_1)$, $l$
\label{eq:returnStep}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}\;\;\;\;\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\centering
\caption[Stable Rank Normalization for a Linear Layer]{\label{algo:spectralStable} SRN for a Linear Layer in NN}
\label{alg:final}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]\footnotesize
\INPUT $\vec{W} \in \reals^{m \times n}$, $r$, learning rate $\alpha$, mini-batch dataset $\mathcal{D}$
\STATE Initialize $\vec{u} \in \reals^m$ with a random vector.%
\STATE $\vec{v} \gets \frac{\vec{W}^\top \vec{u}}{\norm{\vec{W}^\top \vec{u}}}$, $\vec{u} \gets \frac{\vec{W}^\top \vec{v}}{\norm{\vec{W}^\top \vec{v}}}$\\
\COMMENT{Perform power iteration}
\STATE $\sigma(\vec{W})= \vec{u}^{\top} \vec{W} \vec{v}$
\STATE $\vec{W}_f = \vec{W}/ \sigma(\vec{W})$
\COMMENT{Spectral Normalization}
\STATE $\widehat{\vec{W}} = \vec{W}_f - \vec{u} \vec{v}^{\top}$
\IF {$\norm{\widehat{\vec{W}}}_{\forb} \le \sqrt{r-1}$}
\STATE \OUTPUT $\vec{W}_f$
\ENDIF
\STATE $\vec{W}_f = \vec{u} \vec{v}^{\top} + \widehat{\vec{W}} \frac{ \sqrt{r- 1} }{ \norm{\widehat{\vec{W}}}_{\forb} }$
\COMMENT {Stable Rank Normalization}
\STATE \OUTPUT $\vec{W} \leftarrow \vec{W} - \alpha \nabla_{\vec{W}} L(\vec{W}_f, \mathcal{D})$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\paragraph{Combining Stable Rank and Spectral Normalization for \gls{nn}s}
Following the arguments provided in~\cref{sec:intro,sec:whyStable},
for better generalisability, we propose to normalize {\em both} the
stable rank and the spectral norm of each linear layer of a \gls{nn}
simultaneously. To do so, we first perform approximate
\gls{sn}~\citep{miyato2018spectral}, and then perform optimal
\gls{srn} (using \cref{alg:stablerankNorm}). We use $k=1$ to ensure
that the first singular value (which is now normalized) is
preserved.~\cref{algo:spectralStable} provides a simplified procedure
for the same for a given linear layer of a \gls{nn}. Note that the
computational cost of this algorithm is {\em exactly the same as that
of~\gls{sn}}, which is to compute the top singular value using the
power iteration method.
\paragraph{Implementation details of Stable Rank Normalization}
The SRN algorithm~(\Cref{alg:final}) is applied on neural networks in exactly
the same way as Spectral Normalization~(SN) is applied
in~\citet{miyato2018spectral}. In particular, every iteration of gradient
descent~(or its variant) conducts one forward pass followed by a backward pass
to compute gradients, and then the parameters are updated according to the
update step of the optimisation algorithm. Finally, each weight matrix is
projected onto the space of matrices with constrained stable rank by
applying~\Cref{alg:final} on each weight matrix.
\begin{remark}
While applying~\Cref{alg:final} on fully connected layers is straightforward,
for convolution layers, we apply SRN on a matrix corresponding to the linear
transformation of the convolution operation, similar
to~\citet{miyato2018spectral}. For a convolution layer with weight
\(W\in\reals^{c_i\times c_o\times h\times w}\) where \(c_i\) and \(c_o\) are
the number of input and output filters respectively, and \(h\times w\) is the
dimension of individual filters, we flatten the layer into a \(\br{c_i, c_o h
w}\)-dimensional matrix and apply~\Cref{alg:final} on this matrix. While this is
not an exact representation of the linear transformation of a convolutional
layer, this heuristic helps in the computational speed of the operation. We
also note that this framework is not accurate for residual networks. We apply
SRN on the learnable layers inside the residual block, however the actual
transformation of a residual block also includes the identity map applied by the
skip connection. It is not straightforward whether this can be represented by a linear transformation as there are also non-linear activations inside the residual block, which the skip connection bypasses. However, despite these shortcomings, our method works well in practice as the next section shows.
\end{remark}
\section{Experiments on a generative modelling setup~
(SRN-GAN)}\label{sec:srn-exp}
\todo[color=blue]{Remove extra eLhist in App, stability of discriminator loss}
In GANs, there is a natural tension between the {\em capacity} and the {\em
generalisability} of the discriminator. The capacity ensures that if the
generated distribution and the data distribution are different, the
discriminator can distinguish them. At the same time, the discriminator has to
be generalisable, implying, the hypothesis class of discriminators should be
simple enough to ensure that the discriminator cannot memorise the dataset.
Based on these arguments, we use SRN in the discriminator of GAN which we call
SRN-GAN, and compare it against SN-GAN, WGAN-GP, and orthonormal regularisation
based GAN (Ortho-GAN).
\paragraph{GAN objective functions}
In the case of conditional GANs~\citep{Mirza2014}, we use the conditional batch
normalization~\citep{dumoulin2017learned} to condition the generator and the
projection discriminator~\citep{Miyato2018} to condition the discriminator. The
dimension of the latent variable for the generator is set to $128$ and is
sampled from a zero mean and unit variance gaussian distribution. For training
the model, we use the hinge loss version of the adversarial
loss~\citep{Lim2017,Tran2017} in all experiments except the experiments with
WGAN-GP. The hinge loss version is chosen as it has been shown to consistently
give better performance~\citep{Zhang2018, miyato2018spectral}. For training the
WGAN-GP model, we use the original loss function as described
in~\citet{Gulrajani2017}.
\paragraph{Constructing the empirical~\gls{Lip} histogram} Along with providing
results using evaluation metrics such as Inception score
(IS)~\citep{salimans2016improved} , FID~\citep{heusel2017gans}, and Neural
divergence score (ND)~\citep{gulrajani2018towards}, we use histograms of the
empirical \Gls{lip} constant, {\em referred to as eLhist} from now onwards, for
the purpose of analyses. For a given trained GAN (unconditional), we create
$2,000$ pairs of samples, where each pair $(\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j)$ consists of
$\vec{x}_i$ (randomly sampled from the `real' dataset) and $\vec{x}_j$ (randomly
sampled from the generator). Each pair is then passed through the discriminator
to compute the empirical lipschitzness based on the pair
$\nicefrac{\norm{f(\vec{x}_i) - f(\vec{x}_j)}_2}{\norm{\vec{x}_i -
\vec{x}_j}_2}$, which we then use to create the histogram. %
In the conditional setting, we sample a class from a discrete
uniform distribution and then follow the same
approach as described for the unconditional setting.
Henceforth, we will use the word {\em histogram} as synonymous to
{\em the histogram of the empirical \Gls{lip} constant}.
\footnotetext[1]{Results are taken from ~\citet{miyato2018spectral}.
The rest of the results in the tables are generated by us.}
\begin{table}\centering
\begin{tabular}{c@{\quad}cccc@{}}
\toprule
& Algorithm & Inception Score & FID & Intra-FID\\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\footnotesize Uncond.}}
& Orthonormal\footnotemark[1] & $7.92\pm .04$ &$23.8$&-\\
& WGAN-GP & $7.86\pm .07$ &$21.7$& - \\
& SN-GAN\footnotemark[1] & $8.22\pm .04$ &$20.67$& -\\
& SRN-70-GAN & $\mathbf{8.53}\pm 0.04$& $\mathbf{19.83}$&- \\
& SRN-50-GAN & $8.33\pm 0.06$& $\mathbf{19.57}$&- \\
\cmidrule{2-5}
\multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\footnotesize Cond.}}
& SN-GAN & $8.71\pm .04$ &$16.04$\footnote{This is different from
what is reported in the original paper.}& $26.24$\\
&SRN-$70$-GAN & $\mathbf{8.93}\pm 0.12$& $\mathbf{15.92}$ &
$\mathbf{24.01}$\\
&SRN-$50$-GAN & $ 8.76\pm 0.09$& $16.89$& $27.3$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Inception and FID score on CIFAR10.}
\label{tbl:comp_uncond_model1}
\end{table}
\subsection{Effect of SRN on Inception Score, FID, and Neural Divergence}
Inception Score~(IS) of SRN-GANs, SN-GAN, WGAN-GP, and GANs with Orthonormal
regularisations on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 are reported
in~\cref{tbl:comp_uncond_model1,tab:inc_fid_cifar100} respectively. For
measuring the inception score, we generate $50,000$ samples, as is recommended
in~\citet{salimans2016improved}. For measuring FID, we use the same setting
as~\citet{miyato2018spectral} where we sample $10,000$ data points from the
training set and compare its statistics with that of $5,000$ generated samples.
In addition, we use a recent evaluation metric called Neural divergence
score~\citet{gulrajani2018towards} which is more robust to memorisation. The
exact set-up for the same is discussed below. In the case of conditional image
generation, we also measure Intra-FID~\citep{miyato2018spectral}, which is the
mean of the FID of the generator, when it is conditioned over different classes.
Let $\mathrm{FID}(\mathcal{G}, c)$ be the FID of the generator $\mathcal{G}$
when it is conditioned on the class $c \in \mathcal{C}$ (where $\mathcal{C}$ is
the set of classes), then, $\mathrm{Intra~FID}(\mathcal{G}) =
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{C}|}\mathrm{FID}(\mathcal{G}, c)$
For CIFAR10, we report results on both the conditional and the unconditional
settings and for CIFAR100, we report on the unconditional setting. The results
show that SRN-GAN consistently provides a better FID score and an extremely
competitive inception score on both: CIFAR10~(both conditional and
unconditional setting) and CIFAR100~(unconditional setting).
In Table~\ref{tab:nn_dis_cifar100}, we compare the Neural Divergence~(ND) loss
on CIFAR10 and CelebA datasets. Note that ND has been looked at as a metric {\em
more robust to memorisation} than FID and IS in recent
works~\citep{gulrajani2018towards,arora2017gans}. The exact setting for
computing ND is discussed in~\cref{sec:expr-settings}. We essentially report the
loss incurred by a \textit{fresh} classifier trained to discriminate the
generator distribution and the data distribution. Thus higher the loss, the
better are the generated images. As evident from~\Cref{tab:nn_dis_cifar100},
SRN-GAN provides better ND scores on both datasets.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}cc@{}}
\toprule
Model&IS & FID\\
\midrule
SN-GAN&$\mathbf{9.04}$&$23.2$\\
SRN-GAN (Our)&$8.85$&$\mathbf{19.55}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Inception and FID score on CIFAR100.}
\label{tab:inc_fid_cifar100}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}cc@{}}
\toprule
Model&CIFAR10 & CelebA\\
\midrule
SN-GAN&$10.69$&$0.36$\\
SRN-GAN (Our)&$\mathbf{11.97}$&$\mathbf{0.64}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Neural Discriminator Loss on CelebA and CIFAR10]{Neural Discriminator Loss~(Higher the better).}
\label{tab:nn_dis_cifar100}
\end{table}
\subsection{Effect of SRN on eLhist}
We construct eLhist for unconditional GANs on CIFAR10
in~\cref{fig:lip_rank_stable}. As the plot shows, lowering the value of $c$
(aggressive reduction in the stable rank) shifts the histogram towards zero,
implying a lower empirical \Gls{lip} constant. This validates the arguments
provided in~\cref{sec:whyStable}. Lowering $c$ also improves the inception
score. However, an extreme reduction in the stable rank ($c=0.1$) dramatically
collapses the histogram to zero and also drops the inception score
significantly. This is because, at $c=0.1$, the capacity of the discriminator is
reduced to the point that it is not able to learn to differentiate between the
real and the fake samples anymore.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.495\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/rank_wise_lipschitz.pdf_tex}} \caption{Unconditional GAN} \label{fig:lip_rank_stable}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.495\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/model_comp_uncomp_lipschitz.pdf_tex}}\caption{Unconditional GAN} \label{fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.72\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\resizebox{0.99\textwidth}{!}{\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/model_comp_cond_lipschitz.pdf_tex}}
\caption{Conditional GAN with projection discriminator}\label{fig:lip_rank_stable_cond}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[eLhist of unconditional and conditional GANs on CIFAR10.]{{\bf eLhist}
for unconditional and conditional GANs on CIFAR10. Dashed vertical lines
represent 95{\it th} percentile. Solid circles and crosses represent the {\em
inception score} for each histogram. Figure~\ref{fig:lip_rank_stable} shows
SRN-GAN for different stable rank constraints (\eg $90$ implies $c=0.9$).
Figure~\ref{fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond} compares various approaches for
unconditional GANs.~\Cref{fig:lip_rank_stable_cond} compares various
approaches for conditional GAN setting. Random-GAN represents random
initialisation (no training). For SRN-GAN, we use $c=0.7$.}
\end{figure}
In addition, in~\cref{fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond}, we provide eLhist for
comparing different approaches. Random-GAN is a randomly initialised GAN with
the same architecture as SRN-GAN. As expected, Random-GAN has a low empirical
\Gls{lip} constant and an extremely poor inception score. Unsurprisingly,
WGAN-GP has a lower empirical~\gls{lip} constant than Random-GAN, due to its
explicit constraint on the \Gls{lip} constant, while providing a higher
inception score. On the other hand, SRN-GAN, by virtue of its softer constraints
on the \Gls{lip} constant, trades off a higher \Gls{lip} constant than WGAN-GP
for a better inception score---highlighting the flexibility provided by SRN. We
show results on the conditional GAN setup using the projection discriminator
from ~\citet{Miyato2018} in~\cref{fig:lip_rank_stable_cond}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/model_comp_cond_lipschitz_only_gen_approx.pdf_tex}}
\caption{Conditional GAN with projection discriminator.} \label{fig:lip_rank_stable_cond_only_fake}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/model_comp_uncomp_lipschitz_only_gen_approx.pdf_tex}}
\caption{Unconditional GAN setting.} \label{fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond_only_fake}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!h]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/model_comp_cond_lipschitz_only_real_approx.pdf_tex}}
\caption{Conditional GAN with projection discriminator} \label{fig:lip_rank_stable_cond_only_real}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!h]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/model_comp_uncomp_lipschitz_only_real_approx.pdf_tex}}
\caption{Unconditional GAN setting.} \label{fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond_only_real_uncond}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[eLhist with pairs of reals/generated samples]{
~\Cref{fig:lip_rank_stable_cond_only_fake,fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond_only_fake} plots the {\bf eLhist} of the
discriminator for pairs of samples drawn from the generator on CIFAR10.~\Cref{fig:lip_rank_stable_cond_only_real,fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond_only_real_uncond} plots the {\bf eLhist} of the
discriminator for pairs of samples drawn from the real
distribution on CIFAR10.}
\end{figure}
For the purpose of
analysis,~\cref{fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond_only_fake,fig:lip_rank_stable_uncond_only_real_uncond}
shows eLhist for pairs where each sample either comes from the true data or the
generator, and we observe a similar trend. To verify the same results hold in
the conditional setup, we show comparisons for~\gls{gan}s with projection
discriminator~\citep{Miyato2018}
in~\cref{fig:lip_rank_stable_cond_only_fake,fig:lip_rank_stable_cond_only_real},
and also observe a similar trend.
\section{Definitions and preliminaries}
\label{sec:background}
\input{stable_rank_folder/rel_work}
\input{stable_rank_folder/stable_rank}
\input{stable_rank_folder/experiments}
\input{stable_rank_folder/experiment_gan}
\subsection{Stable Rank} Below we provide the formal definition and
some properties of stable rank. %
\begin{defn}[Stable Rank]
\label{def:stableRank}
The Stable Rank~\citep{Rudelson2007} of an arbitrary matrix $\vec{W}$ is
defined as \( \srank{\vec{W}} =
\frac{\norm{\vec{W}}_\forb^2}{\norm{\vec{W}}_2^2} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^k
\sigma_i^2(\vec{W})}{\sigma_1^2(\vec{W})} \), where $k$ is the rank of
the matrix. Stable rank is
\begin{enumerate}
\item a soft version of the rank operator and, unlike rank, is less sensitive to small perturbations. %
\item almost always differentiable as both Frobenius and Spectral norms are almost always differentiable.
\item upper-bounded by the rank of the matrix: \( \srank{\vec{W}} =
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^k \sigma_i^2(\vec{W})}{\sigma_1^2(\vec{W})} \le
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^k \sigma_1^2(\vec{W})}{\sigma_1^2(\vec{W})} = k\).
\item invariant to scaling, i.e. for any $\eta \in \reals\setminus\bc{0}$ we
have that \( \srank{\vec{W}} = \srank{\frac{\vec{W}}{\eta}} \).
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\subsection{\Gls{lip} Constant}\label{sec:lipschitz} Lipschitzness of a function
is an indication of the smoothness of the function. The \Gls{lip} constant of a
function is a quantification of the sensitivity of the output of the function
with respect to the change in the input. Thus, functions with small lipschitz
constants are smoother than functions with large lipschitz constants. This
section first describes the concepts of global~\gls{lip}, local \gls{lip}, and
empirical lipschitz constants and then discusses why the product of spectral
norms is an upper bound on the local lipschitzness of neural networks.
\paragraph{Global and Local Lipschitzness}
A function $f: \reals^d \mapsto \reals^k$ is {\em globally L-\Gls{lip}
continuous} if there exists \( L \in \reals_+\) such that \(\norm{f(\vec{x}_i) -
f(\vec{x}_j)}_q \leq L \norm{\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j}_p\) for all \( (\vec{x}_i,
\vec{x}_j) \in \reals^d \), where $\norm{\cdot}_p$ and $\norm{\cdot}_q$
represents the $\ell_p$ and $\ell_q$ norms in the input and the output metric spaces, respectively.
The global \Gls{lip} constant $L_g$ is:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lipGlobal}
L_g = \max_{\substack{\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j \in \reals^d\\ \vec{x}_i\neq\vec{x}_j}} \frac{\norm{f(\vec{x}_i) - f(\vec{x}_j)}_q}{\norm{\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j}_p}.
\end{align}
The above definition of the \Gls{lip} constant accounts for all pairs of inputs
in the domain $\reals^d\times\reals^d$. It is thus said to be the {\em global
\gls{lip} constant}. One can define the local \Gls{lip} constant based on the
sensitivity of $f$ in the vicinity of a given point $\vec{x}$.
For a given $\vec{x}$ and for an arbitrarily small $\delta>0$, the local
\Gls{lip} constant is computed in an open ball of radius $\delta$ centred at
$\vec{x}$. Let $\vec{h} \in \reals^d$ with $\norm{\vec{h}}_p < \delta$, then,
similar to $L_g$, the {\em local \gls{lip} constant} of $f$ at $\vec{x}$,
$L_l(\vec{x})$, is greater than or equal to
\begin{equation}
\sup_{\vec{h} \neq 0,
\norm{\vec{h}}_p < \delta}~\frac{\norm{f(\vec{x} + \vec{h}) -
f(\vec{x})}_q}{\norm{\vec{h}}_p}
\end{equation}
Assuming $f$ to be Fr\'echet differentiable, as $\vec{h}$ tends to $0$, we can
use the first-order approximation on $f$: $f(\vec{x} + \vec{h}) - f(\vec{x})
\approx J_f(\vec{x}) \vec{h}$, where \(J_f\br{\vec{x}}=\frac{\partial
f\br{\vec{z}}}{\partial \vec{z}} \vert_{\vec{x}} \in \reals^{k \times d}\) is
the jacobian of $f$ at \(\vec{x}\). Then the local lipschitz constant of $f$ at
\(\vec{z}\) is the matrix (operator) norm of the Jacobian $J_f(\vec{x})$.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lipLocal}
L_l(\vec{x}) \stackrel{(a)}{=} \lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\sup_{\substack{\vec{h} \neq 0 \\ \norm{\vec{h}}_p < \delta}} \frac{\norm{J_f(\vec{x}) \vec{h}}_q}{\norm{\vec{h}}_p} \stackrel{(b)}{=} \sup_{ \substack{\vec{h} \neq 0 \\ \vec{h} \in \reals^m}} \frac{\norm{J_f(\vec{x}) \vec{h}}_q}{\norm{\vec{h}}_p} = \norm{J_f(\vec{x})}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}}.
\end{align}
Here, (a) is by definition of local lipschitzness and (b) is due to the property
of norms that for any non-negative scalar~$c$, $\norm{c\vec{x}} =
c\norm{\vec{x}}$. Note that \(\norm{J_f(\vec{x})}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}}\) is the \(p,q\) matrix operator norm, defined in~\cref{defn:p_q-induced_norm}, of the Jacobian matrix and is different from the entry-wise \(p,q\) norm, which is for example used in~\cref{eq:defn-ins-spec-compl}. A function is said to be \emph{locally \Gls{lip}} with
\emph{local Lipschitz constant} $L_l$ if, for all $\vec{x} \in \reals^d$, the
function is \emph{$L_l$ locally-\Gls{lip}} at $\vec{x}$. %
Thus, \begin{equation}\label{eq:localLipschitz}
L_l =\sup_{\vec{x}\in\reals^d}{L_l\br{\vec{x}}}
\end{equation}
Notice that the \Gls{lip} constant (global or local) greatly depends on the
chosen norms. When $p = q = 2$, the upper bound on the local \Gls{lip} constant
at $\vec{x}$ boils down to the 2-matrix norm (maximum singular value) of the
Jacobian $J_f(\vec{x})$~(see last equality of~\cref{eq:lipLocal}).
\paragraph{The local \Gls{lip} upper-bound for Neural Networks}
\label{sec:LipNNUB}
Here we show that the local lipschitz constant for neural networks can be upper bounded by the product of spectral norms of individual weight matrices. Interestingly this upper-bound is data-agnostic.
\begin{restatable}[Local Lipschitz upper bound for NNs]{lem}{locallipNN}
\label{lem:upper-bound-nn-lip}
For a neural network $f$ belonging to the class of multi-layered perceptrons, as defined in~\Cref{defn:net-mlp}, the local lipschitzness at a point $\vec{x}\in\reals^d$ can be upper-bounded as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lipboundNN1}
L_l(\vec{x}) = \leq \norm{\vec{W}_1}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}}
\cdots \norm{\vec{W}_L}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}}
\end{align}
Further, as the upper-bound is data-agnostic, the local lipschitz constant is also equal to this upper-bound i.e. \[L_l = L_l\br{\vec{x}}\]
Proof in~\Cref{sec:lipsch-proof}.
\end{restatable}
Next we discuss more optimistic~(or empirical) estimates of $L_l$ and $L_g$, its
link with generalisation and then in~\cref{sec:experiments-srn}, we show
empirically the effect of SRN on empirical lipschitzness and generalisation.
\paragraph{Empirical Lipschitz constants}
It is clear from~\Cref{lem:upper-bound-nn-lip} that the \Gls{lip} constant upper
bound (\(\prod_{i}^L\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2\)), along with being scale-dependent, is
also {\em data-independent} and hence, provides a pessimistic estimate of the
behaviour of a model on a particular task or dataset. We call this pessimistic
as the behaviour of the model on the entire input domain is not always relevant
especially when data lies in a more restricted portion of the domain.
Considering this, a relatively optimistic estimate of the model's behaviour
would be an {\em empirical} estimate of the \Gls{lip} constant ($L_e$) on a
task-specific dataset. The global and local $L_e$ are simply the equivalent of
the global and local lipschitz constant defined in~\cref{eq:lipGlobal}
and~\cref{eq:localLipschitz} respectively with the maximisation done on just
the support of the data distribution as opposed to the whole of \(\reals^d\).
Note that local $L_e$ is just the norm of the Jacobian at a given point. For
completeness, we provide the relationship between the global and the local $L_e$
in~\Cref{prop:empiricalLocalLip}.
\begin{restatable}[Relating Empirical and Global Lipschitzness]{lem}{lipschitznesslocalglobal}
\label{prop:empiricalLocalLip}
Let $f: \reals^d \mapsto \reals$ be a Fr\'echet differentiable function,
$\data$ the dataset, and $\textit{Conv}\;(\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j)$ denotes the
convex combination of a pair of samples $\vec{x}_i$ and $\vec{x}_j$, then
$\forall p,q \in [1, \infty]$ such that $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q} = 1$
\begin{align}
\max_{\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j \in \data}\frac{\abs{f(\vec{x}_i) - f(\vec{x}_j)}}{\norm{\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j}_p} \; \leq \max_{\substack{{\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j \in \data} \\ \vec{x} \in \textit{Conv}\;(\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j) }} \norm{J_f(\vec{x})}_q \nonumber
\end{align}
Proof in~\Cref{sec:lipsch-proof}.
\end{restatable}
As discussed before, the local lipschitz constant upper bound
in~\Cref{eq:lipboundNN1} is independent of $\vec{x}$. This is one of the
main reasons why we consider the empirical \Gls{lip} to better reflect the true
behaviour of the function as the \gls{nn} is never exposed to the entire domain
$\reals^d$ but only a small subset dependent on the data distribution.
The other reason why this upper bound is a bad estimate is that the
inequality in Eq~\eqref{eq:lipboundNN1} is tight only when the partial
derivatives are aligned, implying, $ \norm{\frac{\partial \vec{z}_\ell}{\partial
\vec{z}_{\ell-1}} \frac{\partial \vec{z}_{\ell+1}}{\partial
\vec{z}_{\ell}}}_2 = \norm{\frac{\partial \vec{z}_\ell}{\partial
\vec{z}_{\ell-1}}}_2 \norm{\frac{\partial \vec{z}_{\ell+1}}{\partial
\vec{z}_{\ell}}}_2~\quad \forall l - 2\le \ell\le l$. This problem has been referred to as the problem of
mis-alignment and is similar to quantities like layer cushion in~\citet{arora18b}.
\section{Experiments on a discriminative setup}
\label{sec:experiments-srn}
\paragraph{Dataset and architectures} For classification, we perform experiments
on ResNet-110~\citep{HZRS:2016}, WideResNet-28-10~\citep{Zagoruyko2016},
DenseNet-100~\citep{Huang2017}, VGG-19~\citep{simonyan2014very}, and
AlexNet~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning} using the CIFAR100 and
CIFAR10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning} datasets. We train them using standard
training recipes with SGD, using a learning rate of $0.1$~(except AlexNet where
we use a learning rate of $0.01$), and a momentum of $0.9$ with a batch size of
$128$ (further details in Appendix~\ref{sec:expr-settings}). In addition to
training for a fixed number of epochs, we also present results where the
training accuracy~(as opposed to the number of iterations) is used as a stopping
criterion to show that our regulariser performs well with a range of stopping
criteria.
For GAN experiments, we use CIFAR100, CIFAR10, and
CelebA~\citep{liu2015faceattributes} datasets. We show results on both,
conditional and unconditional GANs. Please refer to~\cref{sec:expr-settings} for
further details about the training setup.
\paragraph{Choosing stable rank} Given a matrix $\vec{W} \in \reals^{m \times
n}$, the desired stable rank $r$ is controlled using a single
hyperparameter $c$ as $r = c \; \min(m,n)$, where $c \in (0, 1]$.
For simplicity, we use the same $c$ for all the linear layers.
Note that if $c=1$, or for a given $c$, if $\srank{\vec{W}} \leq r$,
then SRN boils down to SN. For classification, we choose $c = \{0.3, 0.5\}$, and compare SRN against standard
training (Vanilla) and training with \gls{sn}. For GAN experiments, we choose $c = \{0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9\}$, and
compare SRN-GAN against SN-GAN~\citep{miyato2018spectral}, WGAN-GP~\citep{Gulrajani2017}, and orthonormal regularisation GAN
(Ortho-GAN)~\citep{Brock2016}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/r110_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.21\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/wrn_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ WideResNet28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/alex_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.19\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/dens_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/vgg_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ VGG-19}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test accuracies on CIFAR100 with fixed number of training epochs]{Test accuracies on CIFAR100 for clean data using the number of epochs as stopping criterion. Higher is better.}
\label{fig:test-acc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_r110_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_wrn_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WideResNet28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_alex_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_dens_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test error on CIFAR10 with fixed number of training epochs]{Test accuracies on CIFAR10 for clean data using the number of epochs as stopping criterion. Higher is better.}
\label{fig:test-acc-epoch-c10}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Classification experiments}\label{sec:gen_exp_results} We perform
each experiment $5$ times using a new random seed each time and report the mean and the $75\%$ confidence interval for the test error. We plot the test accuracy
on CIFAR100 in~\cref{fig:test-acc} and CIFAR10
in~\cref{fig:test-acc-epoch-c10}.
These experiments show that the test accuracy of \gls{srn} on a wide variety
\gls{nn}s is always higher than the Vanilla and SN (except for SRN-50 on
Alexnet where \gls{srn} and \gls{sn} are almost equal). However, \gls{sn}
performs slightly worse than Vanilla for WideResNet-28 and ResNet110. The fact
that \gls{srn} also involves \gls{sn}, combined with the above observation,
indicates that even though \gls{sn} reduced the learning capability of these
networks, normalizing stable rank must have improved it significantly in order
for \gls{srn} to outperform Vanilla. For example, in the case of ResNet110,
\gls{sn} is $71.5\%$ accurate whereas \gls{srn} provides an accuracy of
$73.2\%$. In addition to this, we also note that even though \gls{sn} is used
extensively for the training of GANs, it is not a popular choice when it comes
to training standard \gls{nn}s for classification. We suspect that this is
because of the decrease in performance, we observe here. Hence, as our
experiments indicate that~\Gls{srn} overcomes this,~\Gls{srn} could be a
potentially important regulariser in the classification setting.
\begin{figure}
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/r110_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.21\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/wrn_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WideResNet28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/alex_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.19\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/dens_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/vgg_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{VGG-19}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Shattering Experiments on CIFAR100]{Train accuracies on CIFAR100 for shattering experiment. Lower indicates less memorisation, thus, better.}
\label{fig:rand-acc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_r110_rand.pdf_tex}
\caption{ResNet110}\label{fig:r100-rand-train-c10}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_alex_rand.pdf_tex}
\caption{Alexnet}\label{fig:alex-rand-train-c10}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Shattering experiments on CIFAR10]{Train accuracies on CIFAR10 for shattering experiment. Lower indicates less memorisation, thus, better.}
\label{fig:cifar-10-gen}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Shattering experiments}
Our previous set of experiments established that \gls{srn} provides improved
classification accuracies on various \gls{nn}s. Here we study the generalisation
behaviour of these models. Quantifying generalisation behaviour is non-trivial
and there is no clear answer to it. However, we utilise recent efforts that
explore the theoretical understanding of generalisation to study generalisation
of SRN in practice.
To inspect the generalisation behaviour in \gls{nn}s we begin with the
shattering experiment~\citep{Zhang2016}. It is a test of whether the network can
fit the training data well but not a label-randomised version of it (each image
of the dataset is assigned a random label). As $P\bs{y\vert \vec{x}}$ is
essentially uninformative because it is a uniformly random distribution, there
is no correlation between the labels and the data points. Thus, the best
possible test accuracy on this task~(the test labels would also be randomised)
is approximately $1\%$ on CIFAR100~(\(10\%\) in CIFAR10). A high training
accuracy --- which indicates a high generalisation gap (difference between train
and test accuracy) can be achieved only by memorising the train data. In these
experiments, the training of all models of one architecture are stopped after
the same number of epochs, which is double the number of epochs the model is
trained for on the clean datasets. ~\cref{fig:rand-acc} shows that \gls{srn}
reduces memorisation on random labels~(thus, reduces the estimate of the
Rademacher complexity~\citep{Zhang2016}) on CIFAR100.
In~\cref{fig:cifar-10-gen}, we plot the training accuracy on CIFAR10 and observe
a similar result. Importantly, the same model architectures and training
strategy were able to achieve high test accuracy for the clean dataset in the
previous section.
\subsection*{Training accuracy as stopping criterion}
We used the number of training epochs as our stopping criterion in the previous
experiments. To show that the results hold consistently across different
stopping criteria, we use a different stopping criterion here. In particular, we
use the training accuracy as a stopping criterion here. For ResNet110,
WideResNet-28, Densenet-100, and VGG-19 we use a training accuracy of $99\%$ as
a stopping criterion and report the test accuracy when that training accuracy is
achieved for the first time. For Alexnet, as SRN-30 never achieves a training
accuracy higher than $55\%$, we use $55\%$ as the stopping criterion and plot
the test accuracies in~\cref{fig:test-acc-stop} for CIFAR100. Our results show
that SRN-30 and SRN-50 outperform SN and vanilla consistently. In
Figure~\ref{fig:test-acc-stop-c10}, we show similar results for CIFAR10. As
AlexNet can achieve higher accuracy for CIFAR10, we use $85\%$ as the
stopping criterion for AlexNet on CIFAR10.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/r110_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.21\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/wrn_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WideResNet28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/alex_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.19\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/dens_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.19\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/vgg_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ VGG-19}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test error on CIFAR100 with early stopping.]{Test accuracies on CIFAR100 for clean data using a stopping
criterion based on train accuracy. Higher is better.}
\label{fig:test-acc-stop}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/r110_c10_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/wrn_c10_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WideResNet-28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/alex_c10_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/dens_c10_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test Error on CIFAR10 with early stopping]{Test accuracies on CIFAR10 for clean data using a stopping
criterion based on train accuracy. Higher is better.}
\label{fig:test-acc-stop-c10}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Non-generalisable settings}
So far, we have looked at learning with hyper-parameters like learning rate and
weight decay set to values commonly used in training of deep neural networks.
However, these hyper-parameters have been adjusted through years of practice.
This section looks specifically at settings that are known to be highly
non-generalisable --- {\em low learning rate and without weight decay}.
First, we look at a WideResNet-28-10 trained with SRN, SN, and vanilla methods
but with a low learning rate of $0.01$ and a small weight decay of $5\times
10^{-4}$ on randomly labelled CIFAR100 for $50$ epochs. The results, shown
in~\cref{tab:low_lr_wrn}, supports our hypothesis that SRN is more robust to
random noise than SN or vanilla methods even in this highly-non generalisable
setup.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||}\hline
Stable-30&Spectral&Vanilla\\\hline
$\mathbf{29.04}$& $17.24 $ & $1.22$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[Shattering experiment with low-learning rate]{Training error for WideResNet-28-10 on CIFAR100 with randomised
labels, low lr$=0.01$, and with weight decay.~(Higher
is better.)}
\label{tab:low_lr_wrn}
\end{table}
Secondly, we see whether weight decay provides a further edge to generalisation
when used in combination with SRN and SN. As shown in~\cref{tab:low_lr_rnet},
\gls{srn} consistently achieves lower generalisation error~(by achieving a low
train error) both in the presence and the absence of weight
decay.~\Cref{tab:clean-c100-lowlr} shows it also achieves a higher clean test
accuracy for this setting. Thus~\Gls{srn} generalises better even with a low
learning rate and is further benefitted by regularisers like weight decay.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}}\toprule
&SRN-50&SRN-30&Spectral (SN) &Vanilla\\\midrule
WD & $\mathbf{12.02 \pm 1.77}$ &$\mathbf{11.87 \pm 0.57}$ & $\mathbf{11.13 \pm 2.56}$ & $\mathbf{10.56
\pm 2.32}$ \\
w/o WD & $17.71 \pm 2.30$ &$19.04 \pm 4.53$ & $17.22 \pm 1.94$ & $13.49
\pm 1.93$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Shattering experiment with non-generalisable settings on CIFAR100]{{\bf Highly non-generalisable setting}. Training error
for ResNet-110 on CIFAR100 with randomised labels, low lr$=0.01$,
and with and without weight decay.~(Higher is better.)}
\label{tab:low_lr_rnet}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}\toprule
& Vanilla & Spectral & Stable-50 & Stable-30 \\\midrule
W/o WD & $69.2 \pm 0.5$ & $69\pm 0.1$ & $69.1 \pm 0.85$ & $69.3 \pm 0.4$ \\
With WD & $\mathbf{70.4 \pm 0.3}$ & $\mathbf{71.35 \pm 0.25}$ & $\mathbf{70.6 \pm 0.1}$ & $\mathbf{70.6 \pm 0.1}$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Clean test accuracy for non-generalisable settings on CIFAR10.]{Clean test accuracy on CIFAR10. The learning configuration
corresponds to the non-generalisable settings with a high learning
rate.}
\label{tab:clean-c100-lowlr}
\end{table}
\subsection{Empirical evaluation of generalisation behaviour}
When all the factors in training~(eg. architecture, dataset, optimiser, among
others) are fixed, and the only variability is in the normalization~(i.e. in SRN
vs SN vs Vanilla), the generalisation error can be written as $
\abs{\mathrm{Train\ Err} - \mathrm{Test\ Err}} \le
\tildeO{\sqrt{\nicefrac{C_{\mathrm{alg}}}{m}}}$ where $\tildeO{\cdot}$ ignores
the logarithmic terms, $m$ is the number of samples in the dataset, and
$C_{\mathrm{alg}}$ denotes a measure of {\em sample complexity} for a given
algorithm i.e. SRN vs SN vs Vanilla. The lower the value of $C_{\mathrm{alg}}$,
the better is the generalisation. This is reminiscent of the basic theorem of
generalisation previously discussed in~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm}. In this
section, we measure $C_{\mathrm{alg}}$ as a proxy for measuring generalisation.
First, we restate some of the concepts we had previously discussed
in~\Cref{sec:marg-based-gener-main}. The margin of a network, defined
in~\Cref{defn:margin} at a data point measures the gap in the confidence of the
network between the correct label and the other labels. In the rest of the
section, we will treat $\gamma$ as a random variable depending on the random
variables $\cX$ and $\cY$.
\margin*
We also restate the expressions for $C_{\mathrm{alg}}$ that we used previously in~\Cref{thm:spec-norm-marg-main} and~\Cref{eq:stable-spec-compl}. In addition, we define a new complexity measure from~\citet{wei2019}.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Spec-Fro:}
$\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^L\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^2\sum_{i=1}^L\srank{\vec{W}_i}}{\gamma^2}$~\citep{neyshabur2018a}.
The two quantities used to normalize the margin~($\gamma$) are the product
of spectral norm i.e. $\prod_{i=1}^L\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^2$~(or worst case
lipschitzness) and the sum of stable rank {\em i.e.},
$\sum_{i=1}^L\srank{\vec{W}_i}$~(or an approximate parameter count like rank
of a matrix).
\item \textbf{Spec-L1:} $\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^L\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^2
\br{\sum_{i=1}^L\frac{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_{2,1}^{\nicefrac{2}{3}}}{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^{\nicefrac{2}{3}}}}^3}{\gamma^2}$,
where $\norm{.}_{2,1}$ is the matrix 2-1 norm. As showed
by~\citet{bartlett2017spectrally}, Spec-L1 is the spectrally
normalized margin, and unlike just the margin, is a good indicator of the
generalisation properties of a network.
\item \textbf{Jac-Norm:}
$\sum_{i=1}^L\dfrac{\norm{\vec{h}_i}_2\norm{\vec{J}_i}_2}{\gamma}$~\citep{wei2019},
where $\vec{h}_i$ is the $i^{\it th}$ hidden layer and $\vec{J}_i
=\frac{\partial \gamma}{\partial h_i}$ {\em i.e.}, the Jacobian of the
margin with respect to the $i^{\it th}$ hidden layer (thus, a vector). Note,
Jac-Norm depends on the norm of the Jacobian (local empirical \Gls{lip}) and
the norm of the hidden layers, which are additional data-dependent terms
compared to Spec-Fro and Spec-L1.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/jac_gen_rnet110.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{R110-Jac-Norm}\label{fig:r110-jac-comp}
\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_l1_r110.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{R110-Spec-$L_1$}\label{fig:r110-spec-l1-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\textwidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_fro_r110v1.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{R110-Spec-Fro}\label{fig:r110-spec-fro-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/jac_gen_wrn.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WRN-Jac-Norm}\label{fig:wrn-jac-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_l1_wrn.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WRN-Spec-$L_1$}\label{fig:wrn-spec-l1-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\textwidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_fro_wrnv2.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WRN-Spec-Fro}\label{fig:wrn-spec-fro-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/jac_gen_dens100.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{D100-Jac-Norm}\label{fig:d100-jac-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_l1_dens.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{D100-Spec-$L_1$}\label{fig:d100-spec-l1-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\textwidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_fro_dens.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{D100-Spec-Fro}\label{fig:d100-spec-fro-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Empirical comparison of generalisation bounds]{($\log$) Sample complexity ($C_{\mathrm{alg}}$) of
~ResNet-110~(\cref{fig:r110-jac-comp,fig:r110-spec-l1-comp,fig:r110-spec-fro-comp}),
WideResNet-28-10~(\cref{fig:wrn-jac-comp,fig:wrn-spec-l1-comp,fig:wrn-spec-fro-comp}),
and Densenet-100~(\cref{fig:d100-jac-comp,fig:d100-spec-l1-comp,fig:d100-spec-fro-comp})
quantified using the three measures discussed in this chapter. Left
is better. Vanilla is omitted
from~\cref{fig:r110-spec-l1-comp,fig:r110-spec-fro-comp,fig:d100-spec-l1-comp,fig:d100-spec-fro-comp}
as it is too far to the right. Also, in situations where SRN-50 and SN performed the same, we removed the histogram to avoid clutter.}
\label{fig:compl}
\end{figure}
We evaluate the above-mentioned sample complexity measures on $10,000$ points
from the dataset and plot the distribution of its $\log$ using a histogram shown
in~\cref{fig:compl}. The more to the left the histogram is, the smaller is the
value of $C_{\mathrm{alg}}$ and thus the better is the generalisation capacity
of the network.
For better clarity, we report the $90$ percentile mark for each of these
histograms in ~\cref{tab:perc-compl}. As the plots and the table shows, both
\gls{srn} and \gls{sn} produces a much smaller complexity measure than a vanilla
network and in 7 out of the 9 cases, SRN is better than SN. The difference
between SRN and SN is much more significant in the case of Jac-Norm. As the
Jac-Norm depends on the empirical lipschitzness, it provides the empirical
validation of our arguments in~\Cref{sec:stable_rank_alg}.
\begin{table}[!htb]\footnotesize
\centering\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{tabular}[t]{C{3cm}C{3cm}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}}\toprule
Model & Algorithm & Jac-Norm & Spec-$L_1$ & Spec-Fro\\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{ResNet-110} & Vanilla & 17.7& $\infty$&$\infty$\\
& Spectral (SN) & 17.8&10.8 &7.4\\
& SRN-30 & {\bf 17.2}& {\bf 10.7} & {\bf 7.2}\\\cmidrule{2-5}
\multirow{4}{*}{WideResNet-28-10} & Vanilla & 16.2& 14.60&11.18\\
& Spectral (SN) & 16.13& 7.23&4.5\\
& SRN-50 & 15.8& 7.3&4.5\\
& SRN-30 & {\bf 15.7}& {\bf 7.20}&{\bf 4.4}\\\cmidrule{2-5}
\multirow{4}{*}{Densenet-100} & Vanilla &19.2 &$\infty$ &$\infty$\\
& Spectral (SN) &17.8 & 12.2&9.4\\
& SRN-50 &17.6 &12 &9.2\\
& SRN-30 & {\bf 17.7}&{\bf 11.8} &{\bf 9.0}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[Values of 90 percentile of $\log$ complexity measures
from~\cref{fig:compl}]{Values of 90 percentile of $\log$ complexity measures
from~\cref{fig:compl}. Here $\infty$ refers to the situations
where the product of spectral norm blows up. This is the case in deep networks like ResNet-110 and Densenet-100 where the absence of spectral normalization (Vanilla)
allows the product of spectral norm to grow arbitrarily large with an increasing number of layers. Lower is better.}
\label{tab:perc-compl}
\end{table}
{\em The above experiments indicate that SRN, while providing enough capacity for the standard classification task, is remarkably less prone to memorisation and provides improved generalisation.}
\section{Experiments on a discriminative setup}
\label{sec:experiments-srn}
\paragraph{Dataset and architectures} For classification, we perform experiments
on ResNet-110~\citep{HZRS:2016}, WideResNet-28-10~\citep{Zagoruyko2016},
DenseNet-100~\citep{Huang2017}, VGG-19~\citep{simonyan2014very}, and
AlexNet~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning} using the CIFAR100 and
CIFAR10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning} datasets. We train them using standard
training recipes with SGD, using a learning rate of $0.1$~(except AlexNet where
we use a learning rate of $0.01$), and a momentum of $0.9$ with a batch size of
$128$ (further details in Appendix~\ref{sec:expr-settings}). In addition to
training for a fixed number of epochs, we also present results where the
training accuracy~(as opposed to the number of iterations) is used as a stopping
criterion to show that our regulariser performs well with a range of stopping
criteria.
For GAN experiments, we use CIFAR100, CIFAR10, and
CelebA~\citep{liu2015faceattributes} datasets. We show results on both,
conditional and unconditional GANs. Please refer to~\cref{sec:expr-settings} for
further details about the training setup.
\paragraph{Choosing stable rank} Given a matrix $\vec{W} \in \reals^{m \times
n}$, the desired stable rank $r$ is controlled using a single
hyperparameter $c$ as $r = c \; \min(m,n)$, where $c \in (0, 1]$.
For simplicity, we use the same $c$ for all the linear layers.
Note that if $c=1$, or for a given $c$, if $\srank{\vec{W}} \leq r$,
then SRN boils down to SN. For classification, we choose $c = \{0.3, 0.5\}$, and compare SRN against standard
training (Vanilla) and training with \gls{sn}. For GAN experiments, we choose $c = \{0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9\}$, and
compare SRN-GAN against SN-GAN~\citep{miyato2018spectral}, WGAN-GP~\citep{Gulrajani2017}, and orthonormal regularisation GAN
(Ortho-GAN)~\citep{Brock2016}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/r110_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.21\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/wrn_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ WideResNet28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/alex_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.19\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/dens_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/vgg_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ VGG-19}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test accuracies on CIFAR100 with fixed number of training epochs]{Test accuracies on CIFAR100 for clean data using the number of epochs as stopping criterion. Higher is better.}
\label{fig:test-acc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_r110_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_wrn_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WideResNet28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_alex_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_dens_test.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test error on CIFAR10 with fixed number of training epochs]{Test accuracies on CIFAR10 for clean data using the number of epochs as stopping criterion. Higher is better.}
\label{fig:test-acc-epoch-c10}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Classification experiments}\label{sec:gen_exp_results} We perform
each experiment $5$ times using a new random seed each time and report the mean and the $75\%$ confidence interval for the test error. We plot the test accuracy
on CIFAR100 in~\cref{fig:test-acc} and CIFAR10
in~\cref{fig:test-acc-epoch-c10}.
These experiments show that the test accuracy of \gls{srn} on a wide variety
\gls{nn}s is always higher than the Vanilla and SN (except for SRN-50 on
Alexnet where \gls{srn} and \gls{sn} are almost equal). However, \gls{sn}
performs slightly worse than Vanilla for WideResNet-28 and ResNet110. The fact
that \gls{srn} also involves \gls{sn}, combined with the above observation,
indicates that even though \gls{sn} reduced the learning capability of these
networks, normalizing stable rank must have improved it significantly in order
for \gls{srn} to outperform Vanilla. For example, in the case of ResNet110,
\gls{sn} is $71.5\%$ accurate whereas \gls{srn} provides an accuracy of
$73.2\%$. In addition to this, we also note that even though \gls{sn} is used
extensively for the training of GANs, it is not a popular choice when it comes
to training standard \gls{nn}s for classification. We suspect that this is
because of the decrease in performance, we observe here. Hence, as our
experiments indicate that~\Gls{srn} overcomes this,~\Gls{srn} could be a
potentially important regulariser in the classification setting.
\begin{figure}
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/r110_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.21\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/wrn_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WideResNet28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/alex_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.19\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/dens_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/vgg_rand.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{VGG-19}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Shattering Experiments on CIFAR100]{Train accuracies on CIFAR100 for shattering experiment. Lower indicates less memorisation, thus, better.}
\label{fig:rand-acc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_r110_rand.pdf_tex}
\caption{ResNet110}\label{fig:r100-rand-train-c10}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/c10_alex_rand.pdf_tex}
\caption{Alexnet}\label{fig:alex-rand-train-c10}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Shattering experiments on CIFAR10]{Train accuracies on CIFAR10 for shattering experiment. Lower indicates less memorisation, thus, better.}
\label{fig:cifar-10-gen}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Shattering experiments}
Our previous set of experiments established that \gls{srn} provides improved
classification accuracies on various \gls{nn}s. Here we study the generalisation
behaviour of these models. Quantifying generalisation behaviour is non-trivial
and there is no clear answer to it. However, we utilise recent efforts that
explore the theoretical understanding of generalisation to study generalisation
of SRN in practice.
To inspect the generalisation behaviour in \gls{nn}s we begin with the
shattering experiment~\citep{Zhang2016}. It is a test of whether the network can
fit the training data well but not a label-randomised version of it (each image
of the dataset is assigned a random label). As $P\bs{y\vert \vec{x}}$ is
essentially uninformative because it is a uniformly random distribution, there
is no correlation between the labels and the data points. Thus, the best
possible test accuracy on this task~(the test labels would also be randomised)
is approximately $1\%$ on CIFAR100~(\(10\%\) in CIFAR10). A high training
accuracy --- which indicates a high generalisation gap (difference between train
and test accuracy) can be achieved only by memorising the train data. In these
experiments, the training of all models of one architecture are stopped after
the same number of epochs, which is double the number of epochs the model is
trained for on the clean datasets. ~\cref{fig:rand-acc} shows that \gls{srn}
reduces memorisation on random labels~(thus, reduces the estimate of the
Rademacher complexity~\citep{Zhang2016}) on CIFAR100.
In~\cref{fig:cifar-10-gen}, we plot the training accuracy on CIFAR10 and observe
a similar result. Importantly, the same model architectures and training
strategy were able to achieve high test accuracy for the clean dataset in the
previous section.
\subsection*{Training accuracy as stopping criterion}
We used the number of training epochs as our stopping criterion in the previous
experiments. To show that the results hold consistently across different
stopping criteria, we use a different stopping criterion here. In particular, we
use the training accuracy as a stopping criterion here. For ResNet110,
WideResNet-28, Densenet-100, and VGG-19 we use a training accuracy of $99\%$ as
a stopping criterion and report the test accuracy when that training accuracy is
achieved for the first time. For Alexnet, as SRN-30 never achieves a training
accuracy higher than $55\%$, we use $55\%$ as the stopping criterion and plot
the test accuracies in~\cref{fig:test-acc-stop} for CIFAR100. Our results show
that SRN-30 and SRN-50 outperform SN and vanilla consistently. In
Figure~\ref{fig:test-acc-stop-c10}, we show similar results for CIFAR10. As
AlexNet can achieve higher accuracy for CIFAR10, we use $85\%$ as the
stopping criterion for AlexNet on CIFAR10.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/r110_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.21\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/wrn_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WideResNet28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.185\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/alex_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.19\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/dens_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.19\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.99\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/vgg_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ VGG-19}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test error on CIFAR100 with early stopping.]{Test accuracies on CIFAR100 for clean data using a stopping
criterion based on train accuracy. Higher is better.}
\label{fig:test-acc-stop}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\small
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/r110_c10_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ResNet110}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/wrn_c10_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WideResNet-28}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/alex_c10_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Alexnet}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.24\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/dens_c10_gen_stop.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{ Densenet-100}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test Error on CIFAR10 with early stopping]{Test accuracies on CIFAR10 for clean data using a stopping
criterion based on train accuracy. Higher is better.}
\label{fig:test-acc-stop-c10}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Non-generalisable settings}
So far, we have looked at learning with hyper-parameters like learning rate and
weight decay set to values commonly used in training of deep neural networks.
However, these hyper-parameters have been adjusted through years of practice.
This section looks specifically at settings that are known to be highly
non-generalisable --- {\em low learning rate and without weight decay}.
First, we look at a WideResNet-28-10 trained with SRN, SN, and vanilla methods
but with a low learning rate of $0.01$ and a small weight decay of $5\times
10^{-4}$ on randomly labelled CIFAR100 for $50$ epochs. The results, shown
in~\cref{tab:low_lr_wrn}, supports our hypothesis that SRN is more robust to
random noise than SN or vanilla methods even in this highly-non generalisable
setup.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||}\hline
Stable-30&Spectral&Vanilla\\\hline
$\mathbf{29.04}$& $17.24 $ & $1.22$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[Shattering experiment with low-learning rate]{Training error for WideResNet-28-10 on CIFAR100 with randomised
labels, low lr$=0.01$, and with weight decay.~(Higher
is better.)}
\label{tab:low_lr_wrn}
\end{table}
Secondly, we see whether weight decay provides a further edge to generalisation
when used in combination with SRN and SN. As shown in~\cref{tab:low_lr_rnet},
\gls{srn} consistently achieves lower generalisation error~(by achieving a low
train error) both in the presence and the absence of weight
decay.~\Cref{tab:clean-c100-lowlr} shows it also achieves a higher clean test
accuracy for this setting. Thus~\Gls{srn} generalises better even with a low
learning rate and is further benefitted by regularisers like weight decay.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}}\toprule
&SRN-50&SRN-30&Spectral (SN) &Vanilla\\\midrule
WD & $\mathbf{12.02 \pm 1.77}$ &$\mathbf{11.87 \pm 0.57}$ & $\mathbf{11.13 \pm 2.56}$ & $\mathbf{10.56
\pm 2.32}$ \\
w/o WD & $17.71 \pm 2.30$ &$19.04 \pm 4.53$ & $17.22 \pm 1.94$ & $13.49
\pm 1.93$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Shattering experiment with non-generalisable settings on CIFAR100]{{\bf Highly non-generalisable setting}. Training error
for ResNet-110 on CIFAR100 with randomised labels, low lr$=0.01$,
and with and without weight decay.~(Higher is better.)}
\label{tab:low_lr_rnet}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}\toprule
& Vanilla & Spectral & Stable-50 & Stable-30 \\\midrule
W/o WD & $69.2 \pm 0.5$ & $69\pm 0.1$ & $69.1 \pm 0.85$ & $69.3 \pm 0.4$ \\
With WD & $\mathbf{70.4 \pm 0.3}$ & $\mathbf{71.35 \pm 0.25}$ & $\mathbf{70.6 \pm 0.1}$ & $\mathbf{70.6 \pm 0.1}$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption[Clean test accuracy for non-generalisable settings on CIFAR10.]{Clean test accuracy on CIFAR10. The learning configuration
corresponds to the non-generalisable settings with a high learning
rate.}
\label{tab:clean-c100-lowlr}
\end{table}
\subsection{Empirical evaluation of generalisation behaviour}
When all the factors in training~(eg. architecture, dataset, optimiser, among
others) are fixed, and the only variability is in the normalization~(i.e. in SRN
vs SN vs Vanilla), the generalisation error can be written as $
\abs{\mathrm{Train\ Err} - \mathrm{Test\ Err}} \le
\tildeO{\sqrt{\nicefrac{C_{\mathrm{alg}}}{m}}}$ where $\tildeO{\cdot}$ ignores
the logarithmic terms, $m$ is the number of samples in the dataset, and
$C_{\mathrm{alg}}$ denotes a measure of {\em sample complexity} for a given
algorithm i.e. SRN vs SN vs Vanilla. The lower the value of $C_{\mathrm{alg}}$,
the better is the generalisation. This is reminiscent of the basic theorem of
generalisation previously discussed in~\Cref{thm:basic-gen-thm}. In this
section, we measure $C_{\mathrm{alg}}$ as a proxy for measuring generalisation.
First, we restate some of the concepts we had previously discussed
in~\Cref{sec:marg-based-gener-main}. The margin of a network, defined
in~\Cref{defn:margin} at a data point measures the gap in the confidence of the
network between the correct label and the other labels. In the rest of the
section, we will treat $\gamma$ as a random variable depending on the random
variables $\cX$ and $\cY$.
\margin*
We also restate the expressions for $C_{\mathrm{alg}}$ that we used previously in~\Cref{thm:spec-norm-marg-main} and~\Cref{eq:stable-spec-compl}. In addition, we define a new complexity measure from~\citet{wei2019}.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Spec-Fro:}
$\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^L\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^2\sum_{i=1}^L\srank{\vec{W}_i}}{\gamma^2}$~\citep{neyshabur2018a}.
The two quantities used to normalize the margin~($\gamma$) are the product
of spectral norm i.e. $\prod_{i=1}^L\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^2$~(or worst case
lipschitzness) and the sum of stable rank {\em i.e.},
$\sum_{i=1}^L\srank{\vec{W}_i}$~(or an approximate parameter count like rank
of a matrix).
\item \textbf{Spec-L1:} $\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^L\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^2
\br{\sum_{i=1}^L\frac{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_{2,1}^{\nicefrac{2}{3}}}{\norm{\vec{W}_i}_2^{\nicefrac{2}{3}}}}^3}{\gamma^2}$,
where $\norm{.}_{2,1}$ is the matrix 2-1 norm. As showed
by~\citet{bartlett2017spectrally}, Spec-L1 is the spectrally
normalized margin, and unlike just the margin, is a good indicator of the
generalisation properties of a network.
\item \textbf{Jac-Norm:}
$\sum_{i=1}^L\dfrac{\norm{\vec{h}_i}_2\norm{\vec{J}_i}_2}{\gamma}$~\citep{wei2019},
where $\vec{h}_i$ is the $i^{\it th}$ hidden layer and $\vec{J}_i
=\frac{\partial \gamma}{\partial h_i}$ {\em i.e.}, the Jacobian of the
margin with respect to the $i^{\it th}$ hidden layer (thus, a vector). Note,
Jac-Norm depends on the norm of the Jacobian (local empirical \Gls{lip}) and
the norm of the hidden layers, which are additional data-dependent terms
compared to Spec-Fro and Spec-L1.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/jac_gen_rnet110.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{R110-Jac-Norm}\label{fig:r110-jac-comp}
\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_l1_r110.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{R110-Spec-$L_1$}\label{fig:r110-spec-l1-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\textwidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_fro_r110v1.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{R110-Spec-Fro}\label{fig:r110-spec-fro-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/jac_gen_wrn.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WRN-Jac-Norm}\label{fig:wrn-jac-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_l1_wrn.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WRN-Spec-$L_1$}\label{fig:wrn-spec-l1-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\textwidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_fro_wrnv2.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{WRN-Spec-Fro}\label{fig:wrn-spec-fro-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/jac_gen_dens100.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{D100-Jac-Norm}\label{fig:d100-jac-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\linewidth} \input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_l1_dens.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{D100-Spec-$L_1$}\label{fig:d100-spec-l1-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\def0.98\textwidth{0.98\textwidth}
\input{./stable_rank_folder/figs/spec_fro_dens.pdf_tex}
\subcaption{D100-Spec-Fro}\label{fig:d100-spec-fro-comp}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Empirical comparison of generalisation bounds]{($\log$) Sample complexity ($C_{\mathrm{alg}}$) of
~ResNet-110~(\cref{fig:r110-jac-comp,fig:r110-spec-l1-comp,fig:r110-spec-fro-comp}),
WideResNet-28-10~(\cref{fig:wrn-jac-comp,fig:wrn-spec-l1-comp,fig:wrn-spec-fro-comp}),
and Densenet-100~(\cref{fig:d100-jac-comp,fig:d100-spec-l1-comp,fig:d100-spec-fro-comp})
quantified using the three measures discussed in this chapter. Left
is better. Vanilla is omitted
from~\cref{fig:r110-spec-l1-comp,fig:r110-spec-fro-comp,fig:d100-spec-l1-comp,fig:d100-spec-fro-comp}
as it is too far to the right. Also, in situations where SRN-50 and SN performed the same, we removed the histogram to avoid clutter.}
\label{fig:compl}
\end{figure}
We evaluate the above-mentioned sample complexity measures on $10,000$ points
from the dataset and plot the distribution of its $\log$ using a histogram shown
in~\cref{fig:compl}. The more to the left the histogram is, the smaller is the
value of $C_{\mathrm{alg}}$ and thus the better is the generalisation capacity
of the network.
For better clarity, we report the $90$ percentile mark for each of these
histograms in ~\cref{tab:perc-compl}. As the plots and the table shows, both
\gls{srn} and \gls{sn} produces a much smaller complexity measure than a vanilla
network and in 7 out of the 9 cases, SRN is better than SN. The difference
between SRN and SN is much more significant in the case of Jac-Norm. As the
Jac-Norm depends on the empirical lipschitzness, it provides the empirical
validation of our arguments in~\Cref{sec:stable_rank_alg}.
\begin{table}[!htb]\footnotesize
\centering\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{tabular}[t]{C{3cm}C{3cm}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}c@{\quad}}\toprule
Model & Algorithm & Jac-Norm & Spec-$L_1$ & Spec-Fro\\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{ResNet-110} & Vanilla & 17.7& $\infty$&$\infty$\\
& Spectral (SN) & 17.8&10.8 &7.4\\
& SRN-30 & {\bf 17.2}& {\bf 10.7} & {\bf 7.2}\\\cmidrule{2-5}
\multirow{4}{*}{WideResNet-28-10} & Vanilla & 16.2& 14.60&11.18\\
& Spectral (SN) & 16.13& 7.23&4.5\\
& SRN-50 & 15.8& 7.3&4.5\\
& SRN-30 & {\bf 15.7}& {\bf 7.20}&{\bf 4.4}\\\cmidrule{2-5}
\multirow{4}{*}{Densenet-100} & Vanilla &19.2 &$\infty$ &$\infty$\\
& Spectral (SN) &17.8 & 12.2&9.4\\
& SRN-50 &17.6 &12 &9.2\\
& SRN-30 & {\bf 17.7}&{\bf 11.8} &{\bf 9.0}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[Values of 90 percentile of $\log$ complexity measures
from~\cref{fig:compl}]{Values of 90 percentile of $\log$ complexity measures
from~\cref{fig:compl}. Here $\infty$ refers to the situations
where the product of spectral norm blows up. This is the case in deep networks like ResNet-110 and Densenet-100 where the absence of spectral normalization (Vanilla)
allows the product of spectral norm to grow arbitrarily large with an increasing number of layers. Lower is better.}
\label{tab:perc-compl}
\end{table}
{\em The above experiments indicate that SRN, while providing enough capacity for the standard classification task, is remarkably less prone to memorisation and provides improved generalisation.}
\section{Proofs for~\Cref{sec:lipschitz}}
\label{sec:lipsch-proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{lem:upper-bound-nn-lip}]
As mentioned in~\cref{eq:lipLocal}, local lipschitzness of a function $f$ at
$\vec{x}$ is equal to the jacobian at that point i.e. $L_l(\vec{x}) =
\norm{J_f(\vec{x})}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}}$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jacboianNN}
J_f(\vec{x}) = \frac{\partial f\br{\vec{x}}}{\partial \vec{x}} := \frac{\partial \vec{z}_1}{\partial \vec{x}}\frac{\partial \phi_1 (\vec{z}_1)}{\partial \vec{z}_1} \cdots \frac{\partial \vec{z}_L}{\partial \vec{a}_{L-1}}\frac{\partial \phi_L (\vec{z}_L)}{\partial \vec{z}_L}.
\end{align}
Using \( \frac{\partial \vec{z}_i}{\partial \vec{a}_{i-1}} = \vec{W}_i \) where
\( \vec{z}_i \) is the pre-activation vector of the \(i^{\it th}\) layer,
\(\vec{W}_i\) represents the linear operator of the \(i^{\it th}\) layer, and
\(\vec{a}_i=\phi_i\br{\vec{z}_i}\) is the post-activation vector of the \(i^{\it
th}\) layer. By sub-multiplicativity of the matrix norms:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lipboundNN}
\norm{J_f(\vec{x})}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}} \leq \norm{\vec{W}_1}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}} \norm{\frac{\partial \phi_1 (\vec{z}_1)}{\partial \vec{z}_1}} \cdots \norm{\vec{W}_L}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}} \norm{\frac{\partial \phi_L (\vec{z}_l)}{\partial \vec{z}_L}}.
\end{align}
Note, most commonly used activation functions $\phi(.)$ such as ReLU, sigmoid, tanh and maxout are known to have \Gls{lip} constant less than or equal to $1$
Thus, the upper bound can further be written only using the operator norms of the intermediate matrices as
\begin{align}\label{eq:lip_upp_bnd_app}
L_l(\vec{x}) \leq \norm{J_f(\vec{x})}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}} \leq \norm{\vec{W}_L}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}} \cdots \norm{\vec{W}_1}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}}
\end{align}%
As this upper bound is independent of the data point \(\vec{x}\), this is also equal to the local lipschitz constant of $f$.
\begin{align*}
L_l = \mathrm{max}_{\vec{x}} L_l\br{\vec{x}} \le \norm{\vec{W}_L}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}} \cdots \norm{\vec{W}_1}_{p,q}^{\mathrm{op}}
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{prop:empiricalLocalLip}]
Let $f:\reals^d\rightarrow \reals$ be a differentiable function on an
open set containing $\vec{x}_i$ and $\vec{x}_j$ such that
$\vec{x}_i\neq\vec{x}_j$. By applying fundamental theorem of calculus
\begin{align}
\abs{f\br{\vec{x}_i} - f\br{\vec{x}_j}} &= \abs{\int_{0}^1\nabla f\br{\vec{x}_i+\theta\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}^\top\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}\partial\theta} \nonumber \\
&\le\overset{(a)}{\le} \int_{0}^1\abs{\nabla f\br{\vec{x}_i+\theta\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}^\top\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}\partial\theta \nonumber\\
&\overset{(b)}{\le} \int_{0}^1\norm{\nabla f\br{\vec{x}_i+\theta\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}}_q\norm{\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}_p\partial\theta \nonumber\\
&\le \int_{0}^1\max_{\theta\in\br{0, 1}}\norm{\nabla f\br{\vec{x}_i+\theta\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}}_q\norm{\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}_p\partial\theta \nonumber \\
&=\max_{\theta\in\br{0, 1}}\norm{\nabla f\br{\vec{x}_i+\theta\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}}_q\norm{\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}_p \int_{0}^1\partial\theta \nonumber \\
\therefore \dfrac{\abs{f\br{\vec{x}_i} - f\br{\vec{x}_j}}}{\norm{\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}_p}&\le\max_{\theta\in\br{0, 1}}\norm{\nabla f\br{\vec{x}_i+\theta\br{\vec{x}_j-\vec{x}_i}}}_q = \max_{\vec{x}\in \textit{Conv}\;(\vec{x}_i, \vec{x}_j)}\norm{\nabla f\br{\vec{x}}}_q. \nonumber
\end{align}
The inequality (a) is due to Jensen's Inequality~(\Cref{ineq:ineq-jensen})
and inequality (b) is due to H\"{o}lder's
inequality~(\Cref{lem:holders_inequality}).
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs for~\Cref{sec:optimalSrank}}
\label{sec:srankProof}
\subsection*{Proof for Optimal Stable Rank Normalization.~(Main Theorem)}
\begin{proof}
Here we provide the proof of~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal} for all the three cases with optimality and uniqueness
guarantees. Let $\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$ be the optimal solution to
the problem for any of the two cases.
From~\Cref{lem:opt-frobenius}, the $\mathrm{SVD}$ of $\vec{W}$ and
$\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$ can be written as
$\vec{W}=\vec{U}\Sigma\vec{V}^\top$ and
$\widehat{\vec{W}}_k=\vec{U}\Lambda\vec{V}^\top$, respectively.
Then, \( L = \norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_k}_{\forb}^2 =
\ip{\Sigma - \Lambda}{\Sigma - \Lambda}_{\forb} \). From now
onwards, we denote $\Sigma$ and $\Lambda$ as vectors consisting of
the diagonal entries, and $\ip{.}{.}$ as the vector inner product
\footnote{$\ip{.}{.}_\forb$ represents the Frobenius inner product
of two matrices, which in the case of diagonal matrices is the same
as the inner product of the diagonal vectors.}.
\paragraph{Proof for Case (a):}
In this case, there is no constraint enforced to preserve any of the singular values of the given matrix while obtaining the new one. The only constraint is that the new matrix should have the stable rank of $r$. Let us assume $\Sigma = \br{\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p}$, $\Sigma_2 = \br{\sigma_2, \cdots, \sigma_p}$, $\Lambda = \br{\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_p}$ and $\Lambda_2 = \br{\lambda_2, \cdots, \lambda_p}$. Using these notations, we can write $L$ as:
\begin{align}
L &=\ip{\Sigma}{\Sigma} + \ip{\Lambda}{\Lambda} - 2\ip{\Sigma}{\Lambda}\nonumber\\
\label{eq:l1}
&= \ip{\Sigma}{\Sigma} + \lambda_1^2 + \ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2} - 2\sigma_1\lambda_1 - 2\ip{\Sigma_2}{\Lambda_2}
\end{align}
\noindent Using the stable rank constraint
$\srank{\widehat{\vec{W}}_k} = r$, which is \(r = 1 +
\dfrac{\sum_{j=2}^p\lambda_j^2}{\lambda_1^2} \).
\paragraph{Case for $\mathbf{r>1}$} If $r>1$ we obtain the following equality constraint, making the
problem non-convex.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lambda1}
\lambda_1^2 = \dfrac{\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2}}{r - 1}
\end{align}
However, we will show that the solution we obtain is optimal and
unique. Substituting~\cref{eq:lambda1} into~\cref{eq:l1} we get
\begin{align}
\label{eq:l2}
L = \ip{\Sigma}{\Sigma} + \dfrac{\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2}}{r - 1} + \ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2} - 2\sigma_1\sqrt{\dfrac{\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2}}{r - 1}} - 2\ip{\Sigma_2}{\Lambda_2}
\end{align}
Setting $\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda_2} = 0$ to get the family of critical points
\begin{align}
& \dfrac{2\Lambda_2}{r - 1} + 2\Lambda_2 - \dfrac{ 4\sigma_1\Lambda_2}{2\sqrt{\br{r - 1}\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2}}} - 2\Sigma_2\nonumber = 0\\
& \implies \Sigma_2 = \Lambda_2\br{\dfrac{1}{r - 1} + 1 - \dfrac{
\sigma_1}{ 1\sqrt{\br{r - 1}\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2}}}
}\label{eq:scalar_mult}\\
&\implies \dfrac{\Sigma_2\bs{i}}{\lambda_2\bs{i}} = \br{\dfrac{1}{r - 1} + 1 - \dfrac{ \sigma_1}{ 1\sqrt{\br{r -
1}\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2}}}} = \dfrac{1}{\gamma_2} \quad \forall~1\le i\le p\label{eq:Scalar_mult}
\end{align}
As the R.H.S. of~\ref{eq:Scalar_mult} is independent of $i$, the above
equality implies that all the critical points of~\cref{eq:l2} are a
scalar multiple of $\Sigma_2$, implying, $\Lambda_2 = \gamma_2
\Sigma_2$. Note that the domain of $\Lambda_2$ are all strictly
positive vectors and thus, we can ignore the critical point at
$\Lambda_2 = \vec{0}$. Substituting this into~\cref{eq:scalar_mult} we
obtain
\begin{align*}
& \Sigma_2 = \gamma_2\Sigma_2\br{\dfrac{1}{r - 1} + 1 - \dfrac{ \sigma_1}{ \gamma_2\sqrt{\br{r - 1}\ip{\Sigma_2}{\Sigma_2}}} }
\end{align*}
\noindent Using the fact that $\ip{\Sigma_2}{\Sigma_2} =
\norm{\vec{S}_2}_{\forb}^2$ in the above equality and with some
algebraic manipulations, we obtain \( \gamma_2 = \frac{\gamma + r -
1}{r} \) where, $\gamma = \frac{\sqrt{r-1}
\sigma_1}{\norm{\vec{S}_2}_\forb}$. Note, $r \geq 1$, $\gamma \geq 0$,
and $\Sigma \geq 0$, implying, $\Lambda_2 = \gamma_2 \Sigma_2 \geq 0$.
\paragraph{Local minima:} Now, we will show that $\Lambda_2$ is indeed
a minima of~\cref{eq:l2}. To show this, we compute the hessian of
$L$. Recall that
\begin{align*}
\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda} &= \dfrac{2r}{r - 1}\Lambda
-\dfrac{
2\sigma_1\Lambda}{\sqrt{\br{r
- 1}\norm{\Lambda}_2^2}} -
2\Sigma_2\\
\vec{H}=\dfrac{\partial^2 L}{\partial^2 \Lambda} &= \dfrac{2r}{r -
1}\vec{I} -\dfrac{
2\sigma_1}{\sqrt{\br{r -
1}}\norm{\Lambda}_2^2}\br{\norm{\Lambda}_2
\vec{I} - \dfrac{1}{\norm{\Lambda}_2}\Lambda\Lambda^\top}\\
&= 2\br{\dfrac{r}{r-1} - \dfrac{
\sigma_1\norm{\Lambda}_2}{\sqrt{\br{r -
1}}\norm{\Lambda}_2^2}
}\vec{I}+
\dfrac{2\sigma_1}{\sqrt{r-1}\norm{\Lambda}_2^3}\br{\Lambda\Lambda^\top}\\
\end{align*}
Now we need to show that $\vec{H}$ at the solution $\Lambda_2$ is PSD i.e.
$\forall~\vec{x}\in\reals^{p-1},\enskip \vec{x}^\top\vec{H\br{\Lambda_2}} \vec{x}\ge
0$
\begin{align*}
\vec{x}^\top\vec{H} \vec{x} &= 2\br{\dfrac{r}{r-1} - \dfrac{
\sigma_1\norm{\Lambda}_2}{\sqrt{\br{r -
1}}\norm{\Lambda}_2^2}
}\norm{\vec{x}_2^2}+
\dfrac{2\sigma_1}{\sqrt{r-1}\norm{\Lambda}_2^3}\vec{x}^\top\br{\Lambda\Lambda^\top}\vec{x}\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\ge} 2\br{\dfrac{r}{r-1} - \dfrac{
\sigma_1\norm{\Lambda}_2}{\sqrt{\br{r -
1}}\norm{\Lambda}_2^2}
}\norm{\vec{x}}_2^2 \\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\ge} 2\br{\dfrac{r}{r-1} - \dfrac{
\sigma_1}{\br{r -
1}\lambda_1}
}\norm{\vec{x}}_2^2
\stackrel{(c)}{=} \dfrac{2r}{r-1}\br{ 1 - \dfrac{
\gamma }{\br{\gamma+r - 1}}
}\norm{\vec{x}}_2^2 \\
&\stackrel{(d)}{\ge} \dfrac{2r}{r-1}\br{ 1 - \dfrac{
1 }{\br{1+r - 1}}
}\norm{\vec{x}}_2^2 = 2\norm{\vec{x}}_2^2\ge 0
\end{align*}
Here $(a)$ is due to the fact that the matrix $\Lambda\Lambda^\top$ is an outer
product matrix and is hence PSD~(see~\Cref{lem:outer-prod-psd}). $(b)$ follows
due to~\cref{eq:lambda1} and $(c)$ follows by substituting $\lambda_1 =
\gamma_1\sigma_1$ and then the value of $\gamma_1$. Finally $(d)$ follows as
$\br{ 1 - \dfrac{\gamma }{\br{\gamma+r - 1}}}$ is decreasing with respect to
$\gamma$ and we know that $\gamma< 1$ due to the assumption that
$\srank{\vec{W}}< r$. Thus, we can substitute $\gamma = 1$ to find the minimum
value of the expression. This concludes our proof that $\Lambda_2$ is indeed a
local minima of $L$.
\paragraph{Uniqueness:} The uniqueness of $\Lambda_2$ as a
solution to ~\cref{eq:l2} is shown
in~\Cref{lem:uniqueness} and is also guaranteed by the fact that
$\gamma_2$ has a unique value. Using $\Lambda_2 = \gamma_2 \Sigma_2$ and
$\lambda_1 = \gamma_1\sigma_1$ in~\cref{eq:lambda1}, we obtain a
unique solution $\gamma_1 = \frac{\gamma_2}{\gamma}$.
Now, we need to show that it is also an unique solution
to~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal}.
For all solutions to~\Cref{thm:srankOptimal} that have singular
vectors which are different than that of $\vec{W}$,
by~\Cref{lem:opt-frobenius}, the matrix formed by replacing the
singular vectors of the solution with that of $\vec{W}$ is also a
solution. Thus, if there were a solution with different singular
values than $\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$, it should have appeared as a solution
to~\cref{eq:l2}. However, we have shown that~\cref{eq:l2} has a unique
solution.
Now, we need to show that among all matrices with the same singular
values as that of $\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$, $\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$ is
strictly better in terms of $\norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_k}$
. This requires a further assumption that every non-zero singular
value of $\Lambda_2$ has a multiplicity of $1$ i.e. they are all distinctly unique. Intuitively, this
doesn't allow to create a different matrix by simply interchanging the
singular vectors associated with the equal singular values. As the elements of $\Sigma_2$ are
distinct, the elements of $\Lambda_2 = \gamma_2\Sigma_2$ are also
distinct and thus by the second part of~\Cref{lem:opt-frobenius},
$\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$ is strictly better, in terms of
$\norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_k}$, than all matrices which have the same
singular values as that of $\widehat{\vec{W}_k}$. This concludes our
discussion on the uniqueness of the solution.
\paragraph{Case for $\mathbf{r=1}$:}
Substituting $r=1$ in the
constraint \(r = 1 + \dfrac{\sum_{j=2}^p\lambda_j^2}{\lambda_1^2}
\) we get \[ r - 1 =
\dfrac{\sum_{j=2}^p\lambda_j^2}{\lambda_1^2} = 0 \implies
\sum_{j=2}^p\lambda_j^2=0\] As it is a sum of squares, each of the
individual elements is also zero i.e. $\lambda_j=0~\forall 2\le j\le
p$. Substituting this into ~\cref{eq:l1}, we get the following quadratic
equation in $\lambda_1$
\begin{equation}
L = \ip{\Sigma}{\Sigma} + \lambda_1^2 - 2\sigma_1\lambda_1\label{eq:ll0}
\end{equation}
which is minimised at
$\lambda_1 = \sigma_1$, thus proving that $\gamma_1 = 1$ and $\gamma_2
= 0$.
\paragraph{Proof for Case (b):} In this case, the constraints are meant to preserve the top $k$ singular values of the given matrix while obtaining the new one. Let $\Sigma_1 = \br{\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_k},~\Sigma_2 = \br{\sigma_{k+1}, \cdots, \sigma_p},~\Lambda_1 = \br{\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_{k}},~\Lambda_2 = \br{\lambda_{k+1}, \cdots, \lambda_p}$. Since satisfying all the constraints imply $\Sigma_1 = \Lambda_1$, thus, \( L := \norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_k}_{\forb}^2 = \ip{\Sigma_2 - \Lambda_2}{\Sigma_2 - \Lambda_2}\). From the stable rank constraint $\srank{\widehat{\vec{W}}_k} = r$, we have
\begin{align}
r &= \dfrac{\ip{\Lambda_1}{\Lambda_1}+\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2}}{\lambda_1^2}\nonumber\\
\therefore \; \; \ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2} &= r\lambda_1^2 - \ip{\Lambda_1}{\Lambda_1} = r\sigma_1^2 - \ip{\Sigma_1}{\Sigma_1}\label{eq:stable_const}
\end{align}
The above equality constraint makes the problem non-convex. Thus, we relax it to \( \srank{\widehat{\vec{W}}_k} \leq r \) to make it a convex problem and show that the optimality is achieved with equality. Let \( r\sigma_1^2 - \ip{\Sigma_1}{\Sigma_1} = \eta \). Then, the relaxed problem can be written as
\begin{align*}
&\min_{\Lambda_2\in\reals^{p-k}} L:=\ip{\Sigma_2 - \Lambda_2}{\Sigma_2 - \Lambda_2} \\
& \mathrm{s.t.} \quad \Lambda_2 \geq 0, \ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2} \leq \eta.
\end{align*}
We introduce the Lagrangian dual variables $\Gamma \in \reals^{p - k}$ and $\mu$ corresponding to the positivity and the stable rank constraints, respectively. The Lagrangian can then be written as
\begin{align}
\cL\br{\Lambda_2, \Gamma, \mu}_{\Gamma\ge \vec{0}, \mu \geq 0} = \ip{\Sigma_2 - \Lambda_2}{\Sigma_2 - \Lambda_2} + \mu\br{\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2} - \eta} - \ip{\Gamma}{\Lambda_2}
\end{align}
Using the primal optimality condition \( \dfrac{\partial \cL}{\partial \Lambda_2} = \vec{0} \), we obtain
\begin{align}
& 2\Lambda_2 - 2\Sigma_2 + 2\mu\Lambda_2 - \Gamma = \vec{0} \nonumber\\
& \implies \Lambda_2 = \dfrac{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2}{2\br{1 + \mu}}\label{eq:subst_lambda2}
\end{align}
Using the above condition on $\Lambda_2$ with the constraint $\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2} \leq \eta$, combined with the stable rank constraint of the given matrix $\vec{W}$ that comes with the problem definition, $\srank{\vec{W}} > r$ (which implies $\ip{\Sigma_2}{\Sigma_2} > \eta$), the following inequality must be satisfied for any $\Gamma \geq 0$
\begin{align}
1 < \frac{\ip{\Sigma_2}{\Sigma_2}}{\eta} \leq \frac{\ip{\Gamma + \Sigma_2}{\Gamma + \Sigma_2}}{\eta} \leq (1+\mu)^2
\end{align}
For the above inequality to satisfy, the dual variable $\mu$ must be greater than zero, implying, $\ip{\Lambda_2}{\Lambda_2} - \eta$ must be zero for the complementary slackness to satisfy. Using this with the optimality condition~\cref{eq:subst_lambda2} we obtain
\begin{align}
\br{1 + \mu}^2 &= \dfrac{\ip{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2}{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2}}{4\eta} \nonumber
\end{align}
Substituting the above solution back into the primal optimality condition we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lambda_gamma}
\Lambda_2 = \br{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2} \dfrac{\sqrt{\eta}}{\sqrt{\ip{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2}{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2}}}
\end{equation}
Finally, we use the complimentary slackness condition $\Gamma\odot\Lambda_2 = \vec{0}$\footnote{$\odot$ is the hadamard product} to get rid of the dual variable $\Gamma$ as follows
\begin{align*}
\Gamma \odot\br{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2}\dfrac{\sqrt{\eta}}{\sqrt{\ip{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2}{\Gamma + 2\Sigma_2}}} &= \vec{0}
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that the above condition is satisfied only when $\Gamma = \vec{0}$ as $\Sigma_2\ge\vec{0}$ and $\eta > 0$. Therefore, using $\Gamma = \vec{0}$ in~\cref{eq:lambda_gamma} we obtain the optimal solution of $\Lambda_2$ as
\begin{align}
\Lambda_2 = \dfrac{\sqrt{\eta}}{\sqrt{\ip{\Sigma_2}{\Sigma_2}}} \Sigma_2 = \frac{\sqrt{r\sigma_1^2 - \norm{\vec{S}_1}_\forb^2}}{\norm{\vec{S}_2}_\forb^2}\Sigma_2 = \gamma \Sigma_2
\end{align}
\paragraph{Proof for Case (c):} The monotonicity of \(\norm{\widehat{\vec{W}}w_k - \vec{W}}_\forb \) for $k\geq 1$ is shown in~\Cref{lem:monotonicityK}.
\end{proof}
Note that by the assumption that $\srank{\vec{W}}<r$, we can say that $\gamma <1$. Therefore in all the cases $\gamma_2<1$. Let us look at the required conditions for $\gamma_1\ge 1$ to hold. When $k\geq 1$, $\gamma_1 = 1$ holds. When $k=0$, for $\gamma_1> 1$ to be true, $\gamma_2< \gamma$ should hold, implying, $\br{\gamma - 1} < r\br{\gamma -1}$, which is always true as $r >1$ (by the definition of stable rank).
\begin{lem}[Monotoncity of Solutions \wrt the partitioning index]
\label{lem:monotonicityK}
For $k\geq 1$, the solution to the optimisation
problem~\cref{eq:srankProblem} obtained using
Theorem~\ref{thm:srankOptimal} is closest to the original matrix
$\vec{W}$ in terms of Frobenius norm when only the spectral norm is
preserved, implying, $k=1$.
\begin{proof}
For a given matrix $\vec{W}$ and a partitioning index $k \in \{1, \cdots, p\}$, let $\widehat{\vec{W}}_k = \vec{S}_1^k + \gamma \vec{S}_2^k$ be the matrix obtained using Theorem~\ref{thm:srankOptimal}. We use the superscript $k$ along with $\vec{S}_1$ and $\vec{S}_2$ to denote that this refers to the particular solution of $\widehat{\vec{W}}_k$. Plugging the value of $\gamma$ and using the fact that $\norm{\vec{S}_2^k}_\forb \neq 0$, we can write
\begin{align*} \norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_k}_\forb &= \br{1 - \gamma}\norm{\vec{S}_2^k}_\forb\\
&= \norm{\vec{S}_2^k}_\forb - \sqrt{r\sigma_1^2 - \norm{\vec{S}_1^k}_\forb^2}\\
&= \norm{\vec{S}_2^k}_\forb - \sqrt{r\sigma_1^2 - \norm{\vec{W}}_\forb^2+ \norm{\vec{S}_2^k}_\forb^2}.
\end{align*}
Thus, $\norm{\vec{W} - \widehat{\vec{W}}_k}_\forb$ can be written in a simplified form as $f(x) = x - \sqrt{a + x^2}$, where $x = \norm{\vec{S}_2^k}_\forb$ and $a = r\sigma_1^2 - \norm{\vec{W}}_\forb^2$. Note, $a \leq 0$ as $ 1 \leq r \leq \srank{\vec{W}}$, and $a + x^2 \geq 0$ because of the condition in \Cref{thm:srankOptimal}. Under these settings, it is trivial to verify that $f$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $x$. Using the fact that as the partition index $k$ increases, $x$ decreases, it is straightforward to conclude that the minimum of $f(x)$ is obtained at $k=1$.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\subsection*{Auxiliary Lemmas}
\label{sec:auxLemmas}
\begin{lemL}[Reproduced from Theorem~5 in~\citet{mirsky1960symmetric}]\label{lem:ineq:frob_sing}
For any two matrices $\vec{A},{\vec{B}}\in\reals^{m\times n}$ with singular values as $\sigma_1 \geq \cdots \geq \sigma_n$ and $\rho_1 \geq \cdots \geq \rho_n$, respectively
\[\norm{\vec{A}-\vec{B}}_{\forb}^2 \ge \sum_{i=1}^n\br{\sigma_i - \rho_i}^2\]
\end{lemL}
\begin{proof}
Consider the following symmetric matrices \[
\vec{X}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec{0} & \vec{A}\\
\vec{A}^\top & \vec{0}
\end{bmatrix},
\vec{Y}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec{0} & \vec{B}\\
\vec{B}^\top & \vec{0}
\end{bmatrix},
\vec{Z}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec{0} & \vec{A-B}\\
\vec{(A-B)}^\top & \vec{0}
\end{bmatrix}
\]
Let $\tau_1 \geq \cdots \geq \tau_n$ be the singular values of $\vec{Z}$. Then the set of characteristic roots of $\vec{X},\vec{Y}$ and $\vec{Z}$ in descending order are \(\bc{\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n,-\rho_n,\cdots,-\rho_1}\), \(\bc{\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_n,-\sigma_n,\cdots,-\sigma_1} \), and \(\bc{\tau_1,\cdots,\tau_n,-\tau_n,\cdots,-\tau_1}\), respectively.
By Lemma~2 in~\citet{Wielandt1955}
\[\bs{\sigma_1 - \rho_1, \cdots, \sigma_n - \rho_n, \rho_n - \sigma_n, \cdots, \rho_1 - \sigma_1}\preceq \bs{\tau_1,\cdots\tau_n,-\tau_n, -\tau_1},\]
which implies that \begin{equation}\label{ineq:wielandt}
\sum_{i=1}^n\br{\sigma_i - \rho_i}^2 \le \sum_{i=1}^n \tau_i^2 =
\norm{\vec{A}-\vec{B}}_{\forb}^2
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}[Minimisation wrt Frobenius Norm requires singular values only]
\label{lem:opt-frobenius}
Let $\vec{A},\vec{B} \in \reals^{m\times n}$ where $ \mathrm{SVD}(\vec{A})=\vec{U}\Sigma\vec{V}^\top$ and $\vec{B}$ is the solution to the following problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:stable_rank_opt_copy}
\vec{B} = \argmin_{\srank{\vec{W}}= r}\norm{\vec{W}-\vec{A}}^2_\forb.
\end{equation}
Then, $\mathrm{SVD}\br{\vec{B}} = \vec{U}\Lambda\vec{V}^\top$ where $\Lambda$ is a diagonal matrix with non-negative entries. Implying, $\vec{A}$ and $\vec{B}$ will have the same singular vectors.
\begin{proof}
Let us assume that $\vec{Z} = \vec{S}\Lambda\vec{T}^\top$ is
a solution to the problem~\ref{eq:stable_rank_opt_copy} where
$\vec{S}\neq\vec{U}$ and $\vec{T}\neq\vec{V}$. Trivially,
$\vec{X} = \vec{U}\Lambda\vec{V}^\top$ also lies in the feasible set
as it satisfies $\srank{\vec{X}}= r$~(note stable rank only depends on
the singular values). Using the fact that the Frobenius norm is invariant to
unitary transformations, we can write $\norm{\vec{A}-\vec{X}}_{\forb}^2 = \norm{\vec{U}\br{\Sigma
- \Lambda}\vec{V}^\top}_{\forb}^2 = \norm{\br{\Sigma -
\Lambda}}_{\forb}^2$. Combining this with ~\Cref{lem:ineq:frob_sing}, we obtain
\(\norm{\vec{A}-\vec{X}}_{\forb}^2 = \norm{\br{\Sigma -
\Lambda}}_{\forb}^2 \le \norm{\vec{A}-\vec{Z}}_{\forb}^2
\).
Since,~$\vec{S}\neq\vec{U}$ and $\vec{T}\neq\vec{V}$, we can further
change $\le$ to a strict inequality $<$. This completes the proof.
Generally speaking, the optimal solution to
problem~\ref{eq:stable_rank_opt_copy} with constraints depending only
on the singular values (\eg stable rank in this case) will
have the same singular vectors as that of the original matrix.
Further the inequality in~\cref{ineq:wielandt} can be converted into a
strict inequality if neither of $\vec{A}$ and $\vec{B}$ have repeated
singular values.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
\begin{proposition}
\label{lem:uniqueness}
Let $\vec{y}_1 = a \vec{x}_1 + b \hat{\vec{x}}_1$ and $\vec{y}_2 = a \vec{x}_2 + b \hat{\vec{x}}_2$, where $\hat{\vec{x}}_1$ and $\hat{\vec{x}}_2$ denotes the unit vectors. Then, $\vec{y}_1 = \vec{y}_2$ if $\vec{x}_1 = \vec{x}_2$.
\end{proposition}
|
\section{Introduction}
Kepler space telescope data have been fundamental in advances in
asteroseismology. The original mission (K1) concluded with four years of
nearly-uninterrupted single-instrument data. No comparable data set
has ever previously been obtained. Kepler data do not suffer from
daytime gaps nor differing instrumentation or observing sites trying
to use multiple Earth longitudes to obtain complete coverage. There are
no atmospheric effects and no Earth-orbiting complications (such as
the South Atlantic Anomaly). The follow-on mission, K2, has similarly
obtained heretofore unobtainable data sets, though of shorter (typically
about 80 days) duration. The K2 mission observed 20 fields
in the ecliptic plane, ingeniously
using solar pressure to aid with pointing stability \citep{howell14a}.
Those data have resulted in nearly 1,600 publications on astrophysics
unrelated to Kepler's primary mission of discovering planets.
An important area of contribution is asteroseismology. Asteroseismology
uses pulsations to discern stellar structure and evolution. Prior to
Kepler, horizontal branch asteroseismology, where we can explore
compact, evolved cores undergoing helium fusion, was more effort than
result. There were debates whether oscillations had been detected at all in
red clump stars (solar-like oscillations)
Amongst hot extreme horizontal branch stars, observations had done little to identify modes and hence
constrain models.
Significant effort was expended trying to identify pulsation
modes in pulsating sdB (sdBV) stars using follow-up longer-duration
photometry \citep[e.g.][]{reed07b}, multicolour photometry \citep[e.g.][]{randall06},
and time-resolved spectroscopy \citep[e.g.][]{baran10b}, with limited success. In large part, this was due to
ground-based observations' low-duty-cycle (typically $<30$\% coverage)
or limited duration on larger facilities. Kepler and K2's unique
data sets allowed observers to finally fully exploit these stars' pulsations
with seismic analyses.
Subdwarf B stars pulsate in both pressure (p) and gravity (g) modes; with the
hotter stars primarily p-mode dominated and the
cooler stars predominantly
g-mode-dominated pulsators. Typical p modes have periods of a few
minutes with amplitudes rarely above 10 parts-per-thousand (ppt) while
g modes have longer periods, typically 1-4\,hours, with slightly lower
amplitudes. The variable star classifications for sdBV stars are
V361\,Hya for p mode pulsators \citep{kilkenny97},
V1093\,Her for g mode pulsators \citep{green03}, and DW\,Lyn \citep{schuh06}
for hybrid pulsators which pulsate in both p and g modes. These classifications
have become less distinct as the majority of Kepler-observed sdBV stars have both types of pulsations.
DW\,Lyn as a hybrid has two strong p-mode pulsations and only one g-mode pulsation
yet for most of the Kepler-observed sdBV stars, the situation is reversed with more g modes observed
than p modes. To distinguish which type of pulsation is dominant (in amplitude and number of
detected pulsation perodicities), in this paper we use p+g and
g+p for p and g-mode dominated hybrid pulsators, respectively.
For a review of sdB and sdO stars, see \citet{heber16},
which includes some early Kepler results.
Seismic discoveries using K1 and K2 data obtained for sdBV stars include
mode identifications using asymptotic g-mode-overtone period spacings
\citep{reed11c} and rotationally-induced frequency multiplets \citep{baran12a}.
These two methods have provided around two thousand identified modes;
to date, \emph{every} Kepler-observed sdBV star which has been analyzed
has had the majority of its periodicities associated with pulsation
modes (where $n$ represents radial overtones, $\ell$ the number of
surface nodes, and $m$ the azimuthal surface nodes). The most recent review of
Kepler results for sdBV stars is \citet{mdr_sdob8} and we examine group
properties in \S 4.
In this paper we analyze four sdBV stars discovered during K2's Campaign 7 (C7)
and place them in context with what has been detected so far.
EPIC\,215776487\, (2MASS\,19413850-2333426, GALEX J194138.5-233342) has $K_M=16.3$,
EPIC\,217280630\, (GALEX J191534.6-205107) has $K_M=16.3$,
EPIC\,218366972\, (2MASS\,19345376-1855522, GALEX J193453.7-185552) has $K_M=15.9$, and
EPIC\,218717602\, (2MASS\,19334689-1817137, GALEX J193346.9-181713) has $K_M=15.8$
These four stars were part of our K2 Guest Observer program which observed
nine stars during C7, with these four pulsating. None of these stars were previously
known to pulsate, making them new discoveries.
In \S 4 we will discuss how these stars fit with what has been
learned from Kepler and published TESS \citep[Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite][]{tess1}
data to date with a brief review. As this is our
47$^{th}$ paper using Kepler data, and with recent TESS
publications by \citet{charp19,shoaf20}, and \citet{sahoo20},
it is a good time to take an updated examination of group properties.
\section{Spectroscopic observations and results}
As part of our follow-up spectroscopic survey \citep{jhtsdob6},
low-resolution spectra (R $\sim$ 2000) have been collected for EPIC\,215776487,
EPIC\,217280630, EPIC\,218366972, and EPIC\,218717602\,
using the 2.56m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) with ALFOSC, grism \#18
and a 0.5 arcsec slit. We used CCD\#14 giving an approximate wavelength
range of 3450 -- 5350\AA , and a resolution based on the width of arc lines
of 2.2\AA. Exposure times of 900\,s were used for all spectra.
The spectra were reduced and analyzed in the same way. Standard
reduction steps within IRAF include bias subtraction, removal of
pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations, optimal spectral extraction,
and wavelength calibration based on helium arc-lamp spectra. The
target spectra and the mid-exposure times were shifted to the
barycentric frame of the solar system. Radial velocities (RVs) were derived
with the FXCOR package in IRAF. The RVs were
adjusted for the position of the target in the slit, judged from slit
images taken just before and after the spectral exposure.
The spectra of all four targets have the characteristic
appearance of single sdB stars, for which we cannot exclude binarity
with companions of much lower luminosity, such as main-sequence M
stars or white dwarfs. For EPIC\,217280630\, no 2MASS magnitudes are
listed. For the other 3 targets there is no clear near infrared excess observed
(from 2MASS), again indicating single stars. Nevertheless, for
EPIC\,218366972\, we detect clear RV variability (see below).
\subsection{EPIC\,215776487, EPIC\,217280630, and EPIC\,218717602}
For EPIC\,215776487, EPIC\,217280630, and EPIC\,218717602, we determined the RV
with the average spectrum of each target as a template
spectrum. We also used those average spectra to derive the
atmospheric parameters of the stars, and we list these parameters in
Table\,1.
For this purpose we used the fitting procedure of \citet{edel03}
with the metal-line blanketed local thermodynamic
equilibrium (LTE) models of solar composition described in \citet{heber00}.
For EPIC\,215776487\, we obtained nine useful spectra between Oct 2016 and Aug
2017, and achieved a signal-to-noise (S/N) level between 24 and 60
with median S/N=34. The average spectrum has S/N$\approx$100.
The median RV error is $8.4\,{\rm km^{\cdot} s^{-1}}$ and the RV root-mean-square (RMS) of the individual
spectra around the average velocity is $7.1\,{\rm km^{\cdot} s^{-1}}$.
For EPIC\,217280630\, we obtained 10 useful spectra between Jun 2016 and Aug
2017, and achieved a S/N level between 29 and 57
depending on observing conditions, with median S/N=46. The average
spectrum has S/N$\approx$110.
The median RV error is $9.9\,{\rm km^{\cdot} s^{-1}}$ and the RV RMS of the individual
spectra around the average velocity is $10.5\,{\rm km^{\cdot} s^{-1}}$.
For EPIC\,218717602\, we obtained eight useful spectra between Oct 2016 and Aug
2017, and achieved a S/N level between 44 and 74,
with median S/N=68. The average spectrum has S/N$\approx$150.
The median RV error is $5.3\,{\rm km^{\cdot} s^{-1}}$ and the RV RMS of the individual
spectra around the average velocity is $7.8\,{\rm km^{\cdot} s^{-1}}$.
We conclude that for these three targets our RV measurements are
consistent with single stars.
\begin{table}
\label{stable1}
\caption{Results of spectral analysis. Errors on the final digits are given in parentheses.}
\begin{tabular}{lccc} \hline
Star & $T_{\rm eff}$ (K) & $\log g$ (cgs) & $\log \left(\frac{N_{He}}{N_H}\right)$\\
EPIC\,215776487 & 27860(160) & 5.45(2) & -2.718(38)\\
EPIC\,217280630 & 22770(150) & 5.01(2) & -2.104(77)\\
EPIC\,218366972 & 28160(110)& 5.44(2) & -2.862(28)\\
EPIC\,218717602 & 24470(160) & 5.17(2) & -2.633(61)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{ The orbit of EPIC\,218366972}
For EPIC\,218366972\, we obtained 12 useful spectra between Oct 2016 and Oct
2017, and achieved a S/N level between 34 and 71,
with a median S/N=51. The average spectrum has S/N$\approx$140.
For determining the RVs we have first used the average spectrum as a
cross-correlation template, and subsequently a spectral model
(as in Table\,2) as a template.
The median RV error is $7.7\,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$.
We find significant RV variations, and list the orbital solution
obtained while assuming a circular orbit, in Table\,2. With an
orbital-velocity amplitude of $66.3\, {\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$, an orbital period of 5.92
days, and assuming that the companion is an unseen white dwarf, we
derive the following constraints from the mass function. For a
canonical mass of the subdwarf of 0.47 M$_{\odot}$ \citep{vvg2014} the
minimum mass of the WD companion is 0.58 M$_{\odot}$. For an ensemble of
a canonical-mass sdB with a canonical-mass WD (0.6 M$_{\odot}$) the orbital
inclination is 79$^o$. Assuming a mass of 0.3 M$_{\odot}$ for the sdB
the minimum mass of the WD is still 0.48 M$_{\odot}$, and the minimum orbital
separation is 12.6 R$_{\odot}$. Using canonical masses and $i=90^o$, the separation
is 14.3R$_{\odot}$. At that separation and using R$_{\rm sdB}=0.2$R$_{\odot}$,
eclipses would occur for $i>89^0$. No eclipses are observed in the K2 data (\S 3.3)
indicating $i<89^o$.
\begin{table}
\label{spectable2}
\caption{Results of spectral binary analysis for EPIC\,218366972.}
\begin{tabular}{lc} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Solution of RV wrt mean spectrum} \\
Amplitude & $64.01 \pm 3.09\,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$ \\
Period & $5.9190 \pm 0.0021\,$d \\
Reduced $\chi^2$ & 1.408 \\
RMS & $8.8\,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Solution of RV wrt model template} \\
System velocity & $38.12 \pm 3.51 \,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$\\
Amplitude & $66.28 \pm 3.43\,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$ \\
Period & $5.9218 \pm 0.0026$\,d \\
Reduced $\chi^2$ & 0.73 \\
RMS & $8.8\,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Solution of RV wrt model template, with all RV errors set to $9.7\,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$}\\
System velocity & $38.20 \pm 3.15 \,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$\\
Amplitude & $70.95 \pm 4.03 \,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$\\
Period & $ 5.9187 \pm 0.0024$\,d \\
Reduced $\chi^2$ & 1.00 \\
RMS & $7.9\,{\rm km^{\cdot}s^{-1}}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To determine the atmospheric parameters of EPIC\,218366972, we shifted all
individual spectra to remove the orbital velocities, and made an
average orbit-corrected spectrum, to which we applied the same
modelling procedure as described above for the other stars. The fit
results are presented in Table\,1.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=ft4bF7.ps,width=\columnwidth} }
\caption{Fourier transforms of EPIC\,215776487 , EPIC\,217280630 , EPIC\,218366972 , and EPIC\,218717602 .
Horizontal (blue on-line) lines indicate the detection threshold.}
\label{figFT4b}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\label{tabeone}
\caption{Period list for EPIC\,215776487. $^{\dagger}$: This frequency was fitted using
data from days 25-40 of the run only with $\sigma\,=\,0.086$\,ppt.}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc} \hline
ID & Freq & Per & Amp & S/N & $\ell$ & $n$ & $\frac{\Delta P}{P}$ \\
& $\mu$Hz & Sec & ppt & & & & \% \\
f1 & 110.384 (8) & 9059.31 (67) & 0.27 (3) & 7.3 & 1 & 33 & 3.2 \\
f2 & 136.606 (10) & 7320.30 (51) & 0.23 (3) & 6.3 & 1 & 26 & 0.03 \\
f3 & 171.452 (13) & 5832.53 (46) & 0.16 (3) & 4.4 & 1 & 20 & -1.6 \\
f4 & 197.027 (6) & 5075.45 (16) & 0.35 (3) & 9.8 &1/2 & 17/32 & -7.7/-5.3 \\
f5 & 214.565 (10) & 4660.59 (22) & 0.22 (3) & 6.2 &2 & 29 & 4.2 \\
f6 & 221.276 (10) & 4519.24 (21) & 0.22 (3) & 6.2 & 2 & 28 & 5.1 \\
f7 & 258.647 (8) & 3866.28 (12) & 0.27 (3) & 7.6 &1 & 12 & 3.3 \\
f8 & 348.718 (12) & 2867.65 (10) & 0.19 (3) & 5.3 & 1 & 8 & -0.5 \\
f9 & 372.872 (7) & 2681.88 (5) & 0.32 (3) & 9.0& & & \\
f10 & 390.700 (11) & 2559.51 (7) & 0.20 (3) & 5.7 &1 & & \\
f11 & 419.783 (7) & 2382.18 (4) & 0.32 (3) & 9.0 &1/2 & 6/13 & 3.2/8.4 \\
f12$^{\dagger}$ & 1005.921 (71) & 994.11 (7) & 0.41 (7) & 4.8 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\label{tabetwo}
\caption{Period list for EPIC\,217280630. $^{\dagger}$ Values for f6 are from Lorentzian fitting.}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc} \hline
ID & Freq & Per & Amp & S/N & $\ell$ & $n$ & $\frac{\Delta P}{P}$ \\
& $\mu$Hz & Sec & ppt & & & & \% \\
f1 & 60.259 (8) & 16549.39 (2.18) & 0.144 (23) & 6.2 & 1 & 80 & -3.7 \\
sA & 65.295 (12) & 15315.08 (2.81) & 0.140 (22) & 3.9 & 1 & 70 & 1.1 \\
f2 & 75.454 (62) & 13253.04 (10.84) & 0.390 (22) & 11.0 & 1 & 63 & 6.6 \\
f3 & 147.652 (65) & 6772.68 (2.96) & 0.184 (22) & 7.1 & -- & -- & -- \\
f4 & 156.544 (47) & 6387.98 (1.91) & 0.178 (22) & 6.1 & 1 & 28 &-4.3 \\
f5 & 161.638 (54) & 6186.66 (2.06) & 0.153 (22) & 5.9 & 1 & 27 & -1.4 \\
f6$^{\dagger}$ & 285.85 (18) & 3498.31 (2.23) & 0.107 & -- & 1&13& 2.7 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{K2 observations and pulsation analyses}
Campaign 7 spanned 82\,days between 4 October and 26 December, 2015.
Our data are short-cadence observations, with integration times of 58.85\,seconds
which were downloaded from MAST as pixel files. Fluxes were extracted using
aperture photometry and spacecraft artefacts were removed using our
custom process described in \citet{baran16d,ketzerF2}. Temporal spectra
(Fourier transforms, FTs; Fig.\,\ref{figFT4b}) were produced to examine
the pulsations and sliding FTs (SFTs) were produced to examine the
time-stability of the pulsations. The 1.5/T frequency resolution
of these data is
$2.14\,\mu$Hz and to make it unlikely any peak in the FT is due to random
noise requires a S/N of $4.2\sigma$, where $\sigma$
is the average level of the FT. As low frequency noise is more difficult to
remove, $\sigma$ were calculated in frequency regions nearly devoid of pulsations
and linearly interpolated between, where pulsations occur.
\begin{table*}
\label{tabethree}
\caption{Period list for EPIC\,218366972. $^{\dagger}$ frequencies were Lorentzian fitted.
$^{\star}$ indicates mode identifications which are less certain.}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc} \hline
ID & Freq & Per & Amp & S/N & $\ell$ & $n$ & $\frac{\Delta P}{P}$ \\
& $\mu$Hz & Sec & ppt & & & & \% \\
sA & 119.945 (10) & 8337.14 (71) & 0.203 (26) & 4.0 & 1/2 & 29/53 & -0.5 / -6.0 \\
sB & 127.638 (11) & 7834.66 (66) & 0.191 (26) & 3.8 & 1 & 27 & 2.8 \\
sC & 136.773 (11) & 7311.39 (61) & 0.183 (26) & 3.7 &1/2 & 25/46 & -2.1 / -2.9 \\
f04 & 141.552 (07) & 7064.53 (37) & 0.297 (28) & 5.9 & 1 & 24 & 1.3 \\
f05 & 152.926 (4) & 6539.13 (17) & 0.548 (28) & 11.3 & 1 & 22 & -4.4 \\
f06 & 159.091 (8) & 6285.72 (32) & 0.267 (28) & 5.8 & 1/2 & 21/39 & -3.6 / 0.3 \\
sD & 165.698 (10) & 6035.08 (37) & 0.126 (28) & 4.0 & 1 & 20 & -1.7 \\
f08 & 172.580 (4) & 5794.43 (12) & 0.591 (28) & 12.5 & 1 & 19 & 4.1 \\
f09 & 178.679 (10) & 5596.61 (30) & 0.212 (28) & 4.5 & & & \\
f10 & 181.005 (2) & 5524.70 (5) & 1.398 (28) & 29.6 &1 & 18 & -1.5 \\
f11 & 188.826 (3) & 5295.88 (8) & 0.766 (26) & 16.2 & & & \\
f12 & 209.051 (3) & 4783.53 (8) & 0.597 (26) & 13.2 & 1 & 15 & 8.4 \\
f13 & 221.076 (7) & 4523.34 (14) & 0.309 (26) & 6.8 & 1/2 & 14/27 & 6.5 / 3.0 \\
f14 & 236.030 (8) & 4236.75 (15) & 0.252 (26) & 5.8 & 1/2 & 13/25 & -5.7 / 8.3 \\
f15$^{\dagger}$ & 244.74 (23) & 4086.1 (3.8) & 0.16 (--) & -- & 2 & 24 & 5.0 \\
f16 & 249.782 (1) & 4003.48 (1) & 2.742 (26) & 62.3 & 1 & 12 & 3.0 \\
f17 & 254.659 (2) & 3926.82 (4) & 0.832 (26) & 18.9 & 2 & 23 & -2.2 \\
f18 & 264.374 (5) & 3782.51 (7) & 0.439 (26) & 18.9 & 2 & 22 & -0.2 \\
f19 & 267.029 (2) & 3744.92 (3) & 1.020 (28) & 10.0 & 1 & 11 & 1.8 \\
f20 & 275.184 (6) & 3633.94 (8) & 0.370 (28) & 23.2 & 2 & 21 & -1.2 \\
f21 & 278.242 (4) & 3593.99 (5) & 0.637 (28) & 14.4 & & & \\
f22 & 278.543 (3) & 3590.10 (4) & 0.769 (28) & 17.5 & & & \\
f23$^{\dagger}$ & 283.21 (26) & 3531.0 (3.2) & 0.13 (--) & -- & & \\
f24 & 286.534 (3) & 3489.98 (4) & 0.743 (28) & 18.1 & 1/2 & 10/20 & -2.0 / 1.0 \\
f26 & 289.181 (1) & 3458.04 (2) & 1.538 (28) & 37.5 & 1 & 10 & -10.5 \\
f27 & 313.565 (2) & 3189.14 (2) & 1.023 (28) & 25.8 & 1/2 & 9/18 & -0.3 / -3.4 \\
sE & 326.205 (12) & 3065.56 (12) & 0.168 (26) & 4.3 & $^{\star}$2 & 17 & 12.7 \\
f29 & 330.446 (12) & 3026.21 (11) & 0.177 (26) & 4.6 & $^{\star}$2 & 17 & -14.1 \\
f30 & 341.948 (4) & 2924.42 (3) & 0.452 (28) & 11.6 &1 & 8 & 1.1 \\
f31 & 342.134 (5) & 2922.83 (4) & 0.489 (28) & 12.5 & 1 & 8 & 0.5 \\
sF & 360.526 (16) & 2773.73 (12) & 0.129 (26) & 3.9 & & & \\
f33 & 377.650 (10) & 2647.95 (7) & 0.188 (25) & 6.0 & 1 & 7 & -1.9 \\
f34 & 424.882 (13) & 2353.59 (7) & 0.151 (25) & 4.5 & & & \\
f35 & 472.046 (12) & 2118.44 (5) & 0.165 (25) & 5.2 & 1 & 5 & 0.9 \\
f36 & 541.427 (9) & 1846.97 (3) & 0.241 (26) & 7.2 & 1 & 4 & -0.3 \\
sG & 613.733 (13) & 1629.37 (4) & 0.146 (25) & 3.9 & & & \\
sH & 651.577 (12) & 1534.74 (3) & 0.164 (25) & 3.9 & & & \\
sI & 660.887 (16) & 1513.12 (4) & 0.137 (25) & 4.3 & & & \\
sJ & 661.036 (17) & 1512.78 (4) & 0.111 (25) & 4.0 & & & \\
sK & 708.144 (12) & 1412.14 (2) & 0.158 (25) & 4.1 & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\label{tabefour}
\caption{Period list for EPIC\,218717602. $^{\dagger}$ f18 was nlls fitted
using only the first 10 days of data with $\sigma\,=\,0.07$\,ppt.}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc} \hline
ID & Freq & Per & Amp & S/N & $\ell$ & $n$ & $\frac{\Delta P}{P}$ \\
& $\mu$Hz & Sec & ppt & & & & \% \\
f01 & 103.904 (2) & 9624.29 (14) & 1.376 (27) & 40.5 & 1 & 33 & 0.1 \\
f02 & 123.749 (1) & 8080.89 (8) & 1.689 (27) & 49.7 & & & \\
f03 & 124.653 (6) & 8022.30 (40) & 0.293 (27) & 8.6 & 1 & 27 & -8.7 \\
f04 & 128.692 (6) & 7770.48 (39) & 0.371 (27) & 11.0 &1 & 26 & -4.4 \\
f05 & 132.902 (8) & 7524.35 (41) & 0.264 (27) & 7.8 & 1/2 & 25/46 & 2.1/-4.7 \\
f06 & 142.845 (1) & 7000.58 (4) & 2.400 (28) & 70.6 & 1 & 23 & 3.0 \\
f07 & 143.045 (1) & 6990.82 (6) & 1.760 (28) & 51.8 & 1 & 23 & -0.7 \\
f08 & 148.202 (5) & 6747.56 (22) & 0.431 (27) & 12.7 &1 & 22 & 6.9 \\
f09 & 160.668 (5) & 6224.03 (18) & 0.451 (27) & 13.4 & 1 & 20 & 7.9 \\
f10 & 168.133 (1) & 5947.67 (2) & 3.710 (27) & 112.4 & 1 & 19 & 2.9 \\
f11 & 176.074 (1) & 5679.44 (3) & 1.989 (27) & 60.3 & 1 & 18 & 1.0 \\
f12 & 187.938 (1) & 5320.91 (3) & 2.127 (27) & 64.5 & & & \\
f13 & 216.857 (2) & 4611.33 (4) & 1.121 (27) & 35.0 & 1 & 14 & -4.9 \\
f14 & 261.915 (9) & 3818.03 (14) & 0.227 (27) & 7.1 & 1 & 11 & -6.4 \\
f15 & 280.983 (9) & 3558.93 (15) & 0.169 (27) & 5.4 & 1 & 10 & -4.9 \\
f16 & 327.077 (11) & 3057.39 (10) & 0.129 (18) & 4.8 & 1 & 8 & 4.5 \\
f17 & 327.867 (10)& 3050.02 (10) & 0.135 (18) & 5.0 & 1 & 8 & 1.7 \\
f18$^{\dagger}$ & 7876.05 (14) & 126.967 (2) & 0.368 & 5.3 & \\
f19 & 8110.90 (7)& 123.290 (1) & 0.122 (43) & 4.5 & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Three of the four stars are exclusively g mode pulsators with only EPIC\,218717602\, having
two p-mode periodicities. Most of the
pulsations were amplitude and phase
stable, in which case we prewhitened them using non-linear least-squares (nlls)
fitting \citep[e.g.][]{reed04b}. Otherwise, we either Lorentzian fitted the FTs,
using the Lorentzian widths as an
estimator of frequency uncertainty only \citep[e.g.][]{reed14} or prewhitened smaller
sections of data when the pulsations were significantly above the noise. Pulsations we detected are
supplied in Tables\,3 through 6. When the amplitudes were
sufficiently stable for prewhitening, we include the fitting error in
the tables, otherwise we do not.
While C7 spanned 82\,days, to detect rotationally-split frequency multiplets usually requires
two rotations within the observations. For stars where we do not detect frequency
multiplets, we presume a spin period $>45$\,days. Of the 18 K1-observed sdBV stars,
which had multiple years of data, eight (44\%) had spin periods $\geq 45$\,days.
\subsection{Pulsation analyses of EPIC\,215776487}
A total of 12 periodicities were detected above the detection threshold (shown as
a horizontal blue line in Fig.\,\ref{figFT4b}) between 110 and $1006\,\mu$Hz
(994 and 9058\,s). These were all stable in amplitude/frequency and so were
nlls fitted. Their frequencies, periods, amplitudes, and S/N are provided in
Tab.\,3.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=ks_ech2157.ps,angle=-90,width=\textwidth} }
\caption{KS test (left panel) and echelle diagrams (right two panels) for
$\ell\,=\,1$ and 2 asymptotic sequences of EPIC\,215776487 , respectively. In the echelle
diagrams, black circles indicate periods that match the $\ell\,=\,1$ sequence, blue triangles
match the $\ell\,=\,2$ sequence, black circles with a blue surround match both sequences, and red points
do not fit either sequence.}
\label{ks1}
\end{figure*}
For g modes in sdB stars,
typical $\ell =1$ asymptotic period sequences have been found to have spacings ($\Pi_{\ell =1}$)
near 250\,s, and even a cursory differencing of EPIC\,215776487 's periods reveals
similar spacings. In usual fashion, we do a Kolomogorov-Smirnof (KS) test,
which can reveal commonly spaced periods. Very surprisingly for EPIC\,215776487\,
there is no signature trough near 250\,s to indicate the sequence
(left panel of Fig.\,\ref{ks1}). Another tool
used to discover asymptotic period sequences is an echelle diagram. We produced
one with a spacing of 250\,s and the sequence appeared
(middle panel of Fig.\,\ref{ks1}). Using that as our guide,
we found eight periods that are part of the $\ell =1$ sequence and these modes
indicate a
period spacing of $247.3\,\pm\,0.4\,s$. From the $\ell =1$ sequence, an
$\ell =2$ sequence can be calculated from the relation $\Delta \Pi_{\ell =2}
=\Delta \Pi_{\ell =1}/\sqrt{3}$. Two periods were found to fit
the $\ell =2$ sequence and two of the $\ell =1$ periods could also fit the
$\ell =2$ sequence, and are marked accordingly in Tab.\,3.
All but two of the frequencies fit these sequences.
f9 does not fit either sequence, though it is one of the highest-amplitude
periodicities. Perhaps this is a trapped mode, though we cannot confirm
this as our series are not contiguous in $n$, which would be a necessary condition
for finding trapped modes.
There are no evenly-split frequencies indicative of rotationally-split
multiplets and so we cannot determine a rotation period for EPIC\,215776487 . It
is likely longer than our sensitivity, which is about 45\,d.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=ks_ech2172.ps,angle=-90,width=\columnwidth} }
\caption{KS test (left panel) and $\ell =1$ echelle diagram (right panel) for EPIC\,217280630 .
Point shapes and colours (on-line only) as in Fig.\,\ref{ks1}.}
\label{ks2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pulsation analyses of EPIC\,217280630}
We only detect six frequencies in EPIC\,217280630 's data set and two of these are very
low near 60 and 75\,$\mu$Hz, which must be very close to the acoustic cut-off. All
except for f6 were nlls fitted.
A KS test has a significant trough just past 200\,s and the echelle diagram confirms
that sequence (both shown in Fig.\,\ref{ks2}).
An additional low-amplitude peak (labeled sA in Tab.\,4,
which is obvious in the FT, below the detection threshold, but fits the asymptotic
sequence is included in both the figure and the table for EPIC\,217280630 . Linear regression
determines $\Pi_{\ell =1}=207.56\,\pm\,0.26\,s$
for EPIC\,217280630 , with only f3 not fitting
the $\ell =1$ sequence. Like EPIC\,215776487 , this non-sequence periodicity has a fairly high
amplitude (the second highest) and so could represent a trapped $\ell =1$ mode,
though we have no way to confirm this. The sequence has only one contiguous pair,
and so there is no way to search for trapped modes. The period spacing of
207\,s is extreme for a cool (coolest of these four stars),
purely-g-mode pulsator. There are two other sdBV
stars with small $\Pi_{\ell =1}$ values, but they are much hotter, p+g hybrid
pulsators. There are no indicators
of rotationally-induced frequency multiplets which we interpret as a long ($>45\,d)$
rotation period. However, it could also indicate an orientation where the
$m\neq 0$ components are of lower amplitude, and therefore undetected.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=ks_ech2183.ps,angle=-90,width=\textwidth} }
\caption{Same as Fig.\,\ref{ks2} for EPIC\,218366972 .}
\label{ks3}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Pulsation analyses of EPIC\,218366972}
EPIC\,218366972\, is the richest pulsator of the group. We detect 36 periodicities
above the detection limit with another 11 \emph{suspected}. The strongest trough
in the KS test (left panel of Fig.\,\ref{ks3})
is near 250\,s, though it is not especially significant compared
to others. As $\ell =1$ modes have the least geometric cancellation \citep{pes85} and therefore
typically higher amplitudes, we did an amplitude cut at 0.5\,ppt and, with just those periods,
the trough became significant
The echelle diagram (right panel of Fig.\,\ref{ks3}),
spaced at 254\,s, easily shows that sequence, however EPIC\,218366972\,
has a significant ``hook'' feature at lower radial overtones. This has been seen
in several other sdBV stars \citep{baran12c}. We calculated a
period spacing of $254.95\,\pm\,0.50\,s$ with linear regression above the hook,
and then linearly fitted the hook feature for inclusion in Tab.\,5.
We calculated where $\ell =2$ sequence periodicities should occur from the
$\ell =1$ sequence and those that match are labelled as such in Tab.\,5.
Many of the $\ell =1$ modes also match the $\ell =2$ sequence, and since
we cannot distinguish between them, we label them with both. An intriguing feature is how linear
the periods look below the turn of the ``hook'' feature ($<4\,000$\,s). A KS test of just
those periods reveals a broad peak with a central value of 271\,s and folding across that
period produces an echelle with seven periods in line. As such, an alternative view would be
that there is a sequence with periods $>3\,450$\,s with an asymptotic spacing of 254.95\,s and
another at 271\,s up to and including f26 (3\,458\,s).
Surprisingly for so many
frequencies there are no obvious rotationally-induced frequency
multiplets. If EPIC\,218366972\, were tidally locked, a rotation period of 5.9\,d
would be a frequency of about $2.0\mu$Hz and $\ell =1$ modes would have
a separation of half that near $1.0\mu$Hz. There are no frequency splittings
near those values or multiples. The closest we find to a multiplet would be
a possible triplet of f15-f16-f17, which are split by 4.95 and 4.88$\mu$Hz,
respectively. However, those three periods also fit asymptotic sequences, making
that a more likely fit. As such, we do not detect any frequency multiplets
in EPIC\,218366972 . In this case, binarity indicates an orientation favorable for
viewing multiplets, and so we can safely assume that the rotation period is $>45$\,d.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=ks_ech2187.ps,angle=-90,width=\columnwidth} }
\caption{Same as Fig.\,\ref{ks2} for EPIC\,218717602 .}
\label{ks4}
\end{figure}
We can also use the FT to search for a signal from Doppler boosting caused
by the binary motion. Following the method of \citet{telting12a} and using
K$\,=\,67$\,km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$, we calculate a Doppler boosting signal of
0.3\,ppt at $1.96\,\mu$Hz. The final step in our lightcurve processing
removes trends $>1.5$\,days, and so we examined a lightcurve without
this processing step. Unfortunately, the unprocessed lightcurve has low-frequency
noise greater than 0.3\,ppt and so we cannot detect the binary signal using
Doppler boosting. There is also no indication of eclipses in the lightcurve.
\subsection{Pulsation Analyses of EPIC\,218717602}
We were able to prewhiten 19 frequencies for EPIC\,218717602\, and, as is obvious just by
looking at the FT, most of these readily fit into an $\ell =1$ asymptotic
sequence. The KS test shows a very deep trough near 265\,s, which is easily
reproduced in the echelle diagram (both are shown in Fig.\,\ref{ks4}). There is a slight
hook feature, but a linear regression finds a
period spacing of $263.15\,\pm\,0.48\,s$. This sequence includes all but four
of the g modes. Of those, there are two pairs (f02, f03 \& f16,f17)
separated by $0.84\pm 0.08\mu$Hz. If $\ell =1$ (as f03, f16, and f17 fit the sequence)
then this would be a rotation period of about 7\,d. These are not the highest
amplitude pulsations in EPIC\,218717602\, and so the multiplet detection is not secure.
EPIC\,218717602\, also has two p-mode frequencies, with f18 only appearing at the beginning
of the run. However, without any observational
evidence for mode identifications, they do not tell us much. Only that another
quite cool sdB star has p modes (see Tab.\,7 for others).
\section{Examining the group}
Kepler's original mission (K1) observed 18 sdBV stars \citep{roy10b,roy11b} and
K2 observed 139 of our proposed sdB targets in short-cadence mode during its 20 campaigns.
Many K1-observed sdBV stars have over three years, or about 1.5\,million data points,
of observations, while K2 only observed individual fields for roughly 80\,days, resulting
in about 110\,000 data points per target.
While this vast wealth of data takes quite some time to process (particularly
K2 stars for which we have to begin with pixel files), first-look analyses
anticipates about 50 pulsators from K2. To date a total of 34 of the roughly 69
Kepler-observed sdBV stars have
been analyzed and published (including the four in this paper), so there is
still some ways to go. Additionally, TESS has now completed its two year main mission, during
which it observed about 1\,000 of our proposed sdB targets, few of which have been examined as of
this writing.
As such, it seems a good point to examine progress
and compare and review what has been detected.
Thanks to a generous time allocation from the NOT, we have
been able to obtain spectra of all of our Kepler targets \citep{jhtsdob6}. We do this
both to constrain binarity and so that we are fitting the same resolution spectra
to the same atmospheric model grids. While there may be systematics between model
grids or differing instrumentation in data from multiple sources, our
single-sourced \emph{relative} values should be accurate.
We refer readers to any of the references provided in Tab.\,7 for details
on the spectra and their processing.
Table\,7 lists seismic, spectroscopic, and orbit-rotation
properties of 38 published (or \emph{in press}) Kepler-observed sdBV stars,
one blue horizontal branch (BHB) star with closely related pulsation properties,
and four TESS-observed sdBV stars.
Rotation is deduced strictly from pulsation frequency multiplets while the binary period
may be deduced from RV or photometric variations. To date, from K1 there were
two stars analyzed for which multiplets were not detected while K2 has many.
From K1, we know that rotation periods typically span tens of days, and so any periods
longer then about 45\,d (44\% of K1 stars) would not likely be resolved during K2 observations. Each TESS
sector of observations spans about 26\,days, and so rotation periods longer than about 12\,days
(68\% of K1+K2 stars) would likely not be detected. In this ``group'' summary, we only consider
sdBV stars observed during K1, K2, and TESS missions and excluding atypical pulsation types
\citep[e.g.][]{csj17}. This sample should include stars with similar bulk physical properties that
have observations obtained in a roughly-homogeneous manner capable of providing mode identifications.
Two exceptions to this are the sdB+WD binaries Feige\,48 \citep{reed12c} and
KPD\,1930$+$2752 \citep{mdr11} included only in Fig.\,\ref{figbinspin}
which have binary periods under one day and rotation periods derived from ground-based pulsation data.
The real revolution from Kepler data is the ability to observationally
correlate periodicities with pulsation modes (mode identifications).
The main tools which have been used are asymptotic g-mode period spacings,
which provide $\ell$ and relative $n$ values;
rotationally-induced frequency multiplets, which provide $\ell$, $m$, and
can provide relative $n$ if several multiplets of the same degree are detected;
and g-mode frequency multiplets splittings, which have relative spacings
dictated by the Ledoux constant \citep{led51}, and this can provide $\ell$
values.
These identifications
are invaluable for constraining stellar structure models, from which we
discern internal physics. Important pulsation properties include
the smoothness of asymptotic sequences \citep[e.g.][]{reed14},
which describe less stratified transition regions than
expected \citep{constantino15};
mode trapping \citep[e.g.][]{roy14a}, which has now been associated
with convective core overshoot \citep{guo2019,ost21}; both
p and g mode overtone spacings \citep{reed11c,baran12a},
which describe the resonant
cavity; and frequency multiplets, which provide information on rotation,
including differential rotation, and
for stars in binaries, which all indicate subsyncrhonous rotation
for close binaries \citep[periods under 10 days, e.g.][]{telting12a},
with the exception of the 3\,hour binary 2M1938+4603 \citep{2m1938},
constraining synchronization time scales for post-common-envelope (PCE)
binaries \citep[e.g.][]{pablo12}. Hybrid pulsators allow for radial scrutiny
as g modes probe deeper than p modes \citep{charp14}, with the
latter being mostly envelope (defined as above the He/H transition).
Figure\,\ref{figHRK2C7} shows the locations of the pulsators in Table\,7
in a Kiel diagram. Included in the figure are non-pulsators observed during K1
\citep{roy10b,roy11b} and sample zero-age helium main-sequence (ZAEHB) and evolutionary
tracks \citep{reed04b}. It is well-known that
a larger fraction of sdB stars are observed to pulsate in g modes than p modes, or equivalently,
cooler sdB stars are more likely to pulsate at observable amplitudes
than hotter ones. Therefore it is not
too surprising that most of the Kepler-observed stars are g+p. Commensurate with
that is very few of the non-pulsators observed by Kepler are cooler sdB stars. There is only
one below 26\,000\,K while above 30\,000\,K 26 of the 28 (93\%) K1-observed stars are not
observed to pulsate.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=hrK2C7.eps,width=\textwidth} }
\caption{Kiel diagram of Kepler and TESS-observed sdB stars. Colours and symbols are indicated within
the figure: Non-pulsators are not shaped for binary information.
The dashed-dotted line indicates the zero-age helium main-sequence (ZAEHB) for a core mass of $0.50M_{\odot}$
with varying envelope masses (two are labeled on the plot) and the dashed line indicates the ZAEHB for a
fixed envelope mass of $2\times10^{-4}M_{\odot}$ and varying core masses (three are labeled on the plot).
The solid lines shows evolution for a core mass of 0.5M$_{\odot}$ and an envelope mass of 0.001M$_{\odot}$.
Errorbars for the average of the errors from Table\,7 are indicated in the lower right.}
\label{figHRK2C7}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Hybrid pulsators}
While models have largely been successful in predicting where p-mode pulsations
should occur in the Kiel diagram (contours in Fig.\,\ref{figHRcontour}), there
has been difficulty getting g-mode instabilities up to observed effective
temperatures \citep{jeffery06a,jeffery06b,hu09,bloemen14}. Prior to Kepler
observations, it was presumed that p-mode pulsations occurred in hotter sdB
stars, g-mode pulsations occurred in cooler sdB stars, and rare hybrid pulsators
would inhabit the temperature boundary. However, as can be seen in Figs.\,\ref{figHRK2C7}
and \ref{figHRcontour}, hybrid pulsators occur across nearly the full range of
temperatures, including the hottest and third coolest stars in our sample.
In Tab.\,7 the transition from p+g to g+p
occurs at 29\,000\,--\,30\,000\,K. The coolest p+g star and
the hottest g+p star both have $T_{\rm eff}\,=\,29\,600\,K$.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=hrcontour.eps,width=\textwidth} }
\caption{Kiel diagram showing p-mode instability contours \citep[reproduced
from][]{charpinet01} with points and average errorbars from Figure\,\ref{figHRK2C7}.}
\label{figHRcontour}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Pulsators in binaries}
Table\,7 separates the pulsators by binary type. All
of our sdB binaries with white dwarf or M-dwarf companions are g+p,
though we know this is not a unique feature. Ground-based observations have observed
p mode sdBV stars with both types of companions.
All save one of our Kepler/TESS-observed sdBV stars with F/G companions are p+g pulsators.
That sole g+p pulsator (CD$-$28$^{\circ}$\,1974), observed with TESS, is also
the hottest g+p star.
Perhaps these trends are indicative of formation channels, as the sdB+WD/dM binaries would
have experienced at least one common-envelope (CE) phase \citep{han02,han03} while the sdB+F/G binaries
would likely have had their envelopes stripped via Roche-lobe-overflow (RLOF)
\citep[e.g.][]{vos18c}. There could also be an
observational bias in that cooler sdB stars are fainter than their F/G companions,
making them harder to detect. This could likely be answered by examining our
full set (K1, K2, and TESS) of non-pulsators
which were initially selected using GALEX observations. If there were a reasonable
number of GALEX-selected sdB stars below 30\,000\,K with F/G companions, then we can
rule out an observational selection effect. This should be revealed in our forthcoming
K2 summary paper when pulsators and non-pulsators are compared.
Slightly more than half of our pulsators show no indication of a companion. This means
there were no indications of spectral lines from a companion, no RV
variations outside of standard deviations, and no photometric variations which could
be produced by the reflection effect, ellipsoidal variations, Doppler boosting, or
phase-induced pulsation aliasing caused by light-travel across an orbit. SdB formation
channels include stripping giant stars at the tip of the red giant branch via
RLOF or CE ejection, or by merging two helium white dwarfs (WDs). The result of the different
evolutionary paths is that the envelope-stripping ones produce sdB stars with masses
sharply peaked at the so-called ``canonical'' value of $0.47M_{\odot}$ or slightly
less while merged WDs can have a broad range of masses from 0.4 to over $0.7M_{\odot}$
\citep[See Fig.\,12 of][]{han03}. GAIA data should help answer this question as it
will detect astrometric binaries and, in many cases, determine masses when combined
with spectroscopic and/or spectral energy distribution data.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=pspace_Teff_logg.eps,width=\textwidth} }
\caption{Kiel diagram showing $\ell =1$ g-mode period spacings, $\Pi_{\ell =1}$. Colour codings provided in
the figure and different point types are for clarity only.}
\label{figpspace}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Observational correlations and trends}
Observations are meant to provide constraints and direction to models, from which
we determine the physics of stars. Observations we list in Table\,7 include
spectroscopic ones, $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$ and binarity, and seismic ones, pulsation
type,
$P_{\rm Amax}$ (period of highest amplitude), $\Pi_{\ell =1}$ (g-mode
asymptotic period spacing for $\ell =1$), and rotation period (from frequency multiplets).
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=perAmpOnlyV3F7.eps,width=\textwidth} }
\caption{Comparing $T_{\rm eff}$ to $P_{\rm Amax}$. The four p+g pulsators have their
g-mode $P_{\rm Amax}$ connected to their p-mode $P_{\rm Amax}$ by dotted lines. Note
that CD$-$28$^{\circ}$\,1974 has had its point shifted down 0.02\,dex for clarity.
Point shapes and colours (on-line only) are indicated in the figure.}
\label{figfreqrot}
\end{figure*}
Figure\,\ref{figpspace} is a Kiel diagram where
point colours indicate detected $\Pi_{\ell =1}$. There are no obvious trends.
The longer period spacings are mostly clustered in the middle (around
$T_{\rm eff}=27\,000\,$K and $\log g=5.35$), the median values (near $\Pi{\ell =1} =250-260\,s$)
extend from $T_{\rm eff}=23\,000\,$K to $T_{\rm eff}=30\,000\,$K,
and the lower period spacings have tendencies to be towards
the extremes; $\log g>5.5$ or $T_{\rm eff}<27\,000\,K$, which also includes lower $\log g$.
Clearly asymptotic period spacings depend on something other than temperature or gravity.
Figure\,\ref{figfreqrot} shows the period of the
highest-amplitude pulsation ($P_{\rm Amax}$) in each star with $T_{\rm eff}$. Point
type and colour indicate binary information. As previously noted, the sdB+F/G binaries
are in the hottest group of stars. The p+g-mode pulsators show $P_{\rm Amax}$ for
both types of pulsations, connected by dotted lines.
Even though the $\log$ scale compresses the ordinate, there is a
clear trend of $P_{\rm Amax}$ towards longer periods in cooler stars.
This trend seems clear in the g/g+p region but less so in the p/p+g
stars. If we ignore the sdB+F/G stars, the p mode periods show a clear trend
in the same direction as the g modes, whereas if we include those, there is little correlation and even a
slightly reversed trend.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=spin_teff.eps,width=\textwidth} }
\caption{Comparing $T_{\rm eff}$ to rotation periods. Arrows indicate lower limits and dotted
lines connect rotation periods that are different for p and g modes. Open symbols indicate
rotation was determined from p-mode multiplets.
Point shapes and colours (on-line only) are the same as Fig.\,\ref{figfreqrot}.}
\label{figteffspin}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Rotation}
It was pointed out in \citet{reed14} that there was a trend for cooler
stars to have longer rotation periods. With more pulsators studied, this is
re-examined in Fig.\,\ref{figteffspin}. There are four differential rotators (indicated
by points joined by a line) and K2 and TESS data often did not detect multiplets, which
means either the pulsations are pole-on, or we only have a lower limit on rotation. We presume
the latter, as shown by arrows in Fig.\,\ref{figteffspin}, as pole-on orientations are unlikely.
Two exceptions may be K10001893 and K8302197 for which no multiplets were detected in
over 1\,000\,days of K1 data, indicating either a pole-on viewing angle, or extremely slow
rotation ($>715$\,days).
Open points in Fig.\,\ref{figteffspin} indicate rotation was determined from p-mode multiplets.
It has been observed that in radially differential rotators \citep[][ and below]{mdr15} p modes
indicate faster rotation than g modes.
Rather than a correlation, we can now only state that below 24\,000\,K rotation is only slower
than 45\,days and above 32\,500\,K rotation is only faster than 25\,days. There are no binary
stars in our sample cooler than 26\,000\,K and no sdB+dM or sdB+WD binaries hotter than 32\,000\,K.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=spin_bin.eps,width=\columnwidth} }
\caption{Comparing orbital to rotation periods. Arrows indicate lower limits and dotted
lines connect rotation periods that are different for p and g modes. Open
points indicate rotation was determined from p-mode multiplets.
Point shapes and colours (on-line only) are the same as Fig.\,\ref{figfreqrot}.
Diagonal line indicates tidally-locked rotation.
The figure includes the sdB+WD binaries Feige\,48 \citep{reed12c} and
KPD\,1930$+$2752 \citep{mdr11} which have periods less than one day even
though neither was observed by Kepler. We also include the sdB+dM binary AA\,Dor
which is not a pulsator but has a spectroscopically determined rotation period \citep{vuc2016}.}
\label{figbinspin}
\end{figure}
The effect of binarity on rotation is investigated in Fig.\,\ref{figbinspin}.
The black diagonal
line indicates tidally-locked rotation.
Interesting features in Fig.\,\ref{figbinspin} include that \emph{all}
space-based-observed sdB+WD stars are primarily g-mode pulsators that rotate subsynchronously.
As there are only eight such systems, and g-mode pulsations occur more often than p-mode ones,
this may be a selection effect. We include the two p-mode sdB+WD
stars Feige\,48 \citep{reed12c} and KPD\,1930$+$2752 \citep{mdr11} (from ground-based data)
as they are the shortest-period sdB+WD binaries which also have frequency multiplets to indicate
rotation period. KPD\,1930$+$2752 is tidally locked while Feige\,48 is nearly so. All the
g-mode sdB+WD binaries have very similar rotation periods, though four of those only have lower limits on rotation.
The sdB+dM binaries all have
short binary periods, and this is almost certainly a selection effect. They are usually
detected by the so-called ``reflection effect'' where the sdB stars heat one side of the dM
stars, causing brightness variations with the orbital period.
This effect will not be detected if the binary separation is too large and the
dM will not be observed as the sdB star far outshines it \citep[e.g. \S 3 of][]{reed04}.
The sdB+dM binaries in our sample are
tidally locked until the binary period exceeds $\sim$0.25\,d then they all rotate subsynchronously.
The sdB+F/G stars in our sample rotate commensurate with their apparently single sdB counterparts
in the same temperature range (Fig.\,\ref{figteffspin}) but supersynchronous to their long-period
orbits.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=spin_radial.eps,width=\columnwidth} }
\caption{Comparing envelope to interior rotation periods for stars where multiplets
have been detected in both g and p modes. PG\,0048 and E211779126 only have lower
limits for their g-mode pulsations. Errorbars are omitted when
smaller than the points. Point shapes and colours (on-line only) are
the same as Fig.\,\ref{figfreqrot}.}
\label{figradspin}
\end{figure}
Figure\,\ref{figradspin} shows the eight stars where multiplets have been
detected in both p and g modes, or there were sufficient pulsations that
they should have been, providing a lower limit. It is expected that p-mode pulsations
mostly sample the envelope while g-mode pulsations sample deeper into the star
\citep{charp14}.
To date there have been five that appear to be radially-differential rotators
\citep{baran16d,mdr15,reed19a,mdr19,andy19} and three that likely
rotate as solid-bodies \citep{baran12a,kern16,reed19a}.
There are no obvious correlations with binarity as half of the apparently single and sdB+F/G stars
rotate differentially and half rotate like solid bodies.
Both of the sdB stars with dM companions rotate differentially.
In all cases of differential rotation, p-mode pulsations indicate faster
rotation than g-mode pulsations, with the possible exception of KIC\,10139564 \citep{baran12a}
which has $1\sigma$ errorbars that overlap the solid-body rotation line.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Campaign 7 Pulsators}
In this paper we analyzed four newly-discovered sdBV stars and add them to the growing
number of sdBV stars with a large fraction of identified pulsation modes. We detect
asymptotic g-mode period spacing sequences in all four, with three having $\Pi_{\ell =1}$ values
right near 250\,s and the other near to 200\,s. Only three other sdBV stars have such
unusually short asymptotic spacings; two are hot p+g pulsators and the
other another cool g-mode-only pulsator. So the extremely low asymptotic spacings
only occur for stars at both extremes. However, stars with similar physical properties
to each group also have ``normal'' spacings near to 250\,s and so this mystery has yet
to be solved.
Three of the stars in C7 are apparently single, while we have discovered EPIC\,218366972\, to
have RV variations, indicative of a white dwarf companion in a 5.92\,d orbit. Somewhat
surprisingly we do not detect any multiplets in EPIC\,218366972\, and so presume the rotation period
to be $>45$\,d. Only in EPIC\,218717602\, do we detect multiplets which indicate a rotation period
near 7\,d. We could have anticipated detecting two sdBV stars with multiplets based on the
56\% detection rate from K1 for periods under 45\,days.
\subsection{The Group of Kepler and TESS-observed Pulsating Subdwarf B Stars}
We completed ensemble analyses so that modelers may use this information to deduce
physical processes within these stars. In our analyses we have only included Kepler and TESS-observed
sdBV stars as it provides a roughly homogeneous observing sample with the highest quality
data.
In examining the group, we think we have revealed some underlying relationships which may prove fruitful
for model study.
\subsubsection{Pulsations}
As has been known for some time, pulsators and
non-pulsators overlap in the Kiel diagram (Figs.\,\ref{figHRK2C7} and \ref{figHRcontour}),
with a higher percentage of cool sdBV stars
pulsating with g modes. It has been observed that hotter stars favour p modes and
cooler ones favour g modes, and we also find this. Of the 43 stars in our sample, the dividing
line between p+g and g+p pulsators is 29\,000-30\,000\,K.
The p/p+g pulsators cluster around the central instability contour indicating
that pulsation driving models are likely reasonably accurate. Driving models for g-mode pulsations
have been less certain (which is why instability contours are not included in
Fig.\,\ref{figHRcontour}) as the temperature range seems strongly dependent on the
amount of enhancement of iron-group elements in the driving region \citep[e.g.][]{jeffery06b,hu09}.
More problematic are the hybrid pulsators. Originally discovered in a limited mid-temperature range bordering
p and g pulsations, Kepler and TESS observations detect them from 22\,800 to 36\,300\,K.
49\% of the stars in our sample are hybrid pulsators. Pulsation driving models will need to account for the
two hybrids with p modes completely outside
those instability contours and g-mode pulsations that span from 22\,800 to 36\,300\,K.
Our sample has seven stars (16\%) with $T_{\rm eff}$ below 25\,000\,K and none are in known binaries.
Similarly there are no PCE (sdB+WD/dM) binaries with $T_{\rm eff}$ above 31\,500\,K in
our sample (also seven stars), though at least two are known from ground-based observations; the
sdB+dM binary PG\,1336-018 \citep[][]{kilkenny98} and the sdB+WD binary KPD\,1930+2752 \citep{billeres00}.
This poses two questions; Does binarity shut off pulsation
driving below 25\,000\,K? And does PCE binarity adversely effect pulsation driving
above 31\,500\,K? It is likely too early to draw conclusions (particularly on the hot side,
where two systems are known) but this will be worth
watching as the sample is completed for K2-discovered pulsators and increased with TESS data.
Of the relationships we examined, the one with
the clearest correlation appears to be between $T_{\rm eff}$ and P$_{\rm Amax}$ which shows a clear
trend for cooler stars to have longer periods (lower frequencies) of their highest-amplitude pulsations.
\citet{shoaf20} noted two g-mode
outliers below the trend that both have indications of smaller-than-canonical masses. If the
$T_{\rm eff}$--P$_{\rm Amax}$ relationship is indicative of the resonant cavity size, then stars
along this relationship would likely have a common convective core size (inner boundary of
the resonant cavity) with varying envelope thicknesses. Thicker envelopes equate to lower
$T_{\rm eff}$, a larger resonant cavity, and therefore longer P$_{\rm Amax}$. Another outlier
(E248368658) above the trend could indicate a higher-massed core.
Related to the $T_{\rm eff}$--P$_{\rm Amax}$ relationship, we anticipated finding a similar
relationship with mean period spacings, $\Pi_{\ell =1}$, but do not. A recent study by \citet{uzu21}
examined $\Pi_{\ell =1}$ in models with a narrow range of total
mass and two convective core masses. They note that $\Pi_{\ell =1}\propto \bar{g}^{-1}R_{\star}/
\left(R_{\star}-\,R_{core}\right)$. From this, they found agreement with previous studies
\citep[e.g.][]{cast85,constantino15,ost21}, that smaller convective cores have smaller $\Pi_{\ell =1}$
and stars with larger convective cores, and consequently lower $\log g$,
have larger $\Pi_{\ell =1}$. Those results could be
indicative of why Fig.\,\ref{figpspace} shows no obvious patterns.
\subsubsection{Rotation}
We examined the correlation
between rotation period and $T_{\rm eff}$ (Fig.\,\ref{figteffspin}), as noted by \citet{reed14}, and find that it
only seems to hold at extreme values of $T_{\rm eff}$. In our sample there are no fast-rotating
cool nor slowly-rotating hot sdBV stars with no known binaries at
all in our cool sample
and no PCE (sdB+WD/dM) binaries in our hot sample.
The mid-$T_{\rm eff}$ star E217280630 has a rotation period of 7\,days
which is in a range dominated by sdB+WD binaries. It would be worth obtaining additional observations
to search for a white dwarf companion.
Unfortunately there is currently little hope for additional
constraints on those stars with only lower limits on their rotation periods. No ground-based observations
have resolved multiplets in g-modes of sdBV stars and transparency variations, which occur on
similar time scales to those pulsation periods, make it extremely difficult even to observe
g-mode sdBV pulsations without space-bourne telescopes. As K1 observations show, only long-duration
space-based observations are likely to fully resolve frequency multiplets and provide rotation periods.
Patterns do emerge when comparing orbital to rotation periods of known binary systems. First, all PCE
stars in our sample with binary periods longer than 0.3\,days rotate subsynchronously while those
shorter than 0.3\,days are synchronized.
All of our
sdB+WD systems with measured rotation periods are between 28 and 51\,days. There are two known
sdB+WD systems with shorter binary periods and also rotation periods under one day (Fig\,\ref{figbinspin}).
While 44\% of our sample only have lower limits near 45\,days, we would speculate that sdB+WD systems,
which have undergone two common-envelope phases, have a common PCE initial rotation period near 45\,days
which then evolves towards shorter periods.
We see a very similar pattern in our sample of sdB+dM binaries.
Four stars have periods near 10\,days, three stars are tidally locked with periods under 0.3\,days, and
two are in between and differentially rotating with the envelope spinning faster. This has two
possibilities; either the rotation of these binaries, which have only had one common-envelope epoch,
is correlated with the binary period, or these PCE systems also have a common initial rotation period
which evolves to shorter periods. We think the latter is the most likely explanation, particularly since
the differential rotators have faster-spinning envelopes which are likely being spun up by the companions,
through tidal interactions. Furthermore, the dissipation of tidal energy can be achieved in the
form of pulsations.
Our sample of sdB+F/G stars are only on the hot end and rotate faster than the average but not
dissimilar to single sdB stars in the same temperature range. It is presumed their temperatures
are related to thinner envelopes yet material deeper within (g mode) sdB stars
is correlated with slower rotation. As these stars likely formed via RLOF perhaps that mechanism
produces faster rotators, or conversely, RLOF does not slow rotation during mass loss like the
CE mechanism does. A larger sample of sdB+F/G stars may answer this question.
It is more difficult to find meaning with differential rotation (Fig.\,\ref{figradspin}). Both of
the sdB stars with dM companions for which we have both p and g-mode multiplets have differential
rotation. It is unlikely a common property of all sdB stars with dM companions as two sdB stars with dM
companions in Fig.\,\ref{figbinspin} have g-mode multiplets indicating they are tidally locked. As all
the sdB+dM rotation periods are short, TESS data will likely expand this sample.
Our
sample of sdB+F/G stars and those without known companions shows a mixture. We would encourage investigations
to determine if any of these systems have short-period companions, as difficult as that may be. Only by
ruling out binarity with periods up to ten days can we determine if differential rotation is inherent
to a property unrelated to binarity. If it is not related to binarity, then a companion ``spinning up''
sdB stars cannot be the cause and it must therefore be related to mass loss near the tip of the red
giant branch.
The above relationships likely relate to mass loss and angular momentum transport
during their formation mechanisms. Another piece of evidence is the comparison between
binary and rotation periods. Most PCE sdB stars in our sample rotate subsynchronously to their orbit unless it is
less than about half a day. This information should be useful in modeling PCE binaries.
\subsection{The Future}
Our examination of the group properties includes an intermediate sample from K2 and a very preliminary
sample from TESS. There are over a dozen suspected pulsators observed during K2 which have yet to
be thoroughly analyzed and
TESS has now observed thousands of sdB stars, with perhaps a couple hundred new pulsators. Those data
should produce a statistically significant sample from which to examine pulsation properties. However,
even with an expanded sample, rotation is likely to be problematic as K1 showed us that we really need
continuous data for more than a year before we are likely to resolve frequency multiplets.
We did not examine individual periods of the stars in our ensemble in our analyses. So in
addition to the properties discussed in this paper, we encourage modelers to examine properties which
include trapped modes, radial indices where asymptotic sequences begin and end, the ``hook' feature in
asymptotic sequences, and the standard deviation in $\Pi$ \citep[e.g.][]{constantino15}. Additionally,
it may well be worth a look at other ``hook''-feature pulsators to see if they too have a different
linear asymptotic period sequence shortward of the bend, as EPIC\,218366972\, does.
Separate from pulsations, GAIA is providing reliable parallaxes \citep{BJ2018DR2,gaiadr3}, from which distances,
radii, and masses can be
determined \citep[e.g.][]{kilkenny19,andy19,mdr19}. In combination with the remaining K2 sdBV stars, and
the many yet to be discovered by TESS, powerful observational tools are becoming available.
We are likely on the brink of understanding
the underlying relationships hinted at in this paper.
\smallskip
{\bf Data Availability Statement:} The data underlying this article are available in the
Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST). \url{https://archive.stsci.edu/}
Data obtained with the Nordic Optical Telescope is available after
a one-year proprietary period. \url{http://www.not.iac.es/archive/}
\smallskip
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Funding for this research was provided by the National Science
Foundation
grant \#1312869 and NASA grant 14-K2GO2-2-0047 as part of the K2 guest observer
program. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation or NASA. JAC was funded by the Missouri Space Grant, which
is funded by NASA.
ASB gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Polish National Science
Centre under projects No.\,UMO-2017/26/E/ST9/00703 and NO\. UMO-2017/25/B/ST9/02218.
This paper includes data obtained by the \emph{Kepler} mission. Funding for the
\emph{Kepler} mission is provided by the NASA Science Mission directorate.
Data presented in this paper were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for
Space Telescopes (MAST). STScI is operated by the Association of Universities
for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support
for MAST for non-HST data is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science via
grant NNX13AC07G and by other grants and contracts.
The spectroscopic observations used in this work were obtained with the
Nordic Optical Telescope at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos
and operated jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and
Sweden.
|
\section{Introduction}
The extended electrodynamics theory based on the Aharonov-Bohm lagrangian has attracted much interest over the last years \cite{ohmura1956new, aharonov1963further, van2001generalisation, woodside2009three, jimenez2011cosmological, hively2012toward, Modanese2017MPLB, modanese2017electromagnetic, arbab2017extended, hively2019classical}. Unlike the standard Maxwell theory, the extended electrodynamics allows to compute the fields generated by physical systems in which the condition of local conservation of charge is not exactly satisfied. Such violations of local conservation are quite rare and may occur especially at a microscopic level; therefore the currents involved are usually small, but the associated physical effects are nevertheless interesting and might lead to useful applications. In our recent work \cite{Minotti-Modanese-Symmetry2021} we computed the radiation field emitted by oscillating high-frequency currents for which the anomalous moment $\mathbf{P}$ is not exactly zero, being $\mathbf{P}$ defined as the dipole moment of the ``extra-current'' $I$ that quantifies the anomaly in the local conservation of charge:
\begin{equation}
I(\mathbf{x},t)=\partial_t \rho(\mathbf{x},t) + \nabla \cdot \mathbf{j}(\mathbf{x},t)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{P}(t)=\int d^3x' \, \mathbf{x}' I(\mathbf{x}',t)
\end{equation}
In order to give an immediate feeling of the formalism involved, let us recall here that the extended field equations with sources are
\begin{equation}
\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} =\frac{\rho }{\varepsilon _{0}}-\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\nabla \times \mathbf{B} =\mu _{0}\mathbf{j}+\varepsilon _{0}\mu _{0}\frac{
\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}+\nabla S
\end{equation}
(the equations without sources coincide with the corresponding Maxwell equations). The ``auxiliary'' scalar field $S$ is generated by the extra-current $I$ (eq.\ (\ref{ondaS})) and is zero in the Maxwell theory.
The wave equations for $\mathbf{E}$, $\mathbf{B}$ and $S$ are
\begin{equation}
\Box \mathbf{E} = -\mu_0 \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{j}}{\partial t} +c^2 \nabla \rho \right)
\label{ondaE}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Box \mathbf{B} = \mu_0 \nabla \times \mathbf{j}
\label{ondaB}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Box S = \mu_0 I
\label{ondaS}
\end{equation}
where $\Box$ is the D'Alembert differential operator $(1/c^2)\partial_t^2-\nabla^2$.
In the far-field radiative solutions of eqs.\ (\ref{ondaE}) - (\ref{ondaS}) a longitudinal component of $\mathbf{E}$ is generally present, which of course does not exist in Maxwell theory because $S$ is zero and therefore $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}$ is also zero outside the sources. Such anomalous longitudinal component can be expressed in function of $\mathbf{P}$ as $E_L=(\mu_0/4\pi r)\Dot{\mathbf{P}}(t-r/c)\cdot \mathbf{n}$.
In order to assess the physical relevance of the theory, we need to understand under which conditions a violation of local conservation can occur, yielding $I\neq 0$. The main candidates are physical systems of the following types:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Complex condensed-matter systems described by a quantum field theory, in which the local conservation of the current operator is spoiled by anomalies occurring in the renormalization process \cite{cheng1984gauge,parameswaran2014probing}.
\item Molecular devices, like e.g.\ carbon nanotubes and other molecular ``wires'', in which the effect of bound electrons in the inner orbitals upon the conduction electrons is modelled through a non-local potential, and the anomaly is not due to the use of a reduced eigenstates base, but remains at any order in the computations \cite{walz2015local,jensen2019current,garner2019helical,garner2020three}.
\item Systems with explicitly non-local wave equations, e.g.\ fractional quantum mechanics and other phenomenological models \cite{lenzi2008solutions, lenzi2008fractional, latora1999superdiffusion, caspi2000enhanced, chamon1997nonlocal, balantekin1998green, laskin2002fractional, wei2016comment,modanese2018time}.
\item Macroscopic quantum systems where an uncertainty relation involving the product $\Delta \rho \Delta j$ holds. This is the case that will be considered in this paper.
\end{enumerate}
The idea that quantum uncertainties and quantum tunnelling could spoil the local conservation of charge, which seems classically so unavoidable, was mentioned in some early works on extended electrodynamics \cite{van2001generalisation,hively2012toward}. This intuitive idea is however in conflict with the property of local conservation of probability that is well grounded in the Schr\"odinger equation. In fact, when the number of particles is large and they are incoherent, the real flux of particles follows closely the probability flux; then locally-conserved models of tunnelling and conduction based on the Schr\"odinger equation work well. A typical example is the scanning tunnelling microscope \cite{tersoff1983theory}.
At the other extreme, when the particles number is small and the motion of particles is random and unpredictable, such that the wavefunction only gives a probabilistic description, the interaction of the particles with the e.m.\ field cannot be described through classical field equations, but only considering the probabilities of photon emission etc.
The first issue analysed in this work thus concerns the effect of uncertainties in macroscopic quantum systems like superconductors or superfluids, which can carry currents able to generate a classical e.m.\ field. We shall consider the specific example of a plasma resonance in a Josephson junction and the consequences of the phase-number uncertainty relation $\Delta N \Delta \phi \sim 1$ (Sect.\ \ref{sec2}).
The second main contribution of this work concerns the dynamics of the e.m.\ field in the extended theory, and more precisely its local balance of energy and momentum. For the first time, the density of energy and momentum of the field and their flux are computed in a rigorous and consistent way, through a $T^{ik}$ tensor which respects the usual symmetry requirement. (In Sects.\ \ref{AB-lagr}, \ref{t-tensor} we use Landau-Lifshitz notation with latin indices $i,k...=0,1,2,3$.) As discussed in Sect.\ \ref{relation-with-previously} the expression for the energy density that is obtained directly from the field equations, like in Maxwell theory \cite{van2001generalisation,hively2012toward} gives a mathematically correct relation between the fields $\mathbf{E}$, $\mathbf{B}$, $S$, but does not allow to write consistent expressions for the energy flux and the density of force (generalization of Lorenz force). For this reason we have introduced in Sect.\ \ref{t-tensor} the general definition of the $T^{ik}$ tensor through a coupling with an external gravitational background.
The calculation is quite complex, but the final results for the generalized Lorenz force $\mathbf{f}$ and its power $w$ are remarkably simple (eqs.\ (\ref{eq-w}), (\ref{eq-f})). The new terms in $\mathbf{f}$ and $w$ are respectively equal to $I\mathbf{A}$ and $I\phi$, where $\mathbf{A}$ and $\phi$ are the Aharonov-Bohm potentials. These potentials admit some residual gauge transformations of the form $\mathbf{A} \to \mathbf{A}+\nabla \chi$, $\phi \to \phi+\partial_t \chi$, with $\Box \chi=0$. The conservation laws are invariant with respect to these transformations. Here we have limited ourselves to consider the case of localized oscillating sources for which the potentials are uniquely given by retarded integrals and can be approximately expressed in terms of the standard oscillating dipole moment $\mathbf{p}$ and the anomalous moment $\mathbf{P}$. The total energy flux at infinity can also be explicitly computed and leads to interesting physical
conditions on the anomalous source (Sects.\ \ref{radiated-power}, \ref{concl}).
Finally we would like to point out that also at the purely classical level the finite-differences technique for numerical solution of the Maxwell equations must deal with the practical impossibility to ensure, in the evaluation of certain matter/field interactions, the exact local conservation of charge \cite{munz2000divergence}.
\section{Quantum uncertainty of local charge conservation in the Josephson plasma resonance}
\label{sec2}
\subsection{Tunnel Josephson junctions and plasma resonance}
We analyse a macroscopic quantum system where the uncertainty relation between the phase of the collective wavefunction and the particle occupation number leads to an uncertainty in the condition of local charge conservation. This system is a tunnel Josephson junction and specifically we consider in the calculation a Nb-NbAlOx-Nb junction made of Niobium and Aluminum oxide, with a critical current $I_J$ of 143 $\mu$A and a capacitance $C$ of 6 pF \cite{gronbech2004microwave}.
In quantum theory this system is described by a wavefunction having a certain amplitude and phase. At the same time, it can be modelled classically as a circuit in which the Josephson junction is a non-linear component, and which also includes a capacitance $C$, an effective inductance $L$ and a resistance $R$ (RCSJ model). The Josephson equations (which in fact have a domain of application much wider than the microscopic BCS theory where they have been originally derived) allow to relate the quantum phase $\phi$ with the supercurrent in the junction. This is essential for our application of the uncertainty relation. An alternative approach, based on the more abstract concept of ``quantum circuit'', was presented in \cite{chen1995quantum,devoret1995quantum}.
For tunnel junctions and other superconducting weak links with capacitance, the Josephson inductance and the capacitance are in parallel. When biased within the supercurrent step ($-I_J<I_0<I_J$), these devices show a damped plasma resonance, in which charge stored on the superconducting surfaces flows backward and forward through the tunnel barrier at frequency $\omega_p=(L_JC)^{-1/2}$, tunable with the bias $I_0$ \cite{waldram1996superconductivity,tinkham2004introduction}.
The Josephson inductance can be computed as follows: with a DC bias current $I_0<I_J$ there is an equilibrium phase $\phi_0$ determined by the relation $I_0=I_J\sin \phi_0$.
Consider the Josephson equations
\begin{equation}
I_s=I_J \sin\phi
\label{2nd-jos}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\phi}{dt}=\frac{2e}{\hbar}V
\end{equation}
where $I_s$ is the supercurrent and $\phi$ and $V$ are respectively the phase and voltage differences across the barrier.
For small deviations from equilibrium we obtain the following relation between the derivative of the current and the voltage:
\begin{equation}
\frac{dI_s}{dt}=I_J \cos\phi_0 \frac{d\phi}{dt}=\frac{2eI_J\cos\phi_0}{\hbar}V
\end{equation}
This shows that a small r.f.\ voltage generates a variation in $I_s$, as if the weak link had an effective inductance
\begin{equation}
L_J=\frac{\hbar}{2eI_J\cos\phi_0}
\end{equation}
which can be tuned by changing $I_0$ and therefore $\phi_0$. The plasma frequency $\omega_p$ is defined as that corresponding to the minimum inductance $L_J^{min}=\hbar/(2eI_J)$.
The complete differential equation of the system in the RCSJ model is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\hbar C}{2e}\frac{d^2\phi}{dt^2} + \frac{\hbar}{2eR} \frac{d\phi}{dt} = I_0-I_J\sin\phi + I_\Omega \cos(\Omega t)
\label{eqRCSJ}
\end{equation}
where $I_\Omega$ is the external r.f.\ bias which excites the resonance and $R$ is the normal resistance of the link, that can be considered in parallel to the junction and determines the damping. The values of $C$ and $I_J$ for the junction considered imply $\omega_p \simeq 42$ GHz.
The equation (\ref{eqRCSJ}) is not linear and its solutions are known only in approximate or numerical form; in any case, we are only interested here to know that there is a solution corresponding to the plasma resonance.
\subsection{Quantum description and uncertainty relation}
The microscopic description of the tunnelling process in this kind of junctions was given already by Josephson himself \cite{josephson1962possible}, extending the theory of Cohen et al.\ \cite{cohen1962superconductive}. They assumed that in the context of BCS theory the effect of the barrier may be represented by a small term in the Hamiltonian, called the tunnelling Hamiltonian, of the form
\begin{equation}
\hat{T}=\sum_{L,R}T_{LR} (c_L^+c_R + c_R^+c_L)
\end{equation}
where the suffixes $L$ and $R$ refer to all the electron states on the left and right sides of the barrier and $T_{LR}$ is a matrix element. It was further assumed that there was superfluid present on both sides of the barrier, with a well-defined phase difference $\phi$. The quantum mechanical treatment then leads to a transition rate proportional to $T_{LR}^2$ and also to $\sin\phi$.
In general, however, in a superfluid state the phase $\phi$ and the pair number $N$ are conjugate variables, so if we choose a wavefunction whose phase difference is fixed, the allocation of pairs to the two sides of the barrier will be uncertain, and vice versa \cite{waldram1996superconductivity,elion1994direct}. Therefore if we are interested also into the charge density, we need to consider on each side the general uncertainty relation
\begin{equation}
\Delta \phi \Delta N \simeq 1
\label{uncert}
\end{equation}
A similar relation holds in quantum optics between the number of photons in the collective wavefunction and the phase of the wavefunction, at a given position and instant \cite{fox2006quantum}.
In the description of the tunnelling process cited above, $N$ is supposed to be very large. It follows that a large uncertainty $\Delta N$ is acceptable, as long as $\Delta N \ll N$, and the phase $\phi$ can be precisely determined. We shall see, however, that in a Josephson plasma resonance at high frequency the number of oscillating pairs is relatively small and as a consequence the balancing between $\Delta \phi$ and $\Delta N$ is more problematic.
Since $\phi$ has magnitude order 1, we can rewrite (\ref{uncert}) as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta \phi}{\phi} \, \frac{\Delta N}{N} \simeq \frac{1}{N}
\end{equation}
At any instant the supercurrent in the junction is connected to the phase by the Josephson equation (\ref{2nd-jos}).
It follows that the uncertainty on the current is $\Delta I_s=I_J\cos\phi \Delta \phi$ and that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta I_s}{I_s}=\cot \phi \, \frac{\Delta \phi}{\phi}
\end{equation}
During the plasma resonance, the value of $\phi$ is very close to $\phi_0$ defined by the bias current. Therefore except for special values of $\phi_0$ we can simply suppose that $\cot\phi \simeq 1$ as magnitude order, and we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta I_s}{I_s} \, \frac{\Delta N}{N} \simeq \frac{1}{N}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Charge conservation relation on the electrodes}
Now consider the local conservation relation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \rho + \nabla \cdot \mathbf{J}=0
\end{equation}
evaluated on the ``superconducting electrodes''. Since charge oscillates with frequency $\omega_p \sim 10^9$ Hz and the variations in the current density occur (in the tunnelling direction, suppose the $x$-direction) over a length scale $d\sim 10^{-9}$ m, the quantity $\partial_t \rho + \partial_x J_x$ can be approximated, as magnitude order in SI units, as
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \rho + \partial_x J_x \simeq \pm 10^9 (\rho-J_x)
\end{equation}
where the + sign in front applies if we are at a point and instant where $J_x$ is decreasing, otherwise we have a -- sign.
(The numerical coincidence of $\omega_p$ and $d^{-1}$ assumed above makes the rest of the argument mathematically simpler, but is not necessary, as long as the two quantities are of the same magnitude order; one can introduce an adimensional factor $\chi$ of order 1 and proceed with an expression like $\omega_p(\rho-\chi J_x)$.)
Remember that the total uncertainty in a difference like (\ref{differ}) is given by the sum of the uncertainties of the single terms. Since we know (and it will be confirmed a posteriori) that charge conservation is at least approximately true, we have $\rho\simeq J_x$ and we can write
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta (\rho-J_x)}{\rho} \simeq \frac{\Delta (\rho-J_x)}{J_x} \simeq \frac{\Delta \rho}{\rho} + \frac{\Delta J_x}{J_x}
\label{differ}
\end{equation}
Consider the relative uncertainties $\frac{\Delta J_x}{J_x}$ and $\frac{\Delta \rho}{\rho}$. They are respectively equal to the relative uncertainties of $I_s$ and $N$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta J_x}{J_x}=\frac{\Delta I_s}{I_s}; \qquad \frac{\Delta \rho}{\rho}=\frac{\Delta N}{N}
\end{equation}
Taking into account that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta J_x}{J_x} \frac{\Delta \rho}{\rho} \, \simeq \frac{1}{N}
\end{equation}
it follows that the total uncertainty (\ref{differ}) is minimum when the two terms are equal. (To prove this, set $u=\Delta J_x/J_x$, $v=\Delta \rho/\rho$, $uv=1/N$; the sum $u+v$ is minimum when $u=v=1/\sqrt{N}$.)
In conclusion, the minimum uncertainty of $(\rho-J_x)$ relative to either $\rho$ or $J_x$ is of order $1/\sqrt{N}$. By re-introducing the factor $\omega_p=d^{-1}=10^9$ the same conclusion holds for the uncertainty of $(\partial_t \rho-\partial_x J_x)$ relative to either $\partial_t \rho$ or $\partial_x J_x$.
Clearly $1/\sqrt{N}$ is in general a small number for a macroscopic system, but for our Josephson junction it is not very small. Suppose that the resonance current is $\simeq I_J$ (but it could even be definitely smaller, for suitable bias, and this reinforces the argument). The charge crossing the junction during a single oscillation is $\simeq 2\pi I_J/\omega_p \simeq 10^{-14}$ C, corresponding to $N\simeq 10^5$ electron pairs. It follows that the relative uncertainty on the local conservation relation is between $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-2}$.
With an elementary example, suppose $\rho\sim 10^{9}$ C/m$^3$, like in many low-$T_c$ superconductors, $d \sim 10^{-9}$ m, $\omega_p\sim 10^9$ Hz.
Thus $\partial_t \rho\simeq -\partial_x J_x\simeq 10^{18}$ A/m$^3$, and if we assume for both a relative uncertainty of $10^{-2}$, then their sum will be $(\partial_t \rho+\partial_x J_x) \simeq 10^{18}(1 \pm 0.01 - 1 \pm 0.01) \simeq \pm 10^{16}$ A/m$^3$.
Uncertainties of this kind are completely due to the quantum fluctuations, and are present also if the wavefunction of the system respects the standard continuity condition for the probability flux (as it happens in the BCS theory). In other quantum theories like fractional quantum mechanics or models with non-local potentials, local charge conservation may fail at the level of the probability flux \cite{modanese2018time}.
We are supposing that the source of an e.m.\ field generated by a state with macroscopic wavefunction $\Psi$ is a quantum average on $\Psi$. In particular, for an extra-source $I=\partial_t \rho+\partial_x J_x$ we take the average $\langle \Psi |I| \Psi \rangle $.
The quantity $I$ is essentially (in a frequency-momentum domain) a linear combination of the non-commuting operators $\rho$ and $J_x$; the quantum uncertainty in $I$ originates from those in $\rho$ and $J_x$.
Even if in the quantum theory an operatorial relation $\partial_t \rho=-\partial_xJ_x$ holds, there exist no common eigenstates for the operators $\partial_t \rho$ and $\partial_xJ_x$. Thus quantum noise in $I$ is inevitable and generates fluctuating non-Maxwellian components in the e.m.\ field.
For the evaluation of field correlations, quantities like $\langle I(x,t)I(x',t') \rangle$ will need to be computed from a microscopic theory.
Note however that in the argument above we did not make any assumption about how exactly the pairs move across the junction, except for supposing that the current is given by Josephson relation, which has been verified with high accuracy in many experiments.
In superconducting systems with intrinsic Josephson junctions and small coherence length, like YBCO, the uncertainty can be larger, because $\sqrt{N}$ is smaller. In that case its estimate becomes more complicated and will be treated in a separate work.
\section{Aharonov-Bohm lagrangian and Extended Electrodynamics (EED) field equations}
\label{AB-lagr}
For later convenience we consider the Aharonov-Bohm lagrangian in a general
four-dimensional space-time, of metric tensor $g_{ik}$. We take a signature
(+,-,-,-) for coordinates ($x^{0},x^{1},x^{2},x^{3}$), which, for the case
of Minkowski metric are, $x^{0}=ct$, and $x^{\alpha }$ the spatial
three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates, with Greek indices taking values $1,2,3
$, and Latin indices values $0,1,2,3$. The (negative) determinant of the
metric tensor is denoted by $g$, and the invariant four-dimensional volume
element $\sqrt{-g}dx^{0}dx^{1}dx^{2}dx^{3}=\sqrt{-g}d\Omega $.
In order to describe the electromagnetic field we take as fundamental
four-vectors for potentials and current (in SI units):%
\begin{eqnarray*}
K_{i} &=&\left( \frac{\phi }{c},-\mathbf{A}\right) , \\
J^{i} &=&\left( \rho c,\mathbf{j}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
where $\phi $ is the scalar potential, $\mathbf{A}$ the three-dimensional
vector potential, $\rho $ the charge density, and $\mathbf{j}$ the
three-dimensional current vector.
The electromagnetic tensor is%
\begin{equation*}
F_{ik}=\frac{DK_{k}}{Dx^{i}}-\frac{DK_{i}}{Dx^{k}}=\frac{\partial K_{k}}{%
\partial x^{i}}-\frac{\partial K_{i}}{\partial x^{k}},
\end{equation*}%
where $D/Dx^{i}$ represents the covariant derivative, in terms of which the
covariant four-divergence of the four-potential is%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{DK^{m}}{Dx^{m}}=\frac{DK_{m}}{Dx_{m}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{%
\partial }{\partial x^{m}}\left( \sqrt{-g}K^{m}\right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}%
\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{m}}\left( \sqrt{-g}K_{l}g^{lm}\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
where%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{D}{Dx_{m}}=g^{lm}\frac{D}{Dx^{l}}.
\end{equation*}
The Aharonov-Bohm lagrangian density is given by
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{AB}=\Lambda ^{M}+\Lambda ^{\prime },
\end{equation*}%
where%
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{M}=-\frac{1}{4\mu _{0}}F_{ik}F^{ik}=-\frac{1}{4\mu _{0}}%
F_{ik}F_{lm}g^{il}g^{km},
\end{equation*}%
is Maxwell's lagrangian density, and
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{\prime }=-\frac{1}{2\mu _{0}}\left( \frac{DK^{m}}{Dx^{m}}\right)
^{2}.
\end{equation*}
The Aharonov-Bohm action is thus given by
\begin{equation*}
S_{AB}=\frac{1}{c}\int \left[ \Lambda ^{M}+\Lambda ^{\prime } -J^{i}K_{i}\right] \sqrt{%
-g}d\Omega ,
\end{equation*}%
whose variation with respect to the four potential $K^{i}$ gives
\begin{equation*}
\delta S_{AB}=\frac{1}{c}\int \left[ \frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\frac{DF_{ik}}{Dx_{k}}%
-\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\frac{D}{Dx^{i}}\left( \frac{DK^{m}}{Dx^{m}}\right) +J_{i}%
\right] \delta K^{i}\sqrt{-g}d\Omega ,
\end{equation*}%
and thus%
\begin{equation}
\frac{DF_{ik}}{Dx_{k}}=-\mu _{0}J_{i}+\frac{D}{Dx^{i}}\left( \frac{DK^{m}}{%
Dx^{m}}\right) =-\mu _{0}J_{i}+\frac{DS}{Dx^{i}}, \label{EED_inhom}
\end{equation}%
where we have used the definition of the auxiliary scalar field%
\begin{equation*}
S=\frac{DK^{m}}{Dx^{m}}.
\end{equation*}
Noting that%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{DF_{ik}}{Dx_{k}}=\frac{D^{2}K_{k}}{Dx^{i}Dx_{k}}-\frac{D^{2}K_{i}}{%
Dx^{k}Dx_{k}},
\end{equation*}%
relation (\ref{EED_inhom}) can be alternatively written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{D^{2}K_{i}}{Dx^{k}Dx_{k}}=\mu _{0}J_{i}. \label{EED_4pot}
\end{equation}
The so-called homogeneous equations are the same as Maxwell's, resulting
from the definition of the electromagnetic tensor:%
\begin{equation}
\frac{DF_{ik}}{Dx^{l}}+\frac{DF_{li}}{Dx^{k}}+\frac{DF_{kl}}{Dx^{i}}=\frac{%
\partial F_{ik}}{\partial x^{l}}+\frac{\partial F_{li}}{\partial x^{k}}+%
\frac{\partial F_{kl}}{\partial x^{i}}=0 \label{EED_hom}
\end{equation}
In the metric of interest, Minkowski metric, with%
\begin{equation*}
g_{ik}=g^{ik}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1%
\end{array}%
\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
if we further consider the three-dimensional electric and magnetic field vectors%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbf{E} &=&-\nabla \phi -\frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}, \\
\mathbf{B} &=&\nabla \times \mathbf{A},
\end{eqnarray*}%
the equations (\ref{EED_inhom}) and (\ref{EED_hom}) reduce in three-dimensional
vector notation to EED equations
\begin{subequations}
\label{EEDfields}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} &=&\frac{\rho }{\varepsilon _{0}}-\frac{\partial S}{
\partial t}, \label{gauss_ext} \\
\nabla \times \mathbf{B} &=&\mu _{0}\mathbf{j}+\varepsilon _{0}\mu _{0}\frac{
\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}+\nabla S, \label{ampere_ext} \\
\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} &=&0, \\
\nabla \times \mathbf{E} &=&-\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}, \label{faraday_ext}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
while from the four-divergence of Eq. (\ref{EED_inhom}) we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial t^{2}}-\nabla ^{2}S=\mu _{0}%
\left[ \frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}+\nabla \cdot \mathbf{j}\right]
\equiv \mu _{0}I, \label{D2Seql}
\end{equation}%
in which possible local non-conservation of charge is quantified by the
"extra source" $I$.
The alternative expression (\ref{EED_4pot}) of the in-homogeneous equations
is written in three-dimensional vector notation as
\begin{subequations}
\label{ABpotentials}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}\phi }{\partial t^{2}}-\nabla ^{2}\phi
&=&\frac{\rho }{\varepsilon _{0}} , \\
\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}\mathbf{A}}{\partial t^{2}}-\nabla ^{2}
\mathbf{A} &=&\mu _{0}\mathbf{j},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
which coincide with Maxwell's equations for the potentials in the Lorenz
gauge. The EED equations have thus a residual gauge invariance given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi &\rightarrow &\phi -\frac{\partial \chi }{\partial t}, \\
\mathbf{A} &\rightarrow &\mathbf{A}+\nabla \chi ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
for any function $\chi $ satisfying D'Alembert equation%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}\chi }{\partial t^{2}}-\nabla ^{2}\chi =0.
\end{equation*}
\section{Energy and momentum laws derived from the EED field equations}
\label{Energy-Momentum_EED}
In order to determine power emission and interaction of matter and fields in EED we need to derive the energy and momentum conservation laws for this particular theory. These laws have been previously presented \cite{van2001generalisation,hively2012toward,hively2019classical}, and for completeness we also derive them in this section in the usual manner, starting form the field equations. We will show that these laws, although representing correct relations among the fields, are not physically consistent when interpreted as conservation laws. For this reason we derive consistent laws in the following section, directly form the Aharonov-Bohm lagrangian.
From the scalar product of Faraday's equation, eq. (\ref{faraday_ext}), by $\mathbf{B}/\mu _{0}$, and
of (the extended) Ampere-Maxwell equation, eq. (\ref{ampere_ext}), by $\mathbf{E}/\mu _{0}$ one has%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \frac{B^{2}}{2\mu _{0}}\right) &=&-\frac{1%
}{\mu _{0}}\mathbf{B}\cdot \left( \nabla \times \mathbf{E}\right) , \\
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \frac{\varepsilon _{0}E^{2}}{2}\right) &=&%
\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\mathbf{E}\cdot \left( \nabla \times \mathbf{B}\right) -%
\mathbf{j}\cdot \mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\mathbf{E}\cdot \nabla S.
\end{eqnarray*}
Adding both equations, and using the identity
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{E}\cdot \left( \nabla \times \mathbf{B}\right) -\mathbf{B}\cdot
\left( \nabla \times \mathbf{E}\right) =-\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{E}%
\times \mathbf{B}\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
together with%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbf{E}\cdot \nabla S &=&\nabla \cdot \left( S\mathbf{E}\right) -S\nabla
\cdot \mathbf{E} \\
&=&\nabla \cdot \left( S\mathbf{E}\right) -\frac{\rho }{\varepsilon _{0}}S+%
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \frac{S^{2}}{2}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
where (the extended) Gauss equation, eq. (\ref{gauss_ext}), was used to write the second line, one has a relation that could be considered as an energy conservation law
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \frac{\varepsilon _{0}E^{2}}{2}+\frac{%
B^{2}}{2\mu _{0}}+\frac{S^{2}}{2\mu _{0}}\right) +\nabla \cdot \left( \frac{%
\mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}}{\mu _{0}}+\frac{S\mathbf{E}}{\mu _{0}}\right) +%
\mathbf{j}\cdot \mathbf{E}-\frac{\rho S}{\varepsilon _{0}\mu _{0}}=0.
\label{EEED}
\end{equation}
In order to determine a possible expression of the momentum conservation law we start with the usual specific force (per unit volume) on charge-current distributions
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{f}_{0}=\rho \mathbf{E}+\mathbf{j}\times \mathbf{B},
\end{equation*}%
which using the EED equations (\ref{EEDfields}) can be written in terms of only the fields as
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{f}_{0}=\varepsilon _{0}\left( \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}+\frac{\partial
S}{\partial t}\right) \mathbf{E}+\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left( \nabla \times
\mathbf{B}-\varepsilon _{0}\mu _{0}\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}%
-\nabla S\right) \times \mathbf{B}.
\end{equation*}
Using the relations
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left( \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\right) \mathbf{E} &=&\nabla \cdot \left(
\mathbf{EE}\right) -\left( \mathbf{E}\cdot \nabla \right) \mathbf{E}, \\
\left( \nabla \times \mathbf{B}\right) \times \mathbf{B} &=&\left( \mathbf{B}%
\cdot \nabla \right) \mathbf{B}-\frac{1}{2}\nabla B^{2} \\
&=&\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{BB}\right) -\frac{1}{2}\nabla B^{2}, \\
\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}\times \mathbf{B} &\mathbf{=}&\frac{%
\partial }{\partial t}\left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}\right) -\mathbf{E}%
\times \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \\
&=&\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}\right) +%
\mathbf{E}\times \left( \nabla \times \mathbf{E}\right) \\
&=&\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}\right)
-\left( \mathbf{E}\cdot \nabla \right) \mathbf{E}+\frac{1}{2}\nabla E^{2},
\end{eqnarray*}%
we can write ($\mathbf{I}$ is the identity tensor)
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{f}_{0} &=&\varepsilon _{0}\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{EE}-\frac{E^{2}%
}{2}\mathbf{I}\right) +\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{BB}-%
\frac{B^{2}}{2}\mathbf{I}\right) \notag \\
&&-\varepsilon _{0}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \mathbf{E}\times
\mathbf{B}\right) +\varepsilon _{0}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\mathbf{E}-%
\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\nabla S\times \mathbf{B}. \label{f0int}
\end{eqnarray}%
We further use%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\mathbf{E} &\mathbf{=}&\frac{\partial }{%
\partial t}\left( S\mathbf{E}\right) -S\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}%
, \\
\nabla S\times \mathbf{B} &=&\nabla \times \left( S\mathbf{B}\right)
-S\left( \nabla \times \mathbf{B}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
so that the last two terms in (\ref{f0int}) can be written as%
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\varepsilon _{0}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( S\mathbf{E}\right) -%
\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\nabla \times \left( S\mathbf{B}\right) +\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}%
S\left( \nabla \times \mathbf{B}-\varepsilon _{0}\mu _{0}\frac{\partial
\mathbf{E}}{\partial t}\right) \\
&=&\varepsilon _{0}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( S\mathbf{E}\right) -%
\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\nabla \times \left( S\mathbf{B}\right) +\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}%
S\left( \mu _{0}\mathbf{j}+\nabla S\right) \\
&=&\varepsilon _{0}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( S\mathbf{E}\right) -%
\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\nabla \times \left( S\mathbf{B}\right) +\mathbf{j}S+\frac{%
1}{2\mu _{0}}\nabla S^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}%
The term $\mathbf{j}S$ suggests to include it in an extended force%
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{f} &=&\rho \mathbf{E}+\mathbf{j}\times \mathbf{B}-\mathbf{j}S \notag
\\
&=&\nabla \cdot \left[ \varepsilon _{0}\left( \mathbf{EE}-\frac{E^{2}}{2}%
\mathbf{I}\right) +\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left( \mathbf{BB}-\frac{B^{2}}{2}%
\mathbf{I}\right) +\frac{S^{2}}{2\mu _{0}}\mathbf{I}\right] \notag \\
&&-\varepsilon _{0}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \mathbf{E}\times
\mathbf{B}-S\mathbf{E}\right) -\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\nabla \times \left( S%
\mathbf{B}\right) . \label{finter}
\end{eqnarray}
This expression has some reasonable features, like the Maxwell stress tensor, extended to include a contribution from the scalar. However, an inconsistent feature is the last term, because, by writing it in index notation
\begin{equation*}
\left. \nabla \times \left( S\mathbf{B}\right) \right\vert _{\alpha }=\left.
\nabla \times \left( S\nabla \times \mathbf{A}\right) \right\vert _{\alpha }=%
\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\beta }}\left[ S\left( \frac{\partial A_{\beta }%
}{\partial x^{\alpha }}-\frac{\partial A_{\alpha }}{\partial x^{\beta }}%
\right) \right] ,
\end{equation*}%
we see that it is the divergence of an antisymmetric tensor, which would thus lead to the non-conservation of angular momentum in a closed system \cite{Landau_fields}.
Another inconsistency is due to the difference in sign of the term $S\mathbf{E}$ inside the time derivative, relative to that in the (extended) Poynting vector in Eq. (\ref{EEED}), which implies that for this component the field energy flow and the field momentum have opposite directions.
As shown in the next section consistent energy and momentum conservation relations can be derived directly from the Aharonov-Bohm lagrangian.
\section{Energy-momentum tensor from the Aharonov-Bohm lagrangian and
conservation laws}
\label{t-tensor}
In order to derive a consistent energy-momentum tensor and energy and
momentum conservation laws we take advantage of the expression of the
Aharonov-Bohm lagrangian in a general four-dimensional metric. This allows
the energy-momentum tensor of the fields, $T_{ik}^{AB}$, to be evaluated as
\cite{Landau_fields}%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}T_{ik}^{AB}=\frac{\partial }{\partial g^{ik}}\left(
\sqrt{-g}\Lambda ^{AB}\right) -\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{l}}\left[ \frac{%
\partial }{\partial \left( \partial g^{ik}/\partial x^{l}\right) }\left(
\sqrt{-g}\Lambda ^{AB}\right) \right] .
\end{equation*}
Since $\Lambda ^{M}$ does not depend on $\partial g^{ik}/\partial x^{l}$ the
corresponding tensor is very simply determined using that%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial \sqrt{-g}}{\partial g^{ik}}=-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}g_{ik},
\end{equation*}%
to obtain the well known result%
\begin{equation*}
T_{ik}^{M}=-\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left( F_{il}F_{km}g^{lm}-\frac{1}{4}%
F_{lm}F^{lm}g_{ik}\right) .
\end{equation*}
For the tensor corresponding to $\Lambda ^{\prime }$ we make explicit its
dependence on the metric and its derivatives using that%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{DK^{m}}{Dx^{m}} &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{m}}%
\left( \sqrt{-g}K_{i}g^{im}\right) \\
&=&g^{im}\frac{\partial K_{i}}{\partial x^{m}}+K_{i}g^{im}\frac{\partial \ln
\sqrt{-g}}{\partial x^{m}}+K_{i}\frac{\partial g^{im}}{\partial x^{m}} \\
&=&g^{im}\frac{\partial K_{i}}{\partial x^{m}}-\frac{1}{2}K_{i}g^{im}g_{kr}%
\frac{\partial g^{kr}}{\partial x^{m}}+K_{i}\frac{\partial g^{im}}{\partial
x^{m}} \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{\partial K_{i}}{\partial x^{k}}+\frac{\partial
K_{k}}{\partial x^{i}}\right) g^{ik}+\frac{1}{2}\left( K_{i}\delta
_{k}^{r}+K_{k}\delta _{i}^{r}-K_{m}g^{mr}g_{ik}\right) \frac{\partial g^{ik}%
}{\partial x^{r}}.
\end{eqnarray*}%
With this expression, a direct evaluation gives%
\begin{equation*}
T_{ik}^{\prime }=\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left[ K_{i}\frac{\partial S}{\partial
x^{k}}+K_{k}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{i}}-\left( \frac{S^{2}}{2}+K^{r}%
\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{r}}\right) g_{ik}\right] .
\end{equation*}
From now on we can specialize the evaluations in the metric of interest, Minkowski metric, and determine the energy and momentum laws by evaluation of the divergence of the energy tensor.
For the Maxwell tensor we have%
\begin{equation*}
\mu _{0}\frac{\partial T_{ik}^{M}}{\partial x_{k}}=\frac{1}{2}F^{lm}\frac{%
\partial F_{lm}}{\partial x^{i}}-g^{lm}\left( \frac{\partial F_{il}}{%
\partial x_{k}}F_{km}+F_{il}\frac{\partial F_{km}}{\partial x_{k}}\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
and using the homogeneous equations (\ref{EED_hom}) we have%
\begin{equation*}
\mu _{0}\frac{\partial T_{ik}^{M}}{\partial x_{k}}=-\frac{1}{2}F^{lm}\frac{%
\partial F_{il}}{\partial x^{m}}-\frac{1}{2}F^{lm}\frac{\partial F_{mi}}{%
\partial x^{l}}-F^{kl}\frac{\partial F_{il}}{\partial x_{k}}-g^{lm}F_{il}%
\frac{\partial F_{km}}{\partial x_{k}},
\end{equation*}%
of which the first three terms in the rhs clearly cancel out, while Eq. (\ref{EED_inhom}) gives
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial F_{km}}{\partial x_{k}}=\mu _{0}J_{m}-\frac{\partial S}{%
\partial x^{m}}, \label{EEDinhomogeneous}
\end{equation}%
so that we finally have%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{ik}^{M}}{\partial x_{k}}=-F_{ik}\left[ J^{k}-\frac{1}{\mu
_{0}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x_{k}}\right] .
\end{equation*}
For the additional tensor:%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu _{0}\frac{\partial T_{ik}^{\prime }}{\partial x_{k}} &=&\frac{\partial
K_{i}}{\partial x_{k}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{k}}+K_{i}\frac{\partial
^{2}S}{\partial x^{k}\partial x_{k}}+\frac{\partial K_{k}}{\partial x_{k}}%
\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{i}} \\
&&+K_{k}\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial x^{i}\partial x_{k}}-S\frac{\partial S%
}{\partial x^{i}}-\frac{\partial K^{r}}{\partial x^{i}}\frac{\partial S}{%
\partial x^{r}}-K^{r}\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial x^{r}\partial x^{i}} \\
&=&\frac{\partial K_{i}}{\partial x^{k}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x_{k}}-%
\frac{\partial K_{k}}{\partial x^{i}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x_{k}}+K_{i}%
\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial x^{k}\partial x_{k}}\text{,}
\end{eqnarray*}%
so that%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{ik}^{\prime }}{\partial x_{k}}=\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left(
-F_{ik}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x_{k}}+K_{i}\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial
x^{k}\partial x_{k}}\right) .
\end{equation*}
We thus finally have for the divergence of the complete tensor%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{ik}^{AB}}{\partial x_{k}}=-F_{ik}J^{k}+\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}%
K_{i}\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial x^{k}\partial x_{k}}.
\end{equation*}
Noting that by the taking the four-divergence of (\ref{EED_inhom}) one has%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial x^{m}\partial x_{m}}=\mu _{0}\frac{\partial
J_{m}}{\partial x_{m}}=\mu _{0}I, \label{D2SeqI}
\end{equation}%
we end up with%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{ik}^{AB}}{\partial x_{k}}=-F_{ik}J^{k}+K_{i}I.
\end{equation*}
If one considers the fields interacting with matter, the latter described by
an energy-tensor $T_{ik}^{matter}$, energy-momentum conservation requires
that%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{k}}\left( T_{ik}^{AB}+T_{ik}^{matter}\right) =0,
\end{equation*}%
and so
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{ik}^{matter}}{\partial x_{k}}g^{im}=-\frac{\partial
T_{ik}^{AB}}{\partial x_{k}}g^{im}=F_{ik}J^{k}g^{im}-K^{m}I
\end{equation*}%
can be considered the local power and force per unit volume on the matter
due to the fields.
In terms of three-dimensional vectors the power of the fields on matter (power lost by the fields) is%
\begin{equation}
w=c\left( F_{0k}J^{k}-K_{0}I\right) =\mathbf{j}\cdot \mathbf{E}-I\phi ,
\label{eq-w}
\end{equation}%
while the force per unit volume on matter is%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}=\rho \mathbf{E}+\mathbf{j}\times \mathbf{B}-I\mathbf{A}.
\label{eq-f}
\end{equation}
An interesting thing to note is that the potentials have a direct effect on
matter when local conservation of charge is not fulfilled.
Having obtained a symmetric tensor, no more problems with conservation of
total angular momentum exist. Besides, the proportionality of (specific)
energy flow and momentum of the fields is automatically satisfied (no more
problems with the difference in signs of the scalar parts found in the
previous section) since%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\partial T_{0k}^{AB}}{\partial x_{k}} &=&\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial
T_{00}^{AB}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial T_{0\alpha }^{AB}}{\partial
x_{\alpha }}, \\
\frac{\partial T_{\alpha k}^{AB}}{\partial x_{k}} &=&\frac{1}{c}\frac{%
\partial T_{\alpha 0}^{AB}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial T_{\alpha \beta }^{AB}%
}{\partial x_{\beta }},
\end{eqnarray*}%
and in the first relation $T_{0\alpha }^{AB}$ is proportional to the
specific energy flow, while in the second relation $T_{\alpha 0}^{AB}\left(
=T_{0\alpha }^{AB}\right) $ is proportional to the specific momentum.
The explicit expression of the additional tensor $T_{ik}^{\prime }$ in terms
of three-dimensional vectors and scalars is
\begin{subequations}
\label{Tprimeik}
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{00}^{\prime } &=&\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left( \frac{\phi }{c^{2}}\frac{%
\partial S}{\partial t}-\mathbf{A}\cdot \nabla S-\frac{S^{2}}{2}\right) , \\
T_{0\alpha }^{\prime } &=&T_{\alpha 0}^{\prime }=\frac{1}{\mu _{0}c}\left(
\phi \frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\alpha }}-A_{\alpha }\frac{\partial S}{
\partial t}\right) , \\
T_{\alpha \beta }^{\prime } &=&\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left[ -A_{\alpha }\frac{
\partial S}{\partial x^{\beta }}-A_{\beta }\frac{\partial S}{\partial
x^{\alpha }}+\left( \frac{S^{2}}{2}+\frac{\phi }{c^{2}}\frac{\partial S}{
\partial t}+\mathbf{A}\cdot \nabla S\right) \delta _{\alpha \beta }\right] .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The corresponding term in the conservation of the energy relation is
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{0k}^{\prime }}{\partial x_{k}}=\frac{1}{\mu _{0}c}\frac{%
\partial }{\partial t}\left( \frac{\phi }{c^{2}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}%
-\mathbf{A}\cdot \nabla S-\frac{S^{2}}{2}\right) -\frac{1}{\mu _{0}c}\nabla
\cdot \left( \phi \nabla S-\mathbf{A}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\right) .
\end{equation*}%
The corresponding term for Maxwell's part is the well known expression%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{0k}^{M}}{\partial x_{k}}=\frac{1}{\mu _{0}c}\frac{\partial
}{\partial t}\left[ \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{\left\vert \mathbf{E}\right\vert
^{2}}{c^{2}}+\left\vert \mathbf{B}\right\vert ^{2}\right) \right] +\frac{1}{%
\mu _{0}c}\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
so that we have the energy density for the fields%
\begin{equation*}
u=\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left( \frac{\left\vert \mathbf{E}\right\vert ^{2}}{%
2c^{2}}+\frac{\left\vert \mathbf{B}\right\vert ^{2}}{2}+\frac{\phi }{c^{2}}%
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}-\mathbf{A}\cdot \nabla S-\frac{S^{2}}{2}%
\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
the energy flow%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{S}_{u}=\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}-\phi
\nabla S+\mathbf{A}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\right) , \label{Su}
\end{equation}%
and the energy conservation relation%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+\nabla \cdot \mathbf{S}_{u}+\mathbf{j}\cdot
\mathbf{E}-I\phi =0. \label{ener_true}
\end{equation}
In order to determine the momentum conservation law we consider the spatial components of the energy-momentum four-divergence%
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{\alpha k}^{AB}}{\partial x_{k}}=-F_{\alpha
k}J^{k}+K_{\alpha }I,
\end{equation*}%
which, written in terms of the contravariant components
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial T_{\alpha k}^{AB}}{\partial x_{k}}g^{\gamma \alpha
}=-F_{\alpha k}J^{k}g^{\gamma \alpha }+K^{\gamma }I,
\end{equation*}%
can be expanded in terms of three-dimensional magnitudes as (with sum over the $%
\beta $ index)%
\begin{equation*}
-\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial T_{\alpha 0}^{AB}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial
T_{\alpha \beta }^{AB}}{\partial x^{\beta }}=-\rho E_{\alpha }-\left(
\mathbf{j}\times \mathbf{B}\right) _{\alpha }+IA_{\alpha }.
\end{equation*}
Since the Maxwell components are the well known expressions%
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_{\alpha 0}^{M} &=&-\frac{1}{\mu _{0}c}\left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}%
\right) _{\alpha }, \\
T_{\alpha \beta }^{M} &=&-\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left[ \frac{1}{c^{2}}\left(
E_{\alpha }E_{\beta }-\frac{\left\vert \mathbf{E}\right\vert ^{2}}{2}\delta
_{\alpha \beta }\right) +B_{\alpha }B_{\beta }-\frac{\left\vert \mathbf{B}%
\right\vert ^{2}}{2}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\right] ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
we have, from the relations (\ref{Tprimeik}),%
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_{\alpha 0}^{AB} &=&-\frac{1}{\mu _{0}c}\left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}%
-\phi \nabla S+\mathbf{A}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\right) _{\alpha }, \\
T_{\alpha \beta }^{AB} &=&-\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left[ \frac{1}{c^{2}}\left(
E_{\alpha }E_{\beta }-\frac{\left\vert \mathbf{E}\right\vert ^{2}}{2}\delta
_{\alpha \beta }\right) +B_{\alpha }B_{\beta }-\frac{\left\vert \mathbf{B}%
\right\vert ^{2}}{2}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\right. \\
&&\left. +A_{\alpha }\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\beta }}+A_{\beta }\frac{%
\partial S}{\partial x^{\alpha }}-\left( \frac{S^{2}}{2}+\frac{\phi }{c^{2}}%
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}+\mathbf{A}\cdot \nabla S\right) \delta
_{\alpha \beta }\right] .
\end{eqnarray*}
In this way, the components of the field momentum density vector $\mathbf{g}$
are%
\begin{equation*}
g_{\alpha }=-\frac{1}{c}T_{\alpha 0}^{AB}=\frac{1}{\mu _{0}c^{2}}\left(
\mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}-\phi \nabla S+\mathbf{A}\frac{\partial S}{%
\partial t}\right) _{\alpha }
\end{equation*}%
so that $\mathbf{g}=\mathbf{S}_{u}/c^{2}$, as it must. The three-dimensional
symmetric tensor $T_{\alpha \beta }^{AB}$ corresponds to the field stress
tensor, let us call it $\sigma _{\alpha \beta }$ ($\overleftrightarrow{%
\sigma }$ in covariant representation), so that the momentum conservation is
written as%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \mathbf{g}}{\partial t}+\nabla \cdot \overleftrightarrow{%
\sigma }+\rho \mathbf{E}+\mathbf{j}\times \mathbf{B}-I\mathbf{A}=0.
\label{momentum_true}
\end{equation}
\section{Relation with the previously derived "conservation laws"}
\label{relation-with-previously}
It is interesting that we have previously derived the "energy conservation
law" (\ref{EEED}) expressed purely in terms of the fields themselves and not
the potentials. To see its relation with the correct law (\ref{ener_true}),
we use (\ref{D2SeqI}) to write%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu _{0}I\phi &=&\phi \left( \frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial
t^{2}}-\nabla ^{2}S\right) \\
&=&S\left( \frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}\phi }{\partial t^{2}}-\nabla
^{2}\phi \right) -\nabla \cdot \left( \phi \nabla S-S\nabla \phi \right) \\
&&+\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \phi \frac{\partial S}{%
\partial t}-S\frac{\partial \phi }{\partial t}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}%
Using the first of Eqs. (\ref{ABpotentials}),
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}\phi }{\partial t^{2}}-\nabla ^{2}\phi =%
\frac{\rho }{\varepsilon _{0}},
\end{equation*}%
we have%
\begin{equation*}
\mu _{0}I\phi =\frac{\rho S}{\varepsilon _{0}}-\nabla \cdot \left( \phi
\nabla S-S\nabla \phi \right) +\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}%
\left( \phi \frac{\partial S}{\partial t}-S\frac{\partial \phi }{\partial t}%
\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
which, when replaced in (\ref{ener_true}), gives for its lhs%
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \frac{\left\vert
\mathbf{E}\right\vert ^{2}}{2c^{2}}+\frac{\left\vert \mathbf{B}\right\vert
^{2}}{2}+\frac{S}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial \phi }{\partial t}-\mathbf{A}\cdot
\nabla S-\frac{S^{2}}{2}\right) \\
&&+\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}-S\nabla
\phi +\mathbf{A}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\right) +\mathbf{j}\cdot
\mathbf{E}-\frac{\rho S}{\varepsilon _{0}\mu _{0}},
\end{eqnarray*}%
which, using%
\begin{equation*}
\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{A}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\right) -\frac{%
\partial }{\partial t}\left( \mathbf{A}\cdot \nabla S\right) =\frac{\partial
}{\partial t}\left( S\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}\right) -\nabla \cdot \left( S%
\frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
results in the lhs of (\ref{ener_true}) to be%
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( \frac{\left\vert
\mathbf{E}\right\vert ^{2}}{2c^{2}}+\frac{\left\vert \mathbf{B}\right\vert
^{2}}{2}+\frac{S}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial \phi }{\partial t}+S\nabla \cdot
\mathbf{A}-\frac{S^{2}}{2}\right) \\
&&+\frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\nabla \cdot \left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}-S\nabla
\phi -S\frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}\right) +\mathbf{j}\cdot
\mathbf{E}-\frac{\rho S}{\varepsilon _{0}\mu _{0}},
\end{eqnarray*}%
which, since
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbf{E} &=&-\nabla \phi -\frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}, \\
S &=&\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial \phi }{\partial t}+\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A},
\end{eqnarray*}
coincides with the lhs of relation (\ref{EEED}). \ Of course, the correct
energy law is (\ref{ener_true}), while (\ref{EEED}), however correct as a
mathematical relation for the fields, does not have the correct
interpretation in terms of energy density, energy flow and power over matter.
Analogously, by writing%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu _{0}IA_{\alpha } &=&A_{\alpha }\left( \frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}S%
}{\partial t^{2}}-\nabla ^{2}S\right) \\
&=&S\left( \frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}A_{\alpha }}{\partial t^{2}}%
-\nabla ^{2}A_{\alpha }\right) -\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\beta }}\left(
A_{\alpha }\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\beta }}-S\frac{\partial A_{\alpha }%
}{\partial x^{\beta }}\right) \\
&&+\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left( A_{\alpha }\frac{%
\partial S}{\partial t}-S\frac{\partial A_{\alpha }}{\partial t}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
and replacing it in (\ref{momentum_true}), we can reobtain after a direct,
but lengthy evaluation, the relation between fields (\ref{finter}).
\section{Radiated power from a localized source}
\label{radiated-power}
We can now evaluate the power radiated from a localized source in the dipole, long-wave approximation.
The solution of the wave equation for $S$, Eq. (\ref{D2SeqI}), is%
\begin{equation*}
S\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) =\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi }\int \frac{I\left(
\mathbf{x}^{\prime },t^{\prime }\right) }{\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}%
^{\prime }\right\vert }d^{3}x^{\prime },
\end{equation*}%
with $t^{\prime }=t-\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert /c$%
.
Considering a normal mode $I\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime },t^{\prime }\right) =%
\widehat{I}\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right) \exp \left( -i\omega t^{\prime
}\right) $ we can write%
\begin{eqnarray*}
S\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi }\int \frac{\widehat{I}%
\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right) }{\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}%
^{\prime }\right\vert }\exp \left[ -i\omega \left( t-\left\vert \mathbf{x}-%
\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert /c\right) \right] d^{3}x^{\prime } \\
&=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi }\exp \left( -i\omega t\right) \int \frac{\widehat{I%
}\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right) }{\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}%
^{\prime }\right\vert }\exp \left( ik\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}%
^{\prime }\right\vert \right) d^{3}x^{\prime },
\end{eqnarray*}%
where $k=\omega /c$. In this way, with $S\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) =%
\widehat{S}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) \exp \left( -i\omega t\right) $, we have%
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{S}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) =\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi }\int \frac{%
\widehat{I}\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right) }{\left\vert \mathbf{x}-%
\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert }\exp \left( ik\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{%
x}^{\prime }\right\vert \right) d^{3}x^{\prime }.
\end{equation*}
Considering the source $I$ localized about $\mathbf{x}=0$, for a far distant
(relative to the source dimensions) $\mathbf{x}$ position, we have%
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert \simeq r\left( 1-\frac{%
\mathbf{x}\cdot \mathbf{x}^{\prime }}{r^{2}}\right) =r\left( 1-\frac{\mathbf{%
n}\cdot \mathbf{x}^{\prime }}{r}\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
with $r=\left\vert \mathbf{x}\right\vert $ and where the unit vector in the
direction of the observation point, $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{x}/r$ was defined .
Also
\begin{eqnarray*}
\exp \left( ik\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert \right)
&\simeq &\exp \left( ikr\right) \exp \left( -ik\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{x}%
^{\prime }\right) \\
&=&\exp \left( ikr\right) \left( 1-ik\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{x}^{\prime
}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
where in the second line it was assumed that the wavelength $\lambda =2\pi
/k $ is large compared to the source dimensions. We thus have%
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{S}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) =\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi r}\exp \left(
ikr\right) \int \widehat{I}\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right) \left( 1-ik%
\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right) d^{3}x^{\prime }.
\end{equation*}
Since even if the charge is not conserved locally, it is conserved globally,
one has that%
\begin{equation*}
\int \widehat{I}\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right) d^{3}x^{\prime }=0,
\end{equation*}%
so that%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widehat{S}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) &=&-i\frac{\mu _{0}k}{4\pi r}\exp \left(
ikr\right) \mathbf{n}\cdot \int \widehat{I}\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime
}\right) \mathbf{x}^{\prime }d^{3}x^{\prime } \\
&\equiv &-i\frac{\mu _{0}k}{4\pi r}\exp \left( ikr\right) \mathbf{n}\cdot
\widehat{\mathbf{P}},
\end{eqnarray*}%
where the second moment $\widehat{\mathbf{P}}$ of the Fourier amplitude of
the extra-source was defined. We thus have in this approximation,
transforming back to the time domain,
\begin{eqnarray}
S\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&-\sum\limits_{\omega }i\frac{\mu _{0}\omega
}{4\pi cr}\exp \left[ i\left( kr-\omega t\right) \right] \widehat{\mathbf{P}}%
\left( \omega \right) \cdot \mathbf{n} \notag \\
&=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi cr}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\sum\limits_{\omega
}\exp \left[ i\left( kr-\omega t\right) \right] \widehat{\mathbf{P}}\left(
\omega \right) \cdot \mathbf{n} \notag \\
&=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi cr}\mathbf{\dot{P}}\left( t-r/c\right) \cdot
\mathbf{n}. \label{Ssource}
\end{eqnarray}
In the same approximation it is also readily determined (see \cite{Minotti-Modanese-Symmetry2021})
that ($\mathbf{p}$ is the usual electric dipole)%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi \left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\frac{\mu _{0}c}{4\pi r}
\mathbf{\dot{p}}\left( t-r/c\right) \cdot \mathbf{n}, \\
\mathbf{A}\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi r}\left[
\mathbf{\dot{p}}\left( t-r/c\right) -\mathbf{P}\left( t-r/c\right)
\right] , \\
\mathbf{E}\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi r}\left\{ %
\left[ \mathbf{\ddot{p}}\left( t-r/c\right) \times \mathbf{n}\right]
\times \mathbf{n}+\mathbf{\dot{P}}\left( t-r/c\right) \right\} , \\
\mathbf{B}\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi rc}\left[
\mathbf{\ddot{p}}\left( t-r/c\right) -\mathbf{\dot{P}}\left(
t-r/c\right) \right] \times \mathbf{n}.
\end{eqnarray*}%
We can thus determine the flux of the extended Poynting vector through a
distant sphere, centered at the dipole, of surface element $d\mathbf{S}%
=r^{2}\sin \theta d\theta d\varphi \mathbf{n}$, so that the instantaneous
emitted power is%
\begin{eqnarray}
W &=&\oint \frac{1}{\mu _{0}}\left( \mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}-\phi \nabla
S+\mathbf{A}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\right) \cdot d\mathbf{S} \notag \\
&=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{12\pi c}\left[ 2\left\vert \mathbf{\ddot{p}}-
\mathbf{\dot{P}}\right\vert ^{2}+\left( 2\mathbf{\dot{p}}-
\mathbf{P}\right) \cdot \mathbf{\ddot{P}}\right]. \label{power_dipole}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{concl}
\subsection{Considerations on the gauge freedom of the theory}
An important point of the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) theory is that the potentials are the fundamental fields, which also appear in directly measurable quantities as the power delivered to, and force on matter, eqs. (\ref{eq-w}) and (\ref{eq-f}), respectively. It is thus necessary to address the issue of the theory gauge freedom mentioned at the end of Section \ref{AB-lagr}.
At variance with Maxwell theory, the wave equations for the potentials are uniquely determined in AB theory, eqs. (\ref{ABpotentials}), so that their fundamental solutions in terms of the sources in unbounded space is given by
\begin{subequations}
\label{uniq_pot_sol}
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi \left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}}\int
\frac{\rho \left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime },t^{\prime }\right) }{\left\vert
\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert }d^{3}x^{\prime }, \\
\mathbf{A}\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi }\int \frac{%
\mathbf{j}\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime },t^{\prime }\right) }{\left\vert
\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert }d^{3}x^{\prime },
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
with $t^{\prime }=t-\left\vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert /c$.
These equations satisfy the conditions that the potentials are zero at all times prior to the turning on of the sources, and at space points where, at the time considered, no information travelling at the speed of light could have arrived from the sources. These "natural" conditions determine that no solution of the wave equation without sources can be added to the potentials given by eqs (\ref{uniq_pot_sol}), because that solution would have to be present before the sources were turned on. On the other hand, the gauge freedom of the theory allows to add sourceless wave solutions to satisfy boundary conditions when it is more practical to work in terms of these conditions than in terms of the actual sources that give rise to the potentials.
The conclusion is that no actual gauge freedom exists in AB theory if the sources are fully known. The limited gauge freedom left is in fact a flexibility of the theory that allows to work in terms of boundary conditions when, from a practical point of view, the actual sources are difficult to determine.
\subsection{Considerations on the possible sources}
From the definition of the dipole moment of the extra source we can obtain a useful relation as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{P} &=&\int \mathbf{x}I\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) d^{3}x=\int \mathbf{%
x}\left( \frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}+\nabla \cdot \mathbf{j}\right)
d^{3}x \notag\\
&=&\frac{d}{dt}\int \mathbf{x}\rho \left( \mathbf{x},t\right) d^{3}x+\int
\mathbf{x}\nabla \cdot \mathbf{j}d^{3}x \notag\\
&=&\mathbf{\dot{p}}+\oint \mathbf{x}\left( \mathbf{j}\cdot d\mathbf{S}%
\right) -\int \mathbf{j}\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) d^{3}x.\label{Pexplicit}
\end{eqnarray}
In the extreme case of a dipole with no current, so that, from (\ref{Pexplicit}), $\overset{.}{\mathbf{p}}=\mathbf{P}$, and one has
\begin{equation*}
W=\frac{\mu _{0}}{12\pi c}\mathbf{P}\cdot \mathbf{\ddot{P}}=\frac{\mu
_{0}}{12\pi c}\frac{d}{dt}\left( \mathbf{P}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{P}}
\right) -\frac{\mu _{0}}{12\pi c}\left\vert \mathbf{\dot{P}}
\right\vert ^{2},
\end{equation*}
which for periodic in time, or transient sources has a negative mean value
\begin{equation}
\left\langle W\right\rangle =-\frac{\mu _{0}}{12\pi c}\left\langle
\left\vert \mathbf{\dot{P}}\right\vert ^{2}\right\rangle . \label{power_periodic}
\end{equation}
In this case
\begin{equation*}
\int \left\langle \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\right\rangle d^{3}x=0,
\end{equation*}
so that the matter appears to gain energy from the fields through an incoming energy flux.
This counter-intuitive phenomenon does not, in principle, involve a non-conservation of energy, because in order to produce either a periodic or a transient dipole without the presence of a current, a non-electromagnetic agent could provide the necessary energy, acting locally on the source.
In order to further explore this issue we consider the elementary model of a dipole without current, consisting in two point charges of equal, time varying magnitude, but opposite sign, located at fixed positions $a$ and $-a$ on the $z$ axis. The charge density and corresponding extra source are thus given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho \left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&Q\left( t\right) \delta \left( \mathbf{x}%
-a\mathbf{e}_{z}\right) -Q\left( t\right) \delta \left( \mathbf{x}+a\mathbf{e%
}_{z}\right) , \\
I\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\dot{Q}\left( t\right) \delta \left( \mathbf{%
x}-a\mathbf{e}_{z}\right) -\dot{Q}\left( t\right) \delta \left( \mathbf{x}+a%
\mathbf{e}_{z}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
while the potential is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi \left( \mathbf{x},t\right) &=&\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}}\int
\frac{\rho \left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime },t^{\prime }\right) }{\left\vert
\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime }\right\vert }d^{3}x^{\prime } \\
&=&\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}}\left[ \frac{Q\left( t-\left\vert \mathbf{x%
}-a\mathbf{e}_{z}\right\vert /c\right) }{\left\vert \mathbf{x}-a\mathbf{e}%
_{z}\right\vert }-\frac{Q\left( t-\left\vert \mathbf{x}+a\mathbf{e}%
_{z}\right\vert /c\right) }{\left\vert \mathbf{x}+a\mathbf{e}_{z}\right\vert
}\right] .
\end{eqnarray*}
We thus have
\begin{equation*}
\int I\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) \phi \left( \mathbf{x},t\right) d^{3}x=
\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}}\left[ \frac{2\dot{Q}\left( t\right) Q\left(
t\right) }{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}}-\frac{\dot{Q}\left( t\right) Q\left(
t-2a/c\right) }{a}\right] ,
\end{equation*}
where $\epsilon$ has units of length. Note that the divergent, self-interaction term cancels when time averaged in the case of a transient, or periodic dipole.
By Taylor developing $Q\left(t-2a/c\right) $:
\begin{equation*}
Q\left( t-2a/c\right) =Q\left( t\right) -\frac{2a}{c}\dot{Q}\left( t\right) +%
\frac{2a^{2}}{c^{2}}\ddot{Q}\left( t\right) -\frac{4a^{3}}{c^{3}}\dddot{Q}%
\left( t\right) +O\left( \frac{a^{4}Q}{c^{5}}\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
we obtain for the time average in transient, or periodic cases
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int \left\langle I\left( \mathbf{x},t\right) \phi \left( \mathbf{x}
,t\right) \right\rangle d^{3}x &=&\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}}\left[
\frac{2}{c}\left\langle \dot{Q}^{2}\left( t\right) \right\rangle -\frac{
4a^{2}}{3c^{3}}\left\langle \ddot{Q}^{2}\left( t\right) \right\rangle
+O\left( \frac{a^{4}Q^{2}}{c^{5}}\right) \right] \\
&=&\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon _{0}}\left[ \frac{1}{2a^{2}c}\left\langle
\left\vert \mathbf{P}\right\vert ^{2}\right\rangle -\frac{1}{3c^{3}}
\left\langle \left\vert \mathbf{\dot{P}}\right\vert ^{2}\right\rangle
+O\left( \frac{a^{2}P^{2}}{c^{5}}\right) \right] \\
&=&\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi }\left[ \frac{c}{2a^{2}}\left\langle \left\vert
\mathbf{P}\right\vert ^{2}\right\rangle -\frac{1}{3c}\left\langle \left\vert
\mathbf{\dot{P}}\right\vert ^{2}\right\rangle +O\left( \frac{a^{2}P^{2}}{
c^{3}}\right) \right] .
\end{eqnarray*}
In the dipole approximation, $a\rightarrow 0$ with $P$ finite, all terms of order higher than that of the second one go to zero, the second term corresponds to the incoming power, given by eq. (\ref{power_periodic}), while the (divergent in this approximation) first term indicates a large power transferred locally from the source to the fields. This poses a problem, because, although a non-electromagnetic agent can provide the power to the source, the energy conservation relation (\ref{ener_true}) does not include a mechanism that allows the power transferred to the fields to be given back or dissipated, other than that expressed by the term $\mathbf{j}\cdot \mathbf{E}$, which is absent in the model with no current.
We can thus conclude that the model source considered is not physically possible, even allowing for the presence of non-electromagnetic mechanisms that could set up that source in principle. This does not mean that a similar type of source is excluded. For example, a source of the type considered, but with a ``slow'' increase in the separation $a$, slow in the sense that $\dot{a}/a\ll \left\vert \dot{Q}/Q\right\vert $, so that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\int \left\langle u\right\rangle d^{3}x>0,
\end{equation*}
is possible in principle. The increase in energy of the fields and source must of course originate in the non-electromagnetic agent acting on the source.
On the other hand, we can see with a simple example that there is no anomalous behavior when the extra source is due to a current discontinuity without net charge. Since in this case the electric dipole $\mathbf{p}$ is zero, according to eq. (\ref{Pexplicit}) for a closed circuit in which there is a discontinuity in the current $i$ across a gap of width $a$ we have $\left\vert \mathbf{P}\right\vert =ia$.
In this case the mean radiated power given by the time average of expression (\ref{power_dipole}) is positive and of value
\begin{equation*}
\left\langle W\right\rangle=\frac{\mu _{0}}{4\pi c}\left\langle\left\vert \mathbf{\dot{P}}\right\vert ^{2}\right\rangle=\frac{
\mu _{0}a^{2}}{4\pi c}\left\langle\left( \frac{di}{dt}\right) ^{2}\right\rangle.
\end{equation*}
Note that this is the same expression that would correspond to $3/2$ times the mean power emitted by a normal dipole with conserved current.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have presented a method to help users autocomplete repetitive short strokes with guidance from reference images while maintaining the flexible control of manual drawing.
By extending operation history analysis and synthesis with image analysis, our method is able to generate results that adapt to reference images and users' prior inputs.
We conducted a pilot study to validate the usefulness of our approach and show various drawing results from the users.
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:eval}
We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the utility and usability of our approach.
We compared three modes through quantitative analysis and qualitative feedback.
\begin{description}%
\item[Autocomplete]
Users have full access to our prototype, including autocomplete and interactive editing.
\item[Interactive batch filling]
(aka {\em batch mode})
Users are required to create a texture example first and then manually specify the properties for batch filling.
It simulates the sequential procedure in many IB-AR methods (e.g., \cite{Salisbury:1997:OTI}), although they rarely allow users to directly define examples on target images.
This mode is performed on our system with the autocomplete function off.
\item[Fully manual drawing]
(aka {\em manual mode})
Users have to manually draw each stroke without any automatic synthesis.
\end{description}
We also tested the expressiveness of our system through an open creation session and obtained comments for future improvements.
\input{new_study}
\section{User Interface}
\label{sec:interface}
\input{ui_fig}
Our prototype follows a standard digital drawing interface, with the added autocomplete feature, as shown in \Cref{fig:ui}.
A user draws on top of a reference image displayed semi-transparently on the main canvas,
while our system analyzes the input strokes and the reference image in the background.
\subsection{Autocomplete}
\input{autocomplete_fig}
In the autocomplete mode, our system automatically analyzes whenever the user finishes a new stroke.
When a potential repetition is detected, our system highlights the currently repetitive strokes and an inferred propagation region, updates the inferred parameters in the filling property panel, and generates autocompletion suggestions.
Users can accept or reject all the suggestions via hotkeys, accept part of them via lasso selection, or ignore them and continue to draw (\Cref{fig:autocomplete}).
The suggestions will keep updating according to user inputs.
\subsection{Interactive Editing}
\input{interactive_edit_fig}
Our system provides a set of tools to refine the autocompleted results.
\begin{description}
\item[Propagation region editing.]
Users can create/add/subtract a new region using the intelligent scissors tool \cite{Mortensen:1995:ISI} or expand an existing region by a fixed width (\Cref{fig:ui}e) for stroke autocompletion.
\Cref{fig:region_edit} shows an example of creating a new region for stroke regeneration.
\item[Density editing.]
Users can tweak three parameters to adjust the density of the generated strokes: the average {\em spacing}, the {\em lightness} coefficient and the {\em gradient} coefficient.
The latter two define the relationships between density and image lightness/gradient, respectively.
Our system automatically updates these parameters upon prediction, and the updated parameters provide
a starting point for users to manipulate.
%
\Cref{fig:density_edit} shows an example.%
\item[Orientation editing.]
Our system automatically predicts whether the input exemplar correlates with the image flow, which can also be tweaked by users manually.
%
Users can also modify the image flow field via the gesture brush, and the touched strokes will be rotated to align with the gesture direction.
See \Cref{fig:orient_edit} for an example.
\end{description}
\subsection{Auxiliary Functions}
Our prototype also includes the auxiliary functions below.
These are not unique to our system but can facilitate the usual drawing processes.
\begin{description}
\item[Post-edit stroke properties.]
Users can select the existing strokes and edit their properties, such as size and color.
\item[Auto-color.]
This function, when toggled on, can automatically colorize strokes with color from the reference image.
\item[Switch view.]
Users can press the space key to switch between the canvas view, reference view, and pure drawing view.
\end{description}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Drawing is a common form of artistic expression.
By varying the stroke, texture, and shading, artists can create drawings with various styles \cite{Dunn:2015:PID}.
Yet, it remains a largely manual process that may require significant artistic expertise and repetitive manual labor.
\input{style_comp_fig}
Various methods have been proposed to synthesize user-initiated repetitive strokes \cite{Kazi:2012:VIT,Xing:2014:APR} to reduce the manual labor.
However, such methods still require sufficient artistic expertise or experience for high-level picture composition.
One common way to overcome this skill barrier is to use a reference photo as a scaffold for drawing, i.e., tracing a reference photo physically via transparent papers or digitally via layers in digital drawing applications.
With a given reference, many methods exist to automate the synthesis of details, such as contours, textures, or strokes \cite{Winkenbach:1994:CPI,Salisbury:1994:IPI,Hertzmann:2001:IA,Alves:2010:SBS,Lu:2012:CST,Benedetti:2014:PBA,Fiser:2016:SIE,Li:2017:CS,Tsai:2017:ULA,Li:2019:ICP}, with the effects tunable via input parameters or exemplars.
However, since these algorithms largely predefine the behaviors, their results may look canned (\Cref{fig:style_comp}) and cannot give users a sense of ownership.
Furthermore, tweaking parameters or providing exemplars can break the spontaneous flow of direct drawing manipulation, which is important to creative decision making \cite{Jacobs:2017:SEP} and essential to a user's enjoyment and exploration \cite{Shneiderman:1987:DMS}.
Manual drawing provides sufficient freedom for individual expressing even when scaffolded with a reference image \cite{Xie:2014:PFS}, and its typical interface (e.g., brush, eraser) is familiar to general users.
Thus, we aim to enhance the manual drawing process and the typical UI design, by automating tedious repetitions.
Our idea is to bridge the two extremes: {\em manual drawing}, which allows full control but can be tedious; and {\em image-based algorithmic synthesis}, which saves efforts but provides limited user control and interactivity.
As the first attempt towards this goal, our approach focuses on autocompleting repetitive {\em short} strokes, which are very common in pen-and-ink drawing (\Cref{fig:artwork_eg}), under the guidance of a reference image.
Like typical digital drawing applications, users can draw freely on a reference image with our system.
Meanwhile, our system analyzes the relationships between user inputs and the reference image, detects potential repetitions, and suggests what users might want to draw next.
Users can accept, reject, or ignore the suggestions and continue drawing, thus maintaining the fluid control of drawing.
See \Cref{fig:teaser} for an example scenario.
The challenge of autocompletion is to predict suggestions that respect both users' inputs and the reference image.
Our method is inspired by image analogy \cite{Hertzmann:2001:IA} and operation history analysis and synthesis \cite{Xing:2014:APR} while leveraging two key insights.
First, since the act of drawing repetitive strokes usually indicates specific intentions (e.g., filling an object or hatching a shading region), we use the common image features among the coherent repetitive strokes to infer the intended regions.
Second, the drawing usually relates to the underlying reference image (e.g., the density of strokes with respect to the image lightness).
Therefore, we analyze the properties of both the drawing and the reference image to infer possible relationships as contextual constraints for stroke prediction.
We implemented a prototype and conducted a pilot study with participants in different backgrounds to evaluate its utility and usability.
The quantitative analysis and qualitative feedback, as well as various drawing results created by users,
suggest that our system effectively reduces users' workload in drawing repetitive short strokes
and facilitates users in creating results with rich patterns.
\section{Limitations and Future Work}
\label{sec:limit}
From our observation and users' feedback, we identified several improvement opportunities.
\paragraph{Improve accuracy of autocompletion.}
We rely on simple $Lab*$ color and semantic segmentation for region inference.
While color feature is sufficient for most cases, regions with similar colors but different semantics will require sufficient segmentation accuracy for region inference (\Cref{fig:target_tasks:bear_seg,fig:target_tasks:beach_seg}).
Since our segmentation map is precomputed, taking users' input as additional cues might help improve the segmentation accuracy (e.g., using interactive semantic segmentation methods like \cite{Ning:2017:DGO}).
\input{visual_block_fig}
\paragraph{Resolve visual blocking.}
Since the drawing and the system suggestions are overlaid on the reference image, it might be difficult for users to refer to the image when selecting parts of the suggestions (e.g., \Cref{fig:visualblock}) or adding a new layer of strokes.
Although users can switch the views via a hotkey, it might be helpful to provide some reference information, like image darkness or boundaries, through additional visual hints \cite{Xie:2014:PFS,Williford:2019:DAN}.
\paragraph{Consider relationships with higher-level image features.}
We only consider the relationships between strokes and low-level image features, like colors and flows, over regions.
By considering higher-level image features, such as elements and edges, it is possible to extend the scope of autocompletion, such as autocomplting the sparse flowers in the foreground of \Cref{fig:results:ladyhat} through the correspondences between strokes and elements.
\paragraph{Support more stroke types.}
Our method only supports short strokes, while artists also use long repetitive strokes frequently \cite{Dunn:2015:PID}.
It is worth investigating the possibility of incorporating continuous strokes \cite{Tu:2020:CCT} in our analysis and synthesis framework and extending the support for different input strokes.
\section{Our Approach} %
\label{sec:method}
\input{method_overview}
\input{method_synthesis}
\input{method_analysis}
\subsection{Inference}
\label{sec:method:analysis}
In this section, we describe how to infer $E$, $M$, $O$, and $\radiusMap$ used for our synthesis method in \forwardref{\Cref{sec:method:synthesis}}{the previous section} from user interactions with $I$.
\input{method_grouping}
\input{method_prediction}
\input{method_relation}
\subsubsection{Input exemplar $E$}
\label{sec:method:grouping}
\input{grouping_fig}
This step aims to detect whether stroke repetitions exist and obtain the repetitive group as an exemplar for the synthesis process.
Since people usually draw strokes in a coherent manner \cite{Xing:2014:APR} and they usually have specific intentions when drawing repetitive strokes,
we assume the example strokes to be temporally consecutive and have certain similar properties.
We start from the last stroke input by the user
and search backward in the stroke sequence to incrementally find strokes that have similar shape and image features to the last stroke.
Specifically, the stroke shape similarity is measured with the Fr\'echet distance, and the image features include $Lab*$ color (weighted by 0.12, 0.44, and 0.44 to suppress the impact of lightness) and precomputed semantic segmentation \cite{Zhao:2017:PSP} at a stroke's center.
We compare the standard deviation of a feature in the traversed $k$ strokes against a threshold (15/255 for the color feature, 1 for the segmentation feature) for similarity measurement.
The back-traversal stops when the next stroke does not contain any similar feature or $k > 50$.
These $k$ strokes serve as the input exemplar for the synthesis process.
See \Cref{fig:grouping} for an example of the incremental searching process.
\subsubsection{Output region $M$}
\label{sec:method:Prediction}
The shared features of the obtained stroke exemplar also indicate the intended region.
For instance, if all of the exemplar strokes are inside the same object segmentation region, it is very likely that the user intends to fill that region.
Therefore, we use the shared features obtained in the exemplar grouping process to find a similar region for output.
Since there are only two features in our implementation, we simply obtain the region by GrabCut \cite{Rother:2004:GIF} if the $Lab*$ color feature is shared among the exemplar strokes, directly take the corresponding segmentation if the semantic feature is shared, and take the intersection if both features are shared.
See \Cref{fig:grouping} for an example.
When there are multiple disconnected regions, we retain the nearest region to the user's last stroke and discard the rest, because it is less natural to propagate to distant regions.
\subsubsection{Contextual constraints}
\label{sec:method:property}
Since the drawing usually relates to the underlying reference image, we analyze the properties of both the drawn strokes and the reference image to infer possible relationships that control the global distribution of strokes.
\paragraph{Orientation $O$}
Artists usually adjust the stroke directions to convey curvatures, but they may sometimes randomize or fix the stroke orientation regardless of the depicted objects to create different visual effects.
Therefore, the problem is to decide which case the input exemplar implies.
We first compute the edge tangent field (ETF) \cite{Kyprianidis:2011:CEF} for the reference image and then calculate the angles between the exemplar strokes and the ETF directions at their centroids.
If the standard deviation of the angles is small (less than 15 degrees), we consider the stroke orientations to be related to the ETF and take the ETF as the orientation field;
otherwise, we set a default global coordinate frame to each point of the orientation field.
\paragraph{Radius $\radiusMap$}
Since density is inversely proportional to the spacing between strokes, we reframe the problem as predicting a radius map that controls the extent of stroke neighborhoods.
First, we compute the distance from each exemplar stroke to its nearest neighbor.
We assume a linear relationship between these minimum distances $r$ and the image features, including image lightness $l$ and gradient strength $g$ at a stroke's centroid, represented as:
\begin{equation}
r = \begin{pmatrix}
l & g & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot \modelCoeff,
\end{equation}
where $\modelCoeff$ denotes the coefficients to solve.
With the fitted linear model, if the squared correlation value is lower than 0.5 (the closer to 1, the better explanation), we use the model to compute a radius map.
Otherwise, we consider the density as uniform and create a constant radius map with the average spatial distance of the exemplar.
We then update the UI with the computed coefficients.
\subsection{Stroke Synthesis}
\label{sec:method:synthesis}
\paragraph{Problem statement}
The inputs to our stroke synthesis method include an exemplar $E$ consisting of repetitive strokes, the reference image $I$, a target region mask $M$, an orientation map $O$, and a radius map $\radiusMap$.
Pixel values of $\radiusMap$ denote the extents of stroke spacing: a smaller value leads to a denser distribution.
Our goal is to compute an output set of strokes $X$ over the output region $M$, such that $X$ is similar to $E$ with respect to $I$.
We describe how to infer $E$, $M$, $O$, and $\radiusMap$ from user interactions with $I$ in \forwardref{\Cref{sec:method:analysis}}{the {\em prediction} section}.
\paragraph{Key idea}
We extend the discrete element texture synthesis method \cite{Ma:2011:DET,Xing:2014:APR}, which represents strokes as point samples and iteratively improves the sample distribution by minimizing the neighborhood difference between the exemplar and the output, with an additional reference image.
First, we combine sample neighborhoods \cite{Ma:2011:DET} with image features \cite{Hertzmann:2001:IA} for measuring neighborhood difference. %
Second, the range and orientation of sample neighborhoods are determined by the radius and orientation maps inferred from the reference image.
\Cref{fig:method_illustration} shows our key idea.
\input{method_representation}
\paragraph{Initialization}
We pre-process the target region mask $M$ by removing the area occupied by existing strokes in the same layer to avoid cluttering,
and then initialize the output $X$ by generating sample positions with Poisson-disk sampling based on the radius map $\radiusMap$.
For each sampled position, we copy the input stroke with the smallest image feature distance $\dist_{\refImage}$, which will be explained in \Cref{eqn:dist:neigh}.
We then optimize the output for a few objectives, as detailed below.
\paragraph{Neighborhood term}
We define the neighborhood of a stroke $\stroke$ as both its neighboring strokes as well as an $\radiusMap(\stroke) \times \radiusMap(\stroke)$ image patch around its centroid, where $\radiusMap(\stroke)$ is the radius value at $\stroke$.
Prior methods (e.g. \cite{Ma:2011:DET}) determine the neighboring strokes by spatial distances.
Thus, the neighborhood radius should be large enough in order to capture an underlying pattern.
However, this might include redundant strokes and thus decrease the performance.
Therefore, we adopt Zhao et al.’s method \shortcite{Zhao:2011:CPR} to automatically find a minimum representative neighborhood, considering not only the spatial distance between strokes but also their locations.
As depicted in \Cref{fig:synthesis:neighborhood}, we set the neighborhood radius of the center stroke $\stroke$ to $2\radiusMap(\stroke)$.
We then divide all the strokes within the neighborhood radius into four quadrants with respect to the local frame defined by the orientation at $O(\stroke)$,
and collect the $n$ nearest strokes from each quadrant as the representative neighborhood, denoted as $\mathbf{N}(\stroke)$.
In our implementation, we set $n=4$ for the input exemplar and $n=1$ for the output strokes to ensure that each output neighborhood can be maximally matched.
For a stroke $\stroke$ and a neighboring stroke $\elem^{\prime}\in\mathbf{N}(\stroke)$, we compute their difference in position and direction as:
\begin{align}
\hat{u}(\elem^{\prime}, \stroke)
=\left(\frac{1}{\radiusMap(\stroke)} O(\stroke)^{-1} \left(p(\elem^{\prime}) - p(\stroke) \right),
O(\stroke)^{-1} \left(v(\elem^{\prime}) - v(\stroke) \right)\right),
\end{align}
which is computed in the local frame defined by the radius map $\radiusMap$ and orientation map $O$.
Therefore, the neighborhood distance between an output stroke $\elem_{o}$ and an input stroke $\elem_{i}$ is:
\begin{equation}
\dist_{neigh}(\elem_{o}, \elem_{i}) =
\sum_{\outputElem^{\prime}\in\mathbf{N}(\elem_{o})}
\left| \hat{u}(\outputElem^{\prime}, \elem_{o}) - \hat{u}(\inputElem^{\prime}, \elem_{i})\right| ^{2}
+ \mu
\underbrace{\left| I(\elem_{o}) - I(\elem_{i})\right| ^{2}}_{\dist_{\refImage}},
\label{eqn:dist:neigh}
\end{equation}
where
$\inputElem^{\prime}$ is the matched input sample for $\outputElem^{\prime}$ via the Hungarian algorithm \cite{Ma:2011:DET,Ma:2013:DET},
the second term measures the image feature distance $\dist_{\refImage}$, and $\mu$ ($=0.1$ in our implementation) controls the relative weighting.
We use the mean $Lab*$ color of an $r \times r$ patch at the stroke centroid as the image feature vector.
The overall neighborhood term to minimize is:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:energy:nbh}
\phi_{neigh}(X, E) =
\sum_{\elem_{o}\inX} \min_{\elem_{i}\inE} \dist_{neigh}(\elem_{o}, \elem_{i}).
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Correction term}
Since the neighborhood term is a one-way matching from the output neighborhoods to the input neighborhoods, \yl{sometimes the optimization would tend to leave out some void regions}.
Besides, the neighborhood term does not preserve strokes' alignment to the image (e.g., \Cref{fig:iteration:nocomp}).
To address these issues, we apply a correction term.
We compute a weighted centroidal Voronoi diagram from all the strokes' center points, using $\frac{1}{\radiusMap}$ as weight, and denote the computed region centroids as $\{\bar{\elemCentroid}\}$.
Thus we can minimize the distance between each output stroke centroid and the region centroid, defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:energy:corr}
\phi_{corr}(X) = \sum_{\elem_{o}\inX}
\left| p(\elem_{o}) - \bar{\elemCentroid}(\elem_{o})\right| ^{2}.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Solver}
\input{iteration_fig}
The energy function we aim to minimize is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\phi(X, E) = (1-w) \phi_{neigh} + w \phi_{corr}.
\end{equation}
We iteratively minimize the energy function following the EM methodology in \cite{Ma:2011:DET}.
In each iteration, for each output stroke $\elem_{o}$, we search for the most matched input stroke $\elem_{i}$ to minimize $\phi_{neigh}$, compute the Voronoi diagram centroid $\bar{\elemCentroid}$ to minimize $\phi_{corr}$, and solve a least-squares system combining both terms.
Let $m$ be the total number of iterations. For the $i-$th iteration, we set $w = (i / m)^{2}$, which means that more weight is given to $\phi_{neigh}$ in the beginning of iterations,
so that we can optimize the neighborhood distribution first before doing corrections, which leads to better results.
\Cref{fig:iteration:init,fig:iteration:intermediate,fig:iteration:final}
show the iterative optimization process of both the objectives.
In comparison, \Cref{fig:iteration:nocomp} shows the result without the correction term and \Cref{fig:iteration:noimg} shows the result without using the image neighborhood in both initialization and optimization.
\subsection{Target Session}
\input{target_session_fig}
The goal of this session is to compare the three interaction modes in utility and usability.
Since we aim to facilitate image-scaffolded drawing, we hope to include general users from different background while focusing more on less skillful users, who are more likely to use reference images.
We thus recruited 12 participants, including nine novices with little drawing experiences, two amateurs with some experiences (P3, P4), and a student majored in illustration (P5).
Most of the studies were conducted on a Lenovo Miix 520 tablet with stylus in a lab environment, except two studies conducted remotely with mouse due to the pandemic.
The study procedure consisted of the following parts and took each participant about two hours in total.
\textbf{Tutorial.}
Each participant was first given a brief introduction to our system and then asked to fill the apple in \Cref{fig:ui} with short hatches as a warm-up task.
They were encouraged to vary the density and orientation of input strokes and get familiar with the features of our system.
\textbf{Target tasks.}
We used a within-subjects design, where each participant was asked to reproduce two target drawings (\Cref{fig:target_tasks}) in all the three modes: autocomplete, interactive batch filling, and fully manual drawing.
The target drawings include an object and a landscape, which are common illustration topics (e.g., \Cref{fig:artwork_eg}).
The assigned order of modes was counter-balanced among all the participants.
Since we focus on region filling, we asked the participants to draw the outlines of both images in advance, so that they could focus on drawing the textures during the study.
We encouraged the participants to finish each drawing as soon as possible, preferably in a dozen of minutes, but without any hard time limit.
After completing the two drawings in each mode, each participant filled in a NASA-TLX questionnaire \cite{Hart:1988:DNT}.
At the end, we asked the participants about their preferred mode, usage experience and other comments.
\subsection{Open session}
The goal of this session is to observe users' interaction with our system and learn about users' subjective experience.
We invited seven participants (one professional artist, two amateurs and four novices) for this session.
They were asked to create a drawing freely from the same reference image (\Cref{fig:open_result:reference}) with our system.
The reference image was a portrait photo, which is also common in illustrations.
The only requirement was that the drawings should contain some repetitive content.
We again gave a tutorial in the beginning and conducted the task on a Lenovo Miix 520 tablet with stylus.
The participants were encouraged to think aloud and describe their thought process and interactions during this session.
After this task, participants could optionally create more drawings with any images they want.
Since our prototype does not contain all common functions in commercial drawing tools, we allow the participants to retouch the result drawings without adding more strokes in Photoshop.
\subsection{Results and Observations}%
\input{target_session_data}
\paragraph{Workload}
\Cref{fig:compare_study:nasa} shows the perceived workload scores from the target session.
Generally, the autocomplete mode received the lowest (i.e., best) scores for almost all the factors.
One-way ANOVA showed the three modes have significant difference in physical demand (F=10.69, p < 0.001) while no significant difference in other factors.
Regarding the physical demand, post-hoc pairwise tests showed that the autocomplete mode and batch mode were both rated significantly lower than manual mode, while had no significant difference from each other.
This matches our expectation, since automatic synthesis should only reduce physical load and not cause extra pressure than manual work. %
\paragraph{Efficiency}
We calculate the average completion time (\Cref{fig:target_data:time}) and stroke count (\Cref{fig:target_data:stroke}) in each mode and each task.
Generally, the system synthesized
about $82\%$ strokes in the autocomplete mode and about $92\%$ strokes in the batch mode.
Although the manual mode took the shortest time for the participants to complete, it also resulted in the fewest total number of strokes.
We thus calculated the strokes per minute for each mode: autocomplete (111.03, SD=38.76), batch (101.98, SD=45.13), manual (115.95, SD=46.73).
It turns out automatic generation did not improve the efficiency, probably because the users spent extra time adjusting and experimenting with the generated effects instead of just drawing strokes.
It should be noted that such directed tasks omit the time for exploring alternative patterns, which, however, might be high in a fully manual case.
\paragraph{Quality}
We asked 30 external volunteers to evaluate the quality of participants' drawings, as shown in
\ifdefined1
\Cref{fig:user_drawings}.
\else
the supplementary material.
\fi
We randomized all the drawings created by the participants, showed each output drawing alongside the target drawing, and asked volunteers to rate the resemblance of the output drawing to the target drawing, on a scale from 1 (very dissimilar) to 5 (very similar).
The volunteers were instructed to focus more on the overall stroke distributions and flows instead of individual stroke thickness and detailed shapes.
\yl{We calculated the average scores for each mode: autocomplete (3.10, SD=1.24), batch (3.09, SD=1.21), manual (2.98, SD=1.20).
The quality of the drawings created with automatic synthesis is slightly better than the fully manual drawings, but without significant difference.
From the participants' perspective, three novices commented the automated strokes were better than their manual strokes, because they tend to lose patience when manually drawing all strokes, which results in worse quality.}
\paragraph{Preferred Mode}
Seven participants preferred the autocomplete mode while the rest five participants preferred the batch mode.
Generally, the autocomplete mode is considered more convenient, yet less precise; the batch mode is considered more precise, but requires too many interactions.
P12 commented, ``\textit{the autocomplete mode is more straightforward, because you can see the filled effects instantly without doing a lot of manipulation beforehand; while in the batch mode, you have to remember the meaning of parameters and tweak them in order to create strokes.}''
P10 also said, ``\textit{Compared with batch filling, the autocomplete mode provides a quick guess of filled regions and allows me to get the results more quickly with
less work.}''
However, the autocomplete mode is ``\textit{less accurate at some vague and detailed regions, such as the shadows of the boat, where it tends to include some unwanted regions, so I have to manually subtract those regions, which is a bit tedious}'', according to P3.
The professional, P5, also preferred the batch mode for being able to precisely select the regions.
Therefore, we consider the autocomplete function and the interactive editing function are complementary in usability.
\input{open_session_fig}
\input{results_fig}
\input{results_supp_fig}
\paragraph{Creation Results and Experience}
\Cref{fig:open_result} shows the outcomes from the open session.
Although from the same reference image and widely using repetitive short strokes, the study participants were able to create different results by varying the stroke shapes and arrangement.
\Cref{fig:results,fig:results:supp} demonstrate some sample results.
Regarding the creation experience,
one user said ``\textit{it is playful, the final result is also good}'';
two users described it as ``\textit{encouraging}'', because the system allows beginners to quickly create stylistic drawings;
one user commented that she ``\textit{felt creative when drawing with this system}'', because she could test out patterns over image regions conveniently and she was more comfortable with drawing from a reference image than from scratch.
The professional suggested that the tool itself was somewhat limited to pointillism and hatching styles, but can be helpful in adding interesting textures into color paintings (e.g., \Cref{fig:results:ladyhat}).
Two users commented that the reduction of workload is useful, but they also complained about some inaccurate inference of autocompletion.
We will discuss about this problem in \Cref{sec:limit}.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:prior}
\subsection{Image-assisted Drawing}%
Many drawing support tools adopt reference images and provide intelligent assistance to novices, e.g.,
beautifying users' sketches with extracted image features \cite{Kang:2005:ISG,Su:2014:ETO,Xie:2014:PFS,Li:2017:CS},
or providing educational guidance to novice users \cite{Iarussi:2013:DAA,Matsui:2017:DFD,Williford:2019:DAN}.
We share a similar goal to \cite{Haeberli:1990:PNA,Benedetti:2014:PBA,Tsai:2017:ULA} so as to reduce the user workload.
However, these works use predefined algorithms to generate strokes along cursor movement and only take users’ input as an indicator of where to render, thus greatly limiting users' artistic freedom.
In contrast, we aim to provide more flexibility between automatic synthesis and manual artistic control by autocompleting tedious repetitions during users' normal drawing processes.
\subsection{Image-based Artistic Rendering}
Our work is related to image-based artistic rendering (IB-AR) \cite{Kyprianidis:2013:SAA}, especially stroke-based methods and example-based methods.
\emph{Stroke-based methods} create artistic results from images by strategically generating brushstrokes whose properties (e.g., position, density, orientation, color, size) are related to the image properties (e.g., gradient, edge, color, salience) \cite{Hegde:2013:PRT}.
Among those methods, the closest to ours are the early image-based pen-and-ink rendering methods \cite{Salisbury:1997:OTI,Hiller:2003:BSM}, which allow users to input sample elements for distribution.
However, users have to prepare the sample elements separately (usually as a standalone file) and then tweak parameters to view the rendered output.
In contrast, our system lets users directly specify exemplars on a reference image while silently inferring the distribution properties.
\emph{Example-based methods} aim to model the visual features of example images for transferring.
There are two major modeling approaches: the parametric approach \cite{Kalogerakis:2012:LHP,Gerl:2013:TSI,Gatys:2017:CPF} that is based on the summary statistics of stroke characteristics and thus preserves the global textures better, and the non-parametric approach \cite{Hertzmann:2001:IA,Kaspar:2015:STT,Fiser:2016:SIE} that is based on patch-wise mapping and thus captures the local structures better.
We combine both methods for generating strokes:
the parametric approach to infer statistical relationships between stroke properties and image features, and the patch-wise matching method to preserve the local arrangements of strokes.
Stylit \cite{Fiser:2016:SIE} allows users to stylize a rendered ball and simultaneously propagates the style to arbitrary 3D shapes.
Our method shares a similar idea in interactive style propagation but with two main differences.
First, instead of propagating a style globally, we propagate a style to its perceptually similar local areas so that users can conveniently define different styles in different areas.
Second, we represent drawings as discrete stroke operations instead of raster textures for better preserving their structures and enabling procedural editing \cite{Schwarz:2007:MRP}, such as changing the color or size of the drawn strokes.%
\subsection{Operation History-assisted Authoring}%
Operation histories~\cite{Nancel:2014:CCM} have been leveraged in different authoring tasks, such as sketching \cite{Xing:2014:APR}, animation \cite{Xing:2015:AHA,Peng:2020:AKS}, modeling \cite{Peng:2018:A3S,Suzuki:2018:TED}, beautification of freehand drawings \cite{Fiser:2015:SDB}, and handwritings \cite{Zitnick:2013:HBU}.
Our work is most closely related to that by
Xing et al.'s \shortcite{Xing:2014:APR}, which autocompletes repetitive sketching by analyzing the dynamic operations recorded during authoring.
Our method extends their work to consider additional information from a reference image and thus enables the propagation of strokes to regions with similar image attributes such as color or semantic meaning.
In our use scenario, an operation is an input stroke, so our work is also related to stroke pattern analysis and synthesis \cite{Barla:2006:IHS,Ijiri:2008:EBP,Alves:2010:SBS,Kazi:2012:VIT,Hsu:2020:AEF}.
These works disregard the temporal relationship among past strokes and do not use image guidances and thus are different from ours.
To sum up, we list our major differences from the discussed closely related works in \Cref{table:prior:diff}.
\input{method_comparison_tab}
|
\section{Introduction}
Data science and machine learning have revolutionized the way that we do science today. Intelligent systems are used in the engineering, physical, social, and biological sciences to take in data and output, among other critical information, actionable decision making capabilities or data analyses that detail correlations between important features ~\cite{bishop2006pattern,james2013introduction,goodfellow2016deep}. The three major paradigms of machine learning are supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning \cite{jordan2015machine}. These three classes describe the kind of data used to structure learning tasks. In {\em supervised learning}, the goal is to generate a learned mapping from inputs to outputs given labeled data. The simplest example is linear regression, while a more complex example with high impact in recent years is deep neural networks \cite{schmidhuber2015deep,goodfellow2016deep}. In contrast, {\em unsupervised learning} is used to discover the underlying patterns or structures of unlabeled data. This area includes methods for exploratory data analysis, such as dimensionality reduction and clustering. Finally, {\em reinforcement learning} learns how to map situations to actions, so as to maximize a numerical (delayed) reward signal \cite{sutton2018reinforcement}.
The relative successes of supervised and reinforcement learning are directly related to the availability of extensive labeled data. In the absence of labels, these methods are known to perform poorly. {\em Semi-supervised learning} attempts to address this issue by augmenting unlabeled data with smaller portions of labeled data \cite{goodfellow2016deep}. However, it is often infeasible or expensive to manually label even a subset of a high-dimensional dataset. In these cases, unsupervised learning techniques are the only available approach for extracting information. Such methods are compromised by lack of clear separation between features, noisy observations, and/or outlying data points and require robustification, which is what we aim to improve in the context of the common $k$-means
algorithm~\cite{bishop2006pattern,james2013introduction}.
Unsupervised learning techniques include dimensionality reduction, cluster analysis, and anomaly detection. Although often treated as separate problems, these methods have significant overlap in practice. Our specific algorithmic innovations pertain to the intersection between cluster analysis and anomaly detection. Cluster analysis seeks to divide a set of objects so as to maximize both intra-cluster similarity and inter-cluster differences, while the aim of anomaly detection is to identify outliers in the dataset.
Many diverse algorithms have been developed to solve these important problems~\cite{james2013introduction, bishop2006pattern}, including partitioning algorithms such as classic $k$-means and fuzzy $c$-means clustering ~\cite{askari2021fuzzy}, density based methods such as DBSCAN (density based spatial clustering of applications with noise)~\cite{ester1996density}, probabilistic methods such as mixture models~\cite{james2013introduction,bishop2006pattern}, and hiearchical clustering which produces dendrograms for data visualization~\cite{james2013introduction}. In addition, spectral methods have been developed to extend the applicability of unsupervised learning to clusters that are not confined to spherical and/or elliptic distributions \cite{ng2002spectral}.
When data is well-separated and contains no outliers, $k$-means may be able to accurately assign labels to clusters \cite{bishop2006pattern}.
Versions of the the $k$-means algorithm date back to the mid-1950s, with seminal contributions from Steinhaus~\cite{steinhaus1956division} and more modern versions developed by Lloyd~\cite{lloyd1982least} (published much later in 1982) and Forgy~\cite{forgy1965cluster} in the mid-1960s. The $k$-means algorithm is simple, intuitive and can be directly applied without restrictions. Its simplicity and applicability have contributed to its appeal and wide-spread usage; it was named one of the top-10 algorithms in data mining in 2008~\cite{wu2008top}.
Unfortunately, real-world data may be compromised by outliers and/or complicated by simultaneous membership to multiple clusters. Under these conditions, $k$-means is known to perform poorly.
The poor performance of machine learning algorithms on data with corruption and noise has long been acknowledged. In the 1960s, John Tukey was the first to recognize the need for {\em robust} methods, coining the term {\em robust statistics}~\cite{huber2002john,donoho201750}. Tukey was agnostic to any particular procedure, but simply insisted that working with real data required robustification in order to stabilize the performance and predictive power of machine learning and statistical methods. Since that time, scientists have proposed numerous robustification techniques, including for clustering in unsupervised learning. These methods include data trimming~\cite{rousseeuw2005robust, aravkin2020trimmed}, measures of outlierness~\cite{jiang2008clustering, he2003discovering, zhang2009new}, and staging methods for outlier identification~\cite{hautamaki2005improving}.
We propose a novel extension of the $k$-means algorithm, which we call {\em Robust Trimmed $k$-means} (RTKM), that allows us to (i) capture more information than previous methods, (ii) can be used to classify both single or multi membership data, and (iii) simultaneously clusters points and identifies outliers. Experimental results show that RTKM, unlike other methods, performs competitively across all realms: on single-membership data containing outliers, multi-membership data without outliers, and multi-membership data containing outliers.
\section{Related Work}
In this section, we review existing approaches to robustify $k$-means clustering. We focus on methods that build upon the basic $k$-means algorithm, due to $k$-means' simplicity, speed, and scalability \cite{bishop2006pattern}. These developments also apply to any algorithm that depends on $k$-means, including spectral clustering, which can be applied to a variety of data distributions that $k$-means alone may not perform well on.
We first review a fundamental connection between
$k$-means clustering and optimization.
The $k$-means algorithm can be viewed as an alternating minimization approach to solving the challenging optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\min_{{\bf c},{\bf W}} \sum_{j=1}^k \sum_{i =1}^N w_{ji} ||{\bf x}_i - {\bf c}_j||^2 \text{ where } \sum_{j=1}^k w_{j,i} = 1 \text{ for } i = 1:N
\label{eqn:KMeansOpt}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf X} = [{\bf x}_1, \cdots {\bf x}_N] \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times N}$ are the data points and ${\bf C} = [{\bf c}_1, \cdots, {\bf c}_k] \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times k}$ are the cluster centers~\cite{huang2005automated}. The matrix ${\bf W} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times N}$ contains auxiliary weights $w_{j,i}$ that map the point-to-cluster relationship. Each column $i$ of ${\bf W}$ assigns point ${\bf x}_i$ to a cluster whose center is ${\bf c}_j$. If the weights are constrained to belonging to the discrete set $w_{j,i} \in \{0,1\}$, problem~\eqref{eqn:KMeansOpt} is a mixed integer problem equivalent to classic clustering; it is nonsmooth and nonconvex.
The simplest approach to solving the $k$-means problem is Lloyd's (1982) algorithm~\cite{lloyd1982least}. Once cluster centers are (randomly) initialized, the algorithm works by alternatively assigning each point to its closest centroid and then updating cluster centers by taking the mean of all points in an assigned cluster. This iterative process continues until convergence. This approach can be understood as a Gauss-Seidel type method for the nonsmooth, nonconvex problem~\eqref{eqn:KMeansOpt}. In each iteration, the variables are alternatively minimized as shown in \eqref{eqn:cupdate} and \eqref{eqn:wupdate} until convergence~\cite{huang2005automated}. The
algorithmic updates in $k$-means are given below, with the pseudo-code shown in Algorithm \ref{alg:kmeans}
\begin{equation}
{\bf c}_j^{k+1} = \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^N w_{j,i}^k {\bf x}_i}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^N w_{j,i}^k}
\label{eqn:cupdate}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_{ji}^{k+1} = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } ||{\bf x}_i - {\bf c}_j^{k+1}||^2 \leq ||{\bf x}_i - {\bf c}_t^{k+1}||^2 \text{ for } 1 \leq t \leq k \\
0 & \text{for } j\not=t
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:wupdate}
\end{equation}
While $k$-means works well in an ideal situation, one of its main drawbacks is sensitivity to outliers and noise. Since points are classified by directly threshholding on the distance from cluster centers each iteration, outliers skew center assignment, and in turn point assignment, dramatically. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:KMeans}, $k$-means is unable to properly classify points in the presence of outliers.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{StandardKMeansWithOutlier.png}
\caption{(top) Original data consisting of three clusters and two outliers. (bottom) Standard $k$-means incorrectly assigns a cluster center to the outlier on the right, causing two clusters to be misidentified as one. The outlier on the left skews one cluster center assignment towards the bottom right.}
\label{fig:KMeans}
\end{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{$k$-means}\label{alg:kmeans}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{kmeans}{${\bf X},k$} \Comment{Input ${\bf X}= [{\bf x}_1, \cdots {\bf x}_n]$, $k$, and $d_k>1$}
\State Initialize ${\bf C} = [{\bf c}_1, \cdots {\bf c}_k]$
\While{not converged}
\State ${\bf c}_j^{k+1} = \frac{\sum\limits_i w_{ji}^k {\bf x}_i}{\sum\limits_i w_{ji}^k}$
\State $w_{ji}^{k+1} = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } ||{\bf x}_i - {\bf c}_j^{k+1}||^2 \leq ||{\bf x}_i - {\bf c}_t^{k+1}||^2 \text{ for } 1 \leq t \leq k \\
0 & \text{for } j\not=t
\end{cases}$
\EndWhile
\State ${\bf w}[:,i] = \arg \max_j {\bf w}[j,i]$
\State \textbf{return} ${\bf C}, {\bf w}$
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
To solve this problem, numerous versions of a robust $k$-means algorithm have been proposed. The majority of these methods perform clustering in stages. In the first stage, the dataset is divided into clusters, and in the second stage, a measure based on the clusters is applied to the data to identify outliers. One of the earliest examples of a staged method is trimmed $k$-means, proposed in 1997~\cite{cuesta1997trimmed}. Trimmed $k$-means works by running the standard $k$-means algorithm, removing a given percentage $\alpha$ of points with the greatest distance to their cluster centers, updating cluster centers as the mean of the remaining points in respective clusters, and repeating these steps until convergence. Unfortunately, this method is ultimately ineffective, because it is unable to improve an already poor result by the standard $k$-means algorithm. Other staging methods that suffer from the same drawback are those that define their own measures of outlierness, such as Outlier Removal Clustering (ORC)~\cite{hautamaki2005improving}, the cluster-based local outlier factor (CBLOF)~\cite{he2003discovering}, the outlier factor of a cluster~\cite{jiang2008clustering}, and Local Distance-Based Outlier Factor (LDOF)~\cite{zhang2009new}. In using any of these methods, it is likely that points that should be classified as outliers are masked by the standard $k$-means clustering. Therefore, a method that directly tackles outliers during clustering is preferred.
Far fewer methods have been developed to simultaneously cluster and identify outliers. Among those that do are Outlier Detection and Clustering algorithm (ODC)~\cite{ahmed2013novel}, $k$-means $-\,-$~\cite{chawla2013k}, Non-exhaustive, Overlapping $k$-means (NEO $k$-means)~\cite{whang2015non}, and $k$-means clustering with outlier removal (KMOR)~\cite{gan2017k}. On single membership data containing outliers, KMOR outperforms all of the aforementioned methods in terms of cluster accuracy and outlier detection~\cite{gan2017k}. KMOR always produces a single-membership assignment. It identifies at most a given number of $n_0$ outliers by assigning them to a $k+1^{th}$ cluster based on whether they are further away than $\gamma$ times the average distance between inliers and their centroids. The parameter $\gamma$ is difficult to identify when the proportion of outliers is unknown, and can drastically impact the results of the algorithm.
Of all available methods, only NEO $k$-means, which extends $k$-means to overlapping clusters with noise, allows points to belong to multiple clusters simultaneously. On multi-membership data without outliers, NEO $k$-means outperforms similar methods~\cite{whang2015non}. The algorithm uses a single binary weight matrix to classify points and identify outliers, where parameters $\sigma$ and $\beta$ give the user a way to specify the degree of overlap and proportion of outliers, respectively. Note that $\sigma$ is denoted as $\alpha$ in the original paper. If a point is not assigned to any cluster, it is designated as an outlier. NEO-$k$-means exhaustively assigns some multiple $(1 + \sigma)$ of the total number points to clusters, where $\sigma \geq 0$. Because of this formulation, NEO-$k$-means is unable to identify outliers on datasets containing only a single cluster and cannot be restricted to single-membership on datasets containing outliers.
We propose the Robust Trimmed $k$-means (RTKM) algorithm, which can be used to classify either single or multi-membership data in the presence of outliers and noise. In our numerical results, we therefore focus on the natural comparison between RTKM, KMOR, and NEO $k$-means. We show that RTKM performs competitively with KMOR on single-membership data with outliers and with NEO $k$-means on multi-membership data without outliers. Moreover, RTKM leverages its advantages in these domains to
achieve superior performance on multi-membership data containing outliers. In this way, RTKM can be effectively and competitively applied in multiple contexts.
\section{Robust Trimmed k-means}
\subsection{Relaxation of k-means }
\label{sect:relax}
We propose an extension of the $k$-means objective in \eqref{eqn:KMeansOpt2} that allows points to belong to multiple clusters and sets up a foundation for a robust extension. Multi-cluster membership is appealing, because it allows one to identify the extent of a point's membership to every cluster~\cite{bezdek1980convergence}.
Instead of restricting the auxiliary weight matrix ${\bf W}$ to the discrete set $\{0,1\}$, we allow ${\bf w}_{:,i} \in \Delta_s$ so that $\sum_{j=1}^k w_{j,i} =s$ for all $i$ and each $w_{j,i}$ is allowed to vary over the closed interval $[0,1]$. The variable $s$ denotes the minimum number of clusters a point can belong to. When $s=1$, the objective in \eqref{eqn:KMeansOpt2} is a classic relaxation of \eqref{eqn:KMeansOpt} where the weights $w_{j,i}$ can be interpreted as the probability that point $i$ belongs to cluster $j$.
The relaxed objective is given by
\begin{equation}
\min_{{\bf c},{\bf W}} \sum_{j=1}^k \sum_{i =1}^N w_{ji} ||{\bf x}_i - {\bf c}_j||^2 \text{ where } {\bf w}_{:,i} \in \Delta_s \text{ for } i = 1:N,
\label{eqn:KMeansOpt2}
\end{equation}
which is a continuous optimization problem, still nonsmooth and nonconvex.
Problem \eqref{eqn:KMeansOpt2} can also be solved using alternating minimization. The centers are updated as before in Algorithm \ref{alg:kmeans} using a Gauss-Seidel step. To better control how quickly the weights are updated, we use the Proximal Alternating Minimization (PAM) approach, which can be thought of as a proximal regularization of the Guass-Seidel scheme~\cite{attouch2010proximal}.
The update for ${\bf W}$ is given in \eqref{eq:wupdate2}. PAM is guaranteed to converge as long as the step size $d_k>1$, and gives the practitioner additional control in managing the weight update in a rigorous way.
\begin{equation}
{\bf w}_{[:,i]}^{k+1} = \text{proj}_{\Delta_s} \bigg({\bf w}_{[:,i]}^k - \frac{1}{d_k}||{\bf x}_i - {\bf C}^{k+1}||^2\bigg)
\label{eq:wupdate2}
\end{equation}
The pseudo-code for solving the relaxed $k$-means objective is shown in Algorithm \ref{alg:KmeansOpt} and allows for greater modeling flexibility. In Algorithm \ref{alg:kmeans}, the columns of the weight matrix are projected onto the vertices of the capped simplex in step 5 of each iteration. In Algorithm \ref{alg:KmeansOpt}, the weights can take on continuum of values in the entire capped simplex and are projected onto the vertices during cluster assignment in step 6 after the algorithm has already converged. The relaxation allows Algorithm \ref{alg:KmeansOpt} to capture more information.
Figure \ref{fig:clusteringProcess} gives a glimpse into how the clustering process works. Point colors existing on the gradient between blue and green represent the continuous cluster weights. In iteration $0$, the weights are randomly assigned and cluster centers are initialized at random. By iteration 3, the centers begin to drift apart, and two clusters begin to form. Points on the boundary remain on the gradient between blue and green. In iteration 5, cluster centers begin to stabilize, and in iteration 20, relaxed $k$-means converges, and all the weights are on the vertices of the 1-capped simplex. The relaxation of weighted $k$-means allows us to quantify the extent of membership of a point to each cluster at every iteration.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{convergenceProcess.png}
\caption{Clustering process of relaxed $k$-means. The colors of the points represent the continuum of weights that assign points to clusters. In iteration 0, all weights are assigned randomly and cluster centers are chosen randomly as well. In iteration 3, two distinct clusters begin to form as the centers move. In iteration 5, cluster centers begin to stabilize and points on the boundary retain partial membership to both clusters. In iteration 20, relaxed $k$-means converges and two distinct clusters are formed.}
\label{fig:clusteringProcess}
\end{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{relaxed $k$-means}\label{alg:KmeansOpt}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{relaxedkmeans}{${\bf X},k, s$}
\Comment{Input ${\bf X=} [{\bf x}_1, \cdots {\bf x}_n]$, $k$, and $s$}
\State Initialize ${\bf C} = [{\bf c}_1, \cdots {\bf c}_k]$ and $d_k = 1.1$
\While{not converged}
\State ${\bf c}_j^{k+1} = \frac{\sum\limits_i w_{ji}^k {\bf x}_i}{\sum\limits_i w_{ji}^k}$
\State ${\bf w}_{:,i}^{k+1} = \text{proj}_{\Delta_1} \bigg({\bf w}_{:,i}^k - \frac{1}{d_k} ||{\bf x}_i - {\bf C}^{k+1}||^2\bigg)$
\EndWhile
\If{s = 1}
\State ${\bf w}[:,i] = \arg \max_j {\bf w}[j,i]$
\Else
\State ${\bf w}[:,i] = \max({\bf w}[:,i], 0)$
\EndIf
\State \textbf{return} ${\bf C}, {\bf w}$
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Robust Trimmed k-means}
In order to create a robust $k$-means method, we model outlier detection using an analogous approach taken in Section \ref{sect:relax} for multi-cluster membership. In this way, we avoid having to define our own measure of ``outlierness". Our proposed method, which we call Robust Trimmed $k$-means (RTKM), simultaneously classifies points and identifies outliers by minimizing the objective function given in Equation \eqref{eq:MyMethodObj}.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\min_{{\bf c},{\bf v},{\bf W}} \sum_{i=1}^N v_i \sum_{j=1}^k w_{j,i} ||{\bf x}_i - {\bf c}_j||^2 \\
{\bf w}[:,i] \in \Delta_s, \quad
{\bf v} \in \Delta_{N - [\alpha N]}
\end{split}
\label{eq:MyMethodObj}
\end{equation}
\noindent As before, ${\bf X} = [{\bf x}_1, \cdots, {\bf x}_N] \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times N}$ are the data points, ${\bf C} = [{\bf c}_1, \cdots, {\bf c}_k] \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times k}$ are the cluster centers, and ${\bf W} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times N}$ is a matrix of weights with each column in the s-capped simplex. The new variable ${\bf v} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ is a vector identifying outliers that belongs to the $N - [\alpha N]$-capped simplex, where $\alpha$ is a given proportion of expected outliers. Here $[\cdot]$ denotes the nearest integer, where we round up for half integer values. The constraint on ${\bf v}$ ensures that $N - [\alpha N]$ points are designated as inliers, since $\sum_{i=1}^N v_i = N - [\alpha N]$. In the same way the constraint on the columns of ${\bf W}$ ensures that every point is assigned to at least $s$ clusters, since $\sum_{j=1}^k w_{j,i} = s$. As discussed in Section \ref{sect:relax}, this constraint allows for each point ${\bf x}_i$ to belong to more than one cluster. If we want to enforce single cluster membership, we do so by setting $s=1$ and make final assignments by calculating the $\arg \max$ over each column of ${\bf W}$ once the algorithm converges.
The objective in Equation \eqref{eq:MyMethodObj} is approximately solved using Algorithm \ref{alg:MyAlg}. We alternately minimize the objective with respect to all three variables: ${\bf W}, {\bf c}, \text{and } {\bf v}$. We use a Gauss-Seidel update for the centers and Proximal Alternating Minimization (PAM)~\cite{attouch2010proximal} updates for both the columns of ${\bf W}$ and for ${\bf v}$, similar to the process described in Section \ref{sect:relax}. Algorithm \ref{alg:MyAlg} is guaranteed to converge as long as $e_k >1$ and $d_k >1$. In practice, we set $e_k= d_k = 1.1$.
The algorithm takes as input the data matrix ${\bf X}$ and the number of clusters $k$. Centroids can be initialized using any scheme. The parameters $\alpha$ and $s$ control the number of outliers and number of members in each cluster, respectively. If we know the percentage of outliers in a dataset, we can set $\alpha$ equal to that value. Likewise, if we know the cardinality of our dataset, we can set $s = \left \lfloor{\text{cardinality}}\right \rfloor$. Currently, there is no principled approach to estimating these paramenters. However, we demonstrate that RTKM performs competitively with other methods on data sets containing outliers using a range of $\alpha$ values.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Robust Trimmed $k$-means (RTKM)}\label{alg:MyAlg}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{RTKM}{${\bf X},k, \alpha, s$} \Comment{Input ${\bf X}= [{\bf x}_1, \cdots {\bf x}_n]$, $k$, $\alpha$, and $s$}
\State Initialize ${\bf C} = [{\bf c}_1, \cdots, {\bf c}_k]$, $e_k = 1.1$, and $d_k = 1.1$
\While{not converged}
\State ${\bf c}^{k+1}[:,j] = \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^N v_i^k w_{ji}^k {\bf x}_i}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^N v_i^k w_{ji}^k}$
\State ${\bf w}_{[:,i]}^{k+1} = \text{proj}_{\Delta_s}\bigg({\bf w}_{[:,i]}^k - \frac{1}{d_k}v_i^k||{\bf x}_i - {\bf C}^{k+1}||^2\bigg)$
\State $v^{k+1} = \text{proj}_{\Delta_{[\alpha N]}} \bigg( v^k - \frac{1}{e_k}\sum_{j=1}^k {\bf w}_{[j,:]^{k=1}} ||{\bf X} - {\bf c}_j^{k+1}||^2 \bigg)$
\EndWhile
\If{s = 1}
\State ${\bf w}[:,i] = \arg \max_j {\bf w}[j,i]$
\Else
\State ${\bf w}[:,i] = \max({\bf w}[:,i],0)$
\EndIf
\State \textbf{return} ${\bf C}, {\bf w}, {\bf v}$
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experiments}
We compare the performance of RTKM against other methods that simultaneously perform clustering and outlier detection, specifically KMOR \cite{gan2017k} and NEO-$k$-means \cite{whang2015non}. We focus our comparison against KMOR and NEO-$k$-means, because these methods were shown to outperform others on various datasets. In their paper, Gan et.al \cite{gan2017k} showed that KMOR outperformed ODC \cite{ahmed2013novel}, $k$-means$--$ \cite{chawla2013k} and NEO-$k$-means \cite{whang2015non} on single-membership data containing outliers. Similarly, NEO-$k$-means \cite{whang2015non} was shown to outperform MOC~\cite{banerjee2005model}, fuzzy $k$-means~\cite{bezdek1980convergence}, explicit sparsity constrained clustering (esp)~\cite{lu2012overlapping}, implicit sparsity constrained clustering (isp)~\cite{lu2012overlapping}, OKM~\cite{cleuziou2008extended}, and restricted OKM (rokm)~\cite{ben2013identification} on multi-membership data without outliers. We evaluate the performance of RTKM on three types of datasets: single-membership datasets containing outliers, multi-membership datasets without outliers, and mutli-membership datasets with outliers.
The quality of the cluster assignments is measured using the metric in \cite{whang2015non}, average $F_1$ score, which quantifies how well each algorithm finds the ground truth clusters. The $F_1$ score is defined as,
\begin{equation}
F_1 = \frac{TP}{TP + \frac{1}{2} (FP + FN)}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $TP$ denotes true positives, $FP$ denotes false positives, and $FN$ denotes false negatives. This metric ranges from $0$ to $1$, with values closer to $1$ implying better classification. To calculate the average $F_1$ score, predicted clusters are matched to ground-truth clusters so that the average $F_1$ score among all clusters is maximized. On datasets containing outliers, outliers are considered their own cluster for the purpose of calculating the average $F_1$ score.
The ability to correctly identify outliers is measured using the distance of a classifer on the Receiver Operating Curve graph from the perfect outlier classifier ($M_e$) as in \cite{gan2017k}. The measure $M_e$ is defined as,
\begin{equation}
M_e = \sqrt{(FP_{\text{rate}})^2 + (1 - TP_{\text{rate}})^2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
TP_{\text{rate}} = \frac{TP}{TP + FN}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
FP_{\text{rate}} = \frac{FP}{FP + TN}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $TP$, $FP$, and $FN$ are defined as before and $TN$ denotes true negatives. The $M_e$ score depends only on the true and identified outliers in the dataset. The value of $M_e$ ranges from $0$ to $\sqrt{2}$, with better outlier classifiers having values closer to $0$.
\subsection{Single-membership Data with Outliers}\label{subsect:Outliers}
We begin by evaluating RTKM against KMOR and NEO-$k$-means on two single-membership datasets containing outliers. The first is the Breast Cancer Wisconsin (WBC) dataset \cite{mangasarian1990cancer} from UCI Machine Learning Repository \cite{Dua:2019}. The WBC dataset contains $699$ instances of tumors with $9$ numerical attributes each. All of the instances are classified as either benign or malignant, of which we treat the latter as outliers.
All three methods are set to search for $k=1$ clusters, with one member belonging to each cluster. Various values are used for the expected percentage of outliers $\alpha$ to see how sensitive the results are to parameter choice. For every value of $\alpha$, we complete 10 runs of each algorithm with different cluster center initialization each time. Performance metrics are reported as the minimum, maxmimum, and average $M_e$ and $F_1$ scores over the 10 runs. Figure \ref{fig:sensitivityWBC} shows these performance metrics for the three algorithms over a range of $\alpha$ values on the WBC dataset. RTKM and KMOR exhibit almost identical performance when given the same parameters, while NEO-$k$-means is unable to identify any outliers, regardless of parameter choice. This is because, by design, when $k=1$, NEO-$k$-means cannot identify outliers.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth]{wbc.png}
\caption{Sensitivity of RTKM, KMOR, and NEO-$k$-means to the choice of expected percentage of outliers on the WBC dataset. RTKM and KMOR exhibit almost identical performance as measured by $M_e$ and $F_1$ scores. NEO-$k$-means is unable to identify any outliers on the WBC dataset.}
\label{fig:sensitivityWBC}
\end{figure}
Next, we test the three algorithms on the shuttle training dataset, also from the UCI Machine Learning Repository \cite{Dua:2019}. This dataset contains 43,500 records and 7 classes, described by 9 numerical features. The three largest classes contain $99.57\%$ of the data. Therefore, we consider the three largest classes as inliers, and the remaining four classes to be outliers.
We set $k=3$ as the number of clusters and allow each point to belong to at most one cluster. As before, we test the sensitivity of the results for RTKM, KMOR, and NEO-kmeans to the choice of expected percentage of outliers in the dataset. Figure \ref{fig:sensitivityshuttle} shows minimum, maximum, and average $M_e$ and $F_1$ scores for 10 runs of each of the methods for various $\alpha$ values. Up until the predicted percentage of outliers becomes $0.02$, all three methods perform similarly. Beyond this point, increasing $\alpha$ leads KMOR and NEO-$k$-means to identify more outliers correctly and achieve much lower $M_e$ scores compared to KMOR. However, the corresponding increase in false positive outliers leads to comparatively lower $F_1$ scores. In applications where there is a high cost associated with false positive outliers, KMOR may be preferential. Conversely, in applications were the goal is to identify as many outliers as possible, RTKM is superior.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Shuttle.png}
\caption{Sensitivity of RTKM, KMOR, and NEO-$k$-means to choice of expected number of outliers on the Shuttle dataset. All three methods perform similarly until the predicted percentage of outliers surpasses $0.02$. Then, KMOR and NEO-$k$-means identify significantly more outliers correctly, but the corresponding increase in false positives leads to lower $F_1$ scores. }
\label{fig:sensitivityshuttle}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Multi-membership Data without Outliers}\label{sect:clustoverlap}
Unlike KMOR, both RTKM and NEO-$k$-means have the ability to classify points as belonging to multiple clusters \cite{whang2015non}. The parameters in NEO-$k$-means determine exactly how many point assignments are made and at most how many outliers can be identified. In contrast, RTKM's parameters determine at least how many assignments are made and at least how many outliers are identified. In their recent paper, Whang et.al \cite{whang2015non} showed that NEO-$k$-means outperformed six other methods that study multi-cluster membership on two real datasets. We evaluate RTKM and KMOR on the same two datasets and add their performance, as measured by average $F_1$ score to the evaluation from \cite{whang2015non}.
We use the ``yeast" and ``scene" datasets from \cite{mulan}. The ``yeast" dataset contains $2417$ instances with $103$ numerical attributes. There are $14$ classes in total, and the cardinality of the dataset is $4.237$. The ``scene" dataset contains $2407$ instances with $294$ numeric attributes. There are $6$ classes in total, and the cardinality of the dataset is $1.074$. Both datasets are also used for testing MOC~\cite{banerjee2005model}, fuzzy $k$-means~\cite{bezdek1980convergence}, explicit sparsity constrained clustering (esp)~\cite{lu2012overlapping}, implicit sparsity constrained clustering (isp)~\cite{lu2012overlapping}, OKM~\cite{cleuziou2008extended}, and restricted OKM (rokm)~\cite{ben2013identification}. We borrow performance reports for all algorithms except RTKM and KMOR from \cite{whang2015non}.
For the ``yeast" dataset, we use $k = 14$, $\alpha = 0$, and $s= 4$ as our inputs for RTKM and $k = 14$, $n_0 = 0$, $\gamma = 9$ as our inputs for KMOR. For the ``scene" dataset, we use $k = 6$, $\alpha = 0$, and $s = 1$ as our inputs for RTKM and $k = 6$, $n_0 = 0$, $\gamma = 9$ as our inputs for KMOR. Each algorithm is run five times using the same cluster center initialization, and the result that leads to the best objective function value for each method is chosen, as in~\cite{whang2015non}. Average $F_1$ scores for each algorithm on both datasets are shown in Table \ref{tab:overlap}. NEO-$k$-means achieves the highest $F_1$ score on both datasets. However, in both cases the $F_1$ score of RTKM is only slightly lower. In fact, it is the second highest of all the scores reported. On the ``scene" dataset, KMOR performs just as well as RTKM. This result is due to the cardinality of the ``scene" dataset being so close to one. Contrastingly, on the ``yeast" dataset, KMOR is unable to produce a competitive result due to a higher cardinality.
Recall that the optimal choice for the parameter in RTKM controlling the number of clusters each point is assigned to is $s = \left \lfloor{\text{cardinality}}\right \rfloor$. This means that if the cardinality of a dataset is only slightly larger than one, RTKM will perform better doing single-, rather than multi-, cluster membership. RTKM's success on multi-membership data is most pronounced on datasets where $s\geq 2$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& RTKM & KMOR & NEO-$k$-means & moc & fuzzy & esp & isp & okm & rokm \\
\hline
``yeast" & 0.317 & 0.161 & 0.366 & - & 0.308 & 0.289 & 0.203 & 0.311 & 0.203 \\
\hline
``scene" & 0.597 & 0.597 & 0.626& 0.467 & 0.431 & 0.572 & 0.586 & 0.571 & 0.593\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Average $F_1$ scores of various multi-membership clustering methods on the ``yeast" and ``scene" datasets. NEO-k-means achieves the best $F_1$ score on both datasets. However, RTKM achieves the second highest $F_1$ score on both datasets, demonstrating its competitiveness.}
\label{tab:overlap}
\end{table}
\subsection{Multi-membership Data with Outliers}
In order to compare RTKM against KMOR and NEO-$k$-means on multi-membership data containing outliers, we add noise to the ``yeast" dataset from Section \ref{sect:clustoverlap}. We do so by adding $150$ noise points, so that the data contains $\sim 10\%$ outliers.
We set $k=14$ as the number of clusters. Additionally, RTKM is given $s=4$ so that each point is assigned to at least $4$ clusters, and NEO-$k$-means is given $\sigma = 3$, so that each point is assigned to at most $4$ clusters. KMOR exhibits different performance when using $\gamma =1$ versus $\gamma = 9$, so we include results for both initializations. We again test the sensitivity of the results of all three methods to the expected percentage of outliers $\alpha$. Figure \ref{fig:yeastsummary} shows the minimum, maximum, and average $M_e$ and $F_1$ scores for 10 runs of each of the methods using various parameter values.
As seen in Figure \ref{fig:yeastsummary}, of the three methods tested, RTKM achieves the highest average $F_1$ and the lowest average $M_e$ scores. When $\gamma = 9$, KMOR does not identify any outliers, regardless of parameter choice. Given a value of $\alpha$ greater than $0.100$, KMOR with $\gamma = 1$ and NEO-$k$-means are sometimes able to achieve almost as low of an $M_e$ score as RTKM, but on average, given the same initialization, RTKM does a better job at identifying outliers. Figure \ref{fig:yeastoutlier} showcases this behavior. Given the same cluster center initialization, RTKM is able to correctly identify all of the outliers plus a few false positives, whereas NEO-$k$-means and KMOR do not identify any outliers correctly. This demonstrates that on multi-membership data containing noise, RTKM is able to leverage its relative advantages over KMOR and NEO-$k$-means to outperform both methods.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth]{yeast.png}
\caption{Sensitivity of RTKM, KMOR, and NEO-$k$-means to the choice of expected percentage of outliers on the Yeast plus noise dataset. Over all parameter choices, RTKM achieves the highest average $F_1$ score and the lowest average $M_e$ score.}
\label{fig:yeastsummary}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{YeastPlusNoiseOutliers2.png}
\caption{Outliers as identified by RTKM and NEO-$k$-means on the ``yeast" dataset with noise. The leftmost figure shows the true location of outliers. The remaining figures show the location of outliers identified by RTKM, NEO-$k$-means, KMOR with $\gamma = 1$, and KMOR with $\gamma =9$ for the same cluster center initialization.}
\label{fig:yeastoutlier}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
We propose Robust Trimmed $k$-means (RTKM) as an algorithm for simultaneous point classification and outlier detection that can operate on both single- and multi-membership data. In RTKM, the parameters $k$ and $\alpha$ control the number of clusters and expected percentage of outliers respectively. The parameter $s$ controls at least how many clusters we want each point to belong to. At the moment, there is no principled approach to estimating these parameters. We leave the investigation of such an approach for future work, and demonstrate that for the time being, RTKM remains competitive with existing methods over a range of $\alpha$ values.
The innovations presented rely on a robust relaxed formulation for the weighted $k$-means algorithm that allows the classification weight matrix to exist on a continuum of values $[0,1]$, rather than the binary set $\{0,1\}$. This relaxation gives the user a way to track the extent of membership of a point to each cluster at every iteration and provides flexibility for multi-cluster membership. We apply the same methodology for outlier identification, thereby avoiding explicitly defining a measure of ``outlierness", unlike many other methods. Relaxation-based formulations have proven to be effective in a number of recent applications~\cite{zheng2018unified,champion2020unified}.
In the context of the current application, relaxation to a continuum of values, coupled with the PAM algorithm, provides a way to search the model space more effectively in order to discover clusters and outliers. Using this method, we avoid rushing into a bad local minimum, as with prior alternating methods moving across extreme points of the simplex.
We test RTKM on three types of datasets: single-label data with outliers, multi-label data without outliers, and mutli-label data with outliers. While KMOR and NEO-$k$-means set the benchmark for the first two types of datasets, respectively, they do not perform well on both. RTKM remains competitive on both types of data, and outperforms both KMOR and NEO-$k$-means on multi-label data with outliers. On single-label data, RTKM performs almost identically to KMOR in terms of $F_1$ and $M_e$ scores on a simple dataset containing one cluster with outliers. NEO-$k$-means produces a poor result since by design, the method cannot identify outliers in a dataset containing only one cluster. On a single-membership dataset containing multiple clusters with outliers, RTKM outperforms NEO-$k$-means, but achieves a lower $F_1$ score than KMOR. Even so, both RTKM and NEO-$k$-means identify more outliers correctly than KMOR, as evidenced by lower $M_e$ scores. We conclude that in applications where the cost of false positive outliers is high, KMOR may be preferred, but in applications where such a cost is low and it is important to identify as many outliers as possible, RTKM may be favored. On multi-label data without outliers, RTKM remains competitive against NEO-$k$-means, achieving a higher $F_1$ score than every other method NEO-$k$-means is compared against in \cite{whang2015non}. Furthermore, RTKM substantially outperforms KMOR when the cardinality of a dataset is greater than or equal to $2$, since KMOR does not have the functionality to make multi-membership assignments. On multi-label data containing outliers, RTKM achieves the highest average $F_1$ score and the lowest average $M_e$ score across all tested values for predicted percentage of outliers. On average, given the same cluster center initialization, only RTKM is able to correctly identify any outliers. These experiments demonstrate that although RTKM has a niche where it performs best, it does so without sacrificing performance on other types of datasets. \\
\noindent
{\bf Code Availability}: \url{https://github.com/OlgaD400/Robust-Trimmed-K-Means} \\
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction }
This is going to be a rather technical paper, targeted at clarification
of the long-standing puzzles of Generalized Kontsevich model (GKM) \cite{Kon}--\!\cite{Zhou}.
It is not fully successful, still it can attract attention to potentially important
aspects of the story.
No doubt, at technical level these observations are well known to people who worked with GKM,
but we make an attempt to summarize them and promote to a more conceptual level.
This is needed because of the new accents introduced into the GKM theory quite recently,
in \cite{MMhl} and \cite{MMMR1}--\!\cite{MMMish}, and the need to explain the origins and the form
of the "single equation" \cite{MMMR2} and the character expansion in terms of Hall-Littlewood polynomials
\cite{MMhl}.
We do not achieve these goals in the present paper, but we try to better explain
the difficulties of one particularly promising suggestion from \cite{MMMish} --
with the hope that it gains attention and will be somehow resolved in the near future.
GKM \cite{GKM} is an eigenvalue matrix model \cite{UFN3} with the partition function
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Z}_V[L] = \int_{N\times N} dX e^{-{\rm tr}\, (V(X) + LX)} =
\frac{e^{{\rm tr}\, M V'(M) - V(M)}}{\sqrt{\det V''(M)}}\cdot Z_V\{p_k\}
:= {\cal Z}^{cl}_V[M] \cdot Z_V\{p_k\}
\label{GKMdef}
\end{eqnarray}
with $V'(M)=L$, which depends on the matrix variable $L$
and satisfies the obvious matrix-valued Ward identity \cite{MMM,GN}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{V'\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial L^{tr}}\right) - L\right\}{\cal Z}_V[L] = 0
\label{GN}
\end{eqnarray}
We further restrict attention to the monomial case, $V(X) = \frac{X^{r+1}}{r+1}$
and label ${\cal Z}_r$ and $Z_r$ by integer $r$.
Qualitatively the properties of monomial GKM are well known \cite{GKM,UFN3}:
1) the "quantum" pieces $Z_r$ are KP $\tau$-functions of the "time variables"
$p_k = {\rm tr}\, M^{-k}$ (which are $r$-dependent in terms of $L$, $p_k = {\rm tr}\, L^{-k/r}$),
2) they are independent of all $p_{kr}$ and belong to the $r$-reduction of KP \cite{FKN},
3) the {\it shape} of $Z_r\{p\}$ is independent of the size $N$ of the matrix $M$,
only the {\it locus} $p_k = {\rm tr}\, M^{-k}$ where the particular integral is actually defined,
depends on $N$,
4) the "classical" pieces ${\cal Z}^{cl}_r[M]$ also can be expressed through $p_k$,
but {\it their} shapes do depend on $N$ -- this was the reason why these formulas
are not very popular, and we discuss them in a special section \ref{class} below,
5) Ward identities (\ref{GN}) can be rewritten as an infinite set of $W$-constraints on $Z_r\{p_k\}$
\cite{FKN,GKM,UFN3},
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat W^{(i+1)}_{nr-r+i} \cdot Z_r = 0, \ \ \ \ i=1,\ldots,r-1, \ \ \ n\geq 1
\label{wcons}
\end{eqnarray}
and, as established recently,
6) $Z_r$ has a peculiar non-Abelian $W$-representation \cite{Wrep,MMMish},
i.e. can be unambiguously described by a {\it single} combination of $W$-constraints,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Single \ Equation \ (SE):} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\boxed{
\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} (-)^i \sum_n p_{nr-r+i} \hat W^{(i+1)}_{n-i-1} \cdot Z_r\{p\} = 0
}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\label{singleq}
\end{eqnarray}
nicknamed "single equation" (SE) in what follows,
7) $Z_r$ possesses character expansion in terms of Hall-Littlewood polynomials \cite{MMhl}.
\bigskip
While rather well established in the case of the ordinary cubic ($r=2$) Kontsevich model \cite{Kon},
these issues are quite difficult to address for $r>2$.
It is the purpose of this paper to make one more technical step in this direction.
Namely,
we study a {\it scalar} implication of {\it matrix} Gross-Newmann equation (\ref{GN}),
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Main \ Equation \ (ME):} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\boxed{
{\rm tr}\, \left( M\left\{\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial L^{tr}}\right)^r - L\right\}\right){\cal Z}_r[L] = 0
}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\label{maineq}
\end{eqnarray}
and the suggestion of \cite{MMMish} to use it as SE -- a basic equation
which provides $Z_r$ as a unique solution in the form of the non-Abelian $W$-representation.
In this paper we call it "the main equation", or just ME to simplify the reference.
In other words, the main question of the present paper is if
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf ME} \ \stackrel{?}{=}\ {\bf SE}
\end{eqnarray}
and, if not, what is the difference.
Substitution of a badly controlled system of matrix equations (\ref{GN}),
which is {\it believed}
to be equivalent to an infinite set of $W$-constraints (\ref{wcons}),
by a single equation SE \cite{MMMR2} is a big simplification --
surprisingly this is possible without a loss of information.
However, to make it fully satisfactory, we need a maximally simple origin if this SE --
and ME would be just a dream.
Unfortunately, as anticipated in \cite{MMMish}, the story is not just so simple --
and details, though seemingly technical, are quite interesting.
The fact that the simplest Ward identity ME is not quite the same as SE,
which controls the solution, is an interesting twist of the story
and this is what we call {\it anomaly} in the title of this paper:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf SE} = {\bf ME}\ {\rm mod}\ anomaly
\end{eqnarray}
The actual calculation consists of three steps.
First one needs to express matrix derivatives through eigenvalues,
this is discussed in a separate section \ref{eveq}).
Then one needs to act on the product ${\cal Z}_r[L] = {\cal Z}_r^{cl}[M]\cdot Z_r\{p\}$
and convert the equation w.r.t. eigenvalues into the one for the "quantum" $Z_r\{p\}$,
depending on time variables.
And afterwards one should interpret the results.
We demonstrate that "anomaly" has {\it two} origins.
The first is that
the coefficients of the terms with derivatives over $p_{kr}$
are ugly and, actually, non-polynomial in time variables.
This can serve as a possible interpretation of the need for the $r$-reduction,
i.e. the need for these derivatives to vanish --
what looks particularly convincing in the case of cubic ($r=2$) model,
when this is the only manifestation of the anomaly.
Unfortunately, for $r>2$ the situation gets more obscure.
The second phenomenon is that
for $r>2$ this non-polynomiality shows up also in the coefficients of other derivatives
-- and ME is {\it not} sufficient to explain the vanishing of these unwanted contributions.
Of course, other constituents of (\ref{wcons}) should imply this nullification,
but this brings us back to the complicated form of (\ref{wcons}) and SE (\ref{singleq}).
\section{ Strong dependence on $N$: the classical piece of partition function
\label{class}}
Usually in discussion of GKM we emphasize the remarkable property 3) from above list --
that the essential ("quantum") part of partition function depends on the matrix size $N$
only through the choice of the {\it locus} $\Big\{p_k = {\rm tr}\, M^{-k}\Big\}$ --
an $N$-dimensional non-linear subspace
in the infinite-dimensional space of time-variables $\{p_k\}$.
The {\it shape} of $Z\{p_k\}$ is, however, independent of $N$,
and in this sense the $N$-dependence of $Z\{p\}$ on $N$ is {\it weak}.
In this paper we switch the accent to another side of the story:
to the "classical" part of partition function, which is much simpler,
but depends on $N$ much stronger -- and this will have a serious impact
on the Ward identities (\ref{wcons}) and (\ref{singleq}),
making their simplest treatment through the otherwise appealing "main equation" (\ref{maineq})
less straightforward -- if not totally meaningless.
For monomial potential $V(M) = \frac{M^{r+1}}{r+1}$
the classical part of partition function can also be easily expressed through the time variables
$p_k = {\rm tr}\, M^{-k}$, though expressions are a little lengthy.
They are naturally written through the Schur functions $S_R\{p\}$,
where $R$ denotes the Young diagrams (for example, $S_{[1]}=p_1,\ S_{[2]} = \frac{p_2+p_1^2}{2},\
S_{[1,1]} = \frac{-p_2+p_1^2}{2}$ an so on).
Most important, these formulas have strong and explicit dependence on $N$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Z}^{cl}_r := \frac{e^{{\rm tr}\, M V'(M) - V(M)}}{\sqrt{\det V''(M)}}
= \frac{e^{\frac{r}{r+1}\sum_{i=1}^N \mu_i^{r+1}}}
{\prod_{i=1}^{N} \mu_i^{\frac{r-1}{2}}\prod_{i<j}^N \frac{\mu_i^r-\mu_j^r}{\mu_i-\mu_j}}
=
\label{claZ}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\! = \frac{S_{[1,1,\ldots,1]}^{\frac{(2N-1)(r-1)}{2}}}{S_{[(N-1)(r-1),\ldots,2(r-1),r-1]}}
\exp\left(\frac{r}{r+1}\frac{S_{[r+1,r+1,r+1,\ldots,r+1]}-S_{[r+1,\ldots,r+1,r,1]}
+S_{[r+1,\ldots, r+1,r,r,2]}
- \ldots \pm S_{[r,r,\ldots,r,r,N-1]}}{S_{[1,1,\ldots,1]}^{r+1}} \Big) \right)
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Two Young diagrams in Schur functions have $N-1$ columns,
$S_{[\underbrace{r+1,r+1,r+1,\ldots,r+1}_{N-1}]}$ in the exponent
and $S_{[\underbrace{(N-1)(r-1),\ldots,2(r-1),r-1]}_{N-1}}$ in the denominator.
All the rest have $N$ columns:
from $S_{\underbrace{[ r+1,\ldots,r+1,r,1]}_N}$
to $S_{[\underbrace{ r, \ldots,r,r,N-1}_{N}]}$ in the exponent
and also $S_{[\underbrace{1,\ldots,1}_N]} = \prod_{i=1}^N \mu_i^{-1}$.
For $N=2$ eq.(\ref{claZ}) becomes just
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{e^{\frac{r}{r+1}( \mu_1^{r+1}+\mu_2^{r+1})}}
{ (\mu_1\mu_2)^{\frac{r-1}{2}} \frac{\mu_1^r-\mu_1^r}{\mu_1-\mu_2}}
= \frac{S_{[1,1]}^{\frac{3(r-1)}{2}}}{S_{[r-1]}}
\exp\left(\frac{r}{r+1}\frac{S_{[r+1]}-S_{[r,1]} }{S_{[1,1]}^{r+1}}\right)
\label{claZN=2}
\end{eqnarray}
while for $N=3$ and $N=4$ it is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{e^{\frac{r}{r+1}( \mu_1^{r+1}+\mu_2^{r+1}+\mu_3^{r+1})}}
{ (\mu_1\mu_2\mu_3)^{\frac{r-1}{2}} \frac{\mu_1^r-\mu_1^r}{\mu_1-\mu_2}
\frac{\mu_1^r-\mu_3^r}{\mu_1-\mu_3} \frac{\mu_2^r-\mu_3^r}{\mu_2-\mu_3} }
= \frac{S_{[1,1,1]}^{\frac{5(r-1)}{2}}}{S_{[r-1,2r-2]}}
\exp\left(\frac{r}{r+1}\frac{S_{[r+1,r+1]}-S_{[r+1,r,1]}+S_{[r,r,2]}} {S_{[1,1,1]}^{r+1}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
{\footnotesize
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{e^{\frac{r}{r+1}( \mu_1^{r+1}+\mu_2^{r+1}+\mu_3^{r+1}+\mu_4^{r+1})}}
{ (\mu_1\mu_2\mu_3\mu_4)^{\frac{r-1}{2}} \frac{\mu_1^r-\mu_1^r}{\mu_1-\mu_2}
\frac{\mu_1^r-\mu_3^r}{\mu_1-\mu_3}\frac{\mu_1^r-\mu_4^r}{\mu_1-\mu_4}
\frac{\mu_2^r-\mu_3^r}{\mu_2-\mu_3} \frac{\mu_2^r-\mu_4^r}{\mu_2-\mu_4}
\frac{\mu_3^r-\mu_4^r}{\mu_3-\mu_4} }
= \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
= \frac{S_{[1,1,1,1]}^{\frac{7(r-1)}{2}}}{S_{[r-1,2r-2,3r-3]}}
\exp\left(\frac{r}{r+1}\frac{S_{[r+1,r+1,r+1]}-S_{[r+1,r+1,r,1]}+S_{[r+1,r,r,2]}-S_{[r,r,r,3]}} {S_{[1,1,1,1]}^{r+1}}\right)
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
}
As we will see, non-trivial Schur functions in the pre-exponent
survive in the main equation (\ref{maineq})
and make it non-polynomial in time variables.
The only case when this does not matter at all, is $r=1$,
which we will briefly mention in section \ref{r1} below.
In conventional cubic model at $r=2$ the non-polynomiality can be eliminated by $r$-reduction
(from KP to KdV in this case) -- this we will see in s.\ref{r2}.
Starting from $r=3$, however, the problem (anomaly) is far more difficult to cure,
and the corrected form of {\bf ME} -- and thus the simple derivation of {\bf SE} --
still needs to be found.
\section{ From matrices to eigenvalues
\label{eveq}}
As already mentioned, GKM (\ref{GKMdef}) is an eigenvalue model,
the integral is reduced to eigenvalues of $X$ and the answer depends on the eigenvalues of $L=M^r$.
Still the reason for the special properties of GKM is that originally
it depends on the matrix variable,
and the natural Ward identities \cite{vircon})
are matrix-valued -- given by (\ref{GN}).
Since they contain matrix derivatives,
it is separate exercise to convert them to the eigenvalue form.
What we need are diagonal elements of $\frac{\partial^r{\cal Z}[L]}{\partial L_{tr}^r}$,
evaluated at diagonal matrix $L = {\rm diag}(\lambda_i)= {\rm diag}(\mu_i^r)$.
They do not arise from just a substitution of diagonal $L$ into ${\cal Z}[L]$.
Still the answer is well known from perturbation theory in quantum mechanics \cite{LL3}
(where one diagonalizes the Hamiltonian and obtains corrections to the wave functions):
according to \cite{MMM},
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac{\partial^r F}{\partial L_{tr}^r}\right)_{ii} = \sum_{j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}}
\left(
\sum_{{\rm permutations\ of}\ i,j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}}
\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_i}}{\prod_{s=1}^{r-1}(\lambda_i - \lambda_{j_s})}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\lambda_{j_s}$ can coincide, also with $\lambda_i$ --
then one should apply the l'Hopitale rule,
and this gives rise to more sophisticated structures.
In \cite{Mikh}
a special technique was developed on this occasion.
We, however, just work with explicit formulas,
without going into details of the derivations.
In particular,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial L_{tr} }\right)_{ii} = \frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_i},
\nonumber \\
\left(\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial L_{tr}^2 }\right)_{ii}
=\sum_j \frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_i}-\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
= \sum_{j\neq i} \frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_i}-\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
+ \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial \lambda_i^2},
\nonumber \\
\left(\frac{\partial^3 F}{\partial L_{tr}^3 }\right)_{ii} =
\sum_{j,k} \frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_i} }{(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\lambda_i-\lambda_k)}
+ \frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_j} }{(\lambda_j-\lambda_i)(\lambda_j-\lambda_k)}
+ \frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_k} }{(\lambda_k-\lambda_i)(\lambda_k-\lambda_j)}
= \nonumber \\
= \sum_{k\neq j\neq i}^N \left(
\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_i}}{(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\lambda_i-\lambda_k)}
+ \frac{ \frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_j}}{(\lambda_j-\lambda_i)(\lambda_j-\lambda_k)}
+ \frac{ \frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_k}}{(\lambda_k-\lambda_i)(\lambda_k-\lambda_j)}\right)
- \sum_{j\neq i}^N \frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_i}
- \frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda_j}}{(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)^2}
+ \nonumber \\
+\sum_{j\neq i}^N
\frac{ 2 \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial \lambda_i^2}
- \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial \lambda_i\partial\lambda_j} - \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial \lambda_j^2}}
{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
+ \frac{\partial^3 F}{\partial \lambda_i^3},
\nonumber \\
\ldots
\label{evders}
\end{eqnarray}
For example, at $N=2$, for a function {\footnotesize $F(\lambda_1,\lambda_2):=\!\!
F\!\left(\!\frac{L_{11}+L_{22}\pm\sqrt{(L_{11}-L_{22})^2+4L_{12}L_{21}}}{2}\!\right)$}
one can explicitly check, that
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!
\left\{\left.\left(\frac{\partial^3 F}{\partial \L_{\rm tr}^3}\right)_{11}\!\!\!\! :=
\frac{\partial^3 F}{\partial \L_{11}^3} + 2\frac{\partial^3 F}{\partial \L_{11}\partial L_{12} \partial L_{21}}
+ \frac{\partial^3 F}{\partial \L_{12}\partial L_{21} \partial L_{22}}\right\}\right|_{L={\rm diag}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)}
\!\!\!\!\! = -\frac{F_{,1}-F_{,2}}{(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)^2}
+ \frac{2F_{,11} - F_{,12}-F_{,22}}{\lambda_1-\lambda_2} + F_{1,1,1}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
in accordance with this general prescription.
\section{A toy example at $r=1$
\label{r1}}
This is a special case, where equation (\ref{GN}) has a "wrong" power of $\partial/\partial L$.
It was used as a training example in \cite{MMM}.
For $Z\{p_k\} = Z\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N \lambda_i^{-k}\right\}$ we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{i=1}^N \left(\frac{\partial^2 {\cal Z}}{\partial L_{tr}^2}\right)_{ii} =
\sum_{i\neq j}^N \frac{\frac{\partial {\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_i}
- \frac{\partial {\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
+ \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{\partial^2 {\cal Z}}{\partial\lambda_i^2}
= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^{n+1} n p_a p_{n+2-a} \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_n}
+ \sum_{n_1,n_2=1}^\infty n_1n_2 p_{n_1+n_2+2}\,\frac{\partial^2Z}{\partial p_{n_1}\partial p_{n_2}}
= \nonumber \\
= \sum_{n=-1}^{\infty} p_{n+2} \left(\sum (k+n)p_{k} \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_{k+n}}
+ \sum_{a+b=n} ab \frac{\partial^2 Z}{\partial p_ap_b}\right)
= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} p_{n} \hat L_{n-2}^{(1)} Z
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat L_n^{(1)} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty (k+n)p_{k} \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_{k+n}} + \sum_{a+b=n} ab \frac{\partial^2 Z}{\partial p_ap_b}
\end{eqnarray}
and superscript label $(1)$ refers to $r=1$.
This is the ordinary Virasoro operator, which defines Virasoro constraints in Hermitian matrix model,
and it appears here because this model can be also treated as GKM with additional insertion
of a power of $\det X$ in the integral, what causes also an increase of $r$ by one
\cite{CheMa,UFN3}.
\section{Original cubic ($r=2$) Kontsevich model \label{r2}}
\subsection{Implication from the known $Z_2$}
We now proceed to the study of the true main equation (\ref{maineq}),
beginning from the first case of cubic Kontsevich model.
What we need is to substitute
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Z}_2 = \overbrace{\frac{e^{\frac{2}{3}\sum \mu_i^{3}}}{\sqrt{\prod_i {\mu_i}}\prod_{i<j}(\mu_i+\mu_j)}}
^{{\cal Z}_2^{cl}}
\cdot Z_2\{p_k\}
\label{Z2}
\end{eqnarray}
into (\ref{maineq}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{{\cal Z}_2^{cl}}\sum_{i=1}^N \sqrt{\lambda_i}\Big(
\overbrace{\frac{\partial^2 {\cal Z}_2}{\partial\lambda_i^2}
+ \sum_{j\neq i}^N \frac{\frac{\partial {\cal Z}_2}{\partial \lambda_i}
- \frac{\partial {\cal Z}_2}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
}^{(\partial^2 {\cal Z}_2/{\partial L_{tr}^2})_{ii}}
- \lambda_i {\cal Z}_2 \Big)
= \sum_{i=1}^N \sqrt{\lambda_i}\left(
\frac{\partial^2 { Z}_2}{\partial\lambda_i^2}
+\sum_{j\neq i}^N \frac{\frac{\partial { Z}_2}{\partial \lambda_i}
- \frac{\partial { Z}_2}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
\right)
+ \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
+ \sum_{i=1}^N \sqrt{\lambda_i}\left(
\frac{\partial^2 \log{\cal Z}_2^{cl}}{\partial\lambda_i^2}
+ \left(\frac{\partial \log{\cal Z}_2^{cl}}{\partial\lambda_i }\right)^2
+ \sum_{j\neq i}\frac{\frac{\partial \log{\cal Z}_2^{cl}}{\partial \lambda_i}
- \frac{\partial \log{\cal Z}_2^{cl}}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j} - \lambda_i\right)Z_2
+ 2\sum_{i=1}^N \sqrt{\lambda_i} \frac{\partial \log{\cal Z}_2^{cl}}{\partial\lambda_i}
\frac{\partial Z_2}{\partial\lambda_i}
\label{ME2}
\end{eqnarray}
First of all we can substitute the known series for $Z_2\{p_k\}$
(last time cited in the Appendix to \cite{MMMish}),
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_2\{p_k\} = 1 + \left(\frac{p_2p_1^2}{6}+ \frac{p_4}{36}\right)
+ \left( \frac{13}{216}p_4p_2p_1^2+\frac{13}{2592}p_4^2 - \frac{1}{216}p_2^4
+ \frac{1}{72}p_2^2p_1^4 + \frac{1}{27}p_5p_1^3 + \frac{1}{27}p_7p_1 \right) + \ldots
\end{eqnarray}
and we expect to get zero.
It is instructive to see how this really works.
If we substitute instead of $Z_2$ just $1$ -- the first term in the series,--
we get a polynomial of grading 3: $\frac{p_3+4p_1^3}{16}$,
if $1 + \left(\frac{p_2p_1^2}{6}+ \frac{p_4}{36}\right)$, then a polynomial of grading 6
and so on: the more gradings we include into $Z_2\{p\}$, the higher is the grading of (\ref{ME2}):
if gradings up to $3m$ are included into $Z_2\{p\}$, then (\ref{ME2}) is of grading $3(m+1)$.
Thus we obtain zero for (\ref{ME2}) in the sense that every particular grading vanishes
is we include appropriately many terms into $Z_2\{p\}$.
Also at every stage the answer is not just of definite grading,
it is actually a {\it polynomial} in time variables.
One can wonder, what happens to $S_{[1]}$ factor in (\ref{claZN=2}) --
why does not it produce non-polynomial contributions?
It turns out to be a rather delicate adjustment.
Already the quadratic singularity $S_{[1]}^{-2} = (\mu_1+\mu_2)^{-2}$ drops out from the sum
$\sum_i \mu_i \frac{\partial^2 (\mu_1+\mu_2)^\alpha}{\partial \lambda_i^2}$
because of the peculiar property $\frac{\mu_1}{\mu_1^2} + \frac{\mu_2}{\mu_2^2} \sim \mu_1+\mu_2$.
The linear singularity is even more miraculous:
potentially relevant terms in (\ref{claZN=2}) are
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_i \mu_i \left\{\frac{\partial^2 \log \frac{1}{S_{[1]}}}{\partial \lambda_i^2}
+ \left(
\frac{ \partial \left( \log \frac{S_{[1,1]}^{\frac{3\beta}{2}}}{S_{[1]}}
+ \frac{2\alpha(S_{[3]}-S_{[2,1]})}{3S_{[1,1]}^3}\right) }
{\partial \lambda_i}
\right)^2
+ \gamma\sum_{j\neq i} \frac{\frac{\partial \log \frac{1}{S_{[1]}}}{\partial \lambda_i}-
\frac{\partial \log \frac{1}{S_{[1]}}}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
and the term $\frac{1}{\mu_1+\mu_2}$ is independent of $\alpha$, but depends in $\beta$.
It vanishes when $\gamma=3\beta-2$, what includes the true values $\beta=\gamma=1$,
but clearly demonstrates the delicate balance between various contributions.
Therefore it is not surprising that thus balance will be often violated --
the surprise is that it continues to hold (anomaly is lacking) for $r=2$ for arbitrary $N$,
and also for the coefficients of odd derivatives $\frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_{2n+1}}$ --
as we will explain in the next sections.
\subsection{$r=2$, all times}
The next exercise is to convert (\ref{ME2}) into an equation for $Z_2\{p_k\}$,
similar to what we considered above in s.\ref{r1}.
Assume first that $Z_2\{p_k\}$ depends on all the time-variables $p_k$.
Then, once again substituting (\ref{Z2}) into (\ref{ME2}) we get:
\begin{eqnarray}
0 \ \stackrel{(\ref{maineq})}{=} \
\frac{1}{{\cal Z}_2^{cl}}\sum_{i=1}^N \sqrt{\lambda_i}\Big(
\overbrace{ \frac{\partial^2 {\cal Z}_2}{\partial\lambda_i^2}
+ \sum_{j\neq i}^N \frac{\frac{\partial {\cal Z}_2}{\partial \lambda_i}
- \frac{\partial {\cal Z}_2}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
}^{(\partial^2 {\cal Z}_2/{\partial L_{tr}^2})_{ii}}
- \lambda_i {\cal Z}_2 \Big)=
\label{ME2alltimes}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
= \frac{1}{4}\sum_{n_1,n_2=1}^\infty n_1n_2 p_{n_1+n_2+3}\,\frac{\partial^2Z}{\partial p_{n_1}\partial p_{n_2}}
+ \sum_{n=1}^\infty n\left(-p_n + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{n-1}{2}+2} p_{2a-1} p_{n+4-2a}
+\underline{\xi_n^{(N)}\cdot \frac{{\rm frac}\left(\frac{n-1}{2} \right)}{2}}
\right) \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_n}
+ \frac{p_3+4p_1^3}{16} \, Z
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The last term is of course the same as we got from substitution of $1$ into (\ref{ME2}).
However, with the first derivatives of $Z$ there is a trouble (underlined):
for derivatives w.r.t. even $p_{2k}$ the coefficients are not polynomial in $p$.
Moreover, they depend on $N$, with somewhat sophisticated self-consistency/reduction relations
between different $N$.
In terms of Schur functions $S_R$
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_n^{(2)} = \frac{p_{n+4}+(p_1^2-p_2)p_{n+2}}{p_1} = \frac{S_{[n+4]} + 2S_{[n+3,1]}-3S_{[n+2,2]}}{S_{[1]}}
\nonumber \\
\xi_n^{(3)} = \frac{S_{[n+5,1]}+2S_{[n+4,2]}+2S_{[n+4,1,1]}-3S_{[n+3,3]} -
S_{[n+2,3,1]}-2S_{[n+2,2,2]}+5S_{[n+1,3,2]}}{2S_{[2,1]}}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
{\footnotesize
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\xi_n^{(4)} = \frac{S_{[n+6,2,1]}+2S_{[n+5,3,1]}+2S_{[n+5,2,2]}+2S_{[n+5,2,1,1]}-3S_{[n+4,4,1]}
-2S_{[n+3,4,2]}-2S_{[n+3,3,3]}
- 2S_{[n+3,2,2,2]} - 2S_{[n+3,4,1,1]}+5S_{[n+2,4,3]}
}{S_{[3,2,1]}}
+ \nonumber \\
+ \frac{1}{S_{[3,2,1]}}\cdot\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} 9S_{[n+1,3,3,2]} &{\rm for} & n=2 \\ \\
2S_{[n+1,3,3,2]} + 2S_{[n+1,4,3,1]} + 2S_{[n+1,4,2,2]} - 7S_{[n,4,3,2]} &{\rm for} & n\geq 4
\end{array}\right.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\ldots
\end{eqnarray}
i.e. denominator is equal to $S_{[N-1,\ldots,3,2,1]}$.
This problem of non-polynomiality is cured (the underlined terms are absent)
in the action on functions $Z_2\{p_1,p_3,p_5,\ldots\}$,
which depend only on odd times $p_{2k-1}$.
\subsection{$r=2$, odd times = cubic Kontsevich model
\label{r2odd}}
Assume now that $Z\{p_k\}$ depends on all the odd time-variables $p_{2k-1}$.
Then the terms with $\xi^{(N)}$ drop out of (\ref{ME2alltimes}) and we get a
differential equation for $Z-2\{p\}$ with polynomial coefficients in $p$:
\begin{eqnarray}
0 \ \stackrel{(\ref{maineq})}{=} \
\sum_{i=1}^N \lambda_i^{1/r}\Big(
\overbrace{\sum_{j\neq i}^N \frac{\frac{\partial Z}{\partial \lambda_i} - \frac{\partial Z}{\partial \lambda_j}}{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
+ \frac{\partial^2 Z}{\partial\lambda_i^2}}^{(\partial^2 {\cal Z}/{\partial L_{tr}^2})_{ii}} - \lambda_i Z \Big)
= \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
=
\frac{1}{4}\sum_{n_1,n_2=1}^\infty (2n_1-1)(2n_2-1) p_{2n_1+2n_2+1}\,\frac{\partial^2Z}{\partial p_{2n_1-1}\partial p_{2n_2-1}}
+ \sum_{n=1}^\infty (2n-1)\left(-p_{2n-1}
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{n} p_{2a-1} p_{2n+3-2a}\right) \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_{2n-1}}
+ \frac{p_3+4p_1^3}{16} \, Z
= \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
= -\hat l_0 Z + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} p_{2n-1} \hat L_{n-2}^{(2)} Z
\label{ME2}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat L_n^{(2)} = \frac{1}{4}\delta_{n,0} + \frac{p_1^2}{16}\delta_{n,-1}
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^\infty (2k+2n-1)p_{2k-1} \frac{\partial }{\partial p_{2k+2n-1}} +
\frac{1}{4} \sum_{a+b=2n} (2a-1)(2b-1) \frac{\partial^2 }{\partial p_{2a-1}\partial p_{2b-1}}
\end{eqnarray}
and the grading-counting operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat l_0 = \sum_{n=1}^\infty (2n-1)p_{2n-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial p_{2n-1}}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that elimination of derivatives $\frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_{2k}}$ automatically
eliminates all even times $p_{2k}$ from the coefficients of (\ref{ME2}):
{\bf for $r=2$ the $r$-reduction is necessary and sufficient for {\bf ME} to reproduce {\bf SE}}.
\section{The first non-standard case: quartic model $r+1=4$}
\subsection{Solution to projected Ward identity}
Now we can repeat all the same steps in the first non-trivial case of quartic GKM with $r=3$.
We will see that the non-polynomiality gets now even more pronounced.
In terms of $\mu$-variables ($\lambda_i = \mu_i^r$)
the {\it main equation} in this case looks as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{i=1}^N \lambda_i^{1/3}\left\{
\sum_{k\neq j\neq i}^N \left(
\frac{\frac{\partial{\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_i}}{(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\lambda_i-\lambda_k)}
+ \frac{ \frac{\partial{\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_j}}{(\lambda_j-\lambda_i)(\lambda_j-\lambda_k)}
+ \frac{ \frac{\partial{\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_k}}{(\lambda_k-\lambda_i)(\lambda_k-\lambda_j)}\right)
+ \right.\nonumber \\ \left.
+\sum_{j\neq i}^N \left(-\frac{ \frac{\partial{\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_i}
- \frac{\partial{\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_j}}{(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)^2}
+ \frac{ 2 \frac{\partial^2{\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_i^2}
- \frac{\partial^2{\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_i\partial\lambda_j} - \frac{\partial^2{\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_j^2}}
{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
\right)
+ \frac{\partial^3 {\cal Z}}{\partial \lambda_i^3} - \lambda_i {\cal Z}
\right\} \ \stackrel{(\ref{maineq})}{=}\ 0
\label{ME3ev}
\end{eqnarray}
Conversion to $\mu$-variables ($\lambda = \mu_i^r$) is easy:
$\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda_i} = \frac{1}{r\mu_j^{r-1}} \frac{\partial}{\partial\mu_i}$.
For $r>3$ denominators get larger and degenerations provide higher derivatives of ${\cal Z}$.
The next step is to substitute
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal Z}_3 = \frac{e^{\frac{3}{4}{\rm tr}\, M^{4}}}
{\sqrt{\det \left(M^2\otimes 1 + M\otimes M + 1\otimes M^2\right)}}\cdot Z_3\{p_k\}
= \frac{e^{\frac{3}{4}\sum_i \mu_i^4}}{\prod_{i} \mu_i \prod_{i<j} (\mu_i^2+\mu_i\mu_j+\mu_j^2)}
\cdot Z_3\{p_k\}
\end{eqnarray}
and obtain an equation ME (\ref{maineq}) for $Z_3$ with time-derivatives instead of the $\mu$-ones.
Then we can compare it to SE (\ref{singleq}), which in the case of $r=3$ involves two operators \cite{MMMish}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat W^{(2)}_n = \frac{1}{3}\sum_{k=1}^\infty (k+3n)P_k\frac{\partial}{\partial p_{k+3n}}
+ \frac{1}{6} \sum_{a+b=3n} ab\frac{\partial^2}{\partial p_a\partial p_b}
+ \frac{p_1p_2}{3}\delta_{n,-1} + \frac{1}{9}\delta_{n,0}
\end{eqnarray}
{\footnotesize
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat W^{(3)}_n = \frac{1}{9}\sum_{k,l=1}^\infty (k+l+3n)P_kP_l\frac{\partial}{\partial p_{k+l+3n}}
+ \frac{1}{9}\sum_{k=1}^\infty \sum_{a+b=k+3n} abP_k\frac{\partial^2}{\partial p_a\partial p_b}
+ \frac{1}{27}\!\!\sum_{a+b+c=3n}abc\frac{\partial^3}{\partial p_a\partial p_b\partial p_c}
+ \frac{1}{27}\!\!\sum_{a+b+c=-3n} P_aP_bP_c
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
}
\noindent
with $P_k=p_k - 3\delta_{k,4}$ and $a,b,c,k,l$ not divisible by $3$.
Note that the sums are restricted more than it would follow from omission of derivatives
w.r.t. $p_{3k}$, for example, there are no terms $\frac{\partial^3}{\partial p_1^2\partial p_2}$
and $\frac{\partial^3}{\partial p_1\partial p_2^2}$ in $\hat W^{(3)}$, only $\frac{\partial^3}{\partial p_1^3}$
and $\frac{\partial^3}{\partial p_2^3}$.
This will be one of the apparent differences from the ME,
which contains third derivatives of all the four kinds.
\subsection{Non-trivial denominators}
The other striking difference will be non-polynomiality.
In fact, one can observe it at the very early stage.
For $r>2$ it is enough to look at the derivative-free term in ME.
Namely, if $Z_3=1$ the l.h.s. of (\ref{ME3ev}) is non-vanishing, but
contains contributions of just two ($r-1$) gradings: $-4$ and $0$.
In the simplest case of $N=2$
\begin{eqnarray}
Z = 1 \ \ \ \stackrel{(\ref{ME3ev})}{\Longrightarrow} \ \ \
\frac{7S_{[4]}+5S_{[3,1]}}{9} \underline{-
\frac{4\,\big(7S_{[10]}+7S_{[9,1]}+10S_{[8,2]}\big)}{27S_{[2]}}
}
\label{Z3=1}
\end{eqnarray}
The first is polynomial in times, the second is not.
In other words we observe the same phenomenon as in (\ref{ME2alltimes}),
but now it is present already for the item $Z$, without derivatives.
Adding appropriate $p$-dependent pieces to $Z_3\{p\}$ \cite{MMMish}
preserves the pattern --
just shifts it to higher and higher gradings:
{\footnotesize
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
Z = 1 + \left(\frac{p_4}{36} + \frac{p_2p_1^2}{6}\right) \ \ \ \Longrightarrow \ \ \
\frac{35p_4\big(11S_{[4]} +13S_{[3,1]}\big)}{324} - \frac{35\big(32S_{[13,1]}+38S_{[12,2]}
+ S_{[2]}(22S_{[12]}-22S_{[11,1]}+35S_{[9,3]}-36S_{[8,4]}+35S_{[6,6]}) \big)}{243 S_{[2]}}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
}
\noindent
and so on.
For generic $N$ denominator becomes $S_{[2N-2,\ldots,6,4,2]}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_3 = 1 \ \ \ \stackrel{(\ref{ME3ev})}{\Longrightarrow} \ \ \
\overbrace{\frac{7S_{[4]}+5S_{[3,1]}-5S_{[2,1,1]} - 7 S_{[1,1,1,1]}}{9}}^{\frac{p_4+6p_2p_1^2}{9}} -
\label{Z3=1N}
\end{eqnarray}
{\footnotesize
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!
- \left\{ \begin{array}{lcc}
\frac{4\,\Big(7S_{[10]}+7S_{[9,1]}+10S_{[8,2]}\Big)}{27S_{[2]}}
= \frac{1}{27}\left((p_2+p_1^2)(4p_2^3+21p_2^2p_1^2-12p_2p_1^4+p_1^6)
-\frac{12p[2]S_{[1,1]}^4}{S_{[2]}}\right)
& & N=2 \\
\frac{1}{27S_{[4,2]}}\Big(28S_{[12,2]}+28S_{[11,3]}+28S_{[11,2,1]}+40S_{[10,4]}+18S_{[10,3,1]}
+ 40S_{[10,2,2]} + 30S_{[9,4,1]} + 30S_{[9,3,2]}
-\nonumber \\
- 16S_{[8,5,1]}+42S_{[8,4,2]} -16S_{[8,3,3]}+3S_{[7,6,1]}
-13S_{[7,5,2]} - 22S_{[7,4,3]}+3S_{[6,6,2]}-19S_{[6,5,3]}-6S_{[6,4,4]}+12S_{[5,5,4]} \Big) & & N=3 \\
\frac{1}{27S_{[6,4,2]}}\Big(\ldots \Big) & & N=4 \\
\ldots
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
}
\noindent
While the first polynomial piece is stabilized and does not vary anymore for $N>r$,
the shape of non-polynomial terms is not stable -- it varies with $N$.
Building up the true $Z_3\{p\}$ results into the shift of the two non-vanishing
pieces to infinite gradings $p_\infty$, $p^\infty$ --
and in this sense the answer, understood as the contributions at every particular grading,
gets vanishing.
The moral is that now the non-polynomiality is less related to $r$-reduction:
a function can be independent of $p_{rk}$ (like $Z_3=1$), still (\ref{ME3ev})
does {\it not} convert it into a {\it polynomial} -- non-trivial denominators occur.
However, the {\it proper} $Z_3\{p\}$ is converted to zero.
Together with occurrence of the underlined term in (\ref{Z3=1})
this implies that at least some terms in the {\it main} equation
with derivatives of $Z_3\{p_k\}$ w.r.t. $p_k$ should be non-polynomial,
even if $k$ is {\it not} divisible by $r$.
Since such non-polynomiality does not appear in the highest-derivative terms $\frac{\partial^{r}Z_r}{\partial p_{i_1}\ldots \partial p_{i_{r}}}$,
the natural guess after that is that these additional terms are made from the
lower $W$-constraints, i.e. from the complements of the main equation (\ref{maineq})
-- the other corollaries of the matrix Ward identity (\ref{GN}).
\subsection{ME for $r=3$, all times}
As we already know from the previous subsection, there will be problems with relating SE to ME.
In addition to the two nice terms at the r.h.s. of
{\footnotesize
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
0 \ \stackrel{(\ref{maineq})}{=} \
\sum_{i=1}^N \lambda_i^{1/r}\Big(
\overbrace{ \sum_{k\neq j \neq i}^N
\frac{\frac{\partial Z}{\partial \lambda_i} }{(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\lambda_i-\lambda_k)}
- \sum_{j \neq i}^N \frac{\frac{\partial^2 Z}{\partial\lambda_i^2} }{\lambda_i-\lambda_j}
+ \frac{\partial^3 Z}{\partial\lambda_i^3 }
}^{(\partial^3 {\cal Z}/{\partial L_{tr}^3})_{ii}}\ -\ \lambda_i Z \Big)
= \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
}
\begin{eqnarray}
= \frac{1}{27}\sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3=1}^{\infty} n_1n_2n_3 p_{n_1+n_2+n_3+8}\,\frac{\partial^3Z}{\partial p_{n_1}\partial p_{n_2}\partial p_{n_3}}
+\frac{1}{3}\sum_{n_1,n_2 }^{\infty} n_1n_2 p_{n_1+n_2+4}\,\frac{\partial^2Z}{\partial p_{n_1}\partial p_{n_2} }
+ \ldots
\label{ME3}
\end{eqnarray}
the non-polynomial terms will appear,
which depend on $N$.
In the simplest case of $N=2$ the full expression is:
{\footnotesize
\begin{eqnarray}
0 \ \stackrel{(\ref{maineq})}{=} \
-\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3=1}^\infty\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\frac{n_1n_2n_3p_{n_1+n_2+n_3+8}}{27}\frac{\partial^3 Z}{\partial p_{n_1}\partial p_{n_2}\partial p_{n_3}}
+ \nonumber \\
+ \sum_{n_1,n_2 =1}^\infty n_1n_2\left(\frac{p_{n_1+n_2+4}}{3} - \frac{(n_1+n_2+8)p_{n_1+n_2+8}}{18}
- \frac{ 2p_{n_1+n_2+6}S_{[1,1]} + 4p_{n_1+n_2+4}S_{[2,2]} + 2p_{n_1+n_2}S_{[4,4]}
+4p_{n_1+n_2-2}S_{[5,5]}}{18}
+ \right.\nonumber \\ \left. \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
+ \frac{S_{[1,1]}^7\cdot \big(S_{[n_1+n_2-4]} + 2S_{[n_1+n_2-5,1]}+S_{[n_1-2,n_2-2]}\big)
-\frac{S([1,1])^{n_2+5}}{2}p_1S_{[n_1-n_2-1]} + S_{[1,1]}^6S_{[n_1-1]}\delta_{n_2,1}}{9S_{[2]}}
-\right. \nonumber \\ \left.
-\frac{ 2S_{[1,1]}^7\cdot\big(\delta_{n_1,3}\delta_{n_2,1}+\delta_{n_1,2}\delta_{n_2,2} \big)
+S_{[1,1]}^6\big(2p_1\delta_{n_1,2}+\delta_{n_1,1} \big)\delta_{n_2,1} }{9S_{[2]}}
\right)\frac{\partial^2 Z}{\partial p_{n_1}\partial p_{n_2} }
+ \nonumber \\ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
+\sum_n n\left(
\frac{(n+4)\big(S_{[n+6]} -S_{[n+3,2]}\big)+ 3\big(S_{[n+5,1]}+S_{[n+4,2]}\big)}{3S_{[2]}}
-\right. \nonumber \\ \left.
- \frac{(n^2+12n+39)S_{[n+10]} + 3(n+7)S_{[n+9,1]}+6(n+6)S_{[n+8,2]} - (n^2+12n+27)S_{[n+7,3]}
- 3(1-\delta_{n,1})S_{[n+4,6]} }{27S_{[2]}}
\right) \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_n}
- \nonumber \\
-np_n \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_n}
+ \left(\frac{7S_{[4]}+5S_{[3,1]}}{9} - \frac{4\big(7S_{[10]}+7S_{[9,1]}+10S_{[8,2]}\big)}{27S_{[2]}}\right) Z
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
}
\subsection{ME versus SE}
This should be compared to the operator in (\ref{singleq}), which after substitution of (\ref{wcons})
becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
- \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{a+b+c =3n-9} \!\!\!\!\frac{abcp_{a+b+c+8}}{27}\frac{\partial^3 Z}{\partial p_a\partial p_b\partial p_c}
+ \left(\frac{1}{3}\sum_{a+b=3n-5}+\frac{1}{6}\sum_{a+b=3n-6}\right) ab p_{a+b+4} \frac{\partial^2 Z}{\partial p_a\partial p_b} - \sum_{a+b=3n-1}\!\!\!\!\frac{ab p_k p_{a+b-k+8}}{9}\frac{\partial^2 Z}{\partial p_a\partial p_b}
+ \nonumber \\
+ \frac{2}{3}p_{3n-1}(k+3n-5)p_k \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_{k+3n-5}}
+ \frac{1}{3}p_{3n-2}(k+3n-6)p_k\frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_{k+3n-6}}
- \frac{1}{9}p_{3n-1}(k+l+3n-9)p_kp_l \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_{k+l+3n-9}}
- \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
-np_n \frac{\partial Z}{\partial p_n}
+ \left(\frac{p_4+6p_2p_1^2}{9} - \frac{p_5p_1^3+3p_4p_2p_1^2+p_2^4}{27}\right)Z
\ \stackrel{(\ref{singleq})}{=} \ 0
\label{SE3}
\end{eqnarray}
Like it was for $r=2$,
in (\ref{ME3}) there are items with the derivatives $\partial/\partial p_{3k}$,
which are absent in (\ref{SE3}).
They can be eliminated by asking $Z_3$ to belong to the $3$-reduction --
exactly like it happened in the previous section for $r=2$.
This is the positive part of the story:
{\bf cancellation of anomaly requires the $r$-reduction}.
But is the $r$-reduction sufficient for deriving {\bf SE} from {\bf ME}?
Unfortunately, the answer is "no": now there are a few more striking differences
between (\ref{ME3}) and (\ref{SE3}), e.g.
i) already in (\ref{ME3}) there are items with $p_{3k}$ in the sums,
which are absent in (\ref{SE3}),
ii) the full expression at the r.h.s. of (\ref{ME3}) contains non-polynomial
terms with denominators $S_{[\ldots,2]}$,
iii) terms like $\partial^3_{112} Z$, $\partial^3_{122} Z$ and $\partial^2_{11} Z$, $\partial^2_{22}Z$
are present already in (\ref{ME3}),
while only $\partial^3_{111}Z$, $\partial^3_{222}Z$ and $\partial^2_{12}Z$ are allowed in (\ref{SE3}).
These are the {\it qualitative} deviations, as to the quantitative {\it details} of the two formulas,
they look even more different.
Still both are true.
The only way out of this apparent discrepancy is that the {\it anomalous} difference
between the two formulas is made from some other $W$-constraints (\ref{wcons}),
not incorporated into the simple equation (\ref{SE3}).
This would mean that literally ${\bf SE}\neq {\bf ME}$ even for $r$-reduced $Z_r$,
still the anomaly is canceled by $r$-reduction {\it plus} some additional information --
superficial for the scalar projection {\bf ME} of the Ward identity
(\ref{GN}), still implied by the entire (\ref{GN}).
This is indeed the case, but it is quite difficult to see.
We show how it works for contributions from a few lowest gradings $4m$ to
$Z_4 = \sum_{m=0}^\infty z_{4m}$.
In grading four we have exact matching: both (\ref{ME3}) and (\ref{SE3}) contribute
\begin{eqnarray}
\underline{-np_n \frac{\partial z_4}{\partial p_n}}
+ \frac{p_4+6p_2p_1^2}{9} z_0 = \left(-\frac{4}{4}+1\right)\cdot \frac{p_4+6p_2p_1^2}{9} = 0
\end{eqnarray}
In grading eight:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf SE}: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\underline{-np_n \frac{\partial z_8}{\partial p_n}}
+ \frac{p_4+6p_2p_1^2}{9} z_4
- \frac{p_5p_1^3+3p_4p_2p_1^2+p_2^4}{27} z_0
+ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \nonumber \\
+ \sum_n\sum_{k\neq 0 \ {\rm mod}\ 3}\left(\frac{2}{3}p_{3n-1}(k+3n-5)p_k \frac{\partial z_4}{\partial p_{k+3n-5}}
+ \frac{1}{3}p_{3n-2}(k+3n-6)p_k\frac{\partial z_4}{\partial p_{k+3n-6}}\right)
+\nonumber \\
+ \Big(\!\!\!\!\!\!\underbrace{\frac{1}{3}\sum_{a+b=3n-5}}_{\text{does not contribute}}
+\frac{1}{6}\sum_{a+b=3n-6}\Big)\ ab p_{a+b+4} \frac{\partial^2 z_4}{\partial p_a\partial p_b}
= 0
\label{SE31}
\end{eqnarray}
while (for $N=2$)
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf ME}: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\underline{-np_n \frac{\partial z_8}{\partial p_n}} + \frac{p_4+6p_2p_1^2}{9} z_4
- \frac{4(7S_{[10]}+7S_{[9,1]}+10S_{[8,2]})} {27S_{[2]}} z_0
+ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
+\frac{1}{S_{[2]}}\sum_n n\left(\frac{n+4}{3}(S_{[n+6]}-S_{[n+3,3]})+(S_{[n+5,1]}+S_{[n+4,2]})\right)
\frac{\partial z_4}{\partial p_n}
+\frac{1}{3}\sum_{n_1,n_2} n_1n_2 p_{n_1+n_2+4}\frac{\partial^2 z_4}{\partial p_{n_1}\partial p_{n_2}} = 0
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Already at this level the difference between the two correct formulas looks quite pronounced --
and it only increases at the next levels.
Some new ideas are needed to express the (vanishing) difference in terms of the W-constraints
(\ref{wcons}) and, hopefully, find a concise and universal expression for this discrepancy.
Since it relates two clearly distinguished quantities -- the {\bf SE} which is a single
polynomial equation, which defines $Z\{p_k\}$, and {\bf ME} which is the distinguished
scalar projection of the fundamental matrix Ward-identity (\ref{GN}) --
there {\it should} be some simple relation between them.
We see that the hope of \cite{MMMish}, that this relation is just an identity, fails.
But in the simplest cases (like the basic Kontsevich model $r=2$) it is true --
and thus the discrepancy is an {\it anomaly}, in the sense which still remains to be formulated.
Anyhow, so far anomalies were always comprehensible -- hopefully this will be the case with this
new one as well.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we studied the properties of the {\it main equation} (\ref{maineq}) from \cite{MMMish}.
This is important because this equation seems to somehow accumulate the power of
all the $W$-constraints in monomial GKM
and fully define the time dependence of its partition function $Z_r\{p\}$.
In particular it should imply that this partition function
is independent of $p_{rk}$ (of time-variables with the numbers divisible by $r$).
We demonstrated that it does so in an elegant way:
if there was a $p_{rk}$-dependence in $Z_r$, we would not get an equation for it,
which is {\it polynomial} in time-variables $p_k$.
Since $Z_r$ is known from \cite{MMM,GKM} to be a KP $\tau$-function
(this is relatively simple to demonstrate),
independence of $p_{rk}$ means that it belongs to the $r$-reduction of KP hierarchy.
In fact, one can consider our calculation as a new kind of a proof of this statement
(that $Z_r$ is an $r$-{\it reduced} $\tau$-function),
but still a rather sophisticated and undirect one.
A concise, clear and direct proof remains highly desirable.
Also desirable is a direct relation of our calculation with the elegant
description \cite{FKN} of the $W$-constraints for $r$-reductions
as a normal ordering of "circular formula" $\prod_{m=1}^r J\left(z\cdot e^{2\pi i m/r}\right)$.
There are now few doubts that the $W$-constraints are implied by the single main equation --
but the way it works remains unclear.
One can only hope that if this is clarified, the constraints will also come in some clever form --
probably, provided by the circular formula.
Our main result is that the {\it main} equation (\ref{maineq}),
directly following from the matrix Ward identity (\ref{GN}),
is not exactly the same as the "{\it single} equation" (SE) of \cite{MMMR2,MMMish},
but differs from it by additional non-polynomial (!) terms,
which presumably are proportional to
(a) some lower $W$-constraints and
(b) the terms with derivatives over $p_{kr}$, which do not contribute
for $r$-reduced partition functions:
\noindent
for a matrix $M=diag(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_N)$ of the size $N$ and on the locus $p_k = \sum_{i=1}^N \mu_i^{-k}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\boxed{
\overbrace{{\rm tr}\, \left( M\left\{\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial L^{tr}}\right)^r - L\right\}\right)}^{ME} \ = \
\overbrace{-\hat l_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \sum_{n=1}^\infty p_{rn-i} \hat W^{r+1-i}_{n-r-1+i }}^{SE}
\ \
+ \ \ \frac{ O\left(\hat W^{(2)},\ldots, \hat W^{(r-1)}, \frac{\partial}{\partial p_{kr}}\right)}
{S_{[(r-1),2(r-1), \ldots, (N-1)(r-1)]}}
}
\end{eqnarray}
The fact that
some other $W$ constraints emerge in addition to the {\it single} equation
in the truly-first-principle approach (based on \cite{GN})
can be important for better understanding of its surprising predictive power --
a possibility for a single equation to substitute the entire set of the $W$-constraints
(which has more than one generator: already two, $L_{-1}$ and $L_2$, for $r=2$).
As a byproduct of our calculation we found an amusing structure of non-polynomial terms,
with a peculiar embedded dependence on $N$.
Since non-polynomial terms are coefficients of $\partial Z_r/\partial p_{kr}$
which actually vanish for the GKM partition function,
the true significance of these formulas, at least in the case (b), remain unclear --
still they look interesting by themselves and can show up in some other contexts.
The observation of "anomaly" ${\bf SE}\neq {\bf ME}$ even for $r$-reduced $\tau$-functions
leaves the puzzle of $W$-constraints and the origin of $W$-representation for GKM with $r>2$
\cite{MMMish} unsolved.
This adds to the equally puzzling complication of superintegrability formulas
and character calculus for $r>2$: at least the appropriate basis of $Q$-functions
\cite{MMhl} remains unknown.
It is unclear if there is a direct connection between these two complications --
anyhow, the story of GKM is still incomplete and at least one additional idea is still lacking.
Of course the previous ideas, like "circular formula" \cite{FKN}
and non-abelian W-representation \cite{MMMR2,MMMish},
also need to be polished and brought to the same level of clarity
as determinantal representation and KP integrability \cite{GKM}, --
but this is hard to do before the "anomaly" issue is fixed,
which controls the puzzle of $r$-reduction and the very origin of
sophisticated $W$-constraints and the way they follow from
the apparent original Ward identity \cite{GN}.
If superintegrability and character expansion will also get clarified by the resolution
of this puzzle, or need to wait for additional insights, remains to be seen.
Last but not the least -- all the formulas in this paper
are obtained for particular low values of $r$ and $N$,
what is enough to reveal the emerging structures and phenomena.
Still general consideration and proofs remain to be given.
They can also bring new ideas and further develop and clarify the theory of GKM,
which remains mysteriously complicated and transcendent -- perhaps a little less now,
but still far from simplicity and transparency achieved for the other eigenvalue matrix models
(including the cubic GKM).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Nearly 45 years of cooperation with Andrei were precious.
This paper concerns just a small unclear piece in one of the branches of our common interest.
I am indebted to A.Mironov, V.Mishnyakov and A.Zhabin
for fresh discussions of GKM and related subjects.
This work is supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Grant No.21-12-00400).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
A common computational task that arises in simulations of particulate Stokes flow is evaluating the hydrodynamic interaction of small moving geometries, such as drops, bacteria or biological cells, with large static structures, such as microfluidic chips, vascular walls, or channel walls. Boundary integral equation (BIE) methods, solved via iterative solvers accelerated by fast summation methods, are often used in practice for such systems as they avoid volume meshes as well as the cumbersome task of volume re-meshing in transient simulations. In \cite{MARPLE2016_periodicstokes}, a fast direct solver was proposed which further reduces the cost of simulations by precomputing the compressed inverse of the BIE operator corresponding to the large static structures, which can be applied in linear time. This can be extremely useful in practice since most applications require a large number of time-steps to observe the physics of interest e.g., alignment of vesicles in a periodic channel \cite{ghigliotti2011vesicle}, pattern formation in suspensions of active particles \cite{lushi2014fluid, yan2020scalable} and cell sorting \cite{kabacaouglu2019sorting}.
However, when the suspended particles evolve in close proximity to the confining walls, the discretization of the walls must be locally refined to resolve the hydrodynamic interaction \cite{WU2020_adaptive}; this, in turn, makes direct solvers less attractive since the inverse operator needs to be re-evaluated continuously. We present a fast algorithm that avoids re-building the inverse operator from scratch by precomputing an inverse operator corresponding to a reference mesh and rapidly updating it whenever the boundary discretization is locally refined (or coarsened). This work is an extension of Zhang-Gillman \cite{ZHANG2018, ZHANG2021}, where Laplace BIEs on locally-perturbed geometries were considered. The central idea is that the discretized BIE on the walls can be written as an extended version of the linear system for the original geometry and a fast direct solver on the original geometry can be reused to reduce the computational burden of solving the problems on the refined discretization. Since the conditioning of the discretized BIE for Stokes problem is at least the square of the Laplace BIE defined on the same geometry, special care is needed when using the Woodbury formula to apply the inverse of the extended system for numerical stability.
\para{Related work}
At a high-level, fast direct solvers exploit
the fact that the off-diagonal blocks of the discretized system are low-rank.
In the context of integral equations, some of them include the \textit{Hierarchically Block Separable (HBS)} \cite{MARTINSSON20051,GILLMAN2012_china},
the
\textit{Hierarchically Semi-Separable (HSS)} \cite{Sheng2007_proceedings,CHANDRASEKARAN2004_withGu},
the
\textit{Hierarchical Interpolative Factorization (HIF)} \cite{HO2015_withYing_hif} and
the $\mathcal{H}$ or $\mathcal{H}^2$- matrix methods \cite{HACKBUSCH1999_part1}.
The techniques developed in \cite{ZHANG2018, ZHANG2021} for the extended linear system (ELS), designed for problems with locally perturbed geometries, can be coupled with any of the above direct solver approaches. %
\yzcmt{In this work, we employ a particular fast direct solver based on HBS matrix representation and inverse presented in \cite{GILLMAN2012_china}.
For the rest of the manuscript, when a HBS representation or inverse
is built for a discretized boundary integral equation, it refers to
the particular compression and inverse approximation given in \cite{GILLMAN2012_china}. } \agcmt{Other fast direct solvers can be used in place of the HBS solver and the results will be comparable.}
An alternative to using \agcmt{the} ELS is to update the hierarchical representation of the discretized integral operator directly.
Existing techniques in \cite{MINDEN2016,RYAN2020ARXIV} update the HIF of the system with \agcmt{a cost that is bounded above by the cost of } building a HIF of the
perturbed or refined problem from scratch.
For problems that do not
require a large number of discretization points, updating HIF directly is expected to be cheaper than
building a new one from scratch.
This idea is first investigated in \cite{MINDEN2016}, and a parallel implementation for Stokes BIEs on multiply-connected domains
is presented in \cite{RYAN2020ARXIV}.
Being direct solvers, these techniques are
advantageous when a large number of solves are required for each new geometry.
Generalizing the idea to other standard fast direct solvers, such as those based on HBS or HSS matrix,
requires knowledge of the particular compression techniques used in the chosen fast direct solver
and is non-trivial.
Several previous works employ fast direct solvers as preconditioners for the
linear systems that result from the discretization of integral equations and differential equations \cite{Darve_IFMM_pre,Hmat_pre,2010_HSS_pre,2005_beb,2003_beb}.
Most of them build a low-accuracy direct solver for the linear
system and apply the forward operator via a fast matrix multiplication technique.
While convergence of the iterative solver is generally improved, it can be more dramatically
improved by the use of a more accurate direct solver as a preconditioner.
Section \ref{sec:preconditioner} explores the left preconditioner option
and how the accuracy of the direct solver impacts the quality of the preconditioner.
\para{Contributions}
Motivated by the applications mentioned above, we apply the solution technique given in \cite{ZHANG2018,ZHANG2021} to Stokes flow problems defined on complex geometries,
some of which are adapted from real application geometry data.
\yzcmt{The linear system associated with the discretization of an integral equation for Stokes flow
has a physical nullspace corresponding to the pressure being unique up to a constant.
Fast direct solvers like HBS are sensitive to the existence of such nontrivial nullspace
due to the fact that matrices of smaller sizes are inverted in the hierarchical structure and singularity will immediately cause trouble.
The nullspace can be corrected via an analytic technique, but
the resulting linear system can have high condition number due to the physics and/or
complexity of the geometry. In general, the linear system that
needs to be solved for Stokes problems have a condition number that is \textit{at least} squared that of the linear system for a Laplace problem on the same geometry.
The high condition number of the system leads to similar condition number of the small
matrices inverted in the hierarchical structure of a fast direct solver,
resulting in loss of accuracy \agcmt{that is} not often seen in Laplace problems.
This is even more cumbersome when local refinement is added to the original discretization.
The solution technique given in \cite{ZHANG2018,ZHANG2021} requires inverting a matrix
whose conditioning may be worse than the original discretized BIE. \agcmt{Since the
condition number of the linear system for Stokes problems is often high (at least square that
of Laplace), this technique without additional modifications to improve stability can be problematic.}}
\agcmt{The work in this manuscript improves the stability of the extended linear system solver from \cite{ZHANG2018,ZHANG2021}
by changing the technique used to create the low rank factorizations of the update matrix. The updates to the previous versions
of the solver are inspired by the theory which specifies the conditions needed for the Woodbury formula to be stable.}
\agcmt{Even this updated solver cannot defeat a high condition number and how that impacts the accuracy of
a direct solver.}
The work presented in this manuscript tackles this issue by
using the local refinement \agcmt{fast direct} solver as a preconditioner for the ELS.
When coupled with a
fast matrix multiplication technique for \agcmt{applying} the ELS, the resulting solution
technique converges in a constant number of iterations \textit{independent} of the number
of discretization points (as long as the geometric features are sufficiently resolved).
\para{Limitations} \agcmt{This manuscript only considers two dimensional problems even though}
the ideas introduced here generalize to higher dimensions. \agcmt{Additional} work is needed in integrating with other computational machinery (e.g., quadratures) and carefully testing the efficiency of the overall solver.
In dense suspension flows, the particle-wall near interactions happen over long length- and time-scales. Clearly, the solver developed here is not applicable to this setting since the wall geometry needs to be globally-refined, in which case the approach prescribed in \cite{MARPLE2016_periodicstokes} is better suited. Lastly, when the particles approach arbitrarily close to the walls, close evaluation schemes (e.g., \cite{barnett2015spectrally, WU2020_adaptive}) are required to improve the accuracy of interaction force computation. Although these schemes are not expected to change the computational efficiency, incorporating them and testing the solver is left to future work.
\textit{\textbf{Outline.}}
The manuscript begins by reviewing boundary integral formulations for Stokes problems and
a technique for discretizing the resulting integral equations in Section \ref{sec:BIE}.
Next the ELS for locally refined discretization and the corresponding
direct solver are presented in Section \ref{sec:fdsolver}. The proposed preconditioner
for the ELS is presented in Section \ref{sec:preconditioner}.
Next Section \ref{sec:numerics} illustrates the performance of the presented
solution techniques. Finally Section \ref{sec:conclusion} closes the manuscript
with a summary and concluding remarks.
\section{Boundary integral formulation}
\label{sec:BIE}
This manuscript considers integral equation techniques for solving both interior and exterior Stokes flow problems.
The indirect integral equation formulation is employed, wherein, the solution can be cast as a convolution
over the boundary $\Gamma$ of a kernel with an unknown boundary charge density. For example, the
velocity $\vct{u}$ can be represented by
$$\vct{u} (\vct{x})=\int_\Gamma\mathcal{K}(\vct{x},\vct{y})\vct{\tau}(\vct{y}) ds_\vct{y} = (\mathcal{K}_\Gamma \vct{\tau})(\vct{x}),$$
where $\mathcal{K}$ denotes a kernel related to the fundamental solution of the Stokes equations and $\vct{\tau}$ denotes the unknown charge density.
The kernel is chosen based on the problem under consideration. One option is to represent the solution
via the single layer integral operator denoted by $\vct{u}(\vct{x}) = (\mathcal{S}_\Gamma\tau)(\vct{x})$, where $\mathcal{S}$ denotes the Stokes single layer kernel (Stokeslet)
defined in its tensor components by
\begin{equation}
S_{ij}(\vct{x},\vct{y}) = \frac{1}{4\pi \mu} \left(\delta_{ij} \log\left(\frac{1}{r}\right) +\frac{r_ir_j}{r^2}\right), \quad i,j = 1,2,
\label{eq:stokeslet}
\end{equation}
where $\vct{r}:= \vct{x}-\vct{y}$, $r = \|\vct{r}\|$ and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta.
Another option is to use a double layer integral operator $\vct{u}(\vct{x}) = (\mathcal{D}_\Gamma\tau)$ to represent the velocity. The tensor components of the double layer kernel $\mathcal{D}$ are
$$D_{ij}(\vct{x},\vct{y})= \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{r_ir_j}{r^2}\frac{\vct{r}\cdot \vct{n}_\vct{y}}{r^2}, \quad i,j = 1,2$$
where $\vct{n}_\vct{y}$ is the surface normal vector at the point $\vct{y}\in\Gamma$.
Likewise, the pressure can be represented via an integral operator. It should be chosen to
match the representation of the velocity. For example, if the velocity is represented with the single layer integral operator, then the
pressure is given by
$$p(\vct{x}) = \int_\Gamma \mathcal{Q}(\vct{x},\vct{y}) \vct{\tau}(\vct{y}) ds_\vct{y}$$
where
$$Q_j(\vct{x},\vct{y}) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{r_j}{r^2}, \quad j = 1,2$$
and $\vct{\tau}$ is the same boundary charge density as for the velocity. If the velocity is represented via the double layer integral operator, then the pressure is given by
$$p(\vct{x}) = \int_\Gamma \mathcal{P}(\vct{x},\vct{y}) \vct{\tau}(\vct{y})ds_\vct{y}$$
where $$P_j (\vct{x},\vct{y}) =\frac{\mu}{\pi}\left(-\frac{\vct{n}_{j,\vct{y}}}{r^2} +
2\frac{r_j}{r^4}\vct{r}\cdot\vct{n}_\vct{y}\right), \quad j = 1,2$$
and $\vct{n}_{j,\vct{y}}$ denotes the $j^{\rm th}$ component of the surface
normal vector $\vct{n}_\vct{y}$.
\subsection{Interior Stokes problem}
\label{sec:int}
Consider the incompressible Stokes equation inside a geometry $\Omega_{\rm in}$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:model_bvp}
\begin{split}
-\mu \Delta \vct{u} (\vct{x})+ \nabla p (\vct{x}) &= \vct{0}, \quad \ \mbox{ for } \vct{x}\in\Omega_{\rm in} \\
\nabla \cdot \vct{u} (\vct{x}) &= 0, \quad \ \mbox{ for }\vct{x} \in\Omega_{\rm in} \\
\vct{u} (\vct{x}) &=\vct{g} (\vct{x}), \mbox{ for }\vct{x}\in\Gamma = \partial \Omega_{\rm in},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ denotes the viscosity, $\vct{u}$ denotes the velocity, $\vct{g} (\vct{x})$
is a vector-valued function denoting the boundary data, and $p(\vct{x})$ is a scalar
valued function denoting the pressure.
Figure \ref{fig:demo_figs}(a) gives a sample geometry.
The Dirichlet boundary data needs to satisfy the consistency condition
\begin{equation}
\int_{\Gamma} \vct{g} (\vct{x})\cdot \vct{n}_\vct{x} \, ds_\vct{x} =0
\end{equation}
where $\vct{n}_\vct{x} $ denotes the outward pointing normal vector at $\vct{x}\in\Gamma$.
Representing the velocity via the double layer kernel
$$\vct{u}(\vct{x}) = (\mathcal{D}_\Gamma{\tau})(\vct{x})$$
results in having to solve the the following boundary integral equation
\begin{equation}\label{equ:interior_BIE}
-\frac{1}{2}\vct{\tau}(\vct{x}) +(\mathcal{D}{\vct{\tau}})(\vct{x})=g(\vct{x})
\end{equation}
for the unknown density $\vct{\tau}$ \cite{hsiao2008boundary}.
Discretization of the BIE (\ref{equ:interior_BIE}) via the Nystr\"om
method results in having to solve a dense linear system
of the form
\begin{equation}\label{equ:interior_BIE_discretized}
\left(-\frac{1}{2}\mtx{I} +\vct{D}\right)\bm{\tau}=\vct{g}xf
\end{equation}
where $\vct{D}$ denotes the matrix that results from the discretization of the
double layer integral operator, $\vct{g}$ denotes a vector with entries given by the evaluation
of $g(\vct{x})$ at the quadrature nodes, and the vector $\bm{\tau}$
denotes the vector of the unknown density values at the discretization points.
\begin{remark}
The solution to (\ref{eq:model_bvp}) is unique up to a constant which
results in the the linear system (\ref{equ:interior_BIE_discretized}) having a rank-1 nullspace.
This nullspace can be
corrected by adding the discretized integral operator $\mathcal{N}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:null}
(\mathcal{N}\tau)(\vct{x})=\vct{n}_\vct{x} \int_\Gamma \tau(\vct{y})\cdot \vct{n}_\vct{y}\, ds_\vct{y}
\end{equation}
to the discretized integral equation (\ref{equ:interior_BIE_discretized}).
If a Nystr\"om discretization is used, the method in \cite{BIROS2004_stokes} can be used
to discretize (\ref{eq:null}).
Thus the linear system that needs to be solved for interior Stokes problems by
using the double layer representation of the velocity is
\begin{equation}\label{equ:interior_BIE_discretized2}
-\frac{1}{2} \bm{\tau} +(\vct{D} +\vct{N})\bm{\tau}=\vct{g}
\end{equation}
where $\vct{N}$ is the matrix that results from the discretization of (\ref{eq:null}).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Exterior Stokes problem}
\label{sec:ext}
Exterior incompressible Stokes problems are also considered in this paper. By an exterior
problem, we mean that the velocity is sought in the domain $\Omega_{\rm out}$ defined
as the plane minus the interior of a curve $\Gamma$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:demo_figs}(b).
By using a combined field representation for the velocity
$$\vct{u} (\vct{x})= (\mathcal{D}_\Gamma\vct{\tau})(\vct{x}) +(\mathcal{S}_\Gamma\vct{\tau})(\vct{x}) = [\mathcal{(D+S)}_\Gamma \vct{\tau}](\vct{x}),$$
one is left with solving a second kind integral equation
\begin{equation}\label{equ:exterior_BIE}
\frac{1}{2}\vct{\tau} +[\mathcal{(D+S)}_\Gamma \vct{\tau}]=\vct{g}.
\end{equation}
The linear system that results from discretizing this integral equation
is full-rank.
\begin{remark}
We also consider interior-exterior problems as shown in Figure \ref{fig:demo_figs}(c), where
the boundary $\Gamma$ is composed of an enclosing boundary curve $\Gamma_0$ and one or more holes with boundary $\Gamma_1$ inside the enclosed region.
The domain $\Omega$ is defined as the set that is interior to $\Gamma_0$ but exterior to $\Gamma_1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\begin{picture}(120,100)(20,0)
\put(15,0){\includegraphics[height=30mm]{paper_figs/demo_int.png}}
\put(70,32){$\Omega_{\rm in}$}
\put(40,29){$\Gamma$}
\put(72,50){$\vct{x}$}
\put(100,70){$\vct{n}_{\vct{x}}$}
\end{picture}
&
\begin{picture}(120,100)(20,0)
\put(15,0){\includegraphics[height=30mm]{paper_figs/demo_ext.png}}
\put(60,85){$\Omega_{\rm out}$}
\put(50,29){$\Gamma$}
\end{picture}
&
\begin{picture}(120,100)(20,0)
\put(15,0){\includegraphics[height=30mm]{paper_figs/demo_intext.png}}
\put(60,52){$\Omega$}
\put(33,39){$\Gamma_0$}
\put(82,29){$\Gamma_1$}
\end{picture}\\
(a) &(b) &(c)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ (a) A sample geometry for a purely interior BVP where the domain $\Omega_{\rm in}$ is the interior of
the boundary $\Gamma=\partial \Omega_{\rm in}$,
(b) a sample geometry for a purely exterior BVP where the domain $\Omega_{\rm out}$ is the exterior of
the boundary $\Gamma=\partial \Omega_{\rm out}$,
and (c) a sample geometry for an interior-exterior BVP where the domain $\Omega$ is the interior of the outer boundary $\Gamma_0$
but exterior of the inner boundary $\Gamma_1$.}
\label{fig:demo_figs}
\end{figure}
\section{An extended linear system and direct solver for boundary value problems with locally refined discretization}\label{sec:fdsolver}
The efficient solver in this paper utilizes \agcmt{techniques previously developed}
in \cite{ZHANG2018, ZHANG2021},
which are originally designed to handle BIEs defined on locally perturbed geometries. \agcmt{A geometry is said to be \textit{locally perturbed} if small parts of the boundary are modified from a previous BIE solve while the remainder of the boundary remains the same.} We exploit the fact \agcmt{these} techniques can be applied to handle local discretization refinement. \agcmt{For Stokes problems, the original fast solver techniques needed to be modified in order to handle
the higher condition number associated with these problems. This section reviews the techniques from \cite{ZHANG2018,ZHANG2021}
and presents the new version needed for Stokes problems.}
Section \ref{sec:localperturbmodelproblem} begins by defining a
problem with locally refined discretization and introducing notation. Section \ref{sec:localperturb_ext}
then presents the ELS and the efficient technique of solving
that linear system using a solver built for the original discretization.
\yzcmt{
Section \ref{sec:low_rank_approx} introduces compression ideas for the blocks in the ELS that capture changes in discretization.
Finally,
Section \ref{sec:woodbury_stability} details the robustness of the solution technique and
completes the algorithm.}
The fast direct solver presented in this section scales linearly with respect to the the number
of points on the original discretization.
\yzcmt{The solver can also scale linearly with
respect to the number of points that are added in the refinement when a linear scaling inversion scheme is \agcmt{used
to invert} the discretized boundary integral operator on the refined part of the \agcmt{boundary}.
\agcmt{If the number
of points added is not large (in general over a thousand),
dense linear algebra is recommended for handling the refined region.
This is because fast inversion algorithms such as HBS inversion \cite{MARTINSSON20051, GILLMAN2012_china}
tend to be slower than dense
linear algebra for small matrices. }}
\subsection{Model problem with locally refined discretization}
\label{sec:localperturbmodelproblem}
Consider the interior BVP defined by equation (\ref{eq:model_bvp}) on the geometry $\Omega_{\rm in}$ in Figure \ref{fig:demo_figs}(a).
As an example, let the boundary \agcmt{originally} be discretized with ten 16-point Gaussian panels. \agcmt{Then one panel is chosen} to be refined into four panels. See Figure \ref{fig:PerturbedBoundary}.
\agcmt{Let $\Gamma_r$ denote the part of the boundary that is refined and
$\Gamma_k$ denote the part of the boundary where the discretization remains
unchanged (``k" for ``kept").}
Figure \ref{fig:PerturbedBoundary}(a) and (b) \agcmt{illustrates} the pre- and post-refinement discretization respectively.
The endpoints of the panels are also plotted.
For convenience, let $\mathcal{I}_k$, $\mathcal{I}_c$, and $\mathcal{I}_p$ denote the discretization points that are kept, deleted, and added for the refinement.
\agcmt{Thus} $\mathcal{I}_o=\mathcal{I}_k\cup \mathcal{I}_c$ \agcmt{denotes} the collection of points \agcmt{in} the original discretization and \agcmt{$\mathcal{I}_n=\mathcal{I}_k\cup \mathcal{I}_p$ denotes the collection of discretization points on the boundary after refinement}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{picture}(150,130)(30,0)
\put(15,0){\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={2cm 2cm 2cm 2cm}, clip]{paper_figs/demo_del.eps}}
\put(50,29){$\Gamma_k$}
\put(110,100){$\Gamma_r$}
\end{picture}&
\begin{picture}(150,130)(10,0)
\put(15,0){\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={2cm 2cm 2cm 2cm}, clip]{paper_figs/demo_add.eps}}
\put(50,29){$\Gamma_k$}
\put(110,100){$\Gamma_r$}
\end{picture}\\
(a)&(b)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ (a) The original Gaussian panel discretization of the geometry in Figure \ref{fig:demo_figs}(a).
The discretization contains ten 16-point Gaussian panels uniformly distributed in parameterization space, and the panel in red is chosen to be refined.
(b) A locally refined discretization which \agcmt{replaced} the single red panel in Figure (a) with four blue panels.
The part of the boundary curve that is refined is denoted by $\Gamma_r$ and the rest is denoted by $\Gamma_k$.
}
\label{fig:PerturbedBoundary}
\end{figure}
The linear system (\ref{equ:interior_BIE_discretized2}) for the original and new discretization can be reordered in terms of the subscript notation. Let $\mtx{A}$ denote the
discretized integral equation (\ref{equ:interior_BIE_discretized2}) on the boundary; i.e., $\mtx{A}=-\frac{1}{2}\mtx{I}+\mtx{D}+\mtx{N}$.
With the original discretization $\mathcal{I}_o$,
the linear system can be ordered according to which points are added and deleted as follows
\begin{equation}\label{equ:originalLinearSystem}
\mtx{A}_{oo} \bm{\sigma}_{o}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{A}_{kk} & \mtx{A}_{kc}\\
\mtx{A}_{ck} & \mtx{A}_{cc}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\bm \sigma}_k\\
{\bm \sigma}_c
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\vct{g}_k\\
\vct{g}_c
\end{pmatrix}
=
\vct{g}_o.
\end{equation}
Likewise the linear system resulting from the refined discretization of the boundary integral equation can be ordered as follows
\begin{equation}\label{equ:perturbedlLinearSystem}
\mtx{A}_{nn} \vct{\bm{\tau}}_n =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{A}_{kk} & \mtx{A}_{kp}\\
\mtx{A}_{pk} & \mtx{A}_{pp}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\vct{\bm{\tau}}_k\\
\vct{\bm{\tau}}_p
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\vct{g}_k\\
\vct{g}_p
\end{pmatrix}
=
\vct{g}_n.
\end{equation}
\agcmt{In (\ref{equ:originalLinearSystem}) and (\ref{equ:perturbedlLinearSystem}), the subscript notation refers to the
submatrices of $\mtx{A}$ on the respective geometries corresponding to different boundary interactions. For example,
$\mtx{A}_{kk}$ denotes the submatrix of $\mtx{A}$ corresponding to the interaction of the points in $I_k$ with themselves ($A(I_k,I_k)$ in Matlab
notation) and $\mtx{A}_{kp}$ denotes the submatrix of $\mtx{A}$ corresponding to the interaction of the points in $I_k$ with the points in $I_p$.}
\begin{remark}
While the techniques in this section were presented for the interior problem (\ref{eq:model_bvp}), the techniques apply directly to exterior problems as well.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The extended linear system and direct solver}
\label{sec:localperturb_ext}
As an alternative to casting the problem solely on the ``new''
discretization, an ELS that is equivalent to \agcmt{equation}
(\ref{equ:perturbedlLinearSystem}) can be considered. In this
paper, we use the ELS from \cite{ZHANG2021}.
The ELS
takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:extendedlLinearSystem}
\mtx{A}_{\rm ext} \bm{\tau}_{\rm ext} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{A}_{kk} & \mtx{0} & \mtx{A}_{kp}\\
\mtx{A}_{ck} & \mtx{A}_{cc} & \mtx{0}\\
\mtx{A}_{pk} & \mtx{0} & \mtx{A}_{pp}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
&{\bm{\tau}}_k\\
&{\bm{\tau}}^{\rm dum}_c\\
&{\bm{\tau}}_p
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\vct{g}_k\\
\vct{0}\\
\vct{g}_p
\end{pmatrix}
=\vct{g}_{\rm ext}
\end{equation}
where ${\bm{\tau}}_k$ and ${\bm{\tau}}_p$ are the unknown boundary
densities evaluated at points in $\mathcal{I}_n$
and ${\bm{\tau}}^{\rm dum}_c$ is
a dummy boundary density \agcmt{at the points in $\mathcal{I}_c$} that is not used to evaluate the solution
in the domain. This linear system can be written
as $\mtx{A}_{\rm ext}= \tilde{\mtx{A}}+ \mtx{Q}$ where
$$
\tilde{\mtx{A}}=\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{A}_{oo} & \mtx{0} \\
\mtx{0} & \mtx{A}_{pp}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\;\mbox{ and }
\mtx{Q}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{0} & -\mtx{A}_{kc} & \mtx{A}_{kp}\\
\mtx{0} & \mtx{0} & \mtx{0}\\
\mtx{A}_{pk} & \mtx{0} & \mtx{0}\\
\end{bmatrix}.
$$
The matrix $\tilde{\mtx{A}}$ is full rank and block-diagonal with the first block
equal to the operator for the original discretization. Thus if the inverse of $\mtx{A}_{oo}$
has been precomputed (directly or via a fast direct solver), the cost of inverting
$\tilde{\mtx{A}}$ is the cost of the inverting $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ which is small in
the problems under consideration. The update matrix $\mtx{Q}$ is a block sparse
matrix consisting of only three non-zero sub-blocks. Since these non-zero blocks
of $\mtx{Q}$ correspond to non-self interactions, they are low rank; i.e., $\mtx{Q}$
is low rank. Let $\mtx{Q} = \mtx{LR}$ denote the low rank factorization of $\mtx{Q}$.
The advantage of writing the linear system in the extended form (\ref{eq:extendedlLinearSystem})
and writing it as the sum of a block diagonal matrix with a low rank matrix is that the
inverse can be approximated via a Woodbury formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:wood}
\bm{\tau}_{\rm ext}=
\left( \tilde{\mtx{A}} +\mtx{Q} \right)^{-1}\vct{g}_{\rm ext}\approx
\left( \tilde{\mtx{A}} +\mtx{LR} \right)^{-1}\vct{g}_{\rm ext}
\approx
\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\vct{g}_{\rm ext}
-\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L}
\left( \mtx{I} + \mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L}\right )^{-1}
\mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\vct{g}_{\rm ext}.
\end{equation}
This inverse can be applied rapidly to vectors by exploiting the block structure
of the matrices. The only matrix that needs to be inverted in the application of (\ref{eq:wood}) is $ \left( \mtx{I} + \mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L}\right )$. This matrix is of size $k=k_{kc}+ k_{kp} +k_{pk}$ where
$k_{kc}$, $k_{kp}$, and $k_{pk}$ denote the $\epsilon-$ranks of the low-rank approximations of $\mtx{A}_{kc}$, $\mtx{A}_{kp}$, and $\mtx{A}_{pk}$ given tolerance $\epsilon$, respectively. Typically, $k$ is small and thus the matrix can
be inverted via dense linear algebra for little computational cost.
Algorithm \ref{alg:fdsolver} summarizes the technique for rapidly applying the inverse
of $\mtx{A}_{\rm ext}$ provided a fast direct solver for $\mtx{A}_{oo}$ has already been
computed. The algorithm is designed so that it can be used with any fast direct
solver including the HBS\cite{GILLMAN2012_china}, HSS\cite{Sheng2007_proceedings,CHANDRASEKARAN2004_withGu}, HIF\cite{HO2015_withYing_hif}, and $\mathcal{H}$ or $\mathcal{H}^2$- matrix methods\cite{HACKBUSCH1999_part1}.
\yzcmt{Section \ref{sec:low_rank_approx} presents fast techniques for \agcmt{creating the low rank factorizations of} the blocks in $\mtx{Q}$ and section \ref{sec:woodbury_stability} discusses the stability for using the Woodbury formula and necessary improvements for the \agcmt{low rank factorization} of $\mtx{Q}$.
\begin{remark}
The factorization technique for $\mtx{Q}$ (step 1 in Algorithm 1) to be discussed in section \ref{sec:low_rank_approx} and \ref{sec:woodbury_stability} scales linearly with respect to $N_k$, $N_c$ and $N_p$.
Thus, if a fast direct solver is constructed for $\mtx{A}_{pp}^{-1}$,
then all steps in pre-compuation and solve of Algorithm 1 scale linearly with respect to $N_k$, $N_c$ and $N_p$.
Otherwise, Algorithm 1 scales linearly with respect to $N_k$ and $N_c$ but cubically with respect to $N_p$ due to the dense linear algebra calculations for $\mtx{A}_{pp}^{-1}$. Table \ref{tab:scaling_compare} lists the cost scaling of Algorithm 1 and the fast direct solver in \cite{ZHANG2018}.
More details on the step-by-step cost analysis is given in \cite{ZHANG2018}.
The scaling for the fast direct solver given in \cite{ZHANG2021} is the same as Algorithm 1.
\end{remark}
}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
Method & Pre-computation & Solve \\
\hline
\cite{ZHANG2018} with dense linear algebra for $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ & $O\left(N_k+N_c^3+N_p^3\right)$& $O\left(N_k+N_c^2+N_p^2\right)$\\
\cite{ZHANG2018} with fast direct solver for $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ &
$O\left(N_k+N_c^3+N_p\right)$& $O\left(N_k+N_c^2+N_p\right)$\\
\hline
Algorithm 1 with dense linear algebra for $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ &
$O\left(N_k+N_c+N_p^3\right)$&$O\left(N_k+N_c+N_p^2\right)$\\
Algorithm 1 with fast direct solver for $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ &
$O\left(N_k+N_c+N_p\right)$& $O\left(N_k+N_c+N_p\right)$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cost scaling for the fast direct solver in \cite{ZHANG2018} and the proposed solver in Algorithm 1. The fast direct solver in \cite{ZHANG2021} has the same scaling as Algorithm 1.}
\label{tab:scaling_compare}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{.9\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\textsc{Algorithm \ref{alg:fdsolver}}: {\agcmt{Applying the} fast direct solver \agcmt{for} the locally refined problem }
\end{center}
\vspace{3mm}
\textit{Given a fast direct solver for the original discretization $\mtx{A}_{oo}^{-1}$, and the right-hand-side vector defined for the refined discretization $\vct{g}_n=\begin{pmatrix}\vct{g}_k\\
\vct{g}_p \end{pmatrix}$,
this algorithm
determines the solution to the refined problem (\ref{equ:perturbedlLinearSystem}) by obtaining the solution to the equivalent ELS via a Woodbury formula (\ref{eq:wood}).
}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabbing}
\hspace{5mm} \= \hspace{5mm} \= \hspace{5mm} \= \hspace{60mm} \= \kill
\textit{Pre-computation:}\\
\> \textbf{Step 1:} \yzcmt{Factorize the update matrix $\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{LR}$ via the method in Section \ref{sec:low_rank_approx} and Section \ref{sec:woodbury_stability}.}\\
\> \textbf{Step 2:} (invert $\mtx{A}_{pp}$)\\
\>\textbf{if} $N_p$ is small,\\
\> \> \yzcmt{Evaluate and invert $\mtx{A}_{pp}^{-1}$ via dense linear algebra.}\\
\> \textbf{else},\\
\> \> \yzcmt{Build \agcmt{an approximate inverse of $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ via a fast direct solver such as HBS}.}\\
\> \textbf{end if}\\
\> \textbf{Step 3:} \yzcmt{Apply the applying scheme for $\mtx{A}_{oo}^{-1}$ and $ \mtx{A}_{pp}^{-1}$ to evaluate $\mtx{X}=\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L}$.}\\
\> \textbf{Step 4:} \yzcmt{Evaluate and invert the Woodbury operator $ \left( \mtx{I} + \mtx{R}\mtx{X}\right )$ via dense linear algebra.}\\
\>\\
\>\\
\textit{Solve:}\\
\> \textbf{Step 1:} Evaluate $\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\bm{g}_{\rm ext}
= \begin{pmatrix}
\mtx{A}_{oo}^{-1}\begin{pmatrix}\vct{g}_k\\
\vct{0}\end{pmatrix}\\
\mtx{A}_{pp}^{-1}
\vct{g}_p
\end{pmatrix}$ utilizing the \agcmt{fast matrix vector applies provided}\\
\> \hspace{1.45cm} \agcmt{by the direct solver(s)}.\\
\> \textbf{Step 2:} Evaluate $\bm{\tau}_{\rm ext}$ via the Woodbury formula (\ref{eq:wood}).\\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Efficient construction of the low-rank factors in $\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{LR}$}
\label{sec:low_rank_approx}
\yzcmt{
There are two steps in the proposed technique for creating the low-rank approximation of $\mtx{Q}$.
This section introduces the first step
which creates low-rank factorizations for the non-zero blocks in $\mtx{Q}$.
The second step, a recompression step
which is necessary for avoiding conditioning issues
associated with using the Woodbury formula to apply the inverse of the
ELS in Equation (\ref{eq:wood}), is the delayed to the next section
after a brief review on the numerical stability of the Woodbury formula.
}
The low rank factorization of the update matrix $\mtx{Q}$ is done in a block format.
In other words, low rank factorizations are constructed for each of the non-zero subblocks
of $\mtx{Q}$;
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccclcccclc}
$\mtx{A}_{kc}$ & $\approx$ &$ \mtx{L}_{kc}$ &$\mtx{R}_{kc}$, & &$\mtx{A}_{kp} $& $\approx$ & $\mtx{L}_{kp}$ &$\mtx{R}_{kp},$ \qquad $\mbox{ and }$&\\
{\footnotesize$ 2N_k \times 2N_c $}& & {\footnotesize$2N_k\times k_{kc}$} & {\footnotesize$k_{kc}\times 2N_c$} & & {\footnotesize$2N_k \times 2N_p$ }& & {\footnotesize$2N_k\times k_{kp}$} & {\footnotesize$k_{kp}\times 2N_p$}&\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{equation}\label{equ:block_lr}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
$\mtx{A}_{pk} $& $\approx$ & $\mtx{L}_{pk}$ &$\mtx{R}_{pk}. $\\
{\footnotesize$2N_p \times 2N_k$} & & {\footnotesize$2N_p\times k_{pk} $}& {\footnotesize$ k_{pk}\times 2N_k$}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{equation}
Here $N_k$, $N_c,$ and $N_p$ are the number of discretization points in $\mathcal{I}_k, \mathcal{I}_c,$ and $\mathcal{I}_p$ respectively.
Thus the low-rank factorization of $\mtx{Q}$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:QeqLR}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
$\mtx{Q}$ &$\approx$ &$\mtx{L}_1$ & $\mtx{R}_1$\\
{\footnotesize$2N_{\rm ext}\times 2N_{\rm ext}$}& & {\yzcmt{\footnotesize$2N_{\rm ext} \times k_1$}} & {\yzcmt{\footnotesize$k_1 \times 2N_{\rm ext}$}}
\end{tabular}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{L}_1=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{0} & -\mtx{L}_{kc} & \mtx{L}_{kp}\\
\mtx{0} &\mtx{0} & \mtx{0}\\
\mtx{L}_{pk} &\mtx{0}&\mtx{0}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\mbox{, }
\mathbf{R}_1=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{R}_{pk} & \mtx{0} &\mtx{0}\\
\mtx{0} & \mtx{R}_{kc} &\mtx{0}\\
\mtx{0} & \mtx{0} & \mtx{R}_{kp}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation*}
$k_1=k_{pk}+k_{kc}+k_{kp}$ and $N_{\rm ext}=N_k+N_c+N_p$.
\yzcmt{Note the subscript notation in $\mtx{L}_1, \mtx{R}_1$ and $k_1$
are intended because we reserve the notation $\mtx{L}$, $\mtx{R}$ and $k$
for the final low-rank factorization of $\mtx{Q}$ obtained \agcmt{from} the recompression \agcmt{which is presented} in section \ref{sec:woodbury_stability}. }
The first step in creating the low rank factorization of $\mtx{Q}$ is constructing
the low rank factorization of the non-zero blocks; i.e., the three factorizations in \agcmt{equation} (\ref{equ:block_lr}).
The construction of the low rank factorization of $\mtx{A}_{kp}$ starts with defining a circle
$P^{\rm div}$ for $\Gamma_r$ which divides $\Gamma_k$ into two
parts: the far-field and near-field with respect to $\Gamma_r$. Figure \ref{fig:farNearSeparation}(a) illustrates
this separation. Let the superscript notation denote ``far'' and ``near'' parts of $\Gamma_k$.
\yzcmt{
The separation corresponds to classifying the rows $\mtx{A}_{kp}$
into two groups\agcmt{; the near- and far-field interactions}. We first construct low-rank approximations to the far-field and near-field interaction separately and then merge them together for a final low-rank approximation $\mtx{L}_{kp}\mtx{R}_{kp}\approx \mtx{A}_{kp}$.}
For far-field interaction,
the potential due to points in $\mathcal{I}_p$ evaluated at points on $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$ can be approximated by
a linear combination of basis functions defined on any proxy surface that shields $\Gamma_r$ away from $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$.
Let $P^{\rm bas}$ denote the shielding proxy circle for $\Gamma_r$. \agcmt{Here $P^{\rm bas}$ is
chosen to have a smaller radius as $P^{\rm div}$ but the same center. Figure \ref{fig:farNearSeparation}(b) illustrates
an example of these circles.}
A low rank approximation for $\mtx{A}_{kp}^{\rm far}$
can be constructed via an interpolative decomposition (ID) approximation \agcmt{(as defined below) for the matrix
$\mtx{A}^{\rm far}_{k, \rm bas}$ which captures} the interaction between points on $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$ and $P^{\rm bas}$. This is similar to the far-field compression idea in \cite{GILLMAN2012_china, MARPLE2016_periodicstokes, GILLMAN2013_quasiperiodic}.
\yzcmt{The collection of skeleton row indices $J_k^{\rm far}$ from the ID for $\mtx{A}^{\rm far}_{k, \rm bas}$ correspond to discretiaztion points (or degrees of freedom) on $\Gamma_k$. Let $\mtx{P}_{k}^{\rm far}$ \agcmt{denote} the interpolation matrix, then a low-rank approximation to $\mtx{A}_{kp}^{\rm far}$ can be defined as $\mtx{A}_{kp}^{\rm far}\approx \mtx{L}_{kp}^{\rm far} \mtx{R}_{kp}^{\rm far}$ \agcmt{where} $ \mtx{L}_{kp}^{\rm far}= \mtx{P}_{k}^{\rm far}$ and $\mtx{R}_{k}^{\rm far}=\mtx{A}_{kp}^{\rm far}(J_k^{\rm far},:)$.
Here $\mtx{A}_{kp}^{\rm far}(J_k^{\rm far},:)$ denotes the submatrix of
$\mtx{A}_{kp}^{\rm far}$ with rows specified by $J_k^{\rm far}$.
}
\begin{definition}
Given a tolerance $\epsilon$ and a $m\times n$ matrix $\mtx{W}$ (assuming $m<n$),
if there exists a positive integer $k_\epsilon\leq m$, and $m\times k_\epsilon$
matrix $\mtx{P}$ and vector $J$ such that
$$
\|\mtx{W} - \mtx{P}\mtx{W}(J(1:k_\epsilon),:)\|\leq \epsilon \|\mtx{W}\|,
$$
we call $\mtx{P}\mtx{W}(J(1:k_\epsilon),:)$ an interpolative decomposition (ID) approximation for $\mtx{W}$ with respect to the tolerance $\epsilon$.
Here $J$ is a vector of integers $j_i$ such that $1\leq j_i\leq m$ gives an ordering of the rows in $\mtx{W}$, and
$\mtx{W}(J(1:k_\epsilon),:)$ is a submatrix of $\mtx{W}$ with rows specified by the first $k_\epsilon$ entries of $J$.
$\mtx{P}$ is a $m\times k_\epsilon$ matrix that contains a $k_\epsilon \times k_\epsilon$ identity matrix.
Namely, $\mtx{P}(J(1:k_\epsilon),:) = \mtx{I}_{k_\epsilon}$. The rows specified by $J(1:k_\epsilon)$ is called the \textit{skeleton row index}, and the matrix $\mtx{P}$ is referred to as the \textit{interpolation matrix}.
\end{definition}
\yzcmt{Due to the large number of discretization points on $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$, it is often
too expensive to build the ID for $\mtx{A}^{\rm far}_{k, \rm bas}$ directly. %
Instead, we organize the discretization points on $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$ into special structure such as the dyadic partition (See section 3 of \cite{Zhang_multilayer}) or binary tree (Such as the binary tree used in the HBS forward compression).
The goal of using the special structure is to keep the cost of building the low-rank approximation linear with respect to the number of points on $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$.
Then an ID for $\mtx{A}^{\rm far}_{k, \rm bas}$ is constructed by first building IDs for interaction between points in each individual partition subset or tree node and points on $P^{\rm bas}$, which corresponds to row subblocks of $\mtx{A}^{\rm far}_{k, \rm bas}$. The individual IDs are then
combined into one final ID for $\mtx{A}^{\rm far}_{k, \rm bas}$.
}
\yzcmt{\begin{remark}
Since the removed points $\mathcal{I}_c$ and added points $\mathcal{I}_p$ discretize the
same boundary curve segment $\Gamma_r$, the far-field part of the low-rank approximation for $\mtx{A}_{kp}$ and $\mtx{A}_{kc}$ can be built from
the same ID approximation for $\mtx{A}^{\rm far}_{k, \rm bas}$.
The \agcmt{construction of the} approximations do not require explicit evaluation of the \agcmt{matrices}
$\mtx{A}_{kp}$ and $\mtx{A}_{kc}$. \agcmt{Only the submatrices corresponding to the skeleton rows need to
be evaluated for making the $\mtx{R}$ matrices.}
\end{remark}}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\begin{picture}(150,130)(30,0)
\put(15,0){\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={2cm 2cm 2cm 2cm}, clip]{paper_figs/demo_lowrank0.eps}}
\put(110,95){$\Gamma_r$}
\end{picture}&
\begin{picture}(50,130)(0,0)
\put(0,30){\includegraphics[height=25mm,trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm}, clip]{paper_figs/legends.png}}
\end{picture}
&
\begin{picture}(150,130)(30,0)
\put(15,0){\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={2cm 2cm 2cm 2cm}, clip]{paper_figs/demo_lowrank1.eps}}
\put(110,95){$\Gamma_r$}
\end{picture}\\
(a) & &(b)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ (a) The proxy circle for $\Gamma_r$ shown in dash blue line divides $\Gamma_k$ into far (in green) and near (in red) with respect to $\Gamma_r$
(b) The interaction between the far-field part of $\Gamma_k$ and points on $\Gamma_r$
can be captured by the interaction between points on $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$ and a smaller proxy circle for $\Gamma_r$ shown in dash purple. }
\label{fig:farNearSeparation}
\end{figure}
\yzcmt{The choice of structure for creating the low rank factorization which will result in the
most efficient factorization technique depends
on how localized and the position of \agcmt{the portion of the boundary to be refined} $\Gamma_r$ relative to $\Gamma_k$.}
For example, the channel example given in section \ref{sec:scaling}
considers two kinds of local changes to the channel geometry in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(a):
\agcmt{a very localized refinement of the discretization illustrated in
Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(b); and a geometric perturbation consisting
of the addition of three interior circular holes as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(c).}
For the problem in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(b),
the far-field and near-field separation is straightforward and
a dyadic partition of the far-field points on $\Gamma_k$ based on distance to $\Gamma_r$ is convenient and efficient.
However, for the problem in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(c),
since the three holes do not cluster,
a circle enclosing all holes would contain a large section of the channel boundary if not all of it, leading to lots of points on $\Gamma_k$ being clustered as ``near-field'' points although they are quite far away from any of the holes.
An efficient way to handle this problem is to introduce three circles each
enclosing an individual hole and define $P^{\rm bas}$ to be the union of the
three circles.
And a binary tree, which does not \agcmt{have to } depend on distance to $\Gamma_r$, is
a more appropriate choice.
Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe_dyadic} plots an example dyadic partition for the refined channel problem in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(b), and Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe_binary} plots the first three levels of an
example binary tree structure for the addition of holes problem in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(c).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=55mm,trim={3cm 0 3cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/dyadic.png}
\end{center}
\caption{A dyadic partition of $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$ based on distance to $\Gamma_r$ for a refined channel discretization. The subintervals corresponding to a 10-level dyadic partition are plotted. }
\label{fig:ryan_pipe_dyadic}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={10cm 0 10cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/binary1.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={10cm 0 10cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/binary2.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={10cm 0 10cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/binary3.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={10cm 0 10cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/binary4.png}
\\
Level 1 &Level 2&Level 3 &Level 4 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ Top four levels of a binary tree partition for the channel geometry. The subintervals (or boxes) corresponding to each level are plotted. }
\label{fig:ryan_pipe_binary}
\end{figure}
If there are not a large number of points that are near,
which is often the case,
the near field interaction matrix $\mtx{A}_{kp}^{\rm near}$ can be compressed directly.
\yzcmt{
Otherwise, a dyadic partition of discretization points on $\Gamma_k^{\rm near}$ based on their distance to $\Gamma_r$ can be adopted. The ID for $\mtx{A}_{kp}^{\rm near}$
can then be constructed in a hierarchical way utilizing the idea of tree-node wise proxy circles (See section 3 of \cite{Zhang_multilayer}).}
Once both far and near part of $\mtx{A}_{kp}$ are compressed, the low rank factors can be concatenated
to form a low rank approximation for $\mtx{A}_{kp}$.
One may want to apply ID again to the concatenated factors to further reduce the rank numbers.
The near-field part of $\mtx{A}_{kc}$ can be constructed in similar way as that of $\mtx{A}_{kp}$.
For $\mtx{A}_{pk}$, we consider again a far-field and near-field separation of the points on $\Gamma_k$ based on distance to $\Gamma_r$, which corresponds to classifying the columns of the matrix into two groups.
The far-field interaction $\mtx{A}_{pk}^{\rm far}$ can be obtained by an ID of $\mtx{A}_{p,\rm div}$ the interaction between the added points discretizing $\Gamma_r$ and sample points on the separation circle $P^{\rm div}$.
If the number of points added is large,
we can relieve the computational burden by using a dyadic partition or binary tree as for building the ID for $\mtx{A}_{k,\rm bas}^{\rm far}$.
The construction for $\mtx{A}_{pk}^{\rm near}$ is similar to the near-field part of the approximation for the near-field of $\mtx{A}_{kp}$ and $\mtx{A}_{kc}$.
\yzcmt{
\begin{remark}
When approximating the three blocks in $\mtx{Q}$, we always use ID to compress the rows of the matrices. We also uniformly define the $\mtx{L}$ factor of the low-rank approximation to be the interpolation matrix (or product of multiple interpolation matrices if special tree structure is used) and the $\mtx{R}$ factor to be the submatrix of the discretized BIE specified by the skeleton row indices given by the IDs. This uniform format for all three blocks is intentional as it improves the conditioning of applying the Woodbury formula.
More details will be given in Section \ref{sec:woodbury_stability}.
Note the blockwise compression technique given in \cite{ZHANG2018} manages to compress all far-field part of the three blocks $\mtx{A}_{kp}$, $\mtx{A}_{kc}$, and $\mtx{A}_{pk}$ using one binary tree by doing row-wise ID for $\mtx{A}_{kp}$ and $\mtx{A}_{kc}$ but column-wise ID for
$\mtx{A}_{pk}$. Namely, the far-field for all three blocks are approximated by the same set of skeleton points on $\Gamma_k$.
For Laplace problems, the technique in \cite{ZHANG2018} is expected to be more efficient than the one presented here especially for the case where $\Gamma_k^{\rm far}$ contains lots of points.
But for Stokes problems, the mixed usage of row- and column-wise ID leads to
conditioning issues and should be avoided.
\end{remark}}
\yzcmt{With the special structure and partitioning, the cost of constructing the low-rank factorization for $\mtx{A}_{kp}$ is $O\left((N_k+N_p)k_{kp} \right)$.
Similarly, the cost for factorizing $\mtx{A}_{kc}$ is $O\left((N_k+N_c)k_{kc}\right)$.
And the cost of factoring $\mtx{A}_{pk}$ is $O\left((N_k+N_p)k_{pk}\right)$.
}
\subsection{Stable application of the Woodbury formula}
\label{sec:woodbury_stability}
Woodbury formulas such as (\ref{eq:wood}) are well-known in the linear algebra literature \cite{GOLUB1996} and have been the cornerstone of recently developed fast direct solvers
for applications including periodic Stokes flow \cite{MARPLE2016_periodicstokes} and
quasi-periodic scattering problems \cite{GILLMAN2013_quasiperiodic,Zhang_multilayer}.
While the Woodbury formulas have been used in these applications, it was done so without
any concern for the stability of the approach.
\yzcmt{
This section will review the
stability analysis of the Woodbury formula given in \cite{YIP1986},
investigate its use in the case of
Stokes problems,
and \agcmt{presents} the two-step construction of the low-rank factorization of $\mtx{Q}$
started in the previous section.
}
The main concern in the stability of the Woodbury formula \agcmt{lies
in the stable inversion of the matrix $\mtx{W} = \mtx{I}+\mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L}$. We will refer to the matrix $\mtx{W}$ as the \textit{Woodbury operator}.}
\cite{YIP1986} states that in order to stably solve a linear system via the Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula, the following two conditions must be satisfied by the linear system:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
All the relevant matrix-matrix and matrix-vector multiplications in (\ref{eq:wood}) involving $\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}$ are numerically stable.
\item[(ii)] The Woodbury operator is well-conditioned.
\end{itemize}
For Stokes problems, the first condition is satisfied thanks to the choice of boundary integral formulation (in Section \ref{sec:BIE})
and the use of a stable fast direct solver.
\agcmt{Since Stokes problems tend to have a large condition number, we choose to modify the second condition to: (ii) The Woodbury
operator is as ``well-conditioned" as the full linear system $\tilde{\mtx{A}}+\mtx{L}\mtx{R}$.}
\agcmt{The following lemma, which is a modified version of Lemma 1 in \cite{YIP1986},} \yzcmt{provides an upper bound on the condition number of the Woodbury \agcmt{operator and formally defines what we mean by the Woodbury operator being as ``well-conditioned" as the fully linear system.}
\agcmt{The lemma is stated} in the context of discretized boundary integral operators and the ELS.}
Specifically it
provides conditions on the low rank approximation of the update matrix $\mtx{Q} \approx \mtx{LR}$
which must be satisfied (along with both the linear systems for the original and refined
discretization being well-conditioned) \agcmt{for the Woodbury operator to be ``well-conditioned."}
\begin{lemma}[Upper bound on the condition number of the Woodbury operator]
\label{thm:woodbury}
Assume the operator $\mtx{A}_{oo}$, $\mtx{A}_{nn}$, $\mtx{A}_{cc}$ and $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ as defined in (\ref{equ:originalLinearSystem}), (\ref{equ:perturbedlLinearSystem}) and (\ref{eq:extendedlLinearSystem}) are all invertible.
\yzcmt{Then the operator $\mtx{A}_{\rm ext}$ in the ELS $\mtx{A}_{\rm ext}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\rm ext}=\mtx{g}_{\rm ext}$ is invertible.}
Let $\hat{\mtx{A}}_{\rm ext}= \tilde{\mtx{A}}+\mtx{LR}$ denote the approximation of $\mtx{A}_{\rm ext}$.
If the $k$ columns in the low-rank factor $\mtx{L}$ and
the $k$ rows in $\mtx{R}$ are linearly independent, then the
condition number of the Woodbury operator is bounded above as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:woodburyConditionThm}
\begin{split}
\kappa\left( \mtx{I} +\mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L} \right)
&\leq \min\left\{ \hat{\kappa}(\mtx{L})^2 , \, \hat{\kappa}(\mtx{R})^2 \right\} \kappa\left( \hat{\mtx{A}}_{\rm ext}\right) \kappa\left(\tilde{\mtx{A}} \right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
$$ \hat{\kappa}(\mtx{L})= \left \| \mtx{L}^\dag\right\| \left \| \mtx{L}\right\|
\mbox{ and }
\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{R})= \left \| \mtx{R}^\dag\right\| \left \| \mtx{R}\right\|
$$
with
$$
\mtx{L}^\dag =\left( \mtx{L}^T \mtx{L}\right)^{-1}\mtx{L}^T
\mbox{ and }
\mtx{R}^\dag =\mtx{R}^T\left( \mtx{R} \mtx{R}^T\right)^{-1}
$$
defined as the pseudo-inverse for $\mtx{L}$ and $\mtx{R}$ in the standard sense.
\label{thm:bound}
\end{lemma}
The proof of the lemma can be found in \cite{YIP1986} and is also included in the Appendix.
Thus, if we construct $\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{LR}$ so that $\hat{\mtx{A}}_{\rm ext} =\tilde{\mtx{A}}+\mtx{LR}$ is invertible,
$\mtx{L}$ and $\mtx{R}$ are full-rank, and additionally let $ a^2 = \min\left\{ \hat{\kappa}(\mtx{L})^2 , \, \hat{\kappa}(\mtx{R})^2 \right\}$, then $\kappa\left( \mtx{I} +\mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L} \right)
\leq a^2\,\kappa\left( \hat{\mtx{A}}_{\rm ext}\right) \kappa\left(\tilde{\mtx{A}} \right)$.
When the original problem and new problem have similar condition numbers, i.e., $ \kappa\left( \hat{\mtx{A}}_{\rm ext}\right) \approx \kappa\left(\tilde{\mtx{A}} \right) \approx \kappa$,
the lemma and the low-rank approximation construction above
together give the bound $\kappa\left( \mtx{I} +\mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L} \right)\leq a^2 \kappa^2$.
\yzcmt{The upper bound given by the lemma can be improved by building $\mtx{L}$ and $\mtx{R}$
so that at least one of $\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{L})$ and $\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{R})$ stay small.
One way to do this for the update matrix $\mtx{Q}$ is to build a truncated SVD for $\mtx{Q}$ for some given tolerance and assign $\mtx{L}$ to be the semi-unitary matrix corresponding to the column space and $\mtx{R}$ to be the rest of the factors in the decomposition.
By doing this, matrix $(\mtx{L}^T\mtx{L})$ and $(\mtx{R}^T\mtx{R})$ stays away from being singular,
leading to minimal values of $\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{L})$ and $\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{R})$.
Since $a^2$ is defined to be the smaller one among
$\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{L})^2$ and $\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{R})^2$ \agcmt{in \eqref{equ:woodburyConditionThm}},
only one of $\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{L})^2$ and $\hat{\kappa}(\mtx{R})^2$ being small
is sufficient.
For example, if we construct the truncated SVD for each of the non-zero blocks in $\mtx{Q}$,
$$\mtx{U}_{pk}\mtx{\Sigma}_{pk}\mtx{V}^T_{pk}\approx \mtx{A}_{pk},\;
\mtx{U}_{kc}\mtx{\Sigma}_{kc}\mtx{V}^T_{kc}\approx \mtx{A}_{kc},\mbox{ and }
\mtx{U}_{kp}\mtx{\Sigma}_{kp}\mtx{V}^T_{kp}\approx \mtx{A}_{kp}$$
then we would define the concatenated factors for the updated matrix $\mtx{L}_{\rm block}$ and $\mtx{R}_{\rm block}$ so that
the three non-zero blocks are uniform in format: for example,
\begin{equation}\label{equ:uniform_concat}
\mathbf{L}_{\rm block}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{0} & -\mtx{U}_{kc} & \mtx{U}_{kp}\\
\mtx{0} &\mtx{0} & \mtx{0}\\
\mtx{U}_{pk} &\mtx{0}&\mtx{0}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\mbox{ and }
\mathbf{R}_{\rm block}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{\Sigma}_{pk}\mtx{V}^T_{pk} & \mtx{0} &\mtx{0}\\
\mtx{0} & \mtx{\Sigma}_{kc}\mtx{V}^T_{kc} &\mtx{0}\\
\mtx{0} & \mtx{0} & \mtx{\Sigma}_{kp}\mtx{V}^T_{kp}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
And as a final step to push the factorization closer to optimal,
one would build a truncated SVD for $\mtx{L}_{\rm block}\approx \mtx{U}_{\rm block}\mtx{\Sigma}_{\rm block}\mtx{V}^T_{\rm block}$ and define the finalized low-rank approximation as
$\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{L}_{\rm optimal}\mtx{R}_{\rm optimal}$ with $\mtx{L}_{\rm optimal}=\mtx{U}_{\rm block}$ and $\mtx{R}_{\rm optimal}=\mtx{\Sigma}_{\rm block}\mtx{V}^T_{\rm block}\mtx{R}_{\rm block}$.
As a demonstration,
Table \ref{tab:conditiontest} illustrates the conditioning of the Woodbury operator corresponding to the concatenated factorization $\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{L}_{\rm block}\mtx{R}_{\rm block}$ and the factorization after the extra SVD refactorization $\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{L}_{\rm optimal}\mtx{R}_{\rm optimal}$ for
a sample problem defined on the fish geometry illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:conditiontest}.
The tolerance for the SVD truncation is set to $10^{-10}$ and the condition numbers reported in the table are
calculated via Matlab's \texttt{cond()} function.
}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=45mm, trim={0 0.5cm 0 0.5cm}]{fish_geom0317.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of a fish geometry where the red portion of the boundary is
refined. Table \ref{tab:conditiontest} reports on the conditioning of the Woodbury
operator for different numbers of discretization points and refinements.
}
\label{fig:conditiontest}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|}
\hline
$N_k,N_c,N_p$ & $k_{\rm block}$ & $\kappa_{\rm block}$ & $k_{\rm optimal}$& $\kappa_{\rm optimal}$&$\kappa\left( \hat{\mtx{A}}_{\rm ext}\right)$ & $\kappa\left(\tilde{\mtx{A}} \right)$& Upper bound\\
\hline
752, 48, 384 &175 &1630.0 & 141 & 98.5 & 378.0 & 371.0 &4.1e+25\\
1520, 80, 640 &158 &407.3 & 124 & 77.3 & 376.7 & 371.0 &1.2e+25\\
3072, 128, 1024 &143 &523.5 & 113 & 77.0 & 375.0 & 371.0 &1.6e+25\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The observed rank (same as the size of the Woodbury system) and condition number for an interior BIE on the fish geometry illustrated in Figure \ref{tab:conditiontest}.
$k_{\rm block}$ and $\kappa_{\rm block}$ are the size and condition number for the Woodbury operator defined for the concatenated factorization $\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{L}_{\rm block}\mtx{R}_{\rm block}$.
$k_{\rm optimal}$ and $\kappa_{\rm optimal}$ are the size and condition number for the Woodbury operator defined for the factorization with an extra SVD applied to $\mtx{L}_{\rm block}$, i.e., $\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{L}_{\rm optimal}\mtx{R}_{\rm optimal}$.
All the factorizations are constructed by truncating SVD to the desired accuracy of $10^{-10}$. The condition numbers are all calculated by Matlab's \texttt{cond()} function.
The condition number of the block-diagonal matrix $\tilde{\mtx{A}}$ and the
ELS ${\mtx{A}}_{\rm ext}$ are also reported. Finally the upper bound given by
Lemma \ref{thm:bound} corresponding to $\mtx{Q}\approx \mtx{L}_{\rm optimal}\mtx{R}_{\rm optimal}$ is also provided.}
\label{tab:conditiontest}
\end{table}
\yzcmt{
Truncated SVDs are expensive to construct. \agcmt{Therefore} this
optimal approach is not computationally viable except for problems small in size.
Instead we propose an alternative two-step approach which \agcmt{addresses} the above conditioning considerations but is less expensive and thus suitable for large size problems.
The first step is to construct the
low-rank approximations for block $\mtx{A}_{pk}$, $\mtx{A}_{kc}$ and $\mtx{A}_{kp}$
following the method given in section \ref{sec:low_rank_approx}.
While this constructs a valid low rank factorization of $\mtx{Q}$, the approximation is
often quite far away from being optimal and results in an unnecessarily large condition number of the Woodbury operator.
\agcmt{In fact, there are many cases where the resulting Woodbury operator
is ill-conditioned even though the original system is well-conditioned.}
To remedy this \agcmt{artifical poor conditioning, we propose
the refactorization of $\mtx{L}_1$ via the} random sampling based ID decomposition. \agcmt{This compresses the rows of $\mtx{L}_1$ and results
in a significantly closer to optimal rank factorization. It is
important to maintain a uniform format in the refactorization technique by
always} applying \agcmt{the} ID to compress the rows of
matrices when building the blockwise \agcmt{factorization} and assigning the interpolation matrix factor from the ID approximation to be blocks in $\mtx{L}_1$.
}
\yzcmt{
\begin{remark}
For the problems considered in this manuscript, \agcmt{the upper bound in Lemma \ref{thm:woodbury}} is overly pessimistic. \agcmt{In fact,} the observed condition number is much smaller than $a^2\kappa^2$.
\agcmt{In practice, when }the low-rank approximation \agcmt{of} $\mtx{Q}$ is constructed with care \agcmt{via the SVD technique or via the two-step compression based on IDs}, the observed condition number of the Woodbury system \agcmt{is} comparable to the condition number of the original linear system.
For example,
Table \ref{tab:conditiontest} also reports the upper bound on the condition number
given by Lemma \ref{thm:bound} for the Woodbury system with the final factorization.
While rank and condition number are improved by the extra SVD
recompression, both condition numbers are well below the upper bound provided by the lemma.
\end{remark}
}
\yzcmt{The cost for the extra ID refactorization is $O((N_p+N_k+N_c)k_1k)$. Thus, the
total cost for constructing the final low-rank approximation for the update matrix scales
linearly with respect to $N_k+N_p+N_c$.
}
\section{A preconditioner for BVPs on locally refined discretization}
\label{sec:preconditioner}
The ELS presented in Section \ref{sec:localperturb_ext} is very useful for
problems where there is local refinement \agcmt{of the} discretization. While the fast direct solver for the ELS is efficient, it can suffer from a loss in accuracy when the problem \agcmt{has a high condition number. This is frequent occurrence for Stokes problems especially in complex geometries.} An alternative \agcmt{to fast direct solvers} is to use an iterative solver
coupled with a fast matrix vector multiplier such as the FMM in these instances. \agcmt{The large condition number often means that a large number of iterations are required for the iterative solver to converge.} This section
presents an alternative \agcmt{solution technique which is essentially the union of a fast direct solver with an iterative solver.} Roughly speaking, the
technique is to use the direct solver presented in Algorithm \ref{alg:fdsolver}
as preconditioner for the ELS that is solved via an iterative solver
coupled with a fast matrix vector multiplier.
Section \ref{sec:general_hbs_preconditioner} details how the accuracy in which the direct
solver is constructed impacts its ability to be a preconditioner. Then Section \ref{sec:local_perturbation_preconditioner}
details the preconditioner developed for the ELS (\ref{eq:extendedlLinearSystem}).
\subsection{HBS inverse approximation as preconditioner}
\label{sec:general_hbs_preconditioner}
It is becoming more common to use low accuracy fast direct solvers as preconditioners for linear
systems that arise from discretizations of integral equations and differential equations \cite{Darve_IFMM_pre,Hmat_pre,2010_HSS_pre,2005_beb,2003_beb}. This section explores effectiveness of fast direct solvers as preconditoners
for \agcmt{the discretized} integral equation \agcmt{associated with} an interior Stokes problem.
Consider the linear system $\mtx{A}\bm{\sigma}=\vct{g}$ which results from the discretization of \agcmt{equation} (\ref{equ:interior_BIE}).
Let $\epsilon$ denote the tolerance for which the fast direct solver was constructed
and $\mtx{A}_{\epsilon}^{inv}$ denote the corresponding approximate inverse
of $\mtx{A}$. Then the left-preconditioned problem is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:left_precond_general}
\left(\mtx{A}_{\epsilon}^{inv}\mtx{A}\right)\bm{\sigma}=\left(\mtx{A}_{\epsilon}^{inv}\vct{g}\right).
\end{equation}
To investigate the performance of the fast direct solver as a preconditioner with different tolerances $\epsilon$,
we consider the fish geometry in Figure \ref{fig:conditiontest}
with no local refinements.
In particular, we place two hundred 16-point Gaussian panels uniform in parameterization space on the boundary.
The linear system
(\ref{eq:left_precond_general}) is solved via GMRES\cite{SaadSchultz1986}. \agcmt{The application of $\mtx{A}$
and $\mtx{A}_\epsilon^{inv}$ is done via the HBS technique from \cite{GILLMAN2012_china}. The performance of the solver will be the
same for any fast direct solver.} The tolerance for the compression of the matrix vector operator is fixed at
$10^{-10}$. The time for constructing the HBS \agcmt{representation of the} matrix is $6.81$ seconds on a single core 1.6GHz 8GB RAM desktop.
Table \ref{tab:precondition_on_fish} reports the performance of the preconditioned
solution technique. For all experiments, the tolerance of the iterative solver is set to $10^{-11}$ \agcmt{and the average relative error in the solution compared against the exact solution at sampled interior locations is roughly $7\times 10^{-10}$}.
Recall \agcmt{from Table \ref{tab:conditiontest}} that the linear system is well conditioned.
Thus even without a preconditioner, only 55 iterations are needed to achieve the desired tolerance.
The results indicate that \agcmt{low accuracy approximations ($\epsilon>10^{-3}$) do not improve the performance of the iterative
solver enough to justify constructing the preconditioner.} \agcmt{For
$\epsilon <10^{-3}$,} the minimum number of repeated solves needed to justify the use
of the preconditioner grows as $\epsilon$ decreases.
\agcmt{This experiment illustrates that the use of a low accuracy
fast direct solver as preconditioner is not fruitful in improving the
convergence rate of iterative solvers.}
For \agcmt{problems where the condition number of the discretized linear system is large, a preconditioner} may be required for the iterative solver to converge within reasonable number of iterations \agcmt{with the available} computing resources.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\epsilon$& $n_{\rm iter}$ & $T_{\rm pre}$ & $T_{\rm sol}$ & MinSol \\
\hline
No preconditioner & 55 & NA & 5.2e-1 &NA\\
\hline
1e-10 & 2 & 7.66 &6.6e-2&17\\
\hline
1e-8 & 2&4.92 &1.0e-1&12\\
\hline
1e-6 & 4& 2.89&1.3e-1&8\\
\hline
1e-5 & 6&2.23 &1.5e-1&7\\
\hline
1e-4 & 11&1.74 &2.2e-1&6\\
\hline
1e-3 & 36& 1.12&5.1e-1&--\\
\hline
1e-2 &52 & 1.11&7.9e-1&--\\
\hline
1e-1 &53 & 0.97&8.1e-1&--\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of iteration $n_{\rm iter}$, time in seconds to build the preconditioner $T_{\rm pre}$,
time in seconds for GMRES to converge $T_{\rm sol}$ and the minimum number of solves MinSol needed to
justify the use of the preconditioner when using an HBS inverse approximation with accuracy $\epsilon$ as
a preconditioner for the interior BIE on the fish geometry in Figure \ref{fig:conditiontest}.
The boundary geometry is discretized with two hundred 16-point Gaussian panels uniformly distributed in parameterization space.
With this discretization, the average relative solution error at sample locations on the interior is roughly $7\times 10^{-10}$.
}
\label{tab:precondition_on_fish}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Preconditioned iterative solver for the locally refined problem}
\label{sec:local_perturbation_preconditioner}
Just like the discreitzed BIE for a Stokes boundary value problem on a given geometry, the ELS (\ref{eq:extendedlLinearSystem}) can also suffer from conditioning issues. This section presents a preconditioner
based on the solver from Section \ref{sec:fdsolver} and a fast matrix vector multiplier that can be utilized
to accelerate an iterative solver. It is expected that the number of iterations needed to converge will be less than if there was
no preconditioner at all. Additionally, there is no loss of digits associated with inverting \agcmt{poorly} conditioned matrices.
The idea behind the preconditioner is simple. Let $\mtx{A}^{inv}_{oo}$ and $\mtx{A}^{inv}_{pp}$ denote the
approximate (or exact if the matrices are small enough) inverses of $\mtx{A}_{oo}$ and $\mtx{A}_{pp}$,
respectively. Then
$$\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{inv}
= \begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{A}_{oo}^{inv} & \mtx{0} \\
\mtx{0} & \mtx{A}_{pp}^{inv}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\approx
\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}
$$
and
$$
\mtx{A}_{\rm ext}^{inv}=
\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{inv}
-\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{inv}\mtx{L}
\left( \mtx{I} + \mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{inv1}\mtx{L}\right )^{-1}
\mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{inv}
\approx \mtx{A}_{\rm ext}^{-1}.
$$
The Woodbury formula can be applied efficiently to any vector via the technique presented in Algorithm \ref{alg:fdsolver}.
Instead of solving the true ELS, we propose solving the approximation of the linear system (\ref{eq:extendedlLinearSystem}) where $\mtx{A}_{\rm ext}$ is approximated by a block diagonal plus low rank form;
i.e., as $\mtx{A}_{\rm ext} \approx \left( \tilde{\mtx{A}} +\mtx{LR}\right)$.
The matrix $\tilde{\mtx{A}}$ can be applied to a vector $\vct{b}$ block-wise
$$\tilde{\mtx{A}}\vct{u}=\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{A}_{oo} & \mtx{0} \\
\mtx{0} & \mtx{A}_{pp}\\
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
\vct{b}_o\\
\vct{b}_p
\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}
\mtx{A}_{oo}\vct{b}_o\\
\mtx{A}_{pp}\vct{b}_p
\end{bmatrix}.
$$
The evaluation of $\mtx{A}_{oo}\vct{b}_o$ can be accelerated via fast matrix-vector multiplication algorithms, such as \agcmt{the} FMM or \agcmt{the approximate forward operator created in the process of building
a fast direct solver, and is constructed for the original discretization.}
Similar to the fast direct solver for the ELS presented in Algorithm \ref{alg:fdsolver},
if $N_p$ is small, \agcmt{the matrix} $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ can be constructed and applied via dense linear algebra.
Otherwise, a separate fast matrix-vector multiplication can be constructed for $\mtx{A}_{pp}$.
Since $\mtx{L}$ and $\mtx{R}$ are block sparse and low-rank,
they can be applied to any vector densely with little cost.
In this paper, we assume a forward HBS representation, the HBS inverse, and matrix-vector multiplication for applying $\mtx{A}_{oo}$ and $\mtx{A}_{oo}^{inv}$ are available. Then the ELS for the problem defined on the refined geometry
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ELS_approximate}
\left( \tilde{\mtx{A}} +\mtx{Q}\right)\bm{\tau}_{\rm ext}\approx\left( \tilde{\mtx{A}} +\mtx{LR}\right)\bm{\tau}_{\rm ext}= \vct{g}_{\rm ext}
\end{equation} \agcmt{only requires building the low rank factorization of the blocks in $\mtx{Q}$ and the operators associated with the $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ block and} \yzcmt{can be solved by an iterative solver such as GMRES. $\mtx{A}_{\rm ext}^{inv}$ can be constructed with the extra cost of carrying out the Woodbury formula and applied as a preconditioner to (\ref{eq:ELS_approximate}).}
\agcmt{For a well-conditioned problem, where many different choices of local refinements
and/or right-sides are considered,}
the total cost may be greatly reduced by using the fast direct solver in Section \ref{sec:fdsolver} as a preconditioner. Table \ref{tab:precondition_on_refinedfish} reports the performance of the
preconditioner when it is applied to the boundary value problem on the fish geometry in Figure \ref{fig:conditiontest}
where
the red region of the boundary is refined.
\yzcmt{The original discretization has two hundred 16-point Gaussian panels uniformly distributed in parameterization space;
8 panels discretize the red region and are replaced by 64 panels for the refinement.}
\agcmt{The number of discretization points
kept was $N_k = 3072$, the number of discretization points cut was $N_c = 128$ and
the number of discretization points added was $N_p=1024$.}
The tolerance for HBS compression and low-rank approximations \agcmt{were} set to $10^{-10}$, and the tolerance for GMRES \agcmt{was} set to $10^{-11}$. The average relative error of the solution at sampled locations is
roughly $7\times 10^{-10}$ for both tests.
Recall, we assume the HBS representation of $\mtx{A}_{oo}$ and its inverse are available. Thus
the time needed to construct these is not included in our results.
The results in the first row of Table \ref{tab:precondition_on_refinedfish} are for when the fast matrix vector multiplication for $\tilde{\mtx{A}}$ uses the
precomputed HBS representation of $\mtx{A}_{oo}$.
The time for constructing the efficient forward apply of the ELS
$\left( \tilde{\mtx{A}} +\mtx{LR}\right)$ is 0.53 second, which
includes the construction of $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ and the low-rank factorization $\mtx{Q}\approx\mtx{LR}$.
As expected the number of iterations is the same as in Table \ref{tab:conditiontest}. The
second row \agcmt{in Table \ref{tab:precondition_on_refinedfish}} presents the results when the preconditioner is used.
The extra time required to construct the preconditioner $T_{\rm pre}$, i.e., for constructing $\mtx{A}^{inv}_{\rm ext}$, includes everything else that was not included in \yzcmt{constructing the efficient forward apply of the ELS
$\left( \tilde{\mtx{A}} +\mtx{LR}\right)$}
such as the construction and inversion of the Woodbury operator.
Again the results are comparable to the
the results in the previous section.
The preconditioner reduces the number of iterations from 55 to 2, resulting in a 82.7\% reduction in solve time.
And the extra cost for building the preconditioner is justified for problems \agcmt{involving} more than one right-hand-side.
If the problem is not well-conditioned, then the preconditioner may be necessary to obtain an accurate solution with a limited amount of computational resources.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method & $n_{\rm iter}$ & $T_{\rm pre}$ & $T_{\rm sol}$ \\
\hline
GMRES with fast mat-vec& 55 & NA & 4.8e-1\\
GMRES with preconditioner & 2& 7.2e-1& 8.3e-2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Number of iterations $n_{\rm iter}$,
time in seconds for computing the preconditoner $T_{\rm pre}$ and time in
seconds for the iterative solver to converge $T_{\rm sol}$ when applying the ELS preconditioner
to the boundary value problem on the refined fish geometry in Figure \ref{fig:conditiontest}. The
red portion of the boundary is refined. Originally there were $N_c = 128$ points on the red portion. In the
new problem there are $N_p = 1024$ points on the red portion of the boundary. The number of points unchanged
is $N_k=3072$. We assume an HBS representation and the inverse for the original problem are available.
}
\label{tab:precondition_on_refinedfish}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\input{numerics_revised}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This manuscript presented a fast direct solver for Stokes BIEs on locally refined discretizations. \agcmt{The technique makes use of an extended linear system that allows for precomputed fast direct solvers on the unrefined geometry to be utilized.
The numerical results illustrate the new solver's} performance on particulate flow simulations.
\agcmt{For general Stokes problems, two solution approaches are explored. Which solution
technique should be used depends on the conditioning of the problem and how many digits
are desired. For well-conditioned problems, the proposed fast direct solver works extremely well. When the problem has poor conditioning, the fast direct solver
may lose a couple of digits (relative to the compression accuracy). These digits
can be recovered by using the second solution technique presented here, which is to
utilize an iterative solver where
the fast direct solver for the linear system serves as a preconditioner and the compressed representation of the ELS provides the fast matrix
vector multiply.}
%
Both \agcmt{solution techniques} scale linearly with the size of \agcmt{the unrefined} discretization.
Linear scaling with respect to the number of unknowns added in the local refinement can also be achieved but is not necessary for the considered applications since \agcmt{a relatively low number of points are added}.
Numerical examples demonstrated significant speedups; in one test case, the proposed direct solver is roughly 55 times faster than the standard approach.
For problems with large condition number, more accurate solution may be obtained by using the proposed preconditoner as compared to the direct solver. In another test example, the preconditioned GMRES solve for the ELS reduced the number of iterations by a factor of 19 (and total solve time by 3.6X).
Our immediate future directions include incorporating close evaluation schemes and extension to three-dimensional problems.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank Hai Zhu for providing the Fallopian geometry and Manas Rachh for providing the implementation of the smoothing technique used in the numerical experiments. This work was partially supported by the NSF under grant DMS-2012424.
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
\section{Numerical experiments}
\label{sec:numerics}
This section illustrates the performance of \agcmt{the proposed solution techniques
for Stokes problems involving locally refined discretizations.}
The \agcmt{fast direct solver} scales linearly with respect to the number of points in the original discretization and is cheaper than building a fast direct solver from scratch for the new discretization.
Section \ref{sec:scaling} illustrates the \agcmt{performance of the }fast direct solver when applied to a locally refined channel. This
example is from \cite{RYAN2020ARXIV}. Section \ref{sec:refined_bie} reports on the performance of the fast
direct solver as a preconditioner when the geometry is complex. Finally Section \ref{sec:star_lattice} illustrates
the performance of the fast direct solver as a preconditioner when there are a sequence of local refinements
for the same original geometry. Such an example arises in many applications including simulations of
microfluidic devices.
For all test problems,
the right-hand-side of the BVPs is generated from a known flow and the solution error is
the average of relative error at chosen target locations in the domain.
All boundaries are discretized via the Nystr\"om method with 16-point composite Gaussian quadrature,
and generalized Gaussian quadrature corrections \cite{quad_review_paper} are used to handle the weakly singular kernels.
The solver also works with other quadrature corrections, such as \cite{Alpert99, helsing_corner,kapur_rokhlin}.
All experiments were run on a dual 2.3 GHz Intel Xeon Processor E5-2695 v3 desktop workstation with 256 GB of RAM. The code is implemented in MATLAB, apart from the interpolatory decomposition routine, which is in FORTRAN.
\yzcmt{
To illustrate the performance of the solver,
we introduce the following notations for reporting times and errors.
For notation consistency, we use regular capital letters such as $T$ and $E$ for problems defined
on the original discretization (or geometry) and letters with tilde, such as $\tilde{T}$
and $\tilde{E}$ for problems on the locally refined discretization (or perturbed geometry).
For the problem on the original discretization (or geometry), we define}
\yzcmt{
\begin{itemize}
\item $T_{\rm HBS,\,comp}$ and $T_{\rm HBS,\,inv}$: the time in seconds for building the HBS compression of the discretized boundary integral operator and that for inverting the compression, i.e., building the HBS inverse, respectively.
\item $T_{\rm HBS,\,Dsol}$: the time in seconds for applying the HBS inverse to a given right-hand-side vector. ``Dsol" stands for ``one direct solve".
\item $T_{\rm HBS,\,Gsol}$: the time in seconds for solving for one right-hand-side vector using GMRES with HBS compression accelerated matrix-vector multiplication. ``Gsol" stands for ``one GMRES solve".
\item $T_{\rm HBS,\,PGsol}$: the time in seconds for solving for one right-hand-side vector using a preconditioned GMRES with HBS compression accelerated matrix-vector multiplication, where the HBS inverse is used as the preconditioner. ``PGsol" stands for ``one preconditioned GMRES solve".
\item $E_{\rm HBS,\, Dsol}$, $E_{\rm HBS,\, Gsol}$ and $E_{\rm HBS,\, PGsol}$: the average relative error at sample domain locations for the three different solve options respectively.
\end{itemize}}
\yzcmt{
For the problem on the locally refined discretization (or perturbed geometry), we define
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS,\,comp}$, $\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS,\,inv}$, $\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS,\,Dsol}$, $\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS,\,Gsol}$, and $\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS,\,PGsol}$: time in seconds similar to those categories for the original discretization (or geometry).
\item $\tilde{E}_{\rm HBS,\, Dsol}$, $\tilde{E}_{\rm HBS,\, Gsol}$ and $\tilde{E}_{\rm HBS,\, PGsol}$: error similar to those categories for the original discretization (or geometry).
\item $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\,comp}$: the time in seconds for building $\mtx{A}_{pp}$ and $\mtx{LR}\approx \mtx{Q}$ in formulating the fast ELS approximation. Note we assume a HBS compression for $\mtx{A}_{oo}$ is available.
\item $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\,inv}$: the time in seconds for building the operators needed in the Woodbury formula for applying the inverse approximation of the ELS: $\mtx{A}_{pp}^{-1}$, $\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L}$, $\mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L}$ and $\left(\mtx{I}+\mtx{R}\tilde{\mtx{A}}^{-1}\mtx{L}\right)^{-1}$. Note we assume a HBS inverse approximation for $\mtx{A}_{oo}$ is available.
\item $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\,Dsol}$: the time in seconds for applying the approximate ELS inverse $(\tilde{\mtx{A}}+\mtx{LR})^{-1}$ via the Woodbury formula to a given right-hand-side vector.
\item $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\,Gsol}$: the time in seconds for solving the approximate ELS $(\tilde{\mtx{A}}+\mtx{LR})\bm{\tau}_{\rm ext}=\vct{g}_{\rm ext}$ for one right-hand-side vector $\vct{g}_{\rm ext}$ using GMRES.
\item $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\,PGsol}$: the time in seconds for solving the approximate ELS $(\tilde{\mtx{A}}+\mtx{LR})\bm{\tau}_{\rm ext}=\vct{g}_{\rm ext}$ for one right-hand-side vector $\vct{g}_{\rm ext}$ using GMRES, where the approximate ELS inverse is used as the preconditioner.
\item $\tilde{E}_{\rm ELS,\, Dsol}$, $\tilde{E}_{\rm ELS,\, Gsol}$ and $\tilde{E}_{\rm ELS,\, PGsol}$: the average relative error at sample domain locations for the three different ELS solve options respectively.
%
\end{itemize}}
\yzcmt{
The accuracy for HBS compression and low-rank approximation is set to $10^{-10}$ unless specified otherwise.
}
\subsection{Asymptotic scaling experiments}
\label{sec:scaling}
\agcmt{This section illustrates the performance of the fast direct solver for the ELS
(presented in Section \ref{sec:fdsolver}) when applied to a} Stokes problem with a confined geometry with two types of
modifications: locally refining a part of the boundary and adding holes.
Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(a)
illustrates the channel. Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(b) and (c)
illustrate the modification of local refinement (in red) and adding holes, respectively.
The geometry is generated by applying cubic splines with periodic conditions to 121 spline knot locations
(with the first and last knots give the same physical point on the geometry) and was first seen in \cite{RYAN2020ARXIV}.
The channel is discretized by \agcmt{using the same number} of Gaussian panels per subinterval in \agcmt{in the} cubic spline \agcmt{geometry generation.}
For example, the total number of discretization points on the channel $N_{\rm channel}=1920$ corresponds to $120$ Gaussian panels in total and 1 panel per subinterval. \agcmt{If there are two panels per subinterval, the number of discretization points doubles.}
The circular holes are each discretized with 10 panels \agcmt{which means there are} $160$ quadrature points \agcmt{per circle}.
%
\begin{remark}
The addition of holes is similar to the original examples used in \cite{RYAN2020ARXIV} and fits in the definition of \agcmt{a} locally perturbed geometry
as defined in \cite{ZHANG2018, ZHANG2021}. However, the extended system is slightly different from the one given in section \ref{sec:ext}
as we are only adding points \agcmt{for the new
boundary and there is no deletion or cutting of points on the original geometry}. The corresponding ESL formulation is given in Appendix \ref{appendix:variant_ext_sys}.
\end{remark}
The Dirichlet boundary data for the interior channel BVP (Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(a) and (b))
is generated by 5 exterior Stokeslets outside of the channel geometry. For these two problem, the
solution is represented with the double layer kernel (as discussed in Section \ref{sec:int}).
The Dirichlet boundary data for the BVP with holes (Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(c))
is generated by the same 5 exterior Stokeslets outside the channel geometry and \yzcmt{five
additional Stokeslets placed inside the added holes (two stokelets per hole for the bottom two holes and one stokelet in the top hole).}
The solution interior to the channel and exterior to the holes is represented as a double layer potential on the channel plus a combined field potential on the holes.
The observed condition number \agcmt{of} the discretized integral operator for all the problems in this section is on the order of $10^5$.
The condition number of the Woodbury operator is on the order of $10^3$ for the problem with the added holes and $10^5$
for the problem with the local refinement.
\yzcmt{The observed rank numbers for the low-rank approximation of the update matrix $\mtx{Q}$,
which is also the size of the Woodbury system, is roughly 60 for the problem with the local refinement and 340 for the problem with the added holes.}
\yzcmt{
Let \agcmt{$N_{\rm channel}$ denote }the number of discretization points on the original channel.
Table \ref{tab:ryan_pipe_original} \agcmt{reports on} the performance of the HBS solver applied to the original geometry (and discretization).
For the locally refined discretization, let \agcmt{$N_c$ and $N_p$ denote the number of points removed and added, respectively}.
For the channel with holes geometry, let $N_{\rm holes}$ be the total number of discretization points placed on the three holes.}
\yzcmt{
The results from Table \ref{tab:ryan_pipe_refine} and \ref{tab:ryan_pipe_holes} \agcmt{report on} the performance of the
proposed ELS formulation based fast direct solver applied to the geometries in Figures \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(b) and (c).
The size of each test cases is given by the total degree of freedom, which is double the number of
discretization points.
To show the scaling of the ELS fast direct solver,
the values for $N_{\rm channel}$, $N_c$ and $N_p$ are all doubled as the test size increases.}
\yzcmt{
Both the HBS solver and the proposed fast direct solver scale linearly with respect to the number of points on the channel
geometry. The cost of using Algorithm 1 is significantly less than building the original HBS solver.
This \agcmt{means} that Algorithm 1 is more computationally efficient than building a fast direct solver \agcmt{from scratch} for the new discretization. \agcmt{It is worth noting that} the time required for building the
ELS compression for the addition of holes example is much higher than that for refining the channel boundary given the same $N_{\rm channel}$.
For example, when $2N_{\rm channel}=122880$, ELS compression for adding holes is about 8 times of that for refining a segment, although the points added for the holes $N_{\rm holes}$ is only 1/3 of the points added $N_p$ due to the refinement.}
\yzcmt{
This is due to the fact that change to the system for adding the three holes is ``less local'' than that for refining a segment of the channel, resulting in much higher rank numbers and more expensive compression of the update matrix $\mtx{Q}$.
\agcmt{For} the same reason, the time required for applying the inverse of the ELS
\agcmt{when} adding holes is also more than that for refining a segment of the channel.}
\yzcmt{
The solution error for all test cases \agcmt{is} maintained at $10^{-10}$ \agcmt{since} the geometry is fully resolved and the tolerance for HBS compression and low-rank approximations is set to be $10^{-10}$.
}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={3cm 0 3cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/ryan_pipe_original.eps}
&
\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={3cm 0 3cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/ryan_pipe_refined.eps}
&
\includegraphics[height=45mm,trim={3cm 0 3cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/ryan_pipe_holes.eps}
\\
(a)&(b)&(c)\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ (a) The original channel geometry. (b) The channel geometry with a locally refined segment highlighted in red.
(c) The channel geometry with three interior holes added. }
\label{fig:ryan_pipe}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|}
\hline
&&&&
\\[-1em]
2$N_{\rm channel}$ & $T_{\rm HBS,\, comp}$ & $T_{\rm HBS,\, inv}$ &$T_{\rm HBS,\, sol}$ & $E_{\rm HBS,\, Dsol}$\\
\hline
30720 &65.7 & 7.0& 0.070& 1.1e-10\\
61440 &90.7 &9.9 &0.140 & 1.4e-10 \\
122880 &132.8 &15.8 & 0.264& 3.22e-10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ The time in seconds and error for using HBS compression and inversion to solve the BIE on the channel geometry with the original discretization (illustrated
in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(a)).
The number of discretization points on the channel is $N_{\rm channel}$.
The size of the linear system is $2N_{\rm channel}\times 2N_{\rm channel}$.
}
\label{tab:ryan_pipe_original}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|}
\hline
&&&&
\\[-1em]
2$N_{\rm channel}$, 2$N_c$, 2$N_p$ & $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\, comp}$& $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\, inv}$ & $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\, Dsol}$ & $\tilde{E}_{\rm ELS,\, Dsol}$\\
\hline
30720, 192, 768 &1.4 &0.8 & 0.088& 2.5e-10 \\
61440, 384, 1536 & 3.0&1.2 &0.113 & 5.8e-10 \\
122880, 768, 3072 &7.1 & 2.3 &0.184 & 4.8e-10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ The time in seconds and error for using the Woodbury formula to solve the ELS for the boundary value problem on
the channel with local refinement illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(b).
The
number of discretization points cut and added on the red portion of the boundary are $N_c$ and $N_p$ respectively.
}
\label{tab:ryan_pipe_refine}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|}
\hline
&&&&
\\[-1em]
2$N_{\rm channel}$, 2$N_{\rm holes}$ & $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\, comp}$& $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\, inv}$ & $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS,\, Dsol}$ & $\tilde{E}_{\rm ELS,\, Dsol}$\\
\hline
30720, 960 &14.9 &2.1 & 0.059&9.8e-11\\
61440, 960 & 28.8&4.3 &0.103 &2.3e-10\\
122880, 960 &56.4 & 7.9&0.296 &2.1e-10\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The time in seconds and error for using the Woodbury formula to solve the ELS for the boundary value problem on
the channel with three interior holes illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(c).
The circular holes in Figure \ref{fig:ryan_pipe}(b) are each discretized with 10 panels and $160$ quadrature points, resulting a total of $N_{\rm holes}=480$ points. }
\label{tab:ryan_pipe_holes}
\end{table}
\subsection{Complex geometry with local refinement}
\label{sec:refined_bie}
This section considers an interior problem on the complex Fallopian tube geometry illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:Fallopian}.
The geometry is created by extracting data points from \yzcmt{Figure 1 of}
\cite{Guo_phyrev2020} and connecting them smoothly via the technique in \cite{Beylkin_curve_fitting}.
The solution to the problem is generated by \agcmt{placing} Stokeslets on the exterior of the geometry. \agcmt{The boundary data is generated via
this known solution.}
\yzcmt{Discretizing \agcmt{the} complex geometry \agcmt{in Figure \ref{fig:Fallopian}}
results in an integral equation with \agcmt{a} high condition number.
\agcmt{An iterative solver requires a large number of iterations in order to converge. }
}
\yzcmt{\agcmt{The experiments in this section discretize the original Fallopian tube boundary (pre-refinement) } with 1600 Gaussian panels (25600 points and 51200 degrees of freedom),
which results in relative error \agcmt{of} approximately $4\times 10^{-5}$.
To understand the conditioning of the linear system, we consider the smallest matrices
that are inverted in the hierarchical tree using the HBS solver. These matrices (corresponding
to the first three levels in the tree) have condition numbers on the order of
$10^{8}$ to $ 10^{11}$. }
\yzcmt{
For the refined discretization problem, the red portion of the boundary highlighted
in Figure \ref{fig:Fallopian} goes from having $6$ panels to $24$. Since a 16 point
Gaussian quadrature is used, the number of points kept, cut and added are $N_k=25,504$, $N_c=96$, and $N_p=384$, respectively.
The iterative solver stops when the
relative residual is on the order of $10^{-6}$.
For the boundary integral equation on the original discretization, we either build only HBS representation of the discretized boundary integral equation and couple it with GMRES
or also build the HBS inverse and apply it directly to the given right-hand-side.
For the refined problem, we consider the discretized BIE and the equivalent ELS and a fast direct solver and an iterative solver for each.
Additionally, we also use the direct solver for the ELS, built as Algorithm 1, to precondition the GMRES solve.
}
\yzcmt{
Table \ref{tab:Fallopian_Dsol} reports the time required to solve the BIE on the original discretization,
the BIE on the refined discretization, and the approximate ELS on the refined discretization using a fast direct solver.
The total time for precomputation includes two parts: the forward compression indicated by subscript notation ``comp" and the inversion indicated by the subscript notation ``inv".
\agcmt{Tables \ref{tab:Fallopian_Dsol}(b) and \ref{tab:Fallopian_Dsol}(c) demonstrate that for
this geometry the proposed direct solver for the ELS is more efficient than building a HBS solver from scratch for the refined problem. }}
\yzcmt{
\agcmt{In fact}, the cost for constructing a forward compression for the ELS for the refined problem is only 1.3\% of the cost of constructing a HBS from scratch.
The cost of constructing the inverse operator is only 7.3\% of that of HBS inverse.
}
\yzcmt{
Table \ref{tab:Fallopian_Gsol} reports the time in seconds for
the unpreconditioned GMRES approach for the original and refined problems. The precomputation for this approach only involves \agcmt{the compression of the forward operator} and is lower than that for the direct solution approach \agcmt{since an approximate inverse is not constructed.}}
\yzcmt{
However, due to the \agcmt{poor} conditioning of the problem, more than 500 GMRES iterations are required to reach the desired tolerance of $10^{-6}$. \agcmt{The time required to solve the integral equation via unprecondtioned GMRES is much higher
for each new right-hand-side than the direct solver.
Tables \ref{tab:Fallopian_Gsol}(b) and (c) show that
solving the
approximate} ELS (\ref{eq:ELS_approximate}) is two orders of magnitude cheaper than building the HBS compression of the BIE for the refined problem.
Applying the forward operator for the ELS is slightly more expensive than applying the HBS forward compression.
}
\yzcmt{
Table \ref{tab:Fallopian_PGsol} reports the time in seconds for the preconditioned GMRES approach applied to the approximate ELS. Here Algorithm 1, i.e., the inverse of the ELS obtained by the Woodbury formula, is used to precondition the fast representation of the ELS.
The precomputation time of this approach is equal to that of the direct \agcmt{solver} approach for the ELS.
The number of GMRES iterations required \agcmt{for the convergence criterion to be met is} reduced from 520 to 6, leading to a significant reduction in total cost
even for only one right-hand-solve when compared to the results in Table \ref{tab:Fallopian_Gsol}(c).
The cost of solving one additional right-hand-side vector via the preconditioned GMRES approach for the ELS is about 5.4\% of that via unpreconditioned GMRES approach.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=80mm,trim={1cm 1cm 1cm 1cm}, clip]{paper_figs/fallop_refined_fig.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ Partial Fallopian tube based on data extracted from the experiments in \cite{Guo_phyrev2020}.
A small segment highlighted in red is chosen to be locally refined. The geometry is generated by \cite{Beylkin_curve_fitting}.}
\label{fig:Fallopian}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$T_{\rm HBS, \, comp}$ & $T_{\rm HBS, \, inv}$ &$T_{\rm HBS, \, Dsol}$\\
\hline
4.09e+2 & 2.76e+1 & 7.87e-2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(a)
\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, comp}$ & $\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, inv}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, Dsol}$\\
\hline
4.09e+2 & 2.76e+1 & 7.87e-2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(b)
\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, comp}$ & $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, inv}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, Dsol}$\\
\hline
5.33e+0 & 2.01e+0 & 9.62e-2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(c)
\caption{Time in seconds for solving (a) the original and (b) the refined problem defined on the Fallopian tube geometry (Figure \ref{fig:Fallopian}) via HBS inversion. (c) corresponds to the proposed fast direct solver for the ELS of the refined problem. }
\label{tab:Fallopian_Dsol}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$T_{\rm HBS, \, comp}$ &$T_{\rm HBS, \, Gsol}$\\
\hline
4.09e+2 & 5.95e+1 ($n_{\rm iter}=519$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(a)
\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, comp}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, Gsol}$\\
\hline
4.09e+2 & 6.59e+1 ($n_{\rm iter}=519$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(b)
\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, comp}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, Gsol}$\\
\hline
5.33e+0 & 7.07e+1 ($n_{\rm iter}=520$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(c)
\caption{Time in seconds for solving (a) the original and (b) the refined problem defined on the Fallopian tube geometry (Figure \ref{fig:Fallopian}) via GMRES with HBS compression accelerated matrix-vector multiplication.
(c) corresponds to solving the ELS of the refined problem via GMRES. The number of GMRES iterations $n_{\rm iter}$ required to converge to tolerance $10^{-6}$ is also reported.}
\label{tab:Fallopian_Gsol}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, comp}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, inv}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, PGsol}$\\
\hline
5.33e+0 & 2.01e+0 &3.80e+0 ($n_{\rm iter}=6$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Time in seconds for solving the ELS of the refined problem defined on the Fallopian tube geometry (Figure \ref{fig:Fallopian}) via preconditioned GMRES, where Algorithm 1 is used as the preconditioner. The number of GMRES iterations $n_{\rm iter}$ required to converge to tolerance $10^{-6}$ is also reported.}
\label{tab:Fallopian_PGsol}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Relocating region of local refinement}
\label{sec:star_lattice}
This section illustrates the potential of using the fast direct solver
presented in Algorithm 1 as preconditioner for many Stokes
problems involving a body moving through a collection of star-shaped
obstacles shown in Figure \ref{fig:star_lattice}. This example is
representative of applications \agcmt{such as sorting with} a microfluidic device.
For the original discretization, 10 panels are placed on each star with less or equal to 5 prongs \agcmt{and 20 panels} are placed on stars with more than 5 prongs. \agcmt{With the 16-point Gaussian quadrature,} this results in a total of 42400 discretization points and \yzcmt{84800 degrees of freedom}.
For demonstration purposes, we do not simulate the true physics of any body moving in the domain; instead, we assume the body appears at certain locations at some time step, \agcmt{as illustrated in} in Figure \ref{fig:star_lattice}. These can be viewed as snapshots of a body moving through the obstacles.
The body moving through the obstacles is much smaller in scale than any of the stars. Thus the discretization of one or more obstacles will need to be locally refined as the body approaches
those obstacles. Since the body is moving, the regions of local refinement are expected
to be different for each snapshot.
\yzcmt{Previously refined regions may be coarsened back into the original discretization as the body moves away.}
In this example, 19 snapshot locations are chosen. In 12 of these snapshots, the
body is close to an obstacle and local refinement is needed. In the other 7 snapshots,
no local refinement is needed. \agcmt{We} consider $5$ different ways
of solving the linear system for the 19 different boundary value problems. These
solution techniques are:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item \texttt{GMRES-indy}: Treat each of the 13 different discretization as independent
boundary value problems, building a forward HBS representation for each, and using this to accelerate the GMRES solve for each snapshot;
\item \texttt{Direct-indy}: Treat each of the 13 different discretization as independent boundary
value problems and build a HBS solver for each one;
\item \texttt{GMRES-Local}: Build a HBS forward representation for the original discretization and use it to accelerate the GMRES solve for the ELS for each problem requiring local refinement;
\item \texttt{Direct-Local}: Build a HBS solver for the original discretization and use it to build a fast direct solver for the ELS according to Algorithm 1 for each problem needing local refinement;
\item \texttt{PGMRES-Local}: Build a HBS solver for the original discretization and use it to precondition the GMRES solve for the ELS for each problem requiring local refinement.
\end{enumerate}
The tolerance for GMRES is set to $10^{-11}$.
\yzcmt{For the boundary value problems that do not require local refinement, using the HBS matrix-vector
acceleration of GMRES
results in a relative error on the order of $10^{-9}$. Using the
HBS solver loses two digits; i.e., the relative error that results from this solver
is on the order of $10^{-7}$.
}
Thus for the two techniques (2) and (4) \agcmt{where} the direct solver is used as an actual solver and not a preconditioner, the accuracy is approximately $10^{-7}$. \agcmt{When} the HBS solver or the ELS \agcmt{fast direct} solver in Algorithm 1 is used
\agcmt{as} the preconditioner, the error is approximately $10^{-9}$.
\yzcmt{To compare efficiency of the five approaches,
we first \agcmt{report} the time in seconds for solving the problem on the original discretization and that on one particular refined discretization, which corresponds to the
first snapshot with the body located at the very bottom left of Figure \ref{fig:star_lattice} (b). The results are presented in Table \ref{tab:star_lattice_Dsol}, \ref{tab:star_lattice_Gsol} and \ref{tab:star_lattice_PGsol} in the same format as
\agcmt{the corresponding results} for the Fallopian tube geometry in the previous section.
}
Since the direct solver does not achieve the
full possible accuracy of the discretization, using it as preconditioner is reasonable
and it greatly decreases the number of iterations needed for an iterative solver to
converge.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$T_{\rm HBS, \, comp}$ & $T_{\rm HBS, \, inv}$ &$T_{\rm HBS, \, Dsol}$\\
\hline
8.23e+2 & 3.38e+1 & 2.57e-1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(a)
\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, comp}$ & $\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, inv}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, Dsol}$\\
\hline
8.07e+2 & 3.38e+1 & 2.98e-1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(b)
\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, comp}$ & $\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, inv}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, Dsol}$\\
\hline
8.39e+0 & 6.43e+0 & 4.18e-1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(c)
\caption{Time in seconds for solving (a) the original and (b) the refined problem defined on the star-shape obstacle geometry in Figure \ref{fig:star_lattice} via HBS inversion. (c) corresponds to the proposed fast direct solver for the ELS of the refined problem. }
\label{tab:star_lattice_Dsol}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$T_{\rm HBS, \, comp}$ &$T_{\rm HBS, \, Gsol}$\\
\hline
8.23e+2 & 3.27e+1 ($n_{\rm iter}=113$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(a)
\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, comp}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm HBS, \, Gsol}$\\
\hline
8.07e+2 & 3.30e+1 ($n_{\rm iter}=113$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(b)
\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, comp}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, Gsol}$\\
\hline
8.39e+0 & 3.46e+1 ($n_{\rm iter}=113$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
(c)
\caption{Time in seconds for solving (a) the original and (b) the refined problem defined on the star-shape obstacle geometry in Figure \ref{fig:star_lattice} via GMRES with HBS compression accelerated matrix-vector multiplication.
(c) corresponds to the solving the ELS of the refined problem via GMRES. The number of GMRES iterations $n_{\rm iter}$ required to converge to tolerance $10^{-11}$ is also reported.}
\label{tab:star_lattice_Gsol}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&
\\[-1em]
$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, comp}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, inv}$ &$\tilde{T}_{\rm ELS, \, PGsol}$\\
\hline
8.39e+0 & 6.43e+0 &9.50e+0 ($n_{\rm iter}=6$)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Time in seconds for solving the ELS of the refined problem defined on the star-shape obstacle geometry in Figure \ref{fig:star_lattice} via preconditioned GMRES, where Algorithm 1 is used as the preconditioner. The number of GMRES iterations $n_{\rm iter}$ required to converge to tolerance $10^{-11}$ is also reported.}
\label{tab:star_lattice_PGsol}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\yzcmt{With the step-by-step cost summarized in Table \ref{tab:star_lattice_Dsol}, \ref{tab:star_lattice_Gsol} and \ref{tab:star_lattice_PGsol},
we can approximate the total cost for each of the five approaches handling all 19 snapshots by simple addition and multiplication,
assuming that the cost for solving the ELS for each snapshot that requires a refinement is the same.}
To get an idea of the speed up for solving problems involving the 19 multiple snapshots given in Figure \ref{fig:star_lattice}(a), Table \ref{tab:star_lattice2} collects the time necessary
for each part of the $5$ solution techniques.
The different times reported are:
\begin{itemize}
\item $T_{\rm static}$: The time in seconds for constructing any of the operators
needed for the solution technique on the original discretization. For techniques (1)
and (3), only constructing an approximation of $\mtx{A}_{oo}$ via HBS is needed. For
the other options, the construction of the approximate inverse of $\mtx{A}_{oo}$ is
also needed. This is a ``static'' computation since it is independent of future time steps and potential local refinement.
\item $T_{\rm Osol}$: The time in seconds for solving a problem where local refinement is
not needed. ``Osol" stands for ``solve for the original discretization"
\item $T_{\rm Rsol}$: The time in seconds for solving a problem where local refinement is
needed. ``Rsol" stands for ``solve for one refined discretization".
\end{itemize}
Approaches (3-5) which utilize the ELS are more efficient than
building new HBS solver from scratch each time or only when there is local refinement.
For these experiments Approach (4) is the most efficient but if the fully attainable accuracy
is desired, Approach (5) should be used as it is both efficient and accurate.
The \agcmt{previous standard solution technique for this type of problem was Approach (1).} The
proposed direct solver (4) and the proposed preconditioned solver (5) are 127 and 3.5 times
faster than Approach (1) when local refinement is not needed. When refinement
is needed, Approaches (4) and (5) are 55 and 34.6 times faster than Approach (1), respectively.
Since the applications of interest (such as \cite{MARPLE2016_periodicstokes}) involve hundreds to thousands of solves, it is
definitely worth using the ELS. If the user is okay losing
a couple of digits, the fast direct solver is an ideal choice. If the digits are needed,
then the preconditioned iterative solver is still going to be significantly faster
than Approach (1).
\begin{remark}
The dominate cost $T_{\rm Rsol}$ for the ELS solution techniques
is the cost of creating the low rank factorization of $\mtx{Q}$. In most applications,
several snapshots can use the same refinement and thus the same factorization of
$\mtx{Q}$. The reuse of the factorization will decrease $T_{\rm Rsol}$ significantly.
For example, \agcmt{in the experiments corresponding to} the two body locations on the left bottom of Figure \ref{fig:star_lattice},
two different regions of the same five-prong star are refined in these two consecutive time steps.
In practice it might be more efficient to group the two regions together and treat them as one locally refined region,
thus leading to one refined discretization for the first two time steps.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[height=120mm,trim={5cm 2cm 5cm 0}, clip]{paper_figs/geom_info13x13_dist3by3-path.eps}
\\
(a)\\
\\
\includegraphics[height=80mm,trim={0cm 10cm 0cm 6cm}, clip]{paper_figs/geom_info13x13_dist3by3-path-zoom.eps}
\\
(b)\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{ (a) A collection of star-shape obstacles with different snapshots of body locations. (b) Zoomed-in in the region near the snapshots of the body locations.
The locations are chosen artificially and do not represent any physical movement of body in Stokes flow. 19 locations are chosen, out of which 12 are close to certain part of the obstacle boundary and incurs local refinement of the obstacle discretization.}
\label{fig:star_lattice}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&&
\\[-1em]
& $T_{\rm static}$&$T_{\rm Osol}$& $T_{\rm Rsol}$\\
&&&
\\[-1em]
\hline
(1) \texttt{GMRES-indy} &8.23e+2 & 3.27e+1 & 8.40e+2 \\
(2) \texttt{Direct-indy} & 8.56e+2 & 2.57e-1& 8.41e+2\\
(3) \texttt{GMRES-Local} & 8.23e+2 & 3.27e+1& 4.29e+1\\
(4) \texttt{Direct-Local} & 8.56e+2 & 2.57e-1& 1.52e+1 \\
(5) \texttt{PGMRES-Local} & 8.56e+2 & 9.40e+0& 2.43e+1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Time in seconds of the construction of all necesary precomputed operators on the original discretization $T_{\rm static}$, for solving a problem that does not need local refinement $T_{\rm Osol}$ and
for solving a problem that requires local refinement $T_{\rm Rsol}$. Here we assume that each of the locally refined discretization is the same in size and requires the same amount of calculations to solve.}
\label{tab:star_lattice2}
\end{table}
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work is supported by DFG project
FR 2955/3-1 ``Testing, Debugging, and Repairing
Blocks-based Programs''.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Approach}\label{sec:approach}
\input{sections/approach-transformations}
\input{sections/approach-fitness-functions}
\input{sections/approach-representation}
\input{sections/approach-search-operators}
\input{sections/approach-algorithm}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related-work}
The aim of search-based refactoring~\cite{OC03} is to improve code quality by
applying meta-heuristic search algorithms which select sequences of
refactorings. These refactorings are typically guided by design
metrics~\cite{MT04,MG18,MARIANI201714}. Many of the design metrics used to
measure aspects of object-oriented programs are not directly applicable to
\Scratch programs, and not all common refactorings are possible using the
abstraction mechanisms provided by the \Scratch language. For example, a
classical ``move method'' refactoring in \Scratch would only be possible for
scripts that only write global variables.
An ``extract method'' refactoring could be partially performed using the
concept of custom blocks in \Scratch, but custom blocks cannot be re-used
across sprites. Techapalokul and Tilevich~\cite{TT19} nevertheless proposed
such a refactoring as part of their set of automated refactorings for \Scratch
programs. We intentionally avoided this type of refactoring since this would
introduce programming language aspects that early learners typically are not
accustomed with, and which might thus inhibit learning progress; our
refactorings do not add new language features that are not already contained in
a target program. Techapalokul and Tilevich~\cite{TT19} define specific refactorings for specific code smells, and apply all refactorings that are applicable exhaustively. In contrast, our approach applies search to explore the larger space of possible program variants independently of concrete preconditions or code smells.
Since we transform code directly, the approach is reminiscent of Genetic
Improvement~\cite{petke2017genetic}: In principle our search can be seen as a
Genetic Algorithm that is applied using an existing program as starting point.
In contrast to Genetic Improvement, our modification operators are designed to
preserve the program semantics, since our optimisation goal is code quality,
rather than orthogonal aspects such as functionality or performance. Our
representation of refactoring sequences also differs
in terms of the encoding used~\cite{petke2019survey} since
explainability of the transformations is an important aspect for our use case.
The number of code transformations that do not change the program semantics
found by our search is substantial, which provides further evidence for the
concept of neutral program
space~\cite{harrand2019journey,renzullo2018neutrality}. It is conceivable that,
given the target audience of novice programmers, the code we are attempting to
improve is less clean and contains more redundancy, thus providing even more
possibilities for semantics-preserving transformations.
\section{Background}\label{sec:background}
\input{sections/background-sbse}
\input{sections/background-scratch}
\input{sections/background-readability}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}\label{sec:evaluation-setup}
An artifact that contains all data and software to reproduce our study is available online: \url{https://github.com/se2p/artifact-scam2021}.
\subsubsection{Implementation}\label{sec:evaluation-tool}
We used \litterbox~\cite{litterbox} to implement the search algorithm and transformations presented in this paper. \litterbox provides a parser that reads the
JSON-format representation of \Scratch programs and creates an AST.
Each transformation consists of two parts:
First, an AST-visitor encodes the matching and preconditions to derive
the concrete transformations. Second, a concrete transformation implements the
actual transformation for a specified target location. At the end of the
search, our prototype produces CSV statistics, and creates one modified
version of the \Scratch input file for each individual of the final Pareto
front.
\subsubsection{Experiment Subjects}\label{sec:evaluation-subjects}
We randomly sampled \num{1000} publicly shared \Scratch programs
from the \Scratch website\footnote{%
\url{https://scratch.mit.edu}, last accessed 2021–06–25.%
} between 2021–05–13 and 2021–06–10.
The projects were created between 2020–05–28 and 2021–03–13. We restricted
our sampling to programs with at least ten code blocks, to exclude projects
that are just art or contain no functionality. We furthermore excluded remixes,
which are modified and shared
versions of already uploaded \Scratch projects\footnote{%
\url{https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Remix}, last accessed 2021–06–27.%
}, to ensure our dataset does not include the same code twice.
\subsubsection{Experiment Setting}\label{sec:evaluation-setting}
We executed \litterbox on each of the constituent programs in sequence
to apply the search-based refactorings.
For this,
we used a fork of \litterbox in Git revision \texttt{6b193f88}.
We conducted our experiments on dedicated computing machines,
each featuring two Intel Xeon E5-2620v4 CPUs
with \SI{2.1}{\giga\hertz} and \SI{256}{\giga\byte} of RAM.
The nodes are running Debian GNU/Linux~10.9 and OpenJDK~11.0.11.
We limit each execution of \litterbox
using the SLURM job scheduling system~\cite{YJG03}
to one CPU core and \SI[round-precision=1]{8}{\giga\byte} of RAM;
we set the available Java heap to \SI[round-precision=1]{6}{\giga\byte}.
We set the population size for NSGA-II to
\num[round-precision=2]{30}~chromosomes,
allowed a maximum number of \num{100}~generations,
and a maximum run time for the search process of \SI{1800}{\second}.
To answer RQ1, we compare the original projects with the Pareto front of refactored versions for each project and each run. We use the Vargha-Delaney $\hat{A}_{12}$ effect size to quantify the difference with respect to each of the metrics; when comparing improvement of multiple metrics we average the effect sizes of each of the constituent metrics. Since all objective functions are minimised, an effect size $< 0.5$ represents an improvement. We use a Wilcoxon rank sum test with $\alpha=0.05$ to determine when metrics are significantly improved.
To answer RQ2 we consider only the best individual within a Pareto front with respect to each metric. We use a Wilcoxon rank sum test to determine if differences are significant.
To answer RQ3 we look at the distribution of code transformations contained in the solutions produced across all projects and runs.
\subsection{Discussion}\label{sec:evaluation-discussion}
\subsection{Results}\label{sec:evaluation-results}
\subsection{RQ1: Effectiveness of Search-based Refactoring}\label{sec:evaluation-rq1}
Applicable code transformations were found for all but
\num[round-precision=2]{28} projects in our dataset.
The projects which were not transformed are usually either too small, or simply
consist of only blocks with data- or time-dependencies to each other in
sequential order (e.g., \cref{fig:no-transformations-possible}).
In such a case, our transformations are not applicable as they would break the
original functionality of the program.
We conjecture that these projects are mostly animations or stories which
consist of sequences, no repetitions, and no opportunity for concurrency.
Indeed the number of scripts per project is noticeably lower for projects that
were not transformed (\num{12.404} on average)
compared to those that were (\num{14.696706477151562} on average).
For example, \cref{fig:no-transformations-possible-animation} shows
a code snippet of a project that could not be transformed:
The project contains six sprites, which in turn consist only of small
scripts (cf. \cref{fig:no-transformations-possible-animation}). Even though the scripts are not purely sequential animations, they provide no opportunity for transformation.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.59\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.155]{pictures/evaluation/noTransformationsPossible}
\caption{Timed sequences of statements}
\label{fig:no-transformations-possible}
\end{subfigure}
%
\hfill
%
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.39\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.155]{pictures/evaluation/noTransformationsPossibleAnimation}
\caption{Animation with more complex control flow}
\label{fig:no-transformations-possible-animation}
\end{subfigure}
%
\caption{Animations and story projects provide no opportunities for transformations.}
\end{figure}
\input{tables/improvements}
\Cref{table:improvements} summarises the results in terms of the
three objectives, considering the entire Pareto front. Out of
\num{972} projects on which transformations were applicable, an
average of \num[round-precision=2]{74} projects were statistically significantly
improved with respect to all objectives, which is over
\SI{8.114}{\percent}\xspace of the projects on which
code transformations were applicable.
Note that \cref{table:improvements} checks for strict improvement in all listed
dimensions. However, a total of 354~projects result in dominating solutions, i.e., solutions where no objective is worse and at least one is improved.
Overall, \num{119} projects were significantly improved regarding
their block size, \num{765} regarding their complexity, and
\num{779} regarding their entropy.
The lower number of improvements of size is not surprising, as most
transformations do not explicitly target size, and may in fact increase size.
For example, each split of a script introduces at least one additional block
for the additional event handler block. Indeed we included size as one of the
optimisation goals mainly to prevent size from \emph{growing} excessively,
rather than trying to reduce it.
Note that, even though the effect size of \num{0.7325089133082981} suggests that
size is more likely to increase than decrease on average, it may still be the
case that solutions with smaller size exist on a Pareto front, if the search
found no solutions that \emph{dominate} the original program with respect to
all objectives (RQ2 explicitly looks at improvements in each dimension).
The number of projects in which size was improved together with either
complexity or entropy is substantially smaller than the number of cases where
it was possible to improve these objectives individually
(\cref{table:improvements}).
However, in those cases where only complexity and entropy were improved, size
did not increase by a lot (cf. \cref{sec:evaluation-rq2}). Consequently, many
improved solutions were found that did not dominate the original program, but
still increase our measured objectives. Over
\SI{70.4}{\percent}\xspace of all projects and over
\SI{77.27}{\percent}\xspace of all refactored
programs were improved for both of these objectives together.
Consequently, it might be worth exploring explicitly whether our anticipation
of size increase would manifest, or whether optimising only for complexity and
entropy achieves similar or better results. Alternatively, it might be
interesting to define additional transformations that explicitly aim to improve
size.
\summary{RQ1}{%
\SI{77.27}{\percent}\xspace of the projects were
improved in terms of complexity and entropy, and
354~projects resulted in dominating solutions.
}
\subsection{RQ2: Changes in Complexity, Entropy and Size}\label{sec:evaluation-rq2}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=10.5em]{pictures/evaluation/Blocks}
\caption{Log \#blocks}
\label{fig:blocks_comparison}
\end{subfigure}
%
\hfill
%
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=10.5em]{pictures/evaluation/Complexity}
\caption{Halstead difficulty}
\label{fig:complexity_comparison}
\end{subfigure}
%
\hfill
%
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=10.5em]{pictures/evaluation/Entropy}
\caption{Category entropy}
\label{fig:entropy_comparison}
\end{subfigure}
%
%
\caption{Comparison of the metrics before and after applying search-based refactorings. Plots show the best value on the Pareto front, averaged over 30 runs.}
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:blocks_comparison} summarises the differences in terms of the number of blocks for each of the projects, \cref{fig:complexity_comparison} in terms of the complexity, and \cref{fig:entropy_comparison} in terms of the entropy.
On average, projects have \num[round-precision=2]{86.27427427427428}
blocks before the refactoring, and
\num[round-precision=2]{84.53226559893226} after, considering the
smallest projects on each Pareto front ($p < 0.001$).
\Cref{fig:size_example} shows an example where the size is reduced
successfully: A complex script is split into several smaller event handler
scripts.
Indeed our refactorings tend to significantly increase the number of scripts
($p < 0.001$). This is an expected result, given that two of the most
frequent transformations split scripts into two or more scripts (cf.
\cref{sec:evaluation-rq3}). As a consequence of scripts being split, we find
that the number of long script code smells significantly decreases ($p
< 0.001$). In total, \num{165.16666666666674} long script smells were
removed on average per run over the \num{1000} projects.
The size objective appears to be harder to improve than the other two
objectives, which is due to the transformations we defined. Splitting scripts
may increase the number of blocks, since each additional script adds a new
event handler block. Similarly, splitting loops or conditional statements may
increase the block size, even when improving complexity and entropy.
However, the number of added blocks tends to be small. Considering the mean
size over all individuals in each Pareto front (which may include the original
project if no dominating solution was found), the block size increases from
\num[round-precision=2]{86.27427427427428} to
\num[round-precision=2]{89.2686217301114} on average over all
projects and runs.
The search succeeds in reducing the Halstead difficulty from an average of
\num[round-precision=2]{3.3636309183391457} to
\num[round-precision=2]{2.08291137174689} ($p
< 0.001$). \Cref{fig:complexity_example} is an example
where complexity is reduced: On the one hand, the replacement of the repetition
with a simple fixed number of iterations reduces the size of the script. On the
other hand, the extraction of the unrelated sound block leads to a very small
script, which likely skews the fitness calculation which is based on the
average per script. It might be worth experimenting with variants of the
fitness function (e.g., using the maximum or median) to further improve the
guidance for the search.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/evaluation/sizeExample}
\caption{Original program}
\label{fig:example_size}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/evaluation/refactoredSize}
\caption{Refactored version}
\label{fig:example_refactoredSize}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Size of the script decreases significantly.}
\label{fig:size_example}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.125]{pictures/evaluation/complexityExample}
\caption{Original program}
\label{fig:example_complexity}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.125]{pictures/evaluation/refactoredComplexity}
\caption{Refactored version}
\label{fig:example_refactoredComplexity}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Complexity of the script decreases from \num{8.0} to \num{1.58}.}
\label{fig:complexity_example}
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:entropy_comparison} shows that entropy is also successfully reduced
by the search: On average, the entropy decreases from
\num[round-precision=2]{1.4447769417171383} to
\num[round-precision=2]{1.1932980127859478} ($p
< 0.001$).
The category entropy captures how chaotic (uncertain) scripts are with respect
to the categories of blocks they use. Intuitively, scripts that proportionally contain more blocks of a category have a lower entropy value.
\Cref{fig:entropy_example} shows an example where two scripts, which
have high entropy as they mix together different block categories, are
refactored to more coherent scripts. The entropy is improved because the first
script is split into two scripts that each have a distinct category of
blocks\footnote{It might have been the intention of the learner to have the
second costume change wait for completion of the sound, but since they did not
use a \scratchblocktable{play sound until done} block the transformation is
semantically equivalent.}, furthermore the useless \scratchblock{repeat (1)}
loops are ``unrolled'', thus removing all blocks of the control category.
Some of the transformations (e.g., \emph{Split Loop}) may increase the number of
control and operator blocks in a script, which the entropy fitness interprets
as an improvement. It might be worth investigating in the future whether the
category entropy should exclude control blocks.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/evaluation/entropyExample}
\caption{Original program}
\label{fig:example_entropy}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/evaluation/refactoredEntropy}
\caption{Refactored version}
\label{fig:example_refactoredEntropy}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Entropy of the script decreases from \num{1.75} to \num{1.12}.}
\label{fig:entropy_example}
\end{figure}
\summary{RQ2}{%
Our approach tends to improve complexity and entropy by splitting scripts into multiple simpler versions, which may add a small number of blocks.
}
\subsection{RQ3: Program Transformations}\label{sec:evaluation-rq3}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{pictures/evaluation/TransformationsApplied}
\caption{Frequency of transformations in the optimal solutions of \num[round-precision=2]{30} runs on \num[round-precision=4]{1000} programs (log scale).}
\label{fig:applied-transformations}
\end{figure}
Across all solutions the mean number of transformations is
\num{10.074041192566897}. For each program we produced an average of
\num{21.466295506067475} unique solutions.
\cref{fig:applied-transformations} shows the frequencies of the different
transformations relative to the \num[round-precision=6]{7218237}
transformations aggregated across all runs.
The most frequent transformation is \emph{Swap Statements} with a relative
frequency of \SI{25.95603330841035}{\percent}\xspace, followed by \emph{Merge Scripts} with
\SI{16.757055774145403}{\percent}\xspace, \emph{Split Script} with \SI{16.473454667670236}{\percent}\xspace and
\emph{Extract Independent Subscripts} with \SI{16.357041199949517}{\percent}\xspace.
\Cref{fig:rq3-example} shows a small example program which shows how the
frequent transformations form a refactoring which leads to a dominating solution.
The initial script consists of duplicate \scratchblock{if}
blocks which are separated by a \scratchblock{say} block. The most promising
transformation to apply here is the \emph{Merge Double If} transformation, which
merges the duplicate \scratchblock{if} blocks.
However, merging requires two successive \scratchblock{if} blocks. There are
several possibilities to reach the intermediary state in which merging is possible.
Either, apply a \emph{Swap Statements} transformation on one \scratchblock{if}
and the \scratchblock{say} block. Or, alternatively, split and merge the script in the suitable order,
i.e., apply \emph{Split Script} or \emph{Extract Independent Subscripts}
and merge the split parts back in the suitable order with \emph{Merge Scripts} to merge the double \scratchblock{if}s.
In general, splitting scripts can reduce the entropy of the initial script
which may lead to dominating solutions. Merging scripts can be an important
intermediate step for further simplifications, and it reduces the number of
blocks due to the hat block which is no longer duplicated. However, the final
result in \cref{fig:rq3-example} also illustrates an unnecessary application of
the \emph{Swap Statements} transformation: The \scratchblock{turn degrees} and
the \scratchblock{move steps} blocks have been swapped unnecessarily, and since
\emph{Swap Statements} is the only refactoring which is its own inverse, it
may be applied repeatedly. In general, it
might be useful to apply minimisation on refactoring sequences before
presenting solutions to the user in order to avoid redundant transformations,
and it might also be a viable alternative to minimise the size of the
refactoring sequence, rather than the program itself, as one of the search
objectives.
The least frequent transformations are \emph{If If Else to Conjunction}, which
was only applied 3572\xspace times, and \emph{If If Not to If
Else} with 3572\xspace transformations, followed by \emph{Conjunction
to If If Else} with 3509\xspace occurrences.
There are multiple possible reasons for this. First, \emph{If If Else to
Conjunction} worsens all three metrics: Even though the control flow is
simplified, the total number of blocks and the complexity are increased since
all constituent operator blocks are counted. The same observation also applies
to the \emph{If If Not to If Else} transformation.
Second, these transformations have quite strict preconditions on the combination of blocks to be applicable and other transformations may interfere.
However, these transformations may be important prerequisites to enable other
transformations by resolving nested control flow.
Besides these transformations, we note that splitting transformations seem to occur more often than merging transformations, and we conjecture that this is because splitting will in most cases improve entropy and complexity, even if the number of blocks is increased.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{pictures/evaluation/rq3}
\caption{Original program}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{pictures/evaluation/rq3-refactored}
\caption{Refactored program}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{A script dominated by its refactored version.}
\label{fig:rq3-example}
\end{figure}
\summary{RQ3}{%
In our experiments, solutions are transformed \num{10.074041192566897} times on average, and the most common transformations are \emph{Swap Statements}, \emph{Merge Scripts} and \emph{Split Scripts}.
}
\section{Evaluation}\label{sec:evaluation}
In order to achieve a better understanding of the effectiveness of search-based
refactoring for \Scratch, we conducted an empirical analysis.
A primary question is how often \Scratch programs can be improved using our
approach in the first place, therefore the first research question is as
follows:
\begin{resq}[RQ1]\label{rq:effectiveness}
How effective is search-based refactoring for \Scratch?
\end{resq}
The second research question aims to shed light on how the resulting programs
look like:
\begin{resq}[RQ2]\label{rq:readability-changes}
How do refactored \Scratch programs differ?
\end{resq}
Finally, we would like to understand which transformations are used in order to derive the refactored programs:
\begin{resq}[RQ3]\label{rq:program-changes}
How are the \Scratch programs transformed?
\end{resq}
\input{sections/eval-experimental-setup}
\input{sections/eval-threats-to-validity}
\input{sections/eval-results}
\subsection{Algorithm}\label{sec:algorithm}
We evaluate the candidate program transformation sequences regarding three
fitness values with conflicting objectives (see \cref{sec:fitness-functions})
and therefore use the NSGA-II~\cite{deb2002fast} search
algorithm, which has been shown to be effective for many software engineering problems~\cite{harman2012search}.
The algorithm can optimise for conflicting objectives, due to its reliance on
Pareto dominance, which is defined as follows:
One solution $x_1$ dominates a second solution $x_2$ if $x_1$ is not worse in
any objective than $x_2$, and $x_1$ is strictly better than $x_2$ in at least
one objective~\cite{deb2002fast}. In other words, $x_1$ dominates $x_2$,
written as $x_1 \prec x_2$, when the following holds for objectives
$f_{1}, \ldots, f_{M}$:
\begin{align*}
\big( \forall & m \in \{1, \ldots, M\} : f_m(x_2) \leq f_m(x_1) \big)
\enspace \land \\
\big( \exists & m \in \{1, \ldots, M\} : f_m(x_2) < f_m(x_1) \big)
\end{align*}
All solutions are sorted into lists based on their Pareto dominance, the
so-called Pareto fronts. All solutions in the first front are not dominated by
another solution, all solutions in the second front are not dominated by any
other solution except for the ones in the first front, and so on.
The Pareto fronts help to determine which solutions are better than others, even
with conflicting objectives. They are specifically built in a way, that one
solution of the first front is definitely better than a solution in the second
front.
This means, with the NSGA-II and its \emph{fast-non-dominated-sort} of
populations, we have an algorithm that can separate lists of better and worse
solutions, even for conflicting objectives.
When deciding which solutions to include in the next population from
within a Pareto front, NSGA-II aims to improve diversity by sorting individuals according to the crowding
distance~\cite{deb2002fast}.
NSGA-II runs until a stopping criterion is met. In our case, we stop the
evolution after a fixed number of generations or after a set threshold of seconds has passed.
The fixed value of generations sets a base for the comparison of solutions. The
timeout is important to cover for cases where particularly large programs or inefficient refactorings delay experiments.
\subsection{Code Readability}\label{sec:readability}
Considering the context of programming education, an alternative perspective on
code quality is how the code affects program comprehension. While difficult to
quantify, \emph{readability} of source code intuitively describes how easy it
is to understand it.
Buse and Weimer~\cite{Buse2010} created a model of code readability based on
subjective human judgements of given code snippets, and demonstrated that this
metric strongly correlates with different aspects of code quality. The model is
based on a collection of syntactic features such as line length or types of
tokens used.
Posnett et al.~\cite{Posnett2011} demonstrated that this readability model can
be explained in terms of only three essential features: size, complexity, and
entropy. They used the common metric of lines of code to measure size, the
Halstead metric suite to quantify complexity, and entropy at the level of
syntactic tokens. The resulting model outperformed the original model of Buse
and Weimer, and the relevance of these properties was also confirmed
independently by Choi et al.~\cite{choi2018measuring}.
While there are many other attributes of code that affect comprehension, such
as variable names or other textual features~\cite{scalabrino2016improving}, a
viable initial step towards automatically improving readability therefore lies
in considering and optimising some metrics representative of size, complexity,
and entropy.
\subsection{Code Transformations for \Scratch}\label{sec:transformations}
\label{sec:ast}
In order to refactor \Scratch projects to more readable versions, we aim to
find sequences of code transformations which, when applied together, improve
the program. To this end, we define atomic transformations on the
abstract syntax tree (AST) of \Scratch programs. Each transformation can be
applied to individual nodes, subtrees, or the edges between these.
A transformation takes the AST of a program~$S_n$ as input,
transforms it accordingly, and returns the modified AST representing the new
program version $S_{n+1}$ as output.
For every transformation we also maintain information about where it is
applied to. An atomic transformation can potentially be applied at different
locations of the AST depending on its structure, but transformations may
require certain preconditions to hold in order to be applicable. In order to
determine for a given program $S_n$ which concrete transformations are
possible, we define the function \( \mathsf{findPossibleTransformations}(S_n) \)
for each type of transformation, which operationalises the matching of suitable
locations in the AST as well as the preconditions of the transformation and
returns a list of all possible instantiated transformations, applicable to the
AST $S_n$.
For most code transformations we also define their inverse transformations
($\rightleftarrows$) to enable the search to reach relevant intermediate states
of program transformations. In particular, we expect that these transformations
enable the search to escape local optima and potentially enable more powerful
transformations in the subsequent search.
In total, we define \num[round-precision=2]{26} atomic transformations which are categorised as
either (1)~control flow transformations or (2)~concurrency transformations:
\emph{Control flow transformations}
transform an individual script by reordering its blocks or replacing control
blocks by equivalent combinations of blocks. Control blocks can be nested and
hard to read, but can often be simplified as the abstraction level of the
\Scratch blocks varies, e.g., a \scratchblock{forever} loop which contains a
conditional termination can be simplified to a \scratchblock{repeat until}
loop. Furthermore, for conditionals, we apply transformations based on logical
equivalences of their conditions. We define the following control flow
transformations:
\input{tables/control-transformations-text}
\emph{Concurrency transformations}
are based on the event-driven nature of \Scratch programs. For example, it is common practice to
place independent functionality in separate concurrent scripts. Consequently, sometimes it is possible to split loops and scripts
into several smaller scripts, which are executed concurrently. For instance, the
\emph{Extract Independent Subscripts} transformation splits a script into
multiple independent scripts. In order to preserve the semantics of the program
it is important that dependencies between statements are considered when
deciding which transformations can be applied:
\begin{itemize}
%
\item \emph{Control dependencies:} We consider control dependencies using a classical control dependence graph; it is not possible to split statements if one is control dependent on the other.
%
\item \emph{Data dependencies:} We consider data dependencies by building a data dependence graph based on a classic reaching definitions analysis. As an adaptation to \Scratch, this analysis has to take not only the variables in the program into account, but also the attributes of the sprites and the stage. In particular, for each sprite we consider its position, rotation, costume, size, and visibility as attributes, and define for each of the program statements in \Scratch whether it defines or uses this attribute.
%
\item \emph{Time dependencies:} \Scratch programs tend to make heavy use of timing-related statements, for example to control the speed of movement of sprites, to synchronise interactions between sprites, or to encode the steps of sequences of animations or interactions. If a statement is a successor of a timing-related statement, then it is not possible to split the script between these statements as the concurrent execution would not adhere to the same timing. For each block in the \Scratch language we determined whether it is timing-related, and we use a simple forward-may dataflow analysis to identify which statements are time-dependent on which other statements.
%
\end{itemize}
We define the following concurrency transformations:
\input{tables/concurrency-transformations-text}
\subsection{Code Quality Analysis for \Scratch}
In \Scratch, programs are created by dragging and dropping puzzle-like \emph{blocks} in the \Scratch editor\footnote{\url{https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/editor/}, last accessed 2021–06–02.}.
In total, there are over one hundred blocks to choose from\footnote{\url{https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Blocks}, last accessed 2021–06–02.}.
Blocks connected to each other form \emph{scripts}. Every script
belongs to either the background of the game, the so called \emph{stage},
or to a \emph{sprite}, i.e., an object acting on the stage.
The first block of a script usually is a \emph{hat block}, i.e., an event listener that triggers execution of the script.
Blocks have different visual shapes, allowing only grammatically valid combinations of blocks.
In the case of hat blocks, for example, blocks can only be added at the bottom,
but not at the top. Control blocks like if-statements or loops can enclose
other blocks, and blocks terminating control flow prevent users from
adding subsequent blocks.
Although \Scratch is built to prevent syntax errors, programmers can still
struggle to write code of reasonable quality. They can develop
negative coding habits~\cite{meerbaum2011habits} and introduce code smells to
their code~\cite{aivaloglou2016kids,hermans2016a,techapaloku2017b, robles2017software}.
These smells make it harder to understand the code~\cite{HA16} and
might lead to bugs when the code is edited later on.
Several static analysis tools have been proposed to find code smells in \Scratch programs, for example \textsc{Hairball}~\cite{boe2013hairball}, \textsc{Quality
hound}~\cite{techapaloku2017b} or
\textsc{SAT}~\cite{chang2018scratch}.
\litterbox~\cite{litterbox} also detects code smells as well as instances
of general, predefined bug patterns automatically~\cite{bugpatterns}.
Since code smells are common in \Scratch, an obvious solution would be to
transfer the idea of automated refactoring to \Scratch. However, this is
challenging because many of the abstraction mechanisms underlying common
refactorings (e.g., inheritance, classes, methods) are not available in
\Scratch, or only in very basic form.
Although some common extraction refactorings can be approximated by extracting
``custom blocks'' and by simulating inheritance through the concept of
``clones'' in \Scratch~\cite{TT19}, these are advanced concepts that may
overwhelm early learners.
Transferring the idea of search-based refactoring to \Scratch faces further
challenges, as search-based refactoring techniques traditionally use
object-oriented design metrics (e.g., cohesion, coupling) to guide the search.
Since \Scratch is not an object-oriented language, other metrics are
necessary to guide search-based refactoring.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
\Scratch~\cite{maloney2010} is a block-based programming language created
to introduce novices to the world of programming in a fun way.
The shapes of the blocks ensure that only syntactically valid code can be assembled, and high-level programming statements make it easy and quick to create working programs and games.
Programming with \Scratch is usually learned in a self-directed way~\cite{maloney2010} or taught by instructors who often are not skilled programmers themselves. As a result, \Scratch programs tend to have low code quality~\cite{techapalokul2017understanding},
which in turn has been found to negatively impact the pedagogical
effectiveness~\cite{HA16, techapalokul2017understanding}.
For example, \cref{fig:example_bad} contains a \Scratch script in which a sprite is controlled in a loop. While functionally correct, the use of a loop-condition nested in an if-block makes the code unnecessarily complicated.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/example1/intro_example_before}
\caption{Unnecessarily complex code}
\label{fig:example_bad}
\end{subfigure}
%
\hfill
%
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/example1/intro_example_after}
\caption{Refactored version}
\label{fig:example_good}
\end{subfigure}
%
\caption{\label{fig:intro_example}The same functionality can be written in different ways, resulting in code that is easier or more difficult to read.}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
In software engineering, code with low quality is typically \emph{refactored}~\cite{Fowler1999}, which means that the design is improved without changing the implemented behaviour, for example by extracting or moving methods. Such common refactorings tend to rely on abstraction mechanisms that are only available in higher programming languages~\cite{TT19}, but not in \Scratch. Even when they are available, their use might not be desirable in the context of young programming learners who are already busy trying to understand the most basic programming concepts.
However, it is still possible to improve \Scratch code using refactorings tailored for the specifics of the \Scratch programming language. In particular, in this paper we focus on refactorings intended to improve the \emph{readability} of the code, which is directly linked to its understandability~\cite{Posnett2011}.
For example, \cref{fig:example_good}, shows a refactored and more readable version of \cref{fig:example_bad} which has the same functionality, yet uses fewer blocks, less complex control flow, and overall just looks tidier.
At this level of granularity, even small learners' programs may offer overwhelmingly many opportunities to apply such refactorings.
In order to support programming learners and their teachers, we propose an automated approach to identify sequences of changes to programs
that lead to an overall improvement in readability and therefore form refactorings.
We define a set of atomic \Scratch code transformations based on rewriting control structures as well as the event-driven distribution of
code to concurrent scripts. All implemented refactorings are designed to preserve program semantics
by respecting important dependencies such as data, time and control~\cite{Gupta2015}. Given a candidate program, we then use a
meta-heuristic search algorithm to navigate the search space of possible transformation sequences in order to find versions of
the program that reduce its complexity, entropy and size, which are three important factors that have been established to influence code
readability~\cite{Posnett2011}.
In detail, the contributions of this paper are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a set of 26\ atomic code transformations for \Scratch programs (\cref{sec:transformations}).
\item We introduce a search-based approach to generate sequences of transformations that improve the readability of \Scratch programs (\cref{sec:fitness-functions,sec:representation,sec:search-operators,sec:algorithm}).
\item We evaluate an implementation of this approach on a random sample of \num{1000} learners' programs (\cref{sec:evaluation}).
%
\end{itemize}
Our experiments demonstrate that search-based refactoring improves \Scratch
programs: Out of \num{1000} projects, 704~are improved
with respect to complexity and entropy, and
354~projects result in dominating solutions, i.e.,
programs that are better in at least one metric, and not worse in any.
Our approach is implemented as part of the \litterbox~\cite{litterbox} analysis
framework for \Scratch programs, and is freely available to support learners,
teachers, and researchers.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
Although the block-based nature of introductory programming languages makes it easy to assemble code,
it has
been observed that code quality is often problematic with young
learners~\cite{bugpatterns,hermans2016a,techapalokul2017understanding,meerbaum2011habits}, which may affect understanding and learning~\cite{HA16}.
We therefore introduced an automated approach to improve code quality for
\Scratch programs.
We envision different use cases for such an approach: First, teachers of young
programming learners very often are not skilled programmers themselves. If the
code they use to demonstrate programming to children contains problems, this
can be detrimental for the learning outcomes. Second, it is very common for
young programming learners to self-study using online tutorials and examples,
such that automated hints become important; this is also why we made
explainability a central component of our approach. Finally, learning support
systems (e.g.,~\cite{wang2020crescendo,marwan2020adaptive,price2017evaluation})
are often based on syntactically matching aspects of programs, and may fail in
the light of alternative solutions. An automated program transformation
approach may help to overcome this limitation.
While we demonstrated that search-based refactoring for \Scratch is feasible,
there is ample opportunity and need for further work. Although we applied
search techniques common for search-based refactoring, other algorithms and
parameters may lead to better solutions, and our set of code transformations
can likely be extended. Our implementation currently produces an entire Pareto
front of candidate solutions, but users might be overwhelmed, and so the
question of how to select one representative individual from the Pareto front
is an important one to answer. We used three metrics encoding important aspects
of code readability for our initial assessment, but alternative metrics may be
better suited to guide the search and to quantify desirable properties of the
target code. Furthermore, the explainability of generated refactorings needs
to be assessed. Ultimately, answering these questions will require qualitative
assessment and evaluation with teachers and children. To support future work,
\litterbox including our implementation of search-based refactoring is available at \url{https://github.com/se2p/LitterBox}.
\subsection{Search operators}\label{sec:search-operators}
The number of required code transformations is unknown a priori
and can be different for each program. We therefore chose a variable length for
the encoding and rely on the search to find a suitable length for each solution.
For each randomly generated individual of our initial population, we first
select a random number $n$ in the range $[1..max]$, with $max$ being the
maximum number of codons in a phenotype.
We then generate $n$ random codons by uniformly sampling integers in the
range of $0$ to an upper bound $x$.
As constraint, $x$ must be bigger than the maximum number of possible code
transformations, otherwise the decoding of a solution might never choose
productions with a higher number than $x$ due to the modulo operator.
When mutating an individual of length $n$, each codon is modified with
probability $1/n$, by either (1)~replacing it with a random codon,
(2)~inserting a new codon at the location, or~(3)~deleting the codon.
We use single-point crossover, which would not have been directly applicable on
a list of code transformations, but is easy for integer lists.
\subsection{Fitness Functions}\label{sec:fitness-functions}
The aim of the code transformations is to improve the readability of the code.
In order to guide the search to achieve this objective, we require fitness
functions that encode relevant aspects of code quality. A common approach in search-based refactoring is to use different metrics in a multi-objective optimisation scenario.
Intuitively, we would like to improve the readability of \Scratch programs by
avoiding unnecessary complexity, keeping programs as small as possible, and
optimising coherence of the code within individual scripts. These objectives
are reminiscent of work on modelling subjective code readability, which has
been shown to be influenced by size, complexity, and
entropy~\cite{Posnett2011}. Consequently, we define the following fitness
functions:
\subsubsection{Total number of blocks}\label{sec:number_of_blocks}
In order to keep solutions as simple as possible and to avoid that the search
unnecessarily inflates programs, one goal of optimisation is to minimise the
size of programs. We measure the size of a \Scratch program in terms of the
blocks it consists of. Blocks can represent not only statements but also
expressions. For example, the script in \cref{fig:example_bad} consists of nine
blocks: An event block, the forever loop, the say and move statements, the if
statement, the stop statement, the sensing block checking if the space key has
been pressed, and the two drop-down boxes are also counted as blocks since they
can be replaced with other blocks. The refactored script in
\cref{fig:example_good} only consists of six blocks.
\subsubsection{Block Category Entropy}\label{sec:entropy}
The concept of entropy is used in information theory to describe the
uncertainty or surprise in a random variable, and can be thought of as the
amount of information contained in the variable. A higher entropy describes a higher uncertainty of a variable. It has been shown that the
entropy of the tokens in source code is directly related to the readability of the code~\cite{Posnett2011}, and we therefore aim to minimise it. We measure entropy at the level of blocks in a script. The blocks in the \Scratch programming language are organised in different categories depending on which aspects of functionality they address. The main categories are motion, looks, control, sensing, operators, variables, and events. We calculate entropy in terms of the categories of blocks within a script, which intuitively means that a script has low entropy if it is only responsible for one type of functionality. The category entropy for a script $S$ is calculated as Shannon entropy $H(S)$ given the number of blocks of category $c_{i}$ as $\text{\textit{count}}(c_{i})$, and total number of blocks as $\text{\textit{numberOfBlocks}}(S)$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:entropy}
\begin{split}
H(S) & = - \sum_{i=1}^n p(c_{i}) \cdot \log_{2} p(c_{i}), \text{with}\\
p(c_{i}) & = \frac{\text{\textit{count}}(c_{i})}{\text{\textit{numberOfBlocks}}(S)}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For example, the script in \cref{fig:example_bad} contains one event block, one looks block, one motion block, two sensing blocks, two control blocks, and the two menu blocks. As the total number of blocks is 9, the entropy is
\begin{align*}
H(S) = -\big(
&\tfrac{1}{9} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{9} +
\tfrac{1}{9} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{9} +
\tfrac{1}{9} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{9} + {} \\
&\tfrac{2}{9} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{2}{9} +
\tfrac{2}{9} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{2}{9} +
\tfrac{2}{9} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{2}{9}
\big)
= 2.50.
\end{align*}
In contrast, the refactored script in \cref{fig:example_good} contains only one block of each type, such that
\begin{align*}
H(S) = -\big(
&\tfrac{1}{6} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{6} +
\tfrac{1}{6} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{6} +
\tfrac{1}{6} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{6} + {} \\
&\tfrac{1}{6} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{6} +
\tfrac{1}{6} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{6} +
\tfrac{1}{6} \cdot \log_{2} \tfrac{1}{6}
\big)
= 2.58.
\end{align*}
Thus, the refactored script has a higher entropy as there is higher uncertainty about the categories of blocks used.
Since we aim to improve the constituent scripts of a program, as fitness function we compute the average category entropy for each script in the
program.
\subsubsection{Complexity}\label{sec:complexity}
The Halstead suite of metrics intends to quantify different complexity-related properties of a program such as volume, difficulty, or effort. The metrics are calculated using information about the operators and operands used in the program. As operators we count all blocks representing statements, events, and blocks from the ``operators'' category, while we define literals, variables, parameters, and drop-down menu options as operands. We use the Halstead difficulty as target metric to optimise, as it intends to quantify how easy it is to understand a program while reading or programming. It is calculated as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:difficulty}
D = \frac{\# \text{unique operators}}{2} \cdot \frac{\# \text{total operands}}{\# \text{unique operands}}
\end{equation}
For example, the script in \cref{fig:example_bad} consists of seven operators (the blocks) and four operands (the two literals and the two drop-down menu options), all of which are unique. Consequently, the Halstead difficulty is $\frac{7}{2} \cdot \frac{4}{4} = 3.5$. The refactored script in \cref{fig:example_good} consists of five operators and three operands, and thus has a lower Halstead difficulty of $\frac{5}{2} \cdot \frac{3}{3} = 2.5$.
Similar to \cref{sec:entropy} we compute the average Halstead difficulty per script and use this as fitness value for the optimisation.
\subsection{Threats to Validity}\label{sec:evaluation-threats}
\subsubsection{Internal Validity}\label{sec:evaluation-threats-internal}
Meta-heuristic search is a randomised process, and different seed values for
the random-number generator can cause different results.
We therefore executed \litterbox \num[round-precision=2]{30} times on each
\Scratch project to mitigate the influence of randomness.
Although we carefully checked our implementation, bugs may always influence results.
Our transformations are semantics-preserving by design. To verify this,
we used \num[round-precision=2]{15} \Scratch projects from prior work for which
we have automated \whisker~\cite{whisker} tests. To verify that the code
transformations preserve the semantics, we executed these tests before and after
the search-based refactoring, ensuring that no tests change their outcome.
\subsubsection{External Validity}\label{sec:evaluation-threats-external}
We use \num{1000} \Scratch projects of different sizes
for our experiments.
The projects were randomly sampled
as described in \cref{sec:evaluation-subjects}.
As always with such sampling, our results might not generalise to other projects, and so replication studies will be important for future work.
\subsubsection{Construct Validity}\label{sec:evaluation-threats-construct}
We use NSGA-II~\cite{deb2002fast} as a search algorithm
and the total number of blocks,
block category entropy,
and complexity~(see \cref{sec:fitness-functions}) as search objectives.
These three metrics are generally accepted proxies that influence readability.
Other metrics may be better suited, and the approach can easily be adapted with other fitness functions.
We assume that splitting a script into smaller scripts improves readability,
which may not be the case for programming novices.
However, an evaluation of subjective readability will require a human study.
Although previous work showed NSGA-II to be effective~\cite{harman2012search},
different search algorithms or other parameter settings may influence the
achieved results.
\subsection{Search-based Refactoring}
Refactoring describes the process of improving code quality without changing
functionality. Concrete refactorings, i.e., generic and re-usable steps to
alter code with the intent to improve its quality, are often defined in order
to remove code smells~\cite{Fowler1999}. For example, duplicated code
can be refactored by replacing repeated segments of code with calls to an
extracted function capturing the common functionality. Many common refactorings
can be automated, and software developers have a wealth of different automated
refactorings at their disposal in modern integrated development
environments~\cite{KZN12,RPB12}. However, developers still face the challenge of
having to decide when and where to apply which refactoring.
Search-based refactoring~\cite{OC03} aims to address this challenge by
exploring the search space of possible program refactorings for a given
program, guided by fitness functions that measure aspects of code or design
quality. Since it is difficult to capture code quality with a single metric, it
is common to use multiple different metrics and multi-objective search
algorithms when applying search-based refactoring~\cite{HT07}. It has been
shown that this approach can successfully lead to improvements~\cite{OC08,OKS+16,AKM+20}, and the field is an active area of
research~\cite{MT04,MG18,MARIANI201714}.
\subsection{Refactoring Representation}\label{sec:representation}
\label{sec:grammatical}
In order to enable the search to find program transformations, a
suitable representation is required for these
transformations. One possibility would be to apply the search directly on
syntax trees in the style of genetic programming, and thus to generate a
completely transformed AST as result of the search. However, presenting
a modified program that may be very different from its original version to the user without
explanation of how this was derived is not acceptable
for our use case. Consequently, we need the search to evolve sequences of
refactorings that explain the changes. However, storing concrete code
transformations as lists would create the following problem:
Each transformation in a sequence depends on the state of the program after the previously executed alteration. Standard search operators such as mutation and crossover (\cref{sec:search-operators})
may thus break individuals of the search if the state of the AST has changed as part of other transformations (for example, a merge transformation in a sequence may no longer be applicable if a prior transformation removes one of the merged scripts).
To overcome this issue, we use an integer representation inspired by
grammatical evolution~\cite{o2001grammatical}.
In grammatical evolution, the genotype is given by a list of integers
(\emph{codons}). The phenotype is obtained by applying a mapping as follows:
Starting at the first production of starting symbol $n_s$ for a given grammar,
we choose the $r$th production rule out of $n$ available rules for a current
non-terminal $x$. For a single codon $c$ the chosen production rule $r$ is
calculated as follows:
\begin{equation*}
r = c \; mod \; n
\end{equation*}
When a production is selected, the next codon is decoded. If no more codons are
left, or for one state of program the set of production rules is empty, the
mapping stops.
Conceptually, the grammar to produce a sequence of transformations of length
$n$ is given by the following grammar:
\[
\begin{aligned}
\text{\textit{solution}} ::= \; & \text{\textit{transformation}}_1 \; \text{\textit{transformation}}_2 \; \\
\ldots \; & \text{\textit{transformation}}_n
\end{aligned}
\]
The terminals of our grammar are individual transformations of the AST
applicable to the given state of a program.
The following production defines the possible transformations for a given state
of a program~\( S_{n} \):
\[
\begin{aligned}
\text{\textit{productions}} ::= \; & \text{\textsf{findPossibleTransformations}}(S_n)
\end{aligned}
\]
The resulting program state $S_{n+1}$ is returned by applying
the transformation.
With this representation we do not need to store lists of concrete
transformations, but the genotype is a simple list of integers that encode the
applied production rules. Consequently individuals always represent valid
sequences of transformations, and it is straightforward to define search
operators.
Note, however, that the same integer
may represent different AST transformations in different solutions.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/example1/example1_origin}
\caption{Original Program~\( S_{0} \)}
\label{fig:two-possible-refactorings}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.25\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/example1/example1_merged_loop}
\caption{Program~\( S_{1} \)}
\label{fig:merged-loops}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{pictures/example1/example1_ififinot_to_else}
\caption{Final program~\( S_{2} \)}
\label{fig:final-program}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{%
Example program transformation.
Starting with the initial program variant \( S_{0} \),
we obtain \( S_{1} \) by merging the two forever
blocks in \( S_{0} \).
Then, the two if blocks in \( S_{1} \) are merged
to arrive at the final program variant \( S_{2} \).
}
\label{fig:transformation-example}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph*{Example} Consider the program $S_0$ in
\cref{fig:two-possible-refactorings}, and suppose
$\textsf{findPossibleTransformations}(S_0)$ returns the following possibilities:
\begin{compactenum}
\item replace the left \scratchblock{forever} \scratchblock{if} blocks with a \scratchblock{wait until} block
\item replace the right \scratchblock{forever} \scratchblock{if} blocks with a \scratchblock{wait until} block
\item merge the two loops
\end{compactenum}
Now, let the following list of integers be given as an example encoding of a
phenotype for the program~\( S_{0} \):
\[
\begin{aligned}
T = \; & \langle \; 5 \; 9 \; 10 \; 42 \; 17\; 8 \; 13 \; 2 \; 13 \; \rangle
\end{aligned}
\]
The decoding would start with the codon~$5$.
Since the described three productions are applicable for the initial program,
the decoding to the first transformation thus looks as follows:
\[
\begin{array}{lcl}
5 \; mod \; 3 = 2 & \;\longrightarrow\;
& S_1 = \textsf{merge\_loops($S_0$) } \\
\end{array}
\]
Since the calculated production rule was $2$, the third option of all possible
productions for the given state is chosen ($0$ would have been the first option).
Afterwards the newly created program $S_1$ (seen in \cref{fig:merged-loops}) is
evaluated again by computing \( \textsf{findPossibleTransformations}(S_1) \).
Suppose this results in just one possible production, the \emph{If If Not to If
Else} transformation of the two consecutive \scratchblock{if} blocks. So the
next decoding of our codon with the number 5 would look as follows:
\[
\begin{array}{lcl}
9 \; mod \; 1 = 0 & \;\longrightarrow\;
& S_2 = \textsf{ififnot\_to\_ifelse($S_1$)} \\
\end{array}
\]
This creates the new state $S_2$, seen in \cref{fig:final-program}.
Assuming $\textsf{findPossibleTransformations}(S_2)=\emptyset$ the evaluation
of our solution $T$ is finished, with $S_2$ being the final state of the
refactored program that can be evaluated by its fitness.
\subsection{Atomic control flow transformations for \Scratch programs}\label{subsec:control-transformations}
{
\setlength{\parindent}{0em}
\begin{asparadesc}
\item[Swap Statements] Swap two statements that are independent of each other, if swapping does not create new dependencies.
\item[Loop Unrolling] ($\rightleftarrows$ Sequence to Loop) Unroll a \scratchblock{repeat times} loop by repeating its body.
\item[Forever If to Forever Wait]($\rightleftarrows$ Forever Wait to Forever If) Replace an \scratchblock{if} block inside a \scratchblock{forever} loop with a \scratchblock{wait until} block with the same condition.
\item[Extract Loop Condition] ($\rightleftarrows$ Inline Loop Condition) Transform a \scratchblock{forever} loop that conditionally terminates the script or the program to a \scratchblock{repeat until} loop.
\item[Split If Body] ($\rightleftarrows$ Merge Double If) Split the body of an \scratchblock{if} block. Replace the \scratchblock{if} block by one containing the first part of the body, add another \scratchblock{if} for the remaining statements.
\item[If Else to If If Not] ($\rightleftarrows$ If If Not to If Else) Split an \scratchblock{if else} block into two \scratchblock{if} blocks. The second \scratchblock{if} block checks on the negated initial condition.
\item[Ifs to Conjunction] ($\rightleftarrows$ Conjunction to Ifs) Transform two nested \scratchblock{if} blocks into an \scratchblock{if} block which checks for the conjunction of the initial conditions.
\item[If If Else to Conjunction] ($\rightleftarrows$ Conjunction to If If Else) Replace an \scratchblock{if} containing an \scratchblock{if else} by two \scratchblock{if} blocks. The condition of the first \scratchblock{if} is the conjunction of the two initial conditions; the second condition is the one of the first if.
\item[If Else to Disjunction] ($\rightleftarrows$ Disjunction to If Else) Replace an \scratchblock{if} block in the else case of an \scratchblock{if else} block by an \scratchblock{if} with the disjunction of the two conditions if the then cases of the initial conditionals have the same statements.
\end{asparadesc}%
}
\subsection{Atomic transformations based on the inherently concurrent nature of \Scratch programs}\label{subsec:concurrency-transformations}
{
\setlength{\parindent}{0em}
\begin{asparadesc}
\item[Split Loop] ($\rightleftarrows$ Merge Loops) Split the body of a loop if there are no dependencies between the statements of its body and splitting does not create new ones. Replace the initial loop body by the first part of the body, add another loop for the remaining statements of the body.
\item[Split Script]($\rightleftarrows$ Merge Scripts) Split a script if there are no dependencies upwards.
\item[Extract Independent Subscripts] Split a script with dependencies into new scripts
which do not depend on each other but respect the dependencies in the initial script. We define no inverse transformation since it would produce too many options of which scripts to combine and in which order.
\item[Extract Events from Forever] ($\rightleftarrows$ Merge Events into Forever) Replace a \scratchblock{forever} loop with \scratchblock{key pressed}
conditionals by scripts triggered by \scratchblock{when key pressed} event listeners.
\item[Split Script after Until] ($\rightleftarrows$ Merge Scripts after Until) Split a script after a
\scratchblock{repeat until} loop. Add a new script with a \scratchblock{wait until}
and the same condition.
\end{asparadesc}%
}
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of the non-perturbative dynamics of supersymmetric gauge theories and superstring theory has been one of the most central topics in quantum field theories and string theory. Direct microscopic studies on four-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories became accessible since the work of \cite{Nekrasov:2002qd}.
Rich algebraic structures lie behind the correspondences of four-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories and other mathematical objects. AGT correspondence \cite{Alday2010} is one of them, and infinite-dimensional algebras such as Virasoro or W algebras' play became relevant. In particular, the affine Yangian of $\mathfrak{gl}_1$, which is shown to contain these conformal symmetries in a universal form, played an essential role in proving the equivalence \cite{schiffmann2012cherednik,Nakajima_Heisenberg,maulik2018quantum}.
The $q$-deformed version of Virasoro/W algebra has been actively studied in mathematical literatures \cite{Awata:1996dx,Awata:1995zk,Feigin:1995sf,Shiraishi:1995rp}.
It was applied to the five-dimensional version of AGT correspondence\footnote{For other developments of this direction, see also \cite{Awata:2011ce,Kimura:2015rgi,Bourgine:2017jsi,Bourgine_2020,Bourgine_2016,Bourgine_2017,Awata_2016,Awata_2017RTT,Awata_2017,Awata_2018,harada2020quantum}.}\cite{awata2010five,Awata_2010,Yanagida_2010,awata2011notes}.
The universal symmetry which contains these $q$-deformed conformal symmetries is the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, which is sometimes referred to as ``DIM" \cite{Ding:1996mq,Miki2007,Feigin2011,feigin2011quantum,Feigin_2012},
which is the $q$-deformation of the affine Yangian $\mathfrak{gl}_1$.
Compared with the undeformed case, the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_1$ is more symmetric. Namely, it contains $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ duality, and also the Hopf algebra structure in a more natural form. Various extensions of DIM were done by mathematicians,
for instance, quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{n}$ and $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$ \cite{feigin2013representations,bezerra2019quantum}.
Recently, significant progress has been made on the relationship between infinite-dimensional algebras and Calabi-Yau geometry \cite{Rap_k_2019,rapcak2020cohomological,Li:2020rij,Galakhov:2020vyb}. For the case of the $\mathbb{C}^{3}$-geometry, we can define an action of the affine Yangian $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ \cite{schiffmann2012cherednik,Tsymbaliuk:2014,Prochazka:2015deb,Feigin_2012} on the BPS states.\footnote{See \cite{Gaiotto:2017euk,Prochazka:2017qum, Prochazka:2018tlo,Prochazka:2014gqa,Prochazka:2015deb} for corner vertex operator algebras and their relation with affine Yangian $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ and $W_{1+\infty}$. For gluing of affine Yangian $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, see also \cite{Gaberdiel_2018,Gaberdiel_2018_twin,Li_2020}.} Generalizations to BPS crystal configurations of general toric Calabi-Yau geometries are possible and the corresponding algebra is quiver Yangian \cite{Li:2020rij,Galakhov:2020vyb}.
The goal of this paper is to define the quiver quantum toroidal algebra (QQTA), which is the $q$-deformed version of \cite{Li:2020rij,Galakhov:2020vyb} and study a class of its representations. We use the bootstrap method of \cite{Li:2020rij}, where the algebra is obtained through the action on three-dimensional BPS crystal \cite{Ooguri_2009}. It is a generalization of the MacMahon representation \cite{Feigin_2012} of quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ \cite{Ding:1996mq, Miki2007, feigin2011quantum}. While most of the analysis is parallel to \cite{Li:2020rij}, the $q$-deformed algebra has an extra structure such as an additional central charge and the coproduct structure, which should be directly compared with the mathematical literature \cite{feigin2013representations,bezerra2019quantum}. We also examined some of the consistency conditions of QQTA. While we focus on the toric Calabi-Yau threefolds without compact 4-cycles, our analysis can likely be generalized to all toric Calabi-Yau threefolds.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec:QYreview}, we review the properties of the quiver Yangian defined in \cite{Li:2020rij}. In section \ref{sec:quantum_toroidalgl1}, we review the properties of the well known quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$. It has a natural three-dimensional crystal representation, the MacMahon representation, and is a Hopf algebra. It becomes the affine Yangian $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, which is a quiver Yangian of $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ geometry in the degenerate limit. In section \ref{sec:Algebra}, we define the quiver quantum toroidal algebra and see their properties. The definition given includes a central element $C$, but for now, this is a conjecture. It will be shown that even if we include the central element, it will be a Hopf superalgebra, which is similar to the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$. In section \ref{sec:bootstrap}, we focus on the three-dimensional crystal and bootstrap the algebra when $C=1$ from it following \cite{Li:2020rij}. We also discuss generalizations when there are compact 4-cycles. In section \ref{sec:Example}, we introduce one new example. It is a quantum toroidal algebra associated with the orbifold $\mathbb{C}^{3}/(\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2})$. The quiver diagram of this algebra is the same as the Dynkin diagram of the affine superalgebra $D(2,1;\alpha)$. The natural three-dimensional crystal representation of this algebra is the same as the plane partition representation, but the pattern of the colors is only different. In section \ref{sec:summary}, we give a summary and some discussions for future work. The appendix is dedicated to basic facts of three-dimensional crystal melting and the convention we used in this paper. Some defining relations of QQTA are also written in detail.
\section{Review: Quiver Yangian}\label{sec:QYreview}
In \cite{Li:2020rij}, Li and Yamazaki constructed a new class of algebras, called quiver Yangian, from the toric diagram of the Calabi-Yau manifold. They associated the geometric data with the quiver diagram, through which they defined the algebra.
This section reviews the algebraic aspects of the quiver Yangian, which are directly relevant to the $q$-deformation. To make this paper self-contained, we summarize the relation with the geometrical data in Appendix \ref{sec:3d_crystal}.
The quiver Yangian generalizes known affine Yangians, which includes the affine Yangian of $\mathfrak{gl}_1$ \cite{Tsymbaliuk:2014, schiffmann2012cherednik}, which played a significant role in proving 4D/2D duality.
\subsection{The definition of the quiver data}\label{sec:quiver-data}
We define the quiver Yangian from a set of data $Q=(Q_0, Q_1, Q_2)$, which is given by the toric diagram (see Appendix \ref{sec:3d_crystal}).
$Q_0$ is a set of vertices, and $Q_1$ is a set of arrows between the vertices. $Q_0$ and $Q_1$ define a quiver diagram. The set $Q_2$ consists of the loops constructed from the arrows in $Q_1$.\footnote{The periodic quiver diagram is a diagram with vertices, arrows, and faces, which are drawn on top of the torus. We denote $Q_{2}$ as the faces of this periodic quiver diagram. Each of the faces is a region surrounded by the arrows of $Q_{1}$, and we are identifying it with the sequence of arrows surrounding it (see the Appendix \ref{sec:3d_crystal}).} It is associated with the superpotential in the context of string theory. We denote the number of elements of $Q_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) as $|Q_{i}|$, and they satisfy a relation
\begin{equation}
|Q_0|-|Q_1|+|Q_2|=0,\label{eq:Eulerchar}
\end{equation}
which comes from the fact that the Euler number of $\mathbb{T}^{2}$ is 0.
Figure \ref{fig:quiver_gl} shows three examples of quiver diagrams.
For the first one (a), we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Q012_gl1}
Q_0=\{1\},\quad Q_1=\{1\xrightarrow{1} 1,1\xrightarrow{2} 1,1\xrightarrow{3} 1\},\quad
Q_2=\{1\xrightarrow{1} 1 \xrightarrow{2} 1 \xrightarrow{3} 1,1\xrightarrow{3} 1 \xrightarrow{2} 1 \xrightarrow{1} 1\}
\end{equation}
(see Figure \ref{fig:gl1Q2} of Appendix \ref{sec:3d_crystal}).
We note that there may be some arrows whose two ends are identical. We denote the number of arrows $i\to j$ in $Q_1$ as $|i\to j|$. In this example, $|1\to 1|=3$. We distinguish the arrows by adding an extra index over the arrow. We denote the parameter associated with the arrow $i\xrightarrow{a} j$ by $h^{(a)}_{ij}$, while we abbreviate the upper index when $|i\to j|=1$.
For the second one (b),
\begin{align}
Q_0&=\{1,2,3\},\quad
Q_1=\{1\to 1, \; 1\to 2,\; 1\to 3,\; 2\to 1,\; 2\to 3,\; 3\to 1, \;3\to 2\},\\
Q_2&=\{1\to1\to3\to1, 1\to2\to3\to2\to1, 1\to1\to2\to1, 1\to3\to2\to3\to1\}.
\end{align}
For the third one (c),
\begin{align}
Q_0&=\{1,2,3,4\},\quad
Q_1=\{1\xrightarrow{1}2,1\xrightarrow{2}2,2\xrightarrow{1}3,2\xrightarrow{2}3,
3\xrightarrow{1}4,3\xrightarrow{2}4,4\xrightarrow{1}1,4\xrightarrow{2}1\},\\
Q_2&=\{1\xrightarrow{a}2\xrightarrow{b}3\xrightarrow{c}4\xrightarrow{d}1\},\ \mbox{with }(a,b,c,d)\in \{(1,1,1,1),(2,2,2,2),(1,2,1,2),(2,1,2,1)\}.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/quiver_gl1.pdf}
\subcaption{One vertex case}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/quiver_gl21.pdf}
\subcaption{Three vertices and one self-loop case}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/quiver_kp1p1.pdf}
\subcaption{The case with $|i\to j|\neq |j\to i|$}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Three examples of the quiver diagrams. They have $|Q_0|$ vertices and $|Q_1|$ arrows.}
\label{fig:quiver_gl}
\end{figure}
We note that in the first two examples (a) and (b), $|i\to j|=|j\to i|$ for any $i,j\in Q_0$. In the third example (c), $|i\to j|\neq |j\to i|$ for some pairs of elements in $Q_0$. We will refer to the quiver of the first (resp. second) type as ``symmetric" (resp. ``asymmetric"). In \cite{Li:2020rij}, the asymmetric quiver set comes from Calabi-Yau manifolds with compact four cycles.
We call the vertex $i\in Q_0$ as bosonic (resp. fermionic), when
$|i\to i|$ is odd (resp. even). In the quiver (b), two vertices are fermionic while one is bosonic. In the quiver (c), all the four vertices are fermionic.
\subsection{Deformation parameters and constraints}\label{sec:deformation-parameters}
For each element in $I\in Q_1$, we assign a deformation parameter $h_I$, which appears in the definition of quiver Yangian. There are constraints coming from each element in $Q_0$ (vertex constraint) and $Q_2$ (loop constraint).
\paragraph{Vertex constraints:}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{I\in Q_1(a)}\mathrm{sign}_a(I) h_I =0,\label{eq:QYvertexconstr}
\end{equation}
where $a$ is an arbitrary vertex in $Q_0$.
$Q_1(a)$ implies the subset of $Q_1$ where the vertex $a\in Q_0$ is contained either in the start point or the endpoint.
The $\mathrm{sign}_a(I)$ is $+1$ when $a$ is the endpoint of $I$, $-1$ when it is the start point, and $0$ when $I$ is the loop from $a$ to $a$.
For example, the vertex $1$ in the middle of Figure \ref{fig:quiver_gl} gives a constraint,
\begin{equation}
h_{12}-h_{21}+h_{13}-h_{31}=0.
\end{equation}
Since the summation of the vertex constraints for all $a\in Q_0$ vanishes trivially, there are $|Q_0|-1$ independent constraints.
\paragraph{Loop constraints:}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{I\in L} h_I=0,\label{eq:QYloopconstr}
\end{equation}
where $L$ is an arbitrary loop in the periodic quiver diagram. It is enough to impose the loop conditions on loops of $Q_{2}$ because arbitrary loops can be decomposed into loops of $Q_{2}$. Thus, we can consider $L$ as an arbitrary loop on $Q_{2}$ from now on. However, not all of the loop conditions (\ref{eq:QYloopconstr}) for loops in $Q_{2}$ are independent.
For example, the loop constraints for the quiver set Figure \ref{fig:quiver_gl}(b) are:
\begin{align}
h_{11}+h_{13}+h_{31}&=0,\label{eq:loopconst_eq1}\\
h_{12}+h_{23}+h_{32}+h_{21}&=0,\label{eq:loopconst_eq2}\\
h_{11}+h_{12}+h_{21}&=0,\label{eq:loopconst_eq3}\\
h_{13}+h_{32}+h_{23}+h_{31}&=0.\label{eq:loopconst_eq4}
\end{align}
As the vertex constraints, a linear combination of the loop constraints becomes trivial. In the above example, (\ref{eq:loopconst_eq1})$+$(\ref{eq:loopconst_eq2})$-$(\ref{eq:loopconst_eq3})$-$(\ref{eq:loopconst_eq4})$=0$. Thus, there are $|Q_2|-1$ independent constraints.
To summarize, using (\ref{eq:Eulerchar}), the number of independent parameters becomes $|Q_1|-(|Q_0|-1)-(|Q_2|-1)=2$ for the quiver Yangian.
\subsection{The definition of quiver Yangian}
The Drinfeld currents of quiver Yangian are defined as
\begin{align}
e^{(a)}(z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{e_n^{(a)}}{z^{n+1}},\quad
\psi^{(a)}(z) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \frac{\psi_n^{(a)}}{z^{n+1}},\quad f^{(a)}(z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{f_n^{(a)}}{z^{n+1}},
\end{align}
with a formal expansion parameter $z\in \mathbb{C}$
for each $a\in Q_0$. The Drinfeld current with index $a$ is bosonic (resp. fermionic) if $a$ in $Q_0$ is the bosonic (resp. fermionic) vertex.
We define the bond factors as
\begin{equation}
\varphi^{a\Rightarrow b}(u) \equiv \frac{\prod_{I\in\{b\to a\}} (u+h_I)} {\prod_{I\in\{a\to b\}} (u-h_I)},\label{eq:QYbondfactor}
\end{equation}
where $a, b\in Q_0$.
Set $\{a\to b\}$ is a subset of $Q_1$ which consists of the arrows from $a$ to $b$.
Using them, the OPE relations of the quiver Yangian are,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\psi^{(a)}(z) \psi^{(b)}(w) &= \psi^{(b)}(w)\psi^{(a)}(z),\\
\psi^{(a)}(z) e^{(b)}(w) &\simeq \varphi^{b\Rightarrow a}(z-w) e^{(b)}(w) \psi^{(a)}(z),\\
e^{(a)}(z) e^{(b)}(w) &\sim (-1)^{|a||b|}\varphi^{b\Rightarrow a}(z-w) e^{(b)}(w) e^{(a)}(z),\\
\psi^{(a)}(z) f^{(b)}(w) &\simeq \varphi^{b\Rightarrow a}(z-w)^{-1} f^{(b)}(w) \psi^{(a)}(z),\\
f^{(a)}(z) f^{(b)}(w) &\sim (-1)^{|a||b|} \varphi^{b\Rightarrow a}(z-w)^{-1} f^{(b)}(w) f^{(a)}(z),\\
[ e^{(a)}(z), f^{(b)}(w)\} &\sim -\delta^{a, b}\frac{\psi^{(a)}(z)-\psi^{(b)}(w)}{z-w},
\end{split}
\end{align}
for $a, b\in Q_0$.
In the above equations, $\simeq$ means the equality up to $z^n w^{m\geq 0}$ terms and $\sim$ means the equality up to $z^{n\geq 0}w^m$ and $z^n w^{m\geq 0}$ terms. We note that the algebra is expected to be equipped with Serre relations, but for the moment, they are not known yet except for special cases. We will not touch on this topic in this paper.
When both $a$ and $b$ are fermionic,
\begin{equation}
[e^{(a)}(z), f^{(b)}(w)\} =e^{(a)}(z) f^{(b)}(w)+f^{(b)}(w) e^{(a)}(z).
\end{equation}
Otherwise,
\begin{align}
[e^{(a)}(z), f^{(b)}(w)\} =e^{(a)}(z) f^{(b)}(w)-f^{(b)}(w) e^{(a)}(z).
\end{align}
One may define the quiver Yangian for both symmetric and asymmetric quiver sets. For the symmetric case, the bond factor becomes a homogeneous rational function, and the coefficients of $\psi^{(a)}(z)$ are simplified as
\begin{align}
\psi_{n\leq -2}^{(a)}=0,\quad \psi_{-1}^{(a)}=1, \label{eq:nocpt4cycle}
\end{align}
which gives a usual expansion of $\psi$ generators in the affine Yangian algebras.
The quiver set for Figure \ref{fig:quiver_gl}(a) gives the simplest example of the quiver Yangian. It has one bosonic vertex and the loop constraint gives a constraint,
\begin{equation}
h^{(1)}_{11}+h^{(2)}_{11}+h^{(3)}_{11}=0\,,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to the affine Yangian of $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, if we identify $h^{(a)}_{11}$ with the Nekrasov parameters.
The quiver set for Figure \ref{fig:quiver_gl}(b) has one bosonic and two fermionic vertices. The quiver Yangian for this set gives the affine Yangian of $\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1}$. One may generalize the quiver set to describe $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$. On the other hand, the data set such as Figure \ref{fig:quiver_gl}(c) gives a new family of algebras that may not be related to the Lie superalgebras.
\section{Review: Quantum toroidal \texorpdfstring{$\mathfrak{gl}_1$}{gl1}}\label{sec:quantum_toroidalgl1}
This article aims to study the $q$-deformations of the quiver Yangian. As mentioned in the previous section, the quiver Yangian contains the affine Yangian of $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ as a particular example. It plays a prototype of $q$-deformation, which motivate us to review the basic properties of the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, (sometimes it is referred to also as quantum continuous $\mathfrak{gl}_\infty$ or Ding-Iohara-Miki algebra) \cite{feigin2011quantum,Feigin_2012,Ding:1996mq,Miki2007}.
In this section, we give the definition of the algebra, show the existence of the Hopf-algebra structure, and construct one special vertical representation\footnote{For a comprehensive review, see \cite{Awata_2019} for instance.}. All of these properties have analogs in the quiver quantum toroidal algebra and will be examined later. The readers who are familiar with these materials can skip this section.
\subsection{Definition}
The algebra is defined by two independent parameters. To make it symmetric, we denote the parameters as $q_{1},q_{2},q_{3}$, under the condition $q_{1}q_{2}q_{3}=1$.
The generators of the algebra are
\begin{align}
E(z) = \sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}} E_k z^{-k},\quad F(z) = \sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}} F_k z^{-k},\quad K^\pm (z)=K^\pm \exp\left(\pm \sum_{r=1}^\infty H_{\pm r} z^{\mp r}\right),
\end{align}
and a central element $C$.
$K^-=(K^+)^{-1}$ is also a central element.
The analog of the bond factor $\varphi^{1\Rightarrow 1}(u)$ is
\begin{equation}
\varphi(z,w) = \prod_{i=1}^3 \frac{(q_i^{1/2}z -q_i^{-1/2}w)}{(q_i^{-1/2}z -q_i^{1/2}w)},\label{eq:gzw}
\end{equation}
where we omit the upper index for simplicity.
The degenerate limit to obtain the affine Yangian is to rewrite $q_i=e^{\epsilon h_{11}^{i}}$ and take $\epsilon\to 0$.
Equation (\ref{eq:gzw}) reduces to the bond factor for the quiver set
\ref{fig:quiver_gl}(a) if we write $z=e^{\epsilon x}$ and $w=e^{\epsilon y}$.
The loop condition $h^{(1)}_{11}+h^{(2)}_{11}+h^{(3)}_{11}=0$ corresponds to the multiplicative condition
$q_{1}q_{2}q_{3}=1$.
The defining relations are as follows:
\begin{align}\label{eq:gl1_relations}
\begin{split}
&K^\pm(z) K^\pm(w) = K^\pm(w) K^\pm(z),\\
& K^-(z) K^+(w) = \frac{\varphi(z, Cw)}{\varphi(Cz,w)} K^+(w) K^-(z),\\
& K^\pm (C^{\frac{1\mp 1}{2}}z) E(w)= \varphi(z,w) E(w) K^\pm (C^{\frac{1\mp 1}{2}}z),\\
& K^\pm (C^{\frac{1\pm 1}{2}} z) F(w)=\varphi(z,w)^{-1} F(w) K^\pm (C^{\frac{1\pm 1}{2}} z),\\
& [E(z), F(w)] = \delta\left(C\frac{w}{z}\right)K^+(z)-\delta\left(C\frac{z}{w}\right)K^-(w),\\
& E(z) E(w) = \varphi(z,w) E(w) E(z),\\
& F(z) F(w) =\varphi(z,w)^{-1} F(w) F(z),\\
& [E_0, [E_1, E_{-1}]]=0,\\
& [F_0, [F_1, F_{-1}]]=0,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\delta(z)$ is the delta function
\begin{equation}
\delta(z) = \sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}} z^k.
\end{equation}
The last two equations in (\ref{eq:gl1_relations}) are referred to as Serre relations. Generally, determining these relations for other types of quantum toroidal algebras is difficult, and we will not discuss it from now on.
Except for the modification of the bond factor and the mode expansion of Drinfeld currents, the difference from the affine Yangian of $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ is the existence of the central charge $C$.
Both the generators and the relations depend on $q_1, q_2, q_3$ symmetrically, so this algebra has a triality automorphism of exchanging $q_1, q_2, q_3$. There is $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ duality automorphism, which was found by Miki \cite{Miki2007}. While the former is kept in the degenerate limit, the latter does not exist in the affine Yangian. In this sense, the $q$-deformation makes the algebra more symmetric.
\subsection{Hopf algebra structure}\label{sec:gl1_Hopfstruc}
It is known that quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ has a Hopf algebra structure, which is not so clear in the degenerate limit.
A Hopf algebra $H$ is a bialgebra equipped with a unit $1_{H}$, a counit $\epsilon$, a product $m$, a coproduct $\Delta$ and an antipode satisfying the following properties.
\begin{itemize}
\item $H$ is an associative and coassociative algebra. This implies $m(1\otimes\epsilon )\Delta=m(\epsilon\otimes1)\Delta=1$ and $(\text{id}\otimes \Delta)\Delta=(\Delta\otimes\text{id})\Delta$.
\item The counit $\epsilon:H\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and the coproduct $\Delta:H\rightarrow H\otimes H$ are homomorphisms of the algebra.
\item The unit $1_{H}:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow H$ and the product $m:H\otimes H\rightarrow H$ are homomorphisms of the algebra.
\item The antipode $S:H\rightarrow H$ is an antihomomorphism that obeys $m(S\otimes \text{id})\Delta=\epsilon=m(\text{id}\otimes S)\Delta$.
\end{itemize}
Quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_1$ is equipped with a formal coproduct,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Delta E(z)=E(z)\otimes 1+K^{-}(C_{1}z)\otimes E(C_{1}z),\\
&\Delta F(z)=F(C_{2}z)\otimes K^{+}(C_{2}z)+1\otimes F(z),\\
&\Delta K^{+}(z)=K^{+}(z)\otimes K^{+}(C_{1}^{-1}z),\\
&\Delta K^{-}(z)=K^{-}(C_{2}^{-1}z)\otimes K^{-}(z),\\
&\Delta C=C\otimes C,
\end{split}\label{eq:gl1_coproduct}
\end{align}
where $C_{1}=C\otimes1$ and $C_{2}=1\otimes C$.
We can also define the counit and antipode as,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\epsilon(E(z))=\epsilon(F(z))=0,\\
&\epsilon(K^{\pm}(z))=\epsilon(C)=1,\\
&S(E(z))=-(K^{-}(z))^{-1}E(C^{-1}z),\\
&S(F(z))=-F(C^{-1}z)(K^{+}(z))^{-1},\\
&S(K^{\pm}(z))=(K^{\pm}(Cz))^{-1},\\
&S(C)=C^{-1},
\end{split}\label{eq:gl1_Hopf}
\end{align}
where maps $\Delta$ and $\epsilon$ are extended to algebra homomorphisms, and the map $S$ to an algebra anti-homomorphism, $S(xy)=S(y)S(x)$.
\subsection{Representations}\label{sec:gl1_plane}
The representations of quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_1$ depend on two central elements, $C$ and $K^-$.
Due to Miki duality \cite{Miki2007}, they are dual to each other. The representation for $C=1$ (resp. $C\neq 1$) is referred to as vertical (resp. horizontal). This section reviews the vertical representation where the plane partition labels the basis. The affine Yangian shares this type of representation since $C$ is irrelevant. The plane partition realization gives the simplest example of the crystal melting representation in \cite{Li:2020rij}. In the following, the central element $K^-$ is identified with the central charge $K^{1/2}$ for simplicity.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{figures/planepartition.pdf}
\caption{3d Young diagram as a combination of 2d Young diagrams}
\label{fig:planepartition}
\end{figure}
Plane partition is a set of boxes stacked in a three-dimensional way. Plane partition $\Lambda$ is equivalent to a combination of several Young diagrams $\Lambda^{(k)}$ as in Figure \ref{fig:planepartition},
\begin{equation}
\Lambda=(\Lambda^{(1)}, \Lambda^{(2)}, \Lambda^{(3)}, \cdots).
\end{equation}
If $j<k$, $\Lambda^{(k)}$ is smaller than or equal to $\Lambda^{(j)}$.
We represent the state labeled by plane partitions as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(u, K) = \bigoplus_\Lambda \mathbb{C} \ket{\Lambda},
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda^{(N)}=\emptyset$ if $N$ is large enough.
This state depends on two arbitrary parameters $u$ and $K$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/YLambda.pdf}
\subcaption{$Y_\Lambda$}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/CCLambda.pdf}
\subcaption{$CC(Y_\Lambda)$}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/CVLambda.pdf}
\subcaption{$CV(Y_\Lambda)$}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{A configuration of the plane partition. (a) is the plane partition. (b) is the set of places where we can add boxes and (c) is the set of places where we can remove the boxes.}
\label{fig:box_PP}
\end{figure}
The plane partition is characterized as one kind of the 3d crystal determined by the set of a quiver diagram and loop constraints $Q=(Q_0, Q_1, Q_2)$ in Section \ref{sec:QYreview}.
In the case of the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_1$, $Q$ is given by (\ref{eq:Q012_gl1}).
There are three parameters $q_1, q_2, q_3$ corresponding to the three arrows, and the $q$-deformation of the constraint \ref{eq:QYloopconstr} is $q_1q_2q_3=1$.
Each path (a set of arrows) on the quiver diagram expresses one box on the plane partition.
The three types of arrows correspond to going to the $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-axis directions in the plane partition, respectively. The loop through each of the three types of arrows once means going from the coordinates $(x,y,z)$ to $(x+1,y+1,z+1)$ on the plane partition, which is one step into the interior from the surface of the plane partition.
We give the actions of the algebra to the basis $\ket{\Lambda}$.
$\ket{\Lambda}$ is the eigenstate of $K^+(z)$ and $K^-(z)$:
\begin{align}
K^\pm (z)\ket{\Lambda} &= \psi_\Lambda(u/z) \ket{\Lambda},\\
\psi_\Lambda(u/z) &=\frac{K^{-1/2}-K^{1/2}u/z}{1-u/z}\notag\\
\times &\prod_{(i,j,k)\in Y_\Lambda}\frac{(1-q_1^j q_2^{k-1} q_3^i u/z) (1-q_1^{j-1} q_2^{k} q_3^i u/z) (1-q_1^j q_2^{k} q_3^{i-1} u/z)}{(1-q_1^{j-1} q_2^{k} q_3^{i-1} u/z) (1-q_1^{j-1} q_2^{k-1} q_3^i u/z) (1-q_1^j q_2^{k-1} q_3^{i-1} u/z)},\label{eq:gl1planeK}
\end{align}
where $Y_\Lambda$ is the set of boxes in the plane partition $\Lambda$. We note that the eigenvalue $\psi_{\Lambda}(u/z)$ should be understood as a formal expansion in $z^{\mp1}$ when $K^{\pm}(z)$.
$E(z)$ adds a box to the basis $\ket{\Lambda}$, and the configuration with an additional box also satisfies the condition of the plane partition (see Figure \ref{fig:box_PP}):
\begin{align}
E(z)\ket{\Lambda}&=\frac{1}{1-q_1}\sum_{(i,j,k)\in CC(Y_\Lambda)}
\psi_{\Lambda, i, j, k} \psi_{\Lambda^{(k)}, i}
\delta(q_1^j q_2^k q_3^i u/z) \ket{\Lambda+1_i^{(k)}},\label{eq:gl1planeE}\\
\psi_{\Lambda, i, j, k} &= \prod_{m=1}^{k-1}\psi_{\Lambda^{(m)}}(q_1^{-j}q_2^{m-k-1}q_3^{-i}),\\
\psi_\lambda(z) &= \prod_{l=1}^\infty
\frac{(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-l+1}q_2^{-l+1}q_3/z)(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-l+1}q_2^{-l+2}/z)}{(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-l+1}q_2^{-l+1}/z)(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-l+1}q_2^{-l+2}q_3/z)},\\
\psi_{\lambda, i}&= \prod_{l=1}^{i-1}\frac{(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-\lambda_i} q_3^{l-i+1})(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-\lambda_i-1} q_3^{l-i-1})}{(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-\lambda_i} q_3^{l-i})(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-\lambda_i-1} q_3^{l-i})},
\end{align}
where $CC(Y_\Lambda)$ is the set of places we can add a box keeping the condition of the plane partition, $\ket{\Lambda+1_i^{(k)}}$ means the basis corresponding to the plane partition with an additional box, and $\lambda$ is any Young diagram.
$F(z)$ removes a box from the basis $\ket{\Lambda}$, and the configuration with the box removed also satisfies the condition of the plane partition:
\begin{align}
F(z)\ket{\Lambda}&=\frac{q_1}{1-q_1}\sum_{(i,j,k)\in CV(Y_\Lambda)}
\psi'_{\Lambda, i, j, k} \psi'_{\Lambda^{(k)}, i}
\delta(q_1^j q_2^k q_3^i u/z) \ket{\Lambda-1_i^{(k)}},\label{eq:gl1planeF}\\
\psi'_{\Lambda, i, j, k}&=\lim_{N\to \infty}\prod_{m=k+1}^N \psi_{\Lambda^{(m)}}(q_1^{-j}q_2^{m-k-2}q_3^{-i})\times \frac{K^{-1/2}-K^{1/2}q_1^{-j} q_2^{-k-1} q_3^{-i}}{1-q_1^{-j} q_2^{N-k-1} q_3^{-i}},\\
\psi'_{\lambda, i}&=\frac{1-q_1^{\lambda_{i+1}-\lambda_i}}{1-q_1^{\lambda_{i+1}-\lambda_i+1}q_3}
\prod_{l=i+1}^\infty \frac{(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-\lambda_i+1}q_3^{l-i+1})(1-q_1^{\lambda_{l+1}-\lambda_i}q_3^{l-i})}{(1-q_1^{\lambda_{l+1}-\lambda_i+1}q_3^{l-i+1})(1-q_1^{\lambda_l-\lambda_i}q_3^{l-i})},
\end{align}
where $CV(Y_\Lambda)$ is the set of places we can remove a box keeping the condition of the plane partition.
\section{Quiver Quantum Toroidal Algebra}\label{sec:Algebra}
In this section, we define the quiver quantum toroidal algebra (QQTA) $\ddot{\mathcal{U}}_{(Q,W)}$ and summarize its general properties.
In section \ref{sec:defining_relations}, we give the definition of the algebra and show that it is a natural generalization of the quiver Yangian. In section \ref{sec:associativity} and \ref{sec:Hopf_structure}, we give consistency checks. We show the algebra is an associative algebra and that it has a Hopf superalgebra structure. This Hopf superalgebra structure, especially the coproduct structure, is a property that is not obvious in the quiver Yangian case and will be essential in deriving representations.
\subsection{Conventions}
We define QQTA as a $q$-deformation of the quiver Yangian as the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ reviewed in the previous section.
It shares the same quiver data as defined in section \ref{sec:quiver-data}
but the bond factor is modified.
We use the same notation of the quiver set in section \ref{sec:quiver-data},
$Q=(Q_{0},Q_{1},Q_{2})$, where $Q_{0}$ is a set of vertices, $Q_{1}$ is a set of arrows between two vertices, and $Q_2$ is a set of closed loops by combining the arrows in $Q_1$. The following notation is used:
\begin{align}
Q_{0}=\{i\}_{i\in Q_{0}},\quad Q_{1}=\{I\}_{I\in Q_{1}},\quad Q_2=\{L\}_{L\in Q_2},
\end{align}
namely $i,j,..$ are used to label vertices and $I,J,..$ are used to label arrows of the quiver diagram.
The starting vertex and the ending vertex of the arrow $I$ are denoted by $s(I)$ and $t(I)$, respectively.
A parameter $q_{I}\in \mathbb{C}$ is associated with each arrow $I$ in $Q_1$, which replaces the parameters $h_{I}$ for the quiver Yangian.
For the quiver quantum toroidal algebra, (\ref{eq:QYloopconstr}) is replaced by:
\begin{screen}
\begin{align}
\text{loop constraint:}\quad \prod_{I\in L}q_{I}=1,\label{eq:loop_cond}
\end{align}
\end{screen}
for each $L\in Q_2$.
As in the quiver Yangian, not all of the loops in $Q_{2}$ are independent, and the number of the independent conditions will be $|Q_{2}|-1$.
The analog of the vertex constraint will be discussed later (\ref{eq:vertexconstraint}).
\subsection{Generators and Defining Relations}\label{sec:defining_relations}
The QQTA $\ddot{\mathcal{U}}_{(Q,W)}$ is generated by $E_{i,k},F_{i,k},H_{i,r}$, and invertible elements $K_{i},C$, where $i\in Q_{0},k\in\mathbb{Z},r\in\mathbb{Z}^{\times}$
The Drinfeld currents are defined by,
\begin{align}
E_{i}(z)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}E_{i,k}z^{-k},\quad F_{i}(z)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}F_{i,k}z^{-k},\quad K_{i}^{\pm}(z)=K_{i}^{\pm1}\exp\left(\pm\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}H_{i,\pm r}z^{\mp r}\right).\label{eq:QQTAgenerator}
\end{align}
The generator associated with the bosonic (resp. fermionic) vertex in $Q_0$ are regarded as the bosonic (resp. fermionic) operator.
The QQTA operator algebra is given as follows:
\begin{screen}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
K_{i}K_{i}^{-1}&=K_{i}^{-1}K_{i}=1,\\
C^{-1}C&=CC^{-1}=1,\\
K_{i}^{\pm}(z)K_{j}^{\pm}(w)&=K_{j}^{\pm}(w)K_{i}^{\pm}(z),\\
K_{i}^{-}(z)K_{j}^{+}(w)&=\frac{\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,Cw)}{\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(Cz,w)}K_{j}^{+}(w)K_{i}^{-}(z),\\
K_{i}^{\pm}(C^{\frac{1\mp1}{2}}z)E_{j}(w)&=\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)K_{i}^{\pm}(C^{\frac{1\mp1}{2}}z),\\
K_{i}^{\pm}(C^{\frac{1\pm1}{2}}z)F_{j}(w)&=\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)^{-1}F_{j}(w)K_{i}^{\pm}(C^{\frac{1\pm1}{2}}z),\\
[E_{i}(z),F_{j}(w)]=\delta_{i,j}&\left(\delta\left(\frac{Cw}{z}\right)K_{i}^{+}(z)-\delta\left(\frac{Cz}{w}\right)K_{i}^{-}(w)\right),\\
E_{i}(z)E_{j}(w)&=(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)E_{i}(z),\\
F_{i}(z)F_{j}(w)&=(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)^{-1}F_{j}(w)F_{i}(z),
\end{split}\label{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}
\end{align}
\end{screen}
The commutator above must be understood in the usual superalgebra sense. When both operators are fermionic, it is an anti-commutator. Otherwise, it is a commutator.
The bond factor $\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)$ is defined to be
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)=\frac{\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}(q_{I}^{1/2}z-q_{I}^{-1/2}w)}{\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}(q_{I}^{-1/2}z-q_{I}^{1/2}w)}=\frac{\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}\phi(q_{I};z,w)}{\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}\phi(q_{I}^{-1};z,w)},\label{eq:defstruc}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\phi(p;z,w)=p^{1/2}z-p^{-1/2}w.
\end{align}
When there are no arrows between the two vertices the bond factor is trivial:
\begin{equation}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)=1.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Properties of bond factors}
The bond factor (\ref{eq:defstruc}) has the following property:
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(az,w)=a^{|j\rightarrow i|-|i\rightarrow j|}\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,a^{-1}w).\label{eq:no4cycle_bondfactor_symmetry}
\end{align}
For the symmetric quiver set, this becomes $\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(az,w)=\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,a^{-1}w)$.
We note that the above operator algebras should be understood as the relations between the coefficients of the formal power expansion in $z$ and $w$.
For example, the right-hand side of the $K^{+}E$ relation should be understood as the expansion in terms $z^{-1}$ since $K^{+}_{i}(z)$ is expanded in that way. The expansion of the bond factor should be computed by
$\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)=\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(1,w/z)$
for the symmetric quiver set,
and the order of $z$ of both sides matches.
For the asymmetric case, such a simplification does not hold, and we must carefully interpret the defining relations. In this paper, we will focus on the symmetric case.
We expect that the quiver quantum toroidal algebra defined above becomes the quiver Yangian in the degenerate limit. One piece of evidence is obtained by comparing the bond factors.
The relation between the parameters $\{q_{I}\}$ and the parameters $\{h_{I}\}$ in section \ref{sec:QYreview} or \cite{Li:2020rij} is
\begin{equation}
q_{I}=e^{\epsilon h_{I}},\label{eq:param_exp}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal parameter.
The spectral parameters $z$ and $w$ can be written
\begin{equation}
z=e^{\epsilon x},\quad w=e^{\epsilon y}.
\end{equation}
In the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, using $q_{I}\sim 1+\epsilon h_{I}$, $z\sim 1+\epsilon x$ and $w\sim 1+\epsilon y$ we obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)&=\frac{\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}(q_{I}^{1/2}z-q_{I}^{-1/2}w)}{\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}(q_{I}^{-1/2}z-q_{I}^{1/2}w)}\\
&\sim \frac{\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}(x-y+h_{I})}{\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}(x-y-h_{I})},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the right-hand side of the last equation is (\ref{eq:QYbondfactor}).
In this sense, the QQTA may be regarded as a $q$-deformation of the quiver Yangian.
\paragraph{Mode expansions and central element}
The algebra above has an additional central element. Some of the defining relations (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}) can be written as follows:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
K_{i}K_{j}&=K_{j}K_{i},\\
[H_{i,r},H_{j,s}]&=\delta_{r+s,0}\frac{C^{r}-C^{-r}}{r}(\sum_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}q_{I}^{r}-\sum_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}q_{I}^{-r}),\\
K_{i}E_{j}(w)K_{i}^{-1}&=\prod_{\substack{I\in\{i\rightarrow j \}\\ J\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}}q_{I}^{1/2}q_{J}^{1/2}E_{j}(w),\quad \quad K_{i}F_{j}(w)K_{i}^{-1}=\prod_{\substack{I\in\{i\rightarrow j \}\\ J\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}}q_{I}^{-1/2}q_{J}^{-1/2}F_{j}(w),\\
[H_{i,r},E_{j}(z)]&=\frac{C^{(r-|r|)/2}z^{r}}{r}(\sum_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}q_{I}^{r}-\sum_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}q_{I}^{-r})E_{j}(z),\\
[H_{i,r},F_{j}(z)]&=-\frac{C^{(r+|r|)/2}z^{r}}{r}(\sum_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}q_{I}^{r}-\sum_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}q_{I}^{-r})F_{j}(z).
\end{split}\label{eq:modeexp}
\end{align}
We can define a central element as
\begin{align}
\kappa\equiv\prod_{i\in Q_{0}}K_{i}^{-1}.\label{eq:centralelement}
\end{align}
This element indeed commutes with the other generators. For instance, one obtains the following commutation relations from (\ref{eq:modeexp}):
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\kappa^{-1} E_{j}(z)\kappa=\prod_{i\in Q_{0}}\prod_{\substack{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}\\J\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}}q_{I}^{1/2}q_{J}^{1/2} E_{j}(z)=\prod_{I\in j}q_{I}^{1/2}E_{j}(z),\\
&\kappa^{-1} F_{j}(z)\kappa=\prod_{i\in Q_{0}}\prod_{\substack{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}\\J\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}}q_{I}^{-1/2}q_{J}^{-1/2} E_{j}(z)=\prod_{I\in j}q_{I}^{-1/2}F_{j}(z),
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\prod_{I\in j}$ means the product of all arrows going in or out of vertex $j$.
The condition for $\kappa$ to commute with the generators is
\begin{align}
\prod_{I\in j}q_{I}=1.
\end{align}
This is automatically satisfied from the loop condition (\ref{eq:loop_cond}) for the symmetric quiver set.
\paragraph{Serre relations}
The above algebra should be equipped with a set of Serre relations. This is the same situation as the quiver Yangian case. Serre relations for quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1},\mathfrak{gl}_{n}$, and $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$ are already known (see for instance, \cite{feigin2011quantum,feigin2013representations,bezerra2019quantum}). There are some discussions in \cite{Li:2020rij} for the quiver Yangian case, but it remains as an open issue. In this paper, we do not touch the Serre relations.
\subsection{Associativity}\label{sec:associativity}
In this subsection, we check the consistency of the defining relations (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}).
One of the consistency conditions of the algebra is the associativity. It becomes nontrivial when both $E_{i}(z)$ and $F_{j}(z)$ are included. We consider the product $E_{i}(x)E_{j}(y)F_{k}(z)$ and use the defining relations (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}) in two different orders:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&E_{i}(x)(E_{j}(y)F_{k}(z))\\
=&E_{i}(x)\left\{(-1)^{|j||k|}F_{k}(z)E_{j}(y)+\delta_{i,j}\left(\delta\left(\frac{Cz}{y}\right)K_{j}^{+}(y)-\delta\left(\frac{Cy}{z}\right)K_{j}^{-}(z)\right) \right\}\\
=&(-1)^{|j||k|}\left\{(-1)^{|j||k|}F_{k}(z)E_{i}(x)E_{j}(y)+\delta_{i,k}\left(\delta\left(\frac{Cz}{x}\right)K_{i}^{+}(z)-\delta\left(\frac{Cx}{z}\right)K_{i}^{-}(z)\right)E_{j}(y) \right\}\\
&+\delta_{jk}\left(\delta\left(\frac{Cz}{y}\right)E_{i}(x)K_{j}^{+}(y)-\delta\left(\frac{Cy}{z}\right)E_{i}(x)K_{j}^{-}(z)\right)\\
=&(-1)^{|i||j|+|i||k|+|j||k|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(x,y)F_{k}(z)E_{j}(y)E_{i}(x)\\
&+(-1)^{|j||k|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(x,y)\delta_{i,k}\left(\delta\left(\frac{Cz}{x}\right)E_{j}(y)K_{i}^{+}(x)-\delta\left(\frac{Cx}{z}\right)E_{j}(y)K_{i}^{-}(Cx)\right)\\
&+\delta_{j,k}\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(y,x)^{-1}\left( \delta\left(\frac{Cz}{y}\right)K_{j}^{+}(y)E_{i}(x)-\delta\left(\frac{Cy}{z}\right)K_{i}^{-}(Cx)E_{j}(y)\right)
\end{split}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&(E_{i}(x)E_{j}(y))F_{k}(z)\\
=&(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(x,y)E_{j}(y)(E_{i}(x)F_{k}(z))\\
=&(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(x,y)E_{j}(y)\left\{(-1)^{|j||k|}F_{k}(z)E_{i}(x)+\delta_{i,k}\left(\delta\left(\frac{Cz}{x}\right)K_{i}^{+}(z)-\delta\left(\frac{Cx}{z}\right)K_{i}^{-}(z) \right) \right\}\\
=&(-1)^{|i||j|+|i||k|+|j||k|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(x,y)F_{k}(z)E_{j}(y)E_{i}(x)\\
&+(-1)^{|j||i|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(x,y)\delta_{i,k}\left(\delta\left(\frac{Cz}{x}\right)E_{j}(y)K_{i}^{+}(x)-\delta\left(\frac{Cx}{z}\right)E_{j}(y)K_{i}^{-}(Cx)\right)\\
&+\delta_{j,k}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(x,y)\left( \delta\left(\frac{Cz}{y}\right)K_{j}^{+}(y)E_{i}(x)-\delta\left(\frac{Cy}{z}\right)K_{i}^{-}(Cx)E_{j}(y)\right)
\end{split}
\end{align}
Therefore the condition for associativity is
\begin{align}
\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(x,y)\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(y,x)=1.\label{eq:assoc}
\end{align}
Other cases can be done in the same way and we obtain the same condition.
Inserting the definition of the bond factor (\ref{eq:defstruc}), we obtain
\begin{align}
\frac{\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}(q_{I}^{1/2}x-q_{I}^{-1/2}y)}{\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}(q_{I}^{-1/2}x-q_{I}^{1/2}y)}\frac{\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}(q_{I}^{1/2}y-q_{I}^{-1/2}x)}{\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}(q_{I}^{-1/2}y-q_{I}^{1/2}x)}=(-1)^{|j\rightarrow i|+|i\rightarrow j|}=1.\label{eq:assoc_no4cycle}
\end{align}
This condition holds automatically for the symmetric case. For the asymmetric case, the associativity condition depends whether the factor $|j\rightarrow i|+|i\rightarrow j|$ is even or not. This only affects a subclass of the toric Calabi-Yau three-folds including compact 4-cycles. One way to resolve this problem is to add a minus factor to the bond factor (see section \ref{sec:cpt4cycle}).\footnote{See also the footnote on page 18 of the v3 of \cite{Li:2020rij}.} In this paper, we will focus only on the symmetric quiver case.
\subsection{Hopf superalgebra structure}\label{sec:Hopf_structure}
The algebra (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}) has a Hopf superalgebra structure as in section \ref{sec:gl1_Hopfstruc}, which is a property we do not have for the quiver Yangian case.
If the algebra is a superalgebra we have to give a $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ grading to the algebra and define the mappings properly in section \ref{sec:gl1_Hopfstruc}.
For example, multiplication $m$ for elements of tensor products must be defined as
\begin{align}
m\left((x\otimes y), (z\otimes w)\right)=(-1)^{|y||z|}xz\otimes yw.
\end{align}
Using this, we can check that the algebra (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}) is equipped with a formal coproduct:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Delta E_{i}(z)=E_{i}(z)\otimes 1+K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}z)\otimes E_{i}(C_{1}z),\\
&\Delta F_{i}(z)=F_{i}(C_{2}z)\otimes K_{i}^{+}(C_{2}z)+1\otimes F_{i}(z),\\
&\Delta K_{i}^{+}(z)=K_{i}^{+}(z)\otimes K_{i}^{+}(C_{1}^{-1}z),\\
&\Delta K_{i}^{-}(z)=K_{i}^{-}(C_{2}^{-1}z)\otimes K_{i}^{-}(z),\\
&\Delta C=C\otimes C,
\end{split}\label{eq:coproduct}
\end{align}
where $C_{1}=C\otimes1$ and $C_{2}=1\otimes C$.
We can also define the counit and antipode as,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\epsilon(E_{i}(z))=\epsilon(F_{i}(z))=0,\\
&\epsilon(K_{i}^{\pm}(z))=\epsilon(C)=1,\\
&S(E_{i}(z))=-(K_{i}^{-}(z))^{-1}E_{i}(C^{-1}z),\\
&S(F_{i}(z))=-F_{i}(C^{-1}z)(K_{i}^{+}(z))^{-1},\\
&S(K_{i}^{\pm}(z))=(K_{i}^{\pm}(Cz))^{-1},\\
&S(C)=C^{-1},
\end{split}\label{eq:Hopf}
\end{align}
where maps $\Delta$ and $\epsilon$ are extended to algebra homomorphisms, and the map $S$ to a superalgebra anti-homomorphism, $S(xy)=(-1)^{|x||y|}S(y)S(x)$. One can check that (\ref{eq:coproduct}) and (\ref{eq:Hopf}) are well defined for the symmetric case by direct calculation.
In the later sections, we will give a bottom-up approach and construct the algebra by looking at the action on three-dimensional BPS crystals, which means they are representations of the algebra with the central charge $C=1$. Although the existence of $C$ and where it enters in the defining relations are still conjectures, since the algebra defined above has a Hopf superalgebra structure, we expect this algebra still has a meaning. Deriving the algebra, including the central charge $C$ from general discussions, will be postponed for future work.
\subsection{Symmetries}\label{sec:symmetry}
We list down some general symmetries of the algebra. Using these symmetries, we will see we can impose additional conditions on the parameters assigned to the arrows of the quiver diagram.
\subsubsection{Rescaling symmetry of spectral parameter }
One can rescale the spectral parameter by an overall constant:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&z\rightarrow z'=az,\\
&E_{i}(z)\rightarrow E_{i}'(z)=E_{i}(z'),\\
&F_{i}(z)\rightarrow F_{i}'(z)=F_{i}(z'),\\
&K_{i}^{\pm}(z)\rightarrow {K'_{i}}^{\pm}(z)=K_{i}^{\pm}(z').
\end{split}\label{eq:rescalesymm}
\end{align}
This transformation does not change the algebra and gives an automorphism. Under this transformation, the bond factors transform as
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(az,aw)=\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w),
\end{align}
which holds for the symmetric quiver set.
In terms of mode generators, the symmetry is
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
E'_{i,k}=a^{-k}E_{i,k},\\
F'_{i,k}=a^{-k}F_{i,k},\\
H_{i,\pm r}=a^{\mp r}H_{i,\pm r}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Gauge symmetry shift}
We also have an analog of ``gauge symmetry'' in \cite{Li:2020rij}. For each vertex, we rescale the parameters $q_{I}$ as
\begin{align}
q_{I}\rightarrow q_{I}'=q_{I}p_{i}^{\text{sign}_{i}(I)}
\end{align}\label{eq:gaugetransf}
where
\begin{displaymath}
\text{sign}_{i}(I)\equiv
\begin{dcases}
+1\quad(s(I)=i,\quad t(I)\neq i),\\
-1\quad(s(I)\neq i,\quad t(I)= i),\\
0\quad(\text{otherwise})
\end{dcases}
\end{displaymath}
and $p_{i}$ are arbitrary parameters associated to each vertex. We can see this is indeed a symmetry using the rescaling symmetry of the spectral parameters. We consider the case only when we use this gauge transformation on one vertex $i$. The $q_{I}$ dependent part is the bond factor $\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)$. We divide the bond factors into nonzero mode part and zero mode part as
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)=\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}q_{I}^{1/2}\prod_{J\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}q_{J}^{1/2}\frac{\prod_{\{j\rightarrow i\}}\left(1-q_{I}^{-1}\frac{w}{z}\right)}{\prod_{\{i\rightarrow j\}}\left(1-q_{I}\frac{w}{z}\right)}.
\end{align}
Under (\ref{eq:gaugetransf}) the zero mode part changes as
\begin{align}
\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}{q'_{I}}^{1/2}\prod_{J\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}{q'_{J}}^{1/2}=\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}q_{I}^{1/2}\prod_{J\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}q_{J}^{1/2}.
\end{align}
When $s(I)=t(I)=i$, it is trivial and when $s(I)\neq t(I)$, we get
\begin{align}
\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}{q'_{I}}^{1/2}=\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}q_{I}^{1/2}\prod_{I\in \{j\rightarrow i\}}p_{i}^{-1}\label{eq:vertexconstr_cpt4cond_1}\\
\prod_{J\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}{q'_{J}}^{1/2}=\prod_{J\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}q_{J}^{1/2}\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}p_{i}^{+1}.\label{eq:vertexconstr_cpt4cond_2}
\end{align}
Since we are considering the symmetric case, $|i\rightarrow j|=|j\rightarrow i|$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\prod_{I\in \{j\rightarrow i\}}p_{i}^{-1}\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}p_{i}^{+1}=1.\label{eq:vertexconstr_cpt4cond_3}
\end{align}
The nonzero mode part changes as
\begin{align}
\frac{\prod_{\{j\rightarrow i\}}\left(1-{q'_{I}}^{-1}\frac{w}{z}\right)}{\prod_{\{i\rightarrow j\}}\left(1-{q'_{I}}\frac{w}{z}\right)}=\frac{\prod_{\{j\rightarrow i\}}\left(1-{q_{I}}^{-1}p_{i}\frac{w}{z}\right)}{\prod_{\{i\rightarrow j\}}\left(1-{q_{I}}p_{i}\frac{w}{z}\right)}.
\end{align}
These bond factors enter in the defining relations including the generators $E_{i}(z)$, $F_{i}(z)$ and $K_{i}^{\pm}(z)$. Using (\ref{eq:gaugetransf})
we can redefine these generators associated to vertex $i$ by rescaling the spectral parameter.
For example, the defining relation
\begin{align}
E_{i}(z)E_{j}(w)=(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)E_{i}(z)
\end{align}
will become
\begin{align}
E_{i}(z)E_{j}(w)=(-1)^{|i||j|}\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}q_{I}^{1/2}\prod_{J\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}q_{J}^{1/2}\frac{\prod_{\{i\rightarrow j\}}\left(1-q_{I}^{-1}p_{i}^{-1}\frac{w}{z}\right)}{\prod_{\{j\rightarrow i\}}\left(1-q_{I}p_{i}^{-1}\frac{w}{z}\right)}E_{j}(w)E_{i}(z)
\end{align}
under transformation
and by setting $E'_{i}(z)=E_{i}(p_{i}^{-1}z)$ we obtain the same EE relation:
\begin{align}
E'_{i}(z)E_{j}(w)=(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)E'_{i}(z).
\end{align}
We can eliminate this gauge symmetry by imposing gauge fixing conditions such as
\begin{screen}
\begin{align}
\text{vertex constraint:}\quad \prod_{I\in Q_{1}(i)}q_{I}^{\text{sign}_{i}(I)}=1.\label{eq:vertexconstraint}
\end{align}
\end{screen}
One can obtain the same constraint by using (\ref{eq:param_exp}) and (\ref{eq:QYvertexconstr}), namely, by exponentiating the vertex constraint of the quiver Yangian.
In this paper, we will always impose this condition. By similar discussions as in \cite{Li:2020rij}, we can see that after imposing (\ref{eq:loop_cond}) and (\ref{eq:vertexconstraint}) we only have two independent parameters.
\section{Bootstrapping Quiver Quantum Toroidal Algebras when \texorpdfstring{$C=1$}{C=1}}\label{sec:bootstrap}
In this section, we bootstrap the algebras (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}) when $C=1$ following the strategy of \cite{Li:2020rij} by assuming that the algebras act on the three-dimensional BPS crystals of \cite{Ooguri_2009}.\footnote{We give a brief review of the toric diagram and the associated BPS crystal in appendix \ref{sec:3d_crystal} to make the paper self-contained.} These will be representations of (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}) after setting $C=1$. One can see from (\ref{eq:modeexp}) that when $C=1$, $H_{i,r}$ commutes with each other, and $K_{i}(z)\; (i\in Q_{0})$ become simultaneously diagonalizable in this representation. We restrict the discussion to the symmetric quiver set.
The basic strategy in \cite{Li:2020rij} is the following four steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Give an ansatz on the action of the generators on the basis labeled by the three-dimensional crystals. The ansatz is based on three pieces of fundamental information: the pole structure, the moduli of coefficients, and signs of the coefficients. The first two will be determined by the charge function, and the last one will be determined after the algebra is fixed.
\item Determine the charge function from the quiver diagram by using the ansatz above. The moduli of coefficients will be determined in this process.
\item Fix the algebra from the quiver data and the ansatz above. The statistics of the operators will be determined in this process.
\item Fix the signs from the statistics of the algebra.
\end{enumerate}
The essential part of this representation is the eigenvalue of the generators $K^{\pm}_{i}(z)$. We derive the charge functions in section \ref{sec:ansatz}, \ref{sec:coordinate_function}, and \ref{sec:charge_function}. The defining relations of EE and EF are discussed in section \ref{sec:EE,EFrelation}. Other defining relations are in appendix \ref{sec:appendix_bootstrapp}. In section \ref{sec:cpt4cycle}, we summarize where we use the condition of the symmetric quiver set to illuminate the future analysis of the asymmetric case and give some comments.
\subsection{3d crystal}
We construct a 3d crystal from a quiver diagram and loop constraints based on \cite{Ooguri_2009}, which generalizes the plane partition for $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$.
First, we extend the quiver diagram to the periodic quiver diagram by using the loop constraints.
By duplicating the vertices, we create a diagram with up to one arrow between each pair of vertices.
From the quiver diagram alone, there are many ways to do such extension, but we can determine uniquely by requiring each loop constraint to be a loop on the periodic quiver.
This is the same as the brane tiling with vertices connected in Appendix \ref{sec:3d_crystal}.
For example, the periodic quiver diagram of $\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1}$ corresponding to Figure \ref{fig:quiver_gl}(b) is shown in Figure \ref{fig:gl21_periodic}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{figures/gl21_periodic.pdf}
\caption{Periodic quiver diagram for $\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1}$. We can determine it from the quiver diagram and $Q_2$ by requiring each loop in $Q_2$ to be a loop on the periodic quiver. In this example, $Q_2$ consists of $1\to 1\to 3\to 1$, $1\to 2\to 3\to 2\to 1$, $1\to 1\to 2\to 1$, $1\to 3\to 2\to 3\to 1$.}
\label{fig:gl21_periodic}
\end{figure}
We choose a vertex on the periodic quiver diagram and set it as the origin. The 3d crystal consists of ``atoms" where each atom corresponds to a family of paths from the origin to a point in 3d crystal.
We use the following relation for the identification of paths.
\begin{itemize}
\item F-term relations:
In the periodic quiver diagram, two loops with one common arrow are identified.
\end{itemize}
One can prove that the arbitrary paths from the origin to a point can be identified with the following special path
\begin{equation}
p=p_0 \omega^n,
\end{equation}
where $p_0$ is the shortest path from the start point of $p$ to the endpoint of $p$, $\omega$ is one of the arbitrary elements in $Q_2$, and $n$ is the number of loops.
For example, the blue paths in Figure \ref{fig:gl21_fterm} are identified by the F-term relation applied to a path $3\to 1$.
The path on the right figure consists of the red shortest path plus one loop.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{figures/gl21_fterm.pdf}
\caption{Identification on periodic quiver diagrams. The red path is the shortest path connecting such two points. The two blue paths are identified by the F-term relation, and they are the red shortest path plus one loop.}
\label{fig:gl21_fterm}
\end{figure}
We note that the shortest path from the origin to any point on the periodic lattice is unique.
It implies that each atom is specified by a point on the periodic lattice and a non-negative integer $n$. We define the set of atoms with $n=0$ as the surface of the 3d crystal.
The non-negative number $n$ measures the distance from the surface, and we call it the depth in the 3d crystal.
The red, blue, and green atoms in the left of Figure \ref{fig:gl21_depth} correspond to the red path in Figure \ref{fig:gl21_fterm}, the blue path in Figure \ref{fig:gl21_fterm}, and the green path in the right of Figure \ref{fig:gl21_depth}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/gl21_depth.pdf}
\subcaption{Depth of some atoms}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{figures/gl21_2loop.pdf}
\subcaption{A path with three loops}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Depth of atoms in a 3d crystal and the number of loops in periodic quiver diagram. The colors in (a) corresponds to those of loops in Figures \ref{fig:gl21_fterm} and \ref{fig:gl21_depth} (b).}
\label{fig:gl21_depth}
\end{figure}
One can find other illuminating figures of the 3d crystal in \cite{Ooguri_2009,Li:2020rij}.
Finally we mention some differences from the plane partition which corresponds to $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$. In the plane partition case, the periodic quiver diagram consists of a single vertex ``1" and it is connected by three arrows. The surface of 3d crystal is identified with the points $(m_1, m_2, m_3)$ ($m_1, m_2, m_3\geq 0$) with one of $m_i$ vanishes. Two points $(m_1, m_2, m_3)$ and $(m_1+n, m_2+n, m_3+n)$ are connected by $n$ loops $1\xrightarrow{1}1 \xrightarrow{2}1 \xrightarrow{3}1$. By definition, every neighboring boxes (atoms) are connected by arrows.
In the case of the 3d crystal for $\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1}$, each atom has color $1,2,3$. Moreover, the neighboring atoms may not be connected by bonds. See Figure \ref{fig:gl21_surface} which illustrates the atoms on the surface.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/gl21_surface.pdf}
\caption{The surface of the 3d crystal for $\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1}$. Light blue arrows express bonds between atoms, and we can see they are different from the plane partition.}
\label{fig:gl21_surface}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ansatz for Representation}\label{sec:ansatz}
We use $\Lambda$ to label a three-dimensional crystal configuration. The ansatz is a generalization of the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ plane partition representation in (\ref{eq:gl1planeK}), (\ref{eq:gl1planeE}), and (\ref{eq:gl1planeF}).
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&K_{i}^{\pm}(z)\ket{\Lambda}=[\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)]_{\pm}\ket{\Lambda},\\
&E_{i}(z)\ket{\Lambda}=\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Add}(\Lambda)}E^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$})\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\ket{\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}},\\
&F_{i}(z)\ket{\Lambda}=\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Rem}(\Lambda)}F^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda-\fbox{$i$})\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{i})}\right)\ket{\Lambda-\fbox{$i$}},\label{eq:ansatz}
\end{split}
\end{align}for $i=1,...|Q_{0}|$, where
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&E^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$})=\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$})\sqrt{p^{(i)}\underset{x=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(x,u)},\\
&F^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda-\fbox{$i$})=\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda-\fbox{$i$})\sqrt{q^{(i)}\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(y,u)},\\
&\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$})=\pm 1,\quad\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda-\fbox{$i$})=\pm 1.
\end{split}\label{eq:ansatzcoefficient}
\end{align}
We note here $[f(z)]_{\pm}$ means formal expansion of $f(z)$ in $z^{\mp}$. We also emphasis that the residue (denoted as $\Res$) here slightly differs from the normal definition. For a rational function $f(z)$ , the residue\footnote{For example, when $f(z)=\frac{z-b}{z-a}$, $[f(z)]_{+}=\frac{1-b/z}{1-a/z}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(1-\frac{b}{z})(\frac{a}{z})^{n}$ and $[f(z)]_{-}=\frac{z-b}{z-a}=\frac{b}{a}(1-\frac{b}{z})\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{(\frac{z}{a})^{n}}$, so $[f(z)]_{+}-[f(z)]_{-}=(1-\frac{b}{a})\delta\left(\frac{z}{a}\right)$ and $\underset{z=a}{\Res}f(z)=1-\frac{b}{a}$. The relation between this residue and the normal residue is $\frac{1}{z}{\underset{z=a}{\Res}}^{\text{normal}}f(z)\delta\left(\frac{z}{a}\right)=\underset{z=a}{\Res}^{\text{here}}f(z)\delta\left(\frac{z}{a}\right)$.} is defined as the coefficient of the delta function,
\begin{align}
\sum_{a\in\text{Poles of $f(z)$}}\underset{z=a}{\Res} f(z)\delta(\frac{z}{a})\equiv[f(z)]_{+}-[f(z)]_{-}.\label{eq:residue}
\end{align}
The ansatz (\ref{eq:ansatz}) and (\ref{eq:ansatzcoefficient}) can be understood in the following way.
$K_{i}^{\pm}(z)$ acts diagonally on the three-dimensional crystal configurations and $\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)$ is the eigenvalue, which means this representation is a vertical representation. On the other hand, $E_{i}(z)$ adds an atom of color $i$ where it can be added to the crystal, and $F_{i}(z)$ removes an atom of color $i$ where it can be removed from the crystal. Add($\Lambda$) is the set of atoms which can be added to the configuration $\Lambda$, while Rem($\Lambda$) is the set of atoms which can be removed from the configuration $\Lambda$. The charge functions $\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)$ determine the pole structure of the algebra. The poles of $\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)$ are either the position where the atoms can be added or be removed. The coefficients $E^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda+\fbox{$i$})$ and $F^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda-\fbox{$i$})$ should show this structure and that is the reason why they are proportional to the residue of the poles. It will be shown later that $p^{(i)}q^{(i)}=\pm1$ and hence we can put $q^{(i)}=1$. We will eventually see that $p^{(i)}$ is related to the statistics of the operators $E^{(i)}(z)$ and $F^{(i)}(z)$.
\subsection{Coordinate function}\label{sec:coordinate_function}
Fix the origin $\mathfrak{o}$ and define the coordinate of \fbox{$i$} as the path from the origin. In the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ case, this is simply the three-dimensional coordinates of the atom. For general crystals, there are no three-dimensional coordinates, but we can define the coordinate to be the path from the origin in the periodic quiver. In the quiver Yangian case, this was defined as
\begin{align}
h(\fbox{$i$})\equiv \sum_{I\in\text{path}[\mathfrak{o}\rightarrow \fbox{$i$}]}h_{I},
\end{align}
namely, the coordinate function for \fbox{$i$} is the sum of all charges along the path from the origin.
For the quantum toroidal version, the coordinates can be defined by changing the sum to product as
\begin{align}
q(\fbox{$i$})\equiv\prod_{I\in\text{path}[\mathfrak{o}\rightarrow \fbox{$i$}]}q_{I}.
\end{align}
This can be understood as exponentiating the coordinates of the quiver Yangian case (see (\ref{eq:param_exp})).
We note that the loop condition (\ref{eq:loop_cond}) implies that the coordinate function does not depend on the different choice of paths and assigns a unique value to each atom.
In the quantum toroidal case, we can introduce a spectral parameter $u$ to the representation. From now on, the coordinates will be set as \begin{align}z=uq(\fbox{$i$}).\end{align} Using the rescaling symmetry (\ref{eq:rescalesymm}), we can eliminate this and set $u=1$, but we leave it as a generic value.
\subsection{Charge function}\label{sec:charge_function}
Following the degenerate case, we can give the following ansatz for the charge function $\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)$,
\begin{align}
\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)=\psi_{\emptyset}^{(i)}(z,u)\prod_{j\in Q_{0}}\prod_{\fbox{$j$}\in\Lambda}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$})),\label{eq:chargefunction}
\end{align}
where $\psi_{\emptyset}^{(i)}(z,u)$ is the vacuum charge. Each atom with color $j$ in the configuration $\Lambda$ gives a contribution factor $\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$}))$ to the charge function of color $i$. To determine the charge function, the basic principle is that the poles of the charge function is either the position where we can add an atom or the position where we can remove an atom. We note that the atoms should satisfy the melting rule of the crystal, and this is ensured under the loop condition (\ref{eq:loop_cond}) (see \cite{Li:2020rij} and \cite{Ooguri_2009} for the melting rule). The charge function can be obtained by considering the action of the algebra on low levels\footnote{Level N means we have N atoms in the crystal configuration.} as in \cite{Li:2020rij}, but we reproduce the discussion here to make it self-contained.
\subsubsection{Vacuum to Level 1}
The first atom is in the origin $\mathfrak{o}$ and the coordinate is $q(\fbox{$i$})=1$. We assume the color of the atom in the origin to be $1$. Since the poles of the charge function is either the place of addable atoms or the place of removable atoms, the pole of the vacuum charge is $z=u$ (note that we introduced a spectral parameter $u$). Then we obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\psi_{\emptyset}^{(i)}(z,u)&=\frac{{K^{(i)}}^{-1/2}z-{K^{(i)}}^{1/2}u}{z-u},\\
K^{(i)}&=(K)^{\delta_{i,1}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
When $i\neq 1$ the vacuum charge is $\psi_{\emptyset}^{(i)}(z,u)=1$ and there is no pole, which means we cannot add this atom to the empty configuration. We can also rewrite this as
\begin{align}
\psi_{\emptyset}^{(i)}(z,u)=(\psi_{\emptyset}(z,u))^{\delta_{i,1}},
\end{align}
where \begin{align}
\psi_{\emptyset}(z,u)=\frac{K^{-1/2}z-K^{1/2}u}{z-u}.
\end{align}
The action of $E^{(i)}$ and $F^{(i)}(z)$ can be written as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
E_{i}(z)\ket{\emptyset}&=\pm\sqrt{p^{(i)}(1-K^{(i)})}\delta\left(\frac{z}{u}\right)\ket{\fbox{$i$}},\\
F_{i}(z)\ket{\emptyset}&=0,\\
K_{i}^{\pm}(z)\ket{\emptyset}&=\left[\frac{{K^{(i)}}^{-1/2}z-{K^{(i)}}^{1/2}u}{z-u}\right]_{\pm}\ket{\emptyset}
\end{split}\label{eq:level0}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Level 1 to Level 2}
After setting the atom $1$ at the origin, the configuration now contains only one atom, and the charge function (\ref{eq:chargefunction}) is
\begin{align}
\Psi_{\fbox{$1$}}^{(i)}(z,u)=(\psi_{\emptyset}(z,u))^{\delta_{i,1}}\varphi^{1\Rightarrow i}(z,u).
\end{align}
After setting the atom of color $1$ at the origin, the atom we can put in the next level is the atom with colors connected to the vertex $1$ in the quiver diagram. Since the charge function must contain poles at the position where it is possible to add the atom connected to \fbox{$1$}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\varphi^{1\Rightarrow i}(z,u)\supset\begin{cases}\frac{1}{\prod_{I\in \{1\rightarrow i\}}(q_{I}^{-1/2}z-q_{I}^{1/2}u)}\quad (1\rightarrow i),\\1\quad (1\not\rightarrow i), \end{cases}
\end{align}
where $\{1\rightarrow i\}$ is the set of arrows from vertex $1$ to vertex $i$ in the quiver diagram.
When $i$ is connected to $1$, then we need to have poles in $z=uq_{I}$ for each arrow $I\in \{1\rightarrow i\}$, which means that all of these poles must be contained in the charge function. On the other hand, for vertices not connected to vertex $1$, we cannot add the atom to the crystal configuration, which means we cannot have any poles. Although we assumed the crystal in the origin to be $1$, we can also do the same thing with other colors. Then we can get
\begin{align}
\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,u)=\frac{N^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,u)}{D^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,u)},\label{eq:chargeansatz}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
D^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,u)=\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}(q_{I}^{-1/2}z-q_{I}^{1/2}u).\label{eq:chargedenominator}
\end{align}
The action of $K_{i}^{\pm}(z)$ can be written as
\begin{align}
K_{i}^{\pm}(z)\ket{\fbox{$1$}}&=\left[(\psi_{\emptyset}(z,u))^{\delta_{i,1}}\varphi^{1\Rightarrow i}(z,u)\right]_{\pm}\ket{\fbox{$1$}}.
\end{align}
The charge function indeed have poles where atoms are addable and removable. We get removing poles at $z=u$ from the vacuum charge function, and we get adding poles from the bond factors.
The action of $E_{i}(z)$ and $F_{i}(z)$ can be written as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
E_{i}(z)\ket{\fbox{$1$}}&=\sum_{i\in [1\rightarrow]}\sum_{j}\#\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$}_{j})}\right)\ket{\fbox{$1$}+\fbox{$i$}_{j}},\\
F_{i}(z)\ket{\fbox{$1$}}&=\delta_{i,1}\#\delta\left(\frac{z}{u}\right)\ket{\emptyset},\label{eq:actionlevel1-2}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $[1\rightarrow ]$ is the set of vertices connected to vertex $1$ in the quiver diagram, and the summation with $j$ is took among the atoms of color $i$ addable to the crystal configuration. $E_{i}(z)$ adds atoms whose position are in the poles, while $F_{i}(z)$ removes the atom at the origin.
\subsubsection{Level 2}
We assume that $\fbox{1}$ is placed at the origin and that $\fbox{$j$}$ is the next atom placed after $\fbox{$1$}$. The charge function of this configuration is
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)&=\psi_{\emptyset}^{(i)}(z,u)\varphi^{1\Rightarrow i}(z,u)\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$}))\\
&=\psi_{\emptyset}^{(i)}(z,u)\frac{N^{1\Rightarrow i}(z,u)}{D^{1\Rightarrow i}(z,u)}\frac{N^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$}))}{D^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$}))}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
This charge function must contain poles where the atoms can be added or removed. In this case, since we cannot remove the atoms placed at the origin, the pole of the origin must be cancelled out with the numerators. The poles must contain the removable pole at the origin at level 1, so $N^{1\Rightarrow i}(z,u)$ cannot cancel out the pole at $z=u$.
Because $N^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$}))$ must cancel the pole at the origin, we need the following relation:
\begin{align}
N^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$}))\supset z-u\quad \forall{j}\in[i\rightarrow].
\end{align}
We can set
\begin{align}
N^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,u)=\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}(q_{I}^{1/2}z-q_{I}^{-1/2}u).
\end{align}\label{eq:chargenumerator}
From (\ref{eq:chargedenominator}) and (\ref{eq:chargenumerator}), we finally obtain the charge function
\begin{align}
\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,u)=\frac{\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}(q_{I}^{1/2}z-q_{I}^{-1/2}u)}{\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}(q_{I}^{-1/2}z-q_{I}^{1/2}u)}.
\end{align}
By doing the similar discussion for general levels, one will see that the color $j$ atom at position $q(\fbox{$j$})$ gives a contribution to the charge $i$ function with a factor
\begin{align}
\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$}))
\end{align}
and the total charge function of a general crystal configuration will become (\ref{eq:chargeansatz}). For the discussion of general levels, we note that not all atoms are possible to add to the crystal configuration because of the melting rule. In the quiver Yangian case, for the crystal configuration to obey the melting rule, we need to impose the loop condition on the parameters:
\begin{align}
\sum_{I\in\text{loop }L}h_{I}=0.
\end{align}
In the quantum toroidal case, this will be
\begin{align}
\prod_{I\in\text{loop }L}q_{I}=1.\label{eq:crystal_loopcond}
\end{align}
(See section 6.4 of \cite{Li:2020rij} for a nice discussion of the quiver Yangian case.)
\subsection{Bootstrapping the algebra when \texorpdfstring{$C=1$}{C=1}}\label{sec:EE,EFrelation}
Let us see that the action of the generators on the three-dimensional crystal indeed gives a representation of the algebra (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}) when one of the central charges is $C=1$. We will only derive the EE relation and the EF relation. Other relations (KK, KE) can be discussed similarly and are in appendix \ref{sec:appendix_bootstrapp}.
We summarize here the results we obtained up to the previous subsection.
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&K_{i}^{\pm}(z)\ket{\Lambda}=\left[\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)\right]_{\pm}\ket{\Lambda},\\
&\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)=\psi_{\emptyset}^{(i)}(z,u)\prod_{j\in Q_{0}}\prod_{\fbox{$j$}\in \Lambda}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,uq(\fbox{$j$})),\\
&\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,u)=\frac{\prod_{I\in\{i\rightarrow j\}}(q_{I}^{1/2}z-q_{I}^{-1/2}u)}{\prod_{I\in\{j\rightarrow i\}}(q_{I}^{-1/2}z-q_{I}^{1/2}u)},\\
&E_{i}(z)\ket{\Lambda}=\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Add}(\Lambda)}\pm\sqrt{p^{(i)}\underset{x=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(x,u)}\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\ket{\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}},\\
&F_{i}(z)\ket{\Lambda}=\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Rem}(\Lambda)}\pm\sqrt{q^{(i)}\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(y,u)}\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\ket{\Lambda-\fbox{$i$}},
\end{split}\label{eq:summaryofalgebraansatz}
\end{align}
where the parameters associated to the arrow of the quiver are subjected to the loop condition (\ref{eq:crystal_loopcond}).
\subsubsection{EF relation}
Next, let us consider the commutation relations of $E_{i}(z)$ and $F_{j}(w)$. The relation $[E_{i}(z),F_{j}(w)]$ becomes either commutation relation or anti-commutation relation depending on the statistics of the operators.
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&E_{i}(z)F_{j}(w)\ket{\Lambda}\\
=&\sum_{\fbox{$j$}\in\text{Rem}(\Lambda)}\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in \text{Add}(\Lambda-\fbox{$j$})}E^{(i)}(\Lambda-\fbox{$j$}\rightarrow \Lambda-\fbox{$j$}+\fbox{$i$})F^{(j)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda-\fbox{$j$})\\
&\times\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\delta\left(\frac{w}{uq(\fbox{$j$})}\right)\ket{\Lambda-\fbox{$j$}+\fbox{$i$}}
\end{split}\label{eq:EFtotal}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
F_{j}(w)&E_{i}(z)\ket{\Lambda}\\
=&\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in \text{Add}(\Lambda)}\sum_{\fbox{$j$}\in\text{Rem}(\Lambda+\fbox{$i$})}F^{(j)}(\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$}-\fbox{$j$})E^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$})\\
&\times\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$j$})}\right)\delta\left(\frac{w}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\ket{\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}-\fbox{$j$}}.
\end{split}\label{eq:FEtotal}
\end{align}
There are three situations in the sum above:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $i=j$ and the atom added by $E_{i}(z)$ and the atom removed by $F_{j}(w)$ are the same.
\item $i=j$ but the atom added by $E_{i}(z)$ and the atom removed by $F_{j}(w)$ are different.
\item $i\neq j$, which means the atom added and removed are different.
\end{enumerate}
Let us only consider the first situation. Only this situation gives the nontrivial terms on the right-hand side. Other situations will cancel out with each other and disappear after choosing the sign factors properly. See \cite{Li:2020rij} for the discussions of how to determine the sign factors.
In this case, in the sum of (\ref{eq:EFtotal}) and (\ref{eq:FEtotal}) we have the following terms:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Rem}(\Lambda)}E^{(i)}(\Lambda-\fbox{$i$}\rightarrow \Lambda)F^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda-\fbox{$i$})\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\delta\left(\frac{w}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\ket{\Lambda}\\
-(-1)^{|i|}\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Add}(\Lambda)}F^{(i)}(\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}\rightarrow \Lambda)E^{(i)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$})\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\delta\left(\frac{w}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\ket{\Lambda}.
\end{split}\label{eq:EFsituation1}
\end{align}
Using
\begin{align}
\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi_{\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}}^{(i)}(y,u)=\varphi^{i\Rightarrow i}(1,1) \underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(y,u)
\end{align}
and setting
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\sqrt{p^{(i)}q^{(i)}\varphi^{i\Rightarrow i} (1,1)}=1,\\
&\epsilon(\Lambda-\fbox{$i$}\rightarrow \Lambda)\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda-\fbox{$i$})=1,
\end{split}\label{eq:EFconditionofsigns}
\end{align}
equation (\ref{eq:EFsituation1}) becomes
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\left(\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Rem}(\Lambda)}+\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Add}(\Lambda)}\right)\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi^{(i)}_{\Lambda}(y,u)\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\delta\left(\frac{w}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\ket{\Lambda}\\
=&\delta\left(\frac{w}{z}\right)(K_{i}^{+}(z)-K_{i}^{-}(w))\ket{\Lambda}.
\end{split}\label{eq:EFsituation1final}
\end{align}
At the last equation, we used (\ref{eq:residue}) and the property that $\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(i)}(z,u)$ has poles where the atoms can be added or removed.
We also note
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow i}(1,1)=(-1)^{\# \text{ of self-loops of $i$}}
\end{align}
and that we need to impose the following condition
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow i }(1,1)=-(-1)^{|i|}\label{eq:statisticsofoperators}
\end{align}
to change (\ref{eq:EFsituation1}) to (\ref{eq:EFsituation1final}).
This condition shows that the statistics of the operators are related to the number of self-loops of the vertex in the quiver diagram. From this condition and (\ref{eq:EFconditionofsigns}), we also see
\begin{align}
p^{(i)}q^{(i)}=\varphi^{i\Rightarrow i}(1,1)=-(-1)^{|i|}.
\end{align}
We can set $q^{(i)}=1$ without losing generality.
The EF relation is
\begin{align}
[E_{i}(z),F_{j}(w)]=\delta_{i,j}&\left(\delta\left(\frac{w}{z}\right)K_{i}^{+}(z)-\delta\left(\frac{z}{w}\right)K_{i}^{-}(w)\right).\label{eq:EFrelation}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{EE relation}\label{sec:EErelation}
We consider the action of $E_{i}(z)$ and $E_{j}(w)$ on a crystal configuration $\ket{\Lambda}$. Acting $E_{j}(w)$ first and $E_{i}(z)$ second, we get
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&E_{i}(z)E_{j}(w)\ket{\Lambda}\\
=&\sum_{\fbox{$j$}\in\text{Add}(\Lambda)}\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Add}(\Lambda+\fbox{$j$})}\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\delta\left(\frac{w}{uq(\fbox{$j$})}\right)\\
&\quad\quad\times E^{(i)}(\Lambda+\fbox{$j$}\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$j$}+\fbox{$i$})E^{(j)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$j$})\ket{\Lambda+\fbox{$j$}+\fbox{$i$}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Acting these operators in the opposite order, we obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&E_{j}(w)E_{i}(z)\ket{\Lambda}\\
=&\sum_{\fbox{$i$}\in\text{Add}(\Lambda)}\sum_{\fbox{$j$}\in\text{Add}(\Lambda+\fbox{$i$})}\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)\delta\left(\frac{w}{uq(\fbox{$j$})}\right)\\
&\quad\quad\times E^{(i)}(\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$}+\fbox{$j$})E^{(j)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$i$})\ket{\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}+\fbox{$j$}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In the generic situation when $\fbox{$i$}$ and $\fbox{$j$}$ do not depend on each other, the ratio of the coefficient of each term is
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\frac{E^{(i)}(\Lambda+\fbox{$j$}\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$j$}+\fbox{$i$})E^{(j)}(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$j$})}{E^{(i)}(\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}\rightarrow\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}+\fbox{$j$})E^{(j)}(\Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda+\fbox{$i$})}\\
=&\frac{\epsilon(\Lambda+\fbox{$j$}\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$j$}+\fbox{$i$})}{\epsilon(\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}\rightarrow\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}+\fbox{$j$})}\frac{\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$j$})}{\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda+\fbox{$i$})}\sqrt{\frac{\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi^{(i)}_{\Lambda+\fbox{$j$}}(y,u)}{\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\Psi^{(i)}_{\Lambda}(y,u)}\frac{\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$j$})}{\Res}\Psi_{\Lambda}^{(j)}(y,u)}{\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$j$})}{\Res}\Psi_{\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}}^{(j)}(y,u)}}\\
=&(-1)^{|i||j|}\sqrt{\frac{\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(y,uq(\fbox{$j$}))}{\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$j$})}{\Res}\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(y,uq(\fbox{$i$}))}}=(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(uq(\fbox{$i$}),uq(\fbox{$j$})),
\end{split}\label{eq:EEassoc}
\end{align}
where in the last line we set
\begin{align}
\frac{\epsilon(\Lambda+\fbox{$j$}\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$j$}+\fbox{$i$})}{\epsilon(\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}\rightarrow\Lambda+\fbox{$i$}+\fbox{$j$})}\frac{\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow \Lambda+\fbox{$j$})}{\epsilon(\Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda+\fbox{$i$})}=(-1)^{|i||j|}\label{eq:EEsign}
\end{align}
and used (\ref{eq:assoc}). Because of the delta functions $\delta\left(\frac{z}{uq(\fbox{$i$})}\right)$ and $\delta\left(\frac{w}{uq(\fbox{$j$})}\right)$, we obtain the following EE relation:
\begin{align}
E_{i}(z)E_{j}(w)=(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)E_{i}(z).\label{eq:EErelation}
\end{align}
Other defining relations can be derived similarly and the result is
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
K_{i}K_{i}^{-1}&=K_{i}^{-1}K_{i}=1,\\
K^{\pm}_{i}(z)K^{\pm}_{j}(w)&=K^{\pm}_{j}(w)K^{\pm}_{i}(z),\\
K^{\pm}_{i}(z)E_{j}(w)&=\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)K^{\pm}_{i}(z),\\
K^{\pm}_{i}(z)F_{j}(w)&=\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)^{-1}F_{j}(w)K_{i}^{\pm}(z),\\
[E_{i}(z),F_{j}(w)]=\delta_{i,j}&\left(\delta\left(\frac{w}{z}\right)K_{i}^{+}(z)-\delta\left(\frac{z}{w}\right)K_{i}^{-}(w)\right),\\
E_{i}(z)E_{j}(w)&=(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)E_{i}(z),\\
F_{i}(z)F_{j}(w)&=(-1)^{|i||j|}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)^{-1}F_{j}(w)F_{i}(z).
\end{split}\label{eq:algebraverticalrepdef}
\end{align}
These are indeed the defining relations of the quiver quantum toroidal algebra in (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}) after setting $C=1$.
\subsection{Some issues on the asymmetric quiver} \label{sec:cpt4cycle}
In this section, we summarize where we need to assume that the quiver is symmetric. We note that the asymmetric quiver is associated with the Calabi-Yau manifold with the compact 4-cycle. We need to modify our proposal to treat these general cases, which we leave for future work.
\begin{itemize}
\item Modes of $K_{i}^{\pm}(z)$ in (\ref{eq:QQTAgenerator}).\\
We defined the mode expansions starting from $z^{\mp r}(r\geq 0)$. This is possible only for the symmetric case, which means $|i\rightarrow j|=|j\rightarrow i|$. To be concrete, we consider the KE relation of (\ref{eq:defofQuiverAlgebra}):
\begin{align}
K_{i}^{+}(z)E_{j}(w)=\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)K_{i}^{+}(z),
\end{align}
where we set $C=1$ to make discussions simple.
When $|i\rightarrow j|=|j\rightarrow i|$, since
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)=\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(1,w/z),
\end{align}
the degree of $z$ of both hand sides match. However, when there are compact 4-cycles the bond factor will factorize as
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)=z^{|j\rightarrow i|-|i\rightarrow j|}\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(1,w/z).
\end{align}
For the degrees of both hand sides to match, we need to change the mode expansions of $K^{+}(z)$ to include $z^{r}(r>0)$. A similar discussion goes for $K^{-}(z)$ and we need to include $z^{-r}(r>0)$ modes this time. Thus, for the asymmetric case, we have to face the mode expansions of $K^{\pm}_{i}(z)$ in the form
\begin{align}
K_{i}^{\pm}(z)=K_{i}^{\pm}\exp\left(\pm\sum_{r=-\infty}^{\infty}H_{i,\pm r}z^{\mp r}\right).
\end{align}
It is already known that a similar modification is necessary for the quiver Yangian case.
\item The associativity condition $\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(w,z)=1$ in (\ref{eq:assoc}) and (\ref{eq:assoc_no4cycle}). This condition was also used in deriving the EE relation (\ref{eq:EEassoc}) in section \ref{sec:EErelation}.\\
By direct computation, the product of the bond factors is
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(w,z)=(-1)^{|j\rightarrow i|+|i\rightarrow j|}=(-1)^{|j\rightarrow i|-|i\rightarrow j|}.
\end{align}
For the generators to have the associativity condition, we need the condition
\begin{align}
(-1)^{|j\rightarrow i|+|i\rightarrow j|}=1.
\end{align}
For the asymmetric case, this condition itself is not trivial, so we need some kind of modifications in the definition of the algebra\footnote{We note that such sign factors only affect a subclass of asymmetric quivers because if all $|i-j|-|j-i|$ are even, the sign factors vanish. The same issue is discussed on page 18 of the v3 of \cite{Li:2020rij}, where they address this by modifying the bond factors.}. We consider the quiver associated with the $K_{\mathbb{P}^{2}}$ geometry as an example. The toric diagram and quiver diagram are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:KP2}. There are three vertices in the quiver diagram, and each of the vertices is connected to the other two vertices. The number of the arrows between these two vertices is not symmetric. This shows that $|1\rightarrow 2|=3$ and $|2\rightarrow 1|=0$, which implies $(-1)^{|1\rightarrow 2|+|2\rightarrow 1|}=-1\neq1$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{figures/K_P2.pdf}
\caption{Toric diagram (left) and quiver diagram (right) of $K_{\mathbb{P}^{2}}$ geometry. The number of arrows between two vertices of the quiver diagram is not symmetric. }
\label{fig:KP2}
\end{figure}
In deriving the EE relation from the action on the BPS crystal, we also need to assume the quiver is symmetric. For the asymmetric case,
\begin{align}
\sqrt{\frac{\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$i$})}{\Res}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(y,uq(\fbox{$j$}))}{\underset{y=uq(\fbox{$j$})}{\Res}\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(y,uq(\fbox{$i$}))}}=(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}(|i\rightarrow j|+|j\rightarrow i|)}\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(uq(\fbox{$i$}),uq(\fbox{$j$}))\,.
\end{align}
which implies the last line of (\ref{eq:EEassoc}) should be modified. We may absorb these extra signs by introducing extra $(-1)$ factors to the bond factors, which remains as a possibility. For now, we do not know how to determine this factor.\footnote{After submitting the first version of this paper to arXiv, a paper \cite{Galakhov:2021vbo} giving a sign choice appeared. See it for more discussions. See also the footnote on page 18 in v3 of \cite{Li:2020rij}. }
\item The Hopf superalgebra structure in section \ref{sec:Hopf_structure}.\\
We focus on the definition of the coproduct structure. We assume that the algebra remains the same even when the quiver diagram is asymmetric, and the bond factors do not have the same number of zeros and poles. We assume that the coproduct formula is the same as in (\ref{eq:coproduct}). Acting the coproduct on the left-hand side of the $K^{-}E$ relation, we obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Delta(K_{i}^{-}(Cz)E_{j}(w))\\
=&\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)E_{j}(w)K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}z)\otimes K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}C_{2}z)\\
&\quad +\textcolor{blue}{\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(C_{1}z,C_{1}w)}K_{j}^{-}(C_{1}w)K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}z)\otimes E_{j}(C_{1}w)K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}C_{2}z)\\
=&\varphi^{j\Rightarrow i}(z,w)\left\{E_{j}(w)K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}z)\otimes K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}C_{2}z)\right.\\
&\left.\quad+\textcolor{blue}{C_{1}^{|i\rightarrow j|-|j\rightarrow i|}}K_{j}^{-}(C_{1}w)K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}z)\otimes E_{j}(C_{1}w)K_{i}^{-}(C_{1}C_{2}z)\right\},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where in the last line we used (\ref{eq:no4cycle_bondfactor_symmetry}). Thus, for the asymmetric case, the algebra does not have the coproduct structure as it is. Similar discussions can be done for other defining relations and for the antipode, and we will see that the Hopf superalgebra structure is not well-defined anymore.
One way to resolve this inconsistency is to modify the defining relations of $K^{\pm}K^{\pm}$ as
\begin{align}
K_{i}^{\pm}(z)K_{j}^{\pm}(w)&=C^{\pm(|i\rightarrow j|-|j\rightarrow i|)}K_{j}^{\pm}(w)K_{i}^{\pm}(z).
\end{align}
One can show that after this modification, the formal Hopf superalgebra structure is recovered. This defining relation only appears in the case when we consider asymmetric quivers and representations with nontrivial central charge $C\neq 1$.
\item The rescaling symmetry (\ref{eq:rescalesymm}) and vertex condition (\ref{eq:vertexconstraint}).\\
In the equations (\ref{eq:vertexconstr_cpt4cond_1}), (\ref{eq:vertexconstr_cpt4cond_2}), and (\ref{eq:vertexconstr_cpt4cond_3}), we used the rescaling symmetry in (\ref{eq:rescalesymm}), which is true when there are no compact 4-cycles. The discussion there might be modified if we use a different convention of the bond factor.\footnote{This problem seems to be resolved in \cite{Galakhov:2021vbo}, so see it for more discussions.}
\end{itemize}
\section{Example: \texorpdfstring{$\mathbb{C}^{3}/(\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2})$}{C3Z2Z2} and quantum toroidal \texorpdfstring{$D(2,1;\alpha)$}{D21}}\label{sec:Example}
We give a nontrivial example of the quiver quantum toroidal algebra, which is associated with the abelian orbifold $\mathbb{C}^{3}/(\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2})$. The toric diagram, dual web diagram, and periodic quiver are shown in Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)toric_periodicquiver}. The quiver diagram derived from the periodic quiver is shown in Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)quiver}, which is identical to the Dynkin diagram of the affine superalgebra $\hat{D}(2,1;\alpha)$ in Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)root}. We suppose that this is the quantum toroidal $D(2,1;\alpha)$, which is yet to be studied in detail. See \cite{Feigin_2019,feigin2021combinatorics} for recent developments. For the Drinfeld second realization of the quantum affine superalgebras of $D(2,1;\alpha)$, see \cite{heckenberger2008drinfeld}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/D2,1toricdualweb2.pdf}
\subcaption{Toric diagram and dual web diagram.}\label{fig:D(2,1)toric_web}
\end{minipage}&\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/D2,1periodicquiver.pdf}
\subcaption{Periodic quiver.}\label{fig:D(2,1)periodic_quiver}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Toric diagram, dual web diagram, and periodic quiver of $\mathbb{C}^{3}/(\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2})$. The six lattice points of the toric diagram are denoted as $(0,0)$, $(1,0)$, $(2,0)$, $(0,1)$, $(0,2)$, and $(1,1)$.}\label{fig:D(2,1)toric_periodicquiver}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/D2,1quiverdiagramnew.pdf}
\subcaption{Quiver diagram.}\label{fig:D(2,1)quiver}
\end{minipage}&\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/D2,1root.pdf}
\subcaption{Dynkin diagram of $\hat{D}(2,1;\alpha)$.}\label{fig:D(2,1)root}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Quiver diagram and Dynkin diagram of affine superalgebra $\hat{D}(2,1;\alpha)$. We choose all of the simple roots to be fermionic. }
\end{figure}
We first note that all the generators are fermionic since there are no loops for each vertex.
Let us derive the bond factors of the algebra. We have 12 parameters which are assigned as Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)periodic_quiver} and Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)quiver}. The loop constraints are
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
r_{13}r_{12}r_{23}=1,\quad \alpha_{1}r_{12}\beta_{2}=1,\quad \beta_{2}\alpha_{3}l_{23}=1,\quad \alpha_{3}r_{13}\beta_{1}=1,\\
\alpha_{1}l_{13}\beta_{3}=1,\quad \alpha_{2}r_{23}\beta_{3}=1,\quad \alpha_{2}l_{12}\beta_{1}=1,\quad l_{23}l_{12}l_{13}=1.
\end{split}
\end{align}
We have 8 constraints and 7 of them are independent, so we get 5 parameters after imposing these conditions. The vertex constraints are
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}\alpha_{3}=\beta_{1}\beta_{2}\beta_{3},\quad \alpha_{1}l_{12}r_{13}=l_{13}r_{12}\beta_{1},\\
l_{12}\beta_{2}r_{23}=r_{12}\alpha_{2}l_{23},\quad \alpha_{3}r_{23}l_{13}=r_{13}\beta_{3}l_{23}
\end{split}
\end{align}
and 3 of them are independent. After imposing all of the constraints we get two independent parameters:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\alpha_{1}=\beta_{1}=l_{23}=r_{23}=q_{1},\\
\alpha_{2}=\beta_{2}=l_{13}=r_{13}=q_{2},\\
\alpha_{3}=\beta_{3}=l_{12}=r_{12}=q_{3},
\end{split}
\end{align}
with the condition $q_{1}q_{2}q_{3}=1$.
Using these we obtain the bond factors:
\begin{align}
\varphi^{i\Rightarrow j}(z,w)=\frac{\phi(q_{ij};z,w)}{\phi(q_{ij}^{-1};z,w)},\label{eq:D(2,1)bondfactors}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
q_{ij}=q_{ji}=\begin{cases}
q_{1}\quad(i,j)=(0,1),(2,3)\\
q_{2}\quad(i,j)=(0,2),(1,3)\\
q_{3}\quad(i,j)=(0,3),(1,2)
\end{cases}\,.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/D2,1three-dimensional-crystal2.pdf}
\caption{Quiver diagram and three-dimensional crystal of $\mathbb{C}^{3}/(\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2})$. The three-dimensional crystal is a plane partition, which is the same as the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, but the coloring is different. There are four colors: red, blue, yellow, green. Each of them corresponds to the four vertices of the quiver diagram. The origin box is red.} \label{fig:D(2,1)three-dimensionalcrystal}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/D2,1_2dim_z=0.pdf}
\subcaption{$k=1$}\label{fig:D(2,1)z=0}
\end{minipage}&\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/D2,1_2dim_z=1.pdf}
\subcaption{$k=2$}\label{fig:D(2,1)z=1}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Slice of the three-dimensional crystal at $k=1$ and $k=2$. The coordinates of the boxes are assigned $(i,j,k)$ $(i,j,k\in\mathbb{Z}_{>0})$. (a) Patterns of coloring of boxes when $k=1$. (b) Patterns of coloring of boxes when $k=2$. }
\end{figure}
From the periodic quiver diagram in Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)periodic_quiver}, we obtain the three-dimensional crystal in Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)three-dimensionalcrystal}. While the shape of the crystal is the same as the plane partition representation for the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, we have four colors (red, blue, green, and yellow) to fill the boxes. Each box is stacked in such a way that no two adjacent boxes have the same color. For example, the red box has yellow boxes next to it in the $x$ direction, green boxes in the $y$ direction, and blue boxes in the $z$ direction (see Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)three-dimensionalcrystal}).
Let the three-dimensional coordinates of the boxes be $(i,j,k)$ $(i,j,k\in\mathbb{Z}_{>0})$. We note the origin is $(1,1,1)$ and the color is red. Using $q_{1},q_{2},q_{3}$, the coordinate is written as $q_{1}^{i-1}q_{2}^{j-1}q_{3}^{k-1}$. The $z=1$ plane has boxes colored as in Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)z=0}. It is obvious that the color of the box is red when $i\equiv1(\hspace{-2mm}\mod2)$ and $j\equiv1$, yellow when $i\equiv0$ and $j\equiv1$, green when $i\equiv1$ and $j\equiv0$, and blue when $i\equiv0$ and $j\equiv0$. The color of the box in $(i,j,k)$ can be determined similarly, and it is red when $i-k\equiv0$ and $j-k\equiv0$, yellow when $i-k\equiv1$ and $j-k\equiv0$, green when $i-k\equiv0$ and $j-k\equiv1$, and blue when $i-k\equiv1$ and $j-k\equiv1$ (see Figure \ref{fig:D(2,1)z=1} for $k=2$). We note the equality is understood modulo 2.
As one can see, although the coloring pattern of the boxes is different from the Fock representations of the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ or the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{n}$, the shape itself is the same. Thus, one would like to ask whether it is a representation of the quantum toroidal algebra defined from the bond factors (\ref{eq:D(2,1)bondfactors}). Further studies will be done in \cite{Noshita2021}.
\section{Summary and Discussions}\label{sec:summary}
We defined the quiver quantum toroidal algebra associated with toric Calabi-Yau threefolds without compact 4-cycles. We introduced a central element $C$ and showed that the algebra is an associative Hopf superalgebra. When the central element $C$ is trivial ($C=1$), one of the representations is indeed the three-dimensional BPS crystal introduced in \cite{Ooguri_2009}, and the algebra can be bootstrapped following the strategy of \cite{Li:2020rij}. We leave general discussions for representations with nontrivial central charges of $C$ for future work.
As an example, we introduced a quiver quantum toroidal algebra associated with the orbifold $\mathbb{C}^{3}/(\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2})$. The quiver diagram is the same as the Dynkin diagram of the affine superalgebra $D(2,1;\alpha)$. We expect the quantum toroidal algebra associated with this affine superalgebra is the one we defined. The three-dimensional crystal of it is the plane partition, which is the same shape as the MacMahon representation of the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$. Although the shape is the same, the coloring of the boxes is different. There are four colors, and each box is stacked in such a way that no two adjacent boxes have the same color. Since this representation is similar to the MacMahon representation of the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, we expect there are also analogs of ``Fock" representations and ``vector" representations of the quantum toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$. The ``Fock" representations should be associated with the $(x,y)$, $(y,z)$, $(z,x)$ planes of the colored MacMahon representation, while the ``vector" representations should be associated with the $x$, $y$, $z$ axes, as the toroidal $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ case. These properties are discussed in the companion paper \cite{Noshita2021}.
Although we focused on the case when there are no compact 4-cycles, the discussions should be extended to arbitrary toric Calabi-Yau threefolds including compact 4-cycles. Since the bond factors do not have the same number of zeros and poles anymore, we expect $K^{\pm}(z)$ should include all degrees of $z$, which is a similar situation to the quiver Yangian case \cite{Li:2020rij}. However, as mentioned in section \ref{sec:cpt4cycle}, we have used the no compact 4-cycle condition in various places. Thus, modifications of the algebra are necessary for generalizations. We hope to come back to this in the near future.
Finally, let us list down some possible directions we hope to clarify.
\begin{itemize}
\item Horizontal representations ($C\neq 1$): As mentioned above, the central element $C$ we introduced is still a conjecture. Representations of $C\neq 1$ are expected to be related directly to the $q$ deformed version of the rational $\mathcal{W}$ algebras, which are associated with truncations of the three-dimensional BPS crystal representation (see section 7 of \cite{Li:2020rij}). To make it concrete, let us consider the $\mathbb{C}^{3}$-geometry case. The plane partition representation of the affine Yangian $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$ has truncations, and it is understood as a ``pit" reduction \cite{bershtein2018plane}. The corresponding algebra is denoted as $Y_{L, M, N}$, where $(L, M, N)$ is the location of the pit, and called corner VOA (CVOA) \cite{Gaiotto:2017euk}. Free field realizations were derived in \cite{Litvinov_2016, Prochazka:2018tlo}. We can consider a $q$-deformation of the CVOA \cite{Harada_2021,bershtein2018plane, Kojima2019, Kojima2021, FHSSY:2010}, and it is obtained by taking tensor products of Fock representations. These Fock representations are associated with the divisors of $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ and have a nontrivial central charge of $C$. We expect this will be the same situation for general toric Calabi-Yau manifolds. Namely, we expect there are horizontal representations associated with the divisors of the toric Calabi-Yau, and by taking tensor products of them, we can obtain the corresponding $q$-deformed $\mathcal{W}$ algebra.
\item Serre relations, Miki automorphism: In this paper, we omit the discussions of Serre relations and Miki automorphism. Serre relations for $\mathfrak{gl}_{1}$, $\mathfrak{gl}_{n}$, and $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$ are already known, but unknown for $D(2,1;\alpha)$. Similar discussions of \cite{Li:2020rij} might help solve this problem. We also expect there is Miki automorphism relating the vertical representations with the horizontal representations.
\item Generalizations to general orbifolds: A new quantum toroidal algebra associated with $\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}^{2}/\mathbb{Z}_{p}$, where the action of $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ is determined by two integers was introduced in \cite{Bourgine_2020}. We expect we can do a similar deformation of the quantum toroidal algebra of $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$ and $D(2,1;\alpha)$.
\end{itemize}
\acknowledgments
The authors thank Koichi Harada and Yutaka Matsuo for useful discussions.
GN is supported in part by FoPM, the University of Tokyo. AW is supported in part by JSPS fellowship, MEXT, and JSR Fellowship, the University of Tokyo.
|
\section*{Abstract}
It is well known that using the conventional non-Hermitian but
${\cal PT}-$symmetric Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian with real spectrum
one can realize the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) process in an
exceptional-point limit of order $N$. Such an exactly solvable
simulation of the BEC-type phase transition is, unfortunately,
incomplete because the standard version of the model only offers an
extreme form of the limit characterized by a minimal geometric
multiplicity $K=1$. In our paper we describe a rescaled and
partitioned direct-sum modification of the linear version of the
Bose-Hubbard model which remains exactly solvable while admitting
any value of $K\geq 1$. It offers a complete menu of benchmark
models numbered by a specific combinatorial scheme. In this manner,
an exhaustive classification of the general BEC patterns with any
geometric multiplicity is obtained and realized in terms of an
exactly solvable generalized Bose-Hubbard model.
\newpage
\subsection*{Keywords}
.
Bose-Hubbard system of bosons;
Bose-Einstein process of condensation;
Kato's exceptional points of higher orders;
geometric multiplicity index;
classification scheme;
exactly solvable generalized Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonians;
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The author acknowledges the support from P\v{r}F UHK.
\newpage
\section{Introduction}
The conceptual appeal of ${\cal PT}-$symmetry (i.e., of the parity
times time reversal symmetry) currently influences several different
areas of theoretical and/or experimental physics
\cite{Christodoulides,Carlbook} as well as of the related
mathematical physics \cite{book,fre}. The birth of the concept dates
back to the mathematics of perturbation theory
\cite{Caliceti,BG,Andrianov,BM} but the real start of popularity was
only inspired by the Bender's and Boettcher's 1998 conjecture
\cite{BB} that ${\cal PT}-$symmetry of a Hamiltonian $H$ could play
a key role in a ``non-Hermitian'' formulation of quantum mechanics
of bound states (cf., e.g., reviews \cite{Geyer,Carl,ali}).
One of the basic innovations connected with the use of non-Hermitian
but ${\cal PT}-$symmetric Hamiltonians with real bound-state spectra
has been found to lie in a remarkable and highly exciting
possibility of a direct and experimentally controllable access to
the dynamical regime of a spontaneous breakdown of the symmetry.
Bender with Boettcher \cite{BB} were probably the first who managed
to simulate this process (leading to a quantum phase transition,
i.e., to an abrupt loss of the observability of the energy) using
various elementary one-dimensional single-particle local potentials.
This proved inspiring and influenced the model building efforts in
multiple areas of realistic phenomenological considerations. Among
others, several research teams turned also attention to a family of
multiparticle ${\cal PT}-$symmetric benchmark Hamiltonians $H$
called Bose-Hubbard models (see, e.g., ~\cite{Christ,zno}).
The source of the appeal of the latter models lied in the
possibility of a sufficiently realistic simulation of a specific
quantum phase transition called Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC).
From our present point of view the most inspiring analysis has been
performed in Ref.~\cite{Uwe} where a thorough mathematical
description of the BEC phenomenon has been performed using both the
linear (i.e., solvable, mathematically less complicated) and
non-linear (i.e., fully general while just perturbative or purely
numerical) versions of the underlying standard ${\cal PT}-$symmetric
Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian.
In both of these model-building arrangements the process of the
condensation has been attributed, in the Kato's language
\cite{Kato}, to the presence of the higher-order exceptional points.
In our present paper we intend to study the former mechanism of the
quantum phase transition in more detail, extending the scope of the
approach to certain more general dynamical scenarios characterized
by nontrivial, optional geometric multiplicities of the generic
exceptional-point degeneracies.
\section{Bose-Einstein condensation}
\subsection{${\cal PT}-$symmetric Bose-Hubbard model}
For introduction let us
follow the
guidance provided by
Graefe et al
\cite{Uwe} who
performed a detailed
perturbation-approximation analysis
of the ${\cal PT}-$symmetric
Bose-Hubbard (BH) system living in
a small vicinity
of its BEC dynamical singularity.
One of the most elementary versions of their
non-Hermitian and
BEC-supporting family of
Hamiltonians
had the following one-parametric form
written in terms of the conventional creation and
annihilation operators,
\begin{equation} \label{Ham1}
\widehat{H}_{} (\gamma)=
\left(a_1^{\dagger}a_2 + a_2^{\dagger}a_1\right) -{\rm i} \gamma
\left(a_1^{\dagger}a_1 - a_2^{\dagger}a_2\right)\,,
\ \ \ \ \,\gamma \in (0,1)\,.
\end{equation}
As long as such a Hamiltonian commutes
with the operator
of the number of bosons
\be
\widehat{\cal N} = a^\dagger_1 a_1+ a^\dagger_2 a_2
\label{numop}
\ee
(with eigenvalues $N_B=1,2,\ldots$),
the
model becomes exactly solvable, with spectrum
\be
E_n^{}(\gamma)=n\,\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}\,,
\ \ \ \ n \in
{\cal S}(N)\,
,
\ \ \ \ N=N_B+1
\label{rema}
\ee
where
\be
{\cal S}(N)=\{1-N, 3-N, \ldots ,N-3, N-1\}\,.
\label{remake}
\ee
At
$\gamma \in (0,1)$
the most
characteristic features of such a spectrum
are its reality,
equidistance and up-down symmetry:
see, for illustration, Fig.~\ref{lo6ja3} where we choose $N=8$.
In
the picture we see how
the spectrum shrinks from the $\gamma=0$
maximum \{$-7,-5,-3,-1,1,3,5,7$\}
to a complete degeneracy
at $\gamma^{} = \gamma^{(BEC)} = 1$.
A detailed derivation of formula (\ref{rema}) itself can be found in
\cite{Uwe}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=vosmik.eps,angle=270,width=0.460\textwidth}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm} \caption{Spectrum (\ref{rema}) for $N=8$
and its BEC degeneracy at $\gamma=1$.
\label{lo6ja3}
}
\end{figure}
In the framework of our present project it
is important that
the operator version~(\ref{Ham1}) of
the unperturbed BH Hamiltonian
may be studied, most efficiently, in its
explicit infinite-dimensional
block-diagonal matrix form as derived in \cite{Uwe},
\be
H_{} (\gamma)=
\left (
\begin{array}{cccc}
H^{(2)}_{}(\gamma)&\ \ \ \ 0&0&\ldots\\
0&H^{(3)}_{}(\gamma)&0& \\
0&\ \ \ \ 0&H^{(4)}_{}(\gamma)&\ddots\\
\vdots&\ \ \ \ \ &\ddots\ \ \ \ \ &\ddots
\ea
\right )\,.
\label{geneve}
\ee
Each block $H^{(N)}_{}(\gamma)$ is a tridiagonal $N$ by $N$ matrix
such that
\be
H^{(2)}_{}(\gamma)=
\left[ \begin {array}{cc} -i{\it \gamma}&1
\\{}1&i{\it
\gamma}
\end {array} \right]\,, \ \ \ \ \
H^{(3)}_{}(\gamma)=\left[ \begin {array}{ccc}
-2\,i\gamma&
\sqrt{2}&0\\{}\sqrt{2}&0&
\sqrt{2}\\{}0&\sqrt{2}&2\,i\gamma\end {array}
\right]\,,
\label{3wg}
\ee
\ben
H^{(4)}_{}(\gamma) = \left [\begin {array}{cccc}
-3\,{\rm i}\gamma &\sqrt{3} &0 &0\\
\sqrt{3}&-{\rm i}\gamma &2 &0\\
0&2 &{\rm i}\gamma &\sqrt{3}\\
0&0&\sqrt{3}&3\,{\rm i}\gamma
\end {array}\right ]\,,\ \ \ \ \ \
H^{(5)}_{}(\gamma) = \left [\begin {array}{ccccc}
-4\,{\rm i}\gamma &2 &0 &0 &0\\
2&-2\,{\rm i}\gamma &\sqrt{6} &0 &0\\
0&\sqrt{6} &0 &\sqrt{6} &0\\
0 &0&\sqrt{6} &2\,{\rm i}\gamma &2\\
0&0&0&2&4\,{\rm i}\gamma
\end {array}\right ]\,,
\een
etc.
This representation of the Hamiltonian reconfirms the
conservation of the number of bosons $N_B=N-1$.
At every $N$, the bound-state
Schr\"{o}dinger equation degenerates
to a linear algebraic
eigenvalue problem
yielding the closed-form eigenvalues (\ref{BHepnco}).
In this
representation of the system also the
construction of the wave functions becomes
tractable non-numerically \cite{passage}.
\subsection{BEC-formation patterns}
The properties
of spectrum (\ref{rema})
are reflected by the equidistance of the
$N-$dependent
set (\ref{remake})
of the energy-level quantum numbers.
The
degeneracy of all of the levels in the BEC limit $\gamma \to 1$
is simultaneous,
\be
\lim_{\gamma \to 1}\,E_n^{}(\gamma)=\eta^{(N)}=0\,,
\ \ \ \ n \in
{\cal S}(N)\,.
\label{BHepnco}
\ee
An analogous degeneracy also controls the
behavior of all of the eigenstates $|\psi_n^{}(N,\gamma)\kt$
of the BH operator (\ref{Ham1}),
\be
\lim_{\gamma \to 1}\,|\psi_n^{}(N,\gamma)\kt
=|\chi_{(BEC)}^{(N)}\kt\,,\ \ \ \ \
n \in S(N)\,,
\ \ \ \ N=2,3,\ldots \,.
\label{rekwinde}
\ee
Precisely such a degeneracy
can be interpreted as
one of the explicit realizations
of the so called
Kato's
exceptional point of order $N$ (EPN, \cite{Kato}).
The physical
limit
$\gamma \to \gamma^{(BEC)}=1$
and the mathematical
limit
$\gamma \to \gamma^{(EPN)}=1$ appear synonymous.
Unfortunately, such a correspondence between mathematics
and physics is one-sided.
In the context of mathematics
the convergence (\ref{rekwinde}) towards a single
limiting vector $|\chi_{(BEC)}^{(N)}\kt$
must be considered
a simplification
and an
artifact of the
model.
In any sufficiently model-independent scenario
it will be necessary to replace property~(\ref{rekwinde})
(where the EPN merger has the so called geometric multiplicity $K$
equal to one)
by the more general, $K-$centered eigenvector-degeneracy
pattern with any geometric multiplicity $K \geq 1$,
\be
\lim_{\gamma \to \gamma^{(EPN)}}\,|\psi_{n_k}^{(EPN)}(\gamma)\kt
=|\chi_k^{(EPN)}\kt\,,\ \ \ \ \
n_k \in S_k^{(EPN)}\,,\ \ \
\ \
k=1,2,\ldots,K\,,
\label{kwinde}
\ee
\be
S_1^{(EPN)}\,\oplus \,S_2^{(EPN)}\,\oplus
\,\ldots\,\oplus \,S_K^{(EPN)}=
{\cal S}{(N)}\,.
\label{diresu}
\ee
The complete set ${\cal S}{(N)}$ of the energy quantum numbers
must be admitted to be, in general,
decomposed into
a $K-$plet of disjoint subsets.
Now, the main question to be addressed in our present paper is whether
the generalized mathematical form (\ref{kwinde}) of the EPN limit
with arbitrary $K\geq 1$ could still be
assigned a suitable physical multi-bosonic
interpretation via an exactly solvable BEC-supporting Hamiltonian, say,
of the BH type.
\section{Nontrivial geometric multiplicites $K$ at small $N$\label{sectri}}
In our recent heuristic study \cite{Borisov}
we addressed the problem on a purely methodical level.
In a trial-and-error search
for the low-dimensional toy-model matrix Hamiltonian
with nontrivial
geometric multiplicity of its degenerate EPN limit we
used the brute-force numerical methods and
performed
the search
among certain
real and more or less randomly selected matrices $H^{(6)}$.
The inspection of the parametric-dependence of the
spectra
led us to the empirical
conclusion and
conjecture of a one-to-one correspondence
between
the trivial geometric multiplicity
$K=1$
of the exceptional points
and the tridiagonality
of the matrix $H^{(6)}$ in question.
This turned out attention to
non-tridiagonal
toy models $H^{(6)}$.
The hypothesis appeared to work.
Several models supporting
the existence of exceptional points with
$K=2$ and $K=3$ were identified.
Unfortunately, our subsequent tentative
extension of the brute-force
empirical search to higher $N$
encountered severe
technical obstacles.
Our conclusions formulated in \cite{Borisov}
were, therefore, discouraging and sceptical. We argued
that beyond $N \approx 6$, the numerical EPN searches become
ill-conditioned, yielding highly unstable results
marred, in the methodical context, by the influence
of the ubiquitous rounding errors
(for details see, in particular, Appendix~A in {\it loc. cit.}).
In our present paper
we decided to accept
a different strategy.
It will be
based on a non-numerical,
strictly analytic specification of the candidates for
the suitable EPN-supporting toy-model Hamiltonians.
For this purpose
we will merely rescale
the separate fixed$-N$ components of
the $K=1$
Hamiltonian (\ref{geneve})
yielding the
trivially modified tilded forms of its submatrices, viz.,
\be
c_k\,H^{(2)}_{}(\gamma)=
\left[ \begin {array}{cc} -i{\it \gamma}c_k&c_k
\\{}c_k&i{\it
\gamma}c_k
\end {array} \right]=\widetilde{H^{(2)}_{(c_k)}}(\gamma)\,, \ \ \
c_k\,
H^{(3)}_{}(\gamma)=\left[ \begin {array}{ccc}
-2\,i\gamma\,{c_k}&
\sqrt{2}\,{c_k}&0\\{}\sqrt{2}\,{c_k}&0&
\sqrt{2}\,{c_k}\\{}0&\sqrt{2}\,{c_k}&2\,i\gamma\,{c_k}
\end {array}
\right]=\widetilde{H^{(3)}_{(c_k)}}(\gamma)\,
\label{c3wg}
\ee
etc.
Obviously, any such a rescaling with real $c_k=c_k^{(N)} \neq 0$
preserves not only the basic features of physics behind the model
but also, at any dimension $N=N_B+1$, the exact solvability
of Schr\"{o}dinger equation. At the same time,
the new, alternative, non-tridiagonal candidates for the submatrices of the
generalized $K>1$ versions of Hamiltonian (\ref{geneve})
can tentatively be constructed using suitable direct-sum combinations
of the building-blocks (\ref{c3wg}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=ctyrka.eps,angle=270,width=0.460\textwidth}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm} \caption{The BEC degeneracy (\ref{rema}) at $N=4$.
\label{loa4}
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Three bosons and $K=2$}
The first two simplest BH models with $N_B=N-1=1$ and $N_B=N-1=2$
are trivial, offering just the usual unique option with $K=1$.
Thus, our search for alternatives has to start from the next,
$N=4$ item taken from
the $K=1$ sequence of Hamiltonians (\ref{3wg}),
with the spectrum displayed in Figure \ref{loa4}.
In the picture we marked the levels by symbols ``I'' and ``II''
in order to indicate that {\em precisely the same\,}
$\gamma-$dependent spectrum can be also
generated by an alternative Hamiltonian
defined as a
direct sum of the two $N=2$ matrices
taken out of the tilded menu (\ref{c3wg}).
This yields the innovated, $K=2$ Hamiltonian
\be
\label{Brasov}
\widetilde{H^{(2)}_{(1)}}(\gamma)\oplus
\widetilde{H^{(2)}_{(3)}}(\gamma)=
\left [\begin {array}{cccc}
-{\rm i}\gamma &1 &0 &0\\
1&{\rm i}\gamma &0 &0\\
0&0 &-3\,{\rm i}\gamma &3\\
0&0&3&3\,{\rm i}\gamma
\end {array}\right ] \sim
\left [\begin {array}{cccc}
-3\,{\rm i}\gamma &0 &0 &3\\
0&-{\rm i}\gamma &1 &0\\
0&1 &{\rm i}\gamma &0\\
3&0&0&3\,{\rm i}\gamma
\end {array}\right ]
={H^{(4)}_{[K=2]}}(\gamma)
\,
\ee
characterized by the choice of
scalings $c_1=1$ (levels ``I'')
and $c_2=3$ (levels ``II'').
Besides sharing the spectrum
(but not the eigenvectors!)
with its BH predecessor
${H^{(4)}_{[K=1]}}(\gamma)$ of Eq.~(\ref{3wg}),
the new model also illustrates several other merits of the
present philosophy.
The key point is that
the two alternative isospectral Hamiltonians can be
both made ${\cal PT}-$symmetric,
and that their imaginary parts can be kept the same (i.e., diagonal).
In this sense we can treat the right-hand-side
matrix in (\ref{Brasov})
as a canonical
{\em non-tridiagonal\,} form of the
$K=2$ alternative to the
original $K=1$ BH building block at $N=4$.
The existence of the two isospectral
models with different eigenvectors
may be interpreted as forcing us to
introduce a
new, {\em ad hoc\,} quantum number (say, ``color'').
Certainly, any less formal specification of such a
quantum number (or numbers)
would have to be left to the experimentalists.
Near the BEC dynamical regime only
a dedicated experiment performed over
the $N_B-$plet of bosons
will be able to distinguish between the
systems with different structures
of wave functions.
With their energy spectra fitted by
the $K-$independent formula (\ref{rema}), the
measurements would also have to extract information about
some
wave-function-dependent mean values of some other suitable
observables.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=petka.eps,angle=270,width=0.460\textwidth}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm} \caption{The BEC degeneracy (\ref{rema}) at $N=5$.
\label{loa5}
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Four bosons and $K=2$}
At
$N=5$ the $K=1$ Hamiltonian $H^{(5)}(\gamma)$
of sequence~(\ref{3wg})
yields
the ``colorless'' five-level
spectrum as displayed in Figure \ref{loa5}.
The elementary combinatorics reveals that
besides such an option we can now introduce
the two alternative labelings ``I + II'' and ``III + IV''
of the states with $K=2$.
Having opted for ``I + II'' (see the picture)
we are able to reproduce the spectrum
by the direct product
\be
\widetilde{H^{(3)}_{(2)}}(\gamma)\oplus
\widetilde{H^{(2)}_{(2)}}(\gamma) \sim
\left [\begin {array}{ccccc}
-4\,{\rm i}\gamma&0&2\,\sqrt{2}&0&0
\\{}0& -2\,{\rm i}\gamma&0&2&0
\\{}2\,\sqrt{2}&0&0&0&2\,\sqrt{2}
\\{}0&2&0&2\,{\rm i}\gamma&0
\\{}0&0&2\,\sqrt{2}&0& 4\,{\rm i}\gamma
\end {array}\right ]=
{H^{(5)}_{[K=2]}}(\gamma,I+II)
\label{kc}
\ee
(where $c_1=c_2=2$) while in the second scenario we
choose $c_1=1$ and $c_2=4$ and
have
\be
\widetilde{H^{(3)}_{(1)}}(\gamma)\oplus
\widetilde{H^{(2)}_{(4)}}(\gamma) \, \sim
\left [\begin {array}{ccccc}
-4\,{\rm i}\gamma&0&0&0&4
\\{}0& -2\,{\rm i}\gamma&\sqrt{2}&0&0
\\{}0&\sqrt{2}&0&\sqrt{2}&0
\\{}0&0&\sqrt{2}&2\,{\rm i}\gamma&0
\\{}4&0&0&0& 4\,{\rm i}\gamma
\end {array}\right ]=
{H^{(5)}_{[K=2]}}(\gamma,III+IV)
\,.
\label{kb}
\ee
We again decided to
arrange the basis in such a manner that the main diagonals
remain unchanged.
This renders the resulting Hamiltonian submatrices sparse, multidiagonal,
complex symmetric \cite{Garcia}
and manifestly ${\cal PT}-$symmetric.
\newpage
\section{BEC models of any dimension $N$ and multiplicity $K$}
\subsection{Canonical representation}
In the light of Eq.~(\ref{kwinde})
the non-triviality property $K>1$
of our Hamiltonian matrices
means, at any $N$, that
their canonical representation
must have,
in the EPN limit, the partitioned form
\be
{\cal J}^{[N]}(\eta)=
J^{(M_1)}(\eta)\oplus
J^{(M_2)}(\eta)\oplus
\ldots \oplus
J^{(M_K)}(\eta) =
\left (
\begin{array}{cccc}
J^{(M_1)}(\eta)& \ 0&\ldots&0\\
0&J^{(M_2)}(\eta)&\ddots&\vdots \\
\vdots&\ddots &\ddots \ &0\\
0&\ldots& \ 0&J^{(M_K)}(\eta)
\ea
\right )
\,
\label{regent}
\ee
of a direct sum of
the standard $M_j$ by $M_j$ Jordan-block submatrices
\be
J^{(M_j)}(\eta)=\left (
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\eta&1&0&\ldots&0\\
0&\eta&1&\ddots&\vdots\\
0&0&\eta&\ddots&0\\
\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&1\\
0&\ldots&0&0&\eta
\ea
\right )
\,
\label{JBKz}
\ee
such that
\be
M_1+M_2+\ldots + M_K=N\,.
\label{paries}
\ee
Thus, one of the
basic characteristics of the dynamics of the system
near $\gamma^{(EPN)}$
will be an ordered version
\be
\pi_m(K,N) \in
\left \{[M_1, M_2 , \ldots , M_K]
\left | \
M_1\geq M_2 \geq \ldots \geq M_K\geq 2\,,\ \,
\sum_{j=1}^{K}M_j=N\,
\right .
\right \}\,
\label{nupar}
\ee
of partitioning (\ref{paries}). Up to $N=8$,
the sets of these partitionings
(having $P(N)$ elements)
are
sampled in Table \ref{iixp4}.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The first few sets
(\ref{nupar}) of partitions $\pi_m(K,N)$.
}\label{iixp4}
\vspace{2mm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c|l|c|c||}
\hline \hline
$N$& $\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\{\pi_m(K,N)\}$ & $P(N)$
&$K_{\rm max}$\\
\hline \hline
\,2& \,[2] & 1&1\\
\,3& \,[3] & 1&1\\
\,4& \,[4],\ [2,2] & 2&2\\
\,5& \,[5],\ [3,2] & 2&2\\
\,6& \,[6], \ [4,2],\
[3,3],
[2,2,2] & 4 &3\\
\,7&\,[7],\
[5,2],\
[4,3],\ [3,2,2] & 4&3\\
\,8&\,[8],\
[6,2],\
[5,3],\
[4,4],\ &&\\
& [4,2,2],\
[3,3,2],\
[2,2,2,2] & 7&4\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The trivial
partitionings
$\pi_0(1,N)=[N]$
form the leftmost column
of the Table.
The
related single, unpartitioned Jordan block (\ref{JBKz}) with $M_j$
replaced by $N$
is also most often encountered in the literature.
As the simplest
special case
of the canonical Hamiltonian
it is also the only option available
at $N=2\,$ and $N=3$. At $N>3$ the option becomes
complemented by
the simplest $K=2$ matrix~(\ref{regent})
characterized by the $m=1$ partition
$\pi_1(2,N)=[N-2,2]$, etc.
Thus,
the complete menu of the available partitions
has two elements at $N=4$ and $N=5$,
four elements at $N=6$ and $N=7$, etc.
The
growth of the number
$P(N)\,$ of the partitions
accelerates at the larger matrix dimensions $N$
(see Table~\ref{tabjed} and/or Ref.~\cite{Acc}).
In Eq.~(\ref{nupar})
the subscript
$m=0,1,\ldots, P(N)-1$
counts the partitions.
Their total number $P(N)$ is a rather quickly growing function of $N$
(see
Table~\ref{tabjed}).
Still, one can easily verify that such a subscript
(i.e., in effect, the respective partition)
cannot, by itself, serve the classification purposes.
Indeed, it it is sufficient to consider $N=6$
and to notice that there are no acceptable
direct-sum BH-type candidates for the Hamiltonian
which would be related to the partition $\pi_2(2,6)=[3,3]$.
At the same time, we will see below that
the number of the acceptable candidates
(i.e., in our notation, $a(N)$)
is equal to 6 at $N=6$ while $P(6)=4$.
Thus, some of the candidates must
necessarily share the same partition.
An additional characteristic will be required to make the classification
exhaustive and, at the same time, unambiguous.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The $N-$dependence of the number
$P(N)$ of partitions (\ref{nupar})
at $N\leq 20$.}\label{tabjed}
\begin{tabular}{||c||ccccccccccccccccccc||}
\hline \hline
$N$&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10&11&12&13&14&15&16&17&18&19&20 \\
\hline
$P(N)$&
1&1&2&2&4&4&
7&8&12&14&21&24&34&41&55&66& 88& 105& 137\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Transition matrices}
The BEC- and EPN-admitting BH-type
Hamiltonians $H^{[N]}(\gamma)$ of our present interest
have to be constructed along the lines as sampled
in section \ref{sectri}
above. Once we specify their characteristic
partition (\ref{nupar})
and canonical EPN form (\ref{regent}),
we have to pay due attention also to the
Hamiltonians $H^{[N]}(\gamma)$ in the vicinity
of their EPN extreme.
A decisive technical role is then played
by the transformation yielding the
canonical representation (\ref{regent}) at $\gamma=\gamma^{(EPN)}$.
In the language of linear algebra the correspondence between
operator $H^{[N]}(\gamma^{(EPN)})$
and its partitioned canonical
Jordan-matrix representation
(\ref{regent}) is
mediated by the so called transition matrix $Q$.
This matrix, by definition,
satisfies the following
EPN substitute
\be
H^{[N]}(\gamma^{(EPN)})\,Q^{[\pi_m(K,N)]}
=Q^{[\pi_m(K,N)]}\,{\cal J}^{[N]}(\eta)\,
\label{kanon}
\ee
for the conventional Schr\"{o}dinger equation.
The superscript $\pi_m(K,N)$
has been added here to refer to Eq.~(\ref{nupar}), i.e., to
the partition
$[M_1,M_2,\ldots,M_K]$ specifying
the direct sum ${\cal J}^{[N]}(\eta)$ of Jordan blocks
in (\ref{regent}).
In what follows we will assume that
at a fixed number of bosons $N_B=N-1$
the partitioning $\pi_m(K,N)$ is an inseparable part of
a dynamical input information
about the system even at $\gamma \neq \gamma^{(EPN)}$.
Such an input information will be carried by
the preselected
$N$ by $N$ BH-type toy-model
Hamiltonian matrix
$H^{[N]}(\gamma)$,
tractable as a small perturbation of its EPN limit
$H^{[N]}(\gamma^{(EPN)})$.
Subsequently,
in a way explained in \cite{passage}, the $\gamma-$independent
transition matrices $Q$
can be still perceived
as certain formal analogues of
unperturbed basis \cite{pert}.
In a sufficiently small EPN vicinity with $\gamma \approx \gamma^{(EPN)}$,
the Hamiltonian matrices themselves may be
assumed composed
of an
exactly diagonalizable
unperturbed component $H^{[N]}_0(\gamma)$ (equal to a
suitable BH-type direct sum of the tilded-matrix components (\ref{c3wg}))
and a perturbation.
In the EPN limit, such a perturbation must
disappear.
This means that
for our present considerations
the detailed form of this perturbation is
irrelevant. We will, therefore, ignore its influence and
drop the
zero subscript of the relevant BH Hamiltonian
as, for our present purposes, redundant,
$H^{[N]}_0(\gamma)=H^{[N]}(\gamma)$.
\subsection{Geometric multiplicities $K>1$: realization}
Our attention will be now narrowed
to the study of the BH-type systems of bosons
in which the hypothetical
available experimental information
consists of our {\it a priori\,} knowledge of
the conserved number of bosons $N_B$
and of the $\gamma-$dependence
of the spectrum as given by formula
(\ref{rema}).
Let us emphasize that
such a constraint
is well supported not only by
its occurrence in
multiple experimental setups
(where the
equidistance of the spectrum
usually reflects its ``vibrational''
character and interpretation)
but also by the significance of its purely formal merits.
In \cite{real}, for example, we showed that
even the simplest non-equidistant
choice of the square-well-type
unperturbed spectrum makes
the localization of the EPNs technically
much more complicated.
The equidistance assumption (\ref{rema})
was, initially, a rigorous result
of study of the
BH model (\ref{Ham1}).
Such a property of the system
with trivial geometric
multiplicity $K=1$ was
prescribed by formula (\ref{remake}) for indices.
In our study of the $K \geq 1$ scenarios
we now intend to proceed by analogy.
Having in mind the importance of the
exact solvability
we will complement the (entirely general)
direct-sum decomposition (\ref{diresu})
of the set of indices ${\cal S}(N)$
by a more specific, BH-motivated
additional assumption by which
all of the separate components $S_k^{(EPN)}$
will have to
share
the equidistance and symmetry
(though not the scale)
with
the global set ${\cal S}(N)$,
\be
S_k^{(EPN)}=\widetilde{\cal S}(M_k)
=\{(1-M_k)c_k, (3-M_k)c_k, \ldots ,(M_k-3)c_k, (M_k-1)c_k\}
\,,
\ \ \ \ \ k=1,2,\ldots,K\,.
\label{urremake}
\ee
This means that the optional real multipliers $c_k$
will serve here as a source of an adaptive rescaling of the
subspectra.
The resulting enhanced flexibility of these
subsets of quantum numbers will be paralleled by
a rescaling (\ref{c3wg}) of the
original BH sub-Hamiltonians (\ref{3wg}). In this manner,
in a way inspired by the small$-N$ constructions of section \ref{sectri},
our general
one-parametric
$N$ by $N$ Hamiltonian matrices
will be defined as
follows,
\be
H^{[N]}_{}(\gamma)
=\widetilde{H^{(M_1)}_{(c_1)}}(\gamma)\oplus
\widetilde{H^{(M_2)}_{(c_2)}}(\gamma)\oplus \ldots \oplus
\widetilde{H^{(M_K)}_{(c_K)}}(\gamma)
\,.
\label{lisNK}
\ee
This is our ultimate ansatz.
It admits, by construction, the BEC-related
EPN singularities of arbitrary
geometric multiplicities~$K\geq 1$.
Up to $N=7$, an exhaustive list of the
mutually isospectral Hamiltonian matrices
of this type is given here in Table \ref{swexp4}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Characteristics
of the isospectral
${\cal PT}-$symmetric
BH-type Hamiltonians (\ref{lisNK}) with $N \leq 7$.}\label{swexp4}
\vspace{2mm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c|c||}
\hline \hline
$N$ & \#
& $K$ & $m$ & partition $\pi_m(K,N)$
& set $\{c_1,c_2,\ldots ,c_K\}$ \\
\hline \hline
2&
1& 1 & 0& [2]& \{1\}
\\
\hline
3& 1&
1 & 0& [3]& \{1\}
\\
\hline 4& 1&
1 & 0& [4]& \{1\}
\\
& 2&
2 & 1& [2,2]& \{1,3\}
\\
\hline 5&
1& 1 & 0& [5]& \{1\}
\\ & 2&
2 & 1& [3,2]& \{1,4\}
\\ & 3&
2 & 1& [3,2]& \{2,2\}
\\
\hline 6&1&
1 & 0& [6]& \{1\}
\\ &2&
2 & 1& [4,2]& \{1,5\}
\\ & 3&
3 & 3& [2,2,2]& \{1,3,5\}
\\
\hline
7& 1&
1 & 0& [7]& \{1\}
\\ &2&
2 & 1& [5,2]& \{1,6\}
\\ &3&
2 & 2& [4,3]& \{2,2\}
\\ &4&
3 & 3& [3,2,2]& \{1,4,6\}
\\ &5&
3 & 3& [3,2,2]& \{2,2,6\}
\\ &6&
3 & 3& [3,2,2]& \{3,2,4\}
\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Physics behind the generalized BH model}
In the standard terminology
the two annihilation operators
$a_1$ and
$a_2$ and the two
creation operators
$a_1^\dagger$ and
$a_2^\dagger$ in the
initial BH Hamiltonian (\ref{Ham1})
correspond to
the two
dominant bosonic modes which may tunnel
through a hypothetical unit barrier \cite{Uwe}.
The
parameter $\gamma$ is left variable
in order to characterize the
phenomenologically most relevant
imaginary part of the on-site
bosonic-energy difference (see also
several other studies
of such a most elementary
BH bosonic system in \cite{Christ,zaUwem,[38]}).
From the point of view of physics the apparent
robustness of the $K=1$ property of such a family of
solvable BH-type models
has long been perceived as
disappointing. This seemed to imply
that the solvable picture of the BH-type
quantum
dynamics can only be
based on the conventional BH Hamiltonian (\ref{Ham1}),
not offering a description of an EPN collapse
with a non-trivial geometric multiplicity.
We have shown that an appropriate
$K>1$ generalization of the model will always
require the
direct-sum block-diagonal structure (\ref{regent})
of the canonical Hamiltonian in the EPN limit.
In this sense the highly desirable and still sufficiently realistic
BH-type realization of the general scenario
has been found to be offered
by our present model (\ref{lisNK}).
We managed to keep it exactly solvable, and
we also expect a reopening of the
questions of its predictive power
and/or tests in the laboratory.
In this direction a few immediate comments
are worth adding.
\subsection{Change of phase: two alternative physical interpretations}
In the conventional quantum mechanics of unitary
evolution
the singular values $\gamma^{(EPN)}$
were only a mathematical
curiosity. Useful in perturbation theory \cite{Kato}
but
playing hardly
any significant role in phenomenology.
Indeed, as long as
the conventional quantum theory had to be formulated in a
fixed, pre-selected Hilbert space (say, ${\cal K}$),
the basic postulate of the diagonalizability of
any meaningful quantum Hamiltonian $H(\gamma)$
appeared manifestly incompatible
with any form of
the EPN-related degeneracy
of the eigenstates.
This conclusion also sounded consistent with
the obligatory account of the unitarity and
Stone theorem \cite{Stone}.
The change of paradigm
and the turn of EPNs
into one of the fundamental physical concepts
occurred when Bender
with coauthors \cite{BM,BB}
initiated the study of certain non-Hermitian models with
relevance in the theory of relativistic
quantum fields. The
obvious phenomenological appeal of several
non-Hermitian but Hermitizable innovative forms of
interactions opened a new and promising
direction of research and discoveries
in physics \cite{Carl} as well as in mathematics
\cite{book}.
With time, these developments resulted
in an extension of the scope of the traditional
realistic models
as well as in multiple proposals of the new,
non-Hermitian but Hermitizable Hamiltonians
(see, e.g., several most recent
reviews in \cite{Christodoulides,Carlbook}).
In particular, a compatibility of the new theory with the Stone
theorem has been achieved via an {\it ad hoc\,} amendment of the
inner product
in ${\cal K}$. As a consequence, the later space
proved converted into a new, strictly physical Hilbert space
(say, ${\cal H}$) in which
the Hamiltonian re-acquired its necessary self-adjoint status \cite{ali}.
In our present paper the main consequence of the
perspective of
working with the two Hilbert spaces ${\cal K}$ and ${\cal H}$
is twofold. Firstly, the
non-Hermiticity of $H(\gamma)$
in ${\cal K}$
admitted the existence of
the EPNs at a real parameter $\gamma^{(EPN)}$.
Secondly,
the mathematical consistence of the theory
has been found achieved by the observation that ${\cal H}$
simply ceases to exist in the singular limit of
$\gamma\to \gamma^{(EPN)}$.
Formally speaking, the admissibility of the
reality of the EPNs
was a consequence of the Hermitizability
of $H(\gamma)$ or, indirectly, of its
${\cal PT}-$symmetry \cite{Carl}.
Still, it was also necessary to take into account that in general,
the physical phenomena covered by
non-Hermitian
models
may be found extremely sensitive to random
perturbations \cite{pert,Trefethen,Viola}.
For the latter reason, it is necessary
to distinguish between the implementations of the theory,
mainly in the
two entirely different experimental setups.
In one (let us call it, for our present
terminological purposes, ``approach A''),
many theoreticians
are trying to predict the qualitative features of the
dynamics
of the system {\em after\,} its perturbation.
Interested readers can find an extensive sample of
the results
of such a type in paper \cite{Uwe}.
In that paper
the authors described
several alternative unfolding scenarios of the EPN degeneracy,
i.e.,
several eligible patterns of
the complexification of the energy spectrum under
a ``strong'', unitarity-violating perturbation.
In the context of our present paper we
would slightly prefer an alternative philosophy
(let us call it ``approach B'').
In contrast to approach A (which analyzes, basically, the
non-unitary effective open-system
dynamics),
this approach is restricted
to the
analysis of the unitary, closed-system behavior of the
quantum system of interest.
{\em Before\,} it passes through its
EPN-mediated phase transition, and {\em before\,}
the reality (i.e., the observability)
of the energy spectrum becomes lost.
One of the physics-related consequences is
the emphasis put upon the conservation-law role of
operator (\ref{numop})
which describes the number of bosons in the system. We
declared
such a number a strictly conserved quantity.
Under this assumption we are allowed to
work with a fixed and finite number of bosons $N_B$.
Also the
number of the energy levels is kept finite and equal to
$N=N_B+1$.
Last but not least, it is worth adding that
even the inclusion of perturbations
changing the number
of bosons need not necessarily make the model
prohibitively complicated (in this respect,
interested readers could
consult, e.g., Ref.~\cite{without}).
\subsection{The role of ${\cal PT}-$symmetry}
The modern applications of quantum theory range from condensed
matter physics and materials science up to chemistry and
engineering. In this context many theoretical methods often become
popular with a certain delay. One of the good examples is the
concept of parity-times-time-reversal symmetry (${\cal
PT}-$symmetry) which was initially perceived as a curiosity
possessing just a few purely abstract mathematical
applications (say, during the studies of
some subtleties in perturbation theory -- see, e.g.,
Refs.~\cite{Caliceti,BG,Alvarez}).
Needless to add,
the phenomenological relevance of the concept of
${\cal PT}-$symmetry is now widely recognized and
quickly growing
(see, e.g., several most recent
reviews collected in books \cite{Christodoulides,Carlbook}).
At present such a tendency
still keeps being productive
in several traditional areas of physics.
It
offers new insights also in some subtle mathematical aspects of
the theory of
quantum phase transitions.
In spite of the manifest
non-Hermiticity of the ${\cal PT}-$symmetric
candidates $H$
for Hamiltonians,
these operators were shown
eligible as generators of unitary evolution
\cite{Geyer,ali}.
In this context,
one of the basic methodical assumptions accepted
in the current
literature on BH models \cite{passage,Borisov,nje4a5}
was that
the infinite-dimensional matrix (\ref{geneve})
as well as all of its
separate submatrices (\ref{3wg})
had to be complex symmetric, {\em tridiagonal\,}
and ${\cal PT}-$symmetric, with
${\cal P}$ equal to an antidiagonal unit matrix,
and with symbol
${\cal T}$ representing an antilinear operation of
Hermitian conjugation (i.e., transposition plus
complex conjugation).
This led to the conclusion (or rather conjecture) that
in the EPN limit (i.e., at the instant of
the loss of diagonalizability),
the canonical representation of
{\em every\,} $N$ by $N$ submatrix $H^{(N)}_{}(\gamma^{(EP)})$
can be given the form of the $N$ by $N$ Jordan matrix (\ref{JBKz})
with, due to ${\cal PT}-$symmetry,
$\eta=0$.
In mathematical terminology
this seemed to imply that in the BH models,
the geometric multiplicity $K$
of the EPN in question had to be,
at any preselected value of $N_B=N-1$, {\em always\,}
equal to one \cite{Borisov}.
And it is precisely this belief and scepticism which are
disproved by our direct-sum ansatz (\ref{lisNK}).
\section{Combinatorics behind the classification}
The
relevance of the BEC models with $K>1$
is twofold. First, the differences between
partitions (\ref{nupar})
may
inspire new experiments,
especially in the dynamical regime close to
the EPN singularity. Second,
the number of non-equivalent partitionings
(\ref{nupar})
as well as the number of admissible Hamiltonians
(\ref{lisNK})
are both quickly increasing functions
of the matrix
dimension $N$.
Obviously, in the language of mathematics,
the occurrence of non-minimal
geometric multiplicities $K>1$ may be expected to
dominate, especially among the random
Hamiltonian matrices.
For both of these reasons,
the currently open problem
of the classification of the models at large $N$
would certainly deserve an enhanced attention.
\subsection{Classification scheme}
At the not too large matrix dimensions $N$, our present
condition of equidistance of the energy levels
remains reasonably restrictive. At the smallest $N$
one even encounters
not too numerous alternative isospectral BH models
with Hamiltonians (\ref{lisNK}).
Once we denote the number
of non-equivalent BEC-degeneracy scenarios
by a dedicated symbol $a(N)$, we may notice that
the growth of this value
at intermediate $N$ still remains comparatively slow,
especially at the even $N$ (see Table \ref{uxp4}).
Still, asymptotically,
the growth of the value of $a(N)$
with the growth of $N$
becomes exponentially quick. Even then, the
sequence $a(N)$ keeps exhibiting a parity-related
irregularity (see
\cite{oeisodd} and
\cite{oeiseven} for details).
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The first few
counts $a(N)$
of the generalized BH models of Eq.~(\ref{lisNK}).}\label{uxp4}
\vspace{2mm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c||cccccccccccccc||}
\hline \hline
$N$&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10&11&12&13&14&15 \\
\hline
$a(N)$&1&1&2&3&3&6&4&11&6&17&7&32&8&47\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
For the purposes of an explicit classification of the models,
it is necessary to consider not only the (conserved)
number of bosons $N_B=N_B(N)=N-1$ and
the geometric multiplicity $K$ of the BEC degeneracy but also
the selection of partition $\pi_m(K,N)$ and of the set
of scaling parameters $\{c_1,c_2,\ldots ,c_K\}$.
All of these choices have to be made
compatible with the direct-sum decomposition
formula (\ref{lisNK}). The resulting exhaustive list of
the Hamiltonians
is
sampled in Table \ref{swexp4}.
The Table offers
a clarification of the
relationship between the scarcity of our initial
BH Hamiltonians in their matrix representations
(\ref{geneve}) or (\ref{3wg})
(where we always had $K=1$)
and the abundance of
their $K>1$ EPN-supporting generalizations
$H^{[N]}(\gamma)$.
Although the
construction of Table \ref{swexp4} was just an elementary combinatorics,
its extension to the larger dimensions $N$
is still an open question.
The construction
becomes tedious, well suited for the
computer-assisted enumeration.
Incidentally,
the suitable algorithms proved different for the
odd and even $N$.
Their most efficient
versions were proposed by Andrew Howroyd
and may be found published,
in
the on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences, under the
respective coordinates
\cite{oeisodd} and
\cite{oeiseven}.
Our spectrum-equidistance
constraint restricts, in
Hamiltonian~(\ref{lisNK}),
the freedom of our choice of
the partitions $\pi_m(K,N)$
and of the scalings $c_k$.
From a descriptive and phenomenological point of view,
the family of the resulting generalized BH
Hamiltonians still remains sufficiently rich.
In the manner illustrated in Table \ref{swexp4}
one only has to notice that at a fixed (i.e.,
unrestricted but conserved)
value of $N$,
a straightforward classification of these
Hamiltonians is not provided
by the multiplicity $K$ (even at $N=5$, the $K=2$ option
is already shared by the two different Hamiltonians)
nor by the partitions (at $N=6$, partition $[3,3]$ is
not realized at all)
but only by their combination with the eligible multiplets
of scalings $\{c_1,c_2,\ldots ,c_K\}$.
\subsection{An alternative notation\label{64}}
A rather abstract nature of the latter criterion
indicates that
a more physics-oriented guide to the classification
could and might be sought in
a return to the
explicit spectrum (\ref{rema}).
We know that
the unique) $K=1$ element
$H^{(N)}_{}(\gamma)$
of the BH-matrix sequence (\ref{3wg})
is unambiguously specified by the
spectrum.
In this sense
the Hamiltonian matrix becomes uniquely identified
by the $\gamma=0\,$ spectrum {\it or\,} by the symbol
${\cal S}(N)$. Thus, with $N=5$,
for example, we have ${\cal S}(5)
=\{-4,-2,0,2,4 \}$
admitting the two
centrally symmetric and equidistant
decompositions
$\{-2,0,2 \}\bigcup\{-4,4 \}$
and $\{-4,0,4 \}\bigcup \{-2,2 \}$.
Both may be most easily attributed
the respective Hamiltonian matrices (\ref{kb}) and (\ref{kc}).
The latter, more intuitive and spectrum-representing
version of notation admits an abbreviation
which has been used in Refs.~\cite{oeisodd} and
\cite{oeiseven}.
The
centrally symmetric and equidistant $K=1$ multiplets
${\cal S}(N)=\{1-N,3-N,\ldots, N-1 \}$
were represented there by an abbreviated symbol
$\{024\ldots (2J)\}$ (for odd $N=2J+1$)
or
$\{135\ldots (2J-1)\}$ (for even $N=2J$).
One also needed the auxiliary
rescaled symbols like
$p\,\{024\ldots\}=\{0(2p)(4p)\ldots\}$
and
$q\,\{135\ldots\}=\{q(3q)(5q)\ldots\}$.
In this notation, therefore, the ``colorless'' $K=1$
building-block items
forming the sequence (\ref{3wg})
are assigned the respective abbreviated
flavor-specifying
indices
$\{1\}$ (at even $N=2$),
$\{02\}$ (at odd $N=3$),
$\{13\}$ [at even $N=4$],
$\{024\}$ [at odd $N=5$], etc.
Once we further move to the simplest nontrivial ``colored''
building-block (\ref{Brasov}) with $N=4$ and $K=2$,
our new form of the reference index will simply be the union
$\{1\}\bigcup\{3\} \equiv \{1\}\{3\}$.
Similarly, at $N=5$ and $K=2$ we will have
the index $\{02\}\bigcup\{4\} \equiv \{02\}\{4\}$
for matrix (\ref{kb}), and the second possible index
$\{04\}\bigcup\{2\} \equiv \{04\}\{2\}$ for
the other matrix (\ref{kc}).
Once we admit an arbitrary value of
dimension $N$,
our present, physics-oriented
problem of the classification
of all of the possible $N$ by $N$ sub-Hamiltonians
becomes equivalent to
the purely combinatorial problem of an exhaustive
generation of all of the possible decompositions
of index $\{024\ldots 2J\}$ (for odd $N=2J+1$)
or index
$\{135\ldots 2J-1\}$ (for even $N=2J$)
into the appropriate sub-indices.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The first few generalized BH models
in the alternative notation of paragraph \ref{64}
(the trivial, tridiagonal-matrix BH items of Eq.~(\ref{3wg})
are boxed).}\label{pexp4}
\vspace{2mm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c||l||c||l||c||}
\hline \hline
$N$& partitions (\ref{nupar}) of $N=N_B+1$ & \#
& isospectral-Hamiltonian indices & \# \\
\hline \hline
2& {2} & 1& \fbox{\{1\}}& 1\\
3& {3} & 1& \fbox{\{02\}}& 1\\
4& {4}, {2+2} & 2& \fbox{\{13\}}, {}{\{1\}$\!$\{3\}} & 2\\
5& {5}, {3+2}$\,^{(a)}$ & 2& \fbox{\{024\}},
{}{\{02\}$\!$\{4\}},
{}{\{04\}$\!$\{2\}} & 3\\
6& {6}, {4+2},
{3+3}$\,^{(b)}$,
{2+2+2} & 4 & \fbox{\{135\}},
{}{\{13\}$\!$\{5\}}, {}{\{1\}$\!$\{3\}$\!$\{5\}} & 3\\
\hline
7&{7},\
{5+2},\
{4+3},\ & 4&
\fbox{\{0246\}}, {}{\{024\}$\!$\{6\}},
{}{\{04\}$\!$\{26\}},
& 6\\
&
{3+2+2}$\,^{(c)}$ & &
{}{\{02\}$\!$\{4\}$\!$\{6\}},
{}{\{04\}$\!$\{2\}$\!$\{6\}},
{}{\{06\}$\!$\{2\}$\!$\{4\}} & \\
\hline
8&{8},\
{6+2},\
{5+3}$\,^{(b)}$,\
{4+4}$\,^{(b)}$,\ {4+2+2},\ & 7&
\fbox{\{1357\}}, {}{\{135\}$\!$\{7\}},
{}{\{13\}$\!$\{5\}$\!$\{7\}}, & 4\\
&
{3+3+2}$\,^{(b)}$,\
{2+2+2+2} & & {}{\{1\}$\!$\{3\}$\!$\{5\}$\!$\{7\}} & \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{||l||}{$^{(a)}$ realized twice}\\
\multicolumn{5}{||l||}{$^{(b)}$ not realized}\\
\multicolumn{5}{||l||}{$^{(c)}$ realized thrice}\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The first few samples of the modified classification
may be found displayed in our last Table \ref{pexp4}.
More comments on such a notation
may be also found in
\cite{oeisodd}
and \cite{oeiseven}.
In particular,
these references offer an algorithm for the evaluation
of
the ``count of the colors''
$a(N)$ at any $N$.
\section{Discussion}
In our paper we managed to clarify
certain qualitative properties of the
BEC degeneracies.
For the sake of definiteness we had to assume
that the set of indices ${\cal S}{(N)}$
was defined by Eq.~(\ref{remake}).
Nevertheless,
only our independent requirement of the BH-type
physics
extended the same requirement to all of the components of
the direct sums
(\ref{diresu}).
Otherwise, the form of these
subsets $S_k^{(EP)}$ would
remain less constrained, numbering strictly just the
eigenstates which had to
coincide with the $k-$th ket $|\chi_k^{(EPN)}\kt$ in the limit.
Thus, every such a subset would only be required to contain
two or more quantum numbers $n$.
\subsection{The specific features of bosons}
In the light of the latter comment we believe that
the price to pay for the enhanced freedom
(consisting in the loss of the connection of physics with the
BH model) would be too high and hardly acceptable.
Indeed, the BH model mimics
the
experimentally
realizable
double-well arrangement in which, say,
the cold bosonic atoms are injected
in one well and, simultaneously,
extracted from the other one \cite{Klai,Cart}.
Moreover, the model also reflects
the key difference between fermions and bosons
because
the ``natural'' Pauli exclusion principle
only applies to the the former class of the quantum particles.
Bose with Einstein \cite{Bose}
were among the first to notice that in the systems of bosons,
this opens the possibility of a
specific quantum phase transition (which is, at present,
widely known as the
Bose-Einstein condensation \cite{Douglas}).
Both the theoretical and experimental
aspects of the BEC idea proved
particularly useful and inspiring
in the condensed matter physics.
The condensates were successfully
described there, typically, by various nonlinear
forms of Schr\"{o}dinger equation
\cite{Kostya}.
In our present paper we paid attention to the
less widespread simulation of the condensation processes
in which the underlying dynamical
equations are required
${\cal PT}-$symmetric, i.e., invariant with respect to the
simultaneous action of
parity ${\cal P}$ and of the antilinear time reversal ${\cal T}$ \cite{Carl}.
As we already indicated above,
the scope and impact of such a methodical innovation is
not yet fully explored, with the existing results
ranging from
an amendment of our understanding of the topological phase transitions
(say, in a non-Hermitian Aubry-Andre-Harper model
\cite{citkorid} or in quasicrystals \cite{kukorid})
up to the new approaches to the
perception of the conservation laws \cite{orid},
and from the theoretical studies of the
interference between channels
\cite{skost} and of the mechanisms of squeezing \cite{rekorid}
up to the detailed, experiment-oriented
simulations of the properties of the
specific BEC-type condensates
\cite{Cart}.
In this framework, promising results are also being obtained
in the area of related mathematics.
Along these lines we showed that although
the model (\ref{Ham1}) is, in some sense,
naive, its exact solvability
represents an important advantage.
In fact, precisely this property
encouraged us to propose a generalization
which
enhanced the theoretical scope
while still remaining realistic.
We may summarize that our ``benchmark'' amendment of the model
seems to offer a fairly satisfactory
picture of the physical BEC-related reality
which is obtained, in addition, by
the purely non-numerical means.
\subsection{The problem of the non-uniqueness of the model\label{sekcedva}}
In the above-mentioned open-system-theory approach A
(which may be found more thoroughly explained
also in monograph \cite{Nimrod}),
the one-parametric ${\cal PT}-$symmetric BH model (\ref{Ham1})
can be interpreted as one of the phenomenological descriptions of
a realistic and potentially unstable quantum system of bosons
in which their number $N_B$ itself is conserved.
In such an effective-description approach the model
simulates
the behavior of an open system
exposed, say, to the influence of an
environment
in a way characterized, globally, by the parameter.
The manifest non-Hermiticity and non-unitarity of the model
reflects, effectively, the randomness of the environment.
In our presently preferred approach B,
the physical interpretation of the model is different,
treated fully in the spirit of the original Bender's
philosophy \cite{Carl}.
This, naturally,
enhances the impact of ${\cal PT}-$symmetry, and it
changes also a part of the related mathematics.
First of all,
the conventional Hilbert space ${\cal K}$
must be declared unphysical because in this space
the evolution (controlled by Hamiltonian $H$ which is
non-Hermitian) would be,
in the light of the well known Stone theorem \cite{Stone},
non-unitary.
Incidentally, the apparent emerging paradox has a virtually
elementary resolution: Along the lines discovered and
discussed already in
older literature \cite{Geyer,Dyson},
it is sufficient to endow the same space ${\cal K}$
with an amended inner product.
Interested readers should search for the necessary
mathematical details elsewhere \cite{book,Geyer,ali}.
For introduction it is just sufficient to keep in mind
that the amendment of the inner product
converts the unphysical Hilbert space ${\cal K}$
into its
physical Hilbert-space
alternative ${\cal H}$ in which $H$ becomes, by construction,
Hermitian {\it alias\,} self-adjoint.
In approach B, the first task is to demonstrate the
existence of a suitable inner product
(see, e.,g., an extensive discussion of this
aspect of the theory in \cite{Lotor}),
the necessary condition of which is the reality of the spectrum.
This means that, in some sense, the two approaches A
and B meet
at the boundary where $\gamma^{(EPN)}=1$.
In both of the neighboring dynamical regimes, after all,
the hypothesis of the existence of the EPN boundary
opens an exciting theoretical possibility of description
of an EPN-mediated phase transition in the system.
In our study, we
had mainly in mind approach B.
We considered, exclusively,
the positive and unitarity-compatible parameters
$\gamma<\gamma^{(EPN)}$.
In such a subinterval
of parameters it is possible to guarantee that
the necessary physical
Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ does really exist
because the spectrum of $H$ is real \cite{ali}.
In such a context
there emerges one of the most interesting
theoretical questions: Would
the experimental confirmation of the
BH-model-based predictions
mean and imply that
the validity of the theoretical model is confirmed?
Obviously, it is not so because
in an inverse
BH bound-state problem,
the candidate
for the simulation of a given energy spectrum
is not unique. Constructively we showed that
a given solvable BH-type Hamiltonian
can be complemented
by its many isospectral alternatives,
yielding even exactly the same
parameter-dependence of the energy spectrum.
This implies that in a complete experiment
one would have to measure also some wave-function-dependent
features of the system.
\subsection{A remark on the theory of quantum phase transitions}
{\em Before\,} the BEC/EPN collapse
(i.e., whenever $|\gamma|<1$),
the spectrum
of all of our present BH Hamiltonians
remains real and observable.
{\em At the instant\,} of collapse,
one can speak about a quantum phase transition \cite{denis}.
{\em After\,} the system has passed {\em through\,}
such an EPN singularity,
one has a choice between the
above-mentioned open-system evolution scenarios
of approach A
(admitting
the loss of the reality
of the spectrum)
and the closed-system scenario B in which the escape from
the EPN singularity proceeds
through a fine-tuned corridor of
unitarity
as sampled, in the BH context, in \cite{passage}.
In a broader phenomenological context,
one of the most typical aspects of the change of phase
of any quantum system
can be seen in the loss of observability
of at least one of its observable characteristics.
Among the most popular scenarios of phenomenological interest
one encounters the
loss of observability of the
energy levels,
i.e., in Schr\"{o}dinger picture \cite{Messiah},
of at least some
of the parameter-controlled eigenvalues
of the Hamiltonian.
From the point of view of mathematics,
it makes sense to prefer the
study of the Hamiltonians which are analytic functions
of the parameter, $H=H(\gamma)$.
In the generic, infinite-dimensional and purely numerical models
the loss of the observability
can be then perceived as caused,
in a partial analogy with our present
solvable models, by the
limiting transition
$\gamma \to \gamma^{(EPN)}$
in which the limiting value of the parameter is the Kato's
exceptional point of some finite order $N$.
One can say that at in such a limit
there also exists a finite subset $S=S^{(EPN)}$ of
quantum numbers $n$
for which the energies
as well as the wave functions merge.
Due to our present intention of keeping the models solvable,
it was only necessary to decompose
the discrete set $S^{(EPN)}$
in
the very special, BH-related
direct sum (\ref{diresu}).
Naturally,
the same method and approach should also work in the
descriptions of the quantum systems which
are not solvable exactly.
\section{Summary}
The authors of Ref.~\cite{Uwe} emphasized the deep methodical
relevance of model (\ref{Ham1}) in the vicinity of its BEC
degeneracy. They even developed a specific {\it ad hoc\,}
perturbation theory and described some of the consequences of the
inclusion of perturbations. Several alternative BEC-related
perturbation-influence results can be also found in
Refs.~\cite{znopert}. These studies clarified multiple quantitative
aspects of the condensation.
In our present project
we managed to construct a BH-based simulation
of the general BECs in a
solvable-model realization.
The resulting picture of
a generic EPN degeneracy appeared to have two aspects.
The positive one is that in our innovative family of the
BH-type models the EPN limit has been made
nontrivial, characterized by any kinematically
admissible geometric multiplicity $K$.
In our methodically oriented considerations,
on the other hand, our results only involved
the study of the Hamiltonian.
Our description of the system of bosons
did not involve
any other quantities which would be
measurable and which would
enable us to clarify the differences between our
non-equivalent BH-type models. Thus,
the clarification of these differences
(characterized here just by a rather formal
proposal
of an auxiliary quantum number)
will certainly be a task
for some forthcoming studies of the BH-type systems of bosons.
From the mathematical point of view the
most exciting aspect of our generalized
BH models of BEC was, certainly, the
discovery of the feasibility of the
enumerative
classification of all of the admissible
direct-sum Hamiltonians (\ref{lisNK}).
This was an interesting
combinatorial task which found the necessary
background in the specialized literature.
In such a formulation
one cannot say that the task
is already completed.
Indeed, the two Howroyd's
brute-force algorithms of the
enumeration
of all of the phenomenologically meaningful
unions (\ref{diresu}) of the
specific equidistant and symmetric
spectral subsets (\ref{urremake})
of the energy quantum numbers
would certainly deserve to be complemented by
some less implicit
(e.g., recurrent) alternatives
(provided only that they do exist at all).
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Sec:1}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{ransmitting} data reliably over noisy communication channels is one of the key applications of information theory, and it is well understood for channels modelled by classical physics. Initiated by Shannon's seminal work \cite{27}, the study of communication channels involving the exchange of classical data led to over time the establishment of the field of classical Shannon theory. The greatest achievement of the latter is the realization that any noisy communication channel can be modeled as a stochastic map connecting input signals selected by a sender -- say Alice -- who operates at one end of the channel, to the corresponding output accessible to the receiver -- say Bob. Shannon stressed that the performance of this communication channel is gauged by a single quantity, the so-called \textit{capacity} of the channel.
Nevertheless, information is not just an abstract mathematical notion. Instead, it exhibits an intrinsic relationship with the physical channel nature, which poses fundamental limits on the possibility of processing or transferring it. This is where quantum theory comes into play in the study of communication channels \cite{29}. As a matter of fact, any two parties wishing to exchange information should encode it in the state of some system acting as information carrier. Whenever the system exhibits a quantum nature -- such as a photonic pulse propagating through an optical fiber -- the propagation of the information carrier as well as the overall processing must follow the principles and the laws of quantum mechanics. Accordingly, as a generalization of channels in Shannon theory, \textit{quantum channels} are introduced, linking the initial states of quantum information carriers controlled by Alice with their output states manipulated by Bob.
One surprising quantum effect, which can be resourceful for this paradigmatic shift from classical to quantum communications, is quantum entanglement. This new type of correlations, with no classical counterpart, can boost the communication capabilities drastically. In fact, despite that an entangled state shared between Alice and Bob -- alone -- does not provide any communication possibilities \cite{33}, when used to \textit{assist} a quantum channel, it can enhance the performance by doubling the classical capacity as in \textit{quantum superdense coding} \cite{31}. Or, even more surprising, it can enable the transfer of quantum information with the transmission of two classical bits as in \textit{quantum teleportation} \cite{33,31,32}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{| p{0.15\textwidth} | p{0.35\textwidth} | p{0.45\textwidth}|}
\toprule
\textbf{} & \textbf{Classical Communications} & \textbf{Quantum Communications}\\
\midrule
\textbf{non-zero-capacity channels} & $n$ uses of a communication channel \textit{do not} transmit more than $n$ times the amount of information that can be transmitted with a single channel use (\textbf{additivity}) & - $n$ uses of a communication channel can transmit \textit{more} than $n$ times the amount of information that can be transmitted with a single channel use (\textbf{superadditivity}) \\
& & - channels combined in a quantum trajectory can transmit more information with respect to a classical placement of the same channels (\textbf{causal activation})\\
\midrule
\textbf{zero-capacity channels} & \textit{can not} transmit information, regardless of the number of uses and/or the placement of these channels & \textit{can} transmit information either with a classical placement of different channels (\textbf{superactivation}) or by combining the channels in a quantum trajectory (\textbf{causal activation}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Classical vs quantum communications. Superadditivity, superactivation, and causal activation can enable an unparalleled boost of the capacity of a quantum channel, which is not achievable in classical communications.}
\label{Tab:Intro}
\hrulefill
\end{table*}
However, quantum Shannon theory has more to offer, as summarized in Table~\ref{Tab:Intro} and pictorially represented in Figure~\ref{NewFig:2}. Indeed, a proper channel encoder allowed to encode the information -- either classical or quantum -- into entangled states enhances the performance achievable thorough a quantum channel. This potential gain is referred to as \textit{superadditivity} of the quantum channel capacity, and such a topic constituted a long and hot debate in the quantum communications community \cite{6,15,24,26}.
Even more astonishing, there exists pairs of channels that, although they do not have individually the ability to transmit any amount of quantum information, are able to transmit information when used together on entangled inputs. This is known as the \textit{superactivation} phenomenon \cite{4,14,16}, which shows that the quantum capacity is a strongly non-additive quantity.
Both the superadditivity and the superactivation
phenomena, which have no counterpart in the classical Shannon theory, induce an yet to be solved question on how different noisy channels interact and enhance each other's capabilities, as we will highlight and discuss in the following.
But the marvels of the quantum realm are not by any means limited to the unconventional phenomena of superadditivity and superactivation. Indeed, quantum Shannon theory deals with information encoded in quantum carriers, but still considers the propagation of information through classical trajectories, so that the path taken by messages in space is always well-defined, i.e., where channels are in definite causal order.
Counter-intuitively, quantum mechanics allows quantum particles to propagate simultaneously among multiple space-time trajectories. This ability enables a quantum information carrier to propagate through a \textit{quantum trajectory} \cite{36,18,3,13,9}. An important setup is given by a quantum trajectory where the constituting communications channels are combined in a quantum superposition of different orders, so that the causal order of the channels become indefinite. This unconventional placement of the channels is theoretically and experimentally implemented through the \textit{quantum switch}, which is a supermap resulted from an extension of quantum mechanics under the name of process matrix formalism \cite{39,40} or before this, quantum combs \cite{37,38}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/NewFig2.pdf}
\caption{Pictorial representation of non-zero vs zero-capacity channels highlighting the different phenomena -- namely, superadditivity, superactivation, and causal activation -- affecting the fundamental notion of channel capacity in ways with no counterpart in the classical Shannon theory.}
\label{NewFig:2}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
The superposition of trajectories and the quantum switch supermap have proved to be able to describe powerful setups for the transmission of classical/quantum information \cite{19}. As instance, whenever Alice and Bob are restricted to use quantum channels with zero-classical-capacity, no classical information can be sent throughout any classical configuration of the channels, neither parallel or sequential. Conversely, a \textit{causal activation}\footnote{The term causal activation was coined in \cite{18} to distinguish the phenomenon of activating vanishing capacities of quantum channels with indefinite causal order of channels from the known phenomenon of superactivation \cite{13}.} of the classical capacity\footnote{Indeed, causal activation occurs also for quantum capacities, as discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:6}.} occurs when the channels are placed in a quantum configuration through the quantum switch, and non-vanishing information can be transmitted from Alice to Bob.
The unconventional phenomenon of \textit{causal activation} led researchers to work toward the extension of quantum Shannon theory for modelling coherent superposition of quantum channels \cite{3} as well as superposition of their causal orders \cite{13} as a communication resource. This extension should not come as a surprise. Indeed, also within the ``\textit{classical}'' quantum Shannon theory, phenomena such as \textit{superadditivity} and \textit{superactivation} prove that the communication potential of a channel strictly depends on the context in which it is used. Hence, this shows that genuine quantum phenomena play a paramount role for future communications, and they should be fully understood and harnessed to achieve unprecedented information transfer capacities.
\subsection{Outline and Contribution}
\label{Sec:1.1}
As mentioned above, \textit{superadditivity}, \textit{superactivation}, and \textit{causal activation} are all phenomena affecting the fundamental notion of channel capacity -- as introduced by Claude Shannon with his seminal work \cite{27} -- in ways with no counterpart in the classical Shannon theory. Unfortunately, the existing literature is \textit{prepared by} and \textit{prepared for} the physics community. This still leads to a fundamental gap between the literature and the communications engineering community.
The aim of this paper is precisely to bridge this gap, by introducing the most novel, astonishing and intriguing properties of quantum communications, which can:
\begin{itemize}
\item provide a capacity gain for both classical and quantum information through the \textit{superadditivity} phenomenon,
\item provide a non-null capacity for quantum information through the \textit{superactivation} phenomenon,
\item provide both a capacity gain (when the individual channels exhibit non-null capacity) or a non-null capacity (when the individual channels are zero-capacity channels) for both classical and quantum information through the \textit{causal activation} phenomenon, by exploiting the genuine quantum placement of quantum channels provided by quantum trajectories.
\end{itemize}
Stemming from the discussion above, in the following we shed the light on the notions of superadditivity and superactivation of quantum channel capacities, as well as the more recently discovered phenomenon of causal activation of different capacities, that accompanies the propagation of information along quantum trajectories, with the objective of allowing the reader:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\roman*)]
\item to own the implications of these phenomena for understanding and deriving the fundamental limits of communications;
\item to grasp the challenges as well as to appreciate the marvels arising with the paradigmatic shift from designing classical communications to design quantum communications.
\end{enumerate}
Through the manuscript, the nature of these phenomena and, in particular, the differences among the resources responsible for these advantages are elaborated. In fact, the understanding of these phenomena is a key to grasp how different resources can be distributed through quantum networks \cite{marcello} more efficiently, and how they can be used optimally in the engineering of a near-term Quantum Internet \cite{Kimble_2008,Pirandola2016UniteTB,CalCacBia2018,CacCalTafCatGherBia2020,CalChaCuoHasCac2020,CacCalRodLaj2020,Wehner2018QuantumIA,lajos,Razavi2012}. Indeed, due to the fast grow of both fields, such an understanding will serve the quantum engineering and the communications engineering communities alike to have an easy access and guide towards the relevant literature and to the prominent results, which will be of paramount importance for designing efficient communication protocols.
To the best of authors' knowledge, a tutorial of this type is the first of its own.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{1\columnwidth}
\usetikzlibrary{trees}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[thick,anchor=west]
\begin{tikzpicture}[level distance=2cm, grow via three points={one child at (0.3,-0.55) and
two children at (0.3,-0.5) and (0.3,-1.15)},
edge from parent path={([xshift=0.0mm] \tikzparentnode.south west) |- (\tikzchildnode.west)},
growth parent anchor=south west,
edge from parent/.style = {draw, -latex}]
\node {}
child { node {\small I. Introduction}
child[xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small I-A. Outline and Contribution}}
}
child [missing] {}
child { node {\small II. Preliminaries}
child[xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small II-A. Quantum background}}
child[xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small III-B. From Classical Capacity to Quantum Capacities}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small II-C. Operational Definition of Quantum Channel Capacities}}
child[xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small II-D. Classical Capacity of Quantum Channels}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small II-E. Quantum Capacity of Quantum Channels}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small II-F. Bibliographic Notes}}
}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child { node {\small III. Quantum Marvels}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small III-A. Superadditivity}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small III-B. Superactivation}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small III-C. Causal Activation}}
}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child { node {\small IV. Superadditivity of Quantum Channel Capacities}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small IV-A. Superadditivity of Holevo Information}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small IV-B. Superadditivity of Coherent Information}}
child[xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small IV-C. Superadditivity of Classical and Quantum Capacities}}
}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child { node {\small V. Superactivation of Quantum Channel Capacities}
child [xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small V-A. Classes of Zero Capacity Channels}}
child [xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small V-B. Superactivation of Quantum Capacity}}
child[xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small V-C. Non-convexity of Quantum Capacity }}
child[xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small V-D. Classical Capacity }}
}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child { node {\small VI. Causal activation of Quantum Channel Capacities }
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small VI-A. Quantum Switch}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small VI-B. Causal Activation of Holevo Information}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small VI-C. Causal Activation of Quantum Capacity }}
}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child { node {\small VII. Conclusions and Future Perspectives }
child[xshift=0.1cm] { node {\small VII-A. Summary}}
child [xshift=0.1cm]{ node {\small VII-B. Open Problems}}
}
child [missing] {}
child [missing] {}
child { node {\small VIII. Appendices }
child [missing] {}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Paper Structure}
\label{fig:content}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
The paper is structured as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:content}. Specifically,
in Section~\ref{Sec:2}, we provide the reader -- by assuming a basic background of classical Shannon theory -- with a concise description of the preliminaries needed to understand and to formally characterize these phenomena. Then
in Section~\ref{Sec:3}, we conduct an informal description of the three unconventional phenomena -- superactivation, superadditivity and causal activation -- from a communication engineering perspective. In Section~\ref{Sec:4}, we first discuss the superadditivity phenomenon for one-shot capacities -- i.e., Holevo information and coherent information -- and then we generalize our discussions to regularized capacities. Continuing further our discussions, in Section~\ref{Sec:5} we detail the superactivation phenomenon for quantum capacities, and we point out the rationale behind being it restricted to quantum information. In Section~\ref{Sec:6}, we discuss the causal activation phenomenon for different capacities, ranging from Holevo information through coherent information to classical and quantum regularized capacities. Finally, we conclude our tutorial in Section~\ref{Sec:7}. Specifically, we first summarizing the differences and similarities between the communication advantages of these three phenomena, in terms of resources enabling these advantages. Then, we discuss the challenges and open problems arising with the engineering of these phenomena from a communication engineering perspective. Supplementary material is included in Appendices~\ref{App:0.1}-\ref{App:4} with the aim of providing the reader outside the specialty of the article with an easy-to-consult summary of some definitions and results.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{| p{0.6\textwidth} |p{0.1\textwidth}|}
\toprule
\textbf{Notion} & \textbf{Appearance} \\
\midrule
Quantum bit & Appendix~\ref{AppA:1} \\
\midrule
Superposition & Appendix~\ref{AppA:1} \\
\midrule
Unitary transformation & Appendix~\ref{AppA:2} \\
\midrule
Projective measurement & Appendix~\ref{AppA:3}\\
\midrule
Mixed state & Appendix~\ref{AppA:4} \\
\midrule
Pure state & Appendix~\ref{AppA:4} \\
\midrule
Density matrix & Appendix~\ref{AppA:4} \\
\midrule
Positive operator-valued measure (POVM) & Appendix~\ref{AppA:5}\\
\midrule
Entangled state & Appendix~\ref{AppA:6} \\
\midrule
Quantum channel & Appendix~\ref{App:1} \\
\midrule
Completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP) map & Appendix~\ref{App:1} \\
\midrule
Kraus representation & Appendix~\ref{AppB:A} \\
\midrule
Isometric extension (Stinespring dilation) & Appendix~\ref{AppB:B} \\
\midrule
Choi state & Appendix~\ref{AppB:C} \\
\midrule
(Anti-)Degradability of a quantum channel & Appendix~\ref{App:2} \\
\midrule
Von Neumann entropy & Appendix~\ref{App:3} \\
\midrule
Entropy of exchange & Appendix~\ref{App:3} \\
\midrule
Holevo information & Appendix~\ref{App:3} \\
\midrule
Quantum mutual information & Appendix~\ref{App:3} \\
\midrule
Conditional von Neumann entropy & Appendix~\ref{App:3} \\
\midrule
Entropy of exchange & Appendix~\ref{App:3} \\
\midrule
Codeword & Appendix~\ref{App:4} \\
\midrule
Rate of the code & Appendix~\ref{App:4} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Basic notions and sections of the manuscript where their formal mathematical definitions are defined or introduced.}
\label{Tab:App}
\hrulefill
\end{table*}
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{Sec:2}
Ever since its almost 100-year history, quantum mechanics has not only strikingly challenged our view of Nature. Its novel counter-intuitive concepts without classical counterparts \cite{Jammer1966TheCD} have found their applications in a plethora of branches of science and engineering, and they revolutionized them. This has turned quantum mechanics from a formalism built to describe certain unexplained physical phenomena (e.g., black-body radiation and photoelectric effect) and fit experimental data to a machinery that can be used in developing technologies that rely upon quantum effects.
Here, we provide a concise introduction to concepts and formalism needed to present and to discuss the phenomena of superadditivity, superactivation and causal activation. The basic notions and the notation adopted throughout the paper are summarized in Table~\ref{Tab:App} and Table~\ref{Tab:00}, respectively, along with the indication of the section of the manuscript in which the corresponding concept is formally defined or introduced.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{| p{0.15\textwidth} | p{0.60\textwidth}|p{0.1\textwidth}|}
\toprule
\textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Definition} &\textbf{Appearance} \\
\midrule
$C(\mathcal{N})$ & The classical capacity of the quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ & Section~\ref{Sec:2.4}\\
\midrule
$Q(\mathcal{N})$ & The quantum capacity of the quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ & Section~\ref{Sec:2.5}\\
\midrule
$\mathcal{H}$ & Hilbert space& Appendix~\ref{App:0.1}\\
\midrule
$\ket{\psi}$ & Pure state& Appendix~\ref{App:0.1}\\
\midrule
$A^\dagger$ & Conjugate transpose of an operator A & Appendix~\ref{App:0.1}\\
\midrule
$\{M_i\}$ & Elements of a measurement setup POVM & Appendix~\ref{App:0.1}\\
\midrule
$\rho$ & Density operator & Appendix~\ref{App:0.1}\\
\midrule
$\otimes$ & Tensor product & Appendix~\ref{App:1}\\
\midrule
$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})$ & The set of density operators on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ & Appendix~\ref{App:1}\\
\midrule
$\mathcal{N}(\cdot)$ & A quantum channel & Appendix~\ref{App:1}\\
\midrule
$\mathcal{N}(\cdot)=\sum_iK_i\cdot K_i^{\dagger}$ & Kraus decomposition of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ & Appendix~\ref{App:1}\\
\midrule
$\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{N}}$ & The isometric extension of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ & Appendix~\ref{App:1}\\
\midrule
$\mathcal{N}^c$ & The complementary channel of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ & Appendix~\ref{App:1}\\
\midrule
$\tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}_{\mathcal{N}}$ & The Choi state of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ & Appendix~\ref{App:1}\\
\midrule
$S(\rho)$ & The von Neumann entropy of the density operator $\rho$ & Appendix~\ref{App:3}\\
\midrule
$H(X)$ & The Shannon entropy of the random variable $X$ & Appendix~\ref{App:3}\\
\midrule
$\{p_x,\rho_x\}$ & An ensemble of quantum states & Appendix~\ref{App:3}\\
\midrule
$\chi(\{p_x,\rho_x\},\mathcal{N})$ & The Holevo information of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ with the input ensemble $\{p_x,\rho_x\}$ & Appendix~\ref{App:3}\\
\midrule
$I(X:Y)$ & The mutual information between the random variables $X$ and $Y$ & Appendix~\ref{App:3}\\
\midrule
$I(\rho,\mathcal{N})$ & The quantum mutual information between the output of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ and the input state $\rho$ & Appendix~\ref{App:3}\\
\midrule
$I_c(\rho,\mathcal{N})$ & The coherent information of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ with respect to the input state $\rho$ & Appendix~\ref{App:3}\\
\midrule
$S(A|B)$ & The conditional von Neumann entropy between quantum systems $A$ and $B$ & Appendix~\ref{App:3}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Adopted notation and section of the manuscript where the notation is defined or introduced.}
\label{Tab:00}
\hrulefill
\end{table*}
\subsection{Quantum background}
\label{Sec:2.1}
\subsubsection*{A.1) The quantum bit}
What makes quantum mechanics attractive from a communications engineering perspective? First of all, its very principles offer a novel way to treat information when encoded in a quantum system. Classically, two mutually exclusive states -- i.e., $0$ and $1$ -- can be encoded in a bit, which is in only one of these states at any time. Conversely, suppose now that two states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ of a quantum two-level system (for example, the polarization of a photon) are used to encode them\footnote{Above we utilized the bra-ket notation usually adopted for quantum state. For a proper introduction to this notation, we refer the reader to Appendix~\ref{App:0.1}.}. In this case, the \textit{superposition principle} -- the corner-stone of quantum mechanics -- allows to go beyond bit's classical behavior, since the system can be in both states simultaneously. Hence, we can introduce the quantum bit (qubit) whose state $\ket{\psi}$ encodes more than simply the states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$, since it can be in a superposition of them as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2.1}
\ket{\psi}= \alpha\ket{0}+\beta\ket{1}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{C}$, known as \textit{amplitudes}, satisfying $|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1$. Hence, a qubit can encode not only classical information (the states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$) but also quantum information manifested in the coherence (carried by the \textit{complex} amplitudes $\alpha$ and $\beta$) it can possess. This type of information has no classical counterpart. An important consequence of the superposition principle is a new way of processing and encoding information \footnote{An illustration of this feature is provided by the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb testing problem: we are supposed to have a bunch of bombs that are activated by a sensor absorbing a photon. Since some sensors have a defect and do not absorb photons, we have to select the working bombs from the bunch. Classically, there is no way to find out whether a bomb works properly without making it actually explode by shining light on the sensor. However, if a photon before reaching the sensor hits a half-silvered mirror, the superposition principle allows to distinguish -- probabilistically, with a success ratio as high as $33\%$ -- between the working and faulty bombs and selects some of the working ones without explosion \cite{Elitzur-93, Penrose-94}.}, which can be exploited to significantly increase the security of communications and even to exchange information without actual transmission of the information carrier between the parties \cite{Salih-13, Vaidman-19}. A rigorous definition of the qubit is given in Appendix~\ref{App:0.1}.
\vspace{6mm}
\subsubsection*{A.2) Quantum measurement}
In order to retrieve data from a qubit, one has to perform a measurement of the corresponding degree of freedom encoding the information (for example, polarization of the photon). For a superposed state of a qubit, the result of the measurement is probabilistic due to the Born's rule of quantum mechanics. For instance, for the qubit given in \eqref{eq:2.1}, one obtains state $\ket{0}$ with the probability $|\alpha|^2$ and state $\ket{1}$ with the probability $|\beta|^2$, hence retrieving at most one bit of information. Crucially, the measurement causes the state of the qubit to collapse to the measured state. Indeed, if the measurement of the qubit given in \eqref{eq:2.1} has revealed the state $\ket{0}$, any further measurement will reveal the same outcome regardless of the initial superposition. This means that the measurement irreversibly alters the state of the qubit, which loses thus the coherence previously existing between the two states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$. A formal definition of quantum measurements is given in Appendix~\ref{App:0.1}.
\vspace{6mm}
\subsubsection*{A.3) No-cloning}
Classical communication protocols rely on the ability to copy the information and to transmit it to many different users. This fundamental assumption is widely exploited through the whole protocol stack \cite{Jessica-2022}. Conversely, quantum information cannot be copied or cloned, as stated by the \textit{no-cloning theorem} \cite{Wootters-1982}. In simpler terms, quantum information cannot be multicasted or broadcasted, in contrary to classical information. Consequently, the no-cloning theorem poses drastic unconventional challenges for the design of quantum networks, as most of the known classical protocols fail to be extended to the quantum paradigm \cite{Jessica-2022}. Fortunately, a non-trivial caveat to some of the restrictions would rely on the notion of entanglement and its astounding advantages.
\vspace{6mm}
\subsubsection*{A.4) Entanglement}
The superposition principle leads to a number of intriguing genuinely quantum phenomena, including the celebrated \textit{entanglement} \cite{Schrdinger2005DieGS}. Entanglement is a sort of correlations between parties of some (joint) system, which have no classical counterpart. In his seminal paper \cite{Bell5}, John Bell has established constraints on correlations between two systems that cannot be broken by classical correlations. These constraints can be formalized in a form of inequalities for the statistical properties of outcomes of measurements performed on the joint system (the most famous form of Bell inequalities is also known as the CHSH inequalities). It has been shown that quantum entanglement can violate such inequalities. This makes entanglement a invaluable resource that might beat classical resources in different communications contexts. Although it remained until the end of the last century the question of what entanglement is useful for, eventually entanglement has been harnessed to outperform classical communication protocols and to provide security for quantum key distribution \cite{Ekert-1991,Pironio-2009}\footnote{See Appendix~\ref{App:0.1} for an overview of the basic quantum-informational notions.}. Specifically, \textit{quantum superdense coding} \cite{32} came against what was previously known in information theory to be a coding bound for classical information. Classically, if a sender -- say Alice -- wants to communicate a two-bit message to a receiver -- say Bob -- she has to use twice a single-bit classical channel. The same still holds even if Alice and Bob are connected by a quantum channel transmitting classical bits encoded within qubits. Conversely, if Alice and Bob share a-priori entanglement, a two-bit classical message can be sent through a single use of a quantum channel. Furthermore, this protocol has proved not to just outperform the performance of classical communication protocols, but also to be extremely secure \cite{32,Ekert-1991,Pironio-2009}. But there is more to it. A qubit can never be transmitted using only classical channels, as these latter can not preserve the genuine quantum coherence \cite{resource}. Luckily, the \textit{quantum teleportation protocol} -- the dual of superdense coding -- allows for the transmission of an unknown qubit state using a two-bit classical channel \cite{31}, by exploiting again entanglement as a fundamental resource. The design of these two protocols challenged the classical notions of information theory and classical communications, and it opened the door towards a new era of quantum communications.
\vspace{6mm}
\subsubsection*{A.5) Quantum channels}
In communications engineering, information is usually encoded according to the physical medium that carries it. This physical medium is usually modeled as a classical channel, which does not take into account the quantum mechanical properties of the physical system carrying the information. Conversely, in quantum communications, quantum channels model the physical medium by considering the quantum mechanical properties of the physical carrier as well as its quantum interactions with the physical environment. The rationale for this is to keep track of the coherence present in the physical carrier, and to harness its advantages in encoding classical and quantum information alike. Indeed, quantum channels -- with particular instances given by optical fibers and free-space carrying quantum light -- might be seen as transformations of a given quantum mechanical system state, inducing its evolution from an initial state (input of the channel) to the final state (output of the channel). Accordingly, classical channels might be seen as a particular class of quantum channels where quantum coherences are completely absent. This paradigm shift from classical to quantum channels affects the very same concept of capacity, the quantity characterizing communication channels performance, as introduced in the following paragraph.
\vspace{6mm}
\subsubsection*{A.6) Channel Capacity}
Capacity is an intrinsic property of communication channels -- be them classical or quantum -- which measures the maximum rate at which information can be reliably transferred between Alice and Bob. The capacity establishes the ultimate boundary between communication rates that are achievable in principle and those which are not. Indeed, when quantum effects are involved, there does not exist a \textit{single notion} of capacity to evaluate the performance of a quantum channel. Rather, there exist \textit{multiple, nonequivalent} definitions of capacities \cite{7,Wilde}, as introduced in Section~\ref{Sec:2.2} and described in details with Sections~\ref{Sec:2.4} and \ref{Sec:2.5}.
\subsection{From Classical Capacity to Quantum Capacities}
\label{Sec:2.2}
When a communication channel is used to communicate messages between two parties, Alice and Bob, it is fundamental to assess the channel capacity -- namely, the maximal amount of information Alice and Bob could reliably transfer by choosing appropriate encoding and decoding operations\footnote{See Appendix~\ref{App:4} for a concise overview and a formal description of the encoding/decoding operations.}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/NewFig1.pdf}
\caption{Classical vs Quantum Capacity. The capacity of a channel measures the maximum rate at which information can be reliably transferred between communication parties through such a channel. A classical channel can be used to send classical information only and, therefore, it is fully characterized by its classical capacity. A quantum channel can transmit either classical or quantum information, and the corresponding rates are bounded by its classical and quantum capacities, respectively.}
\label{NewFig:1}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
What is meant by reliable is that there is an infinitesimally vanishing probability that the message, sent by Alice, arrives with any alteration to Bob \cite{41}. The condition of vanishing error probability is generally imposed in the asymptotic limit where infinitely long codes are allowed. In this setup, an explicit closed-form expression for classical channel capacities exists, which depends on the noise model given through the conditional probability $p(y|x)$ characterizing the channel, where $x$ and $y$ denote the input and the output messages, respectively. Accordingly, the classical capacity is expressed as \cite{41}:
\begin{equation}
C = \max_{p(x)} I(X:Y)
\label{eq:2.2}
\end{equation}
where the maximization is over all probability distributions on x, and where $I(X:Y)$, defined in \eqref{eq:app.3.7b} reported in Appendix~\ref{App:3}, denotes the mutual information between the input and output random variables $X$ and $Y$.
\vspace{6pt}
Surprisingly and contrary to the classical case, extending this framework to quantum channels leads to the introduction of different capacities, depending on which context -- i.e., depending on whether Alice and Bob are exchanging classical, private or quantum information -- the quantum channel is used for \cite{7,Wilde}, as shown in Figure~\ref{NewFig:1}.
In the following, we will restrict our attention on: i) the classical capacity $C(\cdot)$ over quantum channels, and ii) the quantum capacity $Q(\cdot)$ over quantum channels. A general scheme for classical/quantum capacity is shown in Figure~\ref{Fig:05}. Specifically, the former capacity $C(\cdot)$ deals with the transmission of classical information through a quantum information carrier, by assuming the presence of proper classical-to-quantum encoder $\mathcal{E}$ and decoder $\mathcal{D}$, whereas the latter capacity $Q(\cdot)$ requires the availability of quantum-to-quantum encoder/decoder for allowing the transmission of quantum information.
Furthermore, for each of the mentioned capacities, we are going to distinguish between one-shot capacities $\chi(\cdot)$ and $I_c(\cdot)$ and (regularized) capacities $C(\cdot)$ and $Q(\cdot)$. Specifically, the one-shot capacity restricts the encoder $\mathcal{E}$ to generate states that are separable\footnote{We refer the reader to Appendix~\ref{App:0.1} for a proper definition of separable states.} over multiple uses of the channel, whereas the (regularized) capacity is achieved by relaxing this constraint and hence allowing the encoder to generate entangled states. Clearly, it results $\chi(\mathcal{N}) \leq C(\mathcal{N})$ and $I_c(\mathcal{N}) \leq Q(\mathcal{N})$ for any quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ \cite{Wilde}.
In what follows, we are going to give in Section~\ref{Sec:2.3} the operational definitions of the quantum capacities used in Section~\ref{Sec:4}, without making reference to the explicit structure of the channels. Afterwords, in Section~\ref{Sec:2.4} and \ref{Sec:2.5} we are going to review the important quantum coding theorems for memoryless channels, which express the capacities in terms of explicit entropic quantities.
\subsection{Operational Capacity Definition for a Quantum Channel}
\label{Sec:2.3}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-05-alt.pdf}
\caption{Operational scheme for the capacity over quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$, with the encoder $\mathcal{E}^{k\rightarrow n}$ and the decoder $\mathcal{D}^{n\rightarrow k}$ depending on the nature of the message, i.e., classical or quantum. The tensor product $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}$ denotes $n$ uses of channel $\mathcal{N}$, achievable either with a parallel placement (in space) of $n$-times channel $\mathcal{N}$ or, equivalently, with $n$ independent uses of such a channel in time.}
\label{Fig:05}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
The classical/quantum capacity of a quantum channel\footnote{We refer the reader to Appendix~\ref{App:1} for a concise introduction to quantum channels, and to \cite{7,Cariolaro-15,0,Singh2021} for an in-depth treatise of quantum channel capacities.} $\mathcal{N}$ is the maximum achievable rate at which information encoded in quantum carriers can be transferred reliably from Alice to Bob. As in classical Shannon theory, the ratio $\frac{k}{n}$ is what measures the rate, where $k$ is the number of exchanged bits/qubits of information between the sender and the receiver, and $n$ is the number of uses of the communication channel.
Similarly to classical Shannon theory, the reliability condition requires that, at the asymptotic use of the channel (i.e., when $n\rightarrow \infty$), the fidelity\footnote{In a nutshell, the fidelity $F$ is a measure, with values between $0$ and $1$ of the distinguishability of two arbitrary quantum states $\rho$ and $\sigma$, and it is generally defined as \cite{0,Wilde} $F(\rho,\sigma)=\mathrm{Tr}(\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho}\sigma\sqrt{\rho}})^2$ with $\operatorname{Tr}(\cdot) = \sum_{i} (\cdot)_{ii}$ denoting the trace.} operator. $F$ between the channel input/output -- or, correspondingly when it comes to classical communications, the error probability\footnote{In this case, the fidelity and the probability of error are linked through the probability of successfully decoding the message, which is expressed in terms of the trace distance between the input and output states of the noisy channel $\mathcal{N}$ \cite{0}.} -- can be made arbitrarily close to one -- or, correspondingly, arbitrary close to zero.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}[c] {0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-06A-alt.pdf}
\subcaption{A scheme for the one-shot capacity $\chi(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})$ of the quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ through $n$ uses of the channel $\mathcal{N}$. A set of classical messages in an alphabet $\mathcal{M}$ is encoded by a classic-to-quantum encoder $\mathcal{E}^{C-Q}$ constrained to separable codewords, namely, $\rho_i = \rho_{i1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \rho_{in}$ for the $i$-th codeword. After transmission, a quantum-to-classic decoder $\mathcal{D}^{Q-C}$ is applied to retrieve the classical message. The decoder is a measurement given by the optimal POVM, which is allowed to act collectively on the joint output state in order to obtain a set of classical messages.}
\label{Fig:06-a}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-06B-alt.pdf}
\subcaption{A scheme for the classical capacity $C(\mathcal{N})$ of quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ through $n$ uses of the channel $\mathcal{N}$. The encoder $\mathcal{E}^{C-Q}$ is not restricted to separable codewords, rather, it is allowed to encode the classical information into entangled input states $\rho_i\neq\rho_{i1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\rho_{in}$. Similarly to the scheme of the one-shot capacity, the decoder is allowed to perform entangling measurements.}
\label{Fig:06-b}
\end{minipage}
\caption{One-shot vs. regularized classical capacity from the encoder perspective.}
\label{Fig:06}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
Henceforth, the classical/quantum capacity of a quantum channel can be given in an operational way, depicted in Figure~\ref{Fig:05}, as:
\begin{align}
&\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\big\{ \frac{k}{n}: \exists \mathcal{E}^{k\rightarrow n},\quad \exists \mathcal{D}^{n\rightarrow k},\quad\nonumber\\
&\min_{m\in\mathcal{M}}F\big(\ket{m} ,\mathcal{D}^{n\rightarrow k}\circ\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}\circ \mathcal{E}^{k\rightarrow n}(\ket{m})\big)>1-\epsilon \big\}
\label{eq:2.3}
\end{align}
with the fidelity measuring the distinguishability between the input symbol $\ket{m}$ and the output symbol $\mathcal{D}^{n\rightarrow k}\circ\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}\circ \mathcal{E}^{k\rightarrow n}(\ket{m})$. $\mathcal{E}^{k\rightarrow n}$ and $\mathcal{D}^{n\rightarrow k}$ denote the encoder and the decoder, mapping the\footnote{Where $k=\log_2 d$, with $d$ being the dimension of the message Hilbert space, in case of quantum capacity.} $k$-qubits/bits message that Alice wants to share with Bob into a $n$-qubits code-word sent through the quantum channel as described in Appendix~\ref{App:4}.
Importantly, classical information could be encoded in the orthogonal basis of the Hilbert space, whereas quantum information must be encoded in the span of the orthogonal basis of the Hilbert space due to the genuine quantum coherence. Intuitively, when decoding information encoded in the Hilbert space, we can retrieve more classical information than quantum. By oversimplifying, the rationale for this can be understood in terms of no-cloning theorem, which allows classical information to be copied whereas quantum information cannot. Accordingly, for any given channel $\mathcal{N}$, the quantum capacity $Q(\mathcal{N})$ is upper bounded by the classical capacity $C(\mathcal{N})$ \cite{Caruso_2014}.
Expressions for capacities of quantum channels, in terms of entropic functions, have been provided by sophisticated coding theorems. While we refer the reader to \cite{7,Wilde,0,56,57,61,65,63,64} for detailed review of different notions of quantum channel capacities, for both channels with and without memory, and entanglement-assisted capacities, we focus here on memoryless channels and their unassisted capacities.
\subsection{Classical Capacity of Quantum Channels}
\label{Sec:2.4}
The expression of the classical capacity of an arbitrary quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ has been formalized by the Holevo-Schumacher-Westermoreland (HSW) coding theorem with reference to the one-shot capacity\footnote{Also known as \textit{Holevo information} of channel $\mathcal{N}$ in the literature \cite{Wilde,Caruso_2014,0}. Accordingly, the two terms will be interchangeably used in the following.} $\chi(\mathcal{N})$ \cite{68,66}. The expression resembles Shannon's formula given in \eqref{eq:2.2} for the classical capacity of classical channels, as it can be expressed in terms of a maximization of the Holevo information\footnote{See Appendix~\ref{App:3} for a concise definition of Holevo information.} $\chi\big(\mathcal{N},\{p_x,\rho_x\},\mathcal{N}\big)$ over the set of input ensembles $\{p_x,\rho_x\}$ encoding the classical messages. Formally, it is given by:
\begin{equation}
\chi(\mathcal{N}) = \max_{\{p_x,\rho_x\}}\chi\big(\{p_x,\rho_x\},\mathcal{N}\big)
\label{eq:2.4}
\end{equation}
and the maximization can be taken always over pure input states, restricting so the search space.
The operational meaning of the HSW theorem is that, given an ensemble $\{p_x,\rho_x\}$ and an integer satisfying $N \leq 2^{n\chi\big(\{p_x,\rho_x\},\mathcal{N}\big)}$, one can choose $N$ $n$-qubits codewords $\rho_1, \rho_2, \dots, \rho_N$ in separable product form $\rho_i=\rho_{i1}\otimes \dots \otimes \rho_{in}$ and an associated decoding measurement setup, allowing Bob to discriminate between the $N$ output states $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}(\rho_{i}) = \mathcal{N}(\rho_{i1})\otimes\dots\otimes \mathcal{N}(\rho_{in})$ arbitrarily well in the asymptotic limit of $n$. The positive operator-valued measure (POVM)\footnote{See Appendix~\ref{App:0.1} for the definition and an example of POVM.} assigned for the measurement setup is allowed to be an entangling measurement that operates collectively on the $n$-qubits output of each codeword.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{Sec:2.2}, if we unrestrict the encoder $\mathcal{E}$ from mapping messages only to product states as in Figure~\ref{Fig:06-a}, and we rather allow it to produce entangled codewords as in Figure~\ref{Fig:06-b}, we obtain the classical capacity $C(\mathcal{N})$ of the quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$.
In the HSW coding theorem, this is achieved by adopting a block coding strategy, which, for any $n > 1$, allows Alice to use $n$ copies of the channel as a single \textit{extended} channel $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}$ with associated Holevo information $\chi(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})$, where the maximum is taken over all input ensembles, including entangled states\footnote{Since product states are allowed as well, it is clear that $\chi(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}) \geq n \chi(\mathcal{N})$ and, hence, $C(\mathcal{N}) \geq \chi(\mathcal{N})$ as discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:4.1}.}, for the $n$ elementary channels. As a result, the capacity $C(\mathcal{N})$ of $\mathcal{N}$ can be obtained by taking the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$ over the associated rate $\frac{\chi(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})}{n}$. This is known as the \textit{regularization} procedure of the capacity, and it allows the capacity $C(\mathcal{N})$ to be written as:
\begin{equation}
C(\mathcal{N})= \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{n}\chi(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})
\label{eq:2.5}
\end{equation}
As it appears, the capacity $C(\mathcal{N})$ is not easily computed in general \cite{68}, as it requires a maximization over an unbounded number of uses of the channel. Indeed, a single-letter formula of the capacity is known only for few types of quantum channels, e.g., the depolarizing channel \cite{5}.
\subsection{Quantum Capacity of Quantum Channels}
\label{Sec:2.5}
Similarly to the HSW theorem, the quantum capacity theorem -- widely known as the LSD theorem \cite{0,Caruso_2014} -- expresses the quantum capacity $Q(\mathcal{N})$ in terms of a regularization of the one shot capacity\footnote{Also known as \textit{coherent information} of channel $\mathcal{N}$ in the literature \cite{Wilde,Caruso_2014,0}. Accordingly, the two terms will be interchangeably used in the following.} $I_c(\mathcal{N})$. The latter quantity expresses the maximal achievable rate through the quantum channel when the quantum-to-quantum encoder is constrained to generate separable codewords only.
Formally, the one-shot quantum capacity $I_c(\mathcal{N})$ is expressed in terms of the coherent information\footnote{See Appendix~\ref{App:3} for a concise definition of the coherent information.} of channel $\mathcal{N}$ with respect to the arbitrary state $\rho$ as:
\begin{equation}
I_c(\mathcal{N})=\max_\rho I_c(\rho,\mathcal{N})
\label{eq:2.6}
\end{equation}
where the maximization is taken over all possible input quantum states.
As already mentioned, the one-shot capacity $I_c(\mathcal{N})$ does not fully characterize the quantum capacity $Q(\mathcal{N})$, which is the maximum achievable rate, for which the fidelity of the transmitted state is arbitrarily large, i) over asymptotically many uses of the channel $\mathcal{N}$, and ii) with the encoder allowed to generate entangled codewords. Likewise to the classical capacity, when a block coding strategy is used the quantum capacity can be expressed as \cite{74,69,75}:
\begin{equation}
Q(\mathcal{N})=\lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n}I_c(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})
\label{eq:2.7}
\end{equation}
Of course, the quantum capacity $Q(\mathcal{N})$ is a non-tractable quantity in general. The rationale for this is because \eqref{eq:2.7} involves maximizing the coherent information over an unbounded number of channel uses. In fact, entanglement across channel uses can even increase the coherent information from zero to non-zero. One might think that only a finite number of channel uses might be sufficient to calculate the capacity, as imposing a cut-off in the number of uses of the channel. It turns out this is completely wrong, as it has been shown that whatever value of $n$ we fix, we can always find a channel with vanishing coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})$, nonetheless, the quantum capacity $Q(\mathcal{N})$ is non-vanishing \cite{12}.
\label{Sec:2.6}
\subsection{Bibliographic Notes}
One of the earliest uses of quantum information is classical communications over quantum channels. This research was initiated by the early work of Holevo \cite{58}, in which the Holevo bound on classical capacity was established. Later on, a lower bound on the Holevo information of a channel was provided independently by Schumacher and Westmoreland \cite{68}, and Holevo \cite{66}. Classical communications in one shot setting has been studied by a number of authors, including Hayashi \cite{Hayashi,Hayashi_2007}, Renes and Renner \cite{Renes_2011}, Wang and Renner \cite{Wang_2012}, Datta et al. \cite{Datta_2013}, Mathews and Wehner \cite{Matthews_2014}, Wilde \cite{Wilde_2013}.
The quest for determining a quantum capacity in the Shannon's sense was raised by Shor \cite{shor95}. Different notions of quantum communications were established since then. The one adapted in this tutorial is based on entanglement transmission which was defined by Schumacher \cite{Schumacher1996SendingQE}. The notion of subspace transmission was proposed by Barnum et al. \cite{Barnum_2000}. Devetak \cite{69} gave the definition of entanglement generation. Kretschman and Werner \cite{Kretschmann_2004} showed that the capacities derived from these variations are all equal. The coherent information of asymptotic uses of a quantum channel was derived by Schumacher \cite{Schumacher1996SendingQE} as an upper bound on quantum capacity, Barnum et al. \cite{49}, Schumacher and Nielsen \cite{51}. The coherent information as a lower bound on the quantum capacity was established by Loyd \cite{74}, Shor \cite{75}, Devetak \cite{69}. Another proof for the achievability of the coherent capacity was provided by Hayden et al., using the decoupling lemma \cite{76}, which was initiated by Schumacher and Westmoreland \cite{Schumacher2002decoupling}.
The one-shot setting of quantum capacity was treated in many papers, including Buscemi and Datta \cite{Buscemi_2010}, Datta and Hsieh \cite{Datta_20133}, Wang et al. \cite{Wang_2019}, Kiavansh et al. \cite{kianvash2020bounding}.
\section{Quantum Marvels}
\label{Sec:3}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{timeline}{1992}{2021}{0.05\textwidth}{0.05\textwidth}{0.89\textwidth}{0.55\paperheight}
\entry{1992}{\small Quantum superdense coding \cite{32}}
\entry{1993}{\small Quantum teleportation \cite{31}}
\entry{1995}{\small Holevo information as achievable rate for one-shot classical capacity through the class of classical-quantum channels \cite{hausladen}}
\entry{1996}{\small Coherent information as an upper bound to one-shot quantum capacity \cite{Schumacher1996SendingQE,51} }
\entry{1997}{\small HSW theorem: one-shot and regularized classical capacity \cite{Holevo-capacity,68}}
\plainentry{1997}{\small LSD theorem: one-shot and regularized quantum capacity \cite{74}}
\entry{1998}{\small Existence of the limit in the regularization of the classical capacity \cite{49}}
\plainentry{1998}{\small Superadditivity of coherent information \cite{53}}
\entry{1999}{\small Additivity of the Holevo information for quantum erasure channels \cite{80}}
\entry{2002}{\small Additivity of the Holevo information for entanglement breaking channels \cite{Shor-EBC}}
\entry{2003}{\small Notion of complementary quantum channel and degradable quantum channel \cite{Devetak2003TheCO}}
\entry{2003}{\small Additivity of the Holevo information for the depolarizing channel \cite{King2003TheCO}}
\entry{2005}{\small Additivity of the Holevo information for Hadamard channels \cite{King2005PropertiesOC}}
\entry{2005}{\small Additivity conjecture \cite{77}}
\plainentry{2005}{\small Quantum controlled trajectories for error filtration and entanglement purification \cite{36} }
\entry{2006}{\small Notion of anti-degradable quantum channel \cite{Caruso_2006}}
\entry{2007}{\small Hasting's counterexemple establishing the superadditivity of the Holevo information \cite{6}}
\entry{2008}{\small Superactivation of the quantum capacity \cite{4}}
\entry{2009}{\small Superadditivity of the quantum capacity for the Rocket and the quantum erasure channel \cite{26}}
\entry{2013}{\small Quantum switch: theoretical framework \cite{83}}
\entry{2015}{\small Superadditivity of the coherent information \cite{12}}
\entry{2015}{\small Quantum switch: experimental realization \cite{Procopio_2015}}
\entry{2018}{\small Quantum switch: bottleneck inequality violation for the Holevo information of the fully depolarizing channel \cite{18}}
\entry{2018}{\small Superadditivity of the dephrasure channel \cite{LedLeuSmi-18}}
\entry{2020}{\small Quantum switch: bottleneck inequality violation for the coherent information of the fully depolarizing channel \cite{10,11}}
\entry{2021}{\small Quantum switch: bottleneck inequality violation for the coherent information of the entanglement breaking channel \cite{19}}
\entry{2021}{\small Quantum switch: experimental verification of the bottleneck inequality violation for Holevo and coherent information \cite{8}}
\end{timeline}
\caption{Timeline for milestones on superadditivity, superactivation and causal activation of quantum channels.}
\label{Fig:00}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
In this section we present the three dazzling phenomena of superadditivity, superactivation and causal activation. An easy-access guide towards the literature related to these phenomena and the prominent results as \textit{timeline of the milestones} is provided with Figure~\ref{Fig:00}.
\subsection{Superadditivity}
\label{Sec:3.1}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-02-alt.pdf}
\caption{A scheme showing superadditivity of the one-shot quantum capacity of channel $\mathcal{N}$. (a) When two instances of the channel (this is formally given by the tensor product $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes 2} \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{N}$) are used on separable inputs such as $\ket{0}\otimes\ket{0}$, the coherent information of the two channels together $I_c({\mathcal{N}^{\otimes2}})$ is the sum of the two individual coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N})+I_c(\mathcal{N})$. (b) Conversely, when the two instances of the channel are used on an entangled state $\ket{\Psi}$, superadditivity of the coherent information occurs and the joint coherent information $I_c({\mathcal{N}^{\otimes2}})$ exceeds the sum of individual coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N})+I_c(\mathcal{N})$.}
\label{Fig:02}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
As mentioned above, entanglement has no longer been considered only as a foundational concept that breaks the operational causal explanations of correlations formulated in terms of Bell inequalities \cite{Bell5}. It started rather to be considered as a tool with wider applications in different areas of communication engineering. And researchers are continuing to dig for other surprises of quantum phenomena within the field.
Astoundingly, it was found that -- contrary to classical communications\footnote{In the following and in agreement with the literature \cite{nielsen_chuang_2010}, we refer to communications through classical channels as \textit{classical communications}, whereas we denote communications through quantum channels as \textit{quantum communications}. In the latter case, whether the quantum channels will be used to transmit quantum or classical information will be specified in the context.}, when a quantum channel is used independently multiple times, its performance in terms of \textit{coherent information}\footnote{See Section~\ref{Sec:2} for a proper introduction to the different definitions of capacities, including the coherent information -- through a quantum channel.} \cite{7,Wilde,nielsen_chuang_2010} can be non additive on the number of uses \cite{6,53}.
In other words, in classical communication scenarios, if a channel is able to transmit a bit of information, when it is used $n$ times, the amount of information that can be transmitted is no more than $n$ bits. Formally, the mutual information between the output $\mathbf{Y}^n$ and the input $\mathbf{X}^n$ random variables on $n$ uses of a classical channel $\{p_i(y|x)\}_{i=1}^n$ is always bounded by n times the single letter capacity of the channel:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3.1}
I(\mathbf{X}^n,\mathbf{Y}^n)\leq \sum_{i=1}^n I(X_i,Y_i)
\end{equation}
In other words, the use of correlated codewords, jointly sampled, in transmitting information does not provide any communication benefit with respect to the use of uncorrelated codewords, sampled from a product distribution.
In contrast, in quantum communication scenarios, a quantum channel that can transmit a certain amount of information (classical or quantum), when used $n$-times it can send more than $n$ times that amount of information. This is extremely against classical additive logic of $2=1+1$. Indeed, in the quantum domain, superadditivity can happen and it results\footnote{We adopted -- in analogy with the superactivation literature \cite{4,boche-0} -- such an expression to better summarize the superadditivity phenomenon.}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3.2}
2 > 1+1 \nonumber
\end{equation}
This unconventional phenomenon requires the use of entanglement to encode messages, which in turn can be either classical or quantum. This is known in the literature as the \textit{superadditivity} of quantum channel capacities, and it is depicted in Figure~\ref{Fig:02}. The figure illustrates that when Alice and Bob use multiple instances of a quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$\footnote{In this paper, we focus on channels that do not exhibit memory effects over many uses. In other words, we are interested in noisy channels where multiple uses of the same channel over time or the use of multiple copies of the same channel in parallel are equivalent. This is due to the assumption of noise between different uses being independent.} to communicate messages encoded in separable input states, the coherent information of the two channels together $I_c(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes 2})$ is equal to the sum of the two individual coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N})+I_c(\mathcal{N})$. This is trivial in classical communications\footnote{Multiple uses of classical channels allow error correction/diversity strategies, but not superadditivity of the channel capacity.}. On the contrary, when Alice and Bob use the channel the same way as before -- but encoding messages in entangled states -- the overall coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes 2})$ exceeds the sum of the coherent information of individual channels, in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3.3}
I_c(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes 2}) > I_c(\mathcal{N})+I_c(\mathcal{N})
\end{equation}
Indeed, a similar behaviour has been observed for the Holevo information $\chi(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes 2})>\chi(\mathcal{N})+\chi(\mathcal{N})$ \cite{6}.
This phenomenon shows how entanglement can be considered as a key factor for unravelling the unconventional potential of quantum theory when it comes to quantum communication. Equally, it highlights that this potential is not limited to quantum messages, given that quantum communications can boost the classical information transmission rates as well, as shown in Section~\ref{Sec:4.1}.
\subsection{Superactivation}
\label{Sec:3.2}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{./figures/Fig-03-alt.pdf}
\caption{A scheme showing superactivation of the one-shot quantum capacity of two \textit{zero capacity} quantum channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$. (a) When the two channels are used on separable inputs such as $\ket{0}\otimes\ket{0}$ encoding the quantum message, the coherent information of the two channels together $I_c(\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M})$ is the sum of the two individual capacities $I_c(\mathcal{N})$ and $I_c(\mathcal{M})$, and hence it is identically zero. (b) When the two channels are used on an entangled state $\ket{\Psi}$ properly encoding the quantum message, superactivation of the capacity occurs and the joint coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M})$ can be greater than zero, allowing the two channels to transmit a non-vanishing amount of quantum information.}
\label{Fig:03}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
More surprisingly, our rather simplistic understanding of nature is broken by quantum logic, when it comes to the phenomenon of \textit{superactivation} \cite{4}. This is when two different quantum channels that cannot transmit any amount of information separately -- i.e., \textit{zero capacity} channels \cite{85} -- when properly used together, they can transmit information. In classical information logic the relation $2 \cdot 0= 0 + 0 $ holds, whereas this is not the case when it comes to quantum information, where the relation\footnote{Also denoted as $0+0 > 0$ in the relevant literature \cite{4,boche-0}, meaning that a proper use of two different zero-capacity channels gives a non-null capacity.}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3.4}
2 \cdot 0 > 0+0 \nonumber
\end{equation}
is possible.
The superactivation phenomenon, as we discuss in more details in Section~\ref{Sec:5}, relies on entanglement \cite{4}\footnote{We must note that there exist protocols achieving superactivation by exploiting shared randomness between sender/receiver rather than entangled codewords \cite{Cubitt_2011,boche2018secret}.}. This is depicted in Figure~\ref{Fig:03}. This scheme shows that when the two zero capacity channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ -- with no ability of transferring quantum information -- are used on separable inputs encoding a quantum message, the coherent information of the two channels together is the sum of the two individual coherent information. Hence, the overall channel $\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M}$ does not allow transmission of any quantum information. On the other hand, if the quantum message is wisely encoded in an entangled state given as joint input to the channels, the overall channel $\mathcal{N} \otimes \mathcal{M}$ gains potential for the transmission of quantum information. Accordingly, the overall coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M})$ satisfies the following inequality:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3.5}
I_c(\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M}) > I_c(\mathcal{N})+I_c(\mathcal{M})=0
\end{equation}
We note that -- as for superadditivity -- entanglement plays a fundamental role in enabling unparalleled phenomena in quantum communications. We further note that -- conversely to superadditivity -- no superactivation phenomenon is known to exist for quantum channels conveying classical information \cite{Gyongyosi_2012}, as discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:5}. This shows that quantum communications represent an heterogeneous communication paradigm, where the communication potential of a channel depends on the information nature of the message.
\subsection{Causal activation}
\label{Sec:3.3}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[c] {0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-04A-alt.pdf}
\subcaption{A classical sequential trajectory where the information carrier prepared in a certain state $\ket{\psi}$ undergoes the transformation $ \mathcal{M}\circ \mathcal{N}$, in which channel $\mathcal{N}$ is acting on the carrier before channel $\mathcal{M}$. Both the quantum and classical capacity of this scheme are upper bounded by the \textit{bottleneck inequality} given in \eqref{eq:app.3.9}, i.e., by the minimum of the capacities of each of the two concatenated channels.}
\label{Fig:04-a}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[c] {0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-04B-alt.pdf}
\subcaption{A quantum trajectory, which is a coherent superposition of the two classical sequential trajectories $\mathcal{N} \circ \mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{M} \circ \mathcal{N}$. This placement of channels is neither equivalent to a sequential trajectory in which the channels are timelike separated, nor equivalent to a parallel placement where the channels are spacelike separated. The overall coherent information $I_c\big(\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})\big)$ of the equivalent channel $\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})$ -- with $\rho_c$ denoting the quantum system controlling the causal order between the two channels -- can violate the bottleneck inequality.}
\label{Fig:04-b}
\end{minipage}
\caption{A scheme showing causal activation of the coherent information for two quantum channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$.}
\label{Fig:04}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
Although the inception of the quantum formalism has been initiated more than a century ago \cite{nielsen_chuang_2010}, its surprises are still coming out to this day, and there is much more out there to be discovered.
Recently, quantum information theorists, investigating causality in the quantum realm, have discovered that quantum mechanics allows for causal order to be indefinite \cite{39,83}. In simpler terms, causality between events -- channels from a communications engineering perspective -- might be not fixed, as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig:04}. If so, two communication channels, say $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$, instead of affecting the information carrier in a definite causal order -- i.e., either $\mathcal{M} \circ \mathcal{N}$ or $\mathcal{N} \circ \mathcal{M}$ -- they act on the carrier in a genuinely quantum superposition of causal ordering. Hence, the information carrier evolves through a \textit{quantum trajectory} \cite{Costa_2016}. One example of quantum trajectories is the \textit{quantum switch} \cite{Procopio_2015,Rubino_2017}, which is a supermap acting on a set of channels and places them in a coherent superposition of different orders, which is a genuinely quantum placement setup.
It has been both theoretically \cite{18,19,20} and experimentally \cite{8} verified that the quantum switch can be used for communications, in an outperforming way, even when it is compared to known quantum protocols.\footnote{The notion of indefinite causal ordering is still debated in the community of causal modelling. In particular it can explain some observed phenomena differently from our usual causal models, but it cannot be explained in the framework of process tensors alone even by the most general temporal process tensor \cite{Milz_2018}. This makes it rather genuinely different from the usual temporal processes that we can account for, including quantum channels with memory, be it Markovian or non-Markovian \cite{Costa_2016}. Most importantly, the quantum switch itself does not violate any causal inequality formulated in a theory-independent manner \cite{39}.} Indeed, it has been shown that there are zero capacity channels that cannot transfer any information in the usual setups, i.e., parallel or sequential setups where the order of channels is well definite. But, when used in a quantum superposition of causal orders, these channels transmit non vanishing information (either classical or quantum, depending on the setup). This phenomenon, also termed as \textit{causal activation} in literature \cite{2}, as astounding as it is, harnesses its advantage from a genuinely quantum coherence between causal orders.
Indeed, causal activation should be regarded as a new way of placing communication channels \cite{3}, with no similarity with classical placement, such as parallel or sequential ones. In fact, as we discuss in more details in Section~\ref{Sec:6}, whereas superadditivity and superactivation exploits quantum channels combined in a classical way, causal activation exploits a new degree of freedom, namely, the quantum placement of quantum channels.
\section{Superadditivity of Quantum Channel Capacities}
\label{Sec:4}
Here we detail one of the quantum marvel phenomena introduced in Section~\ref{Sec:3}, namely, the superadditivity.
The additivity notion is very important as many questions in quantum information theory reduces to the additivity properties of some key functions \cite{77}. In this section, we are going to discuss the additivity properties of the Holevo information and the coherent information, which are the essential elements for characterizing the capacities of quantum channels.
\subsection{Superadditivity of Holevo information}
\label{Sec:4.1}
Originally, the Holevo information was believed to be additive for all quantum channels \cite{77}, that is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4.1}
\chi(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})=n\chi(\mathcal{N})
\end{equation}
This would imply that the Holevo information would be a good characterization of the classical capacity in the general case, i.e., $\chi(\mathcal{N}) = C(\mathcal{N})$. This conjecture, known as the \textit{additivity conjecture}, was proved to hold for some classes of quantum channels, e.g., entanglement breaking channels \cite{Shor-EBC} or depolarizing channel \cite{King2003TheCO}.
Surprisingly, Hastings found the existence of a counterexample to the additivity conjecture \cite{6}, demonstrating that it does not hold in the general case. He showed that, when entangled input states are used, the Holevo information is not only weakly superadditive, instead, it exhibits a strong superadditivity property. The counterexample relies on the use of two random channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\Bar{\mathcal{N}}$:
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{N}(\rho)=\sum_i p_i U_i^{\dagger}\rho U_i\nonumber\\
&\Bar{\mathcal{N}}(\rho)=\sum_i p_i\Bar{U}_i^{\dagger} \rho \Bar{U}_i
\label{eq:4.2}
\end{align}
which are complex conjugate to each other. Specifically, the channels have unitary Kraus operators $\{U_i\}_{i\in \{1,\dots,D\}}$ and their complex conjugates $\{\Bar{U}_i\}_{i\in \{1,\dots,D\}}$. Moreover, each unitary $U_i$ is randomly sampled from a certain given random distribution. Finally, the coefficients $p_i$ in \eqref{eq:4.2} are chosen randomly from another particular distribution, in such a way the minimum output entropy of the tensor product $\mathcal{N}\otimes\Bar{\mathcal{N}}$ of the two channels is strictly smaller than twice the minimum entropy of one of the channels alone. Formally, this is given by the following inequality:
\begin{equation}
H_{min}(\mathcal{N}\otimes\Bar{\mathcal{N}})<2H_{min}(\mathcal{N})
\label{eq:4.3}
\end{equation}
under the use of entangled input states to the channel $\mathcal{N}\otimes\Bar{\mathcal{N}}$.
This inequality proved\footnote{Indeed, the minimum entropy of a quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ is defined as $H_{min}(\mathcal{N})=\min_{\rho}S(\mathcal{N}(\rho))$ \cite{0}, where $S(\rho)$ denotes the von Neumann entropy of the state $\rho$ as detailed in Appendix~\ref{App:3}. The minimum output entropy is related to the Holevo information for irreducibly covariant quantum channels by $\chi(\mathcal{N})=S(\mathcal{N}(\frac{\mathcal{I}}{d}))-H_{min}(\mathcal{N})$ where $\frac{\mathcal{I}}{d}$ is the maximally mixed input state, with $d$ being the dimension of the input of the channel and $\mathcal{I}$ being the identity operator. Hence, for irreducibly covariant quantum channels, the subadditivity of the minimum entropy implies the superadditivity of the Holevo information.} the superadditivity phenomenon of the Holevo information, demonstrating that one of the most basic questions in quantum Shannon theory still remains wide open, i.e., there exists no general closed formula for classical capacity. This in turn shows our lack of deep understanding about classical information transmission over quantum channel.
Furthermore, it also implies that if Alice encodes the classical message she wants to communicate to Bob in an entangled state, this can help in increasing the classical capacity over the quantum channel linking Alice and Bob. This phenomenon has no counterpart in classical communications, where the capacity -- quantified by the mutual information between input and output of the channel -- cannot be increased even if classical correlations between subsequent input bits are exploited.
\subsection{Superadditivity of Coherent Information}
\label{Sec:4.2}
It was shown that the quantum capacity of a quantum channel is well-behaved and completely understood for the class of degradable channels, over which the coherent information is additive \cite{Devetak2003TheCO}, that is:
\begin{equation}
I_c(\mathcal{N}_{degradable}^{\otimes n})=nI_c(\mathcal{N}_{degradable})
\label{eq:4.4}
\end{equation}
Hence the regularization could be removed and the quantum capacity could be computed by a single optimization, similarly to classical channels.
However this is not true in general, as it was proven that for some channels -- e.g., the depolarizing channel \cite{53,54} -- the coherent information for multiple uses of the channel for some given value of $n$ is greater than $n$ times the coherent information provided by a single use of the channel. Hence, coherent information is superadditive \cite{15,53,12}. To illustrate this concept, let us consider the depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_D$, which transmits faithfully its input with probability $1-p$ and replaces it with probability $p$ by a maximally mixed state $\pi=\frac{I}{2}$, where $I$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix. Formally, this channel is given by:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{N}_D(\rho) &=(1-p) \rho+ p \pi \nonumber \\
&= (1-q)\rho+\frac{q}{3}(X\rho X+Y\rho Y+Z\rho Z)
\label{eq:4.5}
\end{align}
with $q \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \frac{3p}{4}$ as in \cite{Wilde}. To check whether the coherent information is superadditive for this channel, it suffices to calculate the coherent information for a single use of the channel, and then to find a code for multiple uses of the channel whose coherent information out-passes the single use case.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-07-alt.pdf}
\caption{The figure shows the scenario used to derive the coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N}_D)$ for the depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_D$. The quantum information is encoded into the maximally-entangled input state $\Phi^{AA'}$, whose part $A$ is sent through the noisy channel $\mathcal{N}_D$ and the other part $A'$ is kept as a reference, by sending it through the ideal channel $\mathcal{I}$.}
\label{Fig:07}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
To this end, we note that the state maximizing the coherent information $I_c(\rho,\mathcal{N})$ in \eqref{eq:2.6} for the depolarizing channel is the maximally entangled state $\ket{\Phi}^{AA'} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00}+\ket{11})$ \cite{Wilde,53,54}. Equivalently, this means that the coherent information of the depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_D$ can be obtained -- by following the scheme depicted in Figure~\ref{Fig:07} -- over the output state $\tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}$, where:
\begin{align}
\tilde{\Phi}^{BA'} &= (\mathcal{N}_D\otimes \mathcal{I} )(\Phi^{AA'}) \nonumber \\
&= (1-p) \Phi^{BA'} + p (\pi^{B} \otimes \pi^{A'})
\label{eq:4.6}
\end{align}
where $\Phi^{AA'} \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \ket{\Phi}^{AA'} \bra{\Phi}^{AA'}$ and $\Phi^{BA'} \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \ket{\Phi}^{BA'} \bra{\Phi}^{BA'}$ denote the density matrices of the maximally entangled states. Accordingly, from \eqref{eq:app.3.8} and \eqref{eq:app.3.6} reported in Appendix~\ref{App:3}, the coherent capacity $I_c(\mathcal{N}_D)$ of the depolarizing channel for a single use is given by:
\begin{align}
I_c(\mathcal{N}_D) &= [S(B)-S(BA')]_{\Tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}} = \nonumber \\
&= \begin{cases}
1-H(\Vec{q}) & \text{whenever } H(\Vec{q})\leq 1 \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:4.6bis}
\end{align}
with $\Vec{q} =(1-q,\frac{q}{3},\frac{q}{3},\frac{q}{3})$ denoting the vector of probabilities and $H(\Vec{q}) = -(1-q)\log_2 (1-q)-q\log_2 q + q \log_2 3$ denoting the Shannon entropy -- defined in \eqref{eq:app.3.2} -- of the distribution $\Vec{q}$.
A plot for the single-shot coherent capacity $I_c(\mathcal{N}_D)$ of the depolarizing channel is given in Figure~\ref{Fig:08}, where we see that it vanishes from a critical value of $q \approx 0.1893$. It is known that for antidegradability reasons, the quantum capacity $C(\mathcal{N}_D)$ of the depolarizing channel vanishes when the channel parameter $q$ satisfies $q \geq \frac{1}{4} = 0.25$ \cite{Cerf_2000} and, hence, the coherent information fully characterizes the quantum capacity of the channel. Conversely, whenever $q < \frac{1}{4}$, the coherent information does not fully characterize the quantum capacity of the channel. Consequently, the coherent capacity of multiple uses of the channel must be computed and, in the following, we will focus on a specific scenario where three uses -- instead of five as in \cite{Wilde,53,54,Shor1996QuantumEC} -- of the channel are sufficient to prove the superadditivity of the coherent information.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{./figures/Fig-08-alt.pdf}
\caption{Coherent information for a depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_D$ vs. channel parameter $q$, where: i) the \textit{straight-blue} line denotes the coherent information $I_c(\mathcal{N}_D)$ achievable with a single use of depolarizing channel, and ii) the \textit{dotted-green} line denotes the coherent information achievable with three uses of the channel for the encoder output given in \eqref{eq:4.8} with proper choice of the encoder and the decoder. The plot is an illustration of the results derived in \cite{Wilde,53}}
\label{Fig:08}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
Specifically, we focus on a $(3,1)$ repetition code where each qubit is transmitted with three uses of the channel $\mathcal{N}_D$, and we will show that there exist a state $\rho$ and some parametric region of the depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_D$ so that:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{3} I_c(\rho, \mathcal{D} \circ \mathcal{N}_D^{\otimes 3} \circ \mathcal{E}) > I_c(\mathcal{N}_D)
\label{eq:4.7}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ are the encoder and decoder, respectively.
Let us consider as output state of the encoder $\mathcal{E}(\rho)$ and, hence, as input to the equivalent channel, the following state:
\begin{equation}
\ket{\Phi}^{A_1 A_2 A_3 A'} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0000}+\ket{1111})
\label{eq:4.8}
\end{equation}
where $A_i$ is the input to the $i$-th use of the channel and $A'$ is the reference system as in Figure~\ref{Fig:07}.
Furthermore, let us assume we post-process the resulting state at the level of receiver with the decoder $\mathcal{D}$ shown in Figure~\ref{Fig:09}. Clearly, we have that:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{3} I_c(\mathcal{N}_D^{\otimes 3}) \geq \frac{1}{3} I_c(\Phi^{A_1 A_2 A_3 A'}, \mathcal{D} \circ \mathcal{N}_D^{\otimes 3})
\label{eq:4.9}
\end{equation}
as a result of the quantum data processing inequality \cite{Wilde}, where $\Phi^{A_1 A_2 A_3 A'} \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \ket{\Phi} \bra{\Phi}^{A_1 A_2 A_3 A'}$.
Due to the convexity property of the coherent information on the receiver over classical variables \cite{Wilde,0}, the coherent information resulting from the post-processing in Figure~\ref{Fig:09} is given by the weighted average over the output of the measurements $s_1$ and $s_2$ over $B_1$ and $B_2$:
\begin{align}
& I_c(\Phi^{A_1 A_2 A_3 A'}, \mathcal{D} \circ \mathcal{N}_D^{\otimes 3}) = \nonumber \\
& \quad \sum_{s_1 s_2} p(s_1 s_2) I_c(\Phi^{A_1 A_2 A_3 A'}, \mathcal{D}_{s_1 s_2} \circ \mathcal{N}_D^{\otimes 3})
\label{eq:4.10}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{D}_{s_1 s_2}$ embeds the dependence of the post-processing on $s_1$ and $s_2$, i.e., whether there will be applied a $X$ gate on the third qubit.
For each syndrome $s_1 s_2$, there are 16 Kraus operators that can give rise to it. As an example, with probability $\frac{q^3}{27}$ each of the three channels will act as a $X$ channel, and the decoder, by measuring the first and second qubits as $00$, will keep the third qubit as unchanged. By grouping all the possibilities that give rise to a specific syndrome -- say $00$ -- we can model the overall evolution of the third qubit as going through a Pauli channel such as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{N}(\rho) &= q_{s_1 s_2}^I \rho + q_{s_1 s_2}^X X\rho X + q_{s_1 s_2}^Y Y\rho Y + q_{s_1 s_2}^Z Z\rho Z
\label{eq:4.10bis}
\end{align}
characterized by the vector of probabilities $\Vec{q}_{s_1 s_2}$ with coherent information given by:
\begin{equation}
I_c(\Phi^{A_1 A_2 A_3 A'}, \mathcal{D}_{s_1 s_2} \circ \mathcal{N}_D^{\otimes 3}) = 1 - H(\Vec{q}_{s_1 s_2})
\label{eq:4.11}
\end{equation}
Remarkably, it has been shown that we can pick a noise parameter $q$ from the region where the coherent information of the single use of the depolarizing channel is vanishing from Figure~\ref{Fig:08}, while the coherent information in \eqref{eq:4.10} is non-vanishing. This proves \eqref{eq:4.7}, demonstrating a superadditive effect of the coherent information for the depolarizing channel.
Furthermore, it has been also demonstrated (not constructively, i.e, using random codes) that there exist channels that have vanishing coherent information for arbitrary $n$-codes, but they have a non-vanishing capacity \cite{12}. Which is even a stronger argument for the necessity of regularization for the quantum capacity. Indeed, on one hand, this means that the coherent information must be regularized over unbounded uses of the channel, hence, it cannot be used to compute the capacity in general. On the other hand, since the coherent information is additive for separable input states, additivity violation also implies that entanglement can protect information from noise in a way that is not possible classically \cite{26,LedKauDat-18}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth
]{./figures/Fig-09-alt.pdf}
\caption{Scheme showing the decoder $\mathcal{D}$ used to prove the superadditivity of the coherent information for the depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_D$.}
\label{Fig:09}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
\subsection{Superadditivity of Classical and Quantum Capacities}
\label{Sec:4.3}
Having discussed the superadditivity of the one-shot capacities -- i.e., of the Holevo information and the coherent information -- we discuss now the superadditivity of the regularized capacities $C(\mathcal{N})$ and $Q(\mathcal{N})$.
Someone could think that some form of superadditivity for the regularized capacities might be obtained by using multiple instances of the same channel, as schematized in Figure~\ref{Fig:06-b}. However, regularized capacities -- regardless of the classical/quantum nature of the message -- over asymptotic uses of the same channel are themselves always additive. In the case of the classical capacity, this translates formally into:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4.12}
C(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})=nC(\mathcal{N})
\end{equation}
regardless on whether the $n$ uses of the same channel happens simultaneously in parallel or sequentially with independent uses over time. Similarly, the quantum capacity $Q(\mathcal{N})$ is additive over multiple uses of the same channel
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4.13}
Q(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n})=nQ(\mathcal{N})
\end{equation}
This additivity property can be easily seen from the regularization of the Holevo capacity given in \eqref{eq:2.5} and from the regularization of the coherent capacity given in \eqref{eq:2.7}.
Since the additivity is established for the use of the same channel in parallel or independently over time, it is important to understand if this holds also when different channels are considered. The answer to this question allows one to understand how different noisy channels interact and enhance each others capabilities.
Whether it is true that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4.14}
C(\mathcal{N}\otimes \mathcal{M})\geq C(\mathcal{N})+C(\mathcal{M})
\end{equation}
is still an open problem for classical capacity of quantum channels. For instance, it can easily be noted by simple coding arguments, that the rate $C(\mathcal{N})+C(\mathcal{M})$ is always achievable by feeding the optimal code for each channel independently. The question of the superadditivity of the classical capacity relies on whether there could be a code with entangled states of the codewords, that satisfies $C(\mathcal{N}\otimes \mathcal{M})>C(\mathcal{N})+C(\mathcal{M})$. We should note that the superadditivity of the Holevo information of two channels\footnote{Already proved to exist with Hastings counterexample to the additivity conjecture \cite{6}, as mentioned in Section~\ref{Sec:4.1}.} $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ does not guarantee the superadditivity of the overall capacity of the two channels $\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M}$ when used together.
Contrary, the situation for the quantum capacity is much more understood.
The quantum capacity can be superadditive over the use of two quantum channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ together \cite{13}. This could be described formally by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4.15}
Q(\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M})> Q(\mathcal{N})+Q(\mathcal{M})
\end{equation}
Furthermore, as discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:5} the quantum capacity can exhibit a \textit{superactivation phenomena}, which constitutes a form of superadditivity over different zero-capacity channels in the sense that the quantum capacity can satisfy the following inequality:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4.16}
Q(\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M})> Q(\mathcal{N})+Q(\mathcal{M})=0
\end{equation}
for $Q(\mathcal{N})=Q(\mathcal{M})=0$ \cite{4}. The superactivation of the quantum capacity is not possible for the classical capacity for reasons that we clarify in Section~\ref{Sec:5.4}.
\section{Superactivation of Quantum Channel Capacities}
\label{Sec:5}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[c] {0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-10A-alt.pdf}
\subcaption{Alice and Bob attempt to separately use two zero-capacity channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ to transfer quantum states. Alice uses separate encoders $\mathcal{E}_1$ and $\mathcal{E}_2$ for each group of channels and Bob uses separate decoders $\mathcal{D}_1$ and $\mathcal{D}_2$. For any set of chosen encoding and decoding operations the transmission of information will fail due to the vanishing capacity of individual channels.}
\label{Fig:10-a}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.02\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[c] {0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-10B-alt.pdf}
\subcaption{The same two channels being used for the
same task, but the} sender’s encoder $\mathcal{E}$ now has simultaneous access to the inputs of all channels being used, allowing for quantum information to get through the two channels, and the receiver’s decoding $\mathcal{D}$ is also performed jointly preserving coherence.
\label{Fig:10-b}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Superactivation of the quantum capacity from the encoder perspective.}
\label{Fig:10}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
Here we detail the second marvel phenomenon introduced in Section~\ref{Sec:3}, namely, superactivation. Superactivation, as mentioned at the end of Sec~\ref{Sec:4}, is an unexpected genuinely quantum phenomenon that occurs when two zero-capacity quantum channels are used to transmit quantum information.
Unexpectedly, superactivation can only occur when the two cooperating quantum channels are from different families, none of which can simulate\footnote{I.e., arbitrary combinations of channels of one family cannot result in a channel from the other family \cite{4,0,Wilde}.} the other. In the next subsections, we discuss the different nonequivalent families of quantum channels known in literature. Subsequently, we provide examples of the phenomenon of superactivation for quantum channels from these families.
\subsection{Classes of Zero-Capacity Channels}
\label{Sec:5.1}
At least two classes of quantum channels are known to have zero capacities (whether additional classes of zero-capacity channels exist is still an open problem). The first class is known to be the family of antidegradable channels. Channels of this family, cannot transmit quantum messages due to the no-cloning theorem, which prohibits quantum information to be duplicated \cite{Caruso_2006}. As is discussed in Appendix~\ref{App:2}, antidegradable channels are self-complementary, in the sense that the environment of the channel can process its outcome to get an exact copy of the receiver. Thus, if this channel has a positive quantum capacity, it would violate the no-cloning theorem. An example of channels from this family is the \textit{50\% two-qubit erasure channel}, which faithfully transmits a two-qubit input state half of the time and outputs an erasure flag in the rest of the cases. This channel is given by \cite{0,Wilde}:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}(\rho) = \frac{1}{2}\rho+\frac{1}{2}\ket{e}\bra{e}
\label{eq:5.1}
\end{equation}
where $\ket{e}$ stands for the erasure flag\footnote{Mathematically, this means that $\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}: \mathcal{H}_1 \otimes \mathcal{H}_2 \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_1 \otimes \mathcal{H}_2 \oplus \operatorname{span}\{\ket{e}\}$, where $\mathcal{H}_{1,2}$ are the Hilbert spaces of the first and second qubit, respectively. Hence, this channel has a four-level input and a five-level output, where the extra output corresponds to the erasure flag.}.
Another family which is known to have vanishing quantum capacity is the class of PPT channels. These are channels with Choi state that has a positive partial transpose\footnote{I.e., the partial transpose map $(\mathcal{I}_n \otimes \mathcal{T})$, where $\mathcal{I}_n$ is a $n$-dimensional identity map (in our case, $n=2$ for qubit), keeps the eigenvalues of the Choi state positive. See Example 5 in the Appendix~\ref{App:1} for the formal definitions of the transpose map $\mathcal{T}$ and the partial transpose map $(\mathcal{I}_n \otimes \mathcal{T})$.}, hence a PPT state. It is known that PPT states are states from which no entanglement can be distilled even asymptotically. The reason why PPT channels have zero capacity, is that no entanglement can be recovered between the sender and the receiver even at an unbounded use of the channel \cite{33,71}. A particular example of this family is the 4-dimensional Horodecki channel $\mathcal{N}_H$ given by its Kraus operators as:
\begin{align}
& \sqrt{\frac{q}{2}}\mathrm{I}\otimes\ket{0} \bra{0}, ~\sqrt{\frac{q}{2}}Z\otimes\ket{1} \bra{1},~ \sqrt{\frac{q}{4}}Z\otimes Y, \nonumber \\
&\sqrt{\frac{q}{4}}\mathrm{I}\otimes X,~ \sqrt{1-q}X\otimes M_0,~ \sqrt{1-q}Y\otimes M_1
\label{eq:5.2}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
M_0 &=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}} & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
M_1& =\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}} & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:5.3}
\end{align}
and $I,X,Y,Z$ denoting the $2\times2$ generating matrices of the Pauli group.
\subsection{Superactivation of Quantum Capacity}
\label{Sec:5.2}
Superactivation is a strong superadditivity phenomenon that occurs when two channels, having vanishing individual quantum capacities $Q(\mathcal{N})=Q(\mathcal{M})=0$ belonging to different classes of zero capacity channels, are used together. These channels might gain potentially a quantum capacity enabling them to communicate quantum information, in such a way that:
\begin{equation}
Q(\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{M})>Q(\mathcal{N})+Q(\mathcal{M})=0
\label{eq:5.4}
\end{equation}
As a result, we say that quantum capacity has been \textit{activated} \cite{4}. The phenomenon of superactivation is schematized in Figure~\ref{Fig:10}.
In this context, it has been shown that, when a quantum channel is used together with a classical channel to transmit quantum information, this configuration does not increase the quantum capacity \cite{Bennett_1996}. This research area has been extended to symmetric side quantum channels \cite{Smith_2008}, whose use together with an arbitrary channel $\mathcal{N}$ exhibits the following single-letter expression:
\begin{equation}
Q(\mathcal{N} \otimes \mathcal{N}_{SS}) = \sup_{S \in \mathcal{S}} I_c(\mathcal{N} \otimes S)
\label{eq:5.4bis}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}_{SS}$ is the channel of unbounded dimension satisfying the optimization over the convex set $\mathcal{S}$ of symmetric side channels. In particular, it satisfies the following relation \cite{4}:
\begin{equation}
Q(\mathcal{N} \otimes \mathcal{N}_{SS}) \geq \frac{1}{2}P(\mathcal{N})
\label{eq:5.5}
\end{equation}
with $P(\mathcal{N})$ denoting the private capacity\footnote{In a nutshell, the private capacity defines the rate at which the channel can be used to send classical data that is secure against eavesdropper with access to the environment of the channel.} of channel $\mathcal{N}$.
Combined with the fact that the known Horodecki channels have a non-vanishing private capacity -- i.e., $P(\mathcal{N}) > 0$ -- this key result demonstrates that the capacity of Horodecki channels together with symmetric channels is non-vanishing. Namely, there exists a zero-quantum-capacity symmetric channel that, when used with a zero-quantum-capacity Horodecki channel, leads to a positive capacity.
However, this result involves symmetric channels $\mathcal{N}_{SS}$ with infinite dimensional input, given the $\sup$ in \eqref{eq:5.4}. Hence, further bounds for symmetric side channels with finite dimensional inputs are needed.
Accordingly, it has been shown that when Alice and Bob use a 4-dimensional Horodecki channel $\mathcal{N}_H$ given in \eqref{eq:5.2} to communicate quantum messages with a symmetric channel given by 50\% two-qubit erasure channel $\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}$ given in \eqref{eq:5.1}, the startling effect of superactivation occurs \cite{4}. When these two channels are combined, in fact, they satisfy \cite{4}:
\begin{align}
& 0.1 < I_c(\rho,\mathcal{N}_H \otimes \mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}) \leq \nonumber \\
& \quad I_c(\mathcal{N}_H\otimes \mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}) \leq Q(\mathcal{N}_H \otimes \mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}})
\label{eq:5.6}
\end{align}
where $I_c(\rho,\mathcal{N}_H \otimes \mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}})$ is the coherent information of the channel $\mathcal{N}_H \otimes \mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}$ over a particular input state $\rho$ whose expression can be found in \cite{4}.
The two channels $\mathcal{N}_H \otimes \mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}$ are neither antidegradable nor PPT, having quantum capacity greater than zero. Therefore, we might interpret the gained capacity $Q(\mathcal{N}_H \otimes \mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}) > 0.1$ as the symmetry of the erasure channel being somehow \textit{broken} as an effect of the private information leaked through the Horodecki channel \cite{16}.
\subsection{Non-Convexity of Quantum Capacity}
\label{Sec:5.3}
Astoundingly, another form of superactivation for the previous channels has been revealed, in terms of the non-convexity property of the quantum capacity. A channel, that is a flagged convex combination of the two zero capacity channels, can be constructed, and is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:5.7}
\mathcal{M}_p=p\mathcal{N}_H\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}+(1-p)\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}\otimes\ket{1}\bra{1}
\end{equation}
It is a flagged\footnote{The flagged extension of quantum channels plays an essential role for finding tight bounds for quantum channel capacities that cannot be expressed as single-letter formulae. Particular examples are the depolarizing channel and the generalized amplitude damping channel, whose capacity bounds are still an open problem for particular ranges of their noise parameters. Interested readers might be referred to the following recent results \cite{kianvash2020bounding, giovanetti,wang2020optimizing}.}, convex combination which can be switched between acting as $\mathcal{N}_H$ and $\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}$ with the aid of an ancillary qubit degree of freedom.
To better understand the capabilities of this channel for transmitting quantum information, one would calculate coherent capacity over multiple uses, as its one shot coherent capacity clearly vanishes because $\mathcal{N}_H\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}$ and $\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}\otimes\ket{1}\bra{1}$ are both zero-capacity channels. Subsequently, its two-shot coherent capacity is given by \cite{4}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:5.8}
I_c({\rho},\mathcal{M}_p\otimes\mathcal{M}_p)&=p^2I_c({\rho},\mathcal{N}_H\otimes\mathcal{N}_H)\nonumber\\
&+p(1-p)I_c({\rho},\mathcal{N}_H\otimes\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}})\nonumber\\&+p(1-p)I_c(\rho,\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}\otimes\mathcal{N}_H)\nonumber\\
&+(1-p)^2I_c({\rho},\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}}\otimes\mathcal{N}_{E_{50\%}})
\end{align}
Under symmetry restrictions of the input state $\rho$, the two-shot coherent capacity is not vanishing over a given region of the convexity parameter $p$ \cite{4,16}.
This new channel, contrary to its constituent channels, has a non-vanishing capacity, exhibiting an extreme form of superactivation.
This confirms that the communication potential of a channel depends on the context in which it is used or on what other channels are available with it. This claim, will be further supported by the phenomenon of causal activation.
\subsection{Classical Capacity}
\label{Sec:5.4}
As discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:5.1}, quantum channels can have zero capacity due of different reasons. This allows to categorize zero-capacity channels into different classes \cite{80,81,82}. Hence, if we use independently two quantum channels of different classes, the entanglement and coherence that might be available in the input state allow the channels to interfere with each other. Consequently, each one can leak some amount of information that the other channel does not allow. This interference between the two channels gives an equivalent channel that is of neither class, resulting in a noise reduction that beats the vanishing capacity of the individual quantum channels.
This cannot happen when quantum channels are used to transmit classical information, because only a channel, whose output is the same regardless of the input message, can have zero classical capacity \cite{0}. Hence, there exists only a single class of channels with zero classical capacity, and it is not possible to exploit channels of different classes to superactivate their classical capacities \cite{7,Gyongyosi_2012}.
\section{Causal Activation of Quantum Channel Capacities}
\label{Sec:6}
In ordinary quantum Shannon theory, although the information carriers obey the laws of quantum mechanics, the treatment of their propagation remains classical. Indeed, the informational carriers are transmitted through a well-defined trajectory which is assumed a-priori or can be chosen randomly, for example, by tossing a coin. Recent works proposed to generalise the framework of quantum Shannon theory \cite{3,13,9} such as, not only the information or the channels, but also the \textit{placement} of the channels -- i.e., the trajectories along with the carriers propagate -- can be treated as quantum and being subjected to the superposition principle.
In this section, we will review the possible advantages following the extension of quantum Shannon theory to include quantum trajectories, which is considered as the second quantization of classical Shannon theory \cite{3,13}.
\subsection{Quantum Switch}
\label{Sec:6.1}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-11-alt.pdf}
\caption{The quantum switch supermap, where two quantum channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ are placed in a genuinely quantum configuration given by a coherent superposition of causal orders between the two channels \cite{13}. Within the figure, $\rho_c$ denotes the \textit{control system}, part of the switch supermap, controlling the causal order between the two channels. Whenever the control qubit is initialized in a superposed state, the two channels are placed in a coherent superposition of the two different causal orders $\mathcal{M} \circ \mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{N} \circ \mathcal{M}$.}
\label{Fig:12}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
A key example of quantum trajectories, which has been proven to be useful for communication, is given by the quantum switch\footnote{When the complete positivity of quantum combs or process tensors is restricted to non-signaling channels only, a wider class of supermaps emerges, which includes the quantum switch as a particular instance. The quantum switch supermap cannot be described by any form of a temporal process tensor or quantum comb, unless postselection on some degree of freedom of the environment is allowed \cite{83,Milz_2018}.} \cite{18,19,marcello,83,10,11,20,procopio-2020,cacciapuoti2019capacity}, illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig:12}. Such a supermap, given two quantum channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$, generates a new configuration in which the two channels are in a coherent superposition of two different causal orders, namely, $ \mathcal{M} \circ \mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{N} \circ \mathcal{M}$.
Formally, the quantum switch maps the two original channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ into a new quantum channel $\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})(\cdot)$, whose output is given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})(\rho) = \sum_{ij} S_{ij} (\rho \otimes \rho_c) S^{\dagger}_{ij}
\label{eq:6.1}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the input state, $\rho_c$ is the state controlling the causal order between the two channels in hand, and $\{ S_{ij} \}$ denotes the Kraus operators of the switch, given by:
\begin{equation}
S_{ij} = N_i M_j \otimes \ket{0}\bra{0}_c + M_j N_i \otimes \ket{1}\bra{1}_c
\label{eq:6.2}
\end{equation}
with $\{ N_i \}$ and $\{ M_j \}$ denoting the Kraus operators of the respective channels. We should note that the structure of the switch is independent of the Kraus representation of the individual channels.
This new resource has proven to provide advantages over the classical placement of quantum channels, violating the bottleneck inequality \eqref{eq:app.3.9} \cite{18,19,20,cacciapuoti2019capacity}. The rationale for this astonishing violation is that the coherent control within the quantum switch allows for the order -- in which the channels act on the information carrier -- to be entangled with a control degree of freedom. As a consequence, a constructive interference results from the coherent superposition of the causal order between the channels, allowing for a \textit{reduction} of the overall noise affecting the information carrier.
It is worth noting that the control system, whose state is fixed a-priory, is crucial in the switch. Indeed, it seems to be locking a considerable amount of information present in the coherent superposition of the orders. Clearly, with no access to the measurement outcome of the control qubit at the receiver -- hence, by ``tracing'' it out -- we cannot recover that amount of information. Furthermore, given that the control qubit embeds a fixed and a-priori determined quantum state, it can not be exploited by the sender to encode information\footnote{The control qubit might be regarded as the degree of freedom of the environment that is responsible for the order of the channels. This degree of freedom is accessible by the communication provider, who communicates measurement outcomes on it to the receiver Bob \cite{Globecom2021}.}, i.e., it does not constitute a side channel \cite{13}.
\subsection{Causal Activation of Holevo Information}
\label{Sec:6.2}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-13-alt.pdf}
\caption{The Holevo information of the effective channel $\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N}_{CD},\mathcal{N}_{CD})(\cdot)$ implemented through the quantum switch when $\rho_c$ is the density matrix for the state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big( \ket{0}+\ket{1})$. The plot is an illustration of the results derived in \cite{18}.}
\label{fig:13}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
The use of the quantum switch for the transfer of classical information over quantum channels has been shown to outperform the usual communication setups -- namely, sequential or parallel placement of channels in a causal order -- of quantum Shannon theory.
Specifically, when two completely depolarizing channels -- each with vanishing Holevo information, prohibiting them from transmitting classical messages whatever classical configuration they are used in -- are combined together in the quantum switch, they can deliver a non-vanishing amount of classical information \cite{18}. The completely depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_{CD}$ for a $d$-dimensional input $\rho$ is described by a mixture of $d^2$ mutually orthogonal unitaries\footnote{The completely depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_{CD}$ and its Kraus representation are discussed in Appendix~\ref{App:1}.} $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^{d^2}$ so that:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_{CD}(\rho)=\frac{1}{d^2}\sum_{i=1}^{d^2}U_i\rho U_i^{\dagger}
\label{eq:6.2bis}
\end{equation}
with the Kraus operators in \eqref{eq:6.2} describing the quantum switch supermap given by:
\begin{equation}
S_{ij} = \frac{1}{d^2} \big( U_iU_j \otimes \ket{0}\bra{0}_c + U_jU_i \otimes \ket{1}\bra{1}_c \big)
\label{eq:6.2ter}
\end{equation}
When the controller is initialized in the state $\rho_c=\sqrt{p}\ket{0}\bra{0}+\sqrt{1-p}\ket{1}\bra{1}+\sqrt{p(1-p)}(\ket{0}\bra{1}+\ket{1}\bra{0})$, the output \eqref{eq:6.1} of the quantum switch is given explicitly by:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N}_{CD},\mathcal{N}_{CD})(\rho) &= \frac{I}{d} \otimes \big( p\ket{0}\bra{0}_c + (1-p)\ket{1}\bra{1}_c \big) \nonumber\\
& \quad +\frac{\rho}{d^2}\otimes\sqrt{p(1-p)}(\ket{0}\bra{1}_c+\ket{1}\bra{0}_c)
\label{eq:6.2quater}
\end{align}
where $I$ is the $d \times d$ identity matrix. By accounting for \eqref{eq:6.2quater} with $p = \frac{1}{2}$, the Holevo information achievable through the quantum switch $\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})(\cdot)$ is given by:
\begin{align}
\chi \big( \mathcal{S}_{\ket{+}\bra{+}}(\mathcal{N}_{CD},\mathcal{N}_{CD}) \big) &= \log d+S(\tilde{\rho_c}) + \nonumber \\
& \quad - H_{min}(\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N}_{CD},\mathcal{N}_{CD}))
\label{eq:6.2-5}
\end{align}
where $S(\tilde{\rho}_c)$ is the von Neumann entropy of the reduced state of the control system $\tilde{\rho_c} = \frac{1}{2}\ket{0}\bra{0}+\frac{1}{2}\ket{1}\bra{1}+\frac{1}{2d^2}(\ket{0}\bra{1}+\ket{1}\bra{0})$, and $H_{min}(\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N}_{CD},\mathcal{N}_{CD}))$ is the minimum output entropy of the effective channel $\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N}_{CD},\mathcal{N}_{CD})$, given by:
\begin{align}
& H_{min}(\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N}_{CD},\mathcal{N}_{CD})) = -\Big[ \frac{d+1}{2d^2} \log \frac{d+1}{2d^2} + \nonumber \\
& \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad + \frac{2(d-1)}{2d} \log \frac{1}{2d} + \frac{d-1}{2d^2} \log \frac{d-1}{2d^2}\Big]
\label{eq:6.2-6}
\end{align}
A plot of the Holevo information $\chi(\mathcal{S}_{\rho_c}(\mathcal{N}_{CD},\mathcal{N}_{CD}))$ in \eqref{eq:6.2-5}, characterizing the capability of the quantum switch to transfer classical information, is given in Figure~\ref{fig:13}. It is clear from the plot that the completely depolarizing channel, which has vanishing classical capacity over arbitrary many uses, gains a non vanishing Holevo information\footnote{Indeed, it has been shown that -- through $n>13$ channels placed in a superposition of cyclic causal orders, the quantum switch can activate the coherent information of the fully depolarizing channel as well \cite{10}, resulting in a non-vanishing quantum capacity.} whenever two instances of the channels are used within the quantum switch. It is worthwhile to mention that the Holevo information represents just a lower bound on the regularized classical capacity achievable with the quantum switch, which is non-vanishing as well.
This result, although moderate in terms of capacity improvement as shown in the figure, is of crucial importance from a communication engineering perspective, since it violates one of the fundamental bounds for classical trajectories, namely the bottleneck inequality given in \eqref{eq:app.3.9}.
\subsection{Causal Activation of Quantum Capacity}
\label{Sec:6.3}
As for classical capacity, there exists -- as well -- quantum channels with vanishing quantum capacity that, when combined within the quantum switch, gain a non-vanishing quantum capacity \cite{19}.
An illustrative example is the entanglement breaking channel $\mathcal{N}_{EB}$ characterized by the Kraus operators $\{X,Y\}$, and whouse ouput state is given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_{EB}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}(X\rho X+Y\rho Y)
\label{eq:6.2-7}
\end{equation}
with $X$ and $Y$ denoting $2\times2$ Pauli matrices.
This channel has vanishing quantum capacity $Q(\mathcal{N}_{EB})=0$, regardless of the adopted classical (serial or parallel) configuration, since it is anti-degradable, i.e., the output on the receiver can be obtained by post-processing the output of the environment, resulting in a violation of no-cloning theorem as mentioned in Section~\ref{Sec:5.1}.
However, the quantum switch activates its capacity to its maximum\footnote{We further note that the qubit channels that might witness such perfect activation of the quantum capacity are the only ones unitary equivalent to the entanglement breaking channel given in \eqref{eq:6.2-7} \cite{19}.} whenever the control qubit places the channels in an equal superposition of orders, that is \cite{19}:
\begin{equation}
Q \big( \mathcal{S}_{\ket{+}\bra{+}}(\mathcal{N}_{EB},\mathcal{N}_{EB}) \big) = 1
\label{eq:6.2-8}
\end{equation}
This astonishing result can be easily understood by considering the output of the quantum switch, given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}_{\ket{+}\bra{+}}(\mathcal{N}_{EB},\mathcal{N}_{EB})(\rho) = \frac{1}{2}\rho\otimes \ket{+}\bra{+}_c + \frac{1}{2}Z\rho Z\otimes \ket{-}\bra{-}_c
\label{eq:6.4}
\end{equation}
We can see that the outcome in \eqref{eq:6.4} is equivalent to a convex combination of two flagged channels $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$ and, hence, the coherent information of the equivalent channel is simply the convex sum of the coherent information of the two flagged channels:
\begin{equation}
I_c \big( \mathcal{S}_{\ket{+}\bra{+}}(\mathcal{N}_{EB},\mathcal{N}_{EB}) \big)=\frac{1}{2}\times 1+\frac{1}{2}\times 1=1
\end{equation}
This result is astonishing, since it non only violates the bottleneck inequality given in \eqref{eq:app.3.9} as discussed in the previous subsection, but it activates the capacity to its maximum value, starting from zero-capacity channel.
Although our previous discussion explicitly shows the advantages of the quantum trajectories for communications, closed-form expressions of the ultimate capacities achieved through the quantum switch are yet to be solved for generic quantum channels. In this direction, many efforts are made to obtain tight upper and lower bounds on the quantum switch capacity. In particular, it has been shown \cite{procopio-2020} that the use of the three copies of the completely depolarizing channel outperforms the bound given in \eqref{eq:6.2-5}. This has been extended to show that the asymptotic use of many copies of the completely depolarizing channel in a superposition of cyclic orders achieves perfect transmission of classical information \cite{10,11}. Furthermore, upper and lower bounds of the quantum switch capacity have been obtained for different types of channels \cite{18,19,10,20,cacciapuoti2019capacity}.
\section{Conclusions and Future Perspective}
\label{Sec:7}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{| p{0.15\textwidth} | p{0.35\textwidth} | p{0.45\textwidth}|}
\toprule
\textbf{} & \textbf{Superactivation} & \textbf{Causal activation}\\
\midrule
\textbf{Entanglement} & Yes: within the encoding & Yes: between the causal order of the channels and the control system\\
\midrule
\textbf{Type of the channels} & Two different channels belonging to different zero-capacity classes & Two different or identical channels, as long as their Kraus operators do not pairwise commute/anti-commute with each others \\
\midrule
\textbf{Channel placement} & Classical & Quantum: superposition of relative orders \\
\midrule
\textbf{Channels with zero classical capacity} & Not activated & Activated\\
\midrule
\textbf{Channels with zero quantum capacity} & Activated & Activated \\
\midrule
\textbf{Noise Reduction} & Always & Not always\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Superactivation vs causal activation. Although both superactivation and causal activation arise from the phenomenon of entanglement, and they both enable information transmission even through channels with zero capacity, they exhibit fundamental differences as summarized within the table.}
\label{Tab:01}
\hrulefill
\end{table*}
In classical communications, which are based on classical information flowing through classical channels, it is widely known that the channel capacity is additive. Namely, whenever a channel cannot transmit classical information over a single use, it can never gain potential to transmit information over multiple uses or when assisted by other zero-capacity classical channels.
Conversely, the weird unconventional phenomena of \textit{superadditivity}, \textit{superactivation} and \textit{causal activation} of quantum channel capacities violate known bounds and assumptions of classical Shannon theory, boosting -- sometimes with astonishing gains such as in Section~\ref{Sec:5} and Section~\ref{Sec:6.2} -- both the classical and the quantum capacities.
Hence, it is of paramount importance to i) discuss the rationale for these phenomena to appear in the quantum realm, and ii) highlight open problems and research directions, both from a communication engineering perspective.
\subsection{Discussion}
\label{Sec:7.1}
\subsubsection*{A.1) The role of quantum signatures}
As thoroughly discussed in the previous sections, the advantage that the phenomena of superadditivity, superactivation and causal activation provide for communications is based on the presence of entanglement, though in different disguises.
In superadditivity and superactivation, entanglement is exploited in the used codewords, enabling information carriers to be correlated while each traverses one channel. If the sender use separable codewords, as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig:10-a} with reference to the superactivation phenomenon, these phenomena do not occur. Conversely, for causal activation the entanglement is manifested in the correlation between: i) the order in which the channels acts on the information carrier, and ii) the degree of freedom of the control system, which necessarily does not carry any information.
Similarly to this key difference in the exploitation of the key-resource represented by entanglement there exists another distinction in terms of channel placement between superadditivity/superactivation and causal activation, as summarized with Table~\ref{Tab:01} for super vs causal activation. Specifically, the former two phenomena occur with a classical placement of channels -- either through i) multiple uses of the same channel, or ii) use of different zero-capacity channels from different classes -- whereas the latter occurs when a quantum trajectory is exploited -- with the only restrictions to have the channel Kraus operators not commuting or anti-commuting pairwise.
It is worthwhile to underline that -- regardless of the differences between the three phenomena -- quantum channels are a fundamental constraint for this marvels to occur. Meaning that these phenomena do not have any classical counterpart when classical channels are used for communication.
\subsubsection*{A.2) Difference between causal activation and superadditivity/superactivation}
Furthermore, it is tempting to believe that quantum channels placed in quantum trajectories provide stronger advantages with respect to classical configurations such as those exploited by superadditivity and superactivation. However, this is not the case. Indeed, in the case of the causal activation, the information carrier undergoes a superposition of two sequences of channels with different causal orders, which might result in an overall noise addition instead of reduction. And the rationale for this is due to the fact that a destructive interference -- rather than a constructive one -- can take place. Differently, in superadditivity/superactivation, the information carriers are split between the different uses of the same channel or the different channels such as each carrier undergoes a single operation, which can only induce a noise reduction, and never a noise amplification.
Finally, an interesting intersection between the two kinds of channels placement might be found by considering the family of flagged channels. In fact, a similarity between the phenomenon of superactivation in flagged convex combinations of zero-capacity channels, discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:5.3} and the phenomenon of causal activation in the quantum switch arises. This similarity becomes clear by noticing that the resulting channel from the quantum switch of two channels or more -- such as the one given in \eqref{eq:6.4} -- is nothing else than a quantum-flagged convex combination of two channels, which might have zero capacity in particular cases.
\subsection{Open Problems}
\label{Sec:7.2}
Besides the marvelous communication advantages that the discussed phenomena enable, there are relevant issues -- from the engineering perspective -- that we should point out and properly discuss.
\vspace{6mm}
\subsubsection*{B.1) Superactivation}
Primarily, superactivation is not yet fully understood, and many questions in this direction are yet to be answered. Basically, it is still important to understand whether there exist other families of zero-capacity quantum channels, besides the antidegradable and PPT families. Indeed, whether the superactivation holds for other Horodecki channels without positive private capacity, or whether there are other pairs of channels that witness such effect -- besides the 50\% erasure and the 4-dimensional Horodecki discussed in the text -- is still not answered.
Furthermore, besides the mentioned issues arising in discrete quantum channels, there is much more to discover and to investigate in the continuous domain \cite{Pirandola-2012,giovanetti-2018}. Recently, it has been showed that superactivation can be revealed in a broad range of thermal attenuator channels, even when the transmissivity is quite low, or the thermal noise is high \cite{adesso-2019}. This urges further investigations of whether superactivation might occur in physically relevant circumstances of quantum Gaussian channels \cite{Smith_2011,Lercher_2013}. This would be a triumph for future quantum communications based on quantum properties of light.
\vspace{6mm}
\subsubsection*{B.2) Superadditivity}
With reference to the superadditivity phenomenon, it has been proved for channels which might be relevant in realistic scenarios. Indeed, superadditivity has been shown for a given range of the depolarizing channel. Furthermore, a recent superadditivity phenomenon of the coherent information has been shown for the dephasure channel, which is a concatenation of an erasure and a dephasing channel. This erasure channel can be seen as a pure-loss bosonic channel on a dual-rail qubit system, which is a good model for optical fibers.
A strong superadditivity phenomenon has been revealed in quasi-zero-capacity channels. Specifically, quantum rocket channel -- namely, a channel with a $2\log d$ input qubits with private capacity less than 2 -- combined with the $d$-dimensional 50\% erasure channel -- which has zero private capacity -- can achieve high capacity in the order of $\frac{1}{2}\log d$ \cite{26}, hence, significantly larger than the capacity of the former channel. Consequently, intensive efforts are devoted to further investigations on the superadditivity of useful channels, both i) from a theoretical point of view, to serve as a laboratory for understanding quantum capacities, and ii) from a practical point of view, to harness the effect of superadditivity in near term quantum communication technologies.
However, and differently from quantum capacities, practical and concrete examples of superadditivity of the Holevo capacity are still missing, leaving an open door for future research to reveal the usefulness of superadditivity for the transmission of classical information over quantum channels. Moreover, a full understanding of the gap between capacities of quantum channels under different constraints -- namely, classical encoding-quantum decoding and quantum encoding-classical decoding -- is still missing. This urges further investigation of finite blocklength coding and decoding strategies \cite{Chung-16}, and the comparison between collective measurements and LOCC (local operations and classical communication) strategies on the discrimination of product states. The later has been thoroughly investigated recently in \cite{shor-2022}. We should highlight that we have omitted in this manuscript the discussion of superadditivity in trade-off capacities of quantum channels. This is the capacity given by a trade-off region considering a limited assistance of quantum communication by classical communication and entanglement. It has been shown that this kind of quantum capacity exhibits a superadditivity phenomenon. Interested reader is referred to \cite{zhuang-2017,zhuang-2018,zhuang-2021}.
Finally, a key issue is constituted by the fact that capacities of realistic channels, which models practical quantum communication scenarios on different platforms, are still not known. In particular, the capacities of the generalized amplitude damping channel is still not fully understood \cite{giovanetti-2018,Khatri_2020}. This channel can be seen as the qubit analogue of the bosonic thermal noise channel, and it models some of the sources of noise in superconducting circuit-based quantum computing. To this aim, many techniques for obtaining upper bounds of quantum channel capacities have been chased. For upper bounds on the classical capacity of quantum channels, the reader can be referred to \cite{LedKauDat-18,Wang_2018,Filippov_2018,Filippov_2018-2,60}. In equal footing, for upper bounds of quantum capacities of quantum channels the reader is referred to \cite{Wolf_2007,smith-UB,Sutter_2017,Tomamichel_2017}.
\vspace{6mm}
\subsubsection*{B.3) Causal activation}
Not very different from the previous two phenomena, there is a lot to be understood in causal activation. This phenomenon has been shown to be advantageous for some practical channels, like the entanglement breaking channel in the case of quantum information transmission discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:6.3} and the completely depolarizing channel when it comes to the classical information transmission discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:6.2}. Nevertheless, causal activation for continuous variable channels is still missing, which would be of paramount importance for photonic-based future quantum communications.
Another issue that might face the engineering of causal activation is represented by the coherent control of realistic channels. Basically, to be able to perform coherent control, all we need to know is the properties of the quantum channels themselves, which are -- not easily -- obtained by quantum process tomography \cite{Chuang_1997,Bisio_2009}. Even more challenging, it has been shown that there are processes revealed to break one of the key properties of quantum channels, which is complete positivity \cite{sudarchan,Milz_2021,white2021nonmarkovian}. These processes cannot be described by Kraus operators and, hence, the quantum switch paradigm fails in this regard.
A possible link between superactivation and causal activation of quantum channels might be tackled through the environment-assisted communication paradigm \cite{Werner-2004,hayden-2004,winter-2005}. On one hand, it has been shown that the quantum switch can be viewed as a one-way LOCC environment-assisted strategy \cite{Globecom2021}, where the environment is controlled by a helper. In this context, the control qubit of the switch arises as a residual degree of freedom of the environment. This particular strategy (the quantum switch) perfectly corrects the noisy channels when it is optimal, otherwise, the quantum switch fails to perfectly mitigate the noise. It is worth mentioning that optimality is with regard to the one-way LOCC strategy maximizing the environment-assisted capacity of the corrected channel. On the other hand, it has been shown that, when the helper is allowed to use entangled states of the environment, two useless channels with zero capacity under environment assistance might activate their joint capacity \cite{Mancini-2016,ManciniWinter-2016}. This opens a future direction for the investigation of the link between correlated control degrees of freedom among multiple quantum switches, and the possible superactivation therein. This will help better characterizing and understanding the capacity of the quantum channels used in the quantum switch.
Besides the advantages that the quantum switch can bring to point-to-point communications -- namely, mitigating the noise of quantum channels by placing them in coherent superposition of relative orders -- it would be quite valuable to find practical applications for quantum networks. A first contribution toward this issue has been proposed in \cite{Lab-2021}, where the indefinite causal order framework has been used to generate multipartite entanglement. Importantly, it has been shown that the application of the quantum switch can be advantageous for the achievement of distributed multipartite entanglement generation between remote nodes of a quantum network. Consequently, the quantum switch may play the missing part in achieving reliable photonic multi-qubit gates or, at least, a quantum interface between different qubit technologies, mapping entangled states engineered in a particular platform -- i.e., superconducting entanglement -- to photonic flying qubits used for long distance point-to-point communication \cite{rubino-2022}.
These different advantages of the quantum switch suggest a new way of looking at quantum networks. Namely, new quantum internet protocol stacks are yet to be proposed \cite{Jessica-2022}, taking into account the coherent control in general, and the superposition of causal order paradigm in particular, laying the ground for a complete understanding of the full potential of future communication networks.
\appendices
\section{Quantum information basics: crash course}
\label{App:0.1}
\subsubsection{Quantum bit and superposition principle}
\label{AppA:1}
Information, either classical or quantum, can be encoded in the state of the simplest quantum mechanical system, namely, the quantum bit (qubit). Mathematically\footnote{Here we adopt the bra-ket notation, which is usually adopted to denote the vector representing the state of a qubit. Indeed, a ket $\ket{\cdot}$ represents a column vector, while a bra $\bra{\cdot} = \ket{\cdot}^\dagger$ represents its hermitian conjugate. A scalar product of two vectors $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\phi}$ is then denoted as $\langle \psi | \phi \rangle$, whereas a direct product of a ket and a bra is given by $| \phi \rangle \langle \psi |$.}, the state of a qubit is defined as a vector $\ket{\psi}$ in a two-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Therein it is possible to choose a basis, as instance the computational basis $\{\ket{0}, \ket{1}\}$ which draws an analogy with the states $0$ and $1$ of a classical bit. Then, according to the superposition principle, an arbitrary state of a qubit can be expressed as a linear combination of the chosen basis states: \begin{equation}\label{QubitState}
|\psi\rangle = \alpha |0\rangle + \beta |1\rangle
\end{equation}
where $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{C}$, and $|\alpha|^2 + |\beta|^2 = 1$. The state $|\psi\rangle$ in \eqref{QubitState} is said to be in a superposition of the states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$.
\subsubsection{Unitary transformations}
\label{AppA:2}
If a quantum system (such as a qubit) is closed, it can evolve in time only under deterministic and reversible unitary transformations $U$, i.e., transformations satisfying:
\begin{equation}
U^\dagger U = I_\mathcal{H}
\end{equation}
where $I_{\mathcal{H}}$ is an identity in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. This means that, given the state of the system at some initial time point $t_1$, its state at a certain time $t_2$ is fully determined by the corresponding unitary operator:
\begin{equation}
|\psi(t_2)\rangle = U(t_2, t_1)|\psi(t_1)\rangle
\end{equation}
which depends only on times $t_1$ and $t_2$. Unitary transformations play a crucial role in quantum information and quantum communications since they can seen as gates acting on a qubit. In this picture, a quantum gate has input and output ports for a qubit, and the time evolution is hidden in the relationship between them,
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle_{out} = U|\psi\rangle_{in}
\end{equation}
Typical examples of quantum gates widely used in quantum information are the Pauli gates
\begin{equation}
X = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \;\; Z = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix} \;\; Y = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -i \\ i & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
which flip the bit ($\ket{0} \rightarrow \ket{1}$), the phase ($\alpha\ket{0} + \beta \ket{1} \rightarrow \alpha\ket{0} - \beta \ket{1}$), or both, respectively.
An important consequence of the constraint on the transformations of a closed quantum system to be unitary is the celebrated no-cloning theorem (see Section~\ref{Sec:2.1}), which states the impossibility of creating an independent copy of an unknown quantum state. Indeed, there exists no unitary operator $U$ acting on two quantum systems able to transform state $\ket{\psi_1}$ of one system into state $\ket{\psi_2}$ of another one, regardless of $\ket{\psi_2}$.
\subsubsection{Projective measurements}
\label{AppA:3}
If the state of the system is unknown, certain information on it can be acquired by measuring some (observable) property of it. Mathematically\footnote{We first describe the projective measurement, and then at the end of this appendix we generalize it by considering the positive operator-valued measure (POVM). For an exhaustive treatise about the subject, the reader is referred to \cite{nielsen_chuang_2010}.}, any observable is described by an operator $A$ that is self-adjoint (i.e., $A^\dagger = A$) and can be expanded as:
\begin{equation}
A = \sum_i a_i M_i
\end{equation}
where $\{a_i\}$ are its eigenvalues describing the possible outcomes of the measurement, and $M_i$ are the orthogonal projectors onto the eigenvectors associated with the corresponding eigenvalues:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MeasurementOrthogonality}
M_i M_j &=& \delta_{ij} M_i \\
\sum_i M_i &=& I_{\mathcal{H}} \label{MeasurementCompleteness}
\end{eqnarray}
By measuring the observable $A$, a certain outcome $a_i$ is obtained. However, accordingly to the quantum measurement postulate, after this measurement the system is left in the eigenstate associated with the projector $M_i$. With more details, when a measurement is performed on a system in the state $\ket{\psi}$, the outcome $a_i$ is obtained with probability calculated according to the Born's rule:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(a_i) = \langle \psi | M_i^\dagger M_i | \psi \rangle = \langle \psi | M_i | \psi \rangle
\end{equation}
After the measurement, the system collapses into the state
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:appe_a}
\frac{M_i \ket{\psi}}{\sqrt{\mathbb{P}(a_i)}}.
\end{equation}
We note that any following measurement of the same observable reveals again the same outcome $a_i$ and state in \eqref{eq:appe_a}.
\begin{exmp}
Let us consider a simple example to better present the above concept related to the quantum measurement. Specifically, let us suppose to be interested in measuring the qubit state \eqref{QubitState} in the computational basis $\{\ket{0}, \ket{1}\}$. In this case, $M_0 = \ket{0}\bra{0}$ and, $M_1 = \ket{1}\bra{1}$. By measuring the considered state and according to the Born's rule, we obtain the outcome ``$0$'' with probability given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(0) = (\alpha^* \bra{0} + \beta^* \bra{1}) \ket{0}\bra{0} (\alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1}) = |\alpha|^2
\end{equation}
and the outcome ``$1$'' with the probability:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(1) = (\alpha^* \bra{0} + \beta^* \bra{1}) \ket{1}\bra{1} (\alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1}) = |\beta|^2
\end{equation}
and the system, after the measurement, is left in the state $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$, respectively. We could measure the qubit in any other basis, for example, $\{ |\pm\rangle = \frac{|0\rangle \pm ||1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} \}$. The corresponding observable can be constructed as
\begin{equation}
A = a_+ M_+ + a_- M_- = \ket{+}\bra{+} - \ket{-}\bra{-}
\end{equation}
where $a_+ = 1$, $a_- = -1$, and $M_+ = \ket{+}\bra{+}$, $M_- = \ket{-}\bra{-}$. In this case, the measurement reveals both outcomes ``$+$'' or ``$-$'' with the same probability
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \mathbb{P}(\pm) &=& (\alpha^* \bra{0} + \beta^* \bra{1}) \ket{\pm}\bra{\pm} (\alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1}) \\
&=& \frac{|\alpha|^2 + |\beta|^2}{2} = \frac{1}{2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{exmp}
\subsubsection{Mixed states and density matrix}\label{AppA:4}
In the situations when the knowledge on the actual state is lacking (for example, if the system undergoes the action of noise), it cannot be described by a well-defined vector in Hilbert space. This means that the system is in a certain state with some probability, i.e., it has to be described by a statistical mixture of vectors in Hilbert space. Such a statistical mixture is called \textit{mixed state} (in contrast to a well-defined vector which represents a \textit{pure state}) and it can be defined formally by adapting the formalism of \textit{density matrix}. Indeed, if the system, with dimension $d$, is in one of the states $\{\ket{\psi_i}\}_i^d$ with corresponding probability $p_i$, the density matrix that describes its overall state is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{def:DensityOperator}
\rho = \sum_i^d p_i |\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i|
\end{equation}
For a pure state $\ket{\phi}$, the density matrix reduces to $\rho=\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$. Generally speaking, any operator $\rho$ can be a density operator and describe a state of the system, as long as it fulfills the following conditions,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\rho^\dagger = \rho$, i.e., $p_i \in \mathbb{R}$ for all $i$,
\item $\rho \geq 0$, i.e., $p_i \geq 0$ for all $i$,
\item $\operatorname{Tr}(\rho) = 1$, i.e., $\sum_i^d p_i = 1$.
\end{enumerate}
These conditions ensure that the eigenvalues of $\rho$ can be interpreted as probabilities, namely, they are real, positive, and sum up to the unity. It is necessary to stress out the crucial difference between these ``classical'' probabilities $p_i$ and the ``quantum'' ones $\mathbb{P}(i)$. The probabilities $\mathbb{P}(i)$ appear when one performs a measurement on the (well-defined) system's state due to the Born's rule, whereas the probabilities $p_i$ describe our a priori knowledge of the actual system's state independently on measurement. Indeed, when a measurement of an observable $A$ is performed on a qubit being in the state $\rho$, an outcome $a_i$ is revealed with the probability
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(a_i) = \operatorname{Tr}(M_i \rho)
\end{equation}
leaving the system in the state
\begin{equation}
\frac{M_i \rho M_i}{\mathbb{P}(a_i)}
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}
Being the state in (\ref{QubitState}) a pure state, its density matrix can be evaluated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \rho_\psi &=& |\psi\rangle \langle\psi| \\
\nonumber &=& |\alpha|^2 |0\rangle\langle 0| + \alpha\beta^* |0\rangle\langle 1| + \alpha^*\beta |1\rangle\langle 0| + |\beta|^2 |1\rangle\langle 1| \\
&=& \begin{pmatrix} |\alpha|^2 & \alpha\beta^* \\ \alpha^*\beta & |\beta|^2 \end{pmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, the classical mixture of the states $0$ and $1$ with the probabilities $|\alpha|^2$ and $|\beta|^2$ is described by the mixed state
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \rho &=& |\alpha|^2 |0\rangle\langle 0| + |\beta|^2 |1\rangle\langle 1| \\
&=& \begin{pmatrix} |\alpha|^2 & 0 \\ 0 & |\beta|^2 \end{pmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
When measured in computational basis, in both cases, the qubit can be found in the state $0$ and $1$ with probabilities $|\alpha|^2$ and $|\beta|^2$, respectively. However, if the measurement is performed in a basis which includes $|\psi\rangle$, i.e., it answer the question ``Is the qubit in the state $|\psi\rangle$ or not?'', then, in the first case, the answer is always ``Yes'', and the measurement does not change the state of the system. In the second case, the outcome ``Yes'' is obtained indeed with the probability
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(\text{\rm Yes}) = |\alpha|^4 + |\beta|^4
\end{equation}
As discussed, the crucial difference is that, in the first case, the qubit stays in a well-defined state $|\psi\rangle$ which is revealed, as we have seen, when a suitable measurement is performed. In the second case, however, the qubit a priori stays in one of the states $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$ with the corresponding probabilities.
\end{exmp}
\subsubsection{POVM}\label{AppA:5}
Before ending the appendix it is important to highlight that the projective measurements introduced above and described by a set of orthogonal projectors $\{M_i\}$, which satisfy conditions (\ref{MeasurementOrthogonality}) and (\ref{MeasurementCompleteness}), represent a special case of the general quantum measurement postulate. However, there are important problems in quantum computation and quantum information, such as the optimal way to distinguish a set of quantum states, which require a more general tool, as the positive operator-valued measure (POVM) formalism \cite{nielsen_chuang_2010}, where the measurement operators $M_i$ are not necessarily orthogonal.
\begin{exmp}
An important example of using POVM in quantum communications is given by the problem of distinguishing between non-orthogonal states. Given a set of $N$ linearly independent states $\{\ket{\psi_i}\}$, no projective measurement can tell with a certainty that a qubit has been in one of them before measurement if they are not orthogonal. However, a wisely chosen POVM allows to perfectly distinguish between them by paying the price that sometimes no information about the state can be revealed at all. Indeed, it can be achieved by considering a set of states $\{\ket{\tilde{\psi}_i}\}$ such that a state $\ket{\tilde{\psi}_i}$ is orthogonal to all the states under interest but $\ket{\psi_i}$~\cite{Barnett-09}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\langle \tilde{\psi}_{i} | \psi_j \rangle = \delta_{ij}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{ij}$ is unity for $i=j$ and zero otherwise. Then the POVM consisting of $N$ projectors
\begin{equation}
M_i = \frac{1}{|\langle \tilde{\psi}_{i} | \psi_i \rangle|^2} |\tilde{\psi}_{i}\rangle \langle \tilde{\psi}_{i}|
\end{equation}
and the operator $M_{N+1} = I - \sum_i M_i$ allows to distinguish perfectly between $\{\ket{\psi_i}\}$. Indeed, finding an outcome $i \in \{1,...,N\}$ suggests that the system has been in the state $|\psi_i\rangle$ before measurement. However, finding the outcome $N+1$ associated with the operator $M_{N+1}$ does not give any information about the state of the system at all. For example, let us assume that we have a qubit and want to distinguish between two states, $|\psi_1\rangle = |0\rangle$ and $|\psi_2\rangle = |+\rangle$. In this case, a POVM consisting of operators
\begin{eqnarray}
M_1 &=& 2|-\rangle\langle -| \\
M_2 &=& 2|1\rangle\langle 1| \\
M_3 &=& I - 2|-\rangle\langle -| - 2|1\rangle\langle 1|
\end{eqnarray}
does the job.
\end{exmp}
\subsubsection{Composite systems and entanglement}
\label{AppA:6}
A generic pure uncorrelated state of a composite system of $n$ qubits $\{\ket{\psi_i}_{i=1}^{n}\}$ is described by a joint quantum state
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi}=\otimes_{i=1}^n\ket{\psi_i}=\ket{\psi_1}\otimes\ket{\psi_2}\otimes\cdots\otimes\ket{\psi_n} \label{eq:3.3.5.1}
\end{equation}
belonging to a $2^n$-dimensional complex Hilbert space. To simply illustrate this, we consider a two qubit system $A$ and $B$. The two systems are described individually in the basis $\{\ket{0},\ket{1}\}$. Accordingly, their joint state would be described by the tensor product basis given as $\{\ket{00},\ket{01},\ket{10},\ket{11}\}$. Any state $\ket{\psi}^{AB}$ of the joint system would be given explicitly by
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi}^{AB}=\alpha_0\ket{00}+\alpha_1\ket{01}+\alpha_2\ket{10}+\alpha_3\ket{11} \label{eq:3.3.5.2}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha_i\in \mathbb{C}$ and $\sum_i|\alpha_i|^2=1$. Any joint state of this composite system that cannot be written in a product form as in \eqref{eq:3.3.5.1} should present some form of correlations between systems $A$ and $B$. This form of correlations is called \textit{entanglement}, and the corresponding state is deemed \textit{entangled state}. A famous example of an entangled state in two qubit systems is the set of Bell pairs given by:
\begin{align}
\ket{\Phi^\pm}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00}\pm\ket{11})\\
\ket{\Psi^\pm}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{01}\pm\ket{10})
\end{align}
More generally, any bipartite quantum system, no matter its state is pure or mixed, is said to be entangled if it cannot be written as a convex combination (hence, probabilistic mixture) of product states in the form:
\begin{equation}
\rho^{AB}=\sum_ip_i\rho^A_i\otimes\rho^B_i
\end{equation}
A joint state that can be written in this form is called \textit{separable}. It is worth noting that separable states can have classical correlations between the systems $A$ and $B$.
\section{Quantum channels}
\label{App:1}
A quantum communication channel $\mathcal{N}$ is described mathematically by a completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP) map $\mathcal{C}: \rho_A \to \rho_B$ from states $\rho \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \rho^A \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{A})$ belonging to the set of density operators $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{A})$ over the input Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^{A}$ to states $\rho^B\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{B})$ on an output Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^{B}$. The condition of CPTP assures that the output of the map $\mathcal{C}$ is a valid density operator. In fact, it assures that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{C}$ outputs a positive operator (positivity),
\item for any $n$, $\mathcal{I}_n \otimes \mathcal{C}$ -- with $\mathcal{I}_n$ denoting an identity map on $n$-dimensional operators -- outputs a positive operator (complete positivity),
\item $\operatorname{Tr}(\mathcal{C}[\rho_A]) = \operatorname{Tr}(\rho_A)$ (trace preservation).
\end{itemize}
In the following we provide two simple examples to better understand the above concepts.
\begin{exmp}
The completely depolarizing channel is a widely-used quantum channel model, and it is described by the following input-output relationship:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_{CD}(\rho_A) = \frac{\operatorname{Tr}(\rho_A)}{d} I_d
\end{equation}
where $\rho_A$ is the input state belonging to a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^A$, and $I_d$ is the $d$-dimensional identity matrix. The output state $\mathcal{N}_{CD}(\rho_A)$ has a unique $d$-degenerate positive eigenvalue $\frac{1}{d}$ and $\operatorname{Tr}(\mathcal{N}_{CD}(\rho_A)) = \operatorname{Tr}(\rho_A)$. As a consequence, $\mathcal{N}_{CD}$ is a positive and trace-preserving map. Moreover, it is a completely positive map. In fact, by adding an ancilla system $E$, we can consider the action of the map $\mathcal{I}_n \otimes \mathcal{N}_{CD}$ on the entire state $\rho_{EA} \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^E \otimes \mathcal{H}^A)$ with $\rho_A = \operatorname{Tr}_E(\rho_{EA})$. Accordingly, we obtain that:
\begin{equation}
(\mathcal{I}_n \otimes \mathcal{N}_{CD})(\rho_{EA}) = \operatorname{Tr}_A(\rho_{EA}) \otimes \frac{I_d}{d}
\end{equation}
has positive eigenvalues since $\operatorname{Tr}_A(\rho_{EA})$ is a state. Hence, completely depolarizing map $\mathcal{N}_{CD}$ is a quantum channel.
\end{exmp}
\begin{exmp}
Let us consider a map $\mathcal{T}$ that transposes a state $\rho_A = \sum_{ij} p_{ij} |i\rangle \langle j|$ of the system $A$, where we fix $\{|i\rangle\}$ as a computational basis in $\mathcal{H}^A$. Its output, given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}(\rho_A) = \sum_{ij} p_{ij} |j\rangle \langle i|
\end{equation}
with $T$ denoting the matrix transpose, exhibits obviously the same eigenvalues and trace as $\rho_A$. Hence, $\mathcal{T}$ is positive and trace-preserving. However, let us add another system $B$ in order to check whether $\mathcal{T}$ is completely positive. The state of the entire system reads:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{BA} = \sum_{ijkl} p_{klij} \ket{k} \bra{l} \otimes \ket{i} \bra{j}
\end{equation}
and, if $\mathcal{T}$ acts on $A$, it becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber (\mathcal{I}_n \otimes \mathcal{T})(\rho_{BA}) &=& \sum_{ijkl} p_{klij} \ket{k} \bra{l} \otimes \ket{j} \bra{i}
\end{eqnarray}
Now let us assume $A$ and $B$ to be maximally entangled qubits (hence, $n=2$),
\begin{equation}
\rho_{BA} \equiv \Phi^{BA} = \frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
and consider again the action of the map $\mathcal{T}$ on $A$. The entire output is given by
\begin{equation}
(\mathcal{I}_2 \otimes \mathcal{T})(\rho_{BA}) = \frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
whose eigenvalues are $\pm \frac{1}{2}$. Since one of its eigenvalues is negative, $(\mathcal{I}_2 \otimes \mathcal{T})(\rho_{BA})$ is not positive and, therefore, not a state. This means that the transpose map $\mathcal{T}$ is not completely positive and, hence, it cannot represent any quantum channel. Nevertheless, the partial transpose map $(\mathcal{I}_n \otimes \mathcal{T})$ plays an important role in quantum communications lying in the core of the PPT- or Peres-Horodecki criterion for determining entanglement.
\end{exmp}
There are several ways of representing quantum channels formally, some of which will be useful in our discussion.
\subsection{Kraus Representation}
\label{AppB:A}
A quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ is described by an operator sum decomposition in Kraus operators as follows \cite{42,43,Wilde}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.1.1}
\mathcal{N}(\rho)=\sum_{i=1}^kA_i\rho A_i^{\dagger}
\end{equation}
with $\rho\in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^A)$ and with $\{A_i\}_{i=1}^k$ being linear operators from $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{A})$ to $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{B})$ satisfying the normalization condition:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^k A_iA_i^{\dagger}=I_{\mathcal{H}^{A}}
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}\label{ExampleKrausCompDepChan}
The completely depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_{CD}$ has the following Kraus representation,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_{CD}(\rho)=\frac{1}{d^2}\sum_{i=1}^{d^2}\hat{U}_i \rho \hat{U}_i^\dagger
\end{equation}
with $\{\hat{U}_i\}$ being a set of unitary operators that are mutually orthogonal, i.e., $\operatorname{Tr}(\hat{U}_i^\dagger \hat{U}_j) = d\delta_{ij}$. For a qubit ($d=2$), a set of Pauli operators with identity can be chosen, $\{ \hat{U}_i \} = \{I_2, X, Y, Z\}$, leading to the Kraus representation
\begin{equation}\label{QubitDepChan}
\mathcal{N}_{CD}(\rho)=\frac{1}{4}\Bigl[ \rho + X\rho X + Y\rho Y + Z\rho Z \Bigr]
\end{equation}
In this representation, the channel can be interpreted as a noisy channel that causes a bit error ($X$), a phase error ($Z$), both errors ($Y$), or no error ($I_2$) with the same probability $p=\frac{1}{4}$.
\end{exmp}
\begin{exmp}
The qubit completely depolarizing channel (\ref{QubitDepChan}) can be naturally generalized to the Pauli channel that causes the mentioned above errors with the corresponding probabilities $p_X, p_Y, p_Z$. This is the quantum channel usually adopted in quantum communications to model a noisy qubit channel, and it has the following Kraus representation,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\rho) = (1 - \Sigma_{XYZ})\rho + p_X X\rho X + p_Y Y\rho Y + p_Z Z\rho Z
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_{XYZ} = p_X + p_Y + p_Z$. Obviously, for $p_X = p_Y = p_Z = \frac{1}{4}$ the Pauli channel reduces to the completely depolarizing channel (\ref{QubitDepChan}). On the other hand, the choice $p_X = p_Y = p_Z = \frac{q}{3}$ leads to the depolarizing channel
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_D(\rho) = (1 - q)\rho + \frac{q}{3} \Bigl( X\rho X + Y\rho Y + Z\rho Z \Bigr)
\end{equation}
\end{exmp}
\subsection{Isometric extension (Stinespring dilation)}
\label{AppB:B}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/Fig-16-alt.pdf}
\caption{A scheme depicting channel $\mathcal{N}: \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^A) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^B)$ as the reduced dynamics of an isometry describing the joint evolution of the system \textit{source}-\textit{receiver} and the environment $E$. Clearly, $\rho^B = \operatorname{Tr}_{E}[U_{\mathcal{N}} \rho^A U_{\mathcal{N}}^{\dagger}]$ and $\rho^E = \operatorname{Tr}_{B}[U_{\mathcal{N}} \rho^A U_{\mathcal{N}}^{\dagger}]$. The figure depicts also the relations holding for degradable/antidegradable channels.}
\label{Fig:A.1}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
A quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ can be described -- as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig:A.1} -- by a reduced dynamics $\mathrm{Tr}_{E}(\cdot)$ on the isometry (i.e., a map that preserves the inner product) $U_{\mathcal{N}}$ simulating the joint evolution of the system $A$ and environment $E$ together as \cite{Wilde,44}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.1.2}
\mathcal{N}(\rho)=\mathrm{Tr}_{E}(U_{\mathcal{N}}\rho U_{\mathcal{N}}^{\dagger})
\end{equation}
where $U_{\mathcal{N}}$ is a linear operator that maps $\mathcal{H}^A$ onto $\mathcal{H}^{B} \otimes \mathcal{H}^E$ such that $U_{\mathcal{N}}^{\dagger}U_{\mathcal{N}} = I_{\mathcal{H}^{A}}$. The two descriptions \eqref{eq:app.1.1} and \eqref{eq:app.1.2} are equivalent in the sense that if we know one Kraus decomposition $\{A_i\}_{i=1}^k$ of the channel, given an orthogonal basis of $\mathcal{H}^{E}$ as $\{\ket{i}\}^{E}$, the isometric extension $U_{\mathcal{N}}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.1.3}
U_{\mathcal{N}}=\sum_{i=1}^k A_i\otimes \ket{i}^{E}
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}
For the Pauli channel $\mathcal{P}$ introduced in the previous example, the set of Kraus operators is $\{A_i\} = \{ \sqrt{1 - \Sigma_{XYZ}} I_2, \sqrt{p_X} X, \sqrt{p_Y} Y, \sqrt{p_Z} Z \}$. Therefore, its isometric extension reads
\begin{equation}
U_\mathcal{P} = \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{1 - \Sigma_{XYZ}} & 0 \\ 0 & \sqrt{p_X} \\ 0 & -i\sqrt{p_Y} \\ \sqrt{p_Z} & 0 \\ 0 & \sqrt{1 - \Sigma_{XYZ}} \\ \sqrt{p_X} & 0 \\ i\sqrt{p_Y} & 0 \\ 0 & -\sqrt{p_Z} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
In particular, for the completely depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_{CD}$, the isometric extension reduces to
\begin{equation}
U_{\mathcal{N}_{CD}} = \frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\ 0 & -i \\ 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \\ i & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\end{exmp}
It is important to underline that the Kraus decomposition of a quantum channel is not unique, thus the construction of the isometric extension of the channel is not unique as well. Another important concept associated to the Stinespring dilation is the complementary channel $\mathcal{N}^c$ of a quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$. The complementary channel describes the channel transmitting information to the environment rather than transmitting information to the output Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^{B}$, and it is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.1.4}
\mathcal{N}^c(\rho)=\mathrm{Tr}_{B}(U_{\mathcal{N}}\rho U_{\mathcal{N}}^{\dagger})
\end{equation}
\subsection{Choi state of a quantum channel}
\label{AppB:C}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/Fig-17-alt.pdf}
\caption{A scheme depicting the Choi state $\tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}_{\mathcal{N}}$ of the arbitrary channel $\mathcal{N}$, obtained by sending i) one part of the maximally entangled state $\Phi^{AA'}$ through channel $\mathcal{N}$, and ii) the other part through the identity channel $\mathcal{I}$.}
\label{Fig:A.2}
\hrulefill
\end{figure}
A fundamental relation between quantum channels and states is the Choi-Jamio\l{}kowski isomorphism. This isomorphism enables a one-to-one map between an arbitrary quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$ and a density operator -- referred to as $\tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}_{\mathcal{N}}$ in the following -- in $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^B\otimes \mathcal{H}^{A'})$ on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^B\otimes \mathcal{H}^{A'}$ of the joint system $BA'$, with $A'$ denoting the auxiliary system showed in Figure~\ref{Fig:A.2}.
The connection results from a direct application of the map $\mathcal{N}$ on one part of a maximally entangled state\footnote{Where $\mathcal{H}^{A'}$ is isomorphic to the input Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^A$ with dimension $d$ that, generally speaking, might be different from the dimension of $\mathcal{H}^B$.} of $AA'$ such as $\ket{\Phi}^{AA'}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\sum_i\ket{ii}^{AA'}$ with density matrix $\Phi^{AA'}$, in order to create what is known as the \textit{Choi-Jamio\l{}kowski state} (CJ) of the channel $\mathcal{N}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.1.5}
\tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}_{\mathcal{N}} \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}_{\mathcal{N} \otimes \mathcal{I}_d} = (\mathcal{N}\otimes \mathcal{I}_d) (\Phi^{AA'})
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}
The Choi state of the completely depolarizing channel $\mathcal{N}_{CD}$ reads
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}_{\mathcal{N}_{CD}} = \frac{I_{d^2}}{d^2}
\end{equation}
\end{exmp}
\begin{exmp}
The Choi state of the qubit Pauli channel $\mathcal{P}$ reads
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Phi}^{BA'}_{\mathcal{P}} = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 - \Sigma_{XY} & 0 & 0 & 1 - \tilde{\Sigma}_{XYZ} \\ 0 & \Sigma_{XY} & \Delta_{XY} & 0 \\ 0 & \Delta_{XY} & \Sigma_{XY} & 0 \\ 1 - \tilde{\Sigma}_{XYZ} & 0 & 0 & 1 - \Sigma_{XY} \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_{XY} = p_X + p_Y$, $\Delta_{XY} = p_X - p_Y$, and $\tilde{\Sigma}_{XYZ} = p_X + p_Y + 2p_Z$.
\end{exmp}
\section{Degradability/anti-degradability of quantum channels}
\label{App:2}
The definition of the complementary channel given in \eqref{eq:app.1.4} allows us to introduce the notion of degradability of a quantum channel \cite{Wilde,46,45}.
A channel $\mathcal{N}$ is said to be degradable if the final state obtained by the environment can be obtained by postprocessing the state at the receiver by applying a third channel (CPTP) map, as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig:A.1}. Formally, the channel $\mathcal{N}$ is degradable if there exists a CPTP map $\Omega:\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^B)\rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^E)$ satisfying the relation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.2.1}
\mathcal{N}^c=\Omega\circ\mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
Similarly, a channel is said to be anti-degradable \cite{47} if there exists a CPTP map $\Omega:\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^E)\rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^B)$ satisfying:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.2.2}
\mathcal{N}=\Omega\circ\mathcal{N}^c
\end{equation}
Many channels are neither degradable nor anti-degradable. However, it was shown that qubit channels with one qubit environment are always either degradable or anti-degradable or both (symmetric) \cite{84}. A particular example of anti-degradable channels is the set of entanglement breaking channels \cite{85} mentioned in Section~\ref{Sec:5.1}. These are the channels whose Choi state given in \eqref{eq:app.1.5} is separable \cite{85}. It is known that the set of anti-degradable channels is convex, that is, any convex combination on anti-degradable channels is an anti-degradable channel, but surprisingly, the set of degradable channels is not convex \cite{81}.
\section{Entropic quantities}
\label{App:3}
Entropic quantities play an essential role in the study of quantum communications, as they characterizes the performance of quantum channels. The von Neumann (quantum) entropy $S(\rho)$ of a quantum state $\rho$ is given by \cite{Wilde,47}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber S(\rho)&=&-\mathrm{Tr}(\rho\log_2(\rho))\ \\
\label{eq:app.3.1} &=& -\sum_i \lambda_i \log_2(\lambda_i)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{\lambda_i\}$ is the set of eigenvalues of $\rho$, i.e., ``classical'' probabilities $p_i$ in its expansion (\ref{def:DensityOperator}). This generalizes the classical Shannon entropy of a random variable $X$ defined as \cite{41}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.3.2}
H(X) = - \sum_xp(x)\log_2 p(x)
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}
To grasp better the introduced entropy concept, let us consider the pure state $\rho_\psi = \begin{pmatrix} |\alpha|^2 & \alpha\beta^* \\ \alpha^*\beta & |\beta|^2 \end{pmatrix}$. Its von Neumann entropy is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber S(\rho_\psi) &=& 0 \cdot \log_2(0) + 1 \cdot \log_2(1) \\
&=& 0,
\end{eqnarray}
being pure states characterized by only one eigenvalue different by zero and equal to one. Differently, for the probabilistic mixture $\rho_\psi = \begin{pmatrix} |\alpha|^2 & 0 \\ 0 & |\beta|^2 \end{pmatrix}$ the von Neumann entropy coincides with the classical Shannon entropy,
\begin{equation}
S(\rho) = H(|\alpha|^2, |\beta|^2),
\end{equation}
which is maximal for $|\alpha| = |\beta| = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$.
\end{exmp}
Let $\mathcal{N : \mathcal{H}^A \rightarrow \mathcal{H}^B}$ be a quantum channel and let $A'$ be an auxiliary system evolving through $\mathcal{I}$ as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig:A.2}, with the additional property of being a purifying system for $\rho^A$. Specifically, the auxiliary system $A'$ is chosen so that the joint state $\rho^{AA'}$, satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.3.3}
\rho^{A} = \mathrm{Tr}_{A'}(\rho^{AA'}).
\end{equation}
is a pure state, regardless of $\rho^A$ being a pure or a mixed state:
Also, let us denote the entropy of the input state $\rho^A$ as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.3.4}
S(A) \stackrel{\triangle}{=} S(\rho^A)
\end{equation}
with a slight abuse of notation, given the dependence of $S(A)$ on the input state $\rho^A$, but being consistent with the literature \cite{Wilde,0,Caruso_2014}. Similarly, the entropy of the output state $\rho^B \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \mathcal{N}(\rho^A)$ of the channel as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.3.5}
S(B) \stackrel{\triangle}{=} S(\mathcal{N}(\rho))
\end{equation}
Accordingly, the entropy of the output of the complementary channel $\mathcal{N}^c$ can be written as: \begin{align}
\label{eq:app.3.6}
S(E) & \stackrel{\triangle}{=} S\big(\mathcal{N}^c(\rho)\big) \nonumber \\
& = S\big( (\mathcal{N}\otimes \mathcal{I}) (\rho^{AA'})\big) \nonumber \\
& \stackrel{\triangle}{=} S\big(BA'\big)
\end{align}
This quantity is known as the \textit{entropy of exchange} \cite{49}, which refers to the amount of information leaking to the environment instead of being reliably transferred to the receiver. The relation between the different states in \eqref{eq:app.3.6} is better understood through the isometric representation of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{N}^c(\rho^A)&=\mathrm{Tr}_{BA'}\Bigl((\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{N}}\otimes\mathcal{I})(\rho^{AA'})\Bigr)\nonumber\\
\mathcal{N}\otimes\mathcal{I}(\rho^{AA'})&=\mathrm{Tr}_{E}\Bigl((\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{N}}\otimes\mathcal{I})(\rho^{AA'})\Bigr)
\end{align}
with $(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{N}}\otimes\mathcal{I})(\rho^{AA'}) = (U_{\mathcal{N}}\otimes\mathcal{I})\rho^{AA'} (U_{\mathcal{N}}^{\dagger}\otimes\mathcal{I})$ and $U_{\mathcal{N}}$ is the isometric extension given by \eqref{eq:app.1.3}.
Moreover, the equality between the first and the last line in \eqref{eq:app.3.6} results from the fact that the state of the global system, given by the environment $E$, the receiver $B$ and the purifying system $A'$, is a pure state. This purity of the joint system $EBA'$ can be easily observed from the fact that the joint evolution on the input system $\rho^{AA'}$ -- which is pure by definition -- is in fact an isometry given by $U_{\mathcal{N}}\otimes\mathcal{I}$. Indeed, this isometry preserves purity by definition. As a consequence, the entropies of any complementary bi-partitions on the joint output pure system should be equal. Hence, the equality $S(E) = S(BA')$ holds.
The previous entropies -- input, output and exchanged -- are the essential building blocks for many information measures in quantum communications\footnote{For a complete understanding on the relation between them, we refer the reader to \cite{Wilde,51,52}.}. In the following, we focus on the measures used within the paper.
\vspace{3pt}
A key measure needed for our discussions in Section~\ref{Sec:4.1} is the \textit{Holevo information} \cite{57}. This is a functional $\chi(\cdot,\cdot)$ of an input ensemble of states $\{p_x,\rho_x\}$ that the sender Alice inputs to the channel $\mathcal{N}$ for transmitting classical information through a quantum channel. Formally, the Holevo information of channel $\mathcal{N}$ with respect to the arbitrary input $\rho=\sum_xp_x\rho_x$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.3.10}
\chi(\{p_x,\rho_x\},\mathcal{N})=S(\mathcal{N}(\rho))-\sum_xp_xS(\mathcal{N}(\rho_x))
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the quantum ensemble encoding the classical message given by the alphabet $\mathcal{X}$ over which the random variable $X$ takes values.
It has been shown that the Holevo information provides an upper bound on the mutual information $I(X:Y)$, given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.3.7b}
I(X:Y)=H(X)+H(Y)-H(X,Y)
\end{equation}
where $X$ is the random variable describing the message $x$ to be transferred by Alice, and $Y$ is the random variable referring to the output, after a POVM is applied by Bob to estimate the value $x$. This is known as the Holevo bound \cite{58}, and is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.3.11}
I(X:Y) \leq \chi(\{p_x,\rho_x\},\mathcal{N})
\end{equation}
It is worth mentioning, that the Holevo information is useful for many tasks in quantum estimation and quantum discrimination, for which it has been derived.
Another key measure is the \textit{quantum mutual information} of channel $\mathcal{N}$ with respect to the arbitrary state $\rho \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \rho^A$ as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.3.7}
I(\rho,\mathcal{N}) = S(A) + S(B) - S(E)
\end{equation}
which is the quantum version of Shannon's mutual information given in \eqref{eq:app.3.7b}.
Similarly, a measure needed for our discussions in Section~\ref{Sec:4.2} is the \textit{coherent information} of channel $\mathcal{N}$ with respect to the arbitrary state $\rho$, given by \cite{51,52,Wilde}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:app.3.8}
I_c(\rho,\mathcal{N}) &= S(\mathcal{N}(\rho)) - S(\mathcal{N}^c(\rho)) \nonumber\\
&= S(B)-S(E) \nonumber\\
& = -S(A'|B)
\end{align}
with $S(A'|B) \stackrel{\triangle}{=} S(BA') - S(B)$ denoting the \textit{conditional von Neumann entropy} and the last identity following from \eqref{eq:app.3.6}.
It can be easily seen from the second line of \eqref{eq:app.3.8} that the coherent information is the difference between the amount of information arriving to the receiver given by the output entropy, and the amount of information leaked to the environment given by the entropy of exchange. Furthermore, from the third line of the same equation, we see that the coherent information is the negative of the conditional quantum entropy. This latter quantity can be negative, in contrast to its classical counterpart, namely, the conditional entropy $H(X|Y)$. An interpretation of the negativity of this quantity has been given in the context of quantum state merging \cite{86}, where it has been shown that the negativity of the quantum conditional entropy relates to the fact that the sender and the receiver gain a potential for future quantum communications. For extensive details on the properties of the quantum mutual information and the coherent information the reader is referred to \cite{0,Wilde,56,53,54,55}.
We further note that both the Holevo information and the coherent information satisfy a data processing inequality. Specifically, whenever two arbitrary channels $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ are placed sequentially, they satisfy the following bottleneck inequalities:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:app.3.9}
f(\rho, \mathcal{M}\circ\mathcal{N}) &\leq \min\big\{ f(\rho, \mathcal{M}), f(\rho, \mathcal{N})\big\}
\end{align}
with $\circ$ denoting the dequential concatenation operator and $f(\cdot,\cdot)$ denoting either $\chi(\cdot,\cdot)$ or $I_c(\cdot,\cdot)$.
\section{Quantum codes and rates}
\label{App:4}
An important notion both practically and theoretically is the notion of a code. Generally, if Alice and Bob want to communicate a message, they choose appropriate encoding and decoding strategies, allowing them to reach their ultimate rate of communication, by counteracting the effect of noise of the communication line. Formally, this consists of an encoding map $\mathcal{E}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.4.1}
\mathcal{E}: \mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n})
\end{equation}
from the alphabet of classical messages $\mathcal{M}$ with $k = \log_2 |\mathcal{M}|$ to a large state space of $n$ quantum carriers of information, and a decoding map $\mathcal{D}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:app.4.2}
\mathcal{D}:\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n})\rightarrow \mathcal{M}
\end{equation}
from the joint state of the $n$-carriers to the alphabet $\mathcal{M}$. This is summarized in Figure~\ref{Fig:05}. In the case of communicating quantum messages, the alphabet $\mathcal{M}$ above is replaced by the set of quantum states $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})$ over a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ of dimension $d$, and $k=\log_2 d$.
Each element of the image set $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n})$ is called a codeword and the rate of the code is given by the non-negative number $R \stackrel{\triangle}{=} \frac{k}{n}$. Clearly, a rate is achievable if there exists code -- i.e., an encoder $\mathcal{E}$ and a decoder $\mathcal{D}$ -- so that the probability of decoding the message erroneously vanishes as $n$ goes to infinity.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec: Intro}
The theorem of the primitive element states that given a finite separable field extension $L/K$, there is an element $\theta$ of $L$ such that $L = K(\theta)$. This holds for any extension of number fields $L/K$. By contrast, the extension of their rings of integers $\Ints_L/\Ints_K $ may require up to $\lceil \log_2([L : K]) \rceil$ elements of $\Ints_L$ to generate $\Ints_L$ as a $\Ints_K$-algebra \cite{Pleasants}.
\begin{question}\label{MotivatingQuestion}
Which extensions $\Ints_L / \Ints_K$ are generated by a single element over $\Ints_K$? More generally, which finite locally free algebras $B /A$ are generated by a single element over $A$? How many elements does it take to generate $B$ over $A$ otherwise?
\end{question}
\begin{definition}
A finite locally free $A$-algebra $B$ is \emph{monogenic}\footnote{The literature often uses the phrase ``$L$ is monogenic over $K$" to mean $\Ints_L/\Ints_K$ is monogenic as above. We prefer ``$\Ints_L$ is monogenic over $\Ints_K$" in order to treat fields and more exotic rings uniformly. If $B$ is monogenic of degree $n$ over $A$ with monogenerator $\theta$, the elements $\{1, \theta, \theta^2, \dots, \theta^{n-1}\}$ are elsewhere referred to as a ``power $A$-integral basis.'' } if there is an element $\theta \in B$ such that $B = A[\theta]$. The element $\theta$
is called a \emph{monogenic generator} or \emph{monogenerator} of $B$ over $A$.
If there are elements $\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_k \in B$ such that $B = A[\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_k]$, then $B/A$ is \emph{$k$-genic} and $(\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_k)$ is a \emph{generating $k$-tuple}.
\end{definition}
\medskip
This paper is motivated by the observation that monogenicity\footnote{`Monogeneity' is also common in the literature.} of an algebra can be restated geometrically:
\begin{remark} \label{rmk:monogenerator_equals_closed_embedding}
Let $A \subseteq B$ be an inclusion of rings. A choice of element $\theta \in B$ is equivalent to a commutative triangle
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:commtrianglemaptoA1}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathrm{Spec}\, B \ar[rr, dashed, "s_\theta"] \ar[dr] & &\mathbb{A}^1_A, \ar[dl] \\
&\mathrm{Spec}\, A
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where $s_\theta$ is the map induced by the $A$-algebra homomorphism $A[t] \to B$ taking $t$ to $\theta$.
\begin{center}
\emph{The element $\theta$ is a monogenerator if and only if the map $s_\theta$ is a closed immersion.}
\end{center}
Likewise, a $k$-tuple $\vec{\theta} = (\theta_1, \dots, \theta_k) \in B^k$ determines a corresponding map $s_{\vec{\theta}}: \mathrm{Spec}\, B \to \mathbb{A}^k_A$ induced by the $A$-algebra homomorphism $A[t_1, \ldots, t_k] \to B$ taking $t_i \mapsto \theta_i$. The tuple $(\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_k)$ generates $B$ over $A$ if and only if $s_{\vec{\theta}}$ is a closed immersion.
\end{remark}
We ask if there is a scheme that represents such commutative triangles as in moduli theory \cite[Chapter 1]{fgaexplained}. We prove that for any Noetherian ring $A$ and finite locally-free $A$-algebra $B$, there is a representing scheme $\mathcal{M}_{B/A}$ over $\mathrm{Spec}\, A$ called the \emph{scheme of monogenerators}. There is an analogous \emph{scheme of generating $k$-tuples} or \emph{scheme of $k$-generators} denoted by $\mathcal{M}_{k, B/A}$. When the extension $B/A$ is implied, we simply write $\mathcal{M}$ or $\mathcal{M}_k$ as appropriate.
\begin{theorem}
Let $B / A$ be a finite locally free extension of Noetherian rings. There is an \emph{affine} $A$-scheme $\mathcal{M}_{B/A}$ and finite type quasiaffine $A$-schemes $\mathcal{M}_{k, B/A}$, for $k \geq 1$, with natural bijections
\[
\text{Hom}_{\Sch{A}}(\mathrm{Spec}\, A, \mathcal{M}_{B/A}) \cong \left\{ \theta \in B \mid \theta \text{ is a monogenerator for } B \text{ over }A \right\}
\]
and
\[
\text{Hom}_{\Sch{A}}(\mathrm{Spec}\, A, \mathcal{M}_{k, B/A}) \cong \left\{ \vec{\theta} \in B^k \mid \vec{\theta} \text{ is a generating $k$-tuple for }B \text{ over }A \right\}.
\]
\end{theorem}
The problem of finding generating $k$-tuples of $\Ints_L / \Ints_K$ is thereby identified with that of finding $\Ints_K$-points of the schemes $\mathcal{M}_{k, \Ints_L/\Ints_K}$. The functors $\text{Hom}(-, \mathcal{M}_k)$ automatically form sheaves in the fpqc topology (and therefore also in coarser topologies). This permits monogenicity to be studied locally, a perspective that we will pursue further in the second paper in this series.
The extensions of rings $B/A$ under consideration are much more general than extensions of number rings, and there is no difficulty in extending the construction of $\mathcal{M}_{B/A}$ to maps of schemes $S' \to S$ locally of the form $\mathrm{Spec}\, B \to \mathrm{Spec}\, A$ with $B$ finite locally free over $A$. For example, a finite map of algebraic curves $C \to D$ is of this form. We are therefore invited to view monogenicity in other contexts as related and analogous to monogenicity of number rings.
Some of these other extensions of rings are nevertheless functorially related to extensions of number rings. For example, for every extension of number rings $\Ints_L / \Ints_K$, there is a map $\mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{C} \to \mathrm{Spec}\, \Ints_K$. Pulling back $\mathrm{Spec}\, \Ints_L \to \mathrm{Spec}\, \Ints_K$ along this map yields $\mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{C}^n \to \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{C}$, a trivial cover of a point. Pulling back $\mathcal{M}_{\Ints_L/\Ints_K}$ along the same map yields $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{C}^n/\mathbb{C}}$. This part of the monogenicity space is already interesting:
\begin{example}\label{ex:confspsintro}
Let $A = \mathbb{C}$ and $B = \mathbb{C}^n$. The complex points of the monogenicity space are naturally in bijection with the points of the configuration space of $n$ distinct points in $\mathbb{C}$:
\[\mathcal{M}_{1, B/A}(\mathbb{C}) \simeq \text{Conf}_n(\mathbb{C}) \coloneqq \{(x_1, \dots, x_n) \in \mathbb{C}^n \, | \, x_i \neq x_j \text{ for }i \neq j\}.\]
\end{example}
Monogenicity therefore generalizes configuration spaces by conceiving of $B/A$ as ``families of points'' to be configured in $\mathbb{A}^1$.
\subsection{Outline of the paper}
Section \ref{s:gen} defines our main object of study $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S}$ for a finite locally free map $S' \to S$. This scheme parametrizes choices of monogenerators for the algebra extension $\mathcal{O}_{S'}/\mathcal{O}_S$. We offer basic properties, functoriality, examples, and a relation with the classical Hilbert scheme and the work of Poonen \cite{poonenmodspoffiniteflat}.
In Section \ref{sec:indexformconstgen}, we obtain explicit affine charts for $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S}$ using local index forms and deduce affineness for $\mathcal{M}_{B/A}$. The index form tells whether a given section $\theta \in \mathcal{O}_{S'}$ is a monogenerator for $ \mathcal{O}_{S'}/\mathcal{O}_S$ or not. We generalize to $k$-generators.
Section \ref{s:examples} gives a variety of concrete examples of the scheme of monogenerators $\mathcal{M}$, including: separable and inseparable field extensions, a variety of orders in number fields including Dedekind's non-monogenic cubic, jet spaces, and completions. These explicit equations put into practice classical theory in addition to the theory we have built. We encourage the reader to consult these examples to complement the earlier sections.
\subsection{Summary of previous results}\label{previouswork}
The question of which rings of integers are monogenic was posed to the London Mathematical Society in the 1960's by Helmut Hasse. Hence the study of monogenicity is sometimes known as \textit{Hasse's problem}. For an in-depth look at monogenicity with a focus on algorithms for solving index form equations, see Ga\'al's book \cite{GaalsBook}.
Evertse and Gy\H{o}ry's book \cite{EvertseGyoryBook} provides background with a special focus on the relevant Diophantine equations. For another bibliography of monogenicity, see Narkiewicz's texts \cite[pages 79-81]{Nark} and \cite[pages 75-77]{AlgebraicStory}.
The prototypical examples of number rings are monogenic over $\mathbb{Z}$, such as quadratic and cyclotomic rings of integers.
Dedekind \cite{Dedekind} produced the first example of a non-monogenic number ring (see Example~\ref{ex:Dedekind}). Dedekind used the splitting of the prime $2$ to show that the field obtained by adjoining a root of $x^3-x^2-2x-8$ to $\mathbb{Q}$ is not monogenic over $\mathbb{Z}$. Hensel \cite{Hensel1894} showed that local obstructions to monogenicity come from primes whose splitting cannot be accommodated by the local factorization of polynomials in the sense of Dedekind-Kummer factorization. See \cite[Proposition III.12]{LocalFields} and also \cite{Pleasants} which is discussed briefly below. For very recent English translations of the original pioneering works, consult \cite{GWDedekind} and \cite{GWHensel}.
Global obstructions also preclude monogenicity. For a number field $L/\mathbb{Q}$, the \emph{field index} is the greatest common divisor $\gcd_{\alpha\in \Ints_L} \left[\Ints_L:\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]\right]$. A number field $L$ can have field index 1 and $\mathbb{Z}_L$ may still not be monogenic, for example the ring of integers of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{25\cdot7})$; see \cite[page 65]{Nark} or Example \ref{ex:2genicOverZ}. Define the \emph{minimal index} to be $\min_{\alpha\in \Ints_L} \left[\Ints_L:\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]\right]$. The monogenicity of $\mathbb{Z}_L/\mathbb{Z}$ is equivalent to having minimal index equal to 1. An early result of Hall \cite{Hall} shows that there exist cubic fields with arbitrarily large minimal indices. In \cite{SpearmanYangYoo}, this is generalized to show that every cube-free integer occurs as the minimal index of infinitely many radical cubic fields.
The monogenicity of a given extension of $\mathbb{Z}$ is encoded by a Diophantine equation called the \textit{index form equation}.
Gy\H{o}ry made the initial breakthrough regarding the resolution of index form equations and related equations in the series of papers \cite{GyoryI}, \cite{GyoryII}, \cite{GyoryIII}, \cite{GyoryIV}, and \cite{GyoryV}. These papers investigate monogenicity and prove effective finiteness results for affine inequivalent monogenerators in a variety of number theoretic contexts.
For inequivalent monogenic generators one should also consult \cite{EvertseGyory85}, \cite{MultiplyMono}, and the survey \cite{MonoSurvey}.
Specializing families of polynomials to obtain monogenic extensions is investigated in \cite{Konig}.
In large part due to the group in Debrecen, there is a vast literature involving relative monogenicity: \cite{GyorySeminar}, \cite{GyoryCrelle},
\cite{CubicRelative}, \cite{QuarticRelative}, \cite{QuartQuadRelative}, \cite{GaalRemeteSzabo}, \cite{GaalRemete0}, and \cite{GaalRemeteMonoRelative}.
Pleasants \cite{Pleasants} bounds the number of generators needed for a field of degree $n$ by $\lceil \log_2(n) \rceil$, with equality if 2 splits completely. This upper bound is a consequence of a precise description of exactly when an extension is locally $k$-genic in the sense that the completion at each prime is $k$-genic. For number rings, Pleasants answers the question of what the minimal positive integer $k>1$ is such that $\mathbb{Z}_L$ is $k$-genic. Global obstructions only appear in the case of monogenicity: for $k>1$, Pleasants shows that local $k$-geneity is equivalent to global $k$-geneity.
A related account is given in \cite[Chapter 11]{EvertseGyoryBook}, where it is shown that given an order $\mathfrak{O}$ of a finite \'etale $\mathbb{Q}$-algebra, one can effectively compute the smallest $k$ such that $\mathfrak{O}$ is $k$-genic. In the spirit of the previous work of Gy\H{o}ry, one can also effectively compute the $k$ generators of $\mathfrak{O}$ over $\mathbb{Z}$.
Monogenicity has recently been viewed from the perspective of arithmetic statistics: Bhargava, Shankar, and Wang \cite{BSW}
have shown that the density of monic, irreducible polynomials in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ such that a root is a monogenerator is $\frac{6}{\pi^2}=\zeta(2)^{-1} \approx 60.79\%$. That is, about $61\%$ of monic, integer polynomials correspond to monogenerators. They also show the density of monic integer polynomials with square-free discriminants (a sufficient condition for a root to be a monogenerator) is
\[\prod\limits_p \left(1-\dfrac{1}{p}+\dfrac{(p-1)^2}{p^2(p+1)}\right)\approx 35.82\%.\]
Thus these polynomials only account for slightly more than half of the polynomials yielding a monogenerator. Using elliptic curves, \cite{AlpogeBhargavaShnidman} shows that a positive proportion of cubic number fields are not monogenic despite having no local obstructions. More recently, the trio have undertaken a similar investigation for quartic fields \cite{ABSQuartic}.
For quartic orders, Bhargava \cite{BhargavaQuarticOrders} also establishes a new upper bound on the number of essentially different monogenerators. In a pair of papers that investigate a variety of questions (\cite{SiadPartI} and \cite{SiadPartII}), Siad shows that monogenicity appears to increase the average amount of 2-torsion in the class group of number fields. In particular, monogenicity has a doubling effect on the average amount of 2-torsion in the class group of odd degree number fields. Previously, \cite{BhargavaHankeShankar} had established this result in the case of cubic fields.
\subsection{Acknowledgements}
The third author would like to thank Gebhard Martin, the mathoverflow community for \cite{370972} and \cite{377840}, Tommaso de Fernex, Robert Hines, and Sam Molcho. Tommaso de Fernex looked over a draft and made helpful suggestions about jet spaces. The third author thanks the NSF for providing partial support by the RTG grant \#1840190.
The fourth author would like to thank Henri Johnston and Tommy Hofmann for help with computing a particularly devious relative integral basis in Magma. All four authors would like to thank their graduate advisors Katherine E. Stange (first and fourth authors) and Jonathan Wise (second and third authors). This project grew out of the fourth author trying to explain his thesis to the second author in geometric terms.
For numerous computations throughout, we were very thankful to be able to employ Magma \cite{Magma} and SageMath \cite{Sage}. For a number of examples the \cite{lmfdb} was invaluable.
\section{The scheme of monogenic generators}\label{s:gen}
We now use Remark \ref{rmk:monogenerator_equals_closed_embedding} to construct the scheme of monogenic generators $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S}$, our geometric reinterpretation of the classical question of monogenicity.
Given any extension of number fields $L/K$, the map $S' \coloneqq \mathrm{Spec}\, \Ints_L \to S \coloneqq \mathrm{Spec}\, \Ints_K$ is finite locally free and $X = \mathbb{A}^k_{\Ints_K} \to \mathrm{Spec}\, \Ints_K$ is quasiprojective; these properties suffice for our purposes.
Leaving $X$ general permits analogues of monogenicity such as embeddings into $\mathbb{P}^k$, which are more natural when $S' \to S$ is a map of proper varieties. We invite the reader to picture $S'$ as the ring of integers $\mathrm{Spec}\, \Ints_L$ in a number field, $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Z}_K$, and $X$ as $\mathbb{A}^1$. We return to $X = \mathbb{A}^1$, $\mathbb{A}^k$ in Section \ref{sec:indexformconstgen}; we will see there that our approach recovers the well-known index form equations.
\begin{situation}\label{sit:gensetup}
Let $\pi : S' \to S$ be a finite locally free morphism of constant degree $n \geq 1$ with $S$ locally noetherian. Consider a quasiprojective morphism $X \to S$ and write $X' \coloneqq X \times_S S'$.
\end{situation}
The constant degree assumption is for simplicity; the reader may remove it by working separately on each connected component of $S$.
In the sequel paper, we will occasionally allow $S$ to be an algebraic stack,
though the morphism $S' \to S$ will always be representable. Write $\Sch{S}$ for the category of $S$-schemes.
We now define $\mathcal{M}_{X,S'/S}$ by describing the functor of maps into it and then showing it is representable.
\begin{definition}\label{def:defnofmonogenweilrestn}
In Situation \ref{sit:gensetup}, consider the presheaf on $\Sch{S}$ which sends an $S$-scheme $T \to S$ to the set of morphisms $s$ fitting into the diagram:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:weilrestnsections}
T \to S \mapsto
\left\{\begin{tikzcd}
S'\times_S T \ar[rr, "s", dashed] \ar[dr] & &X \times_S T \ar[dl] \\
&T
\end{tikzcd}\right\}
\end{equation}
{\noindent}with restriction given by pullback.
Refer to this presheaf either as the \emph{relative hom presheaf} $\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(S', X')$ \cite[0D19]{sta} or the \emph{Weil Restriction} $\cal R_{X', S'/S}$ \cite[\S 7.6]{neronmodels}.
The \emph{sheaf of monogenerators} is the subpresheaf
\[
\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S} \subseteq \cal R_{X', S'/S}
\]
whose sections are diagrams exactly as above, but with $s$ a closed immersion.
We write $\mathcal{M}_{k, S'/S}, \cal R_{k, S'/S}$ for $X = \mathbb{A}^k_S$,
$\mathcal{M}_{S'/S} = \mathcal{M}_{1, S'/S},$ and $\cal R_{S'/S} = \cal R_{1, S'/S}$. When $S' \to S$ or $X$ is understood, we may drop ``$S'/S$'' or ``$X$'' from the notation. If $S' = \mathrm{Spec}\, B$ and $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, A$ are affine, we
write $\mathcal{M}_{k, B/A}$ or $\mathcal{M}_{B/A}$ instead.
\end{definition}
Remark \ref{rmk:monogenerator_equals_closed_embedding} expresses the presheaf $\mathcal{M}_{k, S'/S}$ as
\[
\mathcal{M}_{k, S'/S}(T) = \left\{ (\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_k) \in \Gamma(T \times_S S', \mathcal{O}_{T \times_S S'})^{\oplus k} \mid \mathcal{O}_{T \times_S S'} = \mathcal{O}_{T}[\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_k] \right\}
\]
An $S$-point of $\mathcal{M}_1$ is said to be a \emph{monogenerator} of $S'/S$ and we say $S'/S$ is \emph{monogenic} if such a point exists. This recovers the definition of monogenicity of algebras when $S$ is affine. These presheaves are representable:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:genisrep}
The presheaves $\mathcal{M}_X \subseteq \cal R_{X', S'/S}$ are both representable by quasiprojective $S$-schemes and the inclusion is a quasicompact open immersion. If $f : X \to S$ is smooth, unramified, or \'etale, the same is true for $\cal R_{X', S'/S} \to S$ and $\mathcal{M}_X \to S$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The Weil restriction $\cal R_{X', S'/S}$ is representable by a scheme quasiprojective over $S$ \cite[Theorem 1.3, Proposition 2.10]{weilrestnpatmcfaddin}. If $X' \to S'$ is a finite-type affine morphism, the same is true for $\cal R_{X', S'/S} \to S$ by locally applying \cite[Proposition 2.2(1),(2)]{weilrestnpatmcfaddin}. The inclusion $\mathcal{M}_X \subseteq \cal R_{X', S'/S}$ is open by \cite[05XA]{sta} and automatically quasicompact because $\cal R_{X', S'/S}$ is locally noetherian. The second statement is immediate.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The presheaves $\mathcal{M}_X, \cal R_{X', S'/S}$ are sheaves in the Zariski, Nisnevich, \'etale, fppf, and fpqc topologies on $\Sch{S}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{definition}\label{def:sheafmono}
Let $\tau$ be a subcanonical Grothendieck topology on schemes, for example the Zariski, Nisnevich, \'etale, fppf, or fpqc topologies.
We say that $S'/S$ is $\tau$-\emph{locally $k$-genic} if the sheaf $\mathcal{M}_{k, S'/S}$ is locally non-empty in the topology $\tau$.
I.e., there is a $\tau$-cover $\{ U_i \to S \}_{i \in I}$ of $S$ such that $\mathcal{M}_{k, S'/S}(U_i)$ is non-empty for all $i \in I$.
By default, we use the \'etale topology.
\end{definition}
A $k$-genic extension $S'/S$ is $\tau$-locally $k$-genic. If $\tau_1$ is a finer topology than $\tau_2$, then $\tau_2$-locally monogenic implies $\tau_1$-locally monogenic.
\begin{remark}
We pose a related moduli problem $\scr F$ in Section~\ref{ss:finflat+gen} that parameterizes a \emph{choice} of finite flat map $S' \to S$ together with a monogenerator. It is also representable by a scheme. The mere choice of a finite flat map $S' \to S$ is representable by an algebraic stack, as shown in \cite{poonenmodspoffiniteflat} and recalled in Section \ref{ssec:relation_to_Hilb}.
\end{remark}
Our main example of $S' \to S$ comes from rings of integers in number fields $\Ints_L/\Ints_K$, but here is another:
\begin{example}\label{ex:jetsps}
Let $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Z}$ and $S'_n = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Z}[\epsilon]/\epsilon^n$. The Weil Restriction $\cal R_{X', S'_n/S}$ is better known as the \textit{jet space} $\jetsp{X, n-1}$ \cite{vojtajets}. For any ring $A$, $(n-1)$-jets are maps
\[\mathrm{Spec}\, A[\epsilon]/\epsilon^n \to X.\]
Jet spaces are usually considered over a field $k$ by base changing from $S$. The monogenicity space $\mathcal{M}_{S'_n/S, X} \subseteq \jetsp{X, n-1}$ parametrizes \emph{embedded} $(n-1)$-jets, whose map $\mathrm{Spec}\, A[\epsilon]/\epsilon^n \subseteq X$ is a closed embedding. If $n=2$, $\jetsp{X, 1}$ is the Zariski tangent bundle and $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'_2/S}$ is the complement of the zero section.
The truncation maps $\jetsp{X, n} \to \jetsp{X, n-1}$ restrict to maps $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'_{n+1}/S} \to \mathcal{M}_{X, S'_n/S}$. The inverse limit $\lim_n \jetsp{X, n}$
sends rings $A$ to maps called \textit{arcs}
\[\mathrm{Spec}\, A \adj{t} \to X\]
according to \cite[Remark 4.6, Theorem 4.1]{bhatttannakaalgn}. Under this identification, the limit $\lim_n \mathcal{M}_{X, S'_n/S}$ parametrizes those arcs that are closed immersions into $X \times \mathrm{Spec}\, A$.
Compare embedded $(n-1)$-jets to ``regular'' ones. An $(n-1)$-jet $f : \mathrm{Spec}\, k[\epsilon]/\epsilon^{n} \to X$ over a field $k$ is called \emph{regular} \cite[\S 5]{demaillyhyperbolicjetspace} if $f'(0) \neq 0$. I.e., the truncation of higher order terms $\overline{f} : \mathrm{Spec}\, k[\epsilon]/\epsilon^2 \to X$ is a closed immersion. Regular $(n-1)$-jets are precisely the pullback $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'_1/S} \times_{\jetsp{1, X}} \jetsp{X, n}$.
\end{example}
Extensions of number rings are generically \'etale, with a divisor of ramification. The finite flat map $S'_n \to S$ in jet spaces is the opposite, ramified everywhere.
\begin{remark}[Steinitz Classes]
We have assumed that $\pi : S' \to S$ is finite locally free of rank $n$, so $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S'}$ is a locally free $\mathcal{O}_S$-module of rank $n$. By taking an $n$th
exterior power, one obtains a locally free $\mathcal{O}_S$-module
\[
\det \pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S'} \coloneqq \bigwedge^n \pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S'}.
\]
of rank 1 \cite[Chapter II, Exercise 6.11]{hartshorne}.
The \emph{Steinitz class} of $\pi : S' \to S$ is the isomorphism class of $\det \pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S'}$ in $\text{Pic}(S)$.
\end{remark}
The Weil Restriction $\cal R_{k, S'/S}$ is precisely the rank $kn$ vector bundle with sheaf of sections $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S'}^k$. To see this, recall that the set of $T$-points of the $S$-scheme $\cal R_{k, S'/S}$ is by definition the set of $T$-morphisms $\left\{ S'\times_S T \to \mathbb{A}^k_T \right\}$.
By the universal property of $\mathbb{A}^k_T$, such morphisms are in bijection with $k$-tuples of elements of $\Gamma(T, \mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S T})$.
It follows that $\text{Hom}_{S}(-, \cal R_{k, S'/S}) \cong (\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S'})^k$ as quasicoherent sheaves on $S$. When $\pi_\ast \mathcal{O}_{S'} \simeq \bigoplus^n \mathcal{O}_S \cdot e_i$ is trivial, so is $\cal R_{S'/S}$.
\begin{example}
The Steinitz class of the jet space of $\mathbb{A}^k$ is the trivial vector bundle:
$J_{n, \mathbb{A}^k} = \mathbb{A}^{k(n+1)}$
\cite[Corollary 5.2]{vojtajets}
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
Although $\mathbb{A}^1$ and hence $\cal R_{S'/S}$ are ring objects, $\mathcal{M}_1$ is neither closed under addition nor multiplication.
For addition, note that if $\theta \in \mathcal{O}_{S'}$ is a generator, then so is $-\theta$, but $\theta + (-\theta) = 0$ is not for $n \neq 1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:minpoly}
Let $\theta \in \Gamma(S', \mathcal{O}_{S'})$ be any element. There is
a \emph{canonical} monic polynomial $m_\theta(t) \in \Gamma(S, \mathcal{O}_S)[t]$ of degree $n$ such
that $m_\theta(\theta) = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin by constructing $m_\theta(t)$ locally, following \cite[Proposition 2.4]{AtiyahMacdonald}.
Assume first that $\pi : S' \to S$ is such that $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S'} \cong \mathcal{O}_S^{\oplus n}$ as an $\mathcal{O}_S$-module.
Choose a $\Gamma(S, \mathcal{O}_S)$-basis $\{ x_1, \ldots, x_n \}$ of $\Gamma(S', \mathcal{O}_{S'})$. For each $i = 1, \ldots, n$, write $\theta x_i = \sum_{j = 1}^n a_{ij} x_j$ where $a_{ij} \in \Gamma(S', \mathcal{O}_{S'})$.
Now we let
\[
m_\theta(t) = \det(\delta_{ij}t - a_{ij}).
\]
As in the proof of \cite[Proposition 2.4]{AtiyahMacdonald}, $m_\theta(t)$
has coefficients in $\Gamma(S, \mathscr{O}_S)$, is monic of degree $n$, and $m_\theta(\theta) = 0$. Moreover,
$m_\theta(t)$ does not depend on the basis chosen since $m_\theta(t)$ is
computed by a determinant.
Now for general $\pi: S' \to S$, choose an open cover $\{U_i\}$ of $S$
on which $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S'}$ trivializes. On each open set, the construction of the previous paragraph yields a monic
polynomial $m_i(t) \in \mathcal{O}_S(U_i)[t]$ of degree $n$ vanishing on $\theta|_{U_i}$.
Since the construction of the polynomials commutes with restriction and
is independent of choice of basis, we have
\[
m_i(t)|_{U_i \cap U_j} = m_j(t)|_{U_i \cap U_j}.
\]
We conclude by the sheaf property.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:minpolymap}
Lemma \ref{lem:minpoly} defines a map $m : \cal R_{S'/S} \to \mathbb{A}^n_S$ sending an element $\theta \in \Gamma(S', \mathcal{O}_{S'})$ to the coefficients $(b_{n-1}, \dots, b_0)$ of the universal canonical monic minimal polynomial
\[m_\theta(t) = t^n + b_{n-1}t^{n-1} + \cdots + b_0.\]
The preimage of a point of $\mathbb{A}^n_S$ is the set of roots of the corresponding polynomial in $\mathcal{O}_{S'}$.
In the case that $S' \to S$ is a trivial $n$-sheeted cover, i.e. $S' = S \sqcup \cdots \sqcup S$, we may trivialize the vector bundle $\cal R_{S'/S} \cong \AA^n_S$ using the standard basis $\{ e_1 = (1, 0, \cdots, 0), e_2 = (0, 1, \cdots, 0), \ldots \}$ of $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_S \cong \mathcal{O}_S \times \cdots \mathcal{O}_S$. It is easy to compute that $m_\theta(t) = \prod_{i = 1}^n (t - x_i)$ with respect to this basis, so that the coefficients $b_i$ are the elementary symmetric polynomials in the $x_i$. It follows that the map $m : \cal R_{S'/S} \to \mathbb{A}^n_S$
is the coarse quotient space for the natural action of the symmetric group $\Sigma_n$ on the $\{e_i\}$-coordinates of $\cal R_{S'/S}$.
If $S' \to S$ is \'etale, $S' \to S$ is \'etale locally a trivial cover as above. However, the $\Sigma_n$-action need not globalize. For example, consider the $3$-power map $\stquot{3} : \mathbb{G}_m \to \mathbb{G}_m$ for $S' \to S$. We will consider the situation of $S' \to S$ \'etale in more depth in the second paper of this series.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Functoriality of $\mathcal{M}_X$}
We recall that the Weil restriction is functorial in the following sense. Given a commutative square
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
T' \ar[r] \ar[d] &S' \ar[d] \\
T \ar[r] &S
\end{tikzcd}
\]
and an $S$-scheme $X$ (but not assuming that these maps lie in Situation \ref{sit:gensetup}), there is a functorially associated map of $T$-sheaves
\[
\cal R_{X, S'/S} \times_S T \to \cal R_{X_T, T'/T},
\]
where $X_T \coloneqq X \times_S T$. Let $f : T' \to S' \times_S T$ be the map induced by the universal property of pullback.
The construction is as follows. Let $U \to T$ be a $T$-scheme and let $U' = S' \times_S U$. A $(U \to T)$-point of $\cal R_{X, S'/S} \times_S T$ then consists of
a morphism $s : U' \to X \times_S U$ over $U$. Let $f|_U: T' \times_T U \to U'$ be the pullback of $f$ along the map $U' \to S' \times_S T$:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
T' \times_T U \ar[r] \ar[d, "f|_U"'] \ar[phantom, dr, very near start, "\ulcorner"] & T' \ar[rd] \ar[d, "f"] \\
U' \ar[r] \ar[d] \ar[phantom, dr, very near start, "\ulcorner"] & S' \times_S T \ar[phantom, dr, very near start, "\ulcorner"] \ar[r] \ar[d] & S' \ar[d] \\
U \ar[r] & T \ar[r] & S
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Then the natural map $\cal R_{X, S'/S} \times_S T \to \cal R_{X_T, T'/T}$ on $(U \to T)$-points is given by
\[
(U' \overset{s}{\longrightarrow} X \times_S U) \, \, \mapsto \, \, (T' \times_T U \overset{f|_U}{\longrightarrow} U' \overset{s}{\longrightarrow} X \times_S U \cong X_T \times_T U).
\]
Assume now that $S' \to S$ and $X$ are as in Situation \ref{sit:gensetup}. Observe that if $f$ is a closed immersion, then composition with $f|_U$ preserves closed immersions and we obtain a natural map
\[
\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S} \times_S T \to \mathcal{M}_{X_T, T'/T}.
\]
by restriction.
If $f$ is not a closed immersion, then in general composition with $f|_U$ will
not preserve closed immersions, so $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S}$ fails to be functorial in an obvious way for general commutative squares. Indeed, $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S}$ cannot be functorial for general commutative squares. For example, if $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, A$, $T \to S \leftarrow S'$ are identity maps and $T' \to T$ is non-monogenic then the global sections of $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S} \times_S T$ are $A$, while $\mathcal{M}_{T'/T}$ has no global sections, so there does not even exist a map $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S} \times_S T \to \mathcal{M}_{T'/T}$.
We highlight some special cases in which $f$ is a closed immersion:
\begin{enumerate}
\item (Base change in $S$) If
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
T' \ar[r] \ar[d] &S' \ar[d] \\
T \ar[r] &S
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is cartesian, then $f : T' \to S' \times_S T$ is an isomorphism, so the natural map
\[
\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S} \times_S T \to \mathcal{M}_{X_T, T'/T}
\]
is an isomorphism. We will use this later to compute $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S}$ Zariski locally
on $S$ by letting $T \to S$ vary over sufficiently small open affines of $S$.
\item (Functoriality in towers) If $S'' \to S'$ is finite locally free of constant rank, consider the commutative square
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
S'' \ar[r, "\mathrm{id}_{S''}"] \ar[d] &S'' \ar[d] \\
S' \ar[r] &S.
\end{tikzcd}
\]
The natural map $f : S'' \to S'' \times_S S'$ is proper since $S'' \to S'$ is proper and $S'' \times_S S' \to S'$ is separated. It is also a monomorphism since $S'' \overset{f}{\to} S'' \times_S S' \to S'' = \mathrm{id}_{S''}$
is a monomorphism. Therefore $f$ is a closed immersion\cite[Tag 04XV]{sta}.
We therefore have a natural morphism
\[
\mathcal{M}_{X, S''/S} \times S' \to \mathcal{M}_{X_{S'}, S''/S'}.
\]
Taking global sections with $X = \mathbb{A}^k_S$, it follows that if $S'' \to S$ is $k$-genic, then $S'' \to S'$ is $k$-genic. In particular, if $M/L/K$ is a tower of number fields and $\Ints_M / \Ints_K$ is $k$-genic, then $\Ints_M / \Ints_L$ is $k$-genic.
More prosaically, if $A \subseteq B \subseteq C$ and $C = A[\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_k]$, then $C = B[\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_k]$.
\end{enumerate}
Weil restrictions are also functorial in $X$, in the following sense. Let $S' \to S$ be
any morphism and let $g : X \to X'$ be a morphism of $S$-schemes. If $U \to S$ is a morphism, write $g|_U$ for the pulled-back map $X \times_S U \to X' \times_S U$. Then there is a map
\[
\cal R_{X, S'/S} \to \cal R_{X', S'/S}
\]
given on $(U \to S)$-points by sending $s : S' \times_S U \to X \times_S U$ to $g|_U \circ s$. If $g$ is a closed immersion, then composition with $g|_U$ preserves closed immersions,
inducing a map
\[
\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S} \to \mathcal{M}_{X', S'/S}.
\]
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:disjunionprodweilrest}
If $S' = \bigsqcup S'_i$ is a finite disjoint union of finite locally free maps $S'_i \to S$, the pullback $T \times_S S'$ is the disjoint union $\bigsqcup T \times_S S'_i$. Write $X'_i = X' \times_S S'_i$, it follows from the universal property of coproducts and the above that the Weil Restriction decomposes as
\[
\cal R_{X', S'/S} = \prod_i \cal R_{X'_i, S'_i/S}.
\]
The monogenicity space is \textit{not} the product $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S, X} \neq \prod \mathcal{M}_{S'_i/S, X}$. Rather, we claim a map
\[
\bigsqcup S'_i \to X
\]
is a closed immersion if and only if each map
\[
S'_i \to X
\]
is a closed immersion and the closed immersions are disjoint:
\[
S'_i \times_X S'_j = \varnothing
\]
for all $i \neq j$.
To see the claim, we may check affine locally on $X$, where it reduces to the statement that
$A \to \prod_{i} B_i$ is surjective if and only if $A \to B_i$ is surjective for each $i$ and $B_i \otimes_A B_j = 0$
whenever $i \neq j$. This follows quickly in turn from the Chinese remainder theorem.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:pbmonnormnofmon}
Not only is $\mathcal{M}_{1, S'/S}$ functorial in $S$, but we show its normalization and reduction can be performed on $S$.
If $X \to S$ is smooth and $T \to S$ is the normalization of $S$, one uses \cite[03GV]{sta} and properties of $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S}$ in Proposition \ref{prop:genisrep} to see that $\mathcal{M}_{X_T, T'/T} \to \mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S}$ is also normalization.
If a map $Y \to Z$ is smooth, the square
\[\begin{tikzcd}
Y_{red} \ar[r, hook] \ar[d] &Y \ar[d] \\
Z_{red} \ar[r, hook] &Z.
\end{tikzcd}\]
is cartesian. We need only check $Z_{red} \times_Z Y$ is reduced using \cite[034E]{sta}, since a surjective closed immersion of a reduced scheme must be $Y_{red}$. For smooth $X \to S$ and $T \coloneqq S_{red}$, the pullback $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S} \times_S S_{red} \simeq \mathcal{M}_{X_{S_{red}}, T'/S_{red}}$ is the reduction of $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Relation to the Hilbert scheme}\label{ssec:relation_to_Hilb}
With this section we pause our development of $\mathcal{M}$ to relate our construction to other well-known objects. Though the rest of the paper does not use this section, it behooves us to situate our work in the existing literature.
At the possible cost of representability of $\mathcal{M}_{X,S'/S}$, let $X \to S$ be any morphism of schemes in this section. Recall the Hilbert scheme of points \cite[0B94]{sta}
\[\text{Hilb}^n_{X/S}(T) \coloneqq \big\{ \text{closed embeddings } Z \subseteq X \times_S T \, \, \big| \, \, Z \to T \text{ finite locally free deg. } n \big\}.\]
There is an algebraic moduli stack $\frak A_n$ of finite locally free maps of degree $n$ \cite[Definition 3.2]{poonenmodspoffiniteflat}, with universal finite flat map $\frak Z_n \to \frak A_n$. Any map $S' \to S$ in Situation \ref{sit:gensetup} is pulled back from $\frak Z_n \to \frak A_n$. We restrict to $S$-schemes without further mention: $\frak A_n = \frak A_n \times S$.
Recall Poonen's description of $\frak A_n$: A finite locally free map $\pi : Z \to T$ is equivalent to the data of a finite locally free $\mathcal{O}_T$-algebra $\cal Q$ given by $\pi_\ast \mathcal{O}_Z$. Suppose for the sake of exposition that a locally free algebra $\cal Q$ has a global basis $\cal Q \simeq \mathcal{O}_T^{\oplus n}$.
The algebra structure is a multiplication map
\[\cal Q^{\otimes 2} \to \cal Q\]
that can be written as a matrix using the basis. Conditions of associativity and commutativity are polynomial on the entries of this matrix. We get an affine scheme of finite type $\frak B_n$ parametrizing matrices satisfying the polynomial conditions, or equivalently multiplication laws on globally free finite modules \cite[Proposition 1.1]{poonenmodspoffiniteflat}. Two different choices of global basis $\mathcal{O}_T^{\oplus n} \simeq \cal Q \simeq \mathcal{O}^{\oplus n}_T$ differ by an element of $\text{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_T)$. Taking the stack quotient by this action $\text{GL}_n \:\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}\: \frak B_n$ erases the need for a global basis and gives $\frak A_n$.
There is a map $\text{Hilb}^n_{X/S} \to \frak A_n$ sending a closed embedding $Z \subseteq X|_T$ to the finite flat map $Z \to T$. The fibers of this map are exactly monogenicity spaces:
\[\begin{tikzcd}
\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S} \ar[r] \ar[d] \ar[phantom, dr, very near start, "\ulcorner"] &S \ar[d, "S'/S"] \\
\text{Hilb}^n_{X/S} \ar[r] &\frak A_n.
\end{tikzcd}\]
Conversely, the monogenicity space of the universal finite flat map $\frak Z_n \to \frak A$ is isomorphic to the Hilbert Scheme
\[\mathcal{M}_{X, \frak Z_n/\frak A_n} \simeq \text{Hilb}^n_{X/S}\]
over $\frak A$. The space $\frak h_n(\mathbb{A}^k)$ of \cite[\S 4]{poonenmodspoffiniteflat} is $\mathcal{M}_k$ for the universal finite flat map to $\frak B_n$.
Proposition \ref{prop:genisrep} shows $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S}(X) \to S$ is smooth for $X$ smooth, and likewise for unramified or \'etale. This means the map $\text{Hilb}^n_{X/S} \to \frak A_n$ is smooth, unramified, or \'etale if $X \to S$ is.
Suppose $X \to S$ flat to identify the Chow variety of dimension 0, degree $n$ subvarieties of $X$ with $\Sym n X$ \cite{rydhfamiliesofcycles} and take $S$ equidimensional. The Hilbert-Chow morphism $\text{Hilb}_{X/S}^{equi \: n} \to \Sym n X$ sending a finite, flat, equidimensional $Z \to S$ to the pushforward of its fundamental class $[Z]$ in Chow $A_\ast(X)$ restricts to $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S}$. When $S'/S$ is \'etale, we will see the restriction of the Hilbert-Chow morphism $\mathcal{M}_{X, S'/S} \to \Sym n X$ is an open embedding by hand in the sequel paper.
\begin{question}
Can known cohomology computations of $\text{Hilb}^n_{X/S}$ offer obstructions to monogenicity under this relationship?
\end{question}
\section{The local index form and construction of {$\mathcal{M}$}}\label{sec:indexformconstgen}
This section describes equations for the monogenicity space $\mathcal{M}_{1, S'/S}$ inside $\cal R = \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(S',\mathbb{A}^1)$ by working with the universal homomorphism over $\cal R$. In the classical case $\mathbb{Z}_L/\mathbb{Z}_K$ we recover the well-known \emph{index form equation}. Section \ref{subsec: firstexamples} gives examples, while \ref{ssec:genk_equations} generalizes the equations to $k$-geneity $\mathcal{M}_{k, S'/S}$.
\begin{remark}[Representable functors]
Recall that if a functor $F : \mathcal{C}^{op} \to \mathrm{Set}$ is represented by an object $X$, then there is an element $\xi$ of $F(X)$
corresponding to the identity morphism $X \overset{\mathrm{id}}{\to} X$, called the \emph{universal element} of $F$. The proof of the Yoneda lemma shows that for all objects $Y$ and elements $y \in F(Y)$, there is a morphism $f_y : Y \to X$ such that $y$ is obtained by applying $F(f_y)$
to $\xi$.
\end{remark}
For a map $f : X \to Y$ of schemes, we write $f^\sharp : \mathcal{O}_Y \to \mathcal{O}_X|_Y$ for the map of sheaves and its kin.
\subsection{Explicit equations for the scheme $\mathcal{M}$}\label{ssec:gen1_equations}
The scheme $\cal R = \cal R_{S'/S} = \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(S', \mathbb{A}^1)$ is a ``moduli space'' of maps $S' \to \mathbb{A}^1$. For any $T \to S$, every morphism $S'\times_S T \to \mathbb{A}^1_T$ is pulled back along some $T \to \cal R$ from the \textit{universal homomorphism}
\[\begin{tikzcd}
S' \times_S \cal R \ar[dr] \ar[rr, "u"] & &\mathbb{A}^1_{\cal R}. \ar[dl] \\
&\cal R
\end{tikzcd}\]
We want explicit equations for $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S} \subseteq \cal R$.
Let $t$ be the coordinate function on $\AA^1$. The map $u$ corresponds to an element $\theta = u^\sharp(t) \in \Gamma(\mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S \cal R})$. Let $m(t)$ be the polynomial of Lemma \ref{lem:minpoly} for $\theta$, i.e. $m(t)$ is a monic polynomial in $\Gamma(\mathcal{O}_\cal R)[t]$ of degree $n$ such that $m(\theta) = 0$.
\begin{definition}
We call the polynomial $m(t)$ the \emph{universal minimal polynomial} of $\theta$.
Let $V(m(t))$ be the closed subscheme of $\AA^1_\cal R$ cut out by $m(t)$.
\end{definition}
The universal map $u$ factors through this closed subscheme:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:univ_factorization_mon}
\begin{tikzcd}
S' \times_S \cal R \ar[r, "v"] \ar[dr, "\pi", swap] &V(m(t)) \ar[d, "\tau"] \ar[r, hook] &\mathbb{A}^1_\cal R. \ar[dl] \\
&\cal R
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
Since $V(m(t)) \to \AA^1_{\cal R}$ is a closed immersion, the locus in $\cal R$ over which $u$ restricts
to a closed immersion agrees with the locus over which $v$ is a closed immersion.
\begin{remark}
The map $V(m(t)) \to \cal R$ is finite \emph{globally} free $\tau_\ast \mathcal{O}_{V(m(t))} \simeq \bigoplus_{i=0}^{n-1} \mathcal{O}_\cal R \cdot t^i$. The map $v : S' \times_S \cal R \to V(m(t))$ comes from a map
\[v^\sharp : \tau_\ast \mathcal{O}_{V(m(t))} \to \pi_\ast \mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S \cal R}\]
of finite locally free $\mathcal{O}_\cal R$-modules. Locally, it is an $n \times n$ \emph{matrix}. The determinant of this matrix is a unit when it is full rank, i.e. when $v$ is a closed immersion. The $i$th column is $\theta^i$, written out in terms of the local basis of $\pi_\ast \mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S \cal R}$. We work this out explicitly to get equations for $\mathcal{M} \subseteq \cal R$.
\end{remark}
Remark \ref{rmk:pbmonnormnofmon} lets us find equations locally.
Suppose $S' = \mathrm{Spec}\, B$ and $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, A$, where $B = \bigoplus_{i=1}^n A \cdot e_i$ is a finite free $A$-algebra of rank $n$ with basis $e_1, \ldots, e_n$. Let $I = \{ 1, \ldots, n \}$.
Write $t$ for the coordinate function of $\mathbb{A}^1$ and write $x_I$ as shorthand for $n$ variables $x_i$ indexed by $i \in I$.
The scheme $\cal R = \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(S', \mathbb{A}^1)$ is the affine scheme $\mathbb{A}^n_S = \mathrm{Spec}\, A[x_I]$ and Diagram \eqref{eq:univ_factorization_mon} becomes
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
B[x_I] &A[x_I, t]/(m(t)) \ar[l, "v^\sharp", swap] &A[x_I, t] \ar[l] \\
&A[x_I] \ar[ur] \ar[ul, "\pi^\sharp"] \ar[u, "\tau^\sharp"]
\end{tikzcd}
\]
The $A[x_I]$-homomorphism $v^\sharp$ sends
\[
t \mapsto \theta \coloneqq x_1 e_1 + \cdots + x_n e_n.
\]
Note that $A[x_I, t]/(m(t))$ has an $A[x_I]$ basis given by the equivalence classes of $1, t, \dots, t^{n-1}$ and $B[x_I]$ has an $A[x_I]$-basis given by $e_1, \ldots, e_n$. With respect to these bases, $v^\sharp$ is represented by the \emph{matrix of coefficients}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MatrixOfCoeffs}
M(e_1, \ldots, e_n) = [ a_{ij} ]_{1\leq i,j\leq n}
\end{equation}
where $a_{ij} \in A[x_I]$ are the unique coefficients such that $\theta^{j - 1} = \sum_{i = 1}^n a_{ij}e_i$ for each $j = 1, \ldots, n$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:etale} Let $S'\coloneqq \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{C}^n \to S\coloneqq \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{C} $ as in Example~\ref{ex:confspsintro}. Let $e_1,e_2,\dots,e_n$ be the standard basis vectors of $\mathbb{C}^n$. The monogenerators of $S'$ over $S$ are precisely the closed immersions:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
S' \ar[dr] \ar[rr, hook, dashed] & & \mathbb{A}^1_{S}\arrow[dl]\\
&S
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
Identify $\cal R \simeq \mathbb{A}^n_S$. Let $t$ denote the coordinate of $\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{A}^n_S}$, and let $x_1,x_2,...,x_n$ denote the coordinates of $\mathbb{A}^n_{S}$. The analogue of Diagram \eqref{eq:univ_factorization_mon} for this case is:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
S' \times_S \mathbb{A}^n_S \ar[r] \ar[dr]
&V(m(t)) \ar[d] \ar[r, hook] &\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{A}^n_S} \ar[dl] \\
&\mathbb{A}^n_S
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
We write down $m_{\theta}(t)$, as in Lemma~\ref{lem:minpoly}. The coordinate $t$ of $\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{A}^n_S}$ maps to the universal element $\theta = x_1e_1 + x_2e_2 + \cdots + x_ne_n$. Since $e_i = (\delta_{ij})_{j=1}^n \in \mathbb{C}^n$, we have $\theta e_{i} = x_ie_i$. Computing the minimal polynomial, $m_\theta(t) = \det(\delta_{ij}t - a_{ij}) = \prod_{i=1}^n(t -a_i)$.
Notice that $e_ie_j = \delta_{ij}e_i$. It follows that $\theta^i = \sum_{j = 0}^{n-1} x_j^ie_j$. Therefore $M(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ is the Vandermonde matrix with $i$th row given by $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & x_i & x_i^2 & \cdots & x_i^{n - 1}\end{bmatrix}$.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}\label{def:local_index_form}
With notation as above, let ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n) = \det(M(e_1, \ldots, e_n)) \in A[x_I]$. We call this element a \emph{local index form} for $S'$ over $S$. When the basis is clear from context, we may omit the basis elements from the notation.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:gen1_equations}
Suppose $S' \to S$ is finite free and $S$ is affine. With notation as above, $\mathcal{M}$ is the distinguished affine subscheme $D({\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n))$ inside $\cal R \cong \mathrm{Spec}\, A[x_I]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop:genisrep}, $\mathcal{M}$ is an open subscheme of $\cal R$. Therefore it suffices to check that $D({\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n))$ and $\mathcal{M}$ have the same points. Let $j : y \to \cal R$ be the inclusion of a point with residue field $k(y)$. Then
\begin{align*}
\text{$j$ factors through $\mathcal{M}$}\iff &\text{$j^*u$ is a closed immersion, where $u$ is the univ. hom.} \\
\iff &\text{$j^*v$ is a closed immersion, for $v$ as in \eqref{eq:univ_factorization_mon}} \\
\iff &\text{$v^\sharp \otimes_A k(y)$ is surjective} \\
\iff &\text{$j^\sharp(M(e_1, \ldots, e_n))$ is full rank} \\
\iff &\text{$j^\sharp({\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n))$ is nonzero.}
\end{align*}
This establishes the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If $B$ is a free $A$-algebra with basis $\{e_1, \ldots, e_n\}$, it follows that
$B$ is monogenic over $A$ if and only if there is a solution $(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in A^n$ to one of the equations
\[
{\mathcal{i}}(e_1,\ldots, e_n)(x_1,\ldots, x_n) = a
\]
as $a$ varies over the units of $A$.
These are the well-known \emph{index form equations}. In the case that $A$ is a number ring there are only finitely many units, so only finitely many equations need be considered. This perspective
gives the set of \emph{global} monogenerators the flavor of a closed subscheme of $\cal R$ even though $\mathcal{M}_1$ is an open subscheme.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary} \label{thm:mon_is_affine}
The map $\mathcal{M}_{1, S'/S} \to S$ classifying \emph{mono}generators is affine.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{prop:gen1_equations} shows that $S$ possesses an affine cover on which $\mathcal{M}_{1, S'/S}$ restricts to a single distinguished affine subset of the affine scheme $\cal R = \mathrm{Spec}\, A[x_I]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Consider a local index form ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n) = \det(M(e_1, \ldots, e_n))$ defined by a basis $B \simeq \bigoplus_{i=0}^{n-1} A \cdot e_i$ as above. Suppose $\tilde{e}_1, \ldots, \tilde{e}_n$ is a second basis of $B$ over $A$ and $\tilde{M}$ is the matrix representation of $v^\sharp$ with respect to the bases $\{ 1, \ldots, t^{n-1} \}$
and $\{ \tilde{e}_1, \ldots, \tilde{e}_n \}$. Then $\det(\tilde{M}) = u\det(M)$ for some unit $u$ of $A$. Although the determinant of $M$ may not glue to a global datum on $S$, this shows the ideal that it generates does.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:nonmonhomogeneous}
The local index forms ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ are homogeneous with respect to the grading on $A[x_I]$.
To see this, note that since the $i$th column of $M(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ represents $\theta^{i-1}$, its entries are of degree $i-1$ in $x_1, \ldots, x_n$. The
Leibnitz formula for the determinant
\[\det(a_{ij}) = \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma_n} (-1)^\sigma \cdot \prod a_{\sigma(i) i}\]
shows that ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ is homogeneous of degree $\sum_{i = 1}^n (i-1) = \frac{i(i-1)}{2}.$
The transition functions induced by change of basis respect this grading, so the index form ideal ${\mathcal{I}}_{S'/S}$ is a sheaf of homogeneous ideals.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:IndexFormEquations}
We compare our local index form to the classical number theoretic situation. For references see \cite{EvertseGyoryBook} and \cite{GaalsBook}.
If $K$ is a number field and $L$ is an extension of finite degree $n$, then there are $n$ distinct embeddings of $L$ into an algebraic closure that fix $K$. Denote them $\sigma_1,\dots, \sigma_n$. Let $\Tr$ denote the trace from $L$ to $K$. The \textit{discriminant} of $L$ over $K$ is defined to be the ideal
$\operatorname{Disc}(L/K)$ generated by the set of elements of the form
\
( \det[\sigma_i(\omega_j)]_{1\leq i,j\leq n})^2=\det[\Tr(\omega_i\omega_j)]_{1\leq i,j\leq n},\]
where we vary over all $K$-bases for $L$, $\{\omega_1,\dots, \omega_n \}$, with each $\omega_i\in \mathbb{Z}_K$.
If $\alpha$ is any element of $L$, then the \textit{discriminant} of $\alpha$ over $K$ is defined to be
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Disc}_{L/K}(\alpha) &=\left( \det\left(\sigma_i\left(\alpha^{j-1}\right)\right)_{1\leq i,j\leq n}\right)^2 \\
&=\det\left(\Tr\left(\alpha^{i-1}\alpha^{j-1}\right)\right)_{1\leq i,j\leq n} \\
&=\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\left(\sigma_i(\alpha)-\sigma_j(\alpha)\right)^2,
\end{align*}
where the last equality comes from Vandermonde's identity. Note that $\operatorname{Disc}_{L/K}(\alpha)$ is a power of the discriminant of the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$.
For every $\alpha$ generating $L$ over $K$ one has
\[\operatorname{Disc}_{L/K}(\alpha)=\left[\mathbb{Z}_L:\mathbb{Z}_K[\alpha]\right]^2\operatorname{Disc}(L/K).\]
One defines the \textit{index form} of $\mathbb{Z}_L$ over $\mathbb{Z}_K$ be to
\[{\mathrm{Index}}_{\mathbb{Z}_L/\mathbb{Z}_K}(\alpha) = \left[\mathbb{Z}_L:\mathbb{Z}_K[\alpha]\right]=\sqrt{\left|\frac{\operatorname{Disc}_{L/K}(\alpha)}{\operatorname{Disc}(L/K)}\right|}.\]
Confer \cite[Equation 5.2.2]{EvertseGyoryBook}.
In the case where $\{\omega_1,\dots, \omega_n \}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}_K$-basis for $\mathbb{Z}_L$, employing some linear algebra \cite[Equation (1.5.3)]{EvertseGyoryBook}, one finds ${\mathrm{Index}}_{\mathbb{Z}_L/\mathbb{Z}_K}$ is, up to an element of $\mathbb{Z}_K^*$, the determinant of the change of basis matrix from $\{\omega_1,\dots, \omega_n \}$ to $\{1, \alpha,\dots, \alpha^{n-1} \}$.
The matrix in Equation \eqref{eq:MatrixOfCoeffs} is just such a matrix and its determinant coincides up to a unit with the index form in situations where the index form is typically defined.
The generality of our setup affords us some flexibility that is not immediate from the definition of the classical index form equation.
\end{remark}
The local index forms give the complement of $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S}$ in $\cal R_{S'/S}$ a closed subscheme structure.
\begin{definition}[Non-monogenerators $\mathcal{N}_{S'/S}$]\label{defn:nonmonogens}
Let ${\mathcal{I}}_{S'/S}$ be the locally principal ideal sheaf on $\cal R$ generated locally by local index forms. We call this the \emph{index form ideal}. Let $\mathcal{N}_{S'/S}$ be the closed subscheme of $\cal R$ cut out by the vanishing of ${\mathcal{I}}_{S'/S}$. We call this the \emph{scheme of non-monogenerators}, since its support is the complement of $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S}$ inside of $\cal R$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
When the scheme of non-monogenerators $\mathcal{N}_{S'/S}$ is an effective Cartier divisor (equivalently, when none of the local index forms are zero divisors), the divisor class of $\mathcal{N}_{S'/S}$ in $\cal R = \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(S', \AA^1)$ is the same as the pullback of the Steinitz class of $S'/S$ from $S$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $V(m(t))$ is the vanishing of $m(t)$ in $\AA^1_{\cal R}$, where $m(t)$ is the generic minimal polynomial for $S'/S$. Let $\tau$ be the natural map $\tau : V(m(t)) \to \cal R$. Consider the morphism
\[
v^\sharp : \tau_*\mathcal{O}_{V(m(t))} \to \pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S \cal R}
\]
of sheaves on $\cal R$. The first sheaf is free of rank $n$ since $m(t)$ is a monic polynomial: there is a basis given by the images of $1, t, \ldots, t^{n-1}$. Therefore, taking $n$th wedge products in the previous equation, we have a map
\[
\mathcal{O}_{\cal R}\cong \det(\tau_*\mathcal{O}_{V(m(t))}) \to \det\left(\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S \cal R}\right).
\]
By construction, this map is locally given by a local index form, ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$. Since we have assumed that $\mathcal{N}_{S'/S}$ is an effective Cartier divisor, the determinant is locally a nonzero-divisor. Therefore, the determinant identifies a non-zero section of $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S \cal R}$. By definition of
$\mathcal{N}_{S'/S}$, we may identify $\det(\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S \cal R})$ with $\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{N}_{S'/S})$.
Writing $\psi : \cal R \to S$ for the structure map, we also have that
\[
\det(\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{S' \times_S \cal R}) \cong \psi^*\det(\pi_*\mathscr{O}_{S'}).
\]
since taking a determinental line bundle commutes with arbitrary base change and $\pi_*$ commutes with base change for flat maps. The class of the line bundle $\det(\pi_*\mathscr{O}_{S'})$ in $\text{Pic}(S)$ is by definition the Steinitz class.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Explicit equations for polygenerators $\mathcal{M}_k$} \label{ssec:genk_equations}
The work above readily generalizes to describe $\mathcal{M}_k$.
Fix a number $k \in \mathbb{N}$. We now construct explicit equations for $\mathcal{M}_k$ as a subscheme of $\cal R_k = \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(S', \mathbb{A}^k)$ when $S' \to S$ is free and $S$ is affine. These hypotheses hold Zariski locally on $S$, so by Remark \ref{rmk:pbmonnormnofmon}, this gives a construction for $\mathcal{M}_k$ locally on $S$ in the general case.
Let $S' = \mathrm{Spec}\, B$ and $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, A$, where $B = \bigoplus_{i=1}^n A \cdot e_i$ is a finite free $A$-algebra of rank $n$ with basis $e_1, \ldots, e_n$. Let $J = \{ 1, \ldots, k \}$ and $I = \{ 1, \ldots, n \}$. Write $t_J$ for the $|J|$ coordinate functions $t_1, \ldots, t_k$ of $\mathbb{A}^k$ and write $x_{I \times J}$ as shorthand for $|I \times J|$ variables $x_{ij}$ indexed by $(i,j) \in I \times J$.
The scheme $\cal R_k$ is represented by the affine scheme $\mathrm{Spec}\, A[x_{I \times J}]$ and the universal map for $\cal R_k$ is the commutative triangle
\[\begin{tikzcd}
S'\times_S \cal R_k \ar[rr, "u"] \ar[dr] & & \AA^k_{\cal R_k} \ar[dl] \\
&\cal R_k
\end{tikzcd}\]
where the horizontal arrow $u$ is induced by the ring map $A[x_{I \times J}, t_J] \to B[x_{I \times J}]$ sending
\[
t_j \mapsto \theta_j \coloneqq \sum_{i \in I} x_{ij} e_i.
\]
Notice that $S' \times_S \cal R_k \to \cal R_k$ is in Situation \ref{sit:gensetup}. Apply Lemma \ref{lem:minpoly} to find monic degree $n$ polynomials $m_j(t_j) \in A[x_{I \times J}, t_J]$ such that
$m_j(\theta_j) = 0 $ in $B[x_{I \times J}]$.
Write $v^\sharp$ for the
unique map
\[
v^\sharp : A[x_{I \times J}, t_J]/(m_j(t_j) : j \in J) \longrightarrow B[x_{I \times J}]
\]
factoring $u^\sharp : A[x_{I \times J}, t_J] \to B[x_{I \times J}]$.
Now, $A[x_{I \times J}, t_J]/(m_j(t_j) : j \in J)$ is a free $A[x_{I \times J}]$-module of rank $n^k$ with basis given by the equivalence classes of the products $t_1^{r_1}\cdots t_k^{r_k}$ as the powers $r_j$ vary between $0$ and $n - 1$. Since $B[x_{I \times J}]$
is also a free $A[x_{I \times J}]$-module with basis $e_1, \ldots, e_n$, we may choose an ordering of the powers $t_1^{r_1} \cdots t_k^{r_k}$ and represent the map $v^\sharp$ by an $n^k \times n$ matrix $M$.
For each subset $C \subseteq \{ 1, \ldots, kn \}$ of size $n$, let $M_C$ be the submatrix of $M$ whose columns are indexed by $C$ and let $\det(M_C)$ be the determinant
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:genk_equations}
Suppose $S' \to S$ is finite free and $S$ is affine. Then with notation as above, $\mathcal{M}_k$ is the union of the distinguished affines $D(\det(M_C))$ inside $Y$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Check on points as in Proposition \ref{prop:gen1_equations}.
\end{proof}
\section{Examples of the scheme of monogenerators}\label{s:examples}
We conclude with several examples to illustrate the nature and variety of the scheme of monogenerators. We will consider situations in which the classical index form of Remark \ref{rmk:IndexFormEquations} is well-studied, such as field extensions and extensions of number rings, as well as the more exotic situation of jet spaces.
We will make frequent reference to computation of the index form using the techniques of Section \ref{ssec:gen1_equations}.
\subsection{First examples}\label{subsec: firstexamples}
\begin{example}[Quadratic Number Fields]\label{ex:general_quadratic}
Let $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$, for any square-free integer $d$. It is well-known that the ring of integers $\mathbb{Z}_K$ is monogenic: $\mathbb{Z}_L\cong \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ or $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1 + \sqrt{d}}{2}]$, depending on $d \bmod 4$. We will confirm this using our framework, and determine the scheme $\mathcal{M}_1$ of monogenic generators.
Let $\alpha$ denote the known generator of $\mathcal{O}_L$, either $\sqrt{d}$ or $\frac{1 +\sqrt{d}}{2}$. Let us take $\{1, \alpha \}$ as the basis $e_1, \ldots, e_n$. The universal map diagram \eqref{eq:univ_factorization_mon} becomes:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbb{Z}[a, b, \alpha] & \mathbb{Z}[a, b, t]/(m(t)) \ar[l] &\mathbb{Z}[a, b, t] \ar[l] \\
&\mathbb{Z}[a, b] \ar[ul] \ar[ur] \ar[u]
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where the map $\mathbb{Z}[a,b,t]/(m(t)) \to \mathbb{Z}[a, b, \alpha]$ is given by $t \mapsto a + b\alpha$. The universal minimal polynomial $m(t)$ is given by $t^2 - \text{Tr}(a + b\alpha)t + \text{N}(a + b\alpha)$.
This diagram encapsulates all choices of generators as follows. The elements of $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$ are all of the form $a_0 + b_0\alpha$ for $a_0, b_0 \in \mathbb{Z}$. Integers $a_0, b_0 \in \mathbb{Z}$ are in bijection with maps $\phi : \mathbb{Z}[a,b] \to \mathbb{Z}$. Applying the functor $\mathbb{Z} \otimes_{\phi,\mathbb{Z}[a,b]} - $ to the diagram above yields a diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbb{Z}[\alpha] & \mathbb{Z}[t]/(m(t)) \ar[l] &\mathbb{Z}[t] \ar[l] \\
&\mathbb{Z} \ar[ul] \ar[ur] \ar[u]
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where the map $\mathbb{Z}[t]/(m(t)) \to \mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$ takes $t \mapsto a_0 + b_0\alpha$. The image is precisely $\mathbb{Z}[a_0 + b_0\alpha]$, and the index form that we are about to compute detects whether this is all of $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$.
Returning to the universal situation, the matrix representation of the map $\mathbb{Z}[a,b,t]/(m(t))\to \mathbb{Z}[a,b,\alpha]$ (what we have been calling the matrix of coefficients \eqref{eq:MatrixOfCoeffs}) is given by
\[\begin{bmatrix}1 & a \\ 0 & b\end{bmatrix}.\]
Notice that we did not need to compute $m(t)$ to get this matrix. The determinant, $b$, is the local index form associated to the basis $\{ 1, \alpha \}$. Therefore $\mathcal{M}_1 \cong \mathbb{Z}[a, b, b^{-1}]$. Taking $\mathbb{Z}$-points of $\mathcal{M}_1$, we learn that $a + b\alpha$ ($a, b \in \mathbb{Z}$) is a monogenic generator precisely when $b$ is a unit, i.e. $b = \pm 1$.
\end{example}
Proposition \ref{prop:deg2samemonospace} generalizes this example to any degree-two $S' \to S$.
\begin{example} \label{ex:confspindexform}
Resuming the situation of Example \ref{ex:etale}, the local index form with respect to the basis $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ is the Vandermonde determinant:
\[
{\mathcal{i}}(e_1,\ldots,e_n)(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = \pm \prod_{i < j} (x_i - x_j).
\]
Therefore $\mathcal{M}_{S'/S} = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{C}[x_1,\ldots,x_n, (\prod_{i < j} (x_i - x_j))^{-1}]$. The claim of Example \ref{ex:confspsintro} follows.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Jets in $\mathbb{A}^1$]
\label{ex:jets_in_A1}
Let $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Z}$ and $S'_n = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Z}[\epsilon]/\epsilon^n$, as in Example~\ref{ex:jetsps}. We explicitly describe $\mathcal{M}_{1, S'_n/S} \subseteq \cal R = \jetsp{n-1, \AA^1}$.
Choose the basis $1, \epsilon, \ldots, \epsilon^{n-1}$ for $\mathbb{Z}[\epsilon]/\epsilon^n$.
With respect to this basis, we may write the universal map diagram as
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbb{Z}[x_1, \ldots, x_n, \epsilon]/\epsilon^n & \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n,t]/(m(t)) \ar[l] &\mathbb{Z}[x_1, \ldots, x_n, t] \ar[l] \\
&\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \ar[ul] \ar[ur] \ar[u]
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where $t \mapsto x_1 + x_2\epsilon + \cdots + x_n\epsilon^{n-1}$.
Change coordinates by $t \mapsto t - x_1$
so that the image of $t$ is
\[
t \mapsto \theta = x_2\epsilon + \cdots + x_n\epsilon^{n-1}.
\]
Update $m(t)$ accordingly: $m(t) = t^n$. Our next task is to compute the representation of $\theta^j$ in $\{1,\epsilon, \ldots, \epsilon^{n-1}\}$-coordinates for $j = 0, \ldots, n-1$. The multinomial theorem yields
\[
(x_2 \epsilon + x_3 \epsilon^2 + \cdots + x_n \epsilon^{n-1})^j = \sum_{i_2 + i_3 + \cdots + i_n = j} \dbinom{j}{i_2, \dots, i_n} \prod_{t = 2}^n x_t^{i_t} \epsilon^{(t-1)i_t}.
\]
The coefficient of $\epsilon^p$ is
\[
\sum_{\substack{i_2 + i_3 + \cdots + i_n = j \\
i_2 + 2i_3 + \cdots (n-1) i_n = p}} \dbinom{j}{i_2, \dots, i_n} \prod_{t = 2}^n x_t^{i_t}.
\]
The matrix of coefficients in Figure \ref{fig:mjetmatrix} represents the $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$-linear map from $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n, t]/(m(t))$ to $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n,\epsilon]/\epsilon^{n} = \bigoplus_{i=0}^{n-1} \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \cdot \epsilon^i$. The coefficient of $\epsilon^p$ above appears in the $(j+1)$st
column and $(p+1)$st row.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\[M_n=\left[\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=tiny, row sep=tiny]
1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &\cdots &0 \\
0 &x_2 &0 &0 &0 &\cdots &0 \\
0 &x_3 &x_2^2 &0 &0 &\cdots &0 \\
0 &x_4 &2x_2 x_3 &x_2^3 &0 &\cdots &0 \\
0 &x_5 &2x_2 x_4 + x_3^2 &3x_2^2 x_3 &x_2^4 &\cdots &0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 &x_n & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots &\cdots &x_2^{n-1}
\end{tikzcd}\right]\]
\caption{The matrix determined by an $(n-1)$-jet.}\label{fig:mjetmatrix}
\end{figure}
Since $M_n$ is lower triangular, it has determinant $x_2^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}$. An $(n-1)$-jet thereby belongs to $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{A}^1, S'_n/S}$ if and only if the coefficient $x_2$ is a unit. The $x_i$ are naturally coordinates of the jet space, yielding $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{A}^1, S'_n/S} = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\ldots,x_n,x_2^{-1}] \subseteq \cal R_{S'_n/S} = J_{n-1, \mathbb{A}^1}$.
\end{example}
The scheme of $k$-generators $\mathcal{M}_k$ need not be affine. Even
for the Gaussian integers $\mathbb{Z}[i] / \mathbb{Z}$, we have that $\mathcal{M}_k = \mathbb{A}^k \times (\mathbb{A}^k \setminus \{ \vec{0} \})$. We prove this in Proposition \ref{prop:deg2samemonospace}, after a small lemma.
The second factor begs to be quotiented by group actions of $\mathbb{G}_m$, $\Sigma_n$, or $\text{GL}_n$: doing so leads to the notion of twisted monogenicity considered in the sequel paper.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:oneispartofbasis}
Locally on $S$, the ring $\mathcal{O}_{S'}$ has an $\mathcal{O}_S$-basis in which one basis element is $1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Omitted.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:deg2samemonospace}
Suppose $S' \to S$ has degree 2 and let $\vct{0} \in \mathbb{A}^k_S$ be the zero section. Then affine locally on $S$ we have an isomorphism
\[
\mathcal{M}_{k, S'/S} \cong \AA^k_S \times (\mathbb{A}^k_{S} \setminus \vct{0}).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Working affine locally and applying Lemma \ref{lem:oneispartofbasis}, we may take $S' = \mathrm{Spec}\, B$ and $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, A$, where $B$
has an $A$-basis of the form $\{ 1, e \}$. Write $b_1, \dots, b_k$ for the coordinates on the second $\mathbb{A}^k_S$, so $\vct{0} = V(b_1, \dots, b_k) \subseteq \mathbb{A}^k_S$.
In the notation preceding Proposition \ref{prop:genk_equations}, we may
take $x_{i,1} = a_i$, $x_{i,2} = b_i$, and $t_i \mapsto a_i + b_ie$. The matrix of coefficients will have columns given by the $\{1, e\}$-basis representation of the images of $1, t_i$, and $t_it_j$ as $i,j$ vary over distinct integers in $\{1, \ldots, k\}$. Write $e^2 = c + de$ where $c, d \in A$. Then the column of the matrix representing $1$ is
\[
\begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix},
\]
the columns representing the images of the $t_i$ are
\[
\begin{bmatrix} a_i \\ b_i \end{bmatrix},
\]
and the columns representing the images of $t_it_j$ are
\[
\begin{bmatrix} a_ia_j + b_ib_jc \\ a_ib_j + a_jb_i + b_ib_jd \end{bmatrix}.
\]
Among the determinants of the $2\times2$ minors of this matrix are $b_1, \ldots, b_k$, coming from the submatrices
\[
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & a_i \\ 0 & b_i \end{bmatrix}.
\]
The remaining determinants all lie in the ideal $(b_1,\ldots, b_k)$ since all elements of the second row of the matrix lie in this ideal.
We conclude by Proposition \ref{prop:genk_equations} that $\mathcal{M}_{k, S'/S}$ is the union of
the open subsets $D(b_i)$ of $\mathrm{Spec}\, A[a_1, b_1, \ldots, a_k, b_k]$, as required.
\end{proof}
As an alternative to taking the union of $k$-determinants, we can use a generalization of the determinant first introducted by Cayley, later rediscovered and generalized by Gel'fand, Kapranov and Zelevinsky:
\begin{question}
The map $v^\sharp$ above is a multilinear map from the tensor product of $k$ free modules $A[x_{I \times J}, t_j]/m_j(t_j)$ of rank $n$ over $A[x_{I \times J}]$ to the rank-$n$ free module $B[x_{I \times J}]$. For $k=1$, $\mathcal{M}_1$ is the complement of the determinant of $v^\sharp$. In general, the map $v^\sharp$ is locally given by a \emph{hypermatrix} of format $(n-1, \dots, n-1)$ \cite{hyperdeterminant}. This $n \times n \times \cdots \times n$-hypercube of elements of $A[x_{I \times J}]$ describes a multilinear map the same way ordinary $n \times n$ matrices describe a linear map. What locus does the hyperdeterminant cut out in $\cal R_k$?
\end{question}
Example \ref{ex:jetsofA2} addresses the case $k = 2$ for jet spaces.
\subsection{Field extensions}
When $S' = \mathrm{Spec}\, L \to S = \mathrm{Spec}\, K$ is induced by a field extension $L/K$, we know that the monogenic generators of $L$ over $K$
are precisely the elements of $L$ that do not belong to any proper subfield of $L$. Therefore, on the level of $K$-points of $\mathcal{M}_1$, we
can expect to see that the index form vanishes on precisely the proper subfields of $L$. However, it has further structure that
is better seen after extension to a larger field.
\begin{example}[A $\mathbb{Z}/2 \times \mathbb{Z}/2$ field extension]
Let $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Q}$ and $S' = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})$.
The isomorphism of groups $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})\cong \mathbb{Q}\oplus\mathbb{Q}\sqrt{2}\oplus\mathbb{Q}\sqrt{3}\oplus \mathbb{Q}\sqrt{6}$ identifies the Weil Restriction $\cal R_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})/\mathbb{Q}}$
and its universal maps with Spec of
\[\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbb{Q}[a, b, c, d][\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}] & &\mathbb{Q}[a, b, c, d][t]. \ar[ll, "a + b\sqrt{2} + c \sqrt{3} + d \sqrt{6} \mapsfrom t
", swap]\\
&\mathbb{Q}[a, b, c, d] \ar[ur] \ar[ul]
\end{tikzcd}\]
Hence $\cal R_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})/\mathbb{Q}} = \mathbb{Q}[a, b, c, d]$ and the universal
morphism
\[u : S' \times_S \cal R_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})/\mathbb{Q}} \to \AA^1_{\cal R_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})/\mathbb{Q}}}\]
is induced by
\[
t \mapsto a + b\sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{6}.
\]
We expand the images of the powers $1, t, t^2, t^3$ to find the matrix of coefficients
\[
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & a & a^{2} + 2 b^{2} + 3 c^{2} + 6 d^{2} & a^{3} + 6 a
b^{2} + 9 a c^{2} + 36 b c d + 18 a d^{2} \\
0 & b & 2 a b + 6 c d & 3 a^{2} b + 2 b^{3} + 9 b c^{2} + 18
a c d + 18 b d^{2} \\
0 & c & 2 a c + 4 b d & 3 a^{2} c + 6 b^{2} c + 3 c^{3} + 12
a b d + 18 c d^{2} \\
0 & d & 2 b c + 2 a d & 6 a b c + 3 a^{2} d + 6 b^{2} d + 9
c^{2} d + 6 d^{3}
\end{bmatrix}.\]
We compute the local index form associated to our chosen basis by taking the determinant:
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal{i}}(a,b,c,d) &= -8b^{4} c^{2} + 12 b^{2} c^{4} + 16 b^{4} d^{2} -36 c^{4} d^{2} -48 b^{2} d^{4} + 72 c^{2} d^{4} \\
&= -4(2b^2 - 3c^2)(b^2 - 3d^2)(c^2 - 2d^2).
\end{align*}
Note that this determinant has degree 6. Dropping subscripts, the factorization implies that the closed subscheme of non-generators $\mathcal{N}$ inside $\cal R \cong \AA^4_\mathbb{Q}$ has three components of degree 2.
Consider the $\mathbb{Q}$-points of $\mathcal{M}_{1,S'/S} = \cal R - \mathcal{N}$.
These are in bijection with the elements $a + b\sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{6} \in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})$ where $a,b,c,d$ are in $\mathbb{Q}$ and the index form does not vanish.
Equivalently,
\[
2b^2 - 3c^2 \neq 0, \quad b^2 - 3d^2 \neq 0, \text{ and } \quad c^2 - 2d^2 \neq 0.
\]
Let $\theta = a + b\sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{6}$ for some $a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{Q}$ and consider what it would mean to fail one of these conditions. If
$2b^2 - 3c^2 = 0$ for $b, c \in \mathbb{Q}$, it must be that $b = c = 0$. Then
$\theta \in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{6})$, a proper subfield of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})$.
Similarly, if $b^2 - 3d^2 = 0$ then $\theta \in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3})$, and
if $c^2 - 2d^2 = 0$ then $\theta \in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$. It follows that the
$\mathbb{Q}$-points of $\mathcal{M}_{1, S'/S}$ are in bijection with the elements
of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})$ that do not lie in a proper subfield, as
we expect from field theory.
\end{example}
See Example \ref{ex:NonMonOrderInMonogenicExt} for an analysis of the monogenicity of some orders contained in the field considered above.
\begin{example}[A $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$-extension]
Let $S = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Q}(i)$ and $S' = \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Q}(i, \sqrt[4]{2}).$ We have a global
$\mathbb{Q}(i)$-basis $\{1, \sqrt[4]{2}, \sqrt{2}, \sqrt[4]{2}^3\}$ for $\mathbb{Q}(i, \sqrt[4]{2})$ over $\mathbb{Q}(i)$. We may use this basis to write $\cal R \cong \mathrm{Spec}\, \mathbb{Q}(i)[a,b,c,d]$ where the universal map
from $\mathbb{A}^1$ is $t \mapsto a+b\sqrt[4]{2}+c\sqrt{2}+d(\sqrt[4]{2})^3$. The matrix of coefficients is
\[
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & a & a^{2} + 2c^{2} + 4 b d & a^{3} + 6b^{2} c
+ 6 a c^{2} + 12a b d + 12 c d^{2} \\
0 & b & 2 a b + 4 c d & 3 a^{2} b + 6 b c^{2} +
6 b^{2} d + 12 a c d + 4 d^{3} \\
0 & c & b^{2} + 2 a c + 2 d^{2} & 3 a b^{2} + 3
a^{2} c + 2 c^{3} + 12 b c d + 6 a d^{2} \\
0 & d & 2 b c + 2 a d & b^{3} + 6 a b c + 3 a^{2} d + 6 c^{2} d + 6 b d^{2}
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
The determinant yields the local index form with respect to this basis:
\[
(b^2 - 2d^2)(b^4 + 8c^4 - 16 b c^2 d + 4 b^2 d^2 + 4d^4).
\]
We note that the first factor vanishes for $a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{Q}(i)$ when $a+b\sqrt[4]{2}+c\sqrt{2}+d\sqrt[4]{2}^3 \in \mathbb{Q}(i, \sqrt{2})$. At first glance the second factor is more mysterious, but after adjoining enough elements, the entire index form factors into distinct linear terms:
\begin{align*}
&(b - \sqrt{2}d)(b + \sqrt{2}d)(i b-(1+i) \sqrt[4]{2} c+\sqrt{2} d) (-i b-(1-i) \sqrt[4]{2} c+\sqrt{2} d)\\
&\quad \quad \quad \cdot(-i b+(1-i) \sqrt[4]{2} c+\sqrt{2} d) (i b+(1+i) \sqrt[4]{2} c+\sqrt{2} d).
\end{align*}
\end{example}
This behavior of factorization into distinct linear factors occurs in general:
\begin{proposition}
Let $S' \to S$ be induced by a finite separable extension of fields $L/K$. Let $e_1, \ldots, e_n$ be a $K$-basis for $L$, and let $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ be the corresponding coordinates for $\cal R$. Then the local index form ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ factors completely into distinct linear factors in $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ over the normal closure $\tilde{L}$ of $L/K$.
\end{proposition}
Compare this with Example \ref{ex:confspindexform}. There, monogenerators correspond to configurations of $n$ points in $\mathbb{A}^1$ and the distinct linear factors of ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ correspond to when pairs of points collide. Here the situation is the same except a separable field extension---geometrically, an \'etale localization---is required first. This \'etale local characterization of monogenerators is common to all \'etale $S' \to S$, a case that we will examine in more depth in the sequel paper.
Some interesting and useful specifics in the case of number fields are investigated in more depth in chapter 7 of \cite{GaalsBook}.
\begin{proof}
We may consider ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ as an element of $\tilde{L}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ by
pulling back to $\cal R_{L/K} \times_S \mathrm{Spec}\, \tilde{L} \cong \cal R_{L \otimes_K \tilde L/\tilde L}$.
Our strategy is to compute a second generator of the pullback of ${\mathcal{I}}_{S'/S}$ with respect to a more convenient basis.
By the Chinese remainder theorem, $L \otimes_K \tilde{L} \cong \prod_{i = 1}^n \tilde{L}$. Let $\tilde{e}_1, \ldots, \tilde{e}_n$ be the
standard basis of $(\tilde{L})^n$, let $\tilde{x}_1, \ldots, \tilde{x}_n$ be the corresponding coordinates on $\cal R_{L \otimes_K \tilde L/\tilde L} \simeq \cal R_{\tilde L^n/\tilde L}$,
and let $\tilde{\theta} = \tilde{x}_1\tilde{e}_1 + \cdots + \tilde{x}_n\tilde{e}_n$.
Computing a matrix $M$ for the map $L[\tilde{x}_1, \ldots, \tilde{x}_n, t] / m(t) \to \tilde{L}[\tilde{x}_1, \ldots, \tilde{x}_n]$ sending $t \mapsto \tilde{\theta}$, we see that it is a Vandermonde matrix with factors
$\tilde{x}_1, \dots, \tilde{x}_n$, since
\[
(\tilde{x}_1\tilde{e}_1 + \cdots + \tilde{x}_n\tilde{e}_n)^k = \tilde{x}_1^k\tilde{e}_1 + \cdots \tilde{x}_n^k\tilde{e}_n,
\]
when computed in the product ring $(\tilde{L})^n$. Therefore $|{\mathcal{i}}(\tilde{e}_1, \ldots, \tilde{e}_n)| = |\det(M)| = |\prod_{i < j} (\tilde{x}_i - \tilde{x}_j)|$. Applying the $\tilde{L}$-linear change of basis from
$\{\tilde{x}_i\}$ to $\{ x_i \}$, we see that ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ is a product of distinct linear factors in $x_1, \ldots, x_n$.
\end{proof}
The proposition above does not consider inseparable extensions. To see what can happen then, we begin with an example.
\begin{example}[A purely inseparable extension]\label{ex:inseparable}
For $\mathbb{F}_3(\alpha)[\beta]/(\beta^3 - \alpha)$ over $\mathbb{F}_3(\alpha)$, write $a, b, c$ for the universal coefficients of the basis $1, \beta, \beta^2$. In other words, $\theta = a +b\beta+c\beta^2$. One computes that the
index form is then
\[b^3 - c^3\alpha.\]
To find the monogenic generators of this extension, we look for $a, b, c \in \mathbb{F}_3(\alpha)$ so that $b^3 - c^3\alpha \neq 0$. Clearly, at least one of $b, c$ must be nonzero. Choose $b, c$ arbitrarily so that one is nonzero. Is this enough to ensure we have a monogenerator?
Suppose first that $b \neq 0$. Then $b^3 - c^3\alpha = 0$
implies $c \in \mathbb{F}_3(\alpha^{1/3}) \setminus \mathbb{F}_3(\alpha)$, a contradiction. Symmetrically, if $c \neq 0$ and $b^3 - c^3\alpha = 0$, then $b \in \mathbb{F}_3(\alpha^{1/3}) \setminus \mathbb{F}_3(\alpha)$, a contradiction again. We conclude that the set of monogenerators is
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}_{1,S'/S}(\mathbb{F}_3(\alpha)) &= \{ a+b\beta + c\beta^2 \mid a,b,c\in\mathbb{F}_3(\alpha)\text{ and }(b,c) \neq (0,0) \}. \\
&= \mathbb{F}_3(\alpha) \setminus \mathbb{F}_3,
\end{align*}
as one expects from field theory.
The polynomial $b^3 - c^3\alpha$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{F}_3(\alpha)[a,b,c]$, so the scheme of non-generators $\mathcal{N}$ is an irreducible subscheme of $\cal R \simeq \AA^3$. However, $\mathcal{N}$ is not geometrically reduced: after base extension to $\mathbb{F}_3(\alpha,\sqrt[3]{\alpha})$, the index form factors as $(b - c\beta)^3$.
\end{example}
The factorization noted above is not an isolated phenomenon:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:pureinsepmon}
Let $S' \to S$ be induced by a degree $n\coloneqq p^m$ completely inseparable extension of fields $K(\alpha^{1/p^m})/K$. Then over $K(\alpha^{1/p^m})$, the local index form factors into a repeated linear factor of multiplicity $p^m$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the local index form ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1,\ldots, e_n)$ as an element of $K(\alpha^{1/p^m})[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ by pulling back to
\[
\cal R_{K(\alpha^{1/p^m})/K} \times_S S' \cong \cal R_{K(\alpha^{1/p^m}) \otimes_K K(\alpha^{1/p^m})/K(\alpha^{1/p^m})}.
\]
Once again, to arrive at the result, we will compute a second generator of the pull back of ${\mathcal{I}}_{S'/S}$ with respect to another basis.
By the Chinese remainder theorem,
\begin{align*}
K(\alpha^{1/p^m}) \otimes_K K(\alpha^{1/p^m}) &\cong K[t]/(t^{p^m} - \alpha) \otimes_K K(\alpha^{1/p^m}) \\
&\cong K(\alpha^{1/p^m})[t]/((t - \alpha^{1/p^m})^{p^m}) \\
&\cong K(\alpha^{1/p^m})[\epsilon]/\epsilon^{p^m},\\
\end{align*}
where $\epsilon = t - \alpha^{1/p^m}$.
Let $b_1 = 1, b_2 = \epsilon, \ldots, b_{p^m} = \epsilon^{p^m - 1}$ be a basis for
$K(\alpha^{1/p^m})[\epsilon]/\epsilon^{p^m}$ over $K(\alpha^{1/p^m})$, and let $y_1, \ldots, y_n$ be corresponding coordinates on
$\cal R_{K(\alpha^{1/p^m})/K} \times_S S'$. We are now in the situation of Example \ref{ex:jets_in_A1}.
Following the calculation there, we do a second change of coordinates to the basis $c_1 = 1, c_2 = \epsilon - y_1, \ldots, c_n = (\epsilon - y_1)^{n-1}$ and let $z_1, \ldots, z_n$ be the corresponding coordinates on $\cal R_{K(\alpha^{1/p^m})/K} \times_S S'$. Taking the determinant of the matrix $M$ of the map $K(\alpha^{1/p^m})[z_1, \ldots, z_n,t]/m(t) \to K(\alpha^{1/p^m})[\epsilon][z_1, \ldots, z_n]/\epsilon^{p^m}$ sending $t \mapsto z_1c_1 + \cdots + z_nc_n$
with respect to the bases $\{ 1, \ldots, t^{n-1} \}$ and $\{ c_1, \ldots, c_n \}$, we obtain
\[
{\mathcal{i}}(c_1, \ldots, c_n) = z_2^{\left(\frac{p^m(p^m-1)}{2}\right)}.
\]
Applying the change of basis from $\{ z_1, \ldots, z_n \}$ to $\{ x_1, \ldots, x_n \}$, we see that ${\mathcal{i}}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$
is a power of a linear term.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Orders in number rings}
\begin{example}[Dedekind's Non-Monogenic Cubic Field]\label{ex:Dedekind}
Let $\eta$ denote a root of the polynomial $X^3 - X^2 - 2X -8$ and consider the field extension $L\coloneqq \mathbb{Q}(\eta)$ over $K\coloneqq \mathbb{Q}$. When Dedekind constructed this example \cite{Dedekind} it was the first example of a non-monogenic extension of number rings. Indeed two generators are necessary to generate $\Ints_L/\Ints_K$: take $\eta^2$ and $\frac{\eta + \eta^2}{2}$, for example. In fact, $\{1,\frac{\eta + \eta^2}{2},\eta^2\}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis for $\Ints_K$.
The matrix of coefficients with respect to the basis $\{1,\frac{\eta + \eta^2}{2},\eta^2\}$ is
\[\begin{bmatrix}
1 & a & a^{2} + 6b^{2} + 16bc + 8 c^{2} \\
0 & b & 2 a b + 7 b^{2} + 24bc + 20c^{2} \\
0 & c & -2b^{2} + 2ac - 8bc - 7c^{2}
\end{bmatrix}.\]
Taking its determinant, the index form associated to this basis is \
-2b^3 - 15b^2c - 31bc^2 - 20c^3
.\]
Were the extension monogenic, we would be able to find $a,b,c \in \mathbb{Z}$ so
that the index form above is equal to $\pm 1$.
To see that there are no solutions, we may reduce the index form modulo 2 to obtain
\[
b^2c + bc^2.
\]
Iterating through the four possible values of $(b,c) \in (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^2$ shows that the index form always to reduces to 0.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[A non-monogenic order and monogenic maximal order]\label{ex:NonMonOrderInMonogenicExt}
Consider the extension $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}]$ of $\mathbb{Z}$. Note that $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}]$ is not the maximal order of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})$. As we will see below, the maximal order is $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{\sqrt{3}+2}]$. The isomorphism of groups $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}] \simeq \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z} \sqrt{2} \oplus \mathbb{Z} \sqrt{3} \oplus \mathbb{Z} \sqrt{6}$ identifies the Weil Restriction $\cal R_{\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}]/\mathbb{Z}}$
and its universal maps with Spec of
\[\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbb{Z}[a, b, c, d][\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}] & &\mathbb{Z}[a, b, c, d][t]. \ar[ll, "a + b\sqrt{2} + c \sqrt{3} + d \sqrt{6} \mapsfrom t
", swap]\\
&\mathbb{Z}[a, b, c, d] \ar[ur] \ar[ul]
\end{tikzcd}\]
Now,
\[1\mapsto 1\]
\[t\mapsto a + b\sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{6}\]
\[t^2\mapsto (a + b\sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{6})^2\]
\[t^3\mapsto (a + b\sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{6})^3\]
is given by
\[
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & a & a^{2} + 2 b^{2} + 3 c^{2} + 6 d^{2} & a^{3} + 6 a
b^{2} + 9 a c^{2} + 36 b c d + 18 a d^{2} \\
0 & b & 2 a b + 6 c d & 3 a^{2} b + 2 b^{3} + 9 b c^{2} + 18
a c d + 18 b d^{2} \\
0 & c & 2 a c + 4 b d & 3 a^{2} c + 6 b^{2} c + 3 c^{3} + 12
a b d + 18 c d^{2} \\
0 & d & 2 b c + 2 a d & 6 a b c + 3 a^{2} d + 6 b^{2} d + 9
c^{2} d + 6 d^{3}
\end{bmatrix}.\]
Taking the determinant, the index form with respect to our chosen basis is
\[-8b^{4} c^{2} + 12 b^{2} c^{4} + 16 b^{4} d^{2} -36 c^{4} d^{2} -48 b^{2} d^{4} + 72 c^{2}
d^{4}\]
\[
=-4(2b^2 - 3c^2)(b^2 - 3d^2)(c^2 - 2d^2).
\]
The $\mathbb{Z}$-points of $\mathcal{M}_{1,\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}]/\mathbb{Z}}$ are
in bijection with the tuples $(a, b, c, d) \in \mathbb{Z}^4$ such that the determinant is a unit. Since the determinant is divisible
by 2, this never happens. We conclude that $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}]$ is not monogenic over $\mathbb{Z}$.
The non-monogenicity of the order $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3}]$ is in marked contrast to the maximal order of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})$, which is monogenic.
A computation shows that a power integral basis for the maximal order is given by $\{1,\alpha,\alpha^2,\alpha^3\},$ where $\alpha$ is a root of $t^4 - 4t^2 + 1$. One could take $\alpha=\sqrt{\sqrt{3}+2}$. Here the Weil Restriction $\cal R_{\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]/\mathbb{Z}}$
and its universal maps are identified with Spec of
\[\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbb{Z}[a, b, c, d][\alpha] & &\mathbb{Z}[a, b, c, d][t]. \ar[ll, "a + b\alpha + c \alpha^2 + d \alpha^3 \mapsfrom t
", swap]\\
&\mathbb{Z}[a, b, c, d] \ar[ur] \ar[ul]
\end{tikzcd}\]
The element-wise computation
\[1\mapsto 1\]
\[t\mapsto a + b\alpha + c \alpha^2 + d \alpha^3\]
\[t^2\mapsto (a + b\alpha + c \alpha^2 + d \alpha^3)^2\]
\[t^3\mapsto (a + b\alpha + c \alpha^2 + d \alpha^3)^3\]
yields the matrix of coefficients
\[\begin{bmatrix}
1 & a & a^2 - c^2 - 2bd - 4d^2
& A \\
0 & b & 2ab - 2cd
& B \\
0 & c & b^{2} + 2 a c + 4 c^{2} + 8 b d + 15 d^{2}
& C \\
0 & d & 2 b c + 2 a d + 8 c d
& D
\end{bmatrix},\]
where
\begin{align*}
A &= a^{3} - 3 b^{2} c - 3 a c^{2} - 4 c^{3} - 6 a b d - 24 b c d - 12 a d^{2} - 45 c d^{2}, \\
B &= 3 a^{2} b - 3 b c^{2} - 3 b^{2} d - 6 a c d - 12 c^{2} d - 12 b d^{2} - 15 d^{3}, \\
C &= 3 a b^{2} + 3 a^{2} c + 12 b^{2} c + 12 a c^{2} + 15 c^{3} + 24 a b d + 90 b c d + 45 a d^{2} + 168 c d^{2}, \\
D &= b^{3} + 6 a b c + 12 b c^{2} + 3 a^{2} d + 12 b^{2} d + 24 a c d + 45 c^{2} d + 45 b d^{2} + 56 d^{3}.
\end{align*}
The determinant of this matrix yields the index form
\[(b^{2} - 2c^{2} + 6bd + 9d^{2}) (b^{2} -6 c^{2} + 10 b d + 25 d^{2}) (b^{2} + 4 b d +d^{2}).\]
One can compute that the index of $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}]$ inside of $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{\sqrt{3} + 2}]$ is 2. Therefore the index forms are equivalent away from the prime 2.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{ex:2genicOverZ}
Let $K = \mathbb{Q}$, $L = K(\sqrt[3]{5^2\cdot7})$. The ring of integers $\Ints_L = \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt[3]{5^2\cdot 7}, \sqrt[3]{5\cdot 7^2}]$ is not monogenic over $\mathbb{Z}$. Let $\alpha= \sqrt[3]{5^2\cdot 7}$, $\beta = \sqrt[3]{5\cdot 7^2}$. It turns out that $\{1, \alpha, \beta\}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis for $\mathbb{Z}_L$, so the universal map may be identified with
\[\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbb{Z}_L[a, b, c] & &\mathbb{Z}[a, b, c][t]. \ar[ll, "a + b\alpha + c \beta \mapsfrom t", swap]\\
&\mathbb{Z}[a, b, c] \ar[ur] \ar[ul]
\end{tikzcd}\]
Expanding
\[1\mapsto 1\]
\[t\mapsto a + b\alpha + c\beta,\]
\[t^2\mapsto (a + b\alpha + c\beta)^2\]
we find that the matrix of coefficients is
\[\begin{bmatrix}
1 & a & a^2 + 70bc \\
0 & b & 2ab + 7c^2 \\
0 & c & 2ac + 5b^2
\end{bmatrix}.\]
Computing the determinant, we get the index form $5b^3 - 7c^3$. Reducing modulo 7, we see that the index form cannot be equal to $\pm 1$, so the extension is not monogenic.
\end{example}
\subsection{Other examples}
\begin{example}\label{ex:functionfieldintegers}
We investigate the analog of the integers in Example \ref{ex:inseparable}. We keep the same notation. The base ring is $\mathbb{F}_3[\alpha]$ and the extension ring is $\mathbb{F}_3[\alpha][x]/(x^3 - \alpha)=\mathbb{F}_3[\beta]$, where $\beta^3=\alpha$.
\[\begin{tikzcd}
\mathbb{F}_3[a, b, c][\beta] & &\mathbb{F}_3[\alpha][a, b, c][x]. \ar[ll, "a + b\beta + c \beta^2 \mapsfrom x
", swap]\\
&\mathbb{F}_3[\alpha][a, b, c] \ar[ur] \ar[ul]
\end{tikzcd}\]
\[1\mapsto 1\]
\[x\mapsto a + b\beta + c\beta^2\]
\[x^2\mapsto (a + b\beta + c\beta^2)^2\]
is given by
\[
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & a & a^2+2bc\alpha \\
0 & b & c^2\alpha +2 a b \\
0 & c & b^2+2 a c \\
\end{bmatrix}.\]
The determinant is $b^3 - c^3\alpha$, which is not geometrically reduced: it factors as $(b - c\beta)^3$. To find the monogenerators of this extension, we set this expression equal to the units of $\mathbb{F}_3[\alpha]$. Since $(\mathbb{F}_3[\alpha])^*=\pm 1$, the only solutions are $b = \pm1,$ $c=0$. Thus
\[\mathcal{M}_{1,\mathbb{F}_3[\beta] / \mathbb{F}_3[\alpha]} (\mathbb{F}_3[\alpha]) = \{a\pm \beta : a\in\mathbb{F}_3[\alpha]\}.\]
We can see that, much like number rings, monogenicity imposes a stronger restriction here than it does for the extension of fraction fields.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Jet spaces of $\mathbb{A}^2$]\label{ex:jetsofA2}
Consider an $m$-jet of $\mathbb{A}^2 = \mathrm{Spec}\, k[t, u]$ determined as in Example \ref{ex:jets_in_A1} by
\[t = a_0 + a_1 \epsilon + a_2 \epsilon^2 + \cdots a_m \epsilon^m\]
\[u = b_0 + b_1 \epsilon + b_2 \epsilon^2 + \cdots b_m \epsilon^m.\]
Linear changes of coordinates ensure $a_0 = b_0 = 0$ and that our jets satisfy $t^{m +1} = u^{m+1} = 0$ in $k[\epsilon]/\epsilon^{m+1}$. To find the matrix for the induced $k$-linear map from
\[k[t, u]/(t^{m+1}, u^{m+1}) = \bigoplus k \cdot t^e u^f\]
to the jets $k[\epsilon]/\epsilon^{m+1} = \bigoplus k \cdot \epsilon^i$, we need the coefficient of each $\epsilon^p$ in the expression:
\begin{align*}
t^e u^f &= (a_1 \epsilon + a_2 \epsilon^2 + \cdots + a_m \epsilon^m)^e (b_1 \epsilon + b_2 \epsilon^2 + \cdots + b_m \epsilon^m)^f \\
&=\left(\sum_{1 \leq r \leq m} \epsilon^r \cdot \sum_{\substack{i_1 + i_2 + \cdots + i_m = m \\
i_1 + 2i_2 + \cdots m i_m = r}} \dbinom{e}{i_1, \dots, i_m} \prod_{t=0}^m a_t^{i_t}\right) \\
& \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cdot \left(\sum_{1 \leq s \leq m} \epsilon^s \cdot \sum_{\substack{j_1 + j_2 + \cdots + j_m = m \\
j_1 + 2j_2 + \cdots m j_m = s}} \dbinom{f}{j_1, \dots, j_m} \prod_{t=0}^m b_t^{j_t}\right) \\
&=\sum_{1 \leq p \leq m} \epsilon^p \left(
\sum_{\substack{i_1 + i_2 + \cdots + i_m = m \\
j_1 + j_2 + \cdots + j_m = m \\
(i_1 + j_1) + 2(i_2 + j_2) + \cdots + m (i_m + j_m) = p}} \hspace{-.7 cm}\dbinom{e}{i_1, \dots, i_m} \dbinom{f}{j_1, \dots, j_m} \prod_{t=0}^m a_t^{i_t} b_t^{j_t}
\right)
\end{align*}
If $e + f > p$, the coefficient of $\epsilon^p$ in $t^e u^f$ is again zero. If $e + f > m$, all the coefficients are zero. The corresponding $m^2 \times m$ matrix is ``lower triangular'' in this sense.
Take $m=1$ to reduce to A. Cayley's original situation of a $2 \times 2 \times 2$ hypermatrix; compute his second hyperdeterminant $\text{Det}$ to be $a_1^2 b_1^2$. In this case, $\cal R_2$ is the tangent space of $\mathbb{A}^2$, the index forms cut out the locus where both $a_1$ and $b_1$ are zero, and the hyperdeterminant cuts out the locus where \textit{either} $a_1$ or $b_1$ are zero.
Computability is a serious constraint for even simple cases. Taking $\mathbb{A}^3$ and $m=1$ yields a $2 \times 2 \times 2 \times 2$ hypermatrix. The formula for such a hyperdeterminant is degree 24 and has 2,894,276 terms \cite[Remark 5.7]{hyperdeterminant}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Limits and Colimits]
Let $B$ be an $A$-algebra which is complete with respect to $I \subseteq B$. If each $B_m \coloneqq B/I^m$ is finite locally free over $A$ and $X \to \mathrm{Spec}\, A$ is quasiprojective, there are \emph{affine} restriction maps $\mathcal{M}_{X, B_{m+1}/A} \to \mathcal{M}_{X, B_m/A}$. One can define
\[\mathcal{M}_{X, B/A} \coloneqq \lim_m \mathcal{M}_{X, B_m/A},\]
which is a scheme \cite[01YX]{sta}. By \cite[Remark 4.6, Theorem 4.1]{bhatttannakaalgn}, this limit parametrizes closed embeddings $s : \mathrm{Spec}\, B \to X$ over $\mathrm{Spec}\, A$ as in Definition \ref{def:defnofmonogenweilrestn}. The arc space examples $k \adj{t}/k$, $k \adj{x, y}/k$ were mentioned in Example \ref{ex:jetsps}.
We cannot make a similar statement for colimits of algebras. Suppose $\{ B_i \}$ is a diagram of $A$-algebras indexed by $\mathbb{N}$. Then for each $i < j$ there is a natural map $\cal R_{B_i/A} \to \cal R_{B_j/A}$. Notice that if the image of some $\theta \in B_i$ is a monogenerator of $B_j$, then $B_i \to B_j$ is surjective. It follows that $\cal R_{B_i/A} \to \cal R_{B_j/A}$ only takes $\mathcal{M}_{B_i/A}$ into $\mathcal{M}_{B_j/A}$ if $\mathrm{Spec}\, B_j \to \mathrm{Spec}\, B_i$ is a closed immersion over each open set $U \subseteq \mathrm{Spec}\, A$ over which $\mathcal{M}_{B_i/A}$ is non-empty. Assuming $\mathcal{M}_{B_0/A}$ is locally non-empty, the only diagrams $\{ B_i \}$ for which the colimit $\text{colim}_i \mathcal{M}_{B_i/A}$ can even
be formed are those for which each $B_i \to B_j$ is surjective. Since $B_0$ is Noetherian, all such diagrams are eventually constant and uninteresting.
\end{example}
\section{Finite flat algebras with monogenerators}\label{ss:finflat+gen}
We mention a related moduli problem and how it fits into the present schema. We rely on a classical representability result:
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem 5.23]{fgaexplained}}]\label{thm:homrepable}
If $X \to S$ is flat and projective and $Y \to S$ quasiprojective over a locally noetherian base $S$, the functor $\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(X, Y)$ is representable by an $S$-scheme.
\end{theorem}
The scheme $\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(X, Y)$ is a potentially infinite disjoint union of quasiprojective $S$-schemes.
Fix a flat, projective map $C \to S$ and quasiprojective $X \to S$. Assign to any $S$-scheme $T$ the groupoid of finite flat maps $Y \to C \times_S T$ of degree $n$. One can think of this as a $T$-indexed family of finite flat maps $Y_t \to C$. This problem is represented by
\[\cal R_{\frak A_n, C/S} \coloneqq \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak A_n).\]
We study moduli of finite flat maps $Y \to C \times_S T$ \emph{together with} a choice of monogenerator:
\begin{definition}\label{def:relgenvariant}
The moduli problem $\scr F$ on $S$-schemes $\Sch{S}$ has $T$-points given by:
\begin{itemize}
\item A finite, flat family $Y \to C \times_S T$ of degree $n$,
\item A closed embedding $Y \subseteq X \times_S C \times_S T$ over $C \times_S T$.
\end{itemize}
These data form a fibered category via pullback. Define a variant $\scr F'$ parameterizing the data above together with a global basis $\cal Q \simeq \mathcal{O}_T^{\oplus n}$ for the finite, flat algebra $\cal Q$ corresponding to $Y \to C \times_S T$.
\end{definition}
The map $\scr F' \to \scr F$ forgetting the basis is a torsor for the smooth group scheme $\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \text{GL}_n)$. Let $X_C$ denote the pullback $X \times_S C$. The stack $\scr F$ is the Weil Restriction $\cal R_{\text{Hilb}_{X_C/C}^n, C/S}$ of the Hilbert Scheme $\text{Hilb}_{X_C/C}^n$ for $X_C \to C$ along the map $C \to S$. Both are therefore representable by \emph{schemes} using the theorem. One must use caution: $\text{Hilb}_{X_C/C}^n$ is an infinite disjoint union of projective schemes indexed by Hilbert polynomials and not itself projective, but this suffices for representability.
There are universal finite flat maps
\[\begin{tikzcd}
\tilde Z \ar[d] & &\tilde Y \ar[d] \\
C \times_S \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak B_n) & &C \times_S \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak A_n),
\end{tikzcd}\]
with and without a global basis $\cal Q \simeq \mathcal{O}_T^{\oplus n}$. The sheaf $\scr F$ may also be obtained by the Weil Restriction along $C \times_S \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak A_n) \to \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak A_n)$ of the monogenicity space $\mathcal{M}_{X, \tilde Y/C \times_S \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak A_n)}$. The same construction of $\scr F'$ can be obtained with $\frak B_n$ in place of $\frak A_n$.
We argue $\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak A_n)$ is also representable by an algebraic stack. Olsson's result \cite[Theorem 1.1]{olssonhomstack} does not apply here because $\frak A_n$ is not separated. This means the diagonal $\Delta_{\frak A_n}$ is not proper, and this diagonal is a pseudotorsor for automorphisms of the universal finite flat algebra. The automorphism sheaf $\mathrm{Aut}(\cal Q)$ of some finite flat algebras is not proper: take the 2-adic integers $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$, $\cal Q = \mathbb{Z}_{2}[x]/x^2$, and the map $\cal Q \to \cal Q$ sending $x \mapsto 2x$. This is an automorphism over the generic point $\mathbb{Q}_2 = \mathbb{Z}_{2}[\frac{1}{2}]$ and the zero map over the special point $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} = \mathbb{Z}_{2}/2 \mathbb{Z}_2$.
The scheme $\frak B_n$ on the other hand is a closed subscheme of an affine space, hence separated. The Weil Restriction $\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak B_n)$ is a scheme by the above theorem and the map
\[\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak B_n) \to \underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak A_n)\]
is again a torsor for the smooth group scheme $\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \text{GL}_n)$. Therefore $\underline{\text{Hom}}_S(C, \frak A_n)$ is algebraic.
The diagonal $\Delta_{\frak A_n}$ even fails to be quasifinite because some finite flat algebras have infinitely many automorphisms:
\begin{example}[Infinite automorphisms]
The dual numbers $k[\epsilon]/\epsilon^n$ have an action of $\mathbb{G}_m$ by $\epsilon \mapsto u\cdot \epsilon$ for a unit $u \in \mathbb{G}_m(k)$.
For another example, let $k$ be an infinite field of characteristic three and consider $\cal Q = k[x, y]/(x^3, y^3-1)$. Because $(y + x)^3 = y^3$, there are automorphisms $y \mapsto y + u x$ for any $u \in k$.
\end{example}
The reader may define \emph{stable algebras} $\cal Q$ as those with unramified automorphism group \cite[0DSN]{sta}. There is a universal open, Deligne-Mumford substack $\tilde{\frak A}_n \subseteq \frak A_n$ of stable algebras \cite[0DSL]{sta}. This locus consists of points where the action $\text{GL}_n \:\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}\: \frak B_n$ has unramified stabilizers \cite[\S 2]{poonenmodspoffiniteflat}.
\printbibliography
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
\IEEEPARstart{I}{n} the current robotics research landscape, a lot of effort is still dedicated to overcoming the challenges posed by unstructured environments. Areas, such as medicine, health care, agriculture, Industry\ 4.0, and exploration endeavors in space as well as underwater are awaiting to profit from the robotics technologies currently in development. Furthermore, in terms of unstructured environments or situations, one of the main challenges is to develop robotics technologies that enable a safe and reliable interaction with the human. At the same time, the functionality and intelligence provided by the robot system must justify the investment, meaning its autonomous behavior, oftentimes in environments made for humans, must contribute real value. A hallmark of robust and efficient robot behavior is that task execution does not need to be interrupted in the presence of emergent events. A technology that is capable of addressing these challenges is proximity perception. It has been developed over the years, with first, impactful applications being shown in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which were sparked by seminal developments in robot control. Proximity perception is complementary to the main robotics perceptive modalities of vision and touch. Its use is often motivated by closing the perception gap left by occlusions and blind spots as well as by dealing with pose uncertainty of the robot with respect to objects and its environment. Therefore, one of the big challenges in this domain is to find sensor designs that can coexist with the main existing modalities of vision and touch.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./Figures/Intro_AT-I.png}
\caption{A robot skin with proximity sensing capability can be deployed in scenarios with intense human-robot interaction and collaboration. The skin helps closing the gap between vision-based perception and tactile/force perception.}
\label{fig:OcclusionHRI}
\end{figure}
In human-centered robotics, the typical applications of proximity perception can be broadly divided into two categories: the first one is pertaining a sensitive skin covering the links of a robot manipulator for safety and interaction functionality, which we call \emph{\gls{ATI}}. The second one is where a robot gripper or hand is equipped with sensors to support grasping and exploration tasks, which we call \emph{\gls{ATII}}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:OcclusionHRI}, a typical scenario of human-robot interaction and collaboration is illustrated (\gls{ATI}). As the human approaches the robot, the view of the camera monitoring the robot and its workspace will become increasingly occluded. A tactile skin covering the robot is not adequate to handle this perception gap in general. This is because detecting the human or the environment only when contact is established, implies operating the robot at very low velocities, thus undermining the purpose of installing such a system in the first place. To address scenarios like these, a sensitive skin with proximity perception capabilities has been proposed by several authors. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Intro_Preshaping}, a typical scenario for grasping supported by proximity perception shown (\gls{ATII}). Since the robotic hand can detect an object's surface before touch is established, a \emph{pre-touch} closed-loop control can be implemented to adjust the hand posture during this phase. This is called \emph{reactive preshaping} and can also have a diversity of use-cases. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Intro_Preshaping}, the three typical phases of this procedure are shown. Proximity perception also has the potential to play an important role in robotic solutions that are compliant with norms and standards, such as ISO/TS 15066 for the operation of collaborative robots.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figures/Intro_AT-II.jpg}
\caption{Reactive preshaping to an object based on proximity perception has three characteristic phases: (1) object detection by vision and approaching of the hand to the object, (2) detection of the object by the hand's proximity sensors, start of closed-loop control and occlusion of the object in the camera view, and (3) finalized preshaping control, where the fingers and palm of the hand are aligned with the object.}
\label{fig:Intro_Preshaping}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we want to provide an up-to-date perspective on the field of proximity perception in human-centered robotics as well as an introduction to the principles and technologies developed. Proximity perception in areas such as autonomous vehicles or \gls{UAVs} usually aim at autonomous driving or flying and thus address larger distances and speeds and avoidance of contact and interaction with objects and humans. Recent surveys that include discussions on proximity perception in these domains are~\cite{zhou2020mmw} (millimeter wave Radar), \cite{wang2019multi} (sensor fusion), both for autonomous driving, and~\cite{perez2019review} for indoor localization of \gls{UAVs}. In human-centered robotics, proximity perception is related to short distances between humans and robots and aiming for improving human-robot interaction as well as safety. Nonetheless, many ideas presented in this paper can be valid in the automotive domain and for \gls{UAVs} as well, especially those about the sensing principles and their applicability. We hope to give the readers a starting point to understand the principles and applications of proximity perception that have been developed in human-centered robotics. Furthermore, we want to provide a perspective on what, in our opinion, are the important trends that will shape the developments within the next years.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We provide an introduction to the concept of proximity perception and an overview of the possible use-cases. We provide a categorization according to the application types and the complexity of the implemented behavior (Sec.~\ref{sec:ProximitySensor}). We use this categorization throughout the paper to organize the different works found in the literature.
\item We give an introduction to the working principles of the most important proximity sensor designs (capacitive, optical, radar, etc.) and give a review of the related work in the context of robotics (Sec.~\ref{sec:PhysicalWorkingPrinciples}).
\item We cover what use-cases for proximity perception have been studied in robotics research and industrial robotics. Here, we give a detailed account of the two most important basic applications, \gls{ATI} and \gls{ATII} (Sec.~\ref{sec:Applications}, see also Figs.~\ref{fig:OcclusionHRI},~\ref{fig:Intro_Preshaping}, and~\ref{fig:ApplicationsAndBehaviors}). We start by giving a historical account and cover the basic forms of behavior possible to the more advanced, cognitive approaches.
\item We provide a systematic comparison of the technologies from the field summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ComparisonYear}
\item Finally, we project the current developments into the future and finish the paper with concluding remarks (Sec.~\ref{sec:FuturePerspectives} and \ref{sec:SummaryAndConclusions}).
\end{itemize}
\section{Proximity Sensor: Characterization, Applications and Safety Considerations}
\label{sec:ProximitySensor}
\subsection{Characterization}
Providing a concise characterization of proximity sensors is challenging. One thing common to all proximity sensors is that they detect objects without physical contact. However, this alone does not distinguish them from cameras, which is problematic, as both modalities are considered to be complementary. To address this, we propose a series of attributes that generally characterize proximity sensor designs. At the same time, not all of the attributes need to be present at once in a particular case. Thus, proximity sensors provide non-contact detection of objects \emph{and} more often than not
\begin{itemize}
\item use active measurement principles, i.\,e. they probe the nearby environment to detect an object's presence,
item provide limited sensing range and even small detection ranges can be considered to be useful,
\item are \emph{skinlike}, i.\,e. they can be deployed on surfaces such as robot arm segments as well as fingers where they can form a network of sensing elements,
\item are suitable for being highly integrated into the sensory-motor functionality of the robot, enabling reflex-like behaviors due to low latency measurements,
\item are used to handle occlusions in vision systems, i.\,e.\ are complementary to vision,
\item are used to supervise approaching objects which are bound to enter in contact with the robot, i.\,e.\ are complementary to tactile sensing.
\end{itemize}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:SensingRange}, we propose a definition for the sensing range of a proximity sensor. Any detection distance below $\SI{50}{\centi\meter}$ can be considered to be within the proximity range. This limit is not strict, but in \gls{HRI} and \gls{HRC}, this is an approximate distance at which visual occlusions begin to become problematic. As discussed later in Sec.~\ref{subsec:SafetyConsiderations}, this is a similar range in which monitoring of separation distance is relevant for compliance with safety standards. At larger distances, i.\,e.\ mid-range and long-range perception, other technologies (LIDAR, long-range stereo vision, etc.) can provide better performance in workspace surveillance or for providing \gls{HRI} functionality. This is especially true here because the requirements on reactivity can be relaxed at larger distances. Furthermore, it is interesting to consider the contributions by anthropologist Edward T.\ Hall, who describes the \emph{intimate space} of humans as part of his studies on \emph{proxemics}~\cite{hall1992hidden}. The intimate space starts at a distance of typically $\SI{45}{\centi\meter}$, which is also close to the range proposed above. Therefore, proximity sensing is easy to understand from the perspective of humans, as they can intuitively relate this perception to the ``intimate space" of the robot by analogy.
Finally, a distinction can also be made for a range below $\SI{10}{\centi\meter}$ that we call \emph{pre-touch}-range. This is the type of sensing that precedes contact interactions, for instance during grasping. Here it is especially important to have uninterrupted sensing until contact. Some sensor designs might not feature a long detection range, but the sensing capabilities provided are still useful for closed-loop control of finger and hand posture, which is executed until touch is established. A more in-depth discussion of the available proximity sensing technologies is provided in Sec.~\ref{sec:PhysicalWorkingPrinciples}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:LargeScaleModularSkin}, an example of a modern humanoid robot covered in a multi-modal skin is shown, displaying many of the characteristics discussed in this section.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\footnotesize
\fontsize{8}{10}\selectfont
\def240pt{.4\textwidth}
\input{Figures/Generated/Characterization_SensingRange_svg-tex.pdf_tex}
\caption{Definition of the proximity sensing range.}
\label{fig:SensingRange}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Application and Behavior Types}
\label{subsec:ApplicationsAndBehaviorTypes}
To talk about proximity sensors in human-centered robotics as a whole, it is useful to consider first a categorization of the possible applications and desired behaviors. In the introduction, we already mentioned that a broad classification of applications into two categories is possible: the ones relating to safety and \gls{HRI}/\gls{HRC} and the ones relating to preshaping and grasping (Figs.~\ref{fig:OcclusionHRI} and~\ref{fig:Intro_Preshaping}). Beyond this, automated behaviors based on proximity sensors can be organized according to their conceptual complexity and how instantaneous their effect is on the movement of the robot. One example for a low-complexity behavior is a \emph{safety stop}, i.\,e.\ enabling the brakes of the robot based on a sensor signal surpassing a threshold value. This behavior is closely tied to the update-rate of the sensors and the low-level robot controller. In that sense, it can be called \emph{reactive} or \emph{reflex-like}. Modern collaborative robots, e.\,g.\ the Franka Emika Panda~\cite{FrankaEmika} or the KUKA LBR iiwa~\cite{KUKAiiwa} have control loop cycles of $t_{cl}=1~ms$. Thus, the closer the response time of the proximity sensor is to $t_r<t_{cl}$, the better. An example of high-complexity behavior is object exploration. It involves managing an object model as well as a planner to complete this model with purposeful exploration steps, resulting in a robot behavior that is executed in several phases and over a longer time compared to the basic control loop cycle times. This behavior is also characterized by being executed at different layers, reaching, as mentioned, up to the planning and cognitive components in the robot's architecture. Fig.~\ref{fig:ApplicationsAndBehaviors} illustrates the categorizing of applications and behaviors we propose as well as providing some examples (not an exhaustive list). As a result, we have a broad classification of applications into two types, \gls{ATI} (left) and \gls{ATII} (right), and behaviors into two types, \gls{BTI} (bottom) and \gls{BTII} (top). In general, \gls{BTI} will appear as subsystems of \gls{BTII}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\footnotesize
\includegraphics[width=0.97\linewidth]{Figures/ApplicationsAndBehaviorsV5.pdf}
\caption{Categorization of some use-cases for proximity sensors in robotics according to the possible application types (\gls{ATI} and \gls{ATII}) and behavior types (\gls{BTI} and \gls{BTII})}.
\label{fig:ApplicationsAndBehaviors}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{10}\selectfont
\def240pt{0.48\textwidth}
\input{Figures/Generated/Humanoid_Cheng+Modules_svg-tex.pdf_tex}
\caption{Left: Researchers at the Technical University of Munich, Chair for Cognitive Systems, have developed a multi-modal, modular skin, which they have deployed on their robot H-1. Right: A single cell of the multi-modal sensor. (Copyright left picture. A. Eckert / TU M\"unchen. Right picture \copyright 2019 IEEE) \cite{cheng2019comprehensive}. Both reprinted with kind permission of the authors.)}
\label{fig:LargeScaleModularSkin}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Safety Considerations and Norm Compliance}
\label{subsec:SafetyConsiderations}
From the safety perspective, a proximity sensor deployed on a collaborative robot in an industrial environment has to fulfill the requirements of the ISO/TS 15066 complying with the ISO 10218 for robots and robotic devices, as well as the performance level defined in the safety of machinery ISO 13849. Proximity sensing hardware is very well suited to operate a collaborative robot in the \emph{speed and separation monitoring mode} as defined in the ISO/TS 15066 to monitor the protective separation distance $S_p$ between a human and a robot's surface. According to the standard, the following equation has to be fulfilled during the operation mode:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:separationDistance}
\small
\begin{aligned}
S_{p}(t=t_0) = v_{h} (T_{r}+T_{s}) + v_{r} T_{r} + S_{s} + C_{i} + Z_{d} +Z_{r},\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $v_h$ is the human speed (if not monitored, $v_h=
\SI{1.6}{\meter\per\second}$)
$T_r$ is the reaction time of the robot, $T_s$ is the robot stopping time, $v_r$ is the robot speed, $S_s$ is the robot stopping distance, $C_i$ is the intrusion distance, $Z_d$ is the position uncertainty of the human and $Z_r$ is the position uncertainty of the robot.
To provide an illustrative example for a state of the art collaborative robot, we look at the UR10e series. It has a control loop cycle of $\SI{500}{\hertz}$ and the safety parameters can be configured $v_r =\SI{5}{\meter\per\second}$ (max end-effector speed)
$T_r = \SI{4}{\milli\second}$ (two control loop cycles), $T_s = \SI{100}{\milli\second} $, $S_s = \SI{50}{\milli\meter}$, $Z_r = \SI{0.05}{\milli\meter}$. This configuration results in separation distance of $S_p=\SI{0.236}{\meter}$ excluding the uncertainty of the position of the human and the intrusion distance, as this depends on the sensor parameters monitoring the area.
\section{Measurement Principles for Proximity Sensing}
\label{sec:PhysicalWorkingPrinciples}
In this section, we will give an introduction to the main physical principles available to implement proximity sensing. The idea is to be able to ease the process of reviewing articles by starting with an explanation of the basics. This will also help us in the systematization in Table~\ref{tab:ComparisonYear}. There, we use the abbreviations introduced in this section. Here, we will already do a review of some representative works in the field focusing on how the proximity sensing technology is implemented. This section is closely linked to Sec.~\ref{sec:Applications}, where the details of the implemented applications are discussed. We try to cross-reference the most relevant relationships. However, favoring readability, cross-referencing is not exhaustive.
\input{Content/03.01-CapacitiveSensing.tex}
\input{Content/03.02-OpticalSensing.tex}
\input{Content/03.03-Radar.tex}
\input{Content/03.04-OtherSensingPrinciples.tex}
\input{Content/03.05-Multi-Modal}
\subsection{Capacitive Sensing}
\label{sec:CapacitiveSensing}
In this section, we provide a short introduction to capacitive sensing, its measurement techniques as well as the work done dedicated to capacitive proximity sensing in robotics. The capacitive measurement principle has been widely adopted in various other fields and has well-established applications in research and industry, \cite{baxter_capacitive_1997} gives an overview on basic principles and applications. A recent survey paper reviewing capacitive sensing for \gls{HCI} is due to Grosse-Poppendahl et al.~\cite{grosse2017finding}. In this section, we will concentrate on the technologies related to robotics.
The capacitive proximity sensing principle uses electrically conductive elements (electrodes) to generate and measure electric fields. Objects interfere with this electric field when they approach the electrodes and the observed changes are utilized to estimate their distance as well as properties of the object, such as its material. Therefore, capacitive sensing is called \emph{electric field sensing} in some literature. Essentially, the capacitance between the sensor and an object depends on the geometry of an object, its relative pose to the electrode(s), its coupling to electrical ground, and its material. The nonlinear relation between the relative pose and the material of the object to the measured signal presents a significant challenge for developing signal processing for and applications based on capacitive sensing. However, its ubiquitous use for \gls{HCI} is explained by the fact that humans can be detected reliably.
Commonly, alternating electric potentials are used to generate the electrical field and displacement currents that are proportional to the capacitances are measured. Another popular approach is measuring the oscillation frequency in an oscillator-circuit based on the capacitance of interest. Typically, the alternating frequency is rather low, i.\,e. not much larger than $\SI{1}{\mega\hertz}$, and thus the corresponding wavelength is long compared to the size of the electrodes such that wave-propagation effects can be neglected and the quasi-static assumption can be used.
Mainly two different modes of operations are distinguished for capacitive sensors: The first mode, called \emph{\gls{CSE}}, uses the influence of an object on the capacitance between sensor electrodes and distant ground (see Fig.~\ref{fig:CapacitiveSensing}, left). This mode is also called \emph{self-capacitive mode} or \emph{shunt mode} in literature. The second mode, called \emph{\gls{CM}}, sometimes also \emph{differential mode}, uses the influence of an object on the capacitances between electrodes of the sensor (see Fig.~\ref{fig:CapacitiveSensing}, right).
Both modes are widely used. An advantage of the single-ended mode is a typically higher capacitance and thus a higher signal to noise ratio. The mutual capacitance mode has the advantage of providing more independent measurements, as all the combinations between electrodes can be measured. Therefore, \gls{ECT} (e.\,g.~\cite{MuehlbacherKarrer2016a}) that allows obtaining images of material distributions usually utilize the latter, sometimes in combination with the single-ended mode.
Fig.~\ref{fig:CapacitiveSensing} (left) shows the self-capacitance mode and illustrates the electrical field between a transmitter electrode and an object. Some electrical field lines end in the ground representing unwanted coupling to the environment, also called parasitic effects. A second layer can be used as an active guard, which has the same electrical potential as the transmitter. This is a popular method to reduce parasitic effects and to actively shape the measurement lobe of the electrode.
In this mode, approaching objects in general increase the measured capacitance. Conductive objects with strong coupling to ground show a strong sensing effect. Having reasonable conductivity and body parts that offer large areas, humans behave like such objects and are thus well recognized, achieving a high coupling capacitance in the range of $\SI{100}{\pico\farad}$. Small conductive objects and non-conductive objects show lower sensing effects and are more difficult to detect. In case that the sensors are intended to detect humans, the low sensitivity with respect to small objects can be an advantage as this implies that contamination of the electrode surface e.\,g. with water due to condensation or accumulation of dirt will have little impact on the sensor performance.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\footnotesize
\def240pt{.48\textwidth}
\input{Figures/Generated/CapacitiveSensing_v2_svg-tex.pdf_tex}
\caption{\Acrfull{CSE} (left): The electrode is driven with an electrical potential and generating an electrical field between the measurement electrode and the object. \Acrfull{CM} (right): the right electrode transmitter (Tx) is driven, generating an electrical field, which ends at receiver (Rx). A conductive object within the measurement range can block/shield the field lines (green) between the electrodes.}
\label{fig:CapacitiveSensing}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:CapacitiveSensing} (right) shows the mutual capacitance mode and illustrates the electrical field between a transmitter electrode, an object, and a receiver electrode. Conductive objects with high coupling to ground (such as humans) can partially shield the field and thus -- in contrast to the single-ended mode -- reduce the capacitance between the electrodes. If coupling to ground is low, then the opposite effect can occur and the coupling increases due to polarization within the object. This is in particular common for non-conductive objects as well as for higher frequencies of the excitation frequencies. In mutual capacitance mode, shaping of the field can be achieved using passive ground electrodes.
Using the electrostatic representation, the relation between charges $Q$ on the electrodes and the potentials $\Phi$ on the electrodes can be described as
\begin{equation}
\scriptstyle
\begin{pmatrix}
Q_1\\
\vdots
\\
Q_n
\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
C_{1,1} &\cdots & -C_{N,1}\\
\vdots&\ddots & \vdots \\
-C_{1,N} & \cdots & C_{N,N}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\Phi_1\\
\vdots
\\
\Phi_n
\end{pmatrix}=\displaystyle{\bm{C}}\begin{pmatrix}
\Phi_1\\
\vdots
\\
\Phi_n
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $C_{i,j}$ represents the capacitance between electrode $i$ and electrode $j$ and the diagonal elements represent the capacitances between the electrode $i$, ground (reference potential) and all other electrodes. The self-capacitance mode typically determines the diagonal elements, whereas the mutual capacitance mode determines off-diagonal elements. To perform the inversion and obtain the capacitances, linearly independent excitation patterns are needed to determine the full matrix $\bm{C}$.
\subsubsection{Early Capacitive Technologies in Robotics}
One of the first applications of proximity (and tactile) sensor for robots goes back to 1988 presented by Yamada at el.~\cite{Yamada1988}. Two links of a manipulator are equipped with mutual-capacitance sensors (\gls{CM}) and the capability of detecting conductive and insulating approaching obstacles is demonstrated. It is established that conductive objects are detected more reliably than non-conductive objects. In the 1990s, with the same motivation of avoiding obstacles, other groups worked on capacitive sensing, for instance focusing on the electrode design, like Vranish et al.\ in \cite{vranish_capaciflector_1991}. This technology was evaluated for use in collision avoidance by Wegerif et al.~\cite{wegerif1993whole}, but was dropped in favor of \gls{IR} sensing (see also Secs.~\ref{subsubsec:RLIEarly} and~\ref{subsubsec:EarlyJacobian}). However, authors like Novak and Feddema favored capacitive sensing for these kinds of approaches, developing large sensor arrays to cover greater areas on robot arms \cite{Novak1992} \cite{Feddema1994} (see also Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:EarlyJacobian}).
\subsubsection{Capacitive Sensing for \gls{ATI}}
Since the first developments, many groups in the robotics community have worked on capacitive based proximity sensing. On the one hand, capacitive sensing has been further investigated to cover robot links (\gls{ATI}, see Sec.~\ref{subsec:CollisionAvoidance}). In \cite{Schlegl2013b} and \cite{MuehlbacherKarrer2016a}, the authors propose a mutual-capacitance sensor (\gls{CM}) having several electrodes for detecting obstacles on robot links. In~\cite{Schlegl2013b}, the ability to detect non-conductive materials due to the mutual-capacitance sensing principle is highlighted. Collision avoidance on a mobile robot based on capacitive proximity sensing for a variety of materials was shown in~\cite{MuehlbacherKarrer2015}. Covering robot links with modular single-ended capacitive proximity (\gls{CSE}) skins for collision avoidance and \gls{HRI} is proposed in~\cite{Stiehl2006,Escaida2016a,ding2019with,tsuji2020proximity}. These works show the potential for these technologies, especially for \gls{HRI}. However, for example in~\cite{Escaida2016a}, it is discussed that \gls{CSE} is not suitable enough to detect insulating materials for the intended application of collision avoidance. As a solution, in~\cite{ding2019with,tsuji2020proximity}, a combination with \gls{OTOF} sensing (see Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:ToF}) is proposed to compensate for the shortcomings of \gls{CSE} sensors. Capacitive proximity sensing has also been adopted by some robotics companies to implement safety-features, especially in \gls{HRI}. Examples are BOSCH APAS \cite{bosch_apas_nodate,Frangen2010}, FOGALE Robotics~\cite{FOGALErobotics,mcolo2019obstacle} as well as MRK-Systeme~\cite{hoffmann2016environment}
(see Sec.~\ref{subsec:IndustrialTechnologies}).
\subsubsection{Capacitive Sensing in \gls{ATII}}
While the first developments in capacitive proximity sensing in robotics were focused on \gls{ATI}, more recently, \gls{ATII} have started to gain interest. Smith et al.\ showed the use of multi-transmitter and receiver in robotic grippers \cite{smith2007,Wistort2008,Mayton2010}. The placement of transmitter and receiver electrodes allows covering diverse sensing ranges for the different aspects of reactive preshaping, i.\,e.\ short, mid, and long-range sensing for adjusting the poses of the fingers and the palm. Furthermore, they show it is possible to detect the grounding state of an object as it changes due to a human holding on to it. G\"oger et al.\ show the integration of a tactile proximity sensor into fingertips~\cite{Goeger2013}. In~\cite{Escaida2014b,Escaida2015b}, Escaida~Navarro et al.~show the integration of the sensor presented in~\cite{Goeger2010a} into a two-jaw gripper for reactive preshaping and telemanipulation with force-feedback. In~\cite{Escaida2014b,Escaida2015b}, the limitations of self-capacitance sensing with regards to material properties are on display. This is addressed to some extent in~\cite{Escaida2016b} with mutual-capacitance sensing and flexible spatial resolution. In~\cite{MuehlbacherKarrer2015b}, sensors are integrated into the fingers of a humanoid robot, which help in finding an object's fill state. These works have shown the feasibility of integrating capacitive sensors into the fingertips of robot hands. However, the reduced size of the electrodes remains a challenge. A smaller size is desirable for integration and spatial resolution but is attained at the cost of reduced electrode surface area, which limits the possible sensing range/sensitivity. A further interesting use-case for capacitive sensing is introduced by Erickson et al.\ in~\cite{erickson2018tracking,erickson2019multidimensional}. Using off-the-shelf electronics (MPR121 and the Teensy-board respectively), they implement a capacitive end-effector for the PR2 that is capable of detecting human limbs for dressing and washing tasks in health-care scenarios. The mechanical robustness of capacitive sensors also makes them suitable for harsh industrial environments, like investigated in \cite{Faller2019} for a grasper of an autonomous forestry crane.
\subsubsection{Further Aspects of Capacitive Proximity Sensing Technologies in Robotics}
As the capacitive measurement principle is suitable for implementing both tactile and proximity sensors, there have been efforts to realize both modalities in a single sensor design, e.\,g.\ \cite{Lee2009,Goeger2010a,Goeger2013,han2016highly,Alagi2016a}. This is a special case of multi-modal sensors (see Sec.~\ref{subsec:Multi-ModalSensors}). Other works have made use of the material dependency and investigated material recognition using multi-exciter frequencies \cite{kirchner2008capacitive}, \cite{ding2018capacitive}, and \cite{alagi2018material}. Moreover, tomographic measurements using capacitive sensors were also studied including side effects and material dependencies \cite{MuehlbacherKarrer2015, MuehlbacherKarrer2015f} and the potential for flexible spatial resolution was explored \cite{Alagi2016a,Escaida2016b,alagi2020}. The possible applications are further discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Applications}.
In contrast to optical proximity sensors (see Sec.~\ref{subsec:OpticalSensing}), it is not as common for researchers to use off-the-shelf solutions for implementing capacitive proximity sensors. More often than not, capacitive sensor circuits have been developed by the robotics researchers themselves. Another difference to optical sensing is the attainable sensing rate. The typical rates reported fall in the range of 20-$\SI{125}{\hertz}$ (with some exceptions up to several kilohertz) for capacitive sensing, whereas recent optical sensing approaches report update rates $>\SI{1}{\kilo\hertz}$ (see Sec.~\ref{subsec:OpticalSensing}). The difference can be explained by the fact that the effect an object has on an electric field is often quite weak, leading to low signal to noise ratios and the comparatively low-frequency carrier frequencies for the measurement circuitry. Stronger excitation signals might compensate for the low sensitivity but this is limited due to increasing costs and higher power consumption. Also, often a single sensing front-end is addressing several sensing elements in a time-multiplexed manner, further decreasing the update rate.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[\label{fig:ElectricFishAnimal}]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Figures/ElectricFishAnimal.png}
}
\subfigure[\label{fig:ElectricFishField}]{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/ElectricFishField.png}}
\caption{\subref{fig:ElectricFishAnimal} The \emph{freshwater elephantfish} native to Africa feature an electric organ and electroreceptors, creating a mutual impedance system, for sensing their surroundings, and for communication. This makes them attractive subjects for studying bio-inspired proximity sensing approaches.~\subref{fig:ElectricFishField} An illustration of the electric field generated by the freshwater elephantfish \cite{boyer2018electric}.(Sensing type: similar to \gls{CM}), images courtesy of Fr\'ed\'eric Boyer and Vincent Lebastard \copyright 2013 IEEE)}
\label{fig:ElectricFish}
\end{figure}
A somewhat unique domain in robotics, where capacitive-like sensing plays an important role, is in bio-inspired underwater robots. Here, mimicry of weakly electric fish, that is, fishes that use this sensing modality for navigation, preying, and communication, is studied (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ElectricFish}). The electric fish live in low-visibility and cluttered environments where the \emph{electrosense} becomes a crucial tool. They use an electric organ to generate voltage pulses or oscillations and have voltage receptors on their skin to detect disturbances of the field, i.\,e.\ they implement a mutual impedance system in water similar to a capacitive system (\gls{CM}) in air. Examples are the research by Boyer and Lebastard et al.~\cite{boyer2013underwater} as well as MacIver et al.~\cite{bai2015finding}. Both groups have published an important number of articles on this research topic.
\subsubsection{Spatial Resolution and Sensing Range for Capacitive Sensors}
Regarding spatial resolution, capacitive sensing is highly adaptable. Reducing the electrode size is not necessarily a problem in terms of fabrication, but sensitivity becomes more challenging as the size decreases. While using cells of size $1\!\times\!\SI{1}{\square\milli\meter}$ for tactile sensing is no problem~\cite{Lee2009}, an area of $\approx 15\!\times\!\SI{25}{\square\milli\meter}$ is needed for detecting conductive objects at a distance of about $\SI{40}{\milli\meter}$ for a sensor mounted on a finger (\gls{ATII}) in \cite{Goeger2013}. However, sensing range is also determined by the distance of the electrodes in mutual-capacitive mode~\cite{Mayton2010} (\gls{ATII}) as well as the circuit design. In~\cite{mcolo2019obstacle}, a detection distance of about $\SI{30}{\centi\meter}$ for electrodes of size between $50\!\times\!\SI{50}{\square\milli\meter}$ and $100\!\times\!\SI{100}{\square\milli\meter}$ is reported for \gls{HRI} (\gls{ATI}). Finally, as the sensing range increases, self-influence becomes an issue that needs to be addressed~\cite{Yamada1988,poeppel2020robust}.
\subsection{Optical Sensing}
\label{subsec:OpticalSensing}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{10}\selectfont
\def240pt{0.75\textwidth}
\input{Figures/Generated/OpticalSensing_svg-tex.pdf_tex}
\caption{Illustration of the most common optical sensing working principles: (a) \acrfull{ORLI}, (b) \acrfull{OTOF}, (c) \acrfull{OTRI}, and (d) \acrfull{OBB}.}
\label{fig:optical_proximity_sensor_type}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we describe the principles, research background, and the latest research in optical sensing technology. Optical sensing is one of the most popular and traditional forms of proximity sensing in robotics. The main principles, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:optical_proximity_sensor_type}, are:
\begin{itemize}
\item \Gls{ORLI},
\item \Acrfull{OTOF},
\item \Gls{OTRI} and
\item \Gls{OBB}.
\end{itemize}
In the cases of \gls{ORLI}, \gls{OTOF}, and \gls{OTRI}, a light emitter and a receiver are placed next to each other on the same surface. Then, the proximity of an object is measured based on the reflected light intensity, return time of reflected light, or light incident position (or angle) respectively. Especially for \gls{ORLI}, a paired set of an \gls{IR} LED and a photodiode can be called \emph{photoreflector}. Furthermore, \gls{ORLI} often uses modulated light to suppress extraneous light influences. In the case of \gls{OBB}, a light emitter and a detector are arranged on distinct surfaces to detect the interruption of the ray due to an obstacle.
With \gls{ORLI}, the proximity value depends on the reflectance of the object, which affects the measured light intensity. With \gls{OTOF} and \gls{OTRI}, the actual distance without direct dependency on the reflectance is measured. However, most instances of \gls{OTOF} and \gls{OTRI} have difficulties with specular reflections as they can occur for instance on metallic surfaces. When reflectance properties of surfaces are problematic, \gls{OBB} is an interesting alternative, as it can detect objects, even with very shiny surfaces. In robotics, the \gls{ORLI}-type has been widely used, as the sensor structure and processing are simple, easily complying with the requirements on integration. Therefore, it has been a popular choice for equipping manipulators (\gls{ATI}) and grippers (\gls{ATII}) with proximity sensors.
\subsubsection{Reflected Light Intensity-Type Sensors (\gls{ORLI}) at an Early Stage}
\label{subsubsec:RLIEarly}
In 1973, Lewis et al.~\cite{Lewis1973PlanningCF} at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) proposed a gripper with the \gls{ORLI}-type in a JPL program (see also~\cite{johnson_optical_1973}). The main goal of the program was
\begin{quote}
``[...] to demonstrate the integration of sensory and motor functions in the autonomous performance of manipulation and locomotion tasks in response to global commands issued by an operator.''~\cite{Lewis1973PlanningCF}
\end{quote}
\gls{ORLI}-type sensors are suitable for both application types described in Sec.~\ref{subsec:ApplicationsAndBehaviorTypes}, because of their small sizes and fast response times. However, in the 1970s, the sizes of LEDs, detectors, lenses, and amplifier circuits still were too large. Also, CPU performance was not sufficiently high. For this reason, it was technically difficult to mount an array of multiple optical sensors on manipulator links or grippers.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, advancement in this technology already allowed Cheung and Lumelsky to show designs for an \gls{ORLI}-type proximity skin for collision avoidance tasks~\cite{Cheung1992} based on an Opto Diode Corp.\ OD8810 infra-red emitter and an Osram SFH205 photodiode as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SkinCheungAndLumelsky} (see also Sec.~\ref{subsec:CollisionAvoidance}). This technology was adapted by Wegerif et al.\ in \cite{wegerif1992sensor} for their own work on collision avoidance. In both cases, these solutions required the design of an analog front-end to drive the sensors and custom made electronics for the skin as a whole. Modulation of light is used to handle potential cross-talk between different sections of the skin. Similar technology is featured in the work of Petryk and Buehler~\cite{Petryk1996,Petryk1997}, who equipped a two-jaw gripper with distributed sensing.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/skin3.jpg}
\caption{Using flexible circuit boards, Lumelsky and Cheung show the realization of a proximity skin covering whole manipulator arm as discussed for instance in~\cite{Cheung1992}.Sensor type: \gls{ORLI} (Photo courtesy of www.edcheung.com)}
\label{fig:SkinCheungAndLumelsky}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Reflected Light Intensity-Type Sensors (\gls{ORLI}) Using Photoreflectors and Custom Electronics}
In the 2000s, many companies released surface-mounted photoreflectors and small microcontroller/amplifier circuits. As a result, researchers were able to develop an array of multiple sensors suitable for ATs I and II more easily. An interesting example is due to Tar et al.~\cite{Tar2009}, who show the realization of an $8\!\times\!8$ matrix of sensors capable of imaging approaching objects using the TCRT1000 photoreflector. Hsiao et al.~\cite{Hsiao2009} developed an \gls{ORLI}-type sensor for the finger of a Barrett Hand as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Hsiao2009_final}. The sensor was constructed using four photoreflectors and an amplifier circuit/microcontroller, embedded in each finger segment. In~\cite{Mittendorfer2011}, Mittendorfer and Cheng first showed their multi-modal and modular sensor design that uses the Sharp GP2S60, having a footprint of $3\!\times\SI{4}{\square\milli\meter}$, as a proximity sensor (see Fig.~\ref{fig:LargeScaleModularSkin} as well as Sec.~\ref{subsec:Multi-ModalSensors}). A special case of \gls{ORLI}-type sensors can be implemented using optical fibers. Since the fibers are easy to integrate into confined spaces, this solution has been proposed by Espiau and Catros~\cite{espiau1980}, Walker et al.~\cite{Walker2007}, and Konstantinova et al.\
\cite{konstantinova2015force,konstantinova2016fingertip,palermo2020automatic}. In~\cite{Walker2007}, the authors integrate 32 fibers, having a diameter of $\SI{1}{\milli\meter}$, into a disc-like end-effector. The fibers route the reflected light captured around $\SI{360}{\degree}$ to a $4\!\times\!8$-display. The intensity values on the display are then recorded by a camera. In \cite{konstantinova2015force,konstantinova2016fingertip,palermo2020automatic} optical fibers are similarly routed from the tip of a finger to a signal processing module (KEYENCE) for \gls{ORLI}-type sensing.
\label{subsubsec:RLIAnalog}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/Hsiao2009_final.png}
\caption{a) Barrett hand equipped with finger-size optical proximity sensors
b) Design criteria leading to a final concept of sensor integration in the fingertips of the Barrett hand. ~\cite{Hsiao2009} Sensor type: \gls{ORLI} (Figures reprinted with kind permission of the authors \copyright 2009 IEEE)}
\label{fig:Hsiao2009_final}
\end{figure}
In~\cite{koyama2013,koyama2016,koyama_ijrr2019}, Koyama et al.\ developed finger-sized, high-speed proximity sensors mounting twelve photoreflectors on a fingertip as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:koyama2013-2019_optical}~(a). The sampling time of the sensor outputs is $<\SI{1}{\milli\second}$, and the sensor size is thin and compact~\cite{Hasegawa2015}. As the outputs of the photoreflectors were processed in a grid of resistors, a proximity event can be localized. The same principle is adopted by Arita and Suzuki in~\cite{arita2021contact} for a linear array of sensors. The authors also proposed a simple calibration method using changes in fingertip positioning and reflected light intensity. However, simple calibration methods, e.\,g.~\cite{Hsiao2009,koyama_ijrr2019}, have relatively large errors (with millimeter or sub-millimeter accuracy) due to fingertip position errors or circuit noise. Therefore, reactive preshaping methods (see Sec.~\ref{subsec:PreshapingAndGrasping}) have not yet reached a high level of accuracy using these calibration schemes.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/koyama2013-2019_opticalV2.jpg}
\caption{(a) High-speed proximity sensor~\cite{koyama2013,koyama2016,koyama_ijrr2019}.
(b) High-speed, high-precision proximity sensor~\cite{koyama2018,koyama2019}.
Both sensors detect tilt angles and distance of an object's surface.
The measurement time of both sensors is less than $\SI{1}{\milli\second}$.
The distance resolution of the sensor (b) is less than $\SI{51}{\micro\meter}$. Sensor type: \gls{ORLI} (\copyright 2013 and 2019 IEEE)
}
\label{fig:koyama2013-2019_optical}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Reflected Light Intensity-Type Sensors (\gls{ORLI}) Using Sensing Modules)}
\label{subsubsec:RLIDigital}
More recently, some companies have released compact-sized, low-noise proximity sensors with built-in amplifier circuits and $I^2C$ bus connectivity. Multiple sensors can be daisy-chained using the $I^2C$ bus. Researchers can develop fingertip-size proximity sensors and robot skins equipped with multiple ranging sensors. In particular, Vishay Semiconductors released the \gls{ORLI}-type sensor, the VCNL4010. The footprint of the VCNL4010 is $3.95\!\times\!\SI{3.95}{\square\milli\meter}$, and can measure a range of $1\text{\textendash}\SI{200}{\milli\meter}$ within $\SI{4}{\milli\second}$ (minimum time setting). Although the sensor output is affected by the reflectance of object surfaces, the development of a thin proximity sensor is easily attainable.
Patel et al.~\cite{patel_integrated_2018} have developed a finger-size sensor (Fig.~\ref{fig:correll2018_optical}~(a)) that can detect distance, contact, and force with the VCNL4010. The sensor consists of multiple VCNL4010 devices covered with a transparent rubber (PDMS silicone). When there is no contact between the sensor and an object, the sensor can measure distance based on the reflected light intensity from an object's surface. The sensor can also detect contact with an object triggered by a sharp change of reflected light intensity. After contact, the contact force can be also estimated by measuring the reflected light from the object surface to the rubber surface. Hughes et al.~\cite{hughes_robotic_2018} have proposed flexible robot skin modules (Fig.~\ref{fig:correll2018_optical}~(b)) using the same sensor structure as in \cite{patel_integrated_2018}. They realized gesture recognition by combining distance values with a random forest classifier. Originally conceived for oxymetry, the MAX30105 by Maxim Integrated is used for implementing wireless multi-modal sensor for the hand of a humanoid robot (Robonaut 2) in \cite{markvickawireless}.
In \cite{Maldonado2012}, the authors repurpose a mouse sensor (ADNS-9500) in a fingertip for proximity sensing, as \gls{ORLI} is used in the sensing element. In this case, it is even possible to use the $30\!\times\!30$-pixel delivered by the sensor for further processing (e.\,g.\ texture recognition and slip detection).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Figures/correll2018_optical.jpg}
\caption{(a) Gripper-type proximity sensor that can detect contact, force, and distance, (b) Robot skin type. Sensor type: \gls{ORLI} (Figures reprinted with kind permission of the authors (a) \cite{patel_integrated_2018} \copyright 2018 Springer and (b) \cite{hughes_robotic_2018} \copyright 2018 IEEE)}
\label{fig:correll2018_optical}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Time-of-Flight-Type (\gls{OTOF}) Sensors}
\label{subsubsec:ToF}
One popular \gls{OTOF} sensor is the VL6180X proximity sensor, released by STMicroelectronics. The VL6180X can measure $10\text{\textendash}\SI{100}{\milli\meter}$ with $\SI{1}{\milli\meter}$ resolution and a repeat measurement error of $\pm 1\text{\textendash}\SI{2}{\milli\meter}$. The measurement time for one sensor is $\SI{7}{\milli\second}$ to several tens of $\si{\milli\second}$, depending on the settings. Lancaster et al.~\cite{yang_pre-touch_2017,huang2018visionless} developed a fingertip-sized sensor for a parallel jaw gripper on the PR2 and demonstrated a robust manipulation of a Rubik's Cube. They also developed a fingertip-sized sensor comprised of transparent rubber and a \gls{OTOF} sensor, which uses reflected light intensity for force measurement~\cite{Lancaster2019}. They designed and evaluated different rubber shapes and optical configurations (flat rubber, rounded rubber, and light blocker configurations). It is reported that a rounded configuration improves the sensitivity of force detection. Sasaki et al.~\cite{sasaki2018robotic} developed a multi-modal proximity sensor, employing both \gls{ORLI} and \gls{OTOF} sensing. The \gls{ORLI}-type detects distance and posture for an object on a table, and \gls{OTOF} type measures the distance from the table surface. The robot can adjust the configurations of the fingertips and the end-effector (the hand base) simultaneously using sensor feedback. Tsuji et al.~\cite{tsuji2019} developed a proximity sensor skin using \gls{OTOF} sensors for a collaborative robot, which in its layout is comparable to the work by Cheung and Lumelsky (see Fig.~\ref{fig:SkinCheungAndLumelsky}). In \cite{ding2018capacitive,ding2019with}, Ding et al.\ show their developments of a multi-modal proximity sensor, the \emph{proximity sensing cuffs}, featuring capacitive and \gls{OTOF} technology for material recognition and collision avoidance.
Recently, the use of \gls{OTOF} has also been proposed for Soft Robotics devices \cite{hellebrekers2018liquid,yin2020closing}. Even though the module used is the already mentioned VL6180X, which is not deformable, the authors show its integration in a soft circuit, featuring traces of copper wetted with eutectic gallium indium (EGaIn) inside a thin PDMS sheet. The circuit features other sensors ICs: an IMU, barometric pressure, and temperature sensors. The soft sheet is then used to equip a two-jaw gripper with these sensing capabilities.
\subsubsection{Triangulation-Type Sensors (\gls{OTRI})}
An early example for an \gls{OTRI}-Type proximity sensor is due to Fuhrman and Kanade~\cite{fuhrman1984}. Using a chip capable of localizing a light spot, they realize several light sources that are evaluated in a time-multiplexed manner, resulting in an object's proximity value as well as orientation and curvature. However, this setup can probably be considered to be too bulky, i.\,e.\ not skinlike, for modern applications. In \cite{ceriani2013optimal,avanzini2014safety}, the Ceriani et al.\ and Avanzini et al.\ report using the Sharp GP2Y0A02YK0F module, that guarantees a consistent distance output across different reflectivity of surfaces. In their work, they explore the optimal distribution of sensing elements for safe HRI (see also Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:RecentJacobian}). To measure distance and posture more precisely, Koyama et al.~\cite{koyama2018,koyama2019} developed a high-speed, high-precision proximity sensor, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:koyama2013-2019_optical}~(b). The sensor has the size of a human fingertip ($18\!\times\!28.5\!\times\!\SI{38.5}{\cubic\milli\meter}$), and it can detect the distance to and postures of an object surface with a distance error of fewer than $\SI{31}{\micro\meter}$ and a measuring time less than $\SI{1}{\milli\second}$. A similar sensor design was explored by Bonen et al.~\cite{bonen1997}, who propose a single emitter and multi-detector architecture for detecting distance as well as object orientation.
\subsubsection{Break-Beam-Type Sensors (\gls{OBB})}
Teichmann et al.~\cite{Teichmann2000} mounted a light-emitting diode at one end of a parallel jaw gripper and detectors at the other end, and switched to reactive motions based on light blocking due to an object. They also describe the application of this approach to a three-fingered hand. In \cite{Guo2015} Guo et al.\ show the integration of an array of \gls{OBB}-Type sensors in the jaws of PR2's parallel gripper for reactive preshaping and grasping challenging objects, where other approaches would fail, such as semi-transparent tissues.
\subsubsection{Discussion on Optical Sensors}
The devices implementing optical sensing are small in size and have a high-speed response. These advantages are suitable for sensor/actuator integration and automatic grasping using a robot hand, although the sensing has difficulty detecting transparent, black, and shiny objects. To detect all these objects, it is necessary to introduce multi-modal sensing, such as a combination of optical and capacitance sensing.
In terms of spatial resolution, optical sensing elements can be quite small. For example, the Sharp GP2S60 photoreflector used by Mittendorfer et al.~\cite{Mittendorfer2011} has a footprint of $3\!\times\!\SI{4}{\square\milli\meter}$, potentially allowing a density of a few elements per $\si{\square\centi\meter}$. However, on large-area skin (\gls{ATI}) such high densities can be impractical in terms of the electronic effort needed (wiring, signaling, etc.). Regarding sensing range, \gls{ORLI}-types have been reported to produce a relatively large detection distance of about $\SI{300}{\milli\meter}$~\cite{Cheung1992} (\gls{ATI}), but these sensors are also often used for lower ranges, e.\,g.~\cite{koyama2018}, where a maximum detection range of $\SI{20}{\milli\meter}$ is reported (\gls{ATII}). In both cases, there is a small dead spot near the sensing element. Typical \gls{OTOF}-technology used, e.\,g.~\cite{ding2019with,tsuji2020proximity}, can work up to a distance of $\SI{4}{\meter}$, depending on the component used, but this extended range has the cost of having a relatively large dead spot of $\SI{10}{\centi\meter}$ in front of the sensing element. Similarly, the \gls{OTRI}-Type sensor used in~\cite{ceriani2013optimal,avanzini2014safety} has a detection range of $\SI{1.5}{\meter}$ and a dead spot of $\SI{20}{\centi\meter}$.
\subsection{Radar}
\label{subsec:Radar}
In recent years, radar sensing technology has become popular in human-centered technologies due to the development of system on chip radar systems reducing the size, which also makes them very attractive for integration on robotic platforms. Recent developments are driven in big part by the automotive industry (see also~\cite{zhou2020mmw}). Radar sensors withstand harsh weather environments and can augment widely used optical sensor technologies, meaning they have crucial traits for enabling highly automated driving. An important aspect for radar sensors in human-robot interaction is that it is a technology that is widely used in safety related applications in the automotive domain. Consequently, existing expertise from the automotive domain can potentially be utilized towards robotic applications (e.\,g.~\cite{Gerstmair_2019}). A recent survey by van Berlo et al.\ summarizes the current application fields of radar technologies~\cite{van2020millimeter}, including the aforementioned domain of automotive and \gls{HCI} (tracking, gesture recognition, etc.).
Recently, in a joint effort, Google and the chip manufacturer Infineon boosted this technology as they introduced a $\SI{60}{\giga\hertz}$ radar chip with integrated transmitter and receiver antennas for fine gesture interaction based on \gls{FMCW}~\cite{Lien2016}. The principle of FMCW radars is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:radar}. A more detailed description can be found e.\,g. in \cite{Gerstmair_2019}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{10}\selectfont
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{Figures/IllustrationFMCWRadar.pdf}
\caption{Principle of FMCW Radar: A transmitter (Tx) sends out a chirp signal (red), which gets reflected at object boundaries, e.\,g. a human. The reflected signal (green) at the receiver (Rx) is a delayed, attenuated copy of transmitter signal. The time delay corresponds to the distance and thus the frequency difference between transmitter and receiver is proportional to the distance. This frequency is obtained by mixing the transmitter and receiver signal. For a sequence of chirps, the phases of the received signal changes due to the Doppler shift. An FFT over the time extracts the frequencies, a subsequent FFT over chirps extracts the velocity, such that a 2D range distance map is obtained.}
\label{fig:radar}
\end{figure*}
Advantages of \gls{FMCW}-radar are that they provide distance and velocity measurements simultaneously with a high resolution for close ranges, which makes them suitable for proximity perception, collision avoidance, and \gls{HRI}, e.\,g.\ gesture control, in the field of robotics. In~\cite{stetco2020}, a simulation approach for \gls{FMCW}-radar is proposed and evaluated for collaborative robotics. The simulation approach aims at fast development and evaluation of signal processing algorithms as well as machine learning approaches for \gls{FMCW}-radar before deploying it on a robot (sim-to-real learning). Multi-modal tactile and radar sensing for grasping applications and object classification was introduced in~\cite{Flintoff2018}.
Further manufacturers, such as SiliconRadar, Texas Instruments, etc.\ also provide system on chip radar solutions. In~\cite{Geiger2019}, the integration of a multiple antenna radar sensor based on $\SI{160}{\giga\hertz}$ with flexible waveguides for collaborative robots was studied. Another operation mode for radar technology is \gls{SAR}. In robotics, it is utilized for instance for mobile robot navigation. In~\cite{watts2016} \gls{SAR} based radar imaging was investigated on a PR2 robot system for 2D and 3D imaging of objects in close proximity to show the potential of radar sensing to complement optical sensors in robot perception and manipulation.
Besides proximity and distance sensing, radar systems can be applied to exploring and constructing subsurface 3D maps \cite{gssi2021gpr}. Those radars are known as \gls{GPR} and are applied in different fields such as assessment of dense underground utilities in urban areas, evaluation of the subsurface for energy and mineral production operations or the detection of buried objects, on earth or potentially on other planets. Its sensing principle is based on emitting radar pulses and evaluating the propagation velocity into the subsurface and the soil utilities \cite{kouros20183d}.
\subsection{Other Sensing Principles}
In this section, we introduce further sensing principles that can be used for proximity sensing, i.\,e.\ acoustic, inductive, and whiskers. As of 2021, they can still be considered to be less \emph{mainstream} in human-centered robotics than the capacitive, optical, or radar ones. However, they offer interesting alternatives and can outperform other principles discussed so far in some scenarios.
\subsubsection{Acoustic}
The widest spread technique for ranging based on acoustic wave propagation is \gls{AUS}, which can be found in many domains, particularly for under-water ranging. In robotics, this technology is easily available for the enthusiast and professional use, such as the MaxSonar-series by MaxBotix.
Higher-end solutions, featuring 3D echolocation are also available, for instance by Toposens.
Nunes et al.\ proposed the use of ultrasound in \cite{Nunes1994} for 3D ranging in 1994. Even though Dario et al.~\cite{Dario1990} propose an ultrasound sensor for integration into a fingertip, the sensors usually have a non-negligible offset or dead-spot for sensing around the sensing element. Therefore, many of the available solutions are non-practical for pre-touch applications, i.\,e.\ close proximity (see Fig.~\ref{fig:SensingRange}). Integration is also challenging because sensing elements do not scale down easily. Thus, oftentimes use-cases of \gls{AUS} are more similar to laser-range finders, i.\,e.\ mid-range and long-range sensing. In~\cite{fang2019toward}, Fang et al.\ circumvent the mentioned difficulties by mounting the sensor at a distance and tilted while bouncing the waves off a parabolic mirror. However, the integration remains limited to one acoustic sensing element. Ultrasound is also widely used in parking sensors. An example of a combination with capacitive sensors to overcome detection limitations at short distances is provided in \cite{Schlegl2011}. The group of Prof.\ Steckel at University Antwerp has a strong focus on 3D \gls{AUS} for robotic applications, e.\,g.~\cite{steckel2017acoustic,verellen2020high}. The group has achieved remarkable results in areas such as SLAM for the navigation of mobile platforms. However, as with other designs, the ultrasound sensing platform is not very \emph{skinlike}, thus limiting the pre-touch applications in favor of longer-range sensing. Furthermore, the authors often make a point to establish this technology as an alternative to LIDAR and other mid-range or long-range sensing options for ground vehicles but also for \gls{UAVs}. The use of \gls{AUS} in air-borne vehicles puts in evidence that this type of sensing can be considered to be bio-inspired by bats and their echolocation capabilities.
Another type of acoustic sensing has been proposed by Jiang et al.~\cite{Jiang2012,Jiang2013}, which the authors call the \emph{\gls{AS}}. A microphone is placed inside a cavity that is worked into the structure of a finger. As a surface approaches the opening, the resonance frequency of the cavity changes. By analyzing the differences in the spectrum between an external microphone and the microphone inside the cavity, the distance can be estimated. This works for very close range (up to $\approx\SI{4}{\milli\meter}$). In their work, this modality is explored, because it does not suffer from detection difficulties related to transparency or reflections (optical sensing) or low dielectric contrast (capacitive sensing).
\subsubsection{Inductive}
Inductive sensors utilize alternating magnetic fields to detect objects, as they disturb the generated magnetic field, which can be detected as a change of inductance of a coil, a change of the mutual inductance between several coils or directly by measuring the magnetic field. The objects do not need to be ferromagnetic. In particular, objects with high conductivity such as metals, strongly affect an alternating magnetic field as eddy currents near the surface of such objects prevent deep penetration of the materials by the magnetic fields. Inductive proximity sensors are very robust and commercial sensors provided by a variety of manufactures are widely used in industry as proximity switches, typically detecting conductive objects. However, as these commercial or industrial sensors are not found in robotics, they are not included in this survey. The capabilities of inductive sensors for non-metallic objects are more limited and inductive sensors have therefore been used in combination with other approaches to classify materials, for example.
The sensing system proposed in \cite{han2016highly} is stated to combine capacitive force and inductive proximity sensing with a range of up to $\SI{150}{\milli\meter}$ for conductive materials with the help of a layer of \gls{CMC}. The sensor was then enhanced and in \cite{nguyen2017highly}, having a higher detection range and spatial resolution. The \gls{CMC} layer was used to form an LCR circuit and enable both tactile and proximity sensing. In a related work \cite{nguyen2020skin}, an electromagnetic field was formed by exciting a combined co-planar plate capacitor and a coil embedded in a flexible circuit board. The impedance of the resulting LCR circuit was analyzed and the relationship to the distance of different objects was presented as proximity measurement, with a sensing range of up to $\SI{300}{\milli\meter}$.
In \cite{George2010} the combination of capacitive and inductive sensing is used to distinguish between humans and other objects such as (grounded) laptops. While the capacitive signals for humans and grounded laptops are very similar, the inductive signal is much different, as the laptop comprises highly conductive metallic parts and thus has a stronger influence on the magnetic field. Even though the setup is not intended for proximity sensing, a range of up to $\SI{150}{\milli\meter}$ is reported. Consequently, the system can also be used to detect non-conductive and conductive objects and offers a very high measurement rate of $\SI{25}{\kilo\hertz}$. With multiple coils, inductive sensors can not only be used to obtain a distance estimate but full 6 DoF information, as discussed in \cite{Gietler2019}.
\subsubsection{Whiskers}
Finally, on the fringe of the domain of proximity perception, we can find \emph{artificial whiskers} that are inspired by mammals, such as rodents, who use them to navigate and explore their environment \cite{russell2003object}, \cite{lepora2018tacwhiskers}. These whiskers are beams that bend due to external forces (contacts with walls, wind, etc.) and usually, the resulting force/deformation at the base is measured. These approaches are often featured as part of the tactile perception community, as sensing is actually contact-based, but they are used to probe the nearby environment much in the same way a proximity sensor is used.
\subsection{Multi-modal and Modular Sensors}
\label{subsec:Multi-ModalSensors}
The possibility of deploying proximity sensors alongside other sensing modalities on robots (vision, touch, etc.) is a key aspect of the success of this technology. Only if they coexist with the other modalities, can they fill the perception gap that is left by them. This challenge is evidenced by the many existing realizations of multi-modal sensors, especially by designs that include the tactile modality alongside the proximity one. Furthermore, it is common to find that these designs are conceived in a modular manner. The \emph{HEX-o-Skin} by Mittendorfer et al.~\cite{Mittendorfer2011} is a prominent example of this trend. It is a modular design, which is suited for covering large areas of the robot (see Fig.~\ref{fig:LargeScaleModularSkin}) and includes proximity, tactile, inertial, and temperature sensing in each unit.
The most generic approach for implementing multi-modal sensing is to use a specialized measurement principle for each desired modality. The work by Mittendorfer et al.~\cite{Mittendorfer2011}, again, is an example of this approach. Proximity detection is implemented by \gls{ORLI} and tactile events are detected with a capacitive sensing element. Stiehl et al.~\cite{Stiehl2006}, who implement capacitive proximity (\gls{CSE}, provided by the MC33794), force and temperature measurement in a pseudo-modular skin, which the authors argue helps in distinguishing social contacts from collisions with the environment. Another, less modular example is due to Guan et al.~\cite{Guan2012}. In their work, they equip the gripper of a climbing robot with a range finder sensor, two ultrasound modules, and a camera.
In~\cite{han2016highly}, Han et al.\ show a tactile proximity sensor where the proximity modality principle is inductive and the tactile modality is capacitive. In~\cite{konstantinova2015force,konstantinova2016fingertip,palermo2020automatic} proximity sensing and tactile (force) sensing is implemented using optical fibers. In proximity sensing, the \gls{ORLI}-type is used, for tactile sensing, the reflection that changes inside a movable part is measured. As explained in Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:RLIDigital}, in~\cite{patel_integrated_2018} the authors show the implementation of a tactile proximity sensor based on \gls{ORLI}-type sensing alone. As stated before in Sec.~\ref{sec:CapacitiveSensing}, capacitive sensing is especially attractive for joint tactile and proximity designs. Example designs are shown in \cite{Lee2009,Goeger2010a,Goeger2013,Alagi2016a}. Designs also have been proposed outside of robotics literature, which are nonetheless potentially relevant, e.\,g.~\cite{Zhang2014}. Finally, there is a subset of approaches that utilize different measurement principles for redundant proximity sensing. This is the case with Ding et al.~\cite{ding2018capacitive,ding2019with}, and Tsuji et al.~\cite{tsuji2020proximity} that use both an \gls{OTOF} and \gls{CSE} for robustness. Markvicka et al.\ propose the joint use of \gls{OTOF} and \gls{ORLI} in~\cite{markvickawireless}.
\section{Applications and Methods in the Research and Industry Domains}
\label{sec:Applications}
In this section, we will review the contributions from the field focusing on the applications and methods presented. We will follow the organization presented in Sec.~\ref{subsec:ApplicationsAndBehaviorTypes} and Fig.~\ref{fig:ApplicationsAndBehaviors}, i.\,e.\ focusing separately on \gls{ATI}
and \gls{ATII} and going from low-complexity behaviors (\gls{BTI}) to high-complexity behaviors (\gls{BTII}).
\input{Content/04.01-CollisionAvoidance.tex}
\input{Content/04.02-Preshaping.tex}
\input{Content/04.03-HigherLevelApplications.tex}
\input{Content/04.04-IndustrialTechnologiesAndSolutions.tex}
\subsection{Reactive collision-avoidance and Contour Following (\gls{ATI}, \gls{BTI})}
\label{subsec:CollisionAvoidance}
Collision-avoidance is regarded as a fundamental skill for autonomous robots as well as for safe human-robot interaction. To start this section, we want to motivate with a quote by Novak et~al.\ from their 1992 work on whole-arm collision-avoidance, which is an elegant statement of this problem:
\begin{quote}
``[...] since it is desirable to continue purposeful motion in the presence of obstacles, the sensor system must be able to deliver spatially-resolved proximity data, which reflects the distance to the obstacle, as well as the location along the robot and corresponding robot surface normal. This vector information may then be used to modify trajectories to permit (if possible) continued progress toward the final destination.'' \cite{Novak1992}
\end{quote}
The first important wave of interest surrounding proximity perception for collision-avoidance was sparked in the late 1980s and early 1990s~\cite{samson1990}. At that time, getting 3D information of the surroundings of the robot via cameras was challenging from a technological point of view, on the accounts of the lack of hardware and lack of performance of the CPUs. Proximity sensors, having desirable properties (low latency, skinlike), were considered an attractive alternative for this challenge.
\subsubsection{Early Jacobian-type Approaches}
\label{subsubsec:EarlyJacobian}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\def240pt{200pt}
\input{Figures/Generated/Concept_Jacobian_svg-tex.pdf_tex}
\caption{A redundant robot, equipped with proximity sensors on its links, can move towards a target end-effector configuration while simultaneously moving some of the links of the robot away from an obstacle. (Figure adapted from~\cite{maciejewski1985obstacle})}
\label{fig:Concept_Jacobian}
\end{figure}
A good portion of early works on collision-avoidance get inspiration from the work of Maciejewski and Klein~\cite{maciejewski1985obstacle}, published in 1985. This work introduces the notion of the ``obstacle avoidance point Jacobian'', which is analogous to the end-effector Jacobian, i.\,e.\ it relates the instantaneous joint velocity to the velocity of an obstacle point on the robot (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Concept_Jacobian}). In this figure, we use the following notation: ${q}_{a}^{i}$ are the degrees of freedom of the manipulator arm in joint-space. $\bm{x_{e}}$ and $\bm{x_{o}}$ are the end-effector configuration and the obstacle point in task-space respectively (boldface indicates these are vector quantities), whereas $\bm{c_{g}}$ is the goal configuration established for the end-effector and $\bm{p_{o}}$ is the point on the obstacle nearest to the manipulator arm (also vector quantities). Following this notation, the end-effector Jacobian $\bm{J_{e}}$ relates the velocities in the configuration space to the velocities in the task space by:
\begin{equation}
\bm{\dot{x}_{e}} = \bm{J_{e}}\bm{\dot{q}_{a}}.
\end{equation}
Using the obstacle Jacobian $\bm{J_{o}}$, The relation in the case of the obstacle-point is likewise:
\begin{equation}
\bm {\dot{x}_{o}} = \bm{J_{o}} \bm{\dot{q}_{a}}.
\end{equation}
Applying the same principles of using the (pseudo-) inverse of the end-effector Jacobian $\bm{J_{e}}^{+}$ for finding desired joint velocities, one can invert the obstacle point Jacobian to find the joint motions to follow a desired trajectory with respect to the obstacle point. In the case of collision-avoidance, the natural choice is a motion away from the obstacle, as indicated by $\bm{\dot{x}_{o}}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:Concept_Jacobian}. Also, in the presence of redundancies, this approach allows projecting the avoidance motion into the null-space of a higher-order task, e.\,g.\ following a desired end-effector trajectory:
\begin{equation}
\bm{\dot{q}_{a}}= \bm{J_{e}}^{+}\bm{\dot{x}_{e}} + (\bm{I}-\bm{J_{e}}^{+}\bm{J_{e}})\bm{J_{o}^{+}}\bm{\dot{x}_{o}}.
\end{equation}
Since $\bm{\dot{x}_{o}}$ represents the desired motion away from the obstacle in task space, $\bm{\underline{\dot{q}_{a}}} = \bm{J_{o}^{+}}\bm{\dot{x}_{o}}$ is the joint-motion that moves the obstacle-point away from the obstacle. $(\bm{I}-\bm{J_{e}}^{+}\bm{J_{e}})$ is the expression that projects this motion into the null-space of the higher-order task, i.\,e.\ the desired end-effector trajectory. In this framework, the tasks can be ordered in a different hierarchy as well, i.\,e.\ prioritizing the collision-avoidance task over the desired end-effector trajectory.
Among the firsts to apply these ideas to proximity sensor streams were Wegerif et~ al.~\cite{wegerif1992sensor,wegerif1993whole} as well as Tamasy in \cite{tamasy1997smart} at Merrit Systems Inc. in the early 1990s. Wegerif et~al.\ studied the use of several proximity sensing technologies (IR, ultrasound, capacitive), but they ultimately covered three links of a PUMA 600 robot with a total of about 120 IR sender and receiver pairs. They modified the kinematics of the PUMA 600 to have three rotational joints in one plane, introducing a kinematic redundancy in an otherwise non-redundant robot. In their collision-avoidance algorithm, they gave the highest priority to the collision-avoidance task. They report successfully testing the system in an autonomous and a teleoperated scenario with static and dynamic obstacles. In the work by Tamasy~\cite{tamasy1997smart}, the previous work is extended by presenting the realization of a \acrlong{SNN}. These kinds of networks provide the base for equipping whole arms with proximity sensors, implementing a bus-system. IR, ultrasound and capacitive sensors can be readily connected to the system, provided they offer digitized data streams. The NASA \gls{PIPR}, featuring 18 DoFs, is shown as an application. A whole control architecture is discussed, with a GUI for user inputs, the generation of low-level commands, as well as a collision-avoidance system based on the previous developments, together with a quadratic programming approach for finding the optimal joint velocities.
Other authors that were inspired by the approach of Maciejewski and Klein are Novak and Feddema~\cite{novak1993collision,Feddema1994}. A prior work by the authors that leads up to these results is \cite{Novak1992}. In \cite{Novak1992} the authors concentrate on the development of the so-called \emph{\gls{WHAP}}-sensor, which is a skin that is comprised of mutual capacitive sensing elements for proximity sensing. In this work, the sensor is described and characterized in depth. Then, the \gls{WHAP} sensor is installed and tested on a 2-link planar robot with a total of 8 sensing elements (two per link). The robot is shown to successfully circumvent one obstacle made out of concrete and another metallic one. Later, using a sensor Jacobian in \cite{novak1993collision,Feddema1994} they concentrate on a teleoperation scenario using a 6-DoF robot arm (PUMA 560). An obstacle is responsible for a reduction of the speed of the affected DoFs as the sensors detect the obstacle approaching. However, the system is designed to not automatically move away from the obstacle, as the authors consider that this behavior is not desired by the user, at least not in a teleoperation scenario.
\subsubsection{Early Geometric Approaches}
In contrast to the Jacobian-based approaches, the collision-avoidance can be implemented by a \emph{geometric approach}, i.\,e.\ estimating features of the obstacle's surface and following its contour for as long as it obstructs the direct path from the current configuration $\bm{c_{i}}$ to a given goal configuration $\bm{c_{g}}$ of the robot. We consider this to be a geometric approach because in some way the surface of the obstacle has to be reconstructed. Early, seminal work is due to Lumelsky and Cheung \cite{cheung1988motion,cheung1989development,Cheung1992,Lumelsky1993} (and more), who propose to move along the tangent plane of the obstacle represented in configuration space. Their hardware is characterized by the use of infra-red sender and receiver pairs that are mounted on flexible printed circuit boards (which would later inspire the work by Wegerif et al.\ in \cite{wegerif1992sensor}, see above). With the flex-technology, they achieve full integration of the skin onto a manipulator as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SkinCheungAndLumelsky}. In~\cite{Cheung1992}, the development of the skin is explained in great detail. In~\cite{Lumelsky1993} they showcase the methods and technology in the context of teleoperation in the presence of one or more dynamic obstacles.
Nunes et al.\ \cite{Nunes1994} propose a collision-avoidance system that can be regarded as a contour following system that works at the end-effector level, i.\,e.\ in Cartesian space. As before, the idea is to slide parallel to the obstacle tangential plane. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ContourFollowingConfigurations} the geometric approaches are illustrated and summarized. It shows the four characteristic configurations $\bm{c_{s}}$, $\bm{c_{d}}$, $\bm{c_{i}}$, $\bm{c_{e}}$ and $\bm{c_{g}}$ that can be usually be identified. $\bm{c_{s}}$ is the starting configuration, $\bm{c_{d}}$ is the configuration where the obstacle is first detected, $\bm{c_{i}}$ is the current robot configuration during the contour following phase, $\bm{c_{e}}$ is the configuration where the obstacle no longer obstructs the direct path to the goal and $\bm{c_{g}}$ is the goal configuration. The vector showing from the current configuration $\bm{c_{i}}$ to $\bm{c_{g}}$ is $\vec{v}$ and its projection on the surface tangent plane $\Pi$ is $\vec{\underline{v}}$. The tangent plane is detected at a point $\bm{p_{o}^{i}}$. The dashed line represents the trajectory of the robot during the contour following procedure. In general, during contour following, the movement of the robot will be parallel to $\vec{\underline{v}}$, i.\,e.\ towards the target configuration.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\def240pt{150pt}
\input{Figures/Generated/Concept_ContourFollowing_svg-tex.pdf_tex}
\caption{In geometric collision-avoidance approaches, the surface of the obstacle is estimated. From this, a contour following motion can be derived.}
\label{fig:ContourFollowingConfigurations}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Recent Jacobian-type Approaches}
\label{subsubsec:RecentJacobian}
In~\cite{ceriani2013optimal} Ceriani et al.\ discuss the placement of proximity sensors on an industrial manipulator. They present an optimization method that allows to find a suitable arrangement of triangulation type sensors on the links of the robot based on the concept of a \emph{Danger Field}. The Danger Field is a distance-based metric for assessing the danger emanating from a moving robot for a human operator. Avanzini et al.\ continue this work by developing a safety control scheme on top of this concept~\cite{avanzini2014safety}. They show that tasks can be deactivated according to a predefined priority to permit evasive movements. In their case, the tasks are defined by a Cartesian trajectory split in position and orientation. Maintaining the orientation is the lower priority task, which is the first to be abandoned to comply with the collision-avoidance.
In~\cite{Schlegl2013b}, Schlegl et al.\ show the use of a capacitive sensor that features both a single-ended and a mutual-capacitive sensing capability, resulting in so-called \emph{Virtual Whiskers}. The use of both modes increases robustness in the detection of conductive and non-conductive objects. An arrangement of 7 electrodes is mounted on a segment near the wrist of a KUKA LWR 4. The hardware has a sample rate of up to $\SI{1}{\kilo\hertz}$. The authors show the combination with the on-line trajectory generation discussed in \cite{kroger2010line} that is capable of generating smooth trajectories with at least the same frequency. This leads to a highly reactive collision-avoidance prototype. Similar hardware is used in \cite{MuehlbacherKarrer2016a} M\"ulbacher-Karrer et al.\ to show the contactless control of a 9 DoF redundant manipulator. One link is equipped on two sides with electrodes. A 2D tomographic image can be extracted from each arrangement. The center of the detected event is used to steer the avoidance motion of the link equipped with sensors, while the robot continues to execute a pick-and-place task.
In~\cite{ding2019with,ding2020collision} Ding et al.\ present a Jacobian-type collision-avoidance scheme that is based on optimization, also taking into account the redundancy capabilities of the robot used. Their 7-DoF robot has three links equipped with $\SI{360}{\degree}$ sensing capability provided by so-called proximity-sensing-cuffs~\cite{ding2018capacitive}. When an obstacle is detected in~\cite{ding2019with}, joint-velocities are calculated according to a mixture of criteria, which are simultaneously optimized: distance to the target, manipulability, deviation from desired task motion, and total magnitude of joint-velocities. This results in a reflex-like collision-avoidance system, including movement parallel to the obstacle tangent plane. This can avoid getting stuck in front of obstacles, which is a possible failure mode of potential field approaches, like the one proposed by Khatib et al.~\cite{khatib1986real}. Also following up on the Jacobian-type approaches is the work presented by M'Colo et~al.\ in~\cite{mcolo2019obstacle}. The capacitive sensing technology of \emph{FOGALE robotics}~\cite{FOGALErobotics} is featured in a robotic system that has been extensively covered with electrodes to implement a skin. Using the skin, the robot can avoid static and dynamic obstacles. Finally, Arita and Suzuki show progress towards an approach that allows using force control for the seamless transition between pre-touch and touch states and for achieving desired contact forces~\cite{arita2021contact}.
\subsubsection{Recent Geometric Approaches}
For what concerns contour following scenarios, the literature proposes to include curvature estimates to improve the performance by using a predictive component, for instance by Baeten and De Schutter \cite{baeten1999improving}. Relying on the spatial resolution of the sensor, they can be estimated directly from the current sensor values, as proposed in the work by Walker et al.~\cite{Walker2007}. This work uses an optical proximity sensor attached to an end-effector and featuring $\SI{360}{\degree}$ vision in a plane. In~\cite{Escaida2016a}, these ideas are generalized by Escaida~Navarro et al.\ for contour following in 3D, i.\,e.\ by detecting the 2D curvature of the obstacle surface.
\subsection{Reactive Preshaping and Grasping (\gls{ATII}, \gls{BTI})}
\label{subsec:PreshapingAndGrasping}
In this section, we describe reactive preshaping using proximity sensor feedback, i.\,e.\ closed-loop control (\gls{ATII}). The concept of preshaping has been proposed in psychology in the context of studies on human grasping, e.\,g.\ in \cite{pellegrino1989timecourse}, before it was adopted in robotics. In robotics terms, preshaping describes the (preliminary) motions of adjusting finger joint poses $\bm{q_{h}}$ of a robot hand and end-effector pose $\bm{x_{e}}$ before grasping, as shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:Intro_Preshaping} and~\ref{fig:PreshapingControl}. Preshaping is usually based on visual cues, such as global object shape or the detection of affordances, as is the case for the human. However, proximity sensing opens an opportunity in robotics to implement this behavior by closing the perception loop to increase robustness and performance, i.\,e.\ an ad-hoc solution. In fact, the traditional, human-like preshaping can be considered to be a high-level behavior (\gls{BTII}) and is the result of \emph{grasp synthesis} or \emph{grasp planning}, which is an active research field~\cite{bohg2013data}. In contrast, preshaping using feedback from proximity sensors is often reflex-like, i.\,e.\ \gls{BTI}. We, therefore, call it \emph{reactive preshaping} (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:ApplicationsAndBehaviors}). Reactive preshaping has significant potential for \gls{HRI}, because the automatic adaption of the robot hand to the object pose generalizes naturally to the case when the object is not static, for instance during handover tasks.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\footnotesize
\def240pt{240pt}
\input{Figures/Generated/PreshapingControl_svg-tex.pdf_tex}
\caption{Reactive control for preshaping is implemented by feeding back the outputs obtained from the proximity sensors mounted on a robot hand, i.\,e.\ its palm and fingers, to controllers that affect the pose $q_{h}^{i}$ of each finger and the end-effector $\bm{{x_{e}}}$.}
\label{fig:PreshapingControl}
\end{figure}
Reactive preshaping enhances grasping robustness and performance, from reaching to grasping motions, for the following reasons (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:Intro_Preshaping}):
\begin{itemize}
\item The contact area after grasping is increased and the grasping becomes stable by aligning the normals of the object and fingertip surfaces before establishing contact.
\item ``[...] ensuring that the fingers contact the object simultaneously can improve the probability of successfully grasping the object''~\cite{Mayton2010}, i.\,e.\ unwanted object motion is avoided.
\item A robot can move fast without moving or damaging an object because sensing is without contact.
\item A robot can continuously adjust the end-effector and finger joint poses even when occlusion occurs in the vision sensor.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Reactive Preshaping Control}
To implement reactive preshaping, poses or torques of finger joints are controlled directly based on the signals detected by proximity sensors on the surface of the finger, as illustrated by Fig.~\ref{fig:PreshapingControl}. An early contribution in this area is due to Espiau and Catros~\cite{espiau1980}, who show closed-loop control of a two-jaw gripper. Mayton et al.~\cite{Mayton2010} realized finger reactive preshaping using the Barrett Hand with mid/short-range electric field (capacitive) sensors. Each finger was controlled independently by PID control of the motor current in the hand using a target proximity sensor target value. They demonstrated reactive preshaping on a banana and a juice bottle on a table, as well as grasping these objects. The developed method also allowed the robust handover of objects with the human and detection of the co-manipulation state from the capacitive signals.
Hsiao et al.~\cite{Hsiao2009} proposed a reactive grasping controller, including a finger distance controller, with real-time calibration using optical proximity sensor outputs (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:Hsiao2009_final}). To detect the actual distance and posture of an object's surface, they proposed a calibration method based on a probabilistic model using fingertip positions and reflected light intensity values. The average distance sensing error was reported as $\SI{4}{\milli\meter}$, the posture error of pitch rotation was $\SI{5.3}{\degree}$, and the posture error of roll rotation was $\SI{17.7}{\degree}$ degrees for common objects. At the beginning of the procedure, the fingertips are controlled using the raw sensor output as a target value. The target value is then switched from raw value to estimated distance and posture once the estimated values are calculated.
Escaida~Navarro et al.~\cite{Escaida2014b,Escaida2015b} installed capacitive tactile proximity sensors on a parallel jaw gripper, and they realized simultaneous control of six DoF of a two-jaw gripper based on a proximity-feedback control. In~\cite{Escaida2014b}, there are $2\!\times\!2$ sensor areas per finger of the gripper, and the posture and position information of the object are detected simultaneously by comparing the intensity of the sensor values in each area. Somewhat similar is the work of Guan et al.~\cite{Guan2012}, who use reactive preshaping in translation and orientation of a gripper to a pole the robot is climbing. In a sensor arrangement comparable to ~\cite{Escaida2014b,Escaida2015b}, Guo et al.\ also use a $2\!\times\!2$ of \gls{OBB} sensor arrangement for reactive preshaping in~\cite{Guo2015}.
Koyama et al.~\cite{koyama2013,koyama2016,koyama_ijrr2019} realized independent control of joint poses of an 8-DoF robot hand (three fingers) using a high-speed optical proximity sensor. They demonstrated reactive preshaping for an apple, a banana, and moving objects on a conveyor or during handover, with simple joint-angle controls (see Fig.~\ref{fig:koyama2019_pc}), updating the sensor value and control every $\SI{5}{\milli\second}$. In these preshaping controls~\cite{Mayton2010,koyama_ijrr2019}, the target value is set in advance from experimental data of an object set.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Figures/koyama2019_preshaping_controller.jpg}
\caption{Independent joint angle control for preshaping using a high-speed proximity sensor as shown by Koyama et al.~\cite{koyama_ijrr2019}. (\copyright 2019 Sage Publications)}
\label{fig:koyama2019_pc}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, Koyama et al.~\cite{koyama2015} realized velocity control of fingers without relying on a previously established calibration. The control uses \emph{\gls{TTC}} values calculated using proximity values from the sensor. \gls{TTC} is the remaining time until a collision between an object and the sensor. \gls{TTC} is a bio-inspired calculation that does not depend on the surface characteristics of an object. Therefore, the relative speed between the fingertip and an object can be controlled without prior reflectance data.
The authors also realized high-speed catching of soft objects using a high-speed, high-precision proximity sensor in~\cite{koyama2018}. As the proposed design has impressive distance resolution, it is possible to utilize this value to estimate the contact condition of an object. Elastic pads of $\SI{3}{\milli\meter}$-thickness in front of the photodiode provide deformable spacers (see Fig.~\ref{fig:koyama2013-2019_optical}~b)). Any distance measurement that is equal or closer to the offset provided by the elastic pads is thus indicative of a contact situation. A contact situation with a soft object can be detected with very low contact force. The contact detection enabled the catching of very soft objects, namely a marshmallow and a paper balloon, with negligible deformation~\cite{koyama2019}.
In~\cite{erickson2018tracking,erickson2019multidimensional} Erickson et al.\ apply the principles of reactive preshaping/contour following to the scenario of dressing and washing of patients. In~\cite{erickson2019multidimensional}, a $2\!\times\!3$ array on the end-effector is used to align the end-effectors distance and orientation to the patient's limbs, also following their contour. They show this is a viable approach to automated caregiving tasks (dressing, washing), as visual occlusions are amortized and the detection of the human is reliable.
\subsection{Higher Complexity Methods and Behaviors (Towards \gls{BTII})}
\label{subsec:highlevelApplications}
In this subsection, we discuss what contributions can be found in the literature regarding cognitive and model-based methods and behaviors (\gls{BTII}, see Sec.~\ref{subsec:ApplicationsAndBehaviorTypes} and Fig.~\ref{fig:ApplicationsAndBehaviors}).
\subsubsection{Pre-touch Exploration (\gls{ATII})}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Figures/Lancaster2017.png}
\caption{Complementing a pointcloud obtained by the MS-Kinect with \gls{OTOF} sensor inside the gripper PR-2, as shown by Lancaster et al.\ \cite{lancaster2017improved}. (\copyright 2017 IEEE)}
\label{fig:Lancaster2017}
\end{figure}
Proximity perception opens the opportunity of aggregating information to an object model without mechanical contact. Pre-touch exploration means executing a systematic strategy using the robot's tool to acquire and aggregate pre-touch data into an object model. Jiang et al.\ present an exploration strategy for completing a point cloud obtained from an RGB-D camera in~\cite{Jiang2012,Jiang2013}. The object point clouds originating from these cameras are incomplete on two accounts, i.\,e.\ the occluded backside of the object and due to translucency. These perception gaps undermine grasp-planning algorithms that have to rely on object geometry knowledge. In their approach, the unknown regions of the objects are explored until stable grasp planning is possible. A similar approach is due to Maldonado et al.~\cite{Maldonado2012} who, in addition to completing point clouds for grasp planning tasks, take advantage of the imaging capability of a proposed sensor for the classification of surfaces (textures). In~\cite{Guo2015}, Guo et al.\ realized a reactive pre-touch control using an optical proximity sensor. First, in the control loop, the bounding box of the object was detected from Kinect point cloud information, and the initial grasping point was determined. Second, the object shape information was refined by detecting the edge of the object while tracing it with the proximity sensor. Finally, a better grasping position was determined by repeatedly executing grasp planning and pre-touch detection. The researchers realized grasping of tissue paper, a difficult task with only vision/depth and tactile sensor feedback. In~\cite{lancaster2017improved}, Lancaster et al.\ study the use of deep learning to guide a proximity-based exploration strategy. It yields an improved object model as well as an improved estimate of the object's pose. Fig.~\ref{fig:Lancaster2017} shows an example of a point cloud that is being complemented by pre-touch exploration. In~\cite{patel_integrated_2018}, Patel et al.\ use their optical proximity sensors inside a two jaw gripper to scan objects by moving the gripper around them. The robot's kinematics allows the easy aggregation of the data to point cloud data. A similar result is shown by Markvicka et al.\ in~\cite{markvickawireless}, where they discuss the scanning of a model space shuttle with a robot hand with enough details to capture its most important features (fuselage, wings, etc.).
In~\cite{Escaida2014b}, Escaida Navarro et al.\ show object exploration as an application of proximity servoing. Edges can be explored continuously by adjusting the gripper pose as the exploration progresses. To obtain the precise location of corners, the strategy is complemented by the acquisition of tactile samples, iteratively, in the regions where corner candidates are detected in proximity mode. In~\cite{kaboli2017tactile} and~\cite{kaboli2018active}, Kaboli et al.\ use a multi-modal sensor skin (see~\cite{Mittendorfer2011}) to explore and classify objects according to haptic properties. The number and location of objects on a table in the workspace of the robot are determined by a Bayesian pre-touch exploration strategy. A similar approach for scanning a table workspace for graspable objects, using \gls{OTOF}, is followed by Yin et al.\ in~\cite{yin2020closing}. In \cite{MuehlbacherKarrer2015b}, M\"ulbacher-Karrer et al.\ investigate how capacitive sensing can be used to sense the fill state of bottles using a hand equipped with sensors. The fill state is explored by tilting the bottle with the hand, whereby the decision (full or empty) is decided in a Bayesian framework. Finally, in~\cite{palermo2020automatic} it is proposed to use proximity sensing is used for increasing robustness in crack detection, although the exploration procedure itself is contact-based.
\subsubsection{Bio-inspired Sensing and Behavior (\gls{ATI}, \gls{ATII})}
\label{subsubsec:BioInspired}
In robotics, the mimicry of the behavior of weakly electric fish has delivered interesting results, which can be considered to be an inspiration for proximity sensing in general. In~\cite{boyer2013underwater}, Boyer et al.\ study basic control laws of a cylindrical under-water probe, featuring capacitive-like sensing based on a dipole-type arrangement, i.\,e.\ a voltage imposed on the tail and current measured on the tip. A model for the electrosense yields justification for a set of basic, reflex-like control laws that govern the behavior of the probe (\gls{ATI}, \gls{BTI}). In a related work~\cite{bazeille2017model}, Bazeille et al.\ show results for recognition of elliptical objects (\gls{ATII}, \gls{BTII}). A sequence of measurements of an object is obtained as the probe passes by. The material properties (conductive or insulating) and geometrical properties (ellipse parameters, location, and orientation) are found in an optimization framework. The optimization uses a forward model of the electrosense to find the parameter set that best explains the measured sequence. Tackling a similar problem, Bai et al.\ use active alignment and machine learning to identify spheroids with a biomimetic probe~\cite{bai2015finding} (\gls{ATII}, \gls{BTII}). In 2013, Neveln et al.\ presented a survey paper on the subject of biomimetic robotics related to weakly electric fish that significantly goes beyond the scope of what we can summarize here~\cite{neveln2013biomimetic}.
\subsubsection{Teleoperation and VR (\gls{ATI}, \gls{ATII})}
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:CollisionAvoidance}, teleoperation has been seen as an application of proximity sensing from early on \cite{Lumelsky1993,wegerif1993whole,Feddema1994}. In none of these approaches, however, did the authors rely on a master-device with force or tactile displaying capability. In more recent approaches, using haptic cues that are originating from proximity sensors has been investigated. As Huang et al. put it in \cite{huang2018visionless}: ``Thus it (the haptic feedback) provides the perceptual benefits of touch interaction to the operator, without relying on the negative consequences of the robot actually contacting unknown geometrical structures.'' In~\cite{huang2018visionless} by Huang et\ al., point cloud data collected from a finger-tip sensor is used to generate virtual fixtures. It is also shown that proximity sensing promotes the teleoperation-based exploration of moving objects.
Stoelen et~al.~\cite{stoelen_adaptive_2016,stoelen_adaptive_2013} presented their approaches using whole-arm sensitive robots. The application is a teleoperated robot arm with shared autonomy, which is based on the signals of the proximity sensors. The authors use machine learning to enable the robot to predict collisions from proximity sensor values based on prior experience. Therefore, the velocity of the robot is limited and force feedback through a \emph{PHANTOM Omni} is provided to the operator in~\cite{stoelen_adaptive_2016}. After three days of experiments based on a virtual environment, the authors show that the completion time of tasks, as well as the workload estimated by the users, decreased using the aid of the controller. In further works, authors have extended the visual perception installed on end-effectors with capacitive proximity sensors. In~\cite{Escaida2015b}, Escaida Navarro et al.\ generate 6D force-feedback from the proximity signals to aid the user in exploration tasks and Alagi et al.\ use tactile feedback with spatial resolution to help users in detecting shape cues in~\cite{alagi2020}. Both works show how proximity sensing can close the perception gap caused by visual distortions or occlusions in teleoperation.
In~\cite{stetco2020b}, remote gesture-based control of a mobile manipulator, based on capacitive proximity sensors, was presented. Different operation modes such as control of the end-effector or the mobile platform were demonstrated. Advantages of the capacitive interface acting as a virtual 3D mouse to control the robot are the robustness of the sensor against water, occlusions or even objects covering parts of the sensor interface (this work does not feature force-feedback).
Finally, the new advances in augmented and virtual reality theologies provide a new kind of representation of proximity information. Beyond the visual augmentation, one can combine it with force, tactile, audio \cite{marquardt2018audio-tactile}, or even with transcutaneous electrical stimulation \cite{zhao2020electrically}, addressing different human sensation to increase the level of presence in teleoperation.
\subsubsection{Material Classification (\gls{ATII})}
\label{subsubsec:MaterialClassification}
Beyond object exploration based on its geometry, the internal properties, such as the material or electrical properties, are very valuable knowledge for reliable grasping robust object manipulation. For example, using capacitive sensing, the relative permittivity $\varepsilon_r$ of an object can be estimated. It is then possible to classify it according to its material. The exciter frequency dependency of $\varepsilon_r(\omega)$ can be then utilized to identify the material. Kirchner et al.\ presented an approach to identify material by performing multi-frequency capacitive sensing~\cite{kirchner2008capacitive}. The researchers drove the circuit with three different frequencies and were able to classify $7$ different materials. A similar approach was presented in \cite{ding2018capacitive}, driving the electrodes with $290$ exciter frequencies between \SI{10}{kHz} and \SI{300}{kHz} and analyzing both the amplitude and the phase of the corresponding signals. This method is also known as \emph{capacitive spectroscopy}, referring to the different exciter frequencies used to perform the measurements. Furthermore, in \cite{alagi2018material}, another approach for material recognition using the flexible spatial resolution of a capacitive sensor array was presented. The sensors were driven with two excitation frequencies at different electrode configurations, in which the size of the electrodes changed. Using \gls{GPR}, automated mapping of material layers for investigation of soil composition is possible~\cite{kouros20183d}. Based on pulse-echo ultrasound and optoacoustic effects, Fang et al. reported in \cite{fang2019toward} the feasibility of integrating optical and acoustical measurement systems into a fingertip of a robotic gripper. A preliminary study showed successful material classification with an accuracy over of $87\%$ for three materials (steel, rubber, and acrylic). It is worth mentioning that estimating material properties also plays a big role in the bio-inspired approaches previously addressed (Sec.~\ref{subsubsec:BioInspired}).
\subsubsection{Tracking (\gls{ATI}, \gls{ATII})}
Profiting from distributed sensing, object tracking from proximity sensing streams also has been investigated to some extent in the literature. In~\cite{Petryk1996,Petryk1997}, Petryk and Buehler install four O-RLI-type sensors in a gripper and show that an extended Kalman filter can serve to track the 2D-position of a cylindrical object with respect to the gripper. Furthermore, the reflectance of the object is also estimated. The potential for \gls{ATII} is discussed. In~\cite{Escaida2013a}, the authors show an approach for tracking objects detected on a $3\!\times\!16$ array of capacitive sensors. The task is handled like an image processing problem. Also using a Kalman filter, the authors show the capability of tracking two hands and handling occlusions, i.\,e.\ targeting \gls{HRI} tasks (\gls{ATI}).
\subsection{Industrial Technologies and Solutions}
\label{subsec:IndustrialTechnologies}
In recent years, proximity sensing technology emerged on the market mainly driven by the industry to deploy collaborative robots in production lines, for instance in the automotive industry. The engineering and technology company BOSCH introduced \emph{BOSCH APAS} for flexible human-robot collaboration (\gls{HRC}), which is a mobile robot system for industrial applications. The sensor skin of the manipulator utilizes capacitive based proximity sensor technology (\gls{CM}) to enable safe \gls{HRC} in an industrial manufacturing environment~\cite{bosch_apas_nodate,Frangen2010}. Also recently, FOGALE Robotics~\cite{FOGALErobotics} presented a smart skin for robots based on capacitive proximity sensing technology (\gls{CSE}). The capacitive based multi-modal (tactile and proximity) robot skin reaches a sensor range of up to $\SI{300}{\milli\meter}$, where the electrodes are arranged in a matrix structure on the surface of the robot manipulator. In~\cite{mcolo2019obstacle}, the skin was utilized together with a control framework to avoid obstacles for \gls{HRI}. The KUKA system partner MRK-Systeme provides a sensor skin solely based on capacitive sensor technology for KUKA robots for industrial \gls{HRC} applications. In~\cite{hoffmann2016environment} MRK-Systeme presented capacitive based proximity perception for \gls{HRI} (\gls{CSE}) in industrial environments, utilizing a sensor front-end with an electrode configuration able to achieve up to $\SI{350}{\milli\meter}$ of sensing range on a KUKA KR6 manipulator.
\section{Future Perspectives: Grand Challenges}
\label{sec:FuturePerspectives}
In this section, we provide an outlook for the domain of human-centered proximity perception in robotics. We have highlighted what we think are \emph{grand challenges} at the end of each the three sub-sections.
\subsection{Human-robot interaction in the industry and service domains}
\label{subsec:HRIInIndustryAndServiceRobotics}
Proximity perception technology is mature enough to be deployed under strict safety requirements, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:IndustrialTechnologies}. However, today, collaborative automation still struggles to be an interesting value proposition, i.\,e.\ providing a large increase in efficiency that will justify the cost of investing in this technology. A value proposition that is more likely to be attractive in the near future is that of \emph{fenceless automation}. Here, humans and robots coexist in the same space but do not necessarily share a task. Value is added for instance by the fact that real-estate on the shop-floor is saved or because robotic automation is now possible in spaces that were previously considered to be too small. Nonetheless, safety certification is still a major challenge that is preventing wide-spread use of proximity perception. Today, technologies such as the ones discussed in ~\ref{subsec:IndustrialTechnologies} need to be certified on a solution level. Certification at the modular sensor level is not yet possible. Therefore, technologies such as radar (see Sec.~\ref{subsec:Radar}) can be attractive alternatives for HRI in industrial automation. Radar is more likely to achieve a safety rating on modular level soon, also profiting from all the prior experience coming from the developments in autonomous driving.
Areas such as medical robotics face similar issues for commercialization. The process of certifying the solutions is long and costly. However, we think that the market for automated solutions in health care or service robotics based on proximity perception is there, especially in scenarios where the human is very close to the robot, preventing the sole use of cameras. In this survey, we discussed examples such as grasping of moving objects and handover~\cite{Mayton2010,koyama2016,koyama_ijrr2019}, dressing and washing of patient \cite{erickson2018tracking,erickson2019multidimensional}, or assistive robotics based on teleoperation \cite{stoelen_adaptive_2013,stoelen_adaptive_2016}. Overall, we think that medical and service robotics is a promising field for proximity perception, but more research is needed to establish use-cases and the corresponding methods before commercial exploitation appears on the horizon.Furthermore, the study of highly redundant robotic systems that use proximity sensing is scarce. Meanwhile, the exploitation of kinematic redundancy based on proximity sensor feeds is natural, as discussed in Secs.~\ref{subsubsec:EarlyJacobian} and \ref{subsubsec:RecentJacobian}. This includes the use of proximity perception in unusual areas, such as on the legs or feet of robots. More research, like the one done in the group of Prof.\ Cheng~\cite{cheng2019comprehensive}, is needed. In summary, we can say the following about the challenges in these domains:
\begin{itemize}
\item Lowering the difficulties in achieving safety ratings for proximity sensing technologies will significantly expand the market for fenceless or collaborative automation. An effective procedure for safety certification, elaborated by industrial stakeholders and certification organizations, is needed.
\item Modularized technologies, such as radar chips, can have significant advantages in a certification procedure because solutions can be based on safety rated components.
\item In the service, medical and active assisted living domains proximity perception allows for new ways of interaction between humans and robots yet more research is needed before commercially viable applications are established.
\item A better understanding of how highly redundant robotic systems can profit from proximity perception is needed.
\item The potential of proximity perception for increasing robustness of grasping of moving objects, for instance during handover tasks or in teleoperation, needs to be established further, for example with conclusive user studies.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Cognitive Robotics}
\label{subsec:CognitiveRobotics}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{Figures/Illustration_pointcloudV3.pdf}
\caption{Proximity perception can play an important role in multi-modal exploration: a) Shows a typical scene with objects as captured by an RGBD-camera. b) A perspective shift reveals considerable gaps in the visual perception, having occluded elements that could be explored contactless and contact-based exploration steps, c) and d) respectively. A multi-modal cognitive model controls the exploration and aggregates the information to the object model, which includes geometric, material property, fill-level information as well as potential grasping regions obtained from the exploration steps in c) and d). This aggregated information is illustrated in e). The yellow and red colors on the mug (in c)-d)) illustrate regions that are extracted from the proximity and touch-based perception, respectively. }
\label{fig:futureperspectives}
\end{figure}
One of the hallmarks of cognitive robotics is active perception. It is the paradigm in which perception is enabled by purposeful actions, i.\,e.\ exploration). The active perception principle has been studied in many robotics research papers, as discussed in a survey by Bohg et al.~\cite{bohg2017interactive}. Machine learning is essential in active perception for tasks such as object pose estimation or scene labeling, which can be based on proximity perception, e.\,g.~\cite{lancaster2017improved}. Currently, a trend in active perception is the combined perception of vision and touch. We think that extending this trend to include proximity sensing will be a relevant research question in the near future. Therefore, we will see haptic exploration strategies that will be able to explore occluded regions of the workspace combining touch-based and touch-less exploratory movements. We have illustrated this possible multi-modal exploration approach in Fig.~\ref{fig:futureperspectives}. Some aspects of it have already been addressed in the literature discussed in this paper, e.\,g.~\cite{Maldonado2012,MuehlbacherKarrer2015b,varley2017shape,lancaster2017improved}. Another important domain in this area is the multi-modal modeling of the human for safe interaction and collaboration. In summary, regarding the major challenges we can say that:
\begin{itemize}
\item As we mentioned throughout the paper, there is a need for proximity sensing technologies that can easily be combined with vision and/or touch so they can be deployed together. This will make it attractive to include proximity sensing in established and novel active perception/cognitive approaches.
\item It can be expected that the trend regarding sim-to-real learning is going to prevail for the next years. Therefore, it is a challenge to implement realistic simulation models for the different measurement principles discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:PhysicalWorkingPrinciples}. In most cases, current approaches to model them are not viable in terms of their temporal performance. Overcoming this is an important challenge.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Soft Robotics}
\label{subsec:SoftRobotics}
We think that a good portion of the topics relevant for proximity perception will eventually transfer to Soft Robotics. In this way, soft manipulators equipped with proximity sensors can perform collision avoidance in an analogous way as described in Sec.~\ref{subsec:CollisionAvoidance}, i.\,e.\ respecting task hierarchies. Similarly, soft robots will be able to execute reactive preshaping, grasping, and exploration tasks using proximity sensors. Arguably more so than in other areas, in Soft Robotics it is of interest to study how to purposefully engage in contacts to achieve the desired task. Proximity perception can help in finding and reaching desired contact states. Overall, the support of simulation frameworks for model-based control and sensing, such as SOFA~\cite{navarro2020model}, will also be relevant. Therefore, regarding the major challenges in this domain, we can say that:
\begin{itemize}
\item New control methods must be found for soft robots to integrate the information provided by the proximity sensors and adapt the actuation strategy adequately.
\item Integration of proximity sensors in deformable structures represents an important challenge. A significant cross-talk between the global deformation and the detection of tactile and proximity events has to be expected. As stated in the previous section, appropriate models for proximity sensors are needed for sim-to-real learning or for interpreting their signals correctly under deformation using interactive simulations~\cite{shin_effect_2018,navarro2020model}.
\item Except for capacitive sensing, the realization of proximity sensors having deformable or stretchable sensing elements is challenging. Shrinking the size of rigid components, such as ICs, within a stretchable substrate may still allow the realization of deformable circuits, as described e.\,g. in \cite{nagels2018silicone,hellebrekers2018liquid}.
\end{itemize}
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{sec:SummaryAndConclusions}
In this paper, we have given an overview of the main aspects of proximity sensing in today's robotic landscape. Considering that the field has not had a significant formalization over the years, we provide a basic scheme for categorization of the robotic applications and technologies based on proximity sensors and we propose a set of traits that characterize proximity sensors in human-centered robotics. We give an account of the existing technologies and the main measurement principles reported by authors since the early 1970s and have organized the technologies in Table~\ref{tab:ComparisonYear}, including characteristics such as sensing range, update rate, sensing element size, etc. We then proceeded to detail how the technologies have been used for implementing applications such as collision avoidance and human-robot interaction (\gls{ATI}) as well as preshaping and grasping (\gls{ATII}). We start with the seminal developments of the early years in these domains and cover the progress up to today (2021). The tight integration into the sensory-motor functionality has received constant attention over the years in order to realize highly reactive behavior of robotic systems (\gls{BTI}). Meanwhile, as the area of robotics progresses as a whole, we report that more and more approaches begin to have cognitive aspects in them (\gls{BTII}). \gls{BTII} includes areas such as teleoperation, where the human is in the loop, autonomous object exploration and even bio-inspired approaches that mimic weakly electric fish.
Finally, Sec.~\ref{sec:FuturePerspectives} is dedicated to summarizing our projections for the field regarding the grand challenges we have identified. We think that as the technology of proximity sensors is reaching the maturity to coexist with tactile and visual perception in terms of integration, costs, and norm conformity, it will be adopted for a variety of solutions, especially those involving interaction with humans.
\section{Proof of the First Zonklar Equation}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported by the Region Hauts-de-France, the project COMOROS (ANR-17-ERC2-0029), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the project Inventor (I-SITE ULNE, le programme d’Investissements d’Avenir, M\'etropole Europ\'eenne de Lille).
This work has received funding from the "K\"arntner Wirtschaftsf\"orderung Fonds" (KWF) and the "European Regional Development Fund" (EFRE) within the CapSize project 26616/30969/44253.
This work also was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) within the project (Verbundprojekt-Nr.: 16SV7823K:).
The authors would like to thank cartoonist Adriana Filippini for the illustrations.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Prediction of vulnerabilities and exploits to support cyber defense (i.e., the blue picture) typically involves analyzing ingested data acquired from sensors and agents in various networks. Learning behaviors based on what has been seen, i.e., observed on the network, involves meticulous curation and processing of this data to support model development, training, testing, and validation. While this has provided some degree of results in the past, this work intends to explore an alternative approach toward identifying weaknesses within networks. The goal is to leverage the attack graph construct \cite{mcdermott2001attack} and train machine learning models over them to predict weaknesses within network topologies.
Under this approach, instead of observing a static, curated data set, machine learning algorithms can learn by interacting with attack graphs directly. Reinforcement learning (RL) for penetration testing has shown this to be feasible given constraints on attack graph representation such as scale and observability. However, existing literature constructs attack graphs either with no vulnerability information \cite{ghanem2018reinforcement, schwartz2019autonomous, ghanem2020reinforcement, chaudhary2020automated} or entirely with vulnerability information \cite{yousefi2018reinforcement, chowdary2020autonomous, hu2020automated}.
Yousefi \textit{et al.}, Chowdary \textit{et al.}, and Hu \textit{et al.} use the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) and its components to construct attack graphs \cite{yousefi2018reinforcement, chowdary2020autonomous, hu2020automated}, similar to Gallon and Bascou \cite{gallon2011using}. CVSS scores are an open, industry-standard means of scoring the severity of cybersecurity vulnerabilities. They provide an empirical and automatic means of constructing attack graphs for RL. However, they do not always correlate to a useful contextual picture for cyber operators. By relying totally on its abstractions, network representations unfortunately can be biased totally towards vulnerabilities and not on a realistic view of how an adversary plans or executes an attack campaign. As a result, this leads to RL methods converging to unrealistic attack campaigns.
While CVSS scores provide a strong foundation for attack graphs, we posit that notions of \emph{cyber terrain} \cite{conti_raymond_2018} should be built into attack graph representations to enable RL agents to construct more realistic attack campaigns during penetration testing. In particular, we suggest a focus on the OAKOC terrain analysis framework that consists of obstacles, avenues of approach, key terrain, observation and fields of fire, and cover and concealment \cite{conti_raymond_2018}. This work makes the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We contribute methodology for building OAKOC cyber terrain into Markov decision process (MDP) models of attack graphs.
\item We apply our methodology to RL for penetration testing by treating firewalls as cyber terrain obstacles in an example network that is at least an order of magnitude larger than the networks used by previous authors \cite{ghanem2018reinforcement, schwartz2019autonomous, ghanem2020reinforcement, chaudhary2020automated, yousefi2018reinforcement, chowdary2020autonomous, hu2020automated}.
\end{itemize}
In doing so we extend the literature on using CVSS scores to construct attack graphs and MDPs as well as the literature on RL for penetration testing.
The paper is structured as follows. First, background is given on terrain analysis and cyber terrain, reinforcement learning, and penetration testing. Second, our methods for constructing terrain-based attack graphs are presented. Then, results are presented before concluding with remarks on future steps.
\section{Background}
\subsection{Terrain Analysis and Cyber Terrain}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/icmla_agrl_1.png}
\caption{Figure \ref{fig:1}A shows a reinforcement learning agent $\mathcal{L}$ taking actions $a$ in environment $\mathcal{E}$ and receiving state $s$ and reward $r$. Figure \ref{fig:1}B shows a supervised learning agent $\mathcal{L}$ learning from example-label pairs $(x, y)$ provided by an oracle. Figure \ref{fig:1}C shows an environment $\mathcal{E}$ under the attack tree model. Figure \ref{fig:1}D shows an environment $\mathcal{E}$ under the attack graph model.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure*}
Intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) considers terrain a fundamental concept \cite{purcell1989operational}. In the physical domain, terrain refers to land and its features. Conti and Raymond define cyber terrain as, ``the systems, devices, protocols, data, software, processes, cyber personas, and other network entities that comprise, supervise, and control cyberspace \cite{conti_raymond_2018}.''
They note that cyber terrain exists at strategic, operational, and tactical levels, including, e.g., transatlantic cables and satellite constellations, telecommunications offices and regional data centers, and wireless spectrum and Local Area Network protocols, respectively. In this paper, we consider what Conti and Raymond refer to as the \emph{logical plane} of cyber terrain, which consists of data link, network, network transport, session, presentation, and application, i.e., layers 2-7 of the Open Systems Interconnection model \cite{zimmermann1980osi}.
Terrain analysis typically follows the OAKOC framework, consisting of observation and fields of fire (O), avenues of approach (A), key terrain (K), obstacles and movement (O), and cover and concealment (C). These notions from traditional terrain analysis can be applied to cyber terrain \cite{applegate2017searching}. For example, fields of fire may concern all that is network reachable (i.e., line of sight) and avenues of approach may consider network paths inclusive of available bandwidth \cite{conti_raymond_2018}. In this paper, we use obstacles to demonstrate how our methodology can be used to bring the first part of the OAKOC framework to attack graph construction for reinforcement learning.
\subsection{Reinforcement Learning}
Reinforcement learning is concerned with settings where agents learn from taking actions in and receiving rewards from an environment \cite{sutton2018reinforcement}. It can be contrasted with supervised learning, where agents learn from example-label pairs given by an oracle or labeling function. This contrast is depicted in Figures \ref{fig:1}A and \ref{fig:1}B. Naturally, reinforcement learning solution methods take a more dynamic formulation.
An agent is considered to interact with an environment $\mathcal{E}$ over a discrete number of time-steps by selecting an action $a_t$ at time-step $t$ from the set of actions $A$. In return, the environment $\mathcal{E}$ returns to the agent a new state $s_{t+1}$ and reward $r_{t+1}$. Thus, the interaction between the agent and environment $\mathcal{E}$ can be seen as a sequence $s_1, a_1, s_2, a_2, ..., a_{t-1}, s_t$. When the agent reaches a terminal state, the process stops.
Here we consider a case when $\mathcal{E}$ is a finite MDP. A finite MDP is a tuple $\langle S, A, \Phi, P, R \rangle$, where $S$ is a set of states, $A$ is a set of actions, $\Phi \subset S \times A$ is the set of admissible state-action pairs, $P:\Phi \times S \to [0, 1]$ is the transition probability function, and $R: \Phi \to \mathbb{R}$ is the expected reward function where $\mathbb{R}$ is the set of real numbers. $P(s, a, s')$ denotes the transition probability from state $s$ to state $s'$ under action $a$, and $R(s, a)$ denotes the expected reward from taking action $a$ in state $s$.
The goal of learning is to maximize future rewards. Using a discount factor $\gamma \in (0, 1]$, the expected value of the discounted sum of future rewards at time $t$ is defined as
$R_t = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma^k r_{t+k}$, that is, the sum of discounted rewards from time $t$ onward. The action value function $Q^\pi(s,a) = \mathbb{E}[R_t|s_t=s, a]$ is the expected return after taking action $a$ in state $s$ and then following policy $\pi$, where $\pi$ maps $(s, a) \in \Phi$ to the probability of picking action $a$ in state $s$. The optimal action-value function $Q^*(s, a) = \max_\pi Q^\pi (s, a)$.
The action value function $Q$ can be represented by a function approximator. Herein, we use Deep Q-learning (DQN) to approximate $Q^*$ with a neural network $Q(s, a; \theta)$, where $\theta$ are parameters of the neural network \cite{mnih2013playing, mnih2015human}. DQN has seen broad success and is the basis for many deep RL variants \cite{gu2016continuous, van2016deep, wang2016dueling}.
The parameters are learned iteratively by minimizing a sequence of loss functions $L_i(\theta_i)$,
$$L_i(\theta_i) = \mathbb{E}(r + \gamma \max_{a'}Q(s', a';\theta_{i-1})-Q(s, a;\theta_i))^2.$$
This specific formulation is termed one-step Q-learning, because $s'$ is the state that succeeds $s$, but it can be relaxed to $n$-step Q-learning by considering rewards over a sequence of $n$ steps. Alternative solution methods to DQN include proximal policy optimization \cite{schulman2017proximal} and asynchronous advantage actor-critic A3C \cite{mnih2016asynchronous}, both of which learn the policy $\pi$ directly.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\ra{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ll@{}}
\toprule
Paper & Network Description(s) \\
\midrule
Ghanem and Chen \cite{ghanem2018reinforcement} & \emph{100 machine} local area network \\
Schwartz and Kurniawati \cite{schwartz2019autonomous} & \emph{50 machines} with unknown services and 18 machines with 50 services \\
Ghanem and Chen \cite{ghanem2020reinforcement} & \emph{100 machine} local area network \\
Chaudhary \textit{et al.} \cite{chaudhary2020automated} & Not reported \\
Yousefi \textit{et al.} \cite{yousefi2018reinforcement} & Attack graph with \emph{44 vertices and 43 edges} \\
Chowdary \textit{et al.} \cite{chowdary2020autonomous} & Attack graph with 109 vertices, edges unknown, and a \emph{300 host} flat network \\
Hu \textit{et al.} \cite{hu2020automated} & Attack graph with \emph{44 vertices and 52 edges} \\
\textbf{Our network} & Attack graph with \textbf{955 vertices and 2350 edges} \\
\bottomrule
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Network Sizes.}
\label{table:size}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Penetration Testing}
Penetration testing is defined by Denis \textit{et al.} as, ``a simulation of an attack to verify the security of a system or environment to be analyzed . . . through physical means utilizing hardware, or through social engineering \cite{denis2016penetration}.'' They continue by emphasizing that penetration testing is not the same as port scanning. Specifically, if port scanning is looking through binoculars at a house to identify entry points, penetration testing is having someone actually break into the house.
Penetration testing is part of broader vulnerability detection and analysis, which typically combines penetration testing with static analysis \cite{bacudio2011overview, shah2015overview, chess2004static}. Penetration testing models have historically taken the form of either the flaw hypothesis model \cite{pfleeger1989methodology, weissman1995penetration}, the attack tree model \cite{salter1998toward, schneier1999attack}, or the attack graph model \cite{mcdermott2001attack, duan2008easy, polad2017attack}.
The flaw hypothesis model describes the general process of gathering information about a system, determining a list of hypothetical flaws, e.g., via domain expert brain-storming, sorting that list by priority, testing hypothesized flaws in order, and fixing those that are discovered. As McDermott notes, this model is general enough to describe almost all penetration testing \cite{mcdermott2001attack}. The attack tree model adds a tree structure to the process of gathering information, generating hypotheses, etc., which allows for a standardization of manual penetration testing, and also gives a basis for automated penetration testing methods. The attack graph model adds a network structure, differing from the attack tree model in regard to the richness of the topology and, accordingly, the amount of information needed to specify the model.
Automated penetration testing has become a part of practice \cite{stefinko2016manual}, with the attack tree and attack graph models as its basis. In reinforcement learning, these models serve as the environment $\mathcal{E}$. They are depicted in Figure \ref{fig:1}C and \ref{fig:1}D, respectively. Both modeling approaches involve constructing topologies of networks by treating machines (i.e., servers and network devices) as vertices and links between machines as edges between vertices. Variants involve integrating additional detail regarding sub-networks and services. In the case of attack trees, probabilities must be assigned to the branches between parent and child nodes, and in the case of attack graphs, transition probabilities between states must be assigned to each edge. While many of the favorable properties of attack trees persist in attack graphs, it is unclear whether attack graphs can outperform attack trees in largely undocumented systems, i.e., systems with partial observability \cite{mcdermott2001attack, shmaryahu2016constructing}.
\subsection{Reinforcement Learning for Penetration Testing}
Reinforcement learning in penetration testing is promising because it addresses many challenges. A single penetration testing tool has never been enough \cite{austin2011one}. Yet, RL can be the basis for many tools, such as analysis, bypassing security, and penetration, and can by applied to the various types of penetration testing, i.e., external testing, internal testing, blind testing, and double-blind testing \cite{weissman1995security}. The automation and generality of RL means it can be deployed quickly, in the form of many variants with different policies, at many points in a network. And, as Chen \textit{et al.} note \cite{chen2018penetration}, as future networks scale in the Internet of Things age, intelligent payload mutation and intelligent entry-point crawling, the kinds of tasks RL is well-suited for, will be necessary in penetration testing.
Reinforcement learning for penetration testing uses the attack graph model \cite{ghanem2018reinforcement, schwartz2019autonomous, ghanem2020reinforcement, chaudhary2020automated, yousefi2018reinforcement, chowdary2020autonomous, hu2020automated}. The environment $\mathcal{E}$ is treated as either a MDP, mirroring classical planning, where actions are deterministic and the network structure and configuration are known, or as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP), where the outcomes of actions are stochastic and network structure and configuration are uncertain.
While POMDPs are more realistic, they have not been shown to scale to large networks and require modeling many prior probability distributions \cite{shmaryahu2016constructing}. Since full observability leads MDPs to underestimate attack cost, its main flaw is in finding vulnerabilities which are unlikely to be found or exploited. As such, penetration testing on MDPs gives a worst case analysis, making it the risk averse option in the sense that it tends towards false alarms. We use MDPs for our attack graph model because it can scale and because our methodology for adding cyber terrain to MDP attack graphs can later be extended to POMDPs.
Unlike most previous work in RL for penetration testing \cite{ghanem2018reinforcement, schwartz2019autonomous, ghanem2020reinforcement, chaudhary2020automated}, but similar to Yousefi et al., Hu et al., and Chowdary et al. \cite{yousefi2018reinforcement, hu2020automated, chowdary2020autonomous}, we use vulnerability information to construct the MDP. In particular, we use the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) \cite{gallon2011using}. Unlike those previous authors, however, we extend beyond vulnerability information by folding in notions of cyber terrain. Following the literature, we use DQN as the RL solution method \cite{schwartz2019autonomous, chowdary2020autonomous, hu2020automated}. However, we use a larger network than those in the literature, as reported in Table \ref{table:size}.
\section{Methods}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/mdp3.png}
\caption{The network is extracted into an attack graph using MulVal \cite{mulvalouarticle}. Terrain can be added via state or reward. To add via state, the attack graph is first modified to include more state information related to OAKOC \cite{conti_raymond_2018}. The CVSS MDP is constructed as usual with the transition terrain-adjusted probabilities. To add via reward, the CVSS MDP is constructed as usual followed by including terrain-adjusted rewards. Each method leads to a terrain-adjusted CVSS MDP. Note, attack complexity is a component of CVSS.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure*}
RL-based penetration testing involves a three-step procedure of (1) extracting the network structure into an attack graph, (2) specifying an MDP (or POMDP) over the extracted attack graph, and (3) deploying RL on the MDP. The outcome of deploying RL can then be studied in various ways to express the penetration testing results.
The attack graph is extracted using MulVal, a framework that conducts multihost, multistage vulnerability analysis on a network representation using a reasoning engine \cite{mulvalouarticle}. The states $S$ of the MDP are given by the vertices of the attack graph, which can be components of the network, e.g., entries into a specific subnet or an intermediary file server, or can be means of traversal, e.g., the interaction rules between network components. That is, not all states are locations in the network. The actions $A$ of the MDP that are available in a particular state are given by the outbound edges from that state.
The transition probabilities $P(s, a, s')$ and the reward $R$ of the MDP are constructed using CVSS. The transition probabilities are assigned using the attack complexity associated with $s'$, which CVSS ranks as either low, medium, or high, and which we translate into transition probabilities of $0.9$, $0.6$, and $0.3$, respectively, in following with Hu \textit{et al.} \cite{hu2020automated}. The agent remains in $s$ if the action fails. The reward for arriving at $s'$ is given by
$$\emph{Base Score} + \frac{\emph{Exploitability Score}}{10}.$$
Then, a target node in the network is deemed the terminal state and given a reward of $100$. An initial state is defined and given a reward of $0.01$, and, using a depth first search, reward is linearly scaled from the initial state to the terminal state. Lastly, $-1$ reward is assigned to actions which bring the agent to a state from which the terminal state is inaccessible without backtracking, or otherwise lead to entering a sub-network from which the terminal state is not reachable.
We term this particular MDP the \emph{CVSS MDP}. The RL agent is trained using DQN in an episodic fashion. Episodes terminate when the terminal state is reached or after taking a number of hops, i.e., actions, in the network. This formulation is similar to those of Yousefi \textit{et al.}, Hu \textit{et al.}, and Chowdary \textit{et al.} \cite{yousefi2018reinforcement, hu2020automated, chowdary2020autonomous}. This terrain-blind approach ignores the typical perspectives of attackers when traversing and navigating enterprise networks.
Our methodology for adding cyber terrain builds on this formulation. We propose to add terrain via state and reward to resolve its short-comings in realism. To add terrain information via state is to do so by modifying $S$ and $P(s, a, s')$. First, additional information must be included from MulVal and other sources into the attack graph originally generated by MulVal. Then, this additional state information can be used to modify $P(s, a, s')$. By using state, we represent terrain as an effect on the dynamics of the MDP. As such, it adds terrain by creating a more realistic model of the environment $\mathcal{E}$. To add terrain information via reward is to do so by modifying $R$, i.e., by reward engineering. Depending on the OAKOC phenomena, this means incrementing or decrementing the reward. (We explore these in future work.) By using reward, we introduce terrain not by directly bringing realism to $\mathcal{E}$, but rather by incentivizing the agent to behave in a more realistic manner. These two processes are depicted in Figure \ref{fig:2}. We term these \emph{terrain-adjusted CVSS MDPs}.
\subsection{Firewalls as Obstacles}
We now consider firewall as a cyber terrain obstacles. Conti and Raymond categorize obstacles as physical or virtual capabilities that filter, disrupt, or block traffic between networks using different methods \cite{conti_raymond_2018}. For the purposes of this work, we consider firewalls as blocking obstacles and use the presented methodology to incorporate cyber terrain into a CVSS-based attack graph.
\subsubsection{Adding via Reward}
We engineer the reward to incentivize realistic attack campaigns using a term $k$ such that the reward in state $s$ after taking action $a$ becomes $$R(s, a) = R(s, a) + k(s).$$ The term $k$ decrements the reward to incentivize avoiding firewalls. The value of $k$ is dependent on the protocol, i.e.,
$$
k(s) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if no firewall} \\
0.8w & \text{if FTP} \\
0.6w & \text{if SMTP} \\
0.4w & \text{if HTTP} \\
0.2w & \text{if SSH} \\
\end{cases}
$$
where $w \leq 0$ is a parameter for tuning the strength of incentivization. That is, we vary the change in reward based on the security of the communication protocol. Note, when multiple protocols are blocked, their $k$ values are averaged together.
\subsubsection{Adding via State}
Alternatively, we introduce realism by engineering the state transition probabilities. We use two terms $k_1(s)$ and $k_2(s)$ such that the state transition probabilities become $$P(s, a, s') = P(s, a, s') * k_1(s') * k_2(s').$$ The term $k_1$ corresponds to firewall presence and $k_2$ to the importance of the firewall. They are defined as follows.
$$
k_1(s) = \begin{cases}
0.01 & \text{if firewall} \\
1.0 & \text{else} \\
\end{cases} \quad
k_2(s) = \begin{cases}
1.0 & \text{if no firewall} \\
0.2 & \text{if FTP} \\
0.4 & \text{if SMTP} \\
0.6 & \text{if HTTP} \\
0.8 & \text{if SSH} \\
\end{cases}
$$
Recall, $P(s, a, s')$ is initialized using the low, medium, and high CVSS attack complexity classes. Note that, $k_1$ introduces an emphasis on avoiding firewalls and $k_2$ counterbalances that emphasis for high-value targets. Note, when multiple protocols are blocked, their $k_2$ values are averaged together.
\section{Results}
We now compare the performance of DQN across (1) the vanilla, terrain-blind CVSS MDP, (2) the reward-adjusted MDP, enhanced via $R$, and (3) the state-adjusted MDP, enhanced via state transition probabilities $P(s, a, s')$. We use a 122 host network whose attack graph has 955 vertices and 2350 edges. All presented results use $w=-2$. The top-line results are shown in Table \ref{table:multi}. The introduction of terrain increases the number of hops, as agents must now navigate around firewalls.
We can compare the reward as well. Note the reward functions are identical between the vanilla MDP and the state-adjusted MDP, but are different between the vanilla MDP and reward-adjusted MDP. The $w$ parameter for adjusting $R$ decreases reward, and so we expect to see a lower reward. Notably, we see a decrease in reward despite taking almost 30 more hops. Again, this simply confirms the reward has been decremented.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\ra{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccc@{}}
\toprule
MDP & ``Vanilla" & via $R$ & via $P(s, a, s')$ \\
\midrule
Total Number of Hops & 62 & 91 & 85 \\
Total Reward & 221 & 179 & 237 \\
\bottomrule
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Total number of hops and total reward with all protocols available.}
\label{table:multi}
\end{table}
Similar comparisons between the vanilla MDP and state-adjusted MDP, we see a greater reward, as expected due to the larger number of hops. Whereas the agent averages ~3.6 units of reward per hop on the vanilla MDP, the agent averages ~2.8 units of reward per hop on the state-adjusted MDP. Recalling that reward for approaching the terminal state is linearly scaled using a depth first search from the initial state to terminal state, the maintenance of a high average reward suggests the RL agent can still make steady progress to the terminal state while accounting for obstacles.
A closer look at the results is shown in Figure \ref{fig:plots}. The plots show the average reward achieved by the DQN agent against the number of training episodes. The total reward was evaluated every 4 episodes and each episode had a maximum length of 2500 steps. The high average reward values achieved after 80 episodes signify that the agents spend a majority of their time close to the terminal state. The vanilla MDP is protocol agnostic. While Table \ref{table:multi} shows state-adjusted and reward-adjusted total reward when agents can choose between protocols, in Figure \ref{fig:plots}, the state-adjusted and reward-adjusted plots show average reward when the agent is restricted to a single choice of protocol. The plots show our method was able to represent that FTP is a more significant cyber obstacle than SSH.
Lastly, Figure \ref{fig:network_paths} shows the paths derived from the approximated policies. The top figure shows the vanilla path, the middle figure show the state-adjusted path, and the bottom figure shows the reward-adjusted paths. The paths have been greatly reduced by focusing on key nodes along the path. The red edges highlight differences in the path taken from the initial to terminal state. At node 681, a firewall existed that led to the agents using state-adjusted and reward-adjusted MDPs to seek an alternate path. Their paths differentiate after node 136.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/pentesting.png}
\caption{Average reward plotted against training episode for each MDP. The middle and right plots show special cases where the state-adjusted and reward-adjusted MDPs were restricted to a single communication protocol.}
\label{fig:plots}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm, height=8cm]{figures/allgraphstogether.png}
\caption{Visualization of attack campaigns.}
\label{fig:network_paths}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we present methods for enhancing ``vanilla", CVSS-based attack graphs by using concepts of cyber terrain within intelligence preparation of the battlefield. Our method introduces cyber terrain by modifying the state transition probabilities $P(s, a, s')$ and reward function $R$. Using an example attack graph with nearly 1000 nodes, we showed how our approach can be used to introduce cyber obstacles, particularly firewalls. We evaluated using DQN, and showed notable differences in total reward, number of hops, average reward, and attack campaigns.
The shift from manually constructed MDPs \cite{ghanem2018reinforcement, schwartz2019autonomous, ghanem2020reinforcement, chaudhary2020automated} to CVSS-based MDPs \cite{yousefi2018reinforcement, chowdary2020autonomous, hu2020automated} marks an emphasis on scaling the construction of attack-graph-based MDPs. Our methodology maintains an automated, scale-oriented approach to constructing MDPs, while introducing notions of cyber terrain that help ground RL agent behavior to reality.
Future work should consider how more elements of cyber terrain can be folded into MDP construction. In doing so, a primary consideration should be to continue to scale the size of attack graphs, using more hosts at an enterprise scale. This would help further validate the use of cyber-terrain IPB principles in creating realistic contexts for penetration testing. Also, methods should be developed that use multiple initial and terminal states to assist in attack surface cartography. In addition, the current literature considers RL agents that are trained and deployed on the same network. Notions of transfer learning, meta-learning, and lifelong learning are promising paths for generalizing penetration testing agents.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
The Koopman framework~\cite{Koo31} is the operator-theoretic basis for a wide range of data-driven methodologies to predict the evolution of nonlinear dynamical systems using linear techniques, see, e.g., \cite{Mez05,RMB+09} or the recent
survey~\cite{BBKK21} and the references therein. The underlying concept is that observables, which may also be understood as outputs from the systems-and-control perspective, can be propagated forward in time using the linear yet infinite-dimensional Koopman operator or its generator, instead of simulating the nonlinear system and
evaluating the observable functions.
Its recent success
is closely linked to numerically tractable approximation techniques like extended Dynamic Mode Decomposition (eDMD), see, e.g., \cite{WILLIAMS2015,KLUS2016b,KM18b,KNH20}
for
numerical techniques and
convergence results.
While the Koopman framework is well established,
approximation results are typically only established in the infinite-data limit, i.e., if \textit{sufficient} data is available. %
Recently, Lu and Tartakovsky~\cite{LuTart20}
discussed error bounds w.r.t.\ DMD invoking the seminal work~\cite{KM18b} by Korda and Mezi\'{c}. %
While the authors numerically demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach even for nonlinear parabolic Partial Differential Equations (PDEs), see also their extensio
~\cite{LuTart21}, there remains a significant gap from a more theoretical point of view since
the approximation error
is assumed to be zero for \textit{finite data}, see~\cite[Remark~3.1]{LuTart20}.
Mamakoukas and coworkers~\cite{MCTM21} mimick a Taylor-series expansion based on a particular set of observables to approximate the system dynamics of an Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE). This work may be understood as a promising approach to incorporate (local) knowledge on the system dynamics in the Koopman framework.
However, a bound on the prediction error in terms of data is not deduced. Error bounds for Koopman eigenvalues in terms of the finite-data estimation error were derived in~\cite{Webber2021}, but the estimation error itself was not quantified. In~\cite{Mollenhauer2020}, concentration inequalities were
applied
to bound the estimation error for the co-variance and cross-covariance operators involved in Koopman estimation. %
\MS{In the exhaustive preprint~\cite{kurdila2018koopman}, the authors treat the projection error for different approximation spaces such as, e.g., reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces and wavelets. The estimation error is also discussed briefly in Section 8.5. In \cite{ZhanZuaz21}, besides providing a finite-data error bound on the approximation of the Koopman operator in the context of ODEs, the authors estimate the projection error by means of finite-element analysis. %
In conclusion, to the best of our knowledge\footnote{We are already referring to two authoritative references on preprint servers supporting our claim that finite-data error bounds are still missing; thanks to one of the unknown referees for drawing our attention to the still unpublished work~\cite{kurdila2018koopman}.}, \cite{ZhanZuaz21, kurdila2018koopman} are the only works providing rigorous \MS{error bounds for Koopman-based approximations }of a dynamical system governed by a nonlinear ODE. }
In this paper, we rigorously derive probabilistic bounds on the approximation error (or finite-data estimation error) and the (multi-step) prediction error
for nonlinear Stochastic Differential Equations (SDEs). \MS{This, of course, also includes nonlinear ODEs.
The deduced bounds on the approximation error and prediction accuracy explicitly depend on the number of data points used in eDMD.
To this end, besides using mass concentration inequalities and a numerical error analysis to deal with the error propagation in time, %
we employ substantially different techniques in comparison to~\cite{ZhanZuaz21} to provide an additional alternative assumption based on ergodic sampling tailored to \MS{stationary } SDEs. \MS{Further, we illustrate the error bounds
for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process.}
W.r.t.\ the application of Koopman theory in control, a lot of research has been invested over the past years, beginning with the popular \textit{DMD with control} \cite{Proctor2016}, which was later used in Model Predictive Control (MPC) \cite{KM18a}. Another popular method is to use a coordinate transformation into Koopman eigenfunctions \cite{KKB21} or the already mentioned component-wise Taylor series expansion~\cite{MCTM21}.
In \cite{LuShin2020}, the prediction error of the method proposed in \cite{Proctor2016} was estimated using the convergence result of \cite{KM18b}. However, the result
is of purely asymptotic nature, i.e., it does not state a convergence rate in terms of data points.
All approaches mentioned until now yield linear surrogate models of the form $Ax+Bu$, i.e.\ the control enters linearly.
For general control-affine systems, numerical simulation studies indicate that bilinear surrogate models
are better suited, see~\cite{GP17,Peitz2020,BFV21,PB21}.
The technique proposed in~\cite{PK19,Peitz2020} constructs its surrogate model from $n_c+1$ autonomous Koopman operators, where $n_c$ is the control dimension. %
The key feature is that the state-space dimension is not augmented by the number of control inputs, which counteracts the curse of dimensionality in comparison to the more widespread approach introduced in~\cite{KM18a}. Compared to \cite{Peitz2020}, we present a detailed analysis of the accuracy regarding both the dictionary size as well as the amount of training data. Even though the bound is rather coarse on the operator level, we demonstrate that it correctly captures the qualitative behavior.
In this context, we provide a probabilistic bound on the \MS{approximation error of the projected Koopman generator, the projected Koopman semigroup and the respective trajectories. }
To this end, we extend our results
towards nonlinear control systems. Besides a rigorous
bound on the approximation error, we present estimates on the (auto-regressive) prediction accuracy,
i.e.\ in an open-loop prediction (without feedback).
This allows for a direct application of our results in MPC.
The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, in Section~\ref{sec:SDE}, we deduce a rigorous bound on the approximation error for nonlinear SDEs. Then, we extend our analysis to nonlinear control-affine systems in Section~\ref{sec:control}. In Section~\ref{sec:examples}, two numerical simulation studies for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck system (SDE) and the controlled Duffing equation (nonlinear control-affine system) are presented before conclusions are drawn in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\input{sections/sde_estimate}
\input{sections/control_estimate}
\input{sections/examples}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
\noindent
We presented the first rigorously derived probabilistic bounds on the finite-data approximation error for the Koopman generator of SDEs and nonlinear control systems. Furthermore, by using slightly more advanced techniques from probability theory, we also relaxed the assumption of i.i.d. data invoked in~\cite{ZhanZuaz21} in the ODE setting. Moreover, we also provided an analysis for the error propagation to estimate the prediction accuracy in terms of the data size. A novelty for SDEs and in the control setting is that our bounds explicitly depend on the number of data points (and not only in the infinite-data limit). Further, the proposed techniques provide the theoretical foundation for the Koopman-based approach~\cite{Peitz2020} to control-affine systems, which seems to be superior for control and particularly well-suited for MPC, since it avoids the curse of dimensionality w.r.t.\ the control dimension.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\section{Numerical examples}\label{sec:examples}
In this section, we first present numerical experiments on the derived error bound for the Koopman generator, and then discuss the implications for optimal control. In particular, we emphasize that the bilinear Koopman model from Section \ref{sec:control} appears to be the best approach for a straightforward transfer of predictive error bounds to the control setting.
\MS{\subsection{Generator Error Bounds: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Process}
\label{subsec:ExampleErrorBounds}
We begin by investigating the validity and accuracy of the error bounds for the Galerkin matrices of a single SDE system, as derived in Proposition~\ref{thm:prob_error_bounds_xi}. To this end, we consider the one-dimensional reversible Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ou_sde}
\mathrm{d}X_t = - X_t \mathrm{d}t + \mathrm{d}W_t.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[bht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.51\columnwidth]{figures/OU_mu.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth]{figures/OU_Error_C.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth]{figures/OU_Error_A.pdf}
\caption{\MS{Numerical Results for one-dimensional OU Process~\eqref{eq:ou_sde}. A: Exact invariant density $\mu$ in black, compared to histograms of the first $m$ points of an exemplary trajectory, for various data sizes $m$. B: Error bounds for $C$ corresponding to confidence level $1 - \delta = 0.9$. We show both the theoretical estimates obtained in Proposition~\ref{thm:prob_error_bounds_xi} (blue), as well as the data-based estimates obtained as described in the text (red). We show the maximal error over all entries $C_{ij}$ (dots), the average error over all matrix entries (squares), and the Frobenius norm errors $\|\tilde{C}_m - C\|_F$. C: The same as B for the matrix $A$. \label{fig:ou_process}}}
\end{figure}
\noindent As the spectrum of the generator $\mathcal{L}$ of the OU process, as well as its invariant density, are known in analytical form, we can exactly calculate the Galerkin matrices $C, \, A$, all variances $\sigma^2_{\Phi_{ij}}$, and asymptotic variances $\sigma^2_{\Phi_{ij}, \infty}$, if we consider a basis set comprised of monomials, see Appendix~\ref{app:ou_analytical}.
We consider monomials of maximal degree four (i.e. $N = 4$), and set the discrete integration time step to $\Delta_t = 10^{-3}$. For a range of different data sizes $m$ and confidence levels $\delta$, we estimate the minimal error $\varepsilon$ that can be achieved with probability $1 - \delta$ for a variety of quantities of interest. We calculate $\varepsilon$ for all individual entries $C_{ij}$ and $A_{ij}$ using inequality~\eqref{eq:error_phi_ij_rev}. Moreover, we also calculate $\varepsilon$ for the Frobenius norm errors in $C$ and $A$ by means of~\eqref{eq:ineq_m_rev}.
In order to compare our bound to the real error, we conduct 500 identical experiments. For each experiment, we generate an independent simulation of the OU process~\eqref{eq:ou_sde}, with initial condition drawn from the invariant distribution. For each trajectory and each of the data sizes $m$ considered, we estimate the matrices $\tilde{C}_m, \, \tilde{A}_m$. We then calculate the absolute entry-wise errors to $C$ and $A$, as well as the Frobenius norm errors $\|\tilde{C}_m - C\|_F$ and $\|\tilde{A}_m - A\|_F$. Finally, we numerically compute the $1 - \delta$-percentile of each of these errors for all confidence levels $\delta$ considered above (i.e., the error $\varepsilon$ below which $450$ of the $500$ repeated experiments lie). These can be directly compared to the probabilistic bounds $\varepsilon$ obtained from our theoretical estimates.
The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ou_process}. We can see in panels B and C that our estimates for individual entries of the Galerkin matrices $C$ and $A$ are quite accurate, as the data-based error is over-estimated by only a factor of two to three. Our estimates for Frobenius norm errors are less accurate, with approximately one order of magnitude difference between theoretical and data-based errors. It can be concluded that the factor $N$ in~\eqref{eq:ineq_m_rev} is too coarse in this example, as the actual Frobenius norm error only marginally exceeds the maximal entry-wise error. Nevertheless, the qualitative behaviour of all theoretical error bounds is confirmed by the data.}
\subsection{Extension to control systems}
In this section, we illustrate our findings for deterministic as well as stochastic systems regarding prediction and control. We compare the solution of the exact model to the bilinear system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discreteBilinearModel}
\begin{aligned}
\widehat{z}(t) &= \psi(P({z}(t))) \\
\dot{z}(t) &= \left[\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0\right)\right]\widehat{z}(t)\\
z(t_0) &= \psi(x(t_0)),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $n_c$ is the dimension of the control input $u$, and $P$ is the projection of the lifted state $z$ onto the full state $x \in \mathbb{X}$. Note that the first line, i.e., the \textit{project-and-lift} step is not required if the space $\mathbb{V}$ spanned by the $\{\{\psi_k\}_{k=1}^N\}$ is a \textit{Koopman-invariant subspace} \cite{PBK18}. Moreover, it becomes less and less important the more the dynamics of the $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m$ are truly restricted to $\mathbb{V}$, or -- alternatively -- if we are not interested in long-term predictions, for instance in the MPC setting.
Besides the bilinear model \eqref{eq:discreteBilinearModel}, we also compare the true solution to the linear model obtained via eDMD with control, see \cite{Proctor2016,KM18a} for details.
Optimality of the computed trajectories from a theoretical standpoint will not be addressed here, as the error bounds for $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m$ are still too large. However, the principled approach is to choose an $m$ such that Corollary \ref{c:control_problem} holds.
For the numerical discretization, we use eDMD with a finite lag time to obtain a discrete-time version of \eqref{eq:discreteBilinearModel} in case of the Duffing system, which corresponds to an explicit Euler discretization \cite{Peitz2020}. For the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck example, we calculate the generator using gEDMD \cite{Klus2020} and then obtain the resulting discrete-time version by taking the matrix exponential. In the case of eDMD with control, we use the standard algorithm from \cite{KM18a}, which also results in a forward Euler version of the linear system $\dot{z} = \hat A z + \hat B u$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DMDcModel}
\begin{aligned}
\widehat{z}_{i+1} &= A z_i + B u_i, \\
z_{i+1} &= \psi(P(\widehat{z}_{i+1})), \\
z_0 &= \psi(x(t_0)),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have again added the \textit{project-and-lift} step necessary for high prediction accuracy over long time horizons.
\subsubsection{Duffing equation (ODE)}
The first system we study is the Duffing oscillator:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Duffing_NonlinCon}
\begin{aligned}
\tfrac{\text{d}x}{\text{d}t} = \begin{pmatrix}
x_2 \\ -\delta x_2 - \alpha x_1 - 2\beta x_1^3 u
\end{pmatrix}, \quad x(t_0) = x_0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha = -1$, $\beta = 1$ and $\delta = 0$.
Note that the control does not enter linearly, which is a well-known challenge for DMDc \cite{Peitz2020}.
As the dictionary $\psi$, we choose monomials with varying maximal degrees, and we also include square and cubic roots for comparison. For the data collection process, we simulate the system with constant control inputs $u=0$ and $u=1$ using the standard Runge-Kutta scheme of fourth order with time step $h=0.005$. As the final time, we choose $T = n_{lag} h$ seconds, where $n_{lag}$ is the integer number of time steps we step forward by the discrete-time Koopman operator model. We perform experiments for both $n_{lag}=1$ and $n_{lag}=10$. Each trajectory yields one tuple $(x,y) = (x(0), x(T))$, and we sample various numbers $m$ of data points with uniformly distributed random initial conditions over the rectangle $[-1.5,1,5]^2$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{figures/Duffing_Prediction-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of ODE solution, the bilinear surrogate model and the linear model obtained via eDMDc for the system \eqref{eq:Duffing_NonlinCon} for a random control input with $u(t) \in[-1,1]$.
\label{fig:Duffing_Prediction}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ \ref{fig:Duffing_Prediction} shows the prediction accuracy for $m=100$ and $n_{lag}=10$, where excellent agreement is observed for the bilinear surrogate model. In particular the relative error
\[
\Delta x(t) = \frac{\|x(t) - \tilde{x}(t)\|_2}{\|x(t)\|_2},
\]
where $\tilde{x}(t)= P(z(t))$ is the solution obtained via the surrogate model, is below 0.1 percent for almost 3 seconds, whereas the eDMDc approach has a large error of $\approx 10\%$ from the start and becomes unstable within the first second.
To study the influence of the size of the training data set, Fig.\ \ref{fig:Duffing_Error} shows boxplots of the one-step prediction accuracy for various $m$. Each boxplot was obtained by performing 20 trainings of a bilinear system according to the procedure described above. After each training, a single time step was made with $1000$ uniformly drawn random initial conditions $x_0 \in [-1.5,1,5]^2$ control inputs $u \in [0,1]$, both. Consequently, each boxplot consists of $2\cdot 10^4$ data points. We see that, as expected, the training error decreases for larger $m$. However, what is really surprising is that a saturation can be observed already at $m=30$ for an ODE system. Beyond that, no further improvement can be seen, which demonstrates the advantage of (i) the linearity of the Koopman approach and (ii) the usage of autonomous systems for the model reduction process.
\begin{figure}[thb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Duffing_DMDvBILIN_autCon-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{\MS{Left: Boxplot of the relative one-step prediction error over 20 training runs and $1000$ different samples $(x_0,u)$ in each run for a dictionary of monomials up to degree at most five and $n_{lag}=1$. Right: The influence of the lag time as well as the control input on the mean accuracy (the dashed line with triangle symbols corresponds to the left plot). We see that the lag time plays an important role in the control setting.}}
\label{fig:Duffing_Error}
\end{figure}
Interestingly, the lag time between two consecutive data points has a critical impact on the maximal accuracy in the control case. This is due to the fact that the bilinear surrogate model is only exact for the Koopman generator \cite{Peitz2020}. For a finite lag time, the bilinear model is a first order approximation such that smaller lag times are advantageous. Nevertheless, the accuracy still significantly supersedes the eDMDc approach.
Another interesting observation can be made with respect to the choice of the dictionary $\psi$. Fig.\ \ref{fig:Duffing_Error_Means} shows a comparison of the mean errors (analogous to the red bars in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Duffing_Error} for various dictionaries. We observe excellent performance for monomials with degree three or larger. The addition of roots of $x$ is not beneficial at all, and in particular, smaller dictionaries are favorable in terms of the data requirements, which is in agreement with our error analysis and which was also reported in \cite{PK20}.
\begin{figure}[thb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{figures/Duffing_DMDvBILIN_Monomials-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{\MS{Mean relative one-step prediction errors for various dictionaries and data set sizes $m$.}}
\label{fig:Duffing_Error_Means}
\end{figure}
\noindent Next, we study the stabilization of the system \eqref{eq:Duffing_NonlinCon} for the final time $T=5$. Using the time discretization as above and a straight-forward single-shooting method, this yields a 100-dimensional optimization problem similar to Problem \eqref{eq:OCP_surrogate} from Corollary \ref{c:control_problem}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OCP}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{u} \int_{0}^5 &\|P (z(t)) - x^{\mathrm{ref}}(t)\|^2 \\
\mbox{s.t.} \qquad &\eqref{eq:discreteBilinearModel}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $x^{\mathrm{ref}}$ is the reference trajectory to be tracked. Fig.\ \ref{fig:Duffing_Control} demonstrates the performance for $x^{\mathrm{ref}}=0$ with models that were obtained using only $m=25$ training samples for each of the Koopman approximations, where almost perfect agreement with the solution using the full system is achieved. In contrast, the eDMDc approximation fails for System \eqref{eq:Duffing_NonlinCon}, even when initializing with the optimal solution from the full system.
\begin{figure}[thb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{figures/Duffing_Control-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Control performance using the true ODE model (black) and the bilinear surrogate model (orange). The results are almost indistinguishable, whereas eDMDc fails.}
\label{fig:Duffing_Control}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process (SDE)}
For the stochastic setting, we consider an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with a control input:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OU_NonlinCon}
\mathrm{d}X_t = -\alpha (u X_t) \mathrm{d}t + \sqrt{2 \beta^{-1}} \mathrm{d}W_t.
\end{equation}
with $\alpha = 1$, $\beta = 2$ and $u(t) \in [0,1]$.
The system is simulated numerically using an Euler-Maruyama integration scheme with a time step of $10^{-3}$ as in Section \ref{subsec:ExampleErrorBounds}.
For both systems, we calculate the Koopman operator corresponding to $u=0$ and $u=1$, respectively, using the gEDMD procedure presented in \cite{Klus2020} with monomials up to degree five. We then calculate the corresponding Koopman operators for the time step $h=0.05$ using the matrix exponential.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.65\columnwidth]{figures/OU_Prediction-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Prediction accuracy for the expected value of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process (approximated by averaging over 100 simulations) of the bilinear system and eDMDc, respectively.}
\label{fig:OU_Prediction}
\end{figure}
To study the prediction performance (cf.\ Fig.\ \ref{fig:OU_Prediction}), we proceed in the same way as for the Duffing system, except that we now compare the expected values, approximated by averaging over 100 SDE simulations. The results are very similar to the deterministic case, where the performance of both surrogate modeling techniques is comparable when the control enters linearly, and very poor for eDMDc otherwise. Even though the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process is stochastic, the linearity is highly favorable for the data requirements. We do not observe any considerable deterioration even in the very low data limit.
Finally, in the control setting, we aim at tracking the expected value $\mathbb{E}[X_t]$, which is precisely the quantity that is predicted by the Koopman operator. Thus, Problem \eqref{eq:OCP} can directly be applied to SDEs as well. In order to compare the results to the full system, we average over 20 simulations in the evaluation of the objective function value when using the SDE. However, this appears to be insufficient, as the performance is inadequate, cf.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:OU_Control}. The bilinear surrogate model, on the other hand, shows very good performance with a small amount of $m=100$ training data points.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.65\columnwidth]{figures/OU_Control-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Control of the expected value of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process (approximated by averaging over 100 simulations using the optimal control input shown in the bottom plots). In the SDE-based control, we have used 20 simulations in each objective function evaluation.}
\label{fig:OU_Control}
\end{figure}
\section{Extension to control systems}
\label{sec:control}
\MS{\noindent In this section, we derive probabilistic bounds on the approximation error of nonliner control-affine SDE systems of the form
\begin{align}\label{e:sde_control}
\text{d}X_t = \left(F(X_t)+ \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} G_i(X_t)u_i \right)\text{d}t + \sigma(X_t) \,\text{d}W_t,
\end{align}
with input $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n_c}$ and state $X_t\in\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}$, where $F:\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}\to\mathbb{R}^n$ and $G_i: \operatorname{\mathbb{X}}\to\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $i = 1,\ldots,n_c$, are locally Lipschitz-continuous vector fields. In the deterministic case $\sigma\equiv 0$ the controlled SDE reduces to the control-affine ODE system
\begin{align}\label{e:controlaffine}
\dot{x} = F(x) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} G_i(x)u_i.
\end{align}
We will describe how one can apply the bounds on the generators of autonomous (SDE) systems obtained in Section~\ref{sec:SDE} in order to obtain bounds for prediction of control systems, either for i.i.d.\ or ergodic sampling.
Central in this part is the fact that the Koopman generators for control-affine systems are control-affine. More precisely, if $\mathcal{L}^{\bar{u}}$ denotes the Koopman generator for a control-affine system with constant control $\bar{u}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_c}$ and $\bar u = \sum_{i=1}^{r}\alpha_i \bar u_i$ is a linear combination of constant controls $\bar u_i\in\R^{n_c}$, we have
\begin{align}\label{e:gen_ca}
\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^{\bar u} = \mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i\big(\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^{\bar u_i} - \mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^0\big).
\end{align}
This easily follows from the representation \eqref{e:repL} of the Koopman generator, see also \cite[Theorem 3.2]{Peitz2020} for the special (deterministic) case $\sigma\equiv 0$.
We will utilize this property to invoke our results from Section~\ref{sec:SDE} to approximate the Koopman generator corresponding to basis elements of the control space, that is, $\mathcal{L}^{e_i}$, $i=1,\ldots,n_c$, and $\mathcal{L}^0$ corresponding to the drift term to form a bilinear control system in the observables.
Analogously to Assumption~\ref{as:data} we have the following two cases for the collected data and the underlying measure.
\begin{assumption}
\label{as:control_data}
Let either of the following hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(iid)] The data for each autonomous system with control $u=e_i$, $i=0,\ldots,n_c$, is sampled i.i.d.\ from either the normalized Lebesgue measure and contained in a compact set $\mathbb{X}$ or from an invariant measure $\mu_i$ in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:invariant_measure}.
\item[(erg)] The data for each autonomous system with control $u=e_i$, $i=0,\ldots,n_c$, satisfies Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(erg), i.e., is drawn from a single ergodic trajectory, the probability measure $\mu_i$ of the resulting autonomous SDE is invariant in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:invariant_measure} and the Koopman semigroup is exponentially stable on $L^2_{\mu_i,0}(\mathbb{X})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}
\noindent It is important to note that in the first case of (iid), we did not make any assumption of invariance of the set $\mathbb{X}$ for all autonomous systems corresponding to the constant controls $e_i$, $i=0,\ldots,n_c$, as this would be very restrictive. Hence, we have to ensure that the state trajectories remain (with probability one in the stochastic setting~\eqref{e:sde_control}) in the set~$\mathbb{X}$. Sufficient conditions are, e.g., controlled forward invariance of the set~$\mathbb{X}$ or knowing that the initial condition is contained in a suitable sub-level set of the optimal value function of a respective optimal control problem, see, e.g., \cite{BoccGrun14} or \cite{EsteWort20} for an illustrative application of such a technique in showing recursive stability of Model Predictive Control (MPC) without stabilizing terminal constraints for discrete- and continuous-time systems, respectively.
In the following, we set $\mathcal{O}_i = L^2_{\mu_i}(\mathbb{X})$, $i=1,\ldots,n_c$, and consider the generators $\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^{e_i}$ in these spaces, respectively. Further, let $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N : \mathbb X\to\R$ be $N$ linearly independent observables whose span $\mathbb V = \operatorname{span}\{\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N\}$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{e:intersec}
\mathbb{V} \subset D(\mathcal{L}^{e_0})\cap D(\mathcal{L}^{e_1})\cap \ldots \cap D(\mathcal{L}^{e_{n_c}}),
\end{align}
where $e_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n_c$, denote the standard basis vectors of $\mathbb{R}^{n_c}$ and $e_0 := 0$. We now discuss two cases of sampling, one corresponding to the approach of Section \ref{sec:SDE} and one to the standard case of i.i.d.\ sampling as in \cite{ZhanZuaz21}.
As the original system and the Koopman generator are control affine, the remainder of this section is split up into two parts. First, we derive error estimates corresponding to autonomous systems driven by $n_c+1$ constant controls. Second, we use these estimates and control affinity to deduce a result for general controls.
\noindent In accordance with the notation in Section \ref{sec:SDE} we define $\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_{\mathbb V}^{e_i} := P_{\mathbb V}\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^{e_i}|_{\mathbb V}$ and also use this symbol to denote the matrix representation of this linear operator w.r.t.\ to the basis $\{\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N\}$ of $\mathbb V$. Its approximation based on the data $x_0,\ldots,x_{m-1}\in\mathbb X$ will be denoted by $\tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^{e_i}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{p:single_estimate}
Let $i \in \{0,\ldots,n_c\}$ be given and Assumption~\ref{as:control_data} hold.
Then, for any pair consisting of a desired error bound $\varepsilon > 0$ and a probabilistic tolerance $\delta\in (0,1)$, there is a number of data points $m_i$ such that for any $m \geq m_i$, we have the estimate
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\big( \| \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}-\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}\|_F\leq \varepsilon\big) \geq 1-\delta.
\end{align*}
The minimal amount of data $m_i$ is given by the formulas of Theorem~\ref{t:generatorestimate}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The claim follows immediately from applying Theorem~\ref{t:generatorestimate}.
\end{proof}
\noindent Having obtained an estimate for the autonomous systems corresponding to the constant controls $e_i, i=0,\ldots n_c$, we can leverage the control affinity of the system to formulate the corresponding results for arbitrary controls. To this end, for any control $u(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t) e_i \in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})$, we define the projected Koopman generator and its approximation corresponding to the non-autonomous system with control $u$ by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u (t) &:= \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\big(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0\big),\\
\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t) &:= \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\big(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0\big).
\end{align*}
\begin{theorem}\label{t:coupled_estimate}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:control_data} hold.
Then, for any pair consisting of a desired error bound $\tilde\varepsilon > 0$ and probabilistic tolerance $\tilde\delta \in (0,1)$, prediction horizon $T>0$, and control function $u\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})$
we have
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{ess\,inf}_{t \in [0,T]}\mathbb{P}\big(\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u(t) - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t)\|_F \leq \tilde\varepsilon\big) \geq 1-\tilde\delta,
\end{align*}
provided that the number~$m$ of data points exceeds $\max_{i=0,\ldots,n_c} m_i$ with $m_i$ defined as in Proposition~\rmref{p:single_estimate} with
$$
\varepsilon = \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{(n_c+1)\left(1 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}\right)}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\delta = 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c+1}.
$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Again, we omit the subscript of the norm and set $\|\cdot\|=\|\cdot\|_F$.
Using the result of Proposition~\ref{p:single_estimate} and our choice of $m_0$, we have
$$
\mathbb{P}\left( \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{0}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{(n_c+1)\left(1 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}\right)}\right) \geq 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c + 1},
$$
and for all $i\in 1,\ldots n_c$
$$
\mathbb{P}\left(\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i} - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{\left(n_c+1\right)\|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}}\right) \geq 1- \tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c + 1}.
$$
Then we compute for $a.e.\ t\in [0,T]$
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{P}\left( \| \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u(t) - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t) \|\leq \tilde\varepsilon\right)& \\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\right)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 - \tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^0\right)\right\|+ \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \left\| \alpha_i(t)\left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i} - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}\right)\right\| \leq \tilde\varepsilon\right)\\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\right)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 - \tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^0\right)\right\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1}\,\wedge\,
\displaystyle\mathop{\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\forall}}}}_{i=1}^{n_c} :
\left\|\alpha_i(t) \left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i} - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}\right)\right\|
\leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1}\right).
\end{align*}
Next, we use Lemma~\ref{lem:probabilities} from Appendix \ref{ss:technical} with $d = n_c+1$,
$$
A_0 = \left\{\left\|\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\right)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 - \tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^0\right)\right\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1}\right\}
\quad \text{and}\quad
A_i = \left\{ \left\|\alpha_i(t) \left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i} - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}\right)\right\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1}\right\}
$$
for $i=1,\ldots,n_c$. This yields
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{P}\left( \| \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u(t) - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t) \|\leq \tilde\varepsilon\right)& \\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left( \left\|\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\right)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 - \tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^0\right)\right\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1} \right)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \mathbb{P}\left( \|\alpha_i(t)\big(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{{e_i}}\big)\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1} \right) - n_c \\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left( \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{0}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{\left(1 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}\right)(n_c+1)} \right)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \mathbb{P}\left( \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{{e_i}}\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{\left(n_c+1\right)\|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}} \right) - n_c\\
&\geq 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c+1} + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \left(1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c+1}\right) - n_c = 1-\tilde\delta.
\end{align*}
Taking the essential infimum yields the result.
\end{proof}
\noindent Again, similar as in the previous section, we obtain a bound on trajectories via Gronwall, if the state response is contained in $\mathbb{X}$.
\begin{corollary}\label{c:control_trajectory}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:control_data} hold. Let $T,\varepsilon>0$ and $\delta\in (0,1)$, $z_0\in \mathbb{R}^N$ and $u\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})$ such that the solution of \eqref{e:SDE} is contained in $\mathbb{X}$ with probability one.
Then there is $m_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that for $m\geq m_0$
the solutions $z,\tilde{z}$ of
\begin{align*}
&&\dot{z}(t) &= \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u(t)z &&z(0)=z_0\\
&&\dot{\tilde{z}}(t) &= \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t)\tilde{z} &&\tilde{z}(0)={z}_0
\end{align*}
satisfy
\begin{align*}
\min_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{P}\big( \|z(t)-\tilde{z}(t)\|_2 \leq \varepsilon\big) \geq 1-\delta.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix~\ref{s:errorbound_traj}.
\end{proof}
\noindent As in Corollary~\ref{c:trajest}, $m_0$ can explicitly be computed by combining Theorem~\ref{t:coupled_estimate} with the constants in Gronwalls inequality.
We conclude this section with a final corollary regarding the optimality of the solution obtained using an error-certified Koopman model. To this end, we consider the optimal control problem with $x_0\in \mathbb{X}$ and a stage cost $\ell:\R^n\times \R^{n_c} \to \mathbb{R}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OCP_full}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{u\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})} &\int_0^T \ell(x(t),u(t))\,\text{d}t\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad \dot{x} = &F(x) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} G_i(x)u_i, \qquad x(0)=x_0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In what follows, we compare the optimal value of the Koopman representation of \eqref{eq:OCP_full} projected onto the subspace of observables $\mathbb{V}$ with initial datum $z_0 = \Psi (x_0)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OCP_full_Koop}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\alpha\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})} &\int_0^T \ell(P(z(t)),\alpha(t))\,\text{d}t\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad \dot{{z}}(t) = &\left[\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0\right)\right]{z}(t), \qquad {z}(0)={z}_0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
to the optimal value of the surrogate-based control problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OCP_surrogate}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\tilde \alpha\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})}& \int_0^T \ell(P(\tilde{z}(t)),\tilde{\alpha}(t))\,\text{d}t\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad \dot{\tilde{z}}(t) = &\left[\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\tilde\alpha_i(t)\left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0\right)\right]\tilde{z}(t), \qquad \tilde{z}(0)={z}_0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $P$ maps a trajectory of observables to a trajectory in the state space, which in practice is frequently realized by including the coordinates of the identity function in the dictionary~$\Psi$ of observables
\begin{corollary}\label{c:control_problem}
Let $T,\varepsilon>0$, $\delta\in (0,1)$, $z_0\in \mathbb{R}^N$, let $J$ be locally Lipschitz continuous and let Assumption~\ref{as:control_data} hold.
Furthermore, let $(z^*,\alpha^*)$ be an optimal solution of problem \eqref{eq:OCP_full_Koop} such that the state response of \eqref{eq:OCP_full} emanating from the control $\alpha^*$ is contained in $\mathbb{X}$. Then there is $m_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that for $m\geq m_0$ data points contained in $\mathbb{X}$, there exists a tuple $(\tilde{z},\tilde{\alpha})$ which is feasible for \eqref{eq:OCP_surrogate} such that for the cost, we have the estimate
\[
\mathbb{P}\left(\left\vert\int_0^T\ell(P(\tilde{z}(t)),\tilde{\alpha}(t)) - \ell(P(z^*(t)),\alpha^*(t))\,\mathrm{d}t)\right\vert \leq \varepsilon\right) \geq 1-\delta.
\]
\end{corollary}}
\section{Finite-data bounds on the approximation error: nonlinear SDEs}
\label{sec:SDE}
\noindent
In this section, we analyze the approximation quality of extended Dynamic Mode Decomposition (eDMD) with finitely-many data points for the \MS{finite-dimensional } stochastic differential equation
\begin{align}
\label{e:SDE}
\tag{SDE}
\text{d}X_t = F(X_t)\,\text{d}t + \sigma(X_t) \,\text{d}W_t,
\end{align}
where $X_t \in \mathbb{X}\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is the state, $F : \mathbb{X} \to \mathbb{R}^d$ is the drift vector field, $\sigma : \mathbb{X} \to \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ is the diffusion matrix field, and $W_t$ is a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion. We assume that $F, \, \sigma$ satisfy standard Lipschitz properties to ensure global existence of solutions to~\eqref{e:SDE}, see the textbook \cite{Oksendal2013} for an introduction to this class of systems. We stress that the deterministic case is included by simply setting $\sigma \equiv 0$, leading to the ordinary differential equation
\begin{align*}
\tfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}t} x(t)= F(x(t)).
\end{align*}
The state space is assumed to be a measure space $(\mathbb{X}, \Sigma_{\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}}, \mu)$ with Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma_{\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}}$ and probability measure $\mu$. In case of an ODE, the set $\mathbb{X}$ is often assumed to be compact and forward-invariant and the probability measure is the standard Lebesgue measure, cf.\ \cite{ZhanZuaz21}.
\begin{definition}[Koopman operator]
\label{d:koopman}
Let $X_t$ satisfy \eqref{e:SDE} for $t \geq 0$. The Koopman operator semigroup associated with \eqref{e:SDE} is defined by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{K}^t f(x_0) = \mathbb{E}^{x_0}[f(X_t)] = E[f(X_t)|X_0 = x_0]
\end{align*}
for all bounded measurable functions $f$.
\end{definition}
\noindent In case of ergodic sampling, that is, obtaining data points from a single long trajectory, we will assume invariance of the measure~$\mu$ w.r.t.\ the stochastic process~$X_t$.
\begin{definition}[Invariant measure with positive density]\label{def:invariant_measure}
A probability measure $\mu$ is called invariant if it satisfies
\[
\int_{\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}} \mathcal{K}^t f \,\mathrm{d}\mu = \int_{\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}} f \,\mathrm{d}\mu
\]
for all bounded measurable functions~$f$ and all $t\ge 0$. Further, $\mu$ has an everywhere positive density $\rho:\operatorname{\mathbb{X}} \to \mathbb{R}$ if $\mu (A) = \int_A \rho(x) \,\mathrm{d}x$ holds for all $A\in\Sigma_{\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}}$.
\end{definition}
\noindent We can now formulate our assumption on the underlying dynamics.
\begin{assumption}\label{as:dyn}
Let either of the following hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] The set $\mathbb{X}$ is compact and forward invariant $(\forall\,x^0 \in \mathbb{X}: \mathbb{P}^{x_0}(X_t \in \mathbb{X})=1$ for all $t \geq 0)$ and $\mu$ is the normalized Lebesgue measure. Moreover, the Koopman operator can be extended to a strongly continuous semigroup on the Hilbert space $L^2_\mu(\mathbb{X})$.
\item[(b)] The probability measure is an invariant measure in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:invariant_measure}.
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}
\noindent We briefly comment on this assumption and first note that forward invariance of $\mathbb{X}$ can be weakened, if one is only interested in estimates for states contained in $\mathbb{X}$, see also \textup{\cite[Section 3.2]{ZhanZuaz21}}. Moreover, if the dynamics obey an ODE, it was shown that the Koopman operator can indeed be extended to a strongly continuous semigroup on $L^2_\mu(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}})$, see also~\cite{ZhanZuaz21}. Second, the assumption of invariance of the underlying probability measure is satisfied for a broad class of SDEs, see e.g. \cite{Risken1996}. It can be checked that $\mu$ is then invariant for $X_t$, that is, $\mathbb{P}(X_t \in A) = \mu(A)$ holds for all $A\in\Sigma_{\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}}$ and $t \geq 0$, provided $X_0$ is distributed according to~$\mu$.
Under Assumption~\ref{as:dyn} (b), Definition \ref{d:koopman} can be extended to the Lebesgue spaces $L^p_\mu(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}})$, $1 \leq p < \infty$, i.e.\ the Banach spaces of all (equivalence classes of) measurable functions $f:\mathbb{X}\to\R$ with $\int_\mathbb{X}|f|^p \,\text{d}\mu < \infty$. Then, the Koopman operators $\mathcal{K}^t$ form a strongly continuous semigroup of contractions on all spaces $L^p_\mu(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}})$, see \cite{BAKRY2013}. The functions in any of these spaces are often referred to as \textit{observables}.
Next, we recall the definition of the generator associated to the semigroup $\mathcal{K}_t$:
\begin{definition}[Koopman generator]
\label{d:koopman_generator}
The infinitesimal generator $\mathcal{L}$ is defined via
\begin{align}
\label{e:def_generator}
\mathcal{L}f := \lim_{t\to 0} \frac{(\mathcal{K}^t - \operatorname{Id})f}{t}
\end{align}
for all $f \in D(\mathcal{L})$, where $D(\mathcal{L})$ is the set of functions for which the limit~\eqref{e:def_generator} exists in the appropriate topology.
\end{definition}
\noindent For sufficiently smooth functions $f$, Ito's Lemma \cite{Oksendal2013} shows that the generator acts as a second order differential operator, defined in terms of the coefficients of \eqref{e:SDE}, i.e.
\begin{align}\label{e:repL}
\mathcal{L} = F \cdot \nabla + \tfrac12 \sigma \sigma^\top : \nabla^2
\end{align}
with $A: B := \sum_{i,j}a_{i,j}b_{i,j}$ being the standard Frobenius inner product for matrices. In what follows, we will focus exclusively on the Koopman semigroup on the Hilbert space $L^2_\mu(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}})$ with inner product $\langle f, g \rangle_\mu = \int_{\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}} f g \, \mathrm{d}\mu$. As the semigroup is strongly continuous on $L^2_\mu(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}})$ by our assumptions, by standard semigroup theory, the domain $D(\mathcal{L})$ together with the graph norm forms a dense Banach space in $L^2_\mu(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}})$.
\subsection{Extended Dynamic Mode Decomposition}
\label{subsec:edmd0}
\noindent
In this part we introduce the data-driven finite-dimensional approximation by eDMD of the Koopman generator defined in~\eqref{e:def_generator}, see, e.g., \cite{WILLIAMS2015,KLUS2016b,KLUS2018b}. To this end, for a fixed set of linearly independent observables $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N\in D(\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L)$, we consider the finite-dimensional subspace
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{V} := \operatorname{span}\{\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^N\} \subset D(\mathcal{L}).
\end{align*}
Let $P_\mathbb{V}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $\mathbb{V}$. We define the Galerkin projection of the Koopman generator by %
$\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}: ={P}_{\mathbb{V}} \mathcal{L}\restrict{\mathbb{V}}$. %
Note that this is not the restriction of $\mathcal{L}$ onto $\mathbb{V}$, as the image is also projected back onto $\mathbb{V}$. If $\mathbb{V}$ is an invariant set under the action of the generator, then $\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}= \mathcal{L}\restrict{\mathbb{V}}$ holds. %
\MS{As $\dim\mathbb{V} = N$, the linear operator~$\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V} : \mathbb V\to\mathbb V$ may be represented by a matrix. In what follows, we denote the matrix representation of $\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_{\mathbb V}$ in terms of the basis functions $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N$ by the same symbol $\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_{\mathbb V}$ as the operator itself in a slight abuse of notation}. Thus, using~\cite{Klus2020}, we get %
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V} = C^{-1}A
\end{align*}
with $C, A \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ defined by $C_{i,j}=\langle\psi_i,\psi_j\rangle_{\Lmu}$ and $A_{i,j} =\langle\psi_i,\mathcal{L}\psi_j\rangle_{\Lmu}$. %
The norm of the isomorphism from $\mathbb{V}$ to $\mathbb{R}^N$ depends on the smallest resp.\ largest eigenvalues of $C$, cf.\ Proposition~\ref{p:normeq} in Appendix~\ref{s:isomorphism}.
Consider data points $x_0, \ldots, x_{m-1} \in \mathbb{X}$. \MS{In the following, these data is either drawn from a trajectory of an ergodic system or sampled independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). We state this as the following assumption, using the notation:
$$
L^2_{\mu,0}(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}) := \{f \in L^2_\mu(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}):\, \langle f, 1 \rangle_\mu = 0\}.
$$
\begin{assumption}
\label{as:data}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:dyn} hold and assume either of the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(iid)] The data is drawn i.i.d.\ from the measure specified via Assumption~\ref{as:dyn}.
\item[(erg)] Assumption~\ref{as:dyn}.(b) holds and the data is obtained as snapshots from a single ergodic trajectoy, that is, from a single long trajectory of the dynamics \eqref{e:SDE} with $x_0$ drawn from the unique invariant measure $\mu$. Further assume the Koopman semigroup is exponentially stable on $L^2_{\mu,0}(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}})$, i.e. $\|\mathcal{K}^t \|_{L^2_{\mu, 0}(\operatorname{\mathbb{X}})} \leq Me^{-\omega t}$ for some $M\geq 1$, $\omega > 0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}}
\noindent %
Let us form the transformed data matrices
\begin{align*}
\Psi(X) &:= \left( \left. \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\psi_1(x_0)\\
:\\
\psi_N(x_0)
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right| \ldots \left| \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\psi_1(x_{m-1})\\
:\\
\psi_N(x_{m-1})
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right. \right)\\
\mathcal{L}\Psi(X) &:= \left( \left. \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
(\mathcal{L}\psi_1)(x_0)\\
:\\
(\mathcal{L}\psi_N)(x_0)
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right| \ldots \left| \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
(\mathcal{L}\psi_1)(x_{m-1})\\
:\\
(\mathcal{L}\psi_N)(x_{m-1})
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right. \right).
\end{align*}
The evaluation of $\mathcal{L}$ can be realized via the representation~\eqref{e:repL}.
The empirical estimator for the Galerkin projection $\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}$ is then given by
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m = \tilde{C}_m^{-1} \tilde{A}_m
\end{align*}
with $\tilde{C}_m = \tfrac{1}{m} \Psi(X) \Psi(X)^\top$, $\tilde{A}_m = \tfrac{1}{m} \Psi(X) \mathcal{L}\Psi(X)^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$.
In all scenarios of \MS{of Assumption~\ref{as:data}}, we have with probability one that
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m$ is well-defined for large enough $m$, that is, $\tilde{C}_m$ is invertible, and
\item [(2)] $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m$ converges to $\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}$ for $m\rightarrow \infty$, see, e.g., \cite{KLUS2018b,Klus2020}.
\end{enumerate}
For the case of a long trajectory, this result follows from ergodic theory, which is concerned with the convergence of time averages to spatial averages as the data size grows to infinity~\cite{Beck1957}. Ergodic theory particularly applies to systems with a unique invariant measure.
\MS{\subsection{Error bounds on approximations of projected Koopman generator and operator}\label{ss:projgen}
\noindent
Next, we quantify the approximation quality of the data-driven finite-dimensional approximation of the Koopman generator, i.e., for a given linear space $\mathbb V$ of observables and data $x_0,\ldots,x_{m-1}\in\mathbb{X}$, we aim to estimate
\begin{align*}
\| \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V} - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m\|_F = \|C^{-1}A - \tilde{C}_m^{-1}\tilde{A}_m\|_F.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Concentration bounds for random matrices}
We start by deriving entry-wise error bounds for the data-driven mass and stiffness matrix, respectively. Since most of the arguments are significantly simpler for i.i.d.~sampling, cf.\ Remark~\ref{rem:iid} at the end of this subsection, we first consider the more involved situation, i.e.\ ergodic sampling. This is of particular interest as simulation data of the dynamics~\eqref{e:SDE} can, then, be directly used.
For $x \in \mathbb{X}$, consider a centered scalar random variable
\[ \phi: \, \mathbb{X} \mapsto \mathbb{R}, \quad \int_\mathbb{X} \phi(x) \,\mathrm{d}\mu(x) = 0. \]
We denote its variance with respect to the invariant measure by
\[ \sigma^2_\phi = \mathbb{E}^\mu[\phi^2] = \|\phi\|^2_{L^2_\mu}.\]
Moreover, we set $\phi_k = \phi(x_k)$ for given data points~$x_k$, $k \in \{0,1,\ldots,m-1\}$, and define the averaged random variable
\begin{align*}
\bar{\phi}_m &:= \frac{1}{m}\sum_{k= 0 }^{m-1} \phi_k.
\end{align*}
In Lemma~\ref{lemma:co-variances} below, we quantify the variance of the averaged random variable $\bar{\phi}_m$. The key point is the decomposition of the variance into an asymptotic contribution, independent of $m$, and a second contribution, which decays with an explicitly given (polynomial) dependence on the amount of data~$m$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:co-variances}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(erg) hold. Then we have
\begin{align}
\label{e:remainder}
\sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}_m} &= \frac{1}{m}\left[ \sigma_{\phi, \infty}^2 - R_\phi^m\right].
\end{align}
The asymptotic variance $\sigma_{\phi, \infty}^2$ and the remainder term $R_\phi^m$ are given by
\begin{align*}
\sigma_{\phi, \infty}^2 &= \sigma_{\phi}^2 + 2 \sum_{l=1}^\infty \langle \phi, \, \mathcal{K}^{l\Delta_t} \phi \rangle_\mu,
& R_\phi^m &= 2 \sum_{l=m}^\infty \langle \phi, \, \mathcal{K}^{l\Delta_t} \phi \rangle_\mu + \frac{2}{m} \sum_{l=1}^{m-1} l \langle \phi, \, \mathcal{K}^{l\Delta_t} \phi \rangle_\mu.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We repeat the proof given in \cite[Section 3.1.2]{Lelievre:2016aa} for the sake of illustration:
\begin{align}
\nonumber \sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}_m} &= \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{k, l = 0}^{m-1} \mathbb{E}^\mu\left[ \phi_k \, \phi_l \right]
= \frac{1}{m} \sigma^2_\phi+ \frac{2}{m^2} \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} \sum_{l=k+1}^{m-1} \mathbb{E}^\mu\left[ \phi_k\, \phi_l \right] \\
\nonumber &= \frac{1}{m} \left[\sigma^2_\phi + \frac{2}{m} \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} \sum_{l=k+1}^{m-1} \mathbb{E}^\mu\left[ \phi_0\, \phi_{l-k} \right] \right]
= \frac{1}{m} \left[\sigma^2_\phi + \frac{2}{m} \sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\sum_{l=1}^{m-k-1} \mathbb{E}^\mu \left[ \phi_0 \, \phi_{l} \right] \right] \\
\nonumber &= \frac{1}{m} \left[\sigma^2_\phi + \frac{2}{m}\sum_{l=1}^{m-1} (m -l) \mathbb{E}^\mu \left[ \phi_0 \, \phi_{l} \right] \right]
= \frac{1}{m} \left[\sigma^2_\phi + 2\sum_{l=1}^{m-1} (1 - \tfrac{l}{m}) \langle\phi,\, \mathcal{K}^{l\Delta_t} \phi \rangle_\mu \right].
\end{align}
The result follows by adding and subtracting the term $2 \sum_{l=m}^\infty \langle \phi, \, \mathcal{K}^{l\Delta_t} \phi \rangle_\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The assumption of exponential stability is satisfied, for example, if the generator $\mathcal{L}$ is self-adjoint \braces{also known as detailed balance or reversibility} and additionally
satisfies a Poincar\'e or spectral gap inequality {\textup{\cite{Lelievre:2016aa}}}. The requirement $\langle f, 1 \rangle_\mu = 0$ is necessary, as the constant function is invariant for $\mathcal{K}^t$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The proof of Lemma~\rmref{lemma:co-variances} shows that $\sigma^2_{\phi, \infty} = \lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} \sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}_m} \geq 0$, hence it can indeed by interpreted as a variance.
For reversible systems, we have $\langle \phi,\, \mathcal{K}^{l \Delta_t} \phi \rangle_\mu \geq 0$ by symmetry of the Koopman operator. Therefore, $\sigma^2_{\phi, \infty} \geq \sigma^2_\phi > 0$ is guaranteed in this case, and the variance $\sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}_m}$ approaches $\frac{1}{m}\sigma^2_{\phi, \infty}$ from below.
\end{remark}
\noindent
Next, we derive an estimate for the remainder term in terms of the number~$m$ of data points.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:bound_remainder}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(erg) hold, and set $q = e^{-\omega\Delta_t} < 1$. Then
\[ |R_\phi^m | \leq \frac{2\sigma^2_{\phi}}{m}\frac{q}{(1-q)^2}. \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first observe that by the Cauchy Schwarz inequality
\begin{align*}
|\langle \phi, \mathcal{K}^{l\Delta_t} \phi \rangle_\mu |
&\leq \|\mathcal{K}^{l \Delta_t} \|_{L(L^2_{\mu, 0}(\mathbb{X}), L^2_{\mu}(\mathbb{X}))} \|\phi\|^2_{L^2_{\mu}(\mathbb{X})} \leq e^{-\omega\Delta_t l} \sigma^2_\phi,
\end{align*}
and therefore:
\begin{align*}
|R_\phi^m | &\leq 2\sigma^2_{\phi} \left[ \sum_{l=m}^\infty e^{-\omega\Delta_t l} + \frac{1}{m} \sum_{l=1}^{m-1} l e^{-\omega\Delta_t l} \right] \\
&= 2\sigma^2_{\phi} \left[ \frac{q^m}{1-q} + \frac{1}{m} \frac{(m-1)q^{m+1} - mq^m + q }{(1-q)^2} \right] \\
&= \frac{2\sigma^2_{\phi}}{m}\frac{q(1 - q^m)}{(1-q)^2} \leq \frac{2\sigma^2_{\phi}}{m}\frac{q}{(1-q)^2} .
\end{align*}
In the second line, we have used the geometric series for the first term, and a similar identity for the sum $\sum_{l=1}^\infty l q^l, \,q < 1$. The third line is obtained by direct simplification.
\end{proof}
\noindent We can now combine the results of Lemmas~\ref{lemma:co-variances} and~\ref{lemma:bound_remainder} in order to obtain a concentration bound for a centered, matrix-valued random variable. To this end, we consider an $N\times N$ random matrix $\Phi$ with all entries $\phi_{ij} \in L^2_{\mu, 0}$ centered. We define $\Phi_k$ and $\overline{\Phi}_m$ as for the scalar case, i.e., $\Phi_k = \Phi(x_k)$ and $\overline{\Phi}_m = \tfrac{1}{m}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\Phi_k$.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:prob_error_bounds_xi}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(erg) hold,, set $q = e^{-\omega\Delta_t}$, and assume $\sigma^2_{\phi_{ij}, \infty} > 0$ for all $(i, j)$. Let $\Phi \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ be a centered, matrix-valued random variable in $L^2_\mu$. Denote the matrices of all entry-wise variances and asymptotic variances by
\begin{align*}
\Sigma_{\Phi} &= \left(\sigma_{\phi_{ij}} \right)_{i,j=1}^N, & \Sigma_{\Phi, \infty} &= \left(\sigma_{\phi_{ij}, \infty} \right)_{i,j=1}^N
\end{align*}
Then, for any given $\delta > 0$, and $m \in \mathbb{N}$, we have with probability at least $1 - \delta$ that
\begin{align}\label{eq:ineq_m}
\|\overline{\Phi}_m\|_F \leq \frac{N}{\sqrt{m \delta}} \left[ \|\Sigma_{\Phi,\infty}\|^2_F + \frac{2q}{m (1- q)^2} \|\Sigma_{\Phi} \|^2_F \right]^{1/2}.
\end{align}
For reversible systems, we obtain the simplified bound
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ineq_m_rev}
\|\overline{\Phi}_m\|_F \leq \frac{N}{\sqrt{m \delta}} \|\Sigma_{\Phi,\infty}\|_F.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Noting that $[\overline{\Phi}_m]_{ij} = [\overline{\phi_{ij}}]_m$, the scalar Chebyshev inequality and the result of Lemma~\ref{lemma:co-variances}, yield for all $(i, j)$ :
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left([\overline{\Phi}_m]_{ij}^2 \leq \varepsilon^2 \right)
&\geq 1 - \frac{\sigma^2_{[\overline{\phi_{ij}}]_m}}{\varepsilon^2} = 1 - \frac{\frac{1}{m}[\sigma^2_{\phi_{ij},\infty} - R_{\phi_{ij}}^m]}{\varepsilon^2}\\
&\geq 1 - \frac{1}{m \varepsilon^2}\left[\sigma^2_{\phi_{ij},\infty} + \frac{2 \sigma^2_{\phi_{ij}} q}{m (1- q)^2}\right].
\end{align*}
The second term on the right hand side does not exceed $\frac{\delta}{N^2}$ if
\begin{equation*}
\varepsilon^2 \geq \frac{N^2}{m \delta}\left[\sigma^2_{\phi_{ij},\infty} + \frac{2 \sigma^2_{\phi_{ij}} q}{m (1- q)^2}\right],
\end{equation*}
in other words, there is a set of trajectories of probability at least $1 - \frac{\delta}{N^2}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
[\overline{\Phi}_m]_{ij}^2 \leq \frac{N^2}{m \delta}\left[\sigma^2_{\phi_{ij},\infty} + \frac{2 \sigma^2_{\phi_{ij}} q}{m (1- q)^2}\right].
\end{equation*}
On the intersection of these sets, we have that
\begin{align*}
\| \overline{\Phi}_m\|_F \leq \frac{N}{\sqrt{m \delta}} \left[ \|\Sigma_{\Phi,\infty}\|^2_F + \frac{2q}{m (1- q)^2} \|\Sigma_{\Phi} \|^2_F \right]^{1/2},
\end{align*}
and the probability of the intersection is at least $1 - \delta$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:probabilities}. In the reversible case, we know that $R_{\phi_{ij}}^m \geq 0$ for all $(i, j)$, and therefore
\begin{align}
\label{eq:error_phi_ij_rev}
\mathbb{P}\left([\overline{\Phi}_m]_{ij}^2 \leq \varepsilon^2 \right) &\geq 1 - \frac{1}{m \varepsilon^2}\sigma^2_{\phi_{ij},\infty}.
\end{align}
The simplified bound~\eqref{eq:ineq_m_rev} follows by repeating the above argument starting from this inequality.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}[I.i.d.\ sampling]
\label{rem:iid}
If the data are sampled i.i.d., that is, Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(iid) hold instead of Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(erg), then by standard results, one has $\sigma^2_{\bar{\phi}_m} = \frac{1}{m}\sigma^2_\phi$. The bounds from Proposition~\ref{thm:prob_error_bounds_xi} simplify significantly in this case. By the Chebyshev inequality:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left([\overline{\Phi}_m]_{ij}^2 \leq \varepsilon^2 \right)
&\geq 1 - \frac{\frac{1}{m} \sigma^2_{\phi_{ij}}}{\varepsilon^2},
\end{align*}
which leads to the following error estimate for fixed $m \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\delta > 0$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ineq_m_iid}
\|\overline{\Phi}_m\|_F \leq \frac{N}{\sqrt{m \delta}} \|\Sigma_{\Phi} \|_F.
\end{align}
The setting of sampling via the Lebesgue measure on a compact set $\mathbb{X}$ was thoroughly considered in \cite{ZhanZuaz21}.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Error bound for the projected generator}
Next, we deduce our first main result by applying the probabilistic bounds obtained in Proposition~\ref{thm:prob_error_bounds_xi} to estimate the error for the data-driven Galerkin projection $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m$.
\begin{theorem}[Approximation error: probabilistic bound]
\label{t:generatorestimate}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:data} hold. Then, for any error bound $\tilde\varepsilon > 0$ and probabilistic tolerance~$\tilde\delta \in (0,1)$, we have
\begin{align}\label{e:prob_est}
\mathbb{P}\left(\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}- \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m\|_F\leq \tilde\varepsilon\right) \geq 1-\tilde\delta
\end{align}
for any amount~$m \in \mathbb{N}$ of data points such that the following hold with $$\varepsilon = \min\left\{1,\frac{1}{\|A\|\|C^{-1}\|}\right\}\cdot\frac{\|A\|\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|A\|\|C^{-1}\| + \tilde\varepsilon}\quad \text{and}\quad \delta = \frac{\tilde\delta}3.$$
\begin{itemize}
\item In case of ergodic sampling, i.e., Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(erg),
\begin{align*}
m \geq \frac{N^2}{\delta\varepsilon^2} \left[ \|\Sigma_{\Phi,\infty}\|^2_F + \frac{2q}{m (1- q)^2} \|\Sigma_{\Phi} \|^2_F \right]
\end{align*}
\item In case of ergodic sampling, i.e., Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(erg), of a reversible system
\begin{align*}
m \geq \frac{N^2}{\delta\varepsilon^2} \|\Sigma_{\Phi,\infty}\|^2_F.
\end{align*}
\item In case of i.i.d.\ sampling, i.e., Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(iid),
\begin{align*}
m \geq \frac{N^2}{\delta\varepsilon^2} \|\Sigma_{\Phi} \|^2_F.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In this proof, we will omit the subscript for the norm and set $\|\cdot\| = \|\cdot\|_F$. Let us introduce the centered matrix-valued random variables
\begin{align*}
\Phi_C(x) := \Psi(x)\Psi(x)^\top - C
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\Phi_A(x) := \Psi(x)\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L\Psi(x)^\top - A,
\end{align*}
where $\Psi = [\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N]^\top$. Then $\widetilde C_m - C = [\overline{\Phi_C}]_m$ and $\widetilde A_m - A = [\overline{\Phi_A}]_m$. Hence, we may apply Proposition~\ref{thm:prob_error_bounds_xi} to these matrix-valued random variables.
First, by the choice of $m$ above we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left( \|C-\widetilde C_m\|\le \frac{R}{\|A\|\|C^{-1}\|}\right) \geq 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{3}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\mathbb{P}\left(\|\tilde{A}_m-A\|\leq R\right) \geq 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{3},
\end{align*}
where
$$
R := \frac{\|A\|\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|A\|\|C^{-1}\| + \tilde\varepsilon} = \frac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\left(\|C^{-1}\| + \frac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|A\|}\right)}.
$$
Moreover, we compute
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}-C^{-1}\|
&= \|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}(C - \tilde{C}_m)C^{-1}\|\leq \|C^{-1}\|\|C-\tilde{C}_m\| \left(\|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}- C^{-1}\| + \|C^{-1}\|\right)
\end{align*}
which implies
$$
\|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}-C^{-1}\| \leq \frac{\|C^{-1}\|^2\|C-\tilde{C}_m\|}{1-\|C^{-1}\|\|C-\tilde{C}_m\|}.
$$
Hence, by straightforward computations we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}-C^{-1}\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|A\|}\right)
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{\|C^{-1}\|^2\|C-\tilde{C}_m\|}{1-\|C^{-1}\|\|C-\tilde{C}_m\|} \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|A\|}\right)\\
&=\mathbb{P}\left(\|C-\widetilde C_m\|\le \frac{R}{\|A\|\|C^{-1}\|}\right) \geq 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{3}.
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\|\tilde{A}_m-A\|\leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}\|}\right)
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\|\tilde{A}_m-A\|\leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\left(\|C^{-1}\|+ \|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}-C^{-1}\| \right)}\right)\\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\|\tilde{A}_m-A\|\leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\left(\|C^{-1}\|+\tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|A\|}\right)} \;\wedge\; \|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}-C^{-1}\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|A\|} \right) \\
&\geq \left(1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{3}\right) + \left(1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{3}\right) - 1 = 1-\tfrac{2\tilde\delta}{3}.
\end{align*}
Thus, we conclude
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}(\|C^{-1}A -\tilde{C}_m^{-1}\tilde{A}_m\|\leq \tilde\varepsilon)
&= \mathbb{P}\left(\|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}(A-\tilde{A}_m) + \left(C^{-1}-\tilde{C}_m^{-1}\right) A\|\leq \tilde\varepsilon\right) \\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}\|\|A-\tilde{A}_m\| + \|C^{-1}-\tilde{C}_m^{-1}\|\|A\|\leq \tilde\varepsilon\right)\\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\|A-\tilde{A}_m\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|\tilde{C}_m^{-1}\|} \wedge \|C^{-1}-\tilde{C}_m^{-1}\|\leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{2\|A\|}\right)\\
&\geq (1-\tfrac{2\tilde\delta}{3}) + (1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{3}) - 1 = 1-\tilde\delta,
\end{align*}
which is \eqref{e:prob_est}.
\end{proof}
\noindent A similar result as Theorem~\ref{t:generatorestimate} was obtained for ODE systems in \cite{ZhanZuaz21} under the assumption that the data is drawn i.i.d.
An immediate consequence of the estimate on the generator approximation error is a bound on the error of the trajectories. To this end, consider the systems
\begin{align}
\label{e:z}
&&\dot{z} &= \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V} z &&z(0)=z_0\\
\label{e:tz}
&&\dot{\tilde{z}} &= \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m \tilde z &&\tilde{z}(0)={z}_0.
\end{align}
where $z_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$, which represents an ODE in terms of the coefficients in the basis representation of elements of $\mathbb{V}$. We will leverage the error bound obtained in Theorem \ref{t:generatorestimate} to derive an estimate on the resulting prediction error in the observables, i.e., $\|z(t)-\tilde{z}(t)\|_2$. Note that in view of the isomorphism $\mathbb{V}\simeq \mathbb{R}^N$ this also directly translates to an error estimate for trajectories in $\mathbb{V}$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{c:trajest}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:data} hold. Then for any $T>0$ and $\delta,\varepsilon>0$ there is $m_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that for $m\geq m_0$ data points we have
\begin{align*}
\min_{t \in [0,T]} \mathbb{P}\big(\|z(t) - \tilde z(t)\|_2 \leq \varepsilon\big) \geq 1-\delta.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix~\ref{s:errorbound_traj}.
\end{proof}
A sufficient amount of data~$m_0$ can be easily specified by combining the calculations displayed in the proof of Corollary~\ref{c:trajest}, i.e.\ Gronwall's inequality and Condition \eqref{eq:ineq_m}. Under additional assumptions on the Koopman semigroup generated by $\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}$, e.g., stability, one can refine this estimate or render it uniform in $T$, cf.\ Corollary~\ref{c:refinements} in Appendix~\ref{s:errorbound_traj}.
\subsection{Error bound for the projected Koopman operator}
\noindent
Similar to the derivation of the probabilistic bound on the projected generator, a bound on the Koopman operator is possible. We briefly sketch the main steps of the argumentation. Let $t = l\Delta_t$ for some $l\in\N$ and again choose a subspace $\mathbb{V} = \operatorname{span}\{\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^N\}\subset L^2_\mu(\mathbb{X})$ (which, in contrast to the generator-based setting, is not required to be contained in the domain). The restricted Koopman operator on this subspace is defined via
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{K}^{t}_\mathbb{V}:= P_\mathbb{V}\mathcal{K}^{t}\restrict{\mathbb{V}} = C^{-1} A,
\end{align*}
where
$$
C_{i,j}=\langle\psi_i,\psi_j\rangle_{\Lmu}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
A_{i,j} =\langle\psi_i,\mathcal{K}^{t}\psi_j\rangle_{\Lmu}.
$$
Define the data matrices
\begin{align*}
\Psi(X) &:= \left( \left. \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\psi_1(x_0)\\
:\\
\psi_N(x_0)
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right| \ldots \left| \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\psi_1(x_{m-l-1})\\
:\\
\psi_N(x_{m-l-1})
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right. \right)\\
\Psi(Y) &:= \left( \left. \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\psi_1(x_l)\\
:\\
\psi_N(x_l)
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right| \ldots \left| \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\psi_1(x_{m-1})\\
:\\
\psi_N(x_{m-1})
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right. \right).
\end{align*}
The empirical estimator is then defined similarly to the generator setting via
$$
\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_m^{t} =\tilde{C}_m^{-1} \tilde{A}_m
$$
with
$$
\tilde{C}_m = \tfrac{1}{m} \Psi(X) \Psi(X)^\top
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\tilde{A}_m= \tfrac{1}{m} \Psi(X) \Psi(Y)^\top.
$$
We now present the analogue to Theorem~\ref{t:generatorestimate} for the Koopman operator which follows by straightforward adaptations of the results of Section~\ref{ss:projgen}.
\begin{theorem}\label{c:semigroupestimate}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:data} hold. Then, for $t\geq 0$, any error bound $\varepsilon> 0$ and probabilistic tolerance $\delta \in (0,1)$ there is $m_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that for any $m\geq m_0$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\|\mathcal{K}^{t}_\mathbb{V}-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_m^{t}\|_{F}\leq \varepsilon\right) \geq 1-\delta.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\noindent A sufficient amount of data~$m_0$ can be specified analogously to Theorem~\ref{t:generatorestimate}.}
\section{Extension to control systems}
\label{sec:control}
\MS{\noindent In this section, we derive probabilistic bounds on the approximation error of controlled SDE systems of the form
\begin{align}\label{e:sde_control}
\text{d}X_t = \left(F(X_t)+ \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} G_i(X_t)u_i \right)\text{d}t + \sigma(X_t) \,\text{d}W_t,
\end{align}
with input $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n_c}$ and state $X_t\in\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}$, where $F:\operatorname{\mathbb{X}}\to\mathbb{R}^n$ and $G_i: \operatorname{\mathbb{X}}\to\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $i = 1,\ldots,n_c$, are locally Lipschitz-continuous vector fields. In the deterministic case $\sigma\equiv 0$ the controlled SDE reduces to the control-affine ODE system
\begin{align}\label{e:controlaffine}
\dot{x} = F(x) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} G_i(x)u_i, \qquad x(0)=x_0.
\end{align}
We will describe how one can apply the bounds on the generators of autonomous (SDE) systems obtained in Section~\ref{sec:SDE} in order to obtain bounds for prediction of control systems, either for i.i.d.\ or ergodic sampling.
Central in this part is the fact that the Koopman generators for control-affine systems are control-affine. More precisely, if $\mathcal{L}^{\bar{u}}$ denotes the Koopman generator for a control-affine system with constant control $\bar{u}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_c}$ and $\bar u = \sum_{i=1}^{r}\alpha_i \bar u_i$ is a linear combination of constant controls $\bar u_i\in\R^{n_c}$, we have
\begin{align}\label{e:gen_ca}
\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^{\bar u} = \mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i\big(\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^{\bar u_i} - \mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^0\big).
\end{align}
This easily follows from the representation \eqref{e:repL} of the Koopman generator, see also \cite[Theorem 3.2]{Peitz2020} for the special (deterministic) case $\sigma\equiv 0$.
We will utilize this property to invoke our results from Section~\ref{sec:SDE} to approximate the Koopman generator corresponding to basis elements of the control space, that is, $\mathcal{L}^{e_i}$, $i=1,\ldots,n_c$, and $\mathcal{L}^0$ corresponding to the drift term to form a bilinear control system in the observables.
Analogously to Assumption~\ref{as:data} we have the following two cases for the collected data and the underlying measure.
\begin{assumption}
\label{as:control_data}
Let either of the following hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(iid)] The data for each autonomous system with control $u=e_i$, $i=0,\ldots,n_c$ is sampled i.i.d.\ from either the normalized Lebesgue measure and contained in a compact forward invariant set $\mathbb{X}_i$ or from an invariant measure $\mu_i$ in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:invariant_measure}.
\item[(erg)] The data for each autonomous system with control $u=e_i$, $i=0,\ldots,n_c$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{as:data}.(erg), i.e., is drawn from a single ergodic trajectory, the probability measure $\mu_i$ of the resulting autonomous SDE is invariant in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:invariant_measure} and the Koopman semigroup is exponentially stable on $L^2_{\mu_i,0}(\mathbb{X}_i)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}
\noindent
In \textup{\cite{ZhanZuaz21}} the authors sample i.i.d.\ data from the Lebesgue measure and that the set $\mathbb{X}$ is compact and forward invariant with respect to the dynamics and also comment on weakening the assumption of forward invariance of $\mathbb{X}$, cf.\ the discussion in \textup{\cite[Section 3.2]{ZhanZuaz21}}.
In the following, we set $\mathcal{O}_i = L^2_{\mu_i}(\mathbb{X}_i)$, $i=1,\ldots,n_c$, and consider the generators $\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^{e_i}$ in these spaces, respectively. Further, let $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N : \mathbb X\to\R$ be $N$ linearly independent observables whose span $\mathbb V = \operatorname{span}\{\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N\}$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{e:intersec}
\mathbb{V} \subset D(\mathcal{L}^{e_0})\cap D(\mathcal{L}^{e_1})\cap \ldots \cap D(\mathcal{L}^{e_{n_c}}),
\end{align}
where $e_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n_c$, denote the standard basis vectors of $\mathbb{R}^{n_c}$ and $e_0 := 0$. We now discuss two cases of sampling, one corresponding to the approach of Section \ref{sec:SDE} and one to the standard case of i.i.d.\ sampling as in \cite{ZhanZuaz21}.
As the original system and the Koopman generator are control affine, the remainder of this section is split up into two parts. First, we derive error estimates corresponding to autonomous systems driven by $n_c+1$ constant controls. Second, we use these estimates and control affinity to deduce a result for general controls.
\noindent In accordance with the notation in Section \ref{sec:SDE} we define $\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_{\mathbb V}^{e_i} := P_{\mathbb V}\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L^{e_i}|_{\mathbb V}$ and also use this symbol to denote the matrix representation of this linear operator w.r.t.\ to the basis $\{\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N\}$ of $\mathbb V$. Its approximation based on the data $x_0,\ldots,x_{m-1}\in\mathbb X$ will be denoted by $\tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^{e_i}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{p:single_estimate}
Let $i \in \{0,\ldots,n_c\}$ be given and Assumption~\ref{as:control_data} hold.
Then, for any pair consisting of a desired error bound $\varepsilon > 0$ and a probabilistic tolerance $\delta\in (0,1)$, there is a number of data points $m_i$ such that for any $m \geq m_i$, we have the estimate
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\big( \| \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}-\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}\|_F\leq \varepsilon\big) \geq 1-\delta.
\end{align*}
The minimal amount of data $m_i$ is given by the formulas of Theorem~\ref{t:generatorestimate}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The claim follows immediately from applying Theorem~\ref{t:generatorestimate}.
\end{proof}
\noindent Having obtained an estimate for the autonomous systems corresponding to the constant controls $e_i, i=0,\ldots n_c$, we can leverage the control affinity of the system to formulate the corresponding results for arbitrary controls. To this end, for any control $u(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t) e_i \in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})$, we define the projected Koopman generator and its approximation corresponding to the non-autonomous system with control $u$ by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u (t) &:= \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\big(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0\big),\\
\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t) &:= \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\big(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0\big).
\end{align*}
\begin{theorem}\label{t:coupled_estimate}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:control_data} hold.
Then, for any pair consisting of a desired error bound $\tilde\varepsilon > 0$ and probabilistic tolerance $\tilde\delta \in (0,1)$, prediction horizon $T>0$, and control function $u\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})$
we have
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{ess\,inf}_{t \in [0,T]}\mathbb{P}\big(\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u(t) - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t)\|_F \leq \tilde\varepsilon\big) \geq 1-\tilde\delta,
\end{align*}
provided that the number~$m$ of data points exceeds $\max_{i=0,\ldots,n_c} m_i$ with $m_i$ defined as in Proposition~\rmref{p:single_estimate} with
$$
\varepsilon = \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{(n_c+1)\left(1 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}\right)}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\delta = 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c+1}.
$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Again, we omit the subscript of the norm and set $\|\cdot\|=\|\cdot\|_F$.
Using the result of Proposition~\ref{p:single_estimate} and our choice of $m_0$, we have
$$
\mathbb{P}\left( \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{0}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{(n_c+1)\left(1 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}\right)}\right) \geq 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c + 1},
$$
and for all $i\in 1,\ldots n_c$
$$
\mathbb{P}\left(\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i} - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{\left(n_c+1\right)\|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}}\right) \geq 1- \tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c + 1}.
$$
Then we compute for $a.e.\ t\in [0,T]$
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{P}\left( \| \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u(t) - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t) \|\leq \tilde\varepsilon\right)& \\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\right)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 - \tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^0\right)\right\|+ \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \left\| \alpha_i(t)\left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i} - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}\right)\right\| \leq \tilde\varepsilon\right)\\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\right)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 - \tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^0\right)\right\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1}\,\wedge\,
\displaystyle\mathop{\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\forall}}}}_{i=1}^{n_c} :
\left\|\alpha_i(t) \left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i} - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}\right)\right\|
\leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1}\right).
\end{align*}
Next, we use Lemma~\ref{lem:probabilities} from Appendix \ref{ss:technical} with $d = n_c+1$,
$$
A_0 = \left\{\left\|\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\right)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 - \tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^0\right)\right\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1}\right\}
\quad \text{and}\quad
A_i = \left\{ \left\|\alpha_i(t) \left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i} - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}\right)\right\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1}\right\}
$$
for $i=1,\ldots,n_c$. This yields
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{P}\left( \| \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u(t) - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t) \|\leq \tilde\varepsilon\right)& \\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left( \left\|\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\right)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 - \tilde\mathcal L} \newcommand{\frakL}{\mathfrak L_m^0\right)\right\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1} \right)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \mathbb{P}\left( \|\alpha_i(t)\big(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{{e_i}}\big)\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{n_c+1} \right) - n_c \\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left( \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{0}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{\left(1 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}\right)(n_c+1)} \right)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \mathbb{P}\left( \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{{e_i}}\| \leq \tfrac{\tilde\varepsilon}{\left(n_c+1\right)\|\alpha_i\|_{L^\infty(0,T)}} \right) - n_c\\
&\geq 1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c+1} + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \left(1-\tfrac{\tilde\delta}{n_c+1}\right) - n_c = 1-\tilde\delta.
\end{align*}
Taking the essential infimum yields the result.
\end{proof}
\noindent Again, similar as in the previous section, we obtain a bound on trajectories via Gronwall, if the state response is contained in $\mathbb{X}$.
\begin{corollary}\label{c:control_trajectory}
Let Assumption~\ref{as:control_data} hold. Let $T,\varepsilon>0$ and $\delta\in (0,1)$, $z_0\in \mathbb{R}^N$ and $u\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})$.
Then there is $m_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that for $m\geq m_0$
the solutions $z,\tilde{z}$ of
\begin{align*}
&&\dot{z}(t) &= \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^u(t)z &&z(0)=z_0\\
&&\dot{\tilde{z}}(t) &= \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^u(t)\tilde{z} &&\tilde{z}(0)={z}_0
\end{align*}
satisfy
\begin{align*}
\min_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{P}\big( \|z(t)-\tilde{z}(t)\|_2 \leq \varepsilon\big) \geq 1-\delta.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix~\ref{s:errorbound_traj}.
\end{proof}
\noindent As in Corollary~\ref{c:trajest}, $m_0$ can explicitly be computed by combining Theorem~\ref{t:coupled_estimate} with the constants in Gronwalls inequality.
We conclude this section with a final corollary regarding the optimality of the solution obtained using an error-certified Koopman model. To this end, we consider the optimal control problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OCP_full}
\begin{aligned}
&\min_{u\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})} J(x)\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad \dot{x} &= F(x) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} G_i(x)u_i, \qquad x(0)=x_0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In what follows, we compare the optimal value of the Koopman representation of \eqref{eq:OCP_full} projected onto the subspace of observables $\mathbb{V}$ with initial datum $z_0 = \Psi (x_0)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OCP_full_Koop}
\begin{aligned}
&\min_{\alpha\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})} J(P(z))\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad \dot{{z}}(t) &= \left[\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\alpha_i(t)\left(\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^{e_i}-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}^0\right)\right]{z}(t), \qquad {z}(0)={z}_0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
to the optimal value of the surrogate-based control problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OCP_surrogate}
\begin{aligned}
&\min_{\tilde \alpha\in L^\infty(0,T;\mathbb{R}^{n_c})} J(P(\tilde{z}))\\
\mbox{s.t.}\qquad \dot{\tilde{z}}(t) &= \left[\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n_c}\tilde\alpha_i(t)\left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^{e_i}-\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m^0\right)\right]\tilde{z}(t), \qquad \tilde{z}(0)={z}_0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $P$ maps a trajectory of observables to a trajectory in the state space, which in practice is frequently realized by including the coordinates of the identity function in the dictionary~$\Psi$ of observables
\begin{corollary}\label{c:control_problem}
Let $T,\varepsilon>0$, $\delta\in (0,1)$, $z_0\in \mathbb{R}^N$, let $J$ be Lipschitz continuous and let Assumption~\ref{as:control_data} hold.
Furthermore, let $(z^*,\alpha^*)$ be an optimal solution of problem \eqref{eq:OCP_full_Koop}. Then there is $m_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that for $m\geq m_0$ data points contained in $\mathbb{X}$, there exists a tuple $(\tilde{z},\tilde{\alpha})$ which is feasible for \eqref{eq:OCP_surrogate} such that
\[
\mathbb{P}\big(|J(P(\tilde{z}))- J(P(z^*))| \leq \varepsilon\big) \geq 1-\delta.
\]
\end{corollary}}
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Norm of the isomorphism $\mathbb{V}\simeq \mathbb{R}^n$}\label{s:isomorphism}
\begin{proposition}\label{p:normeq}
Let $\mathbb{V} = \operatorname{span}\{\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^N\}\subset \Lmu$, $\mathcal{B} \in L(\mathbb{V},\mathbb{V})$ and $B\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ be its corresponding matrix representation.
Then
$$
\sqrt{\tfrac{\lambda^{\min}(C)}{\lambda^{\max}(C)}}\|B\|_2 \leq \|\mathcal{B}\|_{L(\mathbb V,\mathbb V)} \leq \sqrt{\tfrac{\lambda^{\max}(C)}{\lambda^{\min}(C)}} \|B\|_2
$$
where $C_{i,j} = \langle \psi_i,\psi_j\rangle_{\Lmu}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the identity
$$
\left\| \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i \psi_i\right\|_{\Lmu}^2 = \sum_{i,j=1}^N \alpha_i \alpha_j \langle \psi_i,\psi_j\rangle_{\Lmu} = \alpha^\top C\alpha,
$$
which shows the equivalence of the vector norms. This induces the desired equivalence of the operator norms.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A technical lemma}\label{ss:technical}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:probabilities}
Let $A_i$, $i=1,\ldots,d$, be measurable sets. Then
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^d A_i \right) = \sum_{i=1}^d \mathbb{P}(A_i) - \sum_{i=1}^{d-1} \mathbb{P}\left(A_i \cup \bigcap_{j=i+1}^d A_j\right).
\end{align*}
Moreover, if $\mathbb{P}\left(A_i\right) \geq 1-\delta$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d$, then
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^d A_i \right) \geq 1-d\delta.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Inductively applying the classical formula
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(A_1\cap A_2\right) = \mathbb{P}(A_1) + \mathbb{P}(A_2) - \mathbb{P}(A_1\cup A_2)
\end{align*}
yields
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^d A_i \right) &= \mathbb{P}\left(A_1 \cap \bigcap_{i=2}^d A_i\right) = \mathbb{P}(A_1) + \mathbb{P}\left(\bigcap_{i=2}^d A_i\right) - \mathbb{P}\left(A_1 \cup \bigcap_{i=2}^d A_i\right)\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^d \mathbb{P}\left(A_i\right) - \sum_{i=2}^{d-1}\mathbb{P}\left(A_i \cup \bigcap_{j=i+1}^dA_j\right) - \mathbb{P}\left(A_1 \cup \bigcap_{i=2}^d A_i\right)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^d \mathbb{P}\left(A_i\right) - \sum_{i=1}^{d-1}\mathbb{P}\left(A_i \cup \bigcap_{j=i+1}^dA_j\right),
\end{align*}
which proves the first claim. The second claim follows by estimating the first sum by $d(1-\delta)$ from below, and the second sum by $-(d-1)$ from below.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the error bound on the trajectories}\label{s:errorbound_traj}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:gronwall}
Let $z$ and $\tilde{z}$ solve \eqref{e:z} and \eqref{e:tz} respectively. Then for all $t\geq 0$
\begin{align*}
\|z(t)&-\tilde{z}(t)\|_2
\leq \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2\|\tilde z\|_{L^1(0,t;\mathbb{R}^N)}e^{t \|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2}
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Denoting $e = z-\tilde{z}$, subtracting \eqref{e:tz} from \eqref{e:z} and integrating over a time interval $[0,t]$ with $t\geq 0$ we obtain that
\begin{align*}
e(t) &= \int_0^t \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V} z(s) - \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m \tilde{z}(s)\,\text{d}s\\
&= \int_0^t \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V} e(s) - \left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\right)\tilde{z}(s)\,\text{d}s
\end{align*}
This implies using Gronwalls inequality, cf.\ \cite[Theorem 2.1]{Chicone2006}, that
\begin{align*}
\|e(t)\|_2 &\leq \int_0^t \|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \|e(s)\|_2 + \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \|\tilde{z}(s)\|_2\,\text{d}s\\
&\leq e^{t \|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2} \int_0^t\|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2\|\tilde z(s)\|_2\,ds\\
&= e^{t \|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2} \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2\|\tilde z\|_{L^1(0,t;\mathbb{R}^N)}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{myproof}[Corollary~\ref{c:trajest}]
Using the bound of Lemma~\ref{lem:gronwall} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|z(t)-\tilde{z}(t)\|_2 &\leq \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 t e^{t\|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m\|_2} e^{t\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2} \\&= t \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 e^{t\left(\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 + \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m\|_2\right)}.
\end{align*}
We compute
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\|z(t)-\right.&\left.\tilde{z}(t)\|_2 \leq \varepsilon\right) \\&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(t \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 e^{t\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2} e^{t\|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m\|_2}\|z_0\|\leq \varepsilon\right)\\
&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(t \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 e^{2t\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2} e^{t\|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2}\|z_0\|\leq \varepsilon\right)
\\&\geq \mathbb{P}\left(T \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 e^{2T\|\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2} e^{T\|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2}\|z_0\|\leq \varepsilon\right)
\end{align*}
By Theorem~\ref{t:generatorestimate} and $\|\cdot\|_2\leq \|\cdot\|_F$, for any $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ we can choose $m_0$ such that $\mathbb{P}\left( \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \leq \tilde{\varepsilon}\right) \geq 1-\delta$. Hence, there is $m_0$ only depending on $T$, $z_0$, $\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}$ and $\varepsilon$ such that for any $t\geq 0$
$$\mathbb{P}\left(\|z(t)-\tilde{z}(t)\|_2 \leq \varepsilon\right) \geq 1-\delta. $$
Taking the minimum over all $t\in [0,T]$ proves the claim.
\end{myproof}
\begin{myproof}[Corollary~\ref{c:control_trajectory}]
This proof follows with obvious modifications in the proof of Corollary~\ref{lem:gronwall} using the bound on then error of the time dependent generators of Theorem~\ref{t:coupled_estimate}.
\end{myproof}
\begin{corollary}\label{c:refinements}
If the Koopman semigroup generated by $\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}$ is bounded by $M$, then
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde{z}(t)-z(t)\|_2 \leq M\|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \|\tilde{z}\|_{L^1(0,t;\mathbb{R}^N)}.
\end{align*}
If it is exponentially stable then
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde{z}(t)-z(t)\|_2 \leq M c\|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \|\tilde{z}\|_{L^p(0,t;\mathbb{R}^N)}
\end{align*}
for any $1\leq p\leq \infty$ with $M\geq 1$ and $c=c(p)\geq 0$ independent of $t$. If additionally the semigroup generated by $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m$ is exponentially stable, $\|\tilde{z}(t)-z(t)\|_2$ can be bounded uniformly in $t \geq 0$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Subtracting \eqref{e:tz} from \eqref{e:z} and denoting $e(t)=\tilde{z}(t)-z(t)$ yields the system
\begin{align*}
\dot{e}(t) = \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V} e(t) + (\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m-\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V})\tilde{z}(t).
\end{align*}
Denoting by $\mathcal{K}^t_\mathbb{V}$ the Koopman semigroup generated by $\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}$ yields, using the variation of constants formula
\begin{align*}
e(t) &= \int_0^t \mathcal{K}^{t-s}_\mathbb{V} \left(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\right)\tilde{z}(s)\,\text{d}s
\end{align*}
and hence
\begin{align*}
\|e(t)\|_2 \leq \int_0^t \|\mathcal{K}^{t-s}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \|\tilde{z}(s)\|_2\,\text{d}s.
\end{align*}
If $\mathcal{K}^t_\mathbb{V}$ is bounded by $M$, i.e., $\|\mathcal{K}^t_\mathbb{V}\|\leq M$, we have
\begin{align*}
\|e(t)\|_2 \leq M \|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \|\tilde{z}\|_{L^1(0,t;\mathbb{R}^N)}.
\end{align*}
If $\mathcal{K}^t_\mathbb{V}$ is exponentially stable, i.e., $\|\mathcal{K}^t_\mathbb{V}\|_2\leq Me^{-\omega t}$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|e(t)\|_2 \leq M c\|\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m - \mathcal{L}_\mathbb{V}\|_2 \|\tilde{z}\|_{L^p(0,t;\mathbb{R}^N)}
\end{align*}
for any $1\leq p\leq \infty$ with $c=c(p,\omega)$. If additionally, the semigroup generated by $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_m$ is exponentially stable implying that $\|\tilde{z}(t)\|_2\leq \tilde{M}e^{-\tilde{\omega}t}\|{z}_0\|_2$, this upper bound can be bounded uniformly in $t$.
\end{proof}
\MS{\subsection{Analytical Expressions for the OU Process}
\label{app:ou_analytical}
For the one-dimensional SDE~\eqref{eq:ou_sde}, the Koopman generator is given by:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}\phi &= - x \phi'(x) + \frac{1}{2} \phi''(x).
\end{align*}
The eigenvalues of the generator are given by negative integers $\kappa_l = -l$, eigenvalues of the Koopman operator are their exponentials, as usual, $\lambda_l(t) = e^{- l t}$. The corresponding eigenfunctions are given by scaled physicist's Hermite polynomials. They are orthonormal with respect to the inner product with weight function $\mu$, which is the density of a normal distribution with variance one half, yielding the relations:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ortho_hermite_poly}
\mu(x) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} \exp(-x^2), & \psi_l &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^l (l-1)!}} H_l(x), &\langle H_l, \,H_m\rangle_\mu &= 2^l l! \delta_{lm}.
\end{align}
The monomial basis can be recovered from eigenfunction basis $\psi_i$ by the representation formula:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:expansion_monomials}
x^n &= \frac{n!}{2^n}\sum_{k=0}^{\floor{\frac{n}{2}}} \frac{1}{k! (n - 2k)!}H_{n - 2k}(x).
\end{align}
For a basis set comprised of monomials up to maximal degree $N$, the Galerkin matrices $C$ and $A$ can be obtained as the moments of the normal distribution with variance $0.5$:
\begin{align*}
C_{ij} &= \begin{cases}
\frac{(i+j)!}{2^{i+j} ((i+j)/2)!} & (i+j) \, \text{even}, \\
0 & (i+j) \, \text{odd},
\end{cases} &
A_{ij} &= \begin{cases}
-\frac{ij}{2} \frac{(i+j-2)!}{2^{i+j-2} ((i+j-2)/2)!} & (i+j) \, \text{even}, \\
0 & (i+j) \, \text{odd}.
\end{cases} &
\end{align*}
\noindent For their numerical estimation, we consider centered random variables:
\begin{align*}
\phi_{ij}(x) &= x^i\, x^j - C_{ij} \quad\text{for }C, & \phi_{ij}(x) &= -\frac{ij}{2} x^{i-1}\, x^{j-1} - A_{ij} \quad\text{for }A.
\end{align*}
We calculate the asymptotic variance of the scalar random variable $\phi_{ij}$ if it is defined by either of the two expressions above. We also introduce the quantity $n := i+j$ for C or $n := i+j-2$ for A. The analytical expressions for $C_{ij},\, A_{ij}$ above exactly equal the terms corresponding to $H_0$ in the general expansion for the monomial $x^n$ in~\eqref{eq:expansion_monomials}. As the random variables $\phi_{ij}$ are centered, no contribution from $H_0$ is left. Thereby, we obtain the decomposition for $\phi_{ij}$ (up to the factor $-\frac{ij}{2}$ for estimation of $A$):
\begin{align}
\label{eq:expansion_phi}
\phi_{ij} &= x^n - \mathbb{E}^\mu[x^n] = \frac{n!}{2^n}\sum_{k=0}^{\ceil{\frac{n}{2} - 1}} \frac{1}{k! (n - 2k)!}H_{n - 2k}(x).
\end{align}
Next, we calculate matrix elements with the Koopman operator at lag time $l\Delta_t$ by combining~\eqref{eq:expansion_phi} with the orthogonality relation~\eqref{eq:ortho_hermite_poly}:
\begin{align*}
\langle \phi_{ij}, \, \mathcal{K}^{l\Delta_t}\phi_{ij}\rangle_\mu &= \frac{(n!)^2}{2^{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^{\ceil{\frac{n}{2} - 1}} \frac{1}{(k! (n - 2k)!)^2} e^{-(n-2k)l\Delta_t} 2^{n-2k} (n- 2k)! \\
&= \frac{(n!)^2}{2^{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^{\ceil{\frac{n}{2} - 1}} \frac{2^{n-2k}}{(k!)^2 (n - 2k)!} e^{-(n-2k)l\Delta_t}.
\end{align*}
Finally, by setting $q_k = e^{-(n - 2k)\Delta_t}$, we calculate the asymptotic variance according to the result in Lemma~\ref{lemma:co-variances} (note that the contribution for $l = 0$ appears only once, and that the result needs to be multiplied by $\frac{1}{4}ij$ for the estimation of $A$):
\begin{align*}
\sigma_{\phi_{ij}, \infty}^2 &= \langle \phi_{ij}, \,\phi_{ij}\rangle_\mu + 2 \sum_{l=1}^\infty \langle \phi_{ij}, \, \mathcal{K}^{l\Delta_t} \phi_{ij}\rangle_\mu \\
&= \frac{(n!)^2}{2^{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^{\ceil{\frac{n}{2} - 1}} \frac{2^{n-2k}}{(k!)^2 (n - 2k)!} \left[ \sum_{l=0}^\infty q_k^l + \sum_{l=1}^\infty q_k^l \right] \\
&= \frac{(n!)^2}{2^{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^{\ceil{\frac{n}{2} - 1}} \frac{2^{n-2k}}{(k!)^2 (n - 2k)!} \left[ \frac{1}{1 - q_k} + \frac{q_k}{1 - q_k} \right] \\
&= \frac{(n!)^2}{2^{2n}}\sum_{k=0}^{\ceil{\frac{n}{2} - 1}} \frac{2^{n-2k}}{(k!)^2 (n - 2k)!} \frac{1 + q_k}{1 - q_k}.
\end{align*}}
|
\section{Introduction}
Closely related to chordal graphs is the notion of a simplicial vertex, that is a vertex whose neighborhood induces a clique.
In particular, Dirac~\cite{Dirac61} proved that every chordal graph admits a simplicial vertex.
However not all graphs contain a simplicial vertex.
Due to their importance to several algorithmic problems, such as finding a maximum clique or computing the chromatic number,
it is natural to seek for fast algorithms that list all simplicial vertices of a graph.
For doing so, the naive approach takes $O(nm)$ time, whereas the fastest algorithms take advantage of computing the square of an $n \times n$ binary matrix and run in $O(n^{\omega})$ and $O(m^{2\omega/(\omega+1)})$ time \cite{KloksKM00}. Hereafter we assume that we are given a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges; currently, $\omega < 2.37286$ \cite{AlmanW21}.
A natural way to generalize the concept of simplicial vertices is the notion of an avoidable vertex.
A vertex $u$ is avoidable if either there is no induced path on three vertices with middle vertex $u$, or
every induced path on three vertices with middle vertex $u$ is contained in an induced cycle.
Thus every simplicial vertex is avoidable, however the converse is not necessarily true.
As opposed to simplicial vertices, it is known that every graph contains an avoidable vertex \cite{AboulkerCTV15,BerryB98,BerryBBS10,OHTSUKI1976622}.
Extending the notion of avoidable vertices is achieved through avoidable edges and, more general, avoidable paths.
This is accomplished by replacing the middle vertex in an induced path on three vertices by an induced path on arbitrary $k \geq 2$ vertices, denoted by $P_k$.
Beisegel et al. \cite{BeisegelCGMS19} proved first that every non-edgeless graph contains an avoidable edge, considering the case of $k=2$.
Regarding the existence of an avoidable induced path of arbitrary length, Bonamy et al. \cite{BonamyDHT20} settled a conjecture in \cite{BeisegelCGMS19}
and showed that every graph is either $P_k$-free or contains an avoidable $P_k$.
Gurvich et al. \cite{Gurvich22} strengthened the later result by showing that every induced path can be shifted in an avoidable path,
in the sense that there is a sequence of neighboring induced paths of the same length.
Although the provided proof in \cite{Gurvich22} is constructive and identifies an avoidable path given an induced path,
the proposed algorithm was not settled whether it runs in polynomial time.
Since avoidable vertices generalize simplicial vertices, it is expected that avoidable vertices find applications in further algorithmic problems.
Indeed, Beisegel et al. \cite{BeisegelCGMS19} revealed new polynomially solvable cases of the maximum weight clique problem that take advantage of the notion of avoidable vertices.
Similar to simplicial vertices, the complexity of a problem can be reduced by removing avoidable vertices, tackling the problem on the reduced graph.
It is therefore of interest to list all avoidable vertices efficiently.
If we are only interested in computing two avoidable vertices this can be done in linear time by using fast graph searches \cite{BerryBBS10,BeisegelCGMS19}.
However, an efficient elimination process, such as deleting or removing avoidable vertices, is not enough to recursively compute the rest of the avoidable vertices.
Thus, computing the set of all avoidable vertices requires to decide for each vertex of the graph whether it is avoidable and
a usual graph search cannot guarantee to test all vertices.
Concerning lower bounds, it is known \cite{KratschS06} that the problem of finding a triangle in an $n$-vertex graph can be reduced in $O(n^2)$
time to the problem of counting the number of simplicial vertices in an $O(n)$-vertex graph.
Moreover, Ducoffe proved that under plausible complexity assumptions computing the diameter of an AT-free graph is at least as hard as computing a simplicial vertex \cite{Ducoffe22}. %
For general graphs, the quadratic time complexity of diameter computation cannot be improved by much \cite{RodittyW13}.
We note that the currently fastest algorithms for detecting a triangle run in $O(nm)$ time and $O(n^{\omega})$ time \cite{ItaiR78}.
Notably, we show a similar lower bound for recognizing an avoidable vertex.
In particular, via a reduction form the Orthogonal-Vector problem, we prove that under the Strong Exponential-Time Hypothesis, there is no truly subquadratic algorithm for deciding whether a given vertex is avoidable.
This gives a strong evidence that our $O(nm)$- and $O(n^{\omega})$-recognition algorithms upon which are based our listing algorithms cannot be improved significantly.
A naive approach that recognizes a single vertex $u$ of a graph $G$ of whether it is avoidable or not, needs to check if all neighbors of $u$ are pairwise connected in an induced subgraph of $G$.
Thus the running time of recognizing an avoidable vertex is $O(n^3+n^2m)$ or, as explicitly stated in \cite{BeisegelCGMS19}, it can be expressed as $O(\overline{m} \cdot (n+m))$ where $\overline{m}$ is the number of edges in the complement of $G$.
Inspired by both running times, we first show that we can reduce in linear time the listing problem on a graph $G$ having $m \geq n$ and $\overline{m} \geq n$.
In a sense such a result states that graphs that are sparse ($m < n$) or dense ($\overline{m} < n$) can be decomposed efficiently to smaller connected graphs for which their complement is also connected.
Towards this direction, we give an interesting connection with the avoidable vertices on the complement of $G$.
As a result, the naive algorithms for listing all avoidable vertices take $O(n^3 \cdot m)$ and $O(n \cdot \overline{m} \cdot m)$ time, respectively.
Moreover, based on the proposed reduction we derive an optimal, linear-time, algorithm for listing all avoidable vertices on graphs having no induced path on four vertices, known as cographs.
Our main results consist of new algorithms for listing all avoidable vertices in running times comparable to the ones for listing simplicial vertices.
More precisely, we propose three main approaches that result in algorithms for listing all avoidable vertices of a graph $G$ with the following running times:
\begin{itemize}
\item $O(n^2 \cdot m)$, by using a minimal triangulation of $G$. \
A close relationship between avoidable vertices and minimal triangulation was already known \cite{BeisegelCGMS19}.
However, listing all avoidable vertices through the proposed characterization is inefficient, since one has to produce \emph{all} possible minimal triangulations of $G$.
Here we strengthen such a characterization in the sense that it provides an efficient recognition based on one particular minimal triangulation of $G$.
More precisely, we take advantage of vertex-incremental minimal triangulations that can be computed in $O(nm)$ time \cite{BerryHV06}.
\item $O(n^2 + m^2)$, by exploring structural properties on each edge of $G$. \
This approach is based on a modified, traditional breadth-first search algorithm.
Our task is to construct search trees rooted at a particular vertex that reach all vertices of a predescribed set $S$, so that every non-leaf vertex does not belong to $S$.
If such a tree exists then every path from the root to a leaf that belongs to $S$ is called an $S$-excluded path.
It turns out that $S$-excluded paths can be tested in linear time and we need to make $2m$ calls of a modified breadth-first search algorithm.
\item $O(n^{1+\omega})$, where $O(n^{\omega})$ is the running time for matrix multiplication. \
For applying a matrix multiplication approach, we contract the connected components of $G$ that are outside the closed neighborhood of a vertex.
Then we observe that a vertex $u$ is avoidable if the neighbors of $u$ are pairwise in distance at most two in the contracted graph.
As the distance testing can be encapsulated by the square of its adjacency matrix, we deduce an algorithm that takes advantage of a fast matrix multiplication.
\end{itemize}
We should note that each of the stated algorithms is able to recognize if a given vertex $u$ of $G$ is avoidable in time $O(nm)$, $O(d(u)(n+m))$, and $O(n^{\omega})$, respectively, where $d(u)$ is the degree of $u$ in $G$.
Further, all of our proposed algorithms are characterized by their simplicitiy
and, besides the fast matrix multiplication, consist of basic ingredients that avoid using sophisticated data structures.
In addition, we consider the natural generalizations of avoidable vertices, captured within the notions of the avoidable edges and avoidable paths.
A naive algorithm that recognizes an avoidable edge takes time $O(n^2 \cdot m)$ or $O(\overline{m} \cdot m)$.
Here we show that recognizing an avoidable edge of a graph $G$ can be done in $O(n \cdot m)$ time.
This is achieved by taking advantage of the notions of the $S$-excluded paths and their efficient detection by the modified breadth-first search algorithm.
Also notice that an avoidable edge is an avoidable path on two vertices.
We are able to reduce the problem of recognizing an avoidable path of arbitrary length to the recognition of an avoidable edge.
In particular, given an induced path we prove that we can replace the induced path by an edge and test whether the new added edge is avoidable or not in a reduced graph.
Therefore our recognition algorithm for testing whether a given induced path is avoidable takes $O(n \cdot m)$ time.
As a side remark of the later algorithm, we partially resolve an open question raised in \cite{Gurvich22}.
In particular, \cite{Gurvich22} asks whether their algorithm for identifying an avoidable path given an induced path, runs in polynomial time.
Our result implies that if the given path is avoidable then their algorithm runs in polynomial time.
\section{Preliminaries}
All graphs considered here are finite undirected graphs without loops and multiple edges.
We refer to the textbook by Bondy and Murty~\cite{Bondy} for any undefined graph terminology.
For a graph $G=(V_G, E_G)$, we use $V_G$ and $E_G$ to denote the set of vertices and edges, respectively.
We use $n$ to denote the number of vertices of a graph and use $m$ for the number of edges.
Given $x\in V_G$, we denote by $N_G(x)$ the neighborhood of $x$.
The \emph{degree} of $x$ is the number of edges incident to $x$, denoted by $d_G(x)$. That is, $d_G(x)=|N_G(x)|$.
The closed neighborhood of $x$, denoted by $N_G[x]$, is defined as $N_{G}(x)\cup\{x\}$.
For a set $X\subset V(G)$, $N_G(X)$ denotes the set of vertices in $V(G)\setminus X$ that have at least one neighbor in $X$. Analogously, $N_G[X]=N_G(X)\cup X$.
Given $X\subseteq V_G$, we denote by $G-X$ the graph obtained from $G$ by the removal of the vertices of $X$.
If $X=\{u\}$, we also write $G-u$. The \emph{subgraph induced by $X$} is denoted by $G[X]$, and has $X$ as its vertex set and $\{uv~|~u,v\in X\mbox{ and }uv\in E_G\}$ as its edge set.
For $R\subseteq E(G)$, $G\setminus R$ denotes the
graph~$(V(G), E(G)\setminus R)$, that is a subgraph of $G$. If $R=\{e\}$, we also write $G \setminus e$.
A {\it clique} of $G$ is a set of pairwise adjacent vertices
of $G$, and a {\it maximal clique} of $G$ is a clique of $G$
that is not properly contained in any clique of $G$. An
{\it independent set} of $G$ is a set of pairwise non-adjacent
vertices of $G$.
The induced path on $k \geq 2$ vertices is denoted by $P_k$ and the
induced cycle on $k\geq 3$ vertices is denoted by $C_k$.
For an induced path $P_k$, the vertices of degree one are called \emph{endpoints}.
A vertex $v$ is {\it universal} in $G$ if $N[v] = V(G)$ and $v$ is {\it isolated} if $N(v) = \emptyset$.
A vertex of degree one is called \emph{leaf}.
A graph is {\it connected} if there is a path between any
pair of vertices.
A {\it connected component} of $G$ is a maximal connected subgraph of $G$.
For any two vertices $x$ and $y$ of a connected graph there is an induced path having $x$ and $y$ as endpoints.
Given two vertices $u$ and $v$ of a connected graph $G$, a set $S \subset V_G$ is called \emph{$(u,v)$-separator} if $u$ and $v$ belong to different connected components of $G-S$.
We say that $S$ is a separator if there exist two vertices $u$ and $v$ such that $S$ is a $(u,v)$-separator.
For a set of finite graphs $\mathcal{H}$, we say that a graph $G$ is $\mathcal{H}$-free if $G$ does not contain an induced subgraph isomorphic to any of the graphs of $\mathcal{H}$.
The \emph{disjoint union} of two graphs $G$ and $H$, denoted by $G \cup H$, is the graph on vertex set $V(G) \cup V(H)$ and edge set $E(G) \cup E(H)$.
The \emph{complement} of $G$, denoted by $\overline{G}$, is the graph on vertex set $V(G)$ and edge set $\{uv \mid uv \notin E(G)\}$.
We say that a graph $G$ is \emph{co-connected} if $\overline{G}$ is connected. Moreover a \emph{co-component} of $G$ is a connected component of $\overline{G}$.
Given an edge $e=xy$, the {\it contraction} of $e$ removes both $x$ and $y$ and replaces them by a new vertex $w$, which is made adjacent to those vertices that were adjacent to at least one of the vertices $x$ and $y$, that is $N(w)=(N(x) \cup N(y))\setminus\{x,y\}$.
Let $S$ be a vertex set of $G$ such that $G[S]$ is connected.
If we repeatedly contract an edge of $G[S]$ until one vertex remains in $S$ then we say that we \emph{contract $S$ into a single vertex}.
In different terminology, {\it contracting a set of vertices} $S$ is the operation of substituting the vertices of $S$ by a new vertex $w$ with $N(w)=N(S)$.
A vertex $v$ is called \emph{simplicial} if the vertices of $N_G(v)$ induce a clique.
Listing all simplicial vertices of a graph can be done $O(nm)$ time.
The fastest algorithm for listing all simplicial vertices takes time $O(n^{\omega})$, where $O(n^{\omega})$ is the time needed to multiply two $n \times n$ binary matrices \cite{KloksKM00}
(currently, $\omega < 2.37286$ \cite{AlmanW21}).
Avoidable vertices and edges generalize the concept of simplicial vertices in a natural way.
\begin{definition}\label{def:avoidablevertex}
A vertex $v$ is called \emph{avoidable} if every $P_3$ with middle vertex $v$ is contained in an induced cycle.
Equivalently, $v$ is avoidable if $d_G(v) \leq 1$ or for every pair $x,y \in N_G(v)$
the vertices $x$ and $y$ belong to the same connected component of $G - (N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\})$.
\end{definition}
Every simplicial vertex is avoidable, however the converse is not necessarily true.
It is known that every graph contains an avoidable vertex \cite{AboulkerCTV15,BerryB98,OHTSUKI1976622}.
Every vertex of a graph of degree $\le 1$ is simplicial and hence avoidable. Thus a non-avoidable vertex of a graph, has degree $\ge 2$.
\begin{obs}\label{obs:separtor}
Let $G$ be a graph and let $u$ be a vertex of $G$. Then $u$ is non-avoidable if and only if there is an $(x,y)$-separator $S$ that contains $u$ such that $S \subset N_{G}[u]$ for some vertices $x,y \in N_{G}(u)$.
\end{obs}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $u$ is non-avoidable. Then by Definition~\ref{def:avoidablevertex}, there are two vertices $x,y \in N_{G}(u)$ that belong to different connected components in $G - (N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\})$.
This means that $S = N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\}$ is an $(x,y)$-separator.
On the other hand, if there is such a separator $S$ for some vertices $x,y \in N_{G}(u)$ then $x$ and $y$ do not belong to the same connected component in the graph $G - S$ and, consequently, also in the graph $G - (N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\})$, because $S \subset N_{G}[u]$. Thus $u$ is non-avoidable vertex.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A Lower Bound for Recognizing an Avoidable Vertex}
In the forthcoming sections, we give algorithms for recognizing an avoidable vertex in $O(nm)$ time and $O(n^{\omega})$ time.
Here we show that, under plausible complexity assumptions, a significant improvement on the stated running times is unlikely,
as we show that there is no truly subquadratic algorithm for deciding whether a given vertex is avoidable.
By \emph{truly subquadratic}, we mean an algorithm with running time $O(n^{2-\epsilon})$, for some $\epsilon >0$ where $n$ is the size of its input.
More precisely, the Strong Exponential-Time Hypothesis (SETH) states that
for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists a $k$ such that the $k$-SAT problem on $n$ variables cannot be solved in $O((2 - \epsilon)^n)$ time \cite{ImpagliazzoP01}.
The Orthogonal-Vector problem (OV) takes as input two families $A$ and $B$ of $n$ sets over a universe $C$,
and asks whether there exist $a \in A$ and $b \in B$ such that $a\cap b = \emptyset$. An instance of OV is denoted by $OV(A,B,C)$.
It is known that under SETH, for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists a constant $c>0$ such that $OV(A,B,C)$ cannot be solved in $O(n^{2 - \epsilon})$, even if $|C| \leq c \cdot \log{n}$ \cite{Williams05}.
For deciding whether a given vertex is avoidable, we give a reduction from OV.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:lowerbound}
The OV problem with $|A|=|B|=n$ can be reduced in $O(n \log{n})$ time to the problem of deciding whether a particular vertex of an $O(n)$-vertex graph is avoidable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $OV(A,B,C)$ be an instance of OV.
We construct a graph $G$ as follows.
The vertex set of $G$ consists of $A \cup B \cup C$ and three additional vertices $u,c_A,c_B$. For the edges of $G$, we have:
\begin{itemize}
\item $u$ is adjacent to every vertex of $A \cup B$;
\item $c_A$ is adjacent to every vertex of $A$ and $c_B$ is adjacent to every vertex of $B$;
\item for every $a \in A$ and every $c \in C$, $ac \in E(G)$ if and only if $c \in a$;
\item for every $b \in B$ and every $c \in C$, $bc \in E(G)$ if and only if $c \in b$.
\end{itemize}
These are exactly the edges of $G$. In particular notice that $G[C\cup \{u,c_A,c_B\}]$ is an independent set.
Moreover, observe that $G$ has $2n+|C|+3$ vertices and the number of edges is $O(n \log{n})$.
We claim that $OV(A,B,C)$ is a yes-instance if and only if $u$ is non-avoidable in $G$.
Assume that there are sets $a \in A$ and $b \in B$ such that $a \cap b = \emptyset$.
Let $x \in A$ and $y \in B$ be the vertices of $A$ and $B$ that correspond to $a$ and $b$, respectively.
By construction, $x$ and $y$ are non-adjacent in $G$.
Moreover, by construction, $x$ and $y$ have no common neighbor in $C$, as $a \cap b = \emptyset$.
Now notice that all neighbors of $x$ and $y$ that do not belong to $N_G[u]=A \cup B \cup \{u\}$ are in $C\cup\{c_A,c_B\}$ and $G[C\cup\{c_A,c_B\}]$ is an edgeless graph.
Thus $x$ and $y$ belong to different components in $G - (N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\})$ and $u$ is non-avoidable in $G$.
For the converse, assume that $u$ is non-avoidable in $G$.
Since $N(u) = A \cup B$ there are vertices $x,y \in A \cup B$ such that $x$ and $y$ lie in different components in $G - (N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\})$.
If both $x$ and $y$ belong to the same set $A$, then they have a common neighbor $c_A$ in $G - (N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\})$ which is not possible.
Similarly, both $x$ and $y$ do not belong to $B$ due to vertex $c_B$.
Thus $x \in A$ and $y \in B$.
As there are no edges in $G[C\cup\{c_A,c_B\}]$ we deduce that $x$ and $y$ have no common neighbor in $C$.
Hence there are sets in $A$ and $B$ that correspond to the vertices $x$ and $y$, respectively, that have no common element.
Therefore $OV(A,B,C)$ is a yes-instance.
\end{proof}
\section{Detecting Avoidable Vertices in Sparse or Dense Graphs}
Here we show how to compute efficiently all avoidable vertices on sparse or dense graphs.
In particular, for a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, we consider the cases in which $m < n$ (sparse graphs) or $\overline{m} < n$ (dense graphs), where $\overline{m} = |E(\overline{G})|$.
Our main motivation comes from the naive algorithm that lists all avoidable vertices in $O(n \cdot \overline{m} \cdot (n+m))$ time that takes advantage of the non-edges of $G$ \cite{BeisegelCGMS19}.
We will show that we can handle the non-edges in linear time, so that the running time of the naive algorithm can be written as $O(n^3 \cdot m)$.
For doing so, we consider the behavior of avoidable vertices on the complement of a graph by considering the connected components in both $G$ and $\overline{G}$.
Before reaching the details of our approach, we give a simple linear-time algorithm on the class of cographs,
since they can be totally decomposed by the corresponding operations.
\subsection{Appetizer: an optimal algorithm on cographs}
A graph $G$ is \emph{cograph} if every induced subgraph
of $G$ on at least two vertices is either disconnected or its complement is disconnected.
Cographs are exactly the class of $P_4$-free graphs \cite{CorneilLB81}.
Every cograph $G$ admits a unique tree representation known as \emph{cotree} which is a rooted tree $T$ with two types of internal nodes: 0-nodes and 1-nodes.
The vertices of $G$ are assigned to the leaves of $T$ in a one-to-one manner. Thus $T$ contains $O(n)$ nodes.
The properties of a cotree $T$ are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Two vertices of $G$ are adjacent if and only if their least common ancestor in $T$ is a 1-node.
\item[(ii)] Every internal node of $T$ has at least two children.
\item[(iii)] No two internal nodes of the same type are adjacent in $T$.
\end{itemize}
The cotree of a cograph is unique and can be generated in linear time \cite{CorneilPS85}.
We give the following characterization of avoidable vertices in $G$ in terms of the cotree $T$.
For doing so, we denote by $p(u)$ the parent of a vertex $u$ in $T$.
A 1-node $w$ of $T$ is called \emph{full 1-node} if the children of $w$ are all leaves in $T$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale= 1.0]{fig-cotree.pdf}
\caption{Illustrating the cases considered in the proof of Lemma~\ref{char:cotree}.}\label{fig:cotree}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}\label{char:cotree}
Let $T$ be a cotree of a cograph $G$ and let $u$ be a vertex of $G$.
Then, $u$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if either $p(u)$ is a 0-node or $p(u)$ is a full 1-node.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first introduce some notation.
For a node $w$ of $T$, we let $T_w$ be the subtree of $T$ rooted at $w$ and we denote by $V(T_w)$ the set of leaves in $T_w$.
Recall that $V(T_w)$ corresponds to a subset of vertices of $G$.
By property~(i) observe that all the vertices of $V(T_w)$ are either adjacent or non-adjacent to a vertex $x$ of $V(G) \setminus V(T_w)$.
Let $r$ be the root of $T$ and let $w$ be the parent node of vertex $u$, that is $w = p(u)$.
We consider separately the following cases (see Figure~\ref{fig:cotree}).
\begin{itemize}
\item Assume that $w$ is a 0-node in $T$. We show that $u$ is avoidable in $G$.
Consider two vertices $x,y \in N_G(u)$.
By property~(i), $x,y \in V(T_r)\setminus V(T_w)$ and any vertex of $V(T_w)$ is non-adjacent to $u$.
Moreover, property~(ii) implies that there is a vertex $a \in V(T_w)\setminus \{u\}$ such that $au \notin E(G)$.
Thus, both $x$ and $y$ are adjacent to $u$ and $a$, since $x,y \notin V(T_w)$.
Hence, regardless of whether $x$ and $y$ being adjacent, there is a path between $x$ and $y$ that does not contain any vertex of $N_G(u)$.
\item Assume that $w$ is a full 1-node in $T$. We show that $u$ is avoidable in $G$.
Consider two vertices $x,y \in N_G(u)$. If $x \in V(T_w)$ then $xy \in E(G)$ because either $y \in V(T_w)$ as a leaf vertex, or $y \notin V(T_w)$ and $y$ is adjacent to every vertex of $V(T_w)$ as $uy \in E(G)$. Suppose that both $x,y \in V(T_r)\setminus V(T_w)$.
Let $P(r,w)$ be the unique path of $T$ between the root $r$ and the 1-node $w$.
Since $x,y \in N_G(u)$, there are 1-nodes $w_x$ and $w_y$ (not necessarily distinct) on $P(r,w)$ such that $x \in V(T_{w_x})$ and $y \in V(T_{w_y})$.
Now consider the parent $w'$ of $w$ in $T$. By property~(iii), $w'$ exists and is a 0-node of $T$.
Thus there is a vertex $a \in V(T_{w'})\setminus V(T_{w})$ that is non-adjacent to $u$.
Since the least common ancestor of $x$ and $a$ is $w_x$, by property~(i) we have $xa \in E(G)$. Similarly, we have $ya \in E(G)$.
Hence there is a path between $x$ and $y$ that contains a non-neighbor of $u$, which shows that $u$ is an avoidable vertex of $G$.
\item Assume that $w$ is a 1-node that is not full in $T$. We show that $u$ is non-avoidable in $G$.
Let $w'$ be a non-leaf child of $w$. By property~(iii), $w'$ is a 0-node.
Moreover, property~(ii) implies that there are vertices $x,y \in V(T_{w'})$ for which their least common ancestor is $w'$.
Thus $xy \notin E(G)$ and $ux,uy \in E(G)$, because $w$ is a 1-node.
If there is no path between $x$ and $y$ in $G - u$ then $u$ is non-avoidable.
Let $A$ be the internal vertices of an induced path between $x$ and $y$ in $G - u$.
Since $G$ is $P_4$-free, every vertex of $A$ is adjacent to both $x$ and $y$, so that $A=\{a\}$.
We show that $u$ is adjacent to $a$.
To see this, observe that $a$ does not belong to $V(T_{w'})$, since $w'$ is the 0-node that is the least common ancestor of $x$ and $y$.
Hence $a$ belongs to $V(T_{r}) \setminus V(T_{w'})$ and its least common ancestor $w_a$ with $x$ and $y$ is a 1-node.
This means that $w_a$ is an ancestor of $w'$ that is a 1-node in $T$.
As $w'$ is a child of $w$, we deduce that $w_a$ is the least common ancestor of $a$ and $u$.
Thus $ua \in E(G)$, which means that $u$ is non-avoidable, since there is no path between $x$ and $y$ that avoids any neighbor of $u$.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, we have a complete characterization of $u$ since all cases have been considered depending on the parent of $u$ in $T$.
\end{proof}
Thus, we deduce the following optimal algorithm for the vertices of a cograph $G$.
Note that, given a cograph $G$, its corresponding cotree $T$ can be constructed in $O(n+m)$ time \cite{CorneilPS85}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:cographs}
Given a cotree $T$ of a cograph $G$, there is an $O(n)$-time algorithm that lists all avoidable vertices of $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first mark the internal nodes of the cotree $T$ that have as children only leaves of $T$.
By a single bottom-up traversal from the leaves of $T$, this can be done in $O(n)$ time.
Thus applying Lemma~\ref{char:cotree} in a straightforward way on the cotree $T$ with the marked information, results in an $O(n)$-time algorithm.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Sparse or dense graphs}
Here we extend the previous notions on cographs and show how to handle the cases in which $m < n$ (sparse graphs) or $\overline{m} < n$ (dense graphs).
It is not difficult to handle sparse graphs. Observe that $m <n$ implies that $G$ is disconnected or $G$ is a tree. The connectedness assumption of the input graph $G$ follows from the fact that a vertex $u$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if $u$ is avoidable in the connected component containing $u$, since there are no paths between vertices of different components. Moreover, trees have a trivial solution as the leaves are exactly the set of avoidable vertices. We include both properties in the following statement.
\begin{obs}\label{obs:connected}
Let $u$ be a vertex of $G$ and let $C(u)$ be the connected component of $G$ containing $u$. Then $u$ is avoidable if and only if $u$ is avoidable in $G[C(u)]$. Moreover, if $G$ is a tree then $u$ is avoidable if and only if $u$ is a leaf in $G$.
\end{obs}
Next we describe that we can follow almost the same approach on the complement of $G$.
For doing so, we first prove the following result which interestingly relates avoidability on $G$ and $\overline{G}$.
Note, however, that the converse is not necessarily true.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:isolated}
Let $G$ be a graph and let $u$ be a non-avoidable vertex. Then, $u$ is avoidable in $\overline{G}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $u$ is a non-avoidable vertex in $G$, there is a separator $S$ that contains $u$ such that $S \subset N_{G}[u]$ by Observation~\ref{obs:separtor}.
Let $C_1, \ldots, C_k$ be the connected components of $G - S$, with $k \geq 2$.
Notice that at least two components of $C_1, \ldots, C_k$ contain a neighbor of $u$.
Without loss of generality, assume that $C_1 \cap N_{G}(u) \neq \emptyset$ and $C_2 \cap N_{G}(u) \neq \emptyset$.
Consider the complement $\overline{G}$ and let $x,y$ be two neighbors of $u$ in $\overline{G}$.
Observe that both $x$ and $y$ do not belong to $S$, since $S \subset N_{G}[u]$.
Thus $x \in C_i$ and $y \in C_j$, for $1 \leq i,j \leq k$.
We show that either $xy \in E(\overline{G})$ or there is a path in $\overline{G}$ between $x$ and $y$ that avoids vertices of $N_{\overline{G}}(u)$.
If $i \neq j$ then $xy \in E(\overline{G})$, because every vertex of $C_i$ is adjacent to every vertex of $C_j$ in $\overline{G}$.
Suppose that $x,y \in C_i$.
If $C_i \neq C_1$ then there is a vertex $w_1 \in C_1 \cap N_{G}(u)$ such that $w_1u \notin E(\overline{G})$ and $w_1x, w_1y \in E(\overline{G})$.
If $C_i = C_1$ then there is a vertex $w_2 \in C_2 \cap N_{G}(u)$ such that $w_2u \notin E(\overline{G})$ and $w_2x, w_2y \in E(\overline{G})$.
Thus in both cases there is a path of length two between $x$ and $y$ that avoids vertices $N_{\overline{G}}(u)$.
Therefore, $u$ is avoidable in $\overline{G}$.
\end{proof}
We next deal with the case in which $\overline{G}$ is disconnected. Notice that if $G=K_n$ then every vertex of $G$ is simplicial and thus avoidable.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:disconne}
Let $G \neq K_n$, $u \in V(G)$, and let $\overline{C}(u)$ be the co-component containing $u$.
Then, $u$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if $|\overline{C}(u)|>1$ and $u$ is avoidable in $G[\overline{C}(u)]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume first that $\overline{C}(u) = \{u\}$. Then $u$ is universal in $G$. Since $G \neq K_n$, there are vertices $x,y$ such that $xy \notin E(G)$. As any path between $x$ and $y$ contains a neighbor of $u$, we deduce that $u$ is non-avoidable. In the following we assume that $|\overline{C}(u)|>1$. This assumption implies that there is a vertex $a \in \overline{C}(u)$ such that $ua \notin E(G)$.
Also notice that every vertex of $\overline{C}(u)$ is adjacent to every vertex of $V(G) \setminus \overline{C}(u)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Suppose that $u$ is avoidable in $G$. Assume for contradiction that $u$ is non-avoidable in $G[\overline{C}(u)]$. Then there are vertices $x,y$ in $\overline{C}(u)$ such that $x,y \in N_{G}(u)$, $xy \notin E(G)$, and every path (if it exists) between $x$ and $y$ in $G[\overline{C}(u)]$ contains a neighbor of $u$.
Since $G[\overline{C}(u)]$ is an induced subgraph of $G$ and $u$ is avoidable in $G$, there is path in $G$ between $x$ and $y$ that contains a vertex $z$ of $V(G) \setminus \overline{C}(u)$ such that $zu \notin E(G)$.
Then, however, we reach a contradiction to the fact that every vertex of $\overline{C}(u)$ is adjacent to every vertex of $V(G) \setminus \overline{C}(u)$, so that $zu \in E(G)$ for any such vertex $z$.
Thus $u$ is avoidable in $G[\overline{C}(u)]$.
\item Suppose that $u$ is avoidable in $G[\overline{C}(u)]$. We show that $u$ is avoidable in $G$. Consider two vertices $x,y \in N_{G}(u)$. If both vertices $x,y$ belong to $\overline{C}(u)$ then the avoidability of $u$ in $G[\overline{C}(u)]$ carries along $G$, since $G[\overline{C}(u)]$ is an induced subgraph of $G$. If $x \in \overline{C}(u)$ and $y \in V(G) \setminus \overline{C}(u)$ then $xy \in E(G)$. Now assume that both vertices $x,y$ belong to $V(G) \setminus \overline{C}(u)$. Then the path $\mypath{x,a,y}$ with $a \in \overline{C}(u)$ and $ua \notin E(G)$ is the desired path between $x$ and $y$. Thus $u$ is avoidable in $G$.
\end{itemize}
Therefore both directions show the claimed statement.
\end{proof}
In general, avoidability is not a hereditary property with respect to induced subgraphs, even when restricted to the removal of non-avoidable vertices.
However, as we show next, the removal of universal vertices does not affect the rest of the graph.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:universal}
Let $G$ be a graph and let $w$ be a universal vertex of $G$. Then $w$ is avoidable if and only if $G$ is a complete graph.
Moreover, any vertex $u \in V(G)\setminus\{w\}$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if $u$ is avoidable in $G-w$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First statement follows by Lemma~\ref{lem:disconne} and from the fact that every vertex of a complete graph is simplicial.
For the second statement, assume that $u$ is avoidable in $G$.
We show that $u$ is avoidable in the graph $G' = G-w$.
Consider two vertices $x,y \in N_{G'}(u)$. If $xy \in E(G)$ then clearly $xy \in E(G')$.
Suppose that $xy \notin E(G)$. Then, as $u$ is avoidable in $G$, there is a path $P$ between $x$ and $y$ in $G$. Since $w$ is universal in $G$, $w$ does not belong to $P$.
Thus $P$ exists in $G'$ which shows that $u$ is avoidable in $G'$.
For the reverse direction, assume that $u$ is avoidable in $G'= G-w$.
Observe that any two vertices $x,y \in N_{G}(u) \setminus \{w\}$ fulfill the necessary conditions in $G$, since $G'$ is as induced subgraph of $G$.
Moreover, $w \in N_{G}(u)$ and for any vertex $x \in N_{G}(u) \setminus \{w\}$, we have $wx\in E(G)$.
Therefore $u$ remains avoidable in $G$.
\end{proof}
To conclude the cases for which $\overline{m} < n$, we next consider graphs whose complement is a tree.
By Observation~\ref{obs:connected} we restrict ourselves on connected graphs.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:compltree}
Let $G$ be a connected graph such that $\overline{G}$ is a tree $T$.
A vertex $u$ of $G$ is avoidable if and only if $u$ is a non-leaf vertex in $T$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider the vertices of $T$. Let $u$ be a non-leaf vertex of $T$. Then $u$ is a non-avoidable vertex in $\overline{G}$. Thus by Lemma~\ref{lem:isolated} $u$ is avoidable in $G$.
Now assume that $u$ is a leaf vertex of $T$, and thus avoidable in $\overline{G}$. We prove that $u$ is non-avoidable in $G$.
Since both graphs $G$ and $\overline{G}$ are connected, $u$ belongs to a $P_4$ in $T$ \cite{CorneilLB81}.
Let $\mypath{u,a,x,y}$ be a $P_4$ in $T$ that contains $u$.
Observe that $u$ is adjacent to every vertex of $V(G) \setminus \{a\}$ in $G$.
Consider the vertices $x$ and $y$ of the $P_4$ for which $x,y \in N_{G}(u)$.
As $xy \in E(\overline{G})$, we have $xy \notin E(G)$.
We show that there is no path between $x$ and $y$ that avoids any neighbor of $u$ in $G$.
If there is a path between $x$ and $y$ then it contains the vertex $a$ and it has the form $\mypath{x,a,y}$ in $G$.
Then, however, notice that $ya \in E(G)$ but $xa \notin E(G)$ by the induced $P_3=\mypath{a,x,y}$ in $\overline{G}$.
Thus $u$ is non-avoidable in $G$, because of $x$ and $y$.
Therefore, every avoidable vertex of $T$ is non-avoidable in $G$, since the set of leaves in $T$ are exactly the set of avoidable vertices in $\overline{G}$.
\end{proof}
Based on the previous results, we can reduce our problem to a graph $G$ that is both connected and co-connected and neither $G$ nor $\overline{G}$ are isomorphic to trees.
To achieve this in linear time we apply known techniques that avoid computing explicitly the complement of $G$, since we are mainly interested in recursively detecting the components and co-components of $G$.
Such a decomposition, known as the \emph{modular decomposition}, can be represented by a tree structure, denoted by $T(G)$, of $O(n)$ size and can be computed in linear time \cite{MCSP99,TedderCHP08}.
More precisely, the leaves of $T(G)$ correspond to the vertices of $G$ and every internal node $w$ of $T(G)$ is labeled with three distinct types according to whether the subgraph of $G$ induced by the leaves of the subtree rooted at $w$ is (i) not connected, or (ii) not co-connected, or (iii) connected and co-connected.
Moreover the connected components and the co-components of types (i) and (ii), respectively, correspond to the children of $w$ in $T(G)$.
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a collection of maximal vertex-disjoint induced subgraphs of $G$ that are both connected and co-connected.
Then $T(G)$ determines all graphs of $\mathcal{G}$ in linear time.
Observe that if $\mathcal{G}$ is empty, then $G$ is a cograph.
In addition, we call $\mathcal{G}$, \emph{typical collection} of $G$ if for each graph $H \in \mathcal{G}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $H$ is connected and co-connected,
\item $|V(H)| \leq |E(H)|$, $|V(H)| \leq |E(\overline{H})|$, and
\item every avoidable vertex in $H$ is an avoidable vertex in $G$.
\end{itemize}
The results of this section deduce the following algorithm.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:mdavoid}
Let $G$ be a graph and let $A(G)$ be the set of avoidable vertices in $G$.
There is a linear-time algorithm, that
\begin{itemize}
\item computes a typical collection $\mathcal{G}$ of maximal vertex-disjoint induced subgraphs of $G$ and
\item for every vertex $v \in V(G) \setminus V(\mathcal{G})$, decides if $v \in A(G)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first compute $T(G)$ in linear time \cite{MCSP99,TedderCHP08}.
Then we visit all nodes of $T(G)$ starting from the root and move towards the leaves of $T(G)$.
We stop each branch when we reach either a leaf for which we include it in $A(G)$, or when we reach a graph of $\mathcal{G}$.
Given a node $w$ of $T(G)$, let $G_w$ be the graph induced by the leaves of the subtree rooted at $w$.
At each node of $T(G)$ we perform the following steps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $G_w$ is disconnected then consider the connected components $C_1, \cdots, C_k$ of $G$ by Observation~\ref{obs:connected}.
That is, $A(G_w) = A(C_1) \cup \cdots \cup A(C_k)$.
\item If $\overline{G_w}$ is disconnected then consider the co-components $\overline{C}_1, \ldots, \overline{C}_k$ of $G$ such that $|\overline{C}_{i}| \geq 2$, for each $1\leq i \leq k$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $G_w=K_n$ (that is, $k=0$) then $A(G_w)=V(G_w)$.
\item Otherwise, $A(G_w) = A(\overline{C}_1) \cup \cdots \cup A(\overline{C}_k)$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:disconne}. Observe that all universal vertices in $G_w$ (that is, $|\overline{C}_{i}| = 1$) have been disregarded by Lemma~\ref{lem:universal}.
\end{enumerate}
\item Handling connected and co-connected graphs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $G_w=T$ then $A(G_w)=$ the set of leaves in $T$ by Observation~\ref{obs:connected}.
\item If $\overline{G_w}=T$ then $A(G_w)=$ the set of non-leaves in $T$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:compltree}.
\item Otherwise, include $G_w$ in the collection $\mathcal{G}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
All steps can be carried out in $O(n+m)$ time by checking the type of the internal node $w$ in $T(G)$ and assigning the components and the co-components with the subtrees of $w$'s children.
Testing the corresponding cases whenever $G_w$ is connected and co-connected can be done by looking at the number of edges of $G_w$, that is in time $O(|V(G_w)|+|E(G_w)|)$.
Therefore the algorithm outputs in $O(n+m)$ time the described collection $\mathcal{G}$ and the set $A(G) \setminus A(\mathcal{G})$.
\end{proof}
\section{Computing Avoidable Vertices Directly from $G$}\label{sec:mintriang}
Here we give two different approaches for computing all avoidable vertices of a given graph $G$.
Both of them deal with the input graph itself without shrinking any unnecessary information, as opposed to the algorithms given in forthcoming sections.
Our first algorithm makes use of notions related to minimal triangulations of $G$ and runs in time $O(n^2 m)$.
The second algorithm runs in time $O(n^2 + m^2)$ and is based on a modified, traditional breadth-first search algorithm.
Let us first explain our algorithm through a minimal triangulation of $G$.
We first need some necessary definitions.
A graph is \emph{chordal} if it does not contain an induced cycle of length more than three.
In different terminology, $G$ is chordal if and only if $G$ is $(C_4, C_5, \ldots)$-free graph.
A graph $H=(V, E \cup F)$ is a \emph{minimal triangulation} of $G=(V,E)$ if $H$ is chordal and for every $F' \subset F$, the graph $(V,E \cup F')$ is not chordal.
The edges of $F$ in $H$ are called \emph{fill edges}.
Several $O(nm)$-time algorithms exist for computing a minimal triangulation \cite{Berry99,BerryBHP04,Heggernes06,RoseTL76}.
In connection with avoidable vertices, Beisegel et al. \cite{BeisegelCGMS19} showed the following characterization.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{BeisegelCGMS19}]\label{theo:charminBeisegel}
Let $u$ be a vertex of $G$. Then $u$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if $u$ is a simplicial vertex in some minimal triangulation of $G$.
\end{theorem}
Although such a characterization is complete, it does not lead to an efficient algorithm for deciding whether a given vertex is avoidable,
since one has to produce \emph{all} possible minimal triangulations of $G$.
Here we strengthen such a characterization in the sense that it provides an efficient recognition based on a particular, \emph{nice}, minimal triangulation of $G$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:char_simpl}
Let $u$ be a vertex of a graph $G=(V,E)$ and let $H=(V,E\cup F)$ be a minimal triangulation of $G$ such that $u$ is not incident to any edge of $F$.
Then $u$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if $u$ is simplicial in $H$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $u$ is simplicial in $H$ then by Theorem~\ref{theo:charminBeisegel} we deduce that $u$ is avoidable in $G$.
Suppose that $u$ is non-simplicial in $H$. Then there are two vertices $x,y \in N_G(u)$ that are non-adjacent in $H$.
Since $G$ is a subgraph of $H$, we have $xy \notin E(G)$.
We claim that there is no path in $G$ between $x$ and $y$ that avoids any vertex of $N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\}$.
Assume for contradiction that there is such a path $P$. Then $V(P) \setminus \{x,y\}$ is non-empty and contains vertices only from $V \setminus N[u]$.
This means that $x, y$ belong to the same connected component of $H$ induced by $(V \setminus N[u]) \cup \{x,y\}$.
As $u$ is non-adjacent to any vertex of $V \setminus N[u]$ in $H$, the vertices of $(V \setminus N[u]) \cup \{x,y,u\}$ induce an induced cycle of length at least four in $H$.
Then we reach a contradiction to the chordality of $H$.
Therefore, there is no such path between $x$ and $y$, which implies that $u$ is non-avoidable in $G$.
\end{proof}
Next we show that such a minimal triangulation with respect to $u$, always exists and can be computed in $O(nm)$ time.
Our approach for computing a nice minimal triangulation of $G$ is \emph{vertex incremental},
in the following sense. We take the vertices of $G$ one by one in an arbitrary order $(v_1, \ldots, v_n)$,
and at step $i$ we compute a minimal triangulation $H_i$ of $G_i = G[\{v_1, \ldots, v_i\}]$
from a minimal triangulation $H_{i-1}$ of $G_{i-1}$ by adding only edges incident to $v_i$.
This is possible thanks to the following result.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{BerryHV06}]\label{lem:increm}
Let $G$ be an arbitrary graph and let $H$ be a minimal triangulation of $G$.
Consider a new graph $G' = G + v$, obtained by adding to $G$ a new vertex $v$.
There is a minimal triangulation $H'$ of $G'$ such that $H' - v = H$.
\end{lemma}
We denote by $H(v_1, \ldots, v_n)$ a vertex incremental minimal triangulation of $G$ which is obtained by considering the vertex ordering $(v_1, \ldots, v_n)$ of $G$.
Computing such a minimal triangulation of $G$, based on any vertex ordering, can be done in $O(nm)$ time \cite{BerryHV06}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:char_simpl_exist}
Let $u$ be a vertex of $G$ and let $X = N_{G}(u)$ and $A=V(G) \setminus N_{G}[u]$.
In any vertex incremental minimal triangulation $H(A,u,X)$ of $G$, no fill edge is incident to $u$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H(A,u,X) = (V, E \cup F)$ be a vertex incremental minimal triangulation of $G=(V,E)$.
Consider the vertex ordering $(A,u,X)$.
Observe that when adding $u$ to $H[A]$ no fill edge is required, as the considered graph $H[A] + u$ is already chordal.
Moreover $u$ is adjacent in $G$ to every vertex appearing after $u$ in the described ordering $(A,u,X)$.
Thus $u$ is non-adjacent to any vertex of $A$ in $H(A,u,X)$ which means that no edge of $F$ is incident to $u$.
\end{proof}
A direct consequence of Lemmas~\ref{lem:char_simpl} and \ref{lem:char_simpl_exist} is an $O(nm)$-time recognition algorithm for deciding whether a given vertex $u$ is avoidable.
For every vertex $u$, we first construct a vertex incremental minimal triangulation $H(A,u,X)$ of $G$ by applying the $O(nm)$-time algorithm given in \cite{BerryHV06}.
Then we simply check whether $u$ is simplicial in the chordal graph $H(A,u,X)$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:char_simpl}, which means that the overall running time is $O(nm)$.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetKwInOut{KwIn}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{KwOut}{Output}
\KwIn{A graph $G$, a minimal triangulation $H$ of $G$, and a vertex $u$}
\KwOut{Returns true iff $u$ is avoidable in $G$}
Let $X = N_{G}(u)$ and $A=V(G) \setminus N_{G}[u]$\;
Initialize a new graph $H' = H[A \cup \{u\}]$\;
Add the vertices of $X$ in $H'$ in an arbitrary order and maintain a minimal triangulation $H'$ of $G$ by applying the $O(nm)$-time algorithm given in \cite{BerryHV06}\;
\eIf{$u$ is simplicial in $H'$}
{\KwRet{true}\;}
{\KwRet{false}\;}
\caption{Testing if $u$ is avoidable with a vertex incremental minimal triangulation}
\label{algo:MTD}
\end{algorithm}
We note that one may compute any minimal triangulation $H$ of $G$, as a preprocessing step in time $O(nm)$, and
then use $H$ for constructing the vertex incremental minimal triangulation at each vertex $u$, so that $H[A]$ is already computed for $A=V(G)\setminus N_{G}[u]$.
Although such an approach results within the same theoretical time complexity, in practice it avoids recomputing common parts of the input data.
We give the details in Algorithm~\ref{algo:MTD} and, as already explained, its running time is $O(nm)$.
By applying Algorithm~\ref{algo:MTD} on each vertex, we obtain the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:algoMTD}
Listing all avoidable vertices of $G$ by using Algorithm~\ref{algo:MTD} takes $O(n^2 m)$ time.
\end{theorem}
An interesting remark of such an approach is that we can list all avoidable vertices of a chordal graph $G$ in an efficient way.
We note that such a result can be obtained directly from the definition of an avoidable vertex which shows that a non-simplicial vertex of a chordal graph is non-avoidable.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:chordal}
Let $G$ be a chordal graph. Listing all avoidable vertices of $G$ can be done in $O(n^{\omega})$ time, where $O(n^{\omega})$ is the time required to multiply two $n \times n$ binary matrices.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:char_simpl} the set of simplicial vertices of $G$ is the set of avoidable vertices because any minimal triangulation $H$ of $G$ contains no fill edge, as $G$ is chordal.
Thus listing the avoidable vertices of a chordal graph $G$ reduces to listing the simplicial vertices of $G$.
Therefore detecting all avoidable vertices can be done in $O(n^{\omega})$ time by using the algorithm of \cite{KloksKM00}, which is the time needed to perform a fast matrix multiplication.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A fast algorithm for listing avoidable vertices}
Our second approach is based on the following notion of \emph{protecting} that we introduce here.
Given a set of vertices $S \subseteq V$, an $S$-excluded path is a path in which no internal vertex belongs to $S$.
Observe that an edge is an $S$-excluded path, for any choice of $S$.
By definition a single vertex is connected to itself by the trivial path.
Whenever there is an $S$-excluded path in $G$ between vertices $a$ and $b$, notice that $a$ can reach $b$ through vertices of $V(G) \setminus S$.
\begin{definition}[protecting]\label{def:protects}
Let $x$ and $y$ be two vertices of $G$.
We say that $x$ \emph{protects} $y$ if there is a $N_{G}[y]$-excluded path between $x$ and every vertex of $N_{G}(y)$.
In other words, $x$ protects $y$ if for any $z \in N_{G}(y)\setminus\{x\}$, either $xz \in E(G)$ or $x$ can reach $z$ through vertices of $V(G) \setminus N_{G}[y]$.
\end{definition}
Let us explain how to check if $x$ protects $y$ in linear time, that is in $O(n+m)$ time.
We consider the graph $G' = G - y$ and run a slight modification of a breadth-first search algorithm on $G'$ starting from $x$.
In particular, we try to reach the vertices of $N_{G}(y) \setminus \{x\}$ (target set) from $x$ in $G'$.
Every time we encounter a vertex $v$ of the target set, we include $v$ in a set $T$ of discovered target vertices and we do not continue the search from $v$ by avoiding to place $v$ within the search queue.
Consequently, no vertex of the target set is a non-leaf node of the constructed search tree.
Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS} shows in detail the considered modification of a breadth-first search.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetKwInOut{KwIn}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{KwOut}{Output}
\KwIn{A graph $G$, a vertex $x$, and a target set $S \subseteq V(G)$}
\KwOut{Returns true iff there is an $S$-excluded path between $x$ and every vertex of $S$}
Initialize a queue $Q=\{x\}$ and set $T=\emptyset$\;
Mark $x$\;
\While{$Q$ is not empty}
{
$s = Q.pop()$\;
\For{$v \in N(s)$}{
\If{$v$ is unmarked} {
\eIf{$v \in S$} {
$T = T \cup \{v\}$\;
} {
$Q.add(v)$\;
}
Mark $v$\;
}
}
}
\KwRet{$T = S$}
\caption{Detecting whether there is an $S$-excluded path between $x$ and every vertex of $S$}
\label{algo:protectBFS}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:algoSpath}
Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS} is correct and runs in $O(n+m)$ time.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For the correctness, let $T$ be the search tree discovered by the algorithm when the search starts from $x$.
Observe that the basic concepts of the breadth-first search are maintained, so that the key properties with the shortest paths between the vertices of $G$ and the search tree $T$ are preserved.
If there is a leaf vertex $v$ in the constructed tree $T$ such that $v \in S$ then the unique path in $T$ is an $S$-excluded path in $G$ between $x$ and $v$,
since no vertex of $S$ is a non-leaf vertex of $T$.
On the other hand, assume that there is an $S$-excluded path in $G$ between $x$ and every vertex of $S$.
For every $v \in S$, among such $S$-excluded paths between $x$ and $v$, choose $P(v)$ to be the shortest.
Let $p(v)$ be the neighbor of $v$ in $P(v)$.
Clearly $x$ and every vertex $p(v)$ belong to the same connected component of $G$.
Consider the graph $G - S$.
Notice that every vertex $p(v)$ belongs to the same connected component with $x$ in $G - S$,
since for otherwise some vertices of $S$ separate $x$ and a vertex $v$ of $S$ which implies that there is no $S$-excluded path in $G$ between $x$ and $v$ in $G$.
Now let $T_x$ be a breadth-first search tree of $G-S$ that contains $x$.
Then the distance between $x$ and $p(v)$ in $T_x$ corresponds to the length of their shortest path in $G-S$.
Construct $T$ by attaching every vertex $v$ of $S$ to be a neighbor of $p(v)$ in $T_x$.
Therefore $T$ is a tree that contains the shortest $S$-excluded paths between $x$ and the vertices of $S$.
Regarding the running time, notice that no additional data structure is required compared to the classical implementation of the breadth-first search.
Hence the running time of Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS} is bounded by the breadth-first search algorithm which is $O(n+m)$.
\end{proof}
Therefore we can check whether $x$ protects $y$ by running Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS} on the graph $G - y$ with target set $S=N_{G}(y) \setminus \{x\}$.
The connection to the avoidability of a vertex, can be seen with the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:protect}
Let $u$ be a vertex of a graph $G=(V,E)$. Then $u$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if $x$ protects $u$ for every vertex $x \in N_{G}(u)$.
\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $u$ is avoidable. Consider a vertex $x \in N_{G}(u)$.
Then for any vertex $y \in N_{G}(u)\setminus\{x\}$ there is a path between $x$ and $y$ that avoids vertices of $N_{G}(u)$.
This means that there is an $S$-excluded path between $x$ and $y$ with $S=N_{G}[u]$.
Thus $x$ protects $u$ in $G$.
For the other direction, assume that $u$ is non-avoidable.
Then there are vertices $x,y \in N_{G}(u)$ that belong to different connected components of $G - (N_G[u] \setminus \{x,y\})$.
Thus $x$ cannot reach $y$ through vertices of $V(G) \setminus N_{G}[u]$, implying that $x$ (and $y$) does not protect $u$.
Therefore there are at least two vertices in $N_{G}(u)$ that do not protect $u$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
Now we are ready to show our fast algorithm for deciding whether a vertex is avoidable which is given in Algorithm~\ref{algo:PTD}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetKwInOut{KwIn}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{KwOut}{Output}
\KwIn{A graph $G$ and a vertex $u$}
\KwOut{Returns true iff $u$ is avoidable in $G$}
Let $X = N_{u}$ and $G' = G - u$\;
\For{$x \in X$}{
Set $S = X \setminus\{x\}$\;
\If{Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS}($G',x,S$) is not true}
{
\KwRet{false}\;
}
}
\KwRet{true}\;
\caption{Testing if $u$ is avoidable by detecting whether its neighbors protect $u$}
\label{algo:PTD}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:protect}
Listing all avoidable vertices of $G$ by using Algorithm~\ref{algo:PTD} takes $O(n^2+m^2)$ time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Correctness follows from Lemmas~\ref{lem:algoSpath} and \ref{lem:protect}.
For the running time, observe that constructing $G'$ takes $O(n+m)$ time.
Moreover we need to make $d(u)$ calls to Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS} for a particular vertex $u$ where $d(u)$ is the degree of $u$.
Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem:algoSpath} the total running time is $O(\sum_{u} (1+d(u))(n+m)) = O(n^2+m^2)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Avoidable Vertices via Contractions}
Here we show how to compute all avoidable vertices of a graph $G$ through contractions.
Given a graph $G=(V_G, E_G)$ and a vertex $u \in V_G$, we denote by $G_u$ the graph obtained from $G$ by contacting every connected component of $G - N_{G}[u]$.
We partition the vertices of $G_u - u$ into $(X,C)$, such that $X = N_{G}(u)$ and $C$ contains the contracted vertices of $G - N_{G}[u]$.
We denote by $G_{u}(X,C)$ the contracted graph where $(X,C)$ is the vertex partition with respect to $G_u$.
Observe that $G_{u}[X \cup \{u\}] = G[X \cup \{u\}]$ and $G_{u}[C \cup \{u\}]$ is an independent set.
\begin{obs}\label{obs:1contract}
Given a vertex $u$ of $G=(V,E)$, the construction of $G_u(X,C)$ can be done in $O(n+m)$ time.
\end{obs}
\begin{proof}
To compute the connected components $C_1, \ldots, C_k$ of $G - N_{G}[u]$ takes linear time.
For each vertex set $C_i$, $1 \leq i \leq k$, we compute $N_{G}(C_i)$ in time $d(C_i)$ where $d(C_i)$ is the sum of the degrees of the vertices in $C_i$.
As $C_1, \ldots, C_k$ is a partition of $V(G) \setminus N_{G}[u]$, the total running time for substituting each set $C_i$ is $O(k + \sum{d(C_i)}) = O(n+m)$.
\end{proof}
Next we show that $G_{u}(X,C)$ holds all necessary information of important paths of $G$ with respect to the avoidability of $u$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:2contract}
Let $u$ be a vertex of a graph $G=(V,E)$. Then $u$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if $u$ is avoidable in $G_{u}(X,C)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $G[X \cup \{u\}] = G_{u}[X \cup \{u\}]$, we only need to consider the vertices of $X=N_{G}(u)$ that are non-adjacent.
Let $x,y \in N_{G}(u)=X$ such that $xy \notin E(G)$ and let $S = (X \cup \{u\})\setminus\{x,y\}$.
Observe that all vertices of $S$ belong to both graphs $G$ and $G_u(X,C)$.
We claim that
there is a path between $x$ and $y$ in $G - S$ if and only if
there is a path between $x$ and $y$ in $G_{u}(X,C) - S$.
Consider any path in $G - S$ of the form $\mypath{x,P,y}$.
The vertices of the given path belong to the same connected component of $G - S$.
Thus the vertices of $P$ belong to exactly one connected component $C_P$ of $G - (S\cup \{x,y\})$.
As $S\cup \{x,y\} = N_{G}[u]$, there is a vertex $C_i \in C$ that corresponds to $C_P$ in the contracted graph $G_{u}(X,C)$.
Hence, the path $\mypath{x,C_i,y}$ forms the desired path in $G_{u}(X,C) - S$.
If there is a path between $x$ and $y$ in $G_{u}(X,C) - S$ then such a path is of length two and has the form $\mypath{x,C_i,y}$ where $C_i \in C$.
Since $xC_i$ is an edge in $G_{u}(X,C)$, there is a vertex $a \in V(C_i)$ such that $xa \in E(G)$.
Similarly, there is a vertex $b \in V(C_i)$ such that $yb \in E(G)$.
As $a$ and $b$ belong to the same connected component $C_i$ of $G - N_{G}[u]$, there is a path $P_i$ in $G$ between $a$ and $b$ that contains only vertices from $V(C_i)$.
Thus there is a path $\mypath{x,P_i,y}$ in $G$ where $P_i \subseteq V(C_i)$.
Now observe that any path between two neighbors of $u$ in either $G - S$ or $G_{u}(X,C) - S$ does not contain any vertex of $N_{G}[u]$.
Therefore, by the above claim, we get the desired characterization of $u$ in both graphs.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:2contract} implies that we can apply all of our algorithms given in the previous section in order to recognize an avoidable vertex.
Although such an approach does not lead to faster theoretical time bounds, in practice the contracted graph has substantial smaller size than the original graph
and may lead to practical running times.
We next show that the contracted graph results in an additional algorithm with different running time.
Let $G_{u}(X,C)$ be the contracted graph of a vertex $u$. The \emph{filled-contracted graph}, denoted by $H_u(X,C)$, is the graph obtained from $G_{u}(X,C)$ by adding all necessary edges in order to make every neighborhood of $C_i \in C$ a clique. That is, for every $C_i \in C$, $N_{H_u}(C_i)$ is a clique.
The following proof resembles the characterization given through minimal triangulations in Lemma~\ref{lem:char_simpl}.
However observe that $H_u(X,C)$ is not necessarily a chordal graph, because $X \nsubseteq N_{G_u}(C)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:conSimplicial}
A vertex $u$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if $H_u[X]$ is a clique.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We apply Lemma~\ref{lem:2contract} and we need to show that $u$ is avoidable in $G_{u}(X,C)$ if and only if $H_u[X]$ is a clique.
Assume that $u$ is avoidable in $G_{u}(X,C)$. We show that $H_u[X]$ is a clique.
Consider two vertices $x,y \in X$.
If $xy$ is an edge in $G_{u}(X,C)$ then $xy$ remains an edge in $H_u(X,C)$, as $G_{u}(X,C)$ is a subgraph of $H_u(X,C)$.
If $x$ and $y$ are non-adjacent in $G_{u}(X,C)$, there is a vertex $C_i \in C$ such that $\{x,y\} \subseteq N_{G_{u}}(C_i)$, because $u$ is avoidable and $G_u[C]$ is an independent set.
Thus, by the definition of $H_u(X,C)$, $N_{H_u}(C_i)$ is a clique implying that $xy$ is an edge in $H_u[X]$.
Assume that $u$ is non-avoidable in $G_{u}(X,C)$. Then there are vertices $x,y \in X$ such that $xy \notin E(G_u)$ and they belong in different connected components of $G_u[C \cup \{x,y\}]$.
Thus $x$ and $y$ is a pair of non-adjacent vertices in $H_u[X]$, since there is no vertex $C_i \in C$ such that $x,y \in N_{G_u}(C_i)$.
Hence there is a pair of non-adjacent vertices in $H_u[X]$, so that $H_u[X]$ is not a clique.
\end{proof}
We take advantage of Lemma~\ref{lem:conSimplicial} in order to recognize whether $u$ is avoidable.
The naive construction of $H_u(X,C)$ requires $O(n^3)$ time, since $|X| \leq n$ and $|C|\leq n$.
Instead of constructing $H_u(X,C)$, we are able to check $H_u[X]$ in an efficient way through matrix multiplication.
To do so, we consider the graph $G'$ obtained from $G_u(X,C)$ by removing $u$ and deleting every edge with both endpoints in $X$.
Observe that the resulting graph $G'$ is a bipartite graph with bipartition $(X,C)$, as $G_{u}[C \cup \{u\}]$ is an independent set.
It turns out that it is enough to check whether two vertices of $X$ are in distance two in $G'$ which can be encapsulated by the square of its adjacency matrix.
Algorithm~\ref{algo:conMT} shows in details our proposed approach.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetKwInOut{KwIn}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{KwOut}{Output}
\KwIn{A graph $G$ and a vertex $u$}
\KwOut{Returns true iff $u$ is avoidable in $G$}
Construct the contracted graph $G_{u}(X,C)$ of $u$\;
Let $G_1 = G_u(X,C) - u$\;
Construct the adjacency matrix $M_1$ of $G_1$\;
Let $G_2$ be the bipartite graph obtained from $G_1$ by removing every edge having both endpoints in $X$\;
Construct the adjacency matrix $M_2$ of $G_2$\;
Compute the square of $M_2$, i.e., $M_{2}^{2} = M_2 \cdot M_2$\;
Construct the matrix $M_3 = M_1 + M_{2}^{2}$\;
\For{$x,y \in X$}{
\If{the entry $M_3[x,y]$ is zero}
{
\KwRet{false}\;
}
}
\KwRet{true}\;
\caption{Testing if $u$ is avoidable by using matrix multiplication}
\label{algo:conMT}
\end{algorithm}
We are now in position to claim the following running time through matrix multiplication.
\begin{theorem}
Listing all avoidable vertices of $G$ by using Algorithm~\ref{algo:conMT} takes $O(n^{1+\omega})$ time, where $O(n^{\omega})$ is the time required to multiply two $n \times n$ binary matrices.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We apply Algorithm~\ref{algo:conMT} on each vertex of $G$.
Let us first discuss on the correctness of Algorithm~\ref{algo:conMT}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:conSimplicial}, it is enough to show that $H_u[X]$ is a clique if and only if $M_3[X]$ has non-zero entries in its non-diagonal positions.
Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be the two constructed graphs in Algorithm~\ref{algo:conMT}.
Observe that the square of $G_2$, denoted by $G_{2}^{2}$, is the graph obtained from the same vertex set of $G_2$ and two vertices $u,v$ are adjacent in $G_{2}^{2}$ if the distance of $u$ and $v$ is at most two in $G_2$.
Thus the matrix $M_{2}^{2}$ computed by Algorithm~\ref{algo:conMT} corresponds to the adjacency matrix of $G_{2}^{2}$.
Now it is enough to notice that two vertices $x,y$ of $X$ are adjacent in $H_u[X]$ if and only if $xy \in E(G_1) \cup E(G_{2}^{2})$.
In particular observe that if $x$ and $y$ have a common neighbor $w$ in $G_2$ then $w$ is a vertex of $C$ since there is no edge between vertices of $X$ in $G_2$ and $u \notin V(G_2)$.
Therefore $M_3[x,y]$ has a non-zero entry if and only if $x$ and $y$ are adjacent in $H_u[X]$.
Regarding the running time, notice that the construction of $G_u$ take linear time by Observation~\ref{obs:1contract}.
All steps besides the computation of $M_{2}^{2}$ can be done in $O(n^2)$ time.
The most time-consuming step is the matrix multiplication involved in computing $M_{2}^{2}$, which can be done in $O(n^{\omega})$ time.
Hence the total running time for recognizing all $n$ vertices takes $O(n^{1+\omega})$ time.
\end{proof}
\section{Recognizing Avoidable Edges and Paths}
Natural generalizations of avoidable vertices are avoidable edges and avoidable paths.
Here we show how to efficiently recognize an avoidable edge and an avoidable path.
Recall that the two vertices having degree one in an induced path $P_k$ on $k \geq 2$ vertices are called \emph{endpoints}.
Moreover, the edge obtained after removing the endpoints from an induced path $P_4$ on four vertices is called \emph{middle edge}.
\begin{definition}[simplicial and avoidable edge]\label{def:avoidableedge}
An edge $uv$ is called \emph{simplicial} if there is no $P_4$ having $uv$ as a middle edge.
An edge $uv$ is called \emph{avoidable} if either $uv$ is simplicial, or every $P_4$ with middle edge $uv$ is contained in an induced cycle.
\end{definition}
\noindent Given two vertices $x$ and $y$ of $G$, we define the following sets of the neighbors of $x$ and $y$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $B(x,y)$ contains the common neighbors of $x$ and $y$; i.e., $B(x,y)=N_{G}(x) \cap N_{G}(y)$.
\item $A_x$ contains the private neighbors of $x$; i.e., $A_x = N_{G}(x) \setminus (B(x,y) \cup \{y\})$.
\item $A_y$ contains the private neighbors of $y$; i.e., $A_y = N_{G}(y) \setminus (B(x,y) \cup \{x\})$.
\end{itemize}
Under this terminology, observe that $A_x \cap A_y = \emptyset$ and $N_{G}(\{x,y\})$ is partitioned into the three sets $B(x,y), A_x, A_y$.
Clearly all described sets can be computed in $O(d(x)+d(y))$ time.
\begin{obs}\label{obs:edgesimplicial}
An edge $xy$ of $G$ is simplicial if and only if $A_x = \emptyset$ or $A_y=\emptyset$ or every vertex of $A_x$ is adjacent to every vertex of $A_y$.
\end{obs}
\begin{proof}
Consider a $P_4=a,x,y,b$ that contains $xy$ as a middle edge.
Then $a \in A_x$ and $b \in A_y$ because $ay \notin E(G)$ and $xb \notin E(G)$.
Thus both sets $A_x$ and $A_y$ are non-empty.
Moreover, since $ab \notin E(G)$, we deduce that any non-edge with one endpoint in $A_x$ and the other in $A_y$ results in a $P_4$ having $xy$ as a middle edge.
\end{proof}
By Observation~\ref{obs:edgesimplicial}, the recognition of a simplicial edge can be achieved in $O(n+m)$ time:
consider the bipartite subgraph $H(A_x, A_y)$ of $G[A_x \cup A_y]$ which is obtained by removing every edge having both endpoints in either $A_x$ or $A_y$.
Then it is enough to check whether $H(A_x, A_y)$ is a complete bipartite graph.
We show that the more general concept of an avoidable edge can be recognized in $O(nm)$ time.
For doing so, we will take advantage of Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS} and the notion of protecting given in Definition~\ref{def:protects}.
\begin{definition}[protected edge]\label{def:protectededge}
An edge $xy$ is \emph{protected} if there is an $(N_{G}[x] \cup N_{G}[y])$-excluded path between every vertex of $N_{G}(x)$ and every vertex of $N_{G}(y)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale= 1.4]{fig-domino.pdf}
\caption{In this example we have $N_{G}[x] \cup N_{G}[y] = V(G)$.
Observe that $x$ protects $y$, because $x$ has $\{c,y,d\}$-excluded paths to both $c$ and $d$, and similarly $y$ protects $x$.
However, the edge $xy$ is not protected because, for instance, there is no $V(G)$-excluded path (and, thus, an edge) between $a$ and $d$.
Also notice that there is a $P_4 = \mypath{a,x,y,d}$ that is not contained in an induced cycle.
}\label{fig:domino}
\end{figure}
We note that if an edge $xy$ is protected then $x$ protects $y$ and $y$ protects $x$ in accordance to Definition~\ref{def:protects}.
However, the reverse is not necessarily true, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:domino}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:edgeprotected}
Let $xy$ be an edge of $G$. Then $xy$ is an avoidable edge in $G$ if and only if $xy$ is a protected edge in $G - B(x,y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H = G - B(x,y)$ and let us first show that $xy$ is an avoidable edge in $G$ if and only if $xy$ is an avoidable edge in $H$.
Suppose that $xy$ is an avoidable edge in $G$.
For any two vertices $a \in A_x$ and $b \in A_y$ such that $ab \notin E(G)$, there is an induced cycle $C$ that contains $a,x,y,b$.
Now observe that no vertex of $B(x,y)$ belongs to $C$, as $C$ is an induced cycle in $G$.
Thus $xy$ is an avoidable edge in $H$.
For the converse, notice that $H$ is an induced subgraph of $G$, so that all induced cycles of $H$ remain induced cycles in $G$.
Therefore our task is to show that $xy$ is an avoidable edge in $H$ if and only if $xy$ is protected in the same graph $H$.
Suppose that $xy$ is an avoidable edge in $H$. Observe that $N_{H}(x) = A_x \cup \{y\}$ and $N_{H}(y) = A_y \cup \{x\}$.
If at least one of $A_x, A_y$ is empty then $xy$ is protected (as well as simplicial),
because all required $(N_{H}[x] \cup N_{H}[y])$-excluded paths have length one between a vertex and its neighbors.
Consider any two vertices $a \in A_x$ and $b \in A_y$.
Clearly the edges $xa$ and $yb$ constitute $N_{H}[y]$-excluded path and $N_{H}[x]$-excluded path, respectively.
Assume first that $ab \notin E(H)$.
Then there is a $P_4=\mypath{a,x,y,b}$ that contains $xy$ as a middle edge.
Any induced cycle $C$ that contains the described $P_4$, contains vertices from $V(H) \setminus (A_x \cup A_y)$, so that the vertices of $C - P_4$ belong to $V(H) \setminus (N_{H}[x] \cup N_{H}[y])$.
Thus the subpath on $C$ taken from $C-P_4$ with endpoints $a$ and $b$ is a $(A_x \cup A_y \cup \{x,y\})$-excluded path of length at least two between $a$ and $b$.
If $ab \in E(H)$ then $\mypath{a,b}$ is an $(A_x \cup A_y \cup \{x,y\})$-excluded path of length one between $a$ and $b$.
In all cases we deduce that $xy$ is a protected edge.
Suppose that $xy$ is a protected edge in $H$.
Consider a $P_4=\mypath{a,x,y,b}$ that contains $xy$ as middle edge.
Then clearly $a \in A_x$, $b \in A_y$, and $ab \notin E(H)$.
We show that there is an induced cycle in $H$ that contains the $P_4$.
Between $a$ and $b$, there is an $(N_{H}[x] \cup N_{H}[y])$-excluded path $P_{ab}$ in $H$.
The length of $P_{ab}$ is at least two, since $ab \notin E(H)$.
By definition, all internal vertices of $P_{ab}$ belong to $V(H) \setminus (N_{H}[x] \cup N_{H}[y])$ and, thus, are non-adjacent to $x$ and $y$.
Let $S = V(P_{ab})$ and consider the induced subgraph $H[S]$ that is connected.
Then the shortest path $P'_{ab}$ between $a$ and $b$ in $H[S]$ is an induced path of $H$.
Therefore the concatenation of the $P_4=\mypath{a,x,y,b}$ with $P'_{ab}$ results in the desired induced cycle of $H$.
\end{proof}
Based on Lemma~\ref{lem:edgeprotected}, we deduce the following running time for recognizing an avoidable edge.
This is achieved by carefully applying Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS}.
Notice that the stated running time is comparable to the $O(d(u)(n+m))$-time algorithm for recognizing an avoidable vertex $u$ implied by Theorem~\ref{theo:protect}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:avoidableedge}
Recognizing an avoidable edge of a graph $G$ can be done in $O(n \cdot m)$ time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $xy$ be an edge of $G$. We first collect the vertices of $B(x,y)$ in $O(n)$ time.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:edgeprotected} we need to check whether $xy$ is protected in $H=G - B(x,y)$.
If $xy$ is simplicial edge then $xy$ is avoidable and, by Observation~\ref{obs:edgesimplicial}, this can be tested in $O(n+m)$ time.
Otherwise, both sets $A_x, A_y$ are non-empty.
Without loss of generality, assume that $|A_x| \leq |A_y|$.
In order to check if $xy$ is protected, we run $|A_x|$ times Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS}:
\begin{itemize}
\item for every vertex $a \in A_x$, run Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS} on the graph $(H-((A_x\setminus\{a\})\cup\{x,y\})$ started at vertex $a$ with a target set $A_y$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, we test whether there is an $A_y$-excluded path between $a$ and every vertex of $A_y$ without considering the vertices of $(A_x\setminus\{a\})\cup\{x,y\}$, that is on the graph $H-((A_x\setminus\{a\})\cup\{x,y\})$.
If all vertices of $A_x$ have an $A_y$-excluded path with all the vertices of $A_y$ on each corresponding graph, then such paths do not contain any internal vertex from $A_x \cup A_y \cup \{y\}$. Since $N_{H}[x]=A_x \cup \{x,y\}$ and $N_{H}[y]=A_y \cup \{x,y\}$, we deduce that $xy$ is a protected edge, and thus, $xy$ is avoidable in $G$.
Regarding the running time, observe that we make at most $n \geq |A_x|$ calls to Algorithm~\ref{algo:protectBFS} on induced subgraphs of $G$.
Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem:algoSpath}, the total running time is $O(nm)$.
\end{proof}
Let us now show how to extend the recognition of an avoidable edge towards their common generalization of avoidable induced paths.
The \emph{internal path} of a non-edgeless induced path $P$ is the path obtained from $P$ without its endpoints and its vertex set is denoted by $in(P)$.
\begin{definition}[simplicial and avoidable path]
An induced path $P_k$ on $k \geq 2$ vertices is called \emph{simplicial} if there is no induced path on $k+2$ vertices that contains $P_k$ as an internal path.
An induced path $P_k$ on $k \geq 2$ vertices is called \emph{avoidable} if either $P_k$ is simplicial, or every induced path on $k+2$ vertices that contains $P_k$ as an internal path is contained in an induced cycle.
\end{definition}
For $k=2$, avoidable paths correspond to avoidable edges. Let $P_k$ be an induced path on $k$ vertices of a graph $G$ with $k \geq 3$ having endpoints $x$ and $y$.
We denote by $I[P_k]$ the vertices of $N_{G}[in(P_k)]\setminus\{x,y\}$.
That is, $I[P_k]$ contains the vertices of the internal path of $P_k$ and their neighbors outside $P_k$.
Given two non-adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$ in $G$, we denote by $G+xy$ the graph obtained from $G$ by adding the edge $xy$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:avoidablepath}
Let $P_k$ be an induced path on $k$ vertices of a graph $G$ with $k \geq 3$ having endpoints $x$ and $y$.
Then $P_k$ is an avoidable path in $G$ if and only if $xy$ is an avoidable edge in $G + xy - I[P_k]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We claim first that
there is a $P_{k+2}$ that contains $P_k$ as an internal path in $G$ if and only if
there is a $P_4$ that contains $xy$ as a middle edge in the graph $H = G + xy - I[P_k]$.
Assume that there is a $P_{k+2}$ that contains $P_k$ as an internal path in $G$.
Let $x'$ and $y'$ be the endpoints of $P_{k+2}$.
As $P_{k+2}$ is an induced path, both $x',y'$ belong to $H$ and $x'y, xy', x'y' \notin E(H)$.
Thus $\mypath{x',x,y,y'}$ is a $P_4$ in $H$ that contains $xy$ as a middle edge.
Assume that there is a $P_4=\mypath{x',x,y,y'}$ in $H$ that contains $xy$ as a middle edge.
Consider the vertices of the path $P_{k-2}$ of $P_k -\{x,y\}$ in $G$ that correspond to the edge $xy$ of $H$.
Then no vertex of the $P_{k-2}$ is adjacent to any of $x'$ or $y'$ by the construction of $H$.
Thus, replacing the edge $xy$ in the $P_4=\mypath{x',x,y,y'}$ by the path $P_{k-2}$, results in an induced path $P_{k+2}$ on $k+2$ vertices in $G$.
Observe that the above claim implies that $P_k$ is a simplicial path in $G$ if and only if $xy$ is a simplicial edge in $H$.
Next we show that a non-simplicial path $P_k$ with endpoints $x$ and $y$ is avoidable in $G$ if and only if the non-simplicial edge $xy$ is avoidable in $H$.
Assume that there is a $P_{k+2} = \mypath{x',x,P_{k-2},y,y'}$ that contains $P_k=\mypath{x,P_{k-2},y}$ as an internal path in $G$.
Let $C_{G}$ be an induced cycle that contains the $P_{k+2}$ in $G$.
Since $C_{G}$ is induced cycle, every vertex of $C_{G} - P_{k-2}$ belongs to $H$.
Now observe that the vertices of $C_{G} - P_{k-2}$ induce a path in $G$ of length at least four.
Hence the vertices of $C_{G} - P_{k-2}$ induce a cycle in $H$, since $xy \in E(H)$, which shows that $xy$ is avoidable edge in $H$.
To show that $P_k$ is avoidable in $G$, we show that there is an induced cycle that contains the described $P_{k+2}$.
Let $C_{H}$ be an induced cycle of $H$ containing a $P_4=\mypath{x',x,y,y'}$.
Since $xy$ is a avoidable edge in $H$, such a cycle exists.
Construct the cycle $C'$ obtained from $C_{H}$ by removing the edge $xy$ and attaching the path $P_{k-2}$ of $P_k -\{x,y\}$.
Then $C'$ is an induced cycle in $G$ because:
\begin{itemize}
\item $C_{H} - \{x,y\}$ is an induced path in $G$, as $H- \{x,y\}$ is an induced subgraph of $G$,
\item $P_k$ is an induced path in $G$ by definition, and
\item no vertex of $P_{k-2}$ has a neighbor in $C_{H} - \{x,y\}$, as $N_{G}(P_{k-2})\setminus\{x,y\} \subset I[P_k]$.
\end{itemize}
Therefore there is an induced cycle in $G$ that contains the described $P_{k+2}$ of $P_k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:avoidablepath}
Given an induced path $P_k$ on $k>2$ vertices of $G$, testing whether $P_k$ is avoidable can be done in $O(n \cdot m)$ time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that the endpoints of $P_k$ are $x$ and $y$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:avoidablepath}, it is enough to check if the edge $xy$ is avoidable in the graph $G + xy - I[P_k]$.
Constructing the graph $G + xy - I[P_k]$ takes $O(nk)$ time.
Applying the algorithm given in Theorem~\ref{theo:avoidableedge} results in an algorithm with the claimed running time, since $k \leq n$.
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
The running times of our algorithms for listing all avoidable vertices are comparable to the corresponding ones for listing all simplicial vertices.
Thus we believe it is difficult to achieve a reduction of the running time for avoidable vertices without affecting the time needed for simplicial vertices.
As pointed out, we can detect avoidable vertices in particular graph classes in more efficient way.
Towards this direction, it is interesting to consider planar graphs and reveal any possible improvement on the running time.
Moreover the notion of protecting and the relative $S$-excluded paths seem to tackle further problems concerning avoidable structures.
Our recognition algorithm for avoidable edges results in an algorithm for listing avoidable edges with running time $O(nm^2)$ which is comparable to the $O(m^2)$-algorithm for listing avoidable vertices.
Regarding avoidable paths on $k$ vertices, one needs to detect first with a naive algorithm a path $P_k$ in $O(n^k)$ time and then test whether $P_k$ being avoidable or not.
As observed in \cite{BonamyDHT20}, such a detection is nearly optimal, since we can hardly avoid the dependence of the exponent in $O(n^k)$.
Therefore by Theorem~\ref{theo:avoidableedge} we get an $O(n^{k+1} \cdot m)$-algorithm for listing all avoidable paths on $k$ vertices.
An interesting direction for further research along the avoidable paths is to reveal problems that can be solved efficiently by taking advantage the list of all avoidable paths in a graph.
For instance, one could compute a minimum length of a sequence of shifts transforming an induced path $P_k$ to an avoidable induced path.
Gurvich et al. \cite{Gurvich22} proved that each induced path can be transformed to an avoidable one by a sequence of shifts,
where two induced paths on $k$ vertices are shifts of each other if their union is an induced path on $k + 1$ vertices.
To compute efficiently a minimum length of shifts, one could construct a graph $H$ that encodes all neighboring induced paths on $k$ vertices of $G$.
In particular, the nodes of $H$ correspond to all induced paths on $k$ vertices in $G$ and two nodes in $H$ are adjacent if and only if their union is an induced path on $k + 1$ vertices in $G$.
Note that $H$ contains $O(n^{k})$ nodes and can be constructed in $n^{O(k)}$ time.
Having the list of avoidable paths on $k$ vertices, we can mark the nodes of $H$ that correspond to such avoidable paths.
Now given an induced path $P_k$ on $k$ vertices in $G$ we may ask the shortest path in $H$ from the node that corresponds to $P_k$ towards a marked node that corresponds to an avoidable path.
Such a path always exists from the results of \cite{Gurvich22} and can be computed in time linear in the size of $H$.
Therefore, for fixed $k$, our algorithm computes a minimum length of sequence of shifts in polynomial time answering an open question given in \cite{Gurvich22}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\let\thefootnote\relax\footnote{$*$ Co-first authors; $\#$ corresponding authors. }\addtocounter{footnote}{-1}\let\thefootnote\svthefootnote
As one of the deadliest diseases with many complications in the world, diabetes\footnote{We use diabetes to refer to type 2 diabetes in this paper.} is becoming one major factor that influences people's health in modern society \cite{breault2002data}.
To help prevent diabetes, predicting diabetes in the early stage according to demographic and metabolic data becomes an important task in the healthcare domain \cite{koh2011data}.
In this paper, we study the problem of diabetes prediction, specifically, predicting whether one person will be diagnosed with diabetes within three years based on the collected data, which can be regarded as a binary classification problem.
However, there exist two main challenges in this diabetes prediction task, i.e., \textit{data heterogeneity} and \textit{data insufficiency}.
\textit{Data heterogeneity} means the features contained in the collected data are of different types (e.g., ``glucose in urine'' is numerical while ``marriage'' is categorical) and distributions (e.g., ``gender'' tends to be evenly distributed while ``occupation'' normally follows a long-tail distribution).
Although deep neural networks (DNNs) have shown promising performance in vision and language domains \cite{goodfellow2016deep}, it is much harder to train DNNs with mixture types of input \cite{qu2018product}, especially when the input distribution is unstable \cite{ioffe2015batch}.
In contrast to DNNs, decision trees \cite{breiman2017classification} are insensitive to data types and distributions, and thus it is appealing to deal with heterogeneous data using decision trees \cite{breiman2017classification, qin2009dtu}.
More importantly, tree-based methods can implicitly handle the problem of features missing, which is common in medical follow-up data submitted by users, as we will mention in Section~\ref{sec:application}.
Beyond that, decision trees are also easy to visualization and further interpreted \cite{goodman2016clinical,walker2017decision} as we mention in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_B}, which is another superior advantage over neural networks.
Therefore, in this paper, to handle the \textit{data heterogeneity} challenge in diabetes prediction, we construct our method based on the gradient boosting decision trees (GBDT) \cite{friedman2002stochastic}, which is one of the most popular and powerful tree algorithms.
\textit{Data insufficiency} is another core challenge in the healthcare domain. Since data collection is costly in medical centers, the volume of data used to train models is usually limited, making it challenging to achieve adequate performance.
The data distribution of different medical centers can vary greatly. Thus training a model over the multi-center dataset cannot lead to a satisfactory average or separate prediction result.
Based on this observation, decoupling multi-center diabetes prediction and separately considering prediction tasks for each center is necessary.
Unfortunately, due to the data insufficiency, it is still hard to train high-performance models for every single center.
Multi-task learning (MTL) \cite{zhang2017survey} aggregates knowledge from different tasks to train a high-performance model. Based on this consideration, we are able to treat predictions for a single center as separate tasks and build the model leveraging knowledge shared among them to improve prediction results.
However, it is non-trivial to directly apply MTL on GBDT since most of the existing MTL methods are either feature-based or parameter-based \cite{ji2009accelerated, zhou2011clustered} but GBDT does not perform feature extraction and is a non-parametric model.
One existing solution is Multi-Task Boosting (MT-B) \cite{chapelle2010multi}, which simultaneously trains task-specific boosted trees with samples from each task, and task-common boosted trees with samples from all the tasks.
The final prediction of one task is determined by combining the predictions of both task-specific boosted trees and task-common boosted trees.
Although MT-B is easy to train and deploy, one significant drawback of MT-B is its high computational complexity, since independent trees for each task need to be learned besides the global one.
To avoid introducing additional computational complexity, seeking a more elegant way to address both challenges and combing MTL with GBDT is meaningful.
To begin with, we analyze that directly training one GBDT for all the tasks
may have a negative impact on specific tasks after a certain splitting since the task-wise difference is ignored.
For better understanding, we decompose the \textit{gain} into a summation over \textit{task gains} for each task and adopt the \textit{task gain} to measure how good the split condition is for each task at a node.
We demonstrate that the \textit{gain} being overall positive does not necessarily guarantee the \textit{task gains} of all tasks being also positive, which means that the greedy node split strategy directly based on \textit{gain} might be harmful to some tasks.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.985\linewidth]{./figs/Overview}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Workflow of TSGB for diabetes prediction.}
\label{fig:Overview}
\vspace{-15pt}
\end{figure}
To tackle this issue, inspired by MT-ET (Multi-Task ExtraTrees) \cite{simm2014tree}, we propose TSGB (Task-wise Split Gradient Boosting Trees).
TSGB introduces task-wise split according to task gain instead of traditional feature-wise split \cite{chen2016xgboost} to mitigate the \textit{negative task gain} problem while still keeping the same order of computational complexity as GBDT (all the tasks share trees).
Specifically, task-wise split separates tasks into two groups (see Fig.~\ref{fig:neg_task_gain/TSGB}), i.e., tasks with positive and negative gains.
In this way, some branches of the trees are only dedicated to a subset of tasks, which preserves the similarity between related tasks while alleviating the deficiency of sharing the knowledge between unrelated tasks.
The general workflow of applying our TSGB in diabetes prediction is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:Overview}.
Experiments on multi-center diabetes prediction datasets and multi-domain sentiment classification dataset show the effectiveness of the proposed TSGB, compared with not only the tree-based MTL models \cite{chapelle2010multi,simm2014tree} but also several other state-of-the-art MTL algorithms \cite{ji2009accelerated,zhou2011clustered}.
The predictive model has been deployed as an online diabetes risk assessment software
to offer the patients key risk factors analysis and corresponding personalized health plan, helping early prevention and daily health management for healthy users.
To sum up, our contributions are mainly threefold:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=10pt]
\item We analyze GBDT in the MTL scenario and introduce \textit{task gain} to measure how good the tree structure is for each task. To solve the \textit{negative task gain} problem, we propose a novel algorithm TSGB that effectively extends GBDT to multi-task settings.
\item We obtain 0.42\% to 3.20\% average AUC performance improvement on the 21 tasks in our diabetes prediction dataset, comparing with the state-of-the-art MTL algorithm. Our proposed TSGB is shown it can also be used in a wide range of non-medical MTL scenarios.
\item We deploy TSGB on a professional assessment software, Rui-Ning Diabetes Risk Assessment, for fast and convenient diabetes risk prediction. The software already has around $48,000$ users from different organizations, such as physical examination centers, human resource departments, and insurance institutes.
\end{itemize}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:naive-TSGB}
We provide a brief introduction to gradient boosting decision trees \cite{chen2016xgboost}.
Suppose we have a dataset $\mathcal{D}=\{(\mathbf{x}_i,y_i)\} (|\mathcal{D}|=n,\mathbf{x}_i\in\mathbb{R}^m,y_i\in\mathbb{R})$ of $n$ samples with $m$-dimensional features. The predicted label of GBDT given by the function $\phi$ is the sum of all the $K$ additive trees:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:add}
\small
\hat{y}_i=\phi(\mathbf{x}_i)=\sum_{k=1}^{K}f_k(\mathbf{x}_i),\ f_k\in\mathcal{F},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\small
\text{where~}\mathcal{F}=\{f(\mathbf{x})=w_q(\mathbf{x})\}(q: \mathbb{R}^m\to L, w\in\mathbb{R}^{|L|})
\end{align}
is the space of regression trees (CART \cite{breiman2017classification}), $q$ is the tree structure which maps a sample $\mathbf{x}$ to the corresponding leaf index in the tree with $|L|$ leaves, and $w$ is the leaf weight.
Each $f_k$ is an independent tree with its own structure $q_k$ and leaf weight $w_{q_k}$.
The $K$ functions (trees) will be learned by minimizing the \textit{regularized} objective \cite{chen2016xgboost}:
\begin{align}
\small
\mathcal{L}(\phi)&
=\sum_{i=1}^n l(\hat{y}_i,y_i)+\sum_{k=1}^K\Omega(f_k),\label{eq:original-obj}
\end{align}
where $l(\hat{y},y)$ is the loss function (e.g., MSE, logloss), and $\Omega(f)$ is a regularization term that penalizes the complexity of $f$ to alleviate the over-fitting problem.
Specifically, $\Omega(f)$ penalizes the number of leaves as well as the weight values \cite{johnson2014learning,chen2016xgboost}:
\begin{align}
\small
\Omega(f)=\gamma |L|+\frac{1}{2}\lambda\|w\|^2_2 \label{eq:regularization}.
\end{align}
Following the GBM \cite{friedman2001greedy} framework, the $K$ functions in Eq.~\eqref{eq:add} are learned additively to minimize the objective in Eq.~\eqref{eq:original-obj}.
With some transformation and simplification (see details in \cite{chen2016xgboost}), the $s$-th tree is learned by minimizing the following objective $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}^{(s)}$ as
\begin{align}
\small
\tilde{\mathcal{L}}^{(s)}=\sum_{i=1}^n \Big[g_i f_s(\mathbf{x}_i)+\frac{1}{2}h_i f_s^2(\mathbf{x}_i)\Big]+\Omega(f_s),\nonumber\\
g_i=\frac{\partial l(y_i,\hat{y_i}^{(s-1)})}{\partial \hat{y_i}^{(s-1)}},\ \ h_i=\frac{\partial^2l(y_i,\hat{y_i}^{(s-1)})}{\partial(\hat{y_i}^{(s-1)})^2}\nonumber,
\end{align}
where $g_i$ and $h_i$ are the first-order and second-order gradient on the loss function.
Note that each sample will be mapped to a leaf via $f_s$, thus we define $I_j=\{i|q_s(\mathbf{x}_i)=j\}$ as the indices set of training samples at leaf $j$ where $q_s(\mathbf{x})$ is the corresponding tree structure.
Recall the definition of $\Omega(f_s)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:regularization}, we have:
\begin{align}
\small
\tilde{\mathcal{L}}^{(s)}&=\sum_{j=1}^L \Big[(\sum_{i\in I_j}g_i)w_j+\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{i\in I_j}h_i)w_j^2 \Big]+\gamma L+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \sum_{j=1}^L w_j^2\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^L \Big[(\sum_{i\in I_j}g_i)w_j+\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{i\in I_j}h_i+\lambda)w_j^2 \Big]+\gamma L\label{eq:obj-s-origin}.
\end{align}
Denoting $G_j=\sum_{i\in I_j}g_i$ and $H_j=\sum_{i\in I_j}h_i$, the optimal $w^*_j$ for leaf $j$ is easy to calculate since $G_jw_j+\frac{1}{2}(H_j+\lambda)w_j^2$ is a single variable quadratic function for $w_j$, thus the optimal $w_j^*$ is
\begin{align}\label{eq:weight}
\small
w_j^*=-\frac{G_j}{H_j+\lambda}=-\frac{{\sum_{i\in I_{j}}g_i}}{{\sum_{i\in I_{j}}h_i}+\lambda}.
\end{align}
Although the optimal value of $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}^{(s)}$ given tree structure $q_s(\mathbf{x})$ can be calculated,
to make a trade-off between computational complexity and model performance, a greedy strategy that constructs a tree starting from a single leaf (root) and splitting the leaf into two child leaves iteratively is commonly used \cite{breiman2017classification,johnson2014learning,chen2016xgboost}.
The samples at a leaf will be separated by the split condition defined as a threshold value of one feature, which is the so-called feature-wise split.
Such a greedy search algorithm is included in most GBDT implementations \cite{ridgeway2007generalized,pedregosa2011scikit,chen2016xgboost}, it selects the best split node by node, and finally construct a decision tree.
Formally, to find the best split condition on an arbitrary leaf $p$, let $I$ be the sample set at leaf $p$, and $I_{L}$ and $I_{R}$ are the samples for left and right child leaves ($p_L$ and $p_R$) after a split.
The corresponding negative loss change after the split, denoted as \textit{gain} $\mathcal{G}$, is
\begin{align}
\small
\mathcal{G}
=&-\sum_{i\in I_{L}}g_iw_{p_L}^*-\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{i\in I_{L}}h_i+\lambda)w_{p_L}^{*^2}-\sum_{i\in I_{R}}g_iw_{p_R}^*\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{i\in I_{R}}h_i+\lambda)w_{p_R}^{*^2}+\sum_{i\in I}g_iw_p^*+\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{i\in I}h_i+\lambda)w_p^{*^2}-\gamma\label{eq:gain_all}\\
=&\frac{1}{2} \Big[
\frac{({\sum_{i\in I_{L}}g_i})^2}{{\sum_{i\in I_{L}}h_i}+\lambda}
+\frac{({\sum_{i\in I_{R}}g_i})^2}{{\sum_{i\in I_{R}}h_i}+\lambda}
-\frac{({\sum_{i\in I}g_i})^2}{{\sum_{i\in I}h_i}+\lambda} \Big]-\gamma,\nonumber
\end{align}
where $w_{p}^{*},w_{p_L}^{*},w_{p_R}^{*}$ are optimal weights (defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:weight}) for leaf $p,p_L,p_R$, respectively.
There is an optimal split found for each feature by enumerating all the possible candidate feature values and picking one with the highest gain.
\section{Negative Task Gain Problem} \label{sec:negtive_task_gain}
We find that the tree structure learned by GBDT can be harmful to a subset of tasks when the MTL technique is directly applied. When training vanilla GBDT on multi-task data, where samples from different tasks may be far from identically distributed (e.g., multi-center diabetes dataset), the objective is to improve its average performance over all the tasks against individual learning. To be specific, since the objective is defined on all the training instances, GBDT will pick features that are generally ``good'' for all the tasks in the feature-wise splitting process of growing a single tree.
To illustrate this finding, we need to analyze the tree structure measurement in task level. Assume there are $T$ learning tasks in the MTL scenario with the whole dataset $\mathcal{D}$ divided into $T$ parts ($\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}_1\cup\mathcal{D}_2\cup \ldots \cup\mathcal{D}_T \text{ and } \mathcal{D}_i\cap\mathcal{D}_j=\varnothing, i\neq j$).
For each task $t$, denote the samples belonging to it as $\mathcal{S}^t$, thus have $\mathcal{D}_t=\{(\mathbf{x}_i,y_i)|i\in\mathcal{S}^t\}$.
We now introduce a new metric, \textit{task gain} ($\mathcal{G}_t, t\in\{1,2,...,T\}$), to measure how good a feature-wise split is to each task.
Considering all the $T$ tasks explicitly at each leaf, the learning objective at $s$-step in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:original-obj} and \eqref{eq:obj-s-origin} can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\small
&\tilde{\mathcal{L}}^{(s)}
=\sum_{j=1}^L \Big\{(\sum_{i\in I_j}g_i)w_j+\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{i\in I_j}h_i+\lambda)w_j^2\Big\}+\gamma L \nonumber\\
=&\sum_{j=1}^L\Big\{(\sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{i\in I_j\cap\mathcal{S}^t}g_i)w_j+\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{i\in I_j\cap\mathcal{S}^t}h_i+\lambda)w_j^2\Big\} \nonumber + \gamma L\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{j=1}^L\Big{\{}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\Big[G_j^tw_j
+\frac{1}{2}(H_j^t+\frac{|I_j\cap\mathcal{S}^t|}{|I_j|}\lambda)w_j^2\Big]\Big{\}}+\gamma L,
\end{align}
where $G_j^t = \sum_{i\in I_j\cap\mathcal{S}^t}g_i , H_j^t=\sum_{i\in I_j\cap\mathcal{S}^t}h_i$.
Then according to the objective above, we can decompose $\mathcal{G}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:gain_all} by $\mathcal{G} = \sum_{t=1}^{T}\mathcal{G}_t$ as
\begin{align}
\small
\mathcal{G}_t
=&-\sum_{i\in I_{p_L}^t}g_iw_{p_L}^*-\frac{1}{2} \Big(\sum_{i\in I_{p_L}^t}h_i+\frac{|I_{p_L}^t|}{|I_{p_L}|}\lambda \Big)w_{p_L}^{*^2}\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{i\in I_{p_R}^t}g_iw_{p_R}^*-\frac{1}{2} \Big(\sum_{i\in I_{p_R}^t}h_i+\frac{|I_{p_R}^t|}{|I_{p_R}|}\lambda \Big)w_{p_R}^{*^2}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{i\in I_{p}^t}g_iw_{p}^*+\frac{1}{2} \Big(\sum_{i\in I_{p}^t}h_i+\frac{|I_{p}^t|}{|I_{p}|}\lambda \Big)w_{p}^{*^2}-\frac{|I_{p}^t|}{|I_{p}|}\gamma,\label{eq:gain_decomposition}
\end{align}
where $I^t_p=I_{p}\cap\mathcal{S}^t$ denotes the set of samples from task $t$ in leaf $p$, as well as $I^t_{p_L}$ and $I^t_{p_R}$.
With the above decomposition of the original gain $\mathcal{G}$ of a feature-wise split at a leaf in GBDT, we obtain the task gain $\mathcal{G}_t$ for each task.
The task gain $\mathcal{G}_t$ represents how good the specific feature-wise split at this leaf is for task $t$. The larger $\mathcal{G}_t$ is, the better the split at this leaf is for task $t$.
When $\mathcal{G}_t$ is negative, it means the feature-wise split at this leaf will actually increase part of the objective loss consisting of samples in task $t$ as this leaf: $\sum_{i\in I_p^t}l(\hat{y}_i,y_i)$, which is the opposite of the optimization objective.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./figs/xgb_hist}
\caption{
Distribution of non-leaf nodes' $R_{\text{neg}}$ with logarithm, when trained traditional GBDT on multi-center diabetes dataset. A spot in darker blue has more nodes. }
\label{fig:xgb_hist_neg_task_gain_ratio}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In GBDT, we search over all the feature-wise split conditions and select the one with the highest gain $\mathcal{G}^*$ at a leaf.
Consider the decomposition in Eq.~\eqref{eq:gain_decomposition}, we can conclude that there is no guarantee that the optimal feature-wise split is a good split for all the tasks.
Formally, according to the greedy algorithm for split finding in GBDT, we have
\begin{align}
\small
\{\mathcal{G}_1^*,\mathcal{G}_2^*,...,\mathcal{G}_T^*\}=\mathop{\arg\min}_{\{\mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,...,\mathcal{G}_T\}}\ \sum_{t=1}^{T}\mathcal{G}_t=\mathop{\arg\min}_{\{\mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,...,\mathcal{G}_T\}}\ \mathcal{G}, \nonumber
\end{align}
at a leaf, but unfortunately,
\begin{align}
\sum_{t=1}^{T}\mathcal{G}_t^*>0\nRightarrow \mathcal{G}_t^*>0, \forall t\in\{1,2,...T\}.\nonumber
\end{align}
We dub this observation \textit{negative task gain problem}.
For the tasks with the task gain $\mathcal{G}_t^*<0$, although the feature-wise split is good in general ($\mathcal{G}^*>0$), the newly constructed tree structure is even worse.
Empirically, we find there are about 96.47\% of nodes in GBDT that have negative task gains when trained on our diabetes dataset.
To get a better measurement for ``how good is a feature-wise split in multi-task settings'', we introduce \emph{negative task gain ratio} as
\begin{align}\label{eq:R_neg}
\small
R_{\text{neg}}=\sum_{t\in\{i|\mathcal{G}_i<0\}}\frac{|I_{p}^t|}{|I_{p}|}
\end{align}
to indicate the severity of the negative task gain problem, where $|I_{p}^t|$ is the number of samples with negative task gains, $|I_p|$ is the total number of samples at node $p$.
We plot the distribution of $R_{\text{neg}}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:xgb_hist_neg_task_gain_ratio} and find that (i) a large amount of nodes have $0.2 < R_{\text{neg}} < 0.4, 10^4 < N < 10^5$, which means the greedy search algorithm in GBDT is far from optimum in multi-task settings.
(ii) Nodes with more samples are more likely to have larger $R_{\text{neg}}$, which means in the early stage of training, nodes closer to the root are more likely to find a harmful feature-wise split. And different tasks sharing the same harmful tree structure will, of course, lead to performance decline.
(iii) There are 11.24\% nodes have $R_{\text{neg}}>0.5$, which means a minority of the tasks dominates the feature-wise split, and the other tasks will gain better results if the split is not performed.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figs/feature-wise-split}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figs/task-wise-split}
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a) Illustration of negative task gain problem caused by a traditional feature-wise split, (b) while proposed TSGB can handle such problem with a task-wise split.}
\label{fig:neg_task_gain/TSGB}
\end{figure}
To better illustrate this problem, we show a simple but common case found in GBDT in Fig.~\ref{fig:neg_task_gain/TSGB} (a).
At node $A$, samples of tasks $2,3$ are already pure (all positive), while the positive and negative samples of task $1$ are still mixed.
The optimal split condition found here successfully divides task $1$'s samples into two branches, and the right branch has the most negative samples of task $1$ while the left branch has most of the positive ones.
Unfortunately, some samples of tasks $2,3$ are also divided into the right branch, although they are positive samples.
In such a case, we find the optimal $\mathcal{G}^*$ and $\mathcal{G}_1^*>0$, but leave the rest of the tasks with negative gains ($\mathcal{G}_2^*<0$ and $\mathcal{G}_3^*<0$).
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\small
\caption{Task-wise Split Gradient Boosting Trees}\label{alg:TSGB}
\LinesNumbered
\KwIn{$\mathcal{D}=\{(\mathbf{x}_i,y_i)\}$, training data from $T$ tasks}
\KwIn{$K$, number of boosted trees}
\KwIn{$R$, maximum ratio of samples with negative task gain}
initialize $f_1$\\
\For{$k=2$ {\bfseries to} $K$ }{
Calculate $\hat{y_i}^{(s)}$ by Eq.~\eqref{eq:add}\\
\While{not meet the split stop criterion}{
Find the best feature-wise split rule $r$ greedily at a leaf $p$\\
Calculate Corresponding task gain $\mathcal{G}_t, t\in\{1,2,...,T\}$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:gain_decomposition}\\
\If{$R_{\text{neg}}>R$}{Split samples of task $t\in\{i|\mathcal{G}_i<0\}$ to left branch\\
Split samples of task $t\in\{i|\mathcal{G}_i\geq0\}$ to right branch\\
}\Else{Split samples following split rule $r$ }
}
}
\KwOut{$\phi(\cdot)=\sum_{k=1}^{K}f_k(\cdot)$}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Task-wise Split Gradient Boosting Trees}
The ultimate objective of MTL is to improve the model's performance on all the tasks, while the aforementioned \textit{negative task gain} problem makes the traditional GBDT not suitable for MTL. To make full use of the data of all tasks through MTL and extend GBDT to multi-task settings, we propose Task-wise Split Gradient Boosting Trees (TSGB). The key idea of TSGB is that we avoid severe \textit{negative task gain} problem by conducting a \textit{task-wise split} instead of \textit{feature-wise split} at nodes with high negative task gain ratio $R_{\text{neg}}$.
We follow the main procedure of GBDT. However, when the best feature-wise split condition is found at an arbitrary leaf $p$, the task gain $\mathcal{G}_t$ for each task $t$ is calculated.
Since most of the nodes in GBDT has the negative task gain problem (as discussed in Fig.~\ref{fig:xgb_hist_neg_task_gain_ratio}).
We can handle this problem by introducing the task-wise split.
If the negative task gain ratio $R_{\text{neg}}$ of node $p$, as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:R_neg}, is higher than a threshold ratio $R$ (i.e., $R_{\text{neg}} > R$ meets),
instead of splitting the leaf feature-wisely using the found split condition, TSGB performs a \textit{task-wise split} of samples, splits the samples of tasks with negative task gain to the left branch and those with positive task gain to the right branch.
Alg.~\ref{alg:TSGB} is a pseudo-code for TSGB, Fig.~\ref{fig:neg_task_gain/TSGB} (right) provides an illustration of proposed task-wise split.
$R$ is considered as a hyperparameter in practice, which is set to different values for different MTL datasets.
A key characteristic of TSGB is that it is task-level objective-oriented while training all the tasks in the same trees in a homogeneous MTL setting, which makes TSGB easy to train and elegant in MTL. The empirical results also show the effectiveness of TSGB.
Previous works either ignore the task-specific objective by simply splitting the tasks with pre-defined task features on randomly selected leaf nodes \cite{simm2014tree} or train both task-common trees and task-specific trees at the same time. The former can not make full use of the correlation of different task data, while the latter always derive a huge redundant model since $T+1$ forests are needed \cite{chapelle2010multi}.
What if replacing task-wise split by selecting the sub-optimal feature-wise split condition at a node with lower $R_{\text{neg}}$ so that more of the tasks have positive task gain?
We argue that (i) the primary cause of the negative task gain problem comes from the difference of feature distributions on different tasks.
Moreover, this problem cannot be solved by traditional greedy search feature-wise split since its underlying assumption is identical data distribution.
There is an irreparable gap between the assumptions of GBDT feature split and MTL.
(ii) The computational complexity of task gain calculation under sub-optimal feature-wise split conditions is much higher.
Variables are not provided by the original GBDT. Thus if we want to calculate the task gain under sub-optimal feature-wise split, additional computation is needed.
This problem even becomes worse given that the searching of sub-optimal feature-wise split brings external complexity.
Accordingly, we only perform a task-wise split when calculated task gain under the optimal feature-wise split condition indicates that the negative task gain problem meets a certain condition.
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we empirically study the performance of the proposed TSGB.
We compare TSGB with several state-of-the-art tree-based and other MTL algorithms on our diabetes dataset and the multi-domain sentiment dataset. To get deeper insights into how task-wise split helps improve the performance, we also discuss a case study on a specific task.
\subsection{Dataset}
We first evaluate TSGB on a multi-center diabetes dataset provided by the China Cardiometabolic Disease and Cancer Cohort (4C) Study, which was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
The dataset is collected from the general population recruited from 21 medical centers in different geographical regions of China, including the baseline data from 2011 to 2012 and the follow-up data from 2014 to 2016 of 170,240 participants. Each center contributes the data with the size ranging from 2,299 to 7,871.
At baseline and follow-up visits, standard questionnaires were used to collect demographic characteristics, lifestyle, dietary factors, and medical history.
We finally obtained 100,000 samples from the 21 different medical centers for TSGB evaluation with data cleaning and pre-processing. Each of the samples retains the most important numerical and categorical features of 50 dimensions.
To further claim the effectiveness of TSGB under a non-medical scenario, we also conduct an empirical study on a commonly used MTL benchmark dataset, the multi-domain sentiment dataset\footnote{Sentiment dataset: \url{https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~mdredze/datasets/sentiment/}} \cite{blitzer2007biographies}. This dataset is a multi-domain sentiment classification dataset, containing positive and negative reviews from four different (product) domains from Amazon.com. The four product domains are books, DVDs, electronics, and kitchen appliances. Following \cite{chen2012marginalized}, we use the 5000 most frequent terms of unigrams and bigrams as the input.
\subsection{Baselines}
All the compared models are listed as follows.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=10pt]
\item \textbf{ST-GB} (Single Task GBDT)
trains a GBDT model for each task separately.
\item \textbf{GBDT} (Sec.~\ref{sec:naive-TSGB}) trains a GBDT model on the whole dataset of all tasks.
\item \textbf{MT-ET} (Multi-Task ExtraTrees) \cite{simm2014tree} is a tree-based ensemble multi-task learning method based on Extremely Randomized Trees.
\item \textbf{MT-TNR} \cite{ji2009accelerated} is a linear MTL model with Trace Norm Regularization.
\item \textbf{MT-B} (Multi-Task Boosting) \cite{chapelle2010multi} is an MTL algorithm with boosted trees. It trains task-common forest $F_0$ on all tasks, and trains task-specific boosted forest $F_t,i\in\{1,2,...,T\}$ on each task separately. The final output of sample $\mathbf{x}$ of task $t$ is $F_0(\mathbf{x})+F_t(\mathbf{x})$.
\item \textbf{CMTL} \cite{zhou2011clustered} is a clustered MTL method that assumes the tasks may exhibit a more sophisticated group structure.
\item \textbf{TSGB$_{\lambda}$} is a variant of TSGB proposed by us. Instead of using a threshold $R$, it decides whether to conduct a task-wise split with a fixed probability $\lambda\in[0, 1]$. TSGB$_{\lambda}$ picks a node with a certain probability and sort the tasks, then split the samples task-wisely as how TSGB do.
\item \textbf{TSGB} is the novel method proposed in this paper. It decides whether to perform a task-wise split by comparing a threshold ratio $R$ with the negative task gain ratio $R_{\text{neg}}$ of the current node. Then it separates samples task-wisely according to the positive and negative of their task gains.
\end{itemize}
For a fair comparison, all the boosting tree models used in our experiments are implemented based on XGBoost \cite{chen2016xgboost}, which is one of the most efficient and widely used implementations of GBDT with high performance. We make TSGB publicly available\footnote{Reproducible code for TSGB: https://github.com/felixwzh/TSGB} to encourage further research in tree-based MTL.
\subsection{Evaluation Results}\label{sec:diabetes-exp}
We randomly generate training-validation-testing sets at a ratio of 3:1:1.
The proportion of positive and negative samples can be very different for each task. Therefore the accuracy, recall, and precision are not suitable indicators to measure the performance of models. As we known, AUC (Area Under the Curve of ROC) can be directly compared between tasks with different positive ratios. We take it as the primary indicator and report the average AUC over 10 random seeds in the experiment.
For each algorithm, the best hyperparameters adopted are provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_A}.
\subsubsection{Multi-center Diabetes Prediction}
The experimental results are presented in Tab.~\ref{tab:diabetes}.
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{AUC Scores Under Multi-center Diabetes Dataset.}
\vspace{-10pt}
\resizebox{0.47\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc|c}
\toprule
\textbf{Task} & ST-GB & GBDT & MT-ET & MT-TNR & MT-B & CMTL & \textbf{TSGB}$_\lambda$ & \textbf{TSGB}\\
\midrule
$1$ & $\textbf{81.04}$ & $80.06$ & $79.82$ & $78.69$ & $78.77$ & $77.85$ & $79.91$ & $\underline{80.65}$\\
$2$ & $71.62$ & $73.37$ & $71.51$ & $71.81$ & $69.94$ & $71.32$ & $\underline{73.75}$ & $\textbf{73.87}$\\
$3$ & $77.60$ & $\underline{77.61}$ & $76.20$ & $76.29$ & $74.93$ & $73.50$ & $77.30$ & $\textbf{77.90}$\\
$4$ & $76.79$ & $77.32$ & $77.62$ & $74.93$ & $76.40$ & $75.07$ & $\underline{77.65}$ & $\textbf{78.18}$\\
$5$ & $80.91$ & $81.59$ & $80.09$ & $79.25$ & $77.80$ & $77.63$ & $\textbf{81.78}$ & $\underline{81.71}$\\
$6$ & $80.53$ & $81.32$ & $80.05$ & $78.31$ & $78.72$ & $77.89$ & $\underline{81.38}$ & $\textbf{81.61}$\\
$7$ & $79.72$ & $80.01$ & $\textbf{82.18}$ & $79.13$ & $77.55$ & $78.58$ & $80.33$ & $\underline{80.50}$\\
$8$ & $78.25$ & $79.00$ & $74.31$ & $77.51$ & $77.07$ & $76.94$ & $\underline{79.11}$ & $\textbf{79.28}$\\
$9$ & $77.48$ & $77.54$ & $77.32$ & $76.05$ & $75.67$ & $74.85$ & $\underline{77.79}$ & $\textbf{78.27}$\\
$10$ & $82.69$ & $\underline{83.21}$ & $83.04$ & $81.89$ & $79.61$ & $80.73$ & $82.96$ & $\textbf{83.31}$\\
$11$ & $79.34$ & $79.18$ & $\textbf{81.21}$ & $77.93$ & $75.56$ & $76.45$ & $79.40$ & $\underline{79.54}$\\
$12$ & $72.22$ & $\underline{74.16}$ & $70.29$ & $71.71$ & $72.40$ & $70.48$ & $73.76$ & $\textbf{74.49}$\\
$13$ & $76.11$ & $78.09$ & $\textbf{80.08}$ & $76.86$ & $75.99$ & $75.37$ & $\underline{78.23}$ & $78.17$\\
$14$ & $80.44$ & $80.44$ & $77.52$ & $79.35$ & $77.43$ & $78.93$ & $\underline{80.66}$ & $\textbf{80.89}$\\
$15$ & $86.16$ & $\underline{86.43}$ & $84.02$ & $83.71$ & $84.02$ & $82.79$ & $86.34$ & $\textbf{86.80}$\\
$16$ & $80.00$ & $79.82$ & $75.24$ & $77.58$ & $75.90$ & $76.51$ & $\underline{80.08}$ & $\textbf{80.11}$\\
$17$ & $\underline{77.31}$ & $76.84$ & $72.08$ & $74.55$ & $75.58$ & $74.13$ & $77.23$ & $\textbf{77.47}$\\
$18$ & $60.46$ & $\underline{61.87}$ & $60.01$ & $60.53$ & $60.09$ & $60.46$ & $61.43$ & $\textbf{62.28}$\\
$19$ & $75.54$ & $74.66$ & $74.42$ & $71.04$ & $73.41$ & $69.26$ & $\textbf{76.44}$ & $\underline{76.17}$\\
$20$ & $61.75$ & $\underline{63.21}$ & $57.51$ & $61.65$ & $60.65$ & $60.98$ & $63.10$ & $\textbf{63.23}$\\
$21$ & $82.70$ & $\underline{83.04}$ & $77.23$ & $82.12$ & $79.51$ & $80.59$ & $82.78$ & $\textbf{83.06}$\\
\midrule
AVG & $77.08$ & $77.56$ & $75.80$ & $75.76$ & $75.10$ & $74.78$ & $\underline{77.69}$ & $\textbf{77.98}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-10pt}
\label{tab:diabetes}
\end{table}
The main conclusions can be summarized as follows.
(i) We find ST-GB achieves competitive performance compared to other tree-based MTL models. ST-GB has much better performance than linear MTL models CMTL and MT-TNR.
(ii) GBDT, which trains samples from all the tasks together, boosts 15 tasks' performance compared with ST-GB, but ST-GB still outperforms GBDT on 5 tasks.
This phenomenon is called \textit{negative transfer} \cite{ge2014handling} in MTL, and we owe the main reason to the \textit{negative task gain} problem we analyzed in Sec.~\ref{sec:negtive_task_gain}.
(iii) Although task-wise split is first proposed in MT-ET \cite{simm2014tree}, MT-ET does not achieve satisfactory performance on multi-center diabetes data. The task-wise split criterion in MT-ET is an alternative of one-hot encoding of task feature, which means separate the samples into two random sets of tasks instead of two specific sets version. It is not well designed for the \textit{negative task gain} problem. However, the competitive performance of TSGB$_{\lambda}$ indicates that split the samples task-wisely is promising.
(iv) TSGB outperforms baseline models in almost all the tasks. Specifically, it boosts the performance on 17 of 21 tasks compared to all the other models. TSGB is outperformed by ST-GB on only 1 task with a smaller gap than those between GBDT, MT-ET, TSGB$_{\lambda}$, and ST-GB. This indicates that our analysis of \textit{negative task gain} is reasonable, and our task-wise split mechanism is effective. In conclusion, the results show TSGB is effective on solving \textit{data heterogeneity} and \textit{insufficiency}.
\subsubsection{Multi-domain Sentiment Classification}
The experimental procedures follow the same setting, and we show the main results in Tab.~\ref{tab:amazon}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{AUC Scores Under Multi-domain Sentiment dataset.}
\vspace{-10pt}
\resizebox{0.47\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc|c}
\toprule
\textbf{Task} & ST-GB & GBDT & MT-ET & MT-TNR & MT-B & CMTL & \textbf{TSGB}$_\lambda$ & \textbf{TSGB}\\
\midrule
Books & $92.99$ & $93.86$ & $92.79$ & $91.24$ & $93.45$ & $90.83$ & $\underline{93.97}$ & $\textbf{94.37}$\\
DVDs & $92.57$ & $94.14$ & $92.26$ & $91.15$ & $93.27$ & $90.18$ & $\underline{94.24}$ & $\textbf{94.39}$\\
Electr. & $95.14$ & $95.98$ & $95.66$ & $93.93$ & $95.58$ & $93.28$ & $\underline{96.03}$ & $\textbf{96.06}$\\
K. App. & $96.43$ & $96.99$ & $96.52$ & $94.87$ & $96.74$ & $94.48$ & $\underline{97.11}$ & $\textbf{97.20}$\\
\midrule
AVG & $94.28$ & $95.24$ & $94.31$ & $92.80$ & $94.76$ & $92.19$ & $\underline{95.34}$ & $\textbf{95.51}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:amazon}
\end{table}
From AUC scores derived with the whole sentiment dataset, TSGB outperforms all the baseline models. Interestingly, TSGB$_{\lambda}$ reach a good performance second only to TSGB and outperforms MT-ET significantly. We analyze the reasons for this situation is that, although the original task-wise split used in MT-ET boost performance by introducing additional randomness for bagging, such kind of split is an improved realization of encoding task as an additional dimension of feature, and it separates samples into two sets of tasks by a randomly selected task-related value, which can not ensure reducing negative task gain ratio significantly. Different from random many-vs-many split used in MT-ET, we proposed ``ones-vs-rest'' task-wise split in TSGB, which is more targeted for the mentioned negative task gain problem and reduces the negative task gain ratio more effectively. The ones-vs-rest task-wise split means separating tasks with negative task gains and those with positive ones, therefore it is much more reasonable than its original version according to our theoretic analysis and leads to better performance in MTL setting. The analysis also explains that TSGB can perform better than TSGB$_{\lambda}$, since TSGB employs negative task gain ratio as the criterion to perform task-wise split instead of using a constant probability to control whether performing a task-wise split at a certain decision node.
\subsubsection{Robustness to Data Sparsity}\label{sec:robustness_diff_volume}
We further study the impact of training data sparsity. We compare TSGB with the best two baselines, TSGB$_{\lambda}$ and GBDT, as well as the original MT-ET on our multi-center diabetes dataset but with different training data volume. We subsample 10\%, 25\%, and 50\% training data on each task and conduct the experiments with the same procedure as before. In Fig.~\ref{fig:auc_percent}, we plot the average AUC of three models on the testing set. It shows that TSGB reaches an average AUC of $0.7772\pm.0005$ with only 25\% training data, while GBDT and TSGB$_{\lambda}$ approach to but still inferior to such an AUC score using 100\% training data (GBDT with average AUC $0.7756\pm.0003$ and TSGB$_{\lambda}$ $0.7769\pm.0005$). MT-ET is the most sensitive to data volume, with performance fluctuates in a large interval.
The observations can be summarized as follows: (i) TSGB reaches a higher average AUC with less training data, which shows that TSGB is robust to data sparsity issue. (ii) Performances of TSGB and TSGB$_{\lambda}$ are far better than the original version of MT-ET. (iii) TSGB outperforms TSGB$_{\lambda}$ and GBDT in most tasks (16$\sim$18 out of 21 tasks) on all the training data volumes. With these three observations, we conclude that task-wise split is helpful in our MTL scenario and conducting task-wise split with consideration of proposed \textit{task gain} further improves the tree-based model's performance.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{./figs/auc_percent}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{The performance of TSGB with different training data volume consistently outperforms MT-ET, GBDT, and TSGB$_{\lambda}$.}
\label{fig:auc_percent}
\vspace{-15pt}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{./figs/d10_ratio_auc_sub}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{./figs/d100_ratio_auc_sub}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{The performance of TSGB with different threshold ratio $R$ consistently compared with MT-ET, GBDT, and TSGB$_{\lambda}$ on different training data volume.}
\label{fig:ratio_auc}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Hyperparameter Study}\label{sec:param}
We introduce a hyperparameter $R$ as the threshold ratio to determine when to split the node task-wisely. We set $R = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6$ and plot the corresponding average AUC over all the tasks to see the influence of threshold ratio $R$ on TSGB's performance in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio_auc}. The experimental results at $25\%$ and $50\%$ data volume are very similar to the result at $100\%$ data volume. When the training data is sparse (10\%), the performance difference between TSGB and the other two baselines are small. When there is more training data (25\%, 50\%, and 100\%), TSGB outperforms GBDT and our variant TSGB$_{\lambda}$ consistently. We also find that TSGB has the best performance when $R$ value is set low but not zero, i.e., $R=0.4$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio_auc}(b). If $R$ is too high, we conduct task-wise splits only in a few nodes where the negative task gain problem is severe and fail to handle the problem in many other nodes. On the contrary, if we set the $R$ too low, nearly all the nodes will be split task-wisely (96.47\% nodes, as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:negtive_task_gain}), and only a few nodes can be used to optimize the learning objective. Thus, a relatively low threshold ratio $R\in [0.2,0.4]$ leads to the best performance.
\subsection{Case Study}\label{sec:case_study}
To get deeper insights into how negative task gain problem influences GBDT in MTL, we study one specific task, task-21, with imbalanced down-sampled training data. More specifically, we randomly choose 10\% samples (0.5\% positive \& 99.5\% negative) from task-21, while for the other 20 tasks, we randomly selected 10\% samples (50\% negative \& 50 \% positive) as the training data. One additional reason we build task-21's training data with the very sparse positive sample is that the positive case of some diseases, due to many reasons, might be relatively rare in practice. We want to see whether TSGB could handle this condition and outperform TSGB$_{\lambda}$, GBDT, and ST-GB. In addition, we introduce TSGB-4 to see whether a task-wise split is effective. TSGB-4 means that we use GBDT to train the first three decision trees, but from the fourth tree, we change to TSGB.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{./figs/case-study-task21-121}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{./figs/case-study-task21-21}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{AUC on task-21's validation set in discussion.}
\label{fig:case-study}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
From Fig.~\ref{fig:case-study} we can see that (i) when the training data is extremely imbalanced, MTL helps boost model performance. All the MTL models have a large AUC lift compared to ST-GB. (ii) TSGB obtains the highest AUC, which indicates proposed TSGB is capable of better leveraging the training data on all the tasks. (iii) Although directly using GBDT brings about 10\% AUC improvement, the weird AUC curve of GBDT at the first 6 trees (below 0.5, which is worse than the performance of a random classifier) shows some problems of GBDT. (iv) TSGB-4 has exactly the same performance as GBDT in the first three trees, but when the decision tree is constructed in a TSGB from the fourth tree, its performance improves significantly and outperforms GBDT eventually.
We also compare the different behaviors of the fourth decision tree of GBDT and TSGB-4 to see what happened in the training process and have the following findings.
Since we set threshold ratio $R = 0.2$, TSGB-4 will conduct a task-wise split instead of the found best feature-wise split after constructing the fourth tree if $R_{\text{neg}} > 0.2$.
Therefore, with the observation of the negative task gain problem, TSGB converts some feature-wise splits in GBDT into task-wise splits and benefits task-21 from other tasks' training samples. As a result, TSGB-4 boosts AUC on task-21 on the fourth tree and achieves better performance than GBDT when it converges (Fig.~\ref{fig:case-study}).
\section{Application: online diabetes risk assessment software}\label{sec:application}
Rui-Ning Diabetes Risk Assessment is a professional diabetes prediction platform developed by 4Paradigm Inc. It predicts the risk score of healthy people suffering type-2 diabetes in the coming 3 years based on the proposed TSGB. We normalize the model output probability to 1-100 as the risk score.
To make users understand better, we sort the risk score into 4 intervals, 1-30 for good, 31-60 for risk, 61-90 for high-risk, and 91-100 for dangerous.
Beyond that, we also provide key risk factors analysis and corresponding personalized health tips to help the early prevention of type-2 diabetes and guides daily health management.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./figs/ruining_kdd_v3.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Demonstration of Rui-Ning Diabetes Risk Assessment software workflow.}
\label{fig:ruining}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure*}
To start a test, the users need to fill in a questionnaire about their living habits and several medical indicators which can be done within 1 minute (Fig.~\ref{fig:ruining}). We would like to emphasize that, for a rapid prediction, it is impossible to ask users to provide all 50-dimensional features as the training set in practice. Therefore, we select 13 of 50 dimensions, which are the most informative and easy to obtain in medical testing, as the content of the questionnaire (Details in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_C}). The characteristics of tree model in dealing with missing features naturally ensure the performance.
In order to evaluate and analyze the performance of Rui-Ning Diabetes Risk Assessment, we employed another 880 healthy volunteers from different regions of China to complete the assessment, then we follow-up visited the volunteers three years later to record whether they get diabetes or not, finally formed the testing data.
As we known, to deploy a binary classification model in a real world scenario, the classification threshold is important. In healthcare domain, the threshold usually be set according to the specific needs. For an example, tumor screening hopes to screen out all positive suspicious, thus tumor screening model focuses on a high sensitivity, which leads high screening costs and relatively low precision. However, in the field of diabetes, it is not the case. For large-scale population, we need to consider the actual economic cost. We must improve the specificity on a certain sensitivity to reduce the actual cost.
To determine the best threshold for Rui-Ning Diabetes Risk Assessment, we plot the P-R curve as in Figure~\ref{fig:test_pr/roc}(a). We can see, when take 42 as the threshold (risk score greater than 42 will be predicted as positive sample), the model has appreciated performance. Based on this threshold, we evaluate the software with multiple indexes as shown in Table~\ref{tab:ruining_eval}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Evaluation of deployed software.}
\vspace{-10pt}
\resizebox{0.35\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Accuracy & Precision & Recall & F1-score & AUC\\
\midrule
0.7508 & 0.6040 & 0.6354 & 0.6193 & 0.7830 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:ruining_eval}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{table}
We then compared the performance of our deployed software with an existing diabetes risk prediction system. To our best knowledge, there are not other open-source softwares that provide diabetes risk assessment in industry, so we employ a traditional rule based diabetes risk scoring method CDS \cite{zhou2013nonlaboratory}, which is a regional authoritative diabetes risk assessment method recommended by Chinese Medical Association, as the main object of comparison.
We plot the ROC curve of our deployment and CDS in Figure~\ref{fig:test_pr/roc}(b).
Rui-Ning significantly improves the AUC from 0.6180 to 0.7963.
The slightly improvement on sensitivity ensures the detection rate of diabetes, while the greatly improvement on the specificity can significantly reduce the cost of screening, which provides a practical and effective prevention and control program in China, a developing country with tight average medical expenses.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figs/test_pr}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figs/test_roc}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{(a) P-R curve for threshold determination, (b) ROC comparison between Rui-Ning and CDS.}
\vspace{-10pt}
\label{fig:test_pr/roc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./figs/performance}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Statistical analysis of user data. (a) Gender distribution, (b) Age distribution, (c) Prediction risk score, (d) Positive rates in different risk groups.}
\label{fig:ruining_stat}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
Rui-Ning Diabetes Risk Assessment aims at providing an efficient and low-cost scheme for huge-scale screening of diabetes, it has been used in different organizations such as physical examination centers, human resource departments and insurance institutes. The software is used by more than $48,000$ people after its deployment. The distribution of all users and their risk scores is illustrated as in Figure~\ref{fig:ruining_stat}(a,b,c). We also discuss the positive rates in different risk groups, the result is drawn in Figure~\ref{fig:ruining_stat}(d). $10.69\%$ of the people were diagnosed with diabetes three years after they were predicted to be in ``Good'' risk group, $28.38\%$ for ``Risk'', $65.71\%$ for ``High-risk'', and $84.00\%$ for ``Dangerous'', which further verified the effectiveness of the deployment software.
\section{Related Works}
\textbf{Multi-Task Learning}.
\textit{Multi-task learning} (MTL) \cite{zhang2017survey} aims to make use of data obtained from multiple related tasks to improve the model performance on all the tasks. MTL helps in many domains under plenty of situations, especially when the amount of data for one learning task is limited, or the cost of collecting data is high.
Consider the types of learning tasks, MTL can be categorized into two sets. Homogeneous MTL deals with learning tasks of the same data space but with different distributions \cite{kumar2012learning}, which is the case discussed in this paper, while heterogeneous MTL processes various types of learning tasks (e.g., classification, regression) \cite{jin2015heterogeneous}.
MTL can also be categorized by the form of knowledge sharing among the tasks. Feature-based MTL learns common features among tasks \cite{argyriou2007multi,maurer2013sparse}, while parameter-based MTL usually leverages the parameter of model from a task to benefit the models from other tasks \cite{ando2005framework,evgeniou2004regularized}.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textbf{Tree-based Model in MTL}.
There are a few previous works focused on tree-based models related to MTL. In \cite{goussies2014transfer},
a mixed information gain is defined to leverage the knowledge from multiple tasks to train a better learner for a target domain, thus this is not an MTL algorithm but a transfer learning algorithm. The reason why such multiple source domain adaptation algorithms of transfer learning are not suitable for this multi-task diabetes prediction task is that, the setting of transfer learning aims at using knowledge from multiple source domains to improve the performance on target domain, however here we aim at improving performance on every task but not only one task of target domain. Of course we can train several multiple source domain transfer learning models so that improve the performance for every single task, but there is no doubt that such methods are computational expensive and not elegant. An MTL algorithm with boosted decision tree is proposed in \cite{faddoul2012learning}, but it is designed for heterogeneous MTL i.e., the tasks share the same data but with different labels set for each task.
The two previous works which solve the same MTL problem studied in this paper are Multi-task boosting (MT-B) \cite{chapelle2010multi} and Multi-Task ExtraTrees (MT-ET) \cite{simm2014tree}.
The main drawback of MT-B is its computational complexity since it trains $T+1$ forests, and despite being simple and direct, it derives low empirical performance.
In MT-ET, the authors propose to perform a random task split under some predefined probability.
The task split is conducted by sorting the tasks by their ratio of positive samples at this node and find the best split threshold with the highest information gain.
The disadvantage of MT-ET is that the decision of task split is randomly determined and is thus not reasonable since it fails to leverage any task related information, we have verified this through experiments of TSGB$_{\lambda}$.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed the novel Task-wise Split Gradient Boosting Trees (TSGB) model, which extends GBDT to multi-task settings to better leverage data collected from different medical centers. TSGB outperforms several strong baseline models and achieves the best performance in our diabetes prediction task. Moreover, experiments in multi-domain sentiment dataset also show the effectiveness of TSGB in general MTL tasks.
The discussion further supports our analysis of task gain and negative task gain problem and provides insights of tree-based models in MTL.
We deployed and productized our online diabetes prediction software Rui-Ning Diabetes Risk Assessment based on proposed TSGB.
The online software has been widely used by a considerable number of people from different organizations. We have also published our code of TSGB which will help in algorithm reproducibility. Current limitation of TSGB is that when to execute task-wisely is controlled by a predefined hyperparameter of threshold ratio $R$ and needs proper setting.
For future work, we focus on further study the negative transfer problem and hope to explore the possibility of making decision of when to perform task-wise split via reinforcement learning.
\begin{acks}
The project is supported by National Key Research and Development Program of Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (2016YFC1305600, 2018YFC1311800), National Natural Science Foundation of China (82070880, 81771937, 61772333) and Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (2021SHZDZX0102).
\end{acks}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Newman-Penrose null tetrad or pseudo-orthornormal basis is a mathematical formalism applied to General Relativity that is very useful to construct and analyze the exact solutions of Einstein's field equations. This mathematical formalism was first proposed by Newman and Penrose in the year of 1962 \cite{Newman} and since then several researchers have used this mathematical formalism in the description of exact solutions of General Relativity \cite{Kramer, Griffiths}. In General Relativity there are mathematical objects skew-symmetric in one or two pairs of indices, for instance, the field-strenght tensor of electromagnetism and the Riemann curvature tensor. These antisymmetric tensors of second order can be associated to a bivector, 2-form, determined by exterior product,
\begin{equation}
\label{bivector}
{\bm X} = X_{\mu\nu}~dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu}.
\end{equation}
There are several difficulties to understand the Newman-Penrose null tetrad applied to skew-symmetric bivectors, such as the electromagnetic tensor and the Weyl tensor, that one observe that since the pioneering work of Newman and Penrose to the classical reference of H. Stephani et al. \cite{Kramer} they did not present some important details. For the use of the bivectors in the General Relativity with Newman-Penrose formalism, it is necessary to introduce a basis to bivector space. It is obtained with the aid of the electromagnetic field tensor and from this on, the basis of bivector space can be extended to the Weyl curvature tensor.
When converting the complex self-dual electromagnetic field to a bivector in Newman-Penrose formalism, it is possible to write the Maxwell equations in terms of the spin coefficients of Newman-Penrose, the known equations of Newman-Penrose equations of electromagnetism. Writing beyond, one can obtain the complex coefficients of the Weyl tensor in Newman-Penrose formalism. These details are matters to be discussed in this review.
\section{The Newman-Penrose coordinate system}
Our focus is on Riemannian manifold with Lorentzian signature of spacetime metric: $(-+++)$, where $\{{\bm E}_{\mu}\} = \left\{\dfrac{\partial}{\partial t},\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x}, \dfrac{\partial}{\partial y},\dfrac{\partial}{\partial z} \right\}$ is an orthornormal tetrad of the Lorentz frame, with Greek letter span $\mu = 0,1,2,3$ and with its dual basis $dx^{0}=dt$, $dx^{1}=dx$, $dx^{2}=dy$ and $dx^{3}=dz$.
From orthornormal tetrad of the Lorentz frame, we can express a non-coordinate basis of vectors in a system of locally inertial coordinate by linear combinations $\hat{\bm e}_{\alpha} = {e_{\alpha}}^{\mu} {{\bm E}_{\mu}} $, where $\alpha$ is an index of the pseudo-orthornormal basis or null tetrad formalism due to Newman and Penrose \cite{Newman, Kramer, Griffiths, Wytler1} and $\mu$ is an index of the coordinate basis.
Thus, we introduce a pseudo-orthornormal basis or null tetrad formalism due to Newman and Penrose \cite{Newman, Kramer, Griffiths, Wytler1}, where $\{\hat{\bm e}_{\alpha} \} = \{ \bm{k}, \bm{l}, \bm{m}, \bar{\bm m} \}$ is defined by,
\begin{equation}
\label{vector_basis}
\begin{cases}
\hat{\bm e}_{0} = \bm{k} = {e_{0}}^{\mu} {{\bm E}_{\mu}} = k^{\mu} \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}},\\[8pt]
\hat{\bm e}_{1} = \bm{l} = {e_{1}}^{\mu} {{\bm E}_{\mu}} =l^{\mu} \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}},\\[8pt]
\hat{\bm e}_{2} = \bm{m} = {e_{2}}^{\mu} {{\bm E}_{\mu}} = m^{\mu} \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}},\\[8pt]
\hat{\bm e}_{3} = \bar{\bm m} = {e_{3}}^{\mu} {{\bm E}_{\mu}} = \bar{m}^{\mu} \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The coordinate changes between orthornormal tetrad of the Lorentz frame and pseudo-orthornormal Newman-Penrose frame are
\begin{equation}
u = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(t-x)\hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} v = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(t+x), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where the variables $u$ and $v$ are retarded and advanced null coordinates.
In similar way, the $yz$-plane is parameterized in terms of the complex coordinate,
\begin{equation}
\zeta = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(y+ iz)\hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} \bar{\zeta} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(y-iz). \nonumber
\end{equation}
With these, in a coordinate basis \cite{Wytler1}, we can write the tetrad field $k^{\mu}, l^{\mu}, m^{\mu}$ and $\bar{m}^{\mu}$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{coordinate_basis_vector}
(k^{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 \cr 1 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix}, \hspace*{1cm}
(l^{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 \cr -1 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix}, \hspace*{1cm}
(m^{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 \cr 0 \cr 1 \cr -i
\end{pmatrix}, \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm}
(\bar{m}^{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 \cr 0 \cr 1 \cr i
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The elements ${e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}$ can be put in a matrix, where $\alpha$ is the index of matrix line and $\mu$ is the index of matrix column, thus we have that,
\begin{equation}
\label{e_matrix}
({e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
1 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & -i \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & i
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
With this matrix we obtain relationship between pseudo-orthornormal Newman-Penrose frame and orthornormal Minkowski frame by $\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^{\alpha}} = ({e_{\alpha}}^{\mu})\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}$, resulting in
\begin{equation}
\label{coordinate_basis_vector_2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial v} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right), \hspace*{0.5cm} \frac{\partial}{\partial u} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right), \hspace*{0.5cm}\frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y} -i \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right) \hspace*{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{0.5cm} \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{\zeta}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y} +i \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right).
\end{equation}
With these we obtain the rule, $\dfrac{\partial v}{\partial v} = \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial u} = \dfrac{\partial\zeta}{\partial \zeta} = \dfrac{\partial \bar{\zeta}}{\partial \bar{\zeta}} = 1$.
The dual basis, the 1-form are given by $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} = {\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{NP_basis_dual_vector_00}
\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} = dv = dt+dx, \hspace*{0.5cm}\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1} = du = dt - dx, \hspace*{0.5cm}\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} = d\zeta = dy + i dz, \hspace*{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{0.5cm}\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3} = d\bar{\zeta} = dy - idz.
\end{equation}
We can represent the matrix $({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu})$ as,
\begin{equation}
\label{omega_matrix}
({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
1 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & i \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & -i
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and again we have that $\alpha$ is the index of matrix line and $\mu$ is the index of matrix column. Observe that we put the transposed matrix of $({e_{\alpha}}^{\mu})$ as $({e^{\mu}}_{\alpha})$ we obtain that the matrix product $({e^{\mu}}_{\alpha}) ({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\nu})$ results in the identity matrix $({\delta^{\mu}}_{\nu})$.
It is important to note that
\begin{equation}
\label{complex_conjugate_1-form}
\overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}} =\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2}.
\end{equation}
When one apply the complex conjugate operation on a tensor that contains indices 2 and 3, it will result in an exchange of index 2 by 3 and index 3 by 2, for instance, $\overline{\bm \Gamma}_{02} = {\bm \Gamma}_{03}$.
The complex null tetrad dual basis is related to an orthornormal basis by
\begin{equation}
\label{dual_basis}
\begin{cases}
\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} = {\omega^{0}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu} = -l_{\mu} dx^{\mu} \cr
\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1} = {\omega^{1}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu} = -k_{\mu} dx^{\mu} \cr
\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} = {\omega^{2}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu} = \bar{m}_{\mu} dx^{\mu} \cr
\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} = {\omega^{3}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu} = m_{\mu} dx^{\mu}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In the Minkowski frame we have that $ k_{\mu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} k^{\mu}$, $ l_{\mu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} l^{\mu}$, $ m_{\mu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} m^{\mu}$ and $ \bar{m}_{\mu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} \bar{m}^{\mu}$ such taht,
\begin{equation}
\label{coordinate_basis_dual_vector}
(l_{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} -1 \cr -1 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix}, \hspace*{1cm}
(k_{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} -1 \cr 1 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix}, \hspace*{1cm}
(m_{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 \cr 0 \cr 1 \cr -i
\end{pmatrix}, \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm}
(\bar{m}_{\mu}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 \cr 0 \cr 1 \cr i
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The only nonzero contractions between (\ref{coordinate_basis_vector}) and (\ref{coordinate_basis_dual_vector}) are $k^{\mu}l_{\mu} = -1$ and $m^{\mu}\bar{m}_{\mu} = 1$.
In the pseudo-orthornormal Newman-Penrose non-coordinate basis, the tetrad field terms $k^{\alpha}$, $l^{\alpha}$, $m^{\alpha}$ and $\bar{m}^{\alpha}$ in matrix form with aid of equation (\ref{omega_matrix}) are given by $(k^{\alpha}) = ({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu})(k^{\mu})$, $(l^{\alpha}) = ({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu})(l^{\mu})$, $(m^{\alpha}) = ({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu})(m^{\mu})$ and $(\bar{m}^{\alpha}) = ({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu})(\bar{m}^{\mu})$ where we obtain the below column matrices,
\begin{equation}
\label{NP_basis_vector}
(k^{\alpha})= \begin{pmatrix}
1 \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix},
\hspace*{1cm}
(l^{\alpha})= \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr 1 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix},
\hspace*{1cm}
(m^{\alpha})= \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr 0 \cr 1 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix}
\hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm}
(\bar{m}^{\alpha})= \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr 1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
In this approach we use $\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^{\alpha}} = \left(\dfrac{\partial}{\partial v},\dfrac{\partial}{\partial u}, \dfrac{\partial}{\partial \zeta},\dfrac{\partial}{\partial \bar{\zeta}} \right)$.
The covariant terms $k_{\alpha}$, $l_{\alpha}$, $m_{\alpha}$ and $\bar{m}_{\alpha}$ in the pseudo-orthornormal Newman-Penrose non-coordinate basis are obtained with aid of equation (\ref{e_matrix}) where in matrix form are given by $(k_{\alpha}) = ({e_{\alpha}}^{\mu})(k_{\mu})$, $(l^{\alpha}) = ({e_{\alpha}}^{\mu})(l_{\mu})$, $(m^{\alpha}) = ({e_{\alpha}}^{\mu})(m_{\mu})$ and $(\bar{m}^{\alpha}) = ({e_{\alpha}}^{\mu})(\bar{m}_{\mu})$ ,
\begin{equation}
\label{NP_basis_dual_vector}
(k_{\alpha})= \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr -1 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix},
\hspace*{1cm}
(l_{\alpha})= \begin{pmatrix}
-1 \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix},
\hspace*{1cm}
(m_{\alpha})= \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr 0 \cr 0 \cr 1
\end{pmatrix}
\hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm}
(\bar{m}_{\alpha})= \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr 0 \cr 1 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where in this approach we use $dx^{\alpha} = (dv, du, d\zeta, d\bar{\zeta})$.
The orthogonality identity below is valid for the Newman-Penrose coordinate,
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{\bm e}_{\alpha} ,\tilde{\bm \theta}^{\beta} \rangle ={\delta_{\alpha}}^{\beta},
\end{equation}
with condition ${e_{\alpha}}^{\mu} {\omega^{\beta}}_{\mu} ={\delta_{\alpha}}^{\beta}$.
The only nonzero contractions between (\ref{NP_basis_vector}) and (\ref{NP_basis_dual_vector}) are
\begin{equation}
\label{contraction_tetrad}
k^{\alpha}l_{\alpha} = l^{\alpha}k_{\alpha} = -1 \hspace*{1cm}\mbox{and}
\hspace*{1cm} m^{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\alpha} = \bar{m}^{\alpha}m_{\alpha} = 1.
\end{equation}
The metric tensor is defined by,
\begin{equation}
\label{metric_N-P_01}
{\bm \gamma} = -2\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \otimes\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1} + 2\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \otimes\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
The components of the metric tensor in Newman-Penrose basis are displayed,
\begin{equation}
\label{components_g_0}
(\gamma_{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\hspace*{0.5cm}
\mbox{and the inverse matrix}
\hspace*{0.5cm}
(\gamma^{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
satisfying $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}\gamma^{\beta\epsilon} = {\delta_{\alpha}}^{\epsilon}$.
The relationship between a metric in a coordinate basis and the rigid frame of pseudo-orthornormal basis of Newman-Penrose formalism are given with aid of tetrad field matrices ${e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}$ and ${\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
{e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}{e_{\beta}}^{\nu} g_{\mu\nu} = \gamma_{\alpha\beta} \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} {\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu}{\omega^{\beta}}_{\nu}\gamma_{\alpha\beta} = g_{\mu\nu}.
\end{equation}
The components metric tensor in the pseudo-orthornormal Newman-Penrose non-coordinate basis are,
\begin{equation}
\label{components_g_1}
\gamma_{\alpha\beta} = -\left(l_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + l_{\beta}k_{\alpha} \right)+
\left(m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + m_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\alpha} \right).
\end{equation}
In order to obtain the dual bivector in Newman-Penrose formalism, it is necessary to define the Levi-Civita 4-form. We choose an oriented basis in an orthornormal Minkowski tetrad $\{dx^{\mu}\}$ where the Levi-Civita 4-form is a volume element measure in Minkowski spacetime defined by \cite{Kramer, Hawking, De Felice},
\begin{equation}
\label{Levi_Civita_4-form_Minkowski}
{\bm \epsilon} = 4!~dx^{0} \wedge dx^{1} \wedge dx^{2} \wedge dx^{3}.
\end{equation}
This 4-form has components,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} = 4!~{\delta^{0}}_{[\mu}{\delta^{1}}_{\nu}{\delta^{2}}_{\rho}{\delta^{3}}_{\sigma]} = \left({\delta^{0}}_{\mu}{\delta^{1}}_{\nu}{\delta^{2}}_{\rho}{\delta^{3}}_{\sigma} - {\delta^{0}}_{\mu}{\delta^{1}}_{\nu}{\delta^{3}}_{\rho}{\delta^{2}}_{\sigma} + \cdots + {\delta^{4}}_{\mu}{\delta^{3}}_{\nu}{\delta^{2}}_{\rho}{\delta^{1}}_{\sigma} - {\delta^{4}}_{\mu}{\delta^{3}}_{\nu}{\delta^{1}}_{\rho}{\delta^{2}}_{\sigma}\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
and we have that,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{0123} = +1. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can relate the existence of the metric to define in a coordinate basis the 4-form of a volume element,
\begin{equation}
\label{Levi_Civita_4-form_NP_01}
{\bm \eta} = \sqrt{-g}~ {\bm\epsilon},
\end{equation}
where $\sqrt{-g} = \sqrt{-\det(g_{\mu\nu})}$. Thus, the the components of the 4-form $\bm{\eta}$ can be write as,
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} = \sqrt{-g}~\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Transforming this in Newman-Penrose coordinates by use of tetrads ${e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}$ we have,
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = \eta_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}{e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}{e_{\beta}}^{\nu}{e_{\gamma}}^{\rho}{e_{\delta}}^{\sigma} = \sqrt{-g}~\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}{e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}{e_{\beta}}^{\nu}{e_{\gamma}}^{\rho}{e_{\delta}}^{\sigma} \nonumber.
\end{equation}
And then we can compute $\eta_{0123}$ such as,
\begin{equation}
\eta_{0123} = \sqrt{-g}~\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}{e_{0}}^{\mu}{e_{1}}^{\nu}{e_{2}}^{\rho}{e_{3}}^{\sigma} = \sqrt{-g}~\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}~k^{\mu}l^{\nu}m^{\rho}\bar{m}^{\sigma} \nonumber,
\end{equation}
where we use the fact that ${e_{0}}^{\mu} = k^{\mu}$, ${e_{1}}^{\mu} = l^{\mu}$, ${e_{2}}^{\mu} = m^{\mu}$ and ${e_{3}}^{\mu} = \bar{m}^{\mu}$ and we have that,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}~k^{\mu}l^{\nu}m^{\rho}\bar{m}^{\sigma} = \epsilon_{0123}k^{0}l^{1}m^{2}\bar{m}^{3} + \cdots + \epsilon_{1032}k^{1}l^{0}m^{3}\bar{m}^{2} = -i. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can relate the pseudo-orthornormal Newman-Penrose basis with orthornormal Minkowski basis with $g_{\mu\nu} = \mbox{diag}(-1,1,1,1)$ where $\sqrt{-g} = 1$ and we have that $\eta_{0123} = -i$. Thus, the components of Levi-Civita 4-form are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Levi_Civita_4-form_NP_02}
\eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = \begin{cases}
-i, \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{for even permutations of 0, 1, 2, 3} \cr
+i, \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{for odd permutations of 0, 1, 2, 3.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Newman and Penrose classify 12 independent complex linear combination of the Ricci rotation coefficients and called {\it spin coefficients}
as follows \cite{Wytler1},
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_01}
-\kappa = \Gamma_{200} = \bar{\Gamma}_{300} = m^{\mu} k^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} k_{\mu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_02}
-\rho = \Gamma_{320} = \bar{\Gamma}_{230} = m^{\mu} \bar{m}^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} k_{\mu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_03}
-\sigma = \Gamma_{220} = \bar{\Gamma}_{330} = m^{\mu} m^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} k_{\mu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_04}
-\tau = \Gamma_{210} = \bar{\Gamma}_{310} = m^{\mu} l^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} k_{\mu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_05}
\nu = \Gamma_{311} = \bar{\Gamma}_{211}= \bar{m}^{\mu} l^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} l_{\mu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_06}
\mu = \Gamma_{321} = \bar{\Gamma}_{231} =\bar{m}^{\mu} m^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} l_{\mu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_07}
\lambda = \Gamma_{331} = \bar{\Gamma}_{211} = \bar{m}^{\mu} \bar{m}^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} l_{\mu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_08}
\pi = \Gamma_{301} = \bar{\Gamma}_{201} = \bar{m}^{\mu} k^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} l_{\mu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_09}
-\epsilon =\frac{1}{2}\left(\Gamma_{100} - \Gamma_{302} \right) =
\frac{1}{2}\left ( l^{\mu} k^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} k_{\mu} - \bar{m}^{\mu} k^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} m_{\mu} \right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_10}
-\beta =\frac{1}{2}\left(\Gamma_{120} - \Gamma_{322} \right) =
\frac{1}{2}\left ( l^{\mu} m^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} k_{\mu} - \bar{m}^{\mu} m^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} m_{\mu} \right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_11}
\gamma =\frac{1}{2}\left(\Gamma_{011} - \Gamma_{213} \right) =
\frac{1}{2}\left ( k^{\mu} l^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} l_{\mu} - m^{\mu} l^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} \bar{m}_{\mu} \right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{spin_coefficient_12}
\alpha = \frac{1}{2}\left(\Gamma_{031} - \Gamma_{233} \right) =
\frac{1}{2}\left ( k^{\mu} \bar{m}^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} l_{\mu} - m^{\mu} \bar{m}^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu} \bar{m}_{\mu} \right).
\end{equation}
In the Newman-Penrose formalism it is efficient to use Cartan's method for the calculation of curvature. First, we must calculate the connection 1-forms by use of first Cartan's structure equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_equacao_de_Cartan}
\begin{cases}
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^0 = {\bm \Gamma}_{01}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + {\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^2
+ \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12} \wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^3, \cr
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 = {\bm \Gamma}_{01}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1 + {\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2
+ \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3, \cr
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^2 = \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1
+ {\bm \Gamma}_{23}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then we must use the second Cartan's structure equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_equacao_de_Cartan}
\begin{cases}
\bm \Theta_{03} = d\bm\Gamma_{03} + {\bm \Gamma}_{03} \wedge ( \bm\Gamma_{01}+ \bm \Gamma_{23}),\cr
\bm \Theta_{12} = d\bm\Gamma_{12} - \bm\Gamma_{12} \wedge (\bm\Gamma_{01} + \bm \Gamma_{23} ),\cr
\bm \Theta_{01} + \bm \Theta_{23} = d( \bm\Gamma_{01}+ \bm\Gamma_{23}) - 2\bm \Gamma_{03}\wedge \bm\Gamma_{12},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
that yelds the curvature 2-forms $\bm{\Theta}_{\alpha\beta} = \dfrac{1}{2} R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\gamma} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\delta}$.
The above system of curvature 2-forms has proved very useful in Newman-Penrose formalism, where exact solutions of Einstein equations are obtained \cite{Kramer, Griffiths}.
\section{Electromagnetism in Newman-Penrose formalism}
The electromagnetic field is described by a vector potential $A_{\mu} = (\phi,A_x,A_y,A_z)$ where the field-strenght tensor of electromagnetic field is given by $F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}$, where it is antisymmetric tensor, $F_{\mu\nu} = -F_{\nu\mu}$. In a Minkowski frame the electromagnetic field-strenght tensor can be displayed in matrix form as \cite{Wytler2},
\begin{equation}
\label{electromagnetic_field-strenght}
(F_{\mu\nu}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -E_x & - E_y & -E_z \cr
E_x & 0 & B_z & - B_y \cr
E_y & -B_z & 0 & B_x \cr
E_z & B_y & -B_x & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
It is stand out that in the field-strenght tensor of electromagnetic we have the components of 3-vector electric $\bm{E} = (E_x, E_y, E_z)$ and 3-vector magnectic $\bm{B} = (B_x, B_y, B_z)$.
\subsection{Bivectors and duality}
In accordance with definition (\ref{bivector}), a bivector is a antisymmetric tensor, and the dual bivector, also antisymmetric tensor, is a pseudotensor . In an orthornormal Minkowski basis the components of a pseudotensor is defined by,
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{F}_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F^{\rho\sigma}.
\end{equation}
With $\epsilon_{0123} = 1$ we have the dual electromagnetic bivector as
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{F}_{\mu\nu} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & B_x & B_y & B_z \cr
-B_x & 0 & E_z & - E_y \cr
-B_y & -E_z & 0 & E_x \cr
-B_z & E_y & -E_x & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
A complex bivector is defined by,
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu} = F_{\mu\nu} + i \widetilde{F}_{\mu\nu},
\end{equation}
such that it is self-dual \cite{Wytler2},
\begin{equation}
\label{sel-dual_property_1}
\widetilde{\cal F}_{\mu\nu} = - i {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}.
\end{equation}
In an inertial frame in which the observer is at rest, the four-velocity is $u^{\mu} = (1,0,0,0)$. If we project the electromagnetic complex bivector ${\cal F}_{\mu\nu} $ in the direction of the timelike unit vector $u^{\mu}$, we have,
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}u^{\nu} = F_{\mu} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr F_x \cr F_y \cr F_z
\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr E_x - i B_x \cr E_y - i B_y \cr E_z - i B_z
\end{pmatrix} .
\end{equation}
It is very useful to define,
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_I}
I_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} = \frac{1}{4} \left(g_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}+ i \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \right)
\end{equation}
where $g_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} = g_{\mu\rho} g_{\nu\sigma} - g_{\mu\sigma} g_{\nu\rho} $. With this tensor we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_I_F_1}
I_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F^{\rho\sigma} =
\frac{1}{4} \left(g_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}+ i \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \right)F^{\rho\sigma} =
\frac{1}{4} \left(2F_{\mu\nu} + i2\widetilde{F}_{\mu\nu} \right)=
\frac{1}{2} {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}.
\end{equation}
We obtain too,
\begin{equation}
I_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}{\cal F}^{\rho\sigma} =
\frac{1}{4} \left(g_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}+ i \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \right){\cal F}^{\rho\sigma} =
\frac{1}{4} \left(2{\cal F}_{\mu\nu} + i2\widetilde{\cal F}_{\mu\nu} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
with the self-dual property from equation(\ref{sel-dual_property_1}), we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_I_F_2}
I_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}{\cal F}^{\rho\sigma} = {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}.
\end{equation}
It is useful to calculate the contraction,
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}I^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} &=& \frac{1}{4} \left(g_{\mu\rho} g_{\nu\sigma} - g_{\mu\sigma} g_{\nu\rho} + i \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \right)\cdot \frac{1}{4} \left(g^{\mu\rho} g^{\nu\sigma} - g^{\mu\sigma} g^{\nu\rho} + i \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \right)\cr
&=& \frac{1}{16} \bigg( g_{\mu\rho} g_{\nu\sigma}g^{\mu\rho} g^{\nu\sigma} - g_{\mu\rho} g_{\nu\sigma}g^{\mu\sigma} g^{\nu\rho} - g_{\mu\sigma} g_{\nu\rho}g^{\mu\rho} g^{\nu\sigma} + g_{\mu\sigma} g_{\nu\rho} g^{\mu\sigma} g^{\nu\rho} \cr
& &+i g_{\mu\rho} g_{\nu\sigma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} -i g_{\mu\sigma} g_{\nu\rho}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} + i g^{\mu\rho} g^{\nu\sigma} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}-i g^{\mu\sigma} g^{\nu\rho}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} - \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \bigg), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for every contraction $g_{\mu\rho} g_{\nu\sigma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} =0$ and for $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=-24 $, it results in
\begin{equation}
\label{contracao II}
I_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}I^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} = 3.
\end{equation}
In order to convert the field-strenght tensor of electromagnetic from Minkowski frame to the Newman-Penrose formalism we could take the definition $F_{\alpha\beta} = \partial_{\alpha} A_{\beta} - \partial_{\beta} A_{\alpha}$ and apply the non-coordinate basis, where $\partial_{\alpha} = {e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$ with components obtained in the equation (\ref{coordinate_basis_vector_2}) and $A_{\alpha} = {e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}A_{\mu} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi + A_x, \phi - A_x, A_y - iA_z, A_y + iA_z)$. For example,
\begin{equation}
F_{02} = \left( \partial_{v} A_{\zeta} - \partial_{\zeta} A_{v} \right) = \frac{1}{2}\left[( \partial_{t} + \partial_x)(A_y - i A_z) - (\partial_y - i\partial_z)(\phi + A_x) \right] = \frac{1}{2} \left[-(E_y-iB_y) + i(E_z-iB_z) \right]. \nonumber
\end{equation}
But instead of doing it this way, we can obtain the components of
field-strenght tensor of electromagnetic by $F_{\alpha\beta} = F_{\mu\nu}{e_{\alpha}}^{\mu}{e_{\beta}}^{\nu}$ by multiplying the corresponding matrices (\ref{electromagnetic_field-strenght}) and (\ref{e_matrix}) such that $(F_{\alpha\beta}) = ({e_{\alpha}}^{\mu})(F_{\mu\nu})({e^{\nu}}_{\beta})$, where the matrix $({e^{\nu}}_{\beta})$ is a transposed matrix of $({e_{\beta}}^{\nu})$. Thus we have that,
\begin{equation}
(F_{\alpha\beta}) = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
1 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & -i \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & i
\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -E_x & - E_y & -E_z \cr
E_x & 0 & B_z & - B_y \cr
E_y & -B_z & 0 & B_x \cr
E_z & B_y & -B_x & 0
\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
1 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \cr
0 & 0 & -i & i
\end{pmatrix}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
then the field-strenght tensor of electromagnetic field in Newman-Penrose formalism results in
\begin{equation}
\label{electromagnetic_field-strenght_NP}
(F_{\alpha\beta}) = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 2E_x & -F_y + iF_z & -\bar{F}_y - i \bar{F}_z \cr
-2E_x & 0 & -\bar{F}_y + i \bar{F}_z & -F_y - iF_z \cr
F_y - iF_z & \bar{F}_y - i \bar{F}_z & 0 & 2i B_x \cr
\bar{F}_y + i \bar{F}_z & F_y + iF_z & -2iB_x & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $F_y = E_y -i B_y$ and $ F_z = E_z - i B_z$. We must note that $F_{03} = \bar{F}_{02}$ and $F_{13} = \bar{F}_{12}$. Based on this result, we can advance in discussions about complex self-dual electromagnetic field.
\subsection{The Lorentz invariants, complex self-dual electromagnetic field and definitions of bivectors in Newman-Penrose non-coordinate basis}
The laws of Physics in the Minkowski spacetime are invariant under Lorents transformations, that are linear and performing transformations between the coordinates of a local inertial frame ${\cal O}$ and other local inertial frame ${\cal O}'$ expressed for electromagnetic field tensor by $F'^{\alpha\beta} = {\Lambda^{\alpha}}_{\gamma}{\Lambda^{\beta}}_{\delta}F^{\gamma\delta}$, where it results in two Lorentz invariants. Several details about this topic are covered in this reference \cite{Wytler2}.
The first Lorentz invariant is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{Invariant_1}
I_1=\frac{1}{2} F_{\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta}
\end{equation}
where we can start with the covariant tensor of eletromagnetic field
\begin{equation}
\label{electromagnetic_tensor}
(F_{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & F_{01} & F_{02} & F_{03} \cr
-F_{01} & 0 & F_{12} & F_{13} \cr
-F_{02} & -F_{12} & 0 & F_{23} \cr
-F_{03} & -F_{13} & -F_{23} & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The first Lorentz invariant (\ref{Invariant_1}) in Newman-Penrose coordinate basis is obtained when we calculate the contravariant tensor of eletromagnetic field in Newman-Penrose system to contract with covariante (\ref{electromagnetic_tensor}). Therefore, the contravariant tensor of eletromagnetic field in Newman-Penrose system is given with aid of metric tensor in Newman-Penrose coordinate basis (\ref{components_g_0}),
\begin{equation}
F^{\alpha\beta} = \gamma^{\alpha\delta}F_{\delta\epsilon}\gamma^{\epsilon\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
such as
\begin{equation}
(F^{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & F_{01} & F_{02} & F_{03} \cr
-F_{01} & 0 & F_{12} & F_{13} \cr
-F_{02} & -F_{12} & 0 & F_{23} \cr
-F_{03} & -F_{13} & -F_{23} & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber
\end{equation}
thus, the contravariant tensor of eletromagnetic field is
\begin{equation}
(F^{\alpha\beta}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -F_{01} & -F_{13} & -F_{12} \cr
F_{01} & 0 & -F_{03} & -F_{02} \cr
F_{13} & F_{03} & 0 & -F_{23} \cr
F_{12} & -F_{02} & F_{23} & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We have that the first Lorentz invariant (\ref{Invariant_1}) is therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{Invariant_1A}
I_1 = -(F_{01})^2 - (F_{23})^2 - 2F_{02}F_{13} - 2F_{03}F_{12}.
\end{equation}
The second Lorentz invariant is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Invariant_2}
I_2=\frac{1}{2} \widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
Now the dual tensor $\widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}$ in Newman-Penrose non-coordinate basis is given with aid of Levi-Civita tensor (\ref{Levi_Civita_4-form_NP_02}) by,
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
Thus, we have the values,
$$ \widetilde{F}_{01} = \eta_{0123}F^{23} = iF_{23}$$
$$ \widetilde{F}_{02} = \eta_{0213}F^{13} = -iF_{02}$$
$$ \widetilde{F}_{03} = \eta_{0312}F^{12} = iF_{03}$$
$$ \widetilde{F}_{12} = \eta_{1203}F^{03} = -iF_{12}$$
$$ \widetilde{F}_{13} = \eta_{1302}F^{02} = -iF_{13}$$
$$ \widetilde{F}_{23} = \eta_{2301}F^{01} = iF_{01}$$
Thus the dual of electromagnetic tensor is,
\begin{equation}
\label{dual_electromagnetic_NP}
(\widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}) = i \begin{pmatrix}
0 & F_{23} & -F_{02} & F_{03} \cr
-F_{23} & 0 & F_{12} & -F_{13} \cr
F_{02} & -F_{12} & 0 & F_{01} \cr
-F_{03} & F_{13} & -F_{01} & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
With this result we can write the second Lorentz invariant (\ref{Invariant_2}) sucha as
\begin{equation}
\label{Invariant_2A}
I_2=-2i(F_{01}F_{23} - F_{02}F_{13}+F_{03}F_{12}).
\end{equation}
The complete Lorentz invariant given by,
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = 2F_{\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta} + 2i \widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta} = 4I_1 + 4iI_2,
\end{equation}
results in
\begin{equation}
\label{Invariant_3}
{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = -4[(F_{01} - F_{23})^2 + 4 F_{02}F_{13}].
\end{equation}
With aid of the equations (\ref{electromagnetic_tensor}) and (\ref{dual_electromagnetic_NP}), the matrix of tensor ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{\alpha\beta} + i \widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}$ is displayed as
\begin{equation}
\label{matrix_complex_electomagnetic_tensor}
({\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & F_{01}-F_{23} & 2F_{02} & 0 \cr
-(F_{01} - F_{23}) & 0 & 0 & 2F_{13} \cr
-2F_{02} & 0 & 0 & -(F_{01}-F_{23}) \cr
0 & -2F_{13} & F_{01}-F_{23} & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The covariant tensor is calculated and displayed as
\begin{equation}
({\cal F}^{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -(F_{01}-F_{23}) & -2F_{13} & 0 \cr
F_{01} - F_{23} & 0 & 0 & -2F_{02} \cr
2F_{13} & 0 & 0 & F_{01}-F_{23} \cr
0 & 2F_{02} & -(F_{01}-F_{23}) & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We can calculate the dual tensor $\widetilde{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}$ and displayed as,
\begin{equation}
(\widetilde{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}) = -i \begin{pmatrix}
0 & F_{01}-F_{23} & 2F_{02} & 0 \cr
-(F_{01} - F_{23}) & 0 & 0 & 2F_{13} \cr
-2F_{02} & 0 & 0 & -(F_{01}-F_{23}) \cr
0 & -2F_{13} & F_{01}-F_{23} & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and we conclude that $\widetilde{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = -i {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}$, i.e. the complex electromagnetic is self-dual.
The electromagnetic bivector is defined as a 2-form,
\begin{equation}
\label{electromagnetic_2-form}
{\bm F} = \frac{1}{4} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}\, \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta},
\end{equation}
we can calculate in Newman-Penrose coordinate system, where we indentify from matrix (\ref{matrix_complex_electomagnetic_tensor}),
$${\cal F}_{01} = F_{01}-F_{23},$$
$${\cal F}_{02} = 2F_{02},$$
$${\cal F}_{13} = 2F_{13}$$
and
$${\cal F}_{23} = -(F_{01}-F_{23})$$
such they produce
\begin{equation}
{\bm F} = \frac{1}{2} \left[(F_{01} -F_{23})\, \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} + 2F_{02}\, \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} + 2F_{13}\, \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} - (F_{01} -F_{23})\, \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \right],\nonumber
\end{equation}
with $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = - \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} $ we can write it as
\begin{equation}
\label{bivector_NP_coordinate}
{\bm F} = F_{02}\, \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} - F_{13}\, \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} +
\frac{1}{2} (F_{01} -F_{23})(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} -\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3})
\end{equation}
A basis for a bivectorial space associated with the coordinates of Newman-Penrose system, can be built from above equation,
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
{\bm Z}^{1} = \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2}, \cr
{\bm Z}^{2} = \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}, \cr
{\bm Z}^{3} =\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} -\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
more complex conjugates of them form a base of the bivectorial space.
Let us use a coordinate system to guide the obtaining of the tensor components of the bivectors with aid of equations (\ref{dual_basis}), therefore we have for ${\bm Z}^{1} = \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2}$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} = (-l_{\mu} dx^{\mu})\wedge(\bar{m}_{\nu} dx^{\nu}) = -l_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu}\cdot \frac{1}{2}\left(dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu} - dx^{\nu}\wedge dx^{\mu}\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left(-l_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu}+ l_{\nu}\bar{m}_{\mu}\right)dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
so that we can define
\begin{equation}
\label{U1}
U_{\mu\nu} = -l_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu}+ l_{\nu}\bar{m}_{\mu},
\end{equation}
and we have
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} = \frac{1}{2} U_{\mu\nu}\, dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu}.
\end{equation}
The same work goes for $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} = \frac{1}{2}\left(k_{\mu}m_{\nu} - k_{\nu}m_{\mu}\right)dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu},
\end{equation}
with the definition
\begin{equation}
\label{V1}
V_{\mu\nu} = k_{\mu}m_{\nu} - k_{\nu}m_{\mu},
\end{equation}
and with equality,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} = \frac{1}{2} V_{\mu\nu}\, dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu}.
\end{equation}
Finally we calculate $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} -\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} -\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = \frac{1}{2} \left(l_{\mu}k_{\nu} - l_{\nu}k_{\mu} + m_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu} - m_{\nu}\bar{m}_{\mu} \right)dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu},
\end{equation}
with the definition
\begin{equation}
\label{W1}
W_{\mu\nu} = l_{\mu}k_{\nu} - l_{\nu}k_{\mu} + m_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu} - m_{\nu}\bar{m}_{\mu}
\end{equation}
and with equality,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} -\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = \frac{1}{2} W_{\mu\nu}\,dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu}.
\end{equation}
Let us represent the bivector $U_{\mu\nu}$ from equation (\ref{U1}) in Newman-Penrose coordinate system, where $U_{\alpha\beta} = -l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}+ l_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}$, with accordance with (\ref{NP_basis_dual_vector}) we have that the only two components non-nulls are, with $l_{0}=-1$ and $\bar{m}_{2} = 1$,
\begin{equation}
U_{02} = 1 \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} U_{20} = -1
\end{equation}
such that we have in matrix form,
\begin{equation}
(U_{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
The contravariant tensor in Newman-Penrose coordinate system is given by $U^{\alpha\beta} = -l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}+ l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} $ with only two components non-nulls,
\begin{equation}
U^{13} = -1 \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} U^{31} = 1
\end{equation}
such that we have this contravariant tensor in matrix shape,
\begin{equation}
(U^{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
It is important to notice that,
\begin{equation}
\label{contracao UU}
U_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} = 0.
\end{equation}
The dual tensor of the $U_{\alpha\beta}$, given by $\widetilde{U}_{\alpha\beta} = \dfrac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} U^{\gamma\delta}$ yields two nonzero components,
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{U}_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2} \eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \left(-l^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}+ l^{\delta}\bar{m}^{\gamma}\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left[ \eta_{\alpha\beta 13}(-l^{1}\bar{m}^{3}) + \eta_{\alpha\beta 31}(l^{1}\bar{m}^{3})\right] = \eta_{\alpha 1\beta 3},\nonumber
\end{equation}
that are
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{U}_{02} = -i \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} \widetilde{U}_{20} = i,
\end{equation}
where the matrix is given by,
\begin{equation}
(\widetilde{U}_{\alpha\beta}) = -i \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We have seen that the tensor $U_{\alpha\beta}$ obeys the auto-duality condition from equation(\ref{sel-dual_property_1}),
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{U}_{\alpha\beta} = -i U_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
In the same way, let us represent the bivector $V_{\mu\nu}$ from equation (\ref{V1}) in Newman-Penrose coordinate system, where $V_{\alpha\beta} = k_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - k_{\beta}m_{\alpha}$, with accordance with (\ref{NP_basis_dual_vector}) we have that the only two components non-nulls are, with $k_{1}=-1$ and $m_{3} = 1$,
\begin{equation}
V_{13} = -1 \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} V_{31} = 1
\end{equation}
such that we have in matrix form,
\begin{equation}
(V_{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
The contravariant tensor in Newman-Penrose coordinate system is given by $V^{\alpha\beta} = k^{\alpha} m^{\beta} - k^{\beta} m^{\alpha} $ with only two components non-nulls,
\begin{equation}
V^{02} = 1 \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} V^{20} = -1
\end{equation}
such that we have this contravariant tensor in matrix shape,
\begin{equation}
(V^{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
It is important to notice that,
\begin{equation}
V_{\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0,
\end{equation}
but the below contractions are non-nulls,
\begin{equation}
\label{contracao UV}
U_{\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta} = U^{\alpha\beta}V_{\alpha\beta} = 2.
\end{equation}
The dual tensor of the $V_{\alpha\beta}$, given by $\widetilde{V}_{\alpha\beta} = \dfrac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} V^{\gamma\delta}$ yields two nonzero components,
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{V}_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2} \eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \left(k^{\gamma} m^{\delta} - k^{\delta} m^{\gamma}\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left[ \eta_{0\alpha\beta 2}(k^{0} m^{2}) + \eta_{2\alpha\beta 0}(-k^{0} m^{2})\right] = \eta_{0 \alpha \beta 2},\nonumber
\end{equation}
that are
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{V}_{13} = i \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} \widetilde{V}_{31} = -i,
\end{equation}
where the matrix is given by,
\begin{equation}
(\widetilde{V}_{\alpha\beta}) = -i \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We have seen also that the tensor $V_{\alpha\beta}$ obeys the auto-duality condition from equation(\ref{sel-dual_property_1}),
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{V}_{\alpha\beta} = -i V_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
Finally let us see the tensor $W_{\alpha\beta} = l_{\alpha}k_{\beta} - l_{\beta}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - m_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}$ in Newman-Penrose coordinate system. In accordance with (\ref{NP_basis_dual_vector}) we have that the only two components non-nulls are, with $l_{0}=-1$, $k_{1} = -1$, $\bar{m}_{2} = 1$,
and $m_{3} =1$, such that,
\begin{equation}
W_{01} = - W_{10} =1 \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} W_{23} = -W_{32} = -1
\end{equation}
such that we have in matrix form,
\begin{equation}
(W_{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
The contravariant tensor in Newman-Penrose coordinate system is given by
$W^{\alpha\beta} = l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}$ with only two components non-nulls,
\begin{equation}
W^{01} = - W^{10} = -1 \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} W^{23} = -W^{32} = 1
\end{equation}
such that we have this contravariant tensor in matrix shape,
\begin{equation}
(W^{\alpha\beta}) = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr
0 & 0 & -1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
It is important to notice that,
\begin{equation}
\label{contracao UW VW}
U^{\alpha\beta} W_{\alpha\beta} = V^{\alpha\beta}W_{\alpha\beta} = 0
\end{equation}
but the below contractions are non-nulls,
\begin{equation}
\label{contracao WW}
W_{\alpha\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} = -4.
\end{equation}
The dual tensor $\widetilde{W}_{\alpha\beta} = \dfrac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} W^{\gamma\delta}$ yields four nonzero components,
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{W}_{\alpha\beta} = \eta_{01\alpha\beta} W^{01} + \eta_{\alpha\beta 23} W^{23} = \eta_{01\alpha\beta}(-1) + \eta_{\alpha\beta 23}(1) ,\nonumber
\end{equation}
that are
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{W}_{01} = -\widetilde{W}_{10} = -i \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} \widetilde{W}_{23} = -\widetilde{W}_{32} = i,
\end{equation}
where the matrix is given by,
\begin{equation}
(\widetilde{W}_{\alpha\beta}) = -i \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We have seen also that the tensor $W_{\alpha\beta}$ obeys the auto-duality condition from equation(\ref{sel-dual_property_1}),
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{W}_{\alpha\beta} = -i W_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
The tensors $U_{\alpha\beta}$, $V_{\alpha\beta}$ and $W_{\alpha\beta}$ form a base, where we can write any bivector as a linear combination of them. Thus the complex electromagnetic tensor ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}$ from equation (\ref{matrix_complex_electomagnetic_tensor}) can be write as,
\begin{equation}
\label{matrix_complex_electomagnetic_tensor_2}
{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = 2 F_{02} U_{\alpha\beta} - 2 F_{13}V_{\alpha\beta} + (F_{01}-F_{23})W_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
With this idea we can form a self-dual base of the complex bivectors by writing
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
{Z^{1}}_{\alpha\beta} = U_{\alpha\beta} \cr
{Z^{2}}_{\alpha\beta} = V_{\alpha\beta} \cr
{Z^{3}}_{\alpha\beta} = W_{\alpha\beta}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Like the equation (\ref{identidade_I}) we can introduce the tensor $I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = g_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + i\eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ in Newman-Penrose coordinates and similarly to equation (\ref{identidade_I_F_2}), with the self-duality, ${\widetilde{Z}^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} = - i {{Z}^{A}}_{\alpha\beta}$ with $A=1,2,3$, we have that,
\begin{equation}
I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{Z}^{A\,\gamma\delta} = {Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta},
\end{equation}
or then
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_I_1}
I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{U}^{\gamma\delta} = U_{\alpha\beta}, \hspace*{1cm}I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{V}^{\gamma\delta} = V_{\alpha\beta}\hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and}\hspace*{1cm} I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{W}^{\gamma\delta} = W_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
With these three equations and with results of equations (\ref{contracao UV}) and (\ref{contracao WW}), where the only non-null contractions that we can obtain is wrote as,
\begin{equation}
V^{\alpha\beta}I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{U}^{\gamma\delta} = V^{\alpha\beta}U_{\alpha\beta} = 2, \hspace*{1cm}
U^{\alpha\beta}I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{V}^{\gamma\delta} = U^{\alpha\beta}V_{\alpha\beta} =2 \hspace*{1cm}
\mbox{and}\hspace*{1cm}W^{\alpha\beta} I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{W}^{\gamma\delta} = W^{\alpha\beta}W_{\alpha\beta} = -4. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can rearrange these three equations as follows
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}V^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} = 1 \hspace*{1cm}
\frac{1}{2} I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} = 1 \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and}\hspace*{1cm}
-\frac{1}{4} I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} = 1, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and when we add the three equations we have
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{1}{2}\left( V^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} + U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta}\right) -\frac{1}{4}W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}\right] I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = 3.
\end{equation}
By comparing the above equation with the equation (\ref{contracao II}) we find that,
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_I_2}
I^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = \frac{1}{2}\left( V^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} + U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta}\right) -\frac{1}{4}W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}
\hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and}\hspace*{1cm}
I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = \frac{1}{2}\left( V_{\alpha\beta}U_{\gamma\delta} + U_{\alpha\beta}V_{\gamma\delta}\right) -\frac{1}{4}W_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
Note that using the above identity we can obtain the three equations (\ref{identidade_I_1}).
The complex electromagnetic bivector (\ref{matrix_complex_electomagnetic_tensor_2}) can be write as
\begin{equation}
\label{complex_electomagnetic_tensor_3}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{A}{Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{1}{Z^{1}}_{\alpha\beta} + F_{2}{Z^{2}}_{\alpha\beta} + F_{3}{Z^{3}}_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
It is important to note that the electromagnetic tensor $F_{\alpha\beta}$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
F_{\alpha\beta} = F_{A}{Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} + \overline{F}_{A}{\overline{Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta},
\end{equation}
where $\overline{F}_{A}{\overline{Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} $ is the complex conjugate. The dual $\widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}$ follows as
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{A}{\widetilde{Z}^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} + \overline{F}_{A}{\overline{\widetilde Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with self-duality ${\widetilde{Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} = -i {Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta}$ and more ${\overline{\widetilde Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} = i {\overline{Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta}$,
we have that
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta} = -i F_{A}{Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} + i \overline{F}_{A}{\overline{Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
we can write the complex electromagnetic bivector ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{\alpha\beta} + i \widetilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}$ as,
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{A}{Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} + \overline{F}_{A}{\overline{Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} +i \left(-i F_{A}{Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} +i \overline{F}_{A}{\overline{Z}\,^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} \right) =
2 F_{A}{Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
The above equation confirms the equation(\ref{complex_electomagnetic_tensor_3}) in two ways:
\begin{equation}
\label{bivector_F_1}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{A}{Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} =
F_{1} {Z^{1}}_{\alpha\beta} + F_{2}{Z^{2}}_{\alpha\beta} + F_{3}{Z^{3}}_{\alpha\beta} =
F_{02} U_{\alpha\beta} - F_{13}V_{\alpha\beta} + (F_{01}-F_{23})\frac{W_{\alpha\beta}}{2}.
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{bivector_F_2}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{A}{Z^{A}}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{02} U_{\alpha\beta} - F_{13}V_{\alpha\beta} + \frac{F_{01}-F_{23}}{2} W_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
In the equation (\ref{bivector_F_1}), R. Debever in reference \cite{Debever}, Israel in reference \cite{Israel} and M.Cahen, R. Debever and L.Defrise in the refernece \cite{Cahen}, choose the term $F_{3} = F_{01}-F_{23}$ and the bivector components $ {Z^{3}}_{\alpha\beta} = \dfrac{W_{\alpha\beta}}{2}$. Thus we can write the bivector from equation (\ref{electromagnetic_2-form}) as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{4} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{\beta} = F_{1} \frac{1}{2} U_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{\beta} + F_{2} \frac{1}{2} V_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{\beta} + F_{3} \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{2} W_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{\beta}\right)
\end{equation}
where we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{Z_1}
\frac{1}{2} U_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{\beta} =\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} = {\bm Z}^1,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Z_2}
\frac{1}{2} V_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{\beta} =\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1} = {\bm Z}^2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Z_3}
\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{2} W_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{\beta}\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1} -\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}\right) = {\bm Z}^3.
\end{equation}
and we can write the electromagnetic bivector from definition (\ref{electromagnetic_2-form}) as follows,
\begin{equation}
{\bm F} = F_{1}{\bm Z}^{1} + F_{2}{\bm Z}^{2} + F_{3}{\bm Z}^{3},
\end{equation}
or reduced
\begin{equation}
\label{bivector_F_3}
{\bm F} = F_{A}{\bm Z}^{A} \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{with}~A=1,2,3.
\end{equation}
We can return to the equation (\ref{Invariant_3}) where we have the invariant,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{8} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = -2 F_{02}F_{13} -\frac{1}{2}(F_{01} - F_{23})^2 ,
\end{equation}
where the choice of R. Debever, Israel and M.Cahen, R. Debever and L.Defrise in the refernece \cite{Debever,Israel,Cahen} is $F_{1}=F_{02} $, $F_{2} = -F_{13} $ and $F_{3} = F_{01}-F_{23}$, such as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{8} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = 2 F_{1}F_{2} -\frac{1}{2}(F_{3})^2 ,
\end{equation}
or similar to a scalar products,
\begin{equation}
\label{Invariant_4}
\frac{1}{8} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = \gamma^{AB}F_{A}F_{B},
\end{equation}
where the metric tensor is given by,
\begin{equation}
\gamma^{AB} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \cr
1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Let us see the exterior product of the set $\{{\bm Z}^1,{\bm Z}^2,{\bm Z}^3 \}$, where the only nonzero exterior products are seen as,
\begin{equation}
{\bm Z}^1 \wedge {\bm Z}^2 = (\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2})\wedge (\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}) =
\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Z_1 ^ Z_2}
{\bm Z}^1 \wedge {\bm Z}^2 = \gamma^{12}~~\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
The same reasoning holds true for,
\begin{equation}
\label{Z_2 ^ Z_1}
{\bm Z}^2 \wedge {\bm Z}^1 = \gamma^{21}~~\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
And the only other nonzero exterior product is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm Z}^3 \wedge {\bm Z}^3 &=& \frac{1}{2} \left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1} -\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}\right) \wedge \frac{1}{2} \left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1} -\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}\right)\cr
&=& -\frac{1}{4}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3} +\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\right)\cr
&=& -\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Z_3 ^ Z_3}
{\bm Z}^3 \wedge {\bm Z}^3 = \gamma^{33}~~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
With these three above equations (\ref{Z_1 ^ Z_2}), (\ref{Z_2 ^ Z_1}) and (\ref{Z_3 ^ Z_3}) we can resume the exterior product as,
\begin{equation}
\label{Z_{A} ^ Z_{B}}
{\bm Z}^{A} \wedge {\bm Z}^{B} = \gamma^{AB}~~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
The components of the conjugate set $\{\overline{\bm Z}\,^1,\overline{\bm Z}\,^2,\overline{\bm Z}\,^3 \}$ are given by,
\begin{equation}
\overline{\bm Z}^1 = \overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}}\,^{0} \wedge \overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}}\,^{2} =\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\overline{\bm Z}\,^2 = \overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}}\,^{3} \wedge \overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}}\,^{1} =\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\overline{\bm Z}\,^3 = \frac{1}{2} \left( \overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}}\,^{0} \wedge \overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}}\,^{1} - \overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}}\,^{2} \wedge \overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}}\,^{3} \right) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1} +\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}\right)
\end{equation}
with the exterior products given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{Z_m ^ Z_n conjugado}
\overline{\bm Z}\,^{A} \wedge \overline{\bm Z}\,^{B} = - \gamma^{AB}~~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
We can also verify that,
\begin{equation}
{\bm Z}^{A} \wedge \overline{\bm Z}\,^{B} = 0.
\end{equation}
Let us return to the equation (\ref{bivector_F_3}), where we have ${\bm F} = F_{A}{\bm Z}^{A}$ with $A=1,2,3$, we have that,
\begin{equation}
{\bm F} \wedge {\bm F} = F_{A}{\bm Z}^{A} \wedge F_{B}{\bm Z}^{B} = F_{A}F_{B}~{\bm Z}^{A} \wedge {\bm Z}^{B} = F_{A}F_{B}~\gamma^{AB}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of equation (\ref{Invariant_4}) we have,
\begin{equation}
\label{produto externo F^F_1}
{\bm F} \wedge {\bm F} = \frac{1}{8}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} ~ \tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
Also from equation (\ref{electromagnetic_2-form}) where we have
${\bm F} = \frac{1}{4} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}$, we can calculate,
\begin{equation}
\label{produto externo F^F_2}
{\bm F} \wedge {\bm F} = \frac{1}{16}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} {\cal F}_{\gamma\delta} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\gamma} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
Comparing the two equations above (\ref{produto externo F^F_1}) and (\ref{produto externo F^F_2}), we that,
\begin{equation}
\label{produto externo F^F_3}
{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} {\cal F}_{\gamma\delta} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\gamma} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\delta} = 2{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} ~ \tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
If we recall the equation (\ref{Invariant_3}) and rewrite it as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{4} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = - (F_{01} - F_{23})^2 -4 F_{02}F_{13}.
\end{equation}
In the above equation, Newman and Penrose \cite{Newman}, H. Stephani et al. in the reference \cite{Kramer} and
J.Griffiths and J. Podolský in the reference \cite{Griffiths}, they use,
\begin{equation}
\label{electromagnetic_components_NP}
\begin{cases}
\Phi_{0} = F_{02} \cr
\Phi_{1} = \dfrac{F_{01}-F_{23}}{2} \cr
\Phi_{2} = -F_{13},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where we can identify fron equation (\ref{electromagnetic_field-strenght_NP}) that,
\begin{equation}
\label{dyad_Phi_0}
\Phi_{0} = \frac{1}{2}\left(-F_y + i F_z \right) = -\frac{1}{2}(E_y-iB_y) + \frac{i}{2}(E_z-iB_z),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{dyad_Phi_1}
\Phi_{1} = F_x = (E_x-iB_x)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{dyad_Phi_2}
\Phi_{2} = \frac{1}{2}\left(F_y + i F_z \right) = \frac{1}{2}(E_y-iB_y) + \frac{i}{2}(E_z-iB_z),
\end{equation}
so that we have the Lorentz invariant,
\begin{equation}
\label{Invariant_5}
{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = 16\left(\Phi_{0}\Phi_{2} -
\Phi_{1}^2\right).
\end{equation}
We can rewrite the above equation,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{8}~{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = 2 \Phi_{0}\Phi_{2} - 2 \Phi_{1}^2, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{8}~{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = \gamma^{AB}~\Phi_{A}\phi_{B},
\end{equation}
where, $A,~B =0,1,2$ and the metric tensor is,
\begin{equation}
\gamma^{AB} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 \cr
0 & -2 & 0 \cr
1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We recall the equation (\ref{matrix_complex_electomagnetic_tensor_2}) and rewrite it as below,
\begin{equation}
\label{matrix_complex_electomagnetic_tensor_3}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = F_{02} U_{\alpha\beta} - F_{13}V_{\alpha\beta} + \frac{(F_{01}-F_{23})}{2}W_{\alpha\beta} = \Phi_{0}U_{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}W_{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
We obtain the electromagnetic bivector,
\begin{equation}
\label{bivector_F_4}
\frac{1}{4}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta} = \Phi_{0} \left(\frac{1}{2}~ U_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}\right) + \Phi_{1}\left(\frac{1}{2}~W_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}\right) + \Phi_{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}~ V_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}\right),
\end{equation}
where we define the bivector basis,
\begin{equation}
\label{base_U_V_W}
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{2}~U_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta} = \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} = \bm{U}, \\[6pt]
\dfrac{1}{2}~W_{\alpha\beta} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}= \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} - \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = \bm{W}, \\[6pt]
\dfrac{1}{2}~V_{\alpha\beta} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}= \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} = \bm{V} ,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where the basis of bivector space in $V^4$ space is formed by six bivectors
$\{\bm{U}, \bm{V}, \bm{W}, \overline{\bm{U}}, \overline{\bm{V}}, \overline{\bm{W}} \}$.
With definition (\ref{electromagnetic_2-form}) where ${\bm F} = \frac{1}{4} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}$ we write the electromagnetic bivector from equation (\ref{bivector_F_4}) as
\begin{equation}
\label{bivector_F_5}
\bm{F} = \Phi_{0}\bm{U} + \Phi_{1}\bm{W} + \Phi_{2}\bm{V}.
\end{equation}
The terms $\Phi_{0}$, $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ are called dyad components of the electromagnetic bivector $\bm{F}$ \cite{Carmeli}.
The nonzero external products of basis (\ref{base_U_V_W}) result in,
\begin{equation}
\bm{U} \wedge \bm{V} = \bm{V} \wedge \bm{U} = \tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\bm{W} \wedge \bm{W} = - 2 ~\tilde{\bm \theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
For conjugate complex we have that similar results seen in the equation (\ref{Z_m ^ Z_n conjugado}), such as
\begin{equation}
\overline{\bm U} \wedge \overline{\bm V} = \overline{\bm V} \wedge \overline{\bm U} = -\frac{1}{2}~\overline{\bm W} \wedge \overline{\bm W} = -\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
For the other exterior products we have that $\bm{U} \wedge \overline{\bm{V}} = 0$, $\bm{V} \wedge \overline{\bm{U}} = 0$ and $\bm{W} \wedge \overline{\bm{W}} = 0$. With these exterior products we obtain for $ {\bm F} = \frac{1}{4} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}$ that,
\begin{equation}
\bm{F} \wedge \bm{F} = \frac{1}{16}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} {\cal F}_{\gamma\delta} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\gamma} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{\delta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and for $\bm{F} = \Phi_{0}\bm{U} + \Phi_{1}\bm{W} + \Phi_{2}\bm{V}$ from equation (\ref{bivector_F_5}) and with aid of equation (\ref{Invariant_5}) we have that,
\begin{equation}
\bm{F} \wedge \bm{F} = -2(\Phi_{0}\Phi_{2} + \Phi_{1}^2)~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3} = \frac{1}{8} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
where the two above equations yield in the identity obtained in the equation (\ref{produto externo F^F_3}).
The exterior products of eletromagnetic bivector $\bm{F} = \Phi_{0}\bm{U} + \Phi_{1}\bm{W} + \Phi_{2}\bm{V}$ with anyone bivector of the basis
$\{\bm{U}, \bm{V}, \bm{W}\}$, result in 4-forms as follow,
\begin{equation}
\bm{F} \wedge \bm{U} = \Phi_{2} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bm{F} \wedge \bm{V} = \Phi_{0} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bm{F} \wedge \bm{W} = - 2 \Phi_{1} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{1}\wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{2} \wedge\tilde{\bm \theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
In term of contractions, we can use the equation (\ref{matrix_complex_electomagnetic_tensor_3}), where we have
\begin{equation}
\label{bivector_F_6}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = \Phi_{0}U_{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}W_{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\beta},
\end{equation}
and the contraction of this equation with $U^{\alpha\beta}$ results in
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} = \Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} = 2\Phi_{2},\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we have used $V_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} = 2$ from equation (\ref{contracao UV}) and nulls for $U_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} = W_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} = 0$ in accordance with (\ref{contracao UU}) and (\ref{contracao UW VW}). The above equation summarizes in,
\begin{equation}
\label{F ab U ab}
\Phi_{2} = \frac{1}{4}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
The contraction of electromagnetic bivector ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}$ with $V^{\alpha\beta}$ results in,
\begin{equation}
\label{F ab V ab}
\Phi_{0} = \frac{1}{4}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
Then, we calculate the contraction of electromagnetic bivector ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}$ with $W^{\alpha\beta}$, that it results in,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} = \Phi_{1} W_{\alpha\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} = -4\Phi_{1},\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we have used the equation (\ref{contracao WW}) and the above equation summarizes in,
\begin{equation}
\label{F ab W ab}
\Phi_{1} = -\frac{1}{8}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}W^{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
We can also use the identity (\ref{identidade_I_2}) to write $\Phi_{0}$,$\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ in terms of the electromagnetic bivector $F_{\alpha\beta}$ from equation (\ref{electromagnetic_tensor}) by using the identity (\ref{identidade_I_F_1}), where we have that $I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\delta} =
\frac{1}{2} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}$ and for making a contraction with $V^{\alpha\beta}$ we obtain,
\begin{equation}
V^{\alpha\beta}I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\delta} =
\frac{1}{2} {\cal F}_{\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of the equations (\ref{identidade_I_1}) and (\ref{F ab V ab}) we have,
\begin{equation}
V_{\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\delta}= 2\Phi_{0},\nonumber
\end{equation}
or then
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{0} = \frac{1}{2}V^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
With definition in the equation (\ref{V1}),
$V^{\alpha\beta} = k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}$,
the above equation becomes
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{0} = \frac{1}{2}\left(k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} + k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\right)F_{\alpha\beta} = k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}F_{\alpha\beta},
\end{equation}
in Newman-Penrose coordinates, with equation (\ref{NP_basis_vector}) and (\ref{electromagnetic_tensor}) we must verify that $\Phi_{0} = F_{02}$.
In the same way for $\Phi_{1}$, we put ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = 2~I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\delta} $ in equation (\ref{F ab W ab})
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{1} = -\frac{1}{8}\left(2~I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\delta}\right)W^{\alpha\beta} = -\frac{1}{4}\left(I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}W^{\alpha\beta}\right)F^{\gamma\delta} = -\frac{1}{4} W_{\alpha\beta} F^{\alpha\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
With definition in the equation (\ref{W1}), $W_{\alpha\beta} = l_{\alpha}k_{\beta} - l_{\beta}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - m_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}$, the above equation becomes
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{1} = -\frac{1}{4}\left(l_{\alpha}k_{\beta} - l_{\beta}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - m_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\alpha} \right)F^{\alpha\beta} = -\frac{1}{2}\left(l_{\alpha}k_{\beta}+m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} \right)F^{\alpha\beta},\nonumber
\end{equation}
or then
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{1} = \frac{1}{2}\left(k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}+\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\beta} \right)F_{\alpha\beta}
\end{equation}
where in Newman-Penrose coordinates, with equation (\ref{NP_basis_vector}) and (\ref{electromagnetic_tensor}) we must verify that $\Phi_{1} = \dfrac{1}{2}\left(F_{01} -F_{23} \right)$.
Finally for for $\Phi_{2}$, we can put ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = 2~I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\delta} $ in equation (\ref{F ab U ab})
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{2} = \frac{1}{4}\left(2~I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\delta}\right)U^{\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2}\left(I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U^{\alpha\beta}\right)F^{\gamma\delta} = \frac{1}{2} U^{\alpha\beta} F_{\alpha\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
With definition in the equation (\ref{U1}), $U^{\alpha\beta} = -l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}$, the above equation becomes
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{2} = - l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}F_{\alpha\beta} = \bar{m}^{\alpha}l^{\beta} F_{\alpha\beta},
\end{equation}
where in Newman-Penrose coordinates, with equation (\ref{NP_basis_vector}) and (\ref{electromagnetic_tensor}) we must verify that $\Phi_{2} = -F_{13}$ in accordance with the definition (\ref{electromagnetic_components_NP}).
\subsection{The Maxwell equations in the Newman-Penrose formalism}
When we refer the electromagnetic field tensor $F_{\alpha\beta}$ to a standard
Minkowski frame, its components are related by definition to
the components of the electric and magnetic 3-vector fields $\bm E$ and $\bm B$ \cite{Wytler2}. In Newman-Penrose formalism the Maxwell's source-free equations is described in terms of dyad components of the electromagnetic bivector, $\Phi_{0}$, $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$.
For this, let us return to the equation (\ref{bivector_F_6}), where we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = \Phi_{0}U_{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}W_{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
If we calculate the Maxwell equations in vacuum, where the electromagnetic current is null, we have that $ \nabla_{\alpha} {\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = 0$.
Thus, we have that,
\begin{equation}
\label{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_1}
\frac{1}{2}\nabla_{\alpha}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{0} \right)U^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{0}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} \right)W^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{2} \right) V^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0 .
\end{equation}
We must obtain the four Maxwell equations in the four null directions $\bm k$, $\bm l$, $\bm m$ and $\bar{\bm m}$ by
\begin{equation}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} {\cal F}^{\alpha\beta}, \hspace*{1cm}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} {\cal F}^{\alpha\beta}, \hspace*{1cm}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} {\cal F}^{\alpha\beta}, \hspace*{1cm}
\mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm}
\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} {\cal F}^{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
To obtain the Maxwell equations (\ref{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_1}) in null directions, it is necessary to calculate the contractions with aid of equation (\ref{contraction_tetrad}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{contraction_1}
k_{\beta} U^{\alpha\beta} &=& k_{\beta}\left(-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right) = -\bar{m}^{\alpha},
\cr
k_{\beta} V^{\alpha\beta} &=& k_{\beta}\left( k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\right) = 0,
\cr
k_{\beta} W^{\alpha\beta} &=& k_{\beta}\left(l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right) = k^{\alpha},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{contraction_2}
l_{\beta} U^{\alpha\beta} &=& l_{\beta}\left(-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right) = 0,
\cr
l_{\beta} V^{\alpha\beta} &=& l_{\beta}\left( k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\right) = m^{\alpha},
\cr
l_{\beta} W^{\alpha\beta} &=& l_{\beta}\left(l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right) = -l^{\alpha},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{contraction_3}
m_{\beta} U^{\alpha\beta} &=& m_{\beta}\left(-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right) = -l^{\alpha},
\cr
m_{\beta} V^{\alpha\beta} &=& m_{\beta}\left( k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\right) = 0,
\cr
m_{\beta} W^{\alpha\beta} &=& m_{\beta}\left(l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right) = m^{\alpha},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{contraction_4}
\bar{m}_{\beta} U^{\alpha\beta} &=& \bar{m}_{\beta}\left(-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right) = 0,
\cr
\bar{m}_{\beta} V^{\alpha\beta} &=& \bar{m}_{\beta}\left( k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\right) = k^{\alpha},
\cr
\bar{m}_{\beta} W^{\alpha\beta} &=& \bar{m}_{\beta}\left(l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right) = -\bar{m}^{\alpha}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, let us make a projection of equation (\ref{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_1}) on the direction $k_{\beta}$, where we have,
\begin{equation}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{0} \right)k_{\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{0}k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} \right)k_{\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{2} \right)k_{\beta} V^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}k_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the equations (\ref{contraction_1}) to reduce the above equation to,
\begin{equation}
k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} - \bar{m}^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{0} +\Phi_{0}k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}k_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We should note that the projections of the covariant derivatives in the null directions seen above equation, they can be defined as directional derivatives
\begin{equation}
\label{directional_derivatives}
D=k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}, \hspace*{0.5cm}
\Delta = l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}, \hspace*{0.5cm}
\delta = m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} \hspace*{0.5cm}
\hspace*{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{0.5cm} \bar{\delta} = \bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha},
\end{equation}
so that the above equation is rewritten as,
\begin{equation}
\label{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_2}
D\Phi_{1} - \bar{\delta} \Phi_{0} +\Phi_{0}k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}k_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0.
\end{equation}
Now we can work with the term $k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta}$ to reduce it in to spin coefficients, noting that,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(k_{\beta}U^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}) U^{\alpha\beta} + k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the identity (\ref{contraction_1}), $k_{\beta} U^{\alpha\beta} = - \bar{m}^{\alpha}$, and we can isolate the term $k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta}$, such as
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_identidade_Maxwell_1}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} = -\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha} - (-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
The term $l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}$ can be simplified by,
\begin{equation}
l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} = \bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}(l_{\beta}k^{\beta}) - \bar{m}^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} = -\bar{m}^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}\nonumber
\end{equation}
and put it in the equation (\ref{1a_identidade_Maxwell_1}), we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_identidade_Maxwell_2}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} = -\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha} + l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + k^{\beta} \bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
Now we can get another view of the term $\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha}$ using the fact that,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha} = \nabla_{\alpha}(\gamma^{\alpha\beta}\bar{m}_{\beta}) = \gamma^{\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} \bar{m}_{\beta} = (-k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}-k^{\beta}l^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha} = -k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}-k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We have from $\nabla_{\alpha}(\bar{m}^{\beta}\bar{m}_{\beta}) = 0$, where it results in $ \bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}=0$ and from $\nabla_{\alpha}(\bar{m}^{\beta}k_{\beta})=0$ that results in $k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} = - \bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} $, and so on, we have that the above equation reduces to,
\begin{equation}
\label{divergencia m bar}
\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha} = \bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + \bar{m}^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
Replacing this term in the equation in the equation (\ref{1a_identidade_Maxwell_2}) we have,
\begin{equation}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} = -(\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + \bar{m}^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}) + \bar{m}^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + k^{\beta} \bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} = k^{\beta} \bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - \bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} l_{\beta} .
\end{equation}
We can verify the spin coefficient displayed in the equation (\ref{spin_coefficient_12}), we have that $2\alpha = k^{\alpha} \bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\beta}l_{\alpha} - m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} \nabla_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}$ and from equation (\ref{spin_coefficient_08}) we have $\pi = \bar{m}^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\nabla_{\beta} l_{\alpha}$. Thus the above equation results in
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_identidade_Maxwell_5}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} = 2\alpha -\pi.
\end{equation}
Now we have to work with the term $k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta}$ to reduce it in to spin coefficient, where we have that,
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_identidade_Maxwell_6}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = \nabla_{\alpha}(k_{\beta}W^{\alpha\beta}) - (\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}) W^{\alpha\beta} = \nabla_{\alpha}k^{\alpha} - (l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}) \nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
We must simplify the above equation obtaining an identity for $\nabla_{\alpha}k^{\alpha}$ since $ \nabla_{\alpha}k^{\alpha} = \nabla_{\alpha}(\gamma^{\alpha\beta} k_{\beta})= \gamma^{\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} $, then we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\label{divergencia k}
\nabla_{\alpha}k^{\alpha} = (-k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}-k^{\beta}l^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} ,
\end{equation}
and replacing the above equation in the equation (\ref{1a_identidade_Maxwell_6}) we obtain,
\begin{equation}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = - 2 l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + 2m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
We must note that $\nabla_{\alpha}(k_{\beta}k^{\beta})= 2k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} = 0$ such as that the term $l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} = 0$, and the above equation becomes
\begin{equation}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = 2m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can verify the spin coefficient displayed in the equation (\ref{spin_coefficient_02}), where we have that $m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} = -\rho$, and then
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_identidade_Maxwell_7}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = -2\rho.
\end{equation}
Now we have to work with the term $k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} V^{\alpha\beta}$ to reduce it in to spin coefficient, where we have that,
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_identidade_Maxwell_8}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = \nabla_{\alpha}(k_{\beta}V^{\alpha\beta}) - V^{\alpha\beta} (\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}) = -(k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}) \nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} = -m^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
Again, we must note that $\nabla_{\alpha}(k_{\beta}k^{\beta})= 2k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} = 0$ such as that the term $k^{\beta}m^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} = 0$, and the above equation becomes
\begin{equation}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = -m^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can verify the spin coefficient displayed in the equation (\ref{spin_coefficient_01}), where we have that $ m^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} = -\kappa$, and then
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_identidade_Maxwell_9}
k_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = \kappa.
\end{equation}
Thus, replacing the equations (\ref{1a_identidade_Maxwell_5}), (\ref{1a_identidade_Maxwell_7}) and (\ref{1a_identidade_Maxwell_9}) in the first Maxwell equation (\ref{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_2}) in Newman-Penrose formalism,
\begin{equation}
D\Phi_{1} - \bar{\delta} \Phi_{0} +\Phi_{0}(2\alpha-\pi) + \Phi_{1}(-2\rho) +\Phi_{2}(\kappa) = 0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
or then,
\begin{equation}
\label{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_3}
D\Phi_{1} - \bar{\delta} \Phi_{0} = (\pi - 2\alpha)\Phi_{0} + 2\rho \Phi_{1} - \kappa \Phi_{2}.
\end{equation}
For the second Maxwell equation let us make a projection of equation (\ref{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_1}) on the direction $l_{\beta}$, where we have,
\begin{equation}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{0} \right)l_{\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{0}l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} \right)l_{\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{2} \right)l_{\beta} V^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}l_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the equations (\ref{contraction_2}) to reduce the above equation to,
\begin{equation}
-l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} + m^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{2} +\Phi_{0}l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}l_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can use the definition of the covariant derivatives in the null directions (\ref{directional_derivatives}) in the above equation where it follows,
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_identidade_Maxwell_1}
-\Delta\Phi_{1} + \delta\Phi_{2} +\Phi_{0}l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}l_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0.
\end{equation}
Now we can work the term $l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta}$ to reduce it in to spin coefficient, using the equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(l_{\beta}U^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}) U^{\alpha\beta} + l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the identity (\ref{contraction_2}), $l_{\beta} U^{\alpha\beta} = 0$, and we can isolate the term $l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta}$, such as
\begin{equation}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta} = - (-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}) (\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}). \nonumber
\end{equation}
Again, we have that $\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}(l_{\beta}l^{\beta}) = 2 l^{\beta} \bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} =0$. Thus, the above equation reduces to
\begin{equation}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta} = l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
therefore we can verify the spin coefficient displayed in the (\ref{spin_coefficient_05}), where we have that $l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} = \nu$, and then,
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_identidade_Maxwell_2}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta} = \nu.
\end{equation}
The next term of equation (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_1}) that we can reduce in spin coefficient is $l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta}$ by,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(l_{\beta}W^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}) W^{\alpha\beta} + l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of equation (\ref{contraction_2}) and definition (\ref{W1}) we have,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(-l^{\alpha}) = (l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} -l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or then,
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_identidade_Maxwell_3}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = -\nabla_{\alpha}l^{\alpha} - l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
We can replace the term $\nabla_{\alpha}l^{\alpha}$ by $\nabla_{\alpha}(\gamma^{\alpha\beta}l_{\beta})$ and obtain,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}l^{\alpha} = \gamma^{\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} = (-k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}-k^{\beta}l^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{divergencia l}
\nabla_{\alpha}l^{\alpha} = -k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
Replacing this result in to equation (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_3}) we have,
\begin{equation}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = -2 \bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where this written in terms of spin coefficient (\ref{spin_coefficient_06}), it is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_identidade_Maxwell_4}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = -2\mu.
\end{equation}
The last term of equation (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_1}) that we can reduce in spin coefficients is $l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} V^{\alpha\beta}$ by,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(l_{\beta}V^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}) V^{\alpha\beta} + l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of equation (\ref{contraction_2}) and definition (\ref{V1}) we have,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}m^{\alpha} = (k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or then,
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_identidade_Maxwell_5}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = \nabla_{\alpha}m^{\alpha} - k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
We can replace the term $\nabla_{\alpha}m^{\alpha}$ by $\nabla_{\alpha}(\gamma^{\alpha\beta}m_{\beta})$ and obtain,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}m^{\alpha} = \gamma^{\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} = (-k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}-k^{\beta}l^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{divergencia m}
\nabla_{\alpha}m^{\alpha} = -k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} + \bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
Replacing this result in to equation (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_5}) we have,
\begin{eqnarray}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} &=& -k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} + \bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} \cr
&=& m^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + m^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha} l_{\beta} + \bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - m^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - l^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}\cr
&=& (\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} -l^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}) + m^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The above equation in terms of spin coefficients of the equations (\ref{spin_coefficient_04}) and (\ref{spin_coefficient_10}) is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_identidade_Maxwell_6}
l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 2\beta-\tau.
\end{equation}
Thus, replacing the equations (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_2}), (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_4}) and (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_6}) in the second Maxwell equation (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_1}), we obtain in Newman-Penrose formalism, the below equation
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_identidade_Maxwell_7}
\Delta\Phi_{1} - \delta\Phi_{2} = \nu\Phi_{0} - 2\mu\Phi_{1} + (2\beta-\tau)\Phi_{2}.
\end{equation}
For the third Maxwell equation let us make a projection of equation (\ref{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_1}) on the direction $m_{\beta}$, where we have,
\begin{equation}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{0} \right)m_{\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{0}m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} \right)m_{\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{2} \right)m_{\beta} V^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}m_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the equations (\ref{contraction_3}) to reduce the above equation to,
\begin{equation}
-l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{0} + m^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} +\Phi_{0}m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}m_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can use the definition of the covariant derivatives in the null directions (\ref{directional_derivatives}) in the above equation where it follows,
\begin{equation}
\label{3a_identidade_Maxwell_1}
\Delta\Phi_{0} - \delta\Phi_{1} = \Phi_{0}m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}m_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
The term $m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta}$ can reduced it in to spin coefficients, using the equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(m_{\beta}U^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta}) U^{\alpha\beta} + m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the identity (\ref{contraction_3}), $m_{\beta} U^{\alpha\beta} = -l^{\alpha}$, and we can isolate the term $m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta}$, such as
\begin{equation}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta} = -\nabla_{\alpha}l^{\alpha} - (-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}) \nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can use equation (\ref{divergencia l}) and the above equation follows
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta} &=& k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}+
l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} \cr
&=& k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - \bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} -
m^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} \cr
&=& (k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - m^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}) - \bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
therefore the above equation in terms of the spin coefficients of the equations (\ref{spin_coefficient_06}) and (\ref{spin_coefficient_11}) is written as,
\begin{equation}
\label{3a_identidade_Maxwell_2}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta} = 2\gamma - \mu.
\end{equation}
The next term of equation (\ref{3a_identidade_Maxwell_1}) that we can reduce in spin coefficient is $m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta}$ by,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(m_{\beta}W^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta}) W^{\alpha\beta} + m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of equation (\ref{contraction_3}) and definition (\ref{W1}) we have,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}m^{\alpha} = (l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} -l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} + l_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
we can use equation (\ref{divergencia m}) in to above equation and obtain,
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} &=& -k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} + \bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} + l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} - m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta}\cr
&=& -2k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} ~ = ~ 2m^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta},
\end{eqnarray}
where this written in terms of spin coefficient (\ref{spin_coefficient_04}) is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{3a_identidade_Maxwell_4}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = -2\tau.
\end{equation}
The last term of equation (\ref{3a_identidade_Maxwell_1}) that we can reduce in spin coefficient is $m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} V^{\alpha\beta}$ by,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(m_{\beta}V^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta}) V^{\alpha\beta} + m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of equation (\ref{contraction_2}) and definition (\ref{V1}) we have,
\begin{equation}
0 = (k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} + m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or then,
\begin{equation}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = - k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} + k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} = k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta} = -m^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} \nonumber
\end{equation}
The above equation written in terms of spin coefficient (\ref{spin_coefficient_03}) is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{3a_identidade_Maxwell_6}
m_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = \sigma.
\end{equation}
Thus, replacing the equations (\ref{3a_identidade_Maxwell_2}), (\ref{3a_identidade_Maxwell_4}) and (\ref{3a_identidade_Maxwell_6}) in the second Maxwell equation (\ref{3a_identidade_Maxwell_1}), we obtain in Newman-Penrose formalism, the below equation
\begin{equation}
\label{3a_identidade_Maxwell_7}
\Delta\Phi_{0} - \delta\Phi_{1} = (2\gamma - \mu)\Phi_{0} - 2\tau\Phi_{1} + \sigma \Phi_{2}.
\end{equation}
For the fourth Maxwell equation let us make a projection of equation (\ref{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_1}) on the direction $\bar{m}_{\beta}$, where we have,
\begin{equation}
\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{0} \right)\bar{m}_{\beta}U^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{0}\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} \right)\bar{m}_{\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} + \left(\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{2} \right)\bar{m}_{\beta} V^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}m_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the equations (\ref{contraction_4}) to reduce the above equation to,
\begin{equation}
-\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{1} + k^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}\Phi_{2} +\Phi_{0}\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}\bar{m}_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = 0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can use the definition of the covariant derivatives in the null directions (\ref{directional_derivatives}) in the above equation where it follows,
\begin{equation}
\label{4a_identidade_Maxwell_1}
-D\Phi_{2} + \bar{\delta}\Phi_{1} = \Phi_{0}\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta} +\Phi_{2}\bar{m}_{\beta} \nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
The term $\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta}$ can reduced it in to spin coefficient, using the equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(\bar{m}_{\beta}U^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}) U^{\alpha\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the identity (\ref{contraction_4}), $\bar{m}_{\beta} U^{\alpha\beta} = 0$, and we can isolate the term $\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} U^{\alpha\beta}$, such as
\begin{equation}
\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta} = - (-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}) \nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} = - l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} = \bar{m}^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
therefore we can see the spin coefficient of the equation (\ref{spin_coefficient_07}) and write the above equation as,
\begin{equation}
\label{4a_identidade_Maxwell_2}
\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}U^{\alpha\beta} = \lambda.
\end{equation}
The next term of equation (\ref{4a_identidade_Maxwell_1}) that we can reduce in spin coefficient is $\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} W^{\alpha\beta}$ by,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(\bar{m}_{\beta}W^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}) W^{\alpha\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of equation (\ref{contraction_4}) and definition (\ref{W1}) we have,
\begin{equation}
-\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha} = (l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} -l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
we can use equation (\ref{divergencia m bar}) in to above equation and obtain,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} &=& k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}\cr
&=& 2 l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} ~ = ~ -2\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}l_{\beta} .
\end{eqnarray}
where this written in terms of spin coefficient (\ref{spin_coefficient_08}) is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{4a_identidade_Maxwell_4}
\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}W^{\alpha\beta} = -2\pi.
\end{equation}
The last term of equation (\ref{4a_identidade_Maxwell_1}) that we can reduce in spin coefficients is $\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} V^{\alpha\beta}$ by,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}(\bar{m}_{\beta}V^{\alpha\beta}) = (\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}) V^{\alpha\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of equation (\ref{contraction_4}) and definition (\ref{V1}) we have,
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\alpha}k^{\alpha} = (k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha})\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with equation (\ref{divergencia k}) we have that,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} &=& - k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} -
k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} \cr
&=& -l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} -
m^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} \cr
&=& m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} - (l^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}k_{\beta} - \bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}m_{\beta}) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The above equation written in terms of spin coefficients of the equations (\ref{spin_coefficient_02}) and (\ref{spin_coefficient_09}) is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{4a_identidade_Maxwell_6}
\bar{m}_{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}V^{\alpha\beta} = - \rho + 2\epsilon.
\end{equation}
Thus, replacing the equations (\ref{4a_identidade_Maxwell_2}), (\ref{4a_identidade_Maxwell_4}) and (\ref{4a_identidade_Maxwell_6}) in the fourth Maxwell equation (\ref{4a_identidade_Maxwell_1}), we obtain in Newman-Penrose formalism, the below equation
\begin{equation}
\label{4a_identidade_Maxwell_7}
D\Phi_{2} - \bar{\delta}\Phi_{1} = -\lambda\Phi_{0} + 2\pi\Phi_{1} +(\rho-2\epsilon)\Phi_{2}.
\end{equation}
Finally, we can display the four Maxwell equations in vacuum (\ref{Newman_Penrose_Maxwell_equations_3}), (\ref{2a_identidade_Maxwell_7}), (\ref{3a_identidade_Maxwell_7}) and (\ref{4a_identidade_Maxwell_7}), in terms of the spin coefficients as \cite{Newman},
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
D\Phi_{1} - \bar{\delta} \Phi_{0} = (\pi - 2\alpha)\Phi_{0} + 2\rho \Phi_{1} - \kappa \Phi_{2},\cr
D\Phi_{2} - \bar{\delta}\Phi_{1} = -\lambda\Phi_{0} + 2\pi\Phi_{1} +(\rho-2\epsilon)\Phi_{2},\cr
\Delta\Phi_{0} - \delta\Phi_{1} = (2\gamma - \mu)\Phi_{0} - 2\tau\Phi_{1} + \sigma \Phi_{2},\cr
\Delta\Phi_{1} - \delta\Phi_{2} = \nu\Phi_{0} - 2\mu\Phi_{1} + (2\beta-\tau)\Phi_{2}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For a spacetime to have as its source an electromagnetic field satisfying Maxwell's source-free equations, this spacetime satisfies an exact solution of General Relativity called electrovacuum solution of the Einstein field equation or called source-free Einstein-Maxwell solutions \cite{Wytler2}. We will see further how the Einstein-Maxwell equations can be expressed in terms of the dyad components of the electromagnetic field $\Phi_{0}$, $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$.
\subsection{Energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field}
The energy-momentum tensor is a source of the gravitational field. A gravitational field produced by a source-free electromagnetic field is a exact solution of Einstein's field equations \cite{Kramer,Wytler2}.
The energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field is given by,
\begin{equation}
T_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2}~{\cal F}_{\alpha\gamma}{\overline{\cal F}_{\beta}}\,^{\gamma},
\end{equation}
where we have from equation (\ref{bivector_F_6}) that
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_{\alpha\gamma} = 2\left(\Phi_{0}U_{\alpha\gamma} + \Phi_{1}W_{\alpha\gamma} + \Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\gamma}\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{\overline{\cal F}_{\beta}}\,^{\gamma} = 2\left(\overline\Phi_{0}\overline{U}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} + \overline\Phi_{1}\overline{W}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} + \overline\Phi_{2} \overline{V}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma}\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we write the complex conjugate as,
\begin{equation}
\overline{U}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = -l_{\beta} m^{\gamma} + l^{\gamma}m_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\overline{V}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = k_{\beta} \bar{m}^{\gamma} - k^{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\beta} \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\overline{W}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = l_{\beta} k^{\gamma} - l^{\gamma}k_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}m^{\gamma} - \bar{m}^{\gamma}m_{\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
So that the energy-momentum tensor tensor can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Energy_momentum_tensor_1}
T_{\alpha\beta} &=& 2\,\bigg(\Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{0} U_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{U}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} + \Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{1}U_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{W}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} + \Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{2}U_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{V}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma}\nonumber \\[2pt]
& & + \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{0}W_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{U}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} + \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{1}W_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{W}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} + \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{2}W_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{V}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} \nonumber \\[2pt]
& & + \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{0} V_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{U}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} + \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{1} V_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{W}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} + \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\gamma} \overline{V}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma}
\bigg).
\end{eqnarray}
Let us calculate each term of the energy-momentum tensor tensor. With the only non-null contractions $k_{\alpha}l^{\alpha} =-1$ and $m_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha}=1$, the terms of the energy-momentum tensor tensor are,
\begin{equation}
U_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{U}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(-l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\gamma} + l_{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\alpha} \right)\left( -l_{\beta} m^{\gamma} + l^{\gamma}m_{\beta}\right) = l_{\alpha}l_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
U_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{W}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(-l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\gamma} + l_{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\alpha} \right)\left( l_{\beta} k^{\gamma} - l^{\gamma}k_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}m^{\gamma} - \bar{m}^{\gamma}m_{\beta}\right) = -l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - \bar{m}_{\alpha}l_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
U_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{V}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(-l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\gamma} + l_{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\alpha} \right)\left(k_{\beta} \bar{m}^{\gamma} - k^{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\beta}\right) = \bar{m}_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{U}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(l_{\alpha}k_{\gamma} - l_{\gamma}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\gamma} - m_{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\alpha}\right)\left(-l_{\beta} m^{\gamma} + l^{\gamma}m_{\beta} \right) = - l_{\alpha} m_{\beta} - m_{\alpha}l_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{W}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(l_{\alpha}k_{\gamma} - l_{\gamma}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\gamma} - m_{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\alpha}\right)\left(l_{\beta} k^{\gamma} - l^{\gamma}k_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}m^{\gamma} - \bar{m}^{\gamma}m_{\beta} \right) = l_{\alpha} k_{\beta} + k_{\alpha} l_{\beta} +m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\alpha}m_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{V}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(l_{\alpha}k_{\gamma} - l_{\gamma}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\gamma} - m_{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\alpha}\right)\left(k_{\beta} \bar{m}^{\gamma} - k^{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\beta} \right) = -k_{\alpha} \bar{m}_{\beta} - \bar{m}_{\alpha}k_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{U}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(k_{\alpha}m_{\gamma} - k_{\gamma}m_{\alpha}\right)\left(-l_{\beta} m^{\gamma} + l^{\gamma}m_{\beta} \right) = m_{\alpha} m_{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{W}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(k_{\alpha}m_{\gamma} - k_{\gamma}m_{\alpha}\right)\left(l_{\beta} k^{\gamma} - l^{\gamma}k_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\beta}m^{\gamma} - \bar{m}^{\gamma}m_{\beta} \right) = - k_{\alpha} m_{\beta} - k_{\beta}m_{\alpha}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{\alpha\gamma}\overline{V}_{\beta}\,^{\gamma} = \left(k_{\alpha}m_{\gamma} - k_{\gamma}m_{\alpha}\right)\left(k_{\beta} \bar{m}^{\gamma} - k^{\gamma}\bar{m}_{\beta} \right) = k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
So returning these values to the equation (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_1}) we have,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Energy_momentum_tensor_2}
T_{\alpha\beta} &=& 2\,\bigg[\Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{0} l_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - \Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{1}\left(l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\alpha}l_{\beta}\right) + \Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{2}\bar{m}_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}\nonumber \\[2pt]
& & - \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{0}\left( l_{\alpha} m_{\beta} + m_{\alpha}l_{\beta}\right) + \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{1}\left( l_{\alpha} k_{\beta} + k_{\alpha} l_{\beta} +m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\alpha}m_{\beta}\right) - \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{2}\left( k_{\alpha} \bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\alpha}k_{\beta}\right) \nonumber \\[2pt]
& & + \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{0} m_{\alpha} m_{\beta} - \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{1}\left( k_{\alpha} m_{\beta} + k_{\beta}m_{\alpha} \right) + \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{2} k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}
\bigg].
\end{eqnarray}
We should note that for the electromagnetic field that:
\begin{equation}
{T_{\alpha}}^{\alpha} = 0 \hspace*{1cm}\Longrightarrow \hspace*{1cm}
{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} \bar{\cal F}^{\alpha\beta} = 0.
\end{equation}
Now we will see that the energy-momentum tensor of the non-null electromagnetic field can be obtained with $\Phi_{0}=\Phi_{2}=0$, where the electromagnetic field is ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = 2~\Phi_{1}W_{\alpha\beta} $ and the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field of equation (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_2}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{Energy_momentum_tensor_3}
T_{\alpha\beta} = 2~\Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{1}\left( k_{\alpha} l_{\beta}+ l_{\alpha} k_{\beta} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\alpha}m_{\beta}\right).
\end{equation}
Let us verify that the energy-momentum tensor of the non-null electromagnetic field in coordinate basis
\begin{equation}
\label{Energy_momentum_tensor_4}
T_{\mu\nu} = 2~\Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{1}\left( k_{\mu} l_{\nu} + l_{\mu} k_{\nu} + m_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu} + \bar{m}_{\mu}m_{\nu}\right),
\end{equation}
where in Minkowski coordinate basis the null tetrad is given by (\ref{coordinate_basis_dual_vector}),
\begin{equation}
(k_{\mu})= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix}
-1 \cr 1 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix},
\hspace*{1cm}
(l_{\mu})= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix}
-1 \cr -1 \cr 0 \cr 0
\end{pmatrix},
\hspace*{1cm}
(m_{\mu})= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr 0 \cr 1 \cr -i
\end{pmatrix}
\hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm}
(\bar{m}_{\mu})= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix}
0 \cr 0 \cr 1 \cr i
\end{pmatrix}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
such that the energy-momentum tensor in the equation (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_4}) results in,
\begin{equation}
\label{Energy_momentum_tensor_5}
T_{\mu\nu} = 2~\Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{1}\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\hspace*{1cm}\Longrightarrow \hspace*{1cm}
{T_{\mu}}^{\nu} = 2~\Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{1}\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} .
\end{equation}
We must compare this result with the result obtained in references \cite{Wytler2}, where we have in a inertial frame ${\cal O}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{Energy_momentum_tensor_6}
{T_{\mu}}^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(E_x^{2} + B_x^{2} \right)
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} .
\end{equation}
In accordance with reference \cite{Wytler2}, we can obtain an electric field 3-vector $\bm{E}$ parallel to magnetic field 3-vector $\bm{B}$ in any inertial frame ${\cal O}$, so that we can identify and confirm with the equation (\ref{dyad_Phi_1}) that,
\begin{equation}
2~\Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{1} = \frac{1}{2}\left(E_x^{2} + B_x^{2} \right),
\hspace*{1cm} \Phi_{1} = \frac{1}{2}\left(E_x - i B_x \right),
\hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} \overline\Phi_{1} = \frac{1}{2}\left(E_x + i B_x \right).
\end{equation}
We can use the Lorentz transformations to rotate the complex electromagnetic filed vector {\bf F} in any desired coordinate system of an inertial frame ${\cal O}'$.
The null electromagnetic field (pure electromagnetic radiation) is obtained when $\Phi_{0} = \Phi_{1} = 0$ implying from (\ref{dyad_Phi_0}) that $E_y = B_z$ and $E_z = -B_y$, and consequently we have $ \Phi_2 = E_y$. The complex self-dual electromagnetic field is
${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = 2~\Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\beta} $ and the energy-momentum tensor (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_2}) results in,
\begin{equation}
\label{Energy_momentum_tensor_7}
T_{\alpha\beta} = 2~\Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{2}~ k_{\alpha} k_{\beta},
\end{equation}
that is a energy-momentum tensor of the null dust with $k_{\alpha}k^{\alpha}=0$ \cite{Kramer}. In accordance with reference \cite{Wytler2}, the solution for null electromagnetic field has electric and magnetic 3-vectors given by $\bm{E} = (0.E_y,0)$ and $\bm{B} = (0,0,B_z)$, with $|\bm{E}| = |\bm{B}|$ therefore we have the energy-momentum tensor of pure electromagnetic radiation (photons) in coordinate basis given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{Energy_momentum_tensor_8}
T_{\mu\nu} = \begin{pmatrix}
|\bm{E}|^2 & -|\bm{E}|^2 & 0 & 0 \cr
-|\bm{E}|^2 & |\bm{E}|^2 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} .
\end{equation}
\subsection{The Einstein-Maxwell field equations}
The Ricci tensor from non-coordinate Newman-Penrose basis for coordinate basis with aid of tetrad field is given by,
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu\nu} = R_{\alpha\beta} {\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu}{\omega^{\beta}}_{\nu}.
\end{equation}
where we can explicit the components fo Ricci tensor as,
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\mu\nu} = R_{00}{\omega^{0}}_{\mu}{\omega^{0}}_{\nu} + R_{01}{\omega^{0}}_{\mu}{\omega^{1}}_{\nu} + R_{02}{\omega^{0}}_{\mu}{\omega^{2}}_{\nu} + R_{03}{\omega^{0}}_{\mu}{\omega^{3}}_{\nu}\cr
+ R_{10}{\omega^{1}}_{\mu}{\omega^{0}}_{\nu} + R_{11}{\omega^{1}}_{\mu}{\omega^{1}}_{\nu} + R_{12}{\omega^{1}}_{\mu}{\omega^{2}}_{\nu} + R_{13}{\omega^{1}}_{\mu}{\omega^{3}}_{\nu}\cr
+ R_{20}{\omega^{2}}_{\mu}{\omega^{0}}_{\nu} + R_{21}{\omega^{2}}_{\mu}{\omega^{1}}_{\nu} + R_{22}{\omega^{2}}_{\mu}{\omega^{2}}_{\nu} + R_{23}{\omega^{2}}_{\mu}{\omega^{3}}_{\nu} \cr
+ R_{30}{\omega^{3}}_{\mu}{\omega^{0}}_{\nu} + R_{31}{\omega^{3}}_{\mu}{\omega^{1}}_{\nu} + R_{32}{\omega^{3}}_{\mu}{\omega^{2}}_{\nu} + R_{33}{\omega^{3}}_{\mu}{\omega^{3}}_{\nu}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We can use,
\begin{equation}
{\omega^{0}}_{\mu} = -l_{\mu}, \hspace*{1cm} {\omega^{1}}_{\mu} = -k_{\mu}, \hspace*{1cm} {\omega^{2}}_{\mu} = m_{\mu}, \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} {\omega^{3}}_{\mu} = \bar{m}_{\mu},
\end{equation}
to simplify the Ricci tensor equation as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Ricci_tensor_NP_1}
R_{\mu\nu} &=& R_{00}l_{\mu}l_{\nu} + R_{01}(l_{\mu}k_{\nu} + l_{\nu}k_{\mu}) - R_{02}(l_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu} + l_{\nu}\bar{m}_{\mu}) - R_{03}(l_{\mu}m_{\nu}+l_{\nu}m_{\mu}) + R_{11}k_{\mu}k_{\nu}\cr
& & - R_{12}(k_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu} + k_{\nu}\bar{m}_{\mu}) - R_{13}(k_{\mu}m_{\nu}+k_{\nu}m_{\mu}) + R_{22}\bar{m}_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu} + R_{23}(\bar{m}_{\mu}m_{\nu}+\bar{m}_{\nu}m_{\mu}) + R_{33}m_{\mu}m_{\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
The curvature scalar $R$ is obtained by $R=g^{\mu\nu}R_{\mu\nu} = 2R_{01}l_{\mu}k^{\mu} + 2 R_{23}\bar{m}_{\mu}m^{\mu} = 2(R_{23}-R_{01})$.
Through the reduced tensor $S_{\mu\nu}$ defined by \cite{Wytler3},
\begin{equation}
S_{\mu\nu} = R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{4}g_{\mu\nu}R,
\end{equation}
and with aid of the equation (\ref{Ricci_tensor_NP_1}), we can define the ten independent components of the Ricci tensor terms by the scalar quantities defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{Ricci_Phi_00}
\Phi_{00} = \frac{1}{2}S_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}k^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}k^{\nu} - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} k^{\mu}k^{\nu} \right) = \frac{1}{2}R_{00}l_{\mu}l_{\nu}k^{\mu}k^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2} R_{00},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Phi}_{00} = \frac{1}{2} R_{00} = \Phi_{00}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Ricci_Phi_01}
\Phi_{01} = \frac{1}{2}S_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}m^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}m^{\nu} - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} k^{\mu}m^{\nu} \right) = \frac{1}{2}R_{02}l_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu}k^{\mu}m^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2} R_{02},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{10} = \frac{1}{2}S_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\mu\nu}k^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} k^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} \right) = \frac{1}{2}R_{02}l_{\mu}m_{\nu}k^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2} R_{03},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Phi}_{01} = \frac{1}{2} R_{03} = \Phi_{10}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Ricci_Phi_02}
\Phi_{02} = \frac{1}{2}S_{\mu\nu}m^{\mu}m^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\mu\nu}m^{\mu}m^{\nu} - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} m^{\mu}m^{\nu} \right) = \frac{1}{2}R_{22}\bar{m}_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu}m^{\mu}m^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2} R_{22},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{20} = \frac{1}{2}S_{\mu\nu}\bar{m}^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\mu\nu}\bar{m}^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} \bar{m}^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} \right) = \frac{1}{2}R_{33}m_{\mu}m_{\nu}\bar{m}^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2} R_{33},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Phi}_{02} = \frac{1}{2} R_{33} = \Phi_{20}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Ricci_Phi_11}
\Phi_{11} = \frac{1}{4}S_{\mu\nu}(k^{\mu}l^{\nu}+ m^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu}) = \frac{1}{4}\left[R_{\mu\nu}(k^{\mu}l^{\nu}+ m^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu}) - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} (k^{\mu}l^{\nu}+ m^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu}) \right] = \frac{1}{4}\left(R_{01} + R_{23}\right).
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Phi}_{11} = \frac{1}{4}\left(\bar{R}_{01} + \bar{R}_{23}\right) = \left(R_{01} + R_{32}\right) = \Phi_{11}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Ricci_Phi_12}
\Phi_{12} = \frac{1}{2}S_{\mu\nu}l^{\mu}m^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\mu\nu}l^{\mu}m^{\nu} - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} l^{\mu}m^{\nu} \right) = \frac{1}{2}R_{12}k_{\mu}\bar{m}_{\nu}l^{\mu}m^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2} R_{12},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{21} = \frac{1}{2}S_{\mu\nu}l^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\mu\nu}l^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} l^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} \right) = \frac{1}{2}R_{13}k_{\mu}m_{\nu}l^{\mu}\bar{m}^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2} R_{13},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Phi}_{12} = \frac{1}{2} R_{13} = \Phi_{21}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Ricci_Phi_22}
\Phi_{22} = \frac{1}{4}S_{\mu\nu}l^{\mu}l^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\mu\nu}l^{\mu}l^{\nu} - \frac{1}{4}R g_{\mu\nu} l^{\mu}l^{\nu} \right) = \frac{1}{2} R_{11}k_{\mu}k_{\nu}l^{\mu}l^{\nu} = \frac{1}{2} R_{11}.
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Phi}_{22} = \frac{1}{2} R_{11} = \Phi_{22}.
\end{equation}
Thus, we can display these components in matrix form as follows,
\begin{equation}
(\Phi_{AB}) = \begin{pmatrix}
\Phi_{00} & \Phi_{01} & \Phi_{02} \cr
\Phi_{10} & \Phi_{11} & \Phi_{12} \cr
\Phi_{20} & \Phi_{21} & \Phi_{22}
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\Phi_{00} & \Phi_{01} & \Phi_{02} \cr
\overline{\Phi}_{01} & \Phi_{11} & \Phi_{12} \cr
\overline{\Phi}_{02} & \overline{\Phi}_{12} & \Phi_{22}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
with the complex components of Ricci tensor satisfying
$\overline{\Phi}_{AB} = \Phi_{BA}$.
The Einstein-Maxwell field equations is written as \cite{Kramer, Wytler2},
\begin{equation}
\label{Einstein_equation_2}
R_{\alpha\beta} = 8\pi G T_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
The electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor obtained in the equation (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_2}) is the source of curvature spacetime,
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\alpha\beta} &=& 2\,\bigg[\Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{0} l_{\alpha}l_{\beta} - \Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{1}\left(l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\alpha}l_{\beta}\right) + \Phi_{0}\overline\Phi_{2}\bar{m}_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}\nonumber \\[2pt]
& & - \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{0}\left( l_{\alpha} m_{\beta} + m_{\alpha}l_{\beta}\right) + \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{1}\left( l_{\alpha} k_{\beta} + k_{\alpha} l_{\beta} +m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\alpha}m_{\beta}\right) - \Phi_{1}\overline\Phi_{2}\left( k_{\alpha} \bar{m}_{\beta} + \bar{m}_{\alpha}k_{\beta}\right) \nonumber \\[2pt]
& & + \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{0} m_{\alpha} m_{\beta} - \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{1}\left( k_{\alpha} m_{\beta} + k_{\beta}m_{\alpha} \right) + \Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{2} k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}
\bigg]. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Let us make a contraction $T_{\alpha\beta}k^{\alpha}k^{\beta}$ in the equation (\ref{Einstein_equation_2}), and we have that the only non-null contraction term in the equation of electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor is $T_{\alpha\beta} k^{\alpha}k^{\beta} = 2 \Phi_{0}\overline{\Phi}_{0}$. From equation (\ref{Ricci_Phi_00}) we have that $R_{\alpha\beta}k^{\alpha}k^{\beta} = 2\Phi_{00}$. Thus we have the first Einstein-Maxwell field equation,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{00} = 8\pi G \Phi_{0}\overline{\Phi}_{0}.
\end{equation}
The second contraction is $T_{\alpha\beta}k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}$ in the equation (\ref{Einstein_equation_2}), so that the only non-null contraction term in the equation of electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor is $T_{\alpha\beta} k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} = 2 \Phi_{0}\overline{\Phi}_{1}$. From equation (\ref{Ricci_Phi_01}) we have that $R_{\alpha\beta}k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} = 2\Phi_{01}$. Thus we have the second Einstein-Maxwell field equation,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{01} = 8\pi G \Phi_{0}\overline{\Phi}_{1}.
\end{equation}
The third contraction is $T_{\alpha\beta}m^{\alpha}m^{\beta}$ in the equation (\ref{Einstein_equation_2}), so that the only non-null contraction term in the equation of electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor is $T_{\alpha\beta} m^{\alpha}m^{\beta} = 2 \Phi_{0}\overline{\Phi}_{2}$. From equation (\ref{Ricci_Phi_02}) we have that $R_{\alpha\beta}m^{\alpha}m^{\beta} = 2\Phi_{02}$. Thus we have the third Einstein-Maxwell field equation,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{02} = 8\pi G \Phi_{0}\overline{\Phi}_{2}.
\end{equation}
The fourth contraction is $T_{\alpha\beta}(k^{\alpha}l^{\beta} +m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta})$ in the equation (\ref{Einstein_equation_2}), so that the only non-null contraction term in the equation of electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor is $T_{\alpha\beta}(k^{\alpha}l^{\beta} +m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}) = 4 \Phi_{1}\overline{\Phi}_{1}$. From equation (\ref{Ricci_Phi_11}) we have that $R_{\alpha\beta}(k^{\alpha}l^{\beta} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}) = 4\Phi_{11}$. Thus we have the fourth Einstein-Maxwell field equation,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{11} = 8\pi G \Phi_{1}\overline{\Phi}_{1}.
\end{equation}
The fifth contraction is $T_{\alpha\beta}l^{\alpha}m^{\beta}$ in the equation (\ref{Einstein_equation_2}), so that the only non-null contraction term in the equation of electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor is $T_{\alpha\beta} l^{\alpha}m^{\beta} = 2 \Phi_{1}\overline{\Phi}_{2}$. From equation (\ref{Ricci_Phi_12}) we have that $R_{\alpha\beta}l^{\alpha}m^{\beta} = 2\Phi_{12}$. Thus we have the fifth Einstein-Maxwell field equation,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{12} = 8\pi G \Phi_{1}\overline{\Phi}_{2}.
\end{equation}
And finally, the sixth contraction is $T_{\alpha\beta}l^{\alpha}l^{\beta}$ in the equation (\ref{Einstein_equation_2}), so that the only non-null contraction term in the equation of electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor is $T_{\alpha\beta} l^{\alpha}l^{\beta} = 2 \Phi_{2}\overline{\Phi}_{2}$. From equation (\ref{Ricci_Phi_22}) we have that $R_{\alpha\beta}l^{\alpha}m^{\beta} = 2\Phi_{22}$. Thus the sixth Einstein-Maxwell field equation is,
\begin{equation}
\label{Einstein_Maxwell_NP_Phi_22}
\Phi_{22} = 8\pi G \Phi_{2}\overline{\Phi}_{2}.
\end{equation}
Summarizing, we have that the Einstein-Maxwell field equations written in Newman-Penrose formalism are given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{Einstein_Maxwell_NP_1}
\Phi_{AB} = 8\pi G \Phi_{A}\overline{\Phi}_{B},
\end{equation}
where $A,B=0,1,2$.
We have two conditions (i) non-null electromagnetic field and (ii) null electromagnetic field. For non-null electromagnetic field, we have seen in the equations (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_3}) and (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_6}) where we have only $\Phi_{1} \neq 0$, and for null electromagnetic field, we have seen in the equations (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_7}) and (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_8}) that the only non-zero electromagnetic field component is $\Phi_{2}$.
\section{The complex components of the Weyl curvature tensor in Newman-Penrose formalism}
The Weyl tensor is completely traceless, ${C^{\mu}}_{\lambda\mu\nu}=0$, where the contraction with respect to each pair of indices vanishes, and it has ten independent components.
In addition, similarly to Riemann curvature tensor, we have that Weyl curvature tensor obeys the first Bianchi identity \cite{Hall, Wald, Nakahara},
\begin{equation}
\label{first_Bianchi_equation}
C_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} + C_{\kappa\mu\nu\lambda} + C_{\kappa\nu\lambda\mu} = 0.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Duality and bivectors}
Similarly to the case of the electromagnetic field we must introduce the duality concept for the Weyl curvature tensor. Tensors with two pair of antisymmetric indices like Riemann and Weyl curvature tensors have two duality operations, the left dual $^{\sim}C_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}$ and right $C^{\sim}_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}$, defined by \cite{Kramer,Wytler3,Hall},
\begin{equation}
^{\sim}C_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\kappa\lambda\rho\sigma}{C^{\rho\sigma}}_{\mu\nu} \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} C^{\sim}_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} = {C_{\kappa\lambda}}^{\rho\sigma} ~\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}.
\end{equation}
In the same way as the electromagnetic field, we introduce the complex Weyl tensor,
\begin{equation}
{{\cal C}^{*}}_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} = C_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} + iC^{\sim}_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu},
\end{equation}
such that it is self-dual,
\begin{equation}
^{\sim}{{\cal C}^{*}}_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} = -i{{\cal C}^{*}}_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}.
\end{equation}
We have described the complex electromagnetic field ${\cal F}_{\mu\nu}$ as a linear combination of the self-dual base of complex bivectors $U_{\alpha\beta},V_{\alpha\beta}$ and $W_{\alpha\beta}$ in accordance with (\ref{bivector_F_6}), where we have
$\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = \Phi_{0}U_{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{1}W_{\alpha\beta} + \Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\beta}$. In the same way we can express the Weyl tensor as a linear combination of the self-dual base of complex bivectors $U_{\alpha\beta},V_{\alpha\beta}$ and $W_{\alpha\beta}$.
For this proposal it is necessary to note that the Weyl tensor is completely traceless, ${C^{\mu}}_{\lambda\mu\nu}=0$.
We have to write double combinations of complex bivectors $U_{\alpha\beta},V_{\alpha\beta}$ and $W_{\alpha\beta}$ such that these combinations yield the traceless conditions of Weyl tensor. The first double combination that we can try is $U_{\alpha\beta}U_{\gamma\delta}$, where from equation (\ref{U1}) we have that $U_{\alpha\beta} = -l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}+l_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}$ and
the below contraction results in,
\begin{equation}
{U^{\alpha}}_{\beta}U_{\alpha\delta} = (-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}+l_{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} ) (-l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\delta}+l_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}) = 0,
\end{equation}
recalling that the only non-null contractions between the tetrad field are $k_{\alpha}l^{\alpha} = -1$ and $m_{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\alpha} =1$.
The second double combination that we can try is $V_{\alpha\beta}V_{\gamma\delta}$, where from equation (\ref{V1}) we have that $V_{\alpha\beta} = k_{\alpha}m_{\beta}-k_{\beta}m_{\alpha}$,
the below contraction results in,
\begin{equation}
{V^{\alpha}}_{\beta}V_{\alpha\delta} = (k^{\alpha}m_{\beta}-k_{\beta}m^{\alpha} ) (k_{\alpha}m_{\delta}-k_{\delta}m_{\alpha}) = 0.
\end{equation}
The third double combination that we can try is $W_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta}$, where from equation (\ref{W1}) we have that $W_{\alpha\beta} = l_{\alpha}k_{\beta} - l_{\beta}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - m_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}$,
the below contraction results in,
\begin{equation}
{W^{\alpha}}_{\beta}W_{\alpha\delta} = (l^{\alpha}k_{\beta} - l_{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - m_{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}) (l_{\alpha}k_{\delta} - l_{\delta}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\delta} - m_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}) = k_{\beta}l_{\delta} + k_{\delta}l_{\beta} -m_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\delta} - m_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\beta},
\end{equation}
but this contraction is not null. However we can combine with more two terms,
\begin{equation}
{U^{\alpha}}_{\beta}V_{\alpha\delta} = (-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}+l_{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} ) (k_{\alpha}m_{\delta}-k_{\delta}m_{\alpha}) = -k_{\delta}l_{\beta} + m_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\beta},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{V^{\alpha}}_{\beta}U_{\alpha\delta} = (k^{\alpha}m_{\beta}-k_{\beta}m^{\alpha} )(-l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\delta}+l_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}) = -k_{\beta}l_{\delta} + m_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\delta}.
\end{equation}
Thus we can combine the three above equations resulting in,
\begin{equation}
{U^{\alpha}}_{\beta}V_{\alpha\delta} + {V^{\alpha}}_{\beta}U_{\alpha\delta} + {W^{\alpha}}_{\beta}W_{\alpha\delta} = 0,
\end{equation}
such that it is a base term to use in Weyl tensor combination.
The fourth double combination that we have is $U_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta} + W_{\alpha\beta}U_{\gamma\delta}$, where the contraction results in,
\begin{eqnarray}
{U^{\alpha}}_{\beta}W_{\alpha\delta} + {W^{\alpha}}_{\beta}U_{\alpha\delta} &=& (-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta}+l_{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})(l_{\alpha}k_{\delta} - l_{\delta}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\delta} - m_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\alpha})\cr
& & + (l^{\alpha}k_{\beta} - l_{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - m_{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})(-l_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\delta}+l_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\alpha}) \cr
&=& (l_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\delta} - l_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\beta}) + (-l_{\beta}\bar{m}_{\delta} + l_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\beta}) = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
The fifth and last independent double combination that we have is $V_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta} + W_{\alpha\beta}V_{\gamma\delta}$, where the contraction results in,
\begin{eqnarray}
{V^{\alpha}}_{\beta}W_{\alpha\delta} + {W^{\alpha}}_{\beta}V_{\alpha\delta} &=& (k^{\alpha}m_{\beta}-k_{\beta}m^{\alpha})(l_{\alpha}k_{\delta} - l_{\delta}k_{\alpha} + m_{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\delta} - m_{\delta}\bar{m}_{\alpha})\cr
& & + (l^{\alpha}k_{\beta} - l_{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}_{\beta} - m_{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha})(k_{\alpha}m_{\delta}-k_{\delta}m_{\alpha}) \cr
&=& (k_{\beta}m_{\delta} - k_{\delta}m_{\beta}) - (k_{\beta}m_{\delta} - k_{\delta}m_{\beta}) = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
So, the complex Weyl tensor ${\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ are written as a linear combination,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{complex_Weyl_NP_1}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} &=& \Psi_{0} U_{\alpha\beta}U_{\gamma\delta} + \Psi_{1}(U_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta} + W_{\alpha\beta}U_{\gamma\delta}) +\Psi_{2} (U_{\alpha\beta}V_{\alpha\delta} + V_{\alpha\beta}U_{\alpha\delta} + W_{\alpha\beta}W_{\alpha\delta}) \cr
& & +\Psi_{3}(V_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta} + W_{\alpha\beta}V_{\gamma\delta}) + \Psi_{4} V_{\alpha\beta}V_{\gamma\delta}.
\end{eqnarray}
There are ten independent components in the five complex terms $\Psi_{0},\Psi_{1}, \Psi_{2}, \Psi_{3}$ and $\Psi_{4}$ and we can obtain these components by contractions with the respective bivectors of the base.
To get the first component $\Psi_{0}$ we can contract above equation (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) with $V^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta}$, where we have from equation (\ref{contracao UV}), $U_{\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta} =2$, and the others contractions in equations of Weyl tensor (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) are zeros. Then we have,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}V^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} = \Psi_{0} U_{\alpha\beta}U_{\gamma\delta}V^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} = 4\Psi_{0}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_0_1}
\Psi_{0} = \frac{1}{8} {\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}V^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
Similarly to the case of the electromagnetic field, we also have that
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_I_C_1}
I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} {C_{\epsilon\zeta}}^{\gamma\delta} = \frac{1}{4} \left( g_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + i \eta_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \right){C_{\epsilon\zeta}}^{\gamma\delta} = \frac{1}{2} \left( C_{\epsilon\zeta\alpha\beta} + i C^{\sim}_{\epsilon\zeta\alpha\beta}\right) = \frac{1}{2} {\cal C}^{*}_{\epsilon\zeta\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
We can contract the above equation with $V^{\epsilon\zeta}V^{\alpha\beta}$ such that,
\begin{equation}
V^{\epsilon\zeta}V^{\alpha\beta}I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} {C_{\epsilon\zeta}}^{\gamma\delta} =\frac{1}{2} {\cal C}^{*}_{\epsilon\zeta\alpha\beta}V^{\epsilon\zeta}V^{\alpha\beta} = 4\Psi_{0}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with aid of equation (\ref{identidade_I_1}) where $V^{\alpha\beta}I_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = V_{\gamma\delta}$, the above equation reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_0_2}
\Psi_{0} = \frac{1}{4} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}V^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
Thus we can rewrite it em terms of the complex null-tetrad basis as
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{0} = \frac{1}{4} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(-k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}+ k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}) (-k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}+ k^{\delta}m^{\gamma}) = \frac{1}{4} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(-2k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}) (-2k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}), \nonumber
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_0_3}
\Psi_{0} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
For above Weyl component, in the pseudo-orthornormal Newman-Penrose non-coordinate basis (\ref{NP_basis_vector}), the non-null components become when $\alpha=0$, $\beta = 2$, $\gamma=0$ and $\delta =2$, resulting in
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_0_4}
\Psi_{0} = C_{0202} = C_{2020}.
\end{equation}
The conjugate complex yelds $\bar{\Psi}_{0} = C_{0303} = C_{3030}$.
Now to get the component $\Psi_{4}$ let us contract the equation (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) with $U^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta}$, where we have from equation (\ref{contracao UV}), $U_{\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta} = 2$, and the others contractions in equations of Weyl tensor (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) are zeros. Then we have,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} = \Psi_{4} V_{\alpha\beta}V_{\gamma\delta}U^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} = 4\Psi_{4}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_4_1}
\Psi_{4} = \frac{1}{8} {\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
In the same way, we obtain to Weyl component $\Phi_{4}$ the below equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_4_2}
\Psi_{4} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}l^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
And for above Weyl component, in the pseudo-orthornormal Newman-Penrose non-coordinate basis (\ref{NP_basis_vector}), the non-null components become when $\alpha=1$, $\beta = 3$, $\gamma=1$ and $\delta =3$, resulting in
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_4_3}
\Psi_{4} = C_{1313} = C_{3131}.
\end{equation}
The conjugate complex yelds $\bar{\Psi}_{4} = C_{1212} = C_{2121}$.
Now to get the component $\Psi_{1}$ let us contract the equation (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) with $V^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta}$, where we have from equations (\ref{contracao UV}), $U_{\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta} = 2$, and (\ref{contracao WW}), $W_{\alpha\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} =-4$
and the others contractions in equations of Weyl tensor (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) are zeros, we have,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(V^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta}) = \Psi_{1}(U_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta} + W_{\alpha\beta}U_{\gamma\delta})(V^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta}) = -16 \Psi_{1}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where it results in
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_1_1}
\Psi_{1} = -\frac{1}{16} {\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}V^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
We can use the identity of the equation (\ref{identidade_I_C_1}),
${\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = 2 I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}$, into above equation (\ref{Psi_1_1}) where it results,
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{1} = -\frac{1}{16} \left(2 I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}\right) V^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} = -\frac{1}{8} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}V^{\alpha\beta}\left(I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} W^{\gamma\delta}\right) = -\frac{1}{8} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}V^{\alpha\beta}W_{\epsilon\zeta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_1_2}
\Psi_{1} = -\frac{1}{8} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}V^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
We also have that the above equation can explicit in,
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{1} = -\frac{1}{8} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} - k^{\beta}m^{\alpha}\right)\left(l^{\gamma}k^{\delta} - l^{\delta}k^{\gamma} + m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} - m^{\delta}\bar{m}^{\gamma}\right) = -\frac{1}{8} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(2k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} \right)\left(-2k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} - 2\bar{m}^{\gamma}m^{\delta} \right),\nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_1_3}
\Psi_{1} = \frac{1}{2} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} + k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\gamma}m^{\delta}\right).
\end{equation}
We can reduce the above equation, by traceless, $\gamma^{\alpha\gamma}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = C_{\beta\delta}=0$ and with (\ref{components_g_1}),
\begin{equation}
\gamma^{\alpha\gamma}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = \left[-\left(l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma} + l^{\gamma}k^{\alpha} \right)+
\left(m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\gamma} + m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \right)\right]C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where it becomes
\begin{equation}
\left(l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma} + l^{\gamma}k^{\alpha} \right)C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} =
\left(m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\gamma} + m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \right)C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
with change of indices we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_C_2}
l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma} \left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}\right) =
\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma} \left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}\right) ,
\end{equation}
Now, we can multiply the above equation by $k^{\beta}m^{\delta}$ where it results in
\begin{equation}
l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}k^{\beta}m^{\delta} \left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}\right) =
\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma}k^{\beta}m^{\delta} \left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}\right),\nonumber
\end{equation}
noting that $l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}k^{\beta}m^{\delta}C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} =0$ and $\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma}k^{\beta}m^{\delta}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = 0$ such as,
\begin{equation}
k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} =
k^{\beta}m^{\gamma} \bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\delta} C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta},\nonumber
\end{equation}
with the properties $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=C_{\gamma\delta\alpha\beta}=-C_{\gamma\delta\beta\alpha} $ and $C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}= - C_{\beta\gamma\alpha\delta}$ the above equation is rewriten as
\begin{equation}
k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}k^{\beta}l^{\alpha} C_{\gamma\delta\beta\alpha} =
k^{\beta}m^{\gamma} \bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\delta} C_{\beta\gamma\alpha\delta}\nonumber
\end{equation}
On the left side of the above equation we choose the indices $\gamma \rightarrow \alpha$, $\delta \rightarrow \beta$, $\beta \rightarrow \gamma$ and $\alpha \rightarrow \delta$. On right side we choose $\beta \rightarrow \alpha$, $\gamma \rightarrow \beta$ and $\alpha \rightarrow \gamma$, where it follows
\begin{equation}
k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} =
k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} \bar{m}^{\gamma}m^{\delta} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
Now we can return with this equation to equation (\ref{Psi_1_3}) to write two results for component $\Psi_{1}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_1_4}
\Psi_{1} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}k^{\gamma}l^{\delta}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_1_5}
\Psi_{1} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} \bar{m}^{\gamma}m^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
It is still possible to write the equation (\ref{Psi_1_4}) with the property $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = C_{\gamma\delta\alpha\beta}$ as
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{1} = C_{\gamma\delta\alpha\beta} k^{\gamma}l^{\delta}k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and we can choose the indices $\alpha \leftrightarrow \gamma$ and $\beta \leftrightarrow \delta$ to obtain,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_1_6}
\Psi_{1} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
In Newman-Penrose complex null tetrads we from equations (\ref{Psi_1_4}),(\ref{Psi_1_5}) and (\ref{Psi_1_6}) that,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_1_7}
\Psi_{1} = C_{0201} = C_{0102} = C_{0232} = C_{3202}.
\end{equation}
Now to get the component $\Psi_{3}$ let us contract the equation (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) with $U^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta}$, where we have from equations (\ref{contracao UV}), $U_{\alpha\beta}V^{\alpha\beta} = 2$, and (\ref{contracao WW}), $W_{\alpha\beta}W^{\alpha\beta} =-4$
and the others contractions in equations of Weyl tensor (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) are zeros, then we have,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(U^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta}) = \Psi_{3}(V_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta} + W_{\alpha\beta}V_{\gamma\delta})(U^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta}) = -16 \Psi_{3}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where it results in
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_3_1}
\Psi_{3} = -\frac{1}{16} {\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}
\end{equation}
We can use the identity of the equation (\ref{identidade_I_C_1}),
${\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = 2 I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}$, into above equation (\ref{Psi_3_1}) where it results,
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{3} = -\frac{1}{16} \left(2 I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}\right) U^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta} = -\frac{1}{8} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}U^{\alpha\beta}\left(I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} W^{\gamma\delta}\right) = -\frac{1}{8} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}U^{\alpha\beta}W_{\epsilon\zeta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_3_2}
\Psi_{3} = -\frac{1}{8} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
We also have that the above equation can explicit in,
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{3} = -\frac{1}{8} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\right)\left(l^{\gamma}k^{\delta} - l^{\delta}k^{\gamma} + m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} - m^{\delta}\bar{m}^{\gamma}\right) = -\frac{1}{8} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(-2l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} \right)\left(-2k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} - 2\bar{m}^{\gamma}m^{\delta} \right),\nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_3_3}
\Psi_{3} = -\frac{1}{2} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} + l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\gamma}m^{\delta}\right).
\end{equation}
Let us return to equation (\ref{identidade_C_2}) and we can multiply this equation by $l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\delta}$ where it results in
\begin{equation}
l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\delta} \left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}\right) =
\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma} l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\delta} \left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
noting that $l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\delta}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} =0$ and $\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma} l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\delta}C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} = 0$ such as,
\begin{equation}
l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\delta} k^{\gamma}l^{\beta} C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} =
l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\delta} m^{\gamma} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with the properties $C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} = C_{\alpha\delta\gamma\beta}$ and $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = C_{\beta\alpha\delta\gamma}$ it results in
\begin{equation}
l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\delta} k^{\gamma}l^{\beta} C_{\alpha\delta\gamma\beta}= l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\delta} m^{\gamma} C_{\beta\alpha\delta\gamma}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
On the lef side of the above equation we choose the indices $\delta \leftrightarrow \beta$ and on right side we choose $\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta$ and $\delta \leftrightarrow \gamma$, where it follows
\begin{equation}
l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}= l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\gamma} m^{\delta} C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}.
\end{equation}
Now we can return with this equation to equation (\ref{Psi_3_3}) to write two results for component $\Psi_{3}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_3_4}
\Psi_{3} = -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} k^{\gamma}l^{\delta}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_3_5}
\Psi_{3} = -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\gamma} m^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
It is still possible to write the equation (\ref{Psi_3_4}) with the property $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = C_{\gamma\delta\alpha\beta}$ as
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{3} = -C_{\gamma\delta\alpha\beta} k^{\gamma}l^{\delta}l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and we can choose the indices $\alpha \leftrightarrow \gamma$ and $\beta \leftrightarrow \delta$ to obtain,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_3_6}
\Psi_{3} = -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}l^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
In Newman-Penrose complex null tetrads we from equation (\ref{Psi_3_4}), (\ref{Psi_3_5}) and (\ref{Psi_3_6}) that,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_3_7}
\Psi_{3} = -C_{1301} = -C_{0113} = -C_{1332} = -C_{3213}.
\end{equation}
To get the component $\Psi_{2}$ we can contract above equation (\ref{complex_Weyl_NP_1}) with
$U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} + V^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}$, where the only non zero component is
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} + V^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}\right) = \Psi_{2}\left(U_{\alpha\beta}V_{\gamma\delta} + V_{\alpha\beta}U_{\gamma\delta} + W_{\alpha\beta}W_{\gamma\delta}\right)\left( U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} + V^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
with non null contractions (\ref{contracao UV}) and (\ref{contracao WW}) it results
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}{\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} + V^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}\right) = 24\Psi_{2} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can use the identity of the equation (\ref{identidade_I_C_1}),
${\cal C}^{*}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = 2 I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}$, into above equation and rewrite it as,
\begin{equation}
I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} {C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}\left(U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} + V^{\alpha\beta}U^{\gamma\delta} + W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}\right) = 24\Psi_{2} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
{C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}\left[U^{\alpha\beta}\left( I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} V^{\gamma\delta}\right) + V^{\alpha\beta}\left( I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} U^{\gamma\delta}\right) + W^{\alpha\beta}\left(I_{\gamma\delta\epsilon\zeta} W^{\gamma\delta}\right)\right] = 24\Psi_{2} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the identities of equation (\ref{identidade_I_1}), such as
\begin{equation}
{C_{\alpha\beta}}^{\epsilon\zeta}\left[U^{\alpha\beta}V_{\epsilon\zeta} + V^{\alpha\beta}U_{\epsilon\zeta} + W^{\alpha\beta}W_{\epsilon\zeta}\right] = 24\Psi_{2} . \nonumber
\end{equation}
Thus we have that above equation becomes
\begin{equation}
24\Psi_{2} = 2C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}U^{\alpha\beta}V^{\gamma\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}W^{\alpha\beta}W^{\gamma\delta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
With aid of equations (\ref{U1}), (\ref{V1}) and (\ref{W1}) we can write the above equation as,
\begin{equation}
24\Psi_{2} = 2C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(-l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} + l^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \right)\left(k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} - k^{\delta}m^{\gamma}\right) + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} - l^{\beta}k^{\alpha} + m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} - m^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha} \right)\left(l^{\gamma}k^{\delta} - l^{\delta}k^{\gamma} + m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} - m^{\delta}\bar{m}^{\gamma} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{2} = \frac{1}{24}\left[2C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(-2l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\right)\left(2k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}\right) + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\left(2l^{\alpha}k^{\beta} + 2m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} \right)\left(2l^{\gamma}k^{\delta} + 2m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} \right)\right], \nonumber
\end{equation}
and it results in the below equation
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_1}
\Psi_{2} = \frac{1}{6}\left[-2C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} + 2C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta}+ C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}\right].
\end{equation}
Finally, to simplify the component $\Psi_{2}$, we can start from the equation (\ref{identidade_C_2}) and we can multiply it by $\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\delta}$ where it results in
\begin{equation}
l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\delta}\left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} \right) = \bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\delta}\left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} \right),\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we have $\bar{m}^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\gamma}m^{\delta}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = 0$ and the above equation becomes,
\begin{equation}
C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\delta} = C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~ m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\delta},\nonumber
\end{equation}
where the right-handed side of the above equation can be write as $C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~ m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\delta} = - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}$ and we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_C_3}
C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\delta} = - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
Now let us return to equation (\ref{identidade_C_2}) and we can multiply it by $k^{\beta}l^{\delta}$ where it results in
\begin{equation}
l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}k^{\gamma}l^{\delta}\left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} \right) = \bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma}k^{\beta}l^{\delta}\left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} \right),\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we have $k^{\gamma}k^{\beta}l^{\alpha}l^{\delta}C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta} = 0$ and the above equation becomes,
\begin{equation}
C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~k^{\beta}l^{\delta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma} + C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~k^{\beta}l^{\delta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma} = - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta},\nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_{\beta\alpha\delta\gamma}~k^{\beta}l^{\delta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma} + C_{\delta\alpha\beta\gamma}~k^{\beta}l^{\delta}\bar{m}^{\alpha}m^{\gamma} = - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta},\nonumber
\end{equation}
where it results
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_C_4}
C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} = - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
When we compare the equations (\ref{identidade_C_3}) and the abobe equation (\ref{identidade_C_4}), we obtain that,
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_C_5}
C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
With the above equation (\ref{identidade_C_5}) we can rewrite the equation (\ref{Psi_2_1}) as
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_2}
\Psi_{2} = \frac{1}{3}\left( -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta}\right).
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_3}
\Psi_{2} = \frac{1}{3}\left(-C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}\right).
\end{equation}
We can get a way to rewrite the term $C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}$ from equations (\ref{identidade_C_3}) and (\ref{identidade_C_4}) by permutations of indixes,
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_C_6}
C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} = C_{\alpha\delta\gamma\beta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} = - C_{\alpha\delta\beta\gamma}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
If we use the equation of the first Biachi identity (\ref{first_Bianchi_equation}),
\begin{equation}
C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + C_{\alpha\gamma\delta\beta} + C_{\alpha\delta\beta\gamma} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and we multiply the above equation by $l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}$, then we obtain,
\begin{equation}
C_{\alpha\delta\beta\gamma}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} = - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} - C_{\alpha\gamma\delta\beta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} = - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
With equation (\ref{identidade_C_6}) the above equation becomes,
\begin{equation}
C_{\gamma\beta\alpha\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
Thus, if we replace the above equation into equation (\ref{identidade_C_4}) we have the below equation
\begin{equation}
\label{identidade_C_7}
2 C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} = - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta},
\end{equation}
and we can put it into equation (\ref{Psi_2_2}) such we have to $\Psi_{2}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi_{2} &=& \frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{1}{2}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} + \frac{1}{2}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta}\right)\cr
&=& \frac{1}{2}\left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta}\right)\cr
&=& -\frac{1}{2}\left(C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} + C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta}\right), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
finally we have,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_4}
\Psi_{2} = \frac{1}{2}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~k^{\alpha}l^{\beta} \left(k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} - m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} \right).
\end{equation}
In Newman-Penrose complex null tetrads we from the above equation that,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_5}
\Psi_{2} = \frac{1}{2} \left( C_{0101} - C_{0123}\right) \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} \bar{\Psi}_{2} = \frac{1}{2} \left( C_{0101} + C_{0123}\right).
\end{equation}
If we recall the equation (\ref{identidade_C_7}) and we isolate the term $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} $ we have that,
\begin{equation}
C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} = -2 C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta} - C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~ l^{\alpha}k^{\beta}l^{\gamma}k^{\delta}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
we can replace it into equation (\ref{Psi_2_2}), then we have other identity for $\Psi_{2}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_7}
\Psi_{2} = -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} l^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} .
\end{equation}
In Newman-Penrose complex null tetrads we from the above equation that,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_8}
\Psi_{2} = -C_{0213} \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm}\bar{\Psi}_{2} = -C_{0312}.
\end{equation}
Also, we can recall the equation (\ref{Psi_2_4}) and replace the identity (\ref{identidade_C_5}) to obtain other equation for $\Psi_{2}$, such as below equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_9}
\Psi_{2} = \frac{1}{2}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} \left(m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} - k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} \right),
\end{equation}
where in Newman-Penrose complex null tetrads we from the above equation that,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_10}
{\Psi}_{2} = \frac{1}{2} \left( C_{2323} - C_{0123}\right) \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace*{1cm} \bar{\Psi}_{2} = \frac{1}{2} \left( C_{2323} + C_{0123}\right).
\end{equation}
Finally we can collect the results of the equations (\ref{Psi_0_3}), (\ref{Psi_4_2}), (\ref{Psi_1_4}), (\ref{Psi_1_5}), (\ref{Psi_1_6}), (\ref{Psi_3_4}), (\ref{Psi_3_5}), (\ref{Psi_3_6}), (\ref{Psi_2_4}), (\ref{Psi_2_7}) and (\ref{Psi_2_9}) to group the five complex components of the Weyl curvature tensor in Newman-Penrose formalism as follows,
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\Psi_{0} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}, \cr
\Psi_{1} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}m^{\beta}k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} \bar{m}^{\gamma}m^{\delta} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}k^{\gamma}m^{\delta}, \cr
\Psi_{2} = \frac{1}{2}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~k^{\alpha}l^{\beta} \left(k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} - m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} \right) = \frac{1}{2}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~m^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} \left(m^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta} - k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} \right) = -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~k^{\alpha}m^{\beta} l^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta},\cr
\Psi_{3} = -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta} k^{\gamma}l^{\delta} = -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}\bar{m}^{\gamma} m^{\delta} = -C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} k^{\alpha}l^{\beta}l^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}, \cr
\Psi_{4} = C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} l^{\alpha}\bar{m}^{\beta}l^{\gamma}\bar{m}^{\delta}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Example of Vaidya spacetime}
An example that we can verify about this mathematical formalism, it is the Vaidya spacetime. This spacetime can represent a spherical radiating star. It solution is a spacetime related to Schwarzschild,
\begin{equation}
\label{Schwarzschild_1}
ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta~d\phi^2 \right).
\end{equation}
In the similar way that we can adopt to obtain the Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates \cite{Hobson}, the lightcone structure of the the paths of radially incoming and outgoing photons in the Schwarzschild spacetime can be obtained by $ds^2=0$.
From the metric (\ref{Schwarzschild_1}), for a radially moving photon we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{dt}
dt = \pm \left(1 - \frac{2m}{r} \right)^{-1} dr
\end{equation}
where the plus sign corresponds to a photon that is outgoing and the minus sign corresponds to a photon that is incoming. On integrating over plus sign, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{outgoing_photon_1}
u = t - r - 2m \ln \left(\frac{r}{2m} - 1\right),
\end{equation}
where the parameter $u$ is a integration constant, but that from now on it is assumed as null coordinate. With this, the differential $dt$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{outgoing_photon_2}
dt = du + \left(1 - \frac{2m}{r} \right)^{-1} dr,
\end{equation}
where it is for outgoing photons in the Schwarzschild spacetime. With this we have that
\begin{equation}
dt^2 = du^2 + \left(1 - \frac{2m}{r} \right)^{-2}~ dr^2 + 2\left(1 - \frac{2m}{r} \right)^{-1}~ du~dr, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and replacing the above equation in the equation (\ref{Schwarzschild_1}) we obtain the spherical Schwarzschild spacetime given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{Schwarzschild_2}
ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right)~du^2 -2du~dr + r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta~d\phi^2 \right).
\end{equation}
The above metric is especially convenient for calculating
the paths of radial null geodesics, for which
$ds = d\theta = d\phi = 0$, and describe outgoing photons
from spherical gravitational sources. The metric (\ref{Schwarzschild_2}) is called retarded Schwarzschild metric.
If we integrate the differential equation (\ref{dt}) over minus sign, then we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{incoming_photon_1}
v = t + r + 2m \ln \left(\frac{r}{2m} - 1\right),
\end{equation}
again, the parameter $v$ is a integration constant, but that from now on it is assumed as null coordinate. With this the differential $dt^2$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
dt^2 = dv^2 + \left(1 - \frac{2m}{r} \right)^{-2}~ dr^2 - 2\left(1 - \frac{2m}{r} \right)^{-1}~ dv~dr, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where it is for incoming photons in the Schwarzschild spacetime. Thus, the spherical Schwarzschild spacetime is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Schwarzschild_3}
ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right)~dv^2 + 2dv~dr + r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta~d\phi^2 \right),
\end{equation}
in such a way that the above metric is especially convenient for calculating the paths of radial null geodesics, for which
$ds = d\theta = d\phi = 0$, and describe incoming photons
from spherical gravitational sources. The metric (\ref{Schwarzschild_3}) is called advanced Schwarzschild metric.
These Schwarzschild spacetimes represented by equations (\ref{Schwarzschild_2}) and (\ref{Schwarzschild_3}) are util to describe the exact solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations \cite{Griffiths}. Each metric (\ref{Schwarzschild_2}) and (\ref{Schwarzschild_3}) can express the outgoing and incoming radiation given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_retarded}
ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2m(u)}{r}\right)~du^2 - 2du~dr + r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta~d\phi^2 \right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_advanced}
ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2m(v)}{r}\right)~dv^2 + 2dv~dr + r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta~d\phi^2 \right).
\end{equation}
The retarded solution of Vaidya metric (\ref{Vaidya_retarded}) corresponds to a spherical distribution of pure radiation, as we will see below, by emission of a central mass source. In this case the retarded solution of Vaidya metric can represent a radiation star or white hole. While the advanced solution of Vaidya metric (\ref{Vaidya_advanced}) is especially useful in black hole physics.
We can calculate the Weyl component and the Ricci component of the retarded Vaidya spacetime (\ref{Vaidya_retarded}) by Cartan's method. We can recall the equation (\ref{metric_N-P_01}), where we have $ \mbox{\bf g} = -2 {\bm \theta}^{0} \otimes {\bm \theta}^{1} + 2 {\bm \theta}^{2} \otimes {\bm \theta}^{3}$, where we have from equation (\ref{Vaidya_retarded}) that,
\begin{equation}
2 {\bm \theta}^{0} \otimes {\bm \theta}^{1} = \left(1-\frac{2m(u)}{r}\right)~du\otimes du + 2du\otimes dr.
\end{equation}
Thus we have that,
\begin{eqnarray}
2 {\bm \theta}^{0} \otimes {\bm \theta}^{1} &=& 2\left({\omega^{0}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu} \right)\otimes \left({\omega^{1}}_{\nu} dx^{\nu} \right) \cr
&=& 2\left({\omega^{0}}_{u} du + {\omega^{0}}_{r} dr \right)\otimes \left({\omega^{1}}_{u} du + {\omega^{1}}_{r} dr \right) \cr
&=& 2\left({\omega^{0}}_{u} {\omega^{1}}_{u} \right) du\otimes du + 2\left({\omega^{0}}_{r} {\omega^{1}}_{r} \right) dr\otimes dr + 2\left({\omega^{0}}_{u} {\omega^{1}}_{r} + {\omega^{0}}_{r} {\omega^{1}}_{u} \right) du\otimes dr.
\end{eqnarray}
It results in three equations
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_01}
2\left({\omega^{0}}_{u} {\omega^{1}}_{u} \right) = \left(1-\frac{2m(u)}{r}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_02}
2\left({\omega^{0}}_{u} {\omega^{1}}_{r} + {\omega^{0}}_{r} {\omega^{1}}_{u} \right) = 2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_03}
{\omega^{0}}_{r} {\omega^{1}}_{r} = 0.
\end{equation}
In the above equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_03}) we choose ${\omega^{1}}_{r} = 0$, consequently in the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_02}) it results in ${\omega^{0}}_{r} {\omega^{1}}_{u} = 1$ and we write ${\omega^{0}}_{r} = 1$ and ${\omega^{1}}_{u} = 1$ and then we have from equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_01}) that,
\begin{equation}
{\omega^{0}}_{u} = \frac{1}{2} \left(1-\frac{2m(u)}{r}\right). \nonumber
\end{equation}
Thus we have that the matrix of tetrad follows as
\begin{equation}
\left({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu} \right) = \begin{pmatrix}
\dfrac{1}{2} \left(1-\dfrac{2m(u)}{r}\right) & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & \dfrac{r}{\sqrt{2}} & \dfrac{i}{\sqrt{2}} r\sin\theta \cr
0 & 0 & \dfrac{r}{\sqrt{2}} & \dfrac{-i}{\sqrt{2}} r\sin\theta
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
and the coordinate dual basis $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} = {\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu}$ are seen as,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_04}
\begin{cases}
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} = dr + \dfrac{1}{2} \left(1-\dfrac{2m(u)}{r}\right) du\cr
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} = du \cr
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(r~d\theta + ir\sin\theta~d\phi \right) \cr
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(r~d\theta - ir\sin\theta~d\phi \right),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2}} = \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}$.
Operating an exterior derivative on $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0}$ results in,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_05}
d \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} = \frac{m}{r^2} ~ dr \wedge du.
\end{equation}
and the exterior product between $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0}$ and $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}$ follows as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} = \left[ dr + \dfrac{1}{2} \left(1-\dfrac{2m(u)}{r}\right) du \right] \wedge du = dr \wedge du, \nonumber
\end{equation}
so that with this equation, we have that equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_05}) becomes,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_06}
d \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} = \frac{m}{r^2} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}.
\end{equation}
The exterior derivative for the second one-form of dual basis (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_04}), results in,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_07}
d \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} = 0.
\end{equation}
In order to obtain $d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2}$ and $d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}$
we need express $dr$, $d\theta$ and $d\phi$ in terms of one-forms of the dual basis (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_04}). To isolate $d\theta$ in the system (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_04}), it is straightforward to express $d\theta$ through of the below equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_08}
d \theta = \frac{1}{r\sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} + \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \right),
\end{equation}
For the one-form $d\phi$ we obtain that,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_09}
d \phi = \frac{-i}{r\sin\theta \sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} - \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \right).
\end{equation}
And for the one-form $dr$ we obtain that,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_10}
dr = \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} - \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}.
\end{equation}
Thus, from system of equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_04}) we have that de two-forms
$d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2}$ and $d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}$ become,
\begin{equation}
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(dr\wedge d\theta + i\sin\theta~dr\wedge d\phi + ir\cos\theta~d\theta\wedge d\phi \right) \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(dr\wedge d\theta - i\sin\theta~dr\wedge d\phi - ir\cos\theta~d\theta\wedge d\phi \right) = \overline{d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2}}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can substitute equations (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_08}), (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_09}) and (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_10}) in equation for 2-form $d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2}$ and we obtain that,
\begin{eqnarray}
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} - \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}\right] \wedge \left[ \frac{1}{r\sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} + \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \right)\right] + \frac{i\sin\theta}{\sqrt{2}} \left[\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} - \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}\right]\wedge \left[\frac{-i}{r\sin\theta \sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} - \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \right)\right] \cr
& & +\frac{i r \cos\theta}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{1}{r\sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} + \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \right)\wedge \frac{(-i)}{r\sin\theta \sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} - \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \right) \right], \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
such that it reduces to,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_11}
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} = \frac{1}{r} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} -\frac{1}{2r}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3},
\end{equation}
and for $d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}$ we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_12}
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = \frac{1}{r} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} -\frac{1}{2r}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
With these two-forms we can use the first Cartan equation (\ref{1a_equacao_de_Cartan}) to calculate connection 1-form ${\bm \Gamma}_{\alpha\beta}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{1a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}
\begin{cases}
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^0 = -{\bm \Gamma}_{01}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + {\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^2
+ \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12} \wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 \cr
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 = {\bm \Gamma}_{01}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1 + {\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2
+ \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 \cr
d\tilde{\bm\theta}^2 = \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1
+ {\bm \Gamma}_{23}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For the first equation we have from (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_06}) that,
\begin{equation}
-{\bm \Gamma}_{01}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + {\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^2
+ \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12} \wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 = \frac{m}{r^2} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} \nonumber
\end{equation}
and we can identify the 1-form ${\bm \Gamma}_{01}$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_13}
{\bm \Gamma}_{01} = \frac{m}{r^2} ~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}.
\end{equation}
From the first equation in (\ref{1a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}) results too
\begin{equation}
{\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^2
= - \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12} \wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 \nonumber
\end{equation}
since $ \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12} = {\bm \Gamma}_{13}$ this equation results in,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_14}
{\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^2
= - {\bm \Gamma}_{13} \wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 .
\end{equation}
From the second equation in (\ref{1a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}), with $d\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 = 0$ from (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_07}) and the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_13}) it results
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_15}
{\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^2
= -{\bm \Gamma}_{03} \wedge\tilde{\bm\theta}^3.
\end{equation}
We can substitute the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_11}) ino the third equation of (\ref{1a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}), we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_16}
\frac{1}{r} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} -\frac{1}{2r}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + \overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1
+ {\bm \Gamma}_{23}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2
\end{equation}
where we can identify,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_17}
\overline{\bm \Gamma}_{02} = -\frac{1}{r}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} = {\bm \Gamma}_{03}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_18}
\overline{\bm \Gamma}_{12} = \frac{1}{2r}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} = {\bm \Gamma}_{13}.
\end{equation}
In the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_17}) we observe that $\overline{\overline{\bm \Gamma}}_{02} = {\bm \Gamma}_{02} = -\dfrac{1}{r}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} $ and this together with the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_17}) satisfy the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_15}).
Performing the same calculation in the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_18}) we observe that $\overline{\overline{\bm \Gamma}}_{12} = {\bm \Gamma}_{12} = \dfrac{1}{2r}\left(1-\dfrac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}$ and this together with the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_18}) satisfy the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_14}).
To calculate ${\bm \Gamma}_{23}$ it is necessary use $d\tilde{\bm\theta}^3= {\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + {\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1
- {\bm \Gamma}_{23}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3$ by applying a complex conjugate operation in third equation of (\ref{1a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}), that with aid of equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_12}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_19}
\frac{1}{r} ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} -\frac{1}{2r}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = {\bm \Gamma}_{02}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + {\bm \Gamma}_{12}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1
- {\bm \Gamma}_{23}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3.
\end{equation}
Thus, with this equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_19}) and the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_16}) we have,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^{2} \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} = - {\bm \Gamma}_{23}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 - {\bm \Gamma}_{23}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 \nonumber
\end{equation}
that results in
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_20}
{\bm \Gamma}_{23} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r} \left( \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - \tilde{\bm\theta}^2\right).
\end{equation}
We recall the system of 2-forms equations of the second equation of Cartan in equation (\ref{2a_equacao_de_Cartan})
\begin{equation}
\label{2a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}
\begin{cases}
\bm \Theta_{03} = d\bm\Gamma_{03} + {\bm \Gamma}_{03} \wedge ( \bm\Gamma_{01}+ \bm \Gamma_{23})\cr
\bm \Theta_{12} = d\bm\Gamma_{12} - \bm\Gamma_{12} \wedge (\bm\Gamma_{01} + \bm \Gamma_{23} )\cr
\bm \Theta_{01} + \bm \Theta_{23} = d( \bm\Gamma_{01}+ \bm\Gamma_{23}) - 2\bm \Gamma_{03}\wedge \bm\Gamma_{12},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
in order to obtain the components of the curvature tensor. The first calculation to be performed is a exterior derivative operation in $\bm\Gamma_{03} $ of equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_17}),
\begin{equation}
d\bm\Gamma_{03} = d\left[-\frac{1}{r} \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \right] = \frac{1}{r^2} dr\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 - \frac{1}{r}~ d\tilde{\bm\theta}^2, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_10}) and (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_11}), and the above 2-form results in
\begin{equation}
d\bm\Gamma_{03} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r^2}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The respective exterior product ${\bm \Gamma}_{03} \wedge ( \bm\Gamma_{01}+ \bm \Gamma_{23})$ results in,
\begin{equation}
{\bm \Gamma}_{03} \wedge ( \bm\Gamma_{01}+ \bm \Gamma_{23}) = -\frac{1}{r}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \wedge \left[\frac{m}{r^2}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \right) \right] = \frac{m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r^2}~ \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Putting the two above equations in the first equation of system (\ref{2a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}), the curvature 2-form $\bm \Theta_{03}$ follows as
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_21}
\bm \Theta_{03} = \frac{m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2.
\end{equation}
The second calculation to be performed is a exterior derivative operation in $\bm\Gamma_{12} = \dfrac{1}{2r}\left(1-\dfrac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} $,
\begin{equation}
d\bm\Gamma_{12} = d\left[\dfrac{1}{2r}\left(1-\dfrac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \right] = \left[-\frac{1}{2r^2} + \frac{2m}{r^3} \right]dr\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} + \frac{1}{2r}\left(-\frac{2\dot{m}}{r} \right)du\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} + \frac{1}{2r}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)d \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\dot{m}=\dfrac{\partial m}{\partial u}$. We must use the equations (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_10}), (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_12}) and $du = \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}$ in order to get,
\begin{equation}
d\bm\Gamma_{12} = \frac{m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{0}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} - \frac{m}{2r^3}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} - \frac{\dot{m}}{r^2}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} +\frac{\cot\theta}{2\sqrt{2}~r^2}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{2}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The respective exterior product ${\bm \Gamma}_{12} \wedge ( \bm\Gamma_{01}+ \bm \Gamma_{23})$ results in,
\begin{equation}
{\bm \Gamma}_{12} \wedge ( \bm\Gamma_{01}+ \bm \Gamma_{23}) = \dfrac{1}{2r}\left(1-\dfrac{2m}{r} \right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^{3} \wedge \left[\frac{m}{r^2}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r}\left(\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \right) \right] = -\frac{m}{2r^3}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right)\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 + \frac{\cot\theta}{2\sqrt{2}~r^2}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right) \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Putting the two above equations in the second equation of system (\ref{2a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}), the curvature 2-form $\bm \Theta_{12}$ follows as
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_22}
\bm \Theta_{12} = \frac{m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^0 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - \frac{\dot{m}}{r^2}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}.
\end{equation}
To the third equation of the system (\ref{2a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}), it becomes necessary to calculate the exterior derivatives in $\bm\Gamma_{01}$ of equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_13}) and $\bm\Gamma_{23}$ of equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_20}). Thus, the exterior derivative of $\bm\Gamma_{01}$ is
\begin{equation}
d\bm\Gamma_{01} = d\left[\frac{m}{r^2}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}\right] = \frac{\dot{m}}{r^2} du\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} - \frac{2m}{r^3} dr\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} +\frac{m}{r^2} d \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1} , \nonumber
\end{equation}
with $du=\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}$, the equations (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_10}) and
(\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_07}) the above equation reduces to,
\begin{equation}
d\bm\Gamma_{01} = - \frac{2m}{r^3} \tilde{\bm\theta}^{0}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The exterior derivative of $\bm\Gamma_{23}$ is
\begin{equation}
d\bm\Gamma_{23} = d\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\cot\theta}{r} \left( \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - \tilde{\bm\theta}^2\right)\right] = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[-\frac{\cot\theta}{r^2}~dr\wedge \left( \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - \tilde{\bm\theta}^2\right) \right] - \frac{\csc^2\theta}{r}~d\theta \wedge \left( \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - \tilde{\bm\theta}^2\right) + \frac{\cot\theta}{r}\left( d\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - d\tilde{\bm\theta}^2\right). \nonumber
\end{equation}
With aid of equations (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_08}), (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_10}), (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_11}) and (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_12}), the above 2-form reduces to,
\begin{equation}
d\bm\Gamma_{23} = -\frac{1}{r^2}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 . \nonumber
\end{equation}
The respective exterior product ${\bm \Gamma}_{03} \wedge \bm\Gamma_{12}$ of the third equation of system (\ref{2a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}) is
\begin{equation}
{\bm \Gamma}_{03} \wedge \bm\Gamma_{12} = \left(-\frac{1}{r}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^2\right)\wedge\left[\frac{1}{2r}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right) \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 \right] = -\frac{1}{2r^2}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^2\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 + \frac{m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^2\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Finally, we can substitute the above results in third equation of system (\ref{2a_equacao_de_Cartan_2}) where the curvature 2-form $\bm \Theta_{01} + \bm \Theta_{23} $ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_23}
\bm \Theta_{01} + \bm \Theta_{23} = -\frac{2m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^0\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1 - \frac{2m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^2\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3.
\end{equation}
With the curvature 2-forms (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_21}), (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_22}) and (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_23}) we obtain the components of Riemann curvature by using,
\begin{equation}
\label{2-form-Riemann_Tensor}
\bm \Theta_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2} R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\gamma}\wedge ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\delta}.
\end{equation}
For the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_21}), where $\bm \Theta_{03} = \dfrac{m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2$ we have that
\begin{equation}
\bm \Theta_{03} = \frac{1}{2} R_{0312}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2 + \frac{1}{2} R_{0321}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^2 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1 = R_{0312}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^2. \nonumber
\end{equation}
So we can identify the following component of the Riemann curvature tensor with the respective permutations of their indices,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_Riemann_Tensor_1}
R_{0312} = \frac{m}{r^3}.
\end{equation}
For the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_22}), where $\bm \Theta_{12} = \dfrac{m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^0 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 - \dfrac{\dot{m}}{r^2}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{1}\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^{3}$, we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\bm \Theta_{12} = \frac{1}{2} R_{1203}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^0 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 + \frac{1}{2} R_{1230}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^0 + \frac{1}{2} R_{1213}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 + \frac{1}{2} R_{1231}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^3 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1 = R_{1203}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^0 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3 + \frac{1}{2} R_{1213}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^1 \wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3. \nonumber
\end{equation}
So we can identify the following component of the Riemann curvature tensor with the respective permutations of their indices,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_Riemann_Tensor_2}
R_{1203} = \frac{m}{r^3},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_Riemann_Tensor_3}
R_{1213} = -\frac{\dot{m}}{r^2}.
\end{equation}
And finally for the equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_22}), where $\bm \Theta_{01} + \bm \Theta_{23} = -\dfrac{2m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^0\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^1 - \dfrac{2m}{r^3}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^2\wedge \tilde{\bm\theta}^3$, which results in the following component of the Riemann curvature tensor with the respective permutations of their indices,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_Riemann_Tensor_4}
R_{0101} = -\frac{2m}{r^3} \hspace*{1cm}\mbox{and}\hspace*{1cm} R_{2323} = -\frac{2m}{r^3}.
\end{equation}
We identify the components (\ref{Vaidya_Riemann_Tensor_1}), (\ref{Vaidya_Riemann_Tensor_2}) and (\ref{Vaidya_Riemann_Tensor_4}) as components of Weyl tensor, because these terms do not contribute to the contraction $\gamma^{\epsilon\zeta}R_{\epsilon\alpha\zeta\beta} = R_{\alpha\beta}$. These terms, $R_{1203}$, $R_{0101}$ and $R_{2323}$ are components of Weyl tensor. For example,
\begin{equation}
R_{01} = \gamma^{01}R_{1001} + \gamma^{10}R_{0011} + \gamma^{23}R_{3021} + \gamma^{32}R_{2031} = -\frac{2m}{r^3} + \frac{m}{r^3} + \frac{m}{r^3} -= 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and so on.
For comparing $R_{1203}$, $R_{0101}$ and $R_{2323}$ with (\ref{Psi_2_5}), (\ref{Psi_2_8}) and (\ref{Psi_2_10}) we identify for example that,
$R_{0312}=C_{0312}$ and then we get from equation (\ref{Psi_2_8}) that
$\bar{\Psi}_{2} = -C_{0312}$ or,
\begin{equation}
\label{Psi_2_11}
\Psi_{2} = -\frac{m}{r^3}.
\end{equation}
The first Bianchi identity (\ref{first_Bianchi_equation}), $R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} + R_{\alpha\gamma\delta\beta} + R_{\alpha\delta\beta\gamma} = 0$, yields,
\begin{equation}
R_{0312}+R_{0123}+R_{0231} = \frac{m}{r^3} + R_{0123} - \frac{m}{r^3} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we have $R_{0123} = C_{0123} = 0$. So we have from equation (\ref{Psi_2_10}) the same result $\Psi_2 = \dfrac{1}{2}C_{2323}= -\dfrac{m}{r^3}$.
There is a single nonzero component of Ricci tensor, $ R_{\alpha\beta}= \gamma^{\epsilon\zeta}R_{\epsilon\alpha\zeta\beta}$ that we can obtain from equation (\ref{Vaidya_Riemann_Tensor_3}) performing the calculation,
\begin{equation}
\label{Ricci_component_Vaidya}
R_{11} = \gamma^{01}R_{1101} + \gamma^{10}R_{0111}+ \gamma^{23}R_{3121} + \gamma^{32}R_{2131} = -\frac{\dot{m}}{r^2} -\frac{\dot{m}}{r^2} = -\frac{2\dot{m}}{r^2}.
\end{equation}
Thus, the Ricci tensor in Newman-Penrose coordinate basis is given by
\begin{equation}
\bm {Ric} = R_{\alpha\beta}~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha}\otimes ~\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\beta}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We can express the Ricci tensor in a coordinate basis by $\tilde{\bm\theta}^{\alpha} = {\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu}$,
such that,
\begin{equation}
\bm {Ric} = R_{\alpha\beta}({\omega^{\alpha}}_{\mu} dx^{\mu})\otimes ({\omega^{\beta}}_{\nu} dx^{\nu}) = R_{11} {\omega^{1}}_{\mu}{\omega^{1}}_{\nu} dx^{\mu}\otimes dx^{\nu}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
we can recall the equation (\ref{dual_basis}) where ${\omega^{1}}_{\nu} = k_{\mu}$, it reduces to
\begin{equation}
\bm {Ric} = -\frac{2\dot{m}}{r^2} k_{\mu}k_{\nu} dx^{\mu}\otimes dx^{\nu},
\end{equation}
where we can identify the components of the Ricci tensor in coordinate basis
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu\nu} = -\frac{2\dot{m}}{r^2} ~k_{\mu}k_{\nu}.
\end{equation}
The scalar curvature vanishes with $k_{\mu}k^{\mu}=0$, then the Einstein' field equation of Vaidya spacetime results in a Einstein-Maxwell solution, where the energy-momentum tensor is
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu\nu} = - \frac{\dot{m}}{4\pi G r^2} ~k_{\mu}k_{\nu}.
\end{equation}
The above tensor is a energy-momentum tensor of null dust or pure radiation. In fact the Vaidya spacetime is spherically symmetric, that in this example we have analyzed a retarded spacetime (\ref{Vaidya_retarded}), representing a emitting null dust, the flux of massless particles, i.e. photons.
In Newman-Penrose formalis we have obtained for Einstein-Maxwell solution for pure electromagnetic radiation, the equation (\ref{Energy_momentum_tensor_7}), where we have
\begin{equation}
T_{\alpha\beta} = 2~\Phi_{2}\overline\Phi_{2}~ k_{\alpha} k_{\beta},\nonumber
\end{equation}
and we can identify,
\begin{equation}
\label{Vaidya_tetrad_24}
|\Phi_{2}|^2 = \frac{|\dot{m}|}{8\pi G r^2}.
\end{equation}
As stated before, the null electromagnetic field has $\Phi_{0}=\Phi_{1} = 0$, and the electromagnetic tensor is ${\cal F}_{\alpha\beta} = 2 \Phi_{2} V_{\alpha\beta}$.
Also in the Newman-Penrose formalism we have obtained the equation (\ref{Einstein_Maxwell_NP_1})
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{AB} = 8\pi G ~ \Phi_{A}\overline{\Phi}_{B}, \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{where}~~A,B=0,1,2. \nonumber
\end{equation}
For the null electromagnetic field the only component nonzero is $\Phi_{2}$, such that we have the equation (\ref{Einstein_Maxwell_NP_Phi_22}),
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{22} = 8\pi G ~ \Phi_{2}\overline{\Phi}_{2}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
In fact we have from equation (\ref{Ricci_Phi_22})
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{22} = \frac{1}{2} R_{11}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can use the result of equation (\ref{Ricci_component_Vaidya}) and therefore the component of Ricci tensor $\Phi_{22}$ in Newman-Penrose formalis becomes,
\begin{equation}
\label{Ricci_component_Vaidya_2}
\Phi_{22} = -\frac{\dot{m}}{r^2}.
\end{equation}
If one substitute it in the Einstein-Maxwell equation $\Phi_{22} = 8\pi G ~ \Phi_{2}\overline{\Phi}_{2}$ we repeat the value of equation (\ref{Vaidya_tetrad_24}).
\section{Conclusion}
This review was intended to give mathematical details in a didactic way about the bivectors of General Relativity, starting from the properties of the electromagnetic bivector, from which it is possible to build a basis of bivectors.
These concepts covered in this review in tensor language and differential forms are the first steps to understanding advanced General Relativity in an elegant framework of the spinor formalism \cite{Carmeli, Penrose_Rindler, Stewart}.
In addition to the possibility of studying the exact solutions of Einstein's field equations, it becomes possible in this context of the Newman-Penrose formalism, the algebraic classification of different types of spacetimes, through the algebraic classification of the Weyl tensor or Petrov classification \cite{Kramer, Carmeli, Hall, Stewart}.
In the example discussed in this review, the Vaidya spacetime, we calculate the complex component of the Weyl tensor in the Newman-Penrose formalism, $\Psi_{2} = -\dfrac{m}{r^3}$ in equation (\ref{Psi_2_11}), where the physical interpretation is that $\Psi_{2}$ is a Newton-like potential component of gravitational field \cite{Griffiths, Szekeres}.
Because the trace of Weyl curvature is zero, ${C^{\alpha}}_{\beta\alpha\delta} = C_{\beta\delta} = 0 $, the Weyl complex coefficients $\Psi_{0}$, $\Psi_{1}$, $\Psi_{2}$, $\Psi_{3}$ and $\Psi_{5}$ are terms of gravitational field in vacuum. The physical meanings of the Weyl complex coefficients $\Psi_{0}$, $\Psi_{1}$, $\Psi_{2}$, $\Psi_{3}$ and $\Psi_{5}$ are properly treated in the reference \cite{Szekeres}.
Finally through the Newman-Penrose formalism we can interpret the Ricci tensor component $\Phi_{22}$ obtained for the Vaidya spacetime, as an exact solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equation: $\Phi_{22} = 8 \pi G \Phi_{2}\bar{\Phi}_{2}$,
which should be interpreted as electromagnetic radiation, whose electromagnetic field component is $\Phi_{2}$, emitted by a radianting nonrotating star related to Vaidya spacetime.
|
\section{Introduction}
Learning models for relational data is a widely
studied problem that arises in a number of settings such as business
intelligence~\citep{chaudhuri2011}, social networks~\citep{carrington2005},
bioinformatics~\citep{rual2005}, and recommendation systems~\citep{su2009},
amongst many others~\citep{dzeroski2001}.
In this setting, we observe attributes and interactions among a set
of entities and our goal is to learn models that are useful for
explaining or making predictions about the entities, their attributes,
and/or their interactions.
\Cref{fig:systems} shows two examples of relational systems
for political and genomics data.
For politics (\cref{fig:system-nations}), one problem could be to discover
what attributes of a particular country and interactions with other
countries are likely to make it an attractive tourist hub.
In genomics (\cref{fig:system-genes}), our goal might be to predict what
complexes a particular gene is likely to form, given information
about its motifs, functions, and interactions with other genes.
This paper addresses the problem of automatically learning
probabilistic models for a variety of relational systems
given a dataset of noisy and possibly sparse observations.
Learning probabilistic structure is an exceptionally
difficult task~\citep{daly2011}.
One approach to simplifying the learning problem is to posit a
collection of hidden variables that both explain and decouple
the relationships between observed variables.
Using Bayesian nonparametrics, both the values and dimensionality of
these hidden variables can be automatically inferred from data.
This approach is commonly used for modeling relational
data~\citep{kemp2006,xu2006,roy2008,sutskever2009,kim2013,nakano2014,xuan2017,fan2018}:
refer to~\citet{fan2020} for a recent survey on developments in the field.
Our paper builds on the infinite relational
model~\citep[IRM;][]{kemp2006,xu2006}, a widely used and flexible
Bayesian nonparametric method that applies to a variety relational
systems.
The IRM is a cluster-based model: informally, to decide whether a binary
relation $R$ holds between a pair of entities $i$ and $j$, the IRM
flips a coin whose weight depends on the (latent)
cluster assignments of $i$ and $j$.
A strength of the IRM, which we review in \cref{sec:irm}, is its
ability to extract meaningful partitions from observational data.
However, as we identify in \cref{sec:limitations}, two
limitations inherent to the IRM's inductive bias make the model
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\roman*)]
\item susceptible to combinatorial over-clustering; and
\item fail to discover certain predictive structure between dependent but
non-identically distributed relations,
\end{enumerate*}
which can both result in an inaccurate overall model of the data.
To address these limitations, this paper introduces the hierarchical
infinite relational model (HIRM{}) in \cref{sec:hirm}, a new method that combines the
flexibility of the IRM with a structure learning prior that infers
subsets of relations that are probably independent of one another.
By allowing different relations to be explained by different
partitions, the HIRM{} specifies a large hypothesis space that
includes the standard IRM in addition to compact models of the data
that can only be approximated by an IRM using a combinatorially large
number of clusters.
The evaluations in \cref{sec:evaluations} show that the HIRM{}
makes more accurate predictions and discovers more fine-grained
clustering structure as compared to the IRM, while retaining a
flexible framework for automatic Bayesian structure discovery in a
variety of relational systems.
\section{Infinite Relational Model}
\label{sec:irm}
We begin with a review of the IRM, using a slightly more general
definition of ``relations'' than was originally described
in~\citet{kemp2006} or~\cite{xu2006}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:system}
A \textit{relational system} $S$ consists of $n$ domains $D_1, \dots, D_n$
and $m$ relations $R_1, \dots, R_m$.
Each \textit{domain} $D_i$ ($1 \le i \le n$) is a countably
infinite set of distinct \textit{entities} $\set{e^i_{1}, e^i_{2}, \dots}$.
Each \textit{relation} $R_k$ ($1 \le k \le m$) is a map
from the Cartesian product of $t_k$ domains to an arbitrary codomain $C_k$.
The symbol $d_{ki}$ ($1 \le k \le m$, $1 \le i \le t_k$) denotes the domain index of
the $i$-th argument of $R_k$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Suppose system $S$ has $n = 4$ domains $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$, $D_4$, and
$m=3$ relations $R_1, R_2, R_3$; with
\begin{align*}
R_1 &: D_1 \times D_1 \to \set{0,1}, \span\span\\
R_2 &: D_1 \times D_3 \times D_4 \to \set{1,2,\dots}, \span\span\\
R_3 &: D_2 \to (-\infty, \infty). \span\span\\
\shortintertext{In this system, we have}
t_1 = 2; &\quad d_{11} = 1, d_{12} = 1; &&C_1 = \set{0,1}; \notag \\
t_2 = 3; &\quad d_{21} = 1, d_{22} = 3, d_{23} = 4; &&C_2 = \set{1,2,\dots}; \notag\\
t_3 = 1; &\quad d_{31} = 2; &&C_3 = (-\infty, \infty). \notag
\end{align*}
$R_1$ is a binary relation taking binary values, $R_2$ is a ternary
relation taking positive integer values, and $R_3$ is a unary relation
taking real values.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:relation-index}
To simplify notation, for a given relation
$R: D_1 \times \dots \times D_n \to C$ and entity indexes
$i_1,\dots,i_n \in \mathbb{N}$,
we will write $R(i_1, \dots, i_n)$ to mean
$R(e^1_{i_1}, \dots, e^n_{i_n})$.
\end{remark}
\input{figures/hirm-samples}
Consider a system $S$ with $n$ domains and $m$ relations.
For each $i = 1,\dots,n$, the IRM assumes that entities
$\set{e^i_1, e^i_2, \dots}$ in domain $D_i$
are associated with integer cluster assignments
$\set{z^i_1, z^i_2, \dots} \eqqcolon z^i$.
The IRM defines a joint probability distribution over cluster
assignments and relation values
with the following factorization structure:
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}[t]
&P(z^1, \dots, z^n, R_1, \dots, R_m) \\
&\qquad = \prod_{i=1}^{n}P(z^i)\prod_{k=1}^{m}P(R_k \mid z^1, \dots, z^n).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:irm-factorization}
\end{align}
To allow the IRM to discover an arbitrary number of clusters for
each domain $D_i$, the cluster assignments $z^i$
for the entities are given a nonparametric prior that
assigns a positive probability to all possible partitions using the
Chinese restaurant process \citep[CRP;][]{aldous1985}.
For each $i=1,\dots,n$, the cluster assignment probabilities $P(z^i) = P(z^i_1, z^i_2, \dots)$
in \cref{eq:irm-factorization}
are defined inductively with $z^i_1 \coloneqq 1$, and for $l \ge 2$
\begin{align}
P(z^i_l = j \mid z^i_1, \dots, z^i_{l-1}) \propto
\begin{cases}
{n_j} & \mbox{if } 1 \le j \le M \\
{\gamma} & \mbox{if } j = M + 1,
\end{cases}
\label{eq:crp-probs}
\end{align}
where
$n_j \coloneqq \sum_{c=1}^{l-1}\Indicate{z^i_c = j}$ is the number
of previous entities at cluster $j$;
$M \coloneqq \max\set{z^i_1,\dots,z^i_{l-1}}$ is the
number of clusters among the first $l-1$ entities; and
$\gamma > 0$ is a concentration parameter.
The cluster assignment vectors $z^1, \dots, z^n$ across the $n$ domains are mutually
independent, each drawn from a CRP (\cref{eq:crp-probs}).
Next, for each relation $R_k$ $(1 \le k \le m)$, a set of parameters
$\theta_k(j_1,\dots,j_{t_k})$ is used to dictate the distribution of
$R_k(i_1,\dots,i_{t_k})$, where $j_1, \dots, j_{t_k}, i_1, \dots,
i_{t_k} \in \mathbb{N}$.
The value of a relation depends only the cluster assignments,
i.e., $R_k(i_1,\dots,i_{t_k})$ and $R_k(i'_1,\dots,i'_{t_k})$
share the same parameter whenever
$z^{d_{kl}}_{i_l} = z^{d_{kl}}_{i'_l}$
for each $l = 1, \dots,t_k$.
Thus, for domain index $i=1,\dots,n$;
relation index $k=1,\dots,m$;
entity indexes $i_1, \dots, i_{t_k} \in \mathbb{N}$; and
cluster indexes $j_1, \dots, j_{t_k} \in \mathbb{N}$,
the generative model of the IRM is given by:
\begin{align}
\set{z^i_1,z^i_2,\dots} &\sim \dist{CRP}(\gamma_i)
\label{eq:irm-crp} \\
\theta_k(j_1,\dots,j_{t_k}) &\sim \pi_k(\lambda_k)
\label{eq:irm-param} \\
R_k(i_1,\dots,i_{t_k}) &\sim
L_k(\theta_k({z^{d_{k1}}_{i_1}, \dots, z^{d_{kt_k}}_{i_{t_k}}})),
\label{eq:irm-relation} &
\end{align}
where $(\set{\gamma_i}_{i=1}^{n}, \set{\lambda_k}_{k=1}^{m})$ are model
hyperparameters.
\Cref{eq:irm-relation} ensures items within a cluster
are generated by the same parameter.
The prior $\pi_k$ and likelihood $L_k$ distributions in
\cref{eq:irm-param,eq:irm-relation}
can be set
depending on the codomain $C_k$ of $R_k$ (e.g., beta-Bernoulli for
binary data, gamma-Poisson for counts, chisquare-normal for real
values, etc.).
\citet{kemp2006} used the IRM to discover structure
in a variety of real-world relational systems that appear quite different on the
surface, including:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item Random graphs, with
one domain $D$ for the vertices and one relation $R: D \times D \to
\set{0,1}$ for the edges.
\item Object-attribute data, with one relation
$R: D_1 \times D_2 \to \set{0,1}$, where $R(i,j)=1$ iff item
$e^1_i$ has attribute $e^2_j$.
\item Systems with multiple attributes and interactions, where, for example,
$D_1$ are countries,
$D_2$ are attributes; and
$D_3$ are interactions; so that
$R_1: D_1 \times D_2 \to \set{0,1}$ models attributes and
$R_2: D_1 \times D_1 \times D_3 \to \set{0,1}$ models interactions,
where $R_2(i,j,k)\,{=}\,1$ iff
countries $e^1_i$ and $e^1_j$ perform interaction $e^3_k$.
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\section{Limitations of the IRM}
\label{sec:limitations}
We next describe two limitations in the standard IRM that arise when
using the model in practice, motivating the hierarchical structure
learning prior that we introduce in \cref{sec:hirm}.
\subsection{Enforcing Shared Domain Clusterings Leads to Overfitting}
\label{sec:limitations-overfit}
A key assumption of the IRM is that each domain $D_i$
has a single clustering $z^i = \set{z^i_1,z^i_2,\dots}$ that globally
dictates the partition of its entities $\set{e^i_1, e^i_2, \dots}$.
The same cluster assignments $z^i$ are used for all of
relations $R_1, \dots, R_m$ in which $D_i$ participates,
which can lead to substantial over-clustering and a
failure to accurately model data in the presence of structural
independences between relations.
\Cref{fig:hirm-samples} illustrates and discusses this limitation
in further detail.
\subsection{Restrictions when Clustering Multiple Relations}
\label{sec:limitations-cluster-relations}
\citet{kemp2006} applied the IRM to clustering multiple \textit{relations},
by treating the relations themselves as entities within a new domain.
More specifically, for a system with relations $R_1, \dots, R_m$,
all defined on same domain and codomain (say $D$ and $C$),
the key idea is to encode the system using one
higher-order relation $R': D' \times {D} \to C$, where the
entities of $D'$ are relations over $D$, i.e.,
$R'(j,i) \coloneqq R_j(i)$ (for $1 \le j \le m$, $i \in D$).
While an IRM for $R'$ will learn a clustering of both $D'$ (the relations)
and $D$, there are at least two restrictions with this approach:
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\roman*)]
\item\label{item:lim-domain} it only applies to relations defined on identical
domains and codomains; and
\item\label{item:lim-iid} it clusters relations $R_i$ and $R_j$
together only if they are both dependent and identically distributed
(\cref{eq:irm-relation}).
\end{enumerate*}
\Cref{fig:irm-anti} illustrates and discusses this limitation in
further detail.
\input{figures/anti}
\section{Hierarchical Infinite Relational Model}
\label{sec:hirm}
We now present the HIRM{}, which addresses the aforesaid limitations
of the IRM by using a structure learning prior to infer probable
independences among relations that cannot be represented
structurally in a standard IRM.
Given a system $S$ with domains $D_1,\dots,D_n$ and relations
$R_1,\dots,R_m$, the HIRM{} first nonparametrically partitions the
$m$ \textit{relations} using a CRP (\cref{eq:crp-probs}),
where the cluster assignments of
the relations are denoted by $y \coloneqq \set{y_1,\dots,y_m}$.
This partition induces a random number $K \coloneqq \max\set{y_1,\dots,y_m}$
of subsystems $S_1,\dots,S_K$ of $S$.
For each $\ell=1,\dots,K$, the relations
$\set{R_i \mid 1 \le i \le m, y_i = \ell}$ assigned to
subsystem $S_\ell$ are modeled jointly by an IRM
(\crefrange{eq:irm-crp}{eq:irm-relation}), independently of all
relations assigned to another subsystem $S_{\ell'}$ ($\ell' \ne \ell$).
%
The HIRM{} thus defines a probability distribution over relation clusters,
domain entity clusters, and relation values with the following
factorization:
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}[t]
&P(y_1,\dots,y_m, \set{z^{\ell 1}, \dots, z^{\ell n}}_{\ell=1}^{K}, R_1, \dots, R_m)
\label{eq:hirm-factorization} \\
&\quad= P(y) \prod_{\ell=1}^{K}
\prod_{i=1}^{n}P(z^{\ell i})
\prod_{k \mid y_k = \ell}P(R_k \mid z^{\ell 1}, \dots, z^{\ell n}).
\hspace{-.5cm}
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
For each subsystem index $\ell = 1, \dots, K$; domain index
$i=1,\dots,n$; relation index $k=1,\dots,m$; entity indexes
$i_1,\dots,i_{t_k}$; and cluster indexes $j_1,\dots,j_{t_k}$, the
generative specification of the HIRM{} is given by the following process:
\begin{align}
\set{y_1, \dots, y_m} &\sim \dist{CRP}(\gamma_0)
\label{eq:hirm-crp-outer} \\
\set{z^{\ell i}_1,z^{\ell i}_2,\dots} &\sim \dist{CRP}(\gamma_{\ell i})
\label{eq:hirm-crp} \\
\theta_k(j_1,\dots,j_{t_k}) &\sim \pi_k(\lambda_k)
\label{eq:hirm-parameter} \\
R_k(i_1,\dots,i_{t_k}) &\sim
L_k(\theta_k({z^{y_k,d_{k1}}_{i_1}, \dots, z^{y_k,d_{kt_k}}_{i_{t_k}}})),
\label{eq:hirm-relation}
\end{align}
where $(\gamma_0, \set{\set{\gamma_{\ell i}}_{i=1}^{n}}_{\ell =1}^{K}, \set{\lambda_k}_{k=1}^{m})$
are model hyperparameters, possibly endowed with their own hyperpriors.
The HIRM{} generalizes and extends the IRM.
First, it recovers the standard IRM when $\gamma_0 = 0$.
For $\gamma_0 > 0$, \cref{eq:hirm-crp-outer} specifies a CRP partition prior
over relations, where relations in the same block are modeled jointly using a
standard IRM (\crefrange{eq:hirm-crp}{eq:hirm-relation}).
In \cref{eq:hirm-crp}, each domain $D_i$ is associated with a
different partition $z^{\ell i}$ for each subsystem $S_\ell$ in which
it participates.
This inductive bias allows the HIRM{} to express
structural independences between relations and avoid modeling a Cartesian product of
domain partitions when the data for (a subset of) relations in the system are not well-aligned
(\cref{sec:limitations-overfit,fig:hirm-samples}).
Additionally, \cref{eq:hirm-crp-outer} allows the HIRM{} to
directly cluster dependent relations together, without using
higher-order encodings that are limited to relations defined on the
same domain as in the IRM (\cref{sec:limitations-cluster-relations}).
Further, \cref{eq:hirm-parameter,eq:hirm-relation} imply that
relations $R_k$ and $R_{k'}$ that are clustered together in a subsystem
$S_\ell$ need not be identically distributed (resp.\ \cref{fig:irm-anti}),
as they each have their
own parameters $\theta_{k}$ and $\theta_{k'}$, respectively.
The dependence is instead modeled by the shared domain partitions
$\set{z^{\ell 1}, \dots, z^{\ell n}}$ within subsystem $S_\ell$.
In sum, the nonparametric structure learning prior
\cref{eq:hirm-crp-outer} retains the benefits of the standard
IRM while addressing the limitations discussed in \cref{sec:limitations},
all within a Bayesian nonparametric model discovery framework.
\subsection{Posterior Inference}
\label{sec:hirm-inference}
An observed dataset $\set{r_1,\dots,r_m}$ for a relational system
consists of a finite number of realizations of relation values,
i.e., observations of random variables of the form
$\set{R_k(i_1,\dots,i_{t_k}) = r_k(i_1,\dots,i_{t_k})}$.
For notational ease and without loss of generality, we assume that the
relation values are fully observed for $N_i \ge 1$ entities
$\set{e^i_1,\dots,e^i_{N_i}}$ of each domain $D_i$ ($i=1,\dots,n$),
across all relations that it participates in (our reference
implementations of the HIRM{} handles arbitrary
index combinations with missing data).
Posterior inference in the HIRM{} is carried out by simulating an
ergodic Markov chain that converges to the distribution obtained by
conditioning \cref{eq:hirm-factorization} on the observed dataset.
\begin{comment}
The state $\mathscr{S}$ of the chain consists of:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(S\arabic*)]
\item \label{item:latent-state-y}
cluster assignments $\set{y_1,\dots,y_m}$ of the relations,
which define a partition of $\set{R_1,\dots,R_m}$ into
$K \coloneqq \max\set{y_1,\dots,y_m}$ subsystems $(S_1,\dots,S_M)$;
\item \label{item:latent-state-z}
cluster assignments $\set{z^{\ell i}_{1}, \dots, z^{\ell i}_{N_i}}$
of the items in domain $D_i$ $(1 \le i \le n)$
within subsystem $S_\ell$ $(1 \le \ell \le m)$,
which define a partition of $\set{e^{i}_1, \dots e^i_{N_i}}$ into
$W_{\ell i} \coloneqq \max\set{z^{\ell i}_{1}, \dots, z^{\ell i}_{N_i}}$ clusters;
\item \label{item:latent-state-theta}
cluster parameters $\theta_k(j_1,\dots,j_{t_k})$
for relation indexes $k=1,\dots,m$
and cluster indexes
$j_s = 1, \dots, \max(z^{\ell d_{ks}}_1, \dots, z^{\ell d_{ks}}_{N_{d_{ks}}})$
($1 \le s \le t_k$), whenever $(\pi_k, L_k)$ do not form a conjugate pair.
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
The chain initializes a state $\mathscr{S}$ by sampling it from the prior
(\crefrange{eq:hirm-crp-outer}{eq:hirm-parameter}) and
iterates the state using Gibbs sampling.
\Cref{alg:mcmc-outer} shows one full Gibbs scan through all the variables
in the state $\mathscr{S}$.
We next describe transition operators for the updates in
\cref{algline:mcmc-y,algline:mcmc-z,algline:mcmc-theta}
of \cref{alg:mcmc-outer}.
\input{figures/inference}
\paragraph{Reampling relation cluster assignments $y_k$ \normalfont{:}}
This kernel uses the auxiliary Gibbs sampler~\citep[Algorithm 8]{neal2000}.
Let $C_{\ell} \coloneqq \abs{\set{ k \mid 1 \le k \le K, y_k = \ell}}$
be the number of relations in $S_\ell$ and
$W_{\ell i} \coloneqq \max\set{z^{\ell i}_{1}, \dots, z^{\ell i}_{N_i}}$
be the number of clusters for domain $D_i$ within $S_\ell$
($1 \le \ell \le K$).
\begin{enumerate}[label=Case~\arabic*:,wide=0pt]
\item If $y_k$ is a singleton ($C_k = 1$),
then it is resampled to take a new
value $\ell \in \set{1,\dots,K}$ with probability
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
c_{k\ell}
\prod_ {j_1=1}^{W_{\ell d_{k1\phantom{_k}}}}
{\cdots}
\prod_{j_{t_k}=1}^{W_{\ell d_{kt_k}}}
w_{k\ell}(\mathbf{j}, \theta_k),
\end{aligned} \label{eq:weaselfish}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{j} \coloneqq (j_1,\dots,j_{t_k})$ and
\begin{align}
c_{k\ell} &\coloneqq \begin{cases}
{\gamma_0}/{(m-1+\gamma_0)} & \mbox{ if } \ell = y_k \\
{C_\ell}/{(m-1+\gamma_0)} & \mbox{ otherwise}, \\
\end{cases} \label{eq:rukh} \\
w_{k\ell}(\mathbf{j}, \theta_k)
&\coloneqq \prod_{\mathbf{i} \in A_{k\ell} (\mathbf{j})}
L_k(r_k(\mathbf{i}); \theta_k(\mathbf{j})).
\label{eq:ileocaecal}
\end{align}
\Cref{eq:rukh} is the conditional probability from the CRP prior
(\cref{eq:crp-probs}), and in \cref{eq:ileocaecal} the symbol
\begin{align}
A_{k\ell}(\mathbf{j})
\coloneqq \set{\mathbf{i} \mid
z^{\ell d_{k1}}_{i_1} = j_{1}, \dots, z^{\ell d_{kt_k}}_{i_{t_k}} = j_{t_k}}
\end{align}
denotes the set of entity indexes $\mathbf{i} \coloneqq (i_1,\dots,i_{t_k})$ for
domains $(d_{k1}, \dots, d_{kt_k})$ that are assigned to cluster
$\mathbf{j}$ of subsystem $S_\ell$
(where
$1 \le k \le m$;
$1 \le \ell \le M$;
$1 \le j_1 \le W_{\ell d_{k1}}$;
$\dots$;
$1 \le j_{t_k} \le W_{\ell d_{kt_k}}$).
Note that if $(\pi_k, L_k)$ is a conjugate pair,
the parameters $\theta_k$ can be analytically
integrated out, and \cref{eq:ileocaecal} becomes
\begin{align}
w_{k\ell}(\mathbf{j}) \coloneqq \int_{\theta}\Big[
\prod_{\mathbf{i} \in A_{k\ell}(\mathbf{j})}
L_k(r_k(\mathbf{i}); \theta)\Big]
\pi_k(\theta; \lambda_k)d\theta.
\end{align}
\item If $y_k$ is not a singleton $(C_k > 1)$, then
\begin{enumerate}[label=\arabic*.]
\item For domain indexes $i=1,\dots,n$, draw cluster assignments
for a fresh entity partition, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\set{z^{K+1,i}_1, \dots, z^{K+1,i}_{N_i}} \sim \dist{CRP}(\gamma), \\
W_{K+1,i} \coloneqq \max \set{z^{K+1,i}_1, \dots z^{K+1,s}_{N_i}}.
\end{align}
\item Draw parameters
$\theta_k(j_1,\dots,j_{t_k})$
for relation indexes $k=1,\dots,m$
and cluster indexes
$j_1 = 1,\dots, W_{K+1,d_{k1}}$;
$\dots$;
$j_{t_k} = 1,\dots, W_{K+1,d_{kt_k}}$.
\end{enumerate}
Next, resample $y_k$ to take a new value $\ell \in \set{1,\dots,K+1}$
using the same terms in \crefrange{eq:weaselfish}{eq:ileocaecal}
from the previous case, except that the CRP weight
$c_{k\ell}$ in \cref{eq:rukh} is instead
\begin{align}
\hspace{-.225cm}
c_{k\ell} \coloneqq \begin{cases}
{(C_\ell - 1)}/{(m-1+\gamma_0)} & \mbox{ if } \ell = y_k \\
{C_\ell}/{(m-1+\gamma_0)} & \mbox{ if } \ell \ne y_k, \ell \le K \\
{\gamma_0}/{(m-1+\gamma_0)} & \mbox{ if } \ell = K + 1.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Resampling entity cluster assignments $z^{\ell i}_{j}$\normalfont{:}}
Within each subsystem $S_\ell$, the entity cluster
assignments are transitioned using the collapsed Gibbs sampler~\citep[Alg.~3]{neal2000}.
Alternatively, the split-merge algorithm can be used~\citep{jain2004}.
\citet{xu2007} discuss additional sampling-based and variational approaches for
these variables.
\paragraph{Resampling cluster parameters $\theta_k(j_1,\dots,j_{t_k})$\normalfont{:}}
Sample $\theta_k'(\mathbf{j}) \sim q_k(\theta_k(\mathbf{j}))$
from a proposal distribution (e.g., the prior $\pi_k(\lambda_k)$ or Gaussian drift
$\mathcal{N}(\theta_k(\mathbf{j}), \sigma_k)$)
and accept the move according to the Metropolis-Hastings probability
\begin{align}
\min\left(1, \frac{
\pi_k(\theta'_k(\mathbf{j}); \lambda_k)
w_{k\ell}(\mathbf{j}, \theta'_k)
q_k(\theta_k(\mathbf{j}); \theta'_k(\mathbf{j}))
}{
\pi_k(\theta_k(\mathbf{j}); \lambda_k)
w_{k\ell}(\mathbf{j}, \theta_k)
q_k(\theta'_k(\mathbf{j}); \theta_k(\mathbf{j}))
}\right).
\end{align}
where is $w_{k\ell}$ (\cref{eq:ileocaecal}) is the data likelihood for cluster $\mathbf{j}$.
\paragraph{Resampling hyperparameters\normalfont{:}}
Broad exponential hyperpriors are used for all the model hyperparameters
$\gamma_0, \set{\gamma_{\ell i}}, \set{\lambda_k}$
that appear in \crefrange{eq:hirm-crp-outer}{eq:hirm-parameter},
which are resampled using gridded-Gibbs~\citep{ritter1992}.
It is also possible to instead use slice sampling~\citep{neal2003}.
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluations}
We implemented a prototype of the HIRM{}%
\footnote{Reference implementations of the HIRM{} in C++ and Python
are available at \url{https://github.com/probcomp/hierarchical-irm}.}
and evaluated it in three settings:
solving density estimation tasks in object-attribute data;
discovering relational structure in political data; and
learning relationships between gene properties.
\subsection{Object-Attribute Benchmarks}
\label{sec:evaluations-object-attribute}
\input{figures/binary}
\input{figures/challenge}
We assessed the predictive performance of the HIRM{} on a benchmark
of 20 object-attribute datasets~\citep{gens2013} and compared the
results to two Bayesian nonparametric baselines.
In \cref{table:binary}, the first four columns summarize the dataset statistics
(16--1556 columns, 2000--330212 rows).
The last three columns show the test log-likelihood from the
HIRM{}, IRM~\citep{kemp2006,xu2006}, and Dirichlet process mixture
model~\citep[DPMM;][]{lo1984}.
As in~\citet{kemp2006}, the IRM encodes object-attribute data using one
binary relation $R: \mathrm{Attr} \times \mathrm{Obj} \to \set{0,1}$.
The HIRM{} encodes each dataset using $N_{\rm cols}$
unary relations $\set{R_i: \mathrm{Obj} \to \set{0,1} \mid i \in
\mathrm{Attr}}$ with structure learning
(\cref{eq:hirm-crp-outer}) over the dependence between the
attributes.
The DPMM uses the same encoding as the HIRM{} but without structure
learning (i.e., all attributes are modeled jointly).
Dots indicate significantly worse values than the HIRM{}
($p\,{=}\,0.05$, Mann--Whitney U test on the $N^{\rm test}_{\rm rows}$
predictions from each model).
\Cref{table:binary} shows that the HIRM{} consistently
outperforms these baselines---it is significantly better in 17 cases
and worse in zero cases.
\Cref{fig:runtime} shows a plot of runtime vs.\ held-in data log score
for two runs of the HIRM{} and IRM on four of the benchmarks.
Despite using a structure learning prior, the runtime of the HIRM{}
matches or outperforms the IRM; in fact, the HIRM{} often infers
simpler partitions within the independent subsystems, which can
improve both the runtime scaling and model fit.
To further assess the density estimation results, we compared the
HIRM{} test log-likelihood to those obtained from probabilistic deep
learning baselines for object-attribute data:
LearnSPN~\citep{gens2013} and RAT-SPN~\citep{peharz2019}.
\Cref{table:challenge} summarizes the comparison
(tie means statistically insignificant differences).
The results show that the HIRM{}, which is a relatively shallow Bayesian
model (\crefrange{eq:hirm-crp-outer}{eq:hirm-relation}), is
competitive on object-attribute data with higher capacity
probabilistic deep learning baselines that fit the data using greedy
search.
The HIRM{} is distinguished by being additionally applicable to far
more general relational systems, as we next demonstrate.
\input{figures/runtime}
\input{figures/nations}
\input{figures/genes}
\subsection{Political Interactions}
\label{sec:evaluations-political}
We next applied the HIRM{} to the ``Dimensionality of Nations''
project~\citep{rummel1999}, using the version dataset from~\citet{kemp2006}
for years 1950--1965.
\Cref{fig:system-nations,table:nations} show a subset of the 15
countries, 111 attributes and 56 interactions.
\crefrange{fig:nations-geopolitcs}{fig:nations-sparse} show a
collection of independent subsystems of relations discovered by the
HIRM{} (gray cells indicate missing values).
Each inferred subsystem reflects a different partition of the
countries that explains the attribute and interactions within
the subsytem.
For example, in \cref{fig:nations-geopolitcs}, the HIRM{} finds that the
geopolitcal bloc interactions are associated with attributes such as ``electoral
system'', ``political leadership'', and ``constitutional''.\footnote{%
In \cref{fig:nations-geopolitcs}, the Cuba--Brazil relationship is neutral
despite the countries belonging to rival geopolitcal
blocs, which is detected by the HIRM{} as probabilistically unlikely.
This outlier is explained by the so-called the
American--Brazilian--Cuban ``triangular diplomacy''
during the 1962 missile crisis~\citep{hershberg2004}.}
In \cref{fig:nations-books}, which represents economic and cultural
ties and includes attributes such as ``absolute income'', ``agricultural
population'', and ``arts and culture NGOs'', the data shows that
tourists from the UK and USA travel to countries from all clusters
and all countries translate books from the USA and UK, who in turn
translate books from the USSR.
\Cref{fig:nations-outlier} represents a subsystem of relations in
which the USA is a clear outlier due to its unusually high number of
immigrants and foreign students: the HIRM{} has inferred that these
interactions are independent of the fact that China and Russia, for example,
are geopolitical rivals of the USA (\cref{fig:nations-geopolitcs}).
\Cref{fig:nations-sparse} contains sparse relations such
as ``Attack Embassy'' and ``Sever Relations'', which
form a subsystem with one country cluster and a
small probability for the hostile event.
In contrast to the HIRM{}, the IRM cannot detect subsystem structure
of this form since it uses a single country partition for all
interactions, which is an inaccurate explanation of the data in light of the widely
varying interaction patterns in the subsystems
(\crefrange{fig:nations-geopolitcs}{fig:nations-sparse})
discovered by the HIRM{}.
\subsection{Genomic Properties}
\label{sec:evaluations-genomics}
Our third application of the HIRM{} is to structure discovery in a
widely used dataset of yeast genomes~\citep{cheng2001}.
\Cref{fig:system-genes} shows a diagram of the relational
system.
There are nine domains: the \domain{Gene} domain has 1,243 unique
identifiers and the remaining domains represent gene properties.
There is one binary relation between \domain{Gene} and each of the
eight other domains, as well as one binary relation (Interact) on
\domain{Gene}.
A single gene is typically involved in multiple relations
with the \domain{Complex}, \domain{Phenotype},
\domain{Class}, \domain{Motif}, and \domain{Function} domains, but has
only one value for \domain{Essential} and \domain{Chromosome}.
\Cref{table:gene} shows an example record for gene G235131:
some characteristics of this gene are that the \domain{Class} is
missing, it forms two \domain{Complex}, has two \domain{Function};
there are five observed \domain{Phenotype}; and it interacts with 11
other genes (three of which are listed).
\input{figures/geneid}
\Cref{fig:genes-cluster-gene} shows two heatmaps that summarize
the clusterings of genes learned by the HIRM{} under two different
contexts.
More specifically, each row and column in a heatmap represents a
unique \domain{Gene} and the color of a cell is the posterior
probability (between 0 and 1) that the two genes are assigned to the
same latent cluster (estimated by an ensemble of 100 posterior HIRM{} samples).
The top (resp.~bottom) heatmap in \cref{fig:genes-cluster-gene}
shows posterior co-clustering probabilities conditioned on being in
the subsystem that contains the ``\domain{Gene} At \domain{Localization}''
(resp. ``\domain{Gene} Belong \domain{Class}'') relation, which we call a ``context''.
These heatmaps reflect a key feature of the HIRM{}: it discovers
context-specific clusters that are different across the
learned subsystems.
\cref{table:gene-sim} lists various co-clustering probabilities
between G235131 (\cref{table:gene}) and other genes, which show that a
pair of genes that are similar in the \domain{Localization} context
need not be similar in the \domain{Class} context.
Further, even though G235131 belongs to an unknown \domain{Class}, the
HIRM{} is still able to compute its co-clustering probabilities
within this context by using observations of its other properties
(i.e., relation values) that are inferred to be predictive of the
missing value.
\input{figures/genesim}
We next computed posterior co-clustering probabilities for domains that
represent gene properties.
In \cref{fig:genes-cluster-localization}, the HIRM{} infers a
likely cluster of \domain{Localization} entities that includes
cell wall, extracellular, integral membrane, and lipid particles,
whereas cytoplasm and nucleus are inferred as probable singletons.
\Cref{fig:genes-cluster-class} shows co-clustering probabilities
for \domain{Class}, which reflect a probable cluster (cyclins,
tublins, adaptins, \dots) embedded within a larger more noisy cluster,
as well as singletons such as transcription factor and polymerases.
These heatmaps show quantitative estimates of
posterior uncertainty in the partition structures detected by the HIRM{},
which cannot be captured using inference approaches such as approximate
maximum likelihood or maximum a posteriori estimation and
highlight a key benefit of using fully Bayesian sampling approaches
(\cref{sec:hirm-inference}) for probabilistic structure learning in
complex domains.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related-work}
Several variations of the standard IRM have been introduced in the literature
on nonparametric relational Bayesian
models~\citep{ishiguro2012,ohama2013,jonas2015,briercliffe2016}.
Our method is distinguished by being the first hierarchical extension
that uses a nonparametric structure learning prior over the relations
themselves to improve modeling capacity and address shortcomings of
the IRM identified in \cref{sec:limitations}, which include combinatorial
over-clustering and failing to detect relationships between dependent
but non-identically distributed relations.
These limitations have not been addressed by previous variations of
the IRM.
A key advantage of our hierarchical approach is that it can be
composed with several IRM variants that address other shortcomings of
the standard IRM, including
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\roman*)]
\item the subset IRM~\citep{ishiguro2012}, which detects and filters
out irrelevant observations in the case of extreme sparsity;
and
\item the logistic regression IRM~\citep{jonas2015}, which improves
predictive accuracy for semi-supervised tasks that specify one or more
target variables as well as exogenous (non-probabilistic) predictor
variables.
\end{enumerate*}
Other approaches to relational modeling include relational extensions of
Bayesian networks~\citep{heckermen2004,koller1997,friedman1999} and Markov random fields~\citep{taskar2002,richardson2006}.
While these approaches are typically more expressive than the models we consider
here, they inherit traditional challenges of structure learning and
model selection for directed models~\citep{daly2011} (e.g., there is a
super-exponential number of graphs to consider~\citep{robinson1977});
and can require tuning evaluation measures, clause construction
operators, or search strategies~\citep{kok2005} for undirected models.
We instead build on Bayesian nonparametric relational
models~\citep{fan2020} that
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\roman*)]
\item use latent variables to provide a layer of indirection
and simplify the learning problem as compared to searching over
arbitrary graphical structures; and
\item can be learned using principled algorithms for Bayesian inference.
\end{enumerate*}
Deep generative models have also been developed for relational
data~\citep{kipf2016,mehta2019,fan2019,qu2019}.
These methods either typically assume that there is one binary adjacency
matrix being modeled (i.e., a random graph relation) or work
in a semi-supervised setting of predicting labels.
In contrast, we aim to discover generative models for datasets with
richer relational schemas than a single binary matrix (e.g.,
\cref{fig:systems}) and operate in a fully unsupervised setting
without assuming beforehand that there are specific labels to predict.
This approach allows us in
\cref{sec:evaluations-object-attribute} to make predictions using
inferred joint probabilities for up to 1556 variables, and in
\cref{sec:evaluations-political,sec:evaluations-genomics} to automatically
model sparse and noisy systems with multiple entities, attributes, and interactions.
Using the Chinese restaurant process as a structure learning prior (\cref{eq:hirm-crp-outer})
has been considered in other settings, including
non-relational tabular data~\citep{mansinghka2016},
multivariate time series~\citep{saad2018},
topic modeling~\citep{blei2010},
and computer vision~\citep{salakhutdinov2013}, among others.
The same insight of using an outer CRP to partition relations (used in
this work to extend the IRM) can also be applied to other models that
handle relational systems with multiple relations, such as the
Mondrian process~\citep{roy2008}.
More broadly, it would be particularly fruitful to investigate a
representation theorem for the ergodic distributions of a relational
system modeled by an HIRM{} within the framework of exchangeable
random structures from~\citet{orbanz2013}.
In addition to the IRM, several other Bayesian nonparametric models are
special cases of the HIRM{}, including the
infinite hidden relational model~\citep{xu2006},
infinite mixture model~\citep{rasmussen1999},
Dirichlet process mixture model~\citep{lo1984},
and Cross-Categorization~\citep{mansinghka2016}.
By generalizing the likelihood term in \cref{eq:hirm-relation} to
include regression on relation values that are endogenous to the
system, the HIRM{} could be further extended to express a relational
variant of Dirichlet process mixtures of generalized linear
models~\citep{hannah2011}.
Finally, as a domain-general model for relational data, the HIRM{}
can be used to extend previous methods for automatic Bayesian modeling
of non-relational tabular data that synthesize probabilistic
programs in domain-specific languages~\citep{saad2019}.
Expressing the HIRM{} in probabilistic programming languages would
simplify several end-user workflows for data analysis tasks such as
imputation, outlier detection, dependence detection, and
search~\citep{saad2016,saad2017,saad2017search}, as well as enable
fast exact inference~\citep{saad2021} for the broad range of
probabilistic queries that the HIRM{} can handle.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper has presented the hierarchical infinite relational model
(HIRM{}), a new method for discovering probabilistic structure in
relational data.
A key insight in our approach is to use a nonparametric prior that
divides a system of relations into independent subsystems, each to
be learned using a separate infinite relational model.
This Bayesian nonparametric approach to structure learning generalizes
the standard infinite relational model~\citep{kemp2006} and addresses
several limitations in its inductive biases.
While methods based on the IRM, such as the HIRM{}, specify
relatively simple probabilistic theories for relational systems as
compared to other approaches that specify more complex
theories~\citep{muggleton1994,getoor2007}, our evaluations illustrate
the efficacy of our approach on density estimation tasks and show that
it can discover meaningful structure in real-world politics and
genomics datasets.
The results also underscore the benefit of principled and fully
Bayesian structure learning for inferring probable independences,
which can improve scalability, interpretability, uncertainty
characterization, and model fit.
|
\section{Introduction}
The tendency of long random filaments to become knotted is familiar to everyone carrying headphone cables in their pocket.
It seems natural to expect that the probability that a random closed curve in three dimensions is knotted increases with its length.
Random knotting---especially in closed random walks---has been studied at least since the 1960s.
It was conjectured~\citep{frisch61,delbruck62} that sufficiently long linear polymers in dilute solution, undergoing a ring closure reaction, would produce knotted ring polymers with high probability.
The study of knotted random walks has been associated with knotted polymers ever since, employing insight and techniques from geometry, topology and statistical mechanics.
Analytical results are rare \cite{diao94,diao95}, so the problem is most naturally studied with computers.
Closed random walks of sufficient length must be generated, whose knotting is analysed to investigate the asymptotics.
Topologically distinct kinds of knot are classified (the simplest examples are shown in Figure \ref{fig:knots_and_random_walks}(a)), and so we can ask what the probabilities of different \emph{knot types} are in closed random walks.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig_0_random_walks.pdf}
\caption{Some simple knots, manifested in closed random walks of different lengths.
(a) shows the unknot $0_1$ and the seven different prime knots with minimum crossing number $n_{\mathrm{c}} \le 6$.
The knots (b) $3_1$ and (c) $7_6$ are realised in equilateral random polygons of different lengths, up to $1000$ edges.
For each polygon, the knotted region is highlighted in red.}
\label{fig:knots_and_random_walks}
\end{figure}
A natural statistical model for this investigation, extensively studied, is the ensemble of \emph{equilateral random polygons} \cite{diao95}.
These are piecewise linear embeddings of the circle in $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that each edge has unit length: they are effectively random walks in three-dimensional Euclidean space, conditioned to return to their starting point.
(The equilateral condition can be relaxed to study walks whose edge lengths have some other distribution~\cite{diao94}.)
Examples of random polygons of different edge numbers with two specific knot types are shown in Figure \ref{fig:knots_and_random_walks} (b) and (c).
\citet{diao95} has demonstrated that the probability of an equilateral random polygon being \emph{unknotted} tends to zero as the number of edges increases.
Many studies of knotted random walks have followed, generating different statistical ensembles, utilising larger datasets as numerical power has improved, and with increasingly sophisticated knot type analyses~\citep{millett2005,deguchi94,tsurusaki95,deguchi97,matsuda03,uehara15,uehara17}.
Several facts agreeing with large-$N$ asymptotics are supported, such as the probability of composite knots increasing with $N$ \cite{diao95}.
Here we revisit these questions, bringing contemporary large-scale computing resources to bear on the problem by generating many millions of random polygons by a Monte Carlo routine.
Our methodology incorporates several improvements over previous studies, including:
\begin{itemize}
\item large datasets, targeting $10^7$ random polygons with edge number $N$ up to $4000$ steps (compared to $\sim 2 \times 10^6$ from other sources), though much of our analysis is based on polygons with $N \le 3000$ where the statistics are better;
\item utilising the algorithm of \citet{cantarella16}, which samples equilateral random polygons correctly and quickly;
\item identifying knots using a set of optimised numerical knot invariants.
\end{itemize}
As we shall describe, our results are consistent with the probability $P_K(N)$ of a particular knot of type $K$ occurring in a random polygon with $N$ sides, having the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ansatz}
P_K(N) = C_K N^{v_K} \exp \left( - \frac{N}{N_K} \right) \left[ 1 + \beta_K N^{-\Delta} + \gamma_K N^{-1} + o(N^{-1})\right].
\end{equation}
This expression incorporates an overall exponential decay, with decay parameter $N_K$, combined with a power law exponent $v_K$ and other asymptotic corrections to scaling ($\beta_K$, $\gamma_K$ and $\Delta$).
The first three factors involving constants $C_K$, $v_K$ and $N_K$ are similar to the analogous knotting probability for self-avoiding polygons of $N$ edges on a cubic lattice~\cite{orlandini98}, which is well-grounded in a range of different random polygon models~\cite{deguchi94,tsurusaki95,deguchi97,uehara15,uehara17}.
The small-scale correction terms to scaling are less well studied, and the term in square brackets in (\ref{eq:ansatz}) is guessed based on the behaviour of lattice models~\cite{orlandini98}.
The value of the confluent correction exponent $\Delta$ is not known precisely, but we assume that $\Delta = 1/2$ \cite{orlandini98}.
The form (\ref{eq:ansatz}) is supported by our observations of many knot types occurring for both smaller and larger $N$, including prime knots with up to nine crossings and composite knots with up to five components, and we present data for eight-crossing prime knots and four-component composites.
Knot terminology is explained in Section~\ref{sec:methods_topological_identification}.
Our results suggest that the exponential parameter $N_K$ is \emph{universal for all knot types}, $N_K = N_0$, both prime and composite \cite{deguchi94}.
From our data, the power law exponent appears to be $v_K = v_0 + n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$, with universal constant $v_0$ and $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$, \emph{the number of prime components} of $K$.
Prime knots have one prime component ($n_{\mathrm{p}} = 1$), composite knots have more than one prime component ($n_{\mathrm{p}} > 1$).
This form of exponent is supported by an argument that the knotted components are on average localised and relatively small along the curve~\cite{katritch00} and unentangled with one another~\cite{tsurusaki95}.
If we had a pattern theorem for the unknot, then, under these assumptions, the composite exponent would be the sum of the exponent for the unknot and the number of prime components in the knot decomposition.
This behaviour is comparable to lattice models, for which there is evidence that $v_K = n_{\mathrm{p}}$~\cite{orlandini96,orlandini98,baiesi2010}, up to small corrections.
In this sense, $v_K$ controls the asymptotic \emph{relative} frequency of composite knots with different $n_{\mathrm{p}}$: the knot with more components will always eventually be more common.
Knotted random polygons appear to follow this behaviour, with a small negative offset $v_0$.
This deviation of $v_K$ from $n_{\mathrm{p}}$ has been seen elsewhere~\cite{uehara17}, so the deviation from the lattice result seems to be typical of unconstrained random polygons.
Notably, the unknot appears as the composite knot with zero prime components, $n_{\mathrm{p}} = 0$, with the small offset and the same exponential parameter $N_0$.
That the unknot scales as a ``zero component knot'', rather than with no power law and possibly a different $N_K$, is a new observation from our data.
The amplitude $C_K$ depends on knot type and is the only parameter that differentiates between prime knots or composite knots with the same $n_{\mathrm{p}}$ up to corrections to scaling.
From the best fits to our data, the values of these universal constants are $N_0 = 259.3 \pm 0.2$ for equilateral random polygons, and $v_0 = -0.190 \pm 0.001$.
Since $-1/2 < v_0 < 0$, the unknot acquires a \emph{negative power law scaling} in addition to the well-established exponential decay with $N$.
This contrasts with previous studies, where the unknot probability was interpreted as scaling exponentially with no power law.
Our results are not necessarily incompatible with prior investigations, in which the errors (due to smaller samples) are larger.
We also made preliminary investigations for an ensemble of non-equilateral random polygons. We used an ensemble of closed random polygons based on quaternions introduced in \cite{cantarella13}, which we call the \emph{quaternionic model}.
This has the advantage of being very fast and straightforward to implement numerically, and the quaternionic polygons have edgelengths sampled from beta distributions.
For the quaternionic model we find the same power law, $v_0 = -0.19 \pm 0.03$, and a different exponent, $N_K = 430.5 \pm 1$.
The similarity of $v_0$ and difference of $N_0$ is consistent with expectations of knot scaling.
We will not describe many features of this model, but the broad findings are consistent with the random polygons.
This type of numerical analysis is fundamentally limited: longer random polygons are not only more computationally expensive to analyse, but may adopt a vast plethora of prime and composite knot types.
The chance of a specific knot type occurring for large $N$ therefore drops dramatically.
Furthermore, more complex knot types are harder to identify numerically, and it becomes hard to find topological invariants that robustly distinguish them in realistic timescales.
We make some simple estimates of the misidentification rate to support our main conclusions, but such difficulties limit the maximum $N$ for which reliable data can be found.
Furthermore, given that $N_K = N_0$ and $v_K = v_0 + 1 > 0$ for all prime knots, the Ansatz (\ref{eq:ansatz}) suggests that all prime knots have a maximum probability at $N \approx N_0 (1+v_0)$ (with error depending on corrections to scaling).
Clearly, knots with a large number of crossings (of $N_0 (v_0+1)$ crossings or more) cannot have this maximum, and indeed we show that the position of the maximum drifts, depending on the correction to scaling parameters $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$.
Nevertheless, (\ref{eq:ansatz}) gives a good agreement with the data of a significant number of the commonest random knots, both prime, composite and the unknot.
The outline of the remainder of this paper is as follows.
The various subsections of Section \ref{sec:methods} provide the details of random walk generation, knot detection and classification, and numerical parameter choices.
In Section~\ref{sec:results} we describe our results, and we conclude with a brief discussion in Section~\ref{sec:discussion}.
In Section 4 we summarize our results from the quaternionic random walk model.
Before this, however, we briefly summarise the knotting properties of random polygons confined to lattices, justifying the form of the Ansatz (\ref{eq:ansatz}).
\subsection{Knotting in lattice polygons}
\label{sec:lattice_polygons}
Although there are few analytic results \cite{diao95} to test against the numerical results for the random polygons, some rigorous results are available for random \emph{lattice polygons} (simple closed curves embedded in a three-dimensional lattice such as the simple cubic lattice, $\mathbb{Z}^3$).
These rigorous results \cite{sumners88,pippenger89} guide our questions about the behaviour of random polygons in the continuum.
Writing $p_N$ for the number of polygons in the simple cubic lattice with $N$ edges, up to translation, clearly we have $p_N=0$ if $N$ is odd, $p_4=3$ and $p_6=22$.
Hammersley \cite{hammersley61} showed that the limit, taken through even values of $N$,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N\to\infty} N^{-1} \log p_N \equiv \log \mu~,
\end{equation}
exists and the \emph{growth constant} $\mu$ satisfies $3 < \mu < 5$.
If $p_N(\emptyset) \equiv p_N^0$ is the number of $N$-edge polygons that are unknotted, then \cite{sumners88,pippenger89}
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N\to\infty} N^{-1} \log p_N^0 \equiv \log \mu_0,
\end{equation}
and $\mu_0 < \mu$, i.e.~unknotted polygons are exponentially rare in the set of lattice polygons.
If $p_N(K)$ denotes the number of $N$-edge polygons of knot type $K$ then, similarly,
\begin{equation}
\log \mu_0 \le \liminf_{N\to\infty} N^{-1} \log p_N(K) \le \limsup_{N\to\infty} N^{-1} \log p_N(K) < \log \mu~,
\end{equation}
so polygons with any fixed knot type are also exponentially rare.
The existence of the limit has not been proved for any knot type other than the unknot, and it has not been proved whether or not the exponential growth rate is independent of knot type.
Although these rigorous results give interesting information about knot probabilities, they say very little about the relative probability of different knot types.
To address these questions we need to know about the subdominant terms.
It is believed~\cite{orlandini98} that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intro_knot_probability}
p_N = C N^{\alpha - 3} \mu^N(1+o(1)),
\end{equation}
and it is reasonable to guess that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intro_unknot_probability}
p_N^0 = C_0 N^{\alpha_0 - 3} \mu_0^N(1+o(1)),
\end{equation}
where $\mu_0 < \mu$ and where there is numerical evidence suggesting that $\alpha_0 = \alpha$~\cite{orlandini96,baiesi2010}.
Similarly, there is numerical evidence \cite{orlandini96,orlandini98,baiesi2010,baiesi12} that
\begin{equation}
p_N(K) = C_K N^{\alpha_0 +n_{\mathrm{p}}(K) -3} \mu_0^N(1+o(1)),
\end{equation}
where $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ is the number of prime knots in the knot decomposition of $K$.
Thus all knot types exhibit an exponential growth rate, with the exponent depending only on the number of prime knots in the knot decomposition, and not on the particular knots involved.
The probability that a lattice polygon has knot type $K$ is (assuming that $\alpha_0 = \alpha$)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lattice_fraction}
{\mathrm{Prob}_N(K)} = p_N(K) / p_N = A_K N^{n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)} (\mu_0/\mu)^N(1+o(1)),
\end{equation}
where $A_K=C_K/C$, while the relative probability of the knot type being $K_1$ or $K_2$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathrm{Prob}_N(K_1)}/{\mathrm{Prob}_N(K_2)} & = & p_N(K_1)/p_N(K_2) \nonumber \\
&=& (A_{K_1}/A_{K_2} )N^{n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1)-n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2)} (1+o(1)),
\end{eqnarray}
even if $\alpha_0 \neq \alpha$.
Our Ansatz (\ref{eq:ansatz}) for random polygons strongly resembles (\ref{eq:lattice_fraction}), has the negative exponential with $N_K =1/ \log(\mu/\mu_0)$, consistent with $N_K$ being independent of $K$.
Our form of $v_K = v_0+n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ with $-1/2 < v_0 < 0$ indicates that for random polygons, the analogue $\alpha > \alpha_0$.
We will give numerical evidence for this in the following.
Readers uninterested in the details of the dataset generation can skip to Section \ref{sec:results}.
\section{Methodology and datasets}\label{sec:methods}
This section describes the numerical methods used to generate closed equilateral random walks, and the knot invariants used to identify knot types.
Our numerical implementation of both the random walk models of Section~\ref{sec:random_walk_models}, and the topological invariants of Section~\ref{sec:methods_topological_identification}, are publicly available in the pyknotid knot identification toolkit~\citep{pyknotid}.
We also perform a range of least square fits to the numerical data, using standard nonlinear fitting routines~\cite{scipy}.
\subsection{Random walk models}
\label{sec:random_walk_models}
A typical algorithm generating general random walks does not give closed loops, i.e.~curves which return to their starting point.
It is more difficult to sample the subset of closed random walks properly, but many algorithms have been proposed for generating random polygons, either equilateral or with some distribution of step lengths (such as Gaussian distribution~\citep{diao94}).
Examples include the polygonal fold, hedgehog, triangle, and crankshaft methods~\citep{alvarado11}.
Although easy to implement numerically, not all of these algorithms give the desired probability
distribution. When they do, they do so only as the limit distribution of a
Markov process, and convergence may be slow ~\citep{cantarella16}.
In particular, different algorithms appear to generate very different selections of knot types, even with parameters that are nominally similar~\citep{alvarado11}.
For a detailed investigation of knot statistics, it is desirable to generate random polygons with a properly defined distribution.
A small number of algorithms have been shown to produce the correct distribution in polygon space rigorously.
One method is to generate each polygon edge at random, conditioned that the walk will return to its origin after a fixed number of further steps~\citep{moore05,diao12}.
Although good for short random knots, it is numerically complex and slow to generate longer polygons~\citep{moore05}.
An improvement was recently proposed by~\citet{cantarella16}, in which the complicated numerical arithmetic is replaced by a direct rejection sampling of valid states, generating valid polygons with $N$ edges in $O(N^{5/2})$ time.
This \emph{action-angle method} is the chosen source of random equilateral polygons here.
Another approach---the `toric symplectic Markov chain Monte Carlo' algorithm \cite{cantarella16-2}---has been shown to converge to the appropriate distribution, but this is again relatively difficult to implement numerically.
We sampled $1.96 \times 10^9$ equilateral random polygons using the action-angle method, at lengths from 6 to 4000 edges.
The sampled lengths are every $N$ from $6 \leq N \leq 50$, steps of $10$ from $50 < N \leq 200$, steps of $50$ from $200 < N \leq 1000$, and steps of $100$ from $1000 < N \leq
4000$.
At each length $N \leq 3000$, we analysed at least $10^7$ different polygons, in some cases far more.
For each length $N > 3000$ we analysed at least $10^6$ different polygons.
Our analysis with the quaternionic model was based on similar choices.
\subsection{Methods for identifying knot types}
\label{sec:methods_topological_identification}
Knots abound in random walks, and it is necessary to distinguish their distinct knot types.
The Rolfsen table of knots~\citep{rolfsen76}, with standard extensions for knots with up to 16 crossings~\citep{hoste98} denotes the knot $K_i$ as the $i$th knot with crossing number $K$, the minimum number of crossings a 2-dimensional diagram of the knot can have, which we denote $n_{\mathrm{c}}$ (see Figure~~\ref{fig:knots_and_random_walks}(a)).
The ordering of index $i$ is effectively arbitrary.
The knot $0_1$ is the special case, called the \emph{unknot}, representing the topologically trivial, simple circle.
Knots with a crossing number $n_{\mathrm{c}} \ge 11$ are referred to as $K_{ai}$ or $K_{ni}$ (e.g.~$11_{a343}$, $11_{n3}$), where $a$ or $n$ indicates
alternating and nonalternating knots respectively.
Distinct chiral pairs of knots are not distinguished.
Tables of knots and their properties are available from the Knot Atlas~\citep{knotatlas} and KnotInfo~\citep{knotinfo}.
Knot tables give only the \emph{prime} knots, which can also be joined together by a connect sum to form \emph{composite} knots.
Connect sums are denoted by $\#$ or with exponents denoting repeated connect sums of the same knot type.
For instance, $3_1\#4_1^2$ represents the connect sum of a trefoil knot $3_1$ and two figure-eight knots $4_1$.
Figure~\ref{fig:knots_and_random_walks}(a) shows the seven prime knots with $n_{\mathrm{c}} \le 6$.
Beyond these the number of knot types grows more rapidly; there are then $7$ knots with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 7$, $21$ with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 8$, $49$ with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 9$, $165$ with $10$, $552$ with $11$, $2176$ with $12$, $9988$ with $13$, $46972$ with $14$, $\ldots$.
The overall trend is of exponential growth in the number of prime knots with $n_{\mathrm{c}}$ crossings~\cite{welsh91,ernstsumners}.
Figure~\ref{fig:knots_and_random_walks}(b),(c) shows some examples of the knots $3_1$ and $7_6$ in random walks with different lengths.
The trefoil knot $3_1$ is usually very small, made of only a few edges of the whole polygon.
The knot $7_6$ is somewhat more complicated, dominating much of the structure of the random walk at $50$ or even $100$ edges, but as $N$ grows, the knotted regions occupy less of the curve in both cases; this behaviour for fixed knot type is well established~\cite{katritch00}.
Furthermore, it becomes relatively unlikely that a long polygon will contain a single knot component; at large $N$, composite knots dominate the statistics, with knots occurring essentially independently in different regions of the polygon \cite{orlandini96,orlandini98}.
Determining the type of a complex random knot can be difficult.
It is most efficient to identify knots by some set of \emph{knot invariants}, i.e.~tabulated functions of knot type.
Unfortunately, easily calculable knot invariants are not perfect discriminators, taking the same value for distinct knot types.
Furthermore, more discriminatory invariants usually require increased computational complexity.
The most common invariant for studying random knotting is the \emph{Alexander polynomial} $\Delta_K(t)$ for knot type $K$~\citep{orlandini07,rolfsen76,adams99}.
As numerical polynomial arithmetic is inconvenient, it is common to use the \emph{knot determinant} $|\Delta_K(-1)|$.
Unfortunately, the knot determinant is far less discriminatory than the full Alexander polynomial: $|\Delta_{4_1}(-1)| = |\Delta_{5_1}(-1)| = 5$, whereas the simplest indistinguishable pair by Alexander polynomials is $\Delta_{6_1}(t) = \Delta_{9_{47}}(t) =t^2-5t+1$, and the simplest knot with Alexander polynomial indistinguishable from the unknot, $\Delta(t) = 1$, is $11_{n39}$.
Therefore the determinant is often paired with certain \emph{Vassiliev invariants} $v_2, v_3, v_4, \dots$~\citep{deguchi93,deguchi94,moore04,moore05}.
These may be calculated in polynomial time in the number of crossings of the knot representation.
In practice, $v_2$ and the determinant are easily calculated, $v_3$ is practically calculable for knots with up to a few tens or hundreds of crossings, and higher Vassiliev invariants are generally not computationally practical for use with complicated curves.
The Alexander polynomial is not completely independent of these invariants; in fact, $v_2$ is equal to the coefficient of $t^2$ in the (properly normalised) Conway polynomial.
Although other invariants, such as the Jones and HOMFLY polynomials, are more powerful discriminators, computing these is exponential in the number of crossings of the projection~\citep{adams99}, and they are only practical for projected curves with no more than a few tens of crossings.
The invariants we use here are the Alexander polynomial at certain roots of unity,
\begin{equation}
\Delta_r \equiv \Delta_{K,r} = |\Delta_K\left(\exp(2\pi \rmi / r)\right)|, \quad r \in \mathbb{Z}.
\end{equation}
Each $\Delta_r$ is an invariant as easily calculated as the knot determinant, with the only numerical change being the use of complex datatypes.
$\Delta_1 = 1$ always, so is not a useful invariant~\cite{burde02}, and $\Delta_2$ is the knot determinant.
As shown in \ref{appendix:roots_of_unity}, $\Delta_2,\Delta_3,\Delta_4$ conveniently are always integers, and we limit our calculation to these values.
Higher-order roots of unity provide relatively little extra discriminatory value; to discriminate between the prime and composite knots which appear in random walks, and the first three roots of unity are almost as good as the full Alexander polynomial.
Although we could attempt to increase discriminatory power by calculating Vassiliev invariants, $v_2$ adds little to no useful discriminatory power, and $v_3$ and higher invariants significantly slow down the calculations for knots longer than a few hundred steps.
Hence, to recognise knots, we calculate $\Delta_2 = |\Delta_K(-1)|$, $\Delta_3 = |\Delta_K(\exp(2\pi \rmi/3))|$ and $\Delta_4 = |\Delta_K(\rmi)|$.
This allows us, with confidence, to distinguish all prime knots with $n_{\mathrm{c}} \le 7$, the 21 knots with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 8$ except for $8_5, 8_{10}, 8_{11}, 8_{15}, 8_{18}, 8_{20}, 8_{21}$, and the 49 nine-crossing knots except for $9_2, 9_8, 9_{12}, 9_{16}, 9_{23}, 9_{24}, 9_{28}, 9_{29}, 9_{37}, 9_{38}, 9_{39}, 9_{40}, 9_{46}, 9_{48}$.
These excluded eight- and nine-crossing knots knots have invariants the same as either a simpler (more common) prime knot, or a common composite knot.
We also identify composite knots with five and fewer components, involving any number of trefoil knots $3_1$ with one other prime knot, and a smaller number of examples involving more non-trefoil components.
This introduces some error into the count e.g.~some cases identified as $3_1^2$ might be $8_{20}$ (which has the same $\Delta(t)$).
However, in all important cases, one of the possible knots for a given set of invariants occurs with much more frequency than the alternatives, and this conflict
does not appear to harm the results.
\section{Numerical results for knot probabilities}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Summary of observed behaviour}
Figure~\ref{fig:knot_fractions} shows the knot fractions for several different prime and composite knot types from our numerically generated equilateral random polygons.
Figure~\ref{fig:knot_fractions} (a) shows data for prime knots.
Evidently, the prime knot probabilities are all very similar, apart from the overall amplitude factor given by $C_K$, which decreases as the knot complexity increases (as characterised by the crossing number).
Figure~\ref{fig:knot_fractions} (b) shows data for composite knots, with numbers of components $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ varying from $0$ (the unknot $0_1$) to $3$ (the connect sum of three trefoils).
Composite knots with the same number of components $n_{\mathrm{p}}$, have broadly similar probabilities, up to a relative scaling determined by $C_K$.
The location of the maximum in the probability distribution increases with $n_{\mathrm{p}}$ as the overall amplitude decreases. Overall, knots with larger $n_{\mathrm{p}}$ are less likely.
The knot types shown in Figure~\ref{fig:knot_fractions} are only a small sampling of the data we have, and the behaviour for other knot types is consistent with that shown in the figure.
The data points in the figure are fitted according to~\eqref{eq:ansatz}, with $N_K = N_0 = 259.3\pm 0.2$, $v_K = v_0 + n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ with $v_0 = -0.190\pm 0.001$.
Values of $C_K$, $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$, are chosen to give the best fit for each knot type, and the fit for each knot type is excellent.
The following discussion will provide more details for motivating the form of the Ansatz and the universal nature of $N_K = N_0$, $v_K = v_0 + n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Fractions of different knot types in closed equilateral random walks as a function of $N$.
(a) Probabilities for various prime knots.
Note that the order by frequency is different from the ordering in the knot table.
The inset shows $\log P_K(N)$ against $N$, showing the similarity of behaviour for all prime knots.
(b) Probabilities for various composite knots (including the unknot).
The inset shows $\log P_K(N)$ against $N$, and the near-linear slopes depend only on the number of components $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$.
The plots are fitted according to (\ref{eq:ansatz}), as described in the main text.}
\label{fig:knot_fractions}
\end{figure}
Equation \eqref{eq:ansatz} is an excellent fit to the data for the various prime and composite knots shown.
In the following sections, we will provide separate motivation to support the form of \eqref{eq:ansatz}.
In the following subsection, we consider ratios of probabilities of knot types with the same $n_{\mathrm{p}}$, or differing by unity; the gradients being zero or one (within error) indicate the universality of $N_K = N_0$ and $v_K = v_0 + n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$.
In the following section, we consider the best fit result for $N_0$ and $v_0$ together, showing the best fit agrees for different knot types.
We then explore this fit further for the unknot, for which the form (\ref{eq:ansatz}) with nonzero $v_0$ is new.
We then consider the different values of the amplitudes $C_K$, before discussing the corrections to scaling in the final section.
\subsection{Probability ratios}
\label{sec:ratios}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{
Relative probabilities $P_{K_1}(N)/P_{K_2}(N)$ of different knot types, depending on $N$.
(a) $P_{K_1}(N)/P_{K_2}(N)$ plotted in logarithmic scale against $N$ on a logarithmic scale for several choices of $K_1$ and $K_2$, with $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1) = n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2) + 1$.
The inset shows the modulus of the deviation from unity of the best fit line; all are clearly very close to gradient $1$.
The fitted lines here are from $N \approx 200$ to $N \approx 2400$.
The errors on the fitted gradient of $1$ are $< .04$ for each, with several much better than this.
(b) shows $P_{K_1}(N)/P_{K_2}(N)$ for several pairs where $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1) = n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2)$.
The fits here are for $700 \le N \le 1800$.
Now the inset shows the gradient deviation from $0$, with an error $< 10^{-3}$ in each case.
}
\label{fig:relative_probabilities}
\end{figure}
Comparisons of $P_{K_1}(N)/P_{K_2}(N)$, for prime $K_1$ and $K_2$, justify our claim that $N_K$ and $v_K$ are independent of prime knot type.
If $N_K$ depends on knot type, then as $N \to \infty$, the ratio tends to zero or infinity exponentially rapidly.
If $N_{K_1} = N_{K_2}$, but the exponent $v_K$ depends on prime knot type, then the ratio goes to zero or infinity, but not exponentially rapidly.
If $N_{K_1} = N_{K_2}$ and $v_{K_1} - v_{K_2} = n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1) - n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2)$ then the ratio has the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RatioPrime}
\frac{P_{K_1}(N)}{P_{K_2}(N)}= \frac{C_{K_1}}{C_{K_2}}N^{n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1) - n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2)}\left(1+ \frac{\beta_{K_1}-\beta_{K_2}} {N^{1/2}} + O(N^{-1}) \right).
\end{equation}
The results from our data for $ P_{K_1}(N)/P_{K_2}(N)$ against $N$ on a log-log scale are shown in Figure \ref{fig:relative_probabilities}.
In (a), $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1) = n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2) +1$ for several pairs with $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2)$ = 0,1,2.
The curves fit very well to a straight line of gradient unity with a very small error in all cases.
This suggests each $K_1$ and $K_2$ have the same exponential term, and power law term differing by $1$.
In Figure \ref{fig:relative_probabilities} (b), several pairs are shown where $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1) = n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2)$.
Again the curves seem to be asymptotically linear with limiting slopes effectively zero.
None of the curves in Figure \ref{fig:relative_probabilities} (b) approach zero or infinity as $N$ increases, suggesting that $N_K = N_0$ and $v_K = v_0 + n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ for all knots.
This analysis, however, does not give values for the universal constants $N_0$ and $v_0$.
The corrections to scaling $\beta_K$ in \eqref{eq:RatioPrime}, indicating the way the curve approaches the asymptotic ratios, will be considered below in Section \ref{sec:short_length_scales}.
\subsection{Determining values of $N_0$ and $v_0$}
\label{sec:fit}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
Plot of fit quality for $N_K$ against $v_0 + n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ for the commonest knot type for each $n_{\mathrm{p}}$.
Curves are shown for the unknot $0_1$ ($n_{\mathrm{p}} = 0$), the trefoil $3_1$ ($n_{\mathrm{p}} = 1$), and composites $3_1 \# 3_1$ ($n_{\mathrm{p}} = 2$) and $3_1 \# 3_1 \# 3_1$ ($n_{\mathrm{p}} = 3$).
For each value of $v_0$ considered (between $-0.22$ and $-0.16$ with an increment typically of $0.01$), an error bar around the best fit $N_K$ is given.
This is calculated based on varying $v_0$ and the corrections to scaling parameters, minimising the sum of square deviations and weighting the data points by inverse variance, within a tolerance error of $95\%$.
The error bars for each knot type are smallest at or near the value of $v_0$ where the curves cross, detailed in the inset.
In the inset, the lines cross at a $v_0$ between $-0.190$ and $-0.191$.
The errors on these values are estimated based on the spread of values in the curves, with errors crossing in the inset, giving $v_0 = -0.190\pm 0.001$ and $N_K = 259.3\pm 0.2$.
}
\label{fig:fittingv0N0}
\end{figure}
Although justifying the general form of the knot probability, the method above does not determine the numerical values of $N_0$ and $v_0$.
This is complicated by the fact that best fits to $N_0$ and $v_0$ cannot be determined independently.
We perform the analysis for the commonest knot type of each number of components $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$: the unknot $0_1$, the trefoil knot $3_1$, and connect sums of trefoils $3_1 \# 3_1$ and $3_1 \# 3_1 \# 3_1$.
As evident in Figure \ref{fig:knot_fractions}, the commonest knot types from all the data are, in order, the unknot, the trefoil and $3_1 \# 3_1$.
For each knot type and $v_0$ in the considered range, we calculate the best fit to the Ansatz (\ref{eq:ansatz}) by minimising the sum of the square deviations and weighting the data points by the inverse variance, whilst varying $N_0$, $C_K$, $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$.
In Figure \ref{fig:fittingv0N0} we plot the optimal $N_K$ for each $v_0$, with the error bars represent $95\%$ tolerance of the fitted data to this value (the other parameters are not shown).
The lines of best fit for $N_K$ against $v_0$ intersect very close to one another, and very close to the values where the error bars are the smallest, as shown in the inset.
The crossings do not take place at precisely the same $v_0,N_K$, and from this we estimate the errors, giving $v_0 = -0.190\pm 0.001$ and $N_K = 259.3\pm 0.2$.
As discussed above, these values of exponents give excellent fits for all knot types, as indicated for a sample of our data in Figure \ref{fig:knot_fractions}.
\subsection{Fitting the unknot}
\label{sec:unknot}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig5.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
Unknot fraction of closed equilateral random walks.
Plot of $\log P_{0_1}(N)$ against $N$ for a range of $N$ up to $N = 2800$.
The numerical data for the unknot probabilities are compared to three fits: the Ansatz (\ref{eq:ansatz}) with the numerical values fit as in Section \ref{sec:fit} (red line), the best fit assuming a pure exponential decay with the best fit exponential decay constant $N_0' = 246.5$ (blue), and the the best fit using the exponential constant $N_0 = 259.3$ (black) from Section \ref{sec:fit}.
In each case, corrections to scaling terms are included (not shown) to optimise the fit.
The inset shows the modulus of the relative deviation of each fit from the data.
The Ansatz, including the power law, is a significantly better fit than the pure exponentials.
}
\label{fig:unknot_scaling}
\end{figure}
As we have discussed, the unknot $0_1$ appears in our Ansatz \eqref{eq:ansatz} not as a type of prime knot, but is properly considered as the unique composite knot with zero components, $n_{\mathrm{p}}(0_1) = 0$.
Without corrections to scaling, its probability is $P_{0_1}(N) \approx C_{0_1} N^{v_0} \exp(-N/N_0)$, and indeed in the last subsection, we described how the best fit of $v_0$ and $N_0$ to the unknot data agrees very well with the values for the trefoil and its connect sums.
It has long been thought that the probability of a random unknotted polygon, ignoring small-scale effects, is simply exponential~\cite{millett94,deguchi94,millett2005,orlandini07},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:results_unknot_probability}
P_{0_1}(N) = C_{0_1} \exp\left( - N/N_{0_1} \right)~,
\end{equation}
with no power law term.
This form is consistent with~\citep{diao95} and \eqref{eq:intro_unknot_probability}, and has been verified in a wide variety of random polygon models~\citep{deguchi94,moore04,millett2005,orlandini07,uehara17}, as well as the lattice case \cite{orlandini07,jvr90}.
In Figure \ref{fig:unknot_scaling}, we show how the unknot data for our Ansatz, including the $v_0$ exponent (and best fit corrections to scaling), compares with the raw exponential form (\ref{eq:results_unknot_probability}).
The difference between the best fits is shown in the inset.
Most data was generated for $N \le 300$, and in this range, the agreement is good for all of the fits.
However, the pure exponential with $N_0$ systematically deviates (with a linear error) for $N > 300$, as indicated by the black curve in Figure 5, and the pure exponential with $N'_0$ deviates systematically, in a similar way, when $N > 600$, as indicated by the blue curve in Figure 5.
The fitting exponents vary from the data systematically with different signs.
The two fitted curves without the power law term have a systematic deviation that grows as $N$ increases, while our Ansatz, indicated by the red curve in Figure 5, is a substantially better bet without any systematic deviation.
The Ansatz with exponential and power law found from the last section, based on the data from the knots as well as unknots, gives a good fit over the entire range.
This suggests that the pure exponential model is an approximation for small $N$, while for large $N$ it is necessary to have the power law term.
Meanwhile, our Ansatz suggest a greater universality that incorporates the unknot into a wider class, as a composite knot with zero components.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec:fit}, these values were chosen from the simultaneous optimisation both of the unknot, and multiple trefoil knots.
In fact, the deviation from pure exponential scaling for the unknot has been observed in previous studies \cite{moore04,uehara17}.
However, its effect was not distinguished from systematic errors: many older studies do not sample enough random walks to detect the change.
The discrepancy was interpreted~\citep{moore04} as nontrivial knots being incorrectly identified as the unknot.
These misidentifications are not represented in the error bars as it is difficult to estimate their number.
It is very difficult to estimate confidently, beyond tabulations, the number of nontrivial knots with Alexander polynomial (at roots of unity) corresponding to the unknot.
The prime knots with $\Delta_2,\Delta_3,\Delta_4$ matching the unknot with $n_{\mathrm{c}} \le 15$, grow quickly with $n_{\mathrm{c}}\ge 11$ (there are 2 examples with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 11$, 2 with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 12$, 15 with $13$, 36 with 14, 145 with 15).
The probability of each of these knot types occurring drops rapidly with $n_{\mathrm{c}}$, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:Ck}; it is not clear how this decrease compares to the exponential increase of knot types with $n_{\mathrm{c}}$, and no stable pattern emerges for $n_{\mathrm{c}} \le 15$.
Composite knots consisting of these components would also appear as the unknot, but are even rarer.
We do not believe that the deviation in Figure~\ref{fig:unknot_scaling} can be explained by misidentification of unknots.
Rather than estimate the misidentification rate by improving the discriminating power, we adopt the opposite methodology, by comparing the results with a less discriminatory analysis using only the determinant $\Delta_2$ which is a much weaker invariant than the set $\Delta_2,\Delta_3,\Delta_4$.
There are 2 examples misidentified as the unknot with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 10$, 4 with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 11$, 11 with $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 12$, 44 with 13, 162 with 14, 724 with 15, $\ldots$.
If the deviation from the fit in Figure~\ref{fig:unknot_scaling} were due to misidentification, we would expect a significantly larger deviation from identifying the unknot only by determinant.
However, the change to the results is very small: for instance, it accounts for $< 2\%$ more detected `unknots' at length $2000$ than with $\Delta_2,\Delta_3,\Delta_4$, and this misidentification rate grows only slowly with $N$.
This is far smaller than the $\sim 13\%$ deviation of the unknot fraction from exponential decay in Figure~\ref{fig:unknot_scaling}, despite the unknot misidentification rate being far larger than with the original data.
These are too small to be visible in any of the plots of Figure \ref{fig:unknot_scaling}, and we conclude that unknot misidentification is a negligible error in Figure~\ref{fig:unknot_scaling}.
This also suggests that the determinant alone is a reasonably reliable invariant for detecting unknotted random polygons; however, it cannot distinguish between simple prime knots.
Furthermore, our results about the unknot do not exist independently of other knot types: the argument in Section \ref{sec:ratios}.
If the unknot indeed had the different form (\ref{eq:results_unknot_probability}) with different exponents, it would be very surprising that the inclusion of other knots with the same Alexander polynomial would exactly cancel to give the relevant ratio plots in Figure \ref{fig:relative_probabilities} (b).
As discussed above, these plots of the ratio of the logarithm of probabilities of various prime knots against the unknot tending to straight lines of gradient unity, and not to $0$ or $\infty$, indicates that the unknot probability has the same form as prime knots, except for the different $n_{\mathrm{p}}$.
It is important to note that the best fits reported here involve varying the corrections to scaling parameters $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$, not shown in Figure~\ref{fig:unknot_scaling}.
These parameters were optimised for all three fits to the data shown.
Varying the values of $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$, does not affect the systematic advantage of the Ansatz fit over the others; a variation of ~$10\%$ in these fitting parameters changes the deviation by about $3\%$ at $N = 2000$.
These fitting parameters will be discussed in general later in Section \ref{sec:short_length_scales}.
\subsection{The knot coefficient amplitudes $C_K$}
\label{sec:Ck}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{Features that vary with knot type.
(a) Scatter plot of $C_K$ for the prime knots, following data given in Table \ref{table:CKp}.
$C_K$ tends to decrease with crossing number $n_{\mathrm{c}}$, but with a broad range of $C_K$ for a given $n_{\mathrm{c}}$.
(b) Scatter plot of $N_{\mathrm{max}}$, the position of maximum of $P(N)_K$ for different $K$.
Without the corrections to scaling, these would all be at the same point at $N \approx 210$.
}
\label{fig:properties_with_K}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht!]\begin{centering}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$K$ & $3_1$ & $4_1$ & $5_1$ & $5_2$ & $6_1$ & $6_2$ & $6_3$ \\
$-\log C_K$ & $4.84$ & $6.36$ & $7.41$ & $6.83$ & $7.93$ & $7.87$ & $8.37$ \\
error & $0.003$ & $0.01$ & $0.015$ & $0.015$ & $0.024$ & $0.024$ & $0.022$ \\
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $7_1$ & $7_2$ & $7_3$ & $7_4$ & $7_5$ & $7_6$ & $7_7$ \\
$-\log C_K$ & $9.88$ & $9.10$ & $9.25$ & $9.74$ & $8.82$ & $8.64$ & $9.45$ \\
error & $0.03$ & $0.03$ & $0.023$ & $0.03$ & $0.029$ & $0.024$ & $0.027$ \\
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $8_1$ & $8_3$ & $8_4$ & $8_6$ & $8_7$ & $8_8$ & $8_9$ \\
$-\log C_K$ & $10.19$ & $10.87$ & $10.36$ & $9.79$ & $10.11$ & $9.49$ & $10.66$ \\
error & $0.38$ & $0.4$ & $0.38$ & $0.2$ & $0.24$ & $0.12$ & $0.22$ \\
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $8_{12}$ & $8_{13}$ & $8_{14}$ & $8_{16}$ & $8_{17}$ & $8_{19}$ & $\phantom{x}$ \cr
$-\log C_K$ & $10.42$ & $10.11$ & $9.41$ & $10.93$ & $11.28$ & $9.83$ & $\phantom{y}$ \cr
error & $0.37$ & $0.25$ & $0.13$ & $0.4$ & $0.44$ & $0.21$ & $\phantom{z}$ \cr
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $3_1 \# 3_1$ & $3_1 \# 4_1$ & $3_1 \# 5_1$ & $4_1 \# 4_1$ & $4_1 \# 5_1$ & $3_1 \# 3_1 \# 3_1$ & $3_1 \# 3_1 \# 3_1 \# 3_1$ \\
$-\log C_K$ & $11.65$ & $12.53$ & $13.72$ & $14.77$ & $15.15$ & $18.84$ & $26.37$ \\
\text{error} & $0.07$ & $0.03$ & $0.037$ & $0.06$ & $0.05$ & 0.02 & 0.03 \cr
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Values of $-\log C_K$, the logarithm of knot coefficient/amplitude for random polygons, depending on knot type $K$, for the simplest distinguishable prime and composite knots.
The unknot has $C_{0_1} = 3.67$, i.e.~ $\log C_{0_1} = 1.30$.
These are found from the best fits for each knot type using (\ref{eq:ansatz}) with the fixed values of $N_0$ and $v_0$, and varying $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$ for the best fit.
The knot $8_{2}$ is absent from the table because since its occurrence in the data is nearly negligible, and hence a fit is not possible.
}
\label{table:CKp}
\end{centering}
\end{table}
The results discussed so far indicate that the main way the knot type determines the random polygon probability is the \emph{knot coefficient} $C_K$ (up to the number of prime components $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ in $K$, and ignoring corrections to scaling).
In particular, the relative fractions of composite knots with the same $n_{\mathrm{p}}$ are determined almost entirely by the \emph{knot coefficient} $C_K$~\cite{uehara17}.
The values of $C_K$ endow the (prime) knots with a natural ordering---lower values indicate more complex knots, occurring more rarely---although little is known about how $C_K$ is related to the average geometry of the curves.
We estimate the amplitudes $C_K$ for all prime knots with at most seven crossings, and some eight crossing knots and composite knots.
The values of $C_K$ for the simplest prime and composite $K$ for random polygons are given in Table \ref{table:CKp}.
Figure \ref{fig:properties_with_K} (a), shows how the the amplitudes $C_K$ depend on crossing number $n_{\mathrm{c}}$ for prime knots.
There is a general decrease in the value of the amplitude as the crossing number increases but the spread in values at fixed crossing number also increases as the number of prime knots with that crossing number increases.
This is also consistent with our results for the quaternionic model of random knots with varying edge lengths, given in Table \ref{table:CKq}.
\begin{table}[ht!]\begin{centering}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$K$ & $3_1$ & $4_1$ & $5_1$ & $5_2$ & $6_1$ & $6_2$ & $6_3$ \\
$-\log C_K$ & $5.14$ & $6.72$ & $7.77$ & $7.22$ & $8.30$ & $8.31$ & $8.80$ \\
error & $0.01$ & $0.02$ & $0.026$ & $0.024$ & $0.034$ & $0.036$ & $0.05$ \\
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $7_1$ & $7_2$ & $7_3$ & $7_4$ & $7_5$ & $7_6$ & $7_7$ \\
$-\log C_K$ & $10.29$ & $9.48$ & $9.60$ & $10.29$ & $9.48$ & $9.59$ & $9.85$ \\
error & $0.09$ & $0.046$ & $0.048$ & $0.084$ & $0.046$ & $0.046$ & $0.062$ \\
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $8_6$ & $8_{19}$ & $3_1 \# 3_1$ & $3_1 \# 4_1$ & $4_1 \# 4_1$ & $3_1 \# 3_1 \# 3_1$ & \\
$-\log C_K$ & $10.28$ & $10.29$ & $12.47$ & $13.24$ & $15.55$ & $20.10$ & \phantom{x} \\
error & $0.079$ & $0.08$ & $0.1$ & $0.08$ & $0.06$ & $0.2$ & \phantom{y}
\cr
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Values of $-\log C_K$, the logarithm of knot coefficient/amplitude for quaternionic random walks, depending on knot type $K$, for the simplest distinguishable prime and composite knots.
The data here are less good than the random polygons.
The unknot has $C_{0_1} = 4.25$, i.e.~ $\log C_{0_1} = 1.46$.
These are found from the best fits for each knot type using (\ref{eq:ansatz}) with the fixed values of $N_0$ and $v_0$, and varying $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$ for the best fit.
}
\label{table:CKq}
\end{centering}
\end{table}
It is interesting to examine the values of the amplitude ratios and we have estimated $C_{3_1}/C_K$ for prime knots $K$.
These ratios are the relative probabilities of the two knots in the large $N$ limit.
We find that $C_{3_1}/C_{4_1} \approx 4.6$, $C_{3_1}/C_{5_1} \approx 13.0$, $C_{3_1}/C_{5_2} \approx 7.3$, $C_{3_1}/C_{6_1} \approx 22.0$, $C_{3_1}/C_{6_2} \approx 20.7$ and $C_{3_1}/C_{6_3} \approx 34.1$.
This suggests a trefoil is about 4.6 times more likely than a figure-eight knot in the large $N$ limit, and so on.
These values are very different from the values found by Janse van Rensburg and Rechnitzer \cite{Rensburg-Rechnitzer} for lattice knots but they are close to the values that we find for the quaternionic knots model, for which $C_{3_1}/C_{4_1} \approx 4.85$ is fairly close to the value found by Deguchi \cite{deguchi97}.
Similarly, for $C_{3_1\#3_1}/C_{3_1\#4_1}$ we find a value of about 2.4 and Deguchi \cite{deguchi97} reports a value of about 2.5.
It seems that amplitude ratios are probably universal among the off-lattice models (with no excluded volume term) but that lattice knots belong to a different universality class \cite{Rensburg-Rechnitzer}.
In Figure \ref{fig:properties_with_K} we plot the values of $N$ for $N_{\mathrm{max}}$, the maximum of $P_K(N)$ for different prime knots.
Without corrections to scaling, all of these would be at $N = N_0 (v_0+1) \approx 210$.
Evidently, the values of $N_{\mathrm{max}}$ are all larger than $210$, and increase with $n_{\mathrm{c}}$.
This shows the significant effect of the corrections to scaling terms, to which we now turn.
\subsection{Corrections to scaling}
\label{sec:short_length_scales}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig7.pdf}
\caption{Approaching asymptotic values.
Ratios $P_{K_1}(N) N^{n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2)-n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1)}/P_{K_2}(N)$ are plotted against $1/\sqrt{N}$.
(a)-(c), $K_1$ and $K_2$ are both prime, whereas in (d)-(f), $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_2)-n_{\mathrm{p}}(K_1) = 1$.
The orange curves are the best fits from the Ansatz, including the corrections to scaling.
The constant lines (red) indicate the ratio of knot coefficients $C_{K_1}/C_{K_2}$, with errors given in the green band.
The fact that the curves appear to approach these constant values in the limit $1/\sqrt{N} \to 0$ indicates once again that the overall scalings follow the Ansatz (\ref{eq:ansatz}) with universal $N_0$ and $v_0$.
The approach indicates how the correction to scaling term $\beta_K$ compares between $K_1$ and $K_2$.
In (a)-(c), which are comparisons of simple prime knots, this is close to zero, but in (d)-(f), for knots with different numbers of components, this is quite different.
}
\label{fig:corrections}
\end{figure}
In Ansatz (\ref{eq:ansatz}), we include corrections to scaling terms.
There are two: one, proportional to $1/\sqrt{N}$, with parameter $\beta_K$, and a Darboux-type $1/N$ with parameter $\gamma_K$.
These are suggested by the corrections expected for self-avoiding walks on a lattice.
The coefficient $\gamma_K$ should depend on knot type since it will reflect, in part, the minimum number of edges required to tie the knot.
It is not \emph{a priori} obvious whether $\beta_K$ should depend on knot type.
For prime knots we have presented evidence that the exponential growth term $N_K = N_0$ and the exponent $v_K = v_0 + 1$, are independent of prime knot type.
Thus the ratio of probabilities of two prime knots, as $N \to \infty$, should approach the ratio of their amplitudes.
The corrections to scaling terms control how this limit is approached.
In Figure \ref{fig:corrections} (a)-(c), we show the ratios of probabilities for various pairs of prime knots, as a function of $1/\sqrt{N}$.
These curves appear to intercept the vertical axis (in the limit $N \to \infty$) at positive finite values, consistent with $N_K$ and $v_K$ indeed being independent of prime knot type, with a limiting slope close to zero.
This intercept is close to the ratio of knot coefficients $C_{K_1}/C_{K_2}$, given by the horizontal red lines.
If the limiting slope is exactly zero, then $\beta_K$ is independent of prime knot type.
While the asymptotic curve in Figure \ref{fig:corrections} (a) is nearly flat, the asymptotic gradients in Figure \ref{fig:corrections} (b) and (c) are clearly non-zero.
This suggests that, although that the $\beta_K$ values of $3_1$ and $4_1$ are close, $\beta_K$ for $5_1$ and $5_2$ differs from that of $3_1$ much more than $4_1$.
We infer that $\beta_K$ is dependent on knot type, and is somehow dependent on crossing number.
This result is also consistent with Figure \ref{fig:properties_with_K} (b) where the position of maximum of $P(N)_K$ for prime knots shifts to higher N as the number of crossings increases; such a shift is algebraically reflected by the correction terms.
In our fitting calculations as described in Section \ref{sec:fit}, both $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$ were allowed to vary in order to achieve the best fit for $N_0$.
These best fits are also shown in Figure \ref{fig:corrections}.
The best fit $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$ for several knot types are given in Table \ref{table:bgK}.
\begin{table}[ht!]\begin{centering}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$K$ & $3_1$ & $4_1$ & $5_1$ & $5_2$ & $6_1$ & $6_2$ & $6_3$ \\
$-\beta_K $ & 1.24 & 1.14 & 1.30 & 1.44 & 3.63 & 3.47 & 3.79 \\
$-\gamma_K $ & 12.5 & 21.9 & 29.7 & 29.9 & 22.1 & 22.9 & 20.8 \\
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $7_1$ & $7_2$ & $7_3$ & $7_4$ & $7_5$ & $7_6$ & $7_7$ \\
$-\beta_K $ & 5.65 & 5.91 & 5.60 & 4.24 & 6.55 & 6.78 & 6.38 \\
$-\gamma_K$ & 9.97 & 10.3 & 12.0 & 22.5 & 5.40 & 4.03 & 7.43 \\
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $8_1$ & $8_3$ & $8_4$ & $8_6$ & $8_7$ & $8_8$ & $8_9$ \\
$-\beta_K $ & 8.77 & 10.24 & 8.65 & 9.18 & 8.68 & 9.66 & 8.92 \\
$\gamma_K$ & 8.67 & 20.6 & 7.96 & 10.8 & 7.26 & 15.28 & 9.50 \\
\hline
\hline
$K$ & $8_{12}$ & $8_{13}$ & $8_{14}$ & $8_{16}$ & $8_{17}$ & $8_{19}$ & \\
$-\beta_K $ & 9.78 & 9.15 & 10.16 & 8.31 & 9.62 & 7.10 & \\
$\gamma_K$ & 16.2 & 12.2 & 18.8 & 2.64 & 15.2 & 5.7 & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Values of correction to scaling coefficients $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$ for random polygons when $K$ is prime.
Optimising these values was part of the fitting procedure.
In addition, the unknot is found to have values $\beta_{0_1} = -3.8$, $\gamma_{0_1} = 8.3$.
Furthermore, simple composite trefoil knots have $\beta_{3_1^2} = +1.7$, $\gamma_{3_1^2} = -48.9$ and $\beta_{3_1^3} = +3.3$, $\gamma_{3_1^3} = -69$.
We find the analogous terms for the quaternionic walks to follow similar trends.
The knot $8_{2}$ is absent from the table because since its occurrence in the data is nearly negligible, and hence a fit is not possible.
}
\label{table:bgK}
\end{centering}
\end{table}
The best fit values for $\beta_K$ are given in the table to be $-1.24, -1.14$ and $-1.3$ for $3_1$, $4_1$ and $5_1$, which are very close but not quite the same; this is consistent with the fitted curves in Figure \ref{fig:corrections} (a)-(c) having a small gradient when they meet the vertical axis.
We also compare $N P_{K_1}(N)/ P_{K_2}(N)$ against $1/\sqrt{N}$ where $n_{\mathrm{c}}(K_2)-n_{\mathrm{c}}(K_1) = 1$.
These are shown in Figure \ref{fig:corrections} (d)-(f).
The curves approach a positive finite value as $1/\sqrt{N} \to 0$, consistent with our claims that $N_{K_1} = N_{K_2}$ and $v_{K_2} = v_{K_1} + 1$.
The unknot best fit of $\beta_{0_1} = -3.8$, which is quite far from $\beta_{3_1}$, consistent with the gradient in Figure \ref{fig:corrections} (d).
When we compare the unknot against the trefoil, or composites of trefoils against each other, there is a strong negative gradient, suggesting the $\beta_{K_2} > \beta_{K_1}$.
The strong minimum in each case indicates a significant effect from the Darboux term $\gamma_K$ as well.
We also found (not shown) that when $K_1$ and $K_2$ are composite with the same number of components, the $\beta_K$ values are similar when their components have similar $\beta_K$ values.
\section{Summary of results from quaternionic random walks}
\label{sec:quat}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig8.pdf}
\caption{Summary of results for closed quaternionic random walks, analogous to previous figures for equilateral random polygons.
(a) Probabilities $P_K(N)$ plotted against the best fit of the Ansatz for various prime knots, and (b) for various composite knots.
(c) Best fit of $N_0$ and $v_0$.
The optimal value of $N_0$ is different from random polygons, but is similar for the power law exponent $v_0$.
(d) Comparison of unknot probability $P_0(N)$ analogous to Figure \ref{fig:unknot_scaling}.
(e) Plot of ratio of probability of trefoils to figure-8 knots against $1/\sqrt{N}$.
The curve approaches the asymptotic value with a small gradient, consistent with the $\beta_K$ terms having similar values.
(f) Plot of ratio of probability of unknots times $N$ to trefoils, against $1/\sqrt{N}$.
As for the analogous polygon data in Figure \ref{fig:corrections} (d), the $\beta_K$ values are clearly different.
}
\label{fig:quaternionic}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:quaternionic} we summarise the main results of the analysis with quaternionic random walks.
These all appear very similar to the analogous plots for equilateral random polygons; the fits from the Ansatz in Figure \ref{fig:quaternionic} (a), (b) look very good, and the best fit for $v_0$ is at $-0.19$, albeit with a slightly less good fit than for equilateral random polygons.
The optimal value of the exponential decay constant $N_0 = 430.5$, somewhat larger than for equilateral random polygons (as expected for walks with varying step lengths, since multiple short steps do not contribute significantly to the knotting topology).
Figure \ref{fig:quaternionic} (d) shows that the best fit line for the unknot probability $P_0(N)$ again follows our Ansatz (red) much better, for larger $N$, than either the pure exponential with the value of $N_0$ fitted from Figure \ref{fig:quaternionic} (c) (black) or the best fit pure exponential (blue).
Figure \ref{fig:quaternionic} (e) shows the ratio of probability of trefoils to figure-8 knots decreases to the ratio of knot coefficients, apparently with similar values of $\beta_K$.
Just as for equilateral random polygons, the $\beta_K$ are quite different for prime knots and the unknot, evident in Figure \ref{fig:quaternionic} (e).
Again, the lower quality of the large-$N$ data for quaternionic walks is revealed towards the asymptotic regimes.
We give values of the best fit $C_K$ values in Table \ref{table:CKq}, which were considered briefly in Section \ref{sec:Ck}.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
We have presented numerical evidence that Equation (\ref{eq:ansatz}) describes the scaling behaviour of the probability of different knot types occurring in random polygons with length $N$, that is, an exponential decay characterised by constant $N_0$ (the same for all knots, but dependent on the model), and a power law term $v_K = v_0 + n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ depending on the number of prime components $n_{\mathrm{p}}(K)$ of $K$, but with $v_0 \approx -0.190$ a universal constant.
They also depend on a knot coefficient/amplitude $C_K$, depending on knot type, and terms giving correction to scaling for smaller $N$.
These results are inspired by and are similar to the corresponding results for knots in random polygons on lattices \cite{orlandini96,orlandini98}.
In particular, we have provided firm evidence of $v_0$ providing a power law correction for the unknot scaling (consistent with the unknot being the unique knot with $n_{\mathrm{p}} = 0$).
The lattice result, and evidence from previous numerical surveys (over a smaller range of $N$), gave the unknot probability as a pure exponential.
Our investigations highlight two contrasting types of result.
Firstly, our unusual numerical precision has led to surprising new observations about knotting of random polygons; in particular the probability of unknotting does not simply decay exponentially with side length $N$, in contrast with many other studies.
Secondly, this numerical accuracy reveals fundamental limitations of this type of knotting analysis.
Only knots with minimum crossing number $n_{\mathrm{c}} \le 16$ are classified, yet the number of distinct possible knot types a polygon can assume, grows very rapidly with $N$.
Future advances in numerical resources are unlikely to extend to dramatically longer lengths, without accompanying advances in knot recognition.
As discussed previously, the main results here are given for the action-angle model of equilateral random polygons, although our preliminary data for quaternionic random walks (which were almost as extensive) qualitatively support all the numerical observations and results.
The largest systematic error in this kind of analysis is knot misidentification.
In our investigation of unknot probability, we found that the unknot misidentification rate appears to be almost irrelevant, and is no larger than the other errors.
The occurrence of knots with the same Alexander polynomial (or invariants $\Delta_2, \Delta_3, \Delta_4$) as another with equal or lower $n_{\mathrm{c}}$ seems to become an effect around $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 11$; the number of knots begins to grow quickly here (552 prime knot types, compared to 165 at $n_{\mathrm{c}} = 10$).
It isn't clear how the misidentification rate could be improved, as more powerful knot invariants such as the Jones polynomial are especially slow to calculate for the long curves that present most of the problems.
The third-order Vassiliev invariant $v_3$ (and possibly others of higher order) is at least a polynomial time invariant, but as the polynomial order is higher, these are still relatively slow to calculate.
It is also possible that new, polynomial time invariants might provide extra discriminating power, such as the new example introduced in~\cite{bar-natan17}, but it is not yet clear what the improvements in knot resolution could be with these.
The results we report are strongly backed by numerical evidence, and hopefully will stimulate new investigations into proving them rigorously.
Following the results for lattices, our results are consistent with
\begin{itemize}
\item the existence of a pattern theorem for unknotted equilateral polygons;
\item the tightness of individual prime components;
\item different prime components occurring almost independently along the polygon.
\end{itemize}
In spite of this, the meaning of $C_K$ for prime knots remains largely mysterious.
It is impossible for \emph{all} random polygon knots to have a maximum probability at $N \approx 210$ -- knots of a sufficiently large crossing number will not be possible in a polygon with 210 sides.
The correction to scaling $\beta_K$ and $\gamma_K$ are not fundamental, but are indicative of various asymptotic terms beyond leading order about which we have no knowledge.
The curious asymptotic behaviour in Figure \ref{fig:corrections} emphasises unusual trends in the largest $N$ data in which we have confidence.
Numerical resolution of all such questions is clearly beyond our current capabilities.
\ack
We are grateful to Jason Cantarella, Tetsuo Deguchi, David Foster, Enzo Orlandini and Eric Rawdon for discussions, and to Keith Alexander for providing the knot diagrams in Figure \ref{fig:knots_and_random_walks} (a).
This research was funded in part by the Leverhulme Trust Research Programme Grant No. RP2013-K-009, SPOCK: Scientific Properties of Complex Knots.
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent The datasets generated and analysed in the paper are available from the authors.
|
\section{Background and Research Problem}
Program synthesis aims to automatically construct a program in an underling programming language which satisfies a set of program specifications \cite{gulwani2017program}. Program developers can benefit from the synthesized code either by directly reusing it in their programming tasks, or by learning from it.
Studies \cite{rehman2018roles, santos2017understanding} show that one important programming challenge that novice programmers deal with is to implement architectural tactics, as a powerful means of addressing important quality attributes of a software, in their programs. For instance, adding \textit{\textbf{authentication}} and \textit{\textbf{authorization}} security tactics to a program under-development is a nontrivial and error-prone task for such programmers. These tactics are mostly implemented by incorporating APIs of third-party libraries \cite{cervantes2012principled}. For example, Java Authentication and Authorization Security Services (JAAS) is a popular Java-based framework that provides APIs for adding such tactics to a program. Component-based program synthesis \cite{jha2010oracle}, which aims to create a code snippet only from a list of given components (e.g., APIs), could be an answer to this need.
In the past recent years, there are some work that specifically focus on synthesizing a program using APIs \cite{feng2017component, yang2018edsynth, shi2019frangel, guo2019program, liu2020prosy, liu2020much}. However, despite the advances in API-based program synthesis, novice programmers still are not able to easily incorporate these approaches in architectural tactic implementation tasks. There are two main barriers in this regard. First, programmers need to express the specification of architectural tactics to be synthesized. Nonetheless, novice programmers have no insight into this type of complicated specification. Second, the synthesized code might need to be broken in smaller pieces, placed in different locations of the under-development program and used in an inter-procedural manner. For instance, in case of authentication, the programmer might need to add the \textit{initialization} process in method \code{m1()} of class \code{C1}, the process of \textit{logging in} in method \code{m2()} of class \code{C2}, and the process of \textit{logging out} in method \code{m3()} of class \code{C3}. Then, calls all the three methods in method \code{m4()} of class \code{C4} sequentially. The current state-of-the-art approaches do not address these needs.
In this paper, we propose a novel approach for synthesizing architectural tactics in a given program. More specifically, we define our research problem as: \textit{Given a compilable program, i.e., syntactically correct program, we aim to automatically synthesize and add architectural tactics to that program such that the final program is syntactically and semantically (w.r.t. APIs) correct.} We build upon our previous work \cite{shokri2021_icpc, shokri2021_icsa} on creating Framework API Specification model which is a comprehensive probabilistic representation of correct ways of using APIs of a specific framework for implementing architectural tactics.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/IPPS_EA_new.pdf}
\centering
\caption{An overview of the proposed approach}
\label{fig:ipps}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Work}
In recent years, a number of API-based program synthesis approaches have been developed. SyPet \cite{feng2017component} synthesizes a block of code based on a given list of APIs, the signature (i.e., type of input and output) of the expected code snippet, as well as some test cases. EdSynth \cite{yang2018edsynth} and FrAngle \cite{shi2019frangel} are able to construct a short code snippet with more control structures compared to SyPet. TYGAR \cite{guo2019program} aims to improve the performance and scalability of previous API-based synthesizers. Although these approaches use APIs as building blocks, they do not use some precious information about APIs, i.e., API usage patterns, in the synthesis process. In some of the follow-up works \cite{liu2019accelerating, liu2020prosy, liu2020much}, researchers incorporated API usage patterns in the synthesis task which resulted in improvement of the performance and accuracy of the synthesizer. Despite the capabilities of all these approaches, they suffer from two shortcomings which makes them incapable of being used in architectural tactic synthesis task. First, the need for providing specifications of the to-be-synthesized code, and second, the lack of ability of synthesizing a discrete (and yet related) code snippets in different locations of the program. In this paper, we introduce an approach that addresses these concerns.
\section{Approach}
\figref{fig:ipps} provides an overview of our approach which consists of the following five main steps.
\subsection{FSpec Annotation}
We leverage the Framework API Specification model (FSpec) \cite{shokri2021_icsa} that only includes correct API usages for implementing architectural tactics in our program synthesis approach. In that regard, we create a hierarchical annotation of API usages in the FSpec. Each annotation represents a meaningful usage of APIs to accomplish a (sub-) task. Hence, one would expect to see a couple of APIs together annotated as \textit{\#Authentication}, while there are more fine-grained annotations such as \textit{\#Initialization}, \textit{\#Logging\_in}, and \textit{\#Logging\_out} inside the \textit{\#Authentication}.
We use method naming suggestion tools \cite{liu2019learning, zhang2016towards} for the purpose of automatic FSpec annotation.
\subsection{Code Annotation}
Next, we find a mapping between each of the selected FSpec annotations and possible locations in the program that the annotation can be added to. This mapping basically shows that \textit{\textbf{what}} sub-FSpec part should be synthesized, and \textit{\textbf{where}} in the program should it be placed.
To make this process automatic, we enhance FSpec mining process with context annotation attachments. More specifically, while creating the FSpec, we attach information about the method name, class name, available variable types, control- and data-flow graph of surrounding environment of API to the FSpec. This enables us to identify and rank the candidate locations for each annotation in the under-development program.
\subsection{Sketch Generation}
Each annotation consists of a set of APIs and their dependencies (i.e., control and data dependencies) represented as a graph in which the nodes are APIs and edges are their dependencies. We translate this graph to a code snippet that is only composed of those APIs. This code snippet is in the format of Static Single Assignment (SSA). If there is a data dependency between API \code{$A_1$} and \code{$A_2$} (i.e., API \code{$A_2$} uses the data generated by \code{$A_1$}), the output of \code{$A_1$} is an input to \code{$A_2$} in the generated code snippet. However, there are still two dependencies remained to be added to this code snippet \textbf{(i)} dependencies between the code snippet and variables defined earlier in the program that are visible to the code snippet, and \textbf{(ii)} dependencies between this code snippet and the other generated code snippets, i.e., dependencies between annotations. To address these dependencies, we add holes to those arguments of the APIs in the code snippet that are not already filled. The output of this step would be a \textbf{\textit{sketch}} of the final version of the to-be synthesized code snippet.
\subsection{Sketch Resolving}
In the next step, we translate the sketched code snippet to an SMT problem and use an off the shelf SMT solver, Z3, to find a corresponding solution. More specifically, we statically analyze the program and find all the visible variables that are already initialized and have the same type as each hole. \ali{More constraints like an oracle?} Then, we translate back the solved SMT problem to our actual sketched code snippet problem and replace holes with the found variable names.
\subsection{Verification}
Finally, to make sure that the synthesized code snippets in the program are correctly implementing the expected architectural tactic, we perform a static analysis over the program and create its inter-procedural API usage model with respect to the framework of interest. We use our previously developed technique, ArCode \cite{shokri2021_icpc}, for this purpose. In case that no deviation from the correct tactic implementation is detected, we consider the overall process as a successful program synthesis. Otherwise, a feedback would be sent to \textit{Code Annotation} process to learn from this failure and use it for the next round of finding candidate locations for annotations.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this research, we introduced a novel program synthesis-based approach for adding architectural tactics to an existing code base. This is an ongoing research in which we are currently able to generate code snippets for annotations.
The output of this research can enable many software development tools (e.g., IDEs) to support programmers with automation of architectural tactic recommendation and implementation. Moreover, realization of this approach as a tool could serve in educational purposes such as teaching software architecture to program developers.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The outbreak of the novel COVID-19 coronavirus in late 2019 has put a tremendous threat to the whole world and become one of the worst disaster in the human history. As of end late April 2021, more than 142 millions infections have been identified, more than 3 million lives have been lost, and more than 200 countries have been drastically overwhelmed \cite{WHO}. Therefore, it is very critical to stop the spreading of the virus. After a person is confirmed to have COVID-19, safety measures and treatments can be taken accordingly. In \cite{COVID-trace}, thermal imaging is used to detect fever patients and face recognition is used to report and trace patients and their close contacts. Among the techniques to diagnosis COVID-19, X-ray and CT-scan images are studied extensively.
In this paper, we present an automatic diagnosis framework from chest CT scan images. Our goal is to classify COVID-19, Community-Acquired Pneumonia (CAP), and normal cases from a volume of CT scan images of a patient. We use the dataset provided in the Signal Processing Grand Challenge (SPGC) on COVID-19 of the IEEE ICASSP 2021 \cite{SPGC}. Our preliminary study shows that one major challenge is that the training/validation dataset is small. This challenge is common to many other datasets, and different approaches are studies to address this problem, or the broader across-domain dataset problem, through data augmentation, across-domain
adaptation \cite{Hybrid-COVID}, \cite{SODA}, \cite{Contrative-CovidNet}, or using the capsule network \cite{Covid-caps}, \cite{COVID-FACT}.
In this paper, we propose a novel data augmentation technique using multiple Houndsfeld Unit (HU) normalization windows. This data augmentation aims at improving a CNN model’s generalization capability. In addition, it can exploit large COVID-19 CT scan datasets that are available online but without preprocessing details. Other signal processing techniques we use include cropping the chest images to exclude background, and filtering out close-lung images.
For the classification network, after exploring 3D CNN classification networks, lung mask segmentation networks, and quite a few 2D CNN classification networks, we choose to use Densenet \cite{DenseNet} and Xception \cite{Xception} 2D CNN classification networks with the feature pyramid network (FPN) \cite{FPN}. To further improve the classification accuracy, an ensemble of multiple CNN models is used. On the provided training/validation dataset, we achieve a patient classification accuracy of 93.39\%.
\section{Related Work}
Due to the urgency of control of spreading of the COVID-19 virus, a lot of researches have been done to diagnose it using deep learning approaches, mostly CNNs on CT scan images or X-ray images. A few examples are \cite{Hybrid-COVID}, \cite{SODA}, \cite{Contrative-CovidNet}, \cite{example1}, \cite{example2}, \cite{Covid-caps}, \cite{COVID-FACT}. For a complete review, please refer to \cite{Review1} and \cite{Review2}.
These methods can be categorized to 2D, 2D+1D, and 3D based on how information from multiple slice images are aggregated and how the final decision is made. In the 2D method, a 2D CNN classification network in used to make a prediction on slice image individually. Then to make a decision for a patient, some voting method is typically used \cite{SPGC1}, \cite{COVID-CTSet}, \cite{COVID-FACT}. Others use a 2D CNN network on slice image to generate embedding feature vector for every image, then the feature vectors of selected multiple or all slice images are pooled to a single global feature vector, and finally a small classification network (typically just a few fully-connection (FC) layers) is used to make a final decision. This is called 2D+1D method \cite{li2020artificial}, \cite{CTCAPS}, \cite{SPGC2}. In these two methods, annotation for slice image is needed. The third method is a pure 3D CNN network, where slice annotation is not needed, and a selected set of or all the slice images are used as input, and the 3D network process all these input images all at once in a 3D channel space \cite{Tongji}, \cite{SPGC3}, \cite{He2021CovidNet3D}.
In the 2D CNN method, some use the lung mask segmentation, but most of them directly use the raw slice image. The COVID-MaskNet \cite{COVID-CT-Mask-Net} uses a segmentation network to localize the disease lesion, then use a FasterCNN-based approach to do the classification on the detected lesion regions. The COVID-Net Initiative \cite{Gunraj2020}, \cite{Gunraj2021} have done extensive studies of COVID classification on both CT scan images and X-ray images. They also collect and publish the largest CT image dataset - so called COVIDx CT-2 dataset. In \cite{COVID-CTSet}, Resnet50 with FPN is used. In \cite{SPGC1}, a combination of infection/non-infection classifier, and a COVID-19/CAP/normal classifier is used.
In the 2D+1D method, in \cite{li2020artificial}, a pretrained 2D Resnet classification network is used to extract a feature vector out of every slice image, then all the features are pooled using max-pooling. This feature is sent to a few FC layers to make the final classification prediction. In \cite{CTCAPS}, a Capsule network is used to extract feature vector for every image, then these feature vectors are pooled using max-pooling into a global feature vector and a decision is made for the volume. It is claimed that this method is good for small training dataset. In \cite{SPGC2}, a feature vector is extracted for every image, then multiple pooling methods are ensembled to generate a global feature vector before a final classification is made. In \cite{kollias2021mia}, an RNN is used to aggregate 2D features, but the performance is poor.
In the 3D CNN method, in \cite{Tongji}, a 3D CNN network is used with both the slice image and a segmented lung mask as input. They discard a fixed percentage of slice images at the beginning and end of a CT-scan volume. In \cite{SPGC3}, the authors first segment the lung mask from a slice image using traditional morphological transforms, then use this mask to select good slice images and generate lung-only images. To make the number of images a fixed number, they use a 3D cubic interpolation to regenerate slice images. In \cite{He2021CovidNet3D}, a 3D CNN network using a fixed number of slice images as input is used. Instead of using a fixed 3D CNN architecture, an autoML method is used to search for best 3D CNN architecture in the network space with MobileNetV2 \cite{MobileNetV2} block. In \cite{iccvCovid}, a 3D CNN with BERT is used on selected slice images of a patient. Sampling is used to make the number of slice images a fixed number.
\section{Data Augmentation and Processing}
In this section, we discuss all the data preparation and augmentation techniques we explore. This data augmentation is an unique one crucial to our final performance. It applies only to CT images where a HU normalization is needed.
\subsection{DICOM to PNG Conversion}
The dataset is given in DICOM format and the CT image is in Hounsfield unit (HU). So the first thing is to convert the DICOM format to image format. Most of the public datasets are in PNG or JPG format, except for \cite{COVID-CTSet} which uses a TIFF format. We use the PNG format in order to leverage other datasets in PNG format.
We follow the Kaggle tutorial \cite{Kaggle-Dicom-Tutorial} to convert the DICOM to PNG format. After reading the DICOM file, we extract the slice thickness, slope and intercept. The HU value is,
\begin{equation}
HU = slope * DICOM + intercept
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
As explained in the tutorial, different HU values correspond to different materials in human's body, and background. The very important step is to do the HU normalization, from HU value to the PNG value as follows,
\begin{equation}
PNG = crop(\frac{HU- HU_{min}}{HU_{max} - HU_{min}},0,1)*255
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
where $clip$ is a function to limit the value in range [0,1], $HU_{max}$ and $HU_{max}$ are the maximum and minimum HU value for normalization. These pair ($HU_{min}$, $HU_{max}$) is called a HU window.
\subsection{HU Augmentation}
Even though there are a lot of public CT image dataset, unfortunately, we cannot find anywhere what HU window should be used in the DICOM to PNG conversion. The COVIDx-CT-2 \cite{Gunraj2021} uses [-1350, 150] as default value, the \cite{Tongji} uses [-1200, 600]. We test different HU window in our study and find that they give very similar classification results. However, when we want to use other public dataset, our HU window has to match that of the dataset in order to have a reasonable result. We analyze the image intensity histogram of the COVIDx-CT-2 \cite{Gunraj2021}, and find that if we use a HU window [-1200, 0], the SPGC image intensity histogram can match closely that of the COVIDx-CT-2. Shown in Fig. \ref{fig1} are sample images using these three HU windows and a sample from COVIDx-CT-2. We notice that the Fig. \ref{fig1} (a) is more natural in human eyes, but it may not be the best for CNN classification. Shown in Fig. \ref{fig2} are the histograms of these four sample images. We see that the one using the HU window [-1200,0] matches that of the COVIDx-CT-2 sample well.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ct-sample.png}
\caption{Sample images with three HU windows. }
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{histogram.png}
\caption{Histogram of the sample images.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
To solve this problem, we propose the so called HU augmentation - to use multiple HU windows in the HU normalization,
\begin{equation}
PNG^i = crop(\frac{HU- HU^i_{min}}{HU^i_{max} - HU^i_{min}},0,1)*255, i=1,2,3,...
\label{eq2_2}
\end{equation}
So the PNG datasets consist of all PNG images from $PNG^1,PNG^2,PNG^3,...$. This not only may overcome the HU window mismatch problem, but also provides more data for training the classification network. We find in the final benchmarking that this is a crucial contribution to our results due to the improved generalization.
Furthermore, this provides us with another ensemble - the ensemble of test data for prediction. If we use three HU windows to prepare the data, we have three images for every original DICOM slice image, we can have three predictions and we can post process them to get the best performance. we will show these effects in our experiments.
\subsection{Cropping Off Background}
We find that the useless background in the CT image interferes with the training and prediction of the classification network. Therefore, we use lung segmentation mask to cut of the background and only keep the useful portion. This lung segmentation uses traditional image morphological transforms, similar to the Kaggle tutorial \cite{Kaggle-Dicom-Tutorial}. We also train a simple object detection network and its performance is about same as the morphological transform. This process is shown in Fig. \ref{fig3}(b).
\subsection{Filtering Closed-Lung Images}
We use an idea similar to \cite{COVID-CTSet} to filter out closed lung images. We use two metrics - the percent of segmented lung in the total image, and the one in \cite{COVID-CTSet}. Please note that in \cite{COVID-CTSet}, the images are not cropped, so the filter does not work consistently. We use the idea on the cropped images, the so region of interest (ROI) is aligned more consistently on different CT images.
In the first metric, we keep slice images whose percent of segmented lung is more than 10\% of the total image. Shown in Fig. \ref{fig3}(c) is an extracted lung mask. When the percentage of the white pixels is less than $10\%$ of the total pixels, the lung is closed.
In the second metric, we count the number of black pixels (intensity value $<100$) in the ROI = ([120,240], [370,340]) in a slice image, as shown in the red rectangle in Fig.\ref{fig3}(d). Then among all the slice images of a patient, find the maximum and minimum values, and use a threshold = (max-min)/factor, where factor is typically 1.5-3. Slice images whose number of black pixels in the ROI is less than the threshold are filtered out \cite{COVID-CTSet}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ct-process.png}
\caption{Processing of CT-scan image, (a) an original image with a circle background mask, (b) after cropping off background, (c) the extracted lung mask, (d) the closed-lung filtering window.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Leveraging other Datasets}
Even with the HU augmentation, the training dataset is still very small. We explore the CT image dataset available in the literature. There are quite a lot of them, we namely some of them here COVIDx-CT-2 \cite{Gunraj2021}, CNCB \cite{CNCB}, CT-Codeset \cite{COVID-CTSet}. Out of all these datasets, COVIDx-CT-2 \cite{Gunraj2021} is the largest one with nearly 200K images, we decide to use it in our study.
However, we do not want these third-party dataset to overrun the SPGC dataset. So we only use a small portion of it, so the total number from it is not more than that in the SPGC dataset. We use this dataset in both the training and validation dataset, but not in the test dataset. We only use the SPGC images in the test dataset.
\section{Classification Network}
Our 2D CNN classification network is shown in Fig. \ref{fig4}. We use a network similar to \cite{COVID-CTSet}. Three different scale features are generated in the FPN, and a three-class classifier is applied on every feature. At the end, these three classifiers are merged into the final three-class classifier.
Some details of our implementation are listed here. We use a three-way classification, no matter the test dataset is a two-way or three-way classification task. We use rotation, shift, and scale transforms. We find that the rotation degree has big impact on the classification performance. We limit it to 15 degree. We use batch normalization after all convolutional layers. We use the image size 224x224 in ResNet50 \cite{Resnet} and DenseNet121/201 \cite{DenseNet}, and 299x299 in Xception \cite{Xception}.
We test different networks, including ResNet50 \cite{Resnet}, MobileNetV2 \cite{MobileNetV2}, Xception \cite{Xception}, DenseNet121 and DenseNet201 \cite{DenseNet}. We find that the DenseNet trains faster and achieves good performance. So in our ablation study, we use the DenseNet201. In the final classification benchmarking, we use an ensemble of the Xception, DenseNet121, and DenseNet201. In order not to use too much CPU or GPU memory at a time, we run the three models one by one and post-process the results.
We also test a regular 2D CNN classification network without FPN, such as a ResNet50, as well as a small private CNN, we find that they can achieve good accuracy with all our other data augmentation and training techniques. However, the CNN with FPN can achieve a better accuracy, usually $1-2\%$ better than the network without FPN.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{covid-classifier.png}
\caption{CNN-FPN classifier for COVID-19, CAP and normal case.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
We use Keras-2.3.0 and Tensorflow-GPU-2.2 in our implementation. We use learning rate 1E-4 at the beginning then adjust to 1E-5. We use typically 50 epochs to train the CNN network, except for fine tuning where a smaller number of epochs is used. A class weight is used when the numbers of images for the three classes - COVID, CAP, normal are unbalanced.
\subsection{Dataset}
The dataset provided by SPGC \cite{SPGC} includes 307 patients, which are diagnosed by medical experts. Out of these patients, 171 patients have COVID-19, 60 patients have CAP, and the rest 76 are normal cases. This dataset is not small, however, only a small portion including 55 COVID-19 patients and 25 CAP patients has slice annotations. This limited slice annotation turns out a big challenge in the slice based classification.
Since we use a slice image based classification model, we use all the annotated slice images as the training and validation datasets. For COVID and normal cases, we use a 7:3 split ratio for training and validation dataset, and use a 9:1 split ratio for the CAP cases since there are a lot less of them. All COVID/CAP patients in the validation dataset are not used in the training, only a small portion of slice images of the normal patients are used in the training. In the patient-wise classification, we use all the patients without slice annotation as the validation dataset.
Furthermore, we leverage the CT image dataset we can find online - the COVIDx-CT-2 dataset \cite{Gunraj2021}. The combined dataset makes our trained model generalize much better than using one single HU window alone.
\subsection{From Slice Classification to Patient Classification}
The slice based classification network predicts a result for every slice image. Our goal, however, is to have a classification result on patient. Given the number of slice images per patient, we use two metrics to make the final decision. In the first method, we use a slice threshold $th_s$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& if \; n(COVID) > n(CAP) >= th_s, \; decision = COVID \\
& else \; if \; n(CAP) > n(COVID) >= th_s, \; decision = CAP \\
& else \; if \; n(COVID) >= th_s, \; decision = COVID \\
& else \; if \; n(CAP) >= th_s, \; decision = CAP \\
& else, \; decision = Normal \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $n()$ is the number of slice classification. We can change this rule to use the percent threshold $th_p$, where the $n()$ is replaced by a percent $n()$ - the ratio of the number of slice classification of each class out of the total slice number of every patient.
Please note that, in our final decision, we do not do majority vote on multiple model predictions on every image. Instead, we mix all image predictions from all three models and make a final decision based on the number of predictions be-
longing to the three classes. The performance of this rule is noticeably better than the majority vote on a single image.
At validation/test time, we first do slice image classification, then use the above rule to make decision for a patient. We use the un-annotated patients as the validation patient dataset. We optimize the parameters of our classifier on the validation dataset, then use the optimized parameters on the final test datasets for the challenge submission.
\subsection{HU Augmentation}
The use of HU augmentation is our unique novelty. So we do some ablation study to demonstrate its effects using the DenseNet201-FPN network. In this experiment we use the factor = 1.5 in the closed-lung filtering. We use three HU windows: SPGC3 = [-1000,400], SPGC4 = [-1200,0], SPGC6 = [-1200,600]. In Table 1, we list the result of individual HU window in the first panel, and list the result of the HU augmentation (three HU windows combined) in the second panel.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Patient classification using HU augmentation. The DenseNet201 is used}
\label{T1}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Train Data & Test Data & Accuracy \\
\hline
SPGC3 & SPGC3 & 0.8138 \\
SPGC4 & SPGC4 & 0.8105 \\
SPGC6 & SPGC6 & 0.7797 \\
\hline
SPGC3+4+6 & SPGC3 & 0.8194\\
SPGC3+4+6 & SPGC4 & 0.8194\\
SPGC3+4+6 & SPGC6 & 0.8194\\
\hline
+COVIDx CT-2 & SPGC3 & \textbf{0.9075}\\
+COVIDx CT-2 & SPGC4 & 0.9031\\
+COVIDx CT-2 & SPGC6 & 0.8458\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
From the results in the first panel, we notice that the SPGC3 and SPGC4 are two good HU windows, while SPGC6 is not a good one. From the results in the second panel, the test results of three HU windows are about the same, even though their sensitivities (not shown) are not the same. Even the individually bad HU window (SPGC6) now has a good performance.
\subsection{Leveraging Other Dataset}
In addition to the HU augmentation, we use the COVIDx-CT-2 dataset \cite{Gunraj2021} in our training. As we mentioned before, we only use a small portion of it, so it does not overrun the SPGC dataset. So in our training dataset, we include both the three HU window augmented SPGC dataset, and the selected COVIDx-CT-2 dataset. The patient classification results are listed in the third panel of Table \ref{T1}.
From the results, we notice that the addition of the extra training data has a big boost to the patient classification accuracy, from previous about $82\%$ to nearly $91\%$. On the other hand, SPGC6 is a lot worse than the SPGC3 and SPGC4, even though its accuracy is improved from without using COVIDx-CT-2 dataset. Based on the poor performance of SPGC6, we do not use it in the ensemble of HU windows in the final tests.
\subsection{Ensemble of Classification Models and HU Windows}
We test a few classification networks including ResNet50, MobileNetV2, and others. Based on the patient classification accuracy results, we choose to use the Xception, DenseNet101 and DenseNet201. The individual model results are listed in first panel of Table \ref{T2}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Patient classification accuracy and sensitivity (COVID,CAP,Normal) on the training/validation dataset.}
\label{T2}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
Network & Test Data & Accuracy & Sensitivity\\
\hline
DenseNet201 & SPGC3 & 0.9031 & (0.8,0.871,1.0)\\
DenseNet201 & SPGC4 & 0.8942 & (0.771,0.862,1.0) \\
DenseNet121 & SPGC3 & 0.9031 & (0.8,0.871,1.0) \\
DenseNet121 & SPGC4 & 0.9031 & (0.771,0.879,1.0]) \\
Xception & SPGC3 & 0.8942 & (0.714,0.888,0.987)\\
Xception & SPGC4 & 0.9163 & (0.8,0.897,1.0) \\
\hline
Ensemble & SPGC3 & 0.9295 & (0.8,0.922,1.0)\\
Ensemble & SPGC4 & 0.9251 & (0.8,0.905,1.0)\\
\hline
Ensemble & SPGC3+4 & \textbf{0.9339} & (0.8,0.931,1.0)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The three networks give similar patient classification accuracy results on the two HU window datasets SPGC3 and SPGC4. The DenseNet201 has the best accuracy on SPGC3, and the Xception has best accuracy on SPGC4. Adding all three network into an ensemble, and on the ensemble of SPGC3 and SPGC4, our final accuracy result on the SPGC training/validation dataset is 93.39\%.
\subsection{Results on the Test Dataset}
On the new test dataset that may come from a different domain, we can tune the thresholds $th_s$ and $th_p$ on a small portion of the dateset to achieve good performance, then use the two thresholds on the rest of the data. Listed in Table \ref{T3} are the results. Since the ground truth of this dataset has not been released, we cannot optimize the parameters $th_s$ and $th_p$ other than using the optimized values on the validation dataset.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{PPatient classification accuracy and sensitivity (COVID,CAP,Normal) on the test dataset.}
\label{T3}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
($th_s$,$th_p$) & Accuracy & Sensitivity\\
\hline
(2,1\%) & 0.6778 & (0.8857,1.0,0.2857)\\
(5,5\%) & 0.8111 & (0.8286,1.0,0.6857)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
We provide a solution for the COVID-19 automatic diagnosis on the SPGC dataset. The key novelty is a data augmentation using multiple HU normalization windows. With all techniques put together, we achieve a patient classification accuracy $93.39\%$ on the provided training/validation dataset, and an accuracy at least $81.11\%$ on the test dataset.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
The LHCb
high statistics analysis~\cite{Aaij:2019vzc} shows that the previously reported $P_c^+(4450)$~\cite{Aaij:2015tga}
splits into two narrow peaks $P_c^+(4440)$ and $P_c^+(4457)$ just below the $\Sigma_c^+\bar D^{*0}$ treshold, with the appearance of a new and
narrow $P_c^+(4312)$ state right below the $\Sigma_c^+\bar D^{0}$. The evidence for the old and broad $P_c^+(4380)$~\cite{Aaij:2015tga} has now
weakened. The reported charm pentaquark widths are narrow~\cite{Aaij:2019vzc}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{LHCBMW}
m_{P_c}&=&4311.9\pm 0.7\,{\rm MeV}\qquad \Gamma_{P_c}=9.8\pm 2.7\,{\rm MeV}\nonumber\\
m_{P_c}&=&4440.3\pm 1.3\,{\rm MeV}\qquad \Gamma_{P_c}=20.6\pm 4.9\,{\rm MeV}\nonumber\\
m_{P_c}&=&4457.3\pm 0.6\,{\rm MeV}\qquad \Gamma_{P_c}=6.4\pm 2.0\,{\rm MeV}
\end{eqnarray}
The $P_c(4312)$ is observed to be 10 MeV below the $\Sigma^+_c\bar D^0$ treshold, and the $P_c(4457)$ just
5 MeV below the $\Sigma_c^+\bar D^*$ treshold as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_ajit} from~\cite{Aaij:2019vzc}, a strong indication to their molecular
origin as discussed
by many~\cite{Burns:2015dwa,Richard:2016eis,Lebed:2016hpi,Esposito:2016noz,Olsen:2017bmm,Guo:2017jvc,Karliner:2017qhf,Du:2021fmf}
(and references therein).
In the heavy quark limit, the heavy-light pair $[0^-,1^-]=[D, D^*]$ is degenerate and the $\Sigma^+_c\bar D^0$ and
$\Sigma_c^+\bar D^*$ thresholds coalesce. As a result, the three reported pentaquark states become degenerate and stable by heavy quark symmetry.
Three degenerate and stable pentaquark states with isospin-spin-parity assignments $[\frac 12\frac 12^-]_{S=0,1}$ and $[\frac 12\frac 32^-]_{S=1}$,
were predicted by holographic QCD, in the triple limit of a large number of colors, large $^\prime$t Hooft gauge coupling $\lambda$ and a heavy
quark mass~\cite{Liu:2017xzo,Liu:2017frj}. The same assignments were subsequently
made using the molecular construction~\cite{Liu:2019tjn,Xiao:2019aya,Du:2019pij,Yan:2021nio}.
The newly reported $P_c(4337)$ with a width of 29 MeV at 3-sigma significance~\cite{LHCb:2021chn},
appears to overlap with the reported $P_c(4312)$ at 7-sigma significance, and is not supported by our holographic analysis of the low-lying
pentaquark states. The excited even and odd parity holographic pentaquark states $P_c^*$ lie higher in mass, and are likely much broader by phase space~\cite{Liu:2017xzo,Liu:2017frj,Liu:2021tpq}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=12cm]{AJIT.pdf}
\caption{LHCb measurements of the $P_c$ states fitted with three BW distributions red-solid curve and fitted background black-solid curve,
with the mass thresholds for the $\Sigma_c^+\bar D^0$ and $\Sigma_c^+\bar D^{*0}$ final states shown for comparison from~\cite{Aaij:2019vzc}.
}
\label{fig_ajit}
\end{figure}
Holographic pentaquarks are composed of heavy-light mesons bound to a topological instanton core in bulk.
They are the dual of a nucleon core bound to heavy-light mesons at the boundary. In the heavy quark limit, the pentaquarks with hidden
charm and bottom are degenerate, heavy and stable~\cite{Liu:2017xzo,Liu:2017frj,Li:2017dml,Fujii:2020jre}. Away from the heavy
quark limit, spin-spin and spin-orbit forces lift the degeneracy and cause them to decay as we will show below.
This work is a follow up on our recent re-analysis of the charm and bottom pentaquark states including the spin
effects, to which we refer for completeness~\cite{Liu:2021tpq}.
The organization of the paper is as follows:
In section~\ref{ADS} we briefly review the essential aspects of the holographic construction in leading order in the
heavy quark mass. In section~\ref{OPEN}, we detail the spin contributions to order $1/m_H$ which are at
the origin of the two-body decay of the pentaquarks with open charm final states. In section~\ref{HIDDEN}
we show how the two-body decay channel with hidden charm can be extracted from a Witten diagram in bulk.
We derive a number of model independent ratios for the decay modes for both charm and bottom pentaquarks.
For charm pentaquarks,
they compare well to the total widths recently reported by LHCb.
Our conclusions are in section~\ref{CONCLUSION}. We include complimentary Appendices for completeness.
\section{ Holographic heavy-light effective action}~\label{ADS}
The D4-D8-D$\bar 8$ set-up for light flavor branes is standard~\cite{Sakai:2004cn}. The minimal modification that accommodates
heavy mesons makes use of an extra heavy brane as discussed in~\cite{Liu:2016iqo,Liu:2017xzo}.
The effective action consists of the non-Abelian Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI), Chern-Simons (CS) and mass term
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{1}
S_{\rm DBI}\approx -\kappa\int d^4x dz\,{\rm Tr}\left({\bf f}(z){\bf F}_{\mu\nu}{\bf F}^{\mu\nu}+{\bf g}(z){\bf F}_{\mu z}{\bf F}^{\nu z}\right)
-\frac 12 m_H^2 \int d^4x dz\,{\rm Tr}\left(\Phi^\dagger_M \Phi_M\right)
\end{eqnarray}
The warping factors are
\begin{equation}
{\bf f}(z)=\frac{R^3}{4U_z}\,,\qquad {\bf g}(z)=\frac{9}{8}\frac{U_z^3}{U_{KK}}
\end{equation}
with $U_z^3=U_{KK}^3+U_{KK}z^2$ and $\kappa\equiv a\lambda N_c$ and
$a=1/(216\pi^3)$ in units of $M_{KK}$~\cite{Sakai:2004cn}. Our conventions are $(-1,1,1,1,1)$ with $A_{M}^{\dagger}=-A_M$ and
the labels $M,N$ running over $\mu,z$ only in this section.
The effective fields in the field strengths are~\cite{Liu:2016iqo,Liu:2017xzo}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2}
&&{\bf F}_{MN}=\nonumber \\
&&\left(\begin{array}{cc}
F_{MN}-\Phi_{[M}\Phi_{N]}^{\dagger}&\partial_{[M}\Phi_{N]}+A_{[M}\Phi_{N]}\\
-\partial_{[M}\Phi^{\dagger}_{N]}-\Phi^{\dagger}_{[M}A_{N]}&-\Phi^{\dagger}_{[M}\Phi_{N]}
\end{array}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
The matrix valued 1-form gauge field is
\begin{equation}
\label{7}
{\bf A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A&\Phi\\
-\Phi^{\dagger}&0
\end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
For $N_f=2$, the naive Chern-Simons 5-form is
\begin{equation}
\label{CSNAIVE}
S_{CS}=\frac{iN_c}{24\pi^2}\int_{M_5}\,{\rm Tr}\left(AF^2-\frac{1}{2}A^3F+\frac{1}{10}A^5\right)
\end{equation}
For $N_f$ coincidental branes, the $\Phi$ multiplet is massless, but for separated branes
they are massive with $m_H$ fixed by the separation between the heavy and light branes.
We follow~\cite{Liu:2016iqo} and fix it by the heavy meson masses
$M_{D}=1870$ MeV (charmed) and $M_B=5279$ MeV (bottomed)
using
\begin{equation}
\label{MDMH}
M_{D,B}=m_{H}+\frac{M_{KK}}{2\sqrt{2}}
\end{equation}
In the coincidental brane limit,
light baryons are interchangeably described as a flavor instanton or a D4 brane wrapping the $S^4$.
The instanton size is small with $\rho\sim 1/\sqrt{\lambda}$ after balancing the order $\lambda$
bulk gravitational attraction with the subleading and of order $\lambda^0$ U(1) induced topological
repulsion~\cite{Sakai:2004cn}. The O(4) instanton gauge field is of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{XS3}
A_{M}(y)=-\overline{\sigma}_{MN}\partial_NF(y)\qquad \left.F_{zm}(y)\right|_{|y|=R}=0
\end{equation}
Since $\rho\sim 1/\sqrt{\lambda}$
is the typical instanton size, it is convenient to rescale the fields
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{S3}
(x_0, x_{M})\rightarrow (x_0,x_{M}/\sqrt{\lambda}), \sqrt{\lambda}\rho\rightarrow \rho\qquad\qquad
(A_{0},A_M)\rightarrow (A_0, \sqrt{\lambda}A_M)
\end{eqnarray}
with the leading order equations of motion
\begin{equation}
\label{HL1}
D_{M}F_{MN}=0\qquad \partial_M^2A_0=-\frac 1{32\pi^2 a}F_{aMN}\star {F}_{aMN}
\end{equation}
Similarly, the bound heavy-light fields $(\Phi_0, \Phi_M)$ are rescaled using
\begin{equation}
\label{S3S}
(\Phi_0,\Phi_M)\rightarrow (\Phi_0, \sqrt{\lambda}\Phi_M)
\end{equation}
Following the rescaling, the effective action for the light gauge fields $(A_0, A_M)$ and
the heavy fields $(\Phi_0,\Phi_M)$ in leading order is~\cite{Liu:2016iqo,Liu:2017xzo}
\begin{equation}
\label{RS1}
{\cal L}=aN_c\lambda {\cal L}_{0}+aN_c{\cal L}_{1}+{\cal L}_{CS}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ACTIONALL}
{\cal L}=aN_c\lambda {\cal L}_0+aN_c({\cal L}_1+\tilde {\cal L}_1)+{\cal L}_{\rm CS}
\end{eqnarray}
with each contribution given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_0=&&-(D_M\Phi_N^{\dagger}-D_N\Phi_M^{\dagger})(D_M\Phi_N-D_N\Phi_M)+2\Phi_M^{\dagger}F_{MN}\Phi_N \ ,\nonumber \\
{\cal L}_1=&&+2(D_0\Phi_M^{\dagger}-D_M\Phi_0^{\dagger})(D_0\Phi_M-D_M\Phi_0)-2\Phi_0^{\dagger}F^{0M}\Phi_M\nonumber\\
&&-2\Phi^{\dagger}_MF^{M0}\Phi_0 -2m_H^2\Phi^{\dagger}_M\Phi_M \ ,
\nonumber\\
\tilde {\cal L}_1=&&+\frac{z^2}{3}(D_i\Phi_j-D_j\Phi_i)^{\dagger}(D_i\Phi_j-D_j\Phi_i) \nonumber \\
&&-2z^2(D_i\Phi_z-D_z\Phi_i)^{\dagger}(D_i\Phi_z-D_z\Phi_i)
-\frac{2}{3}z^2\Phi_i^{\dagger}F_{ij}\Phi_j+2z^2(\Phi^{\dagger}_zF_{zi}\Phi_i+c.c) \ \nonumber\\
{\cal L}_{CS}=&&-\frac{iN_c}{16\pi^2}\Phi^{\dagger}(dA+A^2)D\Phi-\frac{iN_c}{16\pi^2}(D\Phi)^{\dagger}(dA+A^2) \Phi +{\cal O}(\Phi^3)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The expansion around the heavy quark limit will be sought using
$\Phi_{M}=\phi_{M}e^{-im_Hx_0}$ for particles and $m_H\rightarrow -m_H$ for anti-particles.
In particular, we have in leading order~\cite{Liu:2017xzo,Liu:2017frj}
\begin{equation}
\label{RX66X}
{\cal L}_0=-\frac 12 \left|f_{MN}-\star f_{MN}\right|^2+2\phi_M^\dagger (F_{MN}-\star F_{MN})\phi_N
\end{equation}
subject to the constraint equation $D_M\phi_M=0$ with $f_{MN}=\partial_{[M}\phi_{N]}+A_{[M}\phi_{N]}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{RX5}
\frac{{\cal L}_{1}}{aN_c}\rightarrow 4m_H\phi^{\dagger}_{M}iD_0\phi_{M}\qquad\qquad
{\cal L}_{CS}\rightarrow \frac{m_H N_c}{16\pi^2}\phi^{\dagger}_{M}\star F_{MN}\phi_{N}
\end{eqnarray}
For self-dual fields $F_{MN}=\star F_{MN}$, and the minimum of (\ref{RX66X}) is reached for
$f_{MN}=\star f_{MN}$. As a result, the combination $\psi=\bar \sigma_{M}\phi_{M}$
with $\sigma_M =(i, \vec \sigma)$, obeys the zero mode equation $\sigma_{M}D_{M}\psi= D \psi =0$.
While binding to the core instanton, the heavy mesons with spin-1 transmute to a Weyl fermion
with spin-$\frac 12$~\cite{Liu:2017xzo,Liu:2017frj}.
The holographic charmed pentaquark states are ultimatly bound topological molecules with hidden charm, without the ambiguities
related to the type of meson exchange to use and the details of the form factors (hard core), a challenge for most molecular
constructions~\cite{Burns:2015dwa,Richard:2016eis,Lebed:2016hpi,Esposito:2016noz,Olsen:2017bmm,Guo:2017jvc,Karliner:2017qhf,Eides:2017xnt,Lin:2019qiv,Du:2021fmf}
(and references therein). The dual of the hard core is the instanton core which is universal and fixed by gauge-gravity interactions in bulk.
The dual of the meson exchanges are bulk light and heavy gauge fields
regulated by unique D-brane gauge interactions in conformity with chiral symmetry, vector dominance and heavy quark symmetry at the boundary.
We now address their strong decay modes using the effective action (\ref{ACTIONALL}).
\section{Open charm decays}~\label{OPEN}
The charmed pentaquark states decay modes can proceed through either open charm channels given their
proximity to the $\Sigma_c[\bar D,\bar D^*]$ thresholds~\cite{Aaij:2019vzc}, or hidden charm channel such as
$J/\Psi$ as originally observed~\cite{Aaij:2015tga}. For clarity, all the analyses to follow will
be carried with the decay kinematics using $P_c(4440)$. The final results will be tabulated for all three
charm pentaquark states recently reported, and extended to the yet to be observed bottom pentaquarks.
The decay modes follow from the coupling between the background classical field $\Phi_M$ sourced by the baryonic moduli,
and the fluctuating heavy-light meson field $\delta \Phi_M$~\cite{Liu:2016iqo}. Note that our classical field configuration $(\Phi_0,\Phi_M)$ only solves the equation of motion to leading order in $1/\lambda$. Therefore under the shift
$\Phi_M\rightarrow\delta \Phi_M$ there are linear terms in $\delta \Phi_M$. They do not affect the stability
of the instanton core.
More specifically, the linear contributions in leading order in $m_H$ are
\begin{align}
\delta {\cal L}=4iaN_cm_H\left(\delta \Phi_M^{\dagger}\hat A_0 \Phi_M +\Phi_M^{\dagger}\hat A_0 \delta \Phi_M\right)+\frac{N_cm_H}{8\pi^2}\left(\delta \Phi_M^{\dagger}F_{MN}\Phi_N+ \Phi_M^{\dagger}F_{MN}\delta \Phi_N\right) \ ,
\end{align}
The first contribution is kinetic and the second contribution is topological
(Chern-Simons term). For vector mesons we have
\begin{align}
\delta \Phi_M(t,\vec{x},z)=\epsilon_{M}e^{-iM_nt}\phi_n(z) \ , \qquad\qquad
\delta \Phi_z(t,\vec{x},z)=0 \ ,
\end{align}
with the interaction term
\begin{align}\label{eq:changeL}
\delta L=\frac{im_HN_c}{2\pi^2\sqrt{16m_HaN_c}}\frac{c\phi_n(Z)}{(X^2+\rho^2)^{\frac{5}{2}}}\left(1+\frac{5\rho^2}{2(X^2+\rho^2)}\right)\left(\vec{\epsilon}^{\dagger}\cdot \vec{\sigma}\chi_{Q}-\chi^{\dagger}_{Q}\vec{\sigma}\cdot \vec{\epsilon}\right) \ ,
\end{align}
The heavy-light mesonic wavefunctions in bulk satisfy ($\tilde Z=\sqrt{m_H}Z$)
\begin{align}
-\frac{d^2\phi_n(\tilde Z)}{d\tilde Z^2} +\frac{\tilde Z^2}{2} \phi_n(\tilde Z)=(m_n^2-m_H^2)\phi_n(\tilde Z) \ ,
\end{align}
with the normalized solutions~\cite{Liu:2016iqo}
\begin{align}
\phi_n( \tilde Z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\tilde\kappa}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n n!}}\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\pi}m_H\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{-\frac{\sqrt{2}\tilde Z^2}{4}}
H_n\left[\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}}\tilde Z\right] \ .
\end{align}
and the Reggeized mass spectrum
\begin{equation}
m_n^2\approx m_H^2+\frac {7m_Hm_\rho}4\bigg(n+\frac 12\bigg)
\end{equation}
Note that the two brane tensions $\tilde\kappa$ in the heavy-light sector and $\kappa$ in the light-light sector are identified,
for bulk filling branes.
However here, we will keep them separate phenomenologically as we discuss below. With this in mind, the Hamiltonian
following from (\ref{eq:changeL}) after integration over $dZd^3X$, reads
\begin{align}
\label{HAMX}
\delta H= i\alpha\epsilon_i^{\star}\tau_i\lambda-i\alpha\lambda^{\dagger}\tau_i\epsilon_i+\alpha \epsilon^{\dagger}\lambda+\alpha \lambda^{\dagger}\epsilon
\end{align}
with the moduli coefficient
\begin{align}
\label{COEF2}
\alpha\bigg(\rho,\frac{Z}{\rho}\bigg)=\frac{\sqrt{2}\rho N_c}{3\pi^2\sqrt{aN_c}(Z^2+\rho^2)}\int dZ \phi_n(Z) \ ,
\end{align}
which depend on the specifics of the moduli wavefunctions which are detailed in Appendix~\ref{COEFFICIENT}.
\subsection{Generic form of the spin interaction}
If we fix the vector meson polarization to say $\epsilon_M$, then the sole coupling to the angular momentum is rotor-like
$\chi^a F^a(\chi)$ which contributes to the Hamiltonian as $ \vec{L}\cdot \vec{F} $.
It {\it conserves} angular momentum $l$ and cannot cause an angular momentum transition necessary for the open channel decays.
However, a close inspection shows that we need to consider the mismatch caused by the gauge-transformation
$V$ that acts solely on the instanton-profile but not on the external field~\cite{Hashimoto:2008zw}. Including this gauge-transformation amounts to the substitution
\begin{align}
\delta \Phi_M \rightarrow V^{-1}(t,z,x)\delta \Phi_M \approx (a_4- i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}) \delta \Phi_M \ .
\end{align}
As a result, the change in the Lagrangian can still be obtained from equation (\ref{eq:changeL}) with the replacement
\begin{align}
\epsilon_M \rightarrow (a_4- i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau})\epsilon_M \ ,
\end{align}
which allows for the transition from $l$ to $l \pm 1$. We conclude that by expanding in linear order in
$\delta \Phi_M$, we can generate a transition vertex with net angular momentum change by $1$. Therefore the transitions
from $P_c$ with $l=1$ to $\Lambda_c$ with $l=0$ and to $\Sigma_c$ with $l=2$ are all possible.
\subsection{General transition vertices}
The vertex responsible for the decay to a vector meson $P_c\rightarrow D^\star p$ follows from
\begin{align}
\delta H=i\alpha\epsilon_i^{\star}(a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot\tau)\tau_i\lambda-i\alpha\lambda^{\dagger}\tau_i(a_4-i\vec{a}\cdot \tau)\epsilon_i \ ,
\end{align}
or more specifically the matrix element
\begin{align}
\langle l'm';\frac{1}{2}s|\delta H|lm_1;Sm_2\rangle \ .
\end{align}
\\
\\
{\bf 1.} For $S=0$:
\\
the transition matrix for $P_c\rightarrow D+p$ with a scalar meson final state is
\begin{align}
\delta H=\alpha \epsilon^{\dagger}(a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau})\lambda+\alpha \lambda^{\dagger}(a_4-i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau})\epsilon \ ,
\end{align}
and the corresponding transition amplitude is
\begin{align}
{\cal M}(P_c,S=0 \rightarrow D(\epsilon)+l'm'+\lambda_s)=\alpha \epsilon^{\dagger}\langle l'm'|a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|lm\rangle \sigma_2 \lambda_s \ .
\end{align}
The transition amplitude with a vector meson final state is
\begin{align}
&{\cal M}(P_c,S=0 \rightarrow D^{\star}(\vec{\epsilon})+l'm'+\lambda_s)\nonumber \\
&=\alpha\langle l'm' |ia_4|lm \rangle \vec{\epsilon}^{\star}\cdot \vec{\tau} \sigma_2 \lambda_s^{\star}-\alpha\langle l'm' |ia_i|lm \rangle(\vec{\epsilon}^{\star}\times \vec{\tau})_i\sigma_2 \lambda_s^{\star}-\alpha\langle l'm'| ia_i|lm\rangle \epsilon^{\star}_i\sigma_2 \lambda_s \ .
\end{align}
\\
\\
{\bf 2.} For $S=1$:
\\
the transition amplitude for $P_c\rightarrow D+p$ with a scalar meson final state is
\begin{align}
{\cal M}(P_c,1S \rightarrow D(\epsilon)+l'm'+\lambda_s)=\alpha\bigg(\epsilon^{\dagger}\langle l'm'|a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|lm\rangle\bigg)_{s'} C^{1;S}_{s's} \lambda_s \ .
\end{align}
after replacing $\sigma_2$ by the general Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for $\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}=1$
\begin{align}
\sigma_2\rightarrow C^{1;s+s'}_{ss'}=\delta_{ss'}+\sigma^1_{ss'} \ ,
\end{align}
The corresponding transition amplitude with a vector meson final state is
\begin{align}
&{\cal M}(P_c,1S \rightarrow D^{\star}(\vec{\epsilon})+l'm'+\lambda_s)\nonumber \\&=\alpha\langle l'm' |ia_4|lm \rangle (\vec{\epsilon}^{\star}\cdot \vec{\tau})_{s'}C^{1;S}_{s's} \lambda_s^{\star}-\alpha\langle l'm' |ia_i|lm \rangle(\vec{\epsilon}^{\star}\times \vec{\tau})_{is'}C^{1;S}_{s's} \lambda_s^{\star}-\alpha\langle l'm'| ia_i|lm\rangle \epsilon^{\star}_{is'}C^{1;S}_{s's}\lambda^{\star}_s \ .
\end{align}
\\
\\
In a typical decay, we need to combine $\lambda_s$ with $l'm'$ to form the finite $J$ final state,
and combine $S$ with $m$ to form the finite $J$ initial state. Then we need to square and sum over spin. We now apply this to a number
of decay channels with open charm.
\subsection{$P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c+\bar D$ decay}
The pentaquark decay through $\Lambda_c$ is larger than through $\Sigma_c$ or $ \Sigma_c^*$, given the larger access to phase space.
A quick inspection of quantum numbers show that the decay process
$$\bigg[P_c(4440)\bigg[\frac 12\frac 12^-\bigg]_{0}\bigg]\rightarrow \bigg[\Lambda_c(2286)0\frac 12^+\bigg]+\bigg[\bar D(1870)\frac 12 0^-\bigg]$$
\noindent is quadrupolar with $l=2$, since the $l=0$ is forbidden by momentum conservation and $l=1$ by parity. The final meson decay
momentum $|\vec p|\approx 778$ MeV, so the decay produce are non-relativistic.
\subsubsection{$S=0$}
For $S=0$, we need
\begin{align}
{\cal M}(P_c,S=0 \rightarrow D(\epsilon)+\Lambda_c(s))=\alpha \epsilon^{\dagger}\langle 0|a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|\beta \dot \beta\rangle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sigma_2 \lambda_s \ .
\end{align}
After summing over spin we only need to consider
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\beta,\dot \beta} \alpha^2 {\rm tr}\langle 00|a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|\beta \dot \beta\rangle \langle \beta \dot \beta|a_4-i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|00\rangle \ .
\end{align}
The hyper-spherical harmonics $|\beta \dot \beta\rangle$ can be represented in terms of $2\times 2$ matrices as
\begin{align}
\Psi^{l=1}_{\alpha \dot \alpha}(a)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\Omega_4}}(\sigma \cdot a)_{\alpha \dot \alpha},
\end{align}
where $\Omega_4=2\pi^2$. We now observe that
\begin{align}
\langle 0|(\bar \sigma \cdot a)_{\dot \alpha,\alpha}|(\sigma \cdot a)^{\beta \dot \beta} \rangle=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta^{\beta}_{\alpha}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta^{\dot \beta}_{\dot \alpha} \ .
\end{align}
In terms of these, one has
\begin{align}
\sum_{\beta \dot \beta} \alpha^2 {\rm tr}\langle 00|a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|\beta \dot \beta \rangle \langle \beta \dot \beta|a_4-i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|00\rangle =\frac{1}{2}\alpha^2 ,
\end{align}
so that
\begin{align}
\label{DEC1}
\Gamma_{P_c,S=0 \rightarrow D(\epsilon)+\Lambda_c(s)}=\frac{|\vec{p}|}{2\pi} \frac{m_H^{\frac{1}{2}}M_{KK}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2\tilde\kappa}\frac{1}{4}\langle\alpha\rangle^2 \times \frac{1}{4}\equiv \Gamma
\end{align}
where $\frac{1}{4}$ comes from the initial state averaging over spin and isospin, and
\begin{align}
\langle \alpha \rangle_{l=1\rightarrow l=0}=4.08/\pi \ .
\end{align}
The decay width (\ref{DEC1})
is fixed by kinematics $|\vec{p}|\sim 778$ MeV, and the three holographic parameters $\tilde\kappa, M_{KK}, m_H$.
In general, the brane tension for the heavy-light fields $\tilde\kappa$ and that of the light-light fields $\kappa$ are the
same. Here we choose to treat them separatly. In~\cite{Liu:2021tpq} the three parameters $\kappa, M_{KK}, m_H$
were fixed to reproduce globally the charm and bottom baryons as well as the pentaquarks with hidden charm and bottom.
Here, their adjustment to the three observed masses will be subsumed.
The additional $\tilde \kappa$ parameter will be fixed by one measured width as we detail below. All other partial and total widths
will follow in units of $\Gamma$ as predictions, for both charm and bottom.
\subsubsection{$S=1$}
For $S=1$ we need
\begin{align}
&\sum_{S,m,m'}C^{J;\beta+S}_{\beta,S}(C^{J;\beta'+S}_{\beta',S})^{\dagger} \langle\alpha\rangle ^2 {\rm tr}\langle 00|a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|\beta \dot \beta\rangle C^{1S}C^{1S\dagger} \langle \dot \beta \beta'|a_4-i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|00\rangle \nonumber \\
&=\sum_{s_1,s_2}|\langle S,s_1+s_2|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},s_2 \rangle|^2|\langle J,s_1|\frac{1}{2},-s_2;S,s_1+s_2 \rangle|^2 \ .
\end{align}
where we also use $\langle 1,s_1+s_2|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},s_2 \rangle$ to denote the expansion coefficient of two spin $\frac{1}{2}$ to one spin 1.
In sum, the decay rate in which all the spins are summed over are the same, and is given by
\begin{align}
&\Gamma_{P_c(J,S)\rightarrow D(\epsilon)+\Lambda_c(s)}=\frac{|\vec{p}|}{2\pi}
\frac{m_H^{\frac{1}{2}}M_{KK}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2\tilde\kappa}
\frac{1}{4}\langle\alpha\rangle^2 \frac{1}{2(2J+1)}\nonumber \\
&\times \sum_{s_1,s_2}|\langle S,s_1+s_2|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},s_2 \rangle|^2|\langle J,s_1|\frac{1}{2},-s_2;S,s_1+s_2 \rangle|^2 \ .
\end{align}
We define
\begin{align}
f(J,S)=\sum_{s_1,s_2}|\langle S,s_1+s_2|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},s_2 \rangle|^2|\langle J,s_1|\frac{1}{2},-s_2;S,s_1+s_2 \rangle|^2 \ ,
\end{align}
with $f(\frac{1}{2},0)=1$ for $S=0$. For $S=1$ we have
\begin{align}
f(J=S\pm \frac{1}{2},S=1)=\sum_{s_1,s_2=\pm \frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{4}(1+|s_1+s_2|)(1\mp \frac{4}{3}s_1s_2)=\frac{3}{2}\mp \frac{1}{6}
\end{align}
hence the model independent ratios
\begin{align}
\frac{\Gamma_{P_c(J,S)\rightarrow D(\epsilon)+\Lambda_c(s)}}{\Gamma_{P_c(J',S')\rightarrow D(\epsilon)+\Lambda_c(s)}}=\frac{(2J'+1)f(J,S)}{(2J+1)f(J',S')} \ .
\end{align}
or more explicitly
\begin{align}
\label{RATIOS}
\Gamma\bigg(S=0,J=\frac{1}{2}\bigg):\Gamma\bigg(S=1,J=\frac{1}{2}\bigg):\Gamma\bigg(S=1,J=\frac{3}{2}\bigg)=\frac{1}{2}:\frac{5}{6}:\frac{1}{3}
\end{align}
whenever the decay mode is allowed kinematically.
\subsection{$P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c+{\bar D}^*$ decay}
$$\bigg[P_c(4440)\bigg[\frac 12\frac 12^-\bigg]_0\bigg]\rightarrow \bigg[\Lambda_c(2286)0\frac 12^+\bigg]+\bigg[{\bar D}^*(2010)\frac 12 1^-\bigg]$$
This decay width can be deduced from that of the scalar meson from the requirement of heavy-quark symmetry. Indeed, the minimal Lagrangian reads in the case of $J=1/2$
\begin{align}
\bar \psi_{P_c} (D+\gamma^5\gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu})\frac{1+\gamma\cdot v}{2}\psi_{\Lambda_c}+c.c \ .
\end{align}
From these the ratio of the decay width for the scalar and the vector are proportional to
\begin{align}
{\rm tr} 1: {\rm tr} \sigma_i\sigma_j \epsilon_i\epsilon_j=1:3 \ .
\end{align}
so that
\begin{align}
\frac{\Gamma_{P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c+{\bar D}^*}}{\Gamma_{P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c+\bar D}}=3 \ .
\end{align}
\subsection{$P_c\rightarrow \Sigma_c+\bar D$ decay}
The spin-parity assignment of $\Sigma_c$ is that of $\Lambda_c$ so this decay mode is similar to the one we
addressed earlier
$$\bigg[P_c(4440)\bigg[\frac 12\frac 12^-\bigg]_0\bigg]\rightarrow \bigg[\Sigma_c(2453)1\frac 12^+\bigg]+\bigg[\bar D(1870)\frac 12 0^-\bigg]$$
\noindent which is also quadrupolar with $l=2$. However, the width is expected to be smaller due to the narrower phase space.
The final momentum is $|\vec p|\approx 502$ MeV, so again the final kinematics is non-relativistic. To carry the rate, we need the amplitude
\begin{align}
{\cal M}(P_c,S=0 \rightarrow D(\epsilon)+\Sigma_c(S))=\alpha \epsilon^{\dagger}\langle 1m_1;1m_2|a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|\beta \dot\beta\rangle \sigma_2\lambda_s C^{\frac{1}{2}S}_{m_1s}\ .
\end{align}
with the corresponding squared sum
\begin{align}
\sum_{\beta,\dot \beta,m_1,m_1',m_2,S} {\rm Tr}\left[\sigma_2\langle \beta \dot \beta|a_4-i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|1m_1;1m_2\rangle (C^{\frac{1}{2}S}_{m_1})^{\dagger}C^{\frac{1}{2}S}_{m_1'}\langle 1m_1';1m_2 |a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|\beta \dot \beta\rangle\sigma_2\right] \ .
\end{align}
For the $S=1$ state we need the re-summation
\begin{align}
&\sum_{\beta,\beta',\dot \beta, m_1,m_1',m_2,S,S'}C^{J;\beta+S}_{\beta,S}(C^{J;\beta'+S}_{\beta,S})^{\dagger}\nonumber \\ &\times{\rm Tr}\left[C^{1S\dagger}\langle \beta \dot\beta|a_4-i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|1m_1;1m_2\rangle (C^{\frac{1}{2}S'}_{m_1})^{\dagger}C^{\frac{1}{2}S'}_{m_1'}\langle 1m_1'; 1m_2|a_4+i\vec{a}\cdot \vec{\tau}|\beta'\dot \beta\rangle C^{1S}\right]\ .
\end{align}
This can be achieved using the following identity in terms of Clebsch-Gordon coefficients
\begin{align}
\langle 1,m_1;1,m_2| (\bar \sigma \cdot a)_{\dot \alpha \alpha}|(\sigma \cdot a)^{\beta \dot \beta}\rangle=\mathbb A \langle 1,m_1|\frac{1}{2},\alpha;\frac{1}{2},-\beta\rangle\langle 1,m_2|\frac{1}{2},\dot \alpha;\frac{1}{2},-\dot \beta\rangle \ ,
\end{align}
where $\mathbb A$ is a numerical number independent of spin. The minus sign follows from lowering $\beta$ and $\dot \beta$
down using $\sigma_2$ to form the spin-sum. To evaluate $\mathbb A$, we may choose $\alpha=\dot \alpha=+$, and $\beta=\dot \beta=-$, then sum over $m_1$ and $m_2$, to obtain
\begin{align}
|\mathbb A|^2=\frac{2}{\Omega_4}\sum_{P_2}\bigg(\int d\Omega_4 (a_1^2+a_2^2)\Phi_{P_2}(a)\bigg)^2 =\frac{1}{6}\ ,
\end{align}
where the sum over $P_2$ ranges over all the $9$ independent hyper-spherical harmonic functions for $l=2$.
Using the above results, the decay rate can be obtained by summing over all the spins,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Gamma_{P_c(J,S)\rightarrow \Sigma_c+D}=\frac{|\vec{p}|m_H^{\frac{1}{2}}M_{KK}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{4\pi \tilde \kappa} \frac{\langle \alpha \rangle^2}{6(2J+1)}|\mathbb A|^2\nonumber\\
&&\times \sum_{s_1,s_2}|\langle S,s_1+s_2|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},s_2 \rangle|^2|\langle J,s_1|\frac{1}{2},-s_2;S,s_1+s_2 \rangle|^2\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\times|\langle 1,0|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},-s_1\rangle|^2|\langle \frac{1}{2},-s_1|1,0;\frac{1}{2},-s_1\rangle|^2 \nonumber \\
&&=\frac{|\vec{p}|m_H^{\frac{1}{2}}M_{KK}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{4\pi \tilde\kappa}\frac{\langle \alpha \rangle^2}{36(2J+1)}|\mathbb A|^2\nonumber\\
&&\times \sum_{s_1,s_2}|\langle S,s_1+s_2|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},s_2 \rangle|^2|\langle J,s_1|\frac{1}{2},-s_2;S,s_1+s_2 \rangle|^2 \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the additional factor of $\frac{1}{6}$ originates from
\begin{align}
|\langle 1,0|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},-s_1\rangle|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ , \qquad\qquad
|\langle \frac{1}{2},-s_1|1,0;\frac{1}{2},-s_1\rangle|=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\times \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ .
\end{align}
This decay rate relates to the one for $\Lambda_c$, and the model independent ratio is
\begin{align}
\frac{\Gamma_{P_c(J,S)\rightarrow \Sigma_c+D}}{\Gamma_{P_c(J,S)\rightarrow \Lambda_c+D}}=\frac{502}{778}\times \frac{8}{36}\times \frac{4.97^2}{4.08^2}=0.574 \ .
\end{align}
\subsection{$P_c\rightarrow \Sigma^*_c+\bar D$ decay}
$$\bigg[P_c(4440)\bigg[\frac 12\frac 12^-\bigg]_0\bigg]\rightarrow \bigg[\Sigma^*_c(--)1\frac 12^-\bigg]+\bigg[\bar D(1870)\frac 12 0^-\bigg]$$
\noindent with $l=1$ by parity. In this case the formula remains the same as the preceding one,
with the only change being the value of $n_z$ in the averaging over $\alpha$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Gamma_{P_c(J,S)\rightarrow \Sigma^{\star}_c+D}=\frac{|\vec{p}|}{8\pi M_{P_c}^2} \frac{\langle \alpha \rangle^2}{(2J+1)}|\mathbb A|^2\nonumber\\
&&\times \sum_{s_1,s_2}|\langle S,s_1+s_2|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},s_2 \rangle|^2|\langle J,s_1|\frac{1}{2},-s_2;S,s_1+s_2 \rangle|^2\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\times|\langle 1,0|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},-s_1\rangle|^2|\langle \frac{1}{2},-s_1|1,0;\frac{1}{2},-s_1\rangle|^2 \nonumber \\
&&=\frac{|\vec{p}|}{8\pi M^2} \frac{\langle\alpha\rangle^2}{6(2J+1)}|\mathbb A|^2\nonumber\\
&&\times \sum_{s_1,s_2}|\langle S,s_1+s_2|\frac{1}{2},s_1;\frac{1}{2},s_2 \rangle|^2|\langle J,s_1|\frac{1}{2},-s_2;S,s_1+s_2 \rangle|^2 \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
However, since the in-coming and out-going states have different parity in the z-direction, the average of $\alpha$ will be zero in this case, hence
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{P_c(J,S)\rightarrow \Sigma^{\star}_c+D}=0 \ .
\end{align}
\section{Hidden charm decay}~\label{HIDDEN}
The $P_c(4440)$ state can strongly decay only through $J/\Psi$ with hidden charm because of kinematics,
$$\bigg[P_c(4440)\bigg[\frac 12\frac 12^-\bigg]_0\bigg]\rightarrow \bigg[J/\Psi(3097)01^-\bigg]+\bigg[p(938)\frac 12\frac 12^+\bigg]$$
\noindent with $l=0,2$. The decay momentum for charm is about $|\vec{P}|\approx 809$ MeV, so the final kinematics is relativistic. To determine
the transition coupling $P_c\rightarrow J/\Psi+p$ we needs the U(1) transition current
\begin{equation}
\label{TFF}
\left<P_c\bigg[p_2, \frac 12 \frac 12^-\bigg]\bigg|{\mathbb J}^\mu(0)\bigg|P\bigg[p_1, \frac 12 \frac 12^+\bigg]\right> \ ,
\end{equation}
in which the in-out states in (\ref{TFF}) are eigenstates of the moduli Hamiltonian defined earlier.
\subsubsection{Bulk-to-boundary current}
To determine (\ref{TFF}), we consider the decay of pentaquarks into $J/\Psi$ (Upsilon) represented by U(1) vector field $\delta A_\mu(z)e^{-2im_Ht}$ and the nucleon. To obtain the change in the Lagrangian one needs to select the terms that mixes the quark and anti-quarks. One first consider $\delta A_0$, this leads to the temporal coupling
\begin{align}
\delta L_T=\delta A_0\frac{1}{m_H}\tilde \rho_1 \ ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\tilde \rho_1=\left(-\frac{9}{4\tilde \rho^2}f^2+\frac{3}{16\pi^3 a}\frac{2\rho^2-X^2}{(X^2+\rho^2)^2}f^2\right)\overline u_Q v_{\bar Q}\chi_Q^\dagger\chi^\dagger_{\bar Q}+{\rm h.c.}
\end{align}
On the other-hand, one also needs to consider $\delta A_M$ which contributes actually at leading order in $\lambda$, but next to leading order in ${1}/{m_H}$. This
amounts to a spatial coupling through
\begin{align}
\delta L_{S}=4aN_c\lambda \delta A_M \partial _N\left(\Phi^{\dagger}_M \Phi_N-\Phi^{\dagger}_N \Phi_M\right) \ ,
\end{align}
which is of order ${1}/{m_H}$ in the heavy quark limit.
$A_M$ sources a U(1) gauge field with bulk vector modes satisfying~\cite{Sakai:2004cn}
\begin{align}
\label{VECTORn}
-(1+Z^2)^{\frac{1}{3}}\partial_Z((1+Z^2)\partial_Z \varphi_n(Z))=\lambda_n \varphi_n
\end{align}
and normalized according to
\begin{align}
\int dZ \frac{1}{(1+Z^2)^{\frac{1}{3}}}|\varphi_n(Z)|^2=1 \ ,
\end{align}
Recall that in the Sakai-Sugimoto model, the holographic coordinate
$Z={z}/{U_{KK}}$ with $U_{KK}\propto M_{KK}$. In the light-light sector, $M_{KK}$ is fixed to reproduce the
low-lying rho meson states $\tilde m_n=\lambda_nM_{KK}$ (odd $n$)~\cite{Sakai:2004cn}.
In terms of the eigen-modes (\ref{VECTORn}), the bulk-to-bulk vector propagator is given by
\begin{align}
G_{MN}(E;\vec{P},Z,X;Z',X')=\frac{g_{MN}}{\tilde \kappa}\sum_{n}\frac{\varphi_n(Z)\varphi^{\dagger}_n(Z')e^{-i\vec{P}\cdot(\vec{X}-\vec{X}')}}{E^2-\vec{P}^2-\tilde m_n^2} \ ,
\end{align}
and the bulk-to-boundary U(1) gauge field is
\begin{align}
A^{M}(E;Z,\vec x-\vec X)=\frac{e^{-i\vec{P}\cdot(\vec x-\vec X)}}{\sqrt{\tilde \kappa}}\sum_{n}\frac{\varphi_n(Z)a_n^M}{E^2-\vec{P}^2-\tilde m_n^2} \ ,
\end{align}
for the spatial components $M=1,2,3,z$ with the bulk modular sources
\begin{eqnarray}
a_n^Z&=&\frac{4\kappa}{8m_HaN_c}i\vec{P}\cdot \overline{u}_Q\vec\sigma v_{\bar Q}\,\chi^\dagger_Q\chi_{\bar Q}^\dagger+{\rm h.c.}\nonumber\\
\vec{a_n}&=&\frac{4\kappa}{8m_HaN_c}i\vec{P}\times \overline{u}_Q\vec\sigma v_{\bar Q}\,\chi^\dagger_Q\chi_{\bar Q}^\dagger+{\rm h.c.}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\chi^\dagger_{Q,\bar Q}$ fermionic creation operators in the pentaquark moduli satisfying anti-commutation relations~\cite{Liu:2017xzo}.
Here we have used the normalization condition $\int dZdX f^2(Z^2+X^2)=1$.
Similarly, the bulk-to-boundary temporal component $A^0$ with full back reaction is
\begin{align}
A^0(E;Z,\vec x-\vec X)=\frac{e^{-i\vec{P}\cdot(\vec x-\vec X)}}{ \sqrt{\tilde \kappa}}\sum_{n}\frac{\varphi_n(Z)a_n^0}{E^2-\vec{P}^2-\tilde m_n^2} \ ,
\end{align}
with the modular source
\begin{align}
a_n^0=\frac{4\tilde \kappa}{aN_cm_H}\int dZ d^3X \left(-\frac{9}{4\tilde \rho^2}f^2+\frac{3}{16\pi^3 a}\frac{2\rho^2-X^2}{(X^2+\rho^2)^2}f^2\right)
\overline{u}_Qv_{\bar Q}\,\chi^\dagger_Q\chi_{\bar Q}^\dagger+{\rm h.c.}
\end{align}
The boundary U(1) current sourced by the topological pentaquark in bulk, follows from the canonical identification~\cite{Sakai:2004cn}
\begin{align}
\vec{\mathbb J}=-\tilde \kappa \vec{F}^z|_{z=-\infty}^{z=\infty} \ ,
\end{align}
which is
\begin{align}
\label{JXX}
\vec{\mathbb J}(\vec{x}-\vec X)=-\sum_{n}\frac{ \lambda g_n \varphi_n(Z)}{4m_H\sqrt{\tilde \kappa}}\int \frac{d^3\vec{P}e^{-i\vec{P}\cdot(\vec x-\vec X)}}{E^2-\vec{P}^2-\tilde m_n^2}
i\vec{P}\times \overline{u}_Q\vec\sigma v_{\bar Q}\,\chi^\dagger_Q\chi_{\bar Q}^\dagger +{\rm h.c.}
\end{align}
The pentaquark U(1) current at the boundary is sourced by the spin of the emerging $Q\bar Q$ attachment in bulk to order $1/m_H$, with a $1^{--}$ vector cloud
composed essentialy of the rho-meson Regge trajectory. This is not surprising given the holographic spin transmutation $\vec J\rightarrow \vec J+\vec S_Q$ discussed in~\cite{Liu:2017xzo}. This is the first major result in this section.
\subsubsection{Transition amplitude and width}
In terms of the boundary current (\ref{JXX}), the transition form factor $P_c\rightarrow V +p$ reads
\begin{align}
\label{JPP}
\langle P|{\vec {\mathbb J}}(\vec{x}-\vec X)|P_c\rangle=(i\vec{P}\times \overline{v}_{\bar Q}\vec\sigma u_{Q}) G(\vec{P}) (2\pi)^3\delta^3(P'-P)\ ,
\end{align}
with the induced vector form factor
\begin{align}
\label{GP}
G(\vec{P})=\lambda \sqrt{\frac{m_N}{M_{P_c}}}\sum_n\frac{\langle \varphi_n(Z)\rangle}{\sqrt{\tilde \kappa}}\frac{g_n}{E^2-\vec{P}^2-\tilde m_n^2}
\end{align}
The averaging in (\ref{GP}) is over the Gaussian baryonic (nucleon and pentaquark) modular wavefunctions which are localized around $Z\sim 0$~\cite{Liu:2017xzo}.
For comparison, we note that
in the soft wall model, the bulk-to-boundary propagator $G(P,Z)$ can be expressed in terms of confluent hypergeometric functions ${\cal U}$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:formfactorepicit}
G(P,Z)\sim M_{KK}^2Z^2\lambda\sqrt{\frac{m_N}{M_{P_c}}}\Gamma\bigg(1-\frac{P^2}{4M_{KK}^2}\bigg){\cal U}\bigg(1-\frac{-P^2}{4M_{KK}^2};2;M_{KK}^2Z^2\bigg) \ .
\end{align}
The form factor follows by averaging over the Dirac fields in bulk. In contrast, the latters are localized around $Z\sim \infty$
to satisfy the hard scattering rules.
The scattering amplitude follows by LSZ reduction of (\ref{JPP})
\begin{align}
{\cal M}=\vec{\epsilon}^{\star}\cdot(i\vec{P}\times \overline{v}_{\bar Q}\vec\sigma u_{Q}) \lambda \sqrt{\frac{m_N}{M_{P_c}}}\frac{\langle\varphi_n(Z) \rangle}{\sqrt{\tilde \kappa}}
\end{align}
for the emitted vector meson labeled by $V=n$.
The squared scattering amplitude after summing over the polarizations, reads
\begin{align}
|{\cal M}|^2=\frac{|\tilde G|^2|\vec{P}|^2}{2S+1}\sum_{s_1,s_2;s_1's_2'}(\vec{n}\times \vec{\sigma})_{s_1s_2}\cdot (\vec{n}\times \vec{\sigma})_{s_2's_1'} \sum_{M_1}C^{SM_1}_{s_1s_2}C^{SM_1}_{s_1's_2'}
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation}
\tilde G(\vec{P})= \lambda \sqrt{\frac{m_N}{M_{P_c}}}\frac{\langle\varphi_n(Z) \rangle}{\sqrt{\tilde \kappa}}
\end{equation}
which can be reduced
\begin{align}
|{\cal M}|^2&=|\tilde G|^2|\vec P|^2\sum_{M_1;s_1s_2;s_1's_2'}\frac{\vec{\sigma}_{s_1s_2}\cdot \vec{\sigma}_{s_2's_1'}-\sigma^3_{s_1s_2}\sigma^3_{s_1's_2'}}{2S+1} C^{SM_1}_{s_1s_2}C^{SM_1}_{s_1's_2'} \nonumber \\
&=|\tilde G|^2|\vec P|^2\sum_{M_1;s_1s_2;s_1's_2'}\frac{2\delta_{s_1s_1'}\delta_{s_2s_2'}-\delta_{s_1s_2}\delta_{s_1's_2'}-\sigma^3_{s_1s_2}\sigma^3_{s_1's_2'}}{2S+1}C^{SM_1}_{s_1s_2}C^{SM_1}_{s_1's_2'} \nonumber\\
&=\frac{2|\vec{P}|^2}{3} |\tilde G|^2 \,(\delta_{S=1}+3\delta_{S=0})\ .
\end{align}
Since the heavy quark in the initial state is still non-relativistic, the decay rate for $P_c\rightarrow \gamma p$ is then
\begin{align}
\Gamma=|\vec{P}|\times \frac{ |\vec{P}|^2}{4\pi M_{P_c}^2} \frac{|\tilde G|^2}{2S+1} \ ,
\end{align}
or
\begin{align}
\Gamma=|\vec{P}|\times \frac{ |\vec{P}|^2}{4\pi(2S+1) M_{P_c}^2} \frac{\lambda^2 m_N}{M_{P_c}} \times \bigg|\frac{\langle \varphi_n(Z)\rangle}{\sqrt{\tilde \kappa}}\bigg|^2 \ .
\end{align}
The $J/\Psi$ bulk wavefunction satisfies a vector equation similar to (\ref{VECTORn}) except for the overall scale. Indeed,
recall that in the Sakai-Sugimoto construction $Z={z}/{U_{KK}}$ and $U_{KK}\propto M_{KK}$,
which is usually fixed by the light vector meson rho mass. For $J/\Psi$ we set
$M_{KK}\rightarrow 2m_H$ to the heavy meson mass. As a result, the bulk $J/\Psi$ wavefunctions follow from the bulk rho wavefunctions by rescaling
\begin{align}
\varphi_n(Z)\rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{M_{KK}}{2m_H}}\varphi_n\bigg(\frac{M_{KK}}{2m_H} Z\bigg),
\end{align}
which leads to the partial decay width
\begin{align}
\label{GAMHEAVY}
\Gamma=|\vec{P}|\times \frac{ |\vec{P}|^2}{4\pi(2S+1) M_{P_c}^2} \frac{\lambda^2 m_N}{M_{P_c}} \times \frac{M_{KK}}{M_{P_c}}
\bigg(\frac{\varphi_n(0)}{\sqrt{\tilde\kappa}}\bigg)^2\ .
\end{align}
in the heavy quark limit.
We note the further suppression by $1/m_H$ of the hidden decay width (\ref{GAMHEAVY}) in comparison to the open decay
widths derived earlier. Indeed, a comparison with the open channel decay width yields the ratio
\begin{align}
\label{S1X}
\frac{\Gamma_{P_c\rightarrow J/\psi+P}}{\Gamma_{P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c+\bar D}}=\lambda^2\bigg(\frac{16\sqrt{2}}{2S+1}\bigg)
\bigg(\frac{|\vec{P}|^3m_NM_{KK}^{\frac{3}{2}}}{|\vec{p}|M_{P_c}^\frac{9}{2}}\bigg) \bigg(\frac{|\varphi_n(0)|^2}{\langle \alpha\rangle ^2}\bigg) \ .
\end{align}
The mismatch in the kinematical momenta in the ratio reflects on the fact that the pentaquark decay to hidden charm
follows from a Pauli-like coupling, while all open charm decays proceed from a Dirac-like coupling. For $P_c(440)$,
the decay kinematics fixes $|\vec{P}|\approx 809$ MeV and $|\vec{p}|\approx 778$ MeV. Using $M_{KK}=0.495$ MeV
and $\lambda=g_{YM}^2N_c=10$, the ratio (\ref{S1X}) is
\begin{align}
\frac{\Gamma_{P_c\rightarrow J/\psi+P}}{\Gamma_{P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c+\bar D}}=\frac{0.34|\varphi_n(0)|^2}{2S+1} \ .
\end{align}
The numerical value of the vector wave function at the origin solution to (\ref{VECTORn}),
is about $\frac{1}{2}$ for the ground state with $n=1$, so that
\begin{align}
\frac{\Gamma_{P_c\rightarrow J/\psi+P}}{\Gamma_{P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c+\bar D}}\sim \frac{0.085}{2S+1} \ ,
\end{align}
The decay width in the hidden channel is about $\frac{1}{10}$ the one observed in the open channels. This observation
is in qualitative agreement with the one made using molecular bound states~\cite{Eides:2018lqg,Lin:2019qiv}.
For completeness and clarity, we have collected all the partial decay widths for charm pentaquark states,
including their total witdth in units of $\Gamma$ (\ref{DEC1}) in Tables~\ref{tab_4440}-\ref{tab_4457}-\ref{tab_4312}.
Overall, the decay widths of $P_c(4440)$ and $P_c(4312)$ are found to be comparable, while the total decay width
of $P_c(4457)$ is smaller. Within error bars, these observations are compatible with the charm pentaquark widths
(\ref{LHCBMW}) reported by LHCb. To fix the value of $\Gamma$ in (\ref{DEC1}) (equivalently the value of the holographic parameter $\tilde\kappa$) and therefore all the remaining widths listed in the tables,
we use the measured central value of the total width
of $P_c(4440)$ in (\ref{LHCBMW}), namely
$$\Gamma=\frac{20.6\pm 4.9\,{\rm MeV}}{4.66}=4\pm 1 {\rm MeV}$$
The yet to be observed bottom pentaquarks and their widths are listed in Table~\ref{tab_widthb}.
For the bottom results, we used
$m_{H}=5111$ MeV fixed by
the heavy-light B-meson mass in (\ref{MDMH}).
For the bottom Pentaquark mass, we use the central holographic value $M_{P_b}=11163$ MeV~\cite{Liu:2021tpq},
as the predicted three holographic bottom pentaquark masses are very close in mass. The differences in the widths
listed stem from the different spin assignments.
The broader width for bottom versus charm recorded in the Tables
$${[P_b\rightarrow \Lambda_b\bar B]\over [P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c\bar D]}\sim 2.58$$
stems from the larger momentum of the decay produce and the larger value for $m_H$. The much smaller ratio
$${[P_b\rightarrow \Upsilon p]\over [P_c\rightarrow J/\Psi p]}=\bigg(\frac{M_{P_c}}{M_{P_b}}\bigg)^{\frac 92}\sim 0.02$$
for fixed momentum decay, follows from the larger suppression by the bottom Pentaquark mass.
\begin{widetext}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Pentaquark $P_c(4440)[\frac 12\frac12^-]_0$ decay widths in units of $\Gamma$}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
Decay mode & Final momentum (MeV) & Width \\
\hline
\hline
$P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c\bar D$ & 778 MeV & 1& \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Sigma_c\bar D$ & 502 MeV & 0.574& \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c{\bar D}^*$ & 778 MeV &3 & \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Sigma^*_c\bar D$ & --- MeV & 0& \\
\hline
$P_c\rightarrow J/\Psi p$ & 809 MeV & 0.085& \\
\hline
Total width & & 4.66&\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab_4440}
\end{table}%
\end{widetext}
\begin{widetext}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Pentaquark $P_c(4457)[\frac 12\frac32^-]_1$ decay widths in units of $\Gamma$}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
Decay mode & Final momentum (MeV) & Width \\
\hline
\hline
$P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c\bar D$ & 801 MeV & 0.68& \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Sigma_c\bar D$ & 537 MeV & 0.409& \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c{\bar D}^*$ & 801 MeV &2.04 & \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Sigma^*_c\bar D$ & --- MeV & 0& \\
\hline
$P_c\rightarrow J/\Psi p$ & 828 MeV & 0.043& \\
\hline
Total width & & 3.172&\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab_4457}
\end{table}%
\end{widetext}
\begin{widetext}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Pentaquark $P_c(4312)[\frac 12\frac12^-]_1$ decay widths in units of $\Gamma$}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
Decay mode & Final momentum (MeV) & Width \\
\hline
\hline
$P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c\bar D$ & 571 MeV & 1.22 & \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Sigma_c\bar D$ & --- MeV & 0& \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c{\bar D}^*$ & 571 MeV &3.66& \\
$P_c\rightarrow \Sigma^*_c\bar D$ & --- MeV & 0& \\
\hline
$P_c\rightarrow J/\Psi p$ & 658MeV & 0.014& \\
\hline
Total width & & 4.894&\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab_4312}
\end{table}%
\end{widetext}
\begin{widetext}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Pentaquark $P_b(11163)[[\frac 12\frac12^-]_0/[\frac 12\frac12^-]_1/[\frac 12\frac32^-]_1]$ decay widths in units of $\Gamma$}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
Decay mode & Final momentum (MeV) & Width \\
\hline
\hline
$P_b\rightarrow \Lambda_b\bar B$ & 1206 MeV & 2.38/3.96/1.58& \\
$P_b\rightarrow \Sigma_b\bar B$ & 640 MeV &1.21/2.01/1.81 \\
$P_b\rightarrow \Lambda_b{\bar B}^*$ & 1260 MeV & 7.14/11.9/4.76& \\
$P_b\rightarrow \Sigma^*_b\bar B$ & --- MeV &0& \\
\hline
$P_b\rightarrow \Upsilon p$ & 1310MeV & 0.006/0.002/0.002& \\
\hline
Total width & & 10.76/17.87/8.15&\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab_widthb}
\end{table}%
\end{widetext}
\section{Conclusions}~\label{CONCLUSION}
In leading order in the heavy quark mass $m_H$, the holographic construction predicts three heavy pentaquark states with the
assignments $[\frac 12\frac 12^-]_{S=0,1}$ and $[\frac 12\frac 32^-]_{S=1}$~\cite{Liu:2017xzo,Liu:2017frj}, which are BPS, degenerate and stable by
heavy quark symmetry. In this limit, the heavy-light $[0^-,1^-]=[D, D^*]$ multiplet binds democratically to an instanton core in bulk with equal
spin and isospin. The core is stable by dual gauge-gravity interactions, and the ensuing dynamics has manifest chiral and heavy quark symmetries.
The construction has very few parameters (three) with no need for ad-hoc form factors.
The existence of three instead of two pentaquark states as originally reported,
is compatible with the recent re-analysis by the LHCb collaboration~\cite{Aaij:2019vzc}, although the quantum number assignments are yet
to be identified experimentally.
The newly reported $P_c(4337)$~\cite{LHCb:2021chn} state appears too low and narrow for an excited holographic pentaquark state $P^*$ candidate~\cite{Liu:2017frj,Liu:2021tpq}. We also
expect the chiral pentaquark doublers following from the addition of
the mirror multiplet $[0^+,1^+]=[\tilde D, \tilde D^*]$~\cite{Nowak:1992um,Bardeen:2003kt,Liu:2016kqx},
to be more massive and even unbound.
We have shown how to systematically organize the spin corrections using the holographic bound state approach to the
pentaquark states, away from the heavy quark mass limit. To order $1/m_H$, spin effects lift the mass degeneracy through spin-orbit effects~\cite{Liu:2021tpq},
and the pentaquark states undergo strong decays in channels with open and hidden charm (bottom).
We have explicitly derived the spin induced vertices and used them to construct the pertinent transition amplitutes and form factors. Some
of the transition form factors, e.g. $\gamma +p\rightarrow P_c$ may be accessible to precision photo- or electro-excitations of
Pentaquarks~\cite{Wang:2015jsa,Kubarovsky:2015aaa,Karliner:2015voa} as currently pursued at JLab~\cite{Meziani:2020oks}.
The transition couplings and form factors drive the strong decay widths of both charm
and bottom pentaquarks, which are tied by symmetry to a single decay mode say $P_c\rightarrow \Lambda_c+\bar D$.
In particular, the partial widths of the three pentaquark states are found to satisfy model independent ratios,
whenever allowed by kinematics.
These observations carry to the bottom pentaquark states as well.
The holographic analysis of the pentaquark states with hidden charm and bottom is extemely predictive and thus falsifiable.
\vskip 1cm
{\bf Acknowledgements}
This work is supported by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG-88ER40388,
and by the Polish National Science Centre (NCN) Grant UMO- 2017/27/B/ST2/01139.
|
\section{Introduction}
Before 1998, it was ordinarily anticipated that the Universe is either in the expanded phase with a constant rate or the expansion of
the Universe was diminishing. In 1998, the unexpected revelation of the Universe that there is an accelerated expansion in the Universe
based on SNIa (type Ia supernova) pushed the researchers to revise the numerous cosmological model introduced so far. At present time
existing accelerated enlargement of the cosmos is a debatable issue for physicists. Through the last three decades, the newest verdicts
on the observational area by numerous cosmic missions like observations on large scale structure (LSS) analysis \cite{ref1,ref2},
Chandra X-ray observatory \cite{ref3}, BOSS collaboration\cite{ref4}, type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) \cite{ref5}$-$\cite{ref9}, WMAP
collaboration \cite{ref10}, SDSS collaboration \cite{ref11,ref12}, the Hubble space telescope cluster supernova survey $V$ \cite{ref13},
CMBR fluctuations \cite{ref14,ref15}, latest Planck collaboration results \cite{ref16}, and the WiggleZ dark energy survey \cite{ref17},
confirms that our Universe is undergoing by an accelerated expansion mode. Before emerging in the late-time and current, accelerated era,
the universe experienced an early-time accelerated phase, accompanied by the matter-dominated and the sequence of radiation represented
by the concordance paradigm of cosmology. Because of additional degree(s) of license seem to be significantly demanded, hence, the two
accelerated phases cannot be undoubtedly expressed through the standard model of particle physics and general relativity.On another side,
certain extra degrees can be assigned for liberty to new, alien frames of matter, collectively termed as dark energy (DE)\cite{ref18,ref19,ref20}.
The basic applicant for dynamical DE are phantom $(\omega <-1)$ \cite{ref21}, quintessence $(-1 < \omega < -1/3)$ \cite{ref22,ref23} (see \cite{ref24}
for detailed review), quintom \cite{ref25} etc. Time, scale factor or redshift are the functions of the equation of state (EoS) of dynamical
DE \cite{ref26,ref27}. On the other hand, from a transformed data of gravitation that adds general relativity (GR) as a low-energy absolute
originates through the analysis of the gravitational origin \cite{ref28,ref29,ref30,ref31,ref32}.\\
To illustrate the prevailing accelerated enlargement of the cosmos, freshly, an exceptional concern has been held during the search of
the holographic dark energy paradigm \cite{ref33,ref34,ref35,ref36,ref37,ref38,ref39,ref40,ref41,ref42,ref43,ref44} in the light of holographic
principle \cite{ref18,ref45,ref46,ref47} by determining and delineating the conventional holographic energy density as
$\rho_{D}= 3c^{2}M^{2}_{pl}L^{-2}$,here, $c$ is a mathematical constant that depends on the entropy- area association of black holes \cite{ref33}.
Latterly, a latest THDE model by transforming standard THDE as $S_{\delta}= \gamma A^{\delta}$, here $\gamma$ is an obscure constant and
$\delta$ portrays the parameter of non- additivity, which adds including studied, called Tsallis holographic dark energy (THDE)\cite{ref48},
practicing Tsallis generalized entropy \cite{ref49}, with Hubble horizon in the light of the IR cutoff, in juncture through the thermodynamic
analyses \cite{ref50,ref51}.\\
At the limit of $\gamma = 1/4G$ and $\delta = 1$ ( where $h = k_{B} = c = 1$ in units) Bekenstein entropy is redeemed. The method can be
particularized by the conventional probability occurrence and the power-law allocation of probability display ineffective at this limit
\cite{ref49}. In courses of effects in the cosmological and holographic situation, opens a surplus of possibilities
\cite{ref50,ref51,ref52,ref53,ref54} and the quantum gravity too asserts this relation \cite{ref19}. It resembles the
holographic postulate which repeats that the number of degrees of range of a physical system should be in a phalanx with bounding area,
not with its capacity \cite{ref45,ref46} and this should be compelled by an IR cutoff. A similarity linked cutoffs with UV
($\Lambda$), the IR ($L$) and the system entropy ($S$) is formed by Cohen et al. \cite{ref33}, $L^{3} \Lambda^{3}\leq S^{\frac{3}{4}}$,
which after combining with $S_{\delta}= \gamma A^{\delta}$, leads to \cite{ref33} $\Lambda^{4} \leq (\gamma(4\pi)^{\delta})L^{2\delta-4}$,
where $\Lambda^{4}$ renders the energy density of DE ($\rho_{D}$) and the vacuum energy density, in the THDE formulas. The THDE as
$\rho_{T} = CL^{2\delta-4}$ by the application of this inequality, where $C$ is an undefined parameter\cite{ref41,ref42,ref50}. The above
expression gives the standard THDE with $C= 3c^{2}M_{p}^{2}$ and $c^{2}$, the modal parameter. The IR cutoff is a fit candidate to the
Hubble horizon, so we have acknowledged a flat FRW universe. In this state ($H^{-1} = L $). $L$ is the inevitable horizon applied near
THDE, a harmonious formulation of THDE, is furnished, in \cite{ref55}. In non-interacting and interacting both the states, the dynamics of
the FRW flat universe is reviewed \cite{ref56,ref57,ref58}. Several authors \cite{ref58a,ref58b,ref58c,ref58d,ref58e} have recently investigated
the different scenario of THDE models.
\\
The present and early stages of the universe were extensively considered as a good approach for the spatially isotropic and homogeneous,
FRW model. The new experimental tests and logical arguments like Planks collaboration \cite{ref59}, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
\cite{ref60,ref61} and Cosmic Background Explorers(COBE) \cite{ref62}, confirm the presence concerning an anisotropic state that resembles
an isotropic unit. Consequently, the appearance of dark energy to follow the models of the universe with an anisotropic background makes a
real thought. These best and mildest anisotropic ideals are Bianchi type models, which notwithstanding slightly and effectively express the
anisotropic consequences. Though Bianchi's model universe is anisotropic yet by cosmological outlook, in an ancient epoch, the universe might
seem anisotropic and also in the route of its progression, certain aspects might rub out on following the act of any manners or tools, appearing
in the universe which is anisotropic and homogeneous.\\
In this research, we have interestingly examined the perfect cosmic model which is anisotropic and spatially homogeneous in the
attendance of a winning bulky scalar field in the preparation of B-III space-time in $f(R, T)$ gravity. These anisotropic plus
homogeneous nature of the Bianchi model plays a critical role and is very useful in the presence of the universe
on a grand scale. In literature, various researchers have investigated these models by different aspects in detail
\cite{ref63,ref64,ref65,ref66,ref67,ref68,ref69,ref70,ref71}. In the universe Bianchi type-III model loaded with the matter.
New holographic dark energy in B- III universe including k-essence, HDE model of B-III amidst quintessence and new HDE components
are being reviewed \cite{ref72,ref73}. \\
Being motivated by these facts, we have read in this writing about THDE (Tsallis holographic dark energy model) with time-dependent
deceleration parameter under Bianchi-III model. The writing is served as: In Section $2$, the field equations and metric for the THDE
model is exhibited. In Section $3$, we have found Model's physical properties and solutions. EoS parameter, deceleration parameter, and
statefinder parameters are also defined in section $3$. Conformity among the scalar field model of quintessence and THDE Model are best
illustrated in Section $4$. Section $5$ illustrates the distance cosmology- Luminosity distance, Angular-diameter distance and Distance
modulus. In Section 6, we have presented the conclusion of our results.\\
\section{The Field Equations and Metric }
The anisotropic and contiguous compatible Bianchi type-III metric defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
ds^2 = dt^2 - A^2 dx^2 - e^{2mx} B^2 dy^2 - C^2 dz^2 ,
\end{equation}
where functions of cosmic time (t) are taken as $A$, $B$, and $C$. This specimen m is a tyrannical positive constant in the space-time.
Einstein's field equations of general relativity (in gravitational entireties c~=~8$\pi$G~=~1) presented as to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
R_{ij} - \frac{1}{2} Rg_{ij} = - (\bar{T}_{ij}+T_{ij
}),
\end{equation}
here the metric tensor is presented as $g_{ij}$, Ricci scalar is with R and the Ricci tensor is by $R_{ij} $. $\bar{T}_{ij}$ including $T_{ij}$ are
the energy-momentum tensors about THDE and matter, sequentially, and they are marked as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq3}
{T_{ij} = \rho_M u_i u_j} ~~ and ~~ {\bar{T}_{ij} = (\rho_T + p_T) u_i u_j - g_{ij} p_T} ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_M$ and $\rho_T$ are matter and THDE densities of energy, severally, and $p_T$ is the THDE pressure. The four-velocity
vector $u^i$ is deemed to perform $u^iu_i$=1. Hither, we reflect the density of energy THDE in general relativity as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4}
\rho_T = \alpha H^{(-2\delta + 4)}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\alpha$ moreover $\delta$ are constants which need to provide the confinements inflicted by the recent observational data and
$H$ is the Hubble parameter.\\
In a comoving coordinate policy, for Bianchi type-III space-time (\ref{eq1}), the Einstein's field equations (\ref{eq2}) with the help of
Eq. (\ref{eq3}) finally begin to the next way of equalizations:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq5}
\frac{\ddot C}{C}+\frac{\ddot B}{B}+\frac{\dot B \dot C}{BC} = -\omega_T \rho_T,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq6}
\frac{\ddot A}{A}+\frac{\dot A \dot C}{AC}+\frac{\ddot C}{C} = -\omega_T \rho_T,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{7}
\frac{\ddot A}{A}+\frac{\dot A \dot B}{AB}+\frac{\ddot B}{B}-\frac{m^{2}}{A^{2}} = -\omega_T \rho_T ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq8}
\frac{\dot A \dot B}{AB}+\frac{\dot A \dot C}{AC}+\frac{\dot C \dot B}{CB}-\frac{m^2}{A^2} = \rho_M + \rho_T,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq9}
\frac{\dot B}{B}-\frac{\dot A}{A}=0,
\end{equation}
where $\omega_T = \frac{p_T}{\rho_T}$ is the equation of state (EoS) parameter of THDE and a hanging dot indicates differentiation
concerning vast time t.\\
We obtain on integrating Eq. (\ref{eq9}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq10}
B c{_1} = A,
\end{equation}
wherever ${c_1}$ is an integrating constant and, without any deterioration of generality, we take ${c_1}= 1$, so that we got\\
\begin{equation}
\label{eq11}
B = A.
\end{equation}
The field Eqs. (\ref{eq5}) to (\ref{eq8}) will reduce in view of Eq. (\ref{eq11}), to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq12}
\frac{\ddot C}{C}+\frac{\dot B \dot C}{BC}+\frac{\ddot B}{B} =- \omega_{T} \rho_{T}= -p_{T},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq13}
\frac{\dot A \dot C}{AC}+\frac{\ddot A}{A}+\frac{\ddot C}{C} = -\omega_T \rho_T = -p_T,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq14}
\frac{2\ddot A}{A}+\frac{\dot A^2}{A^2}-\frac{m^{2}}{A^{2}} = -p_T ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq15}
\frac{\dot A^2}{A^2}+\frac{2\dot A \dot C}{AC}-\frac{m^2}{A^2} = \rho_M + \rho_T.
\end{equation}
The equation of energy conservation $(T_{ij}+\bar{T_ij})_{;j} = 0$ can be achieved as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq16}
\dot{\rho_M}+\left(\frac{2\dot A}{A}+\frac{\dot C}{C}\right)\rho_M+\dot{\rho_T}+\left(\frac{2\dot A}{A}+\frac{\dot C}{C}\right)(1+\omega_T)\rho_T = 0.
\end{equation}
Here, an insignificant intercommunication is assumed by us between THDE and matter. Henceforth, they keep separately as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq17}
\dot{\rho_M}+\left(\frac{\dot C}{C}+\frac{2\dot A}{A}\right)\rho_M = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq18}
\dot{\rho_T}+\left(\frac{2\dot A}{A}+\frac{\dot C}{C}\right)(1+\omega_T)\rho_T = 0,
\end{equation}
On differentiate Eq. (\ref{eq4})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq19}
\rho_T = \alpha (-2\delta+4)\dot{H} H^{-2\delta+3}.
\end{equation}
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq4}) and (\ref{eq19}) in (\ref{eq18}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq20}
\dot{\omega}_{T} = \frac{p_{T}}{\rho_{T}} = -1 + \frac{(2\delta-4)\dot{H}}{3 H^2}.
\end{equation}
Now, some essential assets of Bianchi type-III Universe are proffered by us, which is helpful to study the phylogeny of the Universe.
The average scale factor ($a$), the volume ($V$), Hubble's parameter ($H$), the scalar expansion $(\theta$), the deceleration parameter ($q$),
shear scalar $(\sigma^2)$, and anisotropy parameter $(\Delta)$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq21}
a = (CAB)^ {1/3},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq22}
V = a^3 = ABC,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq23}
H = \frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\dot A}{A}+\frac{\dot C}{C}+\frac{\dot B}{B}\right) = \frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\dot C}{C}+\frac{2\dot A}{A}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq24}
\theta = \left(\frac{\dot B}{B}+\frac{\dot A}{A}+\frac{\dot C}{C}\right) = \left(\frac{\dot C}{C}+\frac{2\dot A}{A}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq25}
q = -\frac{a \ddot a}{\dot a^2} = -1-\frac{\dot H}{H^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq26}
\sigma^2 = \frac{1}{2} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{3} H_i ^2 - \frac{\theta^2}{3}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq27}
\Delta = \frac{1}{3}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left(\frac{\Delta H_i}{H}\right)^2,
\end{equation}
where $H_i$ shows the directional Hubble parameters along with $x$, $y$ and $z$ directions and $\Delta H_i$ = $H_i - H$ (i=1,2,3) respectively.
\section{Fitting hybrid expansion law and solutions in our model }
We have five unknown parameters $C$, $A$, $\rho_T$, $p_T$ and $\rho_M$ including three independent field equations (\ref{eq12})-(\ref{eq15}). Brace
supplementary confinements linking to certain parameters are needed to secure exact solutions of this scheme.\\
In beginning, we believe that in the model the expansion scalar $(\theta)$ is proportionate to shear scalar $(\sigma)$ \cite{ref74,ref75},
which addresses the correlation among the metric potentials as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq28}
C = A^n
\end{equation}
wherever $n \ne 1$ takes charge of the anisotropy of the Universe being a positive constant. \\
To provide exponent or power law, a constant deceleration parameter and therein references \cite{ref76}$-$\cite{ref79} has been practiced
in the research. In the viewpoint of current observations of Planck Collaboration \cite{ref16}, SNIa (Type Ia supernova) \cite{ref5}$-$\cite{ref9},
and WMAP collaboration \cite{ref10,ref80,ref81}, the necessity of a time-dependent deceleration parameter is discussed in the introduction
that defines expanded acceleration at present and expanded deceleration at past, hence there must be a shift from decelerated to acceleration
phase in the Universe. In signature, the shift must be presented in the deceleration parameter \cite{ref82}$-$\cite{ref84}.\\
A well-motivated ansatz first acknowledged through Abdussattar and Prajapati \cite{ref85} is viewed by us presently that restricts the
functional structure of $q$ ( the deceleration parameter) as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq29}
q=\frac{ n k}{(t+ k)^{2}}-1,
\end{equation}
here $n>0$ (dimensionless) and $k>0$ (square of time's dimension) are constants. We discern $q=0$ while $t=\sqrt{k n}-k$ for such solution of
scale factor. For $t>\sqrt{k n}-k$, we obtain $q<0$ (i.e. accelerated expansion) and for $t<\sqrt{k n}-k$, we receive $q>0$
(i.e. decelerated expansion). On integrating Eq. (\ref{eq25}), we obtain the scale factor as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq30}
a(t)=c_2 \exp\int\frac{dt}{\int (q+1)dt+c_1},
\end{equation}
where $c_1, c_2$ are integrating constants.\\
To obtain the scale factor, selecting suitable values of the constants ($c_{2}=1$ and $c_{1}=n$) with the help of (\ref{eq29}), one can integrate
Eq. (\ref{eq30})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq31}
a(t)=t^{\beta} \exp(\gamma t ),
\end{equation}
where $\beta > 0$ and $\gamma > 0$ are constants.\\
With the modernization of scalar field of observational constraints, Akarsu {\it et al.} \cite{ref86} applied HEL(hybrid expansion law)
and the history of cosmology. HEL with integrating cosmic fluid was used by Avil$e'$s {\it et al.} \cite{ref87}. For resolving distinct cosmological
issues in the theory of GR and $f(R, T)$ gravity, numerous authors have studied HEL \cite{ref88}$-$\cite{ref94a}. Moraes {\it et al.} \cite{ref96}
and Moraes \cite{ref95}, also did some research. Lately, by practicing HEL Moraes and Sahoo \cite{ref97} reviewed the $f(R, T)$ gravity in
non-minimal matter geometry coupling. \\
By Eqs. (\ref{eq11}), (\ref{eq22}), (\ref{eq27}), and (\ref{eq31}) we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq32}
B = A = (e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta})^\frac{3}{n+2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq33}
C = (e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta})^\frac{3n}{n+2}
\end{equation}
Hence, with the use of Eqs. (\ref{eq32}) and (\ref{eq33}) the model (\ref{eq1}) is reduced to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq34}
ds^2 = dt^2 - (e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta})^\frac{6}{n+2} [dx^2 - e^{2mx} dy^2] - (e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta})^\frac{6n}{n+2} dz^2.
\end{equation}
On differentiating Eqs. (\ref{eq32}) and (\ref{eq33}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq35}
\dot A = \dot B = \frac{3}{n+2}\left(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t}\right) \left(e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta}\right)^\frac{3}{n+2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq36}
\dot C = \frac{3n}{n+2}\left( \frac{\beta}{t}\gamma+\gamma \right) \left(e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta}\right)^\frac{3n}{n+2}
\end{equation}
From Eqs. (\ref{eq32}), (\ref{eq33}), (\ref{eq35}) and (\ref{eq36}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq37}
H_x = \frac{\dot A}{A} = \frac{3}{n+2}\left(\gamma+\frac{\beta}{t}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq38}
H_y = \frac{\dot B}{B} = \frac{3}{n+2}\left(\gamma+\frac{\beta}{t}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq39}
H_z = \frac{\dot C}{C} = \frac{3n}{n+2}\left(\gamma+\frac{\beta}{t}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq40}
H = \gamma + \frac{\beta}{t}.
\end{equation}
For the present universe $H_{0} = 0.73$ with $q_{0} = -0.54$ (Giostri {\it et al.} \cite{ref98}), Eqs. (\ref{eq40}) and (\ref{eq54}) help to find the
relation between the constants $\beta$ and $\gamma$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq41}
2505.3624 ~\beta =5446.44 + \gamma^{2} - 147.6~ \gamma
\end{equation}
On putting $\gamma = 1$ and $0.5$ in Eq. (\ref{eq41}), we get $\beta = 2.1154$, and $2.1445$ respectively.\\
Eqs. (\ref{eq24}) and (\ref{eq40}) reduce to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq42}
\theta = 3 H = 3\left(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t}\right)
\end{equation}
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq37}), (\ref{eq38}), and (\ref{eq30}) in (\ref{eq26}) and (\ref{eq27}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq43}
\sigma^2 = 3\left(\frac{n-1}{n+2}\right)^2 \left(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t}\right)^2
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq44}
\Delta = 2 \left(\frac{n-1}{n+2}\right)^2
\end{equation}
Differentiate Eq. (\ref{eq40}), we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq45}
\dot H = - \frac{\beta}{t^2}
\end{equation}
From Eqs. (\ref{eq22}) and (\ref{eq31}) we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq46}
V = t^{3\beta} e^{3\gamma t}
\end{equation}
For our model, the redshift parameter ($z$) can be written as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq47}
z = \frac{a_0}{ t^\beta e^{\gamma t}} - 1
\end{equation}
Here at z=0, $a_0$ is the existing value of the scalar factor.
From Eqs. (\ref{eq42})-(\ref{eq46}), we perceive that at the primary period the spatial volume V is zero (i.e. at $t=0$)
and the additional parameters $\sigma$, $H$, and $\theta$ deviate at this era, $\theta$, $\sigma$, and $H$ all tend to zero if
t$\to$ $\infty$, spatial volume V$\to$ $\infty$. Hence the model springs evolving at zero volume with an infinite rate of expansion
and through the development of model this expansion pace slows down. As $\Delta$ = constant $\neq$ 0 and the isotropy state
$\frac{\sigma}{\theta}$ = consistent $\neq$ 0 for $n \neq 1$, in the evolution the model is anisotropic.\\
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq4}) and (\ref{eq40}), we found
\begin{equation}
\label{eq48}
\rho_T = \alpha \left( \gamma + \frac{\beta}{t} \right)^{-2\delta+4}
\end{equation}
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq35}), (\ref{eq36}) in (\ref{eq17}) and then by integrating, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq49}
\rho_M = \frac{d_1}{t^{3\beta} e^{3\gamma t}}
\end{equation}
where $d_1 \neq 0$ is a constant of integration. \\
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Plot of energy density of THDE $(\rho_{T})$ at variance with cosmic time ($t$) for $\alpha = 3$, $\beta = 2.1154$,
$\gamma = 1$, $\delta = 0.05,0.5,1 ~ and~1.02 $}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Plot of energy density of matter $(\rho_{M})$ at variance with cosmic time ($t$) for $\beta = 2.1154, 2.1445$,
$\gamma = 1, 0.5$, $d_{1}=1$}
\end{figure}
From Eqs. (\ref{eq49}) and (\ref{eq48}), we discern that the matter's energy density is a limiting function of $t$, while the energy density
of THDE is a decreasing or increasing function depend upon $\delta$. We have framed them against time, as shown in Figs. $1$ and $2$, to
explain the definite nature of $\rho_M$ and $\rho_T$. Hereabouts, we contemplate the arbitrary constants $\alpha = 3$, $\beta = 2.1154$ and
$\gamma = 1$. It can be noticed that $\rho_T$ is decreasing for all the values of $\delta$ $(\delta < 2)$, while $\rho_M$ is clipping through
the progression of a model for $\beta$ and $\gamma$. Interestingly, we have noticed that the THDE's energy density does not fade, whereas
the energy density of matter disappears during the evolution for enough long values of the time. The dynamic results of this analysis intimate
that the lowering of the energy density of THDE worrying for $t$ traverses the volume extension of the Universe.\\
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig3.eps}
\caption{The plot of energy density parameter $\Omega$ concerning cosmic time ($t$) for $\alpha = 3$, $\beta = 2.1154$, $\gamma = 1$,
$\delta = 1.02 $}
\end{figure}
The matter density ($\Omega_M$) and THDE density ($\Omega_T$) parameter are presented severally, by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq50}
\Omega_M = \frac{\rho_M}{3 H^2} = \frac{d_1}{3 e^{3\gamma t} t^{3\beta}\left(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t}\right)^{2}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq51}
\Omega_T = \frac{\rho_T}{3 H^2} = \frac{\alpha}{3}\left(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t}\right)^{-2\delta+2}
\end{equation}
We find overall density parameter by Eqs. (\ref{eq50}) and (\ref{eq51}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq52}
\Omega = \Omega_M + \Omega_T = \frac{d_1}{3 e^{3\gamma t} t^{3\beta}\left(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t}\right)^2} + \frac{\alpha}{3}
\left(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t}\right)^-2\delta+2
\end{equation}
Figure $3$ illustrates the nature of overall density parameter $(\Omega)$, density parameter of THDE $(\Omega_{T})$ and matter
$(\Omega_{M})$ at variance with cosmic time $t$. It is presented in Fig. $3$ that for late times overall density parameter $(\Omega)$
approaches $1$. Accordingly, our THDE model prophesies an adequately large time that the anisotropy will damp out, and the Universe will
display isotropic. The outcomes received are considerably related to the outcome got by Samanta and Mishra \cite{ref99}, where they obtained
in their text that the Universe resembles isotropy for an amply wide time. Additionally, during $\delta = 1.02$, the density parameter shows
an almost similar style to this event.
\subsection{EoS parameter}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
4(a)\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig4.eps}~~~
4(b)\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig5.eps}
\caption{Plot of EoS $(\omega_{T})$ for cosmic time ($t$) and redshift ($z$) respectively, when $\beta = 2.1154$, $\gamma = 1$,
$\delta = 0.05, 0.5, 1$~ and ~$1.02$}
\end{figure}
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq40}), (\ref{eq45}) in (\ref{eq30}), the Eos parameter of THDE is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq53}
\omega_T = -1 - \frac{\beta(2\delta - 4)}{3(\gamma t + \beta)^2}
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{eq53}) shows the EoS parameter of the model. From Fig. $4$, it can be seen that the EoS parameter of THDE model is time-dependent
and converges to $\omega_T \to -1$ with an increase in time. The figure displays the progression of the THDE EoS parameter $\omega_T$ at
variance with infinite time $t$. This can be perceived that $\omega_T$ of the model diversifies in the quintessence field (-1$< \omega_T < -1/3$)
during its evolving nature for all three different values of $\delta$. Furthermore, it can be seen that the EoS parameter resembles the
$\Lambda$CDM model ($\omega_T = -1$) in eternity. This intimates that at more miniature charges of cosmic time $t$, the form has a more
prominent accelerating impact.
\subsection{Deceleration parameter}
In this model, the deceleration parameter is received by applying Eqs. (\ref{eq40}) and (\ref{eq45}) in Eq. (\ref{eq25}), we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq54}
q = -1 + \frac{\beta}{(\gamma t + \beta)^2}
\end{equation}
this works as a sign of this presence of buildup of the model. The model decelerates conventionally if q$>0$, while the $q<0$ model
designates inflation. From (\ref{eq54}), we witness that $q>0$ toward t$<\frac{\sqrt{\beta} - \beta}{\gamma}$ and $q<0$ for
t$>\frac{\sqrt{\beta} - \beta}{\gamma}$. In this span of $-1\leq q <0$, the value of DP lies and, the Universe is accelerating these
observations is exposed by SNe Ia recently. Fig. 5 portrays the DP at variance with $t$ for different alternatives of $\beta and \gamma$
in such a way that in recent researches, DP is in good compliance. Fig. $5$ points out that q reduces from positive to negative zone plus
eventually points to $-1$. To read the nature of DP at variance with cosmic time $t$, we have framed $q$ in terms of $t$ in Fig. $5a$.
For all the preferences of parameter $\gamma$,~$\beta$, the model flaunts a shift from the decelerated phase to an accelerated epoch.
Earlier, the model enters into an accelerated phase for the bigger values of $\delta$.\\
Accordingly, our model is occurring to the modern accelerating scenario from an initial decelerating phase of the universe and from
various experiments the observational data is consistent for the values of DP \cite{ref5,ref6}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
5(a)\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig6.eps}~~~
5(b)\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig7.eps}
5(c)\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig8.eps}~~~
\caption{5(a), (b) \& (c) are plots of $q$ versus $t$, $q$ versus $z$ and $t$ versus $z$ respectively
for $\beta = 2.1154,2.1445$, $\gamma = 1,0.5$}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Statefinder parameters}
To paraphrase or catch the cosmic acceleration many more DE models are being erected. To discriminate amid these competing cosmological
synopses implicating DE, a fine-tuned and sturdy diagnostic for DE figures is a necessity. The nominal "statefinder" was founded by
Sahni {\it et al.} \cite{ref101}. To fulfill one goal of a diagnostic scheme that presents usage of parameters pair {r,s}. Statefinder examines
the increased dynamics of the Universe by higher derivatives of the increase factor and is an actual next level behind \textit{H} and $q$.
The statefinder diagnostic is a beneficial way of identifying DE models, considering various cosmological models requiring DE to exhibit
qualitative distinct evolutionary plots in the r-s plane. The parameters of statefinder resemble to {$r=1$, $s=1$}
to the spatially flat TCDM model. The statefinder duo {r,s} can arise as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq55}
r = \frac{\dddot a }{a h^3}, s = \frac{r-1}{3(q-\frac{1}{2})}
\end{equation}
On differentiate Eq. (\ref{eq31}) thrice, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq56}
\dddot a = 3 \gamma^2 \beta e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta-1} + 3\gamma\beta(\beta-1) e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta-2} + \beta(\beta-1)
(\beta-2)e^{\gamma t} t^{\beta-3} + \gamma^3 e^{\gamma t} t^\beta
\end{equation}
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq31}), (\ref{eq40}) and (\ref{eq56}) in (\ref{eq55}), we found
\begin{equation}
\label{eq57}
r = \frac{\frac{3 \gamma^2 \beta}{t} + \frac{3\gamma \beta^2}{t^2} + \frac{\beta^3}{t^3} - \frac{3\gamma\beta}{t^2} - \frac{3\beta^2}{t^3} +
\frac{2\beta}{t^3} + \gamma^3}{(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t})^3}
\end{equation}
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq54}) and (\ref{eq57}) in (\ref{eq55}), we found
\begin{equation}
\label{eq58}
s = \frac{\frac{-3 \gamma \beta}{t^2} - \frac{3{\beta}^2}{t^3} + \frac{2\beta}{t^3}}{3(\gamma + \frac{\beta}{t})^{3}\left[\frac{-3}{2} +
\frac{\beta}{\left(\gamma t + \beta\right)^2}\right]}
\end{equation}
From Eq. (\ref{eq58}), The contents of statefinder set ultimately based on the states of $t$ and fixed $\beta$ and $\gamma$ that
is very fascinating to remark. It is known that cosmic time ($t$) persists to infinity when the statefinder pair presents $r=1$ and $s=0$.
This reinforced that our THDE model would accord beside the flat $\Lambda$CDM rule in eternity.
\section{Conformity Among the Scalar Field Model of Quintessence and THDE Model}
With negative pressure, Quintessence is a dynamical, emerging and spatially inhomogeneous component. The key ideas to examine
quintessence as one of the nominees of DE are as follows:
(i) Shows elementary physics for different connotations.
(ii) This reveals the cosmic event query
(iii) That suits the observational data strongly than the cosmological constant
(iv) the innovative picture of the overall memoir of the universe is recommended.\\
Unlike the quintessential pressure, energy density and a cosmological constant evolve with time, followed by the EoS parameter.
The energy density of quintessence shows a general principle connected with a scalar field $\phi$ leisurely twirling down a potential
$V(\phi)$. In the quintessence principles of DE, the potential energy of the dynamical field has discovered the acceleration in the
scale factor led to as the quintessence field.\\
For the quintessence scalar field model, the pressure and energy density is supplied
\begin{equation}
\label{eq59}
\rho_{de} = \frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2} + V(\phi); ~~ p_{de} = \frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2} - V(\phi)
\end{equation}
which gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq60}
\dot{\phi}^2 = \rho_{de} + p_{de};~~ V(\phi) = \frac{\rho_{de} - p_{de}}{2} =\frac{ (1-\omega_{de})\rho_{de}}{2}
\end{equation}
By taking $\rho_{de}$=$\rho_T$ and $p_{de}$=$p_T$,we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq61}
\phi = \sqrt{\frac{\alpha \beta (4-2\delta)}{3}}\int{\frac{(\gamma t +\beta)^{-\delta+1}}{t^{-\delta+2}}}
\end{equation}
We perceive the potential as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq62}
V(\phi)=\alpha\left(\gamma+\frac{\beta}{t}\right)^{-2\delta+4}\left[1+\frac{\beta(\delta-2)}{3(\gamma t+\beta)^2}\right]
\end{equation}
The quintessence parameter model's EoS parameter
\begin{equation}
\label{eq63}
\omega_{\phi}=\frac{p_T}{\rho_T}=\frac{\dot{\phi}^2-2V{(\phi)}}{\dot{\phi}^2+2V{(\phi)}}=-1-\frac{(2\delta-4)\beta}{3(\gamma t + \beta)^2}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
6(a)\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig9.eps}
6(b)\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig10.eps}
\caption{Plots of scalar field and potential energy for cosmic time $t$ respectively, when $\alpha = 3$, $\beta = 2.1154$,
$\gamma = 1$, $\delta = 0.05,0.5,1$ ~and~$1.02 $}
\end{figure}
The equalization of state parameter for quintessence must be more invisible than$\frac{-1}{3}$. For the accelerated expansion of the universe,
the scalar field $\phi$ and potential $V(\phi)$ of quintessence scalar field model that writes to the B-III THDE model is practiced.
Of Eq. (\ref{eq61}), the scalar field $\phi$ dissolves for liberal values of the time and displays a decreasing function of $t$.
It recognizes from Eq. (\ref{eq62}) that the potential of scalar field $V(\phi)$ converges to $2$ as t$\to$ $\infty$ and
demonstrates decreasing function of time.
\section{Distances in Cosmology}
One of the most fundamental measurements to work is named Distance. Sometimes distance measurement performs remarkably and an essential
part to know about the Universe in the records of cosmology. We have displayed some of the modified distance measures in this section.
We describe the following observational quantities. Such type of studies have recently performed in \cite{ref101,ref102}.
\subsection{Luminosity distance}
Redshift-luminosity distance similarity is the most significant observational device (Carroll et al. \cite{ref103}, Liddle and Lyth \cite{ref104})to
analyze the evolution of the Universe. We obtain the expression for luminosity distance $(d_{L})$ in variance with redshift, while the light
appearing out from a distant luminous body gets redshifted because of the Universe's expansion. With the help of luminosity distance, we restrict
the flux of a source. The aforementioned information is being practiced from \cite{ref105,ref105}, that is presented as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq64}
d_{L} = r~ a_{0}~ (1+z),
\end{eqnarray}
here $r$ is the radial coordinate of the origin. Initially, we examine a ray of light having a radial coordinate. Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq65}
r = \int_{0}^{r} {dr} = \int_{0}^{r}\frac{c~ dt}{a(t)} = \frac{1}{a_{0}} H_{0}\int_{0}^{z}\frac{c~dz}{h(z)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have applied $dt = \frac{dz}{\dot{z}}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq66}
\dot{z} = -H (z+1) ~~~~and~~~~ h(z) = \frac{H}{H_{0}}.
\end{eqnarray}
$H_{0}$ is Hubble parameter's current value and hence we got
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq67}
d_{L} = \frac{c~(1+z)}{H_0} \int_{0}^{z}\frac{dz}{h(z)}.
\end{eqnarray}
By using this expression we got luminosity as;
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq68}
d_{L} = a_{0}~ t^{-\beta} e^{-\gamma t} \int_{0}^{t} c~t^{-\beta} e^{-\gamma t} dt.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig11.eps}
\caption{Variation of Luminosity distance ($d_L$) versus redshift z for $\beta = 2.1154,2.1445$, $\gamma = 1,0.5$}
\end{figure}
Figure 7 demonstrates the luminosity distance versus redshift $z$ for observational values of Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) data in combination
with CMB and BAO observations of ($\beta, \gamma$). Here we find the luminosity distance $d_{L}$ as an increasing function of redshift.
\subsection{Angular-diameter distance}
The angular-diameter distance $d_{A}$ is termed as\\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ $ $\theta = \frac{l}{d_{A}}$,\\
where $\theta$ is the angle transverse by an object of size l. It is also defined in term of $d(z)$ and Luminosity distance as\\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$ $d_{A} = (z+1)^{-1} d(z) = d_{L} (z+1)^{-2}$.\\
For the present model angular-diameter distance is as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{69}
d_{A} = a_{0}~ t^{\beta} e^{\gamma t} \int_{0}^{t} c~t^{-\beta} e^{-\gamma t} dt .
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig12.eps}
\caption{Plot of Angular distance versus redshift $z$ for $\beta = 2.1154,2.1445$, $\gamma = 1,0.5$}
\end{figure}
We have plotted the variation of Angular diameter distance versus redshift $z$ for observational values of Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) data in combination
with CMB and BAO observations of ($\beta, \gamma$) in Fig. $8$. Here we observe that the Angular diameter distance $d_{A}$ increases with the increase of
redshift.
\subsection{Distance modulus}
The distance modulus $(\mu(z))$ can be written as\\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$ $(\mu(z)) = 5\log_{10}(d_{L}) + 25$. \\
In variance with redshift parameter ($z$), the distance modulus $(\mu(z))$ can be received as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq70}
\mu(z) = 25+5~\log_{10}\Bigg( a_{0}~ t^{-\beta} e^{-\gamma t} \int_{0}^{t} c~t^{-\beta} e^{-\gamma t} dt\Bigg).
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=7cm,angle=0]{fig13.eps}
\caption{Plot of Distance modulus versus redshift z for $\beta = 2.1154,2.1445$, $\gamma = 1,0.5$}
\end{figure}
We depict the variation of Distance modulus versus redshift $z$ for observational values of Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) data in combination
with CMB and BAO observations of ($\beta, \gamma$) in Fig. $9$. Here we observe that the Distance modulus $\mu$ is also an increasing function of
redshift.
\section{Conclusions}
In this research, we investigated the nature of the Tsallis holographic dark energy model (THDE) applying Bianchi type-III Universe with
Hubble horizon as IR cut-off. We used two conditions in this research to obtain a deterministic explanation that the expansion scalar ($\theta$)
is proportionate to the shear scalar ($\sigma$) and a hybrid expansion law for the scale factor $a = t^\beta e^{\gamma t}$, where
$\beta>0$, $\gamma>0$. Our research is based on SNIa data in combination with CMB and BAO observations (Giostri et al, JCAP 3, 27 (2012),
arXiv:1203.3213[astro-ph.CO]), the prevailing values of Hubble constant plus deceleration parameter are $H_{0} = 73.8$ and $q_{0} = -0.54$
respectively. Compiling our theoretical models with this data, we obtain $\beta = 2.1445~ \& ~ 2.1154$ for $\gamma = 0.5 ~ \& ~ 1$ respectively.
In this research, we acquire numerous cosmological parameters and examined their evolution for a better description of the Universe's accelerated
expansion.\\
We can see from Fig. 1 that $\rho_T$ decreases for all the values of $\delta$ for $\delta < 2$. Whereas in Fig. 2, $\rho_M$ is clipping
through the progression of a model for $\beta$ and $\gamma$. Surprisingly we noticed that the energy density of THDE does not evolve for
enough long values of time, but the energy density of matter disappears through the evolution. The compelling consequences of this research
close that the lowering of the energy density of THDE for cosmic time crosses the volume extension of the Universe. We plotted the parameter
of overall density $(\Omega)$ in Fig. 3. We noticed that in late time overall density approaches to 1. The research foretells that the anisotropy
will damp out, also the Universe will be isotropic at large time. This result is considered the same as Samanta and Mishra \cite{ref99}, where
they resemble that Universe is isotropy for an amply wide time. The density parameter shows a comparable form to this case for $\delta = 1.02$.
Fig. 4 displays that the EoS parameter increases with time and converges to $\omega_T \to -1$. EoS parameter of the research diversifies
the quintessence field (-1$< \omega_T < -1/3$) through its evolution. The EoS parameter of this research resembles $\Lambda$CDM model
($\omega_T = -1$) in eternity. The form has a more obvious accelerating impact that intimates the little charges of cosmic time.
In Fig. 5, the deceleration parameter reduces from positive to negative zone plus eventually directs to $-1$. The model displays a change
from decelerated phase to accelerated phase. Presently, for bigger values of $\Delta$, the model enters into an accelerated phase.\\
We have shown the conformity among the models of scalar field quintessence and the THDE. Fig. $6$ shows the plot of the scalar field ($\phi$)
and potential ($V(\phi)$) at variance with $t$. The scalar field dissolves for liberal values of cosmic time and shows a decreasing function,
whereas the potential converges to $2$ as t$\to$ $\infty$ and explains the decreasing function of time. \\
We displayed some of the modified distances as Distance modulus, Angular-diameter distance, and Luminosity distance in this research to know
more about the Universe (Figs. $7$, $8$, and $9$). These results are found to be compatible with recent observations. Thus, our developed model
and its solutions are physically acceptable.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank the IUCAA, Pune, India for providing the facility during a visit where a part of this work was completed.
|
\section{Introduction}
Machine Learning (ML) models are developed for various medical imaging tasks. While it is important for ML models to be robust to noisy data, training such models on \lq{}bad data\rq{} with irrelevant or no anatomical structures present in the Field of View (FOV) can harm the model's performance. In this paper, we present a semi-supervised Siamese network that can be implemented as a pre-processing step before medical image analysis to remove bad data. Siamese networks are also known as one-shot classifiers, meaning they can train on a small number of examples of a class and make predictions about unknown class distributions \cite{Kochetal}. We leverage this property to develop a bad data detector that trains on a small sample of good data and identifies many different types of bad data that have not been seen by the model during the training process.
In ML, there are many existing solutions for detecting anomalous data. These include semi-supervised One-Class methods and unsupervised methods such as Isolation Forest \cite{Liu} and Autoencoders \cite{Pangetal}. We demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms Isolation Forests, while training on only a fraction of the data that other methods require. Our method, therefore, reduces training time and the amount of labelling required in comparison to semi-supervised methods.
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\section{Method}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
For this analysis, we used sagittal plane knee MRIs from the open-source MRNet dataset \cite{Bienetal}. \figureref{fig:fig1}(i-ii) illustrates our proposed method. We curated a reference set of MRIs by choosing a random sample of 20 MRIs from the dataset. The labelling process involved a non-expert reviewing the MRIs in the reference set to ensure that the major knee structures were visible in the FOV. Thus, the model trains on only 20 MRIs from one class and it does not require labels for bad data. We choose a size of 20 to minimise the time required for the labelling process. In our experiments, we found that increasing the size of the reference set did not significantly impact the performance. Future work will investigate generalised methods of selecting the optimal reference set.
In each iteration of the training process, two reference MRIs were input into separate models that have an AlexNet architecture and shared weights. The model weights were initialised with weights trained on the ImageNet dataset and all weights were then subsequently trained. The model creates a 1-dimensional feature vector for each of the input MRIs and calculates the Euclidean Distance (ED) between the pair of feature vectors. The model was trained using Contrastive loss which penalises the model for outputting large EDs when comparing MRIs from the reference set. The model was trained with a batch size of one and for a period of six epochs.
Once the model was trained, all MRIs in the test set were input into the model separately. The ED between their output feature vectors and each feature vector in the reference set was calculated and averaged for each MRI. This assigns each MRI a Mean Euclidean Distance (MED) score. Large MED values indicate that the input MRI is dissimilar to the reference set and therefore, the input MRI is likely to be bad data.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\floatconts
{}
{\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figure_paper.png}}
{ \vspace{-0.4cm}\caption{(i) The training process. (ii) The process for calculating the Mean Euclidean Distance (MED) for each MRI. (iii) The mid-slice of MRIs with highest MED values. (iv) Additional bad data examples.}\label{fig:fig1}}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
\section{Results}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\figureref{fig:fig1}(iii) presents the MRIs with the highest Mean Euclidean Distance (MED). This result demonstrates the Siamese network's ability to identify many different types of bad data, none of which the model was trained on. For example, it has identified data that has no visible anatomical information throughout the MRI (rank one and two) and it also identified an MRI from the axial plane that is mistakenly included in the sagittal plane data (rank four). Although rank three and five do show the relevant anatomical information, they are of poor quality and they could be considered for removal from the data set.
Table \ref{tab:results} shows the results for our method and a baseline method, Isolation Forest (IF) on a test set of 739 MRIs. There are seven cases of bad data in the test set.
Baseline implementation and labelling details of the test set are available in the Github repository. The largest ED between pairs of reference MRIs was used as the MED threshold to determine what is classified as bad data. Although the Siamese network was trained on only 4\% of the baseline method's training data, it showed a substantial performance improvement. However, it can be noted that IF is less computationally expensive.
\figureref{fig:fig1}(iv)(A) shows an MRI that we consider to be bad data given that it is acquired from the coronal plane and therefore, it is wrongfully included in the sagittal plane data. This MRI appears highly similar to the MRIs in the reference set and a non-expert human may find it difficult to make a distinction. Both the Siamese network and IF classified this as bad data.
\figureref{fig:fig1}(iv)(B) shows an MRI where the important anatomical information is mostly outside the FOV. IF misclassified this example, while the Siamese network accurately classified it as bad data.
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\floatconts
{tab:results}%
{\caption{Model Performance Comparison}\centering}%
{\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\bfseries Model & \bfseries AUC & \bfseries Sensitivity & \bfseries Specificity \\
Siamese Network (proposed) & 0.989 & 100\% & 89\% \\
Isolation Forest & 0.802 & 71\% & 92\%
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
As part of our analysis, we assessed the sensitivity of the model's performance to the selection of reference MRIs. We ran multiple experiments with randomly sampled reference sets. All experiments had an AUC in the interval (0.983, 0.989). In this work, we have presented a methodology that achieves good performance, identifies a wide variety of bad data and requires only a fraction of the training data that previous methods require. This work has the potential to become a standard pre-processing technique for medical imaging analysis. In future work, we will test our technique on larger publicly available datasets and compare the method to additional baseline methods.
\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\midlacknowledgments{\vspace{-0.2cm} This work was funded by Science Foundation Ireland through the SFI Centre for Research Training in Machine Learning (18/CRT/6183).
This work is supported by the Insight Centre for Data Analytics under Grant Number SFI/12/RC/2289\_P2. }
\vspace{-0.4cm}
|
\section{Communities in sparse random graphs}
\label{sec:intro}
The stochastic block model \citep{Holland83} is an inhomogeneous version of the Erd\H os-R\'enyi random graph model \citep{Erdos59}: vertices belong to communities and edges occur independently with probabilities that depend on the communities of the vertices they connect. If we think of a resulting $n$-vertex random graph $X^n$ as data and the community assignments of the vertices as unobserved, a statistical challenge presents itself regarding estimation of the vertices' community assignments, a task referred to as \emph{community detection} \citep{Girvan02}. The stochastic block model and its generalizations have applications in physics, biology, sociology, image processing, genetics, medicine, logistics, {\it etcetera}\ and are widely employed as canonical models for the study of clustering and community detection \citep{Fortunato10}.
In this paper, we consider sparse versions of the stochastic block model with two communities of unknown sizes (generalizing the so-called planted bi-section model \citep{Abbe18}). The main goal of this paper is to show that for given graph size and confidence level, credible sets for community assignments of high-enough credible level are (or can be enlarged to form) confidence sets. The derivation hinges on lower bounds for the expected posterior probability in (Hamming balls around) the true community assignment. These bounds are also sufficient to show that the posterior recovers community assignments consistently and, in that sense, are comparable to known sharp bounds in the stochastic block model with two equal communities \citep{Massoulie14,Abbe16,Mossel16}.
In subsection~\ref{sub:pbm} we discuss the literature on community detection for the planted bi-section model, focussing on necessary and sufficient conditions for exact and almost-exact recovery with varying degrees of edge sparsity. In subsection~\ref{sub:conclusions} we indicate pointwise which contributions this paper makes.
\subsection{The planted bi-section model}
\label{sub:pbm}
Most interest in the stochastic block model has come from network science and machine learning, in the form of a large number of algorithms that detect communities, with due attention for computational efficiency and scalability to large data sets. From the statistical perspective, algorithms for community detection are estimators for the unobserved community assignment. Estimation methods used for the community detection problem include spectral clustering (see \citep{Krzakala13} and many others), maximization of the likelihood and other modularities \citep{Girvan02,Bickel09,Choi12,Amini13}, semi-definite programming \citep{Hajek16,Guedon16}, and penalized ML detection of communities with minimax optimal mis-classification ratio \citep{Zhang16,Gao17}. More generally, we refer to \citep{Abbe18} and the informative introduction of \citep{Gao17} for extensive bibliographies and a more comprehensive discussion. Bayesian methods have been popular throughout, {\it e.g.}\ the original work \citep{Snijders97}, the work of \citep{Decelle11a,Decelle11b} and, for example, \citep{Suwan16} based on an empirical prior choice. MCMC simulation of posteriors is discussed, for example, in \citep{mcdaid13,Geng19,Jiang21}.
Over the last decade there has also been a great interest in asymptotic lower bounds for edge sparsity that leave consistent community detection (only just) possible as the graph size $n$ grows. Particularly, which conditions on edge probabilities enable estimation of the true community assignments correctly with high probability? (\emph{exact recovery}, see definition~\ref{def:exact}); or correctly for all but a (possibly vanishing) fraction of the vertices with high probability (\emph{almost-exact recovery} with a certain error-rate, see definition~\ref{def:detect}). In \citep{Dyer89,Decelle11a,Decelle11b,Abbe16,Massoulie14,Mossel16} and many other publications, asymptotic limitations on the estimation problem are studied in the context of the so-called \emph{planted bi-section model}, which is a stochastic block model with two equally-sized communities of $n$ vertices each and edge probabilities $p_n$ (within communities) and $q_n$ (between communities).
The planted bi-section model with edge probabilities $p_n=a_n\log(n)/n$, $q_n=b_n\log(n)/n$ and $a_n,b_n=O(1)$ (the so-called Chernoff-Hellinger sparsity phase, in which expected degrees grow logarithmically with $n$) was considered in \citep{Massoulie14,Mossel15,Mossel16,Abbe16}: assuming that $a_n, b_n$ stay bounded away from zero and infinity, the communities in the planted bi-section graph with $2n$ vertices can be \emph{recovered exactly}, if and only if,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mnscritical}
\Bigl(\bigl(\sqrt{a_n}-\sqrt{b_n}\bigr)^2-2\Bigr)\log(n)
+ \log(\log(n))\to \infty,
\end{equation}
(see \citep{Mossel16}). With $p_n=c_n/n$, $q_n=d_n/n$ and $c_n,d_n=o(\log(n))$ (the so-called Kesten-Stigum sparsity phase of the problem, typically with $c_n,d_n=O(1)$ which keeps the expected degree of vertices bounded in the limit), \citep{Decelle11a,Decelle11b} conjectured that almost-exact recovery is possible in the planted bi-section model, if and only if,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:decellescondition}
\frac{(c_n-d_n)^2}{2(c_n+d_n)} > 1.
\end{equation}
Additionally, \citep{Mossel16} prove that almost-exact recovery with a \emph{vanishing} fraction of possible mis-assignments (termed \emph{weak consistency} \citep{Mossel16}) is possible (by any estimator or algorithm), if and only if,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:MNSdetect}
\frac{(c_n-d_n)^2}{2(c_n+d_n)}\to\infty.
\end{equation}
Conditions (\ref{eq:mnscritical})--(\ref{eq:MNSdetect}) are not only there to lower-bound the sparsity of edges in an absolute sense, but also guarantee sufficient separation \citep{Banerjee18} from the Erd\H os-R\'enyi graph ($p_n=q_n$) in which communities are not statistically identifiable.
\subsection{Posterior convergence and confidence sets for
community assignments}
\label{sub:conclusions}
In this paper we continue the study of sparse stochastic block models with two communities, but we generalize the assumption that both communities are of equal sizes; any two sizes that add up to $n$ vertices are permitted. In section~\ref{sec:commrecovery} we derive bounds for exact and almost-exact recovery with posteriors. In the Chernoff-Hellinger phase,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i.)] the condition on edge sparsity for exact recovery is an analogue of condition (\ref{eq:mnscritical}) that takes into account the fact that community sizes are unknown (see corollary~\ref{cor:mnscritical}).
\end{itemize}
In the Kersten-Stigum phase we derive a sharp lower bound for the posterior mass in Hamming balls centred on the true community assignments of radii $k_n\geq a_nn$, leading to a condition that relates edge sparsity and error rates,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KvWcritical}
a_nn\Bigl(\log(a_n)+\frac14(\sqrt{c_n}
-\sqrt{d_n})^2-1\Bigr)\to\infty.
\end{equation}
With~(\ref{eq:KvWcritical}) it is shown:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(ii.)] by how much the lower bound in condition~(\ref{eq:decellescondition}) has to be raised to characterize almost-exact recovery with a non-vanishing fraction of mis-assigned vertices and unknown community sizes (see corollary~\ref{cor:decellescondition});
\item[(iii.)] that the limit (\ref{eq:MNSdetect}) continues characterize almost-exact recovery with a vanishing fraction of mis-assigned vertices when community sizes are unknown (see corollary~\ref{cor:MNSdetect});
\item[(iv.)] that in any situation in which posterior almost-exact recovery with error rates as small as $O(\log(n))$ is possible, the posterior recovers the community assignment exactly (see example~\ref{ex:lognerrorrate}).
\end{itemize}
Calculation, approximation or simulation of a posterior distribution is considered computationally costly; if the statistical goal is only the estimation of the community assignments, more efficient algorithms are known. However, the lack of sampling distributions for said efficient algorithms makes answering more complex statistical questions (like uncertainty quantification and testing of hypotheses) prohibitively hard. The second contribution in this paper is a detailed demonstration that frequentist uncertainty quantification can be based on the posterior distribution \emph{at finite values of the graph size $n$}. More particularly, in section~\ref{sec:pbmuncertainty} it is shown that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(vi.)] posterior exact recovery (as in theorem~\ref{thm:exactrecovery}) permits the interpretation of credible sets as confidence sets, with a lower bound for the credible level in terms of the desired confidence level (see proposition~\ref{prop:exactcredconf});
\item[(vii.)] posterior almost-exact recovery with an error rate $k_n$ (as in theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery}) enables interpretation of $k_n$-enlarged credible sets as confidence sets, again with a lower bound for the credible level in terms of the desired confidence level (see proposition~\ref{prop:almostexactcredconf}).
\end{itemize}
As it turns out, there is no proportionality between a desired confidence level and the required credible level for a credible set (or its enlargement) to be a confidence set of said desired level. The relationship is more complex and revolves around the bounds derived in section~\ref{sec:commrecovery}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(viii.)] for given edge probabilities $p,q$ and desired confidence level $\alpha$, a \emph{critical graph size} $n(p,q;\alpha)$ exists that distinguishes between cases in which credible sets of relatively low credible level can serve as confidence sets, and when it is required to use credible sets of relatively high credible level (see figure~\ref{fig:crediblelevel}).
\end{itemize}
When the graph size lies above its critical value, the frequentist decides to include not most of the posterior support for the construction of his confidence set, but only a small subset of community assignments containing the highest amounts of posterior probability (like the maximum-a-posteriori estimator). In discussion section~\ref{sec:discussion}, the latter point is used to argue that a form of early stopping in the MCMC sampling of the posterior may give rise to confidence sets at large graph sizes.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements} The authors thank E.~Mossel and J.~Neeman for a helpful discussion on necessary conditions for exact recovery. BK thanks P. Bickel for his encouragement to pursue the confidence-sets-from-credible-sets question.
\section{The sparse two-community stochastic block model}
\label{sec:pbm}
In the general stochastic block model, $n\geq1$ vertices are assigned to $K\geq2$ communities with an unobserved \emph{community assignment vector} $\theta_n=(\theta_{n,1},\ldots,\theta_{n,n})$, $\theta_{n,i}\in\{0,\ldots,K-1\}$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. The observation is a set $X^n=\{X_{ij}:1\leq i< j\leq n\}$ of undirected edges (with no self-loops), each of which occur independently with probabilities that depend on the communities of the vertices they connect. Our statistical goal is inference on $\theta_n$ using $X^n$, in block model with edges that become increasingly sparse with growing $n$, {\it e.g.}\ with asymptotic degrees that stay bounded or grow only as $\log(n)$.
In the \emph{planted bi-section model} of \citep{Dyer89,Decelle11a,Decelle11b,Abbe16,Massoulie14,Mossel16}, $K=2$ and the two communities have equal sizes. We generalize to community assignments where one community (the smallest) has $0\leq m\leq\floor{n/2}$ vertices (denoted $m_\theta$ when the underlying community assignment $\theta$ is of importance) and the other (the largest) has $n-m$. Community assignments $\theta_{n,i}$ are either $0$ or $1$ (for the largest and smallest communities respectively). The parameter space $\theta_n$ can be written as a union,
\[
\Theta_n=\bigcup_{m=0}^{\floor{n/2}}\Theta_{n,m},
\]
where $\Theta_{n,m}$ denotes the set of those $\theta_n\in\{0,1\}^{n}$ with $\Sigma_i\theta_{n,i}=m$, which has $\binom{n}{m}$ elements. (For even $n$ there is a note of identifiability: because, as we shall see later, $\theta_n=(\theta_{n,1},\ldots,\theta_{n,n})$ and $(1-\theta_{n,1},\ldots,1-\theta_{n,n})$ (notation $1-\theta_n$) induce the same law for $X^n$, identifiability is guaranteed if we define $\Theta_{n,n/2}=\{\theta_n:\Sigma_i\theta_{n,i}=n/2$ and $\theta_1=0$\}, and $\Theta_{n,n/2}$ has $\frac12\binom{n}{n/2}$ elements.) The full parameter set $\Theta_n$ has $2^{n-1}$ elements. It is noted that \(m=0\) is allowed (an Erd\H os-R\'enyi graph displaying no community structure).
The random graph $X^n$ takes its values in a space ${\mathscr X}_n$ with law $P_{\theta_n}$ under $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$. The ($n$-dependent) probability of an edge between vertices \emph{within a community} is denoted $p_n\in[0,1]$; the ($n$-dependent) probability of an edge \emph{between communities} is denoted $q_n\in[0,1]$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pbm}
Q_{ij}(\theta_n):=P_{\theta_n}(X_{ij}=1)=\begin{cases}
\,\,p_n,&\quad\text{if $\theta_{n,i}=\theta_{n,j}$,}\\
\,\,q_n,&\quad\text{if $\theta_{n,i}\neq\theta_{n,j}$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Edge sparsity distinguishes the \emph{Chernoff-Hellinger phase} of the model (where we take $a_n,b_n=O(1)$ and $p_n=a_nn^{-1}\log n$, $q_n=b_nn^{-1}\log n$) and the sparser \emph{Kesten-Stigum phase} (where we take $c_n,d_n=O(1)$ (or at most $o(\log(n))$) and $p_n=c_nn^{-1}$, $q_n=d_nn^{-1}$). Given $\theta\in\Theta_n$, the probability density for $P_{\theta_n}$ at $x^n\in{\mathscr X}_n$ is given by $p_{\theta_n}(x^n)=\prod_{i<j} Q_{ij}(\theta_n)^{x_{ij}}(1-Q_{ij}(\theta_n))^{1-x_{ij}}$. Asymptotically the first statistical question in this model concerns estimation of the community assignments $\theta_n$ in consistent ways, that is, (close to) correctly with probability growing to one as $n\to\infty$. In the Chernoff-Hellinger phase a suitable formulation of consistency is the following.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:exact}
Given community assignments $\theta_n$ for all $n\geq1$, an estimator sequence $\hat{\theta}_n:{\mathscr X}_n\to\Theta_n$ is said to \emph{recover $\theta_n$ exactly} if $\hat{\theta}_n$ is correct with high probability, {\it i.e.},
\[
P_{\theta_n}\bigl(\,\hat{\theta}_n(X^n)=\theta_n\,\bigr)\to1,
\]
as $n\to\infty$.
\end{definition}
In the Kesten-Stigum phase the appropriate form of consistency is more diffuse: rather than looking for exact matches, we allow for controlled differences between the estimated and true community assignments. For two sequences $\theta_n,\eta_n\in\Theta_n$, the so-called \emph{Hamming distance} $h$ denotes the number of differing bits, that is: $h(\theta_n,\eta_n)= \Sigma_i|\theta_{n,i}-\eta_{n,i}|$. Since $\theta_n$ and $1-\theta_n$ induce the same law for $X^n$, $\theta_n$ is considered close to $\eta_n$ when either $h(\theta_n,\eta_n)$ or $n-h(\theta_n,\eta_n)$ is small. This motivates the following definition,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kmetric}
k(\theta_n,\eta_n) = h(\theta_n,\eta_n)\wedge\bigl(n-h(\theta_n,\eta_n)\bigr),
\end{equation}
which defines a metric on $\Theta_n$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:detect}
Let $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$ and some sequence of positive integers $(k_n)$ of order $k_n=O(n)$ be given. An estimator sequence $\hat{\theta}_n:{\mathscr X}_n\to\Theta_n$ is said to \emph{recover $\theta_{0,n}$ almost-exactly with error rate $k_n$}, if,
\[
P_{\theta_{n}}\bigl(\,
k\bigl(\hat{\theta}_{n}(X^n),\theta_{n}\bigr) \leq k_n
\,\bigr)\to 1.
\]
\end{definition}
Note that $0\leq k(\theta_n,\eta_n)\leq n/2$ for any $\theta_,\eta_n\in\Theta_n$, so the error-rate must satisfy $0\leq k_n\leq n/2$.
\section
Posterior concentration}
\label{sec:postconcentration}
In what follows we specialize to the Bayesian approach: we choose prior distributions $\Pi_n$ on $\Theta_n$ for all $n\geq1$, denoting probability mass functions by $\pi_n:\Theta_n\to[0,1]$. Throughout we assume that for all $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$, $\pi_n(\theta_n)>0$. In later sections we specialize to uniform priors: for every $n\geq1$ and every $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$, $\pi_n(\theta_n)=|\Theta_n|^{-1}=2^{-(n-1)}$.
The posterior for a set $A\subset\Theta_n$ is calculated,
\[
\Pi(A|X^n)={\displaystyle \sum_{\theta_n\in A}
p_{\theta_n}(X^n)\, \pi_n(\theta_n)}
\biggm/
{\displaystyle \sum_{\theta'_n\in\Theta_n}
p_{\theta'_n}(X^n)\, \pi_n(\theta'_n)}.
\]
The central upper bound on posterior mass for sets of the type relevant in definitions~\ref{def:exact} and~\ref{def:detect} is given in proposition~\ref{prop:postconvset}, which makes use of the following definitions: fix $n\geq1$ and for $\theta_n,\eta_n\in\Theta_n$, define,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:thesetsD}
\begin{split}
D_{1}(\theta_n,\eta_n)&=\{(i,j)\in\{1,\ldots,n\}^2:\,i<j,\,
\theta_{n,i}=\theta_{n,j},\,
\eta_{n,i}\neq\eta_{n,j}\},\\
D_{2}(\theta_n,\eta_n)&=\{(i,j)\in\{1,\ldots,n\}^2:\,i<j,\,
\theta_{n,i}\neq\theta_{n,j},\,
\eta_{n,i}=\eta_{n,j}\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The number $D_1$ is the number of edges (from the complete graph with $n$ vertices) whose probabilities change from $p_n$ to $q_n$ upon replacement of $\theta_n$ with $\eta_n$ (and $D_{2}$ how many edges change probabilities from $q_n$ to $p_n$). Note that the total number of edges that change probabilities is given by $|D_1\cup D_2|=|D_1|+|D_2|$. Furthermore, let,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:AffBernoulli}
\rho(p,q)=p^{1/2}q^{1/2}+(1-p)^{1/2}(1-q)^{1/2},
\end{equation}
denote the Hellinger-affinity between two Bernoulli-distributions with parameters $p,q\in(0,1)$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:postconvset}
Fix $n\geq2$ and a prior probability mass function $\pi_n$ on $\Theta_n$ of full support. Suppose that for some $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$, we observe a graph $X^n\sim P_{\theta_n}$. Let $S_n\subset\Theta_n\setminus\{\theta_n\}$ be non-empty. Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1.)] the number of edge probability changes $d_n$ is lower bounded,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:B-lowerbound}
d_n=\min_{\eta_n\in S_n}|D_{1}(\theta_n,\eta_n)\cup D_{2}(\theta_n,\eta_n)|
\geq \min_{\eta_n\in S_n}|m_{\theta_n}-m_{\eta_n}|(n-|m_{\theta_n}-m_{\eta_n}|),
\end{equation}
\item[(2.)] the posterior mass of $S_n$ satisfies the upper bound,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ordervstestpwr}
P_{\theta_n}
\Pi_n\bigl(S_n\bigm|X^n\bigr)
\leq \rho(p_n,q_n)^{d_n}\sum_{\eta_n\in S_n}
\sqrt{\frac{\pi_n(\eta_n)}{\pi_n(\theta_n)}}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Because $\eta_n$ and $\theta_n$ differ in the community assignments of $|m_{\theta_n}-m_{\eta_n}|$ vertices, there are $|m_{\theta_n}-m_{\eta_n}|(n-|m_{\theta_n}-m_{\eta_n}|)$ edges that belong to either \(D_{1}(\theta_n,\eta_n)\) or \(D_{2}(\theta_n,\eta_n)\), establishing inequality (\ref{eq:B-lowerbound}) (see appendix~\ref{sub:lowerboundsDs}). According to lemma~2.2 in \citep{Kleijn21} (with $B_n=\{\theta_n\}$), for any test $\phi:{\mathscr X}_n\to[0,1]$, we have,
\[
P_{\theta_n}\Pi(S_n|X^n)
\leq P_{\theta_n}\phi(X^n) + \frac{1}{\pi_n(\theta_n)}
\sum_{\eta_n\in S_n}\pi_n(\eta_n)P_{\eta_n}(1-\phi(X^n)).
\]
Based on lemma~2.7 in \citep{Kleijn21}, lemma~\ref{lem:testingpower} proves that for any $\eta_n\in S_n$ there is a test function $\phi_{\eta_n}$ that distinguishes $\theta_n$ from $\eta_n$ as follows,
\[
P_{\theta_n}\phi_{\eta_n}(X^n)
+ \frac{\pi_n(\eta_n)}{\pi_n(\theta_n)} P_{\eta_n}(1-\phi_{\eta_n}(X^n))
\leq \frac{\pi_n(\eta_n)^{1/2}}{\pi_n(\theta_n)^{1/2}}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{d_n},
\]
where the last inequality follows from \(\rho(p_n, q_n)\leq 1\) and the fact that \(|D_{1}(\theta_n,\eta_n)\cup D_{2}(\theta_n,\eta_n)|\geq d_n\), for all \(\eta_n\in S\). Then, using test functions $\phi_{S_n}(X^n)=\max\{\phi_{\eta_n}(X^n):\eta_n\in S_n\}$, we have,
\[
P_{\theta_n}\phi_{S_n}(X^n)
\leq\sum_{\eta_n\in S_n}P_{\theta_n}\phi_{\eta_n}(X^n),
\]
so that,
\[
\begin{split}
P_{\theta_n}\Pi(&S_n|X^n)\\
&\leq \sum_{\eta_n\in S_n}P_{\theta_n}\phi_{\eta_n}(X^n)
+ \frac{1}{\pi_n(\theta_n)} \sum_{\eta_n\in S_n}\pi_n(\eta_n)
P_{\eta_n}\bigl(1-\phi_{S_n}(X^n)\bigr)\\[.5mm]
&\leq \sum_{\eta_n\in S_n} \Bigl(P_{\theta_n}\phi_{\eta_n}(X^n)
+ \frac{\pi_n(\eta_n)}{\pi_n(\theta_n)}
P_{\eta_n}\bigl(1-\phi_{\eta_n}(X^n)\bigr)\Bigr)\\
&\leq \rho(p_n,q_n)^{d_n}\sum_{\eta_n\in S_n}
\frac{\pi_n(\eta_n)^{1/2}}{\pi_n(\theta_n)^{1/2}}.
\end{split}
\]
\end{proof}
Note that non-uniform priors $\Pi_n$ ({\it e.g.}\ sample first a smallest community size $m$ (uniformly, binomially, {\it etcetera}) and then $\theta_n|m$ (uniformly) from $\Theta_{n,m}$) do not help in inequality~(\ref{eq:ordervstestpwr}): because $\theta_n$ is unknown, the factor $\pi_n(\theta_n)^{-1/2}$ can only be dominated by $\inf\{\pi_n(\theta):\theta\in\Theta_n\}^{-1/2}$. For most priors this leads to exponential factors of the type $\exp(ng)$ with a prior-dependent constant $g>0$ \citep{Waaij21}, while in the uniform case, the upper bound of inequality~(\ref{eq:ordervstestpwr}) matches pointwise testing power $\rho(p_n,q_n)^{d_n}$ strictly versus the cardinal $|S_n|$. As a consequence, all convergence results in the next section are optimal for priors $\Pi_n$ that are uniform on $\Theta_n$, and we do not consider non-uniform priors from this point onward.
\section{Recovery of community assignments}
\label{sec:commrecovery}
When a statistical model has a natural partition into a finite number of submodels (like the size of the smallest community in the current model), the question arises whether it is possible to \emph{first} select one of the sub-models, and then restrict estimation within that sub-model. Such a procedure can lead to significant reduction in complexity of the estimation procedure (and of the computational burden); if model selection can be done consistently, the benefits are often great. So before we commit to recovery of the full community structure, we should explore the possibility of first model-selecting the smallest community size. This analysis has been done in detail and can be found in \citep{Kleijn22}. The answer is that there are no short-cuts: consistent selection of the smallest community size \emph{without} also addressing the estimation question is not feasible in a straightforward manner. Hence, we analyse the question of community recovery without the benefit of consistent model selection for the unknown size of the smallest community. In subsections~\ref{sub:exactrecovery} and~\ref{sub:almostexactrecovery} we discuss posterior concentration on and around the true community assignment vectors $\theta_n$.
\subsection{Exact recovery of the community structure}
\label{sub:exactrecovery}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:exactrecovery}
For fixed $n\geq1$, suppose $X^n$ is generated according to $P_{\theta_{n}}$ with $\theta_{n}\in\Theta_n$ and choose the uniform prior on $\Theta_n$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exactineq}
P_{\theta_{n}}\Pi\bigl(\,\{\theta_{n}\}\bigm| X^n\bigr)
\geq 1- \frac{n}2\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\,e^{n\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}},
\end{equation}
implying that if,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:condforexactrecovery}
n\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\to0,
\end{equation}
then the posterior recovers the true community assignment exactly.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For any integer $k\geq0$, define $V_{n,k}(\theta_n)=\set{\eta_n\in\Theta_{n}:k(\theta_n,\eta_n)=k}$. Note that for $k=1,\ldots,\floor{n/2}$, $V_{n,k}$ has at most $\binom{n}{k}$ elements and, when $n$ is even, $V_{n,n/2}$ has at most $1/2\binom{n}{n/2}$ elements. It follows from equation~(\ref{eq:sizeofD1andD2inVnmk}) that for all $\eta_n\in V_{n,k}$, $|D_1(\theta_n,\eta_n)\cup D_2(\theta_n,\eta_n)|=k(n-k)$. Then proposition~\ref{prop:postconvset} (with uniform prior) says that,
\[
\begin{split}
P_{\theta_{0,n}}\Pi(&\Theta_{n}\setminus \set{\theta_{0,n}}|X^n)
=\sum_{k=1}^{\floor{n/2}} P_{\theta_{0,n}}\Pi(V_{n,k}(\theta)\mid X^n)\\
&\leq \frac12\sum_{k=1}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{k(n-k)}
\leq \frac{n}2\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\,e^{n\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}},
\end{split}
\]
where we use lemma~\ref{lem:boundforbinomialsum} for the second bound.
\end{proof}
In the following corollary, we explore the condition of theorem~\ref{thm:exactrecovery} more closely in the Chernoff-Hellinger phase.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:mnscritical}
Assume the conditions of theorem~\ref{thm:exactrecovery}. If the sequences $a_n,b_n$ in the Chernoff-Hellinger phase satisfy,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:newcritical}
\Bigl((\sqrt{a_n}-\sqrt{b_n})^2-\frac{a_nb_n\log(n)}{2n}-4\Bigr)\log(n)\to \infty,
\end{equation}
then the posterior recovers the community assignments exactly.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since for all $x\in[0,1]$, $\sqrt{1-x}\leq 1-x/2$,
\[
\begin{split}
\rho(p_n,q_n) &\leq \sqrt{p_nq_n} + (1-p_n/2)(1-q_n/2)
= 1 - \ft12(\sqrt{p_n}-\sqrt{q_n})^2 + \ft14p_nq_n \\
&= 1 - \frac1n\Bigl(\ft12(\sqrt{a_n}-\sqrt{b_n})^2\log n
- \frac{a_nb_n}{4n}(\log n)^2\Bigr).
\end{split}
\]
It follows that,
\[
\begin{split}
n\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}
\leq \exp\Bigl(\bigl(1-\ft14(\sqrt{a_n}-\sqrt{b_n})^2\bigr)\log n
+ \frac{a_nb_n}{8n}(\log n)^2\Bigr),
\end{split}
\]
from lemma~\ref{lem:oneplusxdivrtothepowerrissmallerthanetothepowerx}.
\end{proof}
Note that condition (\ref{eq:newcritical}) resembles (but is not exactly equal to) (\ref{eq:mnscritical}), the requirement of \citep{Mossel16}, which applies only if there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $C^{-1}\leq a_n, b_n \leq C$ for large enough $n$ \citep{Mossel16,Zhang16}. For $a_n,b_n$ of order $O(1)$, a simple sufficient conditions for exact recovery is,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ourMNSdetect}
\bigl((\sqrt{a_n}-\sqrt{b_n})^2-4\bigr)\log n\to\infty,
\end{equation}
which does not require that $a_n,b_n$ stay bounded away from $0$. Note: if we disregard the (negligible) term proportional to $\log(\log(n))$ in (\ref{eq:mnscritical}), there is a relative factor two between the lower-bounding constants of conditions~(\ref{eq:ourMNSdetect}) and~(\ref{eq:mnscritical}) (possibly a manifestation of the fact that the smallest community size is not half of $n$ but unknown).
\begin{example}
\label{ex:qniszero}
Note that exact recovery of the community structure is not possible in the Kesten-Stigum phase. This can be understood intuitively on the basis of the special case where $q_n=0$: if $p_n$ is of order $O(n^{-1}\log(n))$, the two communities form as Erd\H os-R\'enyi graphs that are connected with a probability that goes to one as $n\to\infty$ \citep{hofstad16}, making exact recovery asymptotically trivial. If $q_n=0$ and $p_n\geq Cn^{-1}$ for some $C>1$, the two communities form as Erd\H os-R\'enyi graphs with two independent \emph{giant components} containing some non-zero fraction of all vertices asymptotically, but fragments of $O(\log(n))$ vertices remain unconnected to either \citep{hofstad16}. Consequently in the Kesten-Stigum phase exact recovery is not possible, even in the setting where $q_n=0$. The above suggests that this break-down persists in case where the edge probabilities $q_n$ are non-zero.
\end{example}
\subsection{Almost-exact recovery of the community structure}
\label{sub:almostexactrecovery}
For block models with even higher degrees of edge sparsity, we consider the condition for almost exact recovery with posteriors. Let $(k_n)$ be a sequence with $0\leq k_n\leq\floor{n/2}$, let $\theta_n$ be community assignments in $\theta_n$. Define the (Hamming-)metric balls,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definitionBkn}
B_n(\theta_n,k_n)=\bigl\{\eta_n\in\Theta_n:k(\eta_n,\theta_n)\leq k_n\},
\end{equation}
based on definition~(\ref{eq:kmetric}). Metric balls of this type contain $\theta_n$ and all community assignments that differ by no more than $k_n$ vertices from $\theta_n$. If the posterior concentrates in the balls $B_n(\theta_n,k_n)$ with high probability, then we estimate the community assignment correctly up to subsets of vertices of order $O(k_n)$ with high probability. For instance in example~\ref{ex:qniszero}, communities manifest as giant components with unconnected fragments of order $O(\log(n))=o(n)$, so we could take $k_n$ proportional to $n$. In such cases, \emph{almost-exact recovery} (definition~\ref{def:detect}) is appropriate, and the following theorem describes the condition on edge sparsity and error rate $k_n$ that enables almost-exact recovery with posterior distributions.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:almostexactrecovery}
For fixed $n\geq1$, suppose $X^n$ is generated according to $P_{\theta_n}$ with $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$ and choose the uniform prior on $\Theta_n$. For some sequence $a_n$ with $0<a_n<1/2$, let $k_n$ be an integer such that $k_n\geq a_nn$. Then the expected posterior probability of $B_n(\theta_n,k_n)$ is lower bounded as follows,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:postconcKS}
P_{\theta_n}\Pi\bigl(B_n(\theta_n,k_n)\bigm| X^n\bigr)
\geq 1-\frac12\Bigl(\ft{e}{a_n}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{a_nn}
\Bigl(1-\ft{e}{a_n}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By proposition~\ref{prop:postconvset} (and using the sets $V_{n,k}(\theta_n)$ of the proof of theorem~\ref{eq:condforexactrecovery}), when $k_n\geq a_n n$, we see that,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:upperboundkerstenstigumphase}
\begin{split}
P_{\theta_n}&\Pi\bigl(\Theta_{n}\setminus B_n(\theta_n,k_n)\bigm| X^n\bigr)
=\sum_{k=k_n+1}^{\floor{n/2}}P_{\theta_{0,n}}
\Pi\bigl(V_{n,k}(\theta_n)\bigm| X^n\bigr)\\
&\leq \frac12\sum_{k=k_n}^{n}\binom nk \rho(p_n,q_n)^{kn/2}
\leq \frac12\sum_{k=k_n}^{n} \Bigl(\frac{en}k\Bigr)^k \rho(p_n,q_n)^{kn/2}\\
&\leq \frac12\sum_{k=k_n}^{\infty} \Bigl(\frac{e}{a_n}\Bigr)^k
\rho(p_n,q_n)^{kn/2}\\
&\leq \frac12\Bigl(\ft{e}{a_n}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{a_nn}
\Bigl(1-\ft{e}{a_n}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{-1},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
proving the assertion.
\end{proof}
Almost exact recovery is established when $P_{\theta_n}\Pi(\,\Theta_{n}\setminus B_n(\theta_n,k_n)| X^n) $ converges to zero (possibly while $a_n\downarrow0$). As in example~\ref{ex:qniszero} almost-exact recovery is especially relevant in the Kesten-Stigum phase, which we consider separately in the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:KSalmostexact}
Assume the conditions of theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery}. If the sequences $c_n,d_n$ in the Kesten-Stigum phase and the fractions $a_n$ satisfy,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:almostexactexponent}
a_nn\Bigl(\log(a_n)+\frac14\bigl(\sqrt{c_n}
-\sqrt{d_n}\bigr)^2-1\Bigr)\to\infty
\end{equation}
then posteriors recover the community assignment almost-exactly with any error rate $k_n\geq a_nn$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Again using that for all $x\in[0,1]$, $\sqrt{1-x}\leq 1-x/2$, we find,
\[
\rho(p_n,q_n)
\leq \frac{\sqrt{c_nd_n}}{n}
+\Bigl(1-\frac{c_n}n\Bigr)\Bigl(1-\frac{d_n}n\Bigr)
\leq 1-\frac{\bigl(\sqrt{c_n}-\sqrt{d_n}\bigr)^2}{2n}+\frac{c_nd_n}{4n^2},
\]
and using lemma~\ref{lem:oneplusxdivrtothepowerrissmallerthanetothepowerx},
\[
\frac{e}{a_n}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}
\leq \exp\Bigl(1-\log(a_n)
-\frac{\bigl(\sqrt{c_n}-\sqrt{d_n}\bigr)^2}{4}+\frac{c_nd_n}{8n}\Bigr).
\]
Based on (\ref{eq:upperboundkerstenstigumphase}), we arrive at posterior concentration in the sets $B_n(\theta_n,k_n)$ if,
\[
a_nn\Bigl(\log(a_n)+\frac14\bigl(\sqrt{c_n}
-\sqrt{d_n}\bigr)^2-\frac1{8n}c_nd_n-1\Bigr)\to\infty.
\]
Since $c_n,d_n$ are of order $o(\log(n))$, the third term is negligible and we conclude that posterior concentration occurs whenever (\ref{eq:almostexactexponent}) holds.
\end{proof}
Let us illustrate how requirement (\ref{eq:almostexactexponent}) relates to condition~(\ref{eq:MNSdetect}) and the criteria of \citep{Decelle11a,Decelle11b}. In sparse situations where $p_n,q_n=o(1)$, we can expand the function $p\mapsto\sqrt{p}$ around the value $\ft12(p_n+q_n)$, for every $n\geq1$, to obtain,
\[
\sqrt{p_n}-\sqrt{q_n} =
\frac1{2\sqrt{\frac12(p_n+q_n)}}(p_n-q_n)+O(|p_n-q_n|^2).
\]
which implies that,
\[
\bigl(\sqrt{c_n}-\sqrt{d_n}\bigr)^2
=\frac{(c_n-d_n)^2}{2(c_n+d_n)} + O(n^{-1}),
\]
in terms of the sequences $(c_n)$, $(d_n)$. This means that $(\sqrt{c_n}-\sqrt{d_n})^2\to\infty$ is equivalent to equation~(\ref{eq:MNSdetect}). Based on that observation, we discuss the consequences of proposition~\ref{prop:KSalmostexact} in several specific corollaries.
In case we allow for error rates $k_n=a_nn$ that leave a non-zero fraction of mis-assigned vertices in the limit ($0<a=\liminf_na_n<1/2$), we find the following simple sufficient condition of the form of condition~(\ref{eq:decellescondition}), conjectured by \cite{Decelle11a,Decelle11b}:
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:decellescondition}
Assume the conditions of theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery}, and let $0<a<1/2$ be given. If, for some constant $C>1$ and large enough $n$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weakestconditionforalmostexactrecovery}
\bigl(\sqrt{c_n}-\sqrt{d_n}\bigr)^2 > 4C\bigl(1-\log(a)\bigr),
\end{equation}
then the posterior recovers the true community assignment almost exactly with error rate $k_n=an$. \end{corollary} Comparing condition~(\ref{eq:weakestconditionforalmostexactrecovery}) with condition~(\ref{eq:decellescondition}), a relative factor four appears in the lower bound due to the unknown smallest community size, as well as a $\log(a)$-proportional correction term that raises the lower-bounding constant further. Condition~(\ref{eq:MNSdetect}) implies (\ref{eq:weakestconditionforalmostexactrecovery}) but not the other way around. Indeed, according to (\ref{eq:almostexactexponent}) above, condition (\ref{eq:MNSdetect}) is sufficient for almost exact posterior recovery with \emph{any} fixed rate $k_n=an$, $0<a<1/2$, which implies what is called \emph{weak consistency} in \cite{Mossel16}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:MNSdetect}
Assume the conditions of theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery}. If condition~(\ref{eq:MNSdetect}) holds, the posterior recovers the true community assignment almost exactly with error rate $k_n=a_nn$ for \emph{some vanishing fraction} $a_n\to0$.
\end{corollary}
In cases where $\liminf_na_n=0$, the rate at which $a_n$ decreases to zero is to be compensated in (\ref{eq:almostexactexponent}) by faster divergence of the limit (\ref{eq:MNSdetect}).
\begin{corollary}
Assume the conditions of theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery} and let $0<a_n<1/2$ be given, such that $a_n\to0$, $a_nn\to\infty$. If, for some constant $C>1$ and large enough $n$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:edgessparsityandvanishingfraction}
(\sqrt{c_n}-\sqrt{d_n})^2 + 4C\log(a_n)\to\infty,
\end{equation}
then the posterior recovers the community assignments almost exactly with error rate $k_n=a_nn$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:lognerrorrate}
For an extreme example of the latter kind, consider error rates of order $O(\log(n))$, {\it e.g.}\ with fractions $a_n$ of order $O(\log(n)/n)$, condition~(\ref{eq:edgessparsityandvanishingfraction}) reads,
\[
(\sqrt{c_n}-\sqrt{d_n})^2-4C\log(n)\to\infty,
\]
(up to a $\log(\log(n))$-term) for some constant $C>1$ and large enough $n$, forcing edge sparsity up to the $\log(n)/n$-level that characterizes the Chernoff-Hellinger phase. Comparison with condition~(\ref{eq:ourMNSdetect}) then leads us to conclude that in any situation where almost-exact recovery with error rates as small as $O(\log(n))$ is possible, the posterior recovers the true community assignment exactly. This is possibly related to the fact that fragments unconnected to the giant component in the Erd\H os-R\'enyi graph, are at most of order $O(\log(n))$ with high probability (see \citep{hofstad16} and example~\ref{ex:qniszero}).
\end{example}
\section{Uncertainty quantification}
\label{sec:pbmuncertainty}
As said in the introduction, approximation or simulation of a posterior distribution is computationally costly, and if the statistical goal is only the estimation of the community assignment, more efficient algorithms are known, also under edge sparsity (see \citep{Abbe18} for an overview). When more complex statistical questions like uncertainty quantification and hypothesis testing are the goal, sampling distributions for said algorithms are required and those are often prohibitively hard to obtain. In this section we show that enlargement of Bayesian credible sets offers a viable alternative, with finite amounts of data. Enlargements of credible sets also feature centrally in asymptotic conversion of credible sets to confidence sets as in \citep{Kleijn21}.
Let us first fix the relevant definitions. Bayesian uncertainty quantification relies on the notion of credibility.
\begin{definition}
Given $n\geq1$, a prior $\Pi_n$, $0\leq\gamma<1$ and data $X^n$, a \emph{credible set} of \emph{credible level} $1-\gamma$ is any subset $D(X^n)\subset\Theta_n$ that receives posterior mass at least $1-\gamma$:
\[
\Pi\bigl( D(X^n)\bigm|X^n\bigr)\geq 1-\gamma,
\]
$P^{\Pi_n}$-almost-surely (see definitions~\ref{def:priorpredictive} and~\ref{def:posterior}). In case $\gamma=0$, $D(X^n)$ is the support of the posterior.
\end{definition}
(The notation for credible sets involves $X^n$ to emphasize that credible sets are constructed from the posterior, and hence, depend on the data $X^n$.) The most natural way to compile a credible set $D(X^n)$ in a discrete space like $\Theta_n$, is to calculate the posterior weights $\Pi(\{\theta\}|X^n)$ of all $\theta\in\Theta_n$, order the $\theta_n$ by decreasing posterior weight into a finite sequence $\theta_{n,1}(X^n)$, $\theta_{n,2}(X^n)$, $\ldots$, $\theta_{n,|\Theta_n|}(X^n)$, and define $D(X^n)=\{\theta_{n,1}(X^n),\ldots,\theta_{n,m}(X^n)\}$, for the smallest $m\geq1$ such that $\Pi(D(X^n)|X^n)$ is greater than or equal to the required credible level. Note that $\theta_{n,1}(X^n)$ is the \emph{maximum-a-posteriori}-estimator (which, in the case of a uniform prior, is equal to the maximum-likelihood estimator).
Similarly, the frequentist uses the notion of confidence for uncertainty quantification.
\begin{definition}
Given an unknown $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$ and an observation $X^n\sim P_{\theta_n}$, a \emph{confidence set} $C(X^n)\subset\Theta_n$ of \emph{confidence level} $1-\alpha$, $(0<\alpha<1)$, is defined by any ($\theta_n$-independent) set-valued map $x^n\mapsto C(x^n)\subset\Theta_n$ such that,
\[
P_{\theta_n}\bigl(\theta_n\in C(X^n)\bigr) \geq 1-\alpha.
\]
\end{definition}
In the Chernoff-Hellinger phase with a posterior that succeeds in exact recovery, all posterior mass ends up in the singleton $\{\theta_n\}$ containing the true community assignment with high probability, so it is clear that \emph{any} sequence of credible sets $D_n(X^n)$ of credible levels $1-\gamma_n$ with $\liminf_n\gamma_n>0$, will contain $\theta_n$ with high $P_{\theta_n}$-probability as $n\to\infty$. Because of theorems~\ref{thm:exactrecovery} and~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery}, we can consider a version of this argument that holds in full generality at finite graphs size $n$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:crediblesettoconfidencesets}
Fix $n\geq1$ and some prior $\Pi_n$ on $\Theta_n$, let $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$ and $X^n\sim P_{\theta_n}$ be given. Let $B\subset\Theta_n$ be a subset with expected posterior probability that is lower-bounded,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:posteriormassinB}
P_{\theta_n}\Pi\bigl(\, B \bigm| X^n \bigr)\geq
1-\beta,
\end{equation}
for some $0<\beta<1$. For any $0<\gamma<1$ and any credible set $D(X^n)\subset\Theta_n$ of level $1-\gamma$,
\[
P_{\theta_n}\bigl(B\cap D(X^n)\neq\emptyset\bigr)
\geq 1-\frac{\beta}{1-\gamma}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first prove that for every $0<r<1$,
\[
P_{\theta_n}\bigl(\Pi(B| X^n)\geq r\bigr)
\geq 1-\frac{\beta}{1-r},
\]
by contradiction: let $\delta>0$ be given and define the event,
\[
E=\bigl\{\,x_n\in{\mathscr X}_n\,:\,
\Pi\bigl(B\bigm| X^n=x^n\bigr)\geq r\,\bigr\}.
\]
Suppose that $P_{\theta_n}(E)\leq 1-\beta/(1-r)-\delta$. Then,
\begin{equation}
P_{\theta_n}\Pi(B| X^n)
\leq P_{\theta_n}(E) + r(1-P_{\theta_n}(E))
\leq 1-\beta-\delta (1-r)<1-\beta,
\end{equation}
which contradicts the assumption that $P_{\theta_n}\Pi(B| X^n)\geq 1-\beta$. Since this holds for every $\delta>0$, we have $P_{\theta_n}(E)\geq 1-\beta/(1-r)$. Choose $r>\gamma$. As $D(X^n)$ has posterior mass of at least $1-\gamma$, $B$ and $D(x^n)$ cannot be disjoint for $x^n\in E$. So,
\[
P_{\theta_n}\bigl(B\cap D(X^n)\neq\emptyset\bigr)
\geq P_{\theta_n}(E)\geq 1-\frac\beta{1-\gamma},
\]
which proves the assertion.
\end{proof}
Based on the Bernstein-von~Mises theorem \citep{LeCam90} and other arguments \citep{Ghosal17,Kleijn21}), one might expect the relation between Bayesian and frequentist uncertainty quantification to involve some type of proportionality between credible and confidence levels also at finite sample sizes. Somewhat surprisingly, it emerges that the finite-sample confidence level of a credible set depends mostly on the expected amount of mis-placed posterior probability and less on the credible level.
Under the conditions of theorem~\ref{thm:exactrecovery}, condition~(\ref{eq:posteriormassinB}) holds with $\rho(p_n,q_n)$-dependent $\beta$. We record the conclusion in the form of the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:exactcredconf
For fixed $n\geq1$, suppose $X^n$ is generated according to $P_{\theta_n}$ with $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$ and choose the uniform prior on $\Theta_n$. Every credible set $D(X^n)$ of credible level $1-\gamma$ is a confidence set of confidence level,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:boundexactcredconf}
P_{\theta_n}\bigl(\theta_n\in D(X^n)\bigr)
\geq 1-\frac{n}{2(1-\gamma)}
\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\,e^{n\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Choose $B=\{\theta_n\}$ in lemma~\ref{lem:crediblesettoconfidencesets} and use theorem~\ref{thm:exactrecovery}.
\end{proof}
To use proposition~\ref{prop:exactcredconf} for the construction of confidence sets, one takes the following steps: practical situations involve some given graph size $n\geq1$, known edge probabilities $p_n=p$, $q_n=q$ and a realised graph $X^n=x^n$, with associated realised posterior $\Pi(\,\cdot\,|X^n=x^n)$. Given a desired confidence level $0<1-\alpha<1$, we choose credible level,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:credlevelexactcredconf}
1-\gamma =\min\bigl\{1,
(n/2\alpha)\rho(p,q)^{n/2}\,e^{n\rho(p,q)^{n/2}}\bigr\}.
\end{equation}
With large $n$, $(n/2)\rho(p,q)^{n/2}$ is small and $1-\gamma$ lies below one for large enough graph size. We then interpret any realised credible set $D(x^n)$ of credible level $1-\gamma$ as a confidence set of level $1-\alpha$. Note that as $n$ grows or $p$ and $q$ are further apart, the credible level $1-\gamma$ is closer to zero, making the corresponding credible sets smaller.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:thirtyvertices}
With a graph containing $n=25$ vertices, edge probabilities $p=0.9$, $q=0.1$ and a desired confidence level $1-\alpha=0.95$, $\rho(p,q)=0.6$ and $(n/2)\rho(p,q)^{n/2}\approx0.0211$, so that any credible set of credible level $1-\gamma\approx0.422$ is also a confidence set of confidence level $0.95$. Keeping $p,q$ fixed, the dependence on $n$ is quite sensitive and changes sharply around the point $n=25$: for graph sizes below $n=25$, $1-\gamma$ is (close to) one (and we need to include all or most of the points that receive non-zero posterior mass in the credible set); for graph sizes (well) above $n=25$, credible levels $1-\gamma$ close to $0$ are good enough (and we need to include only a relatively small set of points with the highest amounts of posterior probability in the credible set).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\parbox{0.9\textwidth}
\begin{lpic}{crediblelevel(0.8)}
\lbl[t]{15,82;{$1$}}
\lbl[t]{5,55;{$1-\gamma$}}
\lbl[t]{15,28;{$0$}}
\lbl[t]{150,19;{$n$}}
\end{lpic}\vspace*{-3em}
\caption{\label{fig:crediblelevel} Credible level $1-\gamma$
required for a confidence set of confidence level
$1-\alpha=0.95$, as a function of graph size $n$, with fixed
edge probabilities $p=0.9$ and $q=0.1$. There is a sharp
decrease in required credible level around graph size
$n=25$, indicating that the frequentist has confidence
in community assignments of high posterior probability
rather than in subsets of almost full posterior probability.
In this case, the critical graph size $n(0.9,0.1;0.05)=25$.}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
At intermediate values of $n$ where $1-\gamma$ is changing from one to zero, the frequentist decides to have confidence not just in subsets of almost full posterior probability, but also in sets of smaller posterior probability, because he knowns that for large-enough graph sizes, the posterior has concentrated far enough.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:ruleofthumb}
The conclusion of the previous example can also be given the following form: given a desired confidence level $1-\alpha$ and edge probabilities $p,q$, there exists a \emph{critical graph size},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:critgraphsize}
n(p,q;\alpha) = \min\bigl\{ n\,:\,
n\rho(p,q)^{n/2}\,e^{n\rho(p,q)^{n/2}}<\alpha \bigr\},
\end{equation}
where the frequentist first uses credible sets of credible level below $1/2$ as confidence sets of level $1-\alpha$. If the graph size lies (well) above $n(p,q;\alpha)$, very small credible sets (containing only the maximum-a-posteriori/maximum-likelihood estimator and a relatively small number of other community assignments of high posterior probability) are confidence sets of level $1-\alpha$; if the graph size lies below $n(p,q;\alpha)$, (most of) the support of the posterior is required to form a confidence set of level $1-\alpha$.
\end{remark}
Under the conditions of theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery}, credible sets have to be enlarged to satisfy condition~(\ref{eq:posteriormassinB}): for any credible set $D(X^n)$ and a non-negative integer $k$, we define the $k$-enlargement $C(X^n)$ of $D(X^n)$ to be the union of all Hamming balls of radius $k\geq1$ that are centred on points in $D(X^n)$,
\[
C(X^n)=\bigl\{\theta_n\in\Theta_n:\exists_{\eta_n\in D_n(X^n)},
k(\theta_n,\eta_n)\leq k\bigr\}.
\]
In the argument leading to proposition~\ref{prop:exactcredconf}, we only have to replace the singleton $\{\theta_n\}$ with a (Hamming-)ball $B_n(\theta_n,k)$ (see definition~(\ref{eq:definitionBkn})): according to lemma~\ref{lem:crediblesettoconfidencesets}, if $B_n(\theta_n,k)$ receives mass $1-\beta$, then the radius-$k$ enlargement of any credible set of level $1-\gamma$ is a confidence set of level $1-\beta(1-\gamma)^{-1}$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:almostexactcredconf
For fixed $n\geq1$, suppose $X^n$ is generated according to $P_{\theta_n}$ with $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$ and choose the uniform prior on $\Theta_n$. For given $0<a<1/2$, define $k=\ceiling{a n}$. Then the $k$-enlargement $C(X^n)$ of a credible set $D(X^n)$ of level $1-\gamma$ is a confidence set of confidence level,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:boundalmostexactcredconf}
P_{\theta_n}\bigl(\theta_n\in C(X^n)\bigr)
\geq 1- \frac{1}{2(1-\gamma)}
\Bigl(\ft{e}{a}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{an}
\Bigl(1-\ft{e}{a}\rho(p_n,q_n)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Choose $B=B_n(\theta_{0,n},k)$ in lemma~\ref{lem:crediblesettoconfidencesets} and use equation~(\ref{eq:postconcKS}).
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop:almostexactcredconf} is used as follows: assume we have a
realised graph $X^n=x^n$ and known edge probabilities $p_n=p$, $q_n=q$. Denote the associated realised posterior by $\Pi(\,\cdot\,|X^n=x^n)$. For any $a>0$ and any desired confidence level $0<1-\alpha<1$, we choose credible level,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:credlevelalmostexactcredconf}
1-\gamma =\min\biggl\{1,
\frac1{2\alpha}\Bigl(\ft{e}{a}\rho(p,q)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{an}
\Bigl(1-\ft{e}{a}\rho(p,q)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{-1}
\biggr\}.
\end{equation}
This expression suggests that error fractions $a$ roughly of order $\rho(p,q)^{n/2}$ are the most appropriate. For large enough $n$, $1-\gamma$ lies below one and we interpret the $\ceiling{an}$-enlargement $C(x^n)$ of any realised credible set $D(x^n)$ of credible level $1-\gamma$ as a confidence set of level $1-\alpha$.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:almostthirtyvertices}
Again we consider a graph with $n=25$ vertices, edge probabilities $p=0.9$, $q=0.1$ and a desired confidence level $1-\alpha=0.95$, $\rho(p,q)=0.6$. For $a=0.05$, $0.1$ or $0.25$ (which would allow for fixed $5\%$, $10\%$ or $25\%$ fractions of mis-assigned vertices in the Hamming balls of theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery}), we plot the required credible levels in figures~\ref{fig:almostcrediblelevel005}--\ref{fig:almostcrediblelevel025}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\parbox{0.9\textwidth}
\begin{lpic}{enlarged005crediblelevel(0.8)}
\lbl[t]{15,82;{$1$}}
\lbl[t]{5,55;{$1-\gamma$}}
\lbl[t]{15,28;{$0$}}
\lbl[t]{150,19;{$n$}}
\end{lpic}\vspace*{-3em}
\caption{\label{fig:almostcrediblelevel005} Credible level $1-\gamma$
required for a confidence set of confidence level
$1-\alpha=0.95$ and Hamming enlargement radius
$k=\ceiling{0.05n}$, as a function of graph size $n$,
with fixed edge probabilities $p=0.9$ and $q=0.1$. Note
the decrease in required credible level around the
critical graph size $n(0.9,0.1;0.05,0.05)=27$.}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\parbox{0.9\textwidth}
\begin{lpic}{enlarged010crediblelevel(0.8)}
\lbl[t]{15,82;{$1$}}
\lbl[t]{5,55;{$1-\gamma$}}
\lbl[t]{15,28;{$0$}}
\lbl[t]{150,19;{$n$}}
\end{lpic}\vspace*{-3em}
\caption{\label{fig:almostcrediblelevel010} Credible level $1-\gamma$
required for a confidence set of confidence level
$1-\alpha=0.95$ and Hamming enlargement radius
$k=\ceiling{0.1n}$, as a function of graph size $n$,
with fixed edge probabilities $p=0.9$ and $q=0.1$. Note
the decrease in required credible level around the
critical graph size $n(0.9,0.1;0.05,0.1)=21$.}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\parbox{0.9\textwidth}
\begin{lpic}{enlarged025crediblelevel(0.8)}
\lbl[t]{15,82;{$1$}}
\lbl[t]{5,55;{$1-\gamma$}}
\lbl[t]{15,28;{$0$}}
\lbl[t]{150,19;{$n$}}
\end{lpic}\vspace*{-3em}
\caption{\label{fig:almostcrediblelevel025} Credible level $1-\gamma$
required for a confidence set of confidence level
$1-\alpha=0.95$ and Hamming enlargement radius
$k=\ceiling{0.25n}$, as a function of graph size $n$,
with fixed edge probabilities $p=0.9$ and $q=0.1$. Note
the decrease in required credible level around the
critical graph size $n(0.9,0.1;0.05,0.25)=14$.}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the Kesten-Stigum phase ({\it c.f.}\ theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery}), given a desired confidence level $1-\alpha$ and edge probabilities $p,q$, there again exists a \emph{critical graph size},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:almostcritgraphsize}
n(p,q;\alpha,a) = \min\biggl\{ n\,:\,
\frac{1}{\alpha}\Bigl(\ft{e}{a}\rho(p,q)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{an}
\Bigl(1-\ft{e}{a}\rho(p,q)^{n/2}\Bigr)^{-1}
<\alpha \biggr\},
\end{equation}
where the frequentist first uses $\ceiling{an}$-enlarged credible sets of credible level below $1/2$ as confidence sets of level $1-\alpha$. Required credible levels depend on our parameter choices as expected: if we raise the error rate from $0.05n$ to $0.25n$, the enlargement radius of credible sets grows and the required credible level decreases accordingly.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:compareexactalmostexact}
To conclude we compare the bounds of propositions~\ref{prop:exactcredconf} and~\ref{prop:almostexactcredconf}: although the asymptotic definitions of the Chernoff-Hellinger and Kesten-Stigum phases suggest that we are in one or the other phase, at finite graph sizes this is inconsequential, since both bounds~(\ref{eq:boundexactcredconf}) and~(\ref{eq:boundalmostexactcredconf}) are valid and one can either choose to use credible sets of the level required by~(\ref{eq:credlevelexactcredconf}) or $\ceiling{an}$-enlarged credible sets of the level required by~(\ref{eq:credlevelalmostexactcredconf}), whichever are the smallest. Much will depend on the graph size: if $n$ lies below the critical graph size~(\ref{eq:critgraphsize}) but above the critical graph size~(\ref{eq:almostcritgraphsize}) for some $a>0$, then $\ceiling{an}$-enlarged credible sets may be preferred.
\end{remark}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
The results summarized in subsection~\ref{sub:conclusions} bear some speculation regarding further exploration.
First of all the question arises whether the sufficient conditions given in section~\ref{sec:postconcentration} are also necessary. This question is interesting in its own right, but it is also important for confidence sets: if upper bounds like~(\ref{eq:boundexactcredconf}) and~(\ref{eq:boundalmostexactcredconf}) are not sharp, lower bounds for credible levels as in~(\ref{eq:credlevelexactcredconf}), (\ref{eq:credlevelalmostexactcredconf}) become unnecessary stringent and enlargement radii become unnecessarily large. It is noted that the construction of lemma~\ref{lem:crediblesettoconfidencesets} is fully general and can also be applied in other models, {\it e.g.}\ with continuous parameters. In fact, the proof of the celebrated Ghosal-Ghosh-van~der~Vaart theorem \citep{Ghosal00} ends in a statement of the form (\ref{eq:posteriormassinB}) that is almost specific enough to be useful in the present context. Methods put forth in \citep[particularly, theorem~4.2 with so-called \emph{remote contiguity} as in definition~3.4]{Kleijn21} can be used directly.
Regarding uncertainty quantification in the stochastic block model, the regime where $n$ is large enough to require only small amounts of Bayesian credibility for a desired confidence level is most interesting. The space of community assignments $\Theta_n$ has cardinal $2^{n-1}$, so for large graph sizes $n$, MCMC-type samples are likely too small to properly represent the full posterior distribution. Those small samples tend to under-represent mostly the tails and not so much the bulk of the probability mass. When integrals with respect to the posterior are of interest ({\it e.g.}\ the posterior mean or other minimizers of Bayesian risk functions), the tails are crucial in the calculation. But, since only community assignments with relatively high posterior probabilities are required in credible sets of low credible level, small MCMC samples may not hamper the construction of confidence sets to the same extent. This leads to the speculation that some form of \emph{early stopping} of the MCMC sequence may be justified, to enable the analysis of confidence sets not just for graph sizes where simulation of the full posterior is realistic, but possibly also for graph sizes that are (much?) larger. A numerical study could be based on cross validation of confidence levels for simulated stochastic block graphs of various sizes, to find out exactly how early one can stop the MCMC sequence.
Indeed for large values of $n$, posterior mass is concentrated almost entirely in the maximum-a-posteriori estimator ({\it c.f.}\ theorem~\ref{thm:exactrecovery}) (or in Hamming balls of radii $\ceiling{an}$ surrounding the maximum-a-posteriori estimator ({\it c.f.}\ theorem~\ref{thm:almostexactrecovery})), while the required credible level is low enough to let the singleton of the maximum-a-posteriori estimator (or the corresponding Hamming ball) be a valid confidence set of the desired confidence level. That perspective explains the connection with asymptotic correspondences between credible and confidence sets \citep{Kleijn18,Kleijn21}, and it would simplify the very-large-graph version of the above identification to a search for the maximum-a-posteriori estimator and a suitable choice for the error rate $a$.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
In dual-energy CT (DECT), data are collected with low- and high-kVp spectra over a full-scan (or at least a short-scan) range~\cite{alvarez_energy-selective_1976}; and images are reconstructed then directly or indirectly from low- and high-kVp data often by use of algorithms that are developed basing upon a linear-data model in conventional CT. The images reconstructed are used subsequently for estimation of basis images from which monochromatic images at given energies, and physical quantities of application interest, such as effective atomic numbers (simply referred to as atomic numbers hereinafter) and iodine concentrations, can be estimated~\cite{johnson_material_2007,maass_image-based_2009,goodsitt2011accuracies,chandarana2011iodine,faby2015performance,chen2018algorithm}.
DECT capable of limited-angular-range (LAR) imaging is of practical application interest because it may allow for the reduction of radiation dose and scanning time and for the design of scanning configurations avoiding possible collisions of the moving gantry, e.g., in a C-arm DECT, with patient or other components involved in the scanning. While image reconstruction is a key to enabling LAR DECT, it remains largely unexplored as only limited effort has been reported in the literature for highly special scanning configurations in which the sum of low- and high-kVp angular ranges is generally larger than $180^\circ$ \cite{zhang2016reconstruction,zhang2020reconstruction}.
In this work, {\color{black} we investigate image reconstructions in LAR DECT by exploiting the directional-total-variation (DTV) algorithm~\cite{zhang2021dtv} recently developed for image reconstruction in conventional CT with LAR data}~\cite{batenburg2011dart,liu2016cooperative,xu2019image,zhang2021dtv}. In the investigation, for each of the low- and high-kVp data sets collected over LARs in DECT, we first formulate image reconstruction as a convex optimization problem designed in which data-$\ell_2$ is minimized under image's DTV constraints along orthogonal axes, and then use the DTV algorithm developed recently to solve the optimization problem for achieving image reconstructions.
The DTV algorithm may allow for an efficient recovery of ``invisible boundaries''~\cite{quinto2017artifacts} along the scanning direction in reconstructed images from the dual-energy LAR data.
{\color{black}In LAR DECT, while images suffer from both LAR and beam-hardening (BH) artifacts, the LAR artifact is dominantly more significant than the BH artifact, as results in Sec.~\ref{sec:rslt} below show. The work focuses thus on LAR-artifact correction in LAR DECT without explicit BH-artifact correction. In particular, results of LAR DECT obtained are compared against those of the full-angular-range (FAR) (with full- or short-scan range) DECT without suffering from LAR artifacts.}
We carry out numerical studies with digital phantoms mimicking a suitcase and a breast, which are of relevance to industrial and clinical applications, respectively. Both noiseless and noisy data are generated from each phantom with low- and high-kVp spectra over arcs of LARs spanning from $14^\circ$ to $180^\circ$, as well as over the FAR of $360^\circ$. Using the images reconstructed from low- and high-kVp LAR data, we estimate basis images, from which monochromatic images at energies of interest are formed. We then perform visual inspection and quantitative analysis of monochromatic images obtained, and estimate physical quantities including atomic numbers and iodine-contrast concentrations from the basis images determined.
Following the introduction in Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}, we present materials and methods in Sec.~\ref{sec:methods}, including scanning configuration, data generation, image reconstruction, and image analysis. Image results and quantitative analysis are shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:rslt}, while discussions and conclusion are followed in Secs.~\ref{sec:discussion} and~\ref{sec:conclusion}, respectively. We include in the Appendices description of the methods for determination of basis images and for estimation of physical quantities to avoid distractions from the presentation flow in the main text.
\section{Materials and Methods} \label{sec:methods}
\subsection{Scanning configuration}\label{sec:scanning-configs}
We consider a fan-beam-based scanning configuration, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:config}, while the study presented in Secs.~\ref{sec:methods-recon} and~\ref{sec:methods-analysis} below can readily be extended to cone-beam geometries.
The low- and high-kVp data are collected over two overlapping circular arcs of LAR $\alpha$, from an object that is within the field of view of the configuration.
The image grid is set up such that the circular scanning arc is symmetric relative to the $y$-axis. This setup with overlapping arcs might be of practical interest in situations where the total scanning angular range is physically limited due to workflow or safety concerns, and it can be implemented with current DECT techniques, such as sandwiched detectors, fast-kVp-switching X-ray tubes, and sequential scans~\cite{mccollough_dual-_2015}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.40\textwidth, trim={60 220 60 140}, clip]{figures/de_limang_arrow.pdf}
\caption{Scanning configuration with overlapping arcs of LAR (thin and thick curves) for collecting low- and high-kVp data. The coordinate system of the image array is set up such that the circular scanning arc is symmetric relative to the $y$-axis.}
\label{fig:config}
\end{figure}
In this work, we consider LARs $\alpha=14^\circ, 20^\circ, 30^\circ, 60^\circ, 90^\circ, 120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $180^\circ$, with an angular interval of $1^\circ$ per view.
Images are also obtained over a FAR of $360^\circ$ by use of the DTV and FBP algorithms from noiseless data. They are used as the {\it DTV-} and {\it FBP-reference images}, respectively, against which we investigate how image quality from LAR data decreases.
For suitcase-phantom studies, the source-to-rotation distance (SRD) and source-to-detector distance (SDD) are 100 cm and 150 cm, and a linear detector of 32 cm consists of 512 bins, whereas for breast-phantom studies, SRD and SDD are 36 cm and 72 cm, and a linear detector of 37.5 cm consists of 512 bins.
\subsection{Dual-energy data}\label{sec:methods-data}
The suitcase and breast numerical phantoms shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phan} are used in the numerical study, as the former is of potential interest in security-scan applications such as baggage screening and the latter mimicks the cross section of a breast in contrast-enhanced imaging. In the suitcase phantom, three bar-shaped regions of interest (ROIs) contain elements C, Al, and Ca, respectively, whereas rectangular and elliptical ROIs are filled with water, ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil~\cite{ying2006dual}), teflon, and PVC. In the breast phantom, the background, mixed with adipose and breast tissue, is embedded with three ROIs mimicking iodine-contrast-enhanced vasculature and tumor of concentrations of 2, 2.5, and 5 mg/ml, which are typical values of potential clinical relevance~\cite{jong2003contrast,volterrani2020dual}. The suitcase and breast phantoms are represented, respectively, by image arrays of $150\times256$ square pixels of size 0.7 mm and of $80\times256$ square pixels of size 0.7 mm.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/phan_monoE40keV_0p1-0p65_numbered.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/phan_monoE34_0p2-0p35_numbered.png} \\
(a) suitcase phantom & (b) breast phantom \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Monochromatic images for the (a) suitcase phantom at 40 keV and (b) breast phantom at 34 keV. The numbers in each of the phantoms indicate ROIs of different materials.
In the suitcase phantom, ROIs 0-6 contain C, Al, Ca, water, ANFO, teflon, and PVC, respectively. In the breast phantom, the darker and brighter background regions are adipose tissue and breast tissue (including skin), respectively; ROI 0 contains breast tissue, whereas ROIs 1-3 are filled with iodine contrast agent of concentration 5, 2, and 2.5 mg/ml, respectively. Display windows for the suitcase and breast phantoms are [0.1, 0.65] cm$^{-1}$ and [0.2, 0.35] cm$^{-1}$, respectively.}
\label{fig:phan}
\end{figure}
For either phantom, each pixel is labeled with a material type, which is associated with a linear attenuation coefficient at a given energy.
As such, we consider a non-linear-data-model incorporating the polychromatic X-ray spectrum~\cite{chen2017image} as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:nonlinear-model}
g^s_j = - \ln \sum_m^M q^s_{jm} \exp \left( - \sum_i^I a^s_{ji} f_{m i} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $g^s_j$ is the model data for ray $j$, $j=1, 2, ..., J^s$, within the low- ($s=L$) or high-kVp ($s=H$) scan; $J^s$ the total number of rays in the low- or high-kVp scan; $q^s_{jm}$ the normalized, low- or high-kVp X-ray spectrum (including detector response) for ray $j$ at energy bin $m$, $m=1,2, ..., M$; $M$ the total number of energy bins; $a^s_{ji}$ the intersection length of ray $j$, in the low- or high-kVp scan, within pixel $i$; $f_{m i}$ the linear attenuation coefficient at energy bin $m$ for the labeled material at pixel $i$, $i=1, 2, ..., I$; and $I$ the total number of image pixels. We can form matrix $\mathcal{A}^s$ of size $J^s\times I$ with element $a^s_{ji}$ and refer to $\mathcal{A}^s$ as the discrete X-ray transform (DXT).
In the numerical studies in Sec.~\ref{sec:rslt} below, we use the non-linear model in Eq.~\eqref{eq:nonlinear-model} to generate noiseless and Poisson-noisy (corresponding to $10^7$ photons per ray in the air scan) data from the suitcase and breast phantoms with low- and high-kVp spectra, which are generated using the TASMIC model~\cite{hernandez_tungsten_2014}.
For the suitcase phantom, the low- and high-kVp spectra are set at 80 and 140 kVp's, respectively, with an additional 5-mm Al filter for both. For the breast phantom, the low- and high-kVp spectra are set at 33 and 49 kVp's, with 8-mm Al and 0.25-mm Cu filters, respectively.
\subsection{Image reconstruction}\label{sec:methods-recon}
We use vector $\mathbf{g}^{s[\mathcal{M}]}$ of size $J^s$, where $s=L$ or $H$, to denote measured data, with element $g^{s[\mathcal{M}]}_j$ indicating low- or high-kVp measurement with ray $j$ in DECT, where $j=1, 2, ...., J^s$. In the noiseless, numerical study below, $g^{s[\mathcal{M}]}_j=g^{s}_j$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:nonlinear-model}, as it is considered to be a reasonable data model in DECT, whereas in the noisy numerical study in the work, $g^{s[\mathcal{M}]}_j$ is obtained by addition of Poisson noise to $g^{s}_j$ as described above.
In standard DECT, images are reconstructed often by use of an algorithm that is based upon a linear-data model instead of the non-linear data model in Eq. \eqref{eq:nonlinear-model}. We propose to use in the work a DTV algorithm that is also based upon a linear-data model for image reconstruction directly from low- and high-kVp data collected over arcs of LAR. The images reconstructed thus contain the BH effect inherent in data generated with the non-linear-data model.
We formulate the reconstruction problem from either low- or high-kVp data over an arc of LAR as a convex optimization problem~\cite{zhang2021dtv} given by:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:opt}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{f}^{s\,\star} &= \underset{\mathbf{f}^s}{\mathsf{argmin}} \,\,
\frac{1}{2} \parallel \mathbf{g}^{s[\mathcal{M}]} - \mathcal{A}^s\,\mathbf{f}^s \parallel_2^2 \\
\quad {\rm s.t.} \,\, &
|| \mathcal{D}_x \mathbf{f}^s ||_1 \le t^s_x, \,\, || \mathcal{D}_y \mathbf{f}^s ||_1 \le t^s_y,
\,\, {\rm and} \,\, f^s_i \ge 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
where $s=L$ or $H$; $\parallel \cdot \parallel_2^2$ operating on a vector denotes the squared $\ell_2$-norm; vector $\mathbf{f}^s$ of size $I$ the image to be reconstructed; matrices $\mathcal{D}_x$ and $\mathcal{D}_y$ of size $I \times I$ denote two-point differences along the $x$- and $y$-axis, respectively; and $|| \mathcal{D}_x \mathbf{f}^s ||_1$ and $|| \mathcal{D}_y \mathbf{f}^s ||_1$ are $\ell_1$ norms of the image partial derivatives along the $x$- and $y$-axis, respectively, also referred to as the image directional total variations (DTVs). In the formulation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:opt}, linear model $\mathcal{A}^s\,\mathbf{f}^s$, i.e., the DXT of $\mathbf{f}^s$, is used to approximate low- or high-kVp data $\mathbf{g}^{s[\mathcal{M}]}$.
Basing upon the general primal-dual (PD) algorithm~\cite{chambolle_first-order_2010, sidky_convex_2012} solving mathematically exactly convex optimization problems, we have developed a DTV algorithm tailored to solve Eq.~\eqref{eq:opt} for reconstructing $\mathbf{f}^s$ from low- or high-kVp data collected over an arc of LAR.
As the detailed derivation of the DTV algorithm can be found in Appendix A of Ref.~\cite{zhang2021dtv}, we list below only the pseudo-code of the DTV algorithm.
\begin{algorithm}\leavevmode
\caption{Pseudo-code of the DTV algorithm for
solving Eq. \eqref{eq:opt}}\label{alg:1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATEx INPUT: $g^{s [\mathcal{M}]}$, $t^s_x$, $t^s_y$, $\mathcal{A}^s$, $b$
\STATE $L^s \leftarrow ||\mathcal{K}^s||_2$, $\tau^s \leftarrow b/L^s$, $\sigma^s \leftarrow 1/(b L^s)$, $\nu^s_1 \leftarrow ||\mathcal{A}^s||_2/||\mathcal{D}_x||_2$, $\nu^s_2 \leftarrow ||\mathcal{A}^s||_2/||\mathcal{D}_y||_2$, $\mu^s \leftarrow ||\mathcal{A}^s||_2/||\mathcal{I}||_2$
\STATE $n \leftarrow 0$
\STATE INITIALIZE: $\mathbf{f}^{(0)}$, $\mathbf{w}^{(0)}$, $\mathbf{p}^{(0)}$, $\mathbf{q}^{(0)}$, and $\mathbf{t}^{(0)}$ to zero
\STATE $\bar{\mathbf{f}}^{(0)} \leftarrow \mathbf{f}^{(0)}$
\REPEAT
\STATE $\mathbf{w}^{(n+1)} = (\mathbf{w}^{(n)} + \sigma^s(\mathcal{A}^s\bar{\mathbf{f}}^{(n)} - \mathbf{g}^{s [\mathcal{M}]}))/(1+\sigma^s)$
\STATE $\mathbf{p}^{\prime(n)} = \mathbf{p}^{(n)} + \sigma^s \nu^s_1 \mathcal{D}_x \bar{\mathbf{f}}^{(n)}$
\STATEx \hspace{0.25cm} $\mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)} = \mathbf{q}^{(n)} + \sigma^s \nu^s_2 \mathcal{D}_y \bar{\mathbf{f}}^{(n)}$
\STATE $\mathbf{p}^{(n+1)} = \mathbf{p}^{\prime(n)} - \sigma^s \frac{\mathbf{p}^{\prime(n)}}{|\mathbf{p}^{\prime(n)}|}\ell_1 {\rm ball}_{\nu^s_1 t^s_x} (\frac{|\mathbf{p}^{\prime(n)}|}{\sigma^s})$
\STATEx \hspace{0.25cm} $\mathbf{q}^{(n+1)} = \mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)} - \sigma^s \frac{\mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)}}{|\mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)}|}\ell_1 {\rm ball}_{\nu^s_2 t^s_y} (\frac{|\mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)}|}{\sigma^s})$
\STATE $\mathbf{t}^{(n+1)} = {\rm neg}({\mathbf{t}^{(n)} + \sigma^s \mu^s \bar{\mathbf{f}}^{(n)}})$
\STATE $\mathbf{f}^{(n+1)} = \mathbf{f}^{(n)}-\tau^s ({\mathcal{A}^s}^{\top}\mathbf{w}^{(n+1)}+\nu^s_1\mathcal{D}_x^{\top}{\mathbf{p}}^{(n+1)} +\nu^s_2\mathcal{D}_y^{\top}{\mathbf{q}}^{(n+1)} + \mu^s \mathbf{t}^{(n+1)})$
\STATE $\bar{\mathbf{f}}^{(n+1)} = 2 \mathbf{f}^{(n+1)}-\mathbf{f}^{(n)}$
\STATE $n \leftarrow n+1$
\UNTIL the convergence conditions are satisfied
\STATE {OUTPUT: $\mathbf{f}^{(n)}$ as the estimate of $\mathbf{f}^{s}$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In the pseudo-code,
stacked matrix $\mathcal{K}^s$ is defined as $\mathcal{K}^{s \top} = (\mathcal{A}^{s \top}, \nu^s_1 \mathcal{D}_x^{\top}, \nu^s_2 \mathcal{D}_y^{\top}, \mu \mathcal{I}$), where superscript ``$\top$'' indicates a transpose operation; the nuclear norm of a matrix, indicated by $||\cdot||_2$, calculates the largest singular value of the matrix; $\mathcal{I}$ is an identity matrix of size $I \times I$; vectors $\mathbf{w}^{(n)}$ is of size $J^s$, whereas vectors $\mathbf{p}^{\prime(n)}$, $\mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)}$, $\mathbf{p}^{(n)}$, $\mathbf{q}^{(n)}$, and $\mathbf{t}^{(n)}$ are of size $I$; ${\rm neg}(\cdot)$ enforces the non-positivity constraint by thresholding; operator $\ell_1 {\rm ball}_{\beta}(\cdot)$ projects a vector onto the $\ell_1$-ball of size $\beta$; and $|\mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)}|$ denotes a vector with entry $j$ given by $(|\mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)}|)_j = |{q}^{\prime(n)}_j|$, where ${q}^{\prime(n)}_j$ is the $j$th entry of vector $\mathbf{q}^{\prime(n)}$.
In DECT, monochromatic image $\mathbf{f}_m$, i.e., the linear attenuation coefficient distribution, at energy bin $m$ is of interest, and it can be decomposed into a linear combination of two basis images $\mathbf{b}_0$ and $\mathbf{b}_1$ as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:decomp-mono}
\mathbf{f}_m
= \mu_{m0} \mathbf{b}_0 + \mu_{m1} \mathbf{b}_1,
\end{eqnarray}
where expansion coefficients $\mu_{mk}$ ($k=0$ or $1$)
can be either calculated or looked up, and basis images $\mathbf{b}_k$ can be estimated from low- and high-kVp images ${\mathbf{f}}^L$ and ${\mathbf{f}}^H$ reconstructed, as described in \ref{app:decomp}.
Image reconstruction with the DTV algorithm, like reconstructions with any algorithms, involves constraint parameters such as $t^s_x$ and $t^s_y$ whose selection can impact reconstruction quality. In the work, we select parameters $t^s_x$ and $t^s_y$ by visual evaluation of monochromatic images obtained with minimum artifacts,
as shown in \ref{app:para-selection}. In addition, the images are reconstructed with the FBP algorithm, along with a Hanning kernel and a cutoff frequency at 0.5, directly from the low- and high-kVp LAR data as they can provide a benchmark for the DTV reconstructions.
\subsection{Analysis of monochromatic images obtained} \label{sec:methods-analysis}
We reconstruct images $\mathbf{f}^L$ and $\mathbf{f}^H$ directly from low- and high-kVp data generated over an arc of LAR by use of the DTV algorithm, and estimate two basis images from $\mathbf{f}^L$ and $\mathbf{f}^H$ by using either the interaction- or material-based method described in \ref{app:decomp}.
With the basis images estimated, we then compose monochromatic images at energies of interest using Eq.~\eqref{eq:decomp-mono}, and perform visual inspection and quantitative analysis of the monochromatic images. Furthermore, we analyze DTV reconstructions in tasks of estimation of atomic number and contrast-agent concentration within ROIs defined in Fig.~\ref{fig:phan}.
\paragraph{Visual inspection and quantitative analysis of monochromatic images}
We first perform visual inspection of the monochromatic images obtained at energy levels of interest to assess LAR artifacts. In addition to visual inspection, we compute two quantitative metrics, Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) and normalized mutual information (nMI)~\cite{pearson1895notes,Viergever:2003,Bian-PMB:2010,zhang2021dtv}, for evaluating the visual correlation between a monochromatic image obtained from the LAR data and its corresponding reference image. Specifically, the maximum values of PCC and nMI are 1, and the higher the PCC and nMI values, the better the visual correlation between an image and its reference image. While the image and its reference are identical when PCC=1 and nMI=1, the image generally appears visually resembling the reference image even as ${\rm PCC}>0.8$ and ${\rm nMI} >0.6\sim0.7$.
\paragraph{Estimation of physical quantities}
In addition to visual inspection and analysis, we also analyze the DTV reconstructions in two tasks of estimating physical quantities of interest as described below.
\noindent{\it Estimation of atomic number:} The study involving the suitcase phantom is of potential interest to industrial/security CT applications, such as baggage screening, in which estimation of the atomic number of materials is used for explosive detection~\cite{ying2006dual}. Using the interaction-based method on the DTV-reference image of the suitcase phantom, we obtain the $2\times2$ decomposition matrix in Eq.~\eqref{eq:decomp-basis}, which is used for estimating two basis images of photoelectric effect (PE) and Compton scattering (KN) components from $\mathbf{f}^L$ and $\mathbf{f}^H$ reconstructed throughout the studies with the suitcase phantom, as discussed in \ref{app:decomp}.
Using the estimated basis images in the affine relationship in Eq.~\eqref{eq:z-log} in \ref{app:tasks}, we then estimate the atomic numbers within ROIs 3-6 of the suitcase phantom, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phan}a. Constants $c$ and $n$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:z-log} are fitted and calibrated using the image values within calibration ROIs 0-2 of the suitcase phantom from the DTV-reference image.
The three ROIs correspond to three single-element common materials, C, Al, and Ca, which are picked as their atomic numbers, $z=6$, $13$, and $20$, cover the range of atomic numbers of interest for the other materials contained in the suitcase phantom.
\noindent{\it Estimation of iodine concentration:} In mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and breast CT, iodine-based contrast agents can be used for enhancing tumor contrast~\cite{dromain2012dual,jochelson2013bilateral,carton2010dual,samei2011dual,de2012dual,zhang2018axillary}. Quantitative estimation of iodine-contrast concentration is of interest in breast tumor staging~\cite{volterrani2020dual} and capturing the contrast-uptake kinetics, as it may help differentiate between benign and malignant tumors~\cite{jong2003contrast}. In the study involving the breast phantom, the basis materials are selected as breast tissue and 5-mg/ml iodine contrast agent in calibration ROIs 0 and 1, respectively, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phan}b. Similarly, using the material-based method on the DTV-reference image of the breast phantom, we first obtain the $2\times2$ decomposition matrix in Eq.~\eqref{eq:decomp-basis}, which is used for estimating two basis images of breast tissue and iodine contrast agent from $\mathbf{f}^L$ and $\mathbf{f}^H$ reconstructed throughout the studies with the breast phantom, as discussed in \ref{app:decomp}.
Using the estimated basis image of iodine contrast agent in Eq.~\eqref{eq:beta-linear} in \ref{app:tasks}, we estimate the concentration of iodine contrast agent within ROIs 1-3. Constants $\gamma$ and $\tau$ are fitted and calibrated using image values within ROIs 1-3 in the DTV-reference image of the breast phantom, together with their known concentrations.
\section{Results} \label{sec:rslt}
We reconstruct below $\mathbf{f}^s$ from data $\mathbf{g}^{s[\mathcal{M}]}$ of the suitcase and breast phantoms in Fig. \ref{fig:phan} from low- and high-kVp LAR data by using the DTV algorithm, where $s=L$ and $H$.
In each reconstruction, the DTV-constraint parameters are selected by use of the approach described in \ref{app:para-selection}. Subsequently, using the interaction- or material-based method, as described in \ref{app:decomp}, we estimate the basis images from which monochromatic images $\mathbf{f}_m$ at energy bin $m$ are obtained by using Eq.~\eqref{eq:decomp-mono}. In addition to visual inspection and quantitative analysis of the monochromatic images, we estimate atomic numbers and iodine-contrast concentrations within selected ROIs in the suitcase and breast phantoms, respectively, as described in \ref{app:tasks}.
\subsection{Image reconstruction from noiseless data of the suitcase phantom}\label{sec:suitcase-noiseless}
We reconstruct images from noiseless low- and high-kVp data of the suitcase phantom generated over arcs of LARs $\alpha=14^\circ, 20^\circ, 30^\circ, 60^\circ, 90^\circ, 120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $180^\circ$ by use of the DTV algorithm, and then estimate basis images by using the interaction-based method with the DTV-reference image, as described in \ref{app:decomp}, from the images reconstructed.
Subsequently, using the basis images estimated, we obtain monochromatic images at energy 40 keV for enhanced contrast in the images, and then compute atomic numbers within selected ROIs, as described in \ref{app:tasks}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
DTV-$60^\circ$ & FBP-$60^\circ$ & DTV-$360^\circ$ & FBP-$360^\circ$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_60D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/FBP_pdf/barPhan4_FBP_60D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_360D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/FBP_pdf/barPhan4_FBP_360D_40keV_box.png}
%
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_60D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/FBP_pdf/barPhan4_FBP_60D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_360D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/FBP_pdf/barPhan4_FBP_360D_40keV.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Monochromatic images at 40 keV (top row) and their respective zoomed-in ROI views (bottom row) of the suitcase phantom obtained by use of the DTV (column 1) and FBP (column 2) algorithms from noiseless data generated over an arc of $60^\circ$, and the DTV-reference image (column 3) and FBP-reference image (column 4). The ROI is enclosed by the rectangular box depicted in the FBP-reference image. Display window: [0.1, 0.65] cm$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:suitcase-mono-60}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
DTV-$14^\circ$ & DTV-$20^\circ$ & DTV-$30^\circ$ & DTV-$60^\circ$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_14D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_20D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_30D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_60D_40keV.pdf} %
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_14D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_20D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_30D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_60D_40keV.pdf} %
\\
DTV-$90^\circ$ & DTV-$120^\circ$ & DTV-$150^\circ$ & DTV-$360^\circ$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_90D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_120D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_150D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_360D_40keV.pdf} %
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_90D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_120D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_150D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/XY_pdf/barPhan4_XY_360D_40keV.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Monochromatic images (rows 1 and 3) of the suitcase phantom at 40 keV obtained from noiseless data generated over arcs of LARs $14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $360^\circ$ by use of the DTV algorithm, along with their respective zoomed-in ROI views (rows 2 and 4). The zoomed-in ROI is enclosed by the rectangular box depicted in the FBP-reference image in Fig. \ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}. Display window: [0.1, 0.65] cm$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:suitcase-mono-angles}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Visual inspection of monochromatic images}\label{sec:suitcase-noiseless-qual-vis}
We first show in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60} monochromatic images and their respective zoomed-in ROI views at 40 keV obtained from the noiseless data generated over an arc of LAR $60^\circ$ by use of the DTV and FBP algorithms, along with the DTV- and FBP-reference images from the noiseless data over $360^\circ$. The zoomed-in ROI is enclosed by the rectangular box depicted in the FBP-reference image (row 1, column 4) in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}. It can be observed that the DTV image from data over $60^\circ$ displays significantly reduced LAR artifacts, which are otherwise observed and severely obscuring structures in the FBP image from the same data. The DTV image is also visually comparable to the DTV- and FBP-reference images.
Furthermore, the contrast between water and ANFO and the edges in the three bar-shaped structures, as shown in the zoomed-in ROI views in the bottom row of Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}, can be discerned in the DTV image of $60^\circ$ as clearly as that observed in the DTV- and FBP-reference images.
We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-angles} monochromatic images and their zoomed-in ROI views obtained by use of the DTV algorithm from noiseless data over, respectively, 7 arcs of LARs $\alpha=14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, and $150^\circ$, along with the DTV-reference image. It can be observed that while the DTV images of $\alpha \le 60^\circ$ contain some visible artifacts as a result of the compound LAR and BH effects, the edges in the bar-shaped structures in ROIs 0-2, as well as other structures, in the suitcase phantom can be discerned as clearly as that observed in the DTV- and FBP-reference images. The remaining artifacts in the DTV images appear to be largely due to the BH effect. The monochromatic image from data over $180^\circ$ is visually similar to the DTV-reference image and is thus not shown in this study and the following studies.
\paragraph{Quantitative analysis of monochromatic images}\label{sec:suitcase-noiseless-quan-vis}
In addition to visual inspection, using the DTV-reference image (row 1, column 3) in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}, we compute metrics PCC and nMI of the DTV monochromatic images of the suitcase phantom, and display them in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-metrics-tech} as functions of LAR $\alpha$. It can be observed that while the PCC and nMI drop understandably as $\alpha$ decreases, they remain generally above 0.9 and 0.5, respectively, suggesting that the DTV monochromatic images obtained with LAR data correlate reasonably well with the DTV-reference image. For providing a benchmark, we also obtain monochromatic images by use of the FBP algorithm for $\alpha=14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $180^\circ$, but without showing them because the structures in the suitcase phantom are obscured by significant LAR artifacts in these FBP images, similar to those observed in the FBP image of $60^\circ$ shown in column 2 of Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}. Using the FBP-reference image (row 1, column 4) in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}, we compute metrics PCC and nMI of the FBP monochromatic images and plot them in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-metrics-tech}. The results reveal that the FBP monochromatic images for $\alpha < 180^\circ$ correlate poorly with their reference image.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/barPhan4_noiseless_PCC.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/barPhan4_noiseless_nMI.pdf}
\caption{Metrics PCC and nMI, as functions of LAR $\alpha$, of monochromatic images of the suitcase at 40 keV obtained by use of the DTV (solid) and FBP (dotted) algorithms from noiseless data.}
\label{fig:suitcase-metrics-tech}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Estimation of atomic numbers}\label{sec:suitcase-noiseless-atomic-numbers}
Using the interaction-based method described in \ref{app:decomp} and \ref{app:tasks}, we compute atomic numbers for materials within ROIs 3-6 in the DTV images of the suitcase phantom as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phan}a. Specifically, using basis images estimated, and constants $c$ and $n$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:z-log} fitted with calibration materials in ROIs 0-2 from the DTV-reference image, we obtain atomic numbers for materials water, ANFO, teflon, and PVC, respectively, in ROIs 3-6 and plot them as functions of angular range $\alpha$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-metrics-task}, along with the atomic numbers obtained from the DTV- and FBP-reference images. The results indicate that the atomic numbers obtained with the DTV algorithm for the LARs considered appear to agree well with those obtained from their reference images, only with slight deviations observed for angular ranges less than $90^\circ$. Due to the severe LAR artifacts in the corresponding FBP images, their basis images estimated can be negative, and Eq.~\eqref{eq:z-log} thus cannot be applied because it involves the computation of a logarithmic. Therefore, no atomic numbers can be estimated from images obtained by use of the FBP algorithm for a majority of the LARs considered in the work.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/barPhan4_noiseless_water_360_label.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/barPhan4_noiseless_ANFO_360_label.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/barPhan4_noiseless_Teflon_360_label.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noiseless/barPhan4_noiseless_PVC_360_label.pdf}
\caption{Atomic numbers (solid), as functions of LAR $\alpha$, for (a) water, (b) ANFO, (c) teflon, and (d) PVC in the suitcase phantom estimated from images reconstructed by use of the DTV algorithm from noiseless data. The two horizontal lines, which are very close, indicate the atomic numbers estimated from the DTV-reference (dashed) and FBP-reference (dotted) images.}
\label{fig:suitcase-metrics-task}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Image reconstruction from noisy data of the suitcase phantom}\label{sec:suitcase-noisy}
We repeat the study of Sec.~\ref{sec:suitcase-noiseless} except that noisy data are now used, which are obtained by addition of Poisson noise to the corresponding noiseless data, as described in Sec. \ref{sec:methods-data}.
\paragraph{Visual inspection of monochromatic images}\label{sec:suitcase-noisy-qual-vis}
We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-angles-noisy} monochromatic images and their zoomed-in ROI views obtained by use of the DTV algorithm from noisy data over, respectively, 7 arcs of LARs $\alpha=14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, and $150^\circ$, along with the FAR of $360^\circ$. It can be observed that the DTV images appear to contain only significantly reduced visual artifacts as a result of the compound LAR, BH, and noise, and that structures in the suitcase phantom can be discerned as clearly as that observed in the DTV- and FBP-reference images in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
DTV-$14^\circ$ & DTV-$20^\circ$ & DTV-$30^\circ$ & DTV-$60^\circ$\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_14D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_20D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_30D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_60D_40keV.pdf} %
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_14D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_20D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_30D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_60D_40keV.pdf} %
\\
DTV-$90^\circ$ & DTV-$120^\circ$ & DTV-$150^\circ$ & DTV-$360^\circ$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_90D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_120D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_150D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_150D_40keV.pdf} %
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_90D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_120D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_150D_40keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={120 130 120 25}, clip]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/barPhan4_noise1e7_XY_360D_40keV.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Monochromatic images (rows 1 and 3) of the suitcase phantom at 40 keV obtained from noisy data generated over arcs of LARs $14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $360^\circ$ by use of the DTV algorithm, along with their respective zoomed-in ROI views (rows 2 and 4). The zoomed-in ROI is enclosed by the rectangular box depicted in the FBP-reference image in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}. Display window: [0.1, 0.65] cm$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:suitcase-mono-angles-noisy}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Quantitative analysis of monochromatic images}\label{sec:suitcase-noisy-quan-vis}
Using the DTV-reference image (row 1, column 3) in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}, we also compute metrics PCC and nMI of the noisy DTV monochromatic images and show them in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-metrics-tech-noisy} as functions of LAR $\alpha$. It can be observed that while the PCC and nMI drop understandably as $\alpha$ decreases, they remain generally above 0.9 and 0.5, respectively, suggesting that the DTV monochromatic images obtained with noisy LAR data correlate reasonably well with the DTV-reference image. For providing a benchmark, we also obtain monochromatic images by use of the FBP algorithm for LARs $\alpha=14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $180^\circ$, but without showing them because the structures in the suitcase phantom are obscured by significant LAR artifacts in these FBP images, similar to those observed in the FBP image of $60^\circ$ shown in column 2 of Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}. Using the FBP-reference image (row 1, column 4) in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-60}, we compute metrics PCC and nMI of the FBP monochromatic images and plot them in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-metrics-tech-noisy}. The results reveal that the FBP monochromatic images for $\alpha < 180^\circ$ correlate poorly with their reference image.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/barPhan4_noise1e7_PCC.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/barPhan4_noise1e7_nMI.pdf}
\caption{Metrics PCC and nMI, as functions of LAR $\alpha$, of monochromatic images of the suitcase at 40 keV obtained by use of the DTV (solid) and FBP (dotted) algorithms from noisy data.}
\label{fig:suitcase-metrics-tech-noisy}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Estimation of atomic numbers}\label{sec:suitcase-noisy-atomic-numbers}
Using the interaction-based method described in \ref{app:decomp} and \ref{app:tasks}, we also compute atomic numbers for materials water, ANFO, teflon, and PVC, respectively, within ROIs 3-6 in the DTV images of the suitcase phantom, and plot them as functions of LAR $\alpha$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:suitcase-metrics-task-noisy}, along with the atomic numbers obtained from the DTV- and FBP-reference images. The results indicate that the atomic numbers obtained with the DTV algorithm for the LARs considered appear to agree well with those obtained from their reference images, only with slight deviations observed for LARs less than $90^\circ$. Due to the severe artifacts in images reconstructed by use of the FBP algorithm from LAR data, their basis images estimated can be negative, and Eq.~\eqref{eq:z-log} thus cannot be applied because it involves the computation of a logarithmic. Therefore, no atomic numbers can be estimated from images obtained by use of the FBP algorithm for a majority of the LARs considered in the work.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/barPhan4_noise1e7_Water_360_label.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/barPhan4_noise1e7_AnFO_360_label.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/barPhan4_noise1e7_Teflon_360_label.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/barPhan4/Noise_1e7/barPhan4_noise1e7_PVC_360_label.pdf}
\caption{Atomic numbers (solid), as functions of LAR $\alpha$, for (a) water, (b) ANFO, (c) teflon, and (d) PVC in the suitcase phantom estimated from images reconstructed by use of the DTV algorithm from noisy data. The two horizontal lines, which are very close, indicate the atomic numbers estimated from the DTV-reference (dashed) and FBP-reference (dotted) images.}
\label{fig:suitcase-metrics-task-noisy}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Image reconstruction from noiseless data of the breast phantom}\label{sec:breast-noiseless}
We reconstruct images from noiseless low- and high-kVp data of the breast phantom generated over arcs of LARs $\alpha=14^\circ, 20^\circ, 30^\circ, 60^\circ, 90^\circ, 120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $180^\circ$ by use of the DTV algorithm, and then estimate basis images by using the material-based method with the DTV-reference image, as described in \ref{app:decomp}, from the images reconstructed. Subsequently, using the basis images estimated, we obtain monochromatic image at energy 34 keV for enhanced iodine contrast, and compute iodine concentrations within the selected ROIs as described in \ref{app:tasks}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
DTV-$60^\circ$ & FBP-$60^\circ$ & DTV-$360^\circ$ & FBP-$360^\circ$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_60D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/FBP_pdf/breast_FBP_60D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_360D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/FBP_pdf/breast_FBP_360D_34keV_box.png}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_60D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/FBP_pdf/breast_FBP_60D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_360D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/FBP_pdf/breast_FBP_360D_34keV.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Monochromatic images at 34 keV (top row) and their respective zoomed-in ROI views (bottom row) within the breast phantom obtained by use of the DTV (column 1) and FBP (column 2) algorithms from noiseless data generated over an arc of LAR $60^\circ$, and the DTV-reference image (column 3) and FBP-reference image (column 4). The zoomed-in ROI is enclosed by the rectangular box depicted in the FBP-reference image. Display window: [0.2, 0.35] cm$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:breast-mono-60}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
DTV-$14^\circ$ & DTV-$20^\circ$ & DTV-$30^\circ$ & DTV-$60^\circ$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_14D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_20D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_30D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_60D_34keV.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_14D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_20D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_30D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_60D_34keV.pdf}
\\
DTV-$90^\circ$ & DTV-$120^\circ$ & DTV-$150^\circ$ & DTV-$360^\circ$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_90D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_120D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_150D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_360D_34keV.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_90D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_120D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_150D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/XY_pdf/breast_XY_360D_34keV.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Monochromatic images (rows 1 and 3) of the breast phantom at 34 keV obtained from noiseless data generated over arcs of LARs $14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $360^\circ$ by use of the DTV algorithm, along with their respective zoomed-in ROI views (rows 2 and 4). The zoomed-in ROI is enclosed by the rectangular box depicted in the FBP-reference image in Fig. \ref{fig:breast-mono-60}. Display window: [0.2, 0.35] cm$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:breast-mono-angles}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Visual inspection of monochromatic images}\label{sec:breast-noiseless-qual-vis}
We first show in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-mono-60} monochromatic images and their respective zoomed-in ROI views at 34 keV obtained from noiseless data over $60^\circ$ by use of the DTV and FBP algorithms, along with the DTV- and FBP-reference images from the noiseless data over FAR of $360^\circ$. The zoomed-in ROI is enclosed by the rectangular box depicted in the FBP-reference image (row 1, column 4) in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-mono-60}. It can be observed that the DTV image from $60^\circ$ data displays significantly reduced LAR artifacts, which are otherwise observed and severely obscuring structures in the FBP image from data over $60^\circ$. The DTV image is also visually comparable to the DTV-reference image and appears sharper than the FBP-reference image.
We display in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-mono-angles} monochromatic images and their zoomed-in ROI views obtained by use of the DTV algorithm from noiseless data over, respectively, 7 arcs of LAR, i.e., $\alpha=14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, and $150^\circ$, along with the DTV-reference image. It can be observed that while the DTV images of $\alpha \le 30^\circ$ contain some minor visible artifacts as a result of the compound LAR and BH effects, the DTV images visually resemble the DTV-reference image.
\paragraph{Quantitative analysis of monochromatic images}\label{sec:breast-noiseless-quan-vis}
Using the DTV-reference image (row 1, column 3) in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-mono-60}, we compute metrics PCC and nMI of the DTV monochromatic images of the breast phantom, and display them in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-metrics-tech} as functions of LAR $\alpha$. It can be observed that while the PCC and nMI drop understandably as $\alpha$ decreases, they remain generally close to 1 and above 0.6, respectively, suggesting that the DTV monochromatic images obtained from LAR data correlate well with the DTV-reference image. For providing a benchmark, we also obtain monochromatic images by use of the FBP algorithm for $\alpha=14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $180^\circ$, but without showing them because the structures in the breast phantom are obscured by significant LAR artifacts in these FBP images, similar to those observed in the FBP image from data over $60^\circ$ shown in column 2 of Fig. \ref{fig:breast-mono-60}. Using the FBP-reference image (row 1, column 4) in Fig. \ref{fig:breast-mono-60}, we compute metrics PCC and nMI of the FBP monochromatic images and plot them in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-metrics-tech}. The results reveal that the FBP monochromatic images for $\alpha < 180^\circ$ correlate poorly with their reference image.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/breast_noiseless_PCC.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/breast_noiseless_nMI.pdf}
\caption{Metrics PCC and nMI, as functions of LAR $\alpha$, of monochromatic images at 34 keV obtained by use of the DTV (solid) and FBP (dotted) algorithms from noiseless data of the breast phantom.}
\label{fig:breast-metrics-tech}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/breast_noiseless_concen_ROI_1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/breast_noiseless_concen_ROI_2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noiseless/breast_noiseless_concen_ROI_3.pdf}
\caption{Estimated iodine concentrations (solid), as functions of LAR $\alpha$, for ROIs 1, 2, and 3 in the breast phantom from images reconstructed by use of the DTV algorithm from noiseless data. The two horizontal lines, which are very close, indicate the iodine concentrations estimated from the DTV-reference (dashed) and FBP-reference (dotted) images.}
\label{fig:breast-metrics-task}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Estimation of iodine concentrations}\label{sec:breast-noiseless-concentration}
Using the material-based method described in \ref{app:decomp} and \ref{app:tasks}, we estimate iodine concentrations within ROIs 1, 2, and 3 of the breast phantom, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phan}b, using Eq.~\eqref{eq:beta-linear}. Specifically, using basis images estimated from the DTV images, along with constants $\gamma$ and $\tau$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:beta-linear} fitted from the DTV-reference image, we obtain iodine concentrations for ROIs 1, 2, and 3 of the breast phantom and plot them as functions of LAR $\alpha$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-metrics-task}, along with the iodine concentrations obtained from the DTV- and FBP-reference images. The results indicate that the iodine concentrations obtained with the DTV algorithm for the LARs considered appear to agree well with those obtained from their reference images, only with slight deviations observed for LARs less than $90^\circ$. Due to the severe LAR artifacts in images reconstructed by use of the FBP algorithm, the basis images estimated can be negative and cannot thus be interpreted meaningfully as iodine concentrations, which must physically be non-negative. Therefore, no iodine concentration is estimated from images reconstructed by use of the FBP algorithm for a majority of the LARs considered in the work.
\subsection{Image reconstruction from noisy data of the breast phantom}\label{sec:breast-noisy}
We also repeat the study of Sec.~\ref{sec:breast-noiseless} except that noisy data are now used, which are obtained by addition of Poisson noise to the corresponding noiseless data, as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:methods-data}.
\paragraph{Visual inspection of monochromatic images}\label{sec:breast-noisy-qual-vis}
We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-mono-angles-noisy} monochromatic images and their zoomed-in ROI views obtained by use of the DTV algorithm from noisy data generated over, respectively, 7 arcs of LARs $\alpha=14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, and $150^\circ$, along with the FAR of $360^\circ$.
It can be observed that the DTV images appear to visually resemble the DTV-reference image, while images from data over $\alpha \le 30^\circ$ contain some visible artifacts as a result of the compound effect of the LAR, BH, and noise.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
DTV-$14^\circ$ & DTV-$20^\circ$ & DTV-$30^\circ$ & DTV-$60^\circ$\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_14D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_20D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_30D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_60D_34keV.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_14D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_20D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_30D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_60D_34keV.pdf}
\\
DTV-$90^\circ$ & DTV-$120^\circ$ & DTV-$150^\circ$ & DTV-$360^\circ$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_90D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_120D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_150D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_360D_34keV.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_90D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_120D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_150D_34keV.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={110 60 100 0}, clip]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/XY_pdf/breast_XY_noise1e7_360D_34keV.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Monochromatic images (rows 1 and 3) of the breast phantom at 34 keV obtained from noisy data generated over arcs of LARs $14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $360^\circ$ by use of the DTV algorithm, along with their respective zoomed-in ROI views (rows 2 and 4). The zoomed-in ROI is enclosed by the rectangular box depicted in the FBP-reference image in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-mono-60}. Display window: [0.2, 0.35] cm$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:breast-mono-angles-noisy}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Quantitative analysis of monochromatic images}\label{sec:breast-noisy-quan-vis}
Using the DTV-reference image (row 1, column 3) in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-mono-60}, we compute metrics PCC and nMI of the DTV monochromatic images obtained, and display them in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-metrics-tech-noisy} as functions of LAR $\alpha$. It can be observed that while the PCC and nMI drop understandably as $\alpha$ decreases, they remain generally close to 1 and above 0.5, respectively, suggesting that the DTV monochromatic images from LAR data correlate reasonably well with the DTV-reference image. For providing a benchmark, we also obtain monochromatic images by use of the FBP algorithm for $\alpha=14^\circ$, $20^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $150^\circ$, and $180^\circ$, but without showing them because the structures in the breast phantom are obscured by significant LAR artifacts in these FBP images, similar to those observed in the FBP image of $60^\circ$ shown in column 2 of Fig. \ref{fig:breast-mono-60}. Using the FBP-reference image (row 1, column 4) in Fig. \ref{fig:breast-mono-60}, we compute metrics PCC and nMI of the FBP monochromatic images and plot them in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-metrics-tech-noisy}. The results reveal that the FBP monochromatic images for $\alpha < 180^\circ$ correlate poorly with their reference image.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/breast_noise1e7_PCC.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/breast_noise1e7_nMI.pdf}
\caption{Metrics PCC and nMI, as functions of LAR $\alpha$, of monochromatic images at 34 keV obtained by use of the DTV (solid) and FBP (dotted) algorithms from noisy data of the breast phantom.}
\label{fig:breast-metrics-tech-noisy}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Estimation of iodine concentrations}\label{sec:breast-noisy-concentration}
Using the material-based method described in \ref{app:decomp} and \ref{app:tasks}, we also estimate iodine concentrations within ROIs 1, 2, and 3 of the breast phantom using Eq.~\eqref{eq:beta-linear},
and plot them as functions of LAR $\alpha$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:breast-metrics-task-noisy}, along with the iodine concentrations obtained from the DTV- and FBP-reference images. The results suggest that the iodine concentrations obtained with the DTV algorithm appear to agree well with those obtained from their reference images, only with slight deviations observed for angular ranges less than $90^\circ$. Due to the severe LAR artifacts in images reconstructed by use of the FBP algorithm, the basis images estimated can be negative and cannot thus be interpreted meaningfully as iodine concentrations, which must physically be non-negative. Therefore, no iodine concentration is estimated from images reconstructed by use of the FBP algorithm for a majority of the LARs considered in the work.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/breast_noise1e7_concen_ROI_1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/breast_noise1e7_concen_ROI_2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/breast2/Noise_1e7/breast_noise1e7_concen_ROI_3.pdf}
\caption{Estimated iodine concentrations (solid), as functions of LAR $\alpha$, for ROIs 1, 2, and 3 in the breast phantom from noisy images reconstructed by use of the DTV algorithm from noisy data. The two horizontal lines, which are very close, indicate the atomic numbers estimated from the DTV-reference (dashed) and FBP-reference (dotted) images.}
\label{fig:breast-metrics-task-noisy}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussions} \label{sec:discussion}
{\color{black}
In the work, we have tailored the DTV algorithm developed previously to investigating image reconstructions with minimized LAR artifacts from low- and high-kVp data in LAR DECT. In particular, the results of LAR DECT are compared against that of FAR DECT, which by definition is free of LAR artifacts.}
The reconstruction problem is formulated as a convex optimization problem involving separate DTV constraints along orthogonal directions designed for a given LAR configuration. The DTV algorithm was applied to solving the optimization problem for achieving image reconstruction from low- and high-kVp data generated over arcs of LARs, ranging from $14^\circ$ to $180^\circ$. From the images reconstructed, we estimate basis images and then obtain monochromatic images at energies of interest.
Monochromatic images obtained have been visually inspected and quantitatively analyzed through comparison with their reference images in FAR DECT, revealing that monochromatic images obtained with the DTV algorithm are with substantially reduced artifacts that are observed often in monochromatic images obtained with existing algorithms in DECT. Additionally, using the basis images estimated, we have computed atomic numbers and iodine concentrations, and again compared them with their respective references obtained in FAR DECT. The study results reveal that the DTV algorithm can yield physical quantities such as atomic number and iodine concentration comparable to that estimated in FAR DECT.
{\color{black}
For comparison, we have applied also a standard isotropic total variation (ITV) algorithm~\cite{zhang2021dtv} to reconstructing images from low- and high-kVp LAR data and show them in Fig.~\ref{fig:itv}. It can be observed that the ITV images contain conspicuous LAR artifacts, which are, however, largely reduced in the corresponding DTV images in Figs.~\ref{fig:suitcase-mono-angles} and~\ref{fig:breast-mono-angles}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
ITV-$14^\circ$ & ITV-$20^\circ$ & ITV-$30^\circ$ & ITV-$60^\circ$
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/ITV_bar/ITV_14deg_mono_150.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/ITV_bar/ITV_20deg_mono_150.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/ITV_bar/ITV_30deg_mono_150.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{figures/ITV_bar/ITV_60deg_mono_200.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/ITV_breast/ITV_14deg_mono_100.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/ITV_breast/ITV_20deg_mono_100.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/ITV_breast/ITV_30deg_mono_100.pdf}
\hspace{-10pt} &
\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth,trim={10 0 10 0}, clip]{figures/ITV_breast/ITV_60deg_mono_100.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\color{black}Monochromatic images of the suitcase phantom at 40 keV (row 1) and of the breast phantom at 34 keV (row 2) obtained from noiseless data generated over arcs of LARs $14^\circ$ (columns 1), $20^\circ$ (columns 2), $30^\circ$ (columns 3), and $60^\circ$ (columns 4) by use of the ITV algorithm. Display windows: [0.1, 0.65] cm$^{-1}$ and [0.2, 0.35] cm$^{-1}$ for the suitcase and breast phantoms, respectively.}
\label{fig:itv}
\end{figure*}
}
The scanning configuration considered in the work includes completely overlapping arcs of LARs for the low- and high-kVp scans. However, our proposed approach can readily be applied to DECT scanning configuration that consists of two partially- or non-overlapping arcs of LARs of either same or different spans, because the DTV algorithm allows images to be reconstructed separately for low- and high-kVp data collected over LARs. We are investigating currently image reconstruction from low- and high-kVp data collected over two arcs of LARs that are not completely overlapping with each other~\cite{chen2021-90}.
While the optimization problem and DTV algorithm are designed in the work for two-dimensional (2D) DECT with a fan-beam scanning configuration, it is conceptually and mathematically straightforward to extend them to three-dimensional (3D) DECT with a cone-beam scanning configuration. The key to the extension is to design DTV constraints along orthogonal axes specific to a given 3D scanning geometry. We are investigating currently the design of a DTV algorithm for 3D image reconstruction from data collected over a circular segment in DBT with a cone-beam projection geometry.
Similar to many of the existing algorithms for image reconstruction in DECT, the DTV and FBP algorithms are based upon a linear-data model, i.e., the DXT that does not model the non-linear BH effect. As such, BH artifacts may be observed also in monochromatic images obtained with the DTV and FBP algorithms from FAR data. The BH effect may also result in estimation errors in physical quantities such as atomic number and iodine concentration.
{\color{black} The work is not intended to correct for the BH artifacts; instead, it focuses on investigating the LAR effect on monochromatic images and physical quantities estimated relative to those obtained in FAR DECT without explicit BH-artifact correction.}
One can develop algorithms by basing upon the non-linear data model (see Eq.~\eqref{eq:nonlinear-model}) to correct for the BH artifacts and to improve the accuracy of physical quantity estimation~\cite{zou_analysis_2008,barber_algorithm_2016, chen2021non}. For DECT with completely overlapping arcs of LARs for collecting low- and high-kVp data, we are investigating currently the application of a data-domain method for BH-effect correction~\cite{zou_analysis_2008} to low- and high-kVp LAR data. From the corrected basis projections, the DTV algorithm can then be tailored to reconstruct basis images and monochromatic images with BH artifacts corrected. Furthermore, one may develop a one-step algorithm~\cite{chen2021non} with DTV constraints basing upon the non-linear data model in Eq.~\eqref{eq:nonlinear-model} for reconstructing basis images without the BH artifacts directly from low- and high-kVp data in LAR DECT, leading to monochromatic images and physical quantities free from BH artifacts.
{\color{black}
In the work, we have focused on investigating image reconstructions and physical-quantity estimation in LAR DECT with computer-simulated data generated from phantoms of practical relevance. However, it would be necessary and important to evaluate the approach to image reconstruction in LAR DECT by use of real data collected in research or practical applications. Knowledge acquired in the work can be exploited to design and conduct extensive studies on image reconstructions from real LAR data collected in research and clinical DECT.
}
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, using the DTV algorithm developed previously for conventional LAR CT, we have investigated image reconstruction from low- and high-kVp data in LAR DECT.
Results of our studies reveal that monochromatic images obtained from data collected over arcs of LARs as low as $60^\circ$ appear visually comparable to their corresponding reference images obtained in FAR DECT and that the accuracy of atomic numbers and iodine concentrations estimated from data of LARs across $14^\circ$ to $180^\circ$ is quantitatively comparable to that obtained in FAR DECT. The results acquired in the work may engender insights into the design of DECT with LAR scanning configurations of application significance.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported in part by NIH R01 Grant Nos. EB026282 and EB023968, and the Grayson-Jockey Club Research.
The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
|
\chapter{#1}\setstretch{1}}
\newcommand{\vspace{-1em}}{\vspace{-1em}}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{{images/}}
\newcommand{\fig}[4]{
\begin{figure}[#1]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=#2\textwidth]{#3}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{\label{fig:#3}#4}
\end{figure}}
\newcommand{\textsc{Columbo}\xspace}{\textsc{Columbo}\xspace}
\newboolean{isblinded}
\setboolean{isblinded}{false}
\ifthenelse{\boolean{isblinded}}
{\newcommand\blind[1]{BLINDED\xspace}}
{\newcommand\blind[1]{#1\xspace}}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Globally accessible, reliable, and scalable web services are on the rise, with more than 24\,000 currently known public web APIs.\footnote{\url{https://www.programmableweb.com/apis/directory}}
Likewise, native apps are starting to decline while web apps arise that depend on application servers.\footnote{\url{https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriacollins/2019/04/05/why-you-dont-need-to-make-an-app-a-guide-for-startups-who-want-to-make-an-app/}}
Additionally during the past years, the complexity of developing a web-enabled app has massively increased due to the growing number of involved application frameworks, programming languages, and supported device categories, \emph{e.g.},\xspace desktops, notebooks, tablets, smartphones, and wearables.
Web communication has already received much attention in the security community, leading to improved tool support.
For example, programs exist that can continuously monitor web APIs to ensure that an app remains compliant with the API specification~\cite{Wittern:2017}, and tool support to mitigate insecure communication channels has been built into recent releases of the Android ecosystem.\footnote{\url{https://developer.android.com/training/articles/security-config}}
Generally speaking, the existing literature has covered the transmitted payload by using client-side static~\cite{Gordon:2015} and dynamic analysis techniques~\cite{Rapoport:2017}, server side analyses of web service source code~\cite{Mendoza:2018a} as well as connection properties, \emph{e.g.},\xspace the URL~\cite{Zuo:2017} or two-factor authentication~\cite{Tang:2015}.
Another topic that has received extensive attention is that of hard-coded credentials in apps that may allow adversaries unrestricted access to the relevant infrastructure~\cite{Zhou:2015,Rahman:2019}.
Unfortunately, the server configurations of off-the-shelf application servers have received much less attention.
A recent work has identified eight web API security smells, but did not assess their prevalence~\cite{Gadient:2020}.
These smells are \emph{symptoms in the code that signal the prospect of a security vulnerability}~\cite{Ghafari:2017}.
In this work we assess app servers that are used for communicating with mobile apps.
We investigated the presence of six app server security smells, and the corresponding server maintenance activity based on the dataset that contains 9\,714 distinct URLs that were used in 3\,376 apps.
We address the following research questions:
\newcommand{\emph{What is the prevalence of the server side security smells in the web communication of mobile apps?}\xspace}{\emph{What is the prevalence of the server side security smells in the web communication of mobile apps?}\xspace}
\newcommand{\emph{What is the relationship between security smells and app server maintenance?}\xspace}{\emph{What is the relationship between security smells and app server maintenance?}\xspace}
\textbf{RQ$_{1}$}: \emph{What is the prevalence of the server side security smells in the web communication of mobile apps?}\xspace
We found 231 URLs from 44 apps that leak the source code of the web service implementation if processing errors occur.
We can further confirm that most app servers communicate with apps over insecure HTTP connections~\cite{Possemato:2020}, and fail to enforce use of the HTTP strict transport security policy.
Finally, we found that on average almost every second app server suffers from version information leaks.
\textbf{RQ$_{2}$}: \emph{What is the relationship between security smells and app server maintenance?}\xspace
In particular, we are interested in configuration changes, because they provide insights into established maintenance processes of mobile app servers.
Based on the collected HTTP header information from two measurements over 14 months, we evaluated what software changes are introduced by system administrators.
We observed that servers are usually set up once and never touched again, yielding severe security risks.
For instance, criminals can attack outdated app servers by exploiting vulnerabilities listed in public databases or illicit websites.
On the positive side, we noted that version upgrades are much more common than version downgrades, and that developers occasionally use Cloudflare to protect their infrastructure against adversaries, especially for non-JSON-based app servers.
In summary, this work reveals the prevalence of insecure app server configurations accessed by Android mobile apps, and their maintenance protocol.
The list of apps that we analyzed in this study is available online,\footnote{\url{https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14981061}} and we share the aggregated data for research purposes on request due to the contained sensitive information such as credentials, API keys, and email addresses.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
We report on app server security smells relevant for this work in Section~\ref{sec:web-api-security-smells}.
We describe the dataset used for our app server investigations in Subsection~\ref{sec:methodology}.
We provide the prevalence of app server security smells in Subsection~\ref{sec:prevalence-security-smells}, and we shed light on server infrastructure maintenance in Subsection~\ref{sec:maintenance-of-server-infrastructure}.
Finally, we recap the threats to validity in Section~\ref{sec:threats-to-validity}, and we summarize related work in Section~\ref{sec:related-work}.
We conclude this paper in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Security Smells in App Servers}
\label{sec:web-api-security-smells}
In this section, we briefly explain six of the eight security smells that we identified in previous work~\cite{Gadient:2020}.
The two remaining security smells, \emph{i.e.},\xspace \emph{Credential leak} and \emph{Embedded languages} are not within the scope of this study, because they require a deep understanding of the app and the context where they occur.
\subsection{Insecure transport channel}
Web communication relies on HTTP or HTTPS; both variants exist in app server configurations.
\emph{Issue:}\xspace
HTTP does not provide any security; neither the address, nor the header information or the payload are encrypted.
\emph{Symptom:}\xspace
The URL begins with \texttt{http://}.
\subsection{Disclosure of source code}
Error messages leak valuable information regarding the implementation of a running system.
\emph{Issue:}\xspace
Error messages that include the relevant stack trace are transmitted as plain text in the server's message response body.
Such a message reveals information like the used method names, line numbers, and file paths disclosing the internal file system structure and configuration of the server.
\emph{Symptom:}\xspace
The returned HTTP body contains a stack trace or a code snippet that shows the problematic code.
The structure of such data depends on the used framework, however terms related to application crashes are common, \emph{e.g.},\xspace
``stack,'' ``trace,'' and ``error.''
\subsection{Disclosure of version information}
Besides useful connection parameters, HTTP headers leak information regarding the software architecture and configuration of a running system.
\emph{Issue:}\xspace
Outdated software suffers from severe security vulnerabilities.
For instance, a server that returns \code{X-Powered\-By: PHP/5.5.23} in the response header uses a PHP version that is at the time of writing more than 6 years old, and a quick search in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database shows that this framework suffers from 65 known security vulnerabilities, six of which received the most severe impact score of 10.\footnote{\url{https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-74/product_id-128/version_id-183021/PHP-PHP-5.5.23.html}}
\emph{Symptom:}\xspace
One of the following keys exists in the response header: \code{engine}, \code{server}, \code{x-aspnet-version}, or \code{x-powered-by}.
\subsection{Lack of access control}
Authentication by a user name and a password provides tailored experiences to end users, \emph{e.g.},\xspace individual chat logs or friend lists, and at the same time enables access control to separate and protect sensitive user data.
\emph{Issue:}\xspace
The access to sensitive data or actions is not restricted by a sane authentication mechanism such as a user name and password pair, instead, easy-to-forge identifiers or no identification data at all are used to secure the access.
\emph{Symptom:}\xspace
A server does not respond with the status code \emph{401 Unauthorized} or \emph{403 Forbidden}.
In other words, the server successfully responds without asking for any credentials.
\subsection{Missing HTTPS redirects}
We found servers that do not redirect clients to encrypted connections although they would have been supported.
\emph{Issue:}\xspace
App servers do not redirect incoming HTTP connections to HTTPS when legacy apps try to connect.
\emph{Symptom:}\xspace
For an HTTP request, a server does not deliver an HTTP \code{3xx} redirect message which points to the corresponding HTTPS implementation of the web application.
For an HTTPS request, a server delivers a HTTP redirect message.
\subsection{Missing HSTS}
HTTP header information is used to properly set up the connection by specifying various communication parameters, \emph{e.g.},\xspace the acceptable languages, the used compression, or the enforcement of HTTPS for future connection attempts, a feature which is called \emph{HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)}.
HSTS provides protection against HTTPS to HTTP downgrading attacks, \emph{i.e.},\xspace when a user once accessed a web resource in a secure environment (at home or work), the client knows that the resource needs to be accessed \emph{only} through HTTPS.
If this is not possible, \emph{e.g.},\xspace at an airport at which an attacker tries to perform MITM attacks, the client will display a connection error.
Hence, HSTS should be used in combination with HTTP to HTTPS redirects, because the HSTS header is only considered to be valid when sent over HTTPS connections.
\emph{Issue:}\xspace
Servers either do not leverage the HSTS feature, or they do not use the recommended parameters.
\emph{Symptom:}\xspace
A server does not deliver the HTTP HSTS header \code{Strict-Trans\-port-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains} for an HTTPS request.
\section{Empirical Study}
For this empirical study we evaluated all URLs from the dataset according to the security smell symptoms described in the previous section.
We collected the data twice:
the initial download of HTTP headers and bodies was performed in June-2019 whereas additional data, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the authorization errors and up-to-dateness, was retrieved in August-2020.
The duration of 14 months is arbitrary but long enough to ensure developers have to update their software infrastructure.
\subsection{Dataset}
\label{sec:methodology}
We build on our previous work and dataset~\cite{Gadient:2020} in which we manually inspected Android apps to identify which APIs developers use to call web services, and how they are used.
We then took advantage of this information to develop a tool to automatically extract and reconstruct string variables and the assigned values, the server URLs and their corresponding HTTP request headers statically from the apps.
Using this information, we analyzed the reconstructed app server data and tried to establish connections to the corresponding servers from which they gathered additional information for analysis, \emph{i.e.},\xspace from HTTP response headers.
The apps from the dataset are randomly collected from those that use Android's internet permission.
For closed-source apps we mined the free apps on the \emph{Google Play} store, and for the open-source apps we relied on the \emph{F-Droid} software repository.\footnote{\url{https://f-droid.org}}
For each app, we removed the duplicates, \emph{i.e.},\xspace apps with the same package identifier, but different version numbers, and kept only the most recent version of the app.
We also included the partial results of the apps whose analysis was incomplete and could not finish in time, ultimately resulting in an analysis result for 303 open-source, and 3\,073 closed-source apps in the dataset.
The apps in the dataset come from 48 different Google Play store categories.
Most of them belong to \code{EDUCATION} (317 apps) and \code{TOOLS} (292 apps), however, a majority (574) have a \code{GAMES}-related tag.
Interestingly, work-related apps are common in the dataset (335 apps).
The top five categories whose apps contain the largest number of distinct URLs are \code{EDUCATION} (1\,555 URLs), \code{LIFESTYLE} (1\,027 URLs), \code{BUSINESS} (995 URLs), \code{ENTERTAINMENT} (704 URLs), and \code{PRODUCTIVITY} (619 URLs).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_playstore_starrating}
\caption{Star ratings for the Google Play apps in the dataset}
\label{fig:p_playstore_starrating}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_playstore_data_c}
\caption{The popularity and developer support for the Google Play apps in the dataset}
\label{fig:p_playstore_data}
\end{figure}
As shown in~\autoref{fig:p_playstore_starrating}, almost 94\% of the apps received a star rating of 3.0 or higher.
Surprisingly, apps with a five star rating are more prevalent than apps in any other category.
The apps have an average star rating of 4.2 stars and a median rating of 4.3 stars.
\autoref{fig:p_playstore_data} presents the number of app downloads and the timeliness of app updates.
The y-axis denotes the number of apps in each category.
In contrast, the primary x-axis with the bars indicates the app downloads, and the secondary x-axis with the line indicates the time of the last app update.
We can see that most apps achieved between 100 and 1\,000 downloads, and barely any app was downloaded more than 1 million times.
Regarding the app updates, most of the apps received an update in 2018.
Therefore, we see that most vendors update their apps only a few times a year, because we collected the statistics separately in 2019.
We then exercised every URL in the dataset and collected the HTTP header and body of each server response.
Eventually, we processed 1\,230 open-source URLs and 8\,486 closed-source URLs.
We realized that many app servers do not leverage JSON, but instead they use, for example, XML or plain HTTP communication.
Because we were interested whether there exist any differences for data-centric app servers, we split the results into four different groups.
We report our findings based on closed-source and open-source apps, and we also separate between JSON and non-JSON app servers.
We favored the JSON data format, because it was much more commonly used for communication than the others.
Therefore, we partitioned the open-source URLs into 1\,171 non-JSON URLs and 59 JSON URLs.
Accordingly, we partitioned the closed-source URLs into 7\,997 non-JSON URLs and 489 JSON URLs.
We were particularly interested in information such as operating system identifiers, used software modules, and version numbers.
Hence, we crafted a number of search queries to detect occurrences of such features.
The relevant features, \emph{i.e.},\xspace security smells, and the results are part of the discussion in the subsequent subsections.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_smells_json}
\caption{Prevalence of app server smells in apps considering JSON communication}
\label{fig:p_smells_json}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_smells}
\caption{Prevalence of app server smells in apps considering non-JSON communication}
\label{fig:p_smells}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Prevalence of Security Smells}
\label{sec:prevalence-security-smells}
This subsection answers \textbf{RQ$_{1}$}:
\emph{What is the prevalence of the server side security smells in web communication?}
In~\autoref{fig:p_smells_json} and~\autoref{fig:p_smells} we report on the relative prevalence of app server security smells in apps for JSON and non-JSON web services, respectively.
In~\autoref{fig:p_smells_json}, the vertical axis indicates the percentage of apps that suffer from a specific app server security smell.
In the following, we discuss the findings from different perspectives, \emph{i.e.},\xspace security smell categories, software development model, and technology.
\subsubsection{By Security Smell Category}
We report findings and provide actionable advice to mitigate the issue for each security smell.
\emph{Insecure transport channel.}
Communication through an insecure transport channel is prone to data leaks and manipulation, \emph{e.g.},\xspace an adversary could alter conversations.
Hence, practitioners should avoid HTTP and instead focus on the secure HTTPS.
Third-party libraries that require HTTP should be replaced with ones that support secure communication.
With respect to URLs from open-source apps, we found that 582 non-JSON app servers (50\%) did not use protected communication.
Fortunately, this is not the case for JSON app servers:
only six JSON app servers (10\%) used plain text communication.
We found worse results in closed-source communication.
Secure communication was usually unavailable, \emph{i.e.},\xspace 5\,639 non-JSON app servers (71\%) used HTTP.
A total of 245 JSON app servers were not protected (50\%).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_s01}
\caption{Frameworks that caused code leaks}
\label{fig:p_s01}
\end{figure}
\emph{Disclosure of source code.}
Leaked code is valuable for adversaries to plot their attacks, or for competitors to glimpse into the source code and the architecture.
Therefore, administrators should disable verbose error messages on production environments and review the default settings.
We could identify stack traces from five different server frameworks, \emph{i.e.},\xspace ASP(.net), CherryPy, Java, NodeJS, and Php.
As we can see in~\autoref{fig:p_s01}, URLs from closed-source applications suffer the most from code leaks, \emph{i.e.},\xspace we found 225 instances (2.7\%) where 182 instances can be assigned to the ASP(.net) framework.
Considering URLs used in open-source software, we only found six instances (0.5\%) primarily caused by ASP(.net) and CherryPy.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_s02c}
\caption{Disclosure of operating system information}
\label{fig:p_s02c}
\end{figure}
\emph{Disclosure of version information.}
The knowledge of what exact software runs on a server is crucial for successful attacks.
Consequently, administrators should disable the self-promotion of services and review their default settings.
In~\autoref{fig:p_s02c}, we present the found operating system leaks in app servers, where the y-axis denotes the number of leaks we found.
We found 1\,155 operating system leaks in our dataset.
Ubuntu and Debian are the most prevalent operating systems for JSON app servers, and CentOS is rather used for non-JSON app servers.
Customized Linux distributions, \emph{i.e.},\xspace cPanel and Amazon, are less commonly used among web application developers.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_s02b}
\caption{Disclosure of service information}
\label{fig:p_s02b}
\end{figure}
In~\autoref{fig:p_s02b}, we present the found service leaks in app servers, where the y-axis denotes the number of leaks we found.
We found 8\,707 service leaks in our dataset, including servers that pack up to three leaks into a single HTTP response.
Open-source and closed-source software behave similarly, \emph{i.e.},\xspace Apache and Nginx are among the top three web application gateway servers used, but Microsoft services, \emph{i.e.},\xspace Microsoft IIS and ASP(.net), remain a preferred choice for closed-source developers.
Interestingly, the web security provider Cloudflare is used not only for numerous closed-source apps, but also for open-source apps, as we expect, due to their free plans.
Furthermore, the service leaks indicate that most of the app servers do not use the Google Cloud API (ESF) or storage services such as Amazon S3.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_s02}
\caption{Disclosure of version information}
\label{fig:p_s02}
\end{figure}
In~\autoref{fig:p_s02}, we present the found version leaks in app servers, where the y-axis denotes the number of leaks we found.
We found 3\,992 closed-source and 359 open-source software leaks in our dataset.
Most version leaks occur for both closed-source and open-source app servers in the HTTP header field \code{Server}, followed by \code{X-Powered-By}, and \code{X-AspNet-Version}.
The leaks in HTTP bodies, \emph{i.e.},\xspace \code{Apache}, \code{Nginx}, \code{Apache H3}, \code{OpenResty}, and \code{CherryPy} are less prevalent than those found in the headers.
\emph{Lack of access control.}
Unprotected information can be accessed by everyone on the internet.
Since apps usually provide experiences tailored to each user, their servers should use well known authentication schemes to prevent leaks of personal data.
We encountered 53 HTTP authentication errors for closed-source non-JSON app servers, and 28 errors for open-source non-JSON app servers.
We did not find any such errors for open-source or closed-source JSON app servers.
However, there exist JSON web applications that returned arbitrary authorization errors in the JSON format, \emph{e.g.},\xspace using OAuth instead of the HTTP mechanism.
\emph{Missing HTTPS redirects.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_s04}
\caption{Missing HTTPS redirects in app servers}
\label{fig:p_s04}
\end{figure}
Missing redirects leave flawed or outdated clients vulnerable to eavesdropping.
Redirects should always be set in place, if a server has ever been accessible through the insecure HTTP protocol.
Redirects can be chained, but they should be used sparingly.
As shown in~\autoref{fig:p_s04}, we found server responses with missing HTTPS redirects in the URLs from 4\,961 closed-source apps and from 387 open-source apps.
Fortunately, we did not find any HTTPS to HTTP connection downgrades in JSON app servers, but we found 48 for closed-source non-JSON app servers and 15 in open-source non-JSON app servers.
Concerning forwarded requests, closed-source app servers forwarded the requests on average 1.3 times, open-source non-JSON app servers 1.5 times, and open-source JSON app servers once.
We found two request loops, \emph{i.e.},\xspace infinite redirects from a destination to itself, in each open-source and closed-source app servers.
Without the request loops, open-source app servers redirected a request up to three times, and closed-source app servers up to seven times.
\emph{Missing HSTS.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_s05}
\caption{Missing HSTS protection for app servers}
\label{fig:p_s05}
\end{figure}
App servers without proper support for HSTS expose users to eavesdropping due to possible HTTPS to HTTP connection downgrades.
Therefore, servers should deploy this feature to every subdomain and request the client side caching of this setting for at least one year.
Ultimately, the protected URLs should be added to the publicly available HSTS preload list that is included in all major browsers.
As shown in~\autoref{fig:p_s05}, we found 7\,494 closed-source app servers and 833 open-source app servers that miss HSTS HTTP headers.
Only a minority of the connections are protected, that is 397 (34\%) of all open-source app servers and 992 (12\%) of all closed-source app servers.
Contrary to recommended practices,\footnote{Google Chrome HSTS preload list submission form, \url{https://hstspreload.org/}} 432 app servers use \code{max-age} values shorter than one year, and 785 do not use the preload feature.
In other words, 31\% of the app servers that support HSTS have not sufficiently configured the protection for subdomains, and 57\% lack the preload feature that enforces security already for the first request.
\subsubsection{By Software Development Model}
We report findings for two different software development models, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the open-source and the closed-source software development model.
We can clearly see in~\autoref{fig:p_smells_json} and~\autoref{fig:p_smells} that closed-source apps generally suffer from more security smells than open-source apps.
Especially \smellText{Lack of access control} and \smellText{Missing HSTS} appear in the communication of almost all closed-source apps.
Moreover, the three smells \smellText{Insecure transport channel}, \smellText{Missing HTTPS redirects} and \smellText{Disclosure of version information} are less frequent, but exist still in more than 52\% of all closed-source apps and in more than 39\% of all open-source apps.
Interestingly, \smellText{Disclosure of source code} only emerges in closed-source app communication.
\subsubsection{By Technology}
We report our findings for two different technologies, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the JSON and non-JSON-based web communication.
According to~\autoref{fig:p_smells_json}, access control and unprotected HTTP communication constitute major threats for apps that use JSON web services.
However, apps that do not rely on JSON communication are apparently more robust against security smells:
such apps are on average about 19\% less affected by them.
Code leaks primarily occurred in JSON communication.
For instance, \smellText{Disclosure of source code} only exists in less than 1\% of the apps that use non-JSON web services, whereas it is more than 8\% for the apps that use regular JSON web services.
We only found code leaks in JSON app servers
that use the Php or NodeJS framework, but in contrast, we found code leaks in non-JSON servers from almost every major framework.
\subsubsection{Summary}
App server security smells pose a severe threat.
Most security smells exist in more than 25\% of all apps, regardless whether the app is open-source or closed-source, and whether it uses a JSON or non-JSON app server.
Particularly alarming is the finding that apps using JSON app servers suffer 1.5 times more from app server security smells than non-JSON apps, and even worse, closed-source applications suffer 1.6 times more compared to open-source applications.
More than 50\% of the servers accessed by mobile apps use unprotected HTTP communication.
Since smart devices are becoming rather personal assistants, they carry much sensitive information that needs adequate protection.
Misconfigured app servers cause code leaks.
Although only little code is revealed at a time, an attacker can replay requests and alter parameters to reconstruct the architecture and logic behind the service.
Such information eases the search for bugs in the code.
The leaked information is devastating.
Although intended for publicity purposes, the currently leaked data reveals very often not only the operating system running on the server, but also the installed services and their version number.
Such information can be entered into vulnerability databases to find suitable security issues that could be exploited.
Based on our results, access control for JSON app servers is currently not implemented with HTTP status codes, but instead with arbitrary replies.
A standardized approach would help in creating more service independent apps, and at the same time default authorization templates could be used from back-end developers.
HTTPS redirects are usually inexistent for HTTP-based app servers.
Even worse, some downgrade a HTTPS connection to an insecure HTTP connection.
Moreover, redirect loops exist occasionally, and few redirect implementations use more than five redirects which is not recommended by RFC2068.\footnote{\url{RFC2068, HTTP/1.1, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068\#section-10.3}}
Finally, HSTS is only set up for a minority of app servers, and for those it is common to have weak configurations.
In conclusion, we see that security smells are very prevalent in app servers.
In fact, every app references on average more than three servers that suffer from at least one of these smells.
\subsection{Maintenance of Server Infrastructure}
\label{sec:maintenance-of-server-infrastructure}
In order to answer \textbf{RQ$_{2}$}:
\emph{What is the relationship between security smells and app server maintenance?}\xspace, we investigate maintenance operations performed on the servers used by mobile apps.
In particular, we are interested whether app server administrators have updated their infrastructure within the time period of 14 months, and if we see a correlation between the number of identified security smells and the quality of server maintenance.
The selected duration of more than a year covers multiple bug fixes including major releases of common server software, \emph{e.g.},\xspace Apache, Microsoft IIS, or PHP.
We accessed the URLs by sending an HTTP GET request, and stored their HTTP header responses twice, \emph{i.e.},\xspace once in June-2019 and once in August-2020.
We can only compare version numbers between the two datasets if we received some version information in the HTTP \code{Server} header.
As a result, the data in this section are based on fewer responses, \emph{i.e.},\xspace from 309 open-source (JSON and non-JSON) app server URLs (25\%) and 3\,006 closed-source (JSON and non-JSON) app server URLs (35\%).
During our manual analysis of the first 100 entries, we encountered eight different scenarios:
\begin{inparaenum}[i)]
\item no updates have been applied, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the software name and version remains identical,
\item the version has been downgraded, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the software name remains identical, but the version number decreased,
\item the version has been upgraded, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the software name remains, but the version number increased,
\item the version leak has been closed, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the software name remains, but the version number is not anymore available,
\item the environment has changed, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the software has been replaced and it might use a different versioning scheme,
\item Cloudflare protection has been enabled, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the server has moved behind a Cloudflare protection gateway and does not anymore leak version information,
\item server spawned, \emph{i.e.},\xspace we received no software name in the first run, but we received one in the second run,
\item server shutdown, \emph{i.e.},\xspace we received a software name in the first run, but not anymore in the second run.
\end{inparaenum}
We could not gather security-related changes for 1\,254 app server URLs for several reasons:
\begin{inparaenum}[i)]
\item new server instances have been spawned without prior knowledge of software configurations,
\item existing server instances have been shutdown without the possibility to find any changes, or
\item the environment has changed using a different versioning scheme.
\end{inparaenum}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_u01}
\caption{Configuration changes of app servers after 14 months}
\label{fig:p_u01}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Configuration Changes}
In~\autoref{fig:p_u01}, we show the results.
From the app servers that leaked versioning information, by far most closed-source non-JSON app servers did not undergo any changes to the server software.
Closed-source JSON app server infrastructure seems to be updated more frequently, however the majority still do not provide any updates.
The same is true for open-source software although less evident.
Version downgrades occurred sparsely, \emph{i.e.},\xspace four times, and not for JSON app servers.
Only a fraction of the leaking servers, \emph{i.e.},\xspace 103 (4\%), has been configured to mitigate the leaks.
Interestingly, environment changes occur more frequently for open-source non-JSON app servers than no updates at all.
In other words, open-source developers seem to replace app servers rather then updating them.
Moreover, Cloudflare support has been enabled for 104 app servers, \emph{i.e.},\xspace for 45 open-source URLs and for 59 closed-source URLs.
Finally, more servers are shut down than spawned.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim = 2cm 15.5cm 2cm 1.25cm]{figures/p_oURL_cURL}
\caption{Correlation between app server security smells and configuration changes}
\label{fig:p_oURL_cURL}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Correlation of Security Smells}
\autoref{fig:p_oURL_cURL} shows the correlation between app server security smells and administrative configuration changes.
For this figure, we consolidated all app server categories, \emph{i.e.},\xspace open-source, closed-source, JSON, non-JSON due to the limited number of elements in some of them.
The x-axis denotes the number of security smells from which a particular app server suffers, and the y-axis indicates how many such app servers exist in each category.
Based on the versioning information from 2\,061 URLs, we can see that app servers suffering from three or more smells are usually not well maintained, \emph{i.e.},\xspace they are set up once and then left alone.
Although security improvements, \emph{i.e.},\xspace version upgrades, the removal of versioning information, and the migration to Cloudflare appear more frequently in instances that suffer from more than one smell, they only affect a minority.
Security downgrades, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the change to a more dated version, appear only in app servers that massively suffer from security smells, \emph{i.e.},\xspace from three or more smells.
\subsubsection{Summary}
According to our findings, app servers are usually set up once and never touched again.
This paradigm introduces severe security risks due to outdated software running on publicly accessible interfaces.
Hence, sensitive user data could be exfiltrated when adversaries apply suitable exploits to such systems.
Luckily, version upgrades are much more common than version downgrades, although they cannot at all compensate for the lack of change.
We expect that downgrades were performed to circumvent new bugs or compatibility issues, because all downgrades considered only minor release changes, \emph{e.g.},\xspace from \emph{nginx} release 1.14.1 to 1.12.1.
Some developers shift to Cloudflare to protect their infrastructure especially for non-JSON app servers.
We conclude that app server security smells seem to be a good indicator for poor server maintenance.
In fact, the more smells an app server has the more likely it is that server maintenance processes are broken.
\section{Threats to Validity}
\label{sec:threats-to-validity}
\emph{Completeness.}
A major threat to validity is the completeness of the used dataset built from Android apps.
Although state of the art decompilation tools have been used, only about 37\% of all closed-source Android apps could be successfully decompiled for the subsequent analysis.
Of these decompiled apps, the analysis for 22\% could not finish in time and might have led to incomplete results.
Moreover, the analysis tool skipped the evaluation of bundled build scripts and XML resources that could have pointers to additional app servers.
This threat cannot be mitigated entirely, however the rather large and diverse set of included apps ensures that the results can be generalized.
\emph{Accuracy.}
Another important threat represents the accuracy of the used dataset.
According to the authors, the tool that has been used to build the dataset achieves a precision of 46\% and a recall of 80\%.
However, this performance is the result of a manual analysis of decompiled code performed by the authors which included only ten open-source and ten closed-source apps that comprised 22 web API URLs.
In particular, it reported several URLs unrelated to web APIs but to static HTML pages, and the tool occasionally reconstructed invalid requests.
In this work, we do not depend on accurate requests, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the investigated response headers are identical even for malformed requests.
In fact, most of the reconstructed requests contained placeholders that we could leverage to see whether the app servers leak sensitive information in case of errors.
\emph{Data collection.}
The collected data might contain duplicates or suffer from temporal issues.
Some requests we generated from the URL might have reached identical servers which ultimately lead to duplicated connection information in the result set.
Another problem is that of server side outages or configuration changes that temporarily cause unexpected or erroneous results.
To mitigate these threats, we filtered the URL list for duplicates, and we used rather long timeouts and a high retry count when we accessed the servers.
\emph{Selection bias.}
The data used for the investigation of server maintenance represents only a subset of the original dataset.
This is an immediate result of the many servers that do not leak any data.
Even more, for the qualitative analysis we require two responses, each containing versioning information.
In order to reduce the impact of these threats, we manually reviewed the first 100 server responses to ensure that we do not miss any version information.
We then designed the value extraction process for the individual version numbers based on the results of this initial exploration.
\emph{Recency.}
The data set contains apps that have been downloaded in 2018, and the corresponding metadata has been collected in 2019.
This might change the results due to improved development processes and tools.
However, recent works still identified a lack of security in web communication~\cite{Alashwali:2020,Hu:2021}.
\emph{Security risks.}
The risks associated with the security smells are not necessarily severe.
We do not know what and how much data the web services hoard, and many of the risks directly correlate with the confidentiality of the data.
Since we cannot easily obtain this information, we follow a defensive strategy, \emph{i.e.},\xspace we assume that every server might host at least some sensitive data.
\emph{Construct validity.}
There is a threat to construct validity through potential bias in our expectancy.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related-work}
Related work primarily pertains to app analyses that have been summarized by the concept of security code smells, data transmissions with a particular interest in web communication, and public service audits that improve the app server security.
We present relevant literature in each of these three research areas in the remainder of this section.
\subsection{Security Code Smells}
The research about security code smells investigates the metamorphosis from unfavorable code that could become a security threat.
Ghafari~\emph{et al.}\xspace collected 46\,000 closed-source apps from the official Android market and investigated the nature and prevalence of common mistakes developers suffered.
For that purpose, they introduced the notion of a \emph{security code smell} and used it to identify 28 different security smells in five different categories~\cite{Ghafari:2017}.
They found that \emph{XSS-like Code Injection}, \emph{Dynamic Code Loading}, and \emph{Custom Scheme Channel} are the most prevalent smells, many of them leveraging inter-component communication features of the Android operating system.
As a result, Gadient~\emph{et al.}\xspace started to study the prevalence of \emph{Inter-Component Communication (ICC)}-related security smells in more than 700 open-source apps, and found that security code smells that involve web communication prevail against others, and that such issues are often introduced with new feature updates of apps~\cite{Gadient:2018}.
Moreover, the manual investigation of 100 apps demonstrated the usefulness of their tool, \emph{i.e.},\xspace about 43\% of the reported smells were in fact vulnerabilities.
Since many of the newly discovered smells relied on responses from web applications, they consequently began to investigate the web API communication of mobile apps~\cite{Gadient:2020}.
The preliminary results of their static analysis tool, which has been used to mine security code smells were devastating:
In 3\,376 apps, they encountered credential leaks, excessive use of embedded languages such as SQL and JavaScript, insecure web communication including source-code and version information leaks to name a few.
As a matter of fact, they found that unprotected web communication is seven times more prevalent in closed-source apps compared to open-source apps, and that embedded code is used in web communication in more than 500 different apps.
Our work continues this research, \emph{i.e.},\xspace we investigate the server side prevalence of the reported security smells.
\subsection{Web Communication}
Web communication in apps is usually initiated by the client, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the app that sends a request to a specific server.
Therefore, apps can reveal interesting features used to establish such a connection.
For example, Zuo~\emph{et al.}\xspace analyzed 5\,000 top-ranked apps in Google Play and identified 297\,780 URLs that they fed to the VirusTotal URL screening service~\cite{Zuo:2017}.
The service identified 8\,634 harmful URLs of which the majority related to malware (43\%), followed by malicious sites (37\%), and phishing (23\%).
Mendoza~\emph{et al.}\xspace investigated the input validation constraints imposed by apps on outgoing requests to web API services from 10\,000 popular free apps from the Google Play Store of which 46\% suffered from inconsistencies that could be exploited by attackers~\cite{Mendoza:2018a}.
Such inconsistencies allowed them to access app-related databases through various injection attacks, \emph{e.g.},\xspace they could misuse an app's email address field for an SQL injection attack, because its value did not receive additional server side validation.
We found many similarities in the results of our work:
advertisement services were omnipresent and proper authentication measures were barely implemented.
For instance, access to personal information was protected by the sole use of a single attribute, \emph{e.g.},\xspace an email address or hardware-based identifier.
\subsection{App Server Security}
Finally, app server security focuses on server side problems, configuration or implementation.
Zuo~\emph{et al.}\xspace found that 15\,098 app servers are subject to data leakage attacks~\cite{Zuo:2019}.
In particular, they suffer either from a broken key management, \emph{i.e.},\xspace the developers became confused about root and app keys, or from a broken permission configuration, \emph{i.e.},\xspace developers were overwhelmed when they had to choose appropriate permissions for their data.
They assume that this is a direct consequence of the utterly complex interfaces to configure such services designed for developers.
That is, Google even provides a language for developers to specify the desired user permissions.
With respect to web servers, Lavrenovs~\emph{et al.}\xspace worked through responses of the top one million Alexa websites, and collected security-related information such as HSTS support, protection against cross site scripting, and other HTTP headers that might impose a security risk~\cite{Lavrenovs:2018}.
They found that website popularity is the major driver for security measures.
In fact, the implementation rates compared against the Alexa ranking reveal an exponential decline pattern, \emph{i.e.},\xspace all of their analysed security headers started to be much more prevalent in the top 50\,000 websites, and that ratio steeply increased towards the top websites.
Moreover, Mendoza~\emph{et al.}\xspace found discrepancies between the use of such features in the mobile and desktop version of websites that enable various injection and spoofing attacks, although the affected websites remain in the realm of a few percent~\cite{Mendoza:2018b}.
Although we can confirm these results, according to our study a lack of security is much more prevalent in apps that use JSON app servers, especially in closed-source apps that are 11\% more susceptible to such issues than their open-source counterparts.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We analyzed the prevalence of six security smells in app servers and investigated the consequence of these smells from a security perspective.
We used an existing dataset that includes 9\,714 distinct URLs that were used in 3\,376 Android mobile apps.
We exercised the URLs twice over 14 months, and stored the HTTP headers and bodies.
We realized that the top three smells exist in more than 69\% of all tested apps, and that unprotected communication and server misconfigurations are very common.
Particularly alarming is the finding that apps using JSON app servers suffer 1.5 times more from app server security smells than non-JSON apps, and even worse, closed-source applications suffer 1.6 times more compared to open-source applications.
Moreover, source-code and version leaks, or the lack of update policies foster future attacks against these data centric systems.
We found that app server security smells are omnipresent and they indicate poor app server maintenance.
\begin{acks}
\blind{We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation for the project
``Agile Software Assistance'' (SNSF project No.\ 200020-181973, Feb.\ 1, 2019 - April 30, 2022).}
\end{acks}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
The interaction induced by quantum and thermal fluctuation of the electromagnetic field is an everyday phenomenon that acts between all neutral objects, both on atomic and macroscopic scales \cite{AnnuRev,RevModPhys2009,RevModPhys2016,Rodriguez2014,Dalvit2011}.
For the Casimir interaction between macroscopic bodies, the last two decades have witnessed unparalleled progress in experimental observations and the development of novel theoretical approaches \cite{Rodriguez2011,Golyk}.
In most of the recent theoretical approaches, the computation of Casimir forces between multiple objects of different shapes and material composition has been achieved by the use of scattering methods or the so-called TGTG formula \cite{Emig2007,kenneth,Neto2008,Emig2008,Rahi,Kruger2012,bimonte2009,bimonteemig,bimonte2018}.
These approaches have the advantage of relatively low numerical effort; they are rapidly converging and can achieve in principle any desired precision \cite{Kenneth2008,Milton2008,Reid2009,Golestanian2009,Ttira2010,hartmann}.
\edit{Another merit of these methods is the exclusion of UV divergencies by performing the subtraction analytically before any numerical computation.}
\edit{Other efficient approaches that have been developed before the scattering approaches include path integral quantizations where the boundary conditions at the surfaces are implemented by delta functions \cite{Bordag1985}. These approaches are limited to scalar fields with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions \cite{Bordag2006}, or the electromagnetic field with perfectly conducting boundary conditions \cite{Emig2003}, with the exception of a similar approach for dielectric boundaries \cite{Buscher2004}.}
However, such analytical (and semi-analytical) methods have been restricted to symmetric and simple shapes, like spheres, cylinders or ellipsoids \cite{Huth2010,Graham2011,Teo2013,Incardone2014,Emig2016}.
\edit{Geometries where parts of the bodies interpenetrate, such as those shown in Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}a, cannot be studied with scattering approaches.}
For general shapes \edit{and arbitrary geometries, new methods are needed. Purely} numerical methods based on surface current fluctuations have been developed \cite{johnson}, but they rely on a full-scale numerical evaluation of matrices and their determinants, which complicates these approaches when high precision of the force is required.
Hence, there is a need to develop methods that predict Casimir interactions between objects of arbitrary geometries composed of materials with arbitrary frequency-dependent electromagnetic properties. The Casimir force can be viewed as arising from the interaction of fluctuating currents distributions. In fact,
these effective fluctuating electric and magnetic currents can be considered to be localized either in the bulk of the bodies or just on their surfaces. The surface approach relies on the observation that the electromagnetic response of bodies can be represented entirely in terms of their surfaces, known as the “equivalence principle”, which is based on the observation that many source distributions outside a given region can produce the same field inside the region \cite{Harrington}. The surface approach has been introduced in the literature as a method for a purely { numerical} computation of Casimir interactions \cite{johnson}. There are two different methods to implement the idea of computing Casimir forces from fluctuating currents. One can either integrate the Maxwell stress tensor over a closed surface enclosing the body, directly yielding the Casimir force, or integrate over all electromagnetic gauge field fluctuations in a path integral, yielding the Casimir free energy. We shall consider both approaches here.
Compared to scattering theory-based approaches, the surface formulation has the advantage that it does not require the use of eigenfunctions of the vector wave equation that are specific to the shape of the bodies. Hence, our approach is applicable to general geometries and shapes, including interpenetrating structures. \edit{In fact, the power of the surface approach
has been demonstrated by numerical implementations in Reference \cite{johnson}, where it was used to compute the Casimir force in complicated geometries.}
In this paper, we present both the Maxwell stress tensor and path integral-based approaches for the Casimir force and free energy in terms of bulk or surface operators. Our main advancements are
\begin{itemize}
\item A new, compact and elegant derivation of the Casimir force from the Maxwell stress tensor within both a T-operator approach and a surface operator approach;
\item \textls[-20]{A new surface formula for the Casimir free energy expressed in terms of a surface~operator;}
\item A new path integral-based derivation of a Lagrange and Hamiltonian formulation for the Casimir free energy.
\end{itemize}
We also compare the approaches presented here to methods existing in the literature. For the special case of bodies that can be separated by non-overlapping enclosing surfaces, along which one of the coordinates in which the wave equation is separable is constant, our approach is shown to be equivalent to the scattering approach. Our approaches also show the general equivalence of the use of the Maxwell stress tensor in combination with the fluctuation-dissipation theorem on one side and the path integral representation of the Casimir force on the other side. As the most simple application of our approaches, we re-derive the Lifshitz formula for the Casimir free energy of two dielectric slabs. Other analytical applications of our approach will be presented elsewhere.
The geometries and shapes to which our approaches can be applied are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}a. For comparison, in Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}b, we display non-penetrating bodies to which scattering theory-based approaches are limited.
In general, we assume a configuration composed of $N$ bodies with dielectric functions $\epsilon_r(\omega)$ and magnetic permeabilities $\mu_r(\omega)$, $r=1,\ldots,N$. The bodies occupy the volumes $V_r$ with surfaces $\Sigma_r$ and outward pointing surface normal vectors $\hat{\bf n}_r$. The space with volume $V_0$ in between the bodies is filled by matter with dielectric function $\epsilon_0(\omega)$ and magnetic permeability $\mu_0(\omega)$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Fig0}
\caption{Configuration of bodies: (\textbf{a}) general shapes and positions that can be studied with the approaches presented in this work, (\textbf{b}) non-penetrating configurations that can be studied within the scattering approach.\label{fig:configuration}}
\end{figure}
\section{Stress-Tensor Approach}
\subsection{Bulk and Surface Expressions for the Force}
Consider a collection of $N$ magneto-dielectric bodies in vacuum. In the stress-tensor approach, the (bare) Casimir force $F_i^{( {\rm bare}| r)}$ on body $r$ is obtained by integrating the expectation value $\langle T_{ij} \rangle$ of the Maxwell stress tensor
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{equation}
\langle T_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle=\frac{1}{4 \pi} \left\{ \langle E_i({\bf x}) E_j({\bf x}) \rangle +\langle H_i({\bf x}) H_j({\bf x}) \rangle -\frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij}\left[ \langle E_k({\bf x}) E_k({\bf x}) \rangle + \langle H_k({\bf x}) H_k({\bf x}) \rangle \right]\right\}\label{stress}
\end{equation}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent over any closed surface ${S}_r$ drawn in the vacuum, which surrounds that body (but excludes all other bodies):
\begin{equation}
F_i^{({\rm bare}| r)} =\oint_{{S}_r} d^2 \sigma \,\hat { n}_j({\bf x}) \langle T_{ji} ({\bf x})\rangle \;,
\end{equation}
where $\hat {\bf n}$ is the unit normal oriented outside ${S}_r$, and the angular brackets denote the expectation value taken with respect to quantum and thermal fluctuations. For a system in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$, the (equal-time) expectation values of the products of field components (at points ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}'$ in the vacuum region) are provided by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem \cite{landau,agarwal}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle {\hat E}_i ({\bf x}) {\hat E}_j({\bf x}') \rangle&=& 2 k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \;{\cal G}^{(EE)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)\;, \nonumber \\
\langle {\hat H}_i ({\bf x}) {\hat H}_j({\bf x}') \rangle&=& 2 k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \;{\cal G}^{(HH)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)\;,\label{correl}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi_n= 2 \pi n k_B T/\hbar$ are the Matsubara imaginary frequencies, and the prime in the summations mean that the $n=0$ term is taken with a weight of one half. When the r.h.s of the above equations are plugged into Equation (\ref{stress}), one obtains for $\langle T_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle$ a formally divergent expression, since the Green functions ${\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ are singular in the coincidence limit ${\bf x}={\bf x}'$. This divergence can however be easily disposed of by noticing that the Green's functions admit the decomposition:
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)={\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}_{ij}({\bf x}-{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)+{\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)\;,\label{splitGr}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}_{ij}({\bf x}-{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ is the Green's function of free space, while ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ describes the effect of scattering of electromagnetic fields by the bodies. In the coincidence limit, only ${\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}_{ij}({\bf x}-{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ diverges, while ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ attains a finite limit. When the decomposition in Equation (\ref{splitGr}) is used to evaluate the r.h.s. of Equation (\ref{stress}), one finds that the expectation value of the stress tensor is decomposed in a way analogous to Equation (\ref{splitGr}):
\begin{equation}
\langle T_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle= \langle T^{(0)}_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle + {\Theta}_{ij}({\bf x})\;,
\end{equation}
where $\langle T^{(0)}_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle$ is the divergent expectation value of the stress tensor in empty space, and $ {\Theta}_{ij}({\bf x})$ is the {\it finite} expression
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Theta}_{ij} ({\bf x}) &=& \frac{k_B T}{2 \pi} \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \left[ {\Gamma}^{(EE)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n)
+ {\Gamma}^{(HH)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. - \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij} \left({\Gamma}^{(EE)}_{kk}({\bf x},{\bf x}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n)+{\Gamma}^{(HH)}_{kk}({\bf x},{\bf x}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right) \right]\;. \label{stressGamma}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Since the divergent contribution $\langle T^{(0)}_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle$ is independent of the presence of the bodies, one can just neglect it and then one obtains the following finite expression for the Casimir force \edit{on body $r$ due to the presence of the other bodies},
\begin{equation}
F_i^{(r)} =\oint_{{S}_r} d^2 \sigma \,\hat { n}_j({\bf x})\; {\Theta}_{ji} ({\bf x}) \;.\label{force0}
\end{equation}
The further development of the theory starts from the observation that the dyadic Green's functions ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ (for brevity, from now on we shall not display the dependence of the Green's functions on the Matsubara frequencies $\xi_n$) can be expressed in two distinct possible forms.
The first representation is general, since it is valid for arbitrary constitutive equations of the magneto-dielectric materials constituting the bodies, which can possibly be non-homogeneous, anisotropic, and non-local. For all points ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}'$, it expresses ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ in the form of an integral of the $T$-operator ${\hat T}$ (for its definition, see \mbox{Appendix \ref{app2.1}}) over the {\it volume} $V$ occupied by all bodies:
\begin{equation}
{\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}' )= \sum_{r,r'=1}^{N} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf y} \int_{V_{r'}} d^3 {\bf y}' {\cal G}^{(\alpha \rho;0)}_{ik}({\bf x}-{\bf y} ) T_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}') {\cal G}_{lj}^{(\sigma \beta;0)}({\bf y}'-{\bf x}')\;.\label{repGreen1}
\end{equation}
The above formula has a simple intuitive interpretation, if one recalls that according to its definition, the T-operator provides the polarization induced in the volume of the bodies when they are immersed in the electromagnetic field generated by a certain distribution of external sources.
The second representation is less general than Equation (\ref{repGreen1}) because it applies only to magneto-dielectric bodies that are (piecewise) homogeneous and isotropic \footnote{This restriction is not so severe in practice, since the vast majority of Casimir experiments use test bodies that can be modelled in this way.}. It expresses ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ in the form of an integral of the {\it surface} operator ${\hat M}^{-1}$ defined in Equation (\ref{defM}), over the union $\Sigma=\bigcup \Sigma_r$ of the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ of the bodies. For two points ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}'$ both lying in the vacuum region outside the bodies\footnote{A representation analogous to Equation (\ref{repGreen2}) also exists when one or both points belong to the regions occupied by bodies, but we shall not display it since the surface integral expressing the force in Equation (\ref{force0}) involves only points ${\bf x}$ in the vacuum region.}, the surface representation of ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}' )&=&- \sum_{r,r'=1}^{N} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf y} \int_{V_{r'}} d^3 {\bf y}' \,\delta(F_r ({\bf y}))\, \delta(F_{r'}({\bf y}'))\; \nonumber \\
&\times&{\cal G}^{(\alpha \rho;0)}_{ik}({\bf x}- {\bf y}) ) \left(M^{-1}\right)_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}') {\cal G}_{lj}^{(\sigma \beta;0)}({\bf y}'-{\bf x}')\;,\label{repGreen2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $F_r({\bf y})=0$ is the equation of the surface $\Sigma_r$.
This representation also has a simple intuitive meaning, if one considers that $-\hat{M}^{-1}$ (see Appendix \ref{app2.2} for details) is defined as the operator that provides the {\it fictitious} surface polarizations that radiate outside the bodies the same scattered electromagnetic field as the one radiated by the physically induced volumic polarization, in response to an external field. The derivations of Equations (\ref{repGreen1}) and (\ref{repGreen2}) are presented in Appendix \ref{app2}.
It is apparent that both representations have the same mathematical structure, consisting of a two-sided convolution of a certain kernel ${\cal K}_{ij}^{(\alpha \beta)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ with the free-space Green's functions $ {\cal G}_{ij}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}')$:
\begin{equation}
{\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}' )= \int_{V} d^3{\bf y}\int_{V} d^3{\bf y}' {\cal G}^{(\alpha \rho;0)}_{ik}({\bf x}-{\bf y} ) {\cal K}_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}') {\cal G}_{lj}^{(\sigma \beta;0)}({\bf y}'-{\bf x}')\;.\label{repGreen3}
\end{equation}
The only difference between the two representations consists in the expression of ${{\cal K}}$, which in the case of Equation (\ref{repGreen1}) is the three-dimensional kernel $T_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')$ supported in the volume $V$ occupied by the bodies:
\begin{equation}
{{\cal K}}_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')=T_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')\;,
\end{equation}
while in Equation (\ref{repGreen2}) ${{\cal K}}$ is the two-dimensional kernel $-\left(M^{-1}\right)_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')$ supported on the union $\Sigma$ of their surfaces:
\begin{equation}
{{\cal K}}_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')=- \sum_{r,r'=1}^{N} \delta(F_r ({\bf y}))\, \delta(F_{r'}({\bf y}')) \left(M^{-1}\right)_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')
\end{equation}
In both cases, the above equation can be concisely written using the operator notation described in Appendix \ref{app1}:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Gamma}=\hat{\cal{G}}^{(0)}\,\hat{{\cal K}}\,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\;.\label{gammarepgen}
\end{equation}
\noindent
In Appendix \ref{app3}, we prove that the structure of the representation of ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}' )$ given in Equation (\ref{repGreen3}), allows to re-express the Casimir force Equation (\ref{force0}) in the following remarkably simple form:
\begin{equation}
{F}_i^{(r)}=2 k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf y} \int_{V} d^3 {\bf y}'\, \left( {\cal K}_{l j}^{(\alpha \beta)}({\bf y}',{\bf y}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {y_i}} {\cal G}^{(\beta \alpha;0)}_{jl }({\bf y}-{\bf y}';{\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right)\;.\label{force1}
\end{equation}
A crucial role in the derivation of Equation (\ref{force1}) is played by the fact that the kernel
${{\cal K}}$ satisfies a set of reciprocity relations analogous to those satisfied by the Green's functions:
\begin{equation}
{\cal K}_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}') = (-1)^{s(\rho)+s(\sigma)}{\cal K}_{lk}^{(\sigma \rho)}({\bf y}',{\bf y}) \;,\label{recK}
\end{equation}
where $s(E)=0$ and $s(H)=1$. It is possible to verify that the reciprocity relations satisfied by ${\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}_{ij}({\bf y}-{\bf y}')$ and ${\cal K}^{( \alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf y},{\bf y}')$ ensure vanishing of the ``self-force'' ${F}_i^{({\rm self}|r)}$:
\begin{equation}
{F}_i^{({\rm self}|r)}=2 k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, \int_{V_r} d^3{\bf y} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf y}'\, \left( {\cal K}_{ij}^{(\alpha \beta)}({\bf y}',{\bf y}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {y_i}} {\cal G}^{(\beta \alpha;0)}_{ji}({\bf y}-{\bf y}';{\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right)=0\;.
\end{equation}
This implies that in Equation (\ref{force1}) the ${\bf y}'$ integral is in fact restricted to ${V}-{V}_r$, in accord with one's intuition that the force on body $r$ is due to the interaction with the other bodies. It is possible to present Equation (\ref{force1}) in a more compact and symmetric form, by defining the derivative $\partial/\partial {\bf x}_r$ of any kernel ${\cal A}({\bf y},{\bf y}')$, with respect to rigid translations of the r-th~body:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} {\cal A}({\bf y},{\bf y}') \equiv \psi_r({\bf y})\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf y}}{\cal A}({\bf y},{\bf y}') +\psi_r({\bf y}')\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf y}'}{\cal A}({\bf y},{\bf y}')\;,
\end{equation}
where $\psi_r({\bf y})$ is the characteristic function of $V_r$: $\psi_r({\bf y})=1$ if ${\bf y} \in V_r$, $\psi_r({\bf y})=0$ if ${\bf y} \notin V_r$. Using $\partial/\partial {\bf x}_r$, we can rewrite Equation (\ref{force1}) as
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}=k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, \int_{V} d^3{\bf y}\int_{V} d^3{\bf y}' \left( {\cal K}_{ij}^{(\alpha \beta)}({\bf y}',{\bf y}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} {\cal G}^{(\beta \alpha;0)}_{ji}({\bf y}-{\bf y}';{\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right) \;.\label{force}
\end{equation}
The expression on the r.h.s. of the above formula can be compactly expressed using the operator notation and the trace operation described in Appendix \ref{app1}:
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}=k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \,{\rm Tr} \left[ {\hat {\cal K}}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} ({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right]\;.\label{force}
\end{equation}
Depending on whether we use for the kernel ${\hat K}$ the $T$-operator of Equation (\ref{repGreen1}) or rather the surface operator $-{\hat M}$ of Equation (\ref{repGreen2}), Equation (\ref{force}) provides us with two distinct but formally similar representations of the Casimir force, which is expressed either as an integral over the volume $V$ occupied by the bodies or as an integral over their surfaces $\Sigma$. One feature of Equation (\ref{force}) is worth stressing. Since the force is expressed as a trace, Equation (\ref{force}) can be evaluated in an {\it arbitrary} basis, leaving one with complete freedom in the choice of the most convenient basis in a concrete situation.
A representation of the Casimir force in the form of a volume integral equivalent to Equation (\ref{force}) was derived in~\cite{Kruger2012}, while the surface-integral representation was obtained in \cite{johnson}. Equation (\ref{force}) can be computed numerically for any shapes and dispositions of the bodies, by using discrete meshes covering the bodies. An efficient numerical scheme based on surface-elements methods is described in \cite{johnson}, where it was used to compute the Casimir force in complex geometries, not amenable to analytical techniques.
\subsection{Casimir Free Energy}
\textls[-15]{In this section, we compute the Casimir free energy ${\cal F}$ of the system of bodies, starting from the force formula Equation (\ref{force}). We shall see that the T-operator and the surface-operator approaches lead to two distinct but equivalent representations of the Casimir~energy.}
\subsubsection{T-Operator Approach}
Plugging into Equation (\ref{force}) the expression of the T-operator Equation (\ref{Top}), we find that the Casimir force can be expressed in the form:
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}= k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, {\rm Tr}\left( {\hat T}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \hat{\cal G}^{(0)}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right) =k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, {\rm Tr}\left[ \frac{1}{1-{\hat \chi}\, \hat{\cal G}^{(0)}}\, \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \left( {\hat{\chi}} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\right)\right]\;,
\end{equation}
where in the last passage, we made use of the fact that the polarization operator ${\hat \chi}$ defined in Equation (\ref{defchi}) is invariant under a rigid displacement of the body. The r.h.s. of the above equation can be formally expressed as a gradient:
\begin{equation}
F^{(r)}=- \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r}\,{\cal F}_{\rm bare}\;,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal F}_{\rm bare}$ is the {\it bare} free energy:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_{\rm bare}= k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, {\rm Tr}\; \log [1-{\hat{\chi}} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}]\;
\end{equation}
Unfortunately, ${\cal F}_{\rm bare}$ is formally divergent. To obtain the finite Casimir free energy ${\cal F}$, one has to subtract from ${\cal F}_{\rm bare}$ the divergent self-energies ${\cal F}^{(r)}_{\rm self}$ of the individual bodies:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}^{(r)}_{\rm self}= \left\{k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\! \!' \, {\rm Tr}\; \log [1-{\hat{\chi}_r} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}] \right\}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\chi}_r = \hat{\psi}_r \hat{\chi} \hat{\psi}_r$ is the polarizability operator of body $r$ in isolation.
In the case of a system composed by two bodies, the renormalized Casimir free energy can be recast in the following TGTG form:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}={\cal F}_{\rm bare}- {\cal F}^{(1)}_{\rm self}-{\cal F}^{(2)}_{\rm self}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, {\rm Tr}\; \log [1-{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_2} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}]\,,\label{TGTG}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\hat T}_r=\frac{1}{1-{\hat \chi}_r\, \hat{\cal G}^{(0)}}\,{\hat \chi}_r\,,
\end{equation}
is the T-operator of body $r$ in isolation. To prove Equation (\ref{TGTG}), one notes that for each Matsubara mode the operator identity holds:
\begin{equation}
(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{T}_1
\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{T}_2
(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)
=\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\hat{\chi}_2\;.
\end{equation}
The above identity in turn allows to prove the following chain of identities:
$$
{\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1]+{\rm Tr}\log [1- \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}{\hat{T}_2}]+{\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2]
$$
$$
={\rm Tr} \log[(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)(1- \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}{\hat{T}_2})(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)]
$$
$$
={\rm Tr} \log[(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)-(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}{\hat{T}_2}(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)]
$$
$$
={\rm Tr} \log[(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\hat{\chi}_2 ]={\rm Tr} \log[(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}( \hat{\chi}_1+\hat{\chi}_2)]
$$
\begin{equation}
={\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\hat{\chi}]\;.
\end{equation}
Equating the first line with the last line, we obtain the identity:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\hat{\chi}] \nonumber\\
&&={\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1]+{\rm Tr}\log [1- \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}{\hat{T}_2}]+{\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2]\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Upon summing the above identity over all Matsubara modes (with weight one half for the $n=0$ term), and then multiplying it by $k_B T$, we find:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}^{(1)}_{\rm self}+{\cal F}^{(2)}_{\rm self}+{\cal F}={\cal F}_{\rm bare}\;,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to Equation (\ref{TGTG}). The energy formula Equation (\ref{TGTG}) was derived in~\cite{kenneth} using the path-integral method and in \cite{Kruger2012}, using Rytov's fluctuational electrodynamics~\cite{Rytov}.
\subsubsection{Surface Operator Approach}
Now we derive the surface-operator representation of the Casimir energy. To do that, we start from the surface-operator representation of the force, which is obtained by replacing $\hat{K}$ in Equation (\ref{force}) with minus the inverse of the surface operator $\hat{M}$ defined in Equation (\ref{defM}):
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}=-k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \,{\rm Tr} \left[ {\hat {M}^{-1}}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} ({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right]\;.
\end{equation}
This can also be written as:
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}=-k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \,{\rm Tr} \left[ {\hat {M}^{-1}}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \left(\hat{\Pi}\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} ({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \hat{\Pi} \right)\right]\;, \label{surffo0}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\Pi}$ is the tangential projection operator defined in Appendix \ref{app2.2}. Now, one notes the~identity:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \left(\hat{\Pi}\,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} ({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\, \hat{\Pi} \right)= \frac{\partial {\hat M} }{\partial {\bf x}_r}\;,\label{ident0}
\end{equation}
which is a direct consequence of Equation (\ref{defM}) since
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial }{\partial {\bf x}_r}\sum_{s=1}^N\hat{\Pi}_s \, \hat{\cal G}^{(s)}\,\hat{\Pi}_s=0\;.
\end{equation}
Plugging Equation (\ref{ident0}) into Equation (\ref{surffo0}), we obtain:
\begin{equation}
F^{(r)}= -k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, {\rm Tr} \left[ {\hat M}^{-1}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \hat{M}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right] \;,
\end{equation}
The r.h.s. of the above equation can be formally expressed as a gradient:
\begin{equation}
F^{(r)}=- \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r}\,\tilde{{\cal F}}_{\rm bare}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{{\cal F}}_{\rm bare}$ is the {\it bare} free energy:
\begin{equation}
{\tilde {\cal F}}_{\rm bare}= k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, {\rm Tr}\; \log {\hat M}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\;. \label{bareensurf}
\end{equation}
Similarly to what we found in the T-operator approach, the surface formula of the bare-energy ${\tilde {\cal F}}_{\rm bare}$ is formally divergent. The finite Casimir free energy is obtained by subtracting from ${\tilde {\cal F}}_{\rm bare}$ the limit $\tilde{{\cal F}}^{(\infty)}_{\rm bare}$ of the bare energy when the bodies are taken infinitely apart from each other. From Equation (\ref{defM}), one sees that in the limit of infinite separations, the operator ${\hat M}$ approaches the limit ${\hat M}_{\infty}$
\begin{equation}
{\hat M}_{\infty}= \sum_{r=1}^N {\hat M}_r\;,\label{defMinf}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\hat M}_{r}= \hat{\Pi}_r\,( \hat{\cal G}^{(r)}+ \hat{\cal G}^{(0)})\,\hat{\Pi}_r \;.\label{defMbodies}
\end{equation}
Notice that the surface operator ${\hat M}_{r}$ is localized onto the surface $\Sigma_r$ of the $r$-th body. This implies that:
\begin{equation}
{\hat M}_{r}\, {\hat M}_{s}=0\;,\;\;\;\;\;{\rm for}\;\;r \neq s\;.
\end{equation}
Using Equation (\ref{defMinf}), we find that $\tilde{{\cal F}}^{(\infty)}_{\rm bare}$ is the formally divergent quantity:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\cal F}}^{(\infty)}_{\rm bare}= k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, \; {\rm Tr}\; \log {\hat M}_{\infty}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)=\sum_{r=1}^{N} k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, \; {\rm Tr}\; \log {\hat M}_{r}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\equiv \sum_{r=1}^{N} \tilde{{\cal F}}^{(r)}_{\rm self}\;.
\label{selfensurf}
\end{equation}
The additive character of $\tilde{{\cal F}}^{(\infty)}_{\rm bare}$ allows to interpret $ \tilde{{\cal F}}^{(r)}_{\rm self}$ as representing the (infinite) the self-energy of the bodies in the surface approach.
Upon subtracting Equation (\ref{selfensurf}) from Equation (\ref{bareensurf}), we arrive at the following formula for the Casimir energy:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, \log \det \frac{ {\hat M}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)}{{\hat M}_{\infty}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)}\;. \label{ensurf}
\end{equation}
An easy computation shows that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{{\hat M}_{\infty}}\, {\hat M}=1+\sum_{r \neq s}\frac{1}{\hat{M}_r} \hat{\cal G}_{rs}^{(0)}\;.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal G}_{rs}^{(0)}= \hat{\Pi}_r \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\, \hat{\Pi}_s\;.
\end{equation}
Substitution of the above formula into Equation (\ref{ensurf}) results in the following surface formula for the Casimir energy:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \log \det \left[1+\sum_{r \neq s}\frac{1}{\hat{M}_r} \hat{\cal G}_{rs}^{(0)} \right] \;.\label{ensurF}
\end{equation}
In the simple case of two bodies, the above formula reduces to:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' {\rm Tr}\,\log \left[1- \frac{1}{\,{\hat M}_1} \, \hat{\cal G}_{12}^{(0)} \frac{1}{\,{\hat M}_2} \hat{\cal G}_{21}^{(0)} \right]\;.\label{renensurf}
\end{equation}
The surface formulas for the Casimir energy given in Equations (\ref{ensurF}) and (\ref{renensurf}) were not known before and are presented here for the first time.
Comparison of Equation (\ref{renensurf}) with Equation (\ref{TGTG}) reveals the striking similarity of the T-operator and surface-approach representations of the Casimir energy. Indeed we see that both formulas can be written in the form:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' {\rm Tr}\,\log \left[1- \hat{\cal{K}}_1 \, \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\cal{K}}_2 \hat{\cal G} ^{(0)} \right]\;,\label{renensurfgen}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\cal{K}}_r$ is the kernel, which gives the scattering Green's function of body $r$ in isolation:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Gamma}_r=\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\,\hat{{\cal K}}_r\,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\;. \label{gammarepgenis}
\end{equation}
\section{Equivalence of the Surface-Formula with the Scattering Formula for the Casimir~Energy}
In the previous sections, we have shown that, both in the $T$-operator and in the surface approaches, the Casimir energy ${\cal F}$ of two bodies can be expressed by the general \mbox{Equation (\ref{renensurfgen})}.
This formula is valid {for any shape and relative dispositions} of the two bodies, and in particular for two interleaved bodies (see Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}a). Now we show that when the two bodies can be enclosed within two non-overlapping spheres (see Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}b), \mbox{Equation (\ref{renensurfgen})} is the same as the well-known { scattering} formula \cite{Emig2007,Neto2008,Emig2008,Rahi,Kruger2012}:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \rm{tr} \log \left[1- {\cal T}^{(1)} \, {\cal U}^{(12)} {\cal T}^{(2)} \, {\cal U}^{(21)} \right] \; .\label{scaterfor}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal T}^{(r)}$ is the {scattering matrix} of body $r$ (see Equation (\ref{tmatdef}) for the definition of ${\cal T}^{(r)}$), ${\cal U}^{(rs)}$ are the translation matrices defined in Equation (\ref{transl}) and $\rm{tr}$ denotes a trace over multipole indices.
\noindent
To prove equivalence of Equation (\ref{renensurfgen}) with Equation (\ref{scaterfor}), one starts from the observation that the trace operation in Equation (\ref{renensurfgen}) involves evaluating the Green functions ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}\!\!\!\!({\bf y},{\bf y}')$ at points ${\bf y}$ and ${\bf y}'$, one of which (call it ${\bf y}_1$) belongs to body 1, while the other (call it ${\bf y}_2$) belongs to body 2. For two bodies that can be separated by non-overlapping spheres, it is warranted that $|{\bf y}_1-{\bf X}_1| < |{\bf y}_2-{\bf X}_1|$ and
$|{\bf y}_2-{\bf X}_2| < |{\bf y}_1-{\bf X}_2|$, where ${\bf X}_1$ and ${\bf X}_2$ are the positions of the centers of the spheres $S^{(1)}$ and $S^{(2)}$, respectively, and $d=|{\bf X}_2-{\bf X}_1|$ is their distance. This condition satisfied by ${\bf y}_1$ and ${\bf y}_2$ ensures that it is legitimate to express ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}\!\!\!\!({\bf y}_r,{\bf y}_s)$ (with $r\neq s=1,2$) by the partial-wave expansion (see Appendix \ref{app4}):
\begin{eqnarray}
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow} { {\cal G}}}^{(\alpha \beta;0)} \!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\! ({\bf y}_r,{\bf y}_s)\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\! \!\lambda (-1)^{s(\beta)}\,\sum_{plm} { \Phi}^{(\alpha | {\rm reg})}_{plm}({\bf y}_r-{\bf X}_r) \otimes { \Phi}^{(\beta | {\rm out})}_{pl-m}({\bf y}_s-{\bf X}_r) \nonumber \\
&=&\!\!\!\lambda\, (-1)^{s(\beta)}\sum_{plm} \sum_{p'l'} { \Phi}^{(\alpha | {\rm reg})}_{p lm}({\bf y}_r-{\bf X}_r) \otimes {\cal U}^{(rs)}_{p l ; p' l'}(d)\, { \Phi}^{(\beta | {\rm reg})}_{p'l'-m}({\bf y}_s-{\bf X}_s)\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${ \Phi}^{ {\rm( reg/out})}_{p lm}({\bf y}_r-{\bf X}_r)$ are a basis of regular and outgoing spherical waves with origin at ${\bf X}_r$.
When the above expansion is substituted into Equation (\ref{renensurfgen}) and the trace is evaluated, one finds that ${\cal F}$ can be recast in the form:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \;\rm{tr} \;\log \left[1-{\cal N} \right]\;.\label{firststep}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal N}$ is the matrix of elements:
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal N}_{plm;p' l' m'} \equiv \; \sum_{p'' l''} \sum_{p''' l''' m'''} \sum_{p'''' l''''} \; {\cal U}^{(21)}_{p l,p''l''} (d) \; {\cal U}^{(12)}_{p''' l''' ; p'''' l''''}(d) \nonumber \\
&\times& \lambda \sum_{\alpha, \mu} (-1)^{s(\alpha)} \int_{{V}_1} d^3 {\bf y}_1 \int_{{V}_1} d^3 {\bf y}'_1 \; { \Phi}^{(\alpha | {\rm reg})}_{p'' l''-m}({\bf y}_1-{\bf X}_1) \cdot {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow} {\cal K}}^{(\alpha \mu)}_1 \;({\bf y}_1,{\bf y}'_1)\cdot { \Phi}^{(\mu | {\rm reg})}_{p''' l'''m'''}({\bf y}'_1-{\bf X}_1) \; \nonumber \\
&\times& \lambda \sum_{\beta,\nu} (-1)^{s(\nu)} \int_{{V}_2} d^3 {\bf y}_2 \int_{{V}_2} d^3 {\bf y}'_2\;{ \Phi}^{(\nu | {\rm reg})}_{p''''l''''-m'''}({\bf y}_2-{\bf X}_2)\, \cdot {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal K} }^{(\nu \beta)}_2({\bf y}_2,{\bf y}'_2) \cdot { \Phi}^{(\beta | {\rm reg})}_{p' l' m'}({\bf y}'_2 -{\bf X}_2)\;. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
Recalling the formula Equation (\ref{tmatK}) for the scattering matrices ${\cal T}^{(r)}$ of the two bodies, we see that ${\cal N}$ is the matrix:
\begin{equation}
{\cal N} ={\cal U}^{(21)} (d) \;{\cal T}^{(1)} {\cal U}^{(12)}(d)\,{\cal T}^{(2)}\;.
\end{equation}
Upon substituting the above expression into the r.h.s. of Equation (\ref{firststep}), and using cyclicity of the trace, we see that Equation (\ref{firststep}) indeed coincides with the scattering formula Equation (\ref{scaterfor}).
\section{Path Integral Approach}
As in the previous sections, we consider again $N$ dielectric bodies occupying the volumes $V_r$, $r=1,\ldots, N$, bounded by surfaces $\Sigma_r$. Their electromagnetic properties are described by the dielectric functions $\epsilon^{(r)}$ and magnetic permeability $\mu^{(r)}$. The bodies are embedded in a homogeneous medium occupying the outside volume of the bodies, $V_0$, with dielectric function $\epsilon^{(0)}$ and magnetic permeability $\mu^{(0)}$.
In the Euclidean path integral quantization of the electromagnetic field, the Casimir free energy at finite temperature $T$ can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
\label{PI_free_energy}
{\mathcal F} = - k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!'
\log\frac{\mathcal Z(\kappa_n)}{\mathcal Z_{\infty}(\kappa_n)} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over the Matsubara momenta $\kappa_n=2\pi n k_B T/\hbar c$, with a weight of $1/2$ for $n=0$. The partition function $\mathcal Z$ is given by a path integral that we shall derive now. The partition function $\mathcal Z_{\infty}$ describes the configuration of infinitely separated bodies and subtracts the self-energies of the bodies from the bare free energy. In the following two sections, we shall derive both a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian path integral expression of the partition function. In both cases, we employ a fluctuating { surface} current approach. A path integral approach that is based on bulk currents can be found, e.g., in Reference~\cite{Rahi}.
\subsection{Lagrange Formulation}
The action of the electromagnetic field coupled to bound sources ${\bf P}_\text{ind}$ in the absence of free sources is in general given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2}
S_\text{EM} = \int d^3 {\bf x}\, \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left(
\epsilon_{\bf x} {\bf E}^2 - \frac{1}{\mu_{\bf x}} {\bf B}^2 \right)
+ {\bf P}_\text{ind} \cdot {\bf E} \right] \, .
\end{equation}
In the following, we express the action in terms of the gauge field ${\bf A}$ choosing the transverse or temporal gauge with $A_0=0$. The functional integral will then run over ${\bf A}$ only. The electric field is given by ${\bf E} = i k {\bf A} \to -\kappa {\bf A}$ and the magnetic field by ${\bf B} = \nabla \times {\bf A}$. Then the action in terms of the induced sources at fixed frequency $\kappa$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:EM_hatS}
\hat S[{\bf A}] &=& -\frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} d^3 {\bf x}\, \left[
{\bf A}^2 \epsilon_{\bf x} \kappa^2 + \frac{1}{\mu_{\bf x}} (\nabla \times {\bf A})^2\right]
- \kappa \sum_{r=1}^N \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,{\bf A} \cdot {\bf P}_r \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
for fluctuations ${\bf A}$ of the gauge field, and induced bulk
currents ${\bf P}_r$ inside the objects. The inverse of the kernel
of the quadratic part of this action is given by the Green tensor
$G({\bf x},{\bf x}')$, which is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:G_dyadic_def}
\nabla \times \frac{1}{\mu_{\bf x}} \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') +
\epsilon_{\bf x} \kappa^2 \, {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = 4\pi\, {\bf 1} \, \delta({\bf x}-{\bf x}') \, .
\end{equation}
For spatially constant $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ with body $r$, this yields the free Green's tensor
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:G_dyadic}
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = \mu_r\left( {\bf 1}
-\frac{1}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2} \nabla\otimes\nabla \right)
\frac{e^{-\sqrt{\epsilon_r \mu_r}\kappa |{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|}}{
|{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|} \, ,
\end{equation}
which is symmetric, reflecting reciprocity. From the relation between the gauge field ${\bf A}$ and the electric field ${\bf E}$ follows the relation $-\kappa^2{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')={\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(EE;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') $, which allows to compare the results below to those of the stress-tensor-based derivation.
Next, we define the classical solutions
$\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ of the vector wave equation in each region
$V_r$, obeying
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:WE_E}
\nabla \times \nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r + \epsilon_r \mu_r
\kappa^2 \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r = - \kappa \mu_r {\bf P}_r
\end{equation}
We use this definition together with the fact that ${\bf A}$ has no
sources inside $V_r$, i.e., obeys above wave equation with
vanishing right-hand side, to rewrite the source terms of Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_hatS}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:EM_source_term}
-\kappa \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,{\bf A} \cdot {\bf P}_r &=&
\int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,{\bf A} \cdot \left[
\frac{1}{\mu_r}\nabla\times\nabla \times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r+
\epsilon_r
\kappa^2
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
\right]
\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \,\left[ {\bf A} \cdot
( \nabla\times\nabla\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r) - (
\nabla\times\nabla\times {\bf A}) \cdot \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r \right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \left[ \nabla \cdot
((\nabla\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)\times{\bf A} )-\nabla \cdot ((\nabla\times
{\bf A})\times\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \left[ {\bf n}_r \cdot
((\nabla\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)\times{\bf A} )-{\bf n}_r \cdot ((\nabla\times
{\bf A})\times\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \left[ {\bf A} \cdot
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + (\nabla \times {\bf A}) \cdot ({\bf n}_r
\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r ) \right] \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now we have to consider the electric field ${\bf E}=-\kappa {\bf A}$ only on the surfaces
$\Sigma_r$. However, the values of the electric field ${\bf E}$
and its curl $\nabla\times{\bf E}$ are those when the surface is approached from
the inside, denoted by ${\bf E}_-$
and $(\nabla\times{\bf E})_-$. It is important to realize that in the
above surface integral, ${\bf A}$
and $\nabla\times{\bf A}$ multiply vectors that are tangential to the
surface, and hence only the tangential components of ${\bf A}$
and $\nabla\times{\bf A}$ contribute to the integral. Hence, we can use
the continuity conditions of the tangential components of ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf H}$,
\begin{equation}
{\bf n}_r \times {\bf E}_- = {\bf n}_r \times {\bf E}_+\, , \quad
\frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times {\bf E})_- =
\frac{1}{\mu_0}{\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times {\bf E})_+ \, ,
\end{equation}
to write the source terms as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:EM_source_term_2}
\nonumber
-\kappa \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{\bf A} \cdot {\bf P}_r =
\frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \left[ {\bf A}_-\cdot
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + (\nabla \times {\bf A})_- \cdot ({\bf n}_r
\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
)
\right]\\
&=&\!\!\!\!
\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \left[ \frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf A}_+ \cdot
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + \frac{1}{\mu_0} (\nabla \times {\bf A})_+ \cdot ({\bf n}_r
\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r ) \right] \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the first form applies to ${\bf A}$ inside the objects and the
second form to ${\bf A}$ outside the objects.
There is another advantage of having expressed the latter integrals in terms of the values of ${\bf A}$ and $\nabla\times{\bf A}$ when the surfaces are approached from either the outside or the inside of the objects. In the region $V_0$, the field ${\bf A}\equiv{\bf A}_0$ is fully determined by its values on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ and the dielectric function $\epsilon_0$ and permeability $\mu_0$, which are constant across $V_0$. When integrating out ${\bf A}_0$, in fact, one computes the two-point correlation function of ${\bf A}_+$ and $(\nabla\times{\bf A})_+$ {\it on} the surfaces $\Sigma_r$, and hence the behavior of ${\bf A}_0$ inside the regions $V_r$ with $r>0$ is irrelevant. Following the same arguments for ${\bf A}\equiv{\bf A}_\alpha$ inside the objects, the behavior of ${\bf A}_r$ outside of region $V_r$ is irrelevant for computing the correlations of ${\bf A}_-$ and $(\nabla\times{\bf A})_-$ {\it on} the surfaces $\Sigma_r$.
Hence, we can replace in the action $\hat S[{\bf A},\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r\}]$ the spatially dependent $\epsilon_{\bf x}$ by $\epsilon_0$ when the coupling of ${\bf A}_0$ to the surface fields $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ is represented by the second line of Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_source_term_2}), and similarly replace $\epsilon_{\bf x}$ by $\epsilon_r$ when the coupling of ${\bf A}_r$ to the surface fields $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ is represented by the first line of Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_source_term_2}).
That this is justified can also be understood as follows. The field ${\bf A}_0$ in region $V_0$ can be expanded in a basis of functions that obey the wave equation with $\epsilon_0$. The same can be done for ${\bf A}_r$ in the interior of each object, i.e., ${\bf A}_r$ can be expanded in a basis of functions that obey the wave equation with $\epsilon_r$ in $V_r$. For each given set of expansion coefficients in $V_0$ there are corresponding coefficients within each region $V_r$ that are determined by the continuity conditions at the surfaces $\Sigma_r$. The functional integral over ${\bf A}$ then corresponds to integrating over consistent sets of expansion coefficients that are related by the continuity conditions. The two-point correlations of ${\bf A}_+$ and $(\nabla\times{\bf A})_+$ on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ are then fully determined by the integral over the expansion coefficients of ${\bf A}_0$ in $V_0$ only, and the interior expansion coefficients play no role. Equivalently, the two-point correlations of ${\bf A}_-$ and $(\nabla\times{\bf A})_-$ on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ are then fully determined by the integral over the expansion coefficients of ${\bf A}_r$ in $V_r$ only, and now the exterior expansion coefficients are irrelevant. Hence, in the functional integral, the integration of ${\bf A}$ can be replaced by $N+1$ integrations over the fields ${\bf A}_r$, $r=0,\ldots,N$, where each ${\bf A}_r$ is allowed to extend over unbounded space with the action for a free field in a homogeneous space with $\epsilon_r$, $\mu_r$.
However, it is important that the correct of the two possible forms of the surface integral in Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_source_term_2}) is used.
The multiple counting of degrees of freedom that results from $N+1$ functional integrations poses no problem since the (formally infinite) factor in the partition function cancels when the Casimir energy is computed from Equation~(\ref{PI_free_energy}).
With this representation, we can write the partition function as a
functional integral over ${\bf A}$, separately in each region $V_r$,
and the surface fields $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ on body $r$, leading to the partition function
\begin{equation}
\label{euclid-z}
\mathcal Z(\kappa) = \prod_{r=0}^N\int\ {\mathcal D}{\bf A}_r \prod_{r=1}^N \int {\mathcal D}\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
\exp \left[ -\beta \hat S[\{{\bf A}_r\},\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r\}]\right]\, .
\end{equation}
with the action
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat S[\{{\bf A}_r\},\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r\}]&=&-\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{r=0}^N\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}
d^3 {\bf x}\left[ {\bf A}_r^2 \epsilon_r \kappa^2 + \frac{1}{\mu_r}
(\nabla \times {\bf A}_r)^2 \right]
\\ \nonumber
&+&
\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \left[ \frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf A}_0
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + \frac{1}{\mu_0} (\nabla \times {\bf A}_0) ({\bf n}_r
\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
)
\right]\\ \nonumber
&+& \sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,\left[ \frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf A}_r
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + \frac{1}{\mu_r} (\nabla \times {\bf A}_r) ({\bf n}_r
\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
) \right]
\end{eqnarray}
Now, the fluctuations ${\bf A}$ can be integrated out easily, noting that
the two point correlation function $\langle {\bf A}_r({\bf x})
{\bf A}_{r'}({\bf x}')\rangle=0$ for all $r$, ${r'}=0,\ldots,N$ with
$r\neq {r'}$, and for equal-region correlations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:E-correlations}
\langle A_{r,j}({\bf x}) A_{r,k}({\bf x}')\rangle &=& {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}_{jk}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\\
\langle (\nabla\times {\bf A})_{r,j} ({\bf x}) A_{r,k} ({\bf x}')\rangle &=& \left[ \nabla
\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)} \right]_{jk}({\bf x}, {\bf x}')
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle A_{r,j} ({\bf x}) (\nabla\times {\bf A})_{r,k} ({\bf x}')\rangle &=& - \left[
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}\times \nabla\right]_{jk}({\bf x},
{\bf x}')
= \left[ \nabla
\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}\right]_{jk}({\bf x}, {\bf x}')
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\vspace{-12pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle (\nabla\times {\bf A})_{r,j} ({\bf x}) (\nabla\times {\bf A})_{r,k} ({\bf x}')\rangle &=& - \left[ \nabla\times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}\times \nabla\right]_{jk}({\bf x},
{\bf x}')
\nonumber \\
&=& \left[ \nabla\times\nabla
\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}\right]_{jk}({\bf x}, {\bf x}')\,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\nabla$ always acts on the argument ${\bf x}$ of ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}$ and
the notation $\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}$ means that $\nabla$ acts
column-wise on the tensor ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}$ whereas ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)} \times \nabla$
means that $\nabla$ acts row-wise on the tensor ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}$. We
obtain for the partition function
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:euclid-z-2}
\mathcal Z(\kappa) &=& \prod_{r=1}^N \int {\mathcal D}\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
\exp \left[ -\frac{\beta}{2} \left(
\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\! d^3 {\bf x}' \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r({\bf x}) L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r({\bf x}') \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left.\left.
\sum_{r,{r'}=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{{r'}}} \!\!\!d^3 {\bf x}' \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r({\bf x}) M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \bm{\mathcal{A}}_{r'}({\bf x}')\right)\right]\, .
\end{eqnarray}
with the kernels
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kernel_M}
L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = &\frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left[ \,
\nabla \times \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times \cev{\cdot}\,) ({\bf n}'_r
\times \vec{\cdot}\,)\right.\nonumber\\
&+ \left.\nabla \times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times (\nabla \times \cev{\cdot}\,)) ({\bf n}'_r
\times \vec{\cdot}\,) \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. \nabla \times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times \cev{\cdot}\,) ({\bf n}'_r
\times (\nabla' \times \vec{\cdot}\,)) \right. \nonumber\\
&+ \left. {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times (\nabla \times \cev{\cdot}\,)) ({\bf n}'_r
\times (\nabla' \times \vec{\cdot}\,)) \right] \nonumber \\
M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = &\frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \,
\nabla \times \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times \cev{\cdot}\,) ({\bf n}'_{r'}
\times \vec{\cdot}\,) \nonumber\\
&+
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r} \,
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times (\nabla \times \cev{\cdot}\,)) ({\bf n}'_{r'}
\times \vec{\cdot}\,)\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} \, \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times \cev{\cdot}\,) ({\bf n}'_{r'}
\times (\nabla' \times \vec{\cdot}\,))\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \, {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times (\nabla \times \cev{\cdot}\,)) ({\bf n}'_{r'}
\times (\nabla' \times \vec{\cdot}\,))
\end{align}
where ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ is the free Green function of
Equation~(\ref{eq:G_dyadic}), and the arrow over the placeholder $\cdot$ indicates to which side of the kernel $M$ acts. This notation implies that the derivatives are taken before the kernel is evaluated with ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}'$ on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$.
\subsection{Hamiltonian Formulation}
The representation of the partition function in the previous subsection sums over all configurations of the surface fields $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$, and the action depends both on $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ and the tangential part of its curl, which is functionally dependent on $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$. Hence, the situation is similar to classical mechanics where the Lagrangian depends on the trajectory $q(t)$ and its velocity $\dot q(t)$. The Lagrangian path integral runs then over all of path $q(t)$ with $\dot q(t)$ determined by the path automatically. To obtain a representation in terms of a space of functions that are defined strictly on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ only,
it would be useful to be able to integrate over $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ and its derivatives {\it independently}. In classical mechanics, this is achieved by Lagrange multipliers that lead to a Legendre transformation of the action to its Hamiltonian form.
Here the situation is similar. To see this, it is important to realize that the bilinear form described by $L_r$ is degenerate on the space of functions over which the functional integral runs, i.e.,
$\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\! d^3 {\bf x}'
\bm{\mathcal{A}}({\bf x}) L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \bm{\mathcal{A}}({\bf x}')=0$ for all
$\bm{\mathcal{A}}({\bf x})$ that are regular
solutions of the vector wave equation
$\nabla \times \nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}} + \epsilon_r \mu_r
\kappa^2 \bm{\mathcal{A}} =0$ inside region
$V_r$. With a basis $\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x})\}$ for
this functional space, the elements of $L_r$ can be expressed as
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:L_is_zero}
L_{r}(\nu,\nu') &=&
\int_{\Sigma_{r}}d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{r}} d^3 {\bf x}'
\,\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x})
L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_{\nu'}({\bf x}')\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \int_{\Sigma_{r}}d^3 {\bf x} \,
\left[ \left(\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x}) \right)
\left( {\bf n}_r \times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x}) \right)
+\bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x})
\left( {\bf n}_r \times \left( \nabla
\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x})\right)\right)
\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\, \int_{V_r} d^3
{\bf x} \left[
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x})
\left(\nabla\times\nabla\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x})\right) -
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x}) \left(\nabla\times\nabla\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x})\right)
\right]
\nonumber \\
&=& 0
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent where we used the relations of Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_source_term}), and defined
\begin{align}
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x}) = & \int_{\Sigma_{r}}d^3 {\bf x}' \;\left[
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \left( {\bf n}'_r \times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_{\nu'}({\bf x}') \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \left( {\bf n}'_r \times \left( \nabla'
\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_{\nu'}({\bf x}')\right)\right)
\right] \, ,
\end{align}
and made use of the fact that $ \bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x})$ is also a solution of
the vector wave equation inside $V_r$. This implies that the kernel $L_r$ can be
ignored in the above functional integral over regular waves $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ inside the objects.
However, the appearance of the kernel $L_r$ is important in what follows. Let us consider the part of the action $\hat S[\left\{{\bf A}_r\right\},\left\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r\right\}]$ which, after functional integration over ${\bf A}_r$, generates the kernel $L_r$. It is given by
\begin{align}
S_r = & -\frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} d^3 {\bf x} \;\left[ {\bf A}_r^2 \epsilon_r \kappa^2 + \frac{1}{\mu_r}
(\nabla \times {\bf A}_r)^2 \right]
\nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \;\left[ {\bf A}_r
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + (\nabla \times {\bf A}_r) ({\bf n}_r \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r ) \right] \, .
\end{align}
The exponential of this action can be written as a functional integral
over two new vector fields ${\bf K}_r$ and ${\bf K}'_r$ that are defined
on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ and are {\it tangential} to the surfaces,
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{align}
\label{eq:EM_rep_kernel_L}
& \exp(-\beta S_r) \nonumber \\ &= \mathcal Z_r \oint {\mathcal D} {\bf K}_r {\mathcal D}
{\bf K}'_r
\exp \left\{ - \frac{\beta}{2} \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}
\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x}
\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x}' \left[
{\bf K}_r({\bf x}) \cdot \nabla\times\nabla\times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \cdot
{\bf K}_r({\bf x}') \right. \right.
\nonumber\\
&+ \left. \left. {\bf K}_r({\bf x}) \cdot
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \cdot
{\bf K}'_r({\bf x}') +{\bf K}'_r({\bf x}) \cdot
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\cdot {\bf K}_r({\bf x}')
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. \left. {\bf K}'_r({\bf x}) \cdot
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \cdot
{\bf K}'_r({\bf x}')
\right] \right.
\nonumber\\
& + \left. \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,\left[
{\bf A}_r \cdot \big(
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) - {\bf K}'_r \big) + (\nabla \times {\bf A}_r) \cdot \big(({\bf n}_r
\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
-{\bf K}_r) \big) \right] \right\}
\end{align}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent where $\mathcal Z_r$ is some normalization coefficient, and we have used $\oint {\mathcal D}
{\bf K}_r {\mathcal D} {\bf K}'_r$ to indicate that the functional
integral extends only over vector fields that are tangential to the
surface $\Sigma_r$. This representation shows that
${\bf A}_r$ acts as a Lagrange multiplier. Integration over
this field removes the imposed constraints between the {dependent}
tangential fields ${\bf n}_r\times\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$, ${\bf n}_r \times
(\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)$ by replacing them with the independent
tangential fields ${\bf K}_r$ and ${\bf K}'_r$, respectively.
Substituting Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_rep_kernel_L}) for each object into the expression for the partition in Equation~(\ref{euclid-z}), we obtain with $\underline{{\bf K}}_r=({\bf K}_r,{\bf K}'_r)$
the partition function
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Z_for_2_fields}
\mathcal Z(\kappa) = &\int\ {\mathcal D}{\bf A}_0 \prod_{r=1}^N \oint {\mathcal D}\underline{{\bf K}}_r
\\
& \times
\exp \left[ -\beta S_\text{eff}[{\bf A}_0,\{\underline{{\bf K}}_r\}]\right] \exp\left[ -\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_r} \!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_r} \!\!\!d^3 {\bf x}'
\underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}) \hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}')\underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}')\right]\nonumber
\end{align}
with the kernel from Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_rep_kernel_L}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kernel_L_final}
\hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') & \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix} \, ,
\end{equation}
and with the effective action
\begin{align}
S_\text{eff}[{\bf A}_0,\{\underline{{\bf K}}_r\}]=&\frac{1}{2}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} d^3 {\bf x}\left[ {\bf A}_0^2 \epsilon_0 \kappa^2 + \frac{1}{\mu_0}
(\nabla \times {\bf A}_0)^2\right]
\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,
\left[ \frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf A}_0 {\bf K}'_r+ \frac{1}{\mu_0} (\nabla \times {\bf A}_0) {\bf K}_r
\right]\, ,
\end{align}
where we have integrated out ${\bf A}_r$ for $r=1,\ldots,N$,
constraining the functional integral over $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ to be replaced
by the substitutions ${\bf n}_r \times\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r \to {\bf K}_r$
and ${\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r) \to {\bf K}'_r$. Integrating out ${\bf A}_0$, finally yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq:euclid-z-3-EM}
\mathcal Z(\kappa) = & \prod_{r=1}^N \oint {\mathcal D}\underline{{\bf K}}_r
\exp \left[ -\frac{\beta}{2} \left(
\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\! d^3 {\bf x}' \, \underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}) \hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}') \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&+
\left.\left.\sum_{r,{r'}=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{{r'}}} \!\!\!d^3 {\bf x}' \, \underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}) \hat M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \underline{{\bf K}}_{r'}({\bf x}')\right)\right]\, ,
\end{align}
with the additional kernel
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kernel_M_2_EM}
\hat M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \, \nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_0 \mu_{r'}} \, \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\
\frac{1}{\mu_0 \mu_r}\, \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
&\frac{1}{\mu_r \mu_{r'}} \, {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix} \, .
\end{equation}
It should be noted again that the functional integral in
Equation~(\ref{eq:euclid-z-3-EM}) runs over { tangential} vector fields
${\bf K}_r$, ${\bf K}'_r$ defined on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ only.
The kernels $\hat L$ and $\hat M$ can be combined into the joint
kernel
\begin{equation}
\hat N_{r{r'}}=\hat L_r \delta_{r{r'}} + \hat
M_{r{r'}} \, .
\end{equation}
Since $\hat N$ acts in the path integral only on tangential vectors,
the projections of $\hat N$ on the tangent space of the surfaces
$\Sigma_r$ have to be taken. Let ${\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x})$,
${\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x})$ be two tangent vector fields that span the
tangent space of $\Sigma_r$ at ${\bf x}$. The $4\times 4$ matrix kernels then
become
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{align}
&\tilde L_{r,mn}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x})\hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{\mu_r}\begin{pmatrix}
({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}).\nabla) ({\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}').\nabla)
g_r - {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) . {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') \nabla
^2 g_r & - ({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) \times
{\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}')) . \nabla g_r\\
- ({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) \times
{\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}')) . \nabla g_r &
-\frac{1}{\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2}({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}).\nabla) ({\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}').\nabla)
g_r + {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) . {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') g_r
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
and
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kernel_M_3_EM}
&\tilde M_{r{r'},mn}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x})\hat M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') {\bf t}_{{r'},n}({\bf x}') \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{\mu_0}\begin{pmatrix}
({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}).\nabla) ({\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}').\nabla)
g_0 - {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) . {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') \nabla
^2 g_0 & -\frac{\mu_0}{\mu_{r'}} ({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) \times
{\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}')) . \nabla g_0\\
-\frac{\mu_0}{\mu_r} ({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) \times
{\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}')) . \nabla g_0 &
-\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_r\mu_{r'}\kappa^2}({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}).\nabla) ({\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}').\nabla)
g_0 + \frac{\mu_0^2}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}{\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) . {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') g_0
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
which expresses all kernels in terms of tangential and normal
derivatives of the scalar Green function $g_r(|{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|)= e^{-\sqrt{\epsilon_r \mu_r}\kappa |{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|}/|{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|$. These expressions simplify when an orthonormal
basis ${\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x})$,
${\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x})$, ${\bf n}_r({\bf x})={\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x}) \times {\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x})$ is used.
The Casimir free energy is then given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal F} = - k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \log \det \left[\hat N(\kappa_n) \hat N_\infty^{-1}(\kappa_n)\right] \,\label{hamen} ,
\end{equation}
where the determinant runs over all indices, i.e., ${\bf x}$, ${\bf x}'$
located {on} the surfaces $\Sigma_r$, and $r$, ${r'}=1,\ldots,N$. The kernel $\hat N_\infty$ is obtained from the kernel $\hat N$ by taking the distance between all bodies to infinity, i.e, by setting $\hat M_{r{r'}} =0$ for all $r\neq {r'}$. In the following we shall again denote the form of the partition function in Equation~(\ref{eq:euclid-z-2}) as Lagrange representation, and the one of Equation~(\ref{eq:euclid-z-3-EM}) as a Hamiltonian representation. By a simple computation, one can verify that the Hamiltonian representation of the Casimir free energy in Equation (\ref{hamen}) is indeed equivalent to the surface formula Equation (\ref{ensurF}).
\section{Application: Derivation of the Lifshitz Theory}
As a simple example to demonstrate the practical application of the surface formulations, we consider two dielectric half-spaces, one covering the region $z\le z_1=0$, with the surface $\Sigma_1$ and dielectric function $\epsilon_1$ and magnetic permeability $\mu_1$, and the other covering the region $z\ge z_2=H$, with the surface $\Sigma_2$ and dielectric function $\epsilon_2$ magnetic permeability $\mu_2$. We shall consider both the Lagrange and Hamiltonian representation in the following.
\subsection{Lagrange Representation}
We compute the matrix elements of the kernels $L$ and $M$ of Equation~(\ref{eq:kernel_M}) in the basis of transverse vector plane waves, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:basis_planar_vector}
{\bf M}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \nabla \times \left(e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| +
p_1 z} \hat {\bf z} \right) = (-ik_y,ik_x,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| +
p_1 z} \\
{\bf N}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa}\nabla \times\nabla \times
\left(e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| + p_1 z} \hat {\bf z}
\right)
= \frac{1}{\kappa} (-ik_x p_1,-ik_y p_1, k_\|^2) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| + p_1 z}\\
{\bf M}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \nabla \times \left(e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| - p_2
(z-H)}\hat {\bf z} \right) = (-ik_y,ik_x,0) e^{-i
{\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| - p_2 (z-H)}\\
{\bf N}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa}\nabla \times\nabla \times \left(e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| - p_2 (z-H)}\hat {\bf z} \right)= \frac{1}{\kappa} (ik_x p_2,ik_y p_2, k_\|^2) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| - p_2 (z-H)}
\end{eqnarray}
with $p_r=\sqrt{\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2+{\bf k}_\|^2}$ and the sign of
$z$ is fixed so that the waves are regular inside the
half-spaces. Note that we include here a $z$ dependence to be able to
compute the curl on the surfaces. For the Green tensor, we use the representation
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Green_tensor_plane}
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &= \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q} ({\bf x}-{\bf x}')}
\frac{1/(\epsilon_r\kappa^2)}{\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2+{\bf q}^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2 +q_x^2 & q_x q_y& q_x q_z\\
q_y q_x & \epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2 + q_y^2 & q_y q_z \\
q_z q_x & q_z q_y & \epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2 + q_z^2
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
&\equiv \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q} ({\bf x}-{\bf x}')}
\frac{\mu_r \tilde G_r(\kappa,{\bf q})}{\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2+{\bf q}^2} \, ,
\end{align}
which yields after the curl operations
\begin{align}
\label{eq:curl_Green_tensor_plane}
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &= \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q}
({\bf x}-{\bf x}')} \,
\frac{\mu_r}{\epsilon_r\mu_r
\kappa^2 + {\bf q}^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -iq_z & iq_y \\
iq_z & 0 & -iq_x \\
-iq_y & iq_x& 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&\equiv \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q}
({\bf x}-{\bf x}')} \,
\frac{\mu_r \tilde G'_r({\bf q})}{\epsilon_r\mu_r
\kappa^2 + {\bf q}^2} \\
\nabla \times \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &= \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q}
({\bf x}-{\bf x}')} \,
\frac{\mu_r}{\epsilon_r\mu_r
\kappa^2 + {\bf q}^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
q_y^2+q_z^2 & -q_xq_y & -q_xq_z \\
-q_x q_y & q_x^2+q_z^2 &
-q_y q_z \\
-q_x q_z & -q_y q_z& q_x^2+q_y^2 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber \\
&\equiv \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q}
({\bf x}-{\bf x}')} \,
\frac{\mu_r \tilde G''_r({\bf q})}{\epsilon_r\mu_r
\kappa^2 + {\bf q}^2} \, .
\end{align}
We also need the following expressions for the operators that appear in the
kernels, acting on the basis functions, which are tangential to the
surfaces. On surface $\Sigma_1$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:op_on_vetor_basis}
\hat z \times {\bf M}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& (-ik_x,-ik_y,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\|
{\bf x}_\| } \equiv {\bf u}_{m1} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times {\bf N}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa}(ik_y p_1,-ik_x p_1,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv {\bf u}_{n1} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times \nabla \times {\bf M}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& (ik_y p_1,-ik_x p_1,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv \bfv_{m1} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times \nabla \times {\bf N}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa} (ik_x \epsilon_1\mu_1\kappa^2, ik_y \epsilon_1\mu_1\kappa^2,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv \bfv_{n1} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly on surface $\Sigma_2$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:op_on_vetor_basis}
\hat z \times {\bf M}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& (-ik_x,-ik_y,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv {\bf u}_{m2} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times {\bf N}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa}(-ik_y p_2,ik_x p_2,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv {\bf u}_{n2} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times \nabla \times {\bf M}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& (-ik_y p_2,ik_x p_2,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv \bfv_{m2} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times \nabla \times {\bf N}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa} (ik_x \epsilon_2\mu_2\kappa^2, ik_y \epsilon_2\mu_2\kappa^2,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv \bfv_{n2} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\, .
\end{eqnarray}
It is straightforward to show that the matrix elements of $L_r$ in the above basis all vanish, as the basis functions are regular solutions of the vector wave equation. This observation is in agreement with the above finding that the kernel $L_r$ is degenerate on the space of those solutions.
We proceed with the computation of the elements of kernel $M$. We find for the case $r={r'}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:EM_kernel_Mdiag_plates}
& M_{rr}({\bf k}_\|,{\bf k}'_\|) = \int_{\Sigma_{r}}d^3 {\bf x}
\int_{\Sigma_{r}} d^3 {\bf x}' \,
\begin{pmatrix} {\bf M} \\ {\bf N}\end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|}\!\!\!\!({\bf x})
M_{rr}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\begin{pmatrix} {\bf M} \\ {\bf N}\end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}'_\|}\!\!\!\!({\bf x}')\\
&= \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dq_z}{2\pi}
\left[ \frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G''_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,-{\bf k}_\|} \right.
\nonumber\\
&+ \left.
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r}\begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G'_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,-{\bf k}_\|}
+ \frac{1}{\mu_0 \mu_r}\begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G'_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,-{\bf k}_\|} \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G_0(\kappa,{\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,-{\bf k}_\|} \right]
\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0
\kappa^2 +{\bf k}_\|^2
+q_z^2}\,
{e^{iq_z(z-z')}}_{|\,z,z' \to z_r}\nonumber\\
& = \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|) \frac{\mu_0 {\bf k}_\|^2}{2p_0} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\mu_0^2 p_r^2 - \mu_r^2 p_0^2}{(\mu_0\mu_r)^2} & 0\\
0 & - \frac{\epsilon_0^2 p_r^2-\epsilon_r^2 p_0^2}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}\\
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber\\
&\equiv \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|) M_{rr}({\bf k}_\|) \nonumber
\end{align}
and for the case $r\neq {r'}$ we get
\clearpage
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{align}
\label{eq:EM_kernel_Mnondiag_plates}
& M_{r{r'}}({\bf k}_\|,{\bf k}'_\|) = \int_{\Omega_{r}}d^3 {\bf x}
\int_{\Omega_{{r'}}} d^3 {\bf x}' \,
\begin{pmatrix} {\bf M} \\ {\bf N}\end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|}\!\!\!\!({\bf x})
M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\begin{pmatrix} {\bf M} \\ {\bf N}\end{pmatrix}_{{r'},{\bf k}'_\|}\!\!\!\!({\bf x}')\\
&= \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dq_z}{2\pi}
\left[ \frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G''_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{{r'},-{\bf k}_\|} \right. \nonumber\\
& + \left.
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r}\begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G'_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{{r'},-{\bf k}_\|}
+ \frac{1}{\mu_0 \mu_{r'}}\begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G'_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{{r'},-{\bf k}_\|} \right. \nonumber
\\
&+ \left. \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G_0(\kappa,{\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{{r'},-{\bf k}_\|} \right]
\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0
\kappa^2 +{\bf k}_\|^2
+q_z^2}\,
{e^{iq_z(-1)^r H}}\nonumber\\
& = \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|) \frac{{\bf k}_\|^2}{2\mu_0p_0} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{(\mu_0p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0p_2 - \mu_2 p_0)}{\mu_1\mu_2} & 0\\
0 & -(\epsilon_0p_1-\epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0p_2-\epsilon_2 p_0)\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\\
\end{pmatrix} e^{-p_0 H}\, , \nonumber\\
&\equiv \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|) M_{r{r'}}({\bf k}_\|) \, ,\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent where the sign in $e^{i q_z (-1)^r H}$ determines upon
integration over $q_z$ the sign of the terms $\sim i q_z$.
The vanishing of the off-diagonal elements reflects the fact that the two polarizations described by the basis functions ${\bf M}$ and ${\bf N}$ do
not couple for planar surfaces. The total kernel $M$ can be written as
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begingroup\makeatletter\def\f@size{8}\check@mathfonts
\def\maketag@@@#1{\hbox{\m@th\normalsize\normalfont#1}}%
\begin{align}
\label{eq:M_EM_plates_final}
& M({\bf k}_\|) = \nonumber \\
& \frac{{\bf k}_\|^2}{2p_0}\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\mu_0^2 p_1^2 - \mu_1^2 p_0^2}{\mu_0\mu_1^2} & 0
& \frac{(\mu_0p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0p_2 - \mu_2
p_0)}{\mu_0\mu_1\mu_2} e^{-p_0H} & 0\\
0 & -\frac{ \epsilon_0^2 p_1^2-\epsilon_1^2
p_0^2}{\epsilon_0} & 0 & -\frac{(\epsilon_0p_1-\epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0p_2-\epsilon_2 p_0)}{\epsilon_0}e^{-p_0H}\\
\frac{(\mu_0p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0p_2 - \mu_2
p_0)}{\mu_0\mu_1\mu_2} e^{-p_0H}& 0& \frac{\mu_0^2 p_2^2 - \mu_2^2 p_0^2}{(\mu_0\mu_2^2)} & 0\\
0 & -\frac{(\epsilon_0p_1-\epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0p_2-\epsilon_2 p_0)}{\epsilon_0}e^{-p_0H}& 0 & -\frac{ \epsilon_0^2 p_2^2-\epsilon_2^2 p_0^2}{\epsilon_0}
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber
\end{align}
\endgroup
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
The Casimir free energy is given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal F} = k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \int
\frac{d^2{\bf k}_\|}{(2\pi)^2}\log \det \left[ M
M^{-1}_\infty ({\bf k}_\|) \right]_{\kappa=\kappa_n}
\end{equation}
in terms of the determinant of the matrix
\begin{equation}
M M_\infty^{-1} ({\bf k}_\|) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & \frac{\mu_2}{\mu_1} \frac{\mu_0 p_1-\mu_1 p_0}{\mu_0 p_2+\mu_2 p_0} e^{-p_0 H} & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{\epsilon_0 p_1-\epsilon_1 p_0}{\epsilon_0 p_2+\epsilon_2 p_0} e^{-p_0 H}\\
\frac{\mu_1}{\mu_2} \frac{\mu_0 p_2-\mu_2 p_0}{\mu_0 p_1+\mu_1 p_0}
e^{-p_0 H} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\epsilon_0 p_2-\epsilon_2 p_0}{\epsilon_0 p_1+\epsilon_1 p_0} e^{-p_0 H} & 0 & 1 \nonumber \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
which has four dimensions due to two sets of basis functions
(polarisations) ${\bf M}$ and ${\bf N}$ per
surface. This yields the final result
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal F} &=& k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \int
\frac{d{\bf k}_\|}{(2\pi)^2}\log \left[
\left( 1 - \frac{(\epsilon_0 p_1 - \epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0 p_2 -
\epsilon_2 p_0)}{(\epsilon_0 p_1 + \epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0 p_2
+ \epsilon_2 p_0)} e^{-2p_0 H} \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&\times&\left. \left( 1 - \frac{(\mu_0 p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0 p_2 -
\mu_2 p_0)}{(\mu_0 p_1 + \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0 p_2
+ \mu_2 p_0)} e^{-2p_0 H} \right)
\right]_{\kappa=\kappa_n} \label{eq:Plate_energy_EM}
\, .
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
This result is in agreement with the Lifshitz formula \cite{LifshitzPlates}.
\subsection{Hamiltonian Representation}
Now we derive the Lifshitz expression for the free energy of two dielectric half-spaces in the Hamiltonian representation.
Since the kernels $\hat L$ and $\hat M$ of Equations~(\ref{eq:kernel_L_final}) and (\ref{eq:kernel_M_2_EM}) act on vector fields that are
tangential to the surfaces, we need to compute the matrix elements in
a basis of tangential vectors ${\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x})$ and
${\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x})$ that span the tangent space of surface
$\Sigma_r$ at position ${\bf x}$. For a planar surface, one can
simply set ${\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x}) = \hat {\bf x}_1$ and ${\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x}) = \hat {\bf x}_2$.
For a given pair of positions ${\bf x}$, ${\bf x}'$ on the surface and fixed surface indices
$r$, ${r'}$ we obtain the following $4\times 4$ dimensional
matrices
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{myequation}
\begin{array}{cll}
&& \hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \nonumber \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') & \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}\\
&\equiv & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} .\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} &
\hat {\bf x}_{1} .\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2}& \hat {\bf x}_{1}.\nabla\times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} & \hat {\bf x}_{1}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2}\\
\hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1}&
\hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2} & \hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} & \hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2} \\
\hat {\bf x}_{1}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} &\hat {\bf x}_{1}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2} &
\hat {\bf x}_{1} . {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} & \hat {\bf x}_{1} . {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2} \\
\hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') . \hat {\bf x}_{1}&\hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') . \hat {\bf x}_{2}&
\hat {\bf x}_{2} .{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') . \hat {\bf x}_{1}& \hat {\bf x}_{2}
.{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r}\int_{\bf q}
\frac{ e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{p_r^2 +
q_z^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
q_y^2+q_z^2 & -q_x q_y& 0 & -i q_z \\
-q_x q_y & q_x^2+q_z^2& i q_z & 0\\
0 & -i q_z & 1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}&
\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}\\
i q_z & 0 & \frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2} & 1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r}\int_{{\bf q}_\|}
\frac{e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{2p_r}
\begin{pmatrix}
q_y^2-p_r^2 & -q_x q_y& 0 & \mp p_r\\
-q_x q_y & q_x^2 - p_r^2 & \pm p_r & 0\\
0 & \mp p_r & 1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2} & \frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}\\
\pm p_r & 0 & \frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2} & 1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}
\end{pmatrix}\, ,
\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{myequation}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
where we set ${\bf x}=({\bf x}_\|,0)$ and ${\bf x}=({\bf x}_\|,H)$ for surfaces 1
and 2, respectively. We determined the sign of the terms
$\sim i q_z$ from the $q_z$-integration by the observation that $z$, $z'$ have to be taken to the
surface with $z-z'$ staying { inside} the object. The upper (lower)
sign of $p_r$ refers to $r=1$ ($r=2$).
Analogously, for kernel $M$ we get for the case $r={r'}$
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\label{eq:M_diag_EM_planar}
&& \hat M_{rr}({\bf x},{\bf x}') =
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\mu_0^2}\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r}\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r} \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_r^2} {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}\\
&=& \int_{\bf q}
\frac{ \mu_0 \, e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{p_0^2 +
q_z^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{q_y^2+q_z^2}{\mu_0^2} & -\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & 0 & -\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} \\
-\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & \frac{q_x^2+q_z^2}{\mu_0^2}& \frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0\\
0 & -\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left(1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)&
\frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\\
\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0 & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2} & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left(1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{{\bf q}_\|}
\frac{\mu_0 \, e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{2p_0}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{q_y^2-p_0^2}{\mu_0^2} & -\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & 0 &
\frac{\pm p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} \\
-\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & \frac{q_x^2-p_0^2}{\mu_0^2}& \frac{\mp p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0\\
0 & \frac{\pm p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left(1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)&
\frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\\
\frac{\mp p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0 & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2} & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left(1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)
\end{pmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent and for $r\neq{r'}$,
\clearpage
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\label{eq:M_nondiag_EM_planar}
&& \hat M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') =
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\mu_0^2}\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}}\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r} \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}\\
&=& \int_{\bf q}
\frac{ \mu_0 \, e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)\mp iq_zH}}{p_0^2 +
q_z^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{q_y^2+q_z^2}{\mu_0^2} & -\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & 0 & -\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} \\
-\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & \frac{q_x^2+q_z^2}{\mu_0^2}& \frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} & 0\\
0 & -\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \left(1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)&
\frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\\
\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0 & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2} & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \left(1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{{\bf q}_\|}
\frac{\mu_0 \, e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{2p_0}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{q_y^2-p_0^2}{\mu_0^2} & -\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & 0 &
\frac{\mp p_0}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} \\
-\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & \frac{q_x^2-p_0^2}{\mu_0^2}& \frac{\pm p_0}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} & 0\\
0 & \frac{\mp p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \left(1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)&
\frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\\
\frac{\pm p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0 & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2} & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \left(1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)
\end{pmatrix} e^{-p_0 H}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent where again the upper (lower) sign everywhere refers to $r=1$ ($r=2$).
For the kernel $\hat M$ we determined the sign of the terms
$\sim i q_z$ from the $q_z$-integration by the observation that $z$, $z'$ have to be taken to the
surface with $z-z'$ staying {outside} the object.
When combining the kernels $\hat L$ and $\hat M$ into the joint kernel
$N_{r{r'}}=\hat L_r \delta_{r{r'}} + \hat
M_{rr'}$, it is diagonal in ${\bf q}_\|$-space with the blocks $N({\bf q}_\|)$ on the diagonal given by the $8 \times 8$ matrix shown in Figure~\ref{fig:matrixN}.
\newpage
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig1}
\caption{Matrix $N({\bf q}_\|)$ forming the diagonal blocks of the matrix $N$.\label{fig:matrixN}}
\end{figure}
The Casimir free energy is given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal F} = k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \int
\frac{d^2{\bf q}_\|}{(2\pi)^2}\log \det \left[ N
N^{-1}_\infty ({\bf q}_\|) \right]_{\kappa=\kappa_n}
\end{equation}
in terms of the determinant of the above matrix where $N_\infty$ is the matrix with $H\to\infty$, i.e., the matrix $N$ with the
off-diagonal $4\times 4$ blocks $\sim e^{-p_0 H}$ vanishing. This yields the final~result
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal F} &=& k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \int
\frac{d^2{\bf q}_\|}{(2\pi)^2}\log \left[
\left( 1 - \frac{(\epsilon_0 p_1 - \epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0 p_2 -
\epsilon_2 p_0)}{(\epsilon_0 p_1 + \epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0 p_2
+ \epsilon_2 p_0)} e^{-2p_0 H} \right) \right.\nonumber \\
&\times&\left. \left( 1 - \frac{(\mu_0 p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0 p_2 -
\mu_2 p_0)}{(\mu_0 p_1 + \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0 p_2
+ \mu_2 p_0)} e^{-2p_0 H} \right)
\right] \label{eq:Plate_energy_EM}
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which is again identical to the Lifshitz formula.
Note that in the Hamiltonian approach there is no need to express the kernels in a basis for the space of functions that are regular solutions of the wave equation inside the objects. However, the number of fields per surface is now doubled compared to the Lagrangian approach, resembling the situation in quantum mechanics where the Hamiltonian path integrals run over the canonical coordinates $q$ and $p$ independently.
\edit{\section{Conclusions}}
\edit{
To date, analytical and purely numerical approaches to compute Casimir interactions have been developed independently, and it remained an open question if and how they are related. Analytical methods build on ideas from scattering theory and hence require an expansion of the Green function and bulk or surface operators in terms of special functions that are solutions of the wave equation. Hence, the very existence of such functions and the convergence of the expansion limit these approaches to sufficiently symmetric problems. Purely numerical approaches, such as that developed in \cite{johnson}, can be applied to basically arbitrary geometries but the numerical effort can be extremely high. Hence, it appeared useful to us to study the relation between these approaches in order to develop methods that can serve as semi-numerical approaches that combine the versatility of the purely numerical approaches with the smaller numerical effort of analytical methods. Hence, we have presented in this work a new compact derivation of formulas for the Casimir force, which is based both on bulk and surface operators that also enable analytical evaluations. This we have demonstrated for the simplest case of two dielectric slabs. Further semi-analytical implementations of our approaches are underway.
Our Hamiltonian path integral representation is equivalent to the one derived by Johnson et al. as a purely numerical approach using Lagrange multipliers to enforce the boundary conditions in the path integral. Interestingly, the here-presented derivation of this representation from a Lagrangian path integral demonstrates the relation of this approach to the scattering approach when the T-matrix is defined, as originally by Waterman, by surface integrals of regular solutions of the wave equation over the bodies' surfaces \cite{Waterman}. This shows the close connection of these approaches, motivating further research in the direction of new semi-analytical methods to compute Casimir forces.}
\vspace{12pt}
\section{Introduction}
The interaction induced by quantum and thermal fluctuation of the electromagnetic field is an everyday phenomenon that acts between all neutral objects, both on atomic and macroscopic scales \cite{AnnuRev,RevModPhys2009,RevModPhys2016,Rodriguez2014,Dalvit2011}.
For the Casimir interaction between macroscopic bodies, the last two decades have witnessed unparalleled progress in experimental observations and the development of novel theoretical approaches \cite{Rodriguez2011,Golyk}.
In most of the recent theoretical approaches, the computation of Casimir forces between multiple objects of different shapes and material composition has been achieved by the use of scattering methods or the so-called TGTG formula \cite{Emig2007,kenneth,Neto2008,Emig2008,Rahi,Kruger2012,bimonte2009,bimonteemig,bimonte2018}.
These approaches have the advantage of relatively low numerical effort; they are rapidly converging and can achieve in principle any desired precision \cite{Kenneth2008,Milton2008,Reid2009,Golestanian2009,Ttira2010,hartmann}.
\edit{Another merit of these methods is the exclusion of UV divergencies by performing the subtraction analytically before any numerical computation.}
\edit{Other efficient approaches that have been developed before the scattering approaches include path integral quantizations where the boundary conditions at the surfaces are implemented by delta functions \cite{Bordag1985}. These approaches are limited to scalar fields with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions \cite{Bordag2006}, or the electromagnetic field with perfectly conducting boundary conditions \cite{Emig2003}, with the exception of a similar approach for dielectric boundaries \cite{Buscher2004}.}
However, such analytical (and semi-analytical) methods have been restricted to symmetric and simple shapes, like spheres, cylinders or ellipsoids \cite{Huth2010,Graham2011,Teo2013,Incardone2014,Emig2016}.
\edit{Geometries where parts of the bodies interpenetrate, such as those shown in Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}a, cannot be studied with scattering approaches.}
For general shapes \edit{and arbitrary geometries, new methods are needed. Purely} numerical methods based on surface current fluctuations have been developed \cite{johnson}, but they rely on a full-scale numerical evaluation of matrices and their determinants, which complicates these approaches when high precision of the force is required.
Hence, there is a need to develop methods that predict Casimir interactions between objects of arbitrary geometries composed of materials with arbitrary frequency-dependent electromagnetic properties. The Casimir force can be viewed as arising from the interaction of fluctuating currents distributions. In fact,
these effective fluctuating electric and magnetic currents can be considered to be localized either in the bulk of the bodies or just on their surfaces. The surface approach relies on the observation that the electromagnetic response of bodies can be represented entirely in terms of their surfaces, known as the “equivalence principle”, which is based on the observation that many source distributions outside a given region can produce the same field inside the region \cite{Harrington}. The surface approach has been introduced in the literature as a method for a purely { numerical} computation of Casimir interactions \cite{johnson}. There are two different methods to implement the idea of computing Casimir forces from fluctuating currents. One can either integrate the Maxwell stress tensor over a closed surface enclosing the body, directly yielding the Casimir force, or integrate over all electromagnetic gauge field fluctuations in a path integral, yielding the Casimir free energy. We shall consider both approaches here.
Compared to scattering theory-based approaches, the surface formulation has the advantage that it does not require the use of eigenfunctions of the vector wave equation that are specific to the shape of the bodies. Hence, our approach is applicable to general geometries and shapes, including interpenetrating structures. \edit{In fact, the power of the surface approach
has been demonstrated by numerical implementations in Reference \cite{johnson}, where it was used to compute the Casimir force in complicated geometries.}
In this paper, we present both the Maxwell stress tensor and path integral-based approaches for the Casimir force and free energy in terms of bulk or surface operators. Our main advancements are
\begin{itemize}
\item A new, compact and elegant derivation of the Casimir force from the Maxwell stress tensor within both a T-operator approach and a surface operator approach;
\item \textls[-20]{A new surface formula for the Casimir free energy expressed in terms of a surface~operator;}
\item A new path integral-based derivation of a Lagrange and Hamiltonian formulation for the Casimir free energy.
\end{itemize}
We also compare the approaches presented here to methods existing in the literature. For the special case of bodies that can be separated by non-overlapping enclosing surfaces, along which one of the coordinates in which the wave equation is separable is constant, our approach is shown to be equivalent to the scattering approach. Our approaches also show the general equivalence of the use of the Maxwell stress tensor in combination with the fluctuation-dissipation theorem on one side and the path integral representation of the Casimir force on the other side. As the most simple application of our approaches, we re-derive the Lifshitz formula for the Casimir free energy of two dielectric slabs. Other analytical applications of our approach will be presented elsewhere.
The geometries and shapes to which our approaches can be applied are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}a. For comparison, in Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}b, we display non-penetrating bodies to which scattering theory-based approaches are limited.
In general, we assume a configuration composed of $N$ bodies with dielectric functions $\epsilon_r(\omega)$ and magnetic permeabilities $\mu_r(\omega)$, $r=1,\ldots,N$. The bodies occupy the volumes $V_r$ with surfaces $\Sigma_r$ and outward pointing surface normal vectors $\hat{\bf n}_r$. The space with volume $V_0$ in between the bodies is filled by matter with dielectric function $\epsilon_0(\omega)$ and magnetic permeability $\mu_0(\omega)$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Fig0}
\caption{Configuration of bodies: (\textbf{a}) general shapes and positions that can be studied with the approaches presented in this work, (\textbf{b}) non-penetrating configurations that can be studied within the scattering approach.\label{fig:configuration}}
\end{figure}
\section{Stress-Tensor Approach}
\subsection{Bulk and Surface Expressions for the Force}
Consider a collection of $N$ magneto-dielectric bodies in vacuum. In the stress-tensor approach, the (bare) Casimir force $F_i^{( {\rm bare}| r)}$ on body $r$ is obtained by integrating the expectation value $\langle T_{ij} \rangle$ of the Maxwell stress tensor
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{equation}
\langle T_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle=\frac{1}{4 \pi} \left\{ \langle E_i({\bf x}) E_j({\bf x}) \rangle +\langle H_i({\bf x}) H_j({\bf x}) \rangle -\frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij}\left[ \langle E_k({\bf x}) E_k({\bf x}) \rangle + \langle H_k({\bf x}) H_k({\bf x}) \rangle \right]\right\}\label{stress}
\end{equation}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent over any closed surface ${S}_r$ drawn in the vacuum, which surrounds that body (but excludes all other bodies):
\begin{equation}
F_i^{({\rm bare}| r)} =\oint_{{S}_r} d^2 \sigma \,\hat { n}_j({\bf x}) \langle T_{ji} ({\bf x})\rangle \;,
\end{equation}
where $\hat {\bf n}$ is the unit normal oriented outside ${S}_r$, and the angular brackets denote the expectation value taken with respect to quantum and thermal fluctuations. For a system in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$, the (equal-time) expectation values of the products of field components (at points ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}'$ in the vacuum region) are provided by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem \cite{landau,agarwal}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle {\hat E}_i ({\bf x}) {\hat E}_j({\bf x}') \rangle&=& 2 k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \;{\cal G}^{(EE)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)\;, \nonumber \\
\langle {\hat H}_i ({\bf x}) {\hat H}_j({\bf x}') \rangle&=& 2 k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \;{\cal G}^{(HH)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)\;,\label{correl}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi_n= 2 \pi n k_B T/\hbar$ are the Matsubara imaginary frequencies, and the prime in the summations mean that the $n=0$ term is taken with a weight of one half. When the r.h.s of the above equations are plugged into Equation (\ref{stress}), one obtains for $\langle T_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle$ a formally divergent expression, since the Green functions ${\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ are singular in the coincidence limit ${\bf x}={\bf x}'$. This divergence can however be easily disposed of by noticing that the Green's functions admit the decomposition:
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)={\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}_{ij}({\bf x}-{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)+{\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)\;,\label{splitGr}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}_{ij}({\bf x}-{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ is the Green's function of free space, while ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ describes the effect of scattering of electromagnetic fields by the bodies. In the coincidence limit, only ${\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}_{ij}({\bf x}-{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ diverges, while ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}';{\rm i}\,\xi_n)$ attains a finite limit. When the decomposition in Equation (\ref{splitGr}) is used to evaluate the r.h.s. of Equation (\ref{stress}), one finds that the expectation value of the stress tensor is decomposed in a way analogous to Equation (\ref{splitGr}):
\begin{equation}
\langle T_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle= \langle T^{(0)}_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle + {\Theta}_{ij}({\bf x})\;,
\end{equation}
where $\langle T^{(0)}_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle$ is the divergent expectation value of the stress tensor in empty space, and $ {\Theta}_{ij}({\bf x})$ is the {\it finite} expression
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Theta}_{ij} ({\bf x}) &=& \frac{k_B T}{2 \pi} \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \left[ {\Gamma}^{(EE)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n)
+ {\Gamma}^{(HH)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. - \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij} \left({\Gamma}^{(EE)}_{kk}({\bf x},{\bf x}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n)+{\Gamma}^{(HH)}_{kk}({\bf x},{\bf x}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right) \right]\;. \label{stressGamma}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Since the divergent contribution $\langle T^{(0)}_{ij}({\bf x})\rangle$ is independent of the presence of the bodies, one can just neglect it and then one obtains the following finite expression for the Casimir force \edit{on body $r$ due to the presence of the other bodies},
\begin{equation}
F_i^{(r)} =\oint_{{S}_r} d^2 \sigma \,\hat { n}_j({\bf x})\; {\Theta}_{ji} ({\bf x}) \;.\label{force0}
\end{equation}
The further development of the theory starts from the observation that the dyadic Green's functions ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ (for brevity, from now on we shall not display the dependence of the Green's functions on the Matsubara frequencies $\xi_n$) can be expressed in two distinct possible forms.
The first representation is general, since it is valid for arbitrary constitutive equations of the magneto-dielectric materials constituting the bodies, which can possibly be non-homogeneous, anisotropic, and non-local. For all points ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}'$, it expresses ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ in the form of an integral of the $T$-operator ${\hat T}$ (for its definition, see \mbox{Appendix \ref{app2.1}}) over the {\it volume} $V$ occupied by all bodies:
\begin{equation}
{\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}' )= \sum_{r,r'=1}^{N} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf y} \int_{V_{r'}} d^3 {\bf y}' {\cal G}^{(\alpha \rho;0)}_{ik}({\bf x}-{\bf y} ) T_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}') {\cal G}_{lj}^{(\sigma \beta;0)}({\bf y}'-{\bf x}')\;.\label{repGreen1}
\end{equation}
The above formula has a simple intuitive interpretation, if one recalls that according to its definition, the T-operator provides the polarization induced in the volume of the bodies when they are immersed in the electromagnetic field generated by a certain distribution of external sources.
The second representation is less general than Equation (\ref{repGreen1}) because it applies only to magneto-dielectric bodies that are (piecewise) homogeneous and isotropic \footnote{This restriction is not so severe in practice, since the vast majority of Casimir experiments use test bodies that can be modelled in this way.}. It expresses ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ in the form of an integral of the {\it surface} operator ${\hat M}^{-1}$ defined in Equation (\ref{defM}), over the union $\Sigma=\bigcup \Sigma_r$ of the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ of the bodies. For two points ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}'$ both lying in the vacuum region outside the bodies\footnote{A representation analogous to Equation (\ref{repGreen2}) also exists when one or both points belong to the regions occupied by bodies, but we shall not display it since the surface integral expressing the force in Equation (\ref{force0}) involves only points ${\bf x}$ in the vacuum region.}, the surface representation of ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}' )&=&- \sum_{r,r'=1}^{N} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf y} \int_{V_{r'}} d^3 {\bf y}' \,\delta(F_r ({\bf y}))\, \delta(F_{r'}({\bf y}'))\; \nonumber \\
&\times&{\cal G}^{(\alpha \rho;0)}_{ik}({\bf x}- {\bf y}) ) \left(M^{-1}\right)_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}') {\cal G}_{lj}^{(\sigma \beta;0)}({\bf y}'-{\bf x}')\;,\label{repGreen2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $F_r({\bf y})=0$ is the equation of the surface $\Sigma_r$.
This representation also has a simple intuitive meaning, if one considers that $-\hat{M}^{-1}$ (see Appendix \ref{app2.2} for details) is defined as the operator that provides the {\it fictitious} surface polarizations that radiate outside the bodies the same scattered electromagnetic field as the one radiated by the physically induced volumic polarization, in response to an external field. The derivations of Equations (\ref{repGreen1}) and (\ref{repGreen2}) are presented in Appendix \ref{app2}.
It is apparent that both representations have the same mathematical structure, consisting of a two-sided convolution of a certain kernel ${\cal K}_{ij}^{(\alpha \beta)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ with the free-space Green's functions $ {\cal G}_{ij}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}')$:
\begin{equation}
{\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}' )= \int_{V} d^3{\bf y}\int_{V} d^3{\bf y}' {\cal G}^{(\alpha \rho;0)}_{ik}({\bf x}-{\bf y} ) {\cal K}_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}') {\cal G}_{lj}^{(\sigma \beta;0)}({\bf y}'-{\bf x}')\;.\label{repGreen3}
\end{equation}
The only difference between the two representations consists in the expression of ${{\cal K}}$, which in the case of Equation (\ref{repGreen1}) is the three-dimensional kernel $T_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')$ supported in the volume $V$ occupied by the bodies:
\begin{equation}
{{\cal K}}_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')=T_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')\;,
\end{equation}
while in Equation (\ref{repGreen2}) ${{\cal K}}$ is the two-dimensional kernel $-\left(M^{-1}\right)_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')$ supported on the union $\Sigma$ of their surfaces:
\begin{equation}
{{\cal K}}_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')=- \sum_{r,r'=1}^{N} \delta(F_r ({\bf y}))\, \delta(F_{r'}({\bf y}')) \left(M^{-1}\right)_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}')
\end{equation}
In both cases, the above equation can be concisely written using the operator notation described in Appendix \ref{app1}:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Gamma}=\hat{\cal{G}}^{(0)}\,\hat{{\cal K}}\,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\;.\label{gammarepgen}
\end{equation}
\noindent
In Appendix \ref{app3}, we prove that the structure of the representation of ${\Gamma}^{(\alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf x},{\bf x}' )$ given in Equation (\ref{repGreen3}), allows to re-express the Casimir force Equation (\ref{force0}) in the following remarkably simple form:
\begin{equation}
{F}_i^{(r)}=2 k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf y} \int_{V} d^3 {\bf y}'\, \left( {\cal K}_{l j}^{(\alpha \beta)}({\bf y}',{\bf y}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {y_i}} {\cal G}^{(\beta \alpha;0)}_{jl }({\bf y}-{\bf y}';{\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right)\;.\label{force1}
\end{equation}
A crucial role in the derivation of Equation (\ref{force1}) is played by the fact that the kernel
${{\cal K}}$ satisfies a set of reciprocity relations analogous to those satisfied by the Green's functions:
\begin{equation}
{\cal K}_{kl}^{(\rho \sigma)}({\bf y},{\bf y}') = (-1)^{s(\rho)+s(\sigma)}{\cal K}_{lk}^{(\sigma \rho)}({\bf y}',{\bf y}) \;,\label{recK}
\end{equation}
where $s(E)=0$ and $s(H)=1$. It is possible to verify that the reciprocity relations satisfied by ${\cal G}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}_{ij}({\bf y}-{\bf y}')$ and ${\cal K}^{( \alpha \beta)}_{ij}({\bf y},{\bf y}')$ ensure vanishing of the ``self-force'' ${F}_i^{({\rm self}|r)}$:
\begin{equation}
{F}_i^{({\rm self}|r)}=2 k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, \int_{V_r} d^3{\bf y} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf y}'\, \left( {\cal K}_{ij}^{(\alpha \beta)}({\bf y}',{\bf y}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {y_i}} {\cal G}^{(\beta \alpha;0)}_{ji}({\bf y}-{\bf y}';{\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right)=0\;.
\end{equation}
This implies that in Equation (\ref{force1}) the ${\bf y}'$ integral is in fact restricted to ${V}-{V}_r$, in accord with one's intuition that the force on body $r$ is due to the interaction with the other bodies. It is possible to present Equation (\ref{force1}) in a more compact and symmetric form, by defining the derivative $\partial/\partial {\bf x}_r$ of any kernel ${\cal A}({\bf y},{\bf y}')$, with respect to rigid translations of the r-th~body:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} {\cal A}({\bf y},{\bf y}') \equiv \psi_r({\bf y})\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf y}}{\cal A}({\bf y},{\bf y}') +\psi_r({\bf y}')\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf y}'}{\cal A}({\bf y},{\bf y}')\;,
\end{equation}
where $\psi_r({\bf y})$ is the characteristic function of $V_r$: $\psi_r({\bf y})=1$ if ${\bf y} \in V_r$, $\psi_r({\bf y})=0$ if ${\bf y} \notin V_r$. Using $\partial/\partial {\bf x}_r$, we can rewrite Equation (\ref{force1}) as
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}=k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, \int_{V} d^3{\bf y}\int_{V} d^3{\bf y}' \left( {\cal K}_{ij}^{(\alpha \beta)}({\bf y}',{\bf y}; {\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} {\cal G}^{(\beta \alpha;0)}_{ji}({\bf y}-{\bf y}';{\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right) \;.\label{force}
\end{equation}
The expression on the r.h.s. of the above formula can be compactly expressed using the operator notation and the trace operation described in Appendix \ref{app1}:
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}=k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \,{\rm Tr} \left[ {\hat {\cal K}}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} ({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right]\;.\label{force}
\end{equation}
Depending on whether we use for the kernel ${\hat K}$ the $T$-operator of Equation (\ref{repGreen1}) or rather the surface operator $-{\hat M}$ of Equation (\ref{repGreen2}), Equation (\ref{force}) provides us with two distinct but formally similar representations of the Casimir force, which is expressed either as an integral over the volume $V$ occupied by the bodies or as an integral over their surfaces $\Sigma$. One feature of Equation (\ref{force}) is worth stressing. Since the force is expressed as a trace, Equation (\ref{force}) can be evaluated in an {\it arbitrary} basis, leaving one with complete freedom in the choice of the most convenient basis in a concrete situation.
A representation of the Casimir force in the form of a volume integral equivalent to Equation (\ref{force}) was derived in~\cite{Kruger2012}, while the surface-integral representation was obtained in \cite{johnson}. Equation (\ref{force}) can be computed numerically for any shapes and dispositions of the bodies, by using discrete meshes covering the bodies. An efficient numerical scheme based on surface-elements methods is described in \cite{johnson}, where it was used to compute the Casimir force in complex geometries, not amenable to analytical techniques.
\subsection{Casimir Free Energy}
\textls[-15]{In this section, we compute the Casimir free energy ${\cal F}$ of the system of bodies, starting from the force formula Equation (\ref{force}). We shall see that the T-operator and the surface-operator approaches lead to two distinct but equivalent representations of the Casimir~energy.}
\subsubsection{T-Operator Approach}
Plugging into Equation (\ref{force}) the expression of the T-operator Equation (\ref{Top}), we find that the Casimir force can be expressed in the form:
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}= k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, {\rm Tr}\left( {\hat T}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \hat{\cal G}^{(0)}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right) =k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, {\rm Tr}\left[ \frac{1}{1-{\hat \chi}\, \hat{\cal G}^{(0)}}\, \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \left( {\hat{\chi}} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\right)\right]\;,
\end{equation}
where in the last passage, we made use of the fact that the polarization operator ${\hat \chi}$ defined in Equation (\ref{defchi}) is invariant under a rigid displacement of the body. The r.h.s. of the above equation can be formally expressed as a gradient:
\begin{equation}
F^{(r)}=- \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r}\,{\cal F}_{\rm bare}\;,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal F}_{\rm bare}$ is the {\it bare} free energy:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_{\rm bare}= k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, {\rm Tr}\; \log [1-{\hat{\chi}} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}]\;
\end{equation}
Unfortunately, ${\cal F}_{\rm bare}$ is formally divergent. To obtain the finite Casimir free energy ${\cal F}$, one has to subtract from ${\cal F}_{\rm bare}$ the divergent self-energies ${\cal F}^{(r)}_{\rm self}$ of the individual bodies:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}^{(r)}_{\rm self}= \left\{k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\! \!' \, {\rm Tr}\; \log [1-{\hat{\chi}_r} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}] \right\}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\chi}_r = \hat{\psi}_r \hat{\chi} \hat{\psi}_r$ is the polarizability operator of body $r$ in isolation.
In the case of a system composed by two bodies, the renormalized Casimir free energy can be recast in the following TGTG form:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}={\cal F}_{\rm bare}- {\cal F}^{(1)}_{\rm self}-{\cal F}^{(2)}_{\rm self}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, {\rm Tr}\; \log [1-{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_2} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}]\,,\label{TGTG}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\hat T}_r=\frac{1}{1-{\hat \chi}_r\, \hat{\cal G}^{(0)}}\,{\hat \chi}_r\,,
\end{equation}
is the T-operator of body $r$ in isolation. To prove Equation (\ref{TGTG}), one notes that for each Matsubara mode the operator identity holds:
\begin{equation}
(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{T}_1
\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{T}_2
(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)
=\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\hat{\chi}_2\;.
\end{equation}
The above identity in turn allows to prove the following chain of identities:
$$
{\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1]+{\rm Tr}\log [1- \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}{\hat{T}_2}]+{\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2]
$$
$$
={\rm Tr} \log[(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)(1- \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}{\hat{T}_2})(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)]
$$
$$
={\rm Tr} \log[(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)-(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}{\hat{T}_2}(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)]
$$
$$
={\rm Tr} \log[(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1)(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2)-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\hat{\chi}_2 ]={\rm Tr} \log[(1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}( \hat{\chi}_1+\hat{\chi}_2)]
$$
\begin{equation}
={\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\hat{\chi}]\;.
\end{equation}
Equating the first line with the last line, we obtain the identity:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\hat{\chi}] \nonumber\\
&&={\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_1]+{\rm Tr}\log [1- \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \,{\hat{T}_1} \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}{\hat{T}_2}]+{\rm Tr} \log[1-\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\chi}_2]\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Upon summing the above identity over all Matsubara modes (with weight one half for the $n=0$ term), and then multiplying it by $k_B T$, we find:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}^{(1)}_{\rm self}+{\cal F}^{(2)}_{\rm self}+{\cal F}={\cal F}_{\rm bare}\;,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to Equation (\ref{TGTG}). The energy formula Equation (\ref{TGTG}) was derived in~\cite{kenneth} using the path-integral method and in \cite{Kruger2012}, using Rytov's fluctuational electrodynamics~\cite{Rytov}.
\subsubsection{Surface Operator Approach}
Now we derive the surface-operator representation of the Casimir energy. To do that, we start from the surface-operator representation of the force, which is obtained by replacing $\hat{K}$ in Equation (\ref{force}) with minus the inverse of the surface operator $\hat{M}$ defined in Equation (\ref{defM}):
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}=-k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \,{\rm Tr} \left[ {\hat {M}^{-1}}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} ({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right]\;.
\end{equation}
This can also be written as:
\begin{equation}
{\bf F}^{(r)}=-k_B T \left.\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \,{\rm Tr} \left[ {\hat {M}^{-1}}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \left(\hat{\Pi}\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} ({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \hat{\Pi} \right)\right]\;, \label{surffo0}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\Pi}$ is the tangential projection operator defined in Appendix \ref{app2.2}. Now, one notes the~identity:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \left(\hat{\Pi}\,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)} ({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\, \hat{\Pi} \right)= \frac{\partial {\hat M} }{\partial {\bf x}_r}\;,\label{ident0}
\end{equation}
which is a direct consequence of Equation (\ref{defM}) since
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial }{\partial {\bf x}_r}\sum_{s=1}^N\hat{\Pi}_s \, \hat{\cal G}^{(s)}\,\hat{\Pi}_s=0\;.
\end{equation}
Plugging Equation (\ref{ident0}) into Equation (\ref{surffo0}), we obtain:
\begin{equation}
F^{(r)}= -k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!' \, {\rm Tr} \left[ {\hat M}^{-1}({\rm i}\, \xi_n) \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r} \hat{M}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\right] \;,
\end{equation}
The r.h.s. of the above equation can be formally expressed as a gradient:
\begin{equation}
F^{(r)}=- \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf x}_r}\,\tilde{{\cal F}}_{\rm bare}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{{\cal F}}_{\rm bare}$ is the {\it bare} free energy:
\begin{equation}
{\tilde {\cal F}}_{\rm bare}= k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, {\rm Tr}\; \log {\hat M}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\;. \label{bareensurf}
\end{equation}
Similarly to what we found in the T-operator approach, the surface formula of the bare-energy ${\tilde {\cal F}}_{\rm bare}$ is formally divergent. The finite Casimir free energy is obtained by subtracting from ${\tilde {\cal F}}_{\rm bare}$ the limit $\tilde{{\cal F}}^{(\infty)}_{\rm bare}$ of the bare energy when the bodies are taken infinitely apart from each other. From Equation (\ref{defM}), one sees that in the limit of infinite separations, the operator ${\hat M}$ approaches the limit ${\hat M}_{\infty}$
\begin{equation}
{\hat M}_{\infty}= \sum_{r=1}^N {\hat M}_r\;,\label{defMinf}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\hat M}_{r}= \hat{\Pi}_r\,( \hat{\cal G}^{(r)}+ \hat{\cal G}^{(0)})\,\hat{\Pi}_r \;.\label{defMbodies}
\end{equation}
Notice that the surface operator ${\hat M}_{r}$ is localized onto the surface $\Sigma_r$ of the $r$-th body. This implies that:
\begin{equation}
{\hat M}_{r}\, {\hat M}_{s}=0\;,\;\;\;\;\;{\rm for}\;\;r \neq s\;.
\end{equation}
Using Equation (\ref{defMinf}), we find that $\tilde{{\cal F}}^{(\infty)}_{\rm bare}$ is the formally divergent quantity:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\cal F}}^{(\infty)}_{\rm bare}= k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, \; {\rm Tr}\; \log {\hat M}_{\infty}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)=\sum_{r=1}^{N} k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, \; {\rm Tr}\; \log {\hat M}_{r}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)\equiv \sum_{r=1}^{N} \tilde{{\cal F}}^{(r)}_{\rm self}\;.
\label{selfensurf}
\end{equation}
The additive character of $\tilde{{\cal F}}^{(\infty)}_{\rm bare}$ allows to interpret $ \tilde{{\cal F}}^{(r)}_{\rm self}$ as representing the (infinite) the self-energy of the bodies in the surface approach.
Upon subtracting Equation (\ref{selfensurf}) from Equation (\ref{bareensurf}), we arrive at the following formula for the Casimir energy:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!\!'\, \log \det \frac{ {\hat M}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)}{{\hat M}_{\infty}({\rm i}\, \xi_n)}\;. \label{ensurf}
\end{equation}
An easy computation shows that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{{\hat M}_{\infty}}\, {\hat M}=1+\sum_{r \neq s}\frac{1}{\hat{M}_r} \hat{\cal G}_{rs}^{(0)}\;.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal G}_{rs}^{(0)}= \hat{\Pi}_r \,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\, \hat{\Pi}_s\;.
\end{equation}
Substitution of the above formula into Equation (\ref{ensurf}) results in the following surface formula for the Casimir energy:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \log \det \left[1+\sum_{r \neq s}\frac{1}{\hat{M}_r} \hat{\cal G}_{rs}^{(0)} \right] \;.\label{ensurF}
\end{equation}
In the simple case of two bodies, the above formula reduces to:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' {\rm Tr}\,\log \left[1- \frac{1}{\,{\hat M}_1} \, \hat{\cal G}_{12}^{(0)} \frac{1}{\,{\hat M}_2} \hat{\cal G}_{21}^{(0)} \right]\;.\label{renensurf}
\end{equation}
The surface formulas for the Casimir energy given in Equations (\ref{ensurF}) and (\ref{renensurf}) were not known before and are presented here for the first time.
Comparison of Equation (\ref{renensurf}) with Equation (\ref{TGTG}) reveals the striking similarity of the T-operator and surface-approach representations of the Casimir energy. Indeed we see that both formulas can be written in the form:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' {\rm Tr}\,\log \left[1- \hat{\cal{K}}_1 \, \hat{\cal G}^{(0)} \hat{\cal{K}}_2 \hat{\cal G} ^{(0)} \right]\;,\label{renensurfgen}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\cal{K}}_r$ is the kernel, which gives the scattering Green's function of body $r$ in isolation:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Gamma}_r=\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\,\hat{{\cal K}}_r\,\hat{\cal G}^{(0)}\;. \label{gammarepgenis}
\end{equation}
\section{Equivalence of the Surface-Formula with the Scattering Formula for the Casimir~Energy}
In the previous sections, we have shown that, both in the $T$-operator and in the surface approaches, the Casimir energy ${\cal F}$ of two bodies can be expressed by the general \mbox{Equation (\ref{renensurfgen})}.
This formula is valid {for any shape and relative dispositions} of the two bodies, and in particular for two interleaved bodies (see Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}a). Now we show that when the two bodies can be enclosed within two non-overlapping spheres (see Figure~\ref{fig:configuration}b), \mbox{Equation (\ref{renensurfgen})} is the same as the well-known { scattering} formula \cite{Emig2007,Neto2008,Emig2008,Rahi,Kruger2012}:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \rm{tr} \log \left[1- {\cal T}^{(1)} \, {\cal U}^{(12)} {\cal T}^{(2)} \, {\cal U}^{(21)} \right] \; .\label{scaterfor}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal T}^{(r)}$ is the {scattering matrix} of body $r$ (see Equation (\ref{tmatdef}) for the definition of ${\cal T}^{(r)}$), ${\cal U}^{(rs)}$ are the translation matrices defined in Equation (\ref{transl}) and $\rm{tr}$ denotes a trace over multipole indices.
\noindent
To prove equivalence of Equation (\ref{renensurfgen}) with Equation (\ref{scaterfor}), one starts from the observation that the trace operation in Equation (\ref{renensurfgen}) involves evaluating the Green functions ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}\!\!\!\!({\bf y},{\bf y}')$ at points ${\bf y}$ and ${\bf y}'$, one of which (call it ${\bf y}_1$) belongs to body 1, while the other (call it ${\bf y}_2$) belongs to body 2. For two bodies that can be separated by non-overlapping spheres, it is warranted that $|{\bf y}_1-{\bf X}_1| < |{\bf y}_2-{\bf X}_1|$ and
$|{\bf y}_2-{\bf X}_2| < |{\bf y}_1-{\bf X}_2|$, where ${\bf X}_1$ and ${\bf X}_2$ are the positions of the centers of the spheres $S^{(1)}$ and $S^{(2)}$, respectively, and $d=|{\bf X}_2-{\bf X}_1|$ is their distance. This condition satisfied by ${\bf y}_1$ and ${\bf y}_2$ ensures that it is legitimate to express ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(\alpha \beta;0)}\!\!\!\!({\bf y}_r,{\bf y}_s)$ (with $r\neq s=1,2$) by the partial-wave expansion (see Appendix \ref{app4}):
\begin{eqnarray}
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow} { {\cal G}}}^{(\alpha \beta;0)} \!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\! ({\bf y}_r,{\bf y}_s)\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\! \!\lambda (-1)^{s(\beta)}\,\sum_{plm} { \Phi}^{(\alpha | {\rm reg})}_{plm}({\bf y}_r-{\bf X}_r) \otimes { \Phi}^{(\beta | {\rm out})}_{pl-m}({\bf y}_s-{\bf X}_r) \nonumber \\
&=&\!\!\!\lambda\, (-1)^{s(\beta)}\sum_{plm} \sum_{p'l'} { \Phi}^{(\alpha | {\rm reg})}_{p lm}({\bf y}_r-{\bf X}_r) \otimes {\cal U}^{(rs)}_{p l ; p' l'}(d)\, { \Phi}^{(\beta | {\rm reg})}_{p'l'-m}({\bf y}_s-{\bf X}_s)\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${ \Phi}^{ {\rm( reg/out})}_{p lm}({\bf y}_r-{\bf X}_r)$ are a basis of regular and outgoing spherical waves with origin at ${\bf X}_r$.
When the above expansion is substituted into Equation (\ref{renensurfgen}) and the trace is evaluated, one finds that ${\cal F}$ can be recast in the form:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!' \;\rm{tr} \;\log \left[1-{\cal N} \right]\;.\label{firststep}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal N}$ is the matrix of elements:
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal N}_{plm;p' l' m'} \equiv \; \sum_{p'' l''} \sum_{p''' l''' m'''} \sum_{p'''' l''''} \; {\cal U}^{(21)}_{p l,p''l''} (d) \; {\cal U}^{(12)}_{p''' l''' ; p'''' l''''}(d) \nonumber \\
&\times& \lambda \sum_{\alpha, \mu} (-1)^{s(\alpha)} \int_{{V}_1} d^3 {\bf y}_1 \int_{{V}_1} d^3 {\bf y}'_1 \; { \Phi}^{(\alpha | {\rm reg})}_{p'' l''-m}({\bf y}_1-{\bf X}_1) \cdot {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow} {\cal K}}^{(\alpha \mu)}_1 \;({\bf y}_1,{\bf y}'_1)\cdot { \Phi}^{(\mu | {\rm reg})}_{p''' l'''m'''}({\bf y}'_1-{\bf X}_1) \; \nonumber \\
&\times& \lambda \sum_{\beta,\nu} (-1)^{s(\nu)} \int_{{V}_2} d^3 {\bf y}_2 \int_{{V}_2} d^3 {\bf y}'_2\;{ \Phi}^{(\nu | {\rm reg})}_{p''''l''''-m'''}({\bf y}_2-{\bf X}_2)\, \cdot {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal K} }^{(\nu \beta)}_2({\bf y}_2,{\bf y}'_2) \cdot { \Phi}^{(\beta | {\rm reg})}_{p' l' m'}({\bf y}'_2 -{\bf X}_2)\;. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
Recalling the formula Equation (\ref{tmatK}) for the scattering matrices ${\cal T}^{(r)}$ of the two bodies, we see that ${\cal N}$ is the matrix:
\begin{equation}
{\cal N} ={\cal U}^{(21)} (d) \;{\cal T}^{(1)} {\cal U}^{(12)}(d)\,{\cal T}^{(2)}\;.
\end{equation}
Upon substituting the above expression into the r.h.s. of Equation (\ref{firststep}), and using cyclicity of the trace, we see that Equation (\ref{firststep}) indeed coincides with the scattering formula Equation (\ref{scaterfor}).
\section{Path Integral Approach}
As in the previous sections, we consider again $N$ dielectric bodies occupying the volumes $V_r$, $r=1,\ldots, N$, bounded by surfaces $\Sigma_r$. Their electromagnetic properties are described by the dielectric functions $\epsilon^{(r)}$ and magnetic permeability $\mu^{(r)}$. The bodies are embedded in a homogeneous medium occupying the outside volume of the bodies, $V_0$, with dielectric function $\epsilon^{(0)}$ and magnetic permeability $\mu^{(0)}$.
In the Euclidean path integral quantization of the electromagnetic field, the Casimir free energy at finite temperature $T$ can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
\label{PI_free_energy}
{\mathcal F} = - k_B T \left. \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\right.\!'
\log\frac{\mathcal Z(\kappa_n)}{\mathcal Z_{\infty}(\kappa_n)} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over the Matsubara momenta $\kappa_n=2\pi n k_B T/\hbar c$, with a weight of $1/2$ for $n=0$. The partition function $\mathcal Z$ is given by a path integral that we shall derive now. The partition function $\mathcal Z_{\infty}$ describes the configuration of infinitely separated bodies and subtracts the self-energies of the bodies from the bare free energy. In the following two sections, we shall derive both a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian path integral expression of the partition function. In both cases, we employ a fluctuating { surface} current approach. A path integral approach that is based on bulk currents can be found, e.g., in Reference~\cite{Rahi}.
\subsection{Lagrange Formulation}
The action of the electromagnetic field coupled to bound sources ${\bf P}_\text{ind}$ in the absence of free sources is in general given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2}
S_\text{EM} = \int d^3 {\bf x}\, \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left(
\epsilon_{\bf x} {\bf E}^2 - \frac{1}{\mu_{\bf x}} {\bf B}^2 \right)
+ {\bf P}_\text{ind} \cdot {\bf E} \right] \, .
\end{equation}
In the following, we express the action in terms of the gauge field ${\bf A}$ choosing the transverse or temporal gauge with $A_0=0$. The functional integral will then run over ${\bf A}$ only. The electric field is given by ${\bf E} = i k {\bf A} \to -\kappa {\bf A}$ and the magnetic field by ${\bf B} = \nabla \times {\bf A}$. Then the action in terms of the induced sources at fixed frequency $\kappa$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:EM_hatS}
\hat S[{\bf A}] &=& -\frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} d^3 {\bf x}\, \left[
{\bf A}^2 \epsilon_{\bf x} \kappa^2 + \frac{1}{\mu_{\bf x}} (\nabla \times {\bf A})^2\right]
- \kappa \sum_{r=1}^N \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,{\bf A} \cdot {\bf P}_r \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
for fluctuations ${\bf A}$ of the gauge field, and induced bulk
currents ${\bf P}_r$ inside the objects. The inverse of the kernel
of the quadratic part of this action is given by the Green tensor
$G({\bf x},{\bf x}')$, which is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:G_dyadic_def}
\nabla \times \frac{1}{\mu_{\bf x}} \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') +
\epsilon_{\bf x} \kappa^2 \, {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = 4\pi\, {\bf 1} \, \delta({\bf x}-{\bf x}') \, .
\end{equation}
For spatially constant $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ with body $r$, this yields the free Green's tensor
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:G_dyadic}
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = \mu_r\left( {\bf 1}
-\frac{1}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2} \nabla\otimes\nabla \right)
\frac{e^{-\sqrt{\epsilon_r \mu_r}\kappa |{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|}}{
|{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|} \, ,
\end{equation}
which is symmetric, reflecting reciprocity. From the relation between the gauge field ${\bf A}$ and the electric field ${\bf E}$ follows the relation $-\kappa^2{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')={\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(EE;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') $, which allows to compare the results below to those of the stress-tensor-based derivation.
Next, we define the classical solutions
$\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ of the vector wave equation in each region
$V_r$, obeying
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:WE_E}
\nabla \times \nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r + \epsilon_r \mu_r
\kappa^2 \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r = - \kappa \mu_r {\bf P}_r
\end{equation}
We use this definition together with the fact that ${\bf A}$ has no
sources inside $V_r$, i.e., obeys above wave equation with
vanishing right-hand side, to rewrite the source terms of Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_hatS}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:EM_source_term}
-\kappa \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,{\bf A} \cdot {\bf P}_r &=&
\int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,{\bf A} \cdot \left[
\frac{1}{\mu_r}\nabla\times\nabla \times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r+
\epsilon_r
\kappa^2
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
\right]
\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \,\left[ {\bf A} \cdot
( \nabla\times\nabla\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r) - (
\nabla\times\nabla\times {\bf A}) \cdot \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r \right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \left[ \nabla \cdot
((\nabla\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)\times{\bf A} )-\nabla \cdot ((\nabla\times
{\bf A})\times\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \left[ {\bf n}_r \cdot
((\nabla\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)\times{\bf A} )-{\bf n}_r \cdot ((\nabla\times
{\bf A})\times\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \left[ {\bf A} \cdot
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + (\nabla \times {\bf A}) \cdot ({\bf n}_r
\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r ) \right] \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now we have to consider the electric field ${\bf E}=-\kappa {\bf A}$ only on the surfaces
$\Sigma_r$. However, the values of the electric field ${\bf E}$
and its curl $\nabla\times{\bf E}$ are those when the surface is approached from
the inside, denoted by ${\bf E}_-$
and $(\nabla\times{\bf E})_-$. It is important to realize that in the
above surface integral, ${\bf A}$
and $\nabla\times{\bf A}$ multiply vectors that are tangential to the
surface, and hence only the tangential components of ${\bf A}$
and $\nabla\times{\bf A}$ contribute to the integral. Hence, we can use
the continuity conditions of the tangential components of ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf H}$,
\begin{equation}
{\bf n}_r \times {\bf E}_- = {\bf n}_r \times {\bf E}_+\, , \quad
\frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times {\bf E})_- =
\frac{1}{\mu_0}{\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times {\bf E})_+ \, ,
\end{equation}
to write the source terms as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:EM_source_term_2}
\nonumber
-\kappa \int_{V_r} d^3 {\bf x} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{\bf A} \cdot {\bf P}_r =
\frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \left[ {\bf A}_-\cdot
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + (\nabla \times {\bf A})_- \cdot ({\bf n}_r
\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
)
\right]\\
&=&\!\!\!\!
\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \left[ \frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf A}_+ \cdot
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + \frac{1}{\mu_0} (\nabla \times {\bf A})_+ \cdot ({\bf n}_r
\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r ) \right] \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the first form applies to ${\bf A}$ inside the objects and the
second form to ${\bf A}$ outside the objects.
There is another advantage of having expressed the latter integrals in terms of the values of ${\bf A}$ and $\nabla\times{\bf A}$ when the surfaces are approached from either the outside or the inside of the objects. In the region $V_0$, the field ${\bf A}\equiv{\bf A}_0$ is fully determined by its values on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ and the dielectric function $\epsilon_0$ and permeability $\mu_0$, which are constant across $V_0$. When integrating out ${\bf A}_0$, in fact, one computes the two-point correlation function of ${\bf A}_+$ and $(\nabla\times{\bf A})_+$ {\it on} the surfaces $\Sigma_r$, and hence the behavior of ${\bf A}_0$ inside the regions $V_r$ with $r>0$ is irrelevant. Following the same arguments for ${\bf A}\equiv{\bf A}_\alpha$ inside the objects, the behavior of ${\bf A}_r$ outside of region $V_r$ is irrelevant for computing the correlations of ${\bf A}_-$ and $(\nabla\times{\bf A})_-$ {\it on} the surfaces $\Sigma_r$.
Hence, we can replace in the action $\hat S[{\bf A},\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r\}]$ the spatially dependent $\epsilon_{\bf x}$ by $\epsilon_0$ when the coupling of ${\bf A}_0$ to the surface fields $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ is represented by the second line of Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_source_term_2}), and similarly replace $\epsilon_{\bf x}$ by $\epsilon_r$ when the coupling of ${\bf A}_r$ to the surface fields $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ is represented by the first line of Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_source_term_2}).
That this is justified can also be understood as follows. The field ${\bf A}_0$ in region $V_0$ can be expanded in a basis of functions that obey the wave equation with $\epsilon_0$. The same can be done for ${\bf A}_r$ in the interior of each object, i.e., ${\bf A}_r$ can be expanded in a basis of functions that obey the wave equation with $\epsilon_r$ in $V_r$. For each given set of expansion coefficients in $V_0$ there are corresponding coefficients within each region $V_r$ that are determined by the continuity conditions at the surfaces $\Sigma_r$. The functional integral over ${\bf A}$ then corresponds to integrating over consistent sets of expansion coefficients that are related by the continuity conditions. The two-point correlations of ${\bf A}_+$ and $(\nabla\times{\bf A})_+$ on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ are then fully determined by the integral over the expansion coefficients of ${\bf A}_0$ in $V_0$ only, and the interior expansion coefficients play no role. Equivalently, the two-point correlations of ${\bf A}_-$ and $(\nabla\times{\bf A})_-$ on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ are then fully determined by the integral over the expansion coefficients of ${\bf A}_r$ in $V_r$ only, and now the exterior expansion coefficients are irrelevant. Hence, in the functional integral, the integration of ${\bf A}$ can be replaced by $N+1$ integrations over the fields ${\bf A}_r$, $r=0,\ldots,N$, where each ${\bf A}_r$ is allowed to extend over unbounded space with the action for a free field in a homogeneous space with $\epsilon_r$, $\mu_r$.
However, it is important that the correct of the two possible forms of the surface integral in Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_source_term_2}) is used.
The multiple counting of degrees of freedom that results from $N+1$ functional integrations poses no problem since the (formally infinite) factor in the partition function cancels when the Casimir energy is computed from Equation~(\ref{PI_free_energy}).
With this representation, we can write the partition function as a
functional integral over ${\bf A}$, separately in each region $V_r$,
and the surface fields $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ on body $r$, leading to the partition function
\begin{equation}
\label{euclid-z}
\mathcal Z(\kappa) = \prod_{r=0}^N\int\ {\mathcal D}{\bf A}_r \prod_{r=1}^N \int {\mathcal D}\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
\exp \left[ -\beta \hat S[\{{\bf A}_r\},\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r\}]\right]\, .
\end{equation}
with the action
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat S[\{{\bf A}_r\},\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r\}]&=&-\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{r=0}^N\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}
d^3 {\bf x}\left[ {\bf A}_r^2 \epsilon_r \kappa^2 + \frac{1}{\mu_r}
(\nabla \times {\bf A}_r)^2 \right]
\\ \nonumber
&+&
\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \, \left[ \frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf A}_0
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + \frac{1}{\mu_0} (\nabla \times {\bf A}_0) ({\bf n}_r
\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
)
\right]\\ \nonumber
&+& \sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,\left[ \frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf A}_r
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + \frac{1}{\mu_r} (\nabla \times {\bf A}_r) ({\bf n}_r
\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
) \right]
\end{eqnarray}
Now, the fluctuations ${\bf A}$ can be integrated out easily, noting that
the two point correlation function $\langle {\bf A}_r({\bf x})
{\bf A}_{r'}({\bf x}')\rangle=0$ for all $r$, ${r'}=0,\ldots,N$ with
$r\neq {r'}$, and for equal-region correlations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:E-correlations}
\langle A_{r,j}({\bf x}) A_{r,k}({\bf x}')\rangle &=& {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}_{jk}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\\
\langle (\nabla\times {\bf A})_{r,j} ({\bf x}) A_{r,k} ({\bf x}')\rangle &=& \left[ \nabla
\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)} \right]_{jk}({\bf x}, {\bf x}')
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle A_{r,j} ({\bf x}) (\nabla\times {\bf A})_{r,k} ({\bf x}')\rangle &=& - \left[
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}\times \nabla\right]_{jk}({\bf x},
{\bf x}')
= \left[ \nabla
\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}\right]_{jk}({\bf x}, {\bf x}')
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\vspace{-12pt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle (\nabla\times {\bf A})_{r,j} ({\bf x}) (\nabla\times {\bf A})_{r,k} ({\bf x}')\rangle &=& - \left[ \nabla\times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}\times \nabla\right]_{jk}({\bf x},
{\bf x}')
\nonumber \\
&=& \left[ \nabla\times\nabla
\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}\right]_{jk}({\bf x}, {\bf x}')\,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\nabla$ always acts on the argument ${\bf x}$ of ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}$ and
the notation $\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}$ means that $\nabla$ acts
column-wise on the tensor ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}$ whereas ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)} \times \nabla$
means that $\nabla$ acts row-wise on the tensor ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}$. We
obtain for the partition function
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:euclid-z-2}
\mathcal Z(\kappa) &=& \prod_{r=1}^N \int {\mathcal D}\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
\exp \left[ -\frac{\beta}{2} \left(
\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\! d^3 {\bf x}' \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r({\bf x}) L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r({\bf x}') \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left.\left.
\sum_{r,{r'}=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{{r'}}} \!\!\!d^3 {\bf x}' \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r({\bf x}) M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \bm{\mathcal{A}}_{r'}({\bf x}')\right)\right]\, .
\end{eqnarray}
with the kernels
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kernel_M}
L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = &\frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left[ \,
\nabla \times \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times \cev{\cdot}\,) ({\bf n}'_r
\times \vec{\cdot}\,)\right.\nonumber\\
&+ \left.\nabla \times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times (\nabla \times \cev{\cdot}\,)) ({\bf n}'_r
\times \vec{\cdot}\,) \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. \nabla \times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times \cev{\cdot}\,) ({\bf n}'_r
\times (\nabla' \times \vec{\cdot}\,)) \right. \nonumber\\
&+ \left. {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times (\nabla \times \cev{\cdot}\,)) ({\bf n}'_r
\times (\nabla' \times \vec{\cdot}\,)) \right] \nonumber \\
M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = &\frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \,
\nabla \times \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times \cev{\cdot}\,) ({\bf n}'_{r'}
\times \vec{\cdot}\,) \nonumber\\
&+
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r} \,
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times (\nabla \times \cev{\cdot}\,)) ({\bf n}'_{r'}
\times \vec{\cdot}\,)\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} \, \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times \cev{\cdot}\,) ({\bf n}'_{r'}
\times (\nabla' \times \vec{\cdot}\,))\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \, {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') ({\bf n}_r
\times (\nabla \times \cev{\cdot}\,)) ({\bf n}'_{r'}
\times (\nabla' \times \vec{\cdot}\,))
\end{align}
where ${\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')$ is the free Green function of
Equation~(\ref{eq:G_dyadic}), and the arrow over the placeholder $\cdot$ indicates to which side of the kernel $M$ acts. This notation implies that the derivatives are taken before the kernel is evaluated with ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}'$ on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$.
\subsection{Hamiltonian Formulation}
The representation of the partition function in the previous subsection sums over all configurations of the surface fields $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$, and the action depends both on $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ and the tangential part of its curl, which is functionally dependent on $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$. Hence, the situation is similar to classical mechanics where the Lagrangian depends on the trajectory $q(t)$ and its velocity $\dot q(t)$. The Lagrangian path integral runs then over all of path $q(t)$ with $\dot q(t)$ determined by the path automatically. To obtain a representation in terms of a space of functions that are defined strictly on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ only,
it would be useful to be able to integrate over $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ and its derivatives {\it independently}. In classical mechanics, this is achieved by Lagrange multipliers that lead to a Legendre transformation of the action to its Hamiltonian form.
Here the situation is similar. To see this, it is important to realize that the bilinear form described by $L_r$ is degenerate on the space of functions over which the functional integral runs, i.e.,
$\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\! d^3 {\bf x}'
\bm{\mathcal{A}}({\bf x}) L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \bm{\mathcal{A}}({\bf x}')=0$ for all
$\bm{\mathcal{A}}({\bf x})$ that are regular
solutions of the vector wave equation
$\nabla \times \nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}} + \epsilon_r \mu_r
\kappa^2 \bm{\mathcal{A}} =0$ inside region
$V_r$. With a basis $\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x})\}$ for
this functional space, the elements of $L_r$ can be expressed as
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:L_is_zero}
L_{r}(\nu,\nu') &=&
\int_{\Sigma_{r}}d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{r}} d^3 {\bf x}'
\,\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x})
L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_{\nu'}({\bf x}')\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \int_{\Sigma_{r}}d^3 {\bf x} \,
\left[ \left(\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x}) \right)
\left( {\bf n}_r \times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x}) \right)
+\bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x})
\left( {\bf n}_r \times \left( \nabla
\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x})\right)\right)
\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\, \int_{V_r} d^3
{\bf x} \left[
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x})
\left(\nabla\times\nabla\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x})\right) -
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_\nu({\bf x}) \left(\nabla\times\nabla\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x})\right)
\right]
\nonumber \\
&=& 0
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent where we used the relations of Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_source_term}), and defined
\begin{align}
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x}) = & \int_{\Sigma_{r}}d^3 {\bf x}' \;\left[
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \left( {\bf n}'_r \times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_{\nu'}({\bf x}') \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \left( {\bf n}'_r \times \left( \nabla'
\times \bm{\mathcal{A}}^{({\rm reg},r)}_{\nu'}({\bf x}')\right)\right)
\right] \, ,
\end{align}
and made use of the fact that $ \bm{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu'}({\bf x})$ is also a solution of
the vector wave equation inside $V_r$. This implies that the kernel $L_r$ can be
ignored in the above functional integral over regular waves $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ inside the objects.
However, the appearance of the kernel $L_r$ is important in what follows. Let us consider the part of the action $\hat S[\left\{{\bf A}_r\right\},\left\{\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r\right\}]$ which, after functional integration over ${\bf A}_r$, generates the kernel $L_r$. It is given by
\begin{align}
S_r = & -\frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} d^3 {\bf x} \;\left[ {\bf A}_r^2 \epsilon_r \kappa^2 + \frac{1}{\mu_r}
(\nabla \times {\bf A}_r)^2 \right]
\nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \;\left[ {\bf A}_r
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) + (\nabla \times {\bf A}_r) ({\bf n}_r \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r ) \right] \, .
\end{align}
The exponential of this action can be written as a functional integral
over two new vector fields ${\bf K}_r$ and ${\bf K}'_r$ that are defined
on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ and are {\it tangential} to the surfaces,
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{align}
\label{eq:EM_rep_kernel_L}
& \exp(-\beta S_r) \nonumber \\ &= \mathcal Z_r \oint {\mathcal D} {\bf K}_r {\mathcal D}
{\bf K}'_r
\exp \left\{ - \frac{\beta}{2} \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}
\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x}
\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x}' \left[
{\bf K}_r({\bf x}) \cdot \nabla\times\nabla\times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \cdot
{\bf K}_r({\bf x}') \right. \right.
\nonumber\\
&+ \left. \left. {\bf K}_r({\bf x}) \cdot
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \cdot
{\bf K}'_r({\bf x}') +{\bf K}'_r({\bf x}) \cdot
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\cdot {\bf K}_r({\bf x}')
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. \left. {\bf K}'_r({\bf x}) \cdot
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \cdot
{\bf K}'_r({\bf x}')
\right] \right.
\nonumber\\
& + \left. \frac{1}{\mu_r} \int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,\left[
{\bf A}_r \cdot \big(
({\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)) - {\bf K}'_r \big) + (\nabla \times {\bf A}_r) \cdot \big(({\bf n}_r
\times
\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r
-{\bf K}_r) \big) \right] \right\}
\end{align}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent where $\mathcal Z_r$ is some normalization coefficient, and we have used $\oint {\mathcal D}
{\bf K}_r {\mathcal D} {\bf K}'_r$ to indicate that the functional
integral extends only over vector fields that are tangential to the
surface $\Sigma_r$. This representation shows that
${\bf A}_r$ acts as a Lagrange multiplier. Integration over
this field removes the imposed constraints between the {dependent}
tangential fields ${\bf n}_r\times\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$, ${\bf n}_r \times
(\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r)$ by replacing them with the independent
tangential fields ${\bf K}_r$ and ${\bf K}'_r$, respectively.
Substituting Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_rep_kernel_L}) for each object into the expression for the partition in Equation~(\ref{euclid-z}), we obtain with $\underline{{\bf K}}_r=({\bf K}_r,{\bf K}'_r)$
the partition function
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Z_for_2_fields}
\mathcal Z(\kappa) = &\int\ {\mathcal D}{\bf A}_0 \prod_{r=1}^N \oint {\mathcal D}\underline{{\bf K}}_r
\\
& \times
\exp \left[ -\beta S_\text{eff}[{\bf A}_0,\{\underline{{\bf K}}_r\}]\right] \exp\left[ -\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_r} \!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_r} \!\!\!d^3 {\bf x}'
\underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}) \hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}')\underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}')\right]\nonumber
\end{align}
with the kernel from Equation~(\ref{eq:EM_rep_kernel_L}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kernel_L_final}
\hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') & \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix} \, ,
\end{equation}
and with the effective action
\begin{align}
S_\text{eff}[{\bf A}_0,\{\underline{{\bf K}}_r\}]=&\frac{1}{2}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} d^3 {\bf x}\left[ {\bf A}_0^2 \epsilon_0 \kappa^2 + \frac{1}{\mu_0}
(\nabla \times {\bf A}_0)^2\right]
\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_r} d^3 {\bf x} \,
\left[ \frac{1}{\mu_r}{\bf A}_0 {\bf K}'_r+ \frac{1}{\mu_0} (\nabla \times {\bf A}_0) {\bf K}_r
\right]\, ,
\end{align}
where we have integrated out ${\bf A}_r$ for $r=1,\ldots,N$,
constraining the functional integral over $\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r$ to be replaced
by the substitutions ${\bf n}_r \times\bm{\mathcal{A}}_r \to {\bf K}_r$
and ${\bf n}_r \times (\nabla \times \bm{\mathcal{A}}_r) \to {\bf K}'_r$. Integrating out ${\bf A}_0$, finally yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq:euclid-z-3-EM}
\mathcal Z(\kappa) = & \prod_{r=1}^N \oint {\mathcal D}\underline{{\bf K}}_r
\exp \left[ -\frac{\beta}{2} \left(
\sum_{r=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\! d^3 {\bf x}' \, \underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}) \hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}') \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&+
\left.\left.\sum_{r,{r'}=1}^N\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\!\!\!d^3 {\bf x} \int_{\Sigma_{{r'}}} \!\!\!d^3 {\bf x}' \, \underline{{\bf K}}_r({\bf x}) \hat M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \underline{{\bf K}}_{r'}({\bf x}')\right)\right]\, ,
\end{align}
with the additional kernel
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kernel_M_2_EM}
\hat M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \, \nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_0 \mu_{r'}} \, \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\
\frac{1}{\mu_0 \mu_r}\, \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
&\frac{1}{\mu_r \mu_{r'}} \, {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix} \, .
\end{equation}
It should be noted again that the functional integral in
Equation~(\ref{eq:euclid-z-3-EM}) runs over { tangential} vector fields
${\bf K}_r$, ${\bf K}'_r$ defined on the surfaces $\Sigma_r$ only.
The kernels $\hat L$ and $\hat M$ can be combined into the joint
kernel
\begin{equation}
\hat N_{r{r'}}=\hat L_r \delta_{r{r'}} + \hat
M_{r{r'}} \, .
\end{equation}
Since $\hat N$ acts in the path integral only on tangential vectors,
the projections of $\hat N$ on the tangent space of the surfaces
$\Sigma_r$ have to be taken. Let ${\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x})$,
${\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x})$ be two tangent vector fields that span the
tangent space of $\Sigma_r$ at ${\bf x}$. The $4\times 4$ matrix kernels then
become
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{align}
&\tilde L_{r,mn}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x})\hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{\mu_r}\begin{pmatrix}
({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}).\nabla) ({\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}').\nabla)
g_r - {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) . {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') \nabla
^2 g_r & - ({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) \times
{\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}')) . \nabla g_r\\
- ({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) \times
{\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}')) . \nabla g_r &
-\frac{1}{\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2}({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}).\nabla) ({\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}').\nabla)
g_r + {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) . {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') g_r
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
and
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kernel_M_3_EM}
&\tilde M_{r{r'},mn}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x})\hat M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') {\bf t}_{{r'},n}({\bf x}') \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{\mu_0}\begin{pmatrix}
({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}).\nabla) ({\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}').\nabla)
g_0 - {\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) . {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') \nabla
^2 g_0 & -\frac{\mu_0}{\mu_{r'}} ({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) \times
{\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}')) . \nabla g_0\\
-\frac{\mu_0}{\mu_r} ({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) \times
{\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}')) . \nabla g_0 &
-\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_r\mu_{r'}\kappa^2}({\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}).\nabla) ({\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}').\nabla)
g_0 + \frac{\mu_0^2}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}{\bf t}_{r,m}({\bf x}) . {\bf t}_{r,n}({\bf x}') g_0
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
which expresses all kernels in terms of tangential and normal
derivatives of the scalar Green function $g_r(|{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|)= e^{-\sqrt{\epsilon_r \mu_r}\kappa |{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|}/|{\bf x}-{\bf x}'|$. These expressions simplify when an orthonormal
basis ${\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x})$,
${\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x})$, ${\bf n}_r({\bf x})={\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x}) \times {\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x})$ is used.
The Casimir free energy is then given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal F} = - k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \log \det \left[\hat N(\kappa_n) \hat N_\infty^{-1}(\kappa_n)\right] \,\label{hamen} ,
\end{equation}
where the determinant runs over all indices, i.e., ${\bf x}$, ${\bf x}'$
located {on} the surfaces $\Sigma_r$, and $r$, ${r'}=1,\ldots,N$. The kernel $\hat N_\infty$ is obtained from the kernel $\hat N$ by taking the distance between all bodies to infinity, i.e, by setting $\hat M_{r{r'}} =0$ for all $r\neq {r'}$. In the following we shall again denote the form of the partition function in Equation~(\ref{eq:euclid-z-2}) as Lagrange representation, and the one of Equation~(\ref{eq:euclid-z-3-EM}) as a Hamiltonian representation. By a simple computation, one can verify that the Hamiltonian representation of the Casimir free energy in Equation (\ref{hamen}) is indeed equivalent to the surface formula Equation (\ref{ensurF}).
\section{Application: Derivation of the Lifshitz Theory}
As a simple example to demonstrate the practical application of the surface formulations, we consider two dielectric half-spaces, one covering the region $z\le z_1=0$, with the surface $\Sigma_1$ and dielectric function $\epsilon_1$ and magnetic permeability $\mu_1$, and the other covering the region $z\ge z_2=H$, with the surface $\Sigma_2$ and dielectric function $\epsilon_2$ magnetic permeability $\mu_2$. We shall consider both the Lagrange and Hamiltonian representation in the following.
\subsection{Lagrange Representation}
We compute the matrix elements of the kernels $L$ and $M$ of Equation~(\ref{eq:kernel_M}) in the basis of transverse vector plane waves, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:basis_planar_vector}
{\bf M}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \nabla \times \left(e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| +
p_1 z} \hat {\bf z} \right) = (-ik_y,ik_x,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| +
p_1 z} \\
{\bf N}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa}\nabla \times\nabla \times
\left(e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| + p_1 z} \hat {\bf z}
\right)
= \frac{1}{\kappa} (-ik_x p_1,-ik_y p_1, k_\|^2) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| + p_1 z}\\
{\bf M}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \nabla \times \left(e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| - p_2
(z-H)}\hat {\bf z} \right) = (-ik_y,ik_x,0) e^{-i
{\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| - p_2 (z-H)}\\
{\bf N}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa}\nabla \times\nabla \times \left(e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| - p_2 (z-H)}\hat {\bf z} \right)= \frac{1}{\kappa} (ik_x p_2,ik_y p_2, k_\|^2) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| - p_2 (z-H)}
\end{eqnarray}
with $p_r=\sqrt{\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2+{\bf k}_\|^2}$ and the sign of
$z$ is fixed so that the waves are regular inside the
half-spaces. Note that we include here a $z$ dependence to be able to
compute the curl on the surfaces. For the Green tensor, we use the representation
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Green_tensor_plane}
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &= \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q} ({\bf x}-{\bf x}')}
\frac{1/(\epsilon_r\kappa^2)}{\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2+{\bf q}^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2 +q_x^2 & q_x q_y& q_x q_z\\
q_y q_x & \epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2 + q_y^2 & q_y q_z \\
q_z q_x & q_z q_y & \epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2 + q_z^2
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
&\equiv \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q} ({\bf x}-{\bf x}')}
\frac{\mu_r \tilde G_r(\kappa,{\bf q})}{\epsilon_r\mu_r\kappa^2+{\bf q}^2} \, ,
\end{align}
which yields after the curl operations
\begin{align}
\label{eq:curl_Green_tensor_plane}
\nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &= \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q}
({\bf x}-{\bf x}')} \,
\frac{\mu_r}{\epsilon_r\mu_r
\kappa^2 + {\bf q}^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -iq_z & iq_y \\
iq_z & 0 & -iq_x \\
-iq_y & iq_x& 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&\equiv \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q}
({\bf x}-{\bf x}')} \,
\frac{\mu_r \tilde G'_r({\bf q})}{\epsilon_r\mu_r
\kappa^2 + {\bf q}^2} \\
\nabla \times \nabla \times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &= \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q}
({\bf x}-{\bf x}')} \,
\frac{\mu_r}{\epsilon_r\mu_r
\kappa^2 + {\bf q}^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
q_y^2+q_z^2 & -q_xq_y & -q_xq_z \\
-q_x q_y & q_x^2+q_z^2 &
-q_y q_z \\
-q_x q_z & -q_y q_z& q_x^2+q_y^2 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber \\
&\equiv \int_{\bf q} e^{i{\bf q}
({\bf x}-{\bf x}')} \,
\frac{\mu_r \tilde G''_r({\bf q})}{\epsilon_r\mu_r
\kappa^2 + {\bf q}^2} \, .
\end{align}
We also need the following expressions for the operators that appear in the
kernels, acting on the basis functions, which are tangential to the
surfaces. On surface $\Sigma_1$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:op_on_vetor_basis}
\hat z \times {\bf M}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& (-ik_x,-ik_y,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\|
{\bf x}_\| } \equiv {\bf u}_{m1} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times {\bf N}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa}(ik_y p_1,-ik_x p_1,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv {\bf u}_{n1} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times \nabla \times {\bf M}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& (ik_y p_1,-ik_x p_1,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv \bfv_{m1} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times \nabla \times {\bf N}_{1,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa} (ik_x \epsilon_1\mu_1\kappa^2, ik_y \epsilon_1\mu_1\kappa^2,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv \bfv_{n1} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly on surface $\Sigma_2$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:op_on_vetor_basis}
\hat z \times {\bf M}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& (-ik_x,-ik_y,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv {\bf u}_{m2} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times {\bf N}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa}(-ik_y p_2,ik_x p_2,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv {\bf u}_{n2} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times \nabla \times {\bf M}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& (-ik_y p_2,ik_x p_2,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv \bfv_{m2} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\\
\hat z \times \nabla \times {\bf N}_{2,{\bf k}_\|} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa} (ik_x \epsilon_2\mu_2\kappa^2, ik_y \epsilon_2\mu_2\kappa^2,0) e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| } \equiv \bfv_{n2} e^{-i {\bf k}_\| {\bf x}_\| }\, .
\end{eqnarray}
It is straightforward to show that the matrix elements of $L_r$ in the above basis all vanish, as the basis functions are regular solutions of the vector wave equation. This observation is in agreement with the above finding that the kernel $L_r$ is degenerate on the space of those solutions.
We proceed with the computation of the elements of kernel $M$. We find for the case $r={r'}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:EM_kernel_Mdiag_plates}
& M_{rr}({\bf k}_\|,{\bf k}'_\|) = \int_{\Sigma_{r}}d^3 {\bf x}
\int_{\Sigma_{r}} d^3 {\bf x}' \,
\begin{pmatrix} {\bf M} \\ {\bf N}\end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|}\!\!\!\!({\bf x})
M_{rr}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\begin{pmatrix} {\bf M} \\ {\bf N}\end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}'_\|}\!\!\!\!({\bf x}')\\
&= \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dq_z}{2\pi}
\left[ \frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G''_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,-{\bf k}_\|} \right.
\nonumber\\
&+ \left.
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r}\begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G'_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,-{\bf k}_\|}
+ \frac{1}{\mu_0 \mu_r}\begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G'_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,-{\bf k}_\|} \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left. \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G_0(\kappa,{\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,-{\bf k}_\|} \right]
\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0
\kappa^2 +{\bf k}_\|^2
+q_z^2}\,
{e^{iq_z(z-z')}}_{|\,z,z' \to z_r}\nonumber\\
& = \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|) \frac{\mu_0 {\bf k}_\|^2}{2p_0} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\mu_0^2 p_r^2 - \mu_r^2 p_0^2}{(\mu_0\mu_r)^2} & 0\\
0 & - \frac{\epsilon_0^2 p_r^2-\epsilon_r^2 p_0^2}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}\\
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber\\
&\equiv \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|) M_{rr}({\bf k}_\|) \nonumber
\end{align}
and for the case $r\neq {r'}$ we get
\clearpage
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{align}
\label{eq:EM_kernel_Mnondiag_plates}
& M_{r{r'}}({\bf k}_\|,{\bf k}'_\|) = \int_{\Omega_{r}}d^3 {\bf x}
\int_{\Omega_{{r'}}} d^3 {\bf x}' \,
\begin{pmatrix} {\bf M} \\ {\bf N}\end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|}\!\!\!\!({\bf x})
M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\begin{pmatrix} {\bf M} \\ {\bf N}\end{pmatrix}_{{r'},{\bf k}'_\|}\!\!\!\!({\bf x}')\\
&= \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dq_z}{2\pi}
\left[ \frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G''_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{{r'},-{\bf k}_\|} \right. \nonumber\\
& + \left.
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r}\begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G'_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{{r'},-{\bf k}_\|}
+ \frac{1}{\mu_0 \mu_{r'}}\begin{pmatrix} {\bf u}_{m} \\
{\bf u}_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G'_0({\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{{r'},-{\bf k}_\|} \right. \nonumber
\\
&+ \left. \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{r,{\bf k}_\|} \tilde
G_0(\kappa,{\bf k}_\|,q_z) \begin{pmatrix} \bfv_{m} \\
\bfv_{n} \end{pmatrix}_{{r'},-{\bf k}_\|} \right]
\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0
\kappa^2 +{\bf k}_\|^2
+q_z^2}\,
{e^{iq_z(-1)^r H}}\nonumber\\
& = \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|) \frac{{\bf k}_\|^2}{2\mu_0p_0} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{(\mu_0p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0p_2 - \mu_2 p_0)}{\mu_1\mu_2} & 0\\
0 & -(\epsilon_0p_1-\epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0p_2-\epsilon_2 p_0)\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\\
\end{pmatrix} e^{-p_0 H}\, , \nonumber\\
&\equiv \delta({\bf k}_\|+{\bf k}'_\|) M_{r{r'}}({\bf k}_\|) \, ,\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent where the sign in $e^{i q_z (-1)^r H}$ determines upon
integration over $q_z$ the sign of the terms $\sim i q_z$.
The vanishing of the off-diagonal elements reflects the fact that the two polarizations described by the basis functions ${\bf M}$ and ${\bf N}$ do
not couple for planar surfaces. The total kernel $M$ can be written as
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begingroup\makeatletter\def\f@size{8}\check@mathfonts
\def\maketag@@@#1{\hbox{\m@th\normalsize\normalfont#1}}%
\begin{align}
\label{eq:M_EM_plates_final}
& M({\bf k}_\|) = \nonumber \\
& \frac{{\bf k}_\|^2}{2p_0}\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\mu_0^2 p_1^2 - \mu_1^2 p_0^2}{\mu_0\mu_1^2} & 0
& \frac{(\mu_0p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0p_2 - \mu_2
p_0)}{\mu_0\mu_1\mu_2} e^{-p_0H} & 0\\
0 & -\frac{ \epsilon_0^2 p_1^2-\epsilon_1^2
p_0^2}{\epsilon_0} & 0 & -\frac{(\epsilon_0p_1-\epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0p_2-\epsilon_2 p_0)}{\epsilon_0}e^{-p_0H}\\
\frac{(\mu_0p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0p_2 - \mu_2
p_0)}{\mu_0\mu_1\mu_2} e^{-p_0H}& 0& \frac{\mu_0^2 p_2^2 - \mu_2^2 p_0^2}{(\mu_0\mu_2^2)} & 0\\
0 & -\frac{(\epsilon_0p_1-\epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0p_2-\epsilon_2 p_0)}{\epsilon_0}e^{-p_0H}& 0 & -\frac{ \epsilon_0^2 p_2^2-\epsilon_2^2 p_0^2}{\epsilon_0}
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber
\end{align}
\endgroup
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
The Casimir free energy is given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal F} = k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \int
\frac{d^2{\bf k}_\|}{(2\pi)^2}\log \det \left[ M
M^{-1}_\infty ({\bf k}_\|) \right]_{\kappa=\kappa_n}
\end{equation}
in terms of the determinant of the matrix
\begin{equation}
M M_\infty^{-1} ({\bf k}_\|) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & \frac{\mu_2}{\mu_1} \frac{\mu_0 p_1-\mu_1 p_0}{\mu_0 p_2+\mu_2 p_0} e^{-p_0 H} & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{\epsilon_0 p_1-\epsilon_1 p_0}{\epsilon_0 p_2+\epsilon_2 p_0} e^{-p_0 H}\\
\frac{\mu_1}{\mu_2} \frac{\mu_0 p_2-\mu_2 p_0}{\mu_0 p_1+\mu_1 p_0}
e^{-p_0 H} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\epsilon_0 p_2-\epsilon_2 p_0}{\epsilon_0 p_1+\epsilon_1 p_0} e^{-p_0 H} & 0 & 1 \nonumber \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
which has four dimensions due to two sets of basis functions
(polarisations) ${\bf M}$ and ${\bf N}$ per
surface. This yields the final result
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal F} &=& k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \int
\frac{d{\bf k}_\|}{(2\pi)^2}\log \left[
\left( 1 - \frac{(\epsilon_0 p_1 - \epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0 p_2 -
\epsilon_2 p_0)}{(\epsilon_0 p_1 + \epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0 p_2
+ \epsilon_2 p_0)} e^{-2p_0 H} \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&\times&\left. \left( 1 - \frac{(\mu_0 p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0 p_2 -
\mu_2 p_0)}{(\mu_0 p_1 + \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0 p_2
+ \mu_2 p_0)} e^{-2p_0 H} \right)
\right]_{\kappa=\kappa_n} \label{eq:Plate_energy_EM}
\, .
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
This result is in agreement with the Lifshitz formula \cite{LifshitzPlates}.
\subsection{Hamiltonian Representation}
Now we derive the Lifshitz expression for the free energy of two dielectric half-spaces in the Hamiltonian representation.
Since the kernels $\hat L$ and $\hat M$ of Equations~(\ref{eq:kernel_L_final}) and (\ref{eq:kernel_M_2_EM}) act on vector fields that are
tangential to the surfaces, we need to compute the matrix elements in
a basis of tangential vectors ${\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x})$ and
${\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x})$ that span the tangent space of surface
$\Sigma_r$ at position ${\bf x}$. For a planar surface, one can
simply set ${\bf t}_{r,1}({\bf x}) = \hat {\bf x}_1$ and ${\bf t}_{r,2}({\bf x}) = \hat {\bf x}_2$.
For a given pair of positions ${\bf x}$, ${\bf x}'$ on the surface and fixed surface indices
$r$, ${r'}$ we obtain the following $4\times 4$ dimensional
matrices
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{myequation}
\begin{array}{cll}
&& \hat L_{r}({\bf x},{\bf x}') = \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \nonumber \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') & \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}\\
&\equiv & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} .\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} &
\hat {\bf x}_{1} .\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2}& \hat {\bf x}_{1}.\nabla\times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} & \hat {\bf x}_{1}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2}\\
\hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1}&
\hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2} & \hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times
{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} & \hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2} \\
\hat {\bf x}_{1}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} &\hat {\bf x}_{1}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2} &
\hat {\bf x}_{1} . {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{1} & \hat {\bf x}_{1} . {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2} \\
\hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') . \hat {\bf x}_{1}&\hat {\bf x}_{2}.\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') . \hat {\bf x}_{2}&
\hat {\bf x}_{2} .{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') . \hat {\bf x}_{1}& \hat {\bf x}_{2}
.{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA; r)}({\bf x},{\bf x}'). \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r}\int_{\bf q}
\frac{ e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{p_r^2 +
q_z^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
q_y^2+q_z^2 & -q_x q_y& 0 & -i q_z \\
-q_x q_y & q_x^2+q_z^2& i q_z & 0\\
0 & -i q_z & 1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}&
\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}\\
i q_z & 0 & \frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2} & 1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\mu_r}\int_{{\bf q}_\|}
\frac{e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{2p_r}
\begin{pmatrix}
q_y^2-p_r^2 & -q_x q_y& 0 & \mp p_r\\
-q_x q_y & q_x^2 - p_r^2 & \pm p_r & 0\\
0 & \mp p_r & 1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2} & \frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}\\
\pm p_r & 0 & \frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2} & 1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_r \mu_r\kappa^2}
\end{pmatrix}\, ,
\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{myequation}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent
where we set ${\bf x}=({\bf x}_\|,0)$ and ${\bf x}=({\bf x}_\|,H)$ for surfaces 1
and 2, respectively. We determined the sign of the terms
$\sim i q_z$ from the $q_z$-integration by the observation that $z$, $z'$ have to be taken to the
surface with $z-z'$ staying { inside} the object. The upper (lower)
sign of $p_r$ refers to $r=1$ ($r=2$).
Analogously, for kernel $M$ we get for the case $r={r'}$
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\label{eq:M_diag_EM_planar}
&& \hat M_{rr}({\bf x},{\bf x}') =
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\mu_0^2}\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r}\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r} \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_r^2} {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}\\
&=& \int_{\bf q}
\frac{ \mu_0 \, e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{p_0^2 +
q_z^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{q_y^2+q_z^2}{\mu_0^2} & -\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & 0 & -\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} \\
-\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & \frac{q_x^2+q_z^2}{\mu_0^2}& \frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0\\
0 & -\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left(1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)&
\frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\\
\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0 & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2} & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left(1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{{\bf q}_\|}
\frac{\mu_0 \, e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{2p_0}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{q_y^2-p_0^2}{\mu_0^2} & -\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & 0 &
\frac{\pm p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} \\
-\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & \frac{q_x^2-p_0^2}{\mu_0^2}& \frac{\mp p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0\\
0 & \frac{\pm p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left(1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)&
\frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\\
\frac{\mp p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0 & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2} & \frac{1}{\mu_r^2} \left(1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)
\end{pmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent and for $r\neq{r'}$,
\clearpage
\end{paracol}
\nointerlineskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\label{eq:M_nondiag_EM_planar}
&& \hat M_{r{r'}}({\bf x},{\bf x}') =
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\mu_0^2}\nabla\times\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}}\nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') \\
\frac{1}{\mu_0\mu_r} \nabla\times {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}') &
\frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} {\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\cal G}}^{(AA;0)}({\bf x},{\bf x}')
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat {\bf x}_{1} \\ \hat {\bf x}_{2}
\end{pmatrix}\\
&=& \int_{\bf q}
\frac{ \mu_0 \, e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)\mp iq_zH}}{p_0^2 +
q_z^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{q_y^2+q_z^2}{\mu_0^2} & -\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & 0 & -\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} \\
-\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & \frac{q_x^2+q_z^2}{\mu_0^2}& \frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} & 0\\
0 & -\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \left(1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)&
\frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\\
\frac{i q_z}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0 & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2} & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \left(1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{{\bf q}_\|}
\frac{\mu_0 \, e^{i{\bf q}_\|({\bf x}_\|-{\bf x}'_\|)}}{2p_0}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{q_y^2-p_0^2}{\mu_0^2} & -\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & 0 &
\frac{\mp p_0}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} \\
-\frac{q_x q_y}{\mu_0^2} & \frac{q_x^2-p_0^2}{\mu_0^2}& \frac{\pm p_0}{\mu_0\mu_{r'}} & 0\\
0 & \frac{\mp p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \left(1+ \frac{q_x^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)&
\frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\\
\frac{\pm p_0}{\mu_0\mu_r} & 0 & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}}\frac{q_x q_y}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2} & \frac{1}{\mu_r\mu_{r'}} \left(1+ \frac{q_y^2}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0\kappa^2}\right)
\end{pmatrix} e^{-p_0 H}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{paracol}{2}
\switchcolumn
\noindent where again the upper (lower) sign everywhere refers to $r=1$ ($r=2$).
For the kernel $\hat M$ we determined the sign of the terms
$\sim i q_z$ from the $q_z$-integration by the observation that $z$, $z'$ have to be taken to the
surface with $z-z'$ staying {outside} the object.
When combining the kernels $\hat L$ and $\hat M$ into the joint kernel
$N_{r{r'}}=\hat L_r \delta_{r{r'}} + \hat
M_{rr'}$, it is diagonal in ${\bf q}_\|$-space with the blocks $N({\bf q}_\|)$ on the diagonal given by the $8 \times 8$ matrix shown in Figure~\ref{fig:matrixN}.
\newpage
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig1}
\caption{Matrix $N({\bf q}_\|)$ forming the diagonal blocks of the matrix $N$.\label{fig:matrixN}}
\end{figure}
The Casimir free energy is given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal F} = k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \int
\frac{d^2{\bf q}_\|}{(2\pi)^2}\log \det \left[ N
N^{-1}_\infty ({\bf q}_\|) \right]_{\kappa=\kappa_n}
\end{equation}
in terms of the determinant of the above matrix where $N_\infty$ is the matrix with $H\to\infty$, i.e., the matrix $N$ with the
off-diagonal $4\times 4$ blocks $\sim e^{-p_0 H}$ vanishing. This yields the final~result
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal F} &=& k_B T \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\! \!' \int
\frac{d^2{\bf q}_\|}{(2\pi)^2}\log \left[
\left( 1 - \frac{(\epsilon_0 p_1 - \epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0 p_2 -
\epsilon_2 p_0)}{(\epsilon_0 p_1 + \epsilon_1 p_0)(\epsilon_0 p_2
+ \epsilon_2 p_0)} e^{-2p_0 H} \right) \right.\nonumber \\
&\times&\left. \left( 1 - \frac{(\mu_0 p_1 - \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0 p_2 -
\mu_2 p_0)}{(\mu_0 p_1 + \mu_1 p_0)(\mu_0 p_2
+ \mu_2 p_0)} e^{-2p_0 H} \right)
\right] \label{eq:Plate_energy_EM}
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which is again identical to the Lifshitz formula.
Note that in the Hamiltonian approach there is no need to express the kernels in a basis for the space of functions that are regular solutions of the wave equation inside the objects. However, the number of fields per surface is now doubled compared to the Lagrangian approach, resembling the situation in quantum mechanics where the Hamiltonian path integrals run over the canonical coordinates $q$ and $p$ independently.
\edit{\section{Conclusions}}
\edit{
To date, analytical and purely numerical approaches to compute Casimir interactions have been developed independently, and it remained an open question if and how they are related. Analytical methods build on ideas from scattering theory and hence require an expansion of the Green function and bulk or surface operators in terms of special functions that are solutions of the wave equation. Hence, the very existence of such functions and the convergence of the expansion limit these approaches to sufficiently symmetric problems. Purely numerical approaches, such as that developed in \cite{johnson}, can be applied to basically arbitrary geometries but the numerical effort can be extremely high. Hence, it appeared useful to us to study the relation between these approaches in order to develop methods that can serve as semi-numerical approaches that combine the versatility of the purely numerical approaches with the smaller numerical effort of analytical methods. Hence, we have presented in this work a new compact derivation of formulas for the Casimir force, which is based both on bulk and surface operators that also enable analytical evaluations. This we have demonstrated for the simplest case of two dielectric slabs. Further semi-analytical implementations of our approaches are underway.
Our Hamiltonian path integral representation is equivalent to the one derived by Johnson et al. as a purely numerical approach using Lagrange multipliers to enforce the boundary conditions in the path integral. Interestingly, the here-presented derivation of this representation from a Lagrangian path integral demonstrates the relation of this approach to the scattering approach when the T-matrix is defined, as originally by Waterman, by surface integrals of regular solutions of the wave equation over the bodies' surfaces \cite{Waterman}. This shows the close connection of these approaches, motivating further research in the direction of new semi-analytical methods to compute Casimir forces.}
\vspace{12pt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Motivated by the success of the \emph{pretrain-then-finetune} paradigm of BERT in natural language understanding \cite{devlin2019bert}, there has been an increasing interest in developing vision-and-language pretraining (VLP) models \cite{lu2019vilbert,tan2019lxmert,chen2020uniter,li2020oscar} to address a wide range of vision-and-language (V+L) tasks. In particular, these approaches first pretrain transformer-based models on large image-text corpus to learn task-agnostic representations, and then finetune the models on downstream V+L tasks, \emph{e.g.}, visual question answering \cite{yu2017mfb,yu2018beyond}, image text retrieval \cite{plummer2015flickr30k,lee2018stacked}, and referring expression comprehension \cite{kazemzadeh2014referitgame,yu2018rethining}. Compared to earlier methods that are only adapted to one V+L task \cite{yu2019deep,yu2018mattnet,yu2020deep}, VLP models is generalizable across multiple tasks and also achieves significantly better performance on respective tasks.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Schematic of the knowledge integration strategies of three VLP methods, \emph{i.e.}, OSCAR \cite{li2020oscar}, ERNIE-ViL \cite{yu2020ernievil}, and our ROSITA. OSCAR and ERNIE-ViL only exploit the intra-modal knowledge from the image and text modalities, respectively. In contrast, ROSITA simultaneously encodes the cross-modal knowledge (pink line) and intra-modal knowledge (blue line) in a unified scene graph centered at specific anchor objects, which is used to enhance the learning of fine-grained semantic alignments across modalities.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{center}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
Learning \emph{fine-grained} semantic alignments between image regions and text words plays a key role in V+L tasks. However, manually annotating such dense alignment between regions and words is expensive and is unrealistic under the large-scale scenario. Therefore, most existing VLP approaches \cite{chen2020uniter,lu2019vilbert,li2019visualbert} use a weakly-supervised learning strategy to model the alignments implicitly. Taking the image regions and text words as inputs, they adopt multi-layer Transformers \cite{vaswani2017attention} as their backbones to learn \emph{fine-grained} semantic alignments from \emph{coarse-grained} image-text matching supervision. Moreover, the interference within and across modalities makes the learning of semantic alignments even more challenging.
To facilitate the learning of semantic alignments, two recent VLP approaches OSCAR \cite{li2020oscar} and ERNIE-ViL \cite{yu2020ernievil} introduce extra knowledge in different ways. Specifically, OSCAR additionally extracts the predicted region tags from images and uses these tags as anchor points to align with text words implicitly. ERNIE-ViL explicitly constructs a scene graph from text and puts more emphasis on the keywords (\emph{e.g.}, objects along with their attributes and relations) in the scene graph in its pretraining objectives. In terms of knowledge source, both of them use the \emph{intra-modal} knowledge from a single modality to enhance the semantic alignments: OSCAR models the intra-modal knowledge in the image modality while ERNIE-ViL models the intra-modal knowledge in the text modality. The success of the two methods above raises a question: \emph{Is it possible to utilize the intra-modal knowledge from both modalities along with the cross-modal knowledge to further enhance the semantic alignments?}
In this paper, we present a new VLP method called ROSITA, which encodes the c\textbf{\underline{ROS}}s- and \textbf{\underline{I}}n\textbf{\underline{T}}r\textbf{\underline{A}}-modal knowledge simultaneously in a unified scene graph. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:example}, the graph consists of a set of knowledge entries, where each entry corresponds to an \emph{anchor object} along with its associated cross- and intra-modal knowledge. The intra-modal knowledge refers to the relationships between the anchor object and its intra-modal contexts (\emph{e.g.}, spatially related regions or contextually related words). The cross-modal knowledge corresponds to the relationships between the anchor object and its semantically similar objects from the opposite modality (\emph{e.g.}, the region predicted as ``\emph{grass}'' and the word ``\emph{steppe}'').
Although we have obtained a set of knowledge entries, how to effectively use them to enhance semantic alignments is still nontrivial. We propose a novel \emph{structural knowledge masking} (SKM) strategy that can be seamlessly integrated with the masked language (region) modeling tasks, which are commonly used in existing VLP methods \cite{chen2020uniter,lu2019vilbert}. In principle, SKM determinately masks the anchor object while selectively masking its cross- and intra-modal contexts in a knowledge entry. This strategy effectively eliminates the interference information within and across modalities and enhances the semantic alignments by enforcing the model to acquire accurate information from the \emph{opposite} modality.
The contributions of this work are three-fold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We present a new VLP method ROSITA, which incorporates cross- and intra-modal knowledge simultaneously to enhance the semantic alignments across different modalities.
\item We introduce a novel structural knowledge masking strategy to use the scene graph structure as a priori to be integrated with the commonly used masked language (region) modeling tasks in existing VLP methods.
\item We achieve the best results on three typical V+L tasks over six benchmark datasets, outperforming existing state-of-the-art VLP methods.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Related work}
We briefly review previous studies on unimodal pretraining and vision-and-language pretraining, especially those studies on knowledge enhanced pretraining.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Unimodal Pretraining.} The pretraining technique has been widely used in computer vision (CV) tasks. Deep convolutional neural networks like VGGNet \cite{simonyan2014very} or ResNet \cite{he2016deep} pretrained on ImageNet can well generalize to various downstream tasks \cite{ren2015faster,long2015fully,he2017mask}. In contrast to CV tasks, the popularization of pretraining in the natural language processing (NLP) community is relatively late. Based on the multi-layer Transformer architecture \cite{vaswani2017attention}, many famous pretraining approaches (\emph{e.g.}, BERT \cite{devlin2019bert}, GPT \cite{radford2018improving}, and XLNet \cite{yang2019xlnet}) have been put forward. Different from the supervised pretraining paradigm in CV tasks, the pretraining paradigm in NLP tasks is \emph{self-supervised} that aims to train a model to predict words based on their contexts without introducing human annotations. In particular, BERT introduces a novel masking language modeling (MLM) task that randomly masks the input words and predicts these masked words based on their contexts. This MLM strategy is naturally inherited by the VLP methods.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Vision-and-Language Pretraining (VLP).} Different from the purely self-supervised paradigm in NLP tasks, VLP models are pretrained on large-scale paired image-text corpus, \emph{e.g.}, image captioning datasets like \cite{chen2015microsoft,sharma2018conceptual,ordonez2011im2text}. Mirroring the success of BERT, recent studies naturally extend its framework to the vision-and-language domain to pretrain VLP models for a wide range of V+L tasks \cite{chen2020uniter,li2020oscar,zhang2020devlbert,lu2019vilbert,tan2019lxmert,yu2020ernievil,huang2020pixel}. ViLBERT \cite{lu2019vilbert} and LXMERT \cite{tan2019lxmert} are two pioneering works in this field, where the two-stream architectures are adopted to encode the image features and textual features with two separate Transformers and then perform multimodal fusion via a third Transformer. Recent works tend to use the single-stream architectures, where the multimodal features are directly fused using one Transformer \cite{chen2020uniter,li2019visualbert,li2020unicoder,su2019vl}. Moreover, other techniques like knowledge integration \cite{yu2020ernievil,li2020oscar}, multilingual enhancement \cite{zhou2021uc2}, contrastive learning \cite{li2020unimo}, and adversarial training \cite{gan2020large} are introduced to further improve the performance of the pretrained models.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Knowledge-Enhanced Pretraining.} Incorporating prior knowledge (\emph{e.g.}, external knowledge graph) to enhance model pretraining has been investigated earlier by two ERNIE methods \cite{sun2019ernie,zhang2019ernie} and widely explored in recent years \cite{liu2020kbert,wang2021kepler,wang2020k}. The introduced prior knowledge enables the model to better understand the syntactic and semantic structure of the text, thus facilitating model pretraining by an improved structural MLM task. In the VLP task, prior knowledge can be acquired from both the image and text modalities. ERNIE-ViL constructs a scene graph from text and puts more emphasis on the discovered keywords \cite{yu2020ernievil}. OSCAR exploits the predicted tags of image regions to enhance the semantic alignment across the two modalities \cite{li2020oscar}. A concurrent work UC2 utilizes off-the-shelf machine translation model to construct aligned multilingual dataset for texts and regard this extra information as prior knowledge to enhance the learning of cross-modal semantic alignment \cite{zhou2021uc2}. Despite the success of these knowledge-enhanced VLP methods, they only utilize the
intra-modal knowledge from a single modality, which restricts their effectiveness in learning semantic alignments.
To the best of our knowledge, our ROSITA is the first VLP method to integrate the cross-modal and intra-modal knowledge simultaneously in order to enhance the learning of semantic alignments across different modalities.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{The flowchart of knowledge extraction given an image-text pair. It consists of two main stages, namely the unified scene graph construction and knowledge representation.}
\label{fig:rosita}
\end{center}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Knowledge Extraction}
In this section, we introduce the procedure of extracting knowledge entries from an image-text pair. We first construct a unified graph to model the intra- and cross-modal knowledge from an image-text pair. On top of the established graph, we select anchor objects to obtain a set of knowledge entries. The process of knowledge extraction is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:rosita}.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Unified Scene Graph Construction.}
Given an image-text pair, we resort to a unified scene graph structure $G=<V, E, S>$ to encode its intra- and cross-modal knowledge simultaneously \cite{yu2014discriminative}. The vertex set $V$ includes the words and regions from the text and image, respectively. The edge set $E$ and similarity set $S$ contain pairwise relationships and their corresponding similarities between vertices (\emph{i.e.}, edge weights), respectively.
The intra-modal knowledge within the image and text are first represented as an image scene graph and a text scene graph, respectively. For the image scene graph, regions extracted from a pretrained object detector are considered as the vertices in $V$. Inspired by \cite{li2019relation,yao2018exploring,kant2020spatially}, we calculate the similarity between each paired regions by their Intersection over Union (IoU) score. The region pairs with IoU scores larger than zero are considered to have edges in $E$ and their IoU scores are regarded as their similarities in $S$. For the text graph, we use an off-the-shelf scene graph parser provided by \cite{anderson2016spice} to obtain a text scene graph from a text. The text scene graph explicitly encodes the keywords of objects, attributes, and relations found in the text while discarding the rest of uninformative words. These mentioned keywords in the scene graph are regarded as the vertices in $V$. The word-word relationships in the scene graph (\emph{i.e.}, object-attribute or object-relation) correspond to the edges in $E$. The similarity between two vertices is the co-occurrence frequencies of the referred object-attribute (or object-relation) pair calculated on the whole dataset. Since the similarity distributions of the image and text modalities may vary widely, we normalize the similarities within each modality, respectively.
As we have modeled the intra-modal knowledge in the graph, we further integrate cross-modal knowledge to align the image regions to their semantically related words. Since such cross-modal alignment supervision is not available, we establish \emph{pseudo} semantic alignments between region-word pairs as follows. For the image regions, the predicted region tags are aligned to the object words with respect to their semantic similarities on words. We adopt a pretrained word embedding model \cite{pennington2014glove} to calculate the pairwise similarities between object tags and object words\footnote{We have tried to establish more fine-grained alignments to include the attribute words. However, the predicted attributes from image regions are too diverse that often fail to match the attribute words in the text.}. We set a minimum confidence threshold of 0.5 to the similarity scores to make a trade-off between precision and recall. The region-word pairs surpass the threshold will form cross-modal edges in $E$ and their corresponding scores represent the similarities in $S$.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Knowledge Representation.} Based on the constructed unified scene graph $G$, we illustrate the procedure of extracting knowledge entries from the scene graph in detail. Note that each knowledge entry is associated with an anchor object, we first select all possible anchor objects from the graph. We define an anchor object as the vertex (an image region or a text word) in the graph that is referred to by at least one cross-modal edge. Since the attribute and relation words are not directly connected to any image region, they cannot be anchor objects according to our definition.
After obtaining the anchor objects, we integrate the intra-modal knowledge and cross-modal knowledge in $G$ to obtain a knowledge entry. Given an anchor object $v\in V$, its corresponding knowledge entry is represented as a subgraph $g(v) \subseteq G$ and is obtained by the union of three subgraphs of $G$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rosita}
g(v)=G_\mathrm{cross}(v)\cup G_\mathrm{intra}(v)\cup G_\mathrm{intra}(G_\mathrm{cross}(v))
\end{equation}
where $G_\mathrm{cross}(v)$ contains the relationships between $v$ and its {directly connected} contexts by cross-modal edges. $G_\mathrm{intra}(v)$ models the relationships between $v$ and its directly connected contexts by intra-modal edges. $G_\mathrm{intra}(G_\mathrm{cross}(v))$ includes the relationships between the vertices in $G_\mathrm{cross}(v)$ and their corresponding intra-modal contexts. It is worth noting that the anchor object $v$ can reach every vertex in $g(v)$ within two hops.
\section{The ROSITA Framework}
Based on the extracted knowledge entries from image-text pairs, we introduce the ROSITA framework in this section. We first describe the image and text feature representations and the network architecture. Then, we introduce a structural knowledge masking (SKM) strategy,
which takes the knowledge entries as a priori to perform the masked language (region) modeling. Finally, we describe the whole pretraining objective with multi-task learning. The overall framework is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:framework}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\columnwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{The flowchart of our ROSITA framework with the structural knowledge masking (SKM) strategy.}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{center}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Image and Text Feature Representations.} Following the commonly used strategy in existing VLP methods \cite{li2020oscar,chen2015microsoft}, the input image is represented as a set of regional features, which are extracted from a Faster R-CNN model pretrained on Visual Genome \cite{anderson2018bottom}. More specifically, we extract $m$ regions with the highest confidence probabilities from the image. For the $i$-th region, it is represented as a visual feature $f_i\in\mathbb{R}^{2048}$ and a positional feature $p_i\in\mathbb{R}^{5}$ \cite{yu2020ernievil}. The two features are fused into a $d$-dimensional image representation $x_i\in\mathbb{R}^d$ using two linear projections as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:img_rep}
x_i = W_f^Tf_i + W_p^Tp_i
\end{equation}
where $W_f\in\mathbb{R}^{2048 \times d}$ and $W_p\in\mathbb{R}^{5 \times d}$. Finally, the image is represented as a feature matrix $X\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$.
For its paired text, we adopt the word processing method similar to \cite{devlin2019bert}. The input text is first tokenized into words and trimmed (or padded) to a maximum of $n$ words. Each word $w_i$ and its index $i$ (\emph{i.e.}, the absolute position of $w_i$ in the text) are projected to vectors by two individual embedding layers, then added to obtain the position-aware text representation $y_i$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:txt_rep}
y_i = \mathrm{WordEmbed}(w_i) + \mathrm{IdxEmbed}(i)
\end{equation}
where $y_i$ is $d$-dimensional to match the image representation. The text is finally represented as a feature matrix $Y\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Network Architecture.} The image features $X=[x_1,...,x_m]$ and text features $Y=[y_1,...,y_n]$ are first concatenated before feeding to the network. We insert two special tokens to the concatenated features to obtain the multimodal input features $Z$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:it_rep}
Z=[x_1,x_2,...,x_m, [\texttt{SEP}], y_1,y_2,...,y_n, [\texttt{CLS}]]
\end{equation}
where the \texttt{[SEP]} token marks the boundary between the image and text features. The \texttt{[CLS]} token is used to predict whether the given image and text are paired or not.
The multimodal features $Z$ are fed into a single-stream Transformer with $L$ layers \cite{devlin2019bert}. Each layer consists of a multi-head self-attention (MSA) block and a feed-forward networks (FFN) block.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{eq:transformer}
\hat{Z}^{\ell} &= \mathrm{LN}(\mathrm{MSA}(Z^{\ell-1})+Z^{\ell-1}),~~~&\ell=1,2,...,L \\
Z^{\ell} &= \mathrm{LN}(\mathrm{FFN}(\hat{Z}^{\ell})+\hat{Z}^{\ell}),~~~&\ell=1,2,...,L \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $Z^0=Z$. Layer normalization \cite{ba2016layer} and residual connection \cite{he2016deep} are applied after every block, respectively.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Structural Knowledge Masking.} The masked language modeling (MLM) \cite{devlin2019bert} and masked region modeling (MRM) \cite{chen2020uniter} tasks are commonly used in almost all the VLP methods \cite{lu2019vilbert,chen2020uniter,yu2020ernievil}. They randomly mask the input tokens (\emph{i.e.}, words or regions) and predict these masked tokens based on their contextual tokens. Since the random masking based MLM and MRM tasks are not aware of the keywords and key regions to be aligned, their efficacy in the alignment learning is weak. To this end, we present an alternative \emph{structural knowledge masking} (SKM) strategy to selectively mask the tokens referred to by the extracted knowledge entry. Accordingly, the MLM and MRM tasks are respectively modified to the SKMLM and SKMRM tasks to adapt to the SKM strategy.
Let an image be represented as a set of regions $\mathcal{R}=\{{r}_1,...,{r}_m\}$ and a text be represented as a sequence of words $\mathcal{W}=\{{w}_1,...,{w}_n\}$, we construct a unified scene graph $G$ on top of $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{W}$, and extract a set of knowledge entries from $G$. Let $g(v_i)=<\hat{V}, \hat{E}, \hat{S}>$ be one of the knowledge entries, where $v_i\in \hat{V}$ is the anchor object. The vertices are represented as $\hat{V}=\{v_1,...,v_N\}$ and the similarities between the vertices are represented as $\hat{S}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$, where $N$ is the number of vertices in this entry.
The strategy of SKM is to determinately mask the anchor object $v_i$ while probabilistically masking its intra-modal contexts and cross-modal contexts with respect to the graph structure of the knowledge entry. Since the similarities between $v_i$ and its contexts are different, we assign \emph{independent} masking probabilities to each of the contexts with respect to their similarities to $v_i$, rather than simply using an \emph{identical} masking probability for all the contexts. To obtain the masking probabilities for the contexts, we introduce a masking strategy that satisfies the following principles: for the intra-modal contexts, a larger similarity score refers to a higher masking probability. For the cross-modal contexts, a larger score leads to a lower masking probability. The reasons behind this masking strategy will be explained hereinafter.
Note that not all contexts have direct connections to the anchor object. Therefore, we calculate the transmission probabilities $T=[t_1,...,t_N]\in[0,1]^N$ from the anchor object $v_i$ to its contexts in $\hat{V}$ based on the normalized similarities defined in $\hat{S}$. Since $v_i$ can reach all the vertices in $\hat{V}$ within two hops, $T$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:trans_prop}
T=\frac{1}{2}\hat{S}\pi(i)+\frac{1}{2}\hat{S}\hat{S}\pi(i)
\end{equation}
where $\pi(i)\in\{0,1\}^N$ is a one-hot vector with the $i$-th element to be 1. The two terms correspond to the transmission probabilities between the anchor object $v_i$ and its one-hop and two-hop contexts, respectively. After that, we convert the transmission probabilities $T$ to the masking probabilities $P=[p_1,...,p_N]\in[0,1]^N$ using the following rules to satisfy our masking strategy above:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:maskprob}
p_j =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } v_j \text{ is the anchor object}\\
\alpha t_j, & \text{if } v_j \text{ is within the intra-modal contexts}\\
(1-\alpha) (1-t_j), & \text{if } v_j \text{ is within the cross-modal contexts}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is a hyper-parameter to balance the masking probabilities of the intra-modal and cross-modal contexts. $t_j$ and $p_j$ denote the transmission and masking probability of the vertex $v_j$, respectively.
Given a knowledge entry, we use the calculated masking probabilities to obtain two groups of mask indices $M_w$ and $M_r$, indicating the words and regions to be masked, respectively. The partially masked input features are passed through the network and then fed into the SKMLM and SKMRM tasks.
In particular, if the anchor point $v_i$ refers to an object word in the text, we resort to the SKMLM task to reconstruct the masked words $\mathcal{W}_{{M}_w}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:skmlm}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{SKMLM}(\theta) = -\mathbb{E}_{(\mathcal{W}, \mathcal{R})\sim D}~\mathrm{log}~P_\theta(\mathcal{W}_{{M}_w}|\mathcal{W}_{\backslash{M}_w},\mathcal{R}_{\backslash{M}_r})
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the trainable parameters. Each pair $(\mathcal{W}, \mathcal{R})$ is sampled from the whole training set $D$. $\mathcal{W}_{\backslash{M}_w}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{\backslash{M}_r}$ refer to the remaining words in $\mathcal{W}$ and the remaining regions in $\mathcal{R}$ with excluding the masked tokens from their modalities, respectively.
Analogously, if $v_i$ refers to a region in the image, we resort to the SKMRM task to reconstruct the masked regions $\mathcal{R}_{{M}_r}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mrm}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{SKMRM}(\theta) = -\mathbb{E}_{(\mathcal{W}, \mathcal{R})\sim D}~f_\theta(\mathcal{R}_{{M}_r}|\mathcal{W}_{\backslash{M}_w},\mathcal{R}_{\backslash{M}_r})
\end{equation}
where $f_{\theta}(\cdot)$ refers to some loss functions. Similar to \cite{chen2020uniter}, we use the regression-based loss and classification-based loss jointly.
The motivations of SKM can be explained as follows: (\emph{i}) The intra-modal contexts may contain interference information (\emph{e.g.}, the word ``\emph{sky}'' is frequently associated with an attribute ``\emph{blue}'' and a visual object of ``\emph{wheel}'' is usually within an object of ``\emph{car}''). Such interference information may leak out the semantics of the anchor object and reduce the difficulty of anchor object reconstruction, leading to a degradation of the pretrained model. Therefore, when masking an anchor object, its intra-modal contexts with high similarities will have high probabilities to be masked simultaneously. This operation reduces the risk of information leakage and enforces the model to acquire precise information from the opposite modality, which \emph{implicitly} enhance the semantic alignments; (\emph{ii}) The cross-modal contexts with low similarities may contain irrelevant or noisy information. Therefore, when masking an anchor object, its cross-modal contexts with high similarities will have low probabilities to be masked at the same time, which \emph{explicitly} excludes potential noise thus benefiting the semantic alignments. As a result, the synergy of the masking operations above significantly facilitates the semantic alignments.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Multi-task Learning.} Similar to \cite{chen2020uniter}, we adopt a multi-task learning objective to pretrain our model. Besides the proposed SKMLM and SKMRM tasks, we also include the image-text matching (ITM) task. Moreover, since the SKMLM and SKMRM tasks only focus on the key tokens included in the knowledge entry, we still retain the original random masking-based MLM and MRM tasks to guarantee a good coverage of the remaining tokens in the image and text\footnote{We have made such an experiment that removes the MRM \& MLM tasks. The resulting model reports slight performance drop ($\sim$0.3 points) on the downstream tasks.}.
\section{Experiments}
We evaluate ROSITA on three V+L tasks and perform thorough comparative analysis to the state-of-the-art VLP methods on six datasets. Furthermore, we conduct comprehensive ablation experiments to explore its effectiveness in learning fine-grained semantic alignments.
\subsection{Pretraining Setup}
\noindent\textbf{Datasets.} Following the strategy in \cite{chen2020uniter}, we construct the pretraining dataset consisting of 9.5M train and 155K validation image-text pairs from four existing datasets, namely the COCO Captions \cite{chen2015microsoft}, Visual Genome Captions\cite{krishna2017visual}, Conceptual Captions \cite{sharma2018conceptual}, and SBU Captions \cite{ordonez2011im2text}. The four datasets are categorized into the \emph{in-domain} and \emph{out-of-domain} datasets based on whether they share the same images with the downstream tasks. The statistics of the pretraining dataset are shown in Table \ref{table:corpus}.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Implementation Details.} For the input image-text pairs, we extract a fixed number of 36 region features from a pre-trained Faster R-CNN model \cite{anderson2018bottom} and adopt the BPE strategy to tokenize the sentence into a maximum of 50 words following \cite{devlin2019bert}. Our ROSITA model adopts a 12-layer Transformer encoder architecture with 768 hidden units and 12 attention heads. The hyper-parameter $\alpha$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:maskprob}) is set to 0.9. The masking probabilities in the original MRM and MLM tasks are set to 15\% \cite{yu2020ernievil}. The model is initialized with the parameters from a pretrained BERT-base model \cite{devlin2019bert}, and then trained up to 40 epochs with a batch size of 512.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The detailed statistics of the used datasets. Following the strategies in \cite{chen2015microsoft}, we split them into in-domain and out-of-domain splits based on the image sources. Each cell shows the number of image-text pairs.}
\label{table:corpus}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{in-domain} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{out-of-domain} & \multirow{3}{*}{total}\\
\cmidrule{2-5}& \makecell{COCO\cite{chen2015microsoft}} & \makecell{VG\cite{krishna2017visual}} & \makecell {CC\cite{sharma2018conceptual}} & \makecell{SBU \cite{ordonez2011im2text}} & \\
\midrule
train & 533K& 5.1M& 3.0M & 869K& 9.5M \\
val & 25K& 106K& 14K& 10K& 155K\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Results on \textbf{downstream V+L tasks} to compare with the state-of-the-art VLP methods. For a fair comparison, all the results are archived by the base models. Most of the models are trained on the \emph{in-domain}+\emph{out-of-domain} datasets, except for those models marked with $\dag$ are trained on the \emph{out-of-domain} datasets. IR and TR denote the image retrieval and text Retrieval, respectively. For the REC task, all the results are achieved based on the detected region features from images. Dark and light grey colors highlight the top and second best results on each evaluation metric.}\label{table:mainres}
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{c|cl|cccccccc|c}
\toprule
task
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{dataset}
& \makecell{ViLBERT$^\dag$\\\cite{lu2019vilbert}}
& \makecell{VLBERT$^\dag$\\\cite{su2019vl}}
& \makecell{Unicoder-VL\\\cite{li2020unicoder}}
& \makecell{LXMERT\\\cite{tan2019lxmert}}
& \makecell{UNITER\\\cite{chen2020uniter}}
& \makecell{ERNIE-ViL$^\dag$\\\cite{yu2020ernievil}}
& \makecell{VILLA\\\cite{gan2020large}}
& \makecell{OSCAR\\\cite{li2020oscar}}
& \makecell{ROSITA\\(ours)}\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{VQA}& \multirow{2}{*}{VQAv2} & test-dev & 70.55 & 71.16 & - & 72.42 & 72.70 & 72.62 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{73.59} & 73.16 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{73.91} \\
& & test-std & 70.92 & - & - & 72.54 & 72.91 & 72.85 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{73.67} & 73.44 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{73.97}\\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{REC}& \multirow{3}{*}{\makecell{Ref-\\COCO}} & val$^d$ & - & - & - & - & 81.24 & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{81.65} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{84.79}\\
& & testA$^d$ & - & - & - & - & 86.48 & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{87.40} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{87.99}\\
& & testB$^d$ & - & - & - & - & 73.94 & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{74.48}& -& \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{78.28}\\
\cmidrule{2-12}
& \multirow{3}{*}{\makecell{Ref-\\COCO+}} & val$^d$ & 72.34 & 71.60 & - & - & 75.31 & {74.02} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{76.05} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{76.06}\\
& & testA$^d$ & 78.52 & 77.72 & - & - & 81.30 & {80.33} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{81.65} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{82.01}\\
& & testB$^d$ & 62.61 & 60.99 & - & - & 65.68 & {64.74} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{65.70} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{67.40}\\
\cmidrule{2-12}
& \multirow{2}{*}{\makecell{Ref-\\COCOg}} & val$^d$ & - & - & - & - & 74.31 & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{75.90} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{78.23}\\
& & test$^d$ & - & - & - & - & 74.51 & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{75.93} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{78.25}\\
\midrule
\multirow{12}{*}{ITR}& \multirow{3}{*}{\makecell{IR-\\COCO}} & R@1 & - & - & 46.70 & - & 50.33 & - & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c|}{54.00} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{54.40}\\
& & R@5 & - & - & 76.00 & - & 78.52 & - & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c|}{80.80} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{80.92}\\
& & R@10 & - & - & 85.30 & - & 87.16 & - & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c|}{88.50} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{88.60}\\
\cmidrule{2-12}
& \multirow{3}{*}{\makecell{TR-\\COCO}} & R@1 & - & - & 62.30 & - & 64.40 & - & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c|}{70.00} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{71.26}\\
& & R@5 & - & - & 87.10 & - & 87.40 & - & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c|}{91.10} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{91.62}\\
& & R@10 & - & - & 92.80 & - & 93.08 & - & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c|}{95.50} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{95.58}\\
\cmidrule{2-12}
& \multirow{3}{*}{\makecell{IR-\\Flickr}} & R@1 & 58.20 & - & 71.50 & - & 72.52 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{74.44} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{74.74} & - & {74.08}\\
& & R@5 & 84.90 & - & 90.90 & - & 92.36 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{92.72} & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{92.86} & - & {92.44}\\
& & R@10 & 91.52 & - & 94.90 & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{96.08} & 95.94 & 95.82 & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{96.08}\\
\cmidrule{2-12}
&\multirow{3}{*}{\makecell{TR-\\Flickr}} & R@1 & - & - & 86.20 & - & 85.90 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{86.70} & 86.60 & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{88.90}\\
& & R@5 & - & - & 96.30 & - & 97.10 & 97.80 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{97.90} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{98.10}\\
& & R@10 & - & - & 99.00 & - & 98.80 & 99.00 & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray1}}c}{99.20} & - & \multicolumn{1}{>{\columncolor{mygray2}}c}{99.30}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Downstream Tasks}
After obtaining the pretrained ROSITA model, we finetune it on three downstream V+L tasks as follows.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Visual Question Answering (VQA)} is a task that requires the model to answer natural language questions about an image. We adopt the widely used VQAv2 dataset \cite{antol2015vqa,goyal2017making}, which is manually built on the images from the MSCOCO dataset \cite{lin2014microsoft}. The dataset is split into train (83k images and 444k questions), validation (41k images and 214k questions), and test (81k images and 448k questions) sets. Following the strategy in \cite{chen2020uniter}, we feed the representation of the $\mathsf{[CLS]}$ token to a linear classifier to predict the corresponding answer from a vocabulary of size 3129 \cite{yu2019deep}.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Referring Expression Comprehension (REC)} is a task that requires to localize an image region referred to by a natural language query. We evaluate the performance on RefCOCO \cite{kazemzadeh2014referitgame}, RefCOCO+ \cite{kazemzadeh2014referitgame} and RefCOCOg \cite{mao2016generation} datasets. All the three datasets are collected from COCO images [31]. RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ are split into four subsets, including train (120k queries), validation (11k queries), testA (6k queries about people), and testB (6k queries about objects), while RefCOCOg is split into three subsets, including train (81k queries), validation (5k queries), and test (10k queries). The representation for each image region is used to predict a ranking score and a refined bounding box.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Image-Text Retrieval (ITR)} is a task that requires the model to calculate a similarity score between an image and a sentence and then perform cross-modal retrieval. We conduct experiments on the COCO Captions \cite{chen2015microsoft} and Flickr30K \cite{young2014image} datasets, respectively. Following the partition strategy by \cite{karpathy2015deep}, the COCO dataset is split into 82k/5k/5k train/validation/test images, while the Flickr30K dataset is split into 29k/1k/1k train/validation/test images. Similar to \cite{chen2020uniter}, we use an offline hard sample mining strategy to obtain 128 negative samples per each positive sample, and use the representation of the $\mathsf{[CLS]}$ token to predict a matching score.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Ablations of ROSITA variants without the cross- and intra-modal knowledge. All models are pretrained on the \emph{in-domain} datasets and then finetuned on specific downstream tasks. For each model, we report the accuracies on the pretraining tasks an downstream tasks, respectively. As we only have positive image-text pairs in the pretraining datasets, we use the offline hard sample mining strategy to generate an equal number of negative samples for the evaluation of the ITM task.}\label{table:aba_know}
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{cl|ccc|cccc}
\toprule
\multirow{4}{*}{\#} & \multirow{4}{*}{model} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{pretraining tasks} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{downstream tasks}\\
\cmidrule{3-9}
&& ITM& SKMLM & SKMRM & \makecell{VQAv2\\(dev)} & \makecell{RefCOCO\\(val)} & \makecell{IR-Flickr\\(test)} & \makecell{TR-Flickr\\(test)} \\
\midrule
1 & ROSITA (full) &\textbf{84.34}&\textbf{67.16}&\textbf{76.50}& \textbf{73.19} & \textbf{84.22} & \textbf{85.09} & \textbf{94.33} \\
2 & -w/o cross-modal knowledge &83.54&63.69&72.56& 72.86& 83.85& 84.23 & 93.63 \\
3 & -w/o intra-modal knowledge &83.30&63.75&73.90& 72.98 & 83.31 & 84.79 & 93.90 \\
4 & -w/o both types of knowledge &82.22& 61.19&68.58& 72.47 & 82.12 & 82.11 & 92.57\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Main Results}
We compare the proposed ROSITA model against existing state-of-the-art VLP methods. As shown in Table \ref{table:mainres}, ROSITA achieves the overall best performance on all downstream tasks, which verifies the effectiveness of the integrated cross- and intra-modal knowledge and the corresponding SKM strategy\footnote{We have conduct such an experiment that pretrains ROSITA on the \emph{out-of-domain} datasets only. The resulting model consistently outperforms the counterparts \cite{yu2020ernievil,lu2019vilbert,su2019vl}, verifying the generalization capability of our approach.}.
It is worth noting that some methods like ViLBERT, LXMERT, and ERNIE-ViL adopt the two-stream architecture, which have much more parameters (ROSITA: 116M, VilBERT: 221M, LXMERT: 183M, ERNIE-ViL: 228M). Some methods like UNITER and VILLA use a larger number of image features (up to 100 regions), which has been verified to benefit the performance at the expense of much higher computational cost. In contrast, ROSITA uses a fixed number of 36 image features. We believe the performance of ROSITA can be further improved by taking these advanced strategies above.
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
We run a number of ablations to investigate the reasons of ROSITA's effectiveness.
The results show in Table \ref{table:aba_know}-\ref{table:aba_skm} and Figure \ref{fig:attvis}-\ref{fig:comp_attvis} are discussed in detail below.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Ablations of four ROSITA variants with two alternative masking strategy in SKM (\emph{i.e.}, independent probabilities and identical probability). All models are pretrained on the \emph{in-domain} datasets and finetuned on the downstream tasks.}\label{table:aba_skm}
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{masking prob.} & VQAv2 & {RefCOCO} & {IR-Flickr} & {TR-Flickr} \\
& (dev) & (val) & (test) & (test) \\
\midrule
independent& \textbf{73.19} & \textbf{84.22} & \textbf{85.09} & \textbf{94.33} \\
identical ($p$=45\%)& 72.79& 83.18 & 83.70 & 93.20\\
identical ($p$=30\%)&72.93 & 83.29 & 84.36 & 93.63\\
identical ($p$=15\%)& 72.75& 82.96 & 83.75 & 93.53\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Cross- and Intra-modal Knowledge.} In Table \ref{table:aba_know}, we show the effects of the intra-modal knowledge and cross-modal knowledge based on the performance on the pretraining and downstream tasks. Taking the full ROSITA as the reference model (Line \#1), we obtain the different variants by removing the cross-modal knowledge or the intra-modal knowledge. The variant without cross-modal knowledge (Line \#2) indicates that the model is not aware of the anchor objects and the SKM strategy is performed only on a single modality using the intra-modal knowledge. In contrast, the variant without intra-modal knowledge (Line \#3) indicates that the model is aware of the anchor objects but is not aware of the intra-modal contexts. Finally, by removing both the cross- and intra-modal knowledge, we obtain a baseline variant nearly identical to UNITER \cite{chen2020uniter} (Line \#4)\footnote{Our model has slight performance deviations compared with the original UNITER model since we use different visual features and pretraining hyper-parameters.}.
Given the pretrained models of the four variants above (\emph{i.e.}, without finetuning on downstream tasks), we evaluate their performance on three pretraining tasks. The ITM task examines the ability of semantic alignment between image-text pairs. From the results, we can see that both types of knowledge bring performance improvement to the ITM task (\#4 \emph{vs.} \#3 and \#2). Moreover, the two types of knowledge are complementary that their synergy brings 2.1 points improvement compared to the baseline model without any knowledge (\#4 \emph{vs.} \#1). Although the ITM task is the most straightforward metric for semantic alignment, it only measures the \emph{coarse-grained} alignments on the image-text level, thus cannot fully reveal the capability of ROSITA. As a complement, we resort to the SKMLM and SKMRM tasks to evaluate the \emph{fine-grained} alignments on the region-word level. Compared with the baseline model in \#4, the full ROSITA model improves the accuracies by 7.0 and 7.9 points on the SKMLM and SKMRM tasks, respectively.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Visualizations of the learned cross-modal attentions (\emph{i.e.}, region-to-words attentions on the left and word-to-regions on the right) from UNITER \cite{chen2020uniter} and ROSITA. Taking the image-text pair as inputs with exactly one region (or word) being masked at a time, we extract the attention map from the last MSA block of the pretrained model. The region-to-words (word-to-regions) attentions correspond to one specific row in the bottom-left (top-right) area of the attention map, respectively.}
\label{fig:attvis}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Visualizations of the region-to-words attentions (left) and word-to-regions attentions (right) from a pretrained ROSITA model with masking multiple regions (or words) at one time.}
\label{fig:comp_attvis}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Next, we report the performance of these variants on different downstream tasks. From the demonstrated results, we obtain similar observations to those on the pretraining tasks. The full ROSITA model consistently outperforms all the counterparts, verifying the effectiveness of the cross- and intra-modal knowledge.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{SKM Strategy.} After extracting knowledge entries from image-text pairs, we have two alternative masking strategies in SKM, \emph{i.e.}, the independent probabilities and the identical probability. For the masking strategy with identical probability, we evaluate the choices of different probabilities within $\{15\%, 30\%, 45\%\}$. The results in Table \ref{table:aba_skm} show that the model pretrained with independent probabilities steadily outperforms all the counterparts with the identical probability. For the models pretrained with the identical probability strategy, their performance is sensitive to the choices of the predefined probability. A small masking probability (\emph{e.g.}, 15\%) may degrade the model towards the baseline without any knowledge. A large masking probability (\emph{e.g.}, 45\%) may shield the essential information that is necessary to learn the semantic alignments. In comparison, the masking strategy with independent probabilities provides a more fine-grained understanding of the knowledge structure, leading to a more robust pretrained model.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent\textbf{Cross-modal Semantic Alignments.} The effect of \emph{fine-grained} semantic alignments across modalities can be inferred from the attention maps of the learned Transformer model \cite{cao2020behind}. We visualize the learned \emph{cross-modal attentions} (\emph{i.e.}, region-to-words and word-to-regions attentions) from the pretrained UNITER \cite{chen2020uniter} and our ROSITA models, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:attvis}. Taking the image-text pair as inputs with exactly one token (a region or a word) being masked at a time, we pass the multimodal features through the pretrained model and extract the attention map from the last MSA block\footnote{We perform element-wise addition over the attention maps from different heads followed by row-wise softmax normalization to obtain one aggregated attention map.}. The region-to-words and word-to-regions attentions of the masked token correspond to one specific row in the bottom-left and top-right area of the attention map, respectively.
From the visualized cross-modal attentions, we can see that ROSITA learns significantly better semantic alignments than UNITER. ROSITA can precisely align the masked object to its reference object in the opposite modality while UNITER fails to establish such cross-modal alignments. For example, when the region of ``\emph{ramp}'' is masked, ROSITA activates the word ``\emph{ramp}'' precisely while UNITER obtains the largest attention value on the word ``\emph{skate}''. When another region of ``\emph{person}'' is masked, ROSITA precisely activates the word ``\emph{person}'' while UNITER still activates the incorrect word ``\emph{skate}''. Similar phenomena are observed in the opposite direction. ROSITA activates the accurate regions to the masked words while UNITER fails to do it.
To step further, we conduct a more challenging task as follows. We mask \emph{multiple} regions (or words) at the same time to examine whether the semantic alignments can still be achieved. The visualized results in Figure \ref{fig:comp_attvis} show that ROSITA works surprisingly well to establish accurate semantic alignment for each masked token. For example, when the regions of ``\emph{bowl}'' and ``\emph{bowl \& carrots}'' are masked simultaneously, the region of ``\emph{carrot}'' is precisely aligned to the word ``\emph{carrots}'', and the region of ``\emph{bowl \& carrots}'' is aligned to the two words ``\emph{bowl}'' and ``\emph{carrots}'' uniformly.
In the opposite direction, when the words ``\emph{man}'', ``\emph{candles}'', and ``\emph{cake}'' are masked at the same time, their corresponding regions are highlighted in the learned attentions, respectively.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we present a new VLP method called ROSITA, which integrates the cross- and intra-modal knowledge in a unified scene graph to enhance the learning of cross-modal semantic alignment. We introduce a novel structural knowledge masking (SKM) strategy to perform masked language (region) modeling with respect to the knowledge entries extracted from the unified scene graph. Extensive ablations, comparative experiments, and comprehensive analysis show that ROSITA significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art VLP approaches on three typical V+L tasks over six benchmark datasets. We hope our study will be helpful to inspire future research in the vision-and-language community and beyond.
\begin{acks}
This work was supported in part by the National Key R\&D Program of China under Grant 2018AAA0100603, and in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 62072147, Grant 61836002, and Grant 62020106007.
\end{acks}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Models and Case Studies}\label{appendix:models}
We briefly introduce the case studies used in our experimental evaluation.
\subsubsection{Spiking Neuron}
We consider the spiking neuron model on the Flow* website\footnote{\url{https://flowstar.org/examples/}{https://flowstar.org/examples/}}, describing the evolution of a neuron’s action potential. It is a hybrid system with one mode and one jump. The dynamics is defined by the ODE
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\dot{s_2} &= 0.04s_2^2 + 5s_2 + 140 - s_1 + I \\
\dot{s_1} &= a \cdot \left(b \cdot s_2 - s_1\right)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The jump condition is $s_2 \geq 30$, and the associated reset is $s_2':= c \land s_1' := s_1 + d$, where, for any variable $x$, $x'$ denotes the value of $x$ after the reset.
The parameters are $a = 0.02$, $b = 0.2$, $c = -65$, $d = 8$, and $I = 40$ as reported on the Flow* website. We consider the unsafe state set $U = \left\lbrace \left( s_2, s_1 \right) \mid s_2 \leq 68.5 \right\rbrace$. This corresponds to a safety property that can be understood as the neuron does not undershoot its resting-potential region of $\lbrack -68.5, -60 \rbrack$.
The domain for sampling is $68.5 < s_2 \leq 30 \land 0 \leq s_1 \leq 25$. We consider the unsafe set $Y$ defined by $v_2 \le 68.5$, expressing that the neuron should not undershoot its resting potential. The time bound for the reachability property is $H_f = 16$. Given a state $s=(s_1,s_2)$ we observe a noisy measure of $s_2$, $y= s_2+w$, with $w\sim\mathcal{N}(0,0.1)$, $H_p = 4$.
\subsubsection{Inverted Pendulum} We consider the classic inverted pendulum on a cart nonlinear system. This is a classic, widely used example of a non-linear system. The control input $F$ is a force applied to the cart with the goal of keeping the pendulum in upright position, i.e., $\theta = 0$. The dynamics is given by
\begin{equation}
J \cdot \ddot{\theta} = m \cdot l \cdot g \cdot \sin(\theta) - m \cdot l \cos(\theta) \cdot F
\label{eq:ip}
\end{equation}
where $J$ is the moment of inertia, $m$ is the mass of the
pendulum, $l$ is the length of the rod, and $g$ is the gravitational acceleration.
We set $J = 1$, $m = 1/g$, $l = 1$, and let $u = F/g$. Eq.~\ref{eq:ip} becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\dot{\theta} = \omega\\
\dot{\omega} = \sin(\theta) -\cos(\theta) \cdot u
\end{cases}
\label{eq:ip-simplified}
\end{equation}
We consider the control law of Eq.~\ref{eq:ip-control-law}. We consider the unsafe state set $U = \left\lbrace \left( \theta, \omega \right) \mid \theta < -\pi/4 \lor \theta > \pi/4 \right\rbrace$. This unsafe region corresponds to the safety property that keeps the pendulum within $45^\circ$ of the vertical axis. The domain for sampling is $\theta \in \lbrack -\pi/4, \pi/4 \rbrack \land \omega \in \lbrack -1.5, 1.5 \rbrack$. We used time bound $H_f = 5$ and $H_p = 1$.
\begin{equation}
u =
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{\frac{2 \cdot \omega + \theta + \sin(\theta)}{\cos(\theta)}}, & E \in \lbrack -1, 1 \rbrack, \mid \omega \mid + \mid \theta \mid \leq 1.85 \\[10pt]
0, & E \in \lbrack -1, 1 \rbrack, \mid \omega \mid + \mid \theta \mid > 1.85 \\[10pt]
\displaystyle{\frac{\omega}{1 + \mid \omega \mid} \cos(\theta)}, & E < -1 \\[10pt]
\displaystyle{\frac{-\omega}{1 + \mid \omega \mid} \cos(\theta)}, & E > 1 \\
\end{cases}
\label{eq:ip-control-law}
\end{equation}
where $E = 0.5 \cdot \omega + (\cos(\theta) - 1)$ is the pendulum energy.
We consider the unsafe set $U$ defined by $|\theta| > \pi/6$, corresponding to the safety
property that keeps the pendulum within $30^\circ$ of the vertical axis. The time bound is $H_f = 5$.
Given a state $s=(s_1,s_2)$, we observe a noisy measure of the energy of the system $y = s_2/2+\cos(s_1)-1 + w$, where $w\sim\mathcal{N}(0,0.005)$.
\subsubsection{Laub-Loomis} This model (from ARCH-COMP20~\cite{ernst2020arch}) studies a class of enzymatic activities. The dynamics can be defined by the following ODE:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\dot{s}_1 &= 1.4s_3-0.9s_1\\
\dot{s}_2 &= 2.5s_5-1.5s_2\\
\dot{s}_3 &= 0.6s_7-0.8s_2s_3\\
\dot{s}_4 &= 2-1.3s_3s_4\\
\dot{s}_5 &= 0.7s_1-s_4s_5\\
\dot{s}_7 &= 0.3s_1-3.1s_6\\
\dot{s}_8 &= 1.8s_6-1.5s_2s_7.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The system is asymptotically stable with equilibrium at the origin.
The unsafe region is defined as $U = \{s: s_4\ge 4.5\}$.
Given a state $s = (s_1,\dots , s_7)$ we observe $y = (s_1, s_2, s_3, s_5, s_6, s_7)+w$, with $w\sim \mathcal{N}(0,0.01)$, $H_p = 5$ and $H_f = 20$.
\subsubsection{Coupled Van Der Pol} This benchmark (from ARCH-COMP20~\cite{ernst2020arch}) consists of two coupled oscillators. The dynamics can be defined by the following ODE:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\dot{s}_1 &= s_2\\
\dot{s}_2 &= (1-s_1^2)s_2-2s_1+s_3\\
\dot{s}_3 &= s_4\\
\dot{s}_4 &= (1-s_3^2)s_4-2s_3+s_1\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Given a state $s=(s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4)$ we observe $y = (s_1,s_3)+ w$, with $w\sim\mathcal{N}(0,0.01)$. Unsafe region $ U = \{s: s_{2} \ge 2.75 \land s_{2} \ge 2.75\}$. $H_p = 8$, $H_f = 7$.
\subsubsection{Triple Water Tank}
In the TWT, three water tanks are connected by pipes, and the water level in each tank is separately controlled by the pump in the tank, which can be turned on or off.
The water level of each tank depends on the mode $q\in\{on,off\}$ of the tank and the levels of the adjacent tanks. The water level $v_i$ of tank $i$ changes according to the ordinary differential equations:
\begin{align}
A_i\dot{v}_i &= m_i+a\sqrt{2gv_{i-1}}-b\sqrt{2gv_i}\quad &\mbox{ if } q_i = on\\
A_i\dot{v}_i &= a\sqrt{2gv_{i-1}}-b\sqrt{2gv_i}\quad &\mbox{ if } q_i = off,\\
\end{align}
where $A_i,m_i,a,b$ are constants determined by the size of the tank, the power of the pump, the width of the I/O pipe, and g is the standard gravity constant. We set $v_0=0$ for the leftmost tank $1$.
For the TWT model\footnote{\url{http://dreal.github.io/benchmarks/networks/water/}}, $U$ is given by states where the water level of any of the tanks falls outside a given safe interval $I$, i.e., $U = \vee_{i=1}^3 x_i \not\in I$, where $x_i$ is the water level of tank $i$. The state distribution considers water levels uniformly distributed within the safe interval. The time bound is $H_f=H_p=1$.
\subsubsection{Helicopter Controller} We augment the 28-variable helicopter controller available on
SpaceEx website with a variable $z$ denoting the helicopter’s altitude. The dynamics of $z$ is given by $\dot{z} = v_z$ , where $v_z$ is the vertical velocity and represented by variable $x_8$. The unsafe set $D$ is defined by $z \le 0$. The time bound is $H_f = 5$. Since this model is
large and publicly available on SpaceEx website, we do not provide the details here.
Adam~\cite{bengio2015rmsprop} is the algorithm used to optimize every loss. In the end-to-end approach the learning rate is set to $10^{-5}$ and it is trained for 200 epochs with batches of size 64. In the two-step approach the learning rate is set to $10^{-6}$ when training NSC and NSE separately and to $10^{-7}$ for the combined fine-tuning phase. The NSE and the NSC are trained for 200 epochs on batches of size 64 and, finally, 100 epochs of fine-tuning are performed.
\section{Runtime Performances and Anomaly Detection}\label{sec:anomaly_plots}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{img/seq_anom_small.png}
\caption{\textbf{Anomaly detection} (TWT model). Blue lines denotes the performances of the two-step approach. Green line the end-to-end approach. Dashed lines denotes the performances on observations with anomaly in the noise.}
\label{fig:anomaly}
\end{figure}
\section{Coverage and Efficiency for varying $\epsilon$}\label{sec:var_eps}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale =0.26]{imgs_varying_eps/var_eps_small.png}
\caption{Coverage and efficiency of the PO-NSC for the initial, active and sequential configuration. 1. in the title denotes the end-to-end approach, whereas 2. denotes the two-step approach.}
\label{fig:varying_eps}
\end{figure}
\section{Architecture and training details}\label{sec:arch}
Both approaches to PO-NPM consider sequences of states and observations of fixed length, thus one-dimensional CNNs are indeed a suitable architecture. In particular, the end-to-end classifier and the NSC share the same architecture: four convolutional layers with 128 filters of size 3, with Leaky-ReLU activation functions with slope 0.2 and, for regularizaion purposes, a drop-out with probability 0.2. The architectures terminates with two dense layers with 100 and 2 nodes respectively. The last layer has a ReLU activation function, to enforce positivity of the class likelihood scores.
On the other hand, the NSE architecture is composed of 5 convolutional layers with 128 filters of size 5, LeakyReLU activations with slope 0.2 and drop-out with probability 0.2. The last layer has the Tanh as activation function, so that the reconstructed states is bounded to the interval $[-1,1]$.
\section{Comparison of State Estimators}\label{sec:SE}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_pred_regions_imgs/SN1_Seq_SE_n3_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_pred_regions_imgs/SN1_Seq_SE_n5_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_pred_regions_imgs/SN1_Seq_SE_n7_with_coverage.png}
\caption{SN: \textbf{Neural SE}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/SN1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/SN1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/SN1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_7.png}
\caption{SN: \textbf{Unscented Kalman Filters}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/SN1_mhe_test_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/SN1_mhe_test_point_5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/SN1_mhe_test_point_7.png}
\caption{SN: \textbf{Moving Horizon Estimate}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_pred_regions_imgs/TWT_Seq_SE_n3_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_pred_regions_imgs/TWT_Seq_SE_n5_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_pred_regions_imgs/TWT_Seq_SE_n7_with_coverage.png}
\caption{TWT: \textbf{Neural SE}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_imgs/TWT_smoothed_ukf_val_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_imgs/TWT_smoothed_ukf_val_point_5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_imgs/TWT_smoothed_ukf_val_point_7.png}
\caption{TWT: \textbf{Unscented Kalman Filters}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_imgs/TWT_mhe_test_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_imgs/TWT_mhe_test_point_5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_imgs/TWT_mhe_test_point_7.png}
\caption{TWT: \textbf{Moving Horizon Estimate}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_pred_regions_imgs/LALO1_Seq_SE_n3_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_pred_regions_imgs/LALO1_Seq_SE_n5_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_pred_regions_imgs/LALO1_Seq_SE_n7_with_coverage.png}
\caption{LALO:\textbf{ Neural SE}}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/LALO1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/LALO1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/LALO1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_7.png}
\caption{LALO: \textbf{Unscented Kalman Filters}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/LALO1_mhe_test_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/LALO1_mhe_test_point_5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/LALO1_mhe_test_point_7.png}
\caption{LALO: \textbf{Moving Horizon Estimate}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\label{fig:LALO_SE}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_pred_regions_imgs/IP3_Seq_SE_n4_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_pred_regions_imgs/IP3_Seq_SE_n6_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_pred_regions_imgs/IP3_Seq_SE_n8_with_coverage.png}
\caption{IP: \textbf{Neural SE}}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/IP3_smoothed_ukf_val_point_8.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/IP3_smoothed_ukf_val_point_6.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/IP3_smoothed_ukf_val_point_8.png}
\caption{IP: \textbf{Unscented Kalman Filters}}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/IP3_mhe_test_point_4.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/IP3_mhe_test_point_6.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{se_imgs/IP3_mhe_test_point_8.png}
\caption{IP: \textbf{Moving Horizon Estimate}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\label{fig:IP_SE}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_pred_regions_imgs/CVDP1_Seq_SE_n3_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_pred_regions_imgs/CVDP1_Seq_SE_n5_with_coverage.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_pred_regions_imgs/CVDP1_Seq_SE_n7_with_coverage.png}
\caption{CVDP: \textbf{Neural SE}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/CVDP1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/CVDP1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/CVDP1_smoothed_ukf_val_point_7.png}
\caption{CVDP: \textbf{Unscented Kalman Filters}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/CVDP1_mhe_test_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/CVDP1_mhe_test_point_5.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{se_imgs/CVDP1_mhe_test_point_7.png}
\caption{CVDP: \textbf{Moving Horizon Estimate}. Each column is a different test point and each row is a variable of the state space.}
\label{fig:SE}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.125]{se_imgs/HC_Seq_SE_n3.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.125]{se_imgs/HC_smoothed_ukf_val_point_3.png}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.125]{se_imgs/HC_mhe_test_point_3.png}
\caption{Helicopter: \textbf{Neural SE} vs \textbf{UKF} vs \textbf{MHE}}
\label{fig:HC_SE}
\end{figure}
\input{tables/se_comparison}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
We presented an extension of the Neural Predictive Monitoring~\cite{bortolussineural} framework to work under the most realistic settings of noise and partially observability. We proposed two alternative solution strategies: an end-to-end solution, predicting reachability directly from raw observations, and a two-step solution, with an intermediate state estimation step. Both methods produce extremely accurate predictions, with the two-step approach performing better overall than the end-to-end version, and further providing accurate reconstructions of the true state. The online computational cost is negligible, making this method suitable for runtime applications.
The method is equipped with an error detection rule to prevent reachability prediction errors, as well as with prediction regions providing probabilistic guarantees.
We demonstrated that error detection can be meaningfully used for active learning, thereby improving our models on the most uncertain inputs.
As future work, we plan to extend this approach to fully stochastic models, investigating the use of deep generative models for state estimation.
We will further explore the use of recurrent or attention-based architectures in place of convolutional ones to improve performance for sequential data.
\section{Methods}\label{sec:background}
In this section, we provide background on conformal prediction (CP) and explain how we apply this technique to endow our reachability predictions and state estimates with probabilistic guarantees. Then, we discuss how CP can be used to derive measures of predictive uncertainty to enable error detection and active learning.
\np{double check that all notation is necessary, o/w remove} In the following, we present the methods assuming a generic prediction model. Let $X$ be the input space, $T$ be the target space, and define $Z = X\times T$. Let $\mathcal{Z}$ be the data-generating distribution, i.e., the distribution of the points $(x,t)\in Z$.
The prediction model is represented as a function $f:X\rightarrow T$.
For a generic input $x_i$ \np{not sure we need to keep indices $_i$ here}, we denote with $t_i$ the true target value of $x_i$ and with $\hat{t}_i$ the prediction by $f$.
Test inputs, whose unknown true target values we aim to predict, are denoted by $x_*$.
In our setting of reachability prediction, inputs are observation sequences, target values are the corresponding reachability values. The data distribution $\mathcal{Z}$ is the joint distribution of observation sequences and reachability values induced by state $s_{t-H_P}\sim \mathcal{S}$ and iid noise vector $\mathbf{w}_t$.
\subsection{Conformal Prediction for regression and classification}
Conformal Prediction associates measures of reliability to any traditional supervised learning problem. It is a very general approach that can be applied across all existing classification and regression methods~\cite{balasubramanian2014conformal}.
CP produces \textit{prediction regions with guaranteed validity}, thus satisfying the statistical guarantees illustrated in Problem~\ref{prbl:stat_guar}.
\begin{definition}[Prediction region]
For significance level $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$ and test input $x_*$, the $\varepsilon$-prediction region for $x_*$, $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}\subseteq T$, is a set of target values s.t.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pred_r}
\underset{(x_*,t_*)\sim \mathcal{Z}}{Pr}(t_* \in \Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}) = 1 - \epsilon.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The idea of CP is to construct the prediction region by ``inverting'' a suitable hypothesis test: given a test point $x_*$ and a tentative target value $t'$, we \textit{exclude} $t'$ from the prediction region only if it is unlikely that $t'$ is the true value for $x_*$. The test statistic is given by a so-called \textit{nonconformity function (NCF)} $\delta:Z \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, which, given a predictor $f$ and a point $z=(x,t)$, measures the deviation between the true value $t$ and the corresponding prediction $f(x)$. In this sense, $\delta$ can be viewed as a generalized residual function. In other words, CP builds the prediction region $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}$ for a test point $x_*$ by excluding all targets $t'$ whose NCF values are unlikely to follow the NCF distribution of the true targets:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cp_predr}
\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon} = \{t' \in T \mid Pr_{(x,t)\sim \mathcal{Z}}(\delta(x_*,t') \geq \delta(x,t)) > \varepsilon\}.
\end{equation}
The probability term in Eq.~\ref{eq:cp_predr} is often called p-value.
From a practical viewpoint, the NCF distribution $Pr_{(x,t)\sim \mathcal{Z}}(\delta(x,t))$ cannot be derived in an analytical form, and thus we use an empirical approximation derived using a sample $Z_c$ of $\mathcal{Z}$. This approach is called \textit{inductive CP}~\cite{papadopoulos2008inductive} and $Z_c$ is referred to as \textit{calibration set}.
\begin{remark}[Assumptions and guarantees of \np{inductive?} CP] Importantly, CP prediction regions have \textit{finite-sample validity} \np{cite}, i.e., they satisfy~\eqref{eq:pred_r} for any sample of $\mathcal{Z}$ (or reasonable size), and not just asymptotically. On the other hand, CP's theoretical guarantees hold under the \textit{exchangeability} assumption (a ``relaxed'' version of iid) by which the joint probability of any sample of $\mathcal{Z}$ is invariant to permutations of the sampled points. Of the two observation distributions discussed in Section~\ref{sec:problem}, we have that independent observations are exchangeable but sequential ones are not (due to the temporal dependency). Even though sequential data violate CP's theoretical validity, we find that the prediction regions still attain empirical coverage consistent with the nominal coverage (see results section), that is, the probabilistic guarantees still hold in practice (as also found in previous work on CP and time-series data \np{cite}).
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{CP for classification.} In classification, the target space is a discrete set of possible labels (or classes) $T=\{\ell^1,\ldots,\ell^c\}$. We represent the classification model as a function $f:X\rightarrow [0,1]^c$ mapping inputs into a vector of class likelihoods, such that the predicted class is the one with the highest likelihood\footnote{Ties can be resolved by imposing an ordering over the classes.}.
Classification is relevant for predictive monitoring as the reachability predictor of Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po} is indeed a binary classifier ($T=\{0,1\}$) telling whether or not an unsafe state can be reached given a sequence of observation.
The inductive CP algorithm for classification is divided into an offline phase, executed only once, and an online phase, executed for every test point $x_*$. In the offline phase (steps 1--3 below), we train the classifier $f$ and construct the calibration distribution, i.e., the empirical approximation of the NCF distribution. In the online phase (steps 4--5), we derive the prediction region for $x_*$ using said classifier and distribution.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Draw sample $Z'$ of $\mathcal{Z}$. Split $Z'$ into training set $Z_t$ and calibration set $Z_c$.
\item Train classifier $f$ using $Z_t$. Use $f$ to define an NCF $\delta$.
\item Construct the calibration distribution by computing, for each $z_i \in Z_c$, the NCF score $\alpha_i = \delta(z_i)$.
\item For each label $\ell^j \in T$, compute $\alpha_*^j = \delta(x_*,\ell^j)$, i.e., the NCF score for $x_*$ and $\ell^j$, and the associated p-value $p_*^{j}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:smoothed_p}
p_*^{j}= \frac{|\{z_i\in Z_c \mid \alpha_i > \alpha_*^{j}\}|}{|Z_c|+1}+\theta\frac{|\{z_i\in Z_c \mid \alpha_i = \alpha_*^{j}\}|+1}{|Z_c|+1},
\end{equation}
where $\theta\in\mathcal{U}[0,1]$ is a tie-breaking random variable.
\item Return the prediction region $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon} = \{\ell^j\in T \mid p_*^{j}>\varepsilon\}.$
\end{enumerate}
In defining the NCF $\delta$, we should aim to obtain high $\delta$ values for wrong predictions and low $\delta$ values for correct ones. Thus, a natural choice in classification is to define $\delta(x,l^j) = 1 - f(x)_j$, where $f(x)_j$ is the likelihood predicted by $f$ for class $l_j$. Indeed, if $l^j$ is the true target for $x$ and $f$ correctly predicts $l^j$, then $f(x)_j$ is high (the highest among all classes) and $\delta(x,l^j)$ is low; the opposite holds if $f$ does not predict $l^j$.
\subsubsection{CP for Regression.}\label{sec:cp_regr}
\np{I thought we should not use $y$ for the inputs below, but keep the generic $x$ notation}
In regression we have a continuous target space $T\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$. Thus, the regression case is relevant for us because our state estimator can be viewed as a regression model, where $T$ is the state space.
The CP algorithm for regression is similar to the classification one. In particular, the offline phase of steps 1--3, i.e., training of regression model $f$ and definition of NCF $\delta$, is the same (with obviously a different kind of $f$ and $\delta$).
The online phase changes though, because $T$ is a continuous space and thus, it is not possible to enumerate the target values and compute for each a p-value. Instead, we proceed in an equivalent manner, that is, identify the critical value $\alpha_{(\varepsilon)}$ of the calibration distribution, i.e., the NCF score corresponding to a p-value of $\varepsilon$. The resulting $\varepsilon$-prediction region is given by $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon} = f(x_*) \pm \alpha_{(\varepsilon)}$, where $\alpha_{(\varepsilon)}$ is the $(1-\varepsilon)$-quantile of the calibration distribution, i.e., the $\lfloor \varepsilon \cdot (|Z_c|+1)\rfloor$-th largest calibration score.
In the algorithm above, each prediction interval has the same width. Some more advanced approaches to CP regression allow to obtain prediction regions with varying interval width. For instance, one can define a normalized nonconformity function or resort to conformalized quantile regression~\cite{romano2019conformalized}. The application of such methods is not straightforward and thus, in this work, we limit prediction regions to have constant width.
\paragraph{Nonconformity score.} The target space is a $n$-dimensional space, a proper nonconformity measure could be the norm of the difference among the real and the predicted vector. This is the NCS used in our experiments for the regression tasks. Another possible choice is to consider $n$ different scores, one for each variable, so that we are able to provide statistical guarantees about the quality of the reconstruction on a variable-specific basis.
\subsubsection{Validity and Efficiency}
CP performances are measured via two quantities: \emph{validity} (or \emph{coverage}), i.e. the coherence between $\epsilon$ and the error rate, and
the \emph{efficiency}, i.e. the size of the prediction regions. CPs are automatically valid, whereas the efficiency depends on the chosen nonconformity function and thus the underlying model.
\np{move conf and cred into the uncertainty measures section}
\subsubsection{Confidence and credibility}\label{sec:conf_cred}
Observe that, for significance levels $\varepsilon_1\ge\varepsilon_2$, the corresponding prediction regions are such that $\Gamma^{\varepsilon_1}\subseteq \Gamma^{\varepsilon_2}$.
It follows that, given an input $x_*$, if $\varepsilon$ is lower than all its p-values, i.e. $\varepsilon < \min_{j=1,\ldots,c} \ p_*^{j}$, then the region $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}$ contains all the labels. As $\varepsilon$ increases, fewer and fewer classes will have a p-value higher than $\varepsilon$. That is, the region shrinks as $\varepsilon$ increases. In particular, $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}$ is empty when $\varepsilon \geq \max_{j=1,\ldots,c} \ p_*^{j}$.
The \textit{confidence} of a point $x_*\in X$, $1-\gamma_*$, measures how likely is our prediction for $x_*$ compared to all other possible classifications (according to the calibration set). It is computed as one minus the smallest value of $\varepsilon$ for which the conformal region is a single label, i.e. the second largest p-value $\gamma_*$:
\[1-\gamma_* = \sup \{1-\varepsilon : |\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}| = 1\}.\]
The \textit{credibility}, $c_*$, indicates how suitable the training data are to classify that specific example. In practice, it is the smallest $\varepsilon$ for which the prediction region is empty, i.e. the highest p-value according to the calibration set, which corresponds to the p-value of the predicted class:
\[c_* = \inf \{\varepsilon : |\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}|= 0\}.\]
Note that if $\gamma_*\le \varepsilon$, then the corresponding prediction region $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}$ contains at most one class. If both $\gamma_*\le \varepsilon$ and $c_* > \varepsilon$ hold, then the prediction region contains \textit{exactly} one class, i.e., the one predicted by $f$. In other words, the interval $[\gamma_*, c_*)$ contains all the $\varepsilon$ values for which we are sure that $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}=\{\hat{\ell}_*\}$.
It follows that the higher $1-\gamma_*$ and $c_*$ are, the more reliable the prediction $\hat{\ell}_*$ is, because we have an expanded range $[\gamma_*, c_*)$ of significance values by which $\hat{\ell}_*$ is valid.
Indeed, in the extreme scenario where $c_*=1$ and $\gamma_*=0$, then $\Gamma_*^{\varepsilon}=\{\hat{\ell}_*\}$ for any value of $\epsilon$. This is why, as we will explain in the next section, our uncertainty-based rejection criterion relies on excluding points with low values of $1-\gamma_*$ and $c_*$. We stress, in particular, the following statistical guarantee:
the probability that the true prediction for $x_*$ is exactly $\hat{\ell}_*$ is at most $1-\gamma_*$.
In binary classification problems, each point $x_*$ has only two p-values, one for each class, which coincide with $c_*$ (p-value of the predicted class) and $\gamma_*$ (p-value of the other class).
\section{Experimental Evaluation}\label{sec:experiments}
We evaluate both end-to-end and two-step approaches under PO on six benchmarks of cyber-physical systems with dynamics presenting a varying degree of complexity and with a variety of observation functions.
We include white Gaussian noise to introduce stochasticity in the observations.
\subsection{Case Studies}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{IP}: classic two-dimensional non-linear model of an Inverted Pendulum on a cart. Given a state $s=(s_1,s_2)$, we observe a noisy measure of the energy of the system $y = s_2/2+\cos(s_1)-1 + w$, where $w\sim\mathcal{N}(0,0.005)$. Unsafe region $U=\{s: |s_1|\ge\pi/6\}$. $H_p = 1$, $H_f = 5$.
\item \textbf{SN}: a two-dimensional non-linear model of the Spiking Neuron action potential. Given a state $s=(s_1,s_2)$ we observe a noisy measure of $s_2$, $y= s_2+w$, with $w\sim\mathcal{N}(0,0.1)$. Unsafe region $ U = \{s: s_1 \le -68.5\}$. $H_p = 4$, $H_f = 16$.
\item \textbf{CVDP}: a four-dimensional non-linear model of the Coupled Van Der Pol oscillator~\cite{ernst2020arch}, modeling two coupled oscillators. Given a state $s=(s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4)$ we observe $y = (s_1,s_3)+ w$, with $w\sim\mathcal{N}(\underbar{0},0.01\cdot I_2)$. Unsafe region $ U = \{s: s_{2} \ge 2.75 \land s_{2} \ge 2.75\}$. $H_p = 8$, $H_f = 7$.
\item\textbf{LALO}: the seven-dimensional non-linear Laub Loomis model~\cite{ernst2020arch} of a class of enzymatic activities. Given a state $s = (s_1,s_2, s_3, s_4, s_5, s_6, s_7)$ we observe $y = (s_1, s_2, s_3, s_5, s_6, s_7)+w$, with $w\sim \mathcal{N}(\underbar{0},0.01\cdot I_6)$. Unsafe region $ U = \{s: s_4\ge 4.5\}$. $H_p = 5$, $H_f = 20$.
\item \textbf{TWT}: a three-dimensional non-linear model of a Triple Water Tank. Given a state $s= (s_1,s_2,s_3)$ we observe $y= s+w$, with $w\sim\mathcal{N}(\underbar{0},0.01\cdot I_3)$. Unsafe region $U= \{s: \lor_{i=1}^3 s_i\not\in [4.5,5.5]\}$. $H_p = 1$, $H_f = 1$.
\item \textbf{HC}: the 28-dimensional linear model of an Helicopter controller. We observe only the altitude, i.e. $y = s_8 + w$, with $w\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Unsafe region $U=\{s:s_8<0\}$. $H_p = 5$, $H_f = 5$.
\end{itemize}
Details about the case studies are available in the Appendix~\ref{appendix:models}.
\subsection{Experimental settings.}
\paragraph{Implementation.} The workflow can be divided in steps: (1) define the CPS models, (2) generate the synthetic datasets $\mathcal{D}_{PO-NPM}$ (both the independent and the sequential version), (3) train the NPM (either end-to-end or two-step), (4) train the CP-based error detection rules, (5) perform active learning and (6) evaluate both the initial and the active NPM on a test set.
From here on, we call \emph{initial setting} the one with no active learning involved.
The technique is fully implemented in Python\footnote{The experiments were performed on a computer with a CPU Intel x86, 24 cores and a 128GB RAM and 15GB of GPU Tesla V100.}. In particular, PyTorch~\cite{paszke2017automatic} is used to craft, train and evaluate the desired CNN architectures. Details about the CNN architectures and the settings of the optimization algorithm are described in Appendix~\ref{sec:arch}.
The source code for all the experiments can be found at the following link:
\url{https://github.com/francescacairoli/Stoch_NSC.git}
\paragraph{Datasets.}
For each case study we generate both an independent and a sequential dataset.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Independent: } the train set consists of 50K independent sequences of states of length $32$, the respective noisy measurements and the reachability labels. The calibration and test set contains respectively 8.5K and 10K samples.
\item \textit{Sequential: } for the train set, 5K states are randomly sampled. From each of these states we simulate a long trajectory. From each long trajectory we obtain 100 sub-trajectories of length $32$ in a sliding window fashion. The same procedure is applied to the test and calibration set, where the number of initial states is respectively 1K and 850.
\end{itemize}
Data are scaled to the interval $[-1,1]$ to avoid sensitivity to different scales.
\review{While the chosen datasets are not too large, our approach would work well even with smaller datasets, resulting however in lower accuracy and higher uncertainty.
In these cases, our proposed uncertainty-based active learning would represent the go-to solution as is designed for situations where data collection is particularly expensive.}
\paragraph{Computational costs.}
NPM is designed to work at runtime in safety-critical applications, which translates in the need of high computational efficiency together with high reliability. The time needed to generate the dataset and to train both methods does not affect the runtime efficiency of the NPM, as it is performed only once (offline).
Once trained, the time needed to analyse the reachability of the current sequence of observations is the time needed to evaluate one (or two) CNN, which is almost negligible (in the order of microseconds on GPU).
On the other hand, the time needed to quantify the uncertainty depends on the size of the calibration set.
This is one of the reasons that make active learning a preferable option, as it adds only the most significant points to the dataset.
It is important to notice that the percentage of points rejected, meaning points with predictions estimated to be unreliable, affects considerably the runtime efficiency of the methods. Therefore, we seek a trade-off between accuracy and runtime efficiency. Training the end-to-end approach takes around 15 minutes. Training the two-step approach takes around 40 minutes: 9 for the NSE, 11 for the NSC and 20 minutes for the fine-tuning. Making a single prediction takes around $7\times 10^{-7}$ seconds in the end-to-end scenario and $9\times 10^{-7}$ seconds in the two-step scenario. Training the SVC takes from 0.5 to 10 seconds, whereas computing values of confidence and credibility for a single point takes from 0.3 to 2 ms. Actively query new data from a pool of 50K samples takes around 5 minutes.
\paragraph{Performance measures.} The measures used to quantify the overall performance of the NPM under PO (both end-to-end and two-step)
are: the \emph{accuracy} of the reachability predictor, the \emph{error detection rate} and the \emph{rejection rate}. We seek high accuracies and detection rates without being overly conservative, meaning keeping a rejection rate as low as possible. We also check if and when the statistical guarantees are met empirically, via values of coverage and efficiency.
We analyse and compare the performances of NPM under PO on different configurations: an initial and active configuration for independent states and a temporally correlated (sequential) configuration. Additionally, we test the method for anomaly detection.
\subsection{Results}
\paragraph{Initial setting.}
Table~\ref{table:orig_acc} compares the performances of the two approaches to PO-NPM via predictive accuracy, detection rate, i.e. the percentage of prediction errors, either false-positives (FP) or false-negatives (FN), recognized by the error detection rule, and the overall rejection over the test set. We can observe how both methods work well despite PO, i.e., they reach extremely high accuracies and high detection rate. However, the two-step approach seems to behave slightly better than the end-to-end. As a matter of fact, accuracy is almost always greater than $99\%$ with a detection rate close to $100.00$. The average rejection rate is around $11\%$ in the end-to-end scenario, and reduces to $9\%$ in the two-step scenario, making the latter less conservative ant thus more efficient from a computational point of view.
These results come with no surprise, because, compared to the end-to-end one, the two-step approach leverages more information available in the dataset for training, that is the exact sequence of states.
\input{tables/orig_acc}
\paragraph{Benefits of active learning.}
Table~\ref{table:active_acc} presents the results after one iteration of active learning. Additional data were selected from a pool of 50K points, using the error detection rule as query strategy. We observe a slight improvement in the performance, mainly reflected in higher detection rates and smaller rejection rates, with an average that reduces to $8\%$ for the end-to-end and to $6\%$ for the two-step.
\input{tables/active_acc}
\paragraph{Probabilisic guarantees.}
In our experiments, we measured the efficiency as the percentage of singleton prediction regions over the test set.
Table~\ref{table:ponsc_stat_guar} compares the empirical coverage and the efficiency of the CP prediction regions in the initial and active scenario for both the end-to-end and two-step classifiers. The confidence level is set to $(1-\epsilon) = 95\%$. Fig.~\ref{fig:varying_eps} in Appendix~\ref{sec:var_eps} shows coverage and efficiency for different significance levels (ranging from 0.01 to 0.1). CP provides theoretical guarantees on the validity, meaning empirical coverage matching the expected one of $95\%$, only in the initial setting. As a matter of fact, with active learning we modify the data-generating distribution of the training and calibration sets, while the test set remains the same, i.e., sampled from the original data distribution. As a result, we observe (Table~\ref{table:ponsc_stat_guar}) that both methods in the initial setting are valid. In the active scenario, even if theoretical guarantees are lost, we obtain both better coverage and higher efficiency. This means that the increased coverage is not due to a more conservative predictor but to an improved accuracy.
\input{tables/ponsc_stat_guar}
Table~\ref{table:nsc_nse_stat_guar} shows values of coverage and efficiency for the two separate steps (state estimation and reachability prediction) of the two-step approach. Recall that the efficiency in the case of regression, and thus of state estimation, is given by the volume of the prediction region. So, the smaller the volume, the more efficient the regressor.
The opposite holds for classifiers, where a large value of efficiency means tight prediction regions. It is interesting to observe how active learning makes the NSC reach higher coverages at the cost of more conservative prediction regions (lower efficiency),
whereas the NSE coverage is largely unaffected by active learning (except for TWT). Reduction in NSC efficiency, differently from the two-step combined approach, is likely due to an adaptation of the method to deal with and correct noisy estimates.
Such behaviour suggests that the difficulty in predicting the reachability of a certain state is independent of how hard it is to reconstruct that state\footnote{We select re-training points based on the uncertainty of the reachability predictor; if the SE performed badly on those same points, re-training would have led to a higher SE accuracy and hence, increased coverage.}.
\input{tables/nsc_nse_stat_guar}
\paragraph{State estimator.} We compare the performances of the NSE with two traditional state estimation techniques: Unscented Kalman Filters\footnote{pykalman library: https://pykalman.github.io/} (UKF)~\cite{wan2000unscented} and Moving Horizon Estimation\footnote{do-mpc library: https://www.do-mpc.com/en/latest/} (MHE)~\cite{allan2019moving}. In particular, for each point in the test set we compute the relative error given by the norm of the difference between the real and reconstructed state trajectories divided by the maximum range of state values.
The results, presented in full in Appendix~\ref{sec:SE}, show how our neural network-based state estimator significantly outperforms both UKF and MHE in our case studies.
Moreover, unlike the existing SE approaches, our state estimates come with a prediction region that provides probabilistic guarantees on the expected reconstruction error, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sn_se}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{se_imgs/SE_lowdim.png}
\caption{Comparison of different state estimators on a state of the SN (top) and IP (bottom) model. Blue is the exact state sequence, orange is the estimated one.
\vspace{-0.5cm}}\label{fig:sn_se}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Sequential data.} All the results presented so far consider a dataset $\mathcal{D}_{PO-NPM}$ of observation sequences generated by independently sampled initial states. However, we are interested in applying NPM at runtime to systems that are evolving in time. States will thus have a temporal correlation, meaning that we lose the exchangeability requirement behind the theoretical validity of CP regions.
Table~\ref{table:seq_res} shows the performance of predictor and error detection
trained and tested on sequential data.
In general, accuracy and detection rates are still very high (typically above $95\%$), but the results are on average worse than the independent counterpart. The motivation could be two-fold: on one side, it is reasonable to assume that a recurrent neural net would perform better on sequential data, compared to CNN, on the other, the samples contained in the sequential dataset are strongly correlated and thus they may cover only poorly the state space.
The table also shows values of coverage and efficiency of both the end-to-end and the two-step approach. Even if theoretical validity is lost, we still observe empirical coverages that match the nominal value of $95\%$, i.e., the probabilistic guarantees are satisfied in practice.
\input{tables/seq_and_anomaly_acc}
\paragraph{Anomaly detection.} The data-generating distribution at runtime is assumed to coincide with the one used to generate the datasets. However, in practice, such distribution is typically unknown and subject to runtime deviations. Thus, we are interested to observe how the sequential PO-NPM behave when an anomaly takes place. In our experiments, we model an anomaly as an increase in the variance of the measurement noise, i.e. $\mathcal{W}' = \mathcal{N}(0,0.25\cdot I)$. Fig.~\ref{fig:anomalies} compares the performances with VS without anomaly on a single case study (the other case studies are shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:anomaly_plots}). We observe that the anomaly causes a drop in accuracy and error detection rate, which comes with an increase in the number of predictions rejected because deemed to be unreliable. These preliminary results show how an increase in the NPM rejection rate could be used as a significant measure to preemptively detect runtime anomalies.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{img/TWT_n_points=1000_H=10_newsigma=0.25_nb_epochs=200.png}
\caption{\textbf{Anomaly detection} (TWT model). Dashed lines denotes the performances on observations with anomaly in the noise. Blue is for the two-step approach, green for the end-to-end. \vspace{-0.5cm}}
\label{fig:anomalies}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
We focus on \textit{predictive monitoring (PM) of cyber-physical systems (CPSs)}, that is, the problem of predicting, at runtime, if a safety violation is imminent from the current CPS state. In particular, we work under the (common) setting where the true CPS state is unknown and we only can access partial (and noisy) observations of the system.
With CPSs having become ubiquitous in safety-critical domains, from autonomous vehicles to medical devices~\cite{alur2015principles}, runtime safety assurance of these systems is paramount. In this context, PM has the advantage, compared to traditional monitoring~\cite{bartocci2018specification}, of detecting potential safety violations before they occur, in this way enabling preemptive countermeasures to steer the system back to safety (e.g., switching to a failsafe mode as done in the Simplex architecture~\cite{johnson2016real}).
Thus, effective PM must balance between prediction accuracy, to avoid errors that can jeopardize safety, and computational efficiency, to support fast execution at runtime. Partial observability (PO) makes the problem more challenging, as it requires some form of state estimation (SE) to reconstruct the CPS state from observations:
on top of its computational overhead, SE introduces estimation errors that propagate in the reachability predictions, affecting the PM reliability. Existing PM approaches either assume full state observability~\cite{bortolussi2019neural} or cannot provide correctness guarantees on the combined estimation-prediction process~\cite{chou2020predictive}.
We present a learning-based method for predictive monitoring designed to produce efficient and highly reliable reachability predictions under noise and partial observability. We build on neural predictive monitoring (NPM)~\cite{bortolussi2019neural,bortolussineural}, an approach that employs neural network classifiers to predict reachability at any given state.
Such an approach is both accurate, owing to the expressiveness of neural networks (which can approximate well hybrid systems reachability given sufficient training data~\cite{phan2018neural}), and efficient, since the analysis at runtime boils down to a simple forward pass of the neural network.
We extend and generalize NPM to the PO setting by investigating two solution strategies: an \textit{end-to-end} approach where the neural monitor directly operates on the raw observations (i.e., without reconstructing the state); and a \textit{two-step} approach, where it operates on state sequences estimated from observations using a dedicated neural network model. See Fig \ref{fig:diagram} for an overview of the approach.
Independently of the strategy chosen for handling PO, our approach offers two ways of quantifying and enhancing PM reliability. Both are based on conformal prediction~\cite{balasubramanian2014conformal,vovk2005algorithmic}, a popular framework for reliable machine learning. First, we complement the predictions of the neural monitor and state estimator with prediction regions guaranteed to cover the true (unknown) value with arbitrary probability. To our knowledge, we are the first to provide probabilistic guarantees on state estimation and reachability under PO. Second, as in NPM, we use measures of predictive uncertainty to derive optimal criteria for detecting (and rejecting) potentially erroneous predictions. These rejection criteria also enable active learning, i.e., retraining and improving the monitor on such identified uncertain predictions.
We evaluate our method on a benchmark of six hybrid system models. Despite PO, we obtain highly accurate reachability predictions (with accuracy above 99\% for most case studies). These results are further improved by our uncertainty-based rejection criteria, which manage to preemptively identify the majority of prediction errors (with a detection rate close to 100\% for most models). In particular, we find that the two-step approach tends to outperform the end-to-end one. The former indeed benefits from a neural SE model, which provides high-quality state reconstructions and is empirically superior to Kalman filters~\cite{wan2000unscented} and moving horizon estimation~\cite{allgower1999nonlinear}
two of the main SE methods. Moreover, our method produces prediction regions that are efficient (i.e., tight) yet satisfy the \textit{a priori} guarantees. Finally, we show that active learning not just improves reachability prediction and error detection, but also increases both coverage and efficiency of the prediction regions, which implies stronger guarantees and less conservative regions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{img/diagram_small.png}
\caption{Overview of the NPM framework under partial observability. The components used at runtime have a thicker border. \vspace{-0.3cm}}
\label{fig:diagram}
\end{figure}
\section{Methods}\label{sec:methods}
\subsection{Dataset Generation}\label{sec:data_gen}
The key component of NPM is to express PM as a supervised learning problem, which calls for the generation of a dataset used suitable to learn the approximate reachability predictor. The rationale is to use traditional reachability checkers to label states $s$ as safe, if $\mathcal{M}\models \mathsf{Reach}(U,s,H_f)$, or unsafe. The reachability of the system at time $t$ only on the state of the system at time $t$, however, one can decide to make a prediction based on the sequence $\mathbf{s}_t$ of the previous $H_p$ states, $\mathbf{s}_t = s_{t-H_p}\cdots s_t$. Formally, the dataset can be expressed as $\mathcal{D}_{NPM} = \{(\mathbf{s}^{i}, l_i)\}_{i=1}^N$, where $\mathbf{s}^i = (s^i_{t-H_p},s^i_{t-H_p+1},\dots, s^i_t)$ and $l_i = \mathbf{1}(\mathsf{Reach}(U,s^i_t,H_f))$ for a generic $t$.
Under PO, we assume that the measurement process can be modeled by a function $\mu:S\rightarrow Y$, which is then used to form a dataset $\mathcal{D}_{PO-NPM}$ made of tuples $(\mathbf{y}_t, \mathbf{s}_t, l_t)$, where $\mathbf{y}_t$ is a noisy observation of $\mathbf{s}_t$, i.e. a sequence of length $H_p$ such that $y_{j} = \mu(s_j)+w_j$, for $w_j\sim\mathcal{W}$ and $\forall j\in\{t-H_p,\dots , t\}$.
The data generating distribution $\mathcal{S}$ determines how states $\mathbf{s}_t$ are sampled. In our experiments, we consider the \emph{independent} scenario, in which each state, and thus its history, is sampled independently from all the other states, and the \emph{sequential} scenario in which states (and their history) comes from temporally correlated trajectories in a sliding-window fashion. The latter is more suitable for real runtime applications. On the other hand, we loose the property of exchangeability, which is a fundamental requirement for CP to guarantee validity.
\subsection{NPM under PO}
Two alternative approaches (as introduced in Section~\ref{sec:pm_po}) can be considered starting from $\mathcal{D}_{PO-NPM}$ to solve Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{End-to-end}: we train a CNN that learns a direct mapping from $\mathbf{y}_t$ to $l_t$, which becomes a simple binary classification problem. This approach ignores the sequence of states $\mathbf{s}_t$. The loss function is the canonical cross-entropy typically used in binary classification problems.
\item \textbf{Two-step}: we train in parallel a CNN regressor, referred to as Neural State Estimator (NSE), to reconstruct the sequence of states $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$ from the series of noisy observations $\mathbf{y}_t$, and a CNN classifier referred to as Neural State Classifier (NSC), that predicts the safety label $l_t$ from the sequence of states $\mathbf{s}_t$. The combination of the two CNN, the NSE and the NSC maps the sequence of noisy measurements into the safety label, as required in Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po}. However, the NSE inevitably introduces some errors in the reconstruction $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$ of $\mathbf{s}_t$. Such error is propagated by evaluating NSC on $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$, causing a low accuracy of the combined net.
To improve the performances of the combined function, we perform a \emph{fine-tuning} step in which the weights of the NSE and the weights of the NSC are updated together via the minimization of a loss that combines the two respective losses. In this step, the NSC learn to classify correctly the state reconstructed by the NSE, $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$, rather than the real state $\mathbf{s}_t$, so to improve the task specific accuracy. It is likely that such fine-tuning will lower the performances of the exact states, but this problem does not concern us, since under PO exact states are not available at test time.
The loss for the NSE is the mean square error among the real sequences of states $\mathbf{s}_t$ and the reconstructed ones $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$, whereas for the NSC we use, once again a binary cross-entropy loss.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Neural State Estimation}
Two-step approach has an important collateral advantage, which is the NSE. In general, any state of the art state estimator can be used here. However, we are dealing with complex non-linear systems. The black-box NSE reaches very high reconstruction precision and furthermore, because of the fine-tuning and potentially active learning, we can calibrate the estimates to be more accurate in safety critical regions.
\section{Methods}\label{sec:new_methods}
In this section, we first describe our learning-based solution to PM under PO (Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po}).
We then provide background on conformal prediction (CP) and explain how we apply this technique to endow our reachability predictions and state estimates with probabilistic guarantees (Problem~\ref{prbl:stat_guar}). Finally, we illustrate how CP can be used to derive measures of predictive uncertainty to enable error detection (Problem~\ref{prbl:rejection}) and active learning.
\subsection{Predictive Monitoring under Noise and Partial Observability}\label{sec:pm_po}
There are two natural learning-based approaches to tackle Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po} (see Fig.~\ref{fig:nsc_diagram}):
\begin{enumerate}
\item an \textbf{end-to-end} solution that learns a direct mapping from the sequence of past measurements $\mathbf{y}_t$ to the reachability label $\{0,1\}$.
\item a \textbf{two-step} solution that combines steps (a) and (b) below:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] learns a \textit{state estimator} able to reconstruct the history of full states $\mathbf{s}_t = (s_{t-H_p},\dots,s_t)$ from the sequence of measurements $\mathbf{y}_t = (y_{t-H_p},\dots,y_t)$;
\item[(b)] learns a \textit{state classifier} mapping the sequence of states $\mathbf{s}_t$ to the reachability label $\{0,1\}$;
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Dataset Generation.} Since we aim to solve the PM problem as one of supervised learning, the first step is generating a suitable training dataset.
For this purpose, we need reachability oracles to label states $s$ as safe (negative), if $\neg \mathsf{Reach}(U,s,H_f)$, or unsafe (positive) otherwise. Given that we consider deterministic HS dynamics, we use simulation (rather than reachability checkers like~\cite{chen2013flow,althoff2016implementation,bogomolov2019juliareach}) to label the states.
The reachability of the system at time $t$ depends only on the state of the system at time $t$, however, one can decide to exploit more information and make a prediction based on the previous $H_p$ states.
Formally, the generated dataset under full observability can be expressed as
$\mathcal{D}_{NPM} = \{(\mathbf{s}^i_t, l^i)\}_{i=1}^N$, where $\mathbf{s}^i_t = (s^i_{t-H_p},s^i_{t-H_p+1},\dots, s^i_t)$ and $l^i = \mathbf{1}(\mathsf{Reach}(U,s^i_t,H_f))$
.
Under partial observability, we use the (known) observation function $\mu:S\rightarrow Y$ to build a dataset
$\mathcal{D}_{PO-NPM}$ made of tuples $(\mathbf{y}_t, \mathbf{s}_t, l_t)$, where $\mathbf{y}_t$ is a sequence of noisy observations for $\mathbf{s}_t$, i.e., such that $\forall j\in\{t-H_p,\dots , t\}$ $y_{j} = \mu(s_j)+w_j$ and $w_j\sim\mathcal{W}$.
The distribution of $\mathbf{s}_t$ and $\mathbf{y}_t$ is determined by the distribution $\mathcal{S}$ of the initial state of the sequences, $s_{t-H_p}$.
We consider two different distributions: \emph{independent}, where the initial states $s_{t-H_p}$ are sampled independently, thus resulting in independent state/observation sequences; and
\emph{sequential}, where states come from temporally correlated trajectories in a sliding-window fashion. The latter is more suitable for real-world runtime applications, where observations are received in a sequential manner. On the other hand, temporal dependency violates the exchangeability property, which affects the theoretical validity guarantees of CP, as we will soon discuss.
\input{PO_NPM_schema}
Starting from $\mathcal{D}_{PO-NPM}$, the two alternative approaches, end-to-end and two-step, can be developed as follows.
\subsubsection{End-to-end solution.}
We train a one-dimensional convolutional neural net (CNN) that learns a direct mapping from $\mathbf{y}_t$ to $l_t$, i.e., we solve a simple binary classification problem. This approach ignores the sequence of states $\mathbf{s}_t$. The canonical binary cross-entropy function can be considered as loss function for the weights optimization process.
\subsubsection{Two-step solution.}
A CNN regressor, referred to as Neural State Estimator (NSE), is trained to reconstruct the sequence of states $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$ from the sequence of noisy observations $\mathbf{y}_t$. This is combined with, a CNN classifier, referred to as Neural State Classifier (NSC), trained to predict the reachability label $l_t$ from the sequence of states $\mathbf{s}_t$. The mean square error between the sequences of real states $\mathbf{s}_t$ and the reconstructed ones $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$ is a suitable loss function for the NSE, whereas for the NSC we use, once again, a binary cross-entropy function.
The network resulting from the combination of the the NSE and the NSC maps the sequence of noisy measurements into the safety label, exactly as required in Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po}. However, the NSE inevitably introduces some errors in reconstructing $\mathbf{s}_t$. Such error is then propagated when the NSC is evaluated on the reconstructed state, $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$, as it is generated from a distribution different from $\mathcal{S}$, affecting the overall accuracy of the combined net.
To alleviate this problem, we introduce a \emph{fine-tuning} phase in which the weights of the NSE and the weights of the NSC are updated together, minimizing the sum of the two respective loss functions.
In this phase, the NSC learns to classify correctly the state reconstructed by the NSE, $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t$, rather than the real state $\mathbf{s}_t$, so to improve the task specific accuracy.
\paragraph{Neural State Estimation.}
The two-step approach has an important additional advantage, the NSE. In general, any traditional state estimator could have been used. Nevertheless, non-linear systems make SE extremely challenging for existing approaches. On the contrary, our NSE reaches very high reconstruction precision (as demonstrated in the result section). Furthermore, because of the fine-tuning, it is possible to calibrate the estimates to be more accurate in regions of the state-space that are safety-critical.
\subsection{Conformal Prediction for regression and classification}\label{sec:cp}
In the following, \review{we provide background on conformal prediction considering}
a generic prediction model. Let $X$ be the input space, $T$ be the target space, and define $Z = X\times T$. Let $\mathcal{Z}$ be the data-generating distribution, i.e., the distribution of the points $(x,t)\in Z$.
The prediction model is represented as a function $f:X\rightarrow T$.
For a generic input $x$,
we denote with $t$ the true target value of $x$ and with $\hat{t}$ the prediction by $f$.
Test inputs, whose unknown true target values we aim to predict, are denoted by $x_*$.
In our setting of reachability prediction, inputs are observation sequences, target values are the corresponding reachability values. The data distribution $\mathcal{Z}$ is the joint distribution of observation sequences and reachability values induced by state $s_{t-H_P}\sim \mathcal{S}$ and iid noise vector $\mathbf{w}_t\sim\mathcal{W}^{H_p}$.
Conformal Prediction associates measures of reliability to any traditional supervised learning problem. It is a very general approach that can be applied across all existing classification and regression methods~\cite{balasubramanian2014conformal,vovk2005algorithmic}.
CP produces \textit{prediction regions with guaranteed validity}, thus satisfying the statistical guarantees illustrated in Problem~\ref{prbl:stat_guar}.
\begin{definition}[Prediction region]
For significance level $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ and test input $x_*$, the $\epsilon$-prediction region for $x_*$, $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}\subseteq T$, is a set of target values s.t.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pred_r}
\underset{(x_*,t_*)\sim \mathcal{Z}}{Pr}(t_* \in \Gamma_*^{\epsilon}) = 1 - \epsilon.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The idea of CP is to construct the prediction region by ``inverting'' a suitable hypothesis test: given a test point $x_*$ and a tentative target value $t'$, we \textit{exclude} $t'$ from the prediction region only if it is unlikely that $t'$ is the true value for $x_*$. The test statistic is given by a so-called \textit{nonconformity function (NCF)} $\delta:Z \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, which, given a predictor $f$ and a point $z=(x,t)$, measures the deviation between the true value $t$ and the corresponding prediction $f(x)$. In this sense, $\delta$ can be viewed as a generalized residual function. In other words, CP builds the prediction region $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}$ for a test point $x_*$ by excluding all targets $t'$ whose NCF values are unlikely to follow the NCF distribution of the true targets:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cp_predr}
\Gamma_*^{\epsilon} = \left\{t' \in T \mid Pr_{(x,t)\sim \mathcal{Z}}\left(\delta(x_*,t') \geq \delta(x,t)\right) > \epsilon\right\}.
\end{equation}
The probability term in Eq.~\ref{eq:cp_predr} is often called p-value.
From a practical viewpoint, the NCF distribution $Pr_{(x,t)\sim \mathcal{Z}}(\delta(x,t))$ cannot be derived in an analytical form, and thus we use an empirical approximation derived using a sample $Z_c$ of $\mathcal{Z}$. This approach is called \textit{inductive CP}~\cite{papadopoulos2008inductive} and $Z_c$ is referred to as \textit{calibration set}.
\begin{remark}[Assumptions and guarantees of inductive CP] Importantly, CP prediction regions have \textit{finite-sample validity}~\cite{balasubramanian2014conformal}, i.e., they satisfy~\eqref{eq:pred_r} for any sample of $\mathcal{Z}$ (or reasonable size), and not just asymptotically. On the other hand, CP's theoretical guarantees hold under the \textit{exchangeability} assumption (a ``relaxed'' version of iid) by which the joint probability of any sample of $\mathcal{Z}$ is invariant to permutations of the sampled points. Of the two observation distributions discussed in Section~\ref{sec:problem}, we have that independent observations are exchangeable but sequential ones are not (due to the temporal dependency). Even though sequential data violate CP's theoretical validity, we find that the prediction regions still attain empirical coverage consistent with the nominal coverage (see results section), that is, the probabilistic guarantees still hold in practice (as also found in previous work on CP and time-series data~\cite{balasubramanian2014conformal}).
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Validity and Efficiency.}
CP performance is measured via two quantities: 1) \emph{validity} (or \emph{coverage}), i.e. the empirical error rate observed on a test sample, which should be as close as possible to the significance level $\epsilon$, and 2) \emph{efficiency}, i.e. the size of the prediction regions, which should be small. CP-based prediction regions are automatically valid (under the assumptions of Remark 1), whereas the efficiency depends on the chosen nonconformity function and thus the underlying model.
\subsubsection{CP for classification.} In classification, the target space is a discrete set of possible labels (or classes) $T=\{\ell^1,\ldots,\ell^c\}$. We represent the classification model as a function $f:X\rightarrow [0,1]^c$ mapping inputs into a vector of class likelihoods, such that the predicted class is the one with the highest likelihood\footnote{Ties can be resolved by imposing an ordering over the classes.}.
Classification is relevant for predictive monitoring as the reachability predictor of Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po} is indeed a binary classifier ($T=\{0,1\}$) telling whether or not an unsafe state can be reached given a sequence of observation.
The inductive CP algorithm for classification is divided into an offline phase, executed only once, and an online phase, executed for every test point $x_*$. In the offline phase (steps 1--3 below), we train the classifier $f$ and construct the calibration distribution, i.e., the empirical approximation of the NCF distribution. In the online phase (steps 4--5), we derive the prediction region for $x_*$ using the computed classifier and distribution.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Draw sample $Z'$ of $\mathcal{Z}$. Split $Z'$ into training set $Z_t$ and calibration set $Z_c$.
\item Train classifier $f$ using $Z_t$. Use $f$ to define an NCF $\delta$.
\item Construct the calibration distribution by computing, for each $z_i \in Z_c$, the NCF score $\alpha_i = \delta(z_i)$.
\item For each label $\ell^j \in T$, compute $\alpha_*^j = \delta(x_*,\ell^j)$, i.e., the NCF score for $x_*$ and $\ell^j$, and the associated p-value $p_*^{j}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:smoothed_p}
p_*^{j}= \frac{|\{z_i\in Z_c \mid \alpha_i > \alpha_*^{j}\}|}{|Z_c|+1}+\theta\frac{|\{z_i\in Z_c \mid \alpha_i = \alpha_*^{j}\}|+1}{|Z_c|+1},
\end{equation}
where $\theta\in\mathcal{U}[0,1]$ is a tie-breaking random variable.
\item Return the prediction region $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon} = \{\ell^j\in T \mid p_*^{j}>\epsilon\}.$
\end{enumerate}
In defining the NCF $\delta$, we should aim to obtain high $\delta$ values for wrong predictions and low $\delta$ values for correct ones. Thus, a natural choice in classification is to define $\delta(x,l^j) = 1 - f(x)_j$, where $f(x)_j$ is the likelihood predicted by $f$ for class $l_j$. Indeed, if $l^j$ is the true target for $x$ and $f$ correctly predicts $l^j$, then $f(x)_j$ is high (the highest among all classes) and $\delta(x,l^j)$ is low; the opposite holds if $f$ does not predict $l^j$.
\subsubsection{CP for Regression.}\label{sec:cp_regr}
In regression we have a continuous target space $T\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$. Thus, the regression case is relevant for us because our state estimator can be viewed as a regression model, where $T$ is the state space.
The CP algorithm for regression is similar to the classification one. In particular, the offline phase of steps 1--3, i.e., training of regression model $f$ and definition of NCF $\delta$, is the same (with obviously a different kind of $f$ and $\delta$).
The online phase changes though, because $T$ is a continuous space and thus, it is not possible to enumerate the target values and compute for each a p-value. Instead, we proceed in an equivalent manner, that is, identify the critical value $\alpha_{(\epsilon)}$ of the calibration distribution, i.e., the NCF score corresponding to a p-value of $\epsilon$. The resulting $\epsilon$-prediction region is given by $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon} = f(x_*) \pm \alpha_{(\epsilon)}$, where $\alpha_{(\epsilon)}$ is the $(1-\epsilon)$-quantile of the calibration distribution, i.e., the $\lfloor \epsilon \cdot (|Z_c|+1)\rfloor$-th largest calibration score\footnote{Such prediction intervals have the same width ($\alpha_{(\epsilon)}$) for all inputs. There are techniques like~\cite{romano2019conformalized} that allow to construct intervals with input-dependent widths, which can be equivalently applied to our problem.}.
A natural NCF in regression, and the one used in our experiments, is the norm of the difference between the real and the predicted target value, i.e., $\delta(x) = ||t - f(x)||$.
\section{Problem Statement}\label{sec:problem}
We consider hybrid systems (HS) with discrete time and deterministic dynamics and state space $S = V\times Q$, where $V\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ is the domain of the continuous variables, and $Q$ is the set of discrete modes.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dynamics}
v_{i+1} =F_{q_i}(v_i, a_i, t_i); \quad
q_{i+1} = J_{q_i}(v_i); \quad
a_i = C_{q_i}(v_i); \quad
y_i = \mu(v_i,q_i)+w_i,
\end{equation}
where $v_i = v(t_i)$, $q_i = q(t_i)$, $a_i = a(t_i)$, $y_i = y(t_i)$ and $t_i = t_0+i\cdot\Delta t$.
Given a mode $q\in Q$,
$F_q$
is the mode-dependent dynamics of the continuous component, $J_q$ is mode switches (i.e., discrete jumps),
$C_q$ is the (given) control law.
Partial and noisy observations $y_i \in Y$ are produced by the observation function $\mu$ and the additive measurement noise $w_i\sim \mathcal{W}$ (e.g., white Gaussian noise).
Predictive monitoring of such a system corresponds to deriving a function that approximates a given reachability specification $\mathsf{Reach}(U,s,H_f)$: given a state $s=(v,q)$ and a set of unsafe states $U$, establish whether the HS admit a trajectory starting from $s$ that reaches $U$ in a time $H_f$. The approximation is w.r.t.\ some given distribution of HS states, meaning that we can admit inaccurate reachability predictions if the state has zero probability.
We now illustrate the PM problem under the ideal assumption that the full HS can be accessed.
\begin{problem}[PM for HS under full observability]\label{prbl:pm}
Given an HS~\eqref{eq:dynamics} with state space $S$, a distribution $\mathcal{S}$ over $S$, a time bound $H_f$ and set of unsafe states $U \subset S$, find a function $h^*: S\rightarrow \{0,1\}$ that minimizes the probability
\[
Pr_{s\sim\mathcal{S}}\Big(
h^*(s)\ne\mathbf{1}\big(\mathsf{Reach}(U,s,H_f)\big)
\Big),
\]
where $\mathbf{1}$ is the indicator function.
A state $s \in S$ is called \emph{positive} w.r.t a predictor $h: S\rightarrow \{0,1\}$ if $h(s) = 1$.
Otherwise, $s$ is called \emph{negative}.
\end{problem}
As discussed in the next section, finding $h^*$, i.e., finding a function approximation with minimal error probability, can be solved as a supervised classification problem, provided that a reachability oracle is available for generating supervision data.
The problem above relies on the assumption that full knowledge about the HS state is available. However, in most practical applications, state information is partial and noisy.
Under PO, we only have access to a sequence of past observations $\mathbf{y}_t = (y_{t-H_p},\dots,y_t)$ which are generated as per~\eqref{eq:dynamics}, that is, by applying the observation function $\mu$ and measurement noise to the \textit{unknown} state sequence $s_{t-H_p},\dots,s_t$.
In the following, we consider the distribution $\mathcal{Y}$ over $Y^{H_p}$ of the observations sequences $\mathbf{y}_t = (y_{t-H_p},\dots,y_t)$ induced by state $s_{t-H_p}\sim\mathcal{S}$, HS dynamics~\eqref{eq:dynamics}, and iid noise $\mathbf{w}_t = (w_{t-H_p},\dots,w_t) \sim \mathcal{W}^{H_p}$.
\begin{problem}[PM for HS under noise and partial observability]\label{prbl:pm_po}
Given the HS and reachability specification of Problem~\ref{prbl:pm},
find a function $g^*: Y^{H_p} \rightarrow \{0,1\}$ that minimizes
\[{Pr}_{\mathbf{y}_t \sim \mathcal{Y}}
\Big(
g^*\big(\mathbf{y}_t\big)\ne\mathbf{1}\big( \mathsf{Reach}(U,s_t,H_f)\big)
\Big).
\]
\end{problem}
In other words, $g^*$ should predict reachability values given in input only a sequence of past observations, instead of the true HS state.
In particular, we require a sequence of observations for the sake of identifiability. Indeed, for general non linear systems, a single observation does not contain enough information to infer the HS state\footnote{Feasibility of state reconstruction is affected by the time lag and the sequence length. Our focus is to derive the best predictions for fixed lag and sequence length, not to fine-tune these to improve identifiability.}.
The predictor $g$ is an approximate solution and, as such, it can commit safety-critical prediction errors. Building on~\cite{bortolussi2019neural}, we endow the predictive monitor with an
error detection criterion $R$. This criterion should be able to \textit{preemptively} identify -- and hence, reject -- sequences of observations $\mathbf{y}$ where $g$'s prediction is likely to be erroneous (in which case $R$ evaluates to $1$, $0$ otherwise). $R$ should also be optimal in that it has minimal probability of detection errors. The rationale behind $R$ is that uncertain predictions are more likely to lead to prediction errors. Hence, rather than operating directly over observations $\mathbf{y}$, the detector $R$ receives in input a measure of predictive uncertainty of $g$ about $\mathbf{y}$.
\begin{problem}[Uncertainty-based error detection under noise and partial observability]\label{prbl:rejection}
Given an approximate reachability predictor $g$ for the HS and reachability specification of Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po}, and a measure of predictive uncertainty $u_g: Y^{H_p}\rightarrow D$ over some uncertainty domain $D$, find an optimal error detection rule, $R^*_{g}:D\rightarrow \{0,1\}$, that minimizes the probability
$$
Pr_{\mathbf{y_t}\sim \mathcal{Y}} \ \mathbf{1}\Big(g(\mathbf{y_t}) \neq \mathbf{1}(\mathsf{Reach}(U,s_t,H_f)) \Big) \neq R^*_{g}(u_g(\mathbf{y_t})).
$$
\end{problem}
In the above problem, we consider all kinds of prediction errors, but the definition and approach could be easily adapted to focus on the detection of only e.g., false negatives (the most problematic errors from a safety-critical viewpoint).
The general goal of Problems \ref{prbl:pm_po} and \ref{prbl:rejection} is to minimize the risk of making mistakes in predicting reachability and predicting predictions errors, respectively. We are also interested in establishing probabilistic guarantees on the expected error rate, in the form of predictions regions guaranteed to include the true reachability value with arbitrary probability.
\begin{problem}[Probabilistic guarantees]\label{prbl:stat_guar}
Given the HS and reachability specification of Problem~\ref{prbl:pm_po},
find a function $\Gamma^{\epsilon}: Y^{H_p}\rightarrow 2^{\{0,1\}}$, mapping a sequence of past observations $\mathbf{y}$ into a prediction region for the corresponding reachability value, i.e., a region that satisfies, for any error probability level $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, the \textit{validity} property below
\[
Pr_{\mathbf{y_t}\sim \mathcal{Y}}
\Big(
\mathbf{1}\big(\mathsf{Reach}(U,s_t,H_f)\big)\in \Gamma^{\epsilon}\big(\mathbf{y}_t\big)
\Big)\ge 1-\epsilon.
\]
\end{problem}
Among the maps that satisfy validity, we seek the most \emph{efficient} one, meaning the one with the smallest, i.e. less conservative, prediction regions.
\section{Related work}
Our approach extends and generalize neural predictive monitoring~\cite{bortolussi2019neural,bortolussineural} to work under partial observability. To our knowledge, the only existing work to focus on PM and PO is~\cite{chou2020predictive}, which combines Bayesian estimation with pre-computed reach sets to reduce the runtime overhead. While their reachability bounds are certified, no correctness guarantees can be established for the estimation step.
Our work instead provides probabilistic guarantees as well as techniques for preemptive error detection. A related but substantially different problem is to verify signals with observation gaps using state estimation to fill the gaps~\cite{stoller2011runtime,kalajdzic2013runtime}.
\review{In~\cite{pinisetty2017predictive} a model-based approach to predictive runtime verification is presented. However, PO and computational efficiency are not taken into account. A problem very similar to ours is addressed in~\cite{junges2021runtime}, but for a different class of systems (MDPs).
}
Learning-based approaches for reachability prediction of hybrid and stochastic systems include~\cite{bortolussi2016smoothed,phan2018neural,djeridane2006neural,royo2018classification,yel2020assured,granig2020weakness}. Of these,~\cite{yel2020assured} develop, akin to our work, error detection techniques, but using neural network verification methods~\cite{ivanov2019verisig}. Such verification methods, however, do not scale well on large models and support only specific classes of neural networks. On the opposite, our uncertainty-based error detection can be applied to any ML-based predictive monitor.
Learning-based PM approaches for temporal logic properties~\cite{qin2019predictive,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2011-00384} typically learn a time-series model from past observations and then use such model to infer property satisfaction. In particular,~\cite{qin2019predictive} provide (like we do) guaranteed prediction intervals, but (unlike our method) they are limited to ARMA/ARIMA models. Ma et al~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2011-00384} use uncertainty quantification with Bayesian RNNs to provide confidence guarantees. However, these models are, by nature, not well-calibrated (i.e., the model uncertainty does not reflect the observed one~\cite{kuleshov2018accurate}), making the resulting guarantees not theoretically valid\footnote{The authors develop a solution for Bayesian RNNs calibration, but such solution in turn is not guaranteed to produce well-calibrated models.}.
PM is at the core of the Simplex architecture~\cite{sha2001using,johnson2016real} and recent extensions thereof~\cite{phan2020neural,mehmood2020distributed}, where the PM component determines when to switch to the fail-safe controller to prevent imminent safety violations. In this context, our approach can be used to guarantee arbitrarily small probability of wrongly failing to switch.
\section{Uncertainty-based Error Detection Rule}
\subsection{CP-based quantification of predictive uncertainty}
We illustrate how to complement reachability predictions with uncertainty-based error detection rules, which leverage measures of predictive uncertainty to preemptively identify the occurrence of prediction errors.
Detecting errors efficiently requires a fine balance between the number of errors accurately prevented and the overall number of discarded predictions.
We use two uncertainty measures, \emph{confidence} and \emph{credibility}, that are extracted from the CP algorithm for classification. The method discussed below was first introduced for NPM~\cite{bortolussi2019neural}, but here this is extended to the PO case
\subsubsection{Confidence and credibility.}\label{sec:conf_cred}
Let us start by observing that, for significance levels $\epsilon_1\ge\epsilon_2$, the corresponding prediction regions are such that $\Gamma^{\epsilon_1}\subseteq \Gamma^{\epsilon_2}$.
It follows that, given an input $x_*$, if $\epsilon$ is lower than all its p-values, i.e. $\epsilon < \min_{j=1,\ldots,c} \ p_*^{j}$, then the region $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}$ contains all the labels. As $\epsilon$ increases, fewer and fewer classes will have a p-value higher than $\epsilon$. That is, the region shrinks as $\epsilon$ increases. In particular, $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}$ is empty when $\epsilon \geq \max_{j=1,\ldots,c} \ p_*^{j}$.
The \textit{confidence} of a point $x_*\in X$, $1-\gamma_*$, measures how likely is our prediction for $x_*$ compared to all other possible classifications (according to the calibration set). It is computed as one minus the smallest value of $\epsilon$ for which the conformal region is a single label, i.e. the second largest p-value $\gamma_*$:
\[1-\gamma_* = \sup \{1-\epsilon : |\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}| = 1\}.\]
The \textit{credibility}, $c_*$, indicates how suitable the training data are to classify that specific example. In practice, it is the smallest $\epsilon$ for which the prediction region is empty, i.e. the highest p-value according to the calibration set, which corresponds to the p-value of the predicted class:
\[c_* = \inf \{\epsilon : |\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}|= 0\}.\]
Note that if $\gamma_*\le \epsilon$, then the corresponding prediction region $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}$ contains at most one class. If both $\gamma_*\le \epsilon$ and $c_* > \epsilon$ hold, then the prediction region contains \textit{exactly} one class, denoted as $\hat{\ell}_*$, i.e., the one predicted by $f$. In other words, the interval $[\gamma_*, c_*)$ contains all the $\epsilon$ values for which we are sure that $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}=\{\hat{\ell}_*\}$.
It follows that the higher $1-\gamma_*$ and $c_*$ are, the more reliable the prediction $\hat{\ell}_*$ is, because we have an expanded range $[\gamma_*, c_*)$ of significance values by which $\hat{\ell}_*$ is valid.
Indeed, in the extreme scenario where $c_*=1$ and $\gamma_*=0$, then $\Gamma_*^{\epsilon}=\{\hat{\ell}_*\}$ for any value of $\epsilon$. This is why, as we will soon explain, our uncertainty-based rejection criterion relies on excluding points with low values of $1-\gamma_*$ and $c_*$.
In binary classification problems, each point $x_*$ has only two p-values, one for each class, which coincide with $c_*$ (p-value of the predicted class) and $\gamma_*$ (p-value of the other class).
Given a reachability predictor $g$, the uncertainty function $u_g$ can be defined as the function mapping a sequence of observations $\mathbf{y}^*$ into the confidence $\gamma^*$ and the credibility $c^*$ of $g(\mathbf{y}^*)$, thus $u_g(\mathbf{y}^*) = (\gamma^*, c^*)$.
In order to learn a good decision rule to identify trustworthy predictions,
we solve another binary classification problem on the uncertainty values.
In particular, we use a cross-validation strategy to compute values of confidence and credibility over the entire calibration set, as it is not used to train the classifier, and label each point as $0$ if it is correctly classified by the predictor and as $1$ if it is misclassified. We then train a Support Vector Classifier (SVC) that automatically learns to distinguish points that are misclassified from points that are correctly classified based on the values of confidence and credibility. \review{In particular, we choose a simple linear classifier as it turns out to perform satisfactorily well, especially on strongly unbalanced datasets.
Nevertheless, other kinds of classifiers can be applied as well.}
To summarize, given a predictor $g$ and a new sequence of observations $\mathbf{y}^*$, we obtain a prediction about its safety, $g(\mathbf{y}^*) = \hat{l}^*$, and a quantification of its uncertainty, $u^* = u_g(\mathbf{y}^*) = (\gamma^*,c^*)$. If we feed $u^*$ to the rejection rule $R_g$ we obtain a prediction about whether or not the prediction of $g$ about $\mathbf{y}^*$ can be trusted.
\subsection{Active Learning (AL) }
NPM depends on two related learning problems: the reachabiliy predictor $g$ and the rejection rule $R_g$.
We leverage the \textit{uncertainty-aware active learning} solution presented in~\cite{bortolussineural}, where the re-training points are derived by first sampling a large pool of unlabeled data, and then considering only those points where the current predictor $g$ is still uncertain, i.e. those points which are rejected by our rejection rule $R_g$.
A fraction of the labeled samples is added to the training set, whereas the remaining part is added to the calibration set, keeping the training/calibration ratio constant. As a matter of fact, a principled criterion to select the most informative samples would benefit both the accuracy and the efficiency of the method, as the size of the calibration set affects the runtime efficiency of the error detection rule.
The addition of such actively selected points results in a shift of the data generating distribution, that does not match anymore the distribution of the test samples. This implies that the theoretical guarantees of CP are lost. However, as we will show in the experiments, AL typically results in an empirical increase of the coverage, i.e., in even stronger probabilistic guarantees. The reason is that AL is designed to improve on poor predictions, which, as such, have prediction regions more likely to miss the true value. Improving such poor predictions thus directly cause an increased coverage (assuming that the classifier remains accurate enough on the inputs prior to AL).
|
\section{\label{sec:INTRO}Introduction}
Functionality in electronic and optoelectronic devices is based on the control of the flow of charge carriers under out-of-equilibrium conditions. At the microscopic level, charge transport and device operation rely upon generating non-equilibrium electron distributions controlled by external fields to achieve the desired electronic response. The propagation of electrons in a crystal and the evolution of their energy distributions are governed by the details of the electronic structure as well as the efficiency of elastic and inelastic scattering processes.
Time-resolved ARPES (trARPES) addresses this problem by observing the spectral function of a material after excitation via a femtosecond optical pulse \cite{Smallwood2016a}. The momentum-resolved distribution of excited states combined with the dynamical information on state lifetimes provides a powerful view into excited solids \cite{dongmeasurement}, extending the scope of ARPES and allowing to observe out-of-equilibrium electronic properties which can be used to extract the electronic coupling with phonons and other degrees of freedom \cite{umberto2020,Damascelli2019}. Ultimately, understanding matter out-of-equilibrium is mandatory for achieving optical control in complex materials \cite{ahn_designing_2021}.
TrARPES can resolve states unoccupied at equilibrium, and has been used to reveal the unoccupied band structure of topological materials \cite{sobota_direct_2013}, to measure optically-dressed states \cite{wang_observation_2013}, to observe spin-valley polarizations in the conduction band of transition metal dichalcogenide semiconductors \cite{Bertoni2016} and has enabled the direct observation of excitons \cite{madeo_directly_2020,man_experimental_2021,dongmeasurement}.
An important open question is how band properties extracted from the trARPES spectral function in the excited state compare with conventional steady-state experiments, e.g.~optical spectroscopy or ARPES. A common expectation is that a comparison is possible in the weak excitation limit \cite{buss_setup_2019} where trARPES experiment become very challenging, particularly when accessing the full Brillouin zone (BZ) of the investigated material. This is beyond the reach of most trARPES experiments, which are performed at ultraviolet (UV) photon energies. Extending these experiments to the extreme-ultraviolet (XUV) photon energy range and correspondingly to high photoelectron momenta covering the whole BZ, while retaining a comparable signal-to-noise ratio and weak excitation densities have been challenging until the recent development of suitable high-repetition-rate XUV sources \cite{puppin_time-_2019,buss_setup_2019,sie_time-resolved_2019,cucini_coherent_2020,liu_extreme_2020}.
In this work, we employ a state-of-the-art experimental setup \cite{puppin_time-_2019} to simultaneously determine the energy of conduction states (unoccupied at equilibrium) and valence states. This allows us to address the band gap, one of the fundamental opto-electronic properties, by mapping in reciprocal space both valence and conduction bands of \wsefull, a two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) semiconductor widely studied for excitonic and spin-valleytronic applications \cite{ciarrocchi_polarization_2019,unuchek_valley-polarized_2019,wang_electronics_2012}.
The conduction band population is probed with a 21.7 eV XUV pulse following photoexcitation by a 3.1 eV pulse, with a temporal resolution better than 100 fs. Excited-state ARPES measurements are performed before energy relaxation to the conduction band minimum and reveal the energy versus momentum dispersion of valence and conduction states in a single experiment.
We then study the excited-state band gap and its renormalization due to many-body effects and demonstrate that in the low-excitation limit the trARPES gap agrees with the band gap measured by other spectroscopies and predicted by theory. This validates excited-state band structure mapping as a generally applicable method to measure, with momentum resolution, the conduction states of materials.
To better understand the difference and similarities between ARPES and trARPES, we shortly review the two experimental approaches. In an ARPES experiment, a photon with energy $h\nu$ excites a single-crystalline sample, and the kinetic energy $E$ of photoelectrons is measured along a wavevector direction $\textbf{k}$. If photoionization is treated as a sudden process, the photoemission intensity can be approximated as \cite{Damascelli2003}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SpF}
I(\textbf{k},E) = I_0(\textbf{k},E) A^{-}(\textbf{k},E) f_{\mu,T}(E).
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{eq:SpF}, which for simplicity neglects the experimentally finite angular and energy resolution, as well as charge transport at the surface, links the ARPES spectrum $I(\textbf{k},E)$ to the underlying electronic structure via three factors. The one-electron-removal spectral function, $A^{-}(\textbf{k},E)$, contains the information about the quasi-particle band structure and many-body interactions. The spectral weight is modulated by a matrix element term $I_0(\textbf{k},E)$, which depends on initial and final state symmetry and wave vectors, as well as photon energy ($h \nu$) and polarization, and the experimental geometry \cite{Moser2016,beaulieu_revealing_2020}. Thirdly, the Fermi-Dirac distribution $ f_{\mu,T}(E) $ imposes that only states populated at the temperature T can contribute to the measured spectrum, setting a limit to the highest accessible energy to few $ k_B T $ above the chemical potential $\mu$. The matrix element term is vanishing unless momentum conservation parallel to the sample's surface is fulfilled by the escaping photoelectron, allowing to link the measured photoelectron angular distribution $I(\textbf{k},E)$ to the quasi-particle bands in reciprocal space, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} a). Parallel momentum ($\textbf{k}_{\parallel}$) conservation, together with energy conservation, imposes that typically only energetic photons in the XUV range can access the whole BZ \cite{hufner2003photoelectron}. As an example, photons with an energy of $\approx 20$ eV are necessary to measure the first BZ boundary of \wse, as indicated by the violet dashed line in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} a). In our experiment photoelectron spectra are collected with a hemispherical energy analyser (HEA) which measures kinetic energy ($E_K$) and angle of emission along the entrance slit (Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} b), this corresponds to a line-cut throughout the function $I(\textbf{k},E)$ (full green lines in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} a). Band mapping is achieved by angular scanning of the sample (green arrows in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} a) and b) across the analyser slit. The multidimensional function $I(\textbf{k},E)$ is constructed from different images and data can be displayed as constant energy cuts or as energy versus momentum plots, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} a) where a horizontal constant energy cut close to the valence band maximum and a vertical energy versus momentum dispersion across the BZ are plotted. It is worth noting the alternative approach of momentum microscopy, in which the whole accessible photoemission space is collected at the same time \cite{kotsugi_microspectroscopic_2003}. A detailed comparison between the two methods reveals that an HEA ensures higher counting statistics when acquiring data along a specific direction \cite{maklar_quantitative_2020}, whereas the fixed geometry provided by momentum microscopy is suitable for the study of the symmetry-dependent matrix element $I_0(\textbf{k},E)$ \cite{beaulieu_revealing_2020}.
A time-resolved ARPES experiment accesses an excited state of the material by performing an ARPES experiment at a well-defined temporal delay t following a femtosecond optical pump pulse (\ref{fig:figure1} b). The trARPES spectrum $\tilde{I}(\textbf{k},E,t)$ thereby measures the (quasi)-electron-removal spectrum as a function of this time delay:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SpF_TR}
\tilde{I}(\textbf{k},E,t) = \tilde{I_0}(\textbf{k},E,t) \tilde{A}^{-}(\textbf{k},E,t) \tilde{f}(\textbf{k},E,t) .
\end{equation}
Here eq. \ref{eq:SpF} is modified to include the explicit time dependence of each term. The optical excitation produces not only an out-of-equilibrium electronic distribution $\tilde{f}$, but also perturbs the many-body interactions in the spectral term $\tilde{A}^{-}$. The matrix element term $\tilde{I_0}$ can become a time-dependent quantity if the symmetry of the initial or final states is modified \cite{boschini_role_2020}. We follow the convention that for $t>0$ the pump excitation occurs before photoemission: recovery of equilibrium requires that $\tilde{I}(\textbf{k},E,t) \xrightarrow{t \rightarrow +\infty} I(\textbf{k},E)$.
As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} b, trARPES provide access to states unoccupied at equilibrium. This can be understood as a two-step process, where, in a first step the femtosecond pump pulse creates an optical polarization in allowed momentum and energy regions, corresponding to vertical optical transitions in the material ($\Delta \mathbf{k}=0$) \cite{koch_semiconductor_2006}. In a second step, microscopic scattering events within a few hundred femtoseconds redistribute electronic population to multiple states across the conduction band (CB) (Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} a).
Electrons relax their excess energy via multiple electron-phonon scattering events towards the band edges and accumulate at the CB minima on time scales typically shorter than a few picoseconds. By measuring the photoelectron energy and angular distribution before significant energy relaxation to the lattice has occurred, the information encoded in $\tilde{A}^{-}$ can be revealed in a range $E<\mu + h \nu_p$, where $h \nu_p$ is the pump photon energy.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=1.00\columnwidth]{FIGURES/figure1_v5.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:figure1} a) Band structure mapping in reciprocal space by angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy (ARPES). The reciprocal space region measured by the hemispherical energy analyser (HEA) for two sample tilt angles is indicated by a green line, the maximum parallel momentum which can be accessed by 20 eV photons is indicated by a violet dashed line. b) trARPES experiments on \wsefull: an optical pump pulse at an energy of 3.1 eV excites the system. At a delay t, an XUV probe pulse at an energy of 21.7 eV generates photoelectrons, which are measured as a function of the emission angle $\theta$ with a HEA. The sample angle is scanned across the analyser slit to collect ARPES maps. c) Excited-state band structure mapping d) trARPES data collected in the conduction band of \wse\ for pump-probe delays of -50 fs, 100 fs and 1 ps. Inset: the surface Brillouin zone of \wse. e) Photoelectron intensity distribution as a function of parallel momentum for three energies at a pump-probe delay of 100 fs; VB and CB energy distribution curves have been independently intensity normalized for better visualization. The experimental data is collected in a region delimited by the dashed line. Outside this region, the results of \GW\ calculations are displayed, the theoretical bands dispersion along the $k_z$ direction was integrated; the conduction bands was rigidly offset by a \textit{scissor operator} to match the experimental energy.}
\end{figure}
Excited-state band mapping of unoccupied states is particularly demanding and strongly benefits from high repetition rate ($>$ 100 kHz) XUV sources. First, a sufficiently short XUV pulse is fundamental for accessing the out-of-equilibrium state before its decay throughout the BZ. In addition, space charge effects, which are inherent in ARPES with short XUV pulses, are mitigated in high repetition rate experiments \cite{hellmann_vacuum_2009}. Furthermore, the higher the pump excitation energy density, the stronger many-body interactions modify the function $\tilde{I}(\textbf{k},E,t)$ relative to the equilibrium case. trARPES experiments at high-repetition rates benefit from higher counting statistics and hence data can be acquired at weaker perturbation strength.
To meet the simultaneous requirements of an ultrashort XUV source with a high repetition rate, in this work we generate probe pulses by high-harmonic generation with an optical parametric chirped pulse amplifier operating at 500 kHz \cite{Puppin2015}. This results in XUV pulses at an energy of 21.7~eV and with characteristic time-bandwidth product of approximately 20~fs$\times$110~meV \cite{puppin_time-_2019}, which are temporally short enough to access the excited states before significant carrier energy relaxation has occurred and, at the same time, have an energy bandwidth sufficiently narrow to resolve the excited-state energy features. trARPES experiments were performed on single-crystalline samples of bulk \wse, cleaved in ultra-high vacuum conditions. The material was excited by a pump pulse with a photon energy of 3.1~eV and at an excitation energy density of 40~\flu.
To illustrate the ability of trARPES to visualize states which are unoccupied at equilibrium, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1} d) energy versus momentum data collected in an energy window in the conduction band (CB) along the high symmetry direction \GK. Three selected time delays (-50~fs, 100~fs and 1~ps) are plotted side by side. The surface BZ of \wse, with the high symmetry points marked, is shown as an inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1} d). During the rising edge of the pump pulse (-50~fs), the CB signal is localized at -0.35~\inva\ from the BZ center (\GP). This suggests that in this region population is transferred via an optical transition at the photon energy of 3.1~eV, rather than indirectly by scattering. The intensity of this feature as a function of time was used as a measure of the pump-probe temporal cross-correlation and the temporal maximum was used to define the time zero. The full-width at half maximum of the cross-correlation is 95~fs, dominated by the pump pulse duration \cite{note:SI}. Throughout this work, the zero energy was set for convenience to the valence band energy at the \KP, the corner of the hexagonal BZ.
At a time delay of 100~fs, population can be observed throughout the conduction states, up to at an energy $\approx$ 2.5~eV (Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} d), central panel). This delay was selected to perform the excited-state band structure mapping. Relaxation towards the $\Sigma$ conduction band valley minimum is indeed already apparent at a delay of 1 ps (Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} d), right panel).
An energy window from -1.5 to 3.5~eV was selected to observe simultaneously valence and conduction bands around the band gap, which is a unique feature of trARPES. Three exemplary constant energy cuts of the data at $t=100$ fs are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} e), which display in false colours the photoelectron intensity distribution as a function of parallel momentum for energies of -0.6 eV in the valence band (VB), 1.6 eV and 2 eV in the conduction band (CB). The measurement region is indicated by a dashed line and comprises the whole first BZ of \wse. Two different false color scales are used for conduction and valence states; energy distribution curves were normalized independently in the CB and VB for a clearer display of the constant energy maps \cite{note:SI}.
To rationalize the experimental data we perform \textit{ab initio} density functional theory (DFT) calculations of the electronic band structure using the generalised gradient approximation with the PBE functional, as implemented in the QUANTUM ESPRESSO package \cite{Giannozzi2009}. To improve the agreement with experimental data, we use many-body perturbation theory at the one-shot \GW\ level \cite{hedin_new_1965,GWmethod} on top of DFT results \cite{note:SI}. This computes quasiparticle energies, correcting to lowest order the unscreened electronic Green's function $G_0$ by the Coulomb interaction $W_0$. The quasi-particle energy dispersion is calculated as a function of the three-dimensional wave-vector ($k_x$,$k_y$,$k_z$). For a direct comparison with data in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} d), the theoretical bands are integrated along the reciprocal space direction orthogonal to the sample surface ($k_z$). This choice is justified by the strong surface sensitivity of XUV-based photoemission due to the short mean-free-path of photoelectrons. Electron momentum conservation is relaxed for the $k_z$ component, adding an additional source of energy broadening for bands with dispersion out of the surface plane. There is strong evidence that in \wse\ the photoemission probing depth at 21.7 eV is mostly limited to the uppermost layer ($\approx$ 0.5 nm), in fact, inversion-symmetric \wse\ surprisingly exhibits strong spin-polarized bands \cite{Riley2014c} and valley polarization in circularly-pumped tr-ARPES \cite{Bertoni2016}. The importance of final state effects in the material is evidenced by one-step photoemission calculations \cite{beaulieu_revealing_2020}, and will be discussed further below.
The experimental data contains the excited-state CB and VB energy-momentum dispersion for arbitrary reciprocal space directions, which can be compared with our \textit{ab initio} calculations and with other experiments. For this purpose, energy versus momentum photoelectron distributions are plotted along three high-symmetry directions \bGSK, \bKM, \bMG\ in Fig. \ref{fig:figure3} and compared with the results of the calculations. The theoretical $k_z$ dispersion is indicated by a shading, highlighting two-dimensional (low $k_z$ dispersion) and three-dimensional states. The experimental photoelectron intensity is plotted without additional normalization, and intensity modulations are attributable to the momentum dependent matrix element. The average intensity of the conduction band signal is a factor 10$^{-3}$ that of the valence states, and we use two distinct false color scales for conduction and valence states, respectively.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{FIGURES/Figure3_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:figure3} Measured ARPES intensity as a function of energy and parallel momentum showing the VB and CB along the \bGSK, \bKM, \bMG\ directions, indicated in the upper panel. Conduction band states are displayed by a different color scale. Blue and red curves indicate the quasiparticle energies calculated with the \GW\ method for the CB and VB, respectively. The theoretical band structure energy zero was set to the VB position at the \KP, the CBs (blue) were rigidly shifted by a -0.16 eV \textit{scissor operator} to match the \SV\ center energy. The momentum dispersion along the $k_z$ direction is indicated by the shaded area.}
\end{figure}
The zero energy reference is set to the highest energy VB at the $\overline{K}$ point also for the theoretical data, to minimize any alignment uncertainty due to $k_z$ dispersion. The theoretical conduction states were rigidly shifted by -160 meV to match the measured CB energy at the \KP, both in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1} d) and in Fig. \ref{fig:figure3}.
Theory predicts two valence and two conduction bands in the observed energy window, as all calculated bands are spin-degenerate, consistent with the inversion-symmetric bulk crystal structure of \wsefull. The spin-orbit splitting of the VB band at the \KP\ is $\approx$ 500 meV, in good agreement with past literature \cite{Finteis1997a,Riley2015a,Tanabe2016}. Despite being a layered quasi-2D material, \wse\ displays some inherently three-dimensional features. In particular, the $\Sigma$ valley, as well as the valence band at the $\overline{\Gamma}$ point, have considerable $k_z$ dispersion. In contrast, the out-of-plane band dispersion is low in the vicinity of the $\overline{K}$ point, as confirmed by energetically-narrower features in ARPES. Our \GW\ calculations predict an orthogonal momentum dispersion on the order of 40 meV for the VB and 30 meV for the CB at the $\overline{K}$ point. Calculations place the indirect band gap between the maximum of the VB at the $\overline{\Gamma}$ point and the $\Sigma$ valley. In our data the conduction band minimum (CBM) is unambiguously located at the $\overline{\Sigma}$ point, however the apparent valence band maximum (VBM) is observed at the $\overline{K}$ point, and a broad continuum of states is observed at the \GP. It is widely accepted that the absolute VB maximum is located at the $\overline{\Gamma}$ point and that matrix element effects cancel the contribution of the upper VB at $\overline{\Gamma}$ \cite{Finteis1997a,Riley2014c}. After the rigid offset of -160 meV mentioned above, the \GW\ calculations are in qualitative agreement with the excited-state band structure and reproduce the main features of the experimental conduction band.
For a quantitative comparison, the quasi-particle energy must be determined from the ARPES intensity. Final state effects usually complicate the retrieval of quasi-particle energies and of many-body effects in the spectral function. However, the problem is absent in a strictly two-dimensional state (dispersion only along $\textbf{k}_{\parallel}=(k_x,k_y)$) \cite{hufner_very_2007}. Both valence and conduction states at the direct optical band gap at the \KP\ are quasi-two-dimensional, enabling for robust comparison of the experimental excited-state band gap with theory and other experimental techniques.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{FIGURES/Figure4_V4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:figure4} a) Energy distribution curve at the K point, together with the fit used to determine the excited-state band gap $E_{g,exc}$. The conduction band signal intensity, displayed on the right-hand axis, was scaled by a factor $10^3$ for clarity. b) Fluence dependence of the excited-state band gap. c) Schematic comparison between fundamental, optical, and excited-state band gaps, VL indicates the vacuum level. }
\end{figure}
The CB and VB energies are extracted from the experimental data by a fit of the energy distribution curve (EDC) at the \KP, for $t=100$ fs. The procedure is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:figure4} a), the photoelectron spectrum of the VB is well fitted by two Gaussian peaks, and by a Shirley background. The two, nearly-degenerate conduction bands predicted by theory are not resolved within the experimental line width, and a single Gaussian peak describes well the CB signal. Due to its higher intensity, the higher energy tail of the VB spectrum appears as a background on the CB, and is modeled by an exponential decay. We define the experimental band gap as the distance between the uppermost VB peak position (E=0 by definition) to the center of the CB peak, as highlighted by the red line in Fig. \ref{fig:figure4} a) and we measure a band gap of 1.76$\pm$0.01 eV. We note that this procedure, valid for quasi-2D bands, differs from the method adopted for three-dimensional semiconductors, where the band edge is found by linear extrapolation of the photoelectron spectral edge \cite{katnani_microscopic_1983}.
The excited-state quasi-particle energy, an out-of-equilibrium quantity, can change as a function of the excitation energy density \cite{roth_photocarrier-induced_2019}. To investigate the impact on the band gap, we follow its evolution for increasing incident optical energy density up to 200 \flu\ and observe a decrease of the band gap (Fig. \ref{fig:figure4} b). The maximum effect is $\approx$ 50 meV, with a linear slope of $1.8\times10^{-1}$ meV/($\mu$J/cm$^2$); the extrapolated limit at zero excitation density is 1.76$\pm$0.03 eV.
It is interesting to compare this experimental band gap, which we call the \textit{excited-state band gap} $E_{g,exc}$, with ab-initio calculations and other experimental techniques. Several experiments have been designed to resolve the electronic structure above the chemical potential \cite{fuggle1992unoccupied}. Inverse photoemission \cite{himpsel_inverse_1990}, scanning tunneling spectroscopy \cite{STSref}, and very low-energy electron diffraction \cite{strocov_very_2000} access unoccupied conduction states by adding an electron to the system and probing the complementary one-electron-addition spectral function $A^{+}(\textbf{k},E)$ \cite{seitz_effects_1970}. Angle-resolved inverse photoemission (ARIPES), in particular, has momentum resolution \cite{fuggle1992unoccupied}. Unfortunately, due to the small cross-section of the process and, unlike ARPES, due to the lack of parallel detectors with multiple angular and energy channels, ARIPES has not evolved to a similarly widespread technique \cite{himpsel_inverse_1990}. Another approach can used in photoemission to observe otherwise unoccupied states, namely sample doping by alkali metal atoms \cite{Riley2015a,Kim2016_corrected}. A limitation of alkali doping is the possibility of chemical modification to the band structure \cite{Riley2015a}. Additionally, resonant inelastic X-ray scattering techniques have also been used to map the dispersion of unoccupied states \cite{monney_mapping_2020,monney_mapping_2012}. The direct gap at the \KP\ for \wse\ from various methods is displayed in table \ref{table:1}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c| c | c| c|}
\hline
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Band gap (eV)} & Reference\\ [0.5ex]
\hline
ARPES+ARIPES & 1.7, 1.4 & \cite{Finteis1997a},\cite{Traving1997} \\
ARPES+Doping & 1.62 &\cite{Kim2016_corrected} \\
trARPES & \textbf{1.76} & This work \\
Optics, A-exciton & 1.697$^{*}$, 1.60, 1.626 & \cite{Beal1976e}, \cite{zeng_optical_2013}, \cite{Arora2015} \\
Optics, Interband & 1.752$^{*}$, 1.686 & \cite{Beal1976e}, \cite{Arora2015} \\ [1ex] EELS, A-exciton & 1.75 & \cite{Schuster2016} \\ [1ex]
\hline\hline
DFT & 1.25, 1.17-1.55 & This work, \cite{jain_materials_2013,Roldan2014,kumar_electronic_2012,huang_theoretical_2014,curtarolo_aflowliborg_2012} \\
$G_0W_0$ & \textbf{1.90}, 1.75, 2.08$^{\ddag}$ & This work, \cite{Jiang2012}, \cite{he2014a}\\
BSE, A-exciton & 1.86$^{\ddag}$ & \cite{he2014a} \\
BSE, Interband & 2.02$^{\ddag}$ & \cite{he2014a} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison between experimental (upper part) and theoretical band gap of \wse\ (lower part) at the \KP\ (direct band gap) . $^{*}$Measured at 77 K, at room temperature the gap is reduced by $\approx$60 meV \cite{Arora2015} . $^{\ddag}$ bilayer \wse.}
\label{table:1}
\end{table}
The fundamental or quasiparticle band gap $E_{g,f}$ is usually defined as the difference between the electron affinity, i.e.~the energy gained by adding a single electron to an N electron system, and the ionization energy, needed to remove an electron leaving N-1 electrons behind \cite{jbaerends_kohnsham_2013}. The quasiparticle gap should not be confused with the so-called optical band gap, which will be discussed later on. The so-called transport band gap, determined by electrical transport measurements, coincides with the fundamental band gap, however, in the case of semiconductors such as bulk \wse, possessing an indirect band gap and multiple conduction band valleys, momentum-resolved techniques provide a more complete picture. In view of comparison with optical spectroscopy, we restrict here to the case of the direct band gap and we more loosely consider the band gap as a momentum-dependent quantity, which attains its minimum at the direct fundamental band gap.
Experimentally, the momentum-dependent quasiparticle band gap can be measured by comparing the VB measured by photoemission (N-1 electron final state) with the CB measured by inverse photoemission (N+1 electrons final state). This procedure is schematized in Fig. \ref{fig:figure4} c) and necessitates a common energy reference between the two experimental setups. In particular, the direct fundamental gap of \wse\ at the \KP\ was experimentally measured to be $E_{g,f}^{exp}=1.7\pm0.1$ eV by combining ARPES and ARIPES \cite{Finteis1997a}.
When comparing the experimental gap with theoretical results, an important question is to what extent one is allowed to compare \textit{ab initio} calculations such as DFT with energies determined by (time-resolved) photoelectron spectroscopy.
DFT computes the ground state electronic density and returns a set of self-consistent Kohn-Sham (KS) bands \cite{giustino2014materials}.
Even in an idealized case where the exact density functional is known, a direct comparison between the KS bands and the ARPES measurements is not justified \cite{perdew_physical_1983}. Nonetheless in many cases, within a constant energy offset, the KS bands are in good agreement with ARPES data of the valence band. For \wse, in particular, DFT bands reproduce reasonably well the ARPES VB energy dispersion \cite{Riley2014c,Finteis1997a,Tanabe2016,Straub1996}.
However, if $E_{g,f}$ is directly calculated from the KS bands, theory grossly underestimates the band gap. Before applying the \GW\ correction, our calculations predict a gap value of 1.25~eV, in line with other DFT results, reported in table \ref{table:1}.
This well-known \textit{band-gap problem} is intrinsic to DFT \cite{Perdew2009}, and is a reminder that KS energies are indeed not quasi-particle energies. Conversely, Hedin's GW method \cite{GWmethod,Hybertsen1986} can be used to calculate quasiparticle excitations in a solid, such as measured in ARPES (electron removal) or ARIPES (electron addition).
GW calculations correct the DFT energies by an approximate electronic self-energy, typically performed to the lowest order (\GW). We find a considerable improvement in the calculated fundamental gap and obtain a value $E_{g,f}^{GW}= 1.90$ eV, in line with previous calculations \cite{Jiang2012}.
A second commonly defined band gap is the so-called \textit{optical band gap} $E_{g,o}$, which corresponds to the lowest energy required for a vertical ($\Delta\textbf{k}=0$) electronic transition in the system (Fig. \ref{fig:figure4} c). This is a neutral excitation where both the initial and final states have N electrons, in contrast with the case of the fundamental gap, which is calculated as the energy difference between an N+1 and an N-1 electrons state. The optical band gap is experimentally measured by optical absorption spectroscopy. A remarkable feature in optical absorption spectra is the appearance of excitonic resonances at energies below the onset of electronic interband transitions. The observation of an excitonic peak is the hallmark of the electron-hole interaction, and its center energy defines the optical band gap. To predict the optical band gap one must solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation \cite{rohlfing_electron-hole_2000}. In the optical absorption spectra of bulk \wse\ the so-called A exciton is the lowest resonance at an energy of 1.68 eV, the exciton binding energy $E_x$ was determined to be 50 meV, and the inter-band transition has an energy 1.73 eV \cite{Beal1976e}. This sets the scale for the electron-hole interaction in bulk TMD semiconductors, and one expects $E_{g,o} \approx E_{g,f}-E_x$.
In the \textit{excited-state band gap} measurement (Fig. \ref{fig:figure4} d), a neutral optical excitation is followed by an ionization step at time t, leading to a N-1 electron excited final state with an additional hole in the VB, which is generated for t=0 and is followed by a relaxation dynamics for $t > 0$. The band gap is measured by comparing the kinetic energy of photoelectrons originating from the CB and the VB. Generally speaking, $E_{g,exc}(t)$ is a time-dependent quantity influenced by many-body effects, and can be renormalized by electron-electron interactions, leading to screening and excitonic effects, and by the electron-phonon coupling with the (non-thermal) phonon distribution.
Our data shows that in the low excitation limit, $E_{g,exc}$(100 fs) is in good numerical agreement with the fundamental band gap determined by other experiments. Furthermore, we observe no signatures of the A excitonic peak at the \KP, which appears in optical measurements at a lower energy of $\approx$ 1.62 eV \cite{Beal1976e,zeng_optical_2013,Arora2015}. A deviation from the single-quasiparticle picture is expected when electron and hole are bound to form excitons \cite{perfetto_first-principles_2016,rustagi_photoemission_2018,christiansen_theory_2019} and photoelectron spectra bear the signature of such interactions as a renormalized energy and momentum dispersion \cite{Weinelt2002,dongmeasurement}. The agreement with the theoretical \GW\ bands in the present case can be rationalized by the fact that the pump photon energy is well above the gap and sufficiently off-resonance to approximate the initial (t $\approx$ 0) carrier distribution as an electron-hole plasma, where exciton quasi-particles are not formed \cite{koch_semiconductor_2006}. In bulk \wse\ the formation of stable A excitons at the \KP\ is hindered by the possibility of electron (hole) scattering to the \SP\ (\GP), which are the global band energy edges. However, if instead the excitation energy is resonant with the excitonic peak observed by optics, excitonic effects can be observed \cite{dongmeasurement}.
We note that \GW\ calculations overestimate the band gap observed in our out-of-equilibrium experiment by $\approx$ 160 meV. However, the agreement with the observed band dispersion is still satisfactory upon a rigid shift of the conduction bands to lower photon energies, suggesting that a single-quasiparticle picture holds well for the excited-state band structure in first approximation. Band gap renormalization is expected to occur due to carrier screening and via electron-phonon coupling \cite{roth_photocarrier-induced_2019,shah2010ultrafast,ulstrup_ultrafast_2016}. Time-resolved diffraction studies reveal that a non-equilibrium phonon distribution rises on the time scale of a few picoseconds \cite{waldecker_momentum-resolved_2017}. At a pump-probe delay of 100 fs, where our data was collected, a significant hot phonon population has not yet developed and we conclude that electronic screening must dominate in band structure mapping experiments and we attribute to this effect the observed band gap reduction at higher excitation densities (Fig. \ref{fig:figure4} b)).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{FIGURES/Figure5_V2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:figure5} a) Conduction band center energy at the \KV, b) \GW\ energy of the K valley c) Dispersion along the directions K-$\Sigma$ (negative x-axis) and K-M (positive x-axis). The full line indicates the result of parabolic fits to the data.}
\end{figure}
Having established that the excited-state band gap well approximates the fundamental band gap in our experimental conditions, we now extract the momentum-resolved energy dispersion contained in the experimental maps for the whole 2D \KV. The \KV\ energy is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:figure5} a) and for comparison we plot the theoretical dispersion of the lowest CB in Fig. \ref{fig:figure5} b). The three-fold symmetry of the valley is evident from the data and the anisotropy of the \KV\ can be quantified by extracting the dispersion along the high-symmetry directions K-$\Sigma$ and K-M, indicated in Fig. \ref{fig:figure5} b). For this purpose, we employ the previously described fitting procedure to EDCs surrounding the \KV. The band dispersion of both conduction and valence bands was estimated by fitting a parabola in a range of 0.15 \AA$^{-1}$, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:figure5} c) for the case of the CB. We obtain a value of $m_{e}^{K\Sigma}=0.38\, m_0$ ($m_{h}^{K\Sigma}=-0.52\, m_0$ ) and $m_{e}^{KM}=0.55\, m_0$ ($m_{h}^{KM}=-0.56 \, m_0$ ) for the CB (VB) in the directions K-$\Sigma$ and K-M, respectively, where $m_0$ is the electron mass. The experimental dispersion is somewhat smaller than effective masses reported for DFT, $m_h=-0.625 m_0$ and $m_e=0.821 m_0$ \cite{yun_thickness_2012}. Calculated effective masses from DFT depend strongly on computational details and also on the computational band gap \cite{PRLPOLA}, larger theoretical masses might be therefore linked to the underestimation of the gap in the aforementioned work.
By observing hole and electron quasi-particle independently, one can calculate effective ($M=m_e+m_h$) and reduced ($\mu_r=m_e m_h/(m_e +m_h )$) exciton masses .
The exciton effective masses are $M^{K\Sigma}=0.9\, m_0$ and $M^{KM}=1.1\, m_0$, which can be compared with experimental results from electron energy loss spectroscopy, $M=0.91\, m_0$ \cite{Schuster2016} and with optical measurements under magnetic field, which report $M=0.7 m_0$ \cite{mitioglu_optical_2015}. The exciton reduced mass determined from our data is $\mu_r^{K\Sigma}=0.22\, m_0$ and $\mu_r^{KM}=0.28\, m_0$. This can be compared with optical absorption spectroscopy data, from which $\mu_r=0.21\, m_0$ was determined \cite{Beal1976e}. We stress however that, despite the reasonable numerical agreement, other techniques do not identify the hole and electron masses independently. Furthermore, band anisotropy along different symmetry directions can be readily identified and accounted for within the excited-stated band structure. This is particularly relevant for example in valleytronic applications in hetero-layers where energy-degenerate valleys appear at different momentum locations \cite{schaibley_valleytronics_2016}. The detailed effects of layer stacking on the momentum dispersion and on the optical and transport properties is as yet poorly understood and can be directly characterized by excited-state band structure mapping.
The possibility of visualizing the excited-state band structure by trARPES is demonstrated for the TMD \wse. The experiment provides simultaneous access to valence and conduction states throughout the BZ thereby completely mapping the material's band gap. The excited-state direct gap at the \KP\ agrees in the low-excitation limit with fundamental quasi-particle gap, as obtained by static experiments. Our experiment shows that the excited-state band structure agrees in the low excitation limit with the single-quasiparticle bands and we obtain experimentally conduction and valence band dispersion for the \KP\ for various high symmetry directions. Thanks to XUV light sources at high repetition rate , we anticipate that the measurement of the excited-state band structure in the whole BZ can be performed for a broad class of samples. \GW\ calculations provide a good qualitative description of the data but predict the experimental out-of-equilibrium band gap only within 160 meV. Excite-state band structure mapping can provide an experimental benchmark to quantitatively fine tune computations, e.g. to accurately predict the band gap in high-throughput computational material discovery for optoelectronic applications \cite{rasmussen_computational_2015,curtarolo_aflowliborg_2012}. Automated methods for comparison with theory, demonstrated for multi-dimensional ARPES data \cite{xian2020machine}, are applicable also to excited-state band structure data. Importantly, the method could also provide access to unoccupied states of quantum materials, to resolve topological features above the Fermi level \cite{sobota_direct_2013}, and for correlated materials, e.g. to access the spectral function of unoccupied states in strongly correlated oxides and charge density wave materials \cite{maklar2021nonequilibrium,nicholson_excited-state_2019,nicholson_beyond_2018}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was funded by the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Emmy Noether program (Grant No. RE 3977/1), and grants FOR1700 (project E5), SPP2244 (project 443366970) and from the European Research Council, Grant Numbers ERC-2015-CoG-682843. M.P. acknowledge financial support by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Grant No. CRSK-2$\_$196756. C.W.N. and C.M. acknowledge financial support by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Grant No. P00P2$\_$170597. A.R. and H.H acknowledge financial support from the European Research Council (Grant ERC-2015-AdG-694097) and the Cluster of Excellence “CUI:Advanced Imaging of Matter” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant EXC 2056 Project 390715994).
\end{acknowledgments}
\section{Experimental methods}
Commercial \wse\ single crystals where prepared by exfoliation in-situ under UHV conditions. The base pressure during the experiments was below 1$\times10^{-10}$ mbar. All the experiments were performed at room temperature, where no surface photovoltage or charging effects were observed.The light source is based on a high-harmonic generation of a high-repetition Ytterbium-based Optical parametric chirped pulse amplifier (OPCPA) \cite{Puppin2015}. The experiments were performed in an ARPES chamber equipped with a 6-axis manipulator and a hemispherical electron energy analyzer (Specs Phoibos 150), further details on the experimental setup are described in reference \cite{puppin_time-_2019}. The temporal time zero and pump probe cross correlation of 95 fs were measured by fitting the rising edge of the first observable signal in the excited-state band structure, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:SM1}. The second maximum observed after 100 fs is a result of electron population scattered from other states during the energy relaxation process.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{SM1_TRES.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:SM1} a) ARPES intensity as a function of energy and parallel momentum showing the conduction states along the $\overline{\Gamma}-\overline{\Sigma}$ direction at a time delay of -50 fs. The pump-probe temporal cross correlation is determined by integrating the signal in the rectangular box. b) Temporal trace showing the integrated intensity in the box of panel a) as function of time. Red curve, Gaussian fit to the rising edge, the FWHM is 95 fs.}
\end{figure}
\section{Data analysis}
In Fig. 1 e) of the main text, the experimental EDCs have been normalized to the same area as a function of parallel momentum in the VB. This was chosed for reducing the impact of matrix element in the display of constant energy map and for a clearer comparison with the \GW\ data. The same procedure was applied to EDCs in the CB (i.e. on the data for E$>$1 eV), but prior to the area normalization, an exponential background tail from the underlying occupied states was subtracted.
No normalization procedure was performed on the data in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
\section{Theoretical methods}
The electronic band structure of bulk \wse\ was computed using many-body perturbation theory at the one-shot \GW\ level on top of DFT results. This approach has been vastly employed in the literature for the description of the electronic properties of semiconductor materials due to its accuracy and good agreement with experimental measurements. The system was modelled using a hexagonal supercell with the experimenal lattice constants a = b = 3.28 \AA\ and c = 12.98 \AA \cite{el-mahalawy_thermal_1976}. DFT calculations were performed using the generalised gradient approximation (GGA) with the PBE functional\cite{perdew_generalized_1996}. The Brillouin zone (BZ) was sampled with a 9x9x9 k-point grid. We used a total of 1000 conduction bands and a 18 Ry energy cutoff for the computation of the inverse dielectric matrix. For the evaluation of the screened and bare Coulomb parts of the self-energy operator, we used energy cutoffs of 18 Ry and 160 Ry, respectively. Spin-orbit coupling was included directly in the DFT calculations and perturbatively at the \GW\ level, using the BerkeleyGW package \cite{deslippe_berkeleygw_2012}. All employed cutoff values, BZ sampling and number of bands were systematically and independently increased until results were converged within few tens of meV for the conduction and valence band energy difference. Finally, we performed DFT calculations using a 24x24x9 BZ sampling and interpolated linearly the 9x9x9 GW band structure into this finer k-point grid.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
When it comes to defining or prototyping a programming language one
traditionally provides an interpreter for the language in question
(the \emph{object}-language) written in another language (the
\emph{meta}-language)~\cite{reynolds,DBLP:books/daglib/0020601}. These
definitional interpreters can be placed on a spectrum from most
abstract to most explicit. At the abstract end lie the concise
meta-circular interpreters which use meta-language constructs to
interpret the same constructs in the object-language (e.g., using
anonymous functions to model functional values, using conditionals for
\textit{if} expressions, etc.).
In the middle one might place various evaluators with some constructs
interpreted by simpler language features (e.g., with environments
represented as lists or dictionaries instead of functions), but still
relying on the evaluation order of the meta-language. The explicit end
is occupied by first-order machine-like interpreters which use an
encoding of a stack for handling control-flow of the
object-language.
When it comes to modelling an implementation of a programming
language, and a functional one in particular, one traditionally
constructs an abstract machine, i.e., a first-order tail-recursive
transition system for program execution. Starting with Landin's SECD
machine~\cite{landin-secd} for \LC{}, many abstract machines have been
proposed for various evaluation strategies and with differing
assumptions on capabilities of the runtime (e.g., substitution vs
environments). Notable work includes: Krivine's
machine~\cite{krivine-machine} for call-by-name reduction, Felleisen
and Friedman's CEK machine~\cite{felleisen-cek} and Cr\'{e}gut's
machine~\cite{cregut-normal} for normalization of $\lambda$-terms in
normal order.
Manual construction of an abstract machine for a given evaluation
discipline can be challenging and it requires a proof of equivalence
w.r.t. the higher-level semantics, therefore methods for deriving the
machines from natural or reduction semantics have been
developed~\cite{hannan-big-step-to-am,ager-natural-semantics,refocusing,refocusing-auto,refocusing-generalized}.
However, one of the most fruitful and accessible abstract machine
derivation methods was developed in the realm of interpreters and
program transformations by Danvy et al. who introduced a functional
correspondence between higher-order evaluators and abstract
machines~\cite{functional-correspondence} -- the topic of the present
work.
The functional correspondence is a realization that Reynolds's
\cite{reynolds} transformation to continuation-passing
style~\footnote{The transformation used by Reynolds was later
formalized by Plotkin as call-by-value CPS
translation~\cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/Plotkin75}.} and
defunctionalization, which allow one to transform higher-order,
meta-circular, compositional definitional interpreters into
first-order, tail-recursive ones, can be seen as a general method of
actually transforming an encoding of a denotational or natural
semantics into an encoding of an equivalent abstract machine. The
technique has proven to be indispensable for deriving a
correct-by-construction abstract machine given an evaluator in a
diverse set of languages and calculi including normal and applicative
order \LC{} evaluation \cite{functional-correspondence} and
normalization~\cite{DBLP:conf/aplas/BiernackaBCD20}, call-by-need
strategy~\cite{ager-call-by-need} and \textit{Haskell}'s STG language
\cite{pirog-stg}, logic engine \cite{biernacki-logic-engine},
delimited control~\cite{biernacka-delimited-continuations},
computational effects~\cite{ager-monadic-evaluators}, object-oriented
calculi~\cite{danvy-object-oriented} and \textit{Coq}'s tactic
language~\cite{jedynak-ltac}. Despite these successes and its
mechanical nature, the functional correspondence has not yet been
transformed into a working tool which would perform the derivation
automatically.
The goal of this work is to give an algorithmic presentation of the
functional correspondence that has been implemented by the first
author as a semantics transformer. In particular, we describe the
steps required to successfully convert the human-aided derivation
method into a computer algorithm for transforming evaluators into a
representation of an abstract machine. Our approach hinges on
control-flow analysis as the basis for both selective
continuation-passing style transformation and partial
defunctionalization, and, unlike most of the works treating such
transformations~\cite{nielsen-cps,design-and-correctness-cfa}, we do
not rely on a type system. In order to obtain correct, useful and
computable analysis we employ the abstracting abstract machines
methodology (AAM) \cite{aam} which allows for deriving the analysis
from an abstract machine for the meta-language. This derivation proved
very capable in handling the non-trivial meta-language containing
records, anonymous functions and pattern matching. The resulting
analysis enables automatic transformation of user specified parts of
the interpreter as opposed to whole-program-only transformations. The
transformation, therefore, consists of: (1) transformation to
administrative normal form (ANF)~\cite{flanagan-anf} that facilitates
the subsequent steps, (2) control-flow analysis using the AAM
technique and selective (based on the analysis) CPS transformation
that makes the control flow in the evaluator explicit and idependent
from the meta-language, (3) control-flow analysis once more and
selective (again, based on the analysis) defunctionalization that
replaces selected function spaces with their first-order
representations (e.g., closures and stacks), and (4) let inlining
that cleans up after the transformation.
The algorithm has been implemented in the \emph{Haskell} programming
language giving raise to a tool --- \texttt{semt} --- performing the
transformation. The tool accepts evaluators embedded in Racket source
files. Full Racket language is available for testing the evaluators.
We tested the tool on multiple interpreters for a
diverse set of programming language calculi. It is available at:
\begin{center}
\url{https://github.com/mbuszka/semantic-transformer}
\end{center}
The rest of this article is structured as follows: In
Section~\ref{sec:idl}, we introduce the \textit{Interpreter Definition
Language} which is the meta-language accepted by the transformer and
will be used in example evaluators throughout the paper. In
Section~\ref{sec:transformer}, we present the algorithmic
characterization of the functional correspondence. In
Section~\ref{sec:case-studies}, we briefly discuss the performance of
the tool on a selection of case studies. In
Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}, we point at future avenues for
improvement and conclude. In Appendix~\ref{app:funcorr}, we illustrate
the functional correspondence with a minimal example, for the readers
unfamiliar with the CPS transformation and/or defunctionalization.
Appendix~\ref{app:nbe} contains an extended example---a transformation
of a normalization-by-evaluation function for \LC{} into the
corresponding abstract machine.
\section{Interpreters and the meta-language}
\label{sec:idl}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{lstlisting}
(def-data Term
String
{Abs String Term}
{App Term Term})
(def init (x) (error "empty environment"))
(def extend (env y v)
(fun (x) (if (eq? x y) v (env x))))
(def eval (env term)
(match term
([String x] (env x))
({Abs x body} (fun (v) (eval (extend env x v) body)))
({App fn arg} ((eval env fn) (eval env arg)))))
(def main ([Term term]) (eval init term))
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{A meta-circular interpreter for \LC{}}
\label{fig:lambda-calc-interp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{rrl}
$x, y, z, f \in \mathit{Var}$ && $r\in \mathit{StructName}$\quad$s \in \mathit{String}$ \quad $b \in \mathit{Int} \cup \mathit{Boolean} \cup \mathit{String}$\\
$\mathit{Tp} \ni \mathit{tp} $ &::=& \lstinline!String! $\mid$ \lstinline!Integer! $\mid$ \lstinline!Boolean!\\
$\mathit{Pattern} \ni p $ &::=& $x$ $\mid$ $b$ $\mid$ \lstinline!_! $\mid$ \lstinline!{$r$ $p\ldots$}! $\mid$ \lstinline![$\mathit{tp}$ $x$]!\\
$\mathit{Term} \ni t$ &::=& $x$ $\mid$ $b$
$\mid$ \lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$) $t$)!
$\mid$ \lstinline!($t$ $t\ldots$)!
$\mid$ \lstinline!{$r$ $t\ldots$}!\\
&$\mid$& \lstinline!(let $p$ $t$ $t$)!
$\mid$ \lstinline!(match $t$ ($p$ $t$)$\ldots$)!
$\mid$ \lstinline!(error $s$)!\\
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{center}
\caption{Abstract syntax of the \IDL{} terms}\label{fig:idl-abs-syntax}
\end{figure}
The \emph{Interpreter Definition Language} or \IDL{} is the
meta-language used by \semt{} -- a semantic transformer that we have
developed. It is a purely functional, higher-order, dynamically typed
language with strict evaluation order. It features
named records and pattern matching which allow for convenient
modelling of abstract syntax of the object-language as well as base
types of integers, booleans and strings. The concrete syntax is in
fully parenthesized form and the programs can be embedded in a Racket
source file using a provided library with syntax definitions.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lambda-calc-interp} a typical interpreter
definition consists of several top-level function \lstinline!def!initions which may be
mutually recursive. The \lstinline!def-data! form introduces a
datatype definition. In our case it defines a type \lstinline!Term!
for terms of \LC{}. It is a union of three types: \lstinline!String!s
representing variables of \LC{}; records with label \lstinline!Abs!
and two fields of types \lstinline!String! and \lstinline!Term!
representing abstractions; and records labeled \lstinline!App! which
contain two \lstinline!Term!s and represent applications. A datatype
definition may refer to itself, other previously defined datatypes and
records, the base types of \lstinline!String!, \lstinline!Integer! and
\lstinline!Boolean! or a placeholder type \lstinline!Any!. The \texttt{main} function
is treated as an entry point for the evaluator and must have its
arguments annotated with their type.
The \lstinline!match! expression matches an expression against a list
of patterns. Patterns may be variables (which will be bound to the
value being matched), wildcards \lstinline!_!, base type patterns,
e.g., \lstinline![String x]! or record patterns, such as
\lstinline!{Abs x body}!. The \lstinline!fun! form introduces
anonymous function, \lstinline!error "..."! stops execution and
signals the error. Finally, application of a function is written as
in Racket, i.e., as a list of expressions
(e.g., \lstinline!(eval init term)!).
The evaluator in Figure~\ref{fig:lambda-calc-interp} takes advantage
of the functional representation of environments (\lstinline!init! and
\lstinline!extend!) and it structurally recursively interprets
$\lambda$-terms (\lstinline!eval!). The evaluation strategy for the
object-language is in this case inherited from the meta-language, and,
therefore, call by value (we assumed \IDL{} strict)~\cite{reynolds}.
The abstract syntax of the \IDL{} terms is presented in Figure
\ref{fig:idl-abs-syntax}. The meta-variables $x, y, z$ denote
variables; $r$ denotes structure (aka record) names; $s$ is used to
denote string literals and $b$ is used for all literal values --
strings, integers and booleans. The meta-variable $\mathit{tp}$ is
used in pattern matches which check whether a value is one of the
primitive types. The patterns are referred to with variable $p$ and
may be a variable, a literal value, a wildcard, a record pattern or a
type test. Terms are denoted with variable $t$ and are either a
variable, a literal value, an anonymous function, an application, a
record constructor, a let binding (which may destructure bound term
with a pattern), a pattern match or an error expression.
\section{Transformation}
\label{sec:transformer}
The transformation described in this section consists of three main
stages: translation to administrative normal form, selective
translation to continuation-pass\-ing style, and selective
defunctionalization. After defunctionalization the program is in the
desired form of an abstract machine. The last step taken by the
transformer is inlining of administrative let-bindings introduced by
previous steps in order to obtain more readable results. In the
remainder of this section we will describe the three main stages of
the transformation and the algorithm used to compute the control-flow
analysis.
\subsection{Administrative Normal Form}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{rll}
$Com \ni c $ && ::= $x$ $\mid$ $b$
$\mid$ \lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$) $e$)!
$\mid$ \lstinline!($x$ $x\ldots$)!\\
&&$\mid$ \lstinline!{$r$ $x\ldots$}!
$\mid$ \lstinline!(match $x$ ($p$ $e$)$\ldots$)!\\
$Anf \ni e $ && ::= $c$
$\mid$ \lstinline!(let $p$ $c$ $e$)!
$\mid$ \lstinline!(error $s$)!\\
\hline\\
$\bb{\cdot}$ &$\cdot$ &: $Term \times (Com \rightarrow Anf) \rightarrow Anf$\\
$\bb{x}$ &$k$ &$= k\,x$\\
$\bb{b}$ &$k$ &$= k\,b$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$) $\,e$)!}$ &$k$
& $= k\, \lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$) $\anf{e}{id}$)!$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!($e_f \; e_{arg}\ldots$)!}$ &$k$
&$= \anf{e_f}{\atomic{\lambda x_f . \anfSeq{e_{arg}\ldots}{\lambda (x_{arg}\ldots) . k \,\lstinline!($x_f\;x_{arg}\ldots$)!}}}$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(let\ $p\;e_1\;e_2$)!}$ & $k$
&$= \anf{e_1}{\lambda c_1 . \lstinline!(let\ $p\;c_1\;\anf{e_2}{k}$)!}$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!\{$r \; e\ldots$\}!}$ &$k$
&$= \anfSeq{e\ldots}{\lambda (x\ldots) . k \,\lstinline!\{$r\;x\ldots$\}!}$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(match\ $e \;$($p \;e_b$))!}$ & $k$
&$= \anf{e}{\atomic{\lambda x . k\,\lstinline!(match\ $x\;$($p\;\anf{e_b}{id}$)!}}$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(error\ $s$)!}$ & \_ & $= $ \lstinline!(error $s$)!\\
\hline\\
$[\cdot]_a$ & $\cdot$ & : $(Var \rightarrow Anf) \rightarrow Com \rightarrow Anf$\\
$[k]_a$ & $x$ & $= k\,x$\\
$[k]_a$ & $c$ & $= $ \lstinline!(let $x$ $c$ $(k\,x)$)!\\
\hline\\
$\bb{\cdot}_s$ & $\cdot$ &: $Term^* \times (Var^* \rightarrow Anf) \rightarrow Anf$\\
$\bb{e\ldots}_s$ & $k$ & $= \go{e\ldots}{\epsilon}{k}$\\
$\go{\epsilon}{x\ldots}{k} $ & & $= k\,(x\ldots)$\\
$\go{e\,e_r\ldots}{x_{acc}\ldots}{k}$ & &
$= \anf{e}{\atomic{\lambda x . \go{e_r\ldots}{x_{acc}\ldots x}{k}}}$
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{center}
\caption{ANF transformation for \IDL{}}
\label{fig:transformer-anf}
\end{figure}
The administrative normal form (ANF) \cite{flanagan-anf} is an
intermediate representation for functional languages in which all
intermediate results are let-bound to names. This shape greatly
simplifies later transformations as programs do not have complicated
sub-expressions. From the operational point of view, the only place
where a continuation is grown when evaluating program in ANF is a
let-binding. This property ensures that a program in ANF is also much
easier to evaluate using an abstract machine which will be taken
advantage of in Section \ref{subsec:transformer-cfa}. The abstract
syntax of terms in ANF and an algorithm for transforming \IDL{}
programs into such form is presented in
Figure~\ref{fig:transformer-anf}. The terms are partitioned into
three levels: variables, commands and expressions. Commands $c$
extend variables with values -- base literals, record constructors
(with variables as sub-terms) and abstractions (whose bodies are in
ANF); and with redexes like applications of variables and match
expressions (which match on a variable and have branches in ANF).
Expressions $e$ in ANF have the shape of a possibly empty sequence of
let-bindings ending with either an error term or a command.
The $\anf{\cdot}{\cdot}$ function, written in CPS\footnote{See Appendix A of \cite{flanagan-anf}.}, is the main
transformation function. Its arguments are a term to be transformed
and a meta-language continuation which will be called to obtain the
term for the rest of the transformed input. This function decomposes
the term according to the (informal) evaluation rules and uses two helper
functions. Function $\atomic{\cdot}$ transforms a continuation
expecting a variable (which are created when transforming
commands) into one accepting any command by let-binding the passed
argument $c$ when necessary. Function $\anfSeq{\cdot}{\cdot}$
sequences computation of multiple expressions by creating a chain of
let-bindings (using $\atomic{\cdot}$) and then calling the
continuation with created variables.
\subsection{Control-Flow Analysis}
\label{subsec:transformer-cfa}
The analysis most relevant to the task of deriving abstract machines
from interpreters is the control-flow analysis. Its objective is to
find for each expression in a program an over-approximation of a set
of functions it may evaluate to \cite{popa}. This information can be
used in two places: when determining whether a function and
applications should be CPS transformed and for checking which
functions an expression in operator position may evaluate to. There
are a couple of different approaches to performing this analysis
available in the literature: abstract interpretation \cite{popa},
(annotated) type systems \cite{popa} and abstract abstract
machines~\cite{aam}. We chose to employ the last approach as it allows
for derivation of the control-flow analysis from an abstract machine
for \IDL{}. The derivation technique guarantees correctness of the
resulting interpreter and hence provides high confidence in the actual
implementation of the machine. We next present the template for
acquiring both concrete and abstract versions of the abstract machine
for \IDL{}. The former machine defines the semantics of \IDL{}; the latter
computes the CFA.
\subsubsection{A Machine Template}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begingroup
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$\nu \in \VA{}$ & $\kappa \in \KA{}\quad l \in \mathit{Label}$\quad$\sigma \in \mathit{Store}$\\
$\delta \in \mathit{PrimOp}$ & $\subseteq \mathit{Val}^* \rightarrow Val$\\
$\rho \in \mathit{Env}$ &$= \mathit{Var} \rightarrow \VA{}$\\
$\mathit{Val} \ni v$
& ::= $b$ $\mid$ $\delta$
$\mid$ \lstinline!{$r\;\nu\ldots$}!
$\mid$ $\tuple{\rho,x\ldots,e}$
$\mid$ \lstinline!(def $x$ ($x\ldots$) $e$)!\\
$\mathit{Cont} \ni k$ & ::= $\tuple{\rho, p, e, \kappa}$ $\mid$ $\tuple{}$\\
$\mathit{PartialConf} \ni \gamma $
& ::= $\tuple{\rho, e, \kappa}_e $ $\mid$ $\tuple{\nu, \kappa}_c$\\
$\mathit{Conf} \ni \varsigma $
& ::= $\tuple{\sigma, \gamma}$\\
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{|rl|}
\hline
$\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho, x, \kappa}_e}$
& $\Rightarrow \tuple{\mathit{copy}_v(\rho(x), l, \sigma), \tuple{\rho(x), \kappa}_c}$\\
$\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho, b^l, \kappa}_e}$
& $\Rightarrow \tuple{\sigma', \tuple{\nu, \kappa}_c}$\\
& where $\tuple{\sigma', \nu} = \mathit{alloc}_v(b, l, \sigma)$\\
$\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho, \lstinline!\{$r\;x\ldots$\}!^l, \kappa}_e}$
& $\Rightarrow \tuple{\sigma', \tuple{\nu, \kappa}_c}$\\
& where $\tuple{\sigma', \nu} = \mathit{alloc}_v(\lstinline!{$r\;\rho(x)\ldots$}!, l, \sigma)$\\
$\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho, \lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$)\ $e$)!^l, \kappa}_e}$
& $\Rightarrow \tuple{\sigma', \tuple{\nu, \kappa}_c}$\\
& where $\tuple{\sigma', \nu} = \mathit{alloc}_v(\tuple{\rho, x\ldots, e}, l,\sigma)$\\
$\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho, \lstinline!(let\ $p\;c^l\;e$)!, \kappa}_e}$
& $\Rightarrow \tuple{\sigma', \tuple{\rho, c, \kappa'}_e}$\\
& where $\tuple{\sigma', \kappa'} = \mathit{alloc}_k(\tuple{\rho, p, e, \kappa}, l, \sigma)$\\
$\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho, \lstinline!($x\;y\ldots$)!, \kappa}_e}$
& $\Rightarrow \mathit{apply}(\sigma, \rho(x), \rho(y)\ldots, l)$\\
$\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho, \lstinline!(match\ $x\;$($p\;e$)$\ldots$)!, \kappa}_e}$
& $\Rightarrow \mathit{match}(\sigma, \rho, \rho(x), \tuple{p, e}\ldots)$\\
$\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\nu, \kappa}_c}$
& $\Rightarrow \mathit{match}(\sigma, \rho, \nu, \kappa', \tuple{p, e})$\\
& where $\tuple{\rho, p, e, \kappa'} = \mathit{deref}_k(\sigma, \kappa)$\\[2pt]
\hline
$ \mathit{apply}(\sigma, \nu, \nu'\ldots, \kappa, l)$
& $ = \begin{cases}
\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho[(x \mapsto \nu') \ldots], e, \kappa}_e}\\
\quad\text{when}\;\mathit{deref}_v(\sigma, \nu) = \tuple{\rho, x\ldots, e}\\
\tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho_0[(x \mapsto \nu') \ldots], e, \kappa}_e}\\
\quad\text{when}\;\mathit{deref}_v(\sigma, \nu) = \lstinline!(def $y\;$($x\ldots$) $e$)!\\
\tuple{\sigma', \tuple{\nu'', \kappa}_c}\\
\quad\text{when}\;\mathit{deref}_v(\sigma, \nu) = \delta\\
\quad\text{and}\;\tuple{\sigma', \nu''} = \mathit{alloc}_v(\delta(\sigma(\nu')\ldots), l, \sigma)
\end{cases} $ \\
$ \mathit{match}(\sigma, \rho, \nu, \kappa, \tuple{p, e}\ldots)$
& $= \tuple{\sigma, \tuple{\rho', e', \kappa}_e}$ where $\rho'$ is the environment\\
&\quad for the first matching branch with body $e'$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{center}
\caption{A template abstract machine for \IDL{} terms in ANF}
\label{fig:anf-abstract-machine}
\end{figure}
We will begin with a template of a machine for \IDL{} terms in
A-normal form, presented in Figure \ref{fig:anf-abstract-machine}. It
is a CEK-style machine modified to explicitly allocate memory for
values and continuations in an abstract store. The template is
parameterized by: implementation of the store $\sigma$ along with five
operations: $\mathit{alloc}_v$, $\mathit{alloc}_k$,
$\mathit{deref}_v$, $\mathit{deref}_k$ and $\mathit{copy}_v$;
interpretation of primitive operations $\delta$ and implementation of
$\mathit{match}$ function which interprets pattern matching. The
store maps value addresses $\nu$ to values $v$ and continuation
addresses $\kappa$ to continuations $k$. The environment maps program
variables to value locations. The values on which the machine operates
are the following: base values $b$, primitive operations $\delta$,
records with addresses as fields, closures and top-level functions.
Thanks to terms being in A-normal form, there are only two kinds of
continuations which form a stack. The stack frames
$\tuple{\rho, p, e, \kappa}$ are introduced by let-bindings. They hold
an environment $\rho$, a pattern $p$ to use for destructuring a
value, the body $e$ of a let expression and a pointer to the next
continuation $\kappa$. The bottom of the stack is marked by the empty
continuation $\tuple{}$. We assume that every term has a unique label
$l$ which will be used in the abstract version of the machine to implement
store addresses.
The machine configurations are pairs of a store $\sigma$ and a partial
configuration $\gamma$. This split of configuration into two parts
will prove beneficial when we instantiate the template to
obtain an abstract interpreter. There are two classes of partial
configurations. An evaluation configuration contains an environment
$\rho$, an expression $e$ and a continuation pointer $\kappa$. A
continuation configuration holds an address $\nu$ of a value that has
been computed so far and a pointer $\kappa$ to a resumption which
should be applied next.
The first case of the transition relation $\Rightarrow$ looks up a
pointer for the variable $x$ in the environment $\rho$ and switches to
continuation mode. It modifies the store via $\mathit{copy}$
function which ensures that every occurrence of a variable has a
corresponding binding in the store. The next three cases deal with
values by $\mathit{alloc}$ating them in the store and switching to
continuation mode. When the machine encounters a let-binding it
allocates a continuation for the body $e$ of the expression and
proceeds to evaluate the bound command $c$ with the new pointer
$\kappa'$. In case of applications and match expressions the
resulting configuration is decided using auxiliary functions
$\mathit{apply}$ and $\mathit{match}$, respectively. Finally, in
continuation mode, the machine may only transition if the continuation
loaded from the address $\kappa$ is a frame. In such a case the
machine matches the stored pattern against the value pointed-to by
$\nu$. Otherwise $\kappa$ points to a $\tuple{}$ instead and the
machine has reached the final state. The auxiliary function
$\mathit{apply}$ checks what kind of function is referenced by $\nu$
and proceeds accordingly.
\subsubsection{A Concrete Abstract Machine}
The machine template can now be instantiated with a store, a
$\mathit{match}$ implementation which finds the first matching branch
and interpretation for primitive operations in order to obtain a
concrete abstract machine. By choosing $\mathit{Store}$ to be a
mapping with infinite domain we can ensure that $\mathit{alloc}$ can
always return a fresh address. In this setting the store-allocated
continuations are just an implementation of a stack. The extra layer
of indirection introduced by storing values in a store can also be
disregarded as the machine operates on persistent values. Therefore,
the resulting machine, which we omit, corresponds to a CEK-style
abstract machine which is a canonical formulation for call-by-value
functional calculi~\cite{DBLP:books/daglib/0023092}.
\subsubsection{An Abstract Abstract Machine}\label{ss:aam}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begingroup
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$\VA{}$ & $=\KA{}=\mathit{Label}$\\
$\widetilde{\mathit{Val}} \ni v$
& ::= $tp$ $\mid$ $\widetilde{\delta}$
$\mid$ \lstinline!{$r\;\nu\ldots$}!
$\mid$ $\tuple{\rho,x\ldots,e}$
$\mid$ \lstinline!(def $x$ ($x\ldots$) $e$)!\\
$\sigma \in \mathit{Store} $
& $= (\VA{} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}(\widetilde{\mathit{Val}}))
\times (\KA{} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}(\mathit{Cont}))$\\
$\mathit{alloc}_v(v, l, \tuple{\sigma_v, \sigma_k})$
& $= \tuple{\tuple{\sigma_v[l \mapsto \sigma_v(l)\cup\{v\}], \sigma_k}, l}$\\
$\mathit{alloc}_k(v, l, \tuple{\sigma_v, \sigma_k})$
& $= \tuple{\tuple{\sigma_v, \sigma_k[l \mapsto \sigma_k(l)\cup\{k\}]}, l}$\\
$\mathit{copy}_v(\nu, l, \tuple{\sigma_v, \sigma_k})$
& $= \tuple{\sigma_v[l \mapsto \sigma_v(l)\cup\sigma_v(\nu)], \sigma_k}$\\
$\mathit{deref}_v(l, \tuple{\sigma_v, \sigma_k})$
& $= \sigma_v$\\
$\tilde{\varsigma} \in \widetilde{\mathit{Conf}}$
& $ = Store\times\mathbb{P}(PartialConf)$\\
\hline
$\tuple{\sigma, C}$
& $\Rightarrow_a \tuple{\sigma'\sqcup\sigma, C\cup C'}$\\
& where $\sigma' = \bigsqcup\{\sigma' \mid \exists \gamma \in C. \tuple{\sigma, \gamma} \Rightarrow \tuple{\sigma', \gamma'} \}$\\
& and $C' = \{\gamma' \mid \exists \gamma \in C. \tuple{\sigma, \gamma} \Rightarrow \tuple{\sigma', \gamma'} \}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{center}
\caption{An abstract abstract machine for \IDL{}}
\label{fig:aam}
\end{figure}
Let us now turn to a different instantiation of the template. Figure
\ref{fig:aam} shows the missing pieces of an abstract abstract machine
for \IDL{}. The abstract values use base type names $tp$ to represent
any value of that type, abstract versions of primitive operations,
records, closures and top-level functions. The interpretation of
primitive operations must approximate their concrete counterparts.
The store is represented as a pair of finite mappings from labels to
sets of abstract values and continuations, respectively. This
bounding of store domain and range ensures that the state-space of the
machine becomes finite and therefore can be used for computing an
analysis. To retain soundness w.r.t. the concrete abstract machine the
store must map a single address to multiple values to account for
address reuse. This style of abstraction is classical~\cite{popa} and
fairly straightforward~\cite{aam}. When instantiated with this store,
the transition relation $\Rightarrow$ becomes nondeterministic as
pointer $\mathit{deref}$erencing nondeterministically returns one of
the values available in the store. Additionally the implementation of
the $\mathit{match}$ function is also nondeterministic in the choice
of the branch to match against.
This machine is not yet suitable for computing the analysis as the
state space is still too large since every machine configuration has
its own copy of the store. To circumvent this problem a standard
technique of widening \cite{popa} can be employed. In particular,
following \cite{aam}, we use a global store. The abstract
configuration $\tilde{\varsigma}$ is a pair of a store and a set of
partial configurations. The abstract transition $\Rightarrow_a$
performs one step of computation using $\Rightarrow$ on the global
store $\sigma$ paired with every partial configuration $\gamma$. The
resulting stores $\sigma'$ are merged together and with the original
store to create a new, extended global store. The partial
configurations $C'$ are added to the initial set of configurations
$C$. The transition relation $\Rightarrow_a$ is deterministic so it
can be treated as a function. This function is monotone on a finite
lattice and therefore is amenable to fixed-point iteration.
\subsubsection{Computing the Analysis}
With the abstract transition function in hand we can now specify the
algorithm for obtaining the analysis. To start the abstract
interpreter we must provide it with an initial configuration: a store,
an environment, a term and a continuation pointer. The store will be
assembled from datatype and structure definitions of the program as
well as base types. The initial term is the body of the
\lstinline!main! function of the interpreter and the environment is
the global environment extended with \lstinline!main!'s parameters
bound to pointers to datatypes in the above-built store. The initial
continuation is of course $\tuple{}$ and the pointer is the label of
the body of the \lstinline!main! function. The analysis is computed by performing
fixed-point iteration of $\Rightarrow_a$. The resulting store will
contain a set of functions to which every variable (the only allowed
term) in function position may evaluate (ensured by the use of
$\mathit{copy}_v$ function). This result will be used in Sections
\ref{subsec:selective-cps} and \ref{subsec:selective-defun}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$\cps{x}{k}$ &= \lstinline!($k$ $x$)!\\
$\cps{b}{k}$ &= \lstinline!(let $x$ $b$ ($k$ $x$))!\\
$\cps{\lstinline!\{$r\;x\ldots$\}!}{k}$
&= \lstinline!(let $y$ {$r\;x\ldots$} ($k$ $y$))!\\
$\cps{\lstinline!(fun #:atomic ($x\ldots$)\ $e$)!}{k}$
&= \lstinline!(let $y$ (fun ($x\ldots$) $\dir{e}$) ($k$ $y$))!\\
$\cps{\lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$)\ $e$)!}{k}$
&= \lstinline!(let $y$ (fun ($x\ldots k'$) $\cps{e}{k'}$) ($k$ $y$))!\\
$\cps{\lstinline!($f^l\;x\ldots$)!}{k}$
&= $ \begin{cases}
\lstinline!($f$ $x\ldots$ $k$)! & \mathrm{when}\,\noneAtomic(l)\\
\lstinline!(let $y$ ($f$ $x\ldots$) ($k$ $y$))! & \mathrm{when}\,\allAtomic(l)\\
\end{cases} $\\
$\cps{\lstinline!(match$\;x\;$($p\;e$)$\ldots$)!}{k}$
&= \lstinline!(match $x$ ($p$ $\cps{e}{k}$)$\ldots$)!\\
$\cps{\lstinline!(let$\;p\;c\;e$)!}{k} $
&= $ \begin{cases}
\lstinline!(let $p$ $\dir{c}$ $\cps{e}{k}$)! \quad \mathrm{when}\,\trivial(c)\\
\lstinline!(let $k'$ (fun ($y$) (let $p$ $y$ $\cps{e}{k}$)) $\cps{c}{k'}$)!
\end{cases}$\\
$\cps{\lstinline!(error$\;s$)!}{k}$ &= \lstinline!(error $s$)!
\end{tabular}
\caption{A translation for CPS terms}
\label{fig:cps-cps}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Selective CPS transformation}
\label{subsec:selective-cps}
In this section we formulate an algorithm for selectively transforming
the program into continuation-passing style. All functions (both
anonymous and top-level) marked \lstinline!#:atomic! by the user will
be kept in direct style. The \lstinline!main! function is implicitly
marked as atomic since its interface should be preserved as it is an
entry point of the interpreter. Primitive operations are treated as
atomic at call-site. Atomic functions may call non-atomic ones by
providing the called function an identity continuation. The algorithm
uses the results of the control-flow analysis to determine atomicity of
functions to which a variable labeled $l$ in function position may
evaluate.
If all functions are atomic then $\allAtomic(l)$ holds; if none of them are
atomic then $\noneAtomic(l)$ holds. When both atomic and non-atomic functions
may be called the algorithm cannot proceed and signals an error in the
source program.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$\dir{x}$ &= $x$\\
$\dir{b}$ &= $b$\\
$\dir{\lstinline!\{$r\;x\ldots$\}!}$
&= \lstinline!{$r\;x\ldots$}!\\
$\dir{\lstinline!(fun #:atomic ($x\ldots$)\ $e$)!}$
&= \lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$) $\dir{e}$)!\\
$\dir{\lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$)\ $e$)!}$
&= \lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots k'$) $\cps{e}{k'}$)!\\
$\dir{\lstinline!($f^l\;x\ldots$)!}$
&= $ \begin{cases}
\lstinline!($f$ $x\ldots$)! & \mathrm{when}\,\allAtomic(l)\\
\lstinline!(let $k$ (fun ($y$) $y$) ($f$ $x\ldots$ $k$))! & \mathrm{when}\,\noneAtomic(l)\\
\end{cases} $\\
$\dir{\lstinline!(match$\;x\;$($p\;e$)$\ldots$)!}$
&= \lstinline!(match $x$ ($p$ $\dir{e}$)$\ldots$)!\\
$\dir{\lstinline!(let$\;p\;$($f^l\;y\ldots$)$\;e$)!}$
&= \begin{lstlisting}
(let $k$ (fun ($z$) $z$)
(let $p$ ($f$ $y\ldots$ $k$) $\dir{e}$))
\end{lstlisting}\quad when $\noneAtomic(l)$\\
$\dir{\lstinline!(let$\;p\;c\;e$)!}$
&= \lstinline!(let $p$ $\dir{c}$ $\dir{e}$)!\\
$\dir{\lstinline!(error$\;s$)!}$ &= \lstinline!(error $s$)!
\end{tabular}
\caption{A translation for terms which should be left in direct style}
\label{fig:cps-direct}
\end{figure}
The algorithm consists of two mutually recursive transformations.
The first, $\cps{e}{k}$ in Figure \ref{fig:cps-cps} transforms a term $e$ into
CPS. Its second parameter is a program variable $k$ which will bind
the continuation at runtime. The second, $\dir{e}$ in Figure \ref{fig:cps-direct}
transforms a term $e$ which should be kept in direct style.
The first five clauses of the CPS translation deal with values. When
a variable is encountered it may be immediately returned by applying a
continuation. In other cases the value must be let-bound in order to
preserve the A-normal form of the term and then the continuation is
applied to the introduced variable. The body $e$ of an anonymous
function is translated using $\dir{e}$ when the function is marked
atomic. When the function is not atomic a new variable $k'$ is
appended to its parameter list and its body is translated using
$\cps{e}{k'}$. The form of an application depends on the atomicity of
functions which may be applied. When none of them is atomic the
continuation $k$ is passed to the function. When all of them are
atomic the result of the call is let-bound and returned by applying
the continuation $k$. Match expression is transformed by recursing on
its branches. Since the continuation is always a program variable no
code gets duplicated. When transforming a let expression the
algorithm checks whether the bound command $c$ is $\trivial$ --
meaning it will call only atomic functions when evaluated
If it is, then it can remain in direct style $\dir{c}$, no new
continuation has to be introduced and the body can be transformed by
$\cps{e}{k}$. If the command is non-trivial then a new continuation
is created and bound to $k'$. This continuation uses a fresh variable $y$
as its parameter. Its body is the let-expression binding $y$ instead of
command $c$ and with body $e$ transformed with the input continuation $k$.
The bound command $c$ is transformed with the newly introduced continuation $k'$.
Finally, the translation of \lstinline!error! throws out the continuation.
The transformation for terms which should be kept in direct style
begins similarly to the CPS one -- with five clauses for values. In
case of an application the algorithm considers two possibilities: when
all functions are atomic the call remains in direct style, when none
of them are atomic a new identity continuation $k$ is constructed and
is passed to the called function. A match expression is again
transformed recursively. A let binding of a call to a CPS function
gets special treatment to preserve A-normal form by chaining allocation of
identity continuation with the call. In other cases a let binding is
transformed recursively. An \lstinline!error! expression is left
untouched.
Each top-level function definition in a program is transformed in the
same fashion as anonymous functions. After the transformation the
program is still in ANF and can be again analyzed by the abstract
abstract machine of the previous section. CPS-transforming the
direct-style interpreter of Figure~\ref{fig:lambda-calc-interp} yields
an interpreter in CPS shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lambda-calc-interp-cps}
(after let-inlining for readability), where we assume that the
operations on environments were marked as atomic and therefore have
not changed.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{lstlisting}
(def eval (env term k)
(match term
([String x] (k (env x)))
({Abs x body}
(k (fun (v k') (eval (extend env x v) body k'))))
({App fn arg}
(eval env fn
(fun (fn') (eval env arg (fun (v) (fn' v k))))))))
(def main ([Term term]) (eval init term (fun (x) x)))
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{An interpreter for \LC{} in CPS}
\label{fig:lambda-calc-interp-cps}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Selective Defunctionalization}
\label{subsec:selective-defun}
The second step of the functional correspondence and the last stage of
the transformation is selective defunctionalization. The goal is to
defunctionalize function spaces deemed interesting by the author of
the program. To this end top-level and anonymous functions may be
annotated with \lstinline!#:no-defun! to skip defunctionalization of
function spaces they belong to. In the algorithm of Figure
\ref{fig:defun} the predicate $\defun$ specifies whether a function
should be transformed. Predicates $\mathit{primOp}$ and
$\mathit{topLevel}$ specify whether a variable refers to (taking into
account the scoping rules) primitive operation or top-level function,
respectively. There are three cases to consider when transforming an
application. If the variable in operator position refers to top-level
function or primitive operation it can be left as is. Otherwise we
can utilize the results of control-flow analysis to obtain the set of
functions which may be applied. When all of them should be
defunctionalized ($\mathit{allDefun}$) then a call to the generated
apply function is introduced, when none of them should
($\mathit{noneDefun}$) then the application is left as is. If the
requirements are mixed then an error in the source program is
signaled. To transform an abstraction, its free variables ($\mathit{fvs}(l)$)
are collected into a record. The apply functions are generated using $\mkApply$ as
specified in Figure \ref{fig:defun-apply} where the
$\mathit{fn}\ldots$ is a list of functions which may be applied.
After the transformation the program is no longer in A-normal form
since variables referencing top-level functions may have been
transformed into records. However it does not pose a problem since
the majority of work has already been done and the last step --
let-inlining does not require the program to be in
ANF. Defunctionalizing the CPS interpreter of
Figure~\ref{fig:lambda-calc-interp-cps} and performing let-inlining
yields an encoding of the CEK abstract machine shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:abstract-machine-cek} (again, the environment is left
intact).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$\bb{x}$ &= $ \begin{cases}
\lstinline!{Prim$_x$}! & \mathrm{when}\,\mathit{primOp}(x)\\
\lstinline!{Top$_x$}! & \mathrm{when}\,\mathit{topLevel}(x) \wedge \defun(x)\\
x & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{cases} $\\
$\bb{b}$ &= $b$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!\{$r\;x\ldots$\}!}$
&= \lstinline!{r $\bb{x}\ldots$}!\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(fun\ ($x\ldots$)\ $e$)$^l$!}$
&= $\begin{cases}
\lstinline!{Fun$_l$ $\mathit{fvs}(l)$}! &\text{when }\defun(l)\\
\lstinline!(fun ($x\ldots$) $\bb{e}$)! &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(!f^{l'}\;x\ldots\lstinline!)!^l}$
&= $\begin{cases}
\lstinline!($f\;\bb{x}\ldots$)! &\text{when }\mathit{primOp}(f)\vee\mathit{topLevel}(f)\\
\lstinline!(apply$_l$ $f$ $\bb{x}\ldots$)! &\text{else when }\mathit{allDefun}(l')\\
\lstinline!($f\;\bb{x}\ldots$)! &\text{when }\mathit{noneDefun}(l')
\end{cases}$\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(match$\;x\;$($p\;e$)$\ldots$)!}$
&= \lstinline!(match $x$ ($p$ $\bb{e}$)$\ldots$)!\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(let$\;p\;c\;e$)!}$
&= \lstinline!(let $p$ $\bb{c}$ $\bb{e}$)!\\
$\bb{\lstinline!(error$\;s$)!}$ &= \lstinline!(error $s$)!
\end{tabular}
\caption{Selective defunctionalization algorithm for \IDL{}}
\label{fig:defun}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{rrl}
$\mkBranch(x\ldots,$&$\delta)$
&= \lstinline!({Prim$_\delta$} ($\delta\;x\ldots$))!\\
$\mkBranch(x\ldots,$&$\lstinline!(def $f$ ($y\ldots$) e)!)$
&= \lstinline!({Top$_f$} ($f$ $x\ldots$))!\\
$\mkBranch(x\ldots,$&$\lstinline!(fun ($y\ldots$) $e$)$^l$!)$
&= \lstinline!({Fun$_l$ $\mathit{fvs}(l)$} $\bb{e}[y\mapsto x]$)!\\
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{rl}
$\mkApply(l, \mathit{fn} \ldots)$
&= \begin{lstlisting}
(def apply$_l$ ($f$ $x\ldots$)
(match $f$
$\mkBranch(x\ldots, \mathit{fn})\ldots$))
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\caption{Top-level apply function generation}
\label{fig:defun-apply}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{lstlisting}
(def-data Cont
{Halt}
{App1 arg env cont}
{App2 fn cont})
(def-struct {Closure body env x})
(def eval (env term cont)
(match term
([String x] (continue cont (env x)))
({Abs x body} (continue cont {Closure body env x}))
({App fn arg} (eval env fn {App1 arg env cont}))))
(def apply (fn v cont)
(let {Fun body env x} fn)
(eval (extend env x v) body cont))
(def continue (cont val)
(match cont
({Halt} val))
({App1 arg env cont} (eval env arg {App2 val cont}))
({App2 fn cont} (apply fn val cont)))
(def main ([Term term]) (eval {Init} term {Halt}))
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{An encoding of the CEK machine for \LC{}}
\label{fig:abstract-machine-cek}
\end{figure}
\section{Case Studies}
\label{sec:case-studies}
We studied the efficacy of the algorithm and the implementation on
a number of programming language calculi. Figure
\ref{fig:tested-interpreters} shows a summary of interpreters on which
we tested the transformer. The first group of interpreters is
denotational (mostly meta-circular) in style and covers various
extensions of the base \LC{} with call-by-value evaluation order. The
additions we tested include: integers with addition, recursive
let-bindings, delimited control operators -- \textit{shift} and
\textit{reset} with CPS interpreter based
on~\cite{biernacka-delimited-continuations} and exceptions in two
styles: monadic with exceptions as values (functions return either
value or an exception) and in CPS with success and error
continuations. The last interpreter for call-by-value in
Figure~\ref{fig:tested-interpreters} is a normalization function based
on normalization by evaluation technique transcribed
from~\cite{abel-nbe}. We find this result particularly satisfactory,
since it leads to a non-trivial and previously unpublished abstract
machine -- we give more details in Appendix~\ref{app:nbe}. The next
three interpreters correspond to big-step operational semantics for
call-by-name \LC{}, call-by-need (call-by-name with memoization) and a
simple imperative language, respectively.
Transformation of call-by-value and call-by-need \LC{} yielded
machines very similar to the CEK and Krivine machines, respectively.
We were also able to replicate the machines previously obtained via
manual application of the functional correspondence
\cite{functional-correspondence,biernacka-delimited-continuations,biernacki-logic-engine}.
The biggest differences were due to introduction of administrative
transitions in handling of applications. This property hints at a
potential for improvement by introducing an inlining step to the
transformation. An interesting feature of the transformation is the
ability to select which parts of the interpreter should be transformed
and which should be considered atomic. These choices are reflected in
the resulting machine, e.g., by transforming an environment look up in
call-by-need interpreter we obtain a Krivine machine which has the
search for a value in the environment embedded in its transition
rules, while marking it atomic gives us a more abstract formulation
from \cite{functional-correspondence}. Another consequence of this
feature is that one can work with interpreters already in CPS and
essentially skip directly to defunctionalization (as tested on
micro-Prolog interpreter of \cite{biernacki-logic-engine}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
Language & Interpreter style & Lang. Features & Result \\
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\multirow{13}{*}{\makecell{call-by-value \\ \LC{}}} & denotational & $\cdot$ & CEK machine \\
\cline{2-4}
& denotational & integers with add & CEK with add \\
\cline{2-4}
& \makecell{denotational, \\ recursion via \\ environment} & \makecell{integers, recursive \\ let-bindings} & \makecell{similar to Reynolds's \\ first-order interpreter}\\
\cline{2-4}
& \makecell{denotational \\ with conts.} & shift and reset & two layers of conts.\\
\cline{2-4}
& \makecell{denotational, \\ monadic} & \multirow{3}{*}{\makecell{exceptions \\ with handlers}} & \makecell{explicit \\ stack unwinding}\\
\cline{2-2}\cline{4-4}
& \makecell{denotational, \\ CPS} & & \makecell{pointer to\\ exception handler}\\
\cline{2-4}
& \makecell{normalization \\ by evaluation} & $\cdot$ & strong CEK machine \\
\hline
\makecell{call-by-name \\ \LC{}} & big-step & $\cdot$ & Krivine machine \\
\hline
\makecell{call-by-need \\ \LC{}} & \makecell{big-step \\ (state passing)} & memoization & lazy Krivine machine \\
\hline
\makecell{simple \\ imperative} & \makecell{big-step \\ (state passing)} & \makecell{conditionals, \\ while, assignment} & $\cdot$\\
\hline
micro-Prolog & CPS & \makecell{backtracking, \\ cut operator} & logic engine\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Summary of tested interpreters}\label{fig:tested-interpreters}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this article we described an algorithm, based on the functional
correspondence~\cite{functional-correspondence}, that allows for
automatic derivation of an abstract machine given an interpreter which
typically corresponds to denotational or natural semantics, allowing
the user for fine-grained control over the shape of the resulting
machine.
In order to enable the transformation we derived a control-flow
analysis for \IDL{} using the abstracting abstract machines
methodology. We implemented the algorithm in the \textit{Haskell}
programming language and used this tool to transform a selection of
interpreters. To the best of our knowledge this is the first, reasonably
generic, implementation of the functional correspondence.
The correctness of the tool relies on the correctness of each of the
program transformations involved in the derivation that are classic
and in some form have been proven correct in the
literature~\cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/Plotkin75,nielsen-cps,nielsen-investigation-defunctionalization,design-and-correctness-cfa},
as well as on the correctness of the control-flow analysis we take
advantage of. An extensive number of experiments we have carried out
indicates that the tool indeed is robust.
In order to improve the capabilities of \semt{} as a practical tool for
semantics engineering, the future work could include extending the set
of primitive operations and adding the ability to import arbitrary
Racket functions and provide their abstract specification.
The tool could also be extended to accommodate other output formats
such as \LaTeX{} figures or low level \textit{C}
code~\cite{DBLP:books/daglib/0020601}.
Another avenue for improvement lies in extensions of the meta-language
capabilities. Investigation of additions such as control operators,
nondeterministic choice and concurrency could yield many opportunities
for diversifying the set of interpreters (and languages) that may be
encoded in the \IDL{}. In particular control operators could allow
for expressing the interpreter for a language with delimited control
(or algebraic
effects~\cite{biernacki-algebraic-effects,hillerstrom-algebraic-effects})
in direct style.
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
|
\section{Introduction}
JavaScript started out as a lightweight scripting language for the web, but has
grown to become a language powering large web applications, server-side
backends, and embedded systems. As a result of its rushed initial development
and the following rapid growth, it is also a complex and sometimes quirky
language.
Its growing importance as an industry standard with several competing
implementations has led to it being standardized as ECMAScript, with a precise
and highly complex specification document.
As the language evolved, it has become common for not all implementations to
support the latest language features and APIs. To make use of them but retain
compatibility, developers can use \textit{polyfills}, pure JavaScript libraries
that simulate new language features if they are not yet supported by the
interpreter.
Smooth interoperability between interpreters by different vendors and the
various polyfills is ensured by the common ECMAScript standard and its test
suite. While there is a formally verified reference interpreter for the core
language, which closely follows the natural language
specification~\cite{BodinCFGMNSS14}, all fully-fledged implementations in
browsers and other systems rely on test suites to ensure conformance.
The main mechanism for validating conformance to the ECMAScript standard is
Test262~\cite{ecma_test262}, a manually curated test suite with the goal of
covering all observable behavior of the ECMAScript specification.
Because Test262 is created manually, it is likely that it does not entirely
achieve this goal. Furthermore, implementations of a specification by definition
add additional implementation detail. As a consequence, we argue that
interpreters contain relevant behavior that is not exercised by Test262. When
corner cases remain untested, there is a potential for hidden divergences from
the specification.
Methods from automated test generation seem ideally suited to fill this gap and
exercise hidden behavior. Techniques such as dynamic symbolic execution promise
to generate high-coverage test suites fully automatically with the help of an
satisfiability-modulo-theories (SMT) solver. In principle, such techniques will
allow to generate test cases for \textit{implementations} of ECMAScript language
semantics.
Full JavaScript implementations are highly complex software systems,
however. There has been some success using simpler testing techniques such as
fuzzing to find bugs in interpreters~\cite{langfuzz}, and also using dynamic
symbolic execution to test interpreters for simpler
languages~\cite{chef-asplos14}. But so far, dynamic symbolic execution does not
scale to full JavaScript interpreters, and interpreter features such as
just-in-time compilation make full support highly unlikely.
In this paper, we propose to symbolically execute straightforward
implementations of JavaScript language features to generate new test
cases. These are then executed on a portfolio of JavaScript interpreters, using
a \textit{majority vote} to decide the correct behavior. We find that polyfills
are ideally suited for this task: polyfills are directly executable and provide
more detail than the ECMAScript specification; at the same time, they are much
more compact than implementations in an interpreter. Polyfills also have the
advantage of providing a clear entry point for each supported feature, which
makes directed testing possible. In interpreters, the implementation of language
semantics is hidden behind parsing and translation layers, far removed from any
external entry point that could be controlled by a test generation tool.
Entry points of polyfill code can require structured input such as objects and
arrays, whereas dynamic symbolic execution usually only yields primitive input
values returned by the SMT solver.
Due to the lack of static typing in JavaScript, object and array creation cannot
rely on type information as is usually done for object-oriented
languages~\cite{symstra,test_input_generation_jpf}. Instead, we introduce a
purely dynamic approach to generate structured test inputs in dynamic symbolic
execution. We intercept accesses to object fields and array elements by the
JavaScript program at runtime and generate test cases for each meaningful
outcome, handling possible name aliasing, different field types, and the
special quirks of JavaScript arrays.
We evaluate our approach in an implementation on top of
ExpoSE~\cite{expose-spin17}, an existing dynamic symbolic execution engine for
JavaScript programs. We automatically generate a rich suite
of tests from the Mozilla Developer Network polyfills (\lstinline|mdn-polyfills|)
and \lstinline|core-js| that we run against SpiderMonkey, Node.js, and QuickJS.
In summary, we make the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We present a methodology for automated generation of conformance tests
from polyfills. We employ differential testing across multiple implementations
to compensate the lack of testing oracles (\autoref{sec:conformance_testing}).
\item We define a model for symbolic objects and symbolic arrays that
dynamically synthesizes test inputs in untyped JavaScript code
(\autoref{sec:symbolic_datastructures}).
\item We improve the state of the art in conformance testing of ECMAScript
implementations through our methodology. Using our new tests, we found 17 bugs in
polyfill implementations and were able to augment the coverage of Test262 in
JavaScript interpreters by up to 15\%~(\autoref{sec:eval}).
\end{itemize}
Overall, we believe that this can lower the bar for maintaining standardization
test suites like Test262 in the future. New language features are regularly
implemented in polyfills before standardization, and our approach will allow to
generate corresponding tests as a byproduct.
\section{Background}
We begin by providing the necessary background on
JavaScript~(\autoref{sec:js_values}), dynamic symbolic execution~(\autoref{sec:dse}),
and the particulars of applying it to test JavaScript code~(\autoref{sec:dsejs}).
\subsection{JavaScript}
\label{sec:js_values}
JavaScript has a dynamic type system, so program source code contains no type
annotations and no type checking is performed during preprocessing. Instead,
type information (tags) is attached to values when they are created and rules are
enforced at runtime.
All values are in the same form, a structure consisting of data and a tag
that indicates the value type.
Whenever the interpreter executes an instruction, it first inspects the type
of operands. If the operands are not in the desired type, then a series of
type coercion rules are applied to convert them to usable types or a type error is thrown.
For example, \lstinline|"Hello " + 5| results in the string \lstinline|"Hello 5"|.
Automatic type coercions can have unintuitive semantics. For example, in
contrast to the previous expression, \lstinline|"Hello" - 5| evaluates to
\lstinline|NaN|, since a string added to a number coerces the number to a
string, but a string subtracted from a number attempts to coerce the string
to a number.
The combination of dynamic typing and automatic type coercion can make
bugs in programs hard to track, since applying operations on incompatible
types will not cause an immediate error and instead propagate through
the program. For example, the following program will produce the result
\lstinline|"NaNHello10"|. If y is not fixed, it will be difficult to
identify where first error occurs:
\begin{lstlisting}
function doTask(y) {
let j = y + 10;
let q = 4 - y + j;
return q;
}
doTask('Hello');
\end{lstlisting}
Objects are maps from string property names to values. Objects
are constructed dynamically and have no pre-set structure.
\lstinline|let x = { a: 'H' };| constructs a new object with a single
property, \lstinline|a| and assigns it to the variable \lstinline|x|. After
executing \lstinline|x.b = 'Q'|, x will have two properties set, \lstinline|a|,
and \lstinline|b|.
Values of any type can be assigned to object properties, including other objects,
arrays, and functions. For example, the following code will create a new
function and assign it to the property \lstinline|printA| on \lstinline|x|:
\begin{lstlisting}
x.printA = function() {
console.log(this.a);
}
\end{lstlisting}
When a function attached to an object is executed, the containing object is
passed as the \lstinline|this| argument to the function call.
For example, \lstinline|x.printA();| will print \lstinline|H|, since
\lstinline|this| refers to \lstinline|x|.
The language also allows object-oriented programming.
Classes are constructed dynamically through constructor functions and the
\lstinline|new| keyword.
When \lstinline|new| is used, a fresh object will be created and the
constructor is executed with the \lstinline|this| value equal to the new
object. The resulting object is returned after construction.
For example, the following code defines a new class and then creates an
instance of it with the argument \lstinline|"Hello"|:
\begin{lstlisting}
function A(arg) {
this.arg = arg;
}
let a = new A("Hello");
\end{lstlisting}
Note that there is no distinction between class constructors and other
functions.
In our example, since \lstinline|A| is a function, we are also allowed
to execute it without the \lstinline|new| keyword.
This allows created objects to call other class constructors to simulate inheritance.
For example, the following code will create a class constructor \lstinline|B|, and use the \lstinline|A| constructor to make sure it has the same properties:
\begin{lstlisting}
function B(arg) {
A.call(this, arg);
}
\end{lstlisting}
Assigning all properties of a new object in the constructor can make
managing code difficult, so the language also includes object prototypes.
If we want a value to be added to every instance of \lstinline|A|, then we
can add it to the \lstinline|prototype| object which exists as a property
of every function.
For example, once we execute \lstinline|A.prototype.q = 'bye'|, the property
\lstinline|q| will exist in any new instance of A.
These prototypes can be chained together, forming inheritance chains.
For example, the following code defines \lstinline|B| an extension of
\lstinline|A|, and will print \lstinline|bye| since it inherits \lstinline|q|
from the chained prototype:
\begin{lstlisting}
function B() {
B.prototype.constructor.call(this, "Hello");
}
B.prototype = Object.create(A.prototype);
console.log((new B()).q);
\end{lstlisting}
Prototype chaining and prototypal inheritance are core to object abstractions in JavaScript.
While later revisions to the standard add support for the \lstinline|class|
keyword, this is just syntactic sugar for prototypes.
\subsection{Dynamic Symbolic Execution}
\label{sec:dse}
Dynamic symbolic execution (DSE) is an automated test generation
approach based on constraint solving and has been shown to be effective at
bug-finding~\cite{klee,GodefroidLM08,BounimovaGM13}.
DSE generates new test cases for a program through repeat executions. In DSE,
some inputs to a program as marked as symbolic while others are fixed. The
DSE engine then generates a series of assignments for symbolic values which
each exercise a unique control flow path through the program.
For example, when analyzing the following program, we begin by replacing
the input \lstinline|x| with the symbol $X$:
\lstset{escapeinside={*@}{@*}}
\begin{lstlisting}[escapechar=§]
var x = §$X$§;
§\label{dse_example_y}§var y = x + x;
§\label{dse_example_if}§if (x > 10) {
§\label{dse_example_infeasible_if}§ if (y < 20) {
...
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
When executing the program we maintain a symbolic state in addition to the
concrete state. The concrete state drives test execution, while the symbolic
state tracks constraints on the symbols in the program.
To begin analysis, we execute the test harness with an initial concrete
assignment for the symbolic inputs.
For our example, we pick the initial assignment \lstinline|x = 5|.
With our test setup and our initial test case selected, we are now ready to symbolically execute the program.
When operations involve symbolic operands, we compute the concrete result
using the concrete value of the operand and use a symbolic interpreter to
generate the resulting symbol.
We see this on line \ref{dse_example_y}, where execution with our initial
test case will yield a concrete value of \lstinline|y = 10|, and a symbolic
value of \lstinline|y = $X$ + $X$|.
We now reach line \ref{dse_example_if}, the first branching condition in the program.
In DSE, we use use the concrete state to decide which branch to follow for
the current test execution and we also develop a symbolic path condition
(PC), a symbolic representation of the conditional operations which drove
us down the branches we followed.
On line \ref{dse_example_if} we follow the \lstinline|else| branch, and
do not enter the if condition since the concrete value of \lstinline|x| is
\lstinline|5|.
We use the $\leftarrow$ operator to denote updates to the symbolic path condition. At this step we update our path condition with $PC \leftarrow PC \land X < 10$.
After this, our first test case terminates.
Upon termination, the DSE engine uses the PC and an SMT solver in order to
find alternate assignments for the symbolic inputs.
We find these alternate assignments by negating the conditional operations
in the PC so that the next test case will take the opposite route at that
branching point.
We now try and find an alternative assignment for $X$ which will follow the
\lstinline|true| branch on line \ref{dse_example_if}.
We query the SMT solver to decide there is any assignment for $X$ where $X >
10$, and the SMT solver gives us the input $X = 25$, our new test case.
Since we have identified a new test case, we now re-execute our program with the new concrete assignment for $X$.
During this execution we follow the \lstinline|true| path on line \ref{dse_example_if}, and each line \ref{dse_example_infeasible_if} with the path constraints $PC = X > 20$.
On line \ref{dse_example_infeasible_if}, we check if \lstinline|y < 20|.
In this test case, \lstinline|y| has a concrete value of 50, and a symbolic value of $X + X$.
Since 50 is greater than 20, we take the else path and update the PC with
$PC \leftarrow PC \land X + X > 20$, leading to test case termination.
We now use the SMT solver to decide if there is an assignment for $X$ which
explores the true branch on line \ref{dse_example_infeasible_if}.
We take the PC and negate the last constraint, resulting in a query asking
the SMT solver if there is a feasible assignment for X such that $X > 10
\land X + X < 20$.
Here, the SMT solver tells us that there is no feasible assignment for
$X$, so we know that the true branch on line \ref{dse_example_infeasible_if}
is unreachable.
Since there are no new test cases for our program our DSE is now complete
and we have explored all feasible control flows contingent on our symbol $X$.
In general, there will be an impractical (possibly infinite) number of test cases to execute.
So instead of exhausting all test cases, we repeatedly execute new test
cases until we reach a time limit or a predefined coverage goal.
Therefore, DSE can in general not be used for software verification, but it is
ideally suited to generate high-coverage test suites fully automatically.
\subsection{Dynamic Symbolic Execution for JavaScript}
\label{sec:dsejs}
The complex dynamic type system, dynamic nature of programs, and rapid pace
of change in the language make JavaScript programs challenging to symbolically execute.
Additionally, programs use a lot of high level features, such as objects,
arrays, strings and regular expressions which can be tricky to reason about
symbolically.
\citet{SaxenaAHMMS10}, \citet{symjs:Li}, and \citet{javert_es5} built custom
symbolic interpreters for JavaScript, but the language changes frequently and
these engines target older versions of the standard, making them impractical for
current real-world analysis.
\citet{jalangi} took an alternate approach when developing Jalangi, a symbolic
framework which uses program instrumentation to embed the symbolic engine
directly into a program. By instrumenting the program source code maintenance
cost is reduced, but it is harder to segregate the symbolic state from the
running program.
Jalangi does not support symbolic regular expressions, and only includes
a limited support for strings. The engine is also no longer supported,
but can still be run on ES5 programs.
To generate our conformance tests we use ExpoSE. ExpoSE is a open-source
DSE engine for modern JavaScript~\cite{expose-spin17} designed for practical
symbolic execution.
The engine separates test case scheduling, SMT solving, and test execution
which allows for concurrent executions.
In ExpoSE, test executions are isolated to avoid artifacts from asynchronous events
impacting subsequent executions.
ExpoSE uses Jalangi2~\cite{Jalangi2} to instrument programs,
embedding the symbolic execution engine into the code.
To propagate symbolic values, ExpoSE uses \emph{concolic} values, where a
symbolic value includes both a symbolic expression and a concrete value for
that test case. These values are propagated through the program instead of
standard JavaScript values.
When performing operations, the instrumented program will first check if
operands are symbolic. When symbolic, the instrumentation
will call a symbolic interpreter to develop the symbolic expression before
directly evaluating the concretely portion.
ExpoSE uses the Z3 constraint solver to find alternate test cases,
and includes support for strings and ES6 regular expressions out of the
box~\cite{pldi19-regex}.
\paragraph{Modifications to ExpoSE}
In addition to adding support for symbolic
objects~(\autoref{ssec:symbolic_object_full}), we made additions to ExpoSE so
that it can treat type-coercions we observed in existing polyfills.
In JavaScript, numeric values may be either integers or floating point values
and there is no idiomatic way to ensure that a value is an integer.
If a developer wants to force a number to be an integer they often use
a bitwise operation to force the coercion, since bitwise logic truncates
operands to integers.
To illustrate this, the \lstinline{targetLength = targetLength >> 0} ensures
that the length is an integer with a bitshift by 0.
ExpoSE did not accurately model bitwise operations and other esoteric
behaviors of the type system, but these are used often in built-in
implementations, so we modified the engine to support them.
\section{Conformance Testing using PolyFills}
\label{sec:conformance_testing}
We generate new implementation conformance tests for JavaScript interpreters
through symbolic execution of polyfills; implementations of built-in methods
in JavaScript.
Existing supplementary test suites like Test262, the official ECMA test
suite~\cite{ecma_test262}, are created by exploring conditions in the
specification.
Since they are manually curated, bugs may be missed -- particularly when
treating edge cases.
Here, we use a DSE engine to automatically explore the subtleties of built-in
implementations in polyfills, and then apply the generated tests to other
implementations, since they should all behave identically.
\subsection{Polyfills}
With each evolution of JavaScript there is a period of time where new feature
support will not be ubiquitous, since each vendor will take time to update
their implementation. To remedy this, polyfills, short programs
which implement built-in methods, have become common. A polyfill will
inject a built-in into the standard library at runtime if it is not already
supported by the host interpreter.
In this paper we use two polyfill packages, \lstinline|core-js|~\cite{core-js} and
\lstinline|mdn-polyfills|~\cite{MDNPolyfill}, to test our approach. These libraries contain
polyfill implementations of standard library methods added in the ES6
standard. \lstinline|core-js| is the de-facto standard for polyfills with
78,000,000 monthly downloads. \lstinline|mdn-polyfills| is less highly depended on,
with 72,000 monthly downloads on NPM, the largest JavaScript package repository.
\subsection{Architecture}
We generate new test cases by dynamic symbolic execution of polyfills.
Analysis of these polyfills will generate inputs that explore the intricacies of
built-in specifications, but we do not have a ground-truth for the correct
behavior of a test case.
To solve this problem we use a suite of interpreters and have
them vote on the correct answer.
This acts an oracle to identify when an implementation is incorrect, and
only requires manual intervention when two or more implementations diverge.
We split our implementation into two components, the test case generator,
and the test case executor. The test case generator uses ExpoSE to generate
new test cases.
The test case executor executes a test suite extracted from the symbolic
executions and checks that each of our selected interpreters is implemented
correctly.
\subsection{Test Case Generation}
\begin{figure*}[t]%
\tikzstyle{block} = [draw, fill=white, rectangle, minimum height=3em, minimum width=6em]%
\tikzstyle{pinstyle} = [pin edge={to-,thin,black}]%
\begin{center}%
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=2.25cm,>=latex',font=\sffamily,scale=0.8,every node/.style={scale=0.8}]
\node [align=center] (seedinputs) {};
\node [block, right of=seedinputs, node distance=3.5cm] (distributor) {Distributor};
\node [right of=distributor, node distance=3.8cm] (distributor fork) {};
\node [block, right of=distributor, node distance=5.5cm, yshift=-0.75cm] (oracle) {Concrete};
\node [block, above of=oracle, align=center, node distance=1.5cm] (testcase) {Symbolic};
\node [block, below of=oracle, align=center, node distance=1.6cm] (traditional) {Traditional\\Test Expansion};
\node [block, below of=traditional, align=center, node distance=1.5cm] (objectaware) {Object-Aware\\Test Expansion};
\node [right of=traditional, node distance=3.5cm, yshift=-0.8cm] (expansion fork) {};
\node [left of=expansion fork, node distance=1.7cm] (expansion merge) {};
\node [left of=traditional, node distance=1.75cm, yshift=-0.8cm] (expansion fork 2) {};
\node [block, right of=oracle, node distance=3.5cm, yshift=0.75cm] (results) {Path Verifier};
\node [right of=results, align=center, node distance=3.5cm] (testsuite) {};
\node [left of=results, node distance=1.5cm] (results fork) {};
\draw [->] (seedinputs.east) -- node[name=inputnode] {Input} (distributor.west);
\draw [-] (distributor.east) -- node[name=u, align=center] {Test Case\\Input} (distributor fork.west);
\draw [->] (distributor fork.west) -- (testcase.west);
\draw [->] (distributor fork.west) -- (oracle.west);
\draw [-] (testcase.east) -- (results fork.west);
\draw [-] (oracle.east) -- (results fork.west);
\draw [->] (results fork.west) -- (results.west);
\draw [-] (results.south) -- node[name=u, yshift=-1.3cm, xshift=0.2cm, rotate=90] {Path Condition} (expansion fork.center);
\draw [-] (expansion fork.center) -- (expansion merge.center);
\draw [->] (expansion merge.center) -- node[name=u, xshift=1.9cm, yshift=0.75cm] {No Objects} (traditional.east);
\draw [->] (expansion merge.center) -- node[name=u, xshift=-0.1cm] {Used Objects} (objectaware.east);
\draw [-] (traditional.west) -- (expansion fork 2.center);
\draw [-] (objectaware.west) -- (expansion fork 2.center);
\node [below of=inputnode, node distance=3.45cm] (input join) {};
\draw [-] (expansion fork 2.center) -- node[name=u, align=center, xshift=-1cm] {Alternate\\Inputs} (input join.center);
\draw [->] (input join.center) -- (inputnode);
\path (results.east) -- (results.east) coordinate (r1);
\path (testsuite.west) -- (testsuite.west) coordinate (t1);
\draw[thick,dotted] ($(testcase.north west)+(-3,0.2)$) rectangle ($(results.south east)+(0.5,-4)$);
\node[draw=none, fill=none, node distance=1cm, above of=testcase, align=left, xshift=-0.5cm, yshift=0.0cm] (concurrent){Multiple Concurrent Executions};
\end{tikzpicture}%
\end{center}%
\caption{Test Case Generator Overview.}%
\label{fig:overview_test_case_generator}%
\end{figure*}
We generate new test cases by symbolically executing polyfills using ExpoSE.
\autoref{fig:overview_test_case_generator} provides an overview
of the architecture.
We begin by supplying the test apparatus with a target
built-in and the number of arguments the method expects.
The apparatus then constructs a series of symbolic inputs to use as arguments,
including a symbolic value for \lstinline|this|.
ExpoSE then analyzes the generated test harness and
begins to output a series of test cases.
We also execute each new test case in \lstinline|Node.js| to mitigate any
errors in ExpoSE.
We forward the result of the concrete and symbolic executions to the path
verifier, a tool that double-checks that the concrete and the symbolic result
are identical.
If they are not, then the test case is discarded. Otherwise, we add the test
case to the generated test case suite, and the symbolic path condition is
used to generate new test cases.
We use an object-aware type encoding when finding alternate test cases to
explore more of our target polyfills~(\autoref{sec:symbolic_datastructures}).
\subsection{Test Case Executor}
\label{ssec:test_executor}
The second component in our design is the test case executor.
Our automatically generated test cases do not have a predetermined expected
result because the result found during symbolic execution may be from a
flawed implementation.
Instead of using predetermined test case results, we use a consensus-based
approach to detect incorrect implementations, illustrated in
\autoref{fig:test_executor_overview}.
We execute each test case in several different interpreters.
Each interpreter has a different interface so we generate a compatible test
through a test translator that takes a test input and returns a program
compatible with a specific engine.
For polyfills, we inject the target method into a Node.js instance, replacing
any existing implementation. We then execute each of these programs and
collect the output.
Once the test case has been executed by each implementation, we pass the
results to a voting mechanism.
The voting mechanism looks for implementations where behavior diverges from
the others. If the outcome of a built-in call diverges either in exception
type or result then we say that the interpreters disagree and raise an error.
Specifically, we say that an implementation disagrees if either of the following two conditions are violated:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If a test case throws an exception and others do not, or the exception type
differs from other implementations.
\item If a test case has output different from the others.
\end{enumerate}
We do not compare the exact text of exceptions because it is not
specified by the ECMAScript specification.
If a single implementation disagrees then it is marked as incorrect. When
multiple implementations disagree, we cannot make any conclusion about correct
behavior and mark the test case for manual review.
\begin{figure}[t]%
\tikzstyle{block} = [draw, fill=white, rectangle, minimum height=3em, minimum width=6em]%
\tikzstyle{pinstyle} = [pin edge={to-,thin,black}]%
\begin{center}%
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=2.25cm,>=latex',font=\sffamily,scale=0.8,every node/.style={scale=0.8}]
\node [align=center] (seedinputs) {\\\\Input};
\node [block, right of=seedinputs, node distance=1.5cm, align=center] (generator) {Test Case\\Generator};
\node [block, right of=generator, node distance=3cm, align=center] (cjs) {Node.js (V8)};
\node [block, above of=cjs, node distance=1.5cm, align=center] (chrome) {SpiderMonkey};
\node [block, below of=cjs, node distance=1.5cm, align=center] (mdn) {\ldots};
\node [block, right of=cjs, node distance=3cm, align=center] (voting) {Voting};
\node [align=center, right of=voting, node distance=1.5cm] (outcome) {};
\draw[thick,dotted] ($(chrome.north west)+(-0.4,0.7)$) rectangle ($(mdn.south east)+(0.4,-0.7)$);
\draw [->] (seedinputs.west) -- (generator.west);
\draw [->] (generator.east) -- (cjs.west);
\draw [->] (generator.east) -- (chrome.west);
\draw [->] (generator.east) -- (mdn.west);
\draw [->] (cjs.east) -- (voting.west);
\draw [->] (chrome.east) -- (voting.west);
\draw [->] (mdn.east) -- (voting.west);
\draw [->] (voting.east) -- (outcome.east);
\end{tikzpicture}%
\end{center}%
\caption{Test Case Executor Overview.}%
\label{fig:test_executor_overview}%
\end{figure}
\section{Representing Symbolic Data Structures in JavaScript}
\label{sec:symbolic_datastructures}
To allow automated generation of structured test inputs for built-in methods, we
require a method for maintaining symbolic objects and arrays. We developed new
encodings for untyped symbolic objects, i.e., symbolic objects with no
pre-specified property names or types~(\autoref{ssec:symbolic_object_full}),
arrays of mixed types~(\autoref{sec:mixed_type_arrays}), and for homogeneously
typed arrays~(\autoref{sec:hom_arrays}).
\subsection{Motivation}
Support for symbolic objects is key to the exploration of built-ins because
it allows thorough exploration of object and array-centric built-ins.
More subtly, support allows the DSE engine to consider esoteric type-checking
in built-in methods.
The specification includes precise but unintuitive rules on how input values
are to be interpreted and when type contract violations should raise an error.
To highlight how an object encoding can improve coverage of these edge cases,
we now consider \lstinline|Array.prototype.find|.
Usually, this method is given an array as its base argument and a
predicate. The array is then searched, left to right, until a value satisfying
the predicate is found.
If no values satisfy the predicate then \lstinline|undefined| is returned.
For example, \lstinline|[11,23,20].find((x) => x
If we look at the method specification, we see that there is a quirk to this
method contract. The method accepts any object which looks like an array
(i.e., any object with a length property).
Because of this \begin{sloppy}\lstinline[breaklines=true]|Array.prototype.find.call({0: 11, 1: 23, 2: 20, length: 3}, (x) => x
One further quirk is the coercion of \lstinline|length| to an integer. The specification does not reject non-integer length properties, leading to a coercion \begin{sloppy} that resolves \lstinline[breaklines=true]|Array.prototype.find.call({0: 20, length: true}, (x) => x
In \lstinline|mdn-polyfills| these checks are implemented by \lstinline|var o = Object(this)|, which ensures the value is either an array or
an object, followed by \lstinline|var len = o.length >>> 0|, which
selects the length of the object and ensures it is an integer using type
coercion~\footnote{https://github.com/msn0/mdn-polyfills/blob/master/src/Array.prototype.findIndex/findIndex.js}.
In this case, if the length property is not an integer then it is first
coerced to a number and subsequently truncated to an integer.
Through our encoding of objects, we can synthesize useful test cases for
such behavior.
\subsection{Symbolic Objects}
\label{ssec:symbolic_object_full}
Representing JavaScript objects in DSE engines is challenging due to the dynamic
type system. Existing SMT solvers do not support a ``theory of
objects.'' Recreating a dynamic datatype in SMT and implementing the required
reasoning would complicate solver-side logic and effectively move much
language-specific reasoning into the SMT solver, which is designed to be
language-agnostic. So instead we opt to translate the reasoning about symbolic
objects into a form that can be represented as an SMT problem over primitive
types.
We develop an intermediate encoder that outputs typed SMT problems directly in
the DSE engine.
The intermediate encoder does not require solver extensions, instead
simulating symbolic objects by following every object operation
along a program trace and exploring feasible alternatives.
We model symbolic objects by tracking property lookups and
updates to objects.
For this, we rewrite all property lookups to use the
common interface \lstinline|getProperty(object, propertyName)| and all property
updates to use \lstinline|setProperty(object, propertyName, value)|.
In both cases, \lstinline|object| is the object
operated on and \lstinline|propertyName| is a string indicating which property is being accessed.
For \lstinline|setProperty|, \lstinline|value| is
the new value of the given property.
With this instrumentation, we can keep track of all object operations during
execution, updating the symbolic state when appropriate.
We instrument arrays similarly, with \lstinline|getProperty| and \lstinline|setProperty|
interfaces for all property lookups. They differ in the typing of property names,
where they also accept integer values, since arrays can contain
integer and string property names.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{object_model}
\caption{Illustration of symbolic object modeling.}
\label{fig:expansion_explained}
\end{figure}
The root of our encoding is the creation of new symbolic values for properties
we have not seen before while returning the value stored in a state for
properties that we have previously set. Our encoding for objects is
illustrated in \autoref{fig:expansion_explained}. Here we see how a symbolic
object behaves under various typical operations.
The first step in \autoref{fig:expansion_explained} shows how symbolic
objects support fully concrete operations. Here, we record the concrete
value supplied to be returned on subsequent lookups.
When we perform a lookup for a property that we have not encountered before, we
introduce a new symbolic value to the program and set it to the appropriate
property.
The created symbol does not have a fixed type, and instead uses existing
support in the DSE engine to explore the program as if it were any of the
supported symbolic types.
In the case of ExpoSE, the DSE engine we use in this paper, the symbolic
types supported are undefined, null, boolean, number, string and through
our encoding also objects and arrays. The second operation illustrates this
process on \lstinline|objA| in \autoref{fig:expansion_explained}, where the
new symbol Z is introduced and assigned to the property z.
Next, we want to set a property with a concrete property name but a symbolic value.
As with a fully concrete set property, we record the supplied property value to
the object state; here, it makes no difference if the supplied properties are
concrete or symbolic.
The last matter that we address in this example is how we approach setting
and getting of properties with symbolic property names. Here, we attempt to create
new test cases for each of the previously recorded properties of an object -
even if they are subsequently deleted. The final operation illustrates this
in the figure, where we write a concrete value with a symbolic property name,
leading to two new paths. One where the property \lstinline|r| is replaced with 5,
and another where the property \lstinline|z| is replaced with \lstinline|5|. This
final step causes under-approximation in our encoding: We do not enumerate
on properties that we have not seen previously. We could, in principle, support
this through the enumeration of all possible property names, but this would
lead to an infeasible number of paths to explore.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\If{property is symbolic}{
\For{knownProp in base} {
\tcp{Attempt to generate a test case for each known property}
\If{Concrete(property) $=$ knownProp} {
$PC \leftarrow PC \land property = knownProp$\;
} \Else {
$PC \leftarrow PC \land property \neq knownProp$\;
}
}
\Return{base[property]};
} \Else {
\If {property not in base} {
$base[property] = $$fresh$ $symbol$\;
}
\Return{base[property]}\;
}
\caption{Symbolic object encoder -- getProperty(base, property).}
\label{alg:sym_encoder_getProperty}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\If{property is symbolic}{
\For{knownProp in base}{
\tcp{Attempt to generate a test case for each known property}
\If{Concrete(property) $=$ knownProp} {
$PC \leftarrow PC \land property = knownProp$\;
} \Else {
$PC \leftarrow PC \land property \neq knownProp$\;
}
}
\Return{base[property] = value}\;
} \Else {
\tcp{Record the new value for property}
\Return{base[property] = value}\;
}
\caption{Symbolic object encoder -- setProperty(base, property, value).}
\label{alg:sym_encoder_setProperty}
\end{algorithm}
To implement our encoding we instrument the \lstinline|getProperty|
and \lstinline|setProperty| operations executed by a program with our
object encoder, detailed in \autoref{alg:sym_encoder_getProperty} and
\autoref{alg:sym_encoder_setProperty}.
We send any portions of the program trace involving symbolic objects to these
intermediate encoders.
The distinction between known and unknown properties is core to our symbolic
object encoding, with the symbolic object keeping track of any properties that
it has encountered before.
Each symbolic object is created with an initial map of known properties.
A \lstinline{setProperty} operation with a concrete property name marks that
property as known, and it will then on return the supplied value to preserve
JavaScript semantics.
The complementary \lstinline{getProperty} operation on a fixed property has normal
behavior, returning the (potentially symbolic) known value from the object.
So far, this encoding is straightforward and preserves standards semantics,
returning known property values for an object.
However, in order to explore the program symbolically, we need a special approach to treating
unknown property lookups. Whenever a program performs a \lstinline{getProperty}
on an unknown property we return a new, untyped, symbolic variable rather than
\lstinline|undefined| (the standard behavior). The specified
property of the symbolic object is then marked as known and fixed to this new
symbolic value. When a test case terminates, new tests will be created to
explore the program for each supported symbolic type.
There are a number of advanced features which can change
the behavior of \lstinline|getProperty| and \lstinline|setProperty| operations, such
as \lstinline|defineProperty|, which can trigger the execution of a function
instead of map lookup.
Methods can also be used to change the enumerability of properties within
an object.
We concertize the symbolic objects when handling these cases, and so our
encoding is under-approximate when modeling these behaviors.
\subsection{Mixed Type Arrays}
\label{sec:mixed_type_arrays}
We have described an approach to model objects, which are in
essence maps between string property names and values of any type.
We now show the same approach can be applied to arrays as well.
Conceptually, arrays are very similar to objects, mapping integer or string
property names to values.
The most significant differences between arrays and objects are the custom
behaviors of the length property, enumeration, and accompanying methods (e.g.,
\lstinline|push| and \lstinline|pop|).
In JavaScript, it is valid to also write to non-integer properties to arrays,
with the array acting as a object in these cases.
For example, \lstinline|let arr = [1,2,3]; arr['dst'] = '/home';| would yield \lstinline|[0: 1, 1: 2, 2: 3, length: 3, dst: 'home']|.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{array_model}
\caption{Illustration of symbolic array modeling.}
\label{fig:array_expansion_explained}
\end{figure}
We intercept reads and writes to array length, which is a reserved property
name in arrays.
The array length property will always be one higher than the largest element
index in the array. This point is important because arrays do
not need to be contiguous (i.e., there may be gaps between two indices).
This design choice has an impact on enumeration, where looping on the array
length will include all indices \lstinline|0 <= index < arrayLength|, but using
the \lstinline|of| or \lstinline|in| operators will only include those which have
been set, since these operators will only include properties which are marked
as enumerable. For example, examine the following program:
\begin{lstlisting}
let arr = []
arr[0] = 1;
arr[4] = 2;
\end{lstlisting}
Here, the interpreter will yield the array \lstinline|[0: 1, 4: 2, length: 5]|. If we enumerate using the \lstinline|of| or \lstinline|in| operators we would see \lstinline|1| and \lstinline|2| enumerated upon, however if we enumerate and print all properties through the array length then we would see \lstinline{1, undefined, undefined, 2} printed.
When a program writes to the array length property, the array will be truncated or expanded to the new length.
If the value is less than the current array length, any values in the indices \lstinline|newLength <= index < oldLength| will be deleted from the array. If the value is greater than the current array length, then the array will be extended with \lstinline|undefined| values. To illustrate this, see the following program:
\begin{lstlisting}
let x1 = [1,2,3]
let x2 = [1,2,3]
x1.length = 100;
x2.length = 0;
\end{lstlisting}
In this example the variable x1 would have a length of 100 with all values
after 3 being \lstinline|undefined|, while x2 will be empty.
We illustrate these changes in behavior through
\autoref{fig:array_expansion_explained}. To ensure we accurately model array
length, we create a separate symbolic integer to represent it. This value is
initially unbounded and has constraints applied as the program executes. As
we fetch property 5, we explore two paths, one where the existing length
property is large enough to accommodate the new value and one where it is
not. In the case where it is not the value of the property will be undefined,
and in the other case it will return a new symbol using the same approach
as our symbolic objects. The second step illustrates what happens when an
array lookup occurs on an array that is longer than our property index. Here,
a second path is infeasible because the array length cannot be less than
six. Direct writes to an array fix the symbolic length; writing a length
of zero to the array truncates it, removing all properties. Subsequent property
lookups will all return undefined. A write of length 100 expands the array
to a fixed length but does not fix any properties. Here, a property lookup creates
a fresh symbol because the previous one was erased. The new symbol is given
a unique name in the path condition, and can interact with the symbol that
used to occupy this property.
\subsection{Optimized Support for Homogeneously Typed Arrays}
\label{sec:hom_arrays}
The final component of our encoding is a direct translation to SMT for
homogeneously typed arrays.
This encoding enables symbolic property names in homogeneously typed
arrays. As motivated previously, directly encoding JavaScript arrays in
SMT is too expensive for DSE, since we would need to encode potentially
recursive values in SMT. Our generic array and object encoding overcome
this by on-demand symbol generation, but this strategy cannot reason about
property indices symbolically. For example, in the following program, we
will not exercise the error:
\begin{lstlisting}
let i = I with initial vale 0;
let arr = A with initial value [];
if (arr[0] == 5 && arr[i] != 5) {
throw 'Error';
}
\end{lstlisting}
In this program, we do not exercise the error because we concretize symbolic
property names. Thus, \lstinline|arr[i]| will resolve to \lstinline|arr[0]|,
leading to an infeasible constraint of $arr[0] = 5 \land arr[0] \neq 5$,
and will not consider any paths where i is not 0 due to concretization. If we
set \lstinline|i| to \lstinline|1|, then this error would be found. We provide an
encoding for homogeneously typed arrays directly in SMT to explore portions
of a program where property name concretization is limiting analysis. Since the
encoding is directly in SMT, we no longer need to concretize property names,
allowing us to reason about property names symbolically.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\If{$0 \leq index < base.length$}{
$PC \leftarrow PC \land 0 \leq index < base.length$\;
\Return{select(base, index)};
} \Else {
$PC \leftarrow PC \land (index < 0 \lor index > base.length)$\;
\Return{undefined}\;
}
\caption{Homogeneous Array -- getProperty(base, index).}
\label{alg:homog_getProperty}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\If{$index > 0$} {
base.length = $index + 1$ if $index \geq base.length$ otherwise $base.length$\;
base = $store(base, index, value)$\;
}
\Return{value}
\caption{Homogeneous Array -- setProperty(base, index, value).}
\label{alg:homog_setProperty}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
knownValues = []\;
\For{i in Concrete(base.length)} {
knownValues[i] = $select(base, i)$\;
}
\Return{GenericArray(knownValues, base.length)}
\caption{Homogeneous Array -- downgrade(array)}
\label{alg:homog_downgrade}
\end{algorithm}
Our encoding uses existing SMT solver support to
represent arrays.
A typed array has two symbolic components, the array data
and array length.
The array base is a symbolic mapping of integer property names to symbolic
values of the array's type.
The symbolic length property is used to represent the current constraints on
array length, which is necessary to test out-of-bounds array element access.
A symbolic \lstinline|getProperty| can explore two paths, one where the array
is shorter than the index resulting in \lstinline|undefined|, the second
where the array includes the index, resulting in a value of the array
type. \lstinline|setProperty| operations update the symbolic length to accommodate
the new value and then inserts it into the base. This is illustrated in
\autoref{alg:homog_getProperty} and \autoref{alg:homog_setProperty}. In these
algorithms, the methods \lstinline|select| and \lstinline|store| map directly to SMT.
We downgrade when a \lstinline|setProperty| is given a value that is not the array
base type.
The process for downgrading a homogeneously typed array to a mixed-type array
is detailed in \autoref{alg:homog_downgrade}.
Array downgrading converts a homogeneously typed array into a generic array
to allow mixed types.
We do this by using the concrete array length to derive the initial mapping
for the mixed-type array.
We copy the homogeneously typed array's length into the new array so that we
respect existing length constraints.
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:eval}
We now set out to show the effectiveness of our approach on a subset of
JavaScript built-in functions introduced with the ES6 specification. Here,
we set out to answer the following research questions:
\begin{enumerate}[start=1,label=\bf RQ\arabic*:,leftmargin=\widthof{\textbf{RQ1:}}+\labelsep+2em]
\item \label{item:conformance_rq1} Is our approach able to cover the logic of built-in functions?
\item \label{item:conformance_rq2} Can our approach find any bugs in built-in methods?
\item \label{item:conformance_rq3} Does the addition of our test cases improve coverage of Test262?
\end{enumerate}
We answer these research questions through three experiments on selected
functions introduced with the ES6 specification.
In the first experiment we evaluate the effectiveness of our conformance
test case generation strategy using the polyfills \lstinline|core-js| v3.1.4
and \lstinline|mdn-polyfills| v5.17.1.
Here, we show that ExpoSE achieves high coverage of many method
implementations.
For our second experiment we use our generated conformance test suite and
voting mechanism to search for errors in existing implementations of the
ES6 standard, finding 17 bugs in a widely depended built-in
implementation.
Finally, we evaluate the coverage of our test suite against Test262
under the QuickJS interpreter (v2019-10-27). In this study we see that, while
Test262 generally covers more branches of tested methods overall, our test cases explore parts of the
built-in implementations which are not covered by Test262.
\subsection{Test Case Generation}
\label{sec:polyfill_testcase_generation}
In our first experiment we answer \hyperref[item:conformance_rq1]{RQ1} through
an evaluation on two popular ES6 built-in method implementations
found on NPM. We extracted our surrogate implementations from \lstinline|core-js|
and \lstinline|mdn-polyfills|. Overall, we collected 96,470 new
unique test cases. We show that we achieve high coverage of the built-in
implementations during symbolic execution, suggesting that a large portion
of the implementation is covered.
\subsubsection{Methodology}
Our test harness loads the portions of the library we wish to test and selects
a target method. The method is then executed with symbolic arguments for both
the \lstinline|this| argument and each of the method arguments. We analyze this
harness with ExpoSE. Each method is tested in isolation, through a single
analysis using ExpoSE with a timeout of one hour on a 64 core machine. After
analysis, the generated test cases are combined and duplicates are removed.
\subsubsection{Results}
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{X|r|r|r}
\toprule
\bf Function & \bf Test Cases & \bf core-js Coverage & \bf mdn-polyfill Coverage \\
\midrule
Array.from & 13122 & 90\% & 84\% \\
Array.of & 162 & 84\% & 82\% \\
Array.fill & 2645 & 89\% & 85\% \\
Array.filter & 81 & 88\% & N/A \\
Array.findIndex & 162 & 72\% & 51\% \\
Array.forEach & 81 & 78\% & N/A \\
Array.reduce & 729 & 76\% & N/A \\
Array.some & 162 & 84\% & 35\% \\
String.endsWith & 64179 & 86\% & 82\% \\
String.includes & 15957 & 93\% & 91\% \\
String.padStart & 13220 & 94\% & 94\% \\
String.padEnd & 13220 & 94\% & 94\% \\
String.repeat & 2066 & 96\% & 83\% \\
String.startsWith & 4215 & 91\% & 88\% \\
String.trim & 2025 & 95\% & 83\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Automatically generated test cases by built-in method.}
\label{tbl:automatically_generated_cases}
\end{table}
We generated 129,960 new test cases overall, which was reduced to 96,470
after removal of duplicate tests. \autoref{tbl:automatically_generated_cases}
presents the results of our evaluation, providing coverage information from
the analysis of the \lstinline|core-js| and \lstinline|mdn-polyfills| variant if the method
was supported by that library. Overall, we found that our prototype is more capable
of generating test cases for string methods than array methods.
These results are inline with our expectations, as the string support in
ExpoSE is mature. Further improvements in ExpoSE modeling and SMT solvers
could improve this support even further. In particular, our encoding currently
does not include symbolic models for array methods other than \lstinline|push|,
\lstinline|pop|, \lstinline|includes|, \lstinline|indexOf|, which may lower overall
performance.
\subsection{Executing Our Test Cases}
We have now generated a suite of test cases for our selected methods
and are ready to test built-ins. In this section we set out to answer
\hyperref[item:conformance_rq2]{RQ2} by executing our tests on five JavaScript
built-in implementations.
We execute each of our generated test cases on three interpreters
and two polyfill implementations.
To analyze the output of these test cases, we construct the voting mechanism
outlined in \autoref{ssec:test_executor} from our selected interpreters. Each
test case is executed once per interpreter, and after they finish they vote
on the correct output. We found 17 unique bugs in \lstinline|mdn-polyfills|,
showing that our approach is effective in generating useful test cases for
conformance testing. We did not find bugs in any other implementations but
this was expected as the methods tested are from a mature standard.
We found zero cases which required manual intervention during voting.
\subsubsection{Methodology}
We selected QuickJS 2019-10-27, SpiderMonkey 68 (through the standalone interpreter), Node.js v8.12.0,
\lstinline|core-js| v3.1.4 and \lstinline|mdn-polyfills| v5.17.1 for testing. We tested each of the test-cases identified in
\autoref{sec:polyfill_testcase_generation}. We executed each test case once
with each competing implementation and stored the output. Next, we examined the
result of each test case for divergence between the tested implementations. If
there is any divergence then we used the outlined voting mechanism to resolve
the failing case. Test cases were each executed with a maximum time of 10
minutes on each interpreter, though no test cases hit this boundary. Tests
which crashed or exceeded the timeout are terminated with a failure.
\subsubsection{Results}
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{X|r|r|r}
\toprule
\bf Implementation & \bf Unique Exceptions & \bf Test Case Failure & \bf Bugs \\
\midrule
mdn-polyfills~\cite{MDNPolyfill} & 34 & 200 & 17 \\
core-js~\cite{core-js} & 63 & 125 & 0 \\
SpiderMonkey~\cite{SpiderMonkey} & 72 & 66 & 0 \\
Node.js~\cite{NodeJS} & 56 & 122 & 0 \\
QuickJS~\cite{QuickJS} & 24 & 141 & 0 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Test case summaries for 5 built-in implementations.}
\label{tbl:exceptions_and_faults}
\end{table}
\autoref{tbl:exceptions_and_faults} presents a summary of test case executions
for the 5 built-in implementations. \textbf{Unique Exceptions}
gives the number of unique exceptions identified across the executions of
all test cases (i.e, where an exception text has not been seen before after
test specific details are removed). \textbf{Test Case Failure} details the
total number of test cases where the interpreter failed to give a result
due to crash or timeout. The final column, \textbf{Bugs} gives the number
of bugs found in each implementation.
Our test case executor found 17 bugs automatically, all within \lstinline|mdn-polyfills|. We were able to confirm these bugs through manual
analysis.
For example, in one test case we observed that
\begin{sloppy}\lstinline[breaklines=true]|String.prototype.includes.apply([0,0], [[]])|\end{sloppy} should yield \lstinline|true|, but in \lstinline|mdn-polyfills|
the built-in returns \lstinline|false|. We found this divergence occurs
because the implementation does not coerce the \lstinline|[0, 0]| to a string.
The identified bugs show that a consensus based test executor can
be used to verify the correct behavior of built-in JavaScript methods.
Manual analysis found that the bugs identified were all triggered by
unconsidered type coercions in string and array methods. In some cases,
this led to the method producing output when it should have thrown an error.
In others, the method produced an incorrect output, such as
\begin{sloppy}\lstinline[breaklines=true]|Array.includes|\end{sloppy}, which
would return \lstinline|true| when it should have returned \lstinline|false|
on some inputs.
In addition to finding some bugs, we exercised many unique exceptions in
interpreters. The high number of unique exceptions suggests that our test suite
is exploring many interesting corner cases of implementation. Interestingly, we
do not see the same number of unique exceptions across interpreters. We found
that some implementations have much more verbose error messages
for built-ins than others. While the exception messages are not standardized,
and so this is not an implementation error, the lack of verbosity could make
errors harder to debug.
We experienced some test case failure for each of the implementations
tested. We observed zero cases of failure due to test timeouts or interpreter
error; instead, all observed failures were due to interpreter memory
limits. Most of these errors occur in \lstinline|String.repeat|, where many
of the test inputs are large values which hit interpreter memory limits. We
examined our surrogates to understand why the DSE engine is generating such
extreme cases. We find that in one of our surrogate implementations there
is an upper limit on string size through a boundary condition \lstinline|if (str.length * count >= 1 << 28)|. The condition drives ExpoSE to generate
a series of test cases supplying large arrays or strings as input. The
specification does not specify interpreter memory limits, so the different
number of failing cases is not an error. In particular, we observed that SpiderMonkey
avoids test case failure in these cases by having stricter limits on bounds
for \lstinline|repeat|. As an example, at the time of writing, Node.js
will execute \lstinline|'h'.repeat(1 << 28)| but SpiderMonkey will not. In
the specification, ECMAScript does not add any constraints to the range of
strings, so long as they are positive integers. In practice, the reason we
see these memory errors in QuickJS and Node, but not SpiderMonkey, is because
string boundaries are explicit in SpiderMonkey method implementations. So
these errors manifest as exceptions without crashing the interpreter.
Our study has shown that we can detect faults in a real built-in implementation
with 35,000 weekly downloads at time of writing. The ability to detect real
bugs using our approach shows that a consensus based approach for test case
evaluation can be effective. In addition, our approach generated a large
number of unique exceptions in the tested cases and covered an obscure
difference in string length constraints between interpreters, demonstrating
that our test cases explore interesting paths through the implementations.
\subsection{Test Suite Coverage}
To ensure that our new approach generates novel test cases, we now compare the
branch coverage of the new test cases to Test262. We show that the
addition of our test cases leads to an increases in overall branch coverage
in QuickJS, demonstrating that our approach is generating novel test cases.
To test our approach we built a version of the QuickJS interpreter with support for gcov so we could collect internal code coverage metrics.
QuickJS is a complete ES6 implementation of JavaScript~\cite{QuickJS}.
We selected this interpreter because it executes the code in a purely
interpreted manner, without JIT or other runtime optimization, and it has
built-ins implemented directly in its source code.
This is important as many prominent engines, including Node.js~\cite{NodeJS} and
SpiderMonkey~\cite{SpiderMonkey}, do not implement language built-ins directly in source code.
Instead, these engines implement a small subset of JavaScript in their native
language and then implement the remaining built-ins in JavaScript.
Implementing built-ins in JavaScript allows these engines to take advantage
of JIT optimizations and reduce engine development time, but, this makes it
challenging to collect coverage metrics as built-in functions do not have
a clear instrumentation point.
In our study, we found that our automatically generated conformance test suite improves branch coverage by up to 15\%. We see coverage improvements in almost every tested function, demonstrating that the approach is versatile. Our results show that we can use automatically generated test cases to supplement the Test262 suite to provide greater over-all coverage of JavaScript interpreters.
\subsubsection{Methodology}
We modified the QuickJS build process to include support for branch coverage
output via gcov, a tool which collects coverage information through compile
time instrumentation. For each built-in method, we then executed all of
our generated test cases and the relevant portion of the Test262
suite. Once each had finished, we extracted the covered branches, using a
manual analysis to identify the appropriate function names in the QuickJS
source code.
When evaluating the coverage of a function within a program, we present both
shallow and deep metrics for combined coverage increases, and follow calls
to a depth of 3 when presenting absolute branch coverage.
If we only present shallow coverage metrics (i.e., we do not follow function
calls), then we may under-represent coverage improvements as logic for
built-ins is often spread across many methods.
Conversely, including all reachable functions may make our results less
insightful by including large amounts of indirectly related code, such as utility methods, which may also be called by other methods during execution.
By presenting our combined coverage improvements at different call depths,
the reader can see how branch coverage changes as we follow an implementation
deeper into the methods it calls.
In our coverage metrics we only include methods defined in the core QuickJS
implementation and do not include library calls.
\subsubsection{Results}
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{X|r|rr|rr|rr}
\toprule
\bf Function & \bf Total Branches & \bf ExpoSE & \% & \bf Test262 & \% & \bf Combined & \% \\
\midrule
array\_from & 1075 & 640 & 60\% & 802 & 75\% & 957 & 89\% \\
typed\_array\_from & 897 & 572 & 64\% & 696 & 78\% & 829 & 92\% \\
array\_of & 875 & 509 & 58\% & 640 & 73\% & 754 & 86\% \\
typed\_array\_of & 512 & 285 & 56\% & 405 & 79\% & 457 & 89\% \\
array\_fill & 740 & 436 & 59\% & 586 & 79\% & 663 & 90\% \\
typed\_array\_fill & 222 & 165 & 74\% & 180 & 81\% & 206 & 93\% \\
array\_every & 953 & 564 & 59\% & 748 & 78\% & 873 & 92\% \\
array\_find & 527 & 294 & 56\% & 422 & 80\% & 471 & 89\% \\
typed\_array\_find & 1472 & 869 & 59\% & 1103 & 75\% & 1302 & 88\% \\
array\_reduce & 702 & 404 & 58\% & 556 & 79\% & 636 & 91\% \\
array\_includes & 734 & 430 & 59\% & 589 & 80\% & 667 & 91\% \\
string\_includes & 220 & 148 & 67\% & 183 & 83\% & 194 & 88\% \\
string\_pad & 139 & 85 & 61\% & 112 & 81\% & 121 & 87\% \\
string\_trim & 54 & 34 & 63\% & 46 & 85\% & 47 & 87\% \\
string\_repeat & 139 & 89 & 64\% & 112 & 81\% & 116 & 83\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Branch coverage for systematically generated conformance tests and Test262 at a call depth of 3. }
\label{tbl:overall_comparison_conformance}
\end{table}
\autoref{tbl:overall_comparison_conformance} details total number of branches,
branches covered by our systematically generated conformance tests (ExpoSE),
and branches covered by Test262.
We selected a call depth of 3 as following calls further included many
utility methods, making results less insightful.
Here, tests generated by our approach achieve reasonable branch coverage,
but do not exceed the coverage of Test262 which is already very
high for every method.
When we combine the branches covered by automatically generated conformance
tests and Test262 we see an overall coverage improvement over
Test262 for every tested function, demonstrating that generated conformance tests are exploring new routes through the implementation.
\autoref{tbl:quickjs_coverage_improvement} shows the results of our coverage
study at various call depths.
The function names in the table are the internal function names in
QuickJS. QuickJS sometimes implements optimized methods for typed arrays,
which is why there may be two methods for the same feature.
We see branch coverage improvements in many of the methods we test, in some cases seeing a 15\% improvement overall. Our results demonstrate that our automatically generated test cases do explore further into built-in method behavior than Test262 answering \hyperref[item:conformance_rq3]{RQ3}.
In most functions, we see notable coverage increases, even at a call depth
of 0 (i.e., not including the coverage impact of any called methods).
These results highlight that our approach is exploring untraveled paths
through built-in function implementations login, and not just expanding
coverage in utility methods.
The coverage increases at low call depths show that built-in specific
edge cases are being exercised, as these expressed near the surface of
the call-tree.
Our study of interpreter coverage achieved between automatically generated conformance tests and Test262 shows that supplementing Test262 with automatically generated test cases will improve the test suite. We found that our approach would improve branch coverage of the test suite by up to 15\% in a complete ES6 JavaScript engine. These improvements demonstrate that our method can improve conformance testing for JavaScript interpreters using only automatically generated test cases. Such coverage improvements in the testing suite raise the likelihood that implementation errors will be detected before they cause problems in the wild.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{X|r|r|r}
\toprule
\bf Function & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\bf +Branches\% (Depth)} \\
& 0 & 3 & 5 \\
\midrule
array\_from & +4.76\% & +14.42\% & +14.68\% \\
typed\_array\_from & +6.14\% & +14.82\% & +13.48\% \\
array\_of & +0\% & +13.03\% & +12.83\% \\
typed\_array\_of & +41.67\% & +10.16\% & +14.19\% \\
array\_fill & +0\% & +10.41\% & +10.57\% \\
typed\_array\_fill & +8.33\% & +11.70\% & +14.97\% \\
array\_every & +8.33\% & +13.12\% & +12.64\% \\
array\_find & +8.51\% & +9.3\% & +11.41\% \\
typed\_array\_find & +11.43\% & +13.52\% & +15.32\% \\
array\_reduce & +3.13\% & +11.4\% & +12.36\% \\
array\_includes & +1.67\% & +10.63\% & +11.76\% \\
string\_includes & +0\% & +5\% & +9.69\% \\
string\_pad & +0\% & +6.47\% & +10.68\% \\
string\_trim & +0\% & +1.85\% & +8.37\% \\
string\_repeat & +0\% & +2.88\% & +10.52\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Coverage improvements of automatically generated tests at various call depths by built-in method implementation.}
\label{tbl:quickjs_coverage_improvement}
\end{table}
\section{Related Work}
We now briefly review related work in the space of dynamic symbolic execution, with a particular emphasis on memory models and handling of symbolic reads and writes to objects and arrays.
Mayhem~\cite{mayhem_paper} is a dynamic symbolic execution engine for compiled
programs that represents a 32-bit address space symbolically to model
program memory.
In this work a symbolic memory model improved the effectiveness of DSE by 40\%, showing that supporting symbolic memory is crucial.
To make their solution feasible, they limit the symbolic representation to
reads and do not consider writes symbolically.
EXE~\cite{exe} supports a single-object model, where pointers are
concretized and only a single address is considered.
The approaches are similar to our own when treating symbolic field names,
where ExpoSE concretizes the field name to avoid exploring an unbounded
number of inputs.
S2E~\cite{ChipounovKC11} models system memory symbolically in a symbolic
machine emulation, achieved through instrumentation of memory reads and writes.
Modeling memory interactions in low level applications is very different
from JavaScript, since memory is fixed type and the DSE engine does not need
specific encodings for language structures.
The DSE engine KLEE~\cite{klee} supports multiple memory models, including a
forking approach where one path is created to explore each symbolic memory
region, and a flat approach which reasons about memory as a single continuous
block.
Recent approaches split memory regions into segments
to allow more efficient analysis~\cite{segmented_memory_klee}.
These approaches are highly tailored to reasoning about systems memory with C
style pointers and are not directly applicable to JavaScript object modelling.
Bucur et al.~\cite{chef-asplos14}, found that useful symbolic execution of
JavaScript interpreters and their programs is out of reach of current binary
symbolic execution engines.
This work highlights the need for symbolic
dynamic language interpreters, where knowledge of the language structure
can make symbolic execution feasible.
There has been work to enable automated testing for Java~\cite{HavelundP00, bogor, AnandPV07}.
Symbolic encodings for Java classes are insufficient
for JavaScript as they rely upon a known structures and
typing~\cite{generalized_symbolic_execution_for_model_checking,
test_input_generation_jpf, symstra}.
Our approach is similar to previous symbolic representations of maps, but
does not require fixed type fields.
\citet{type_tests_typescript} use TypeScript type specifications and feedback
directed random fuzzing to identify mismatches between type specifications
and observed behaviors.
Through this approach the authors identify many inconsistencies, motivating
the use of dynamic analysis for specification testing.
\citet{zesti} symbolically execute test suites to find bugs.
A symbolic execution runs on the existing harnesses used by a program for
unit testing, replacing concrete values with symbolic ones in order take
advantage of interesting test conditions.
Unlike our approach, only simple error conditions are considered because
the tool cannot deduce the expected output after a charge in input.
\citet{shadow_of_a_doubt} use DSE to automatically discover differences in
behavior between program versions.
The authors test versions of the same software, while our approach
tests differences between many implementations of the same specification.
As versions of the same software are tested but program specifications are
not static, it is difficult to decide whether changes in behavior between
two versions are desired.
This differs from our approach, where the behavior of compliant
implementations is fixed and divergence is an error.
\section{Conclusions}
We have presented a new approach to automated generation of conformance tests
for the ECMAScript language specification based on dynamic symbolic execution of
polyfills. To adapt symbolic execution to this setting, we introduced a new
model for generating structured inputs in the presence of dynamic types.
We evaluate our method on selected functions from JavaScript built-in
implementations, generating 96,470 new conformance test cases from two packages
of polyfills. Using majority voting in place of usual test oracles, we found 17
pre-existing bugs in JavaScript built-in implementations. Our new test cases
improve branch coverage of the Test262 implementation conformance test suite by
up to 15\%.
Overall, our approach promises to make JavaScript conformance testing more
thorough and simpler to set up in the future. Given that often polyfills are
written before standardization to experiment with new language features, our
method can derive corresponding conformance tests directly from these
implementations.
|
\section{Introduction}
The interaction between light and matter is one of the central current
issues of condensed matter physics due to the various types of magnetic
and electronic order and different essential interactions in materials.
Besides the general understanding of
light-matter interactions, specifically, controlling the magnetic order of solids
with light \cite{RevModPhys.82.2731, kimel2005ultrafast, PhysRevLett.76.4250,
stupakiewicz2017ultrafast, koopmans2010explaining, Hofherreaay8717} could be the
required milestone to develop spintronic devices
working on unprecedented timescales. In experiments,
femtosecond laser pulses have already realised the ultrafast all-optical switching of the magnetisation in a wide variety of materials
\cite{RevModPhys.82.2731, PhysRevLett.76.4250}, femtosecond magnetic phase transitions
\cite{PhysRevLett.116.097401,PhysRevLett.108.037203,bossi18},
and the coherent generation of magnons
\cite{kimel2005ultrafast,bossini2016macrospin,PhysRevB.89.060405,SatoEtAl2015},
even with the mediation of the lattice \cite{NovaEtAl2017}.
The latter effect is particularly relevant for more reasons:
(i) coherent mechanisms provide the possibility to manipulate spins without energy dissipation; (ii) the magnetoelastic coupling is almost ubiquitous
and significantly strong in antiferromagnets \cite{NemecEtAtl2018,gomon21}
which are highly promising and heavily investigated compounds.
Here, we focus on a specific strongly correlated compound, namely hexagonal manganese telluride ($\alpha$-MnTe) \cite{Mobasser}.
It is a magnetic semiconductor with indirect bandgap in the near infrared range ($E_g = (\num{1.27}-\num{1.46})\,\si{\electronvolt}$ \cite{Kriegner_2016}).
While the semiconducting properties arise from
the Te $5p$ orbitals and the Mn $4s$ orbitals, the material
exhibits
an antiferromagnetic (AF) order of the Mn $3d$ spins consisting of ferromagnetically ordered layers of spins which are antiparallel between adjacent layers below the N\'{e}el temperature
$T_\text{N} \approx \SI{310}{\kelvin}$ \cite{Kriegner_2016}.
It is found that the electronic band gap is influenced by the
degree of magnetic order. In fact, an additional contribution to the band gap
proportional to the square of the sublattice magnetization occurs
\cite{PhysRevB.61.13679,Bossini_2020}.
This material has been experimentally proven to possess a substantial
spin-lattice coupling, since both the frequency and the lifetime of
two degenerate Raman-active phonon modes with $5.3$ THz frequency are
significantly affected by the establishment of the long-range magnetic
order \cite{RamanMnTe2020}.
Hexagonal MnTe is thus a representative choice for the material class of dielectric correlated antiferromagnets. The correlated nature is in fact common to a massive variety of other compounds (e.g. oxides) and the strong magneto-acoustic coupling is almost ubiquitous in antiferromagnets \cite{RamanMnTe2020,gomon21}.
So far two phonon-magnon coupling mechanisms have been considered to
interpret observations on the femtosecond time-scale:
the nonlinear phononics \cite{FoerstEtAl2011,NovaEtAl2017}
and the Kittel mode \cite{PhysRevB.97.140404}.
A very recent time-resolved experiment \cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021}
displays photo-induced coherent oscillations of the rotation of the polarisation of light well pronounced
in the antiferromagnetic phase of $\alpha$-MnTe. In this experiment,
femtosecond laser pulses trigger the $5.3$ THz modes by means of
a Raman-scattering mechanism changing the interatomic potentials
for fractions of a picosecond. This displacive effect
constitutes the pumping mechanism. Moreover, the dispersion of magnons of the material
\cite{PhysRevMaterials.3.025403}
excludes the physical framework of the Kittel mode because magnons and phonons do not display an avoided crossing in their dispersions.
A novel physical mechanism has thus to be explored to interpret the observations, which are expected
not to be limited to $\alpha$-MnTe, given the generality of the formulation.
The question arises how light couples to the magnetic subsystem and
coherently drives a magnetization modulation in the class of
antiferromagnetically ordered insulators (or semiconductors)
\cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021}.
Based on the seminal work by Fleury and Loudon \cite{FleuryLoudon1968}
and Shastry and Shraiman \cite{ShastryShraiman1990} it is
possible that Raman scattering directly excites spin degrees of freedom
via the Peierls coupling of the vector potential in the hopping
elements of the underlying fermionic Hubbard model.
This mechanism has been recently invoked to
compute the magnon circular photogalvanic effect \cite{Bostroem2021}.
The mapping of the fermionic model on the spin model works
best if the Raman pumping is performed
off resonance. But
in this regime the excitation of magnetic dynamics tends
to be rather inefficient.
In contrast to the direct coupling of light
to the spins via a Peierls substitution in the underlying
Hubbard model
\cite{ShastryShraiman1990}, the aforementioned dominant coupling of optical phonons to the spin degrees of freedom,
is revealed by Raman
spectroscopy \cite{RamanMnTe2020}. This coupling can be
qualitatively understood since the superexchange paths pertinent to the magnetic couplings depend on the overlaps of the
atomic orbitals, which are determined by the ionic positions and possible motions thereof.
This is a key ingredient for creating magnetic excitations.
Such atomic motion can be triggered by so called displacive
stimulated Raman scattering. The excitation
of an electron from an occupied to an unoccupied state alters
the interionic potentials so that the previous atomic positions
are no longer equilibrium positions. Hence the atoms start moving
towards the minima of the modified potential.
This induces a coherent oscillatory motion of the
atomic positions in each unit cell that is governed by
the optical phonon frequencies.
This oscillatory motion persists once the electronic
excitations has decayed on the short time scale of
hundreds of femtoseconds.
This periodic modulation of the Mn-Te distances and angles in the unit cell
translates into a periodic modulation of the tight-binding hopping
parameters of an effective Hubbard model for the manganese $3d$ subsystem.
According to the relation $J\propto t^2/U$ between the magnetic
exchange $J$, the hopping $t$ and the on-site repulsion $U$
the periodic modulation of $t$ entails a periodic modulation of the
exchange coupling \cite{PhysRevMaterials.2.064401}.
This leads us to a coupling mechanism
by means of displacement
based on the modulation of the
Heisenberg exchange couplings in an effective spin model
for the magnetic degrees of freedom. This optomagnetic mechanism
is similar to the one recently studied for a
disordered spin system \cite{PhysRevB.103.045132}.
The key difference is the way how
the phonons or atomic displacements
are pumped by light. Infrared active phonons
can be set into motion directly by THz radiation
while we invoke displacive stimulated Raman scattering
in the present work.
A indirect magneto-phononic coupling was
considered in the context of Cr$_2$O$_3$.
The assumption was made in Ref.\ \cite{PhysRevMaterials.2.064401}
that an infrared vibrational model is driven
by sinusoidal laser field in the THZ range,
and is coupled via non-linear terms to an effective Heisenberg model by a Raman mode. The magnetization dynamics was calculated
by a phenomenolgical Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation.
In the present paper, we are guided by the experimental setup \cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021} where a very short fs laser pulse with spectral range centred at 1.71 eV slightly above the band gap
induces atomic displacements on an ultrashort time scale
leading to a coherent optical lattice mode
which drives the magnetic subsystem on a ps time scale.
The amplitude of the lattice mode decays exponentially on the ps time scale due to coupling to the bath of acoustic phonons.
In particular, we are interested in the quantum mechanical description of the
change in the sublattice magnetization of the antiferromagnet as function of time.
Starting from the modulated Heisenberg exchange couplings \cite{PhysRevMaterials.2.064401},
we employ Holstein-Primakoff linear spin-wave theory
out of equilibrium to calculate the generation
of magnon pairs and the induced dynamics of the
sublattice magnetization for various system parameters
such as the driving frequency, the driving intensity, and
the pulse duration. We also include spin-lattice relaxation
on the level of a Markov approximation
to describe the realistic long-time relaxation of the
optically activated system.
Our approach is generic for lattice-driven
magnon dynamics in ordered quantum magnets
leading to a universal analytic structure
of the equations of motion. The
material specific details only enter in the modifications
of momentum dependent couplings in the differential equations,
but they do not change their analytic structure.
Using realistic
exchange couplings extracted from measured magnon dispersions \cite{PhysRevB.73.104403}
allows us to make contact to the lattice-driven femtosecond magnon dynamics in $\alpha$-MnTe \cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021}.
This article is structured as follows.
We present the underlying Heisenberg spin model in
Sec.\ \ref{sec:model}
and its treatment by Holstein spin-wave theory in
Sec.\ \ref{sec:spin-wave-theory}
where we establish the equilibrium properties in the
antiferromagnetic symmetry broken phase.
Section \ref{sec:NEQ} is devoted to the non-equilibrium dynamics.
We derive the generic equation of motion for the driven magnon dynamics in Sec.\ \ref{sec:driven-magnons}
and discuss the properties in Sec.~\ref{sec:specific_modes} where we present
approximate analytic solutions of the equations. The accuracy of the
approximations is demonstrated by a comparison with the numerical solution of the full dynamics.
Section \ref{sec:pulse-magnetization} is devoted to the various aspects of the dynamics
of the sublattice magnetization as induced by the pulses.
We use the developed theoretical framework to make
contact to the magnon dynamics in $\alpha$-MnTe in
Sec.~\ref{sec:contact-to-experiments}.
The paper is finished with conclusion and outlook in
Sec.\ \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Theory}
The focus of our work are the collective magnetic excitations of an
antiferromagnet and, in particular, their coupling to the lattice. Therefore, we
focus on the purely magnetic description based on an effective Heisenberg model.
\subsection{Model}
\label{sec:model}
The unit cell of hexagonal MnTe with NiAs structure consists of two Mn-ions and
two Te-ions as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:unitcell}. At each Mn-site,
a magnetic moment of $S=5/2$ is localized. The Mn-sites are arranged in layers of
stacked triangular lattices. The spins within each triangular layer are aligned
in a parallel way.
The spins of the adjacent layers are antiparallel to each other as indicated by the arrows
in Fig.~\ref{fig:unitcell}. The two Mn-ions in the unit cell belong to different
sublattices
which are defined by the orientation of the spins.
The model captures the magnetic moments localized at the Mn-sites.
The orbitals of the Te-ions allow for virtual hopping processes generating
exchange couplings. They do not need to be considered explicitly here.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\columnwidth,clip]{fig1_unitcell.eps}
\caption{The unit cell of $\alpha$-MnTe consists of two Mn-ions (blue) and two Te-ions (red).
On the Mn-sites, magnetic moments are localized. Image made with VESTA \cite{VESTA}.
}
\label{fig:unitcell}
\end{figure}
The hybridization between the Mn-Mn and Mn-Te orbitals mediate effective Heisenberg
couplings between the localized $S=5/2$ Mn $3d$ moments. The resulting low-temperature
spin Hamiltonian reads
\begin{eqnarray}
H &= & J_1 \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle_c} \vec{S}_i \vec{S}_j + J_2
\sum_{\langle i, j \rangle_{ab}} \vec{S}_i \vec{S}_j
+ J_3 \sum_{\langle \langle i, j \rangle \rangle} \vec{S}_i \vec{S}_j
\label{eq:hamiltonian}
\end{eqnarray}
as derived in Refs.~\cite{PhysRevB.73.104403,PhysRevMaterials.3.025403}.
The model includes three terms: an antiferromagnetic interlayer coupling $J_1>0$
between nearest neighbors (NN) along the $c$-axis, a ferromagnetic in-plane coupling
$J_2<0$, and an antiferromagnetic third-nearest-neighboring coupling $J_3>0$.
In Ref.~\cite{PhysRevB.73.104403} the values for the parameters were obtained by a fit
to inelastic neutron scattering data based on spin-wave theory leading to the values
$J_1= \SI{21.5}{\kelvin}, J_2=\SI{-0.67}{\kelvin}$, and $J_3= \SI{2.87}{\kelvin}$.
Due to the different notation of the Hamiltonian, the signs are different
in this work, and a factor 2 is included.
The interaction between femtosecond laser pulses and MnTe is expected to induce coherently
Raman active phonons, either via the impulsive stimulated Raman scattering
\cite{MERLIN1997207} or displacive excitation of coherent phonons mechanism \cite{Zeiger1992}.
In particular, the 5.3 THz modes aforementioned are optical phonons and they modify the exchange coupling, as they correspond to Te-atoms oscillations \cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021}.
We consider the resonant excitation of a particular phonon
at frequency $\omega_0$. Hence, this is also the frequency by which the
the exchange couplings are modulated.
We assume that the parameter $J_3$, which couples third-nearest-neighboring spins
via a Te-ion, changes its value due to the relative oscillation of the Mn- and the
Te-ions.
We include this effect in the Hamiltonian by a time-dependent coupling
\begin{equation}
J_3\to J_3(t)= J_3^{(0)} +\delta J_3(t)
\end{equation}
where $J_3^0$ is the equilibrium exchange coupling
and $\delta J_3(t)$ parametrizes the effect of the laser field via the phonon
on the magnetic subsystem.
In general, the other exchange parameters can also change in time.
But for clarity, we stick to the modulation of $J_3$ for the majority of calculations.
The modulation of the other couplings is considered in Sec.~\ref{sec:with_other_deltaJ}
and it turns out that the effect of modulated $J_1$ or $J_2$ is qualitatively very
similar
and does not lead to qualitatively different phenomena.
\subsection{Method}
\label{sec:spin-wave-theory}
In order to analyze the non-equilibrium dynamics of the order parameter,
we first determine the equilibrium model by resorting to a
linear spin waves ansatz \cite{PhysRevB.40.2494,PhysRevB.46.6276}
for the AF phase.
As a first step, we invert all spins of one sublattice such that the mapped
problem has ferromagnetic spin order. In a second step,
we employ the Holstein-Primakoff representation \cite{PhysRev.58.1098} which
represents the spin operators by bosonic operators
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
S_i^z &= -S + \tilde{b}^\dagger_i \tilde{b}_i
\\
S_i^+ &= \tilde{b}_i^\dagger \sqrt{2S - \tilde{b}^\dagger_i \tilde{b}_i}
\approx \sqrt{2S} \tilde{b}_i^\dagger
\\
S_i^- &= \sqrt{2S - \tilde{b}_i^\dagger \tilde{b}_i} \tilde{b}_i
\approx \sqrt{2S}
\tilde{b}_i
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
keeping only the leading order in a $1/S$ expansion. This an excellent approximation
in the AFM phase because of the large spin $S=5/2$ and the large number of coupled
neighboring spins.
The $z$-direction in spin space is defined by the orientation of the spins of
sublattice A in the ordered phase. Note that $z$-axis of the spin lies in fact
in the $ab$-plane in real space and that we choose $\tilde{b}$ for the bosonic
operators at the lattice sites and will use $b$ later in the diagonal
Bogoliubov representation.
Note that we only have to deal with bilinear terms in leading order.
Thereby, interactions between different $\vec{k}$-modes are neglected;
in this approximation they do not scatter from each other.
In addition, relaxation mechanisms are not included in our model so far.
The Fourier transform
\begin{equation}
\tilde{b}_i = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{\vec{k}}
\exp\left(i \vec{k}\cdot \vec{l}\right) \tilde{b}_{\vec{k}},
\end{equation}
into momentum space yields the dimensionless Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\frac{H_0}{J_1 S} =
E_d + \sum_{\vec{k}} \Big[ A_{\vec{k}} \tilde{b}_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
\tilde{b}_{\vec{k}}
+ \frac{1}{2} B_{\vec{k}} \left(\tilde{b}_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
\tilde{b}_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger
+ \text{h.c.}\right) \Big]
\label{eq:hamiltonian_h0}
\end{equation}
where we use the coefficients
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
A_{\vec{k}} &:= \frac{1}{J_1} \Big(2 J_1 - 6J_2 + 12J_3
+ J_2\gamma_\Delta (\vec{k})\Big)
\\
B_{\vec{k}} &:= 2 \cos(k_c) \Big( 1+ 2\frac{J_3}{J_1} \gamma_\Delta \left(\vec{k}\right)\Big)
\label{eq:B_def}
\\
\nonumber
\gamma_\Delta\left(\vec{k}\right)
&:= \cos(k_a) + \cos \left(\sqrt{3}k_b/2 + k_a/2 \right)
\\
&\qquad + \cos\left(-\sqrt{3}k_b/2 + k_a/2 \right).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The Hamiltonian is diagonal in $k$-space except for the coupling of
$\vec k$ and $-\vec k$ in the creation
and annihilation terms of pairs of magnons.
his also determines how non-equilibrium perturbations in the
couplings
enter the real-time dynamics investigated below.
The Holstein-Primakoff transformation generates the offset $E_d$
independent of momentum
\begin{equation}
E_d = -NS \left(1 -3 \frac{J_2}{J_1} + 6 \frac{J_3}{J_1}\right).
\end{equation}
The Bogoliubov transform
\begin{equation}
\tilde{b}_{\vec{k}} = b_{\vec{k}} \cosh{\theta_{\vec{k}}} + b_{-\vec{k}}^\dag
\sinh{\theta_{\vec{k}}}
\end{equation}
fully diagonalizes the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:hamiltonian_h0}
\begin{equation}
\frac{H_0}{J_1 S} =
\sum_{\vec{k}} \omega_{\vec{k}} b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}} + E_d + \Delta E
\label{eq:H0-diagonal}
\end{equation}
if the condition for the Bogoliubov angle $\theta_{\vec{k}}$
\begin{equation}
\frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{A_{\vec{k}}} = -\tanh(\theta_{\vec{k}})
\end{equation}
is met. The additional contribution $\Delta E$ to the ground energy is given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta E = \frac{1}{2N} \sum_{\vec{k}} \left(\omega_{\vec{k}} - A_{\vec{k}} \right).
\end{equation}
It does not influence the magnetic excitations.
Finally, we obtain the magnon dispersion in units of $J_1$
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\vec{k}} = \sqrt{A_{\vec{k}}^2 - B_{\vec{k}}^2}\,,
\label{eq:dispersion}
\end{equation}
which is easily evaluated for any given set of couplings $J_i$.
\subsubsection{Equilibrium properties}
The parameter set stated below Eq.\ \eqref{eq:hamiltonian}
yields the magnon dispersion shown as blue continuous curve
in Fig.~\ref{fig:dispersion_DOS}(a) in various directions in the Brillouin zone.
We use it for the following calculations.
For comparison, the experimental data from Ref.~\cite{PhysRevB.73.104403} are
included as well as black filled circles.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2_dispersion_DOS.eps}
\caption{The magnon dispersion (a) and the magnon density-of-states (DOS) (b).
(a) The magnon dispersion measured by inelastic neutron scattering (black dots
from Ref.~\cite{PhysRevB.73.104403}) can be described well by the parameter set
proposed in that reference. (b) The corresponding magnon DOS with the parabolic onset
(detailed illustration in inset) established for a linear dispersion at low
energies in
three dimensions. The van Hove singularities appear close to the
the maximum energy $\hbar\omega_\text{max}$, i.e., most energies lie close to
$\hbar\omega_\text{max}$.
}
\label{fig:dispersion_DOS}
\end{figure}
In the calculation of the magnon density-of-states (DOS)
\begin{equation}
\rho (\omega) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\vec{k}} \delta (\omega - \omega_{\vec{k}} ).
\end{equation}
for the stacked triangular layers, we profit from the analytical results for
triangular lattices in Ref.~\cite{doi:10.1002/andp.19955070405}. The additional
vertical component contributes only the term $\cos(k_c)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:B_def}.
The resulting magnon DOS shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dispersion_DOS}(b) sets in
quadratically
\begin{equation}
f(\omega) = c \omega^2
\end{equation}
with $c=\SI{ 9.40(4)e-7}{\pico\second}$ (red dashed line)
as implied by the linear dispersion and the three dimensions.
The maximum energy $\hbar\omega_\text{max}\approx \SI{35.9}{\milli\electronvolt}$
is given by the maximum of the magnon dispersion.
In the density of states, we see two peaks that are related to van Hove singularities.
The second van Hove singularity is almost at the maximum frequency. Essentially,
most frequencies lie close to the maximum frequency.
The order parameter of the antiferromagnetic phase is given by the sublattice
magnetization per spin defined as
\begin{align}
L &= \frac{1}{N} \sum_i (-1)^{\delta_i} \langle \hat{S}_i^z \rangle
\\
\delta_i &=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{ for sublattice A}\\ \nonumber
1 & \text{ for sublattice B.} \nonumber
\end{cases}
\end{align}
We express the order parameter in the framework of
spin-wave theory by applying the same
transformations as outlined above leading to
$L=L_0 -\delta L$. The first term $L_0$ is temperature independent and
determined by the spin size $S=5/2$ and the quantum fluctuations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
L_0 &= S - \Delta S \\
\Delta S &= \frac{1}{2N}
\sum_{\vec{k}} \left (\frac{\omega_{\vec{k}}}{A_{\vec{k}}^2} -1 \right)\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The temperature dependence enters in the second term
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta L&=&
\frac{1}{N}
\sum_{\vec{k}} \left[\frac{A_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}}
\langle n_{\vec{k}} \rangle - \frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}}
\Re \langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger \rangle \right]
\label{eq:delta-L-def}
\end{eqnarray}
The second term in the square bracket
of Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta-L-def} allows us to treat also non-equilibrium situations.
In the case of a driving term in the Hamiltonian, $\delta L$
becomes time dependent.
Due to the upper bound of $L=5/2$, the model only yields reliable results
if $|\delta L|\ll L$. Thus, the change of the sublattice magnetization
$\delta L$ has to stay significantly
smaller than the constant part $L_0$ in order for the spin wave theory
to be applicable. In this paper, we focus on the effect of driving on
the sublattice magnetization deep in the ordered phase. We
do not consider the effects of finite temperature so that we
assume $T=0$.
\FloatBarrier
\section{Dynamics out of equilibrium}
\label{sec:NEQ}
\subsection{Magnon dynamics driven by pulses}
\label{sec:driven-magnons}
To describe the dynamics out of equilibrium, we consider
the following Hamiltonian \cite{PhysRevMaterials.2.064401}
including driving
\begin{equation}
H(t) = H_0 + X(t)\,
\label{eq:energy_timedependent}
\end{equation}
which consists of the Hamiltonian $H_0$
of the system in equilibrium and of the time dependent driving
$X(t)$.
The Hamiltonian $H_0$ and $H(t)$ are both given by
the original form of Hamiltonian, Eq.\ \eqref{eq:hamiltonian}, and only differ
in the parameters $J_i$. While $H_0$ only contains the equilibrium
values $J_i^{(0)}$, the Heisenberg couplings
in $H(t)$ are supplemented by a time-dependent part, $J_i(t) = J_i^{(0)} +\delta J_i(t)$.
We include the effect of the laser pulse on
the magnetic subsystem of MnTe by time dependent oscillations
$\delta J_{3}(t)$.
As already mentioned, the laser pulses excite an optical
phonon which in turn modifies the exchange path and thereby
the exchange coupling \cite{PhysRevB.103.045132}.
Therefore, we replace $J_3\to J_3^{(0)} + \delta J_3(t)$ in the
last term in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:hamiltonian} and use the resulting
term proportional to $\delta J_3(t)$ as driving operator $X(t)$.
After the Bogoliubov transformation it takes the form
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:J3-driving}
X(t) &= S \delta J_3(t) \sum_{\vec{k}}
\Big[ \alpha_{\vec{k}} b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}} +
\frac{1}{2} \beta_{\vec{k}}
\left(b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
+ \text{h.c.} \right) + C_{\vec{k}} \Big]
\end{align}
with the $\vec{k}$-dependent coefficients
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:alpha_beta}
\begin{align}
\alpha_{\vec{k}} &= \frac{A_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}}
\left( 12 - 4\frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{A_{\vec{k}}} \cos(k_c) \gamma_\triangle
(\vec{k}) \right)
\\
\beta_{\vec{k}} &= \frac{A_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}}
\left( -12 \frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{A_{\vec{k}}} + 4 \cos(k_c)
\gamma_\triangle (\vec{k}) \right).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Note that only equilibrium parameters $J_i^{(0)}$ enter
the Bogoliubov coefficients.
The driving in Eq.\ \eqref{eqn:J3-driving} includes the crucial
term proportional to $ \beta_{\vec{k}}$ creating two magnons.
This term is not only the source for incrementing
the magnon occupation and other amplitudes,
but its also the reason for a frequency doubling
in the resonance condition which will be derived below.
Perturbing only the coupling $J_3$ as a consequence of the excitation of the
phonon is one choice among others. We motivate it by the fact
that its exchange path runs through the Te-ions so that it
is mostly affected by the relative motion of Mn- and Te-ions
generated by the lattice dynamics.
Nevertheless, we cannot exclude a priori lattice-driven modulations of the other exchange couplings
$J_1$ or $J_2$. Their influence is subject of
Sec.\ \ref{sec:with_other_deltaJ} below.
It turns out that only the parameters $\alpha_{\vec{k}}$ and
$\beta_{\vec{k}}$ need to be changed to account for the
modulation of either $J_1$ or $J_2$.
But the analytic structure of the differential equations remains
unaltered since all interactions are described by a Heisenberg Hamiltonian.
The key differences are the coupling strengths $J_i$ entering in the
relative modulation amplitude
$a_0$ introduced below in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:DJ3-vs-t}) and the number and positions
of nearest neighbors spins defining
$\alpha_{\vec{k}}$ and $ \beta_{\vec{k}}$.
The coefficient $C_{\vec{k}}$ in Eq.\ \eqref{eqn:J3-driving}
only changes the ground state energy and does not
create or annihilate any magnons. For this reason, it is omitted
in the following.
The remaining part of the operator $X(t)$ is non-diagonal in the
Bogoliubov bosons and drives magnon excitations, i.e.,
creates or generates them or changes their energy.
The premiss of our work is that an ultrashort laser fs
pulse with spectral range centered at \SI{1.71}{\electronvolt}
provides a displacement of the charged Mn and Te ions
that happens on a fs time scale. The induced
damped coherent lattice vibrations characterized by
the optical phonon frequencies
causes a modulation $\delta J_i(t)$ of Heisenberg
coupling constants due to the periodic change of the hopping matrix elements.
From this mechanism we can conclude that the pulse shape of the optical pulse
does not enter the driving term, and the optical fs pulse can be treated as instantaneous
compared to the phonon and magnon frequencies which are in the small THZ range.
We parameterize the effect of this phonon on the magnetic
system by damped oscillations of $\delta J_i(t)$. They read in
their dimensionless form
\begin{align}
\label{eq:DJ3-vs-t}
\frac{\delta J_i(t)}{S J_1^{(0)}} &= a_i(t) = a_{0,i}
\exp(-\gamma t) \cos(\omega_0 t),
\end{align}
where $a_{0,i}= \delta J_i(0)/J_1^{(0)} = (J_i/J_1^{(0)}) \kappa_i$.
In the last step, we introduce the relative change
\begin{equation}
\kappa_i =\delta J_i(0)/J_i^{(0)}
\label{eq:kappa_i}
\end{equation}
while the ratio $(J_i/J_1^{(0)})$ links $a_{0,i}$ to the parameters
of the equilibrium Hamiltonian.
Note that the driving field for the magnon dynamics is governed by the
coherent lattice oscillations \cite{PhysRevMaterials.2.064401}
and not by the time scale of the optical laser pulse.
Once the equilibrium parameters are fixed,
the perturbation amplitude is uniquely parameterized by $\kappa_i$.
The assumption that expression \eqref{eq:DJ3-vs-t} describes the
modulation of the exchange coupling is based on the results of
previous calculations for a related model in which the phonon dynamics
has been computed explicitly \cite{PhysRevB.103.045132}. Of course, Eq.~
\eqref{eq:DJ3-vs-t} represents a simplification, but it is a
reasonable one for small spin-phonon coupling. Moreover, it
contains two main ingredients: the amplitude $a_{0,2}$
and the relaxation rate $\gamma$ of the modulation.
In the following, we focus on the effect of $\delta J_3(t)$ and omit the
index $i$ therefore. In Sec.~\ref{sec:with_other_deltaJ}, we come back
to modulations of $\delta J_1(t)$ and $\delta J_2(t)$.
Describing the oscillations of the coupling by $\cos(\omega_0 t)$ is
consistent with the displacive excitation mechanism of the lattice modes \cite{MERLIN1997207}.
We access the time dependent sublattice magnetization $L(t)$ in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta-L-def} by the expectation values of the magnon occupation
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:uvw_k}
\begin{align}
u_{\vec{k}} &:= \langle n_{\vec{k}} \rangle = \langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
b_{\vec{k}} \rangle
\label{eq:u_k}
\\
\intertext{and of the real and imaginary part of
the off-diagonal term $\langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger \rangle $ }
v_{\vec{k}} &:= \text{Re}\, \langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger
\rangle\\
w_{\vec{k}} &:= \text{Im}\, \langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger \rangle
\label{eq:w_k} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
whose dynamics are calculated by means of
Heisenberg's equation $\frac{dA}{dt} = i \langle [H(t),A] \rangle$.
Since the Hamiltonian does not break translational invariance even in
presence of the driving the resulting differential equations
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:eom_uvw}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d u_{\vec{k}}}{dt} &= &2 a(t) \beta_{\vec{k}} w_{\vec{k}} -\gamma_r u_{\vec{k}}
\label{eq:eom_u}
\\
\frac{d v_{\vec{k}}}{dt} &=& -2(\omega_{\vec{k}} + a(t) \alpha_{\vec{k}}) w_{\vec{k}}
\label{eq:eom_v} -\gamma_r v_{\vec{k}} \\
\frac{d w_{\vec{k}}}{dt} &= &2(\omega_{\vec{k}} + a(t) \alpha_{\vec{k}}) v_{\vec{k}}
+2 a(t) \beta_{\vec{k}} (u_{\vec{k}} +1/2)\nonumber \\
&& -\gamma_r w_{\vec{k}}
\label{eq:eom_w} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
do not couple different $\vec k$-values. But all of them
contribute to the collective sublattice magnetization
in \eqref{eq:delta-L-def}.
In addition to the unitary dynamics induced by the Hamiltonian
in the Heisenberg equations of motion we introduce a
phenomenological relaxation rate $\gamma_r$ describing
the decay of magnons. By this parameter we quantify the
coupling to thermal bath,
i.e., we treat the
driven spin system as open quantum system and describe it
by a Lindblad equation \cite{breue06}
where the creation and annihilation operators of the magnons
serve as Lindblad operators \cite{PhysRevB.103.045132}.
For simplicity, no $\vec k$-dependence
of the relaxation rate $\gamma_r$ is taken into account.
We solve the set of differential equations for a mesh
of $M$ discrete values $k_c$ and a mesh of $M$ discrete frequencies
for the density-of-states of the triangular lattice
as computed analytically \cite{doi:10.1002/andp.19955070405}.
Note that we absorb the factor $\hbar$ into the definition of
time $t$ as measured in units of the inverse energy $1/J_1$.
The numerical results presented in the next sections are obtained by
solving the equations~\eqref{eq:eom_u}-\eqref{eq:eom_w}
with a Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm \cite{10.5555/1403886}
with \num{1000} time steps per picosecond. We discretize the
Brillouin zone in $c$-direction. For the Mn-planes parallel
to the $ab$-plane, we use the density of states for a
triangular lattice \cite{doi:10.1002/andp.19955070405}.
Since we treat the system prior to any pumping
to be at zero temperature at equilibrium, we use the
initial conditions $u_{\vec{k}} (t=0) = v_{\vec{k}} (t=0) =
w_{\vec{k}} (t=0) = 0$.
\subsection{Dynamics of specific magnon modes}
\label{sec:specific_modes}
Before addressing the total sublattice magnetization
we analyze the differential equations of Eq.~\eqref{eq:eom_uvw}
to understand the dynamics of the expectation values
for a single $\vec{k}$-mode.
If the driving term $a(t)$ and the relaxation
$\gamma_r=0$ are set to 0, the magnon occupation does not change
\begin{equation}
\frac{du_{\vec{k}}(t)}{dt} = 0 \Rightarrow u_{\vec{k}}(t) = \text{const.}
\end{equation}
and $v_{\vec{k}}$ and $w_{\vec{k}}$ describe a coherent oscillation
between the real and imaginary part of the
expectation value $ \langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger \rangle$
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
v_{\vec{k}}(t) &= c_0 \cos(2\omega_{\vec{k}} t+\varphi)\\
w_{\vec{k}}(t) &= c_0 \sin(2\omega_{\vec{k}} t+\varphi)\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with frequency $2\omega_{\vec{k}}$. The
values of $c_0$ and $\delta$ depend on the initial conditions.
Clearly, in absence of a damping mechanism once excited
the amplitude of coherent oscillations, i.\ e.,
$|\langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger \rangle|$ does not change in time.
If we include a finite damping ($\gamma_r>0$) the coherent oscillation
is damped by the factor $\exp(-\gamma_r t)$.
The non-equilibrium dynamics of $\delta L$ given
in Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta-L-def} results from the
superposition of the contributions of all $\vec{k}$-points leading to
a decay of the sublattice magnetization due to dephasing.
This dephasing results from the differing frequencies $2\omega_{\vec k}$.
The contributing range of these frequencies is $2\omega_\text{max}$
and thus $1/2\omega_\text{max}$ is an estimate for the time scale
of this dephasing.
In the presence of the driving term ($a_0\ne 0$)
the differential equations contain the source term
$a(t)\beta_{\vec{k}}$ originating from the two-magnon creation term
in the time-dependent part of the Hamiltonian
given in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:J3-driving}.
This source term drives the system away from the
fixed point $u_{\vec{k}}(t) = v_{\vec{k}}(t) = w_{\vec{k}}(t) = 0$.
The first term in Eq.\ \eqref{eqn:J3-driving} is responsible for a
modulation of the oscillation frequency by $2a(t) \alpha_{\vec{k}}$,
i.e., $2\omega_{\vec k} \to 2\omega_{\vec k} + 2a(t) \alpha_{\vec{k}}$.
But since $\omega_{\vec k}$ dominates over $a(t) \alpha_{\vec{k}}$
this modulation is often not a sizable effect, see also below.
After the driving term $a(t)$ has essentially vanished due to
its exponential damping, the pair creation stops and
$u_{\vec{k}}(t)$ approaches a constant finite value if we neglect the
relaxation ($\gamma_r = 0$). Then the coherent
oscillations between $v_{\vec{k}}$ and $w_{\vec{k}}$
with a frequency $2\omega_{\vec{k}}$ occur for large times
$t\gg 1/\gamma$.
A detailed analytical, approximate evaluation can be found in Appendix \ref{app:analytic_approximation}.
After recombining, $z_{\vec{k}}(t) = \langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger \rangle
=v_{\vec{k}}(t) + i w_{\vec{k}}(t)$, we obtain
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
z_{\vec{k}}(t) = i a_0 \beta_{\vec{k}}
\left[\frac{e^{-\gamma t}(\omega_0 \sin(\omega_0 t)
-(2i\omega_{\vec{k}}+\gamma-\gamma_r)\cos(\omega_0 t))}
{\omega_0^2-(2\omega_{\vec{k}} - i (\gamma-\gamma_r))^2}
+\frac{(2i\omega_{\vec{k}} + \gamma- \gamma_r)
e^{2i\omega_{\vec{k}} t} e^{-\gamma_r t}}
{\omega_0^2-(2\omega_{\vec{k}} - i (\gamma-\gamma_r))^2}
\right]
\label{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
which enters Eq.\ \eqref{eq:eom_u}.
Resonantly driven modes, i.e.,
modes for which $\omega_0^2\approx (2\omega_{\vec{k}})^2$ holds,
acquire a large amplitude and contribute the most to $\delta L$.
The first term on the right hand side of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r} describes the coherent
oscillations with driving frequency $\omega_0$ and an
exponential envelope decreasing with the rate $\gamma$.
The second term includes the oscillations with twice the eigen frequency
$\omega_{\vec{k}}$ of each $\vec{k}$-mode. The factor of two stems
from the fact that magnons are created in pairs with total momentum zero and
at $\vec k$ and $-\vec k$,
both of which have the same frequency
$\omega_{\vec{k}}= \omega_{-\vec{k}}$.
In addition, the second term decays exponentially with decay rate
$\gamma_r$. For zero relaxation of the magnon, $\gamma_r = 0$, the
amplitude of the second term is constant.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig3_v_envelope.eps}
\caption{
The analytic solution $v_{\vec{k}}(t)$ according to
Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r} for off-resonant driving and
Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r_resonance} for resonant driving,
respectively.
(a) OOff-resonant driving with $\omega_0 = \SI{80}{\per\pico\second}$, $\omega_{\vec{k}} = \SI{50}{\per\pico\second}$, $\gamma =\SI{1.0}{\per\pico\second}$, and $\gamma_r = \SI{0.1}{\per\pico\second}$.
Resonant driving for $2\omega_{\vec{k}}= \omega_0 =
\SI{100}{\per\pico\second}$ with (b) $\gamma=\gamma_r = \SI{0.5}{\per\pico\second}$
and (c) $\gamma=\gamma_r = 0$ (Parameters: $\kappa = \num{0.01},
\beta_{\vec{k}} = 1$).}
\label{fig:v_envelope}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:v_envelope}(a) shows this general behavior for
off-resonant driving with $\omega_0 = \SI{100}{\per\pico\second}$,
$\omega_{\vec{k}} = \SI{80}{\per\pico\second}$, $\gamma =
\SI{1.0}{\per\pico\second}$, and $\gamma = \SI{0.1}{\per\pico\second}$
as cyan line. The envelope is plotted as dashed red line; it is
a the superposition of the two decays determined by
$\gamma$ and $\gamma_r$.
From Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r} we read off
that $v_{\vec{k}}(t)$ and $w_{\vec{k}}(t)$ depend linearly
on the driving amplitude $a_0$ in leading order
and that $v_{\vec{k}}(t)$ and $w_{\vec{k}}(t)$
being real and imaginary part of $\langle b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{-\vec{k}}^\dagger \rangle $
are related by a phase shift of $\pi/2$.
Substituting the solution for $w_{\vec{k}}(t)$ into
Eq.~\eqref{eq:eom_u} reveals
that $u_{\vec{k}}(t) \propto a_0^2$ in lowest order.
The denominator in Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r} vanishes
for resonant driving $\omega_0=2\omega_{\vec{k}}$ and the
special choice $\gamma=\gamma_r$.
A closer inspection reveals that this is a removable singularity without physical significance:
Considering
the limit $\omega_0\to 2\omega_{\vec{k}}$ properly we obtain
\begin{equation}
z_{\vec{k}}(t) =\frac{i a_0 \beta_{\vec{k}}}{2} e^{-\gamma t}
\Big(t e^{i \omega_0 t} +\frac{1}{\omega_0}\sin(\omega_0 t)\Big) .
\label{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r_resonance}
\end{equation}
As known from resonant driving of harmonic oscillators,
the amplitude increases linearly as a result of the secular
term. In present of damping, the exponential decay sets in
at later times.
Figure~\ref{fig:v_envelope}(b) illustrates the envelope of the resonantly
driven system at $\gamma = \gamma_r = \SI{0.5}{\per\pico\second}$. The
envelope is given approximately by $\propto t \, \exp(-\gamma t)$
as expected from Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r_resonance}.
For $\gamma=\gamma_r=0$, we indeed obtain a linearly increasing
amplitude as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:v_envelope}(c).
On the basis of experimental findings for $\alpha$-MnTe \cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021},
we assume
that the relaxation rate $\gamma_r$ is significantly smaller than
the damping rate $\gamma$ of the driving term.
Consequently, the effect of the decay of the magnon occupation
happens on time scales much longer than the duration of
the driving pulse. This is also the justification to introduce
this decay in a phenomenological way. It is the slowest effect
and thus can be described by a Lindbladian dynamics.
The contribution of resonantly driven
$\vec{k}$-modes to $\delta L$ is especially large.
Hence, we want to understand their dynamics in particular.
For simplicity, we set $\gamma_r = 0$ which is justified for short
and intermediate time scales where $\gamma_r t\ll 1$.
First, we consider a driving term with constant amplitude. For this
case, we are able to perform a more comprehensive analytical calculations than
the one presented in Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r} by
adapting the approach in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevB.103.045132}. We
take the terms $a(t) \alpha_{\vec{k}}$ and $u_{\vec{k}}$ in the integral
in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:z_equ_simple_gammar} into account.
We focus on the slow change of $u_{\vec{k}}$ only, i.e., we
average out the fast oscillations at frequencies $\omega_0$ and $2\omega_0$.
This is done by averaging over $T_0 = \frac{2\pi}{\omega_0}$,
for details see App.\ \ref{app:constant}.
We distinguish between resonant driving and two types of off-resonant driving.
At the resonance condition $2 \omega_{\vec{k}} = \omega_0$,
the magnon occupation increases in time without limit
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:tuned}
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{\vec{k}}(t) &=& \frac{1}{2} (\cosh(\Gamma t)-1)
\label{eq:u_res}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma &:= &\frac{\beta_{\vec{k}} \omega_0}{\alpha_{\vec{k}}} J_1
\Big(\frac{2 a_0\alpha_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_0}\Big) \approx a_0 \beta_{\vec{k}}.
\label{eq:Gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Here, $J_1(x)$ denotes the Bessel function of the first kind.
For numbers that are typically present in the experiment we can approximate it by its
linear term in the Taylor series for small argument.
For a driving frequencies slightly off-resonance
with a finite detuning
$\delta = 2 \omega - \omega_0$, we have to distinguish
between two cases depending on whether the detuning is smaller
(a) or larger (b) than the energy scale of pumping $\Gamma$
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\intertext{(A) $\Gamma > |\delta|$}
u_{\vec{k}}(t) = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma^2}{\Gamma'^2} (\cosh(\Gamma' t)-1)
\label{eq:u_offresa}
\\
\text{with } \Gamma' := \sqrt{|\Gamma^2-\delta^2|}\\
\intertext{(B) $\Gamma < |\delta|$}
u_{\vec{k}}(t) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\Gamma^2}{\Gamma'^2}(1-\cos(\Gamma' t)).
\label{eq:u_offresb}
\end{align}
\label{eq:detuned}
\end{subequations}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig4_uvw_overview_offres.eps}
\caption{
The magnon occupation $u_{\vec{k}}(t)$ of a specific magnon mode
$\omega_{\vec{k}} = \SI{50}{\per\pico\second}$
for damped resonant (dark and light blue) and
damped off-resonant (red and orange) driving $\delta=\SI{1}{\per\pico\second}$.
The solid curves represent the full numerical solution while the
dashed curves represent the analytical approximations
Eqs.~\eqref{eq:tuned_damped} and \eqref{eq:detuned_damped}
with $\kappa = 0.01, \beta_{\vec k} = 1,
\Gamma= \SI{0.0753}{\per\pico\second}, \Gamma'= \SI{0.9972}{\per\pico\second}$.
} \label{fig:specific_mode_damped}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:specific_mode_damped} illustrates the numerical results
if the driving term is no longer constant, but damped with
$\gamma = \SI{1}{\per\pico\second}$. The
figure shows the numerically computed
dynamics of the same $\vec{k}$-mode for
resonant (blue solid curve) and off-resonant driving (red solid curve).
The numerical solution contains fast oscillations at frequency
$2\omega_0$. Since the amplitudes are very small, these oscillations are not visible in the figure. However, Fig.~\ref{fig:specific_mode}b shows them analogously for the case $\gamma = 0$. Due to the finite phonon oscillation duration
$\approx 1/\gamma$ the magnon occupation does not grow
beyond any limit as for indefinite driving, but saturates. This behavior applies to the case of resonant and for
detuned driving.
We extend the derivation of the slowly varying contribution to
$u_{\vec k}$ to the case where the displacement oscillation
has an exponential decaying
envelope, see App.\ \ref{app:damped}. This case, however, is more
subtle than the previous case so that
an analytical derivation is only possible in leading order of $a_0$, so that
we henceforth use $\Gamma=a_0\beta_{\vec k}$, cf.\ Eq.\ \eqref{eq:Gamma}.
This assumption allows us to derive a differential equation for
the slowly varying part of $u_{\vec k}$, see App.\ \ref{app:damped}.
But, unfortunately no closed analytical expression for its solution
could be found. If we assume that the values of $u_{\vec k}$ are such
that they fulfill $2u_{\vec k}\ll 1$ we can establish
\begin{equation}
u_{\vec k}(t) = \frac{\Gamma^2}{4\gamma^2}(1-\exp(-\gamma t))^2 \underset{t\to\infty}{\to}
\frac{\Gamma^2}{4\gamma^2}
\label{eq:tuned_damped}
\end{equation}
for the resonant case and for the detuned case
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
u_{\vec k}(t) &= \frac{\Gamma^2}{4(\gamma^2+\delta^2)}|\exp(i\delta t)-\exp(-\gamma t)|^2
\\& \underset{t\to\infty}{\to} \frac{\Gamma^2}{4(\gamma^2+\delta^2)}
\end{align}
\label{eq:detuned_damped}
\end{subequations}
for small detuning $|\delta|\ll\omega_0$. Both show that $u_{\vec k}$ saturates to a
finite value
because we do not consider magnon relaxation $\gamma_r$ in this analysis.
To neglect $\gamma_r$ in the analysis for short time scales is justified
because its effect generically sets in on longer time scales.
Note that the saturation value is not necessarily reached monotonically in the
case of finite detuning, see Fig.\ \ref{fig:specific_mode_damped}(a).
It is interesting that slow oscillations with the frequency given by
the detuning occur.
\subsection{Pulse induced changes of sublattice magnetization}
\label{sec:pulse-magnetization}
The effect of the driving laser pulse is characterized by three parameters
in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:DJ3-vs-t}.
The parameter $a_0$ determines the oscillation strength induced by the
coherent optical phonon
at frequency $\omega_0$ which has been excited by the laser. It
is damped by the relaxation rate $\gamma$. Here we do not yet consider the
long-time decay due to the relaxation rate $\gamma_r$.
In the next three sections, We analyze the effect of each of these
parameters on the changes
of the sublattice magnetization $\delta L(t)$ introduced in
Eq.\ \eqref{eq:delta-L-def}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig5_delta_L_temp_evolution_one_plot.eps}
\caption{The change of the sublattice magnetization oscillates in time depending
on the parameters of driving: the strength of driving $a_0$, the damping $\gamma$,
and the
driving frequency $\omega_0$. The curves are computed for $\kappa = 0.01,
\gamma=\SI{1.0}{\per\pico\second}$.
An envelope of the amplitude can be fitted
$f(t) = \pm c_1 \exp(-c_2 t)$ with $c_1 = \num{6.7(1)e-4}, c_2
= \SI{1.34(5)}{\per\pico\second}$. Exemplarily, the two main contributions of $\delta L$ are shown for $\omega_0=\SI{100}{\per\pico\second}$ (red curve),
see Eqs.~\eqref{eq:delta-L-def} and \eqref{eq:uvw_k}.
The slowly evolving contribution (green curve) consists of the magnon occupation
$u_{\vec{k}}$
summed over all $\vec{k}$-modes in Eq.~\eqref{def:ut}. The oscillating part consists of
the summed contributions $v_{\vec{k}}$ in Eq.~\eqref{def:vt} (orange curve) (Parameter: $M=1000, \gamma_r = 0$).}
\label{fig:temporal_evolution_delta_L}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_evolution_delta_L}, two generic curves are depicted
for the same $\gamma$ and amplitude $a_0$, but different driving frequencies
$\omega_0$.
No relaxation $\gamma_r$ has been considered here.
Coherent oscillations occur at the driving frequency. The envelope function
consists of fast building while the driving field is active and a consecutive slow
decay.
For the faster driving frequency $\omega_0$ a build-up phase and
a more complex decay pattern is observed. For the lower driving
frequency, we are able to fit an exponential envelope function with a
decay rate of $c_1=\SI{1.2(3)}{\per\pico\second}$ displayed
as dashed blue line in Fig.\ \ref{fig:temporal_evolution_delta_L}.
The change of the sublattice magnetization saturates at a finite value
$\delta L (t \to\infty)$ which can be calculated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta L_\infty &=& \lim_{T\to \infty} \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T \delta L (t).
\end{eqnarray}
In order to distinguish qualitatively different contributions to $\delta L$,
we plot the slowly varying contribution $u(t)$ and the oscillating one $v(t)$
defined by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{def:ut}
u(t) &=& \sum_{\vec{k}} \frac{A_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}} u_{\vec{k}},
\\
\label{def:vt}
v(t) &=&\sum_{\vec{k}} \frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}} v_{\vec{k}}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
in Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_evolution_delta_L}. The saturation value
$\delta L_\infty$ is determined by the long-time values of the
magnon occupations since the oscillating contribution of $v_{\vec{k}}$ in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta-L-def} averages out and
vanishes due to dephasing.
The sum of all magnon occupations $u_{\vec{k}} (t)$ is always positive and
reaches a finite value for large times after a single laser pulse.
As a result, the change of the sublattice magnetization
approaches a finite value as well. Since we have neglected interactions
between different $\vec{k}$-modes the constant saturation cannot decay.
In experiments, however, slow relaxation processes induce a slow decay of
$\delta L_\infty\to 0$ requiring to include an additional phenomenological
relaxation rate $\gamma_r$, see below.
\subsubsection{Dependence on the driving amplitude}
The response of the sublattice magnetization
increases with increasing amplitude $a_0$ of the driving.
For a quantitative measure, we extracted the absolute maximum of
$|\delta L(t)|$, denoted max$|\delta L |$, and plotted it versus $\kappa$
for two driving frequencies $\omega_0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_a0}. The symbols
represent the values of the numerical simulations while the solid lines
are first and second order fits, respectively.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig6_sweep_a0.eps}
\caption{The maximum value of $\vert \delta L \vert$ depends linearly on the relative
amplitude $\kappa$ of the driving, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:kappa_i},
if the driving is small enough. Generally, non-linear contributions are also
important.
Parameters: $\gamma = \SI{1.0}{\per\pico\second},
M= 100, c = \num{0.0909(4)}, c_1=\num{3.6(1)}, c_2=\num{0.225(6)}$.
}
\label{fig:M_a0}
\end{figure}
According to Eq.\ \eqref{eq:delta-L-def}, $\delta L(t)$ consists of two
contributions: the
driving induced the magnon occupations $u_{\vec{k}}=\langle n_{\vec k}\rangle$ and the
major oscillatory part given by the sum over all $v_{\vec{k}}=\Re \langle b^\dag_{\vec k}
b_{\vec k} \rangle$.
While the contribution stemming from all $u_{\vec{k}}$ is small and mainly determines
$\delta L_\infty$, $|\delta L(t)|$ is strongly influenced by $v_{\vec{k}}$.
In order to study the dependence on $a_0$ in leading order, we inspect the
differential equations
\eqref{eq:eom_u}-\eqref{eq:eom_w}. For very small magnon occupations,
$u_{\vec{k}}\ll 1$,
one finds $v_{\vec{k}},w_{\vec{k}}\propto a_0$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:w_k} and,
consequently, $u_{\vec{k}}\propto a_0^2$ through Eq.~\eqref{eq:u_k}.
Therefore, we expect a parabolic fit $c_1 a_0 + c_2 a_0^2$ describing
the $a_0$ dependencyeof max$|\delta L |$ very accurately, as demonstated by
the solid lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_a0}. We can fit the max$|\delta L |$
dependence on $a_0$ with $c a_0$
for $\omega_0 = \SI{50}{\per\pico\second},
\gamma = \SI{1.0}{\per\pico\second}$, with $c=\num{0.0909(4)}$,
and added the fit curve as solid blue line in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_a0}.
For $\omega_0 = \SI{100}{\pico\second}$, a parabolic fit $c_1 a_0 + c_2 a_0^2$ is
needed
with $c_1=\num{3.5(1)}, c_2=\num{0.225(6)}$; it is added as cyan solid lines
confirming our analysis of Eq.~\eqref{eq:eom_uvw}.
\subsubsection{Dependence on the driving duration}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,trim=30 0 50 0,clip]{fig7_sweep_gamma.eps}
\caption{The value $L^2_\text{quad}$ decreases for increasing decay rate $\gamma$ of
the
driving term roughly like $1/\gamma$.
The data for $\omega_0=\SI{50}{\per \pico\second}$
is multiplied by 10 for better visibility. The fit parameters
are $c_2 = 0.850\pm 0.009 $ for $\omega_0=\SI{50}{\per \pico\second}$
and $c_2 = 1.02\pm 0.01$ for $\omega_0=\SI{100}{\per \pico\second}$
(Parameter: $M=100, \kappa=\num{0.005}$.)
}
\label{fig:M_gamma}
\end{figure}
The driving duration $\propto 1/\gamma$ is parameterized
by the decay rate $\gamma$ of the coherent phonon
mode responsible for the periodic modulation of $\delta J_3(t)$
as stated in Eq.~\eqref{eq:DJ3-vs-t}.
In order to quantify the total effect of the fluctuating part of the
sublattice magnetization relative to the steady state we define
\begin{equation}
L^2_\text{quad} := \int_0^\infty (\delta L(t)-\delta L_{\infty})^2 dt.
\label{eq:L_quad}
\end{equation}
Note that we deduct the saturation value $\delta L_{\infty}$ in order to
ensure convergence of the integral in spite of its infinite upper limit.
So the quantity $L^2_\text{quad}$ measures in particular the oscillatory
part of $\delta L$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:M_gamma}, the data points for $L_\text{quad}$
are depicted as colored dots as function of $\gamma$
for two frequencies $\omega_0$ and a fixed driving amplitude $a_0$ .
The solid lines are fits of the form
\begin{equation}
f(\gamma) = c_1 \gamma ^{-c_2}
\end{equation}
with an exponent $c_2\approx 1$. The simulated data
and the fits with exponents of about $1$ agree quite well. Since the duration
of the displacement oscillation is $\propto 1/\gamma$ this result reflects the fact that the
response of the system grows proportional to the time the driving is applied.
This makes sense since the amount of energy which can be deposited by the
oscillationg phonon grows linearly with the time it lasts.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig8_sweep_gamma_Lmax.eps}
\caption{$\text{max}|\delta L|$ vs the damping rate $\gamma$ for two values of $\omega_0$.
The data for $\omega_0=\SI{50}{\per\pico\second}$ is multiplied by 2 for better visibility.
(Parameter: $M=100, \kappa=\num{0.005}$).
}
\label{fig:M_gamma_Lmax}
\end{figure}
Since we subtract the long-time saturation value $\delta L_{\infty}$
governed by the sum over magnon occupations $u_{\vec{k}}$ in Eq.\eqref{eq:L_quad},
$L^2_\text{quad}$ is mainly sensitive to the two-magnon off-diagonal expectation value
$v_{\vec{k}}$. Some analytic insight into the dynamics of the full problem can be
gained by our approximate solution
for $v_{\vec{k}}(t)$ stated in Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r}.
Since the time-dependent parts in Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r}
only depend on the magnon energy $\omega_{\vec{k}}$ one can define an
auxiliary effective DOS $\tilde\rho(\omega)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde\rho(\omega) &=& \frac{1}{N \omega}\sum_{\vec{k}}
\beta_{\vec{k}} B_{\vec{k}} \delta(\omega-\omega_{\vec{k}})
\end{eqnarray*}
to convert the $k$-summation in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:delta-L-def}
for the $v_{\vec{k}}(t)$ contribution into a
integration over frequency.
The resonantly driven magnons contribute the most
to the integral: Since the amplitude is proportional to $1/\gamma$ and the
width in frequency of the modes with the highest
amplitude is proportional to $\gamma$, the overall $\gamma$ dependency cancels out in
$(\delta L(t)-\delta L_{\infty})$
This is clearly shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_gamma_Lmax} where
one can discern that the maximum of $\delta L$ depends only very weakly on $\gamma$
especially for smaller $\omega_0$.
Then we are left with exponential decay
of $v_{\vec{k}}(t)$
with rate $\gamma$ implying
that the magnetic response lasts for about $1/\gamma$, see Sect.~\ref{sss:dephasing}. Due to the integration in Eq.~\eqref{eq:L_quad} this implies $L^2_\text{quad} \propto 1/\gamma$ as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_gamma}.
\subsubsection{Dependence on the driving frequency $\omega_0$}
Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_evolution_delta_L} already shows that
the change of the sublattice magnetization strongly depends on
the driving frequency $\omega_0$ for the same driving amplitude $a_0$ and
driving decay $\gamma$.
For fixed $a_0$ and $\gamma$ we scan the driving frequency $\omega_0$ and
extract ${\rm max}|\delta L|$ as well as the saturation value $\delta L_\infty$.
The generic results of this scan are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_omega0}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig9_sweep_omega0.eps}
\caption{The maximum value of $|\delta L|$ and the saturation value
$\delta L(t\to\infty)$ show a behavior similar
to the magnon DOS except for a factor 2 in the frequency
because of the resonance condition $2\omega_{\vec k} \approx \omega_0$.
($M=100, \kappa = 0.005, \gamma=\SI{1}{\per \pico\second}$).}
\label{fig:M_omega0}
\end{figure}
Even though the sublattice magnetization and all related quantities
are sums over all $\vec{k}$-modes it is obvious that the modes
in resonance or very close to it contribute that most to $\delta L$.
Hence, one expects that the response of $\delta L$
follows roughly the DOS of the magnons because a high
density of modes with $2\omega_{\vec k}\approx\omega_0$ is favorable
for a strong effect in $\delta L$. As this argument implies
there is a factor of 2 between the DOS and the behavior of $\delta L$
because the resonance condition holds for pairs of magnons.
Indeed, Fig.~\ref{fig:M_omega0} clearly illustrates that these
ideas are correct, at least on a qualitative level.
As expected, ${\rm max}|\delta L|$ and $\delta L_\infty$ peak at the
van-Hove singularities of the magnon DOS.
Interestingly, the saturation value ${\rm max}|\delta L|$ becomes
significant only in the vicinity of the peaks of the van-Hove
singularities while ${\rm max}|\delta L|$ acquires significant
values also away from the prominent peaks of the DOS.
We attribute this to the fact that saturation value is large only
at or close to resonance, see Eq.\ \eqref{eq:detuned_damped}.
A mode is far from resonance if $|\delta| \gg \gamma$ which is
the case for most modes in view of the typical small values of $\gamma$.
In contrast, ${\rm max}|\delta L|$ depends on the oscillatory
contributions of all modes at small or moderate times, see Eq.\
\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r}. Hence it does not depend
so strongly on the DOS of magnons.
\subsubsection{Long-time decay of the change of the sublattice magnetization}
\label{sss:dephasing}
We still consider the physical situation without phenomenological
magnon decay, i.e., for $\gamma_r=0$. Still, the change of the sublattice magnetization
does decay in seeming contrast to the dynamics of single modes.
The decay of $\delta L$ in time results from dephasing, i.e., from
the fact that all $\vec k$-modes contribute but they display oscillations
with a broad range of frequencies which quickly become out-of-phase so that
the signal decreases. The time scale on which this dephasing takes place
is roughly estimated by $\tau_\text{dephas} \approx 1/(2\omega_\text{max})$
where $\omega_\text{max}$ is the maximum frequency of the magnon dispersion and the
factor
2 stems from the fact that pairs of magnons are created. In generic experimental
set ups, $\tau_\text{dephas}$ is much smaller than the displacement oscillation duration $1/\gamma$
so that the signal dies out extremely fast once the
driving oscillation disappeared.
In turn, this implies that the characteristic time scale on which
$\delta L$ vanishes is expected to be proportional to the duration of the
driving term.
We want to put this hypothesis to test. As shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_evolution_delta_L},
$\delta L(t)$ approaches a finite saturation value $\delta L_\infty$ for $\gamma_r =0$
while the oscillatory part decays in time. We separate the oscillatory part
of $\delta L$ and fit its envelope by an exponential
\begin{equation}
e(t) = ce^{-b(\gamma)t}
\end{equation}
from which we read off the effective
dephasing rate $b(\gamma)$. The resulting values are displayed
in Fig.~\ref{fig:decay_gamma_b} as function of $\gamma$. We stress that
this analysis was done for a relatively small driving frequency
$\omega_0 = \SI{30}{\per\pico\second}$ which
is far away from the van-Hove singularites where the two peaks in the DOS
introduce an additional time dependence as shown by the red curve in
Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_evolution_delta_L}. Then a mono-exponential analyis
of the characteristic dephasing rate is not possible.
For a frequency in the featureless range of the magnon DOS we find
our hypothesis supported in Fig.~\ref{fig:decay_gamma_b} displaying
a linear dependence $b\propto\gamma$. This means that the time scale
of the decay of the oscillations in $\delta L$ is dominated by
the time scale of the
driving oscillation duration. Note that the proportionality
factor $c_\gamma$ is about unity so that both time scales coincide
the regime of small $\gamma$. Only for larger values of
$\gamma$ some downward curvature appears. This feature is not unexpected
either because for $\gamma\to\infty$ one expects that the limiting
process of signal decay is the dephasing on the time scale
$1/(2\omega_\text{max})$ so that $b(\gamma)$ saturates at some value
$b_\infty = \lim_{\gamma\to\infty}(b(\gamma))$ of the order of
$2\omega_\text{max}$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth]{fig10_gamma_b_new.eps}
\caption{Effective dephasing rate $b$ of the envelope of oscillatory part
of the sublattice magnetization as function of the decay rate of the driving force.
For small $\gamma$ the relation is linear as expected in the limit where the
actual dephasing rate is very large, see main text. The prefactor
is of the order of unity $c_\gamma = \num{1.12(2)}$.
($M=100, \kappa=0.005,\omega_0=\SI{30}{\per\pico\second}$)}
\label{fig:decay_gamma_b}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Time evolution of the total energy}
A driven system acquires energy through the driving. So it is an important question
how much energy is pumped into it and on which parameters this effect depends.
We define the total energy energy $E$ per spin by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:E_def}
E(t)&=& \frac{1}{N} \left(\langle H(t) \rangle - J_1S(E_d + \Delta E)\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $H(t)$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:energy_timedependent}.
In the above definition we subtracted the trivial
energy offset of $H_0$. While $E(t)$ initially oscillates and
increases on average it reaches a saturated value
for times $t\gg 1/\gamma$ which represents its long-time limit.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig11_energy_bogo_new.eps}
\caption{
The energy per site $E(t)$ for different combinations of $\kappa$ and $\omega_0$. The energy
reaches
a saturation value for $t\to\infty$ since the driving oscillation is damped with rate
$\gamma = \SI{1}{\per\pico\second}$, i.e., the oscillation is effectively of finite
duration.
All curves start at zero energy since we start from the system at zero temperature.
(Parameter: $M=100, \gamma_r=0$
).
}
\label{fig:energy}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:energy} depicts the time evolution of $E(t)$ for
two different driving frequencies and two different
driving amplitudes in Fig.~\ref{fig:energy}.
The saturation value of the energy depends on the driving frequency and the
amplitude of the driving. If the resonance condition
is fulfilled or almost fulfilled for many of $\vec{k}$-modes,
quantified by the magnon DOS in Fig.\ \ref{fig:dispersion_DOS}(b),
the energy uptake is facilitated and higher values of energy are reached.
Thus, even a small driving with $\kappa=0.005$ leads to a higher excitation
if it is done at frequency at the peaks of the DOS
than the ten times larger driving at small values of the DOS.
For the stronger driving one can discern oscillations for short times. They
are also present for the weaker driving, but much smaller. We presume that
the driving at around the DOS maxima leads to substantial contributions from
many magnons so that the signal is better averaged and hence does not fluctuate
so strongly.
The amplitude of the oscillation is much smaller than the increasing slowly varying component of $E(t)$
and, therefore, not visible in the figure.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig12_E_a0.eps}
\caption{
The saturation value of the energy per site $E(t\to\infty)$ depends
quadratically on the relative amplitude $\kappa$ of the driving. The fit parameters
are $c_{\omega_0} = \SI{ 0.406+- 0.001}{\per\pico\second}$ for
$\omega_0=\SI{30}{\per\pico\second}$ and
$c_{\omega_0} = \SI{173.0 +- 0.5}{\per\pico\second}$
for $\omega_0=\SI{100}{\per\pico\second}$ (Parameter: $M=100, \gamma=\SI{1.0}{\per\pico\second}$).
}
\label{fig:E_a0}
\end{figure}
We already demonstrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:M_omega0}
that the change of the sublattice magnetisation reaches
a maximum for $\omega_0=\SI{100}{\per\pico\second}$.
Additionally, we selected $\omega_0 = \SI{30}{\per\pico\second}$.
For both frequencies, we investigate the dependence of
the saturation value $E(t\to\infty)$ on the driving amplitude $a_0$.
The data shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:E_a0} is perfectly described by
$E(t\to\infty)\propto a_0^2$.
This could be naively expected in
analogy to a driven classically harmonic oscillator where
the energy absorption is proportional to the square of the
driving amplitude or, alternatively, as direct
implication of Fermi's Golden Rule.
Inspecting the details of our calculation, we observed
already earlier that $u_{\vec k}$ grows quadratically with $a_0$, see the discussion
after Eq.\ \eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r}.
It is particularly obvious in the explicit expressions for the
saturated limits of $u_{\vec k}$ in Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:tuned_damped}
and \eqref{eq:detuned_damped}, we recall $\Gamma\propto a_0$.
In the long-time limit, the time dependent contribution $X(t)$ to the Hamiltonian
vanishes exponentially $\propto \exp(-\gamma t)$
so that only $H_0$ contributes to $E(t)$ for $t\to\infty$.
Consequently, only $u_{\vec{k}}$ enters in the expectation value according to
Eq.~\eqref{eq:H0-diagonal}
and hence this value depends quadratically on the driving amplitude.
\section{Making contact to experiments}
\label{sec:contact-to-experiments}
To connect our calculations closer to experiments,
we include a finite relaxation rate $\gamma_r$ that parametrizes
relaxation processes beyond the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:hamiltonian}
in an effective Lindblad equation. The reservoir consists of all the
phonons in MnTe.
In addition, we investigate whether decisive qualitative differences occur
if the optical phonon couples to the other exchange couplings in the system,
namely $J_1$ or $J_2$.
\subsection{Effect of the magnon relaxation}
\label{sec:with_relaxation}
The linear spin wave theory employed so far neither contains neither any scattering between
the magnon modes nor does it contain relaxation terms which allow the system
to reach its initial equilibrium again after a long time. In order to provide
a theoretical description that includes
relaxation back to the initial equilibrium state prior to the photo-excitation,
we have already introduced an additional relaxation rate $\gamma_r$
in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:eom_uvw}. In this section, we consider a finite value of
$\gamma_r>0$
explicitly. The derivation of the approximate {analytic solution is lengthy, but can
be found in App.\ \ref{app:relax}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig13_delta_L_exp_parameters_new3.eps}
\caption{Evolution of $\delta L(t)$ including relaxation parametrized by
$ \gamma_r = \SI{3.9e-3}{\per\pico\second}$. The other parameters are also
adapted to experiment \cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021}:
$\omega_0=\SI{33.6}{\per\pico\second}, \gamma =\SI{0.055}{\per\pico\second}, M=2200$.
Panel (a) focuses on the short-time dynamics for $\kappa = 0.01$ to illustrate the
fast oscillations. Panel (b) shows the long-time dynamics. Panel (c) shows the
contribution of the slowly varying contribution $u(t)$ of $\delta L(t)$ of panel (b)
which decays like $\exp(-\gamma_r t)$; note the difference of scales of the $y$ axes.
Panel (d) also displays $\delta L(t)$ and the slow contribution $u(t)$, but for
larger
relative driving amplitude $\kappa = 0.06$.}
\label{fig:delta_L_gammar}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:delta_L_gammar}
shows $\delta L(t)$ and $u(t)$ for
typical experimental driving frequencies and coherent lattice oscillation
durations in $\alpha$-MnTe
\cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021}. Since the driving amplitude $a_0$ is unknown, we perform
calculations for $\kappa = 0.01$ and $\kappa = 0.06$ to illustrate the possible
outcomes
for smaller and for larger driving amplitude.
Figure~\ref{fig:delta_L_gammar} shows $\delta L(t)$ as blue curves. The oscillations
of $\delta L(t)$ are so fast that they can only be resolved on time scale of panel (a).
The contribution $u(t)$ to $\delta L(t)$ is depicted separately in
Fig.~\ref{fig:delta_L_gammar}(b)
to illustrate the relaxation due to $\gamma_r$ visible on the long-time range. For
$\kappa=0.01$,
the contribution of the magnon occupation is very small compared to the oscillatory
contribution $v(t)$.
Therefore, including an addtional magnon relaxation term has only a minor effect on
$\delta L(t)$. Since $\gamma = \SI{0.055}{\per\pico\second} >\gamma_r=
\SI{3.9e-3}{\per\pico\second}$, we observe
an initial increase of the amplitude due to the driving of the system up to the
time scale $T_d\approx 1/\gamma$
before the decay sets in. Then $\delta L(t)$ is determined only by
$u(t)$
as discussed above. At the larger time scale, $t>1/\gamma_r$,
the magnon occupation $u(t)$ exponentially decays proportional to $\exp(-\gamma_r t)$
so that $\delta L(t)$ vanishes asymptotically for $t\to \infty$.
Figure~\ref{fig:delta_L_gammar}(c) depicts
$\delta L(t)$ for a larger driving amplitude $\kappa = 0.06$.
In contrast to the results for $\kappa=0.01$, $u(t)$ shown as violet curve becomes
significantly larger relative to the oscillatory component. This is consistent with the linear
dependence of
the oscillatory component on the amplitude
$a_0$, while the slowly varying component grows quadratically in $a_0$.
For the realistic parameter regime of $\gamma>\gamma_r$, most
of the previous analysis of the case at $\gamma_r = 0$
continues to apply in the presence of $\gamma_r$.
Especially, $\mathrm{max}|\delta L|$ does not change significantly
if $\gamma \gg \gamma_r$ since it is dominated by the short-time dynamics
hardly affected by a small value of $\gamma_r$.
Therefore, we do not investigate the effect of $a_0$ and $\gamma$
on $\delta L$ for finite $\gamma_r$ again.
Only the decreasing envelope of the amplitude of $\delta L$
becomes more complicated, but shows the expected behavior:
the mono-exponential decay is replaced by a bi-exponential decay
with two decay rates $\gamma$ and $\gamma_r$. The latter
determines the behavior for long times.
We stress that including $\gamma_r$, implies that
the dynamic system approaches its fixed point given by
$u_{\vec{k}}(t) = v_{\vec{k}}(t) = w_{\vec{k}}(t) = 0$.
The magnetic energy pumped into the Heisenberg model by the lattice
driving is eventually dissipated into the rest of the system
governed by the relaxation rate $\gamma_r$.
\subsection{Dynamics from the modulation of other exchange couplings}
\label{sec:with_other_deltaJ}
So far, we focused on the effect of a modulated coupling strength $J_3(t)$.
In general, a coupling of the optical phonon to the exchange couplings
$J_1$ or $J_2$ is also possible \cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021}.
The question arises whether the modulation
of these couplings is qualitatively different compared to the modulation of
$J_3$ studied so far.
For this purpose, only slight modifications of the theory
are necessary. The differential equations~\eqref{eq:eom_uvw} are
unchanged, but the prefactors $\alpha_{\vec{k}}$ and $\beta_{\vec{k}}$
have to be modified according to
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\alpha_{\vec{k}} &= \frac{A_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}}
\left( 2 - 2\frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{A_{\vec{k}}} \cos(k_c) \right)
\\
\beta_{\vec{k}} &= \frac{A_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}}
\left( -2 \frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{A_{\vec{k}}} + 2 \cos(k_c) \right)
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for discussing a driving via $\delta J_1(t)$ and to
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\alpha_{\vec{k}} &= \frac{A_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}}
\left( 6 - 2\frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{A_{\vec{k}}} \gamma_\Delta(\vec{k}) \right)
\\
\beta_{\vec{k}} &= \frac{A_{\vec{k}}}{\omega_{\vec{k}}}
\left( -6 \frac{B_{\vec{k}}}{A_{\vec{k}}} + 2 \gamma_\Delta(\vec{k}) \right).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
when considering a driving via $\delta J_2(t)$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.08\columnwidth]{fig14_comparison_Ji_omega.eps}
\caption{Evolution of $\delta L$ for modulated couplings
(a) $J_1$, (b) $J_2$, and (c) $J_3$ with relative amplitudes $\kappa_i$.
Parameters: $\kappa_i = \num{0.01}, M = \num{200},
\omega_0 = \SI{30}{\per\pico\second},\gamma = \SI{1.0}{\per\pico\second},\gamma_r=0$.}
\label{fig:diff_deltaJ}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:diff_deltaJ} illustrates the change of the sublattice magnetization
$\delta L$ for all three cases; note the different scales of the $y$ axes.
In these calculations, we set $\omega_0 =\SI{30}{\per\pico\second}$ and
$\gamma = \SI{1}{\per\pico\second}$ and neglect the magnon relaxation $\gamma_r$.
The data of Fig.~\ref{fig:diff_deltaJ}(c) is the same as in
Fig.~\ref{fig:temporal_evolution_delta_L}.
All curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:diff_deltaJ} are very similar even though the coupling
of the optical phonon is mediated by different Heisenberg terms.
This is a consequence of the identical analytic structure of the
differential equations governing the dynamics of the system.
However, the amplitude of $\delta L$ is determined by the maximum relative deviation
$\mathrm{max}|\delta J_i|$ and the product
$B_{\vec{k}}\beta_{\vec{k}}$
since $v_{\vec{k}}$ is proportional to $\beta_{\vec{k}}$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:z_final_solution_gamma_r}) and is multiplied with $B_{\vec{k}}$ to calculate $\delta L$ (Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta-L-def}). Because $\beta_{\vec{k}}$
contain the number of nearest neighbors,
a smaller value of $J_i$ can be compensated by a large number of nearest neighbors.
Therefore, with the parameter set used in this work, the strength of driving is
approximately the same for $J_1$ and $J_3$ using the same relative coupling amplitude
$\kappa_1=\kappa_3 = \num{0.01}$. In contrast, the effect of a modulated
coupling $J_2$ is significantly smaller.
In addition, the change of the sublattice magnetization
induced by $\delta J_1$ has the opposite sign compared to
the change caused by $\delta J_2$ or $\delta J_3$.
This effect is traced back to the sign of the product
$\beta_{\vec{k}} B_{\vec{k}}$ in Eq.\ \eqref{def:vt}
which is positive for $J_1$ and negative for $J_2$ and $J_3$.
In summary, the change of the sublattice magnetization
predicted by the advocated model is up to a sign
very similar for the modulations of all couplings $J_i$.
Hence, the analysis of the influence of the various parameters
in the driving via $\delta J_3 (t)$ as presented in previous sections
is sufficient to establish the essential physical response of $\delta L$.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
The research areas of magnonics and spintronics are currently attracting major interest
\cite{barma21,malki20b}. The idea to use magnetic excitations for information transport and processing is indeed very attractive because no physical object needs to be transported through the device. Hence such devices
are considered strong candidates for reducing the energy consumption
due to coherent information processing \cite{jackl17,Bertellieabd3556}.
One key issue for embedding such magnonics devices into the
established semiconductor electronics is the conversion of spin signals
into charge signals and vice versa at the highest possible operational speed. These considerations fuel the
presently growing research fields of ultrafast magnonics and spintronics
which aim at coupling spins and charges on the femtosecond time scales minimizing as much as possible the energy dissipation. A recent trend from the experimental side involves
the optical activation of coherent phonons either via Raman scattering processes
\cite{MERLIN1997207} or via resonant pumping \cite{FoerstEtAl2011,NovaEtAl2017}. In this framework,
it is a natural choice to investigate hexagonal MnTe since in this material the
optical band-gap, i.e.,the charge degree of freedom, is naturally coupled to both
the spins \cite{PhysRevB.61.13679,Bossini_2020,hafeztorbati2020magnetic}
and to the lattice \cite{RamanMnTe2020} in equilibrium.
Hence, in this article we pursued
the idea that light triggers coherent lattice motion which in turn
induces coherent oscillations
of the sublattice magnetization.
Aiming at $\alpha$-MnTe, we employed a Heisenberg model whose
coupling constants are determined by
data from inelastic neutron scattering \cite{PhysRevB.73.104403}.
The optically induced atomic displacements
modulate the exchange couplings
and thereby create pairs of magnons of opposite momenta
in the considered isotropic spin model.
We studied the dependence of the temporal evolution of the
sublattice magnetization on the variation of parameters such as
the amplitude of the modulation of the exchange coupling, the duration
of the coherent lattice oscillation,
its carrier frequency, and a phenomenological relaxation
rate of the magnons. The used parameters are chosen in the
experimentally relevant range \cite{bossiniMnTeExp2021}.
In particular, we calculated the dynamics
of the sublattice magnetization $L(t)$ induced by
the oscillating Heisenberg coupling $J_3$ between third-nearest neighbors.
The time-dependent deviation $\delta L (t)$ to the equilibrium value
is given by a weighted sum of the dynamics of all $\vec{k}$-modes.
Since the differential equations describing the dynamics of the
$\vec{k}$-modes remain diagonal in momentum space in linear spin wave theory
and for the assumed relaxation mechanism,
it is possible to gain analytic insight by analyzing individual $\vec{k}$-modes.
We solved the differential equations in the presence of a driving term with
some simplifying assumptions analytically as well as fully numerically.
In this way, we have explained the properties
of $\delta L (t)$ and its dependence on the external parameters.
We found that the qualitative features depend only quantitatively on
which exchange coupling is modulated by the optical
excited coherent lattice mode.
The exception to this rule is a sign change of the oscillations of $\delta L(t)$ if the coupling $J_1$ is modulated instead of $J_2$ or $J_3$.
But except for this phase shift of $\pi$ our
observation has two implications:
(i) generally, it demonstrates the generic nature of our approach, which is
applicable to a wide class of materials
and (ii) in the context of $\alpha$-MnTe,
the calculated the modulation of the sublattice magnetization does
not require the precise microscopic details of
how the optically excited displacement mode influences the exchange
paths, which is presently not known.
We stress that the computed effects in the sublattice
magnetization $L(t)$ are measurable experimentally as both the longitudinal and transversal
femtosecond dynamics of $L(t)$
can be detected by means of magneto-optical effects in a wide variety of
materials \cite{PhysRevB.89.060405,bossi17}.
It is thus important to point out that the presented calculations for $\alpha$-MnTe
can easily be adapted to any other ordered quantum antiferromagnetic system.
Furthermore, future research can extend the studied model in various directions:
(i) The relaxation mechanism of magnons as considered here does not conserve
the total spin \cite{PhysRevB.103.045132}. More elaborate Lindblad operators
can ensure the conservation of spin which holds for the dominant processes
in many systems. (ii) We assume the unperturbed state, prior to the photoexcitation,
to be in equilibrium at zero temperature. It is straightforward to include
finite temperature. (iii) In linear spin wave theory we neglected the scattering
of the magnons among themselves. Such interaction effects can be
included on the level of Boltzmann equations, see for instance
Ref.\ \cite{kalth21}.
(iv) Finally, it is conceptually interesting to study
the short coherent drive
in the vicinity of thermal and quantum phase transitions
in order to determine whether it is possible to drive
the system from one phase into the other.
The ultrafast coherent control of macroscopic magnetic states is thus
an exciting research field still in its infancy, from both the experimental
and the theoretical side as well.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge useful discussions with Mohsen Hafez-Torbati and Bruce Normand.
This study was carried out in the International Collaborative Research Centre 160 (Project B8)
funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the
Russian Foundation for Basic Research. Further support (GSU) by the DFG
was obtained through the projects UH 90/13-1 and UH 90/14-1. D.B. acknowledges supports from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) program BO5074/1-1.
|
\section{References}\footnotesize\list
{[\arabic{enumi}]}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[#1]}\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\usecounter{enumi}}
\def\hskip .11em plus .33em minus .07em{\hskip .11em plus .33em minus .07em}
\sloppy\clubpenalty4000\widowpenalty4000
\sfcode`\.=1000\relax}
\let\endthebibliography=\endlist
\jname{Biological Imaging}
\jyear{2022}
\jvol{2}
\jdoi{10.1017/S2633903X22000010}
\begin{document}
\begin{Frontmatter}
\title[Article Title]{COL0RME: Super-resolution microscopy based on sparse blinking/fluctuating fluorophore localization and intensity estimation}
\author*[1]{Vasiliki Stergiopoulou}\email{<EMAIL>}\orcid{0000-0002-0799-2028}
\author[1]{Luca Calatroni}
\author[2]{José Henrique de Morais Goulart}
\author[3]{Sébastien Schaub}
\author[1]{Laure Blanc-Féraud}
\address[1]{Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, INRIA, I3S, \orgaddress{\city{Sophia Antipolis}, \postcode{06900}, \country{France}}}
\address[2]{IRIT, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse INP, \orgaddress{\city{Toulouse}, \postcode{31071}, \country{France}}}
\address[3]{Sorbonne Université, CNRS, LBDV, \orgaddress{\city{Villefranche-sur-Mer}, \postcode{06230}, \country{France}}}
\received{02 August 2021}
\revised{26 January 2021}
\accepted{27 January 2022}
\authormark{Vasiliki Stergiopoulou et al.}
\keywords{Super-Resolution, Fluorescence microscopy, Sparse Optimization, SOFI method}
\abstract{
To overcome the physical barriers caused by light diffraction, super-resolution techniques are often applied in fluorescence microscopy. State-of-the-art approaches require specific and often demanding acquisition conditions to achieve adequate levels of both spatial and temporal resolution. Analyzing the stochastic fluctuations of the fluorescent molecules provides a solution to the aforementioned limitations, as sufficiently high spatio-temporal resolution for live-cell imaging can be achieved by using common microscopes and conventional fluorescent dyes. Based on this idea, we present COL0RME, a method for COvariance-based \lspace super-Resolution Microscopy with intensity Estimation, which achieves good spatio-temporal resolution by solving a sparse optimization problem in the covariance domain and discuss automatic parameter selection strategies. The method is composed of two steps: the former where both the emitters' independence and the sparse distribution of the fluorescent molecules are exploited to provide an accurate localization; the latter where real intensity values are estimated given the computed support. The paper is furnished with several numerical results both on synthetic and real fluorescence microscopy images and several comparisons with state-of-the art approaches are provided. Our results show that COL0RME outperforms competing methods exploiting analogously temporal fluctuations; in particular, it achieves better localization, reduces background artifacts and avoids fine parameter tuning.}
\begin{policy}[Impact Statement]
This research paper describes a super-resolution method improving the spatial resolution of images acquired by common fluorescence microscopes and conventional \mdfsec{blinking/fluctuating} fluorophores. The problem is formulated in terms of a sparse and convex/non-convex optimization problem in the covariance domain for which a well-detailed algorithmic and numerical description are provided. It is addressed to an audience working at the interface between applied mathematics and biological image analysis. The proposed approach is validated on several synthetic datasets and shows promising results also when applied to real data, thus paving the way for new future research directions.
\end{policy}
\end{Frontmatter}
\section{Introduction}
In the field of fluorescence (or, more generally, light) microscopy, the main factor characterizing the microscope resolution is the limit imposed by the diffraction of light: structures with size smaller than the diffraction barrier (typically around 250nm in the lateral direction) cannot be well distinguished nor localized. The need to investigate small sub-cellular entities thus led to the implementation of a plethora of super-resolution methods.
A large and powerful family of imaging techniques achieving nanometric resolution are the ones often known as Single Molecule Localization Microscopy (SMLM) techniques, see, e.g. \cite{smlm,SR_fight_club} for a review. Among them, methods such as Photo-Activated Localization Microscopy (PALM) \cite{PALM} and STochastic Optical Reconstruction Microscopy (STORM) \cite{STORM} are designed so as to create a super-resolved image (achieving around $20$nm of resolution) by activating and precisely localizing only a few molecules in each of thousands of acquired frames at a time. For their use, these methods need
\mdf{specific photoactivatable, photoswitchable, and binding-activated fluorophores, among others\cite{switchable_fluorophores},}
as well as, a large number (typically thousands) of sparse acquired frames leading to a poor temporal resolution and large exposure times which can significantly damage the sample. A different technique improving spatial resolution is well-known under the name of STimulated Emission Depletion (STED) microscopy \cite{Hell:94}. Similarly to SMLM, STED techniques are based on a time-consuming and possibly harmful acquisition procedure requiring special equipment. In STED microscopy, the size of the point spread function (PSF) is reduced as
\mdf{a depletion beam of light will induce stimulated emission from molecules outside the region of interest and thus switch them off.}
Structured Illumination Microscopy (SIM) \cite{sim} methods use patterned illumination to excite the sample; differently from the aforementioned approaches, images here can be recovered with high temporal-resolution via high speed acquisitions that
\mdf{cause comparatively little damage to}
the sample, but at the cost of a relatively low spatial resolution and, more importantly, the requirement of a specific illumination setup.
\mdf{Note that in this paper we address grid-based super-resolution approaches, i.e.~the ones that formalize the super-resolution problem as the task of retrieving a well-detailed image on a fine grid from coarse measurements.}
More recently, off-the-grid super-resolution approaches have started to be studied in the literature, such as the one of Candès \textit{et al.} \cite{Cands2012SuperResolutionFN}, with applications to SMLM data in Denoyelle \textit{et al.}\cite{Denoyelle_2019}, as well as DAOSTORM\cite{DAOSTORM}, a high-density super-resolution microscopy algorithm. The great advantage of the gridless approaches is that there are no limitations imposed by the size of the discrete grid considered. However, both the theoretical study of the problem and its numerical realization become very hard due to the infinite-dimensional and typically non-convex nature of the optimization.
During the last decade, a new approach taking advantage of the independent stochastic temporal fluctuations/blinking of conventional fluorescent emitters appeared in the literature. A stack of images is acquired at a high temporal rate, typically $20-100$ images/s, by means of common microscopes (such as widefield, confocal or Total Internal Reflection Fluorecence (TIRF) ones) using standard fluorophores, and then their independent fluctuations/blinking are exploited so as to compute a super-resolved image. Note that no specific material is needed here, neither for the illumination setup nor for fluorophores. Several methods exploiting the sequence of images have been proposed over the last years. Due to standard acquisition settings, temporal resolution properties are drastically improved.
To start with, Super-resolution Optical Fluctuation Imaging (SOFI) \cite{sofi} is a powerful technique where second and/or higher-order statistical analysis is performed, leading to a significant reduction of the size of the PSF. \mdfsec{An extension of SOFI that combines several cumulant orders and achieves better resolution levels than SOFI is the method bSOFI\cite{bSOFI}.}
However, spatial resolution still cannot reach the same levels of PALM/STORM. Almost the same behavior has been noticed in Super-Resolution Radial Fluctuations (SRRF) \cite{srrf} microscopy, where super-resolution is achieved by calculating the degree of local symmetry at each frame. Despite its easy manipulation and broad applicability, SRRF creates significant reconstruction artifacts which may limit its use in view of accurate analysis. \mdfsec{Other methods which belong to the same category and are worth mentioning are: the method 3B \cite{3B}, which uses Bayesian analysis and takes advantage of the blinking and bleaching events of standard fluorescent molecules, the method Entropy-based Super-resolution Imaging (ESI) \cite{ESI} that computes entropy values pixel-by-pixel, weighted with higher order statistics and the method Spatial COvariance REconstructive (SCORE) \cite{SCORE} that analyzes intensity statistics, similarly to SOFI, but further reduces noise and computational cost by computing only a few components that have a significant contribution to the intensity variances of the pixels.}
In addition, the approach SPARsity-based super-resolution COrrelation Microscopy (SPARCOM) \cite{SPARCOMold,SPARCOM} exploits, as SOFI, both the lack of correlation between distinct emitters as well as the sparse distribution of the fluorescent molecules via the use of an $\ell_1$ regularization defined on the emitters' covariance matrix. Along the same lines, a deep-learning method exploiting algorithmic unfolding, called Learned SPARCOM (LSPARCOM) \cite{LSPARCOM}, has recently been introduced. Differently from plain SPARCOM, the advantage of LSPARCOM is that neither previous knowledge of the PSF nor any heuristic choice of the regularization parameter for tuning the sparsity level is required. As far as the reconstruction quality is concerned, both SPARCOM and LSPARCOM create some artifacts under challenging imaging conditions, for example when the noise and/or background level are relatively high.
Finally, without using higher order statistics, a constrained tensor modeling approach that estimates a map of local molecule densities and their overall intensities, as well as, a matrix-based \mdf{formulation} that promotes structure sparsity via an $\ell_0$ type regularizer, are available in \cite{goulart}. These approaches can achieve excellent temporal resolution levels, but the spatial resolution is limited.
\paragraph{Contribution}
In this paper, we propose a method for live-cell super-resolution imaging based on the sparse analysis of the stochastic fluctuations of molecule intensities. The proposed approach provides a good level of both temporal and spatial resolution, thus allowing for both precise molecule localization and intensity estimation at the same time, while relaxing the need for special equipment (microscope, fluorescent dyes) typically encountered in state-of-the art super-resolution methods such as, e.g., SMLM. The proposed method is called COL0RME, which stands for COvariance-based super-Resolution Microscopy with intensity Estimation. Similarly to SPARCOM \cite{SPARCOM}, COL0RME enforces signal sparsity in the covariance domain by means of sparsity-promoting terms, either of convex ($\ell_1$, TV) or non-convex ($\ell_0$-based)-type. Differently from SPARCOM, COL0RME allows also for an accurate estimation of the noise variance in the data and is complemented with an automatic selection strategy of the model hyperparameters. Furthermore, and more importantly, COL0RME allows for the estimation of both signal and background intensity, which are relevant pieces of information for biological studies. By exploiting information on the estimated noise statistics, the parameter selection in this step is also made fully automatic, based on the standard discrepancy principle. We remark that an earlier version of COL0RME has been already introduced by the authors in \cite{ISBI_COL0RME}. Here, we consider an extended formulation combined with automatic parameter selection strategies which allows for the analysis of more challenging data having, e.g., spatially varying background.
The method is validated on simulated and tested on challenging real data. Our results show that COL0RME outperforms competing methods in terms of localization precision, parameter tuning and removal of background artifacts.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{images/schema5.png}
\caption{Principles of COL0RME. (a) An overview of the two steps (Support Estimation and Intensity Estimation) by visualizing the inputs/outputs of each, as well as the interaction between them. (b) The two main outputs of COL0RME are: the support $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$ containing the locations of the fine-grid pixels with at least one fluorescent molecule, and the intensity $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$ whose non-null values are estimated only on $\Omega$}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
\section{Mathematical Modeling} \label{sec:math_mod}
For real scalars $T, M>1$ and $t\in\left\{1, 2, \ldots,T\right\}$, let $\mathbf{Y}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{M\times M}$ be the blurred, noisy and down-sampled image frame acquired at time $t$. We look for a high-resolution image $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{L\times L}$ being defined as $\mathbf{X} = \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^{T} \mathbf{X}_t$ with $L = qM$ and defined on a $q$-times finer grid, with $q\in\mathbb{N}$. Note that in the following applications we typically set $q=4$. The image formation model describing the acquisition process at each $t$ can be written as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:model}
\mathbf{Y}_t = {\cal{M}}_q ({\cal{H}}( \mathbf{X}_t)) + \mathbf{B} +\mathbf{N_t},
\end{equation}
where ${\cal{M}}_q:\mathbb{R}^{L \times L} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{M \times M}$ is a down-sampling operator summing every $q$ consecutive pixels in both dimensions, ${\cal{H}}:\mathbb{R}^{L \times L} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{L \times L}$ is a convolution operator defined by the PSF of the optical imaging system and $\mathbf{B}\in \mathbb{R}^{M\times M}$ models the background, which collects the contributions of the out-of-focus (and the ambient) fluorescent molecules. Motivated by experimental observations showing that the \mdfsec{blinking/fluctuating} behaviour of the out-of-focus molecules is not visible after convolution with wide de-focused PSFs, we assume that the background is temporally constant ($\mathbf{B}$ does not depend on $t$), while we allow it to smoothly vary in space. Finally, $\mathbf{N}_t\in \mathbb{R}^{M\times M}$ describes the presence of noise modeled here as a matrix of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance $s\in\mathbb{R}^+$ \mdf{taking into account both the underlying electronic noise and the noise bias induced by $\mathbf{B}$ (see Remark \ref{rem:poisson model} for more details on the approximation considered).}
We assume that the molecules are located at the center of each pixel and that there is no displacement of the specimen during the imaging period, which is a reasonable assumption whenever short time acquisitions are considered.
\mdf{\begin{remark} \label{rem:poisson model}
A more appropriate model taking also into account the presence of signal-dependent Poisson noise in the data would be the following:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:poisson_model}
\mathbf{Y}_t = P\left( {\cal{M}}_q \left({\cal{H}}\left( \mathbf{X}_t\right)\right) + \mathbf{B}\right) +\mdf{\mathbf{E_t}} = P\left( {\cal{M}}_q \left({\cal{H}}\left( \mathbf{X}_t\right)\right) \right) + P\left( \mathbf{B} \right) + \mathbf{E}_t ,\qquad \forall t=1,2,\ldots,T,
\end{equation}
where, for $\mathbf{W}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times M}$, $P(\mathbf{W})$ represents the realization of a multivariate Poisson variable of parameter $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{E_t} \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times M}$ models electronic noise with a matrix of i.i.d. Gaussian entries of zero mean and constant variance $\sigma^2 \in \mathbb{R}_+$. Note that the second equality in \eqref{eq:poisson_model} holds due to the independence between ${\cal{M}}_q \left({\cal{H}}\left( \mathbf{X}_t\right)\right)$ and $\mathbf{B}$. Model \eqref{eq:poisson_model} is indeed the one we used for the generation of the simulated data, see Section \ref{sec: Simulated Data}.
However, to simplify the reconstruction process,
we simplified \eqref{eq:poisson_model} by assuming that $\mathbf{B}$ has sufficiently large entries, so that $P(\mathbf{B})$ can be approximated as $P(\mathbf{B}) \approx \hat{\mathbf{B}}$ with $\hat{\mathbf{B}}_{i,j}\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{B}_{i,j},\mathbf{B}_{i,j})$, where $(i,j) \in \{1,\dots,M \}^2$, thus considering:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:poisson_gauss_mod}
\mathbf{Y}_t = P\left( {\cal{M}}_q \left({\cal{H}}\left( \mathbf{X}_t\right)\right) \right) + \hat{\mathbf{B}} + \mathbf{E}_t,\qquad \forall t=1,2,\ldots,T.
\end{equation}
By now further approximating the variance of $\hat{\mathbf{B}}$ with a constant $b\in\mathbb{R}_+$ to be interpreted as the average of $\mathbf{B}$, we have that by simple manipulations:
\[
\hat{\mathbf{B}} + \mathbf{E}_t = \mathbf{B} + \mathbf{N}_t,
\]
where the independence between $\hat{\mathbf{B}}$ and $\mathbf{E}_t$ has been exploited. We can thus retrieve \eqref{eq:model} from \eqref{eq:poisson_gauss_mod} by neglecting the Poisson noise dependence in $P\left({\cal{M}}_q \left({\cal{H}}\left( \mathbf{X}_t\right)\right)\right)$ and that the variance of every entry of the random term $\mathbf{N}_t$ is $s = \sigma^2 + b$. A more detailed and less approximated modelling taking into account the signal-dependent nature of the noise in the data could represent a very interesting area of future research.
\end{remark}}
In vectorized form, model (\ref{eq:model}) reads:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:model_vec}
\mathbf{y}_t = \mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{x}_t + \mathbf{b} +\mathbf{n}_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\Psi} \in \mathbb{R}^{M^2 \times L^2}$ is the matrix representing the composition ${\cal{M}}_q \circ {\cal{H}}$, while $\mathbf{y}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}$, $\mathbf{x}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2}$, $\mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}$ and $\mathbf{n}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}$ are the column-wise vectorizations of $\mathbf{Y}_t$, $\mathbf{X}_t$, $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{N}_t$ in \eqref{eq:model}, respectively.
For all $t$ and given $\mathbf{\Psi}$ and $\mathbf{y}_t$, the problem can thus be formulated as
\[
\text{find }\quad \mathbf{x}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{x}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2}, \mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}\text{ and }s>0\quad\text{s.t.}\quad \mathbf{x}_t\quad \text{ solves }\eqref{eq:model_vec}.
\]
In order to exploit the statistical behavior of the fluorescent emitters, we reformulate the model in the covariance domain. This idea was previously exploited by the SOFI approach \cite{sofi} and was shown to significantly reduce the full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) of the PSF. In particular, the use of second-order statistics for a Gaussian PSF corresponds to a reduction factor of the FWHM of $\sqrt2$.
To formulate the model, we consider the frames
$(\mathbf{y}_t)_{t \in \{1,\dots,T\} }$ as $T$ realizations of a random variable $\mathbf{y}$ with covariance matrix defined by:
\begin{equation}{\label{eq:cov_mat}}
\mathbf{R_y} = \EX_{\mathbf{y}}\{(\mathbf{y} - \EX_{\mathbf{y}}\{\mathbf{y}\})(\mathbf{y} - \EX_{\mathbf{y}}\{\mathbf{y}\})^\intercal\},
\end{equation}
where $\EX_{\mathbf{y}}\{\cdot\}$ denotes the expected value computed w.r.t. to the unknown law of ${\mathbf{y}}$. We estimate $\mathbf{R_y}$ by computing the empirical covariance matrix, i.e.:
\begin{equation*}{\label{eq:cov_mat_emperical}}
\mathbf{R_y} \approx
\frac{1}{T-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (\mathbf{y}_t-\overline{\mathbf{y}})(\mathbf{y}_t-\overline{\mathbf{y}})^\intercal,
\end{equation*}
where $\overline{\mathbf{y}}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{y}_t$ denotes the empirical temporal mean.
From (\ref{eq:model_vec}) and (\ref{eq:cov_mat}), we thus deduce the relation:
\begin{equation}{\label{eq:cov_model}}
\mathbf{R_y} = \mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{R_x} \mathbf{\Psi}^\intercal + \mathbf{R_n},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{R_x} \in \mathbb{R}^{L^2 \times L^2}$ and $\mathbf{R_n} \in \mathbb{R}^{M^2 \times M^2}$ are the covariance matrices of $(\mathbf{x}_t)_{t \in \{1,\dots,T\} }$ and $(\mathbf{n}_t)_{t \in \{1,\dots,T\} }$,
respectively. As the background is stationary by assumption, the covariance matrix of $\mathbf{b}$ is zero. Recalling now that the emitters are uncorrelated by assumption, we deduce that $\mathbf{R_x}$ is diagonal. We thus set $\mathbf{r_x} := \text{ diag}(\mathbf{R_x})\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2}$. Furthermore, by the i.i.d.~assumption on $\mathbf{n}_t$, we have that $\mathbf{R_n} = s \mathbf{I_{M^2}}$, where $s \in \mathbb{R}_+$ and $\mathbf{I_{M^2}}$ is the identity matrix in $\mathbb{R}^{M^2 \times M^2}$.
Note that the model in equation \eqref{eq:cov_model} is similar to the SPARCOM one presented in \cite{SPARCOM}, with the difference that here we consider also noise contributions by including in the model the diagonal covariance matrix $\mathbf{R_n}$. Finally,
the vectorized form of the model in the covariance domain can thus be written as:
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:support_model}
\mathbf{r_y} = (\mathbf{\Psi} \odot \mathbf{\Psi}) \mathbf{r_x} + s \mathbf{v_I},
\end{equation*}
where $\odot$ denotes the Khatri–Rao (column-wise Kronecker) product, $\mathbf{r_y} \in\mathbb{R}^{M^4}$ is the column-wise vectorization of $\mathbf{R_y}$ and $\mathbf{v_I} = \text{vec}(\mathbf{I_{M^2}})$.
\section{COL0RME, step I: support estimation for precise molecule localization} \label{sec:step1}
Similarly to SPARCOM \cite{SPARCOM}, our approach makes use of the fact that the solution $\mathbf{r_x}$ is sparse, while including further the estimation of $s>0$ for dealing with more challenging scenarios. In order to compare specific regularity \emph{a-priori} constraints on the solution, we make use of different regularization terms, whose importance is controlled by a regularization hyperparameter $\lambda>0$. By further introducing some non-negativity constraints for both variables $\mathbf{r_x}$ and $s$, we thus aim to solve:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:support_mini}
\argmin\limits_{\mathbf{r_x} \geq 0,~ s \geq 0}~ {\cal{F}}(\mathbf{r_x},s) + {\cal{R}}(\mathbf{r_x};\lambda),
\end{equation}
where the data fidelity term is defined by:
\begin{equation}
{\cal{F}}(\mathbf{r_x},s) = \frac12 \| \mathbf{r_y} -(\mathbf\Psi \odot \mathbf\Psi) \mathbf{r_x} - s \mathbf{v_I} \|_2^2,
\end{equation}
and $\cal{R}(\cdot;\lambda)$ is a sparsity-promoting penalty. Ideally, one would like to make use of the \lspace norm to enforce sparsity. However, as it is well-known, solving the resulting non-continuous, non-convex and combinatorial minimization problem is an NP-hard problem. A way to circumvent this difficulty consists in using the continuous exact relaxation of the \lspace norm (CEL0) proposed by Soubies \textit{et al.} in \cite{CELO}. The CEL0 regularization is continuous, non-convex and preserves the global minima of the original $\ell_2-\ell_0$ problem while removing some local ones. It is defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CEL0}
{\cal{R}}(\mathbf{r_x};\lambda) =\Phie{(\mathbf{r_x};\lambda)} = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{L^2} \lambda - \frac{\|\mathbf{a}_i\|^2}{2}\left( |(\mathbf{r_x})_i| - \frac{\sqrt{2\lambda}}{\|\mathbf{a}_i\|} \right)^2 \mathds{1} _{\{|({\mathbf{r_x}})_i| \leq \frac{\sqrt{2 \lambda}}{\|\mathbf{a}_i\|}\}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{a}_i = (\mathbf\Psi \odot \mathbf\Psi)_i$ denotes the $i$-th column of the operator $\mathbf{A}:=\mathbf\Psi \odot \mathbf\Psi$.
A different, convex way of favoring sparsity consists in taking as regularizer the $\ell_1$ norm, that is:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:L1}
{\cal{R}}(\mathbf{r_x};\lambda) = \lambda \|\mathbf{r_x}\|_1.
\end{align}
Besides convexity and as it is well-known, the key difference between using the $\ell_0$ and the $\ell_1$-norm is that the $\ell_0$ provides a correct interpretation of sparsity by counting only the number of the non-zero coefficients, while the $\ell_1$ depends also on the magnitude of the coefficients.
However, its use as a sparsity-promoting regularizer is nowadays well-established (see, e.g., \cite{rwl1}) and also used effectively in other microscopy applications, such as SPARCOM \cite{SPARCOM}.
Finally, in order to model situations where piece-wise constant structures are considered, we consider a different regularization term favoring gradient-sparsity by using the Total Variation (TV) regularization defined in a discrete setting as follows:
\begin{align} \label{eq:TV}
{\cal{R}}(\mathbf{r_x};\lambda) = \lambda TV(\mathbf{r_x}) = \lambda \sum\limits_{i=1}^{L^2} \left(|({\mathbf{r_x}})_i - ({\mathbf{r_x}})_{n_{i,1}}|^2+|({\mathbf{r_x}})_i-({\mathbf{r_x}})_{n_{i,2}}|^2 \right)^{\frac12},
\end{align}
where $(n_{i,1},n_{i,2}) \in \{1,\dots,L^2 \}^2$ indicate the locations of the horizontal and vertical nearest neighbor pixels of pixel $i$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:neighbours}. For the computation of the TV penalty, Neumann boundary conditions have been used.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.17\textwidth]{images/neighbour_pixels2.png}
\caption{The one-sided nearest horizontal and vertical neighbors of the pixel $i$ used to compute the gradient discretization in \eqref{eq:TV}}
\label{fig:neighbours}
\end{figure}
To solve \eqref{eq:support_mini} we use the Alternate Minimization algorithm between $s$ and $\mathbf{r_x}$ \cite{attouch}, see the pseudo-code reported in Algorithm \ref{Algorithm:AMA_support}. Note that, at each $k\geq 1$, the update for the variable $s$ can be efficiently computed through the following explicit expression:
\begin{equation*}
s^{k+1} = \frac{1}{M^2} \mathbf{v_I}^\intercal ( \mathbf{r_y} -(\mathbf\Psi \odot \mathbf\Psi) \mathbf{r_x}^k).
\end{equation*}
Concerning the update of $\mathbf{r_x}$, different algorithms were used depending on the choice of the regularization term in \eqref{eq:CEL0}, \eqref{eq:L1} and \eqref{eq:TV}. For the CEL0 penalty \eqref{eq:CEL0} we used the iteratively reweighted $\ell_1$ algorithm (IRL1) \cite{WRL1}, following Gazagnes et al. \cite{Gazagnes} with Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm (FISTA) \cite{FISTA} as inner solver.
If the $\ell_1$ norm \eqref{eq:L1} is chosen, FISTA is used.
Finally, when the TV penalty \eqref{eq:TV} is employed, the Primal-Dual Splitting Method in \cite{Primal-Dual} was considered.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{COL0RME, Step I: Support Estimation}
\label{Algorithm:AMA_support}
\begin{algorithmic}
\REQUIRE $\mathbf{r_y}\in\mathbb{R}^{M^4}, \mathbf{r_x}^0\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2}, \lambda>0$
\REPEAT
\STATE $s^{k+1} = \argmin\limits_{s \in \mathbb{R}_+} {\cal{F}}(\mathbf{r_x}^{k},s)$
\STATE $\mathbf{r_x}^{k+1} = \argmin\limits_{\mathbf{r_x} \in \mathbb{R}_+^{L^2}}{\cal{F}}(\mathbf{r_x},s^{k+1})+ {\cal{R}}(\mathbf{r_x};\lambda)$
\UNTIL convergence
\RETURN $\Omega_{\mathbf{x}}, s$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Following the description provided by Attouch \textit{et al.} in \cite{attouch}, convergence of Algorithm \ref{Algorithm:AMA_support} can be guaranteed only if an additional quadratic term is introduced in the objective function of the second minimization sub-problem. Nonetheless, empirical convergence was observed also without such additional terms.
To evaluate the performance of the first step of the method COL0RME using the different regularization penalties described above, we created two noisy simulated datasets, with low background (LB) and high background (HB), respectively and used them to apply COL0RME and estimate the desired sample support. More details on the two datasets are available in the following sub-section \ref{sec: Simulated Data}. The results obtained by using the three different regularizers are reported in Figure \ref{support_fig}. In this example we chose the regularization parameter $\lambda$ heuristically, while more details about the selection of the parameter are given in the subsection \ref{parameter_lambda}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
& $\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ + GT & \hspace{-0.7cm}CEL0 result & \hspace{-0.7cm}$\ell_1$ result & \hspace{-0.7cm}TV result \\
(a) & \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{Figures/DLwithGT_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.7cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_supp_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2_mi.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.7cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_supp_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2_mi.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.7cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_supp_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_TV_RP3.jpg}}\\
(b) & \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{Figures/DLwithGT_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.7cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_supp_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2_mi.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.7cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_supp_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2_mi.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.7cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_supp_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_TV_RP3.jpg}}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{(a) Noisy simulated dataset with low-background (LB) and stack size: $T=500$ frames, (b) Noisy simulated high-background (HB) dataset, with $T=500$ frames. From left to right: Superimposed diffraction limited image (temporal mean of the stack) with 4x zoom on ground truth support (blue), CEL0 reconstruction, $\ell_1$ reconstruction and TV reconstruction}
\label{support_fig}
\end{figure}
Despite its continuous and smooth reconstruction, we observe that the reconstruction obtained by the TV regularizer does not provide precise localization results . For example, the separation of the two filaments on the top-right corner is not visible and while the junction of the other two filaments on the bottom-left should appear further down, we clearly see that those filaments are erroneously glued together.
\mdf{Nonetheless, the choice of an appropriate regularizer tailored to favor fine structures as the ones observed in the GT image constitutes a challenging problem that should be addressed in future research. }
The Jaccard indices (JI) of both the results obtained when using the CEL0 and $\ell_1$ regularizer, that allow for more precise localization,
have been computed.
The Jaccard index, is a quantity in the range $[0,1]$ computed as the ratio between correct detections (CD) and the sum of correct detections, false positives (FP) and false negatives (FN), that is $\text{JI}:=CD/ (CD+FN+FP)$, up to a tolerance $\delta>0$, measure in nm. \mdf{A correct detection occurs when one pixel at most $\delta$ nm away from a ground truth pixel is added to the support. In order to match the pixels from the estimated support to the ones from the ground truth, we employ the standard Gale–Shapley algorithm \cite{stable_maraige}. Once the matching has been performed, we can simply count the number of ground truth pixels which have not been detected (false negatives) and also the number of pixels in the estimated support which have not been matched to any ground truth pixel (false positives).}
The Figure \ref{fig: JI} reports the average Jaccard index computed from 20 different noise realizations, as well as, an error bar (vertical lines) that represent the standard deviation, for several stack sizes. According to the figure, a slightly better Jaccard index is obtained when the CEL0 regularizer is being used, while an increase in the number of frames, when both regularizers being used, leads to better Jaccard index, hence better localization. \mdfsec{As the reader may notice, such quantitative assessment could look inconsistent with the visual results reported in Figure \ref{support_fig}. By definition, the JI tends to assume higher values whenever more CD are found even in presence of more FP (as it happens for the CEL0 reconstruction), while it gets more penalized when FN happen, as they affect the computation "twice", reducing the numerator and increasing the denominator. }
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/JI_lowBg_bigFonts.jpg}
\caption{LB dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/JI_highBg_bigFonts.jpg}
\caption{HB dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Jaccard Index values with tolerance $\delta = 40 nm$ for the low-background (LB) and high-background (HB) dataset, for different stack sizes and regularization penalty choices. The tolerance, $\delta = 40$ nm, is set so that we allow the correct detections, that needed to be counted for the computation of the Jaccard Index, to be found not only in the same pixel but also to any of the 8-neighbouring pixels}
\label{fig: JI}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Accurate noise variance estimation} \label{sec:noise_variance}
Along with the estimations of the emitter's temporal sparse covariance matrix, the estimation of the noise variance in the joint model \eqref{eq:support_mini} allows for much more precise results even in challenging acquisition conditions. \mdf{In Figure \ref{fig:noise_var} we show the relative error between the computed noise variance $s$ and the constant variance of the electronic noise $\sigma^2$ used to produce simulated low-background (LB) and high-background (HB) data. The relative error is higher in the case of the HB dataset, something that is expected, as in our noise variance estimation $s$ there is a bias coming from the background (see Remark \ref{rem:poisson model}). In the case of the LB dataset, as the background is low, the bias is sufficiently small so that it is barely visible in the error graph. In our experiments, a Gaussian noise with a corresponding SNR of approximately 16 dB is being used, while the value of \mdf{$\sigma^2$} is in average equal to $7.11 \times 10^5$ for the LB dataset and $7.13 \times 10^5$ for the HB dataset. Note that, in general, the estimation of the noise variance $s$ obtained by COL0RME is very precise.}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/error_lowBg_bigFonts_norm.jpg}
\caption{LB dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/error_highBg_bigFonts_norm.jpg}
\caption{HB dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The relative error in noise variance estimation, defined as: Error = $\frac{|s - \sigma^2|}{|\sigma^2|}$, where $\sigma^2$ is the constant variance of the electronic noise. The Error is computed for 20 different noise realizations, presenting in the graph the mean and the standard deviation (error bars)}
\label{fig:noise_var}
\end{figure}
\section{COL0RME, step II: Intensity estimation} \label{sec:stepII}
From the previous step, we obtain a sparse estimation of $\mathbf{r_x}\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2}$. Its support, i.e. the location of non-zero variances, can thus be deduced. This is denoted in the following by $\Omega := \left\{i: {(\mathbf{r_x})}_i\neq 0 \right\}\subset \left\{ 1,\ldots,L^2\right\}$. Note that this set corresponds indeed to the support of the desired $\mathbf{x}$, hence in the following we will use the same notation to denote both sets.
We are now interested in enriching COL0RME with an additional step where intensity information of the signal $\mathbf{x}$ can be retrieved in correspondence with the estimated support $\Omega$.
To do so, we thus propose an intensity estimation procedure for $\mathbf{x}$ restricted only to the pixels of interest. Under this modeling assumption, it is thus reasonable to consider a regularization term favoring smooth intensities on $\Omega$, in agreement to the intensity typically found in real images.
In order to take into account the modeling of blurry and out-of-focus fluorescent molecules, we further include in our model \eqref{eq:model_vec} a regularization term for smooth background estimation.
We can thus consider the following joint minimization problem:
\begin{equation}{\label{eq:intensity_constraint}}
\argmin\limits_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}_+^{|\Omega|},~ \mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}_+^{M^2}} ~\frac12 \|\mathbf{\Psi_\Omega} \mathbf{x} - (\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf{b})\|_2^2 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|\nabla_{\Omega}\mathbf{x}\|_2^2 + \frac{\beta}{2} \|\nabla\mathbf{b}\|_2^2,
\end{equation}
where the data term models the presence of Gaussian noise,
$\mu,\beta>0$ are regularization parameters
and the operator $\mathbf{\Psi_\Omega} \in\mathbb{R}^{M^2\times |\Omega|}$ is a matrix whose $i$-th column is extracted from $\mathbf\Psi$ for all indexes $i \in \Omega$. Finally, the regularization term on $\mathbf{x}$ is the squared norm of the discrete gradient restricted to $\Omega$, i.e.:
\begin{equation*}
\|\nabla_{\Omega} \mathbf{x}\|_2^2 := \sum\limits_{i \in \Omega} \sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)\cap\Omega} (x_i - x_j)^2,
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{N}(i)$ denotes the 8-pixel neighborhood of $i\in\Omega$. Note that, according to this definition, $\nabla_\Omega\mathbf{x}$ denotes a (redundant) isotropic discretization of the gradient of $\mathbf{x}$ evaluated for each pixel in the support $\Omega$. Note that this definition coincides with the standard one for $\nabla \mathbf{x}$ restricted to points in the support $\Omega$.
The non-negativity constraints on $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ as well as the one restricting the estimation of $\mathbf{x}$ on $\Omega$ can be relaxed by using suitable \mdffirst{smooth} penalty terms, so that, finally, the following optimization problem can be addressed:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:intensity_penalized}
\argmin\limits_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2},~ \mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}} ~\frac12 \| \mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{x} - (\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf{b})\|_2^2 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|\nabla\mathbf{x}\|_2^2 + \frac{\beta}{2} \|\nabla\mathbf{b}\|_2^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega x}\|_2^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{L^2}\ [\phi(\mathbf{x}_i)]^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{M^2}\ [\phi(\mathbf{b}_i)]^2\right),
\end{equation}
where the parameter $\alpha\gg 1$ can be chosen arbitrarily high to enforce the constraints, $\mathbf{I_\Omega}$ is a diagonal matrix acting as characteristic function of $\Omega$, i.e. defined as:
\[ \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i) = \begin{cases} \mbox{0} & \mbox{if } i \in \Omega, \\ \mbox{1} & \mbox{if } i \not\in \Omega \end{cases},\qquad \forall i \in \{1, ... , L^2\}, \]
and $\phi: \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is used to penalize negative entries, being defined as:
\begin{equation}
\phi(z) :=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if } z \geq 0,\\
z & \text{if } z < 0
\end{cases},\qquad\forall z\in\mathbb{R}.
\label{phi}
\end{equation}
\mdffirst{We anticipate here that considering the unconstrained problem \eqref{eq:intensity_penalized} instead of the original, constrained, one \eqref{eq:intensity_constraint}, will come in handy for the design of an automatic parameter selection strategy, as we further detail in Section \ref{sec: DP}. }
To solve the joint-minimization problem \eqref{eq:intensity_penalized} we use the Alternate Minimization algorithm, see Algorithm~\ref{Algorithm:AMA_intensity}. In the following subsections, we provide more details on the solution of the two minimization sub-problems.
\begin{algorithm}[!h]
\caption{COL0RME, Step II: Intensity Estimation}
\label{Algorithm:AMA_intensity}
\begin{algorithmic}
\REQUIRE $\overline{\mathbf{y}}\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}, \mathbf{x}^0\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2},\mathbf{b}^0\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}, \mu,\beta>0$, $\alpha\gg 1$
\REPEAT
\STATE $\mathbf{x}^{k+1} = \argmin\limits_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}} \frac12\|\mathbf{\Psi x - (\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf{b}^{k})} \|_2^2
+\frac{\mu}{2} \|\nabla\mathbf{x}\|_2^2
+\frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega x}\|_2^2
+\sum_{i=1}^{L^2}\ [\phi(\mathbf{x}_i)]^2\right)$
\STATE $\mathbf{b}^{k+1} = \argmin\limits_{\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{M^2}}\frac12 \| \mathbf{b} - (\overline{\mathbf{y}}-\mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{x}^{k+1}) \|_2^2 +\frac{\beta}{2} \|\nabla\mathbf{b}\|_2^2 +\frac{\alpha}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{M^2}\ [\phi(\mathbf{b}_i)]^2$
\UNTIL convergence
\RETURN $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{b}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{First sub-problem: update of $\mathbf{x}$}
In order to find at each $k\geq 1$ the optimal solution $\mathbf{x}^{k+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$ for the first sub-problem, we need to solve a minimization problem of the form:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}^{k+1} = \argmin_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}} ~g(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{b}^k) + h(\mathbf{x}),
\label{min_x}
\end{equation}
where, for $\mathbf{b}^k\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}$ being fixed at each iteration $k\geq 1$, $g(
\cdot; \mathbf{b}^k): \mathbb{R}^{M^2} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ is a proper and convex function with Lipschitz gradient, defined as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def_g}
g(\mathbf{x}; \mathbf{b}^k) := \frac12\|\mathbf{\Psi x} - (\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf{b}^{k}) \|_2^2
+\frac{\mu}{2} \|\nabla \mathbf{x}\|_2^2,
\end{equation}
and where the function $h : \mathbb{R}^{L^2} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ encodes the penalty terms:
\begin{equation}
h(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega x}\|_2^2
+\sum_{i=1}^{L^2}\ [\phi(\mathbf{x}_i)]^2\right).
\label{eq: h}
\end{equation}
Solution of \eqref{min_x} can be obtained iteratively, using, for instance, the proximal gradient descent algorithm, whose iteration can be defined as follows :
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}^{n+1} = \textbf{\text{prox}}_{h, \tau}(\mathbf{x}^{n} - \tau \nabla g(\mathbf{x}^{n})), \quad n=1,2,.. ,
\label{x_m}
\end{equation}
where $\nabla g(\cdot)$ denotes the gradient of $g$, $\tau \in (0, \frac{1}{L_{g}}]$ is the algorithmic step-size chosen inside a range depending on the Lipschitz constant of $\nabla g$, here denoted by $L_g$, to guarantee convergence. The proximal update in \eqref{x_m} can be computed explicitly using the computations reported in Appendix \ref{appendixA}. One can show in fact that, for each $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2}$ there holds element-wise:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prox}
\left( \textbf{\text{prox}}_{h, \tau}(\mathbf{w}) \right)_i = {\text{prox}}_{h, \tau}(\mathbf{w}_i) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\mathbf{w}_i}{1 + \alpha \tau \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i)} & \text{if } {\mathbf{w}_i} \geq 0,\\
\frac{\mathbf{w}_i}{1 + \alpha \tau ( \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i)+1)} & \text{if } \mathbf{w}_i < 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:proximal}
As the reader may have noted, we consider the proximal gradient descent algorithm \eqref{x_m} for solving \eqref{min_x}, even though both functions $g$ and $h$ in \eqref{eq:def_g} and \eqref{eq: h} respectively, are smooth and convex, hence, in principle, (accelerated) gradient descent algorithms could be used. Note, however, that the presence of the large penalty parameter $\alpha\gg 1$ would significantly slow down convergence speed in such case as the step size $\tau$ in this case would be constrained to the smaller range $(0,
\frac{1}{L_g + \alpha}]$. By considering the penalty contributions in terms of their proximal operators, this limitation doesn't affect the range of $\tau$ and convergence is still guaranteed\cite{Combettes2005} in a computationally fast way through the update \eqref{eq:prox}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Second sub-problem: update of $\mathbf{b}$}
As far as the estimation of the background is concerned, the minimization problem we aim to solve at each $k\geq 1$ takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{b}^{k+1} = \argmin_{\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{M^2}}~ r(\mathbf{b};\mathbf{x}^{k+1}) + q(\mathbf{b}),
\label{eq: min_varback}
\end{equation}
where:
\begin{equation*}
r(\mathbf{b};\mathbf{x}^{k+1}) := \frac12 \| \mathbf{b} - (\overline{\mathbf{y}}-\mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{x}^{k+1}) \|_2^2 +\frac{\beta}{2} \|\nabla\mathbf{b}\|_2^2,\qquad q({\mathbf{b}}) := \frac{\alpha}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{M^2}\ [\phi(\mathbf{b}_i)]^2.
\end{equation*}
Note that $r(\cdot;\mathbf{x}^{k+1}):\mathbb{R}^{M^2}\to\mathbb{R}_+$ is a convex function with $L_r$-Lipschitz gradient and $q:\mathbb{R}^{M^2}\to\mathbb{R}_+$ encodes (large, depending on $\alpha\gg 1$) penalty contributions. Recalling Remark \ref{rem:proximal}, we thus use again the proximal gradient descent algorithm for solving \eqref{eq: min_varback}. The desired solution $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$ at each $k\geq 1$ can thus be found by iterating:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{b}^{n+1} = \textbf{\text{prox}}_{q, \delta}(\mathbf{b}^{n} - \delta \nabla r(\mathbf{b}^{n})), \quad n=1,2,.. ,
\label{b}
\end{equation}
for $\delta\in(0,\frac{1}{L_r}]$.
The proximal operator $\textbf{\text{prox}}_{q, \delta}(\cdot)$, has an explicit expression and it is defined element-wise for $i=1,\ldots,M^2$ as:
\begin{equation}
\left( \textbf{\text{prox}}_{q, \delta}(\mathbf{d}) \right)_i = {\text{prox}}_{q, \delta}(\mathbf{d}_i) =
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{d}_i & \text{if } \mathbf{d}_i \geq 0,\\
\frac{\mathbf{d}_i}{1 + \alpha \delta} & \text{if } \mathbf{d}_i < 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Intensity and Background estimation results}
Intensity estimation results can be found in Figure \ref{intensity_fig} where \eqref{eq:intensity_penalized} is used for intensity/background estimation on the supports $\Omega_{\cal{R}}$ estimated from the first step of COL0RME using ${\cal{R}}=$ CEL0, ${\cal{R}}=\ell_1$ and ${\cal{R}}=$ TV. We are referring to them as COL0RME-CEL0, COL0RME-$\ell_1$ and COL0RME-TV, respectively. The colormap ranges are different for the coarse-grid and fine-grid representations, as explained in section \ref{sec: Simulated Data}
The result on $\Omega_{TV}$, even after the second step does not allow for the observation of a few significant details (e.g. the separation of the two filament on the bottom left corner) and that is why it will not further discussed.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
& \hspace{-0.3cm} $\bar{\mathbf{y}} (LB)$ & \hspace{-0.4cm}$\bar{\mathbf{y}} (HB)$ & \hspace{-0.4cm}$\mathbf{x}^{GT}$ \\
&\hspace{-0.1cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{Figures/DL_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}} &\hspace{-0.4cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{Figures/DL_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}}
&\hspace{-0.4cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{Figures/GT_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}}\\
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarDL-eps-converted-to}} }& \hspace{-0.2cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarGT-eps-converted-to}}\\
& \hspace{-0.1cm} COL0RME-CEL0 & \hspace{-0.4cm}COL0RME-$\ell_1$ & \hspace{-0.4cm}COL0RME-TV \\
(a) & \hspace{-0.1cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_int_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2.jpg}}
& \hspace{-0.4cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_int_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2.jpg}}
& \hspace{-0.4cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_int_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_TV_RP3.jpg}} \\
(b) &\hspace{-0.1cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_int_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.4cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_int_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.4cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_int_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_TV_RP3.jpg}}\\
& & \hspace{-0.2cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarGT-eps-converted-to}}&\\
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{On top: Diffraction limited image $\bar{\mathbf{y}}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{y_t}$, with T=500, (4x zoom) for the low-background (LB) dataset and for the high-background (HB) dataset, Ground truth (GT) intensity image. (a) Reconstructions for the noisy simulated dataset with low-background (LB), (b) Reconstruction for the noisy simulated dataset with high-background (HB). From left to right: intensity estimation result on estimated support using CEL0 regularization, $\ell_1$ regularization and TV regularization. For all COL0RME intensity estimations, the same colorbar, presented at the bottom of the figure, has been used}
\label{intensity_fig}
\end{figure}
A quantitative assessment for the other two regularization penalty choices, $\Omega_{CEL0}$ and $\Omega_{\ell_1}$, is available in Figure \ref{psnr}. More precisely we compute the Peak-Signal-to-Noise-Ratio (PSNR), given the following formula:
\begin{equation}
\text{PSNR}_\text{dB} = 10 \log_{10} \left( \frac{\text{MAX}^2_\mathbf{R}}{\text{MSE}}\right), \qquad \text{MSE} = \frac{1}{L^2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{L^2}\left(\mathbf{R}_i - \mathbf{K}_i\right)^2,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{R}\in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$ is the reference image, $\mathbf{K}\in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$ the image we want to evaluate using the PSNR metric and $\text{MAX}_\mathbf{R}$ the maximum value of the image $\mathbf{R}$. In our case, the reference image is the ground truth intensity image: $\mathbf{x}^{GT} \in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$. The higher the PSNR, the better the quality of the reconstructed image.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/psnr_lowBg_bigFonts.jpg}
\caption{LB dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/psnr_highBg_bigFonts.jpg}
\caption{HB dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{COL0RME PSNR values for two different datasets (low-background and high-background dataset), stack sizes and regularization penalty choices. The mean and the standard deviation of 20 different noise realizations are presented}
\label{psnr}
\end{figure}
According to Figures \ref{intensity_fig} and \ref{psnr}, when only a few frames are considered (eg. $T = 100$ frames, high temporal resolution), the method performs better by using the CEL0 penalty for the support estimation. However, when longer temporal sequences are available (e.g. $T=500$ or $T = 700$ frames) the method performs better by using the $\ell_1$-norm instead. In addition to this, for both penalizations, PSNR improves as the number of temporal frames increases.
\mdf{Background estimation results are available in Figure \ref{fig:back} where \eqref{eq:intensity_penalized} is used for intensity/background estimation on the supports $\Omega_{\cal{R}}$, with ${\cal{R}}=$ CEL0 and ${\cal{R}}=\ell_1$, that have been already estimated in the first step. In the figure there is also the constant background generated by the SOFI Simulation Tool\cite{SOFItool}, the software we used to generate our simulated data (more details in Section \ref{sec: Simulated Data}). Although the results look different due to the considered space-variant regularisation on $\mathbf{b}$, the variations are very little. The estimated background is smooth, as expected, while higher values are estimated near the simulated filaments and values closer to the true background are found away from them.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
& $\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ & \hspace{-0.3cm} {\small{COL0RME-CEL0}} ($\mathbf{b}$) & \hspace{-0.3cm}{\small{COL0RME-$\ell_1$}} ($\mathbf{b}$) & \hspace{-0.3cm}$\mathbf{b}^{GT}$ \\
(a) & \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{Figures/DLwithCB_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.3cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_back2_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.3cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_back2_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.3cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_back2_GT_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2.jpg}}\\
(b) & \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{Figures/DLwithCB_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.3cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_back_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.3cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_back_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2.jpg}} & \hspace{-0.3cm}\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_back_GT_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2.jpg}} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{(a) Low-background (LB) dataset: Diffraction limited image $\bar{\mathbf{y}}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{y_t}$ with T=500 (4x zoom), Background estimation result on estimated support using CEL0 and $\ell_1$ regularization, Ground truth (GT) background image.
(b)High-background (HB) dataset: Diffraction limited image $\bar{\mathbf{y}}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{y_t}$ with T=500 (4x zoom), Background estimation result on estimated support using CEL0 and $\ell_1$ regularization, Ground truth (GT) background image. Please note the different scales between the diffraction limited and background images for a better visualization of the results}
\label{fig:back}
\end{figure}
\section{Automatic selection of regularization parameters}
We describe in this section two parameter selection strategies addressing the problem of estimating the regularization parameters $\lambda$ and $\mu$ appearing in the COL0RME support estimation problem \eqref{eq:support_mini} and intensity estimation one \eqref{eq:intensity_constraint}, respectively. The other two regularization parameters $\beta$ and $\alpha$ do not need fine tuning. They are both chosen arbitrary high, so as with large enough $\beta$ to allow for a very smooth background and with very high $\alpha$ to respect the required constraints (positivity for both intensity and background and restriction to the predefined support only for the intensity estimation).
\subsection{Estimation of support regularization parameter $\lambda$}
\label{parameter_lambda}
The selection of the regularization parameter value $\lambda$ in \eqref{eq:support_mini} is critical, as it determines the sparsity level of the support of the emitters. For its estimation, we start by computing a reference value $\lambda_{max}$, defined as the smallest regularization parameter for which the identically zero solution is found. It is indeed possible to compute such a $\lambda_{max}$ for both regularization terms CEL0 and $\ell_1$ (see \cite{soubiesPhD} and \cite{koulouri}). Once such values are known, we thus need to find a fraction $\gamma\in(0,1)$ of $\lambda_{max}$ corresponding to the choice $\lambda = \gamma \lambda_{max}$. For the CEL0 regularizer the expression for $\lambda_{max}$ (see Proposition 10.9 in \cite{soubiesPhD}) is:
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{CEL0}_{max} := \max_{1 \leq i \leq L^2} \frac{\langle\mathbf{a}_i, \mathbf{r_y}\rangle^2}{2\|\mathbf{a}_i\|^2},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{a}_i = (\mathbf\Psi \odot \mathbf\Psi)_i$ denotes the $i$-th column of the operator $\mathbf{A}:=\mathbf\Psi \odot \mathbf\Psi$. Regarding the $\ell_1$-norm regularization penalty, $\lambda_{max}$ is given as follows:
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{\ell_1}_{max} := \| \mathbf{A}^\intercal \mathbf{r_y}\|_\infty = \max_{1 \leq i \leq L^2} \langle\mathbf{a}_i, \mathbf{r_y}\rangle.
\end{equation}
As far as $\ell_1$ is used as regularization term in \eqref{eq:support_mini}, we report in Figure \ref{fig:lambdas} a graph showing how the PSNR value of the final estimated intensity image (i.e. after the application of the second step of COL0RME) varies for the two datasets considered depending on $\lambda$. It can be observed that for a large range of values $\lambda$, the final PSNR remains almost the same. Although this may look a bit surprising at a first sight, we remark that such a robust result is due, essentially, to the second step of the algorithm where false localizations related to an underestimation of $\lambda$ can be corrected through the intensity estimation step. Note, however, that in the case of an overestimation of $\lambda$, points contained in the original support are definitively lost so no benefit is obtained from the intensity estimation step, hence the overall PSNR decreases.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/psnrl1_lowBg_bigFonts.jpg}
\caption{LB dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/psnrl1_highBg_bigFonts.jpg}
\caption{HB dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The PSNR value of the final COL0RME image, using the $\ell_1$-norm regularizer for support estimation, for different $\gamma$ values, evaluating in both the low-background (LB) and high-background (HB) dataset. The mean and the standard deviation of 20 different noise realization are presented}
\label{fig:lambdas}
\end{figure}
When the CEL0 penalty is used for support estimation, a heuristic parameter selection strategy can be used to improve the localization results but also to avoid the fine parameter tuning. More specifically, the non-convexity of the model can be used by considering an algorithmic restarting approach to improve the support reconstruction quality. In short, a value of $\lambda$ can be fixed, typically $\lambda = \gamma \lambda_{max}^{CEL0}$ with $\gamma \approx 5\times 10^{-4}$, so as to achieve a very sparse reconstruction. Then, the support estimation algorithm can be run and iteratively repeated with a new initialization (that is, restarted) several times. While keeping $\lambda$ fixed along this procedure, a wise choice of the initialization depending, but not being equal to the previous output can be used to enrich the support, see Appendix \ref{appendixc} for more details. Non-convexity is here exploited by changing, for a fixed $\lambda$, the initialization at each algorithmic restart, so that new local minimizers (corresponding to possible support points) can be computed. The final support image can thus be computed as the superposition of the different solutions computed at each restarting. In such a way, a good result for a not-finely-tuned value of $\lambda$ can be computed.
\subsection{Estimation of intensity regularization parameter $\mu$ by discrepancy principle}
\label{sec: DP}
In this section we provide some details on the estimation of the parameter $\mu$ in \eqref{eq:intensity_constraint}, which is crucial for an accurate intensity estimation. Recall that the problem we are looking at in this second step is
\begin{equation}
\text{find}\quad\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2}\quad\text{s.t.}\quad\overline{\mathbf{y}} = \mathbf{\Psi x} + \mathbf{b} + \overline{\mathbf{n}},
\label{eq: Model_intensity}
\end{equation}
where the quantities correspond to the temporal averages of the vectorized model in \eqref{eq:model_vec}, so that $\overline{\mathbf{n}} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T\mathbf{n_t}$. The temporal realizations $\mathbf{n_t}$ of the random vector $\mathbf{n}$ follow a normal distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix $s\mathbf{I}_{M^2}$, where $s$ has been estimated in the first step of the algorithm, see Section \ref{sec:noise_variance}. Consequently, the vector $\overline{\mathbf{n}}$ follows also a normal distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix equal to $\frac{s}{T}\mathbf{I}_{M^2}$. As both $s$ and $T$ are known, we can use the discrepancy principle, a well-known a-posteriori parameter-choice strategy (see, e.g., \cite{DiscInvProb_Hansen,Gfrerer}), to efficiently estimate the hyper-parameter $\mu$. To detail how the procedure is applied to our problem, we write $\mathbf{x}_\mu$ in the following to highlight the dependence of $\mathbf{x}$ on $\mu$. According to the discrepancy principle strategy, the regularization parameter $\mu$ is chosen so that the residual norm of the regularized solution satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\|\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu - \hat{\mathbf{b}}\|_2^2 = \nu_{DP}^2\|\overline{\mathbf{n}}\|_2^2,
\label{DiscrPrinc}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu \in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{b}} \in \mathbb{R}^{M^2}$ are the solutions of \eqref{eq:intensity_constraint}. The expected value of $\|\overline{\mathbf{n}}\|_2^2$ is:
\begin{equation}
\mathop{{}\mathbb{E}}\{\|\overline{\mathbf{n}}\|_2^2\} =M^2 \frac{s}{T},
\end{equation}
which can be used as an approximation of $\|\overline{\mathbf{n}}\|_2^2$ for $M^2$ big enough.
The scalar value $\nu_{DP} \approx 1$ is a 'safety factor' that plays an important role in the case when a good estimate of $\|\overline{\mathbf{n}}\|_2$ is not available. In such situations a value $\nu_{DP}$ closer to $2$ is used. As detailed in Section \ref{sec:noise_variance}, the estimation of $s$ is rather precise in this case, hence we fix $\nu_{DP} = 1$ in the following.
We can now define the function $f(\mu): \mathbb{R}_+ \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as:
\begin{equation}
f(\mu) = \frac12\|\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf\Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu - \hat{\mathbf{b}}\|_2^2 - \frac{\nu_{DP}^2}{2}\|\overline{\mathbf{n}}\|_2^2.
\label{f}
\end{equation}
We want to find the value $\hat{\mu}$ such that $f(\hat{\mu}) = 0$. This can be done iteratively, using the Newton's method whose iterations read:
\begin{equation}
\mu_{n+1} = \mu_n - \frac{f(\mu_n)}{f'(\mu_n)}, \quad n=1,2,.. .
\end{equation}
In order to be able to compute easily the values $f(\mu)$ and $f '(\mu)$, the values $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu \in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$, $\hat{\mathbf{b}} \in \mathbb{R}^{M^2}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu = \frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu \in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}$ need to be computed, as it can be easily noticed by writing the expression of $f'(\mu)$ which reads:
\begin{align}
f'(\mu) &= \frac{\partial}{\partial \mu}\{\frac12\|\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf\Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu - \hat{\mathbf{b}}\|_2^2\} = (\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu)^\intercal \mathbf\Psi^\intercal(\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf\Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu - \hat{\mathbf{b}}).
\label{f_til}
\end{align}
The values $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu$ and $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$ can be found by solving the minimization problem \eqref{eq:intensity_constraint}. As far as $\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu$ is concerned, we report in Appendix \ref{appendixB} the steps necessary for its computation. \mdffirst{We note here, however, that in order to compute such a quantity, the relaxation of the support/non-negativity constraints by means of the smooth quadratic terms discussed above is fundamental.} One can show that $\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu$ is the solution of the following minimization problem:
\begin{equation}\label{min x'}
\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu = \argmin_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}} \frac12\|\mathbf{\Psi x} \|_2^2 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|\nabla \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{c}\|_2^2+ \frac{\alpha}{2} \left( \|\mathbf{I_\Omega x}\|_2^2 + \| \mathbf{I}_{\mathbf{\hat{x}}_\mu}\mathbf{x}\|^2_2\right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{c}$ is a known quantity defined by $\mathbf{c} = \frac{1}{\mu} \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu$, and the diagonal matrix $\mathbf{I}_{\mathbf{\hat{x}}_\mu} \in \mathbb{R}^{L^2 \times L^2}$ identifies the support of $\mathbf{\hat{x}_\mu}$ by:
\[
\mathbf{I}_{\mathbf{\hat{x}}_\mu}(i,i) = \begin{cases}
0 & \text{if ${(\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i} \geq 0$},\\
1 & \text{if ${(\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i} < 0$} .
\end{cases}
\]
We can find $\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu$ by iterating
\begin{equation}
{\mathbf{x}'}_\mu^{n+1} = \textbf{\text{prox}}_{\overline{h},\tau}({\mathbf{x}'}_\mu^{n} - \tau \nabla \overline{g}({\mathbf{x}'}_\mu^{n})), \quad n=1,2,.. ,
\label{x_m'}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\overline{g}(\mathbf{x}) := \frac12\|\mathbf{\Psi x} \|_2^2 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|\nabla \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{c}\|_2^2, \qquad
\overline{h}(\mathbf{x}) := \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega x}\|_2^2 + \| \mathbf{I}_{\mathbf{\hat{x}}_\mu}\mathbf{x}\|^2_2\right).
\label{eq:overline_h}
\end{equation}
For $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2}$, the proximal operator $\textbf{\text{prox}}_{\overline{h}, \tau}(\mathbf{z})$ can be obtained following the computations in Appendix \ref{appendixA}:
\begin{equation}
(\textbf{\text{prox}}_{\overline{h}, \tau}(\mathbf{z}))_i= {\text{prox}}_{\overline{h}, \tau}(\mathbf{z}_i) = \frac{\mathbf{z}_i}{1 + \alpha \tau \left( \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i) + \mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu}(i,i) \right)},
\end{equation}
while
\begin{equation}
\nabla \overline{g}(\mathbf{x}') = (\mathbf\Psi^\intercal \mathbf\Psi +\mu \nabla^\intercal \nabla) \mathbf{x}' + \nabla^\intercal \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu,
\end{equation}
and the step $\tau\in (0, \frac{1}{L_{\overline{g}}}]$, with $L_{\overline{g}} = \| \mathbf\Psi^\intercal \mathbf\Psi +\mu \nabla^\intercal \nabla\|_2$ the Lipschitz constant of $\nabla \overline{g}$. A pseudo-code explaining the procedure we follow to find the optimal $\hat{\mu}$ can be found in Algorithm \ref{Algorithm:NewtMeth}. Finally, in Figure \ref{fig:grid_search_DP}, a numerical example is available to show the good estimation of the parameter $\hat{\mu}$.
\begin{algorithm}[!h]
\caption{Discrepancy Principle}
\label{Algorithm:NewtMeth}
\begin{algorithmic}
\REQUIRE $\overline{\mathbf{y}}\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2}, \mathbf{x}^0\in\mathbb{R}^{L^2},\mathbf{b}^0\in\mathbb{R}^{M^2},{\mu}_0, \beta>0$, $\alpha\gg 1$
\REPEAT
\STATE Find $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\mu_n}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}$ \qquad\qquad\qquad using Algorithm \ref{Algorithm:AMA_intensity}
\STATE Find ${\hat{\mathbf{x}}'}_{\mu_n}$ \qquad\qquad\qquad\quad solving \eqref{min x'}
\STATE Compute $f(\mu_n),f'(\mu_n)$\quad from \eqref{f} and \eqref{f_til}
\STATE $\mu_{n+1} \gets \mu_n - \frac{f(\mu_n)}{f'(\mu_n)}$
\UNTIL convergence
\RETURN $\hat{\mu}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/DP_GS_label.jpg}
\caption{The solid blue line shows the PSNR values computed by solving \eqref{eq:intensity_penalized} for several values of $\mu$ within a specific range. Tha data used are the HB dataset with $T=500$ frames (Figure \ref{subfig:HB}) and the $\ell_1$-norm regularization penalty. The red cross shows the PSNR value $\hat{\mu}$ obtained by applying the Discrepancy Principle. We note that such value is very close to one maximizing the PSNR metric}
\label{fig:grid_search_DP}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:Results}
In this section we compare the method COL0RME with state-of-the-art methods that exploit the temporal fluctuations/blinking of fluorophores, while applying them to simulated and real data. More precisely we compare: COL0RME-CEL0 (using the CEL0 regularization in the support estimation), COL0RME-$\ell_1$ (using the $\ell_1$-norm regularization in the support estimation), SRRF\cite{srrf}, SPARCOM\cite{SPARCOM} and LSPARCOM\cite{LSPARCOM}.
\mdfsec{We further performed preliminary comparisons also with the ESI, 3B and bSOFI approaches using available codes provided by the authors on the web\footnote{ESI: \href{https://github.com/biophotonics-bielefeld/ESI}{https://github.com/biophotonics-bielefeld/ESI}, 3B: \href{http://www.coxphysics.com/3b}{http://www.coxphysics.com/3b}, bSOFI implemented in SOFI Simulation Tool software package: \href{https://github.com/lob-epfl/sofitool}{https://github.com/lob-epfl/sofitool}}, but \mdfsecrev{we did not successfully} obtain satisfactory results, so we omit them in the following.}
\subsection{Simulated Data}
\label{sec: Simulated Data}
To evaluate the method COL0RME we choose images of tubular structures that simulate standard microscope acquisitions with standard fluorescent dyes. In particular, the spatial pattern (see Figure \ref{GT}) is taken from the MT0 microtubules training dataset uploaded for the SMLM Challenge of 2016\footnote{\href{http://bigwww.epfl.ch/smlm/datasets/index.html}{http://bigwww.epfl.ch/smlm/datasets/index.html}}. The temporal fluctuations are obtained by using the SOFI Simulation Tool \cite{SOFItool}. This simulation software, implemented in \textsc{Matlab}, generates realistic stacks of images, similar to the ones obtained from real microscopes, as it makes use of parameters of the microscope setup and some of the sample's main properties. \mdfsec{However, differently from the fluctuating\footnote{the emission of a single fluorophore over time can be described by a Poisson distribution} microscopic data presented in section \ref{sec: Real Data}, the blinking generated by the SOFI Simulation Tool have a more distinctive "on-off" behaviour.}
For the experiments presented in this paper, we generate initially a video of $700$ frames, however we evaluate the methods using the first $T=100$, $T=300$, $T=500$ and $T=700$ frames, so as to examine further the trade-off between temporal and spatial resolution. The frame rate is fixed at 100 frames per second (fps) and the pixel size is $100$ nm. Regarding the optical parameters, we set the numerical aperture equal to 1.4 and the emission \mdfsecrev{wavelength} to 525 nm, while the FWHM of the PSF is equal to $228.75$nm. The fluorophore parameters are set as follows: $20$ms for on-state average lifetime, $40$ms for off-state average lifetime and $20$s for average time until bleaching. The emitter density is equal to 10.7 emitters/pixel/frame, while 500 photons are emitted, on average, by a single fluorescent molecule in every frame.
We create two datasets with the main difference between them being the background level, as in real scenarios the background is usually present. More precisely we create: the low-Background (LB) dataset, where the background is equal to $50$ photons/pixel/frame and, the most realistic of the two, the high-Background (HB) dataset, where the background is equal to $2500$ photons/pixel/frame. \mdfsecrev{In both datasets, we proceed as follows: initially, Poisson noise is added to simulate the photon noise (see (2)); subsequently, the number of photons recorded by each camera pixel is converted into an electric charge in accordance with the quantum efficiency and gain of the camera that have been set to 0.7 and 6 respectively (thus resulting in an overall gain of 4.2); finally, Gaussian noise is added.} In order to give a visual inspection of the background and noise, in Figure \ref{fig:back_noise}, one frame of the HB dataset is presented before and after the background/noise addition. As we want, also, to provide a quantitative assessment, we measure the quality of the reconstruction of the final sequence of $T$ frames ($\mathbf{y}_t, t=1,2,\dots,T$) using the Signal-to-Noise-Ration (SNR) metric, given by the following formula:
\begin{equation}
\text{SNR}_\text{dB} = 10 \log_{10} \left( \frac{\frac{1}{TM^2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{TM^2}\left(\mathbf{R}_i\right)^2}{\frac{1}{TM^2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{TM^2}\left(\mathbf{R}_i - \mathbf{K}_i\right)^2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{R}\in \mathbb{R}^{TM^2}$ is the reference image and $\mathbf{K}\in \mathbb{R}^{TM^2}$ the image we want to evaluate, both of them in a vectorized form. As reference, we choose the sequence of convoluted and down-sampled ground truth frames (see one frame of the reference sequence in Figure \ref{before_noise}). The SNR values for a sequence of $T=500$ frames for the LB and HB dataset are $15.57$dB and $-6.07$dB, respectively. A negative value is computed for the HB dataset due to the very high background used in this case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/DL_oneframe__RefIm14_SNR15_K500_N34_biger.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{before_noise}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/DL_oneframe_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{after_noise}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{One frame of the HB dataset, before and after the addition of background and the simulated noise degradation. (a) A convoluted and down-sampled image $\mathbf{\Psi} \mathbf{x}^{GT}_t$ obtained from a ground truth frame $\mathbf{x}^{GT}_t$, (b) A frame of the final noisy sequence: $\mathbf{y}_t$. Note the different colormaps to better capture the presence of noise and background}
\label{fig:back_noise}
\end{figure}
The diffraction limited image (the average image of the stack) of each dataset as well as the ground truth intensity image are available in Figure \ref{fig:datasets}. In the LB dataset, due to the high signal values, the background is not visible. Further, as the observed microscopic images and the reconstructed ones belong to different grids, coarse and fine grid respectively, their intensity values are not comparable and we can not use the same colorbar to represent them. The intensity of one pixel in the coarse grid is the summation of the intensities of $ q \times q $ pixels in the fine grid, where $q$ is the super-resolution factor. For this reason, we use two different colorbars.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{Figures/scalebar_GT_colorbar_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}
\caption{GT image}
\label{GT}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{Figures/DLwithCB_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}
\caption{$\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ (LB)}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{Figures/DLwithCB_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}
\caption{$\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ (HB)}
\label{subfig:HB}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{ The Ground truth (GT) intensity image, as well as, the diffraction limited images $\bar{\mathbf{y}}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \mathbf{y_t}$ for the two datasets with a 4x zoom, for a sequence of T=500 frames}
\label{fig:datasets}
\end{figure}
The comparison of the method COL0RME with other state-of-the-art methods that take advantage of the blinking fluorophores is available bellow. Regarding the method COL0RME-CEL0 and COL0RME-$\ell_1$, a regularization parameter equal to $\lambda = 5 \times 10^{-4} \times \lambda_{max}^{CEL0}$ and $\lambda = 5 \times 10^{-4} \times \lambda_{max}^{\ell_1}$, respectively, is used in the support estimation. The hyper-parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are set as follows: $\alpha = 10^6$, $\beta = 20$. For the method COL0RME-CEL0 the algorithmic restarting approach is used for a better support estimation. \mdf{It stops when there are not additional pixels added to the estimated support or if a maximum number of $10$ restarts is reached. Such number was empirically determined by preliminary simulations}. For the method SRRF we are using the NanoJ SRRF plugin for ImageJ\footnote{\href{https://github.com/HenriquesLab/NanoJ-SRRF}{https://github.com/HenriquesLab/NanoJ-SRRF}}. Concerning the method SPARCOM, we make use of the \textsc{Matlab} code available online\footnote{\href{https://github.com/KrakenLeaf/SPARCOM}{https://github.com/KrakenLeaf/SPARCOM}}. As regularization penalty we choose the $\ell_1$-norm with a regularization parameter equal to $10^{-10}$ and we avoid the post-processing step (the convolution with a small Gaussian function) for most precise localization. Finally we test the method LSPARCOM, using the code that is available online\footnote{\href{https://github.com/gilidar/LSPARCOM}{https://github.com/gilidar/LSPARCOM}} and the tubulin (TU) training set that is provided.
In Figure \ref{fig: results LB} we compare the reconstructions of the methods COL0RME-CEL0, COL0RME-$\ell_1$, SRRF, SPARCOM and LSPARCOM for the LB dataset and in Figure \ref{fig: results HB} for the HB dataset, for a sequence of T = $500$ frames. Results for different stack sizes, are available in the Supplementary Figures S1, S2 and S3. \mdffirst{Quantitative metrics like the Jaccard Index (JI) for the localization precision and the Peak-Signal-to-Noise-ration (PSNR) for the evaluation of the estimated intensities, are only available for the methods COL0RME-CEL0 and COL0RME-$\ell_1$ (see Figures \ref{fig: JI}, \ref{psnr}). For the rest of the methods, the JI values are very small due to background and noise artifacts in the reconstructions that lead to the appearance of many false positives, while the PSNR metric is not possible to be computed as the methods SRRF, SPARCOM and LSPARCOM do not reconstruct the intensity level.} In both datasets, LB and HB dataset, and for a sequence of T= $500$ frames, the better reconstruction, visually, is the one of the method COL0RME-$\ell_1$, as it is able to achieve a more clear separation of the filaments in the critical regions (yellow and green zoom boxes). The method COL0RME-CEL0 achieves also a good result, eventhough the separation of the filaments, that are magnified in the green box, is not so obvious. The same happens also when the method SPARCOM is being used. Finally, the reconstruction of the methods SRRF and LSPARCOM, is slightly misleading.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
GT image & \small{COL0RME-CEL0} & \small{COL0RME-$\ell_1$}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/scalebar_GT_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/COL0RME_int_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/COL0RME_int_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarGT-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarGT-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarGT-eps-converted-to}}\\
SRRF & SPARCOM & LSPARCOM\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/SRRF_int_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N40_colorbar.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/SPARCOM_int_lowBg14_SNR15_K500_N40_colorbar.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/LSPARCOM_int_lowBg14_SNR15_K50064_N40_colorbar.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_SRRF_simData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_SPARCOM_simData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_LSPARCOM_simData-eps-converted-to}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results for the low-background (LB) dataset with $T=500$. Note that the methods SRRF, SPARCOM and LSPARCOM do not estimate real intensity values. Between the compared methods only COL0RME is capable of estimating them, while the other methods estimate the mean of a radiality image sequence (SRRF) and normalized autocovariances (SPARCOM, LSPARCOM)}
\label{fig: results LB}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
GT image & \small{COL0RME-CEL0} & \small{COL0RME-$\ell_1$}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/scalebar_GT_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/COL0RME_int_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_CEL0_0_RP2.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/COL0RME_int_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N34_L1_RP2.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarGT-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarGT-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbarGT-eps-converted-to}}\\
SRRF & SPARCOM & LSPARCOM\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/SRRF_int_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N40_colorbar.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/SPARCOM_int_highBg14_SNR15_K500_N40_colorbar.jpg}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm,connect spies}]
\node {\pgfimage[width=4cm]{Figures/LSPARCOM_int_highBg14_SNR15_K50064_N40_colorbar}};
\spy[green] on (+0.82,0.6) in node [left] at (1.53,-1.7);
\spy[yellow] on (-0.7,-0.4) in node [left] at (0,-1.7);
\end{tikzpicture}}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_SRRF_simData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_SPARCOM_simData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_LSPARCOM_simData-eps-converted-to}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results for the high-background(HB) dataset with $T=500$}
\label{fig: results HB}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Real Data}
\label{sec: Real Data}
To show the effectiveness of our method for handling real-world data, we apply COL0RME to an image sequence acquired from a Total Internal Reflection Fluorescence (TIRF) microscope. The TIRF microscope offers a good observation of the activities happening next to the cell membrane, as it uses an evanescent wave to illuminate and excite fluorescent molecules only in this restricted region of the specimen\cite{axelrod2001total}. Further, the TIRF microscope does not require specific fluorescent dyes, allows live cell imaging by using a low illumination laser, with really low out-of-focus contribution and produces images with a relatively good, in comparison with other fluorescence microscopy techniques, SNR. To enhance the resolution of the images acquired from a TIRF microscope, super-resolution approaches that exploit the temporal fluctuations of blinking/fluctuating fluorophores, like COL0RME, can be applied.
The data we are using have been obtained from a Multi-Angle TIRF microscope, with a fixed angle close to the critical one. A sequence of $500$ frames has been acquired, with an acquisition time equal to $25$s. \mdf{Tubulins in endothelial cells are being imaged, while they are colored with the Alexa Fluor 488. The variance of fluctuations over time for a typical pixel is measured and is belonging to the range $5\times10^{5}-7\times10^{5}$.} The diffraction limited image, or with other words the mean stack image $\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig: real_L1_cel0}, together with \mdffirst{one frame $\mathbf{y}_t$ extracted from the entire stack.} The FWHM of the PSF has been measured experimentally and is equal to $292.03$nm, while the CCD camera has a pixel of size $106$nm.
The results of the method COL0RME-CEL0 and COL0RME-$\ell_1$
and more precisely the intensity and the background estimation, can be found in Figure \ref{fig: real_L1_cel0}. \mdf{Experiments using different stack sizes have been done showing
that the more frames we use (up to a point that we do not have many molecules bleached), the more continuous filaments we find. However, by acquiring only 500 frames we have a good balance between temporal and spatial resolution. For this reason we present here only results using a stack of 500 frames.}
For the method COL0RME-CEL0 the regularization parameter $\lambda$ is equal to $\lambda = 5 \times 10^{-4} \times \lambda_{max}^{CEL0}$ and the algorithmic restarting approach has been used \mdf{(stopping criteria: when, in a certain restarting, there are not additional pixels added to the global support, but with maximum 10 restarts)}. Regarding the method COL0RME-$\ell_1$ the regularization parameter $\lambda$ is equal to $\lambda = 5 \times 10^{-6} \times \lambda_{max}^{\ell_1}$, a relatively small value so as to be sure that we will include all the pixels that contain fluorescent molecules. Even if we underestimate $\lambda$ and find more false positives in the support estimation, after the second step of the algorithm, the final reconstruction is corrected, as explained in \ref{parameter_lambda}. The hyper-parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are equal to: $\alpha = 10^6$, $\beta = 20$. Using any of the two regularizers the spatial resolution is enhanced, as it can be also observed from the yellow zoom boxes. \mdf{However, the reconstruction obtained by both COL0RME-CEL0 and COL0RME-$\ell_1$ is to some degree punctuated due to mainly limitations arising from experimental difficulties to get a staining sufficiently homogeneous for this imaging resolution.} Furthermore, there are a few filaments that do not seem to be well reconstructed, especially using the COL0RME-CEL0 method, e.g. the one inside the green box.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
$\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ & \mdfsecrev{{\small{COL0RME-CEL0}} ($\mathbf{x}$)} & \mdfsecrev{{\small{COL0RME-CEL0}} ($\mathbf{b}$)} \\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/scalebar_mean_realdata_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green,magnification=1.7,size=0.8cm] on (-1.55,0.2) in node [left] at (-1.2,1.65);
\spy[yellow,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.1,-1.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_CEL0_realData_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green,magnification=1.7,size=0.8cm] on (-1.55,0.2) in node [left] at (-1.2,1.65);
\spy[yellow,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.1,-1.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
&\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/CEL0_Back_norm-eps-converted-to}}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData_coarsegrid-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData_coarsegrid-eps-converted-to}}\\
$\mathbf{y}_t$ & \mdfsecrev{{\small{COL0RME-$\ell_1$}} ($\mathbf{x}$)} & \mdfsecrev{{\small{COL0RME-$\ell_1$}} ($\mathbf{b}$)} \\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/real_Data_frame-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green,magnification=1.7,size=0.8cm] on (-1.55,0.2) in node [left] at (-1.2,1.65);
\spy[yellow,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.1,-1.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/COL0RME_L1_realData_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green,magnification=1.7,size=0.8cm] on (-1.55,0.2) in node [left] at (-1.2,1.65);
\spy[yellow,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.1,-1.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
&\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/L1_Back_norm-eps-converted-to}}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData_coarsegrid-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData_coarsegrid-eps-converted-to}}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Real TIRF data, $T=500$ frames. Diffraction limited image or the mean of the stack $\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ \mdfsecrev{(4x zoom)}, \mdffirst{A frame $\mathbf{y}_t$ from the stack \mdfsecrev{(4x zoom)},} The intensity and background estimation of the methods COL0RME-CEL0 and COL0RME-$\ell_1$}
\label{fig: real_L1_cel0}
\end{figure}
Finally, the comparison of the methods COL0RME-CEL0 and COL0RME-$\ell_1$ with the other state-of-the-art methods, is available in Figure \ref{fig: real_compare}. The parameters used for the methods SRRF, SPARCOM and LSPARCOM, are explained in the section \ref{sec: Simulated Data}. Here, we further use the post-processing step (convolution with a small Gaussian function) in the method SPARCOM, as the result was dotted. The methods COL0RME-CEL0 and COL0RME-$\ell_1$ seem to have the most precise localization, \mdf{by reconstructing thin filaments, as shown in the cross-section plotted in Figure \ref{fig: real_compare}, though a bit punctuated.} The most appealing visually is the result of the method SRRF, where the filaments have a more continuous structure, however from the cross-section, we can see that the resolution is not so much improved compared to the other methods . SPARCOM and LSPARCOM do not perform very well in this real image sequence due to, mainly, background artifacts.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\setlength\tabcolsep{1.5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
$\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ & COL0RME-CEL0 & COL0RME-$\ell_1$ \\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/scalebar_lineprofile_mean_realdata_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.2,-2.9);
\spy[blue] on (-0.4,-0.75) in node [left] at (0.7,-2.9);
\spy[lime] on (-0.7,0.3) in node [left] at (-0.8,-2.9);
\end{tikzpicture}}
&\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/scalebar_lineprofile_COL0RME_CEL0_realdata_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.2,-2.9);
\spy[blue] on (-0.4,-0.75) in node [left] at (0.7,-2.9);
\spy[lime] on (-0.7,0.3) in node [left] at (-0.8,-2.9);
\end{tikzpicture}}
&\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/scalebar_lineprofile_COL0RME_L1_realdata_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.2,-2.9);
\spy[blue] on (-0.4,-0.75) in node [left] at (0.7,-2.9);
\spy[lime] on (-0.7,0.3) in node [left] at (-0.8,-2.9);
\end{tikzpicture}} \\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData_coarsegrid-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_COL0RME_realData-eps-converted-to}}\\
SRRF & SPARCOM & LSPARCOM \\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/scalebar_lineprofile_SRRF_realdata_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.2,-2.9);
\spy[blue] on (-0.4,-0.75) in node [left] at (0.7,-2.9);
\spy[lime] on (-0.7,0.3) in node [left] at (-0.8,-2.9);
\end{tikzpicture}}
&\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/scalebar_lineprofile_SPARCOM_realdata_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.2,-2.9);
\spy[blue] on (-0.4,-0.75) in node [left] at (0.7,-2.9);
\spy[lime] on (-0.7,0.3) in node [left] at (-0.8,-2.9);
\end{tikzpicture}}
&\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}[spy using outlines={rectangle,green,magnification=1.7,size=1.4cm}]
\node {\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/scalebar_lineprofile_LSPARCOM_realdata_colorbar-eps-converted-to}};
\spy[green] on (0.85,0.75) in node [left] at (2.2,-2.9);
\spy[blue] on (-0.4,-0.75) in node [left] at (0.7,-2.9);
\spy[lime] on (-0.7,0.3) in node [left] at (-0.8,-2.9);
\end{tikzpicture}}\\
\adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_SRRF_realData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_SPARCOM_realData-eps-converted-to}}
& \adjustbox{valign=m,vspace=1pt}{\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/colorbar_LSPARCOM_realData-eps-converted-to}}\\
\end{tabular}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.42\textwidth]{Figures/line_profile_realdata-eps-converted-to}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=.28\textwidth]{Figures/labels.JPG}
\caption{Real TIRF data, $T=500$ frames. Diffraction limited image $\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ (4x zoom), Comparisons between the method that exploit the temporal fluctuations, Normalized cross-section along the green line presented in the diffraction limited and reconstructed images, but also in the blue zoom-boxes. Discription of colorbars: real intensity values for $\overline{\mathbf{y}}$ and COL0RME in two different grids, mean of the radiality image sequence for SRRF, normalized autocovariances for SPARCOM and LSPARCOM}
\label{fig: real_compare}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
In this paper, we propose and discuss the model and the performance of COL0RME, a method for super-resolution microscopy imaging based on the sparse analysis of the stochastic fluctuations of molecules' intensities. Similarly to other methods exploiting temporal fluctuations, COL0RME relaxes all the requirements for special equipment (microscope and fluorescent dyes) and allows for live-cell imaging, due to the good temporal resolution and the low power lasers employed.
In comparison with competing methods, COL0RME achieves higher spatial resolution than other methods exploiting fluctuations while having a sufficient temporal resolution. COL0RME is based on two different steps: a former one where accurate molecule localization and noise estimation are achieved by solving non-smooth convex/non-convex optimization problems in the covariance domain and the latter where intensity information is retrieved in correspondence with the estimated support only. Our numerical results show that COL0RME outperforms competing approaches in terms of localization precision.
To the best of our knowledge, COL0RME\ is the only super-resolution method exploiting temporal fluctuations which is capable of retrieving intensity-type information, signal and spatially-varying background, which are of fundamental interest in biological data analysis. For both steps, automatic parameter selection strategies are detailed.
Let us remark that such strategy of intensity estimation could be applied to the other competing super-resolution methods in the literature.
Several results obtained on both simulated and real data are discussed, showing the superior performance of COL0RME in comparison with analogous methods such as SPARCOM, LSPARCOM and SRRF.
Possible extensions of this work shall address the use of intensity information estimated by COL0RME for 3D reconstruction in, e.g., MA-TIRF acquisitions. \mdfsec{Furthermore, a systematic study to assess quantitatively the spatial resolution achieved by COL0RME under different scenarios (different background levels, different PSNRs, number of frames) is envisaged.}
\begin{appendix}\appheader
\section{Appendix. Proximal computations}\label{appendixA}
Given the function $h: \mathbb{R}^{L^2} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, defined in (\ref{eq: h}), the proximal mapping of $h$ is a an operator given by:
\begin{align}
\textbf{\text{prox}}_{h, \tau}(\mathbf{w})
&= \argmin_{\mathbf{u}}\left(\frac{1}{2\tau}\|\mathbf{u - w}\|_2^2 + h(\mathbf{w})\right) \nonumber \\
&= \argmin_{\mathbf{u}}\left(\frac{1}{2 \tau}\|\mathbf{u - w}\|_2^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega u}\|_2^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{L^2}\ [\phi(\mathbf{u}_i)]^2\right)\right).
\label{eq: prox_h}
\end{align}
The optimal solution $\hat{\mathbf{u}}$ ($\hat{\mathbf{u}} = \textbf{\text{prox}}_{h,\tau}(\mathbf{w})$), as the problem \eqref{eq: prox_h} is convex, is attained when:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{0} &\in \nabla\left(\frac{1}{2\tau}\|\hat{\mathbf{u}}- \mathbf{w}\|_2^2+ \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{u}}\|_2^2+ \sum_{i=1}^{L^2}\ [\phi(\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i)]^2\right)\right), \nonumber \\
\mathbf{0} &\in \frac{1}{\tau}(\hat{\mathbf{u}} - \mathbf{w})+\alpha\left(\mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{u}}+ \ [\phi(\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i) \phi'(\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i)]_{\{i=1,...,{L^2}\}}\right).
\end{align}
Starting from (\ref{phi}) we can compute $\phi': \mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_+$, as:
\begin{equation}
\phi'(z) :=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if } z \geq 0,\\
1 & \text{if } z < 0,
\end{cases}\qquad\forall z\in\mathbb{R}.
\label{eq:phi'}
\end{equation}
Given \eqref{eq:phi'}, we can write:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{0} &\in \frac{1}{\tau}(\hat{\mathbf{u}} - \mathbf{w})+\alpha\left(\mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{u}} + [\phi(\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i)]_{\{i=1,...,{L^2}\}}\right).
\label{eq: w}
\end{align}
Exploiting component-wise, as problem \eqref{eq: prox_h} is separable with respect to both $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{w}$, and assuming $\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i \geq 0$, the derivative computed at \eqref{eq: w} vanishes for:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i = \frac{1}{1 + \alpha \tau \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i)} \mathbf{w}_i,
\end{equation}
and it holds for $\mathbf{w}_i\geq 0$. Similarly, for the case $\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i < 0$, this analysis yields:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{u}}_i = \frac{1}{1 + \alpha \tau ( \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i)+1)} \mathbf{w}_i,
\end{equation}
for $\mathbf{w}_i < 0$.
So finally, the proximal operator is given by:
\begin{equation}
\left( \textbf{\text{prox}}_{h, \tau}(\mathbf{w}) \right)_i = {\text{prox}}_{h, \tau}(\mathbf{w}_i) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\mathbf{w}_i}{1 + \alpha \tau \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i)} & \text{if } {\mathbf{w}_i} \geq 0,\\
\frac{\mathbf{w}_i}{1 + \alpha \tau ( \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i)+1)} & \text{if } \mathbf{w}_i < 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In a similar way, we compute the proximal mapping of the function $\overline{h}: \mathbb{R}^{L^2} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, defined in (\ref{eq:overline_h}), as follows:
\begin{align}
\textbf{\text{prox}}_{\overline{h},\tau}(\mathbf{z})
&= \argmin_{\mathbf{u}}\left(\frac{1}{2\tau}\|\mathbf{u - z}\|_2^2 + \overline{h}(\mathbf{u})\right) \nonumber \\
&= \argmin_{\mathbf{u}}\left(\frac{1}{2\tau}\|\mathbf{u - z}\|_2^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega u}\|_2^2 + \|\mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu} \mathbf{u}\|_2^2\right)\right).
\label{eq: prox_overline_h}
\end{align}
The optimal solution $\hat{\mathbf{u}}$ of \eqref{eq: prox_overline_h} ($\hat{\mathbf{u}} = \textbf{\text{prox}}_{\overline{h},\tau}(\mathbf{z})$) is attained when:
\begin{align}\label{eq: prox_comp}
\mathbf{0} &\in \nabla\left(\frac{1}{2\tau}\|\hat{\mathbf{u}} - \mathbf{z}\|_2^2+ \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{u}}\|_2^2+ \|\mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu} \hat{\mathbf{u}}\|_2^2\right)\right), \nonumber \\
\mathbf{0} &\in \frac{1}{\tau}\left(\hat{\mathbf{u}} - \mathbf{z}\right)+\alpha\left(\mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{u}}+ \mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu} \hat{\mathbf{u}}\right).
\end{align}
By eliminating $\hat{\mathbf{u}}$ in the expression \eqref{eq: prox_comp}, we compute element-wise the proximal operator:
\begin{equation}
(\textbf{\text{prox}}_{\overline{h}, \tau}(\mathbf{z}))_i= {\text{prox}}_{\overline{h}, \tau}(\mathbf{z}_i) = \frac{\mathbf{z}_i}{1 + \alpha \tau \left( \mathbf{I_\Omega}(i,i) + \mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu}(i,i)\right)}.
\end{equation}
\section{Appendix. The minimization problem to estimate $\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu$}\label{appendixB}
Starting from the penalized optimization problem (\ref{eq:intensity_penalized}) and having $\mathbf{b}$ fixed, we aim to find a relation that contains the optimal $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu$. While there are only quadratic terms, we proceed as following :
\begin{align}
\mathbf{0} & \in \nabla\left(~\frac12 \| \mathbf{\Psi} \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu - (\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf{b})\|_2^2 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|\nabla\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu\|_2^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu\|_2^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{L^2}\ [\phi((\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i)]^2\right)\right),\nonumber\\
\mathbf{0} & \in \mathbf\Psi^\intercal \left( \mathbf\Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu - (\overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf{b})\right) + \mu \nabla^\intercal \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu + \alpha \left( \mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu + [\phi((\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i)\phi'((\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i)]_{\{i=1,...,{L^2}\}}\right).
\end{align}
Given \eqref{eq:phi'} we can write:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{0} \in \mathbf\Psi^\intercal \left( \mathbf\Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu - \overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf{b}\right) + \mu \nabla^\intercal \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu + \alpha \left( \mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu + [\phi((\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i)]_{\{i=1,...,{L^2}\}}\right).
\end{equation}
Our goal is to compute $\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu$, the partial derivative of $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu$ w.r.t. $\mu$. So, we derive as follows:
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu} & \left(\mathbf{0} \in \mathbf\Psi^\intercal \left( \mathbf\Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu - \overline{\mathbf{y}} - \mathbf{b}\right) + \mu \nabla^\intercal \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu + \alpha \left( \mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu + [\phi((\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i)]_{\{i=1,...,{L^2}\}}\right)\right), \nonumber\\
\mathbf{0} &\in \mathbf\Psi^\intercal \mathbf\Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu + \mu \nabla^\intercal \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu + \nabla^\intercal \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu + \alpha \left( \mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu + [\phi'((\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i) (\hat{\mathbf{x}}' _\mu)_i]_{\{i=1,...,{L^2}\}}\right). \label{eq:aux}
\end{align}
We define the matrix $\mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu}$ such as:
\[
\mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu}(i,i) = \begin{cases}
0 & \text{if ${(\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i} \geq 0$},\\
1 & \text{if ${(\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i} < 0$} .
\end{cases}
\]
Now the vector $[\phi'((\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu)_i) (\hat{\mathbf{x}}' _\mu)_i]_{\{i=1,...,{L^2}\}}$, using further the equation (\ref{eq:phi'}), can be simply written as: $\mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu} \hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu$ and then \eqref{eq:aux} becomes:
\[
\mathbf{0} \in \mathbf\Psi^\intercal \mathbf\Psi \hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu + \mu \nabla^\intercal \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu + \nabla^\intercal \nabla \hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu + \alpha \left( \mathbf{I_\Omega} \hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu + \mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu}\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu\right).
\]
The minimization problem we should solve in order to find $\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu$ thus is:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{x}}'_\mu = \argmin_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^{L^2}} \frac12\|\mathbf{\Psi x} \|_2^2 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|\nabla\mathbf{x} + \frac{1}{\mu} \nabla\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu\|_2^2+ \frac{\alpha}{2} \left(\|\mathbf{I_\Omega x}\|_2^2 + \| \mathbf{I}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_\mu}\mathbf{x}\|^2_2\right).
\end{equation}
\section{Appendix. Algorithmic restart.}\label{appendixc}
Every initialization is based on the solution obtained at the previous restarting. There are many ways to choose the new initialization, deterministic and stochastic ones. In this paper we chose a deterministic way based on the following idea: for every pixel belonging to the solution of the previous restarting we find its closest neighbor. Then, we define the middle point between the two and we include it in the initialization of the current restarting. A small example is given in the Figure \ref{fig:restarting}. The yellow points belong to the support estimation of the previous restarting. Starting from them we define the red points, used for the initialization of the current restarting.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.3\textwidth]{images/initialization.png}
\caption{The yellow pixels belong to the support estimated in the previous restarting, while the red pixels belong to the initialization that is used in the current restarting}
\label{fig:restarting}
\end{figure}
\end{appendix}
\begin{Backmatter}
\paragraph{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank E. van Obberghen-Shilling and D.Grall from the Institut de Biologie Valrose (iBV) who kindly prepared and provided the experimental samples. Furthermore, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
\paragraph{Funding Statement}
The work of VS and LBF has been supported by the French government, through the 3IA Côte d’Azur Investments in the Future project managed by the National Research Agency (ANR) with the reference number ANR-19-P3IA-0002. LC acknowledges the support received by the academy on complex systems of UCA JEDI, the one received by the EU H2020 RISE program NoMADS, GA 777826, and the one received by the GdR ISIS grant SPLIN. The work of JHG was supported by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche in the context of the project Investissements d’Avenir UCAJEDI (ANR-15-IDEX-01). Support for development of the microscope was received from IBiSA (Infrastructures en Biologie Santé et Agronomie) to the MICA microscopy platform.
\paragraph{Competing Interests}
None
\paragraph{Data Availability Statement}
Replication data and code can be found in: \href{https://github.com/VStergiop/COL0RME}{https://github.com/VStergiop/COL0RME}.
\paragraph{Ethical Standards}
The research meets all ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements of the study country.
\paragraph{Author Contributions}
VS, LC, JHG and LBF conceived and designed the study. SS conducted data gathering. VS and JHG implemented the software. VS carried out the experiments. LC and LBF supervised the work. VS, LC, JHG and LBF wrote the article. All authors approved the final submission.
\paragraph{Supplementary Material}
A supplementary document intended for publication has been provided with the submission.
\bibliographystyle{vancouver}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The term Delay tolerant networking (DTN) was introduced by K. Fall in 2003 to designate time-evolving networks lacking of a continuous and instantaneous end-to-end connectivity~\cite{Fall2003,RFC4838}.
Since then, DTNs have drawn much attention from many researchers due to its applicability in very distinct domains including deep space~\cite{Burleigh2003} and near Earth communication networks~\cite{Caini2011}, airborne networks~\cite{gupta2015survey}, vehicular ad-hoc networks~\cite{BENAMAR2014141}, mobile social networks~\cite{7876231}, Internet of things~\cite{7921980} and underwater networks~\cite{Partan2007}.
Indeed, delay and disruption conditions can be generated by long signal propagation time, regular node occlusion, high node mobility and reduced communication range and resources.
Although from diverse origins, partitions and delay in DTNs are tackled by a \textit{bundle layer} that sits above specific layers of each network family~\cite{RFC5050}.
The key feature of the bundle layer is a persistent storage on each DTN node to store-carry-and-forward \textit{bundles of data} (or simply \textit{bundles} as per DTN terminology) as transmission opportunities become available.
Since data can propagate or rest in intermediate nodes for arbitrary amounts of time, DTN protocols and applications assume no immediate response from the receiver and tend to minimize end-to-end exchanges~\cite{pottner2011performance}.
The time-evolving and partitioned nature of DTNs favor the representation of connectivity by means of \textit{contacts}, a contact being an episode of time when a node is able to transfer data to another node.
\minisection{Taxonomy}
The literature~\cite{RFC4838} classifies contacts in DTNs as:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Scheduled:}
Contacts can be accurately predicted.
Expected contacts can be imprinted in a \textit{contact plan} comprising an exhaustive expression of the future network connectivity~\cite{Fraire2015}.
Such knowledge can be exploited to optimize resource utilization~\cite{Fraire2016Traffic,Fraire2015Routing,Fraire2014Fair}, medium access decisions~\cite{carosino2018integrating} and routing calculations such as in Contact Graph Routing (CGR) algorithm~\cite{FRAIRE2021102884,Araniti2015}.
\item \textit{Probabilistic:}
Contact patterns are dynamically inferred as network evolves in time.
Routing is based on a topology model composed of probabilistic metrics accounting for the likelihood of meeting a given neighbour in the future~\cite{grasic2011evolution,burgess2006maxprop, jain2004routing}.
In order to enhance delivery probability, multiple copies are sent through different paths, an approach that has also been considered for scheduled DTNs to forego the need of processing large contact plans~\cite{Feldmann2017}.
\item \textit{Opportunistic:}
No assumptions can be made on future contacts.
Trivial flooding-based schemes have been used for opportunistic DTNs~\cite{Vahdat00epidemicrouting}, as well as controlled flooding such as Spray-and-Wait (S\&W) to reduce replication overhead~\cite{Spyropoulos05sprayandwait,spyropoulos2007spray}, \new{among others opportunistic path models~\cite{8737620}}.
Also, previous research has extended scheduled routing approaches to cope with unpredictable opportunistic contacts~\cite{Burleigh2016}.
\end{itemize}
In this paper, we claim the existence of DTN under \textit{uncertain schedules} or \textit{uncertain contact plans}, which are not properly covered by the existing DTN classification
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Uncertain:} Contacts whose materialization can differ from the original plan with a given probability available \textit{a priori}.
For example, expected contacts have a chance of being affected by well-known failure modes or by an incomplete or inaccurate (but bounded) knowledge of the system status by the time the schedule was computed.
In other words, while in probabilistic DTNs the probability is assigned to a next-hop node (i.e, the probability of meeting a given node, based on contact history), uncertain DTNs under uncertain contact plans assign probabilities to forthcoming contacts (i.e., the probability of meeting a given node in a given time episode in the future).
\end{itemize}
\minisection{Uncertain DTNs.}
Uncertain DTNs differ from perfectly scheduled DTNs in the nature of their contacts, which are no longer certain to occur (uncertain contacts have an associated probability of existing or failing).
They also differ from probabilistic DTNs in the features of the model used to represent and reason about the network dynamics.
Instead of relying on abstract node's visibility patterns (learned on the fly), uncertain DTNs exploit time-dependant probabilistic information of the forthcoming connectivity episodes encoded in the so-called uncertain contact plan (computed in advance).
An uncertain contact plan is a probabilistic schedule that includes information regarding the probability of future contacts to diverge from the plan.
\new{The advantage of accounting for this knowledge in uncertain DTNs is that} it can be used to make specific routing, forwarding and bundle replication decisions over the most reliable routes towards a destination, thus optimizing the data delivery chances.
The different nature of probabilistic and uncertain DTNs can also be appreciated in the route structure.
Routes in probabilistic DTNs are expressed as a \textit{sequence of nodes} through which the bundle shall be forwarded.
There is no specific information on when the route hops will actually happen, just a time-averaged expectation based on inter-nodes visibility patterns.
On the other hand, uncertain contact plans bring the notion of uncertain contact, which is also probabilistic, but encoding timing information is unavailable in traditional probabilistic schemes.
Thus, and similarly to scheduled DTNs, routes in uncertain DTNs are constructed as a \textit{sequence of uncertain contacts}, which renders a delivery probability through each path, and thus, more granular and accurate (but also challenging) decision making opportunities.
\new{Applications for uncertain DTNs include} DTN networks based on a schedule of fault-prone nodes (unreliable space networks~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi}), uncertain mobility patterns (public vehicle networks~\cite{kalaputapu1995modeling}), interference-sensitive communication links (cognitive radio~\cite{sahai2006fundamental}), or third-party carriers with limited availability (backbone links with known reliability~\cite{hwang1981system}).
\new{Indeed, the uncertain contact plan including contacts probabilities can be computed by} specific network models (i.e., fault-prone satellite trajectories), empirically estimated in a controlled environment (i.e., lab or simulation setup), or made available from existing statistics (i.e., interference reports).
As a result, an uncertain contact plan can be conveniently pre-computed instead of dynamically learned by nodes as in probabilistic DTNs, removing the burden of a training phase, and benefiting from highly accurate routing schemes for uncertain DTNs as introduced in this paper.
\minisection{Previous Works.}
Previous works have addressed the survivability properties of time-varying networks~\cite{Liang2017}, as well as the problem of reliable topology design in DTN~\cite{Li2015}.
However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the problem of reliable route determination based on uncertain contact plans has been overlooked.
Authors have already studied how schedule-aware (i.e., CGR) and schedule-agnostic (i.e., S\&W) routing schemes behave under uncertain contact plans in~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi,Madoery2017rpic,Madoery2018} (probabilistic routings such as MaxProp~\cite{burgess2006maxprop} and Prophet~\cite{grasic2011evolution} were disregarded as they are based on learning phases during network operations).
These papers essentially showed that existing routing schemes only perform well on their respective domains (perfectly scheduled or fully opportunistic), while significant room for improvement was identified for scenarios with uncertain schedules.
In order to evaluate the potential improvement, the authors in~\cite{Raverta2018} have approached the problem with a first theoretical formulation based on probabilistic model checking techniques~\cite{BiancoA95,BaierK08,BaierAFK18}, where the contact plan with its respective fault probabilities is modelled as a Markov Decision Process (MDP).
Although this first approach provided a compelling optimal solution for single-copy routing, replication-based heuristics remained an open topic.
Exception to this statement is a recent publication that addressed the multi-copy DTN routing problem by means of approximated simulations techniques based on distributed schedulers~\cite{d2020sampling}. However, simulation techniques lack the required optimality guarantee that formal MDP models can provide.
\minisection{Contributions.}
In this paper, we present Routing under Uncertain Contact Plans ({RUCoP}\xspace), a comprehensive framework to execute reliable routing under uncertain contact plans.
{RUCoP}\xspace embraces single copy~\cite{Raverta2018} and extends it to multiple-copy routing in an overcoming MDP model expression.
As the fact of considering multiple copies renders the focus of~\cite{Raverta2018} unsuitable, we propose a novel MDP formulation accompanied by a specific resolution algorithm.
\new{The fact of using MDP arises naturally since the Markov kernel corresponds to probabilistically quantified uncertainty on the contacts while the decisions (or the non-determinism) of the MDP correspond to the possibilities of routing decisions of each node at a given time.}
The {RUCoP}\xspace model is the first of its kind to consider \textit{rerouting}, which models both the fault detection and reaction time of the DTN routing agent.
Modeling this crucial and practical aspect allows us to introduce {L-RUCoP}\xspace (a variation that uses only local information available on each node) and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace (an extension to CGR that materializes routing under uncertain contact plans in existing DTN protocol stacks).
We evaluate and compare the {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace in an appealing benchmark comprising networks with random failures as well as realistic case studies of Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks with uncertain inter-satellite and ground contacts.
Results provide compelling evidence that {RUCoP}\xspace provides the adequate framework to route in uncertain DTNs.
\new{To summarize, contributions in this paper are enumerated as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We present a new uncertain DTN classification and model;
\item We introduce {RUCoP}\xspace to route on uncertain DTNs based on a theoretical MDP formulation;
\item We propose {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace as concrete practical application approaches derived from {RUCoP}\xspace; and
\item We evaluate {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace in realistic fault-prone LEO satellite networks.
\end{enumerate}
}
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:model} presents the uncertain DTN network model which is used to construct the {RUCoP}\xspace model and derived {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace in Section~\ref{sec:rucop}.
A comparison benchmark and subsequent results are presented, analyzed and discussed in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}.
Finally, the paper is concluded in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Uncertain DTN Model}
\label{sec:model}
\subsection{Uncertain Time-Varying Graph}
In order to model a time-evolving and uncertain DTN network, the time-varying graph proposed in~\cite{Liang2017} is extended by uncertainty functions into an Uncertain Time-Varying Graph defined as follows.
\textbf{Definition.} An Uncertain Time Varying Graph $\mathcal{G} = (G, \mathcal{T}, p_f, \varsigma, f_{\mathit{dd}})$ is a Graph composed of the following components:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Underlying (static) digraph $G = (V, E)$}.
Represents the connectivity of the network that remains stable during a time slot.
\item \textbf{Time slot $\mathcal{T} \subseteq \mathbf{T}$}, where $\mathbf{T}$ is the time domain (e.g. the natural numbers).
$\mathcal{T} = \{t_0, t_1,...,t_T\}$ is a discrete and finite time span set, where $T$ is an integer indicating the horizon of interest, measured in the number of slots.
The slot length in $\mathcal{G}$ can be adjusted in order to capture (\textit{i}) the topological changes, and (\textit{ii}) the minimum period of time it takes a node to realize a link has failed to establish.
\item \textbf{Edge failure probability function $p_f: E \times \mathcal{T} \rightarrow [0,1]$}.
It indicates the probability an edge will not occur as expressed in the uncertain contact plan, i.e., a topology change respects the original schedule.
Indeed, $p(e,t)=1-p_f(e,t)$, where $p(e,t)$ stands for the edge $e$ success probability at the time slot $t$.
A success probability of $p(e,t)=0$ indicates no contact is present at this edge.
\item \textbf{Edge delay function $\varsigma: E \times \mathcal{T} \rightarrow \mathcal{T}$}.
It models the time data spend on crossing an edge between two nodes.
When $\varsigma(e,t)=0$, the time is insignificant compared with the time slot duration, i.e., the data is delivered immediately.
The value of the edge delay function stands for the number of time slots (i.e., $\varsigma(e,t)$ is an integer) required for the target node to receive the traffic.
\item \textbf{Edge failure detection delay function
$f_{\mathit{dd}}: E \times \mathcal{T} \rightarrow \mathcal{T}$}.
It stands for the time it takes to detect a contact did not occur as expected.
As with the edge delay function, $f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)$ is expressed as a number of time slots.
In DTN protocol terminology, $f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)$ would represent the bundle custody acknowledge timeout. In general, $f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t) \geq \varsigma(e,t)$.
\end{enumerate}
Fig.~\ref{fig:model} illustrates an example DTN graph modeled by an uncertain time-varying graph.
All edges present in $G=(V,E)$ are configured with a failure probability function $p_f=0.5$ and a delay function $\varsigma=0$.
In the model, a contact between two nodes can span several time slots, such as the $B-C$ case spanning $t_1$ and $t_2$.
Also, a time slot can represent long and stable topological periods with the same underlying digraph, such as $t_3$ with an edge between $C-D$.
At $t_2$, node $C$ will be able to detect a failure on edge $C-D$ and react at the beginning of $t_3$, as its failure detection delay $f_{\mathit{dd}}^{C-D}=1$.
However, node $D$ will not do so before $t_3$ terminates since $f_{\mathit{dd}}^{D-C}=2$.
Indeed, contacts in DTN are unidirectional and can have different properties on the forward and return link.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{img/fig-model-2-new.pdf}
\caption{Uncertain time-varying graph model example with 4 nodes, 4 time slots $\mathcal{T}$ and 4 contacts.}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure}
Failure probability $p_f$ in $\mathcal{G}$, $\varsigma$, and $f_{\mathit{dd}}$ are expressed on a per-slot basis.
Two modeling approaches with different interpretations are envisioned on this regard: coarse and fine grained slotting.
\minisection{Coarse-grained slotting:}
When time-slots are designed to contain full contacts (i.e., $B-D$ contact in $t_1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}), then $p_f$ represents the failure probability of the whole contact.
In other words, the whole contact exists or the whole contact fails.
In such case, an $f_{\mathit{dd}}=0$ would model the case where the failure of the contact is detected and reacted upon immediately at contact start time, while an $f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$ would represent the case where the contact is declared as failed only once it is finalized.
This approach is appropriate to model transient failures in nodes, for instance.
Also, coarse-grained slotting is particularly appealing for networks with sparse contacts, which can be bounded by a single time slot $t_n$ in $\mathcal{T}$.
\minisection{Fine-grained slotting:}
When a contact spans several smaller time slots (i.e., $B-C$ contact in $t_1$ and $t_2$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}), $p_f$ is the probability of failure of each of the slotted episodes comprising the contact.
In this case, a finer-grain slotting can be exploited to model independent transmission attempts within the contact.
An $f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$ would thus model a timeout equal to the bundle transmission duration and the round trip time delay for receiving a delivery confirmation.
Fine-grained slotting can be used to model contacts where poor channel conditions or interference from other sources render a successful transmission uncertain.
\subsection{Fault Detection and Rerouting}
Rerouting after effective detection of a failed contact or transmission attempt is a fundamental practical aspect to model the overall data flow in DTNs under uncertain contact plans.
Single route reliability estimations such as those in~\cite{Liang2017} can result inaccurate in practice when nodes detect and act upon unexpected failures.
However, the phenomena is not trivial.
Consider the example of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} in which all links have a failure probability $p_f=0.5$ with the exception of $S \rightarrow B$ at $t_0$ and $C \rightarrow D$ at $t_1$ which have a failure probability of $p_f=0.80$ and $p_f=0.75$ respectively.
The transmission delay $\varsigma=0$ and failure detection delay is $f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$ for all links and data flows from source $S$ to destination $D$.
Without considering rerouting, routes via node $A$ $(S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B \rightarrow D)$ and via node $C$ $(S \rightarrow C \rightarrow D)$ would be equally reliable because they both account for a \textit{successful delivery probability} (SDP) of $0.125$.
However, rerouting after failure detection might challenge this calculation.
If the link between $A \rightarrow B$ fails in the route via $A$, then the data will not reach the destination.
But, if the contact between $C \rightarrow D$ fails, it is still possible to relay the data to node $E$ after $t_1$, which has another route towards $D$.
In a context where rerouting is possible with $f_{\mathit{dd}}<=1$, the probability of a bundle to reach the destination via node C is 75\% higher ($\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}=0.219$).
Otherwise, for $f_{\mathit{dd}}>=2$, the delivery probability through $C$ remains $SDP=0.125$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{img/fig-reroute-4-new.pdf}
\caption{Rerouting is possible when node $C$ detects a failure at the end of $t_1$ ($f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$) and has an alternative route to $D$ at $t_2$ that arrives on the same time slot ($\varsigma=0$).}
\label{fig:reroute}
\end{figure}
In the following section, we claim the rerouting effect in an uncertain time varying graph can be properly represented by means of Markov Decision Processes.
\section{Routing Under Uncertain Contact Plans}
\label{sec:rucop}
\subsection{Markov Decision Process}
A Markov Decision Process (MDP) is a mathematical structure that
allows for the modelling of discrete-time systems in which the
interaction between non-deterministic and probabilistic behaviour is
central~\cite{Puterman:1994,FilarKoos:1996}.
Thus, MDPs provide an
appropriate framework for modelling decision making on systems under
probabilistically quantified uncertainty.
In its simplest form, a MDP $\mathcal{M}$ is a tuple
$(\ensuremath{S}, \mathit{Act}, \mathbf{P}, s_0)$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ensuremath{S}$ is a finite set of states with initial state $s_0\in\ensuremath{S}$,
\item $\mathit{Act}$ is a finite set of actions, and
\item $\mathbf{P}: \ensuremath{S} \times \mathit{Act} \times \ensuremath{S} \to [0, 1]$ is a transition probability function such that $\sum_{s' \in S} \mathbf{P}(s, \alpha, s') \in \{0,1\}$, for all $s \in\ensuremath{S}$ and $\alpha \in \mathit{Act}$.
\end{itemize}
If $\sum_{s' \in S} \mathbf{P}(s, \alpha, s')=1$, $\alpha$ is said to
be \emph{enabled} in $s$. In this case, $\mathbf{P}(s,\alpha,\cdot)$
can be interpreted as the probability distribution of choosing the next
state, conditioned to the fact that the system is in state $s$ and
action $\alpha$ has been chosen. We notice that it is usually
required that at least one action is enabled in every state.
\new{Since the problem ahead is a reachability problem (instead of a cost or reward problem), the usual reward function does not play any role and hence we have omitted it in the definition of MDPs.}
The intuitive operational behaviour of the MDP $\mathcal{M}$ is as follows.
The computation of $\mathcal{M}$ starts at the initial state $s_0$. Assume
now the computation has taken $n$ steps and reached state $s_n$. At
this moment one of the enabled actions in $s_n$, say $\alpha_{n+1}$,
is chosen to resolve the non-determinism at this state. The next
state $s_{n+1}$ is now sampled randomly according to distribution
$\mathbf{P}(s_n,\alpha_{n+1},\cdot)$.
Different types of properties could be required to a MDP. The usual
objective is to find a \emph{policy} that maximizes or minimizes the
likelihood of the given property. A \emph{policy} is a function
$\pi:\ensuremath{S}\to\mathit{Act}$ that defines the decision to be made in a
possible resolution of the non-determinism%
\footnote{Polices could be more complex, depending on the whole
history rather than the current state, and selecting randomly among
the enabled actions. The definition given here correspond to the so
called \emph{memoryless} and \emph{deterministic} policies, which is
sufficient for our purposes.}.
Thus, limiting the MDP $\mathcal{M}$ to the choices of the policy $\pi$
defines a Markov chain for which probabilities can be calculated.
We are particularly interested on maximizing the probability to reach
a state in the set of \emph{goal states} $\mathit{B}\subseteq\ensuremath{S}$ from the initial state $s_0$, say
$\mathit{Pr}^{\max}_{s_0}(\mathit{reach}(\mathit{B}))$. (In our case, $\mathit{B}$ is the set of states in which
bundles have been successfully delivered).
Moreover, we want to
obtain the maximizing policy.
This problem can be solved using the Bellman equations as
follows~\cite{BaierK08}. Let $\ensuremath{S}^{=0}\subseteq\ensuremath{S}$ be the set of
states whose probability of reaching a state in $\mathit{B}$ is 0. ($\ensuremath{S}^{=0}$ could be
calculated in $\mathcal{O}(|\ensuremath{S}|)$.)
For each state $s\in\ensuremath{S}$, define
a variable $x_s$ which represents the maximum probability of reaching
a goal state in $\mathit{B}$ from $s$, that is $x_s=\mathit{Pr}^{\max}_s(\mathit{reach}(\mathit{B}))$. Then,
precisely the vector $(x_s)_{s\in\ensuremath{S}}$ is the unique solution of the
following equation system:
\begin{align*}
x_s &= 1 && \text{if \ } s\in \mathit{B} \\
x_s &= 0 && \text{if \ } s\in {\ensuremath{S}^{=0}}\\
x_s &= \max_{\alpha\in\mathit{Act}(s)} \sum_{t\in S}\mathbf{P}(s,\alpha,t)\cdot x_t
&& \text{if \ } s\in\ensuremath{S}\backslash({\ensuremath{S}^{=0}}\cup \mathit{B})
\end{align*}
Besides, the maximizing policy $\pi^{\max}$ can be obtained as follows:
\begin{align*}
\pi^{\max}(s) &= \mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\alpha\in\mathit{Act}(s)} \sum_{t\in S}\mathbf{P}(s,\alpha,t)\cdot x_t
&& \text{if \ } s\in\ensuremath{S}\backslash({\ensuremath{S}^{=0}}\cup \mathit{B})
\end{align*}
If $s\in{\ensuremath{S}^{=0}}\cup \mathit{B}$, $\pi^{\max}(s)$ is not interesting as $s$ is
already a goal state, or it cannot reach it.
Reachability properties are standard properties in probabilistic model
checkers such as PRISM~\cite{Kwiatkowska2011}. Indeed, we have
successfully modeled single-copy routing in DTNs under uncertain
contact plans in PRISM~\cite{Raverta2018} and derived optimal routes in
this case.
Unfortunately, PRISM cannot deal with the size of models we required,
specially when we consider DTNs with multiple copies.
\subsection{{RUCoP}\xspace}
\label{sec:rucop:rucop}
In order to determine the upper delivery probability bound for routing with $N$ copies in a DTN, we have developed Routing under Uncertain Contact Plans ({RUCoP}\xspace).
{RUCoP}\xspace is an MDP formulation which encodes all possible routing decisions for an uncertain DTN network based on its uncertain time-varying graph representation and traffic parameters, comprising source, target and number of copies allowed.
This information is encoded in states and transitions.
Table~\ref{tab:notation} summarizes the notation used throughout the remaining of this section.
\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{|p{4cm}|p{8.815cm}|}
\caption{Notation reference}
\label{tab:notation}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Symbol}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Description}} \\
\hline
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Uncertain DTN Model (Section 2)}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$p_f(e, t)$ & Failure probability for link $e$ at time slot $t$ \\ \hline
$\varsigma(e,t)$ & Delay for link $e$ at time slot t \\ \hline
$f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)$ & Failure detection delay for link $e$ at time slot $t$ \\\hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
$\mathcal{T}$ & Set of time slots \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace Core Algorithm (Section~\ref{sec:rucop:rucop})}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$G_{t_{i}}$ & Underlying digraph $G$ for time slot $t_{i}$\ \\ \hline
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{end}}$ & Set of successful final states \\ \hline
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ & Set of states at time slot $t_i$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{cp}(c)$ & Number of copies at node $c$\\ \hline
$\mathcal{C}_{t_i}$ & Set of nodes carrying copies in time slot $t_i$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)$ & Set of all nodes in $G_{t_{i}}$ reaching $c$ in at least one hop \\ \hline
$\mathit{path}_{G_{t_i}}(c',c)$ & Set of directed path from $c'$ to $c$ in $G_{t_{i}}$ \\ \hline
$\mathcal{P}_c$ & Set of paths leading to $c$ \\ \hline
$R$ & Set of rules (i.e. pairs of nr.\ of copies and a path) \\ \hline
$\mathcal{R}_c$ & Set of $c$-compatible sets of rules (i.e. set of rules transmitting exactly $\mathit{cp}(c)$ copies from $c$) \\ \hline
$\mathit{Tr}(s)$ & Set of actions leading to state $s$ (an action is a set of rules distributing exactly $\mathit{num\_copies}$) \\ \hline
$\mathit{pr}_R$ & Successful probability of action $R$\\ \hline
$\mathit{Pr}(s) $ & Successful delivery probability of state $s$ \\ \hline
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(R,s,t)$ & Successful probability for action $R$ starting from state $s$ at time slot $t$ (Algorithm \ref{Alg:sdp}) \\ \hline
$\textit{get\_prev\_state}(s, R)$ & Returns the state from which action $R$ leads to $s$\\ \hline
$\mathit{best\_action}(s)$ & The action from $s$ maximizing the delivery prob. \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
${RUCoP}\xspace(G, c, T)$ & Algorithm \ref{Alg:ru} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace SDP Computation (Section~\ref{sec:rucop:rucop})}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(X)$ & Power set of $X$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{contacts}(R)$ & Set of links involved in action $R$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{state\_af\_fl}(R, s, \mathit{fs})$ & Leading state when set of failures $\mathit{fs}$ happen \\ \hline
$\mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}}$ & Probability of all links in $\mathit{fs}$ failing\\ \hline
$\mathit{pr}_R $ & Successful delivery probability of action $R$ \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(s)$ & Successful delivery probability of state $s$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{L-RUCoP}\xspace (Section~\ref{sec:iru})}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$\mathit{Safe\_state}(n,c,\mathit{ts})$ & State in which node $n$ has all $c$ copies available\\ \hline
$\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\_,\_,\_)$ & Routing table for node $n$ \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
$\mathit{Post}(\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}'))$ & The state known by node $n$ after action $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{CGR-UCoP}\xspace (Section~\ref{sec:rucgr})}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$ & Set of partial routes computed by CGR at node $n$ for time slot $\mathit{ts}$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{r}$ & A partial route computed by CGR \\ \hline
$\mathit{r}[i]$ & $i$th contact in the partial route $\mathit{r}$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{Pr}_n(\mathit{ts})$ & Prob. of delivering a copy from $n$ at time slot $\mathit{ts}$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{src}(e)$ & Source of link $e$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{tgt}(e)$ & Destination of link $e$ \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
$\ensuremath{\SDP_{\mathit{CGR}}}(\mathit{r},\mathit{ts}) $ & Bundle's delivery prob. through partial route $\mathit{r}$ \\ \hline
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
\begin{comment}
\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|}
\caption{A simple longtable example}\\
\hline
\textbf{First entry} & \textbf{Second entry} & \textbf{Third entry} & \textbf{Fourth entry} \\
\hline
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{4}{c}%
{\tablename\ \thetable\ -- \textit{Continued from previous page}} \\
\hline
\textbf{First entry} & \textbf{Second entry} & \textbf{Third entry} & \textbf{Fourth entry} \\
\hline
\endhead
\hline \multicolumn{4}{r}{\textit{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\hline
\endlastfoot
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}
\label{tab:notation}
\caption{Notation reference}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|@{\ \,}l@{\ }|m{59.5mm}@{\ }|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Symbol}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Description}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Uncertain DTN Model (Section~\ref{sec:model})}} \\ \hline
$p_f(e, t)$ & Failure prob. for link $e$ at time slot $t$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\varsigma(e,t)$ & Delay for link $e$ at time slot t \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)$ & Failure detection delay for link $e$ at time slot $t$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{T}$ & Set of time slots \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace Core Algorithm (Section~\ref{sec:rucop:rucop})}} \\ \hline
$G_{t_{i}}$ & Underlying digraph $G$ for time slot $t_{i}$\ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{end}}$ & Set of successful final states \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ & Set of states at time slot $t_i$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{cp}(c)$ & Number of copies at node $c$\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{C}_{t_i}$ & Set of nodes carrying copies in time slot $t_i$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)$ & Set of all nodes in $G_{t_{i}}$ reaching $c$ in at least one hop \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{path}_{G_{t_i}}(c',c)$ & Set of directed path from $c'$ to $c$ in $G_{t_{i}}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{P}_c$ & Set of paths leading to $c$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$R$ & Set of rules (i.e. pairs of nr.\ of copies and a path) \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{R}_c$ & Set of $c$-compatible sets of rules (i.e. set of rules transmitting exactly $\mathit{cp}(c)$ copies from $c$) \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{Tr}(s)$ & Set of actions leading to state $s$ (an action is a set of rules distributing exactly $\mathit{num\_copies}$) \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{pr}_R$ & Successful probability of action $R$\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{Pr}(s) $ & Successful delivery probability of state $s$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(R,s,t)$ & Successful probability for action $R$ starting from state $s$ at time slot $t$ (Algorithm \ref{Alg:sdp}) \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\textit{get\_prev\_state}(s, R)$ & Returns the state from which action $R$ leads to $s$\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{best\_action}(s)$ & The action from $s$ maximizing the delivery prob. \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
${RUCoP}\xspace(G, c, T)$ & Algorithm \ref{Alg:ru} \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace SDP Computation (Section~\ref{sec:rucop:rucop})}} \\ \hline
$\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(X)$ & Power set of $X$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{contacts}(R)$ & Set of links involved in action $R$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{state\_af\_fl}(R, s, \mathit{fs})$ & Leading state when set of failures $\mathit{fs}$ happen \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}}$ & Probability of all links in $\mathit{fs}$ failing\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{pr}_R $ & Successful delivery probability of action $R$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(s)$ & Successful delivery probability of state $s$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{L-RUCoP}\xspace (Section~\ref{sec:iru})}} \\ \hline
$\mathit{Safe\_state}(n,c,\mathit{ts})$ & State in which node $n$ has all $c$ copies available\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\_,\_,\_)$ & Routing table for node $n$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{Post}(\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}'))$ & The state known by node $n$ after action $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{CGR-UCoP}\xspace (Section~\ref{sec:rucgr})}} \\ \hline
$\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$ & Set of partial routes computed by CGR at node $n$ for time slot $\mathit{ts}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{r}$ & A partial route computed by CGR \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{r}[i]$ & $i$th contact in the partial route $\mathit{r}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{Pr}_n(\mathit{ts})$ & Prob. of delivering a copy from $n$ at time slot $\mathit{ts}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{src}(e)$ & Source of link $e$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{tgt}(e)$ & Destination of link $e$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\ensuremath{\SDP_{\mathit{CGR}}}(\mathit{r},\mathit{ts}) $ & Bundle's delivery prob. through partial route $\mathit{r}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\minisection{States}. Each state in {RUCoP}\xspace contains information of the number of copies present on each node in the network at a given time slot.
For example, in the network of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute}, the initial state would be $s_{t_0}=[S^n A^0 B^0 C^0 D^0 E^0|t_0]$ denoting that $s_{t_0}$ has $n$ copies of the bundle at time $0$, the start time of $t_0$.
A state $s_{t_3}=[S^s A^a B^b C^c D^d E^e|t_3]$ at the beginning of $t_3$ would represent a successful delivery of data to $D$ as long as $d>=1$, meaning at least one copy of the data arrived at $D$ at the end of the time horizon.
Since it is assumed copies cannot be created or deleted, $s+a+b+c+d+e=n$ in all states.
\minisection{Transitions}. Transitions between states in {RUCoP}\xspace are composed by actions, which can be of two types: (\textit{i}) \textit{transmission transitions} imply a node perform a non-deterministic transmission through one (single-hop) or more edges (multi-hop) in $G$, and (\textit{ii}) \textit{store transitions} model the case where a node decides to keep the bundle in memory during the time slot.
Since state transitions imply a routing action on the nodes, the terms transitions and actions are used interchangeably in {RUCoP}\xspace.
\minisection{Tree Construction}.
To build the state and transition tree, RUCoP starts from the desirable \textit{successful states} where data was delivered to the destination.
Next, it considers states from the previous time slot that can lead to the current state, whether by transmitting data through a path or by keeping it in storage.
In order to determine which state of the previous time slot can arrive to the current state, a set of transmissions transition are constructed.
Finally, between these transitions, the one which has the highest delivery probability is chosen and noted.
The process repeats until the \textit{initial state} is reached.
In order to determine the probability of a given transition, all cases of failures and successful link establishments are considered: \begin{enuminline}
\item when a contact fails, data remains stored in the transmitting node where new transmission transitions can be considered after $f_{\mathit{dd}}$, and
\item when a link is established, the data is transmitted through it, and it can be sent again after $\varsigma$.
\end{enuminline}
For example, the {RUCoP}\xspace model in Fig.~\ref{fig:rucop1} corresponds to the network of~Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute}, when a single copy is sent.
The successful state $[S^0 A^0 B^0 C^0 D^1 E^0|t_3]$ is at the last time slot $t_3$, which can be reached either by receiving data through $C \rightarrow E \rightarrow D$ (multi-hop transmission) or by having data already stored at $D$ since $t_2$.
In turn, these intermediate states can only be reached if a $C \rightarrow D$ transition or a $B \rightarrow D$ transition takes place on $t_1$.
It can be observed that, if $C \rightarrow D$ fails, $C$ can detect the failure ($f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$) and store the data for further transmission transitions.
However, if the contact $B \rightarrow D$ fails, data will remain in $B$ leading to state $[S^0 A^0 B^1 C^0 D^0 E^0|t_2]$, from which the successful state cannot be reached (i.e., delivery cannot occur).
This is represented by the grey dotted arrow outgoing the red dot.
A similar (but more involved) situation happens in transitions $S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B$ and $S \rightarrow B$ outgoing the initial state: if the $S \rightarrow A$, $A \rightarrow B$ or $S \rightarrow B$ contacts fail, data will remain in $S$ leading to state $[S^1 A^0 B^0 C^0 D^0 E^0|t_1]$ or in $A$ leading to state $[S^0 A^1 B^0 C^0 D^0 E^0|t_1]$.
Both of these states are failure consequences of transitions $S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B$ and $S \rightarrow B$, which have no possibility of reaching the successful state (greyed-out arrows in the figure).
In this simple example, all non-deterministic transmission transitions (red dots in the figure), except $C \rightarrow D$, lead to states unable to reach the successful state as long as some contact in the transition fails.
Indeed, constructing the tree backwards avoids exploring such states.
It is interesting to note that if detection delay would have been $f_{\mathit{dd}}=2$ in $C \rightarrow D$ at $t_1$, the dashed line indicating failure path would lead to $[S^0 A^0 B^0 C^1 D^0 E^0|t_3]$, which is also unable to reach the successful state.
In other words, by the time when $C$ detects the failure, the contact $C \rightarrow E$ would have already passed.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{img/fig-rucop-1a-new.pdf}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace MDP tree based on the network of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} for 1 copy.}
\label{fig:rucop1}
\end{figure}
\minisection{Successful delivery probability.}
While constructing the tree, {RUCoP}\xspace keeps track of the successful delivery probability.
Indeed, $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}=1$ at the successful states, and is updated as the tree is built backwards in time following the Bellman equations.
For each non-deterministic transmission transition, the probability of arriving to the successful state is computed.
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$ is updated with the highest probability.
Once the initial state is reached, the $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$ will capture the maximum delivery probability possible.
By navigating the tree top-down, the most reliable routing decisions (i.e., policy) can be obtained by choosing transitions that lead to states with the best $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$ metric.
In the example, $S$ should route the data to $C$ at $t_0$ for an $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}=0.219$, and $C$ should try to send data to $D$ at $t_1$ for an $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}=1$, or to $E$ at $t_2$ in case of failure.
\minisection{Multiple copies.}
The proposed {RUCoP}\xspace expression is specifically designed to model the state of the network with multiple copies.
Naturally, modeling multiple copies notably increases the number of transitions and states in the MDP. For example, when two instances of the bundle are considered, transmission transitions can involve the transmission of either one or two bundles of data, and transmission failures might occur in any of the used links.
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:rucop2}, six successful states are possible and should be considered with two copies on the example network.
For instance, node $S$ can choose to transmit one copy via $A$ and one via $C$ to maximize the delivery chances.
However, for larger networks with several copies, constructing the model requires of the following formal expression of the {RUCoP}\xspace algorithm.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{img/fig-rucop-2a-new.pdf}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace MDP tree based on the network of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} for $2$ copies.}
\label{fig:rucop2}
\end{figure}
\minisection{The algorithm:}
For simplicity, we present the algorithm limited to uncertain time
varying graphs where the edge delay is insignificant and the edge
failure detection delay is always one time slot (i.e. $\varsigma(e,t)=0$
and $f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)=1$ for all edge $e\in E$ and time slot $t\in \mathcal{T}$).
At the end of this section, we hint the required modifications of the algorithm to deal with the general treatment of these delays.
Algorithm \ref{Alg:ru} lists the formal steps required to construct
and solve the {RUCoP}\xspace MDP for these type of networks with a maximum of
$\mathit{num\_copies}$ number of copies.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Uncertain time varying graph $\mathcal{G}$, $\mathit{num\_copies}$, Target
\ENSURE Explored states $\mathcal{S}$, Routing table $\mathit{Tr}$, Successful delivery probability $\mathit{Pr}$
\STATE determine \textit{successful states} $\mathcal{S}_{t_{end}}$ for $\mathit{num\_copies}$
\STATE $\mathcal{S} \gets \mathcal{S}_{t_{end}}$
\FORALL {$t_i \in \mathcal{T}$, starting from $t_{end-1}$}
\STATE $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}} \gets \varnothing$
\FORALL {state $s \in \mathcal{S}_{t_{i+1}}$}
\STATE determine \textit{carrier nodes} $\setCN_{t_{i}}$
\FORALL {node $c \in \setCN_{t_{i}}$}
\STATE $\mathcal{P}_c \gets \{c\}\cup\bigcup_{c'\in\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)} \mathit{path}_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c',c)$
\STATE $\mathcal{R}_c \gets \big\{ {R\subseteq \{0,\ldots\mathit{cp}(c)\}\times\mathcal{P}_c} \mid \ {\sum_{(k,\rho)\in R} k = \mathit{cp}(c)}\big\}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $\mathit{Tr}(s) \gets \big\{ \bigcup_{c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}} R_c \mid \forall {c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}}: R_c \in \mathcal{R}_c\big\}$%
\FORALL{$R \in \mathit{Tr}(s)$}
\STATE $s' \gets \textit{get\_previous\_state}(s, R)$
\STATE $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}} \gets \mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}\cup\{s'\}$
\STATE $\mathit{pr}_R \gets \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(R,s',t_{i})$
\IF{$\mathit{Pr}(s')$ is undefined or $\mathit{Pr}(s') < \mathit{pr}_R$}
\STATE $\mathit{Pr}(s') \gets \mathit{pr}_R$
\STATE $\textit{best\_action}(s') \gets R$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE $\mathcal{S} \gets \mathcal{S} \cup \mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\mathcal{S}$, $\mathit{Tr}$, $\mathit{Pr}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{The {RUCoP}\xspace algorithm} \label{Alg:ru}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE net, num\_copies, sources, target, $\varsigma$, $f_{\mathit{dd}}$
\ENSURE a MDP
\STATE determine \textit{successful states} $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{end}}$
\FORALL {$\mathcal{T}_i \in \mathcal{T}$, starting from $\mathcal{T}_{end-1}$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets \{\}$
\FORALL {state $\mathcal{S} \in [\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i+1}}$}
\STATE determine \textit{carrier nodes} $[\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$
\FORALL {node $\mathcal{C} \in [\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$}
\FORALL {node $\mathcal{N} \in pred^*([\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}^{SP}_{\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{C}}] \gets \{1,..,cp(\mathcal{C})\} * path^{\mathcal{T}_{i} \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_{i+1}}_{\mathcal{N} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}}(\varsigma)$
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}^{MP}_{\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{C}}] \gets (\bigcup^{\leq cp(\mathcal{C})}_{k \in [1:cp(\mathcal{C})]} \binom{\mathcal{R}^{MP}}{k}) \cup \{\epsilon\}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}}] \gets \prod^{\leq cp(\mathcal{C})}_{n \in pred^*(\mathcal{C})} \mathcal{R}^{MP}_{n, \mathcal{C}}$
\ENDFOR
\FORALL{$\mathcal{A} \in \prod^{\leq num\_copies}_{\mathcal{C} \in [\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}, \mathcal{N} \in pred^*([\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})} \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}} $}
\STATE $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets get\_previous\_state(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A})$
\IF{$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) < \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}, \varsigma, f_{\mathit{dd}}) $}
\STATE $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) = \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}, \varsigma, f_{\mathit{dd}})$
\STATE $best\_action(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) = \mathcal{A}$
\ENDIF
\STATE
$[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace Algorithm} \label{Alg:ru}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{{RUCoP}\xspace Algorithm}
Algorithm \ref{Alg:ru} lists the formal steps required to construct the {RUCoP}\xspace MDP for any network with arbitrary number of copies.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE net, num\_copies, sources, target
\ENSURE a MDP
\STATE determine \textit{successful states} $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{end}}$
\FORALL {$\mathcal{T}_i \in \mathcal{T}$, starting from $\mathcal{T}_{end-1}$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets \{\}$
\FORALL {state $\mathcal{S} \in [\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i+1}}$}
\STATE determine \textit{carrier nodes} $[\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}] \gets \{\}$
\FORALL {node $\mathcal{C} \in [\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}_{single}] \gets \{ \mathcal{R}_{empty} \}$
\FORALL {node $\mathcal{N} \in \mathcal{S}$ except $\mathcal{C}$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}_{single}] += SSR(\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{C}, \mathcal{T}_{i}, copies(\mathcal{C}))$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}] \gets MSR([\mathcal{R}_{single}], copies(\mathcal{C}))$
\ENDFOR
\FORALL{action $\mathcal{A} \in \prod_{i \in I} [\mathcal{R}]$}
\STATE $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets get\_previous\_state(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A})$
\IF{$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) < \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) $}
\STATE $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) = \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})$
\STATE $best\_action(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) = \mathcal{A}$
\ENDIF
\STATE
$[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace Algorithm} \label{Alg:ru}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
Initially, a set of all possible \textit{successful states} $\mathcal{S}_{t_{\mathit{end}}}$ are generated (line 1) and added to the set of explored states (line 2).
A state is successful if at least one copy is in the target node and exactly $\mathit{num\_copies}$ are distributed among all nodes.
{RUCoP}\xspace builds the MDP backwards from this set with the goal of arriving to the initial state.
To this end, all reachable states $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ within each $t_i$ in $\mathcal{T}$ are determined starting from an empty set (line 4 and loop starting at line 5).
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ is subsequently populated with all states that are able to reach some state in $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i+1}}$ by means of actions involving bundle transmissions, data storage or a combination of them when multiple copies are presented.
Thus, for each state $s \in \mathcal{S}_{t_{i+1}}$, the loop proceeds in two parts. The first one (lines 6-11) determines the set of actions $\mathit{Tr}(s)$ that successfully lead to state $s$. The second one (lines 12-20) calculates the predecessor states for each of these actions which are then included in the set of states $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ of the preceding time slot and for which its successful delivery probability (SDP) is calculated.
To obtain $\mathit{Tr}(s)$, the set of \textit{carrier nodes}
$\setCN_{t_{i}}$ in $s$ is first determined (line 6). A
carrier node is a node holding at least one copy of the bundle.
An action in $\mathit{Tr}(s)$ is a set of \emph{rules}. A rule is a tuple $(k, \rho)$ where
$\rho$ is a valid single-hop or multiple-hop path (or route) in the underlying
digraph $G$ for the time slot $t_{i}$ ($G_{t_{i}}$), and
$k$ is the number of copies transmitted through this path; thus,
$k\leq \mathit{cp}(c)$, where $\mathit{cp}(c)$ is the number of copies the target
carrier node $c$ has in its buffer.
For each carrier node $c\in \setCN_{t_{i}}$, the set
$\mathcal{P}_c$ of paths leading to $c$ in the current contact digraph
$G_{t_{i}}$ is determined. This is calculated in line~8 where:
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\roman*)]
\item%
$\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)$ is the set of all nodes
in $G_{t_{i}}$ reaching $c$ in at least one hop, and
\item%
$\mathit{path}_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c',c)$ is the set of all paths in
$G_{t_{i}}$ starting in node $c'$ and ending in $c$ containing all
distinct vertices.
\end{enumerate*}
In addition, $\mathcal{P}_c$ always contains the trivial path
$c$ which is intended to represent that data remains stored
in the node $c$ for the current time slot.
Notice that the different copies may arrive at node $c$ through
multiple paths. Thus $\mathcal{R}_c$ contains the set of all
\emph{compatible} sets of rules that indicate how the copies arrive to
$c$ (line~9). By compatible, we mean that the numbers of copies
delivered by the rules in such set should add up to exactly $\mathit{cp}(c)$,
i.e., $R\in\mathcal{R}_c$ whenever $\sum_{(k,\rho)\in R} k = \mathit{cp}(c)$.
Finally (line~11), an action $R\in\mathit{Tr}(s)$ is a set of rules so that,
for each carrying node $c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}$, the subset of
all rules in $R$ leading to $c$ is compatible (i.e.,
$R\cap(\mathbb{N}\times\mathcal{P}_c)\in\mathcal{R}_c$).
A rule $R$ never delivers more than $\mathit{num\_copies}$ in
total. This is guaranteed by the fact that
$\sum_{c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}}\mathit{cp}(c) \leq \mathit{num\_copies}$.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\setlength\dashlinedash{0.3pt}%
\setlength\dashlinegap{1.1pt}%
\centering
\begin{tabular}{!{\!\!\!\!}c!{\!\!\!\!\!\!}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{.88\linewidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\centering $s = [S^0 A^0 B^2 C^1 E^0 D^0 | t_1]$} \\[.7ex]\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\parbox{16ex}{\centering\scriptsize Carrier nodes, $G_{t_{0}}$,\par and pred. nodes.}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{%
\begin{minipage}[c]{.45\linewidth}
$\begin{aligned}
&\setCN_{t_{0}}=\{B,C\}&\hspace{2.5em}G_{t_{0}}\\[.5ex]
&\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{0}}\!\!\!\!}(B) = \{S,A\}\\
&\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{0}}\!\!\!\!}(C) = \{S\}
\end{aligned}$
\end{minipage}
\includegraphics[align=c,width=.2\linewidth]{img/fig-graphT0.pdf}
}\\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
$\mathcal{P}_B$ & $B$, $A\rightarrow B$, $S\rightarrow B$, $S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B$ \\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hdashline
$\mathcal{R}_B$ & ${\{(2,B)\}}$, ${\{(2,A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B)\}}$ \\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
$\mathcal{P}_C$ & ${C}$, ${S\rightarrow C}$\\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hdashline
$\mathcal{R}_C$ & ${\{(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$\\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
$\mathit{Tr}(s)$ &
${\{(2,B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(2,A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$,\par
${\{(2,B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(2,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$\\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Nodes, rules and transition example in {RUCoP}\xspace \prd{Cambiar el dibujo del grafo para que no est\'e subrayado (o subrayar lo que corresponda)}}
\label{fig:rules}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/fig-rules-1-new.pdf}
\caption{Nodes, rules and transition example in {RUCoP}\xspace}
\label{fig:rules}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the exposed concepts, Fig.~\ref{fig:rules} lists carrier
and predecessor nodes, paths, rules and transition for state
$s = [S^0 A^0 B^2 C^1 E^0 D^0 | t_1]$ corresponding to the network in
Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} when 3 copies are allowed. Since $B$ carries
two copies, each compatible set of rules leading to $B$ may have up to
two rules. The resulting transition includes all the possible
transmissions of the copies succesfully reaching the evaluated state.
Each transition $R \in \mathit{Tr}(s)$ is considered individually to determine
its corresponding previous state $s'$ (line 13) which is added to the
set of previous sates $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ (line 14). Notice that $s'$
may already be present in $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ if it is the source of a
previously analysed transition $\hat{R} \in \mathit{Tr}(\hat{s})$ for some
previously selected state $\hat{s}\in\mathcal{S}_{t_{i+1}}$.
In line 15, the probability induced by transition $R$ is calculated
calling function $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$ (which we will shortly discuss).
If this is the first time state $s'$ is visited (hence its successful deliver probability $\mathit{Pr}(s')$ is not yet defined) or its previously
assigned probability is smaller than the newly found $\mathit{pr}_R$
(line 16) $\mathit{Pr}(s')$ is set to the new maximum $\mathit{pr}_R$ (line
17) and indicated that this is achieved through transition $R$ (line
18). (This is implementing the maximum of the Bellman equations.)
Finally, all states explored at time slot $t_{i}$ are added to the set of of explored states $\mathcal{S}$ (line 21).
The next iteration will explore the new set of states $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$
and so forth until $t_0$ is reached.
If the initial state $s_{t_0}$ --where all copies are present at the
source node-- is part of the set of explored states $\mathcal{S}$, then there is a series
of actions (stored in array $\textit{best\_action}$) that lead to a
successful delivery of the data with an optimal SDP equal to
$\mathit{Pr}(s_{t_0})$. If the initial state $s_{t_0}$ is not present in
$\mathcal{S}$, then $\mathit{Pr}(s_{t_0})$ is undefined and the SDP for the
model is $0$, implying no routing decision can be successful in
delivering the bundle of data to the intended destination.
\begin{comment}
A set of \textit{carrier nodes} $[\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$ is then determined for each state at time slot $\mathcal{T}_{i}$ (line 5).
A carrier node is a node holding at least one copy of the bundle.
For each carrier node, all possible actions leading to it are enumerated.
In particular, bundles can arrive at $\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$ because of a transmission via a route at time period $[\mathcal{T}_{i} :\mathcal{T}_{i+1}]$ or at a previous time slot.
In order to consider all possible transmission combinations, we define rules.
A rule $\mathcal{R}$ is a tuple $(copies, path)$ where:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{copies} is the number of copies transmitted in this route, i.e., less or equal to the number of copies the carrier node has in its buffer ($cp(\mathcal{C})$), and
\item \textbf{path} is a valid single-hop or multiple-hop path in the underlying digraph $G=(V,E)$ for the time slot $\mathcal{T}_{i+1}$.
\end{itemize}
Rules are the building blocks of {RUCoP}\xspace transitions, which are constructed by combining one or more rules.
Rules are computed as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Single-sender single-path rules:} The set of predecessor nodes which have a simple path to $\mathcal{C}$ at $\mathcal{T}_i$ ($pr^*([\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})$) are computed for each carrier node $\mathcal{C}$ (line 7).
For each sender node, a set of single acyclic paths ($[\mathcal{R}^{SP}]$) are determined (line 8).
Single path rules comprises direct transmissions from $\mathcal{N}$ to $\mathcal{C}$ for $1$ up to $cp(\mathcal{C})$ copies.
\item \textbf{Single-sender multiple-path rules:} Multiple-path rules ($[\mathcal{R}^{MP}]$) model the case where a node sends copies to the carrier node through one or a sequence of several single paths.
Thus, $[\mathcal{R}^{MP}]$ is constructed by combining paths in $[\mathcal{R}^{SP}]$ considering tuples which involve at most $cp(\mathcal{C})$ copies (line 9).
The empty rule $\epsilon$ is also added to model the case where node $\mathcal{N}$ sends no bundles to $\mathcal{C}$ (i.e., a store transition).
\item \textbf{Multiple-sender multiple-path rules:} Once $[\mathcal{R}^{MP}]$ are computed for all predecessor nodes $\mathcal{N}$ of $\mathcal{C}$, they are joined into the multiple-sender rules set $[\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}}]$ (line 11).
The multiple-sender rules combines all possible routing decisions from different nodes to $\mathcal{C}$ such that $cp(\mathcal{C})$ are finally present in the carrier node at $\mathcal{T}_i$.
\end{enumerate}
Once all feasible rules for each $\mathcal{C}$ are computed in $[\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}}]$, they are combined for all $\mathcal{C}$ in the sate $\mathcal{S}$ into transitions.
The Cartesian product between the multiple-nodes rules for each carrier node is thus considered.
Only those rules that involve a number of copies less or equal to the number of copies available in the network are evaluated.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/fig-rules-1.pdf}
\caption{Nodes, rules and transition example in {RUCoP}\xspace}
\label{fig:rules}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the exposed concepts, Fig.~\ref{fig:rules} lists carrier and predecessor nodes, rules and transition for state $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_1}= [S^0 A^0 B^2 C^1 E^0 D^0 | \mathcal{T}_1]$ corresponding to the network in Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} when 3 copies are allowed.
Since $B$ carries two copies, more rules are used to describe single and multiple path possibilities.
The resulting transition includes all possible copies transmission possibilities reaching the evaluated state.
Each transition $\mathcal{A}$ is considered individually to determine its corresponding previous state $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$ (line 14).
$f_{\mathit{dd}}$ plays a role here as the failure detection delay can transit to states in different time slots.
The SDP of the transition is computed next.
Since different transitions can depart from the same previous state, its existing \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}, if any, is
compared ($\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})$) (line 15).
If the current transition increases the SDP in $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$, then the new SDP is noted and $\mathcal{A}$ becomes the best transition for that state (line 16, 17).
$\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$ is finally added to the previous sates set $[\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}]$ (line 19), where each state includes its best SDP and its best corresponding transition.
The next iteration will explore these new states set and so forth until $\mathcal{T}_0$ is reached.
If the initial state $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_0}$ where all copies are present at the source node is part of the set $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_0}$, then there is series of actions that lead to a successful delivery of the data with an optimal SDP equal to $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_0})$.
Such series of actions can be derived by navigating the model top-down.
If the initial state $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_0}$ is not present in $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_0}$, then the SDP for the model is $0$ implying no routing decision can be successful in delivering the bundle of data to the intended destination.
\end{comment}
\minisection{Calculating SDP.}
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:sdp} shows how SDP is computed for a transition
$R$ leaving a state $s$.
We let $\mathit{contacts}(R)$ be a set containing every link involved
in some path in $R$, and iterate for every possible combination of
link failures (line 2). Thus, a failure set $\mathit{fs} \in
\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(\mathit{contacts}(R))$ stands for a set of links that failed
to be established whereas $\mathit{contacts}(R) - \mathit{fs}$ are the
links that successfully transmitted the data.
Depending on $\mathit{fs}$, a transition comprising several hops can
leave the bundle in different nodes in the path and thus lead to
different states. The state $\mathit{to\_state}$ to which the network
would evolve to if links in $\mathit{fs}$ failed is computed (line 3).
Notice that $\mathit{to\_state}$ may not be a successfully delivering
state in which case $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathit{to\_state})$ will not be defined and
the probability of delivering of this particular combination of
failing links is 0. The conditional statement of line 4 takes this
into account. Thus, if $\mathit{to\_state}$ is a successful delivering
state, the probability $\mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}}$ of this failure set
to happen is calculated (line 5) and the contribution to the total
probability of successfully delivering the data when links in
$\mathit{fs}$ fail is added up (line 6).
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Transition $R$, state $s$, current time slot $t$
\ENSURE SDP of current action
\STATE $\mathit{pr}_R \gets 0$
\FORALL{$\mathit{fs} \in \raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(\mathit{contacts}(R))$}
\STATE $\mathit{to\_state} \gets \mathit{state\_after\_failures}(R, s, \mathit{fs})$
\IF{$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathit{to\_state})$ is defined}
\STATE $\mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}} \gets \left(\prod_{e \in \mathit{contacts}(R) {-} \mathit{fs}} 1 {-} p_f(e,t)\right) * \left(\prod_{e \in \mathit{fs}} p_f(e,t)\right)$
\STATE $\mathit{pr}_R \gets \mathit{pr}_R + \mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}} * \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathit{to\_state})$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\mathit{pr}_R$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Successful Delivery Probability ($\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$)} \label{Alg:sdp}
\end{algorithm}
Fig.~\ref{fig:sdp} illustrates the calculation of the SDP for transition $\{(1, S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B), (1, S \rightarrow C)\}$ which is a transition from $[S^2 A^0 B^0 C^0 E^0 D^0 | t_0]$ (the initial state) to $[S^0 A^0 B^1 C^1 E^0 D^0 | t_1]$ when 2 copies are allowed and successfully transmitted.
In other words, when no failure is observed ($\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}=\emptyset$), copies are successfully transmitted to $B$ and other to $C$ with a probability of $p=5^3=0.125$.
However, different failures can lead to $5$ possible alternative states with an accumulated probability of $1-0.125$.
Two of these have an undefined SDP, implying they have no further possibility of delivering the data to the destination.
This particular transition is the one with the highest SDP for $[S^2 A^0 B^0 C^0 E^0 D^0 | t_0]$ so that it stands for the optimal decision for forwarding two copies from $S$ to $D$ in the example network.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/fig-sdp-1-new.pdf}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace updates for transition $\{(1, S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B), (1, S \rightarrow C)\}$ in-going state $[S^0 A^0 B^1 C^1 E^0 D^0 | t_1]$
}
\label{fig:sdp}
\end{figure}
\minisection{Complexity analysis.}
First of all, notice that, if $N_c = {|\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)|}$, then
${|\mathcal{P}_c|} \ \leq \ {N_c!\cdot\sum_{i=0}^{N_c}\frac{1}{i!}} \ < \ {e N_c!}$
and hence
${|\mathcal{R}_c|} \ \leq \ \binom{{|\mathcal{P}_c|}+{\mathit{cp}(c)}}{\mathit{cp}(c)} \ < \ \binom{{e N_c!}+{\mathit{cp}(c)}}{|\mathit{cp}(c)}$.
From this, we have that
\[{|\mathit{Tr}(s)|} \ = \ {\prod_{c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}} {|\mathcal{R}_c|}}
\ < \ {\prod_{c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}} \binom{{e N_c!}+{\mathit{cp}(c)}}{\mathit{cp}(c)}}
\ \leq \ {\binom{{e N!}+{K}}{K}}^K.\]
The last inequality follows from taking the worst case values, knowing
that $\mathit{cp}(c)\leq\mathit{num\_copies}$ and
${|\setCN_{t_{i}}|}\leq\mathit{num\_copies}$ (there can never be more
carrier nodes than allowed copies), and letting
$N=\max_{t\in\mathcal{T}}\max_{c\in\setCN_{t}} N_c$ and
$K=\mathit{num\_copies}$.
The calculation of $\mathcal{P}_c$ is done by a search algorithm of
complexity $\bigO{N_c!}$, and the construction of $\mathcal{R}_c$ and
$\mathit{Tr}(s)$ are by enumeration. Thus, the complexity of lines 5-10 in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} is $\bigO{{\binom{{e N!}+{K}}{K}}^K}$.
\begin{comment}
Stirling's approximation for $n\geq 1$:
\[\sqrt{2\pi n}\left(\frac{n}{e}\right)^n \leq n! \leq e\sqrt{n}\left(\frac{n}{e}\right)^n\]
Then, for $K\geq 1$
\begin{align*}
{|\mathit{Tr}(s)|}
& \ \leq \ \left(\frac{e}{2\pi} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{{e N!}+{K}}{K e N!}} \cdot \frac{({e N!}+{K})^{{e N!}+{K}}}{K^K(e N!)^{e N!}}\right)^K \\
& \ \leq \ \left(\frac{e}{2\pi} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{1}{K}+\frac{1}{e N!}} \cdot \frac{({e N!}+{K})^{{e N!}+{K}}}{K^K(e N!)^{e N!}}\right)^K \\
& \ \leq \ \left(\frac{({e N!}+{K})^{{e N!}+{K}}}{K^K(e N!)^{e N!}}\right)^K \\
& \ \leq \ \frac{({e N!}+{K})^{{e N! K}+{K^2}}}{K^{K^2}(e N!)^{e N! K}} \\
& \ \leq \ \frac{\left({e^2\sqrt{N}\left(\frac{N}{e}\right)^N}+{K}\right)^{{e^2\sqrt{N}\left(\frac{N}{e}\right)^N K}+{K^2}}}{K^{K^2}\left(e \sqrt{2\pi N}\left(\frac{N}{e}\right)^N\right)^{e \sqrt{2\pi N}\left(\frac{N}{e}\right)^N K}}
\end{align*}
\end{comment}
Focusing now in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:sdp}, notice that
$\mathit{contacts}(R)$ can contain, in the worst case, all edges
present in $G_{t_i}$;
therefore $|\mathit{contacts}(R)|\leq N_c^2 \leq N^2$.
Calculation in line 5 involves a multiplication of
$|\mathit{contacts}(R)|$ terms. Hence, taking into account that the
loop repeats $|\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(\mathit{contacts}(R))|$ times, the complexity
of this algorithm is $\bigO{N^2 2^N}$.
From the previous observation, we see that the body of loop in lines
4-20 in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} is
$\bigO{N^2 2^N {\binom{{e N!}+{K}}{K}}^K}$.
By observing that that $|\mathcal{S}_{t_i}| = \binom{{|V|}+K}{K}$, we can
finally conclude that the complexity of Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} is:
\begin{center}
$\bigO{N^2\cdot 2^N\cdot {\binom{{e N!}+{K}}{K}}^K\cdot \binom{{|V|}+K}{K}\cdot {|\mathcal{T}|}}$
\end{center}
Where $V$ is the set of all nodes in the network and
$\mathcal{T}$ is the time span under consideration.
We remark that, although in the worst case $N={|V|}$, we normally
expect $N$ ---the maximum number of nodes reaching a carrier node in a
single time slot--- to be significantly smaller than the number of
nodes in $V$.
Taking into account Stirling's aproximation to factorials, we finally
notice that the algorithm is in 2-EXPTIME.
However, in practice, we manage to have a satisfactory performance in practical use cases as it can be seen in Section~\ref{sec:discussion}.
\minisection{Link and failure detection delays.}
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} is presented for networks with insignificant
link delays and one time slot failure detection delay in all cases.
In the general case, for networks where $\varsigma(e,t)>0$ or
$f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)>1$, for some link $e\in E$ and time slot $t\in\mathcal{T}$,
additional bookkeeping is necessary. In particular, it is not
possible to only count copies of bundles. In this case, it will be
necessary to distinguish each copy and annotate it with the time slot
in which it is available for transmission (either because of the delay
after transmission, or because of the delay after failure).
This will have to be carefully considered, especially, when
calculating $\mathit{path}_{G_{t_{i}}}(c,c')$ (line 7 in
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru})
or the target state in
$\mathit{state\_after\_failures}(R,s,\mathit{fs})$ (line 3 in
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:sdp}).
In addition, this modification will have an impact on the (already
high) complexity of the algorithm.
\subsection{{L-RUCoP}\xspace}
\label{sec:iru}
{RUCoP}\xspace is based on a global view of the system: decisions are taken based on the current state of the network.
This implies that distributed nodes need to know where all copies are in the network at any moment, including remote and potentially disconnected nodes.
Although optimal, this is impossible to achieve in highly partitioned DTNs where delays and disruptions force nodes to decide based on partial local knowledge~\cite{eddy1996hidden,tcs/CheungLSV06,tcs/GiroDF14}.
A simple example of this phenomenon is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:realizability}.
Two decisions are possible at node $A$ in $t_2$, it can \textit{store} the copy or forward it to $C$.
However, which is optimal, might depend on weather the other copy is on $B$ or $C$ at $t_2$ (and also on ${p_f}_4$ and ${p_f}_5$).
Nonetheless, because $A$ was out of reach of $B$ and $C$, or because the contact $A-C$ is unidirectional or highly delayed, node $A$ may not be able to know which is the global status of the system nor which is the optimal action in $t_2$.
The aim of this section is to propose a derivation of {RUCoP}\xspace that can be implementable in DTNs where knowledge is restricted to each node's local view.
We coin this practical approach \textit{local} {RUCoP}\xspace ({L-RUCoP}\xspace).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{img/fig-relizability-new-pf.pdf}
\caption{An example where local knowledge on $A$ is not enough to determine the global status of the system.}
\label{fig:realizability}
\end{figure}
{L-RUCoP}\xspace takes routing decisions on each local node $n$ using a pre-filled routing matrix $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(t_s,c,t_i)$. In this entry, $t_s$ indicates the ``safe'' time slot and it is normally the next one after the copies have been received, $c$ is the current number of copies that $n$ holds, and $t_i\geq t_s$ is the current time slot.
$\mathit{LTr}_{n}(t_s,c,t_s)$ will contain the best decision $n$ can take assuming no knowledge of the network. This is the same as if assuming that $n$ holds all copies and no other copy is in the system. Therefore $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(t_s,c,t_s)$ contains exactly all routing decisions made by {RUCoP}\xspace for the state in which $n$ contains all $c$ copies and no copies are in the other nodes.
Nonetheless, if $n$ decides to keep some copies $\mathit{rc}<c$ and only send $c-\mathit{rc}$ copies, in the following time slots $n$ has certain knowledge of the previously distributed copies that may be handy to improve the decision on the routing of the remaining $\mathit{rc}$ copies.
We illustrate this peculiarity using the contact plan in Fig.~\ref{fig:realizability} assuming that ${p_f}_1={p_f}_2=0.1$, ${p_f}_3={p_f}_4=0.5$ and ${p_f}_5=0.9$.
The optimizing route for $\mathit{LTr}_{A}(t_2,1,t_2)$, in which $A$ has no knowledge of the past, is to deliver the only copy through node $C$ with a probability of success of $0.25$ (the probability of success if delivering later directly to $D$ is $0.1$).
However, if $A$ had delivered a copy at time slot $t_0$ and preserved a second copy, the optimizing route for $\mathit{LTr}_{A}(t_0,1,t_2)$ would be to keep the copy and deliver it later through $D$ (with probability $0.4645$, against $0.4525$ if the second copy is delivered through $C$ instead).
{L-RUCoP}\xspace considers this peculiarity to optimize the decisions. This means that populating the matrix requires $N$ different executions of {RUCoP}\xspace.
Since nodes in DTN networks may not have powerful on-board computers, a centralized node, such as the mission operation and control (MOC) center in the case of satellite networks, should be responsible for computing $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(t_s,c,t_i)$ and providing it to the network nodes in advance.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE number of copies $N$, target node $T$
\ENSURE A routing table $\mathit{LTr}_n$ for each node $n$
\FORALL {$c \leq N$}
\STATE $(S_c, \mathit{Tr}_c, \mathit{Pr}_c) \gets {RUCoP}\xspace(G, c, T)$
\ENDFOR
\FORALL {node $n$, time slot $\mathit{ts}$, and $c \leq N$}
\STATE $s \gets \mathit{Safe\_state}(n,c,\mathit{ts})$
\IF {$s \in S_c$}
\STATE {$\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts}) \gets \{ {(k,r) \in \mathit{Tr}_c(s)} \mid {\mathit{first}(r) = n} \}$}
\STATE $\mathit{ts}' \gets \mathit{ts}$
\STATE $\mathit{rc}$ $\gets$ $(\exists$ $(k,n) \in LT_r(n,\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts}')$$)?$ $k : 0$
\WHILE{$\mathit{rc} > 0$}
\STATE $s' \gets \mathit{Post}(\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}'))$
\STATE $\mathit{ts}' = \mathit{ts}' + 1$
\IF {$s' \in S_{\mathit{rc}}$}
\STATE $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}') \gets \{(k,r) \in {\mathit{Tr}_{\mathit{rc}}(s')} \mid {\mathit{first}(r) = n} \}$
\ELSE
\STATE \algorithmicbreak
\ENDIF
\STATE $\mathit{rc} \gets (\exists$ $(k,n) \in \mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')) ?$ $k : 0$
\ENDWHILE
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\mathit{LTr}_n$, for all node $n$.
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{{L-RUCoP}\xspace Route table construction} \label{Alg:ltr}
\end{algorithm}
The construction of the {L-RUCoP}\xspace matrix is detailed in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ltr}.
First, {RUCoP}\xspace is executed for all possible $c \leq N$ copies, storing the resulting states, transitions and delivery probabilities $(S_c, \mathit{Tr}_c, \mathit{Pr}_c)$ (lines 1-2).
Notice that at this point all possible optimizing decisions have been calculated. So, what remains of the algorithm, is to construct all tables $\mathit{LTr}_{n}$ by properly searching on the results calculated with {RUCoP}\xspace.
Thus the algorithm nests two loops. The outer loop (lines 4-21) iterates on every node $n$, time slot $\mathit{ts}$, and number of copies $c\leq N$ in order to first calculate the ``safe'' decision $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts})$. If needed, it then iterates on the inner loop (lines 10-19) to populate the table entries $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$ on the following time slots $\mathit{ts}'>\mathit{ts}$ for the distribution of the copies that have been held by the node.
So, the first step of the outer loop is to define the state $s$ in which the node $n$ has all copies $c$ in time slot $\mathit{ts}$ (line 5) and no other copy is in the network. Thus $\mathit{Safe\_state}(n,c,\mathit{ts}) = [A_0, B_0, ..., n_c, ... | \mathit{ts}]$. This is the ``safe'' state in which $n$ has no knowledge of the network.
If this state exists in $S_c$ (i.e. the corresponding {RUCoP}\xspace found a likely successful route to the target node), node $n$ has a route to target and its routing decisions (calculated through $\mathit{Tr}_c(s)$) are saved in $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts})$ (line 7).
At this point, the number of copies $\mathit{rc}$ that are not distributed in this routing action is calculated (line 9) and the current time slot $\mathit{ts}'$ is set to $\mathit{ts}$ (line 8). If some copy remains in the node, the inner loop takes action (line 10).
Firstly, the state $s'$ known by node $n$ after taking the last routing decision (namely, $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$) is calculated (line 11).
More precisely $\mathit{Post}(\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}'))$ delivers the state at time slot $\mathit{ts}'+1$, in which node $n$ contains the copies remaining after routing action $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$, any node $n'$ that is in direct contact with $n$ --according to $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$-- contains exactly the number of copies that $n$ delivered to it, and any other node does not contain any copy.
Also, the next time slot is calculated (line 12).
If state $s'$ exists in $S_{\mathit{rc}}$ (i.e. the corresponding {RUCoP}\xspace found a likely successful route to the target node), the routing decision is saved (lines 14). Instead, if $s'$ was not marked as explored by {RUCoP}\xspace, then no path to the successful state is possible from $s'$, the action for that table entry is left undefined (line 16) and the inner loop is finished.
While there is a successful route to the target node, the number of remaining copies $\mathit{rc}$ for the next step are calculated (line 18) and the inner loop repeats until no further copies $\mathit{rc}$ remains in $n$.
It is worth to recall that $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts})$ is always the \textit{safe entry} to look up for the local node.
This means that whenever new copies arrive, or a routing decision fails to be accomplished in node $n$, it should take the current time slot $\mathit{ts}$ as a safe place and look up the table at entry $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts})$ (assuming $c$ is the current number of copies held by $n$).
Because of this fact of returning to the ``safe entry'' each time of uncertainty, in which the node assumes no copies are present in remote nodes, {L-RUCoP}\xspace accounts for a pessimistic-case knowledge from the local node perspective.
Nevertheless, we show in Section~\ref{sec:analysis} that {L-RUCoP}\xspace is a valuable routing approach for uncertain contact plan implementable in realistic DTN nodes constrained to localized knowledge.
\subsection{{RUCoP}\xspace-enhanced CGR}
\label{sec:rucgr}
To easily exploit the {RUCoP}\xspace method in existing DTN protocol stacks with minimal modifications, we also propose an alternative CGR formulation (a single-copy DTN routing scheme).
We base the approach on a {RUCoP}\xspace-based SDP metric to achieve reliably delivery of bundles over an uncertain contact plan.
CGR is a Dijkstra-based distributed routine that runs on each DTN node to determine the best routes to a given destination based on a pre-provisioned contact plan (the interested reader can refer to~\cite{Araniti2015},~\cite{FRAIRE2021102884} and~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi} for an in-depth description of CGR).
We propose {CGR-UCoP}\xspace as a simple means of extending CGR to operate with uncertain contact plans based on the outcomes of {RUCoP}\xspace. The idea is that {CGR-UCoP}\xspace selects the route that optimizes the successful delivery probability (SDP) instead of optimizing the time to destination as it is normally done in CGR.
In {CGR-UCoP}\xspace, we let CGR calculate the list of possible routes to a given destination using its modified Dijkstra contact plan search.
In other words, route computation is left unchanged from legacy CGR.
Also, the resulting route list for each destination is constructed and consulted on forwarding time by the DTN node.
However, instead of choosing the best route from the list based on the best delivery time metric, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace decides considering a custom SDP-based metric.
{CGR-UCoP}\xspace metric is built around the $\mathit{Pr}$ table constructed in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} for only 1 copy.
More precisely, for each node $n$ and time slot $\mathit{ts}$, we take $\mathit{Pr}_n(\mathit{ts})=\mathit{Pr}(\mathit{Safe\_state}(n,1,\mathit{ts}))$ ($\mathit{Safe\_state}$ is defined as in Sec.~\ref{sec:iru}).
That is $\mathit{Pr}_n(\mathit{ts})$ is the probability of successfully delivering a single copy from node $n$ at time $\mathit{ts}$.
Similarly to {L-RUCoP}\xspace, the values of $\mathit{Pr}_n(t_s)$ can be pre-computed and provisioned to the DTN nodes together with the contact plan required by CGR to operate.
For the calculations, we assume that, after running CGR, a node $n$ is left with a table $\mathit{Rl}_n:\mathcal{T}\to\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(E^*)$ that, given a time slot $\mathit{ts}$, returns a set of partial routes $\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$. Each $\mathit{r}\in\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$ is a sequence of contacts --recall that each contact is an edge $e\in E$ of the uncertain timed-varying graph-- representing a partial route to destination, more precisely, the fragment of the route that starts in node $n$ at time slot $\mathit{ts}$ and contains all hops that take place only during the same time slot.
Thus, for instance, considering the graph of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute}, $\mathit{r} = (S\to A)\,(A\to B)$ is a possible route in $\mathit{Rl}_S(t_0)$, but $(S\to A)\,(A\to B)\,(B\to D)$ is not, as it expands through two time slots ($t_0$ and $t_1$), nor is $(S\to A)$, since it does not contains all the hops in time slot $t_0$. We let $\mathit{r}[i]$ indicate the $i$th contact in the sequence and $|\mathit{r}|$ the length of $\mathit{r}$ (in the example $\mathit{r}[0]={S\to A}$ and $|\mathit{r}|=2$).
In addition, $\mathit{src}(e)$ and $\mathit{tgt}(e)$ indicate the source and target of contact $e$ respectively.
Based on $\mathit{Pr}$, a SDP for a partial route $\mathit{r}\in\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$ can be computed as follows.
\begin{align*}
\makebox[2.3em][l]{$\ensuremath{\SDP_{\mathit{CGR}}}(\mathit{r},\mathit{ts}) = {}$} & \\
&
\left(\prod_{k=0}^{|\mathit{r}|-1} (1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts}) \right) \cdot \mathit{Pr}_{\mathit{tgt}(\mathit{r}[|\mathit{r}|-1])}({\mathit{ts}} + \varsigma(\mathit{r}[|\mathit{r}|-1],\mathit{ts})) \\[1ex]
+ \ &
\sum_{k=0}^{|\mathit{r}|-1} \left( \prod_{i=0}^{k-1} (1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[i],\mathit{ts})) \right) \cdot p_f(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts})\\[-2ex]
&
\phantom{\sum_{k=0}^{|\mathit{r}|-1} \left( \prod_{i=0}^{k-1} (1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[i],\mathit{ts})) \right)}{}\cdot \mathit{Pr}_{\mathit{src}(\mathit{r}[k])}({\mathit{ts}} + f_{\mathit{dd}}(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts}))
\end{align*}
The first summand of the equation corresponds to the successful transmission of the message through all hops in $\mathit{r}$. This probability is estimated as the product of the probability of successfully transmitting in each contact --the probability of success in the $i$th hop is $(1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[k]))$-- times the likelihood (according to {RUCoP}\xspace) that the message is succesfully transmitted to destination from the last node of the partial route $\mathit{r}$ (i.e. $\mathit{Pr}_{\mathit{tgt}(\mathit{r}[|\mathit{r}|-1])}({\mathit{ts}} + \varsigma)$). Notice that this last probability should be considered at the moment that the message is available in the node, which can only be after the transmission delay $\varsigma(\mathit{r}[|\mathit{r}|-1],\mathit{ts})$.
The second summand estimates the probability of successfully transmitting the message given that some hop in $\mathit{r}$ failed to transmit at time slot $\mathit{ts}$. The $k$th summand here corresponds to the likelihood of successfully transmitting given that the hop $k$ is the first to fail. This is calculated as the product of the probability of succsesfully transmitting in the first $k-1$ hops (i.e. $\left( \prod_{i=0}^{k-1} (1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[i],\mathit{ts})) \right)$~), times the probability of failing in the $k$th hop ($p_f(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts})$), times the likelihood (according to {RUCoP}\xspace) that the message is succesfully transmitted to destination from the node that failed to transmit in the $k$th hop (i.e. $\mathit{Pr}_{\mathit{src}(\mathit{r}[k])}({\mathit{ts}} + f_{\mathit{dd}}(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts}))$).
Notice this last probability should be considered at the moment that such node detects that the communication has failed, i.e. at ${\mathit{ts}} + f_{\mathit{dd}}(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts})$.
The resulting metric $\ensuremath{\SDP_{\mathit{CGR}}}$ indicates the delivery probability of each route in $Rl_n(t_s)$ computed by CGR, which can be used to decide on a reliable proximate node to forward the bundle with a simple modification to existing implementations.
It is worth noting that {RUCoP}\xspace might have explored more routes (potentially more reliable) than those in $Rl_n(t_s)$, the construction of which is guided by best delivery time as per CGR's internal Dijkstra searches.
Nevertheless, in Section~\ref{sec:analysis} we show that the {RUCoP}\xspace-based SDP metric outperforms baseline CGR and approximates the theoretical outcome of {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace in random and realistic application scenarios.
\section{Result Analysis}
\label{sec:analysis}
In this section, we propose a benchmark ecosystem to evaluate the proposed routing schemes for DTNs under uncertain contact plans, and use it to analyze the network performance when applying {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace.
\subsection{Benchmark}
A benchmark for DTNs under uncertain contact plans needs to comprise all possible routing solutions that can be considered for such scenarios.
In particular, CGR, sought for fully scheduled DTNs and S\&W, sought for fully unpredictable DTNs sit at the edges of the uncertain DTNs classification.
Other intermediate schemes present in the literature are also considered.
Table~\ref{tab:routing} summarizes and compares the routing schemes present in the benchmark.
We briefly recapitulate them as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Upper bound reference:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{CGR-FA}: CGR-FA is an oracle-based fault-aware (FA) scheme.
It leverages the same single-copy implementation than CGR, but uses a contact plan where contacts that will fail are removed.
By being able to know where and when faults will occur, CGR-FA is used as a theoretical upper bound providing the best achievable performance (delivery ratio and energy consumption).
\end{itemize}
\item Single-copy, certain contact plan:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{CGR}: Current implementation of CGR~\cite{FRAIRE2021102884} in ION v3.5.0~\cite{Burleigh2007} which forwards a bundle using the first contact of the route which has the \textit{best delivery time} among all to the given destination.
CGR assumes all contacts in the contact plan will occur as planned.
\end{itemize}
\item Single-copy, uncertain contact plan:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{CGR-HOP}: A variant of CGR which forwards a bundle on the first contact or hop of the route which has the \textit{least hop count} among all to the given destination.
As discussed in~\cite{Madoery:Congestion}, reducing the hops increases the delivery probability in uncertain contact plans, at the expense of delivery delay.
\item \textbf{{CGR-UCoP}\xspace}: The {RUCoP}\xspace-enhanced CGR formulation presented in Section~\ref{sec:rucgr} that enables a straightforward implementation to leverage {RUCoP}\xspace model features in DTN nodes based on ION protocol stack.
\end{itemize}
\item Multi-copy, uncertain contact plan:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace}: Static routing rules are sent to each node in the network.
These routes are computed using the {RUCoP}\xspace model in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru}.
To determine the current state and decide on the subsequent action, nodes have access to a global view of the copy distribution on the network, which is not necessarily feasible in reality.
The benchmark considers {RUCoP}\xspace with 1, 2, 3 and 4 copies.
\item \textbf{{L-RUCoP}\xspace}: Static routing rules are sent to each node in the network by means of the $\mathit{LTr}$ table.
The table comprises a set of specific routing decisions, based on {RUCoP}\xspace model computed for each node, destination and number of copies.
For each bundle, nodes decide routing based on the number of local copies. The benchmark considers {L-RUCoP}\xspace with 1, 2, 3 and 4 copies.
\item \textbf{CGR-2CP}: Another variant of CGR where two-copies (2CP) are generated at the source~\cite{Madoery:Congestion}.
Copies are forwarded via both the best delivery time and the least hop count routes, when different.
CGR-2CP provides equal or better delivery ratio than CGR-HOP with improved delivery delay.
\end{itemize}
\item Multi-copy, no contact plan knowledge:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{S\&W}: Spray-and-wait routing provides similar performance metrics than flooding with less overhead~\cite{Spyropoulos05sprayandwait}.
The traffic source spreads a limited number of copies to the first contacted neighbors and then wait until one of those copies reaches the destination. We evaluate S\&W with 2, 3 and 4 copies.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Routing Schemes in the Benchmark}
\label{tab:routing}
\begin{tabular}{C{2cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.1cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|}
\cline{2-9}
& CGR FA & RUCoP & L RUCoP & CGR UCoP & CGR & CGR HOP & CGR 2CP & S\&W \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Contact plan} & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Encoded probability} & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No & No & No & No \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Encoded failures (oracle)} & Yes & No & No & No & No & No & No & No \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Implementable (local view)} & No & No & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Copies} & 1 & 1,2,3,4 & 1,2,3,4 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2,3,4 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Main optimization metric} & Delivery & Delivery & Delivery & Delivery & Delay & Delivery & Delivery \& delay & Delivery \& delay \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{comment}
\newcommand*\rot{\rotatebox{90}}
\newcommand*\OK{\ding{51}}
\begin{table} \centering
\begin{tabular}{@{} cr*{6}c }
& & \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\[2ex]
\rowcolor{blue!30} \cellcolor{white}
& & \rot{Contact plan} & \rot{\shortstack[l]{Encoded\\probability}} & \rot{\shortstack[l]{Encoded failures\:\: \\ (oracle)}} & \rot{\shortstack[l]{Implementable\\(local view)}}
& \rot{Copies} & \rot{\shortstack[l]{Main\\optimization\\metric}} \\
\cmidrule{2-8}
\rowcolor{black!15} \cellcolor{white}
& CGR-FA & Yes & Yes & Yes & No & 1 & Delivery \\
& RUCoP & Yes & Yes & No & No & 1-4 & Delivery \\
\rowcolor{black!15} \cellcolor{white}
& L-RUCoP & Yes & Yes & No & Yes & 1-4 & Delivery \\
& CGR-UCoP & Yes & Yes & No & Yes & 1 & Delivery \\
\rowcolor{black!15} \cellcolor{white}
& CGR & Yes & No & No & Yes & 1 & Delay \\
& CGR-HOP & Yes & No & No & Yes & 1 & Delivery \\
\rowcolor{black!15} \cellcolor{white}
& CGR-2CP & Yes & No & No & Yes & 2 & Delivery \& Delay \\
\rot{\rlap{~Routing Algorithms}}
& S\&W & No & No & No & Yes & 2-4 & Delivery \& Delay \\
\cmidrule[1pt]{2-8}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Routing Schemes in the Benchmark}
\label{tab:routing}
\end{table}
For each routing scheme, the benchmark considers and evaluates the following routing metrics.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Delivery Ratio:} number of bundles successfully delivered over number of bundles generated, excluding copies.
This is the main metric of the benchmark.
\item \textbf{Delivery Delay:} mean delay per bundle successfully delivered to the destination.
Non delivered bundles are not considered in the metric; thus, this metric should be considered after the delivery ratio.
\item \textbf{Energy Efficiency:} number of bundles successfully delivered over the total number of transmissions in the network.
Also observed after the delivery ratio, as good efficiency might come at the expense of poor delivery.
\end{itemize}
We analyze the results obtained from two benchmark scenarios: random networks and ring-road networks (RRN).
The former renders a highly connected network with several route paths, while the latter comprises two realistic and simple topologies where satellites can contact ground spots (RRN-A and RRN-B).
In all cases, bundles sizes are set small enough to avoid congestion biases.
Also, channels are configured as error-free (i.e., no packet drop) in order to focus the analysis only on the uncertainty phenomena.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Random Networks:} Composed of 10 random topologies with 8 nodes and a duration of 100 seconds.
Time is fragmented in episodes of 10 seconds.
In each episode, the connectivity between nodes (i.e., presence of contacts) is decided based on a contact density parameter of 0.2, similar to~\cite{Madoery2018}.
An all-to-all traffic pattern is assumed.
Each routing algorithm is simulated 100 times on each of the 10 networks and then averaged.
\item \textbf{RRN-A with ISL:} The RRN-A is based on a realistic low-Earth orbit Walker constellation of 16 satellites proposed and described in~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi}.
Satellites act as data-mules by receiving data from 22 isolated ground terminals, store it and deliver it to a ground station placed in Argentina.
This is an all-to-one traffic pattern.
In this case, satellites are equipped with Inter-Satellite Links (ISLs) implying contacts are also possible in-orbit~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi}.
Routes can thus involve multiple hops between satellites and ground terminals.
The scenario is propagated for 24 hours and sliced into 1440 time slots, each of 60 seconds.
Within a time slot, a contact is considered feasible if a communication opportunity of more than 30 seconds exists.
This corresponds to a fine-grained model.
\item \textbf{RRN-B without ISL:} A different Walker constellation topology of 12 satellites on polar orbits where no close-distance crossing is present.
Not having ISL implies the routes to a target ground spot destination use at most one data-mule satellite.
In this case, the routing decision is taken by a centralized mission control for data flowing from Internet to the isolated terminals.
This is a one-to-one traffic pattern where routing implies deciding which ground station will be used to upload the data to which satellite.
Two ground stations are configured as gateways in Antarctica and Svalbard.
This scenario considers a coarse-grain model: time slots are defined in such a way that contacts start and terminate within the time slot duration.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{img/walker.pdf}
\caption{RRN satellite constellation topologies, parameters and orbital tracks. On the left, RRN-A with ISL shows the 22 ground nodes (sources of data) as well as the target ground station in Argentina (many-to-one traffic). On the right, RRN-B without ISL shows the two ground station that can be used as gateways to reach a single target spot (one-to-one traffic).}
\label{fig:walker}
\end{figure*}
It is worth mentioning that orbital paths\footnote{STK scenarios, visualizations, orbital parameters and ground locations as well as resulting contact plans for the proposed benchmark are publicly available at \url{https://sites.google.com/unc.edu.ar/dtsn-scenarios}} are calculated from STK~\cite{stk} and encoded into contact plans with contact plan designer~\cite{cpd-designer}.
For the sake of simplicity, contact failure probabilities $p_f$ are configured homogeneously in all links, ranging between [0,1].
Indeed, $p_f$ s is the independent variable in the benchmark.
As a result, it is expected that certain contact plan routing provide good metrics when $p_f \approx 1$, while non contact plan based solutions on $p_f \approx 0$.
The hypothesis is that uncertain contact plan approaches outperform both in intermediate values of $p_f$.
By running a large routing simulation campaign using DtnSim~\cite{Fraire:2017:DtnSim}, we are able to determine on which ranges of $p_f$ the hypothesis holds.
\subsection{Results}
The benchmark results\footnote{The {RUCoP}\xspace implementation in Python3 as well as the scripts used to obtain the results presented in this sections are publicly available at \url{https://bitbucket.org/fraverta/experiments-paper-ieee-tmc-2020}.} are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:results}.
To facilitate the comparison with state-of-the-art solutions, metrics are plotted with respect to CGR.
CGR-FA is plotted as maximum theoretical bound in dotted lines.
Because the RRN satellite networks offer simpler (and less) routes (i.e., less hop count) than the random networks, the potential improvement evidenced by CGR-FA in these scenarios is significant towards cases with higher failure probabilities (right hand-side of the curves).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim={3cm 0.8cm 3cm 2cm},clip]{img/results-all2.pdf}
\caption{Routing for DTNs under uncertain contact plan benchmark. From left to right, the different scenarios: random networks, RRN-A, and RRN-B. From top to bottom, the different metrics: delivery ratio, delivery delay, energy efficiency. Delivery delay and energy efficiency have to be considered after delivery ratio, as they are computed from delivered bundles only. Curves includes CGR-FA (oracle), {RUCoP}\xspace (1 to 4 copies), {L-RUCoP}\xspace (1 to 4 copies), {CGR-UCoP}\xspace (adapted CGR), CGR-2CP (two-copies), CGR-HOP (lowest hop count metric), and S\&W (2 to 4 copies).}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Delivery Ratio}
When contact failure probabilities are close to $0$, the contact plan occurs as expected (i.e., no uncertainties).
In this context, and for all studied scenarios, {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace provide the same delivery ratio performance than CGR.
Being based on CGR calculations, CGR-2CP and CGR-HOP also provide the same delivery ratio metric.
On the other hand, S\&W algorithms offer limited relative performance in these cases as they have no consideration of the topological knowledge imprinted in the contact plan.
As the probability of failure increases, the delivery ratio diverges for most techniques.
In all scenarios, and for each number of copies, {RUCoP}\xspace model provides the best delivery ratio results, improving as the number of allowed copies increases.
This improvement becomes more evident for larger $p_f$.
{L-RUCoP}\xspace follows {RUCoP}\xspace closely, with a delta of performance explained by the fact of solely relaying on (a pessimistic) local node's knowledge.
Also, as expected, S\&W improves the delivery ratio on scenarios with higher uncertainty.
Depending on the number of copies, S\&W schemes can even outperform CGR baseline in particular cases, as already indicated in~\cite{Madoery2018}.
In random networks, S\&W provides good two-copies results, in comparison with CGR-2CP; however, the latter behaves better in simpler networks such as RRN (delivery ratio for S\&W-2 in RRN-A and B is always worst than CGR baseline and thus not plotted).
Nevertheless, {L-RUCoP}\xspace offers the best single-copy implementable routing solution, closely followed by {CGR-UCoP}\xspace, both improving CGR delivery ratio in cases with medium and high failure probabilities.
Moreover, in practical RRN scenarios, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace also provides better performance than S\&W with two copies, and even better than S\&W-3 in RRN with ISL.
Indeed, {L-RUCoP}\xspace with one copy provides the same outcomes than {RUCoP}\xspace-1, and remarkably, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace (also single-copy) almost always delivers the same performance than both (notice cross markers of {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace are behind {CGR-UCoP}\xspace in most of the plots).
This is compelling evidence that the practical applicability of {CGR-UCoP}\xspace can provide great value at minimum implementation costs.
In particular, under high uncertainty, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace outperforms CGR by 9\% in random networks, 22\% in RRN-A with ISL and 25\% in RRN-B without ISL.
\subsubsection{Delivery Delay}
Although not specifically optimized for delivery delay, {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace models exhibit a reasonable performance with respect to CGR in this metric, especially in random networks.
This can be explained by the fact that {RUCoP}\xspace-based models consider all possible paths and can determine the optimal one, which is not always the case of CGR as already discussed in~\cite{FRAIRE201831}.
As $p_f$ increases, the delivery delay of {RUCoP}\xspace decreases with respect to CGR, but with a much larger deliver ratio. That is, the few bundles that arrive with CGR do so in a shorter time on routes whose contacts do not present failures, while {RUCoP}\xspace is able to deal with failures and deliver a greater number of bundles, some of which take longer to arrive thereby increasing the average delay value.
On the implementable side, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace delivery delay performance approaches CGR as the failure probabilities increases.
In realistic RRN scenarios, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace is consistently better than S\&W routing as well as CGR-HOP which honors low hops and potentially higher latency routes (delivery delay for CGR-HOP is the lowest of all schemes not reaching the scale of RRN-A and B plots).
Notably, CGR-2CP offers very similar performances than plain CGR as one of the two copies follows the same lowest delivery delay route than CGR.
\subsubsection{Energy efficiency}
On the energy efficiency side, we care about the transmission effort required to deliver the bundles.
Naturally, single copies schemes offer the least effort, especially CGR-HOP which also minimises the overall hops and thus, transmissions.
On the other hand, multiple copy solutions including {RUCoP}\xspace-4, {L-RUCoP}\xspace-4 and S\&W-4 demand the largest energy effort, being the latter consistently better, at the expense of a lower delivery ratio.
Remarkably, and being a single copy scheme, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace always offer the same or better energy efficiency than CGR, and is only outperformed by the less performing CGR-HOP and by S\&W-2 in some cases.
To wrap up, {RUCoP}\xspace model proved to approach the ideal fault-aware case of CGR-FA by leveraging the presented MDP formulation, especially with larger number of copies.
While {RUCoP}\xspace model can serve as a routing solution with global view, {L-RUCoP}\xspace obtains similar results based on a reduced local view in practical DTNs, and implemented in existing protocol stacks by means of {CGR-UCoP}\xspace.
Indeed, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace has shown that the consideration of the adapted SDP calculation of {RUCoP}\xspace enables a very appealing performance over the whole failure probability range in DTNs under uncertain contact plan.
\subsection{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
To properly frame the benefits and applicability of {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace models and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace algorithm, we discuss some considerations.
\minisection{Multiple Senders:} Although {RUCoP}\xspace model, as presented in Section~\ref{sec:model}, takes one sender and one destination as arguments, multiple senders can be considered in a single MDP if they seek to reach the same destination.
Indeed, this was already accounted for in the RRN-A case (all-to-one traffic shape), where the same {RUCoP}\xspace was solved for each of the 22 senders.
Indeed, a policy was derived for each data flow from a single execution of the MDP.
This can be achieved because the MDP tree for each case is exactly the same except the initial state at $\mathcal{T}_0$.
In general, this approach can be generalized as long as different data flows do not compete for a same limited channel resource (i.e., congestion).
\minisection{Congestion:} In general, congestion is an open research issue in DTN~\cite{silva2015survey}.
In this context, {RUCoP}\xspace-based models have been sought for and evaluated in scenarios where congestion is not present.
This means that when a route is determined for a bundle, it is assumed that there will be enough capacity to allocate such data transmission (i.e., sizes of the bundles is by far smaller than the contact capacity).
While this can be the case for unsaturated networks, congested networks would need to rely on simulations analysis that validates if the {RUCoP}\xspace routing assumptions holds.
\minisection{Scalability:} Table~\ref{tab:scalability} summarizes the scalability metrics of the evaluated scenarios when using {RUCoP}\xspace.
In particular, the execution time on an Intel i7 processor with 16 GB of RAM running an Ubuntu 19.10 was measured for a Python3 implementation of the {RUCoP}\xspace routine.
The explored states and evaluated transitions were listed to observe their increment with larger scenarios and required copies.
Results show that {RUCoP}\xspace is well suited to solve realistic cases in reasonable time.
Indeed, less than an hour is required for the more complex case of RRN-A with ISL and four copies of the data.
As already explained, a coarse model of the network offers significant gain in processing time, at the expense of less accurate results.
Compared with the computation time required by {RUCoP}\xspace, calculating {L-RUCoP}\xspace routing matrix demands a reduced overhead.
The specific processing time for each of the case studies is reported in the {L-RUCoP}\xspace Time[sec] column, in Table~\ref{tab:scalability}.
In particular, the time required for computing {L-RUCoP}\xspace-2 for the RRN-A scenario is the sum of those for {RUCoP}\xspace-1 and {RUCoP}\xspace-2 (i.e., $ 258 + 291 = 549$ seconds), plus the cost of building the {L-RUCoP}\xspace routing matrix (37.49 seconds), adding up for a total of $586.49$ seconds.
As {RUCoP}\xspace computation can be done in parallel, the time can be significantly reduced.
\begin{table}
\label{tab:scalability}
\caption{Scalability Metrics}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Copies & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|l|}{\textbf{Random Networks}} \\ \hline
Time {[}sec{]} & 2 & 6 & 107 & 2416 \\ \hline
States & 74 & 318 & 1056 & 2915 \\ \hline
Transitions & 391 & 9491 & 179797 & 2804864 \\ \hline
{{L-RUCoP}\xspace Time[sec]} & +0.15 & +0.42 & +0.85 & +1.51 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|l|}{\textbf{RRN-A with ISL (fine grain)}} \\ \hline
Time {[}sec{]} & 258 & 291 & 657 & 3290 \\ \hline
States & 6091 & 76428 & 646152 & 4126765 \\ \hline
Transitions & 6973 & 99742 & 969861 & 7147805 \\ \hline
{{L-RUCoP}\xspace Time[sec]} & +12.92 & +37.49 & +107.19 & +426.96 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|l|}{\textbf{RRN-B without ISL (coarse grain)}} \\ \hline
Time {[}sec{]} & 18 & 21 & 38 & 134 \\ \hline
States & 898 & 8568 & 49774 & 220745 \\ \hline
Transitions & 1020 & 11133 & 73566 & 369689 \\ \hline
{{L-RUCoP}\xspace Time [sec]} & +1.75 & +4.38 & +9.02 & +21.16 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs) classification has biased the research of routing algorithms to fit either fully scheduled or dynamically-learned probabilistic use cases.
In this paper, we have uncovered that routing under uncertain contact planning deserves a different classification.
Uncertain DTNs have not only applicable relevance but also can serve as a more generic routing approach for many practical DTNs.
A first Markov Decision Process coined {RUCoP}\xspace was introduced for arbitrary number of copies in uncertain DTNs.
{RUCoP}\xspace provides a theoretical upper bound for the data delivery ratio when a global vision of the system is possible.
{RUCoP}\xspace enabled the derivation of {L-RUCoP}\xspace when knowledge is restricted to a local view, and single-copy {CGR-UCoP}\xspace where the outcomes of the MDP model can drive routing decisions of the popular CGR routing algorithm.
To evaluate {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace, we have proposed an appealing benchmark comprising random and realistic case studies as well as candidate routing solutions.
Results showed that {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace models approach the ideal case as the number of copies increases.
On the other hand, single-copy {CGR-UCoP}\xspace has also provided outstanding results under uncertain contact plans, outperforming both CGR (scheduled routing) by up to 25\% in realistic satellite DTNs with uncertain links.
Future work involves the comparison with the simulation results reported in~\cite{d2020sampling} as well as further research on multi-objective optimizations comprising delivery delay and route reliability for {CGR-UCoP}\xspace, which will be implemented and proposed for NASA's ION protocol stack.
Succeeding in such endeavor would settle {CGR-UCoP}\xspace as the de-facto routing scheme for DTNs with uncertain contact plans.
\section*{Acknowledgement}This research has received support from the ERC Advanced Grant 695614 (POWVER), the DFG grant 389792660, as part of TRR 248 (\url{https://perspicuous-computing.science}), the Agencia I$+$D$+$i grant PICT-2017-3894 (RAFTSys), PICT-2017-1335, and the SeCyT-UNC grant 33620180100354CB (ARES).
Part of this work has been developed while Dr. Juan Fraire was visiting Politecnico di Torino.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The term Delay tolerant networking (DTN) was introduced by K. Fall in 2003 to designate time-evolving networks lacking of a continuous and instantaneous end-to-end connectivity~\cite{Fall2003,RFC4838}.
Since then, DTNs have drawn much attention from many researchers due to its applicability in very distinct domains including deep space~\cite{Burleigh2003} and near Earth communication networks~\cite{Caini2011}, airborne networks~\cite{gupta2015survey}, vehicular ad-hoc networks~\cite{BENAMAR2014141}, mobile social networks~\cite{7876231}, Internet of things~\cite{7921980} and underwater networks~\cite{Partan2007}.
Indeed, delay and disruption conditions can be generated by long signal propagation time, regular node occlusion, high node mobility and reduced communication range and resources.
Although from diverse origins, partitions and delay in DTNs are tackled by a \textit{bundle layer} that sits above specific layers of each network family~\cite{RFC5050}.
The key feature of the bundle layer is a persistent storage on each DTN node to store-carry-and-forward \textit{bundles of data} (or simply \textit{bundles} as per DTN terminology) as transmission opportunities become available.
Since data can propagate or rest in intermediate nodes for arbitrary amounts of time, DTN protocols and applications assume no immediate response from the receiver and tend to minimize end-to-end exchanges~\cite{pottner2011performance}.
The time-evolving and partitioned nature of DTNs favor the representation of connectivity by means of \textit{contacts}, a contact being an episode of time when a node is able to transfer data to another node.
\minisection{Taxonomy}
The literature~\cite{RFC4838} classifies contacts in DTNs as:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Scheduled:}
Contacts can be accurately predicted.
Expected contacts can be imprinted in a \textit{contact plan} comprising an exhaustive expression of the future network connectivity~\cite{Fraire2015}.
Such knowledge can be exploited to optimize resource utilization~\cite{Fraire2016Traffic,Fraire2015Routing,Fraire2014Fair}, medium access decisions~\cite{carosino2018integrating} and routing calculations such as in Contact Graph Routing (CGR) algorithm~\cite{FRAIRE2021102884,Araniti2015}.
\item \textit{Probabilistic:}
Contact patterns are dynamically inferred as network evolves in time.
Routing is based on a topology model composed of probabilistic metrics accounting for the likelihood of meeting a given neighbour in the future~\cite{grasic2011evolution,burgess2006maxprop, jain2004routing}.
In order to enhance delivery probability, multiple copies are sent through different paths, an approach that has also been considered for scheduled DTNs to forego the need of processing large contact plans~\cite{Feldmann2017}.
\item \textit{Opportunistic:}
No assumptions can be made on future contacts.
Trivial flooding-based schemes have been used for opportunistic DTNs~\cite{Vahdat00epidemicrouting}, as well as controlled flooding such as Spray-and-Wait (S\&W) to reduce replication overhead~\cite{Spyropoulos05sprayandwait,spyropoulos2007spray}, \new{among others opportunistic path models~\cite{8737620}}.
Also, previous research has extended scheduled routing approaches to cope with unpredictable opportunistic contacts~\cite{Burleigh2016}.
\end{itemize}
In this paper, we claim the existence of DTN under \textit{uncertain schedules} or \textit{uncertain contact plans}, which are not properly covered by the existing DTN classification
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Uncertain:} Contacts whose materialization can differ from the original plan with a given probability available \textit{a priori}.
For example, expected contacts have a chance of being affected by well-known failure modes or by an incomplete or inaccurate (but bounded) knowledge of the system status by the time the schedule was computed.
In other words, while in probabilistic DTNs the probability is assigned to a next-hop node (i.e, the probability of meeting a given node, based on contact history), uncertain DTNs under uncertain contact plans assign probabilities to forthcoming contacts (i.e., the probability of meeting a given node in a given time episode in the future).
\end{itemize}
\minisection{Uncertain DTNs.}
Uncertain DTNs differ from perfectly scheduled DTNs in the nature of their contacts, which are no longer certain to occur (uncertain contacts have an associated probability of existing or failing).
They also differ from probabilistic DTNs in the features of the model used to represent and reason about the network dynamics.
Instead of relying on abstract node's visibility patterns (learned on the fly), uncertain DTNs exploit time-dependant probabilistic information of the forthcoming connectivity episodes encoded in the so-called uncertain contact plan (computed in advance).
An uncertain contact plan is a probabilistic schedule that includes information regarding the probability of future contacts to diverge from the plan.
\new{The advantage of accounting for this knowledge in uncertain DTNs is that} it can be used to make specific routing, forwarding and bundle replication decisions over the most reliable routes towards a destination, thus optimizing the data delivery chances.
The different nature of probabilistic and uncertain DTNs can also be appreciated in the route structure.
Routes in probabilistic DTNs are expressed as a \textit{sequence of nodes} through which the bundle shall be forwarded.
There is no specific information on when the route hops will actually happen, just a time-averaged expectation based on inter-nodes visibility patterns.
On the other hand, uncertain contact plans bring the notion of uncertain contact, which is also probabilistic, but encoding timing information is unavailable in traditional probabilistic schemes.
Thus, and similarly to scheduled DTNs, routes in uncertain DTNs are constructed as a \textit{sequence of uncertain contacts}, which renders a delivery probability through each path, and thus, more granular and accurate (but also challenging) decision making opportunities.
\new{Applications for uncertain DTNs include} DTN networks based on a schedule of fault-prone nodes (unreliable space networks~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi}), uncertain mobility patterns (public vehicle networks~\cite{kalaputapu1995modeling}), interference-sensitive communication links (cognitive radio~\cite{sahai2006fundamental}), or third-party carriers with limited availability (backbone links with known reliability~\cite{hwang1981system}).
\new{Indeed, the uncertain contact plan including contacts probabilities can be computed by} specific network models (i.e., fault-prone satellite trajectories), empirically estimated in a controlled environment (i.e., lab or simulation setup), or made available from existing statistics (i.e., interference reports).
As a result, an uncertain contact plan can be conveniently pre-computed instead of dynamically learned by nodes as in probabilistic DTNs, removing the burden of a training phase, and benefiting from highly accurate routing schemes for uncertain DTNs as introduced in this paper.
\minisection{Previous Works.}
Previous works have addressed the survivability properties of time-varying networks~\cite{Liang2017}, as well as the problem of reliable topology design in DTN~\cite{Li2015}.
However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the problem of reliable route determination based on uncertain contact plans has been overlooked.
Authors have already studied how schedule-aware (i.e., CGR) and schedule-agnostic (i.e., S\&W) routing schemes behave under uncertain contact plans in~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi,Madoery2017rpic,Madoery2018} (probabilistic routings such as MaxProp~\cite{burgess2006maxprop} and Prophet~\cite{grasic2011evolution} were disregarded as they are based on learning phases during network operations).
These papers essentially showed that existing routing schemes only perform well on their respective domains (perfectly scheduled or fully opportunistic), while significant room for improvement was identified for scenarios with uncertain schedules.
In order to evaluate the potential improvement, the authors in~\cite{Raverta2018} have approached the problem with a first theoretical formulation based on probabilistic model checking techniques~\cite{BiancoA95,BaierK08,BaierAFK18}, where the contact plan with its respective fault probabilities is modelled as a Markov Decision Process (MDP).
Although this first approach provided a compelling optimal solution for single-copy routing, replication-based heuristics remained an open topic.
Exception to this statement is a recent publication that addressed the multi-copy DTN routing problem by means of approximated simulations techniques based on distributed schedulers~\cite{d2020sampling}. However, simulation techniques lack the required optimality guarantee that formal MDP models can provide.
\minisection{Contributions.}
In this paper, we present Routing under Uncertain Contact Plans ({RUCoP}\xspace), a comprehensive framework to execute reliable routing under uncertain contact plans.
{RUCoP}\xspace embraces single copy~\cite{Raverta2018} and extends it to multiple-copy routing in an overcoming MDP model expression.
As the fact of considering multiple copies renders the focus of~\cite{Raverta2018} unsuitable, we propose a novel MDP formulation accompanied by a specific resolution algorithm.
\new{The fact of using MDP arises naturally since the Markov kernel corresponds to probabilistically quantified uncertainty on the contacts while the decisions (or the non-determinism) of the MDP correspond to the possibilities of routing decisions of each node at a given time.}
The {RUCoP}\xspace model is the first of its kind to consider \textit{rerouting}, which models both the fault detection and reaction time of the DTN routing agent.
Modeling this crucial and practical aspect allows us to introduce {L-RUCoP}\xspace (a variation that uses only local information available on each node) and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace (an extension to CGR that materializes routing under uncertain contact plans in existing DTN protocol stacks).
We evaluate and compare the {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace in an appealing benchmark comprising networks with random failures as well as realistic case studies of Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks with uncertain inter-satellite and ground contacts.
Results provide compelling evidence that {RUCoP}\xspace provides the adequate framework to route in uncertain DTNs.
\new{To summarize, contributions in this paper are enumerated as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We present a new uncertain DTN classification and model;
\item We introduce {RUCoP}\xspace to route on uncertain DTNs based on a theoretical MDP formulation;
\item We propose {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace as concrete practical application approaches derived from {RUCoP}\xspace; and
\item We evaluate {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace in realistic fault-prone LEO satellite networks.
\end{enumerate}
}
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:model} presents the uncertain DTN network model which is used to construct the {RUCoP}\xspace model and derived {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace in Section~\ref{sec:rucop}.
A comparison benchmark and subsequent results are presented, analyzed and discussed in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}.
Finally, the paper is concluded in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Uncertain DTN Model}
\label{sec:model}
\subsection{Uncertain Time-Varying Graph}
In order to model a time-evolving and uncertain DTN network, the time-varying graph proposed in~\cite{Liang2017} is extended by uncertainty functions into an Uncertain Time-Varying Graph defined as follows.
\textbf{Definition.} An Uncertain Time Varying Graph $\mathcal{G} = (G, \mathcal{T}, p_f, \varsigma, f_{\mathit{dd}})$ is a Graph composed of the following components:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Underlying (static) digraph $G = (V, E)$}.
Represents the connectivity of the network that remains stable during a time slot.
\item \textbf{Time slot $\mathcal{T} \subseteq \mathbf{T}$}, where $\mathbf{T}$ is the time domain (e.g. the natural numbers).
$\mathcal{T} = \{t_0, t_1,...,t_T\}$ is a discrete and finite time span set, where $T$ is an integer indicating the horizon of interest, measured in the number of slots.
The slot length in $\mathcal{G}$ can be adjusted in order to capture (\textit{i}) the topological changes, and (\textit{ii}) the minimum period of time it takes a node to realize a link has failed to establish.
\item \textbf{Edge failure probability function $p_f: E \times \mathcal{T} \rightarrow [0,1]$}.
It indicates the probability an edge will not occur as expressed in the uncertain contact plan, i.e., a topology change respects the original schedule.
Indeed, $p(e,t)=1-p_f(e,t)$, where $p(e,t)$ stands for the edge $e$ success probability at the time slot $t$.
A success probability of $p(e,t)=0$ indicates no contact is present at this edge.
\item \textbf{Edge delay function $\varsigma: E \times \mathcal{T} \rightarrow \mathcal{T}$}.
It models the time data spend on crossing an edge between two nodes.
When $\varsigma(e,t)=0$, the time is insignificant compared with the time slot duration, i.e., the data is delivered immediately.
The value of the edge delay function stands for the number of time slots (i.e., $\varsigma(e,t)$ is an integer) required for the target node to receive the traffic.
\item \textbf{Edge failure detection delay function
$f_{\mathit{dd}}: E \times \mathcal{T} \rightarrow \mathcal{T}$}.
It stands for the time it takes to detect a contact did not occur as expected.
As with the edge delay function, $f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)$ is expressed as a number of time slots.
In DTN protocol terminology, $f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)$ would represent the bundle custody acknowledge timeout. In general, $f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t) \geq \varsigma(e,t)$.
\end{enumerate}
Fig.~\ref{fig:model} illustrates an example DTN graph modeled by an uncertain time-varying graph.
All edges present in $G=(V,E)$ are configured with a failure probability function $p_f=0.5$ and a delay function $\varsigma=0$.
In the model, a contact between two nodes can span several time slots, such as the $B-C$ case spanning $t_1$ and $t_2$.
Also, a time slot can represent long and stable topological periods with the same underlying digraph, such as $t_3$ with an edge between $C-D$.
At $t_2$, node $C$ will be able to detect a failure on edge $C-D$ and react at the beginning of $t_3$, as its failure detection delay $f_{\mathit{dd}}^{C-D}=1$.
However, node $D$ will not do so before $t_3$ terminates since $f_{\mathit{dd}}^{D-C}=2$.
Indeed, contacts in DTN are unidirectional and can have different properties on the forward and return link.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{img/fig-model-2-new.pdf}
\caption{Uncertain time-varying graph model example with 4 nodes, 4 time slots $\mathcal{T}$ and 4 contacts.}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure}
Failure probability $p_f$ in $\mathcal{G}$, $\varsigma$, and $f_{\mathit{dd}}$ are expressed on a per-slot basis.
Two modeling approaches with different interpretations are envisioned on this regard: coarse and fine grained slotting.
\minisection{Coarse-grained slotting:}
When time-slots are designed to contain full contacts (i.e., $B-D$ contact in $t_1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}), then $p_f$ represents the failure probability of the whole contact.
In other words, the whole contact exists or the whole contact fails.
In such case, an $f_{\mathit{dd}}=0$ would model the case where the failure of the contact is detected and reacted upon immediately at contact start time, while an $f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$ would represent the case where the contact is declared as failed only once it is finalized.
This approach is appropriate to model transient failures in nodes, for instance.
Also, coarse-grained slotting is particularly appealing for networks with sparse contacts, which can be bounded by a single time slot $t_n$ in $\mathcal{T}$.
\minisection{Fine-grained slotting:}
When a contact spans several smaller time slots (i.e., $B-C$ contact in $t_1$ and $t_2$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}), $p_f$ is the probability of failure of each of the slotted episodes comprising the contact.
In this case, a finer-grain slotting can be exploited to model independent transmission attempts within the contact.
An $f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$ would thus model a timeout equal to the bundle transmission duration and the round trip time delay for receiving a delivery confirmation.
Fine-grained slotting can be used to model contacts where poor channel conditions or interference from other sources render a successful transmission uncertain.
\subsection{Fault Detection and Rerouting}
Rerouting after effective detection of a failed contact or transmission attempt is a fundamental practical aspect to model the overall data flow in DTNs under uncertain contact plans.
Single route reliability estimations such as those in~\cite{Liang2017} can result inaccurate in practice when nodes detect and act upon unexpected failures.
However, the phenomena is not trivial.
Consider the example of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} in which all links have a failure probability $p_f=0.5$ with the exception of $S \rightarrow B$ at $t_0$ and $C \rightarrow D$ at $t_1$ which have a failure probability of $p_f=0.80$ and $p_f=0.75$ respectively.
The transmission delay $\varsigma=0$ and failure detection delay is $f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$ for all links and data flows from source $S$ to destination $D$.
Without considering rerouting, routes via node $A$ $(S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B \rightarrow D)$ and via node $C$ $(S \rightarrow C \rightarrow D)$ would be equally reliable because they both account for a \textit{successful delivery probability} (SDP) of $0.125$.
However, rerouting after failure detection might challenge this calculation.
If the link between $A \rightarrow B$ fails in the route via $A$, then the data will not reach the destination.
But, if the contact between $C \rightarrow D$ fails, it is still possible to relay the data to node $E$ after $t_1$, which has another route towards $D$.
In a context where rerouting is possible with $f_{\mathit{dd}}<=1$, the probability of a bundle to reach the destination via node C is 75\% higher ($\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}=0.219$).
Otherwise, for $f_{\mathit{dd}}>=2$, the delivery probability through $C$ remains $SDP=0.125$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{img/fig-reroute-4-new.pdf}
\caption{Rerouting is possible when node $C$ detects a failure at the end of $t_1$ ($f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$) and has an alternative route to $D$ at $t_2$ that arrives on the same time slot ($\varsigma=0$).}
\label{fig:reroute}
\end{figure}
In the following section, we claim the rerouting effect in an uncertain time varying graph can be properly represented by means of Markov Decision Processes.
\section{Routing Under Uncertain Contact Plans}
\label{sec:rucop}
\subsection{Markov Decision Process}
A Markov Decision Process (MDP) is a mathematical structure that
allows for the modelling of discrete-time systems in which the
interaction between non-deterministic and probabilistic behaviour is
central~\cite{Puterman:1994,FilarKoos:1996}.
Thus, MDPs provide an
appropriate framework for modelling decision making on systems under
probabilistically quantified uncertainty.
In its simplest form, a MDP $\mathcal{M}$ is a tuple
$(\ensuremath{S}, \mathit{Act}, \mathbf{P}, s_0)$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ensuremath{S}$ is a finite set of states with initial state $s_0\in\ensuremath{S}$,
\item $\mathit{Act}$ is a finite set of actions, and
\item $\mathbf{P}: \ensuremath{S} \times \mathit{Act} \times \ensuremath{S} \to [0, 1]$ is a transition probability function such that $\sum_{s' \in S} \mathbf{P}(s, \alpha, s') \in \{0,1\}$, for all $s \in\ensuremath{S}$ and $\alpha \in \mathit{Act}$.
\end{itemize}
If $\sum_{s' \in S} \mathbf{P}(s, \alpha, s')=1$, $\alpha$ is said to
be \emph{enabled} in $s$. In this case, $\mathbf{P}(s,\alpha,\cdot)$
can be interpreted as the probability distribution of choosing the next
state, conditioned to the fact that the system is in state $s$ and
action $\alpha$ has been chosen. We notice that it is usually
required that at least one action is enabled in every state.
\new{Since the problem ahead is a reachability problem (instead of a cost or reward problem), the usual reward function does not play any role and hence we have omitted it in the definition of MDPs.}
The intuitive operational behaviour of the MDP $\mathcal{M}$ is as follows.
The computation of $\mathcal{M}$ starts at the initial state $s_0$. Assume
now the computation has taken $n$ steps and reached state $s_n$. At
this moment one of the enabled actions in $s_n$, say $\alpha_{n+1}$,
is chosen to resolve the non-determinism at this state. The next
state $s_{n+1}$ is now sampled randomly according to distribution
$\mathbf{P}(s_n,\alpha_{n+1},\cdot)$.
Different types of properties could be required to a MDP. The usual
objective is to find a \emph{policy} that maximizes or minimizes the
likelihood of the given property. A \emph{policy} is a function
$\pi:\ensuremath{S}\to\mathit{Act}$ that defines the decision to be made in a
possible resolution of the non-determinism%
\footnote{Polices could be more complex, depending on the whole
history rather than the current state, and selecting randomly among
the enabled actions. The definition given here correspond to the so
called \emph{memoryless} and \emph{deterministic} policies, which is
sufficient for our purposes.}.
Thus, limiting the MDP $\mathcal{M}$ to the choices of the policy $\pi$
defines a Markov chain for which probabilities can be calculated.
We are particularly interested on maximizing the probability to reach
a state in the set of \emph{goal states} $\mathit{B}\subseteq\ensuremath{S}$ from the initial state $s_0$, say
$\mathit{Pr}^{\max}_{s_0}(\mathit{reach}(\mathit{B}))$. (In our case, $\mathit{B}$ is the set of states in which
bundles have been successfully delivered).
Moreover, we want to
obtain the maximizing policy.
This problem can be solved using the Bellman equations as
follows~\cite{BaierK08}. Let $\ensuremath{S}^{=0}\subseteq\ensuremath{S}$ be the set of
states whose probability of reaching a state in $\mathit{B}$ is 0. ($\ensuremath{S}^{=0}$ could be
calculated in $\mathcal{O}(|\ensuremath{S}|)$.)
For each state $s\in\ensuremath{S}$, define
a variable $x_s$ which represents the maximum probability of reaching
a goal state in $\mathit{B}$ from $s$, that is $x_s=\mathit{Pr}^{\max}_s(\mathit{reach}(\mathit{B}))$. Then,
precisely the vector $(x_s)_{s\in\ensuremath{S}}$ is the unique solution of the
following equation system:
\begin{align*}
x_s &= 1 && \text{if \ } s\in \mathit{B} \\
x_s &= 0 && \text{if \ } s\in {\ensuremath{S}^{=0}}\\
x_s &= \max_{\alpha\in\mathit{Act}(s)} \sum_{t\in S}\mathbf{P}(s,\alpha,t)\cdot x_t
&& \text{if \ } s\in\ensuremath{S}\backslash({\ensuremath{S}^{=0}}\cup \mathit{B})
\end{align*}
Besides, the maximizing policy $\pi^{\max}$ can be obtained as follows:
\begin{align*}
\pi^{\max}(s) &= \mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\alpha\in\mathit{Act}(s)} \sum_{t\in S}\mathbf{P}(s,\alpha,t)\cdot x_t
&& \text{if \ } s\in\ensuremath{S}\backslash({\ensuremath{S}^{=0}}\cup \mathit{B})
\end{align*}
If $s\in{\ensuremath{S}^{=0}}\cup \mathit{B}$, $\pi^{\max}(s)$ is not interesting as $s$ is
already a goal state, or it cannot reach it.
Reachability properties are standard properties in probabilistic model
checkers such as PRISM~\cite{Kwiatkowska2011}. Indeed, we have
successfully modeled single-copy routing in DTNs under uncertain
contact plans in PRISM~\cite{Raverta2018} and derived optimal routes in
this case.
Unfortunately, PRISM cannot deal with the size of models we required,
specially when we consider DTNs with multiple copies.
\subsection{{RUCoP}\xspace}
\label{sec:rucop:rucop}
In order to determine the upper delivery probability bound for routing with $N$ copies in a DTN, we have developed Routing under Uncertain Contact Plans ({RUCoP}\xspace).
{RUCoP}\xspace is an MDP formulation which encodes all possible routing decisions for an uncertain DTN network based on its uncertain time-varying graph representation and traffic parameters, comprising source, target and number of copies allowed.
This information is encoded in states and transitions.
Table~\ref{tab:notation} summarizes the notation used throughout the remaining of this section.
\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{|p{4cm}|p{8.815cm}|}
\caption{Notation reference}
\label{tab:notation}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Symbol}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Description}} \\
\hline
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Uncertain DTN Model (Section 2)}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$p_f(e, t)$ & Failure probability for link $e$ at time slot $t$ \\ \hline
$\varsigma(e,t)$ & Delay for link $e$ at time slot t \\ \hline
$f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)$ & Failure detection delay for link $e$ at time slot $t$ \\\hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
$\mathcal{T}$ & Set of time slots \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace Core Algorithm (Section~\ref{sec:rucop:rucop})}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$G_{t_{i}}$ & Underlying digraph $G$ for time slot $t_{i}$\ \\ \hline
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{end}}$ & Set of successful final states \\ \hline
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ & Set of states at time slot $t_i$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{cp}(c)$ & Number of copies at node $c$\\ \hline
$\mathcal{C}_{t_i}$ & Set of nodes carrying copies in time slot $t_i$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)$ & Set of all nodes in $G_{t_{i}}$ reaching $c$ in at least one hop \\ \hline
$\mathit{path}_{G_{t_i}}(c',c)$ & Set of directed path from $c'$ to $c$ in $G_{t_{i}}$ \\ \hline
$\mathcal{P}_c$ & Set of paths leading to $c$ \\ \hline
$R$ & Set of rules (i.e. pairs of nr.\ of copies and a path) \\ \hline
$\mathcal{R}_c$ & Set of $c$-compatible sets of rules (i.e. set of rules transmitting exactly $\mathit{cp}(c)$ copies from $c$) \\ \hline
$\mathit{Tr}(s)$ & Set of actions leading to state $s$ (an action is a set of rules distributing exactly $\mathit{num\_copies}$) \\ \hline
$\mathit{pr}_R$ & Successful probability of action $R$\\ \hline
$\mathit{Pr}(s) $ & Successful delivery probability of state $s$ \\ \hline
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(R,s,t)$ & Successful probability for action $R$ starting from state $s$ at time slot $t$ (Algorithm \ref{Alg:sdp}) \\ \hline
$\textit{get\_prev\_state}(s, R)$ & Returns the state from which action $R$ leads to $s$\\ \hline
$\mathit{best\_action}(s)$ & The action from $s$ maximizing the delivery prob. \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
${RUCoP}\xspace(G, c, T)$ & Algorithm \ref{Alg:ru} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace SDP Computation (Section~\ref{sec:rucop:rucop})}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(X)$ & Power set of $X$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{contacts}(R)$ & Set of links involved in action $R$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{state\_af\_fl}(R, s, \mathit{fs})$ & Leading state when set of failures $\mathit{fs}$ happen \\ \hline
$\mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}}$ & Probability of all links in $\mathit{fs}$ failing\\ \hline
$\mathit{pr}_R $ & Successful delivery probability of action $R$ \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(s)$ & Successful delivery probability of state $s$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{L-RUCoP}\xspace (Section~\ref{sec:iru})}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$\mathit{Safe\_state}(n,c,\mathit{ts})$ & State in which node $n$ has all $c$ copies available\\ \hline
$\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\_,\_,\_)$ & Routing table for node $n$ \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
$\mathit{Post}(\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}'))$ & The state known by node $n$ after action $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{CGR-UCoP}\xspace (Section~\ref{sec:rucgr})}} \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{lightgray}
$\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$ & Set of partial routes computed by CGR at node $n$ for time slot $\mathit{ts}$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{r}$ & A partial route computed by CGR \\ \hline
$\mathit{r}[i]$ & $i$th contact in the partial route $\mathit{r}$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{Pr}_n(\mathit{ts})$ & Prob. of delivering a copy from $n$ at time slot $\mathit{ts}$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{src}(e)$ & Source of link $e$ \\ \hline
$\mathit{tgt}(e)$ & Destination of link $e$ \\ \hline
\arrayrulecolor{black}
$\ensuremath{\SDP_{\mathit{CGR}}}(\mathit{r},\mathit{ts}) $ & Bundle's delivery prob. through partial route $\mathit{r}$ \\ \hline
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
\begin{comment}
\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|}
\caption{A simple longtable example}\\
\hline
\textbf{First entry} & \textbf{Second entry} & \textbf{Third entry} & \textbf{Fourth entry} \\
\hline
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{4}{c}%
{\tablename\ \thetable\ -- \textit{Continued from previous page}} \\
\hline
\textbf{First entry} & \textbf{Second entry} & \textbf{Third entry} & \textbf{Fourth entry} \\
\hline
\endhead
\hline \multicolumn{4}{r}{\textit{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\hline
\endlastfoot
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}
\label{tab:notation}
\caption{Notation reference}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|@{\ \,}l@{\ }|m{59.5mm}@{\ }|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Symbol}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Description}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Uncertain DTN Model (Section~\ref{sec:model})}} \\ \hline
$p_f(e, t)$ & Failure prob. for link $e$ at time slot $t$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\varsigma(e,t)$ & Delay for link $e$ at time slot t \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)$ & Failure detection delay for link $e$ at time slot $t$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{T}$ & Set of time slots \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace Core Algorithm (Section~\ref{sec:rucop:rucop})}} \\ \hline
$G_{t_{i}}$ & Underlying digraph $G$ for time slot $t_{i}$\ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{end}}$ & Set of successful final states \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ & Set of states at time slot $t_i$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{cp}(c)$ & Number of copies at node $c$\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{C}_{t_i}$ & Set of nodes carrying copies in time slot $t_i$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)$ & Set of all nodes in $G_{t_{i}}$ reaching $c$ in at least one hop \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{path}_{G_{t_i}}(c',c)$ & Set of directed path from $c'$ to $c$ in $G_{t_{i}}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{P}_c$ & Set of paths leading to $c$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$R$ & Set of rules (i.e. pairs of nr.\ of copies and a path) \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathcal{R}_c$ & Set of $c$-compatible sets of rules (i.e. set of rules transmitting exactly $\mathit{cp}(c)$ copies from $c$) \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{Tr}(s)$ & Set of actions leading to state $s$ (an action is a set of rules distributing exactly $\mathit{num\_copies}$) \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{pr}_R$ & Successful probability of action $R$\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{Pr}(s) $ & Successful delivery probability of state $s$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(R,s,t)$ & Successful probability for action $R$ starting from state $s$ at time slot $t$ (Algorithm \ref{Alg:sdp}) \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\textit{get\_prev\_state}(s, R)$ & Returns the state from which action $R$ leads to $s$\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{best\_action}(s)$ & The action from $s$ maximizing the delivery prob. \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
${RUCoP}\xspace(G, c, T)$ & Algorithm \ref{Alg:ru} \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace SDP Computation (Section~\ref{sec:rucop:rucop})}} \\ \hline
$\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(X)$ & Power set of $X$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{contacts}(R)$ & Set of links involved in action $R$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{state\_af\_fl}(R, s, \mathit{fs})$ & Leading state when set of failures $\mathit{fs}$ happen \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}}$ & Probability of all links in $\mathit{fs}$ failing\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{pr}_R $ & Successful delivery probability of action $R$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(s)$ & Successful delivery probability of state $s$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{L-RUCoP}\xspace (Section~\ref{sec:iru})}} \\ \hline
$\mathit{Safe\_state}(n,c,\mathit{ts})$ & State in which node $n$ has all $c$ copies available\\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\_,\_,\_)$ & Routing table for node $n$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{Post}(\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}'))$ & The state known by node $n$ after action $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{{CGR-UCoP}\xspace (Section~\ref{sec:rucgr})}} \\ \hline
$\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$ & Set of partial routes computed by CGR at node $n$ for time slot $\mathit{ts}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{r}$ & A partial route computed by CGR \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{r}[i]$ & $i$th contact in the partial route $\mathit{r}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{Pr}_n(\mathit{ts})$ & Prob. of delivering a copy from $n$ at time slot $\mathit{ts}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{src}(e)$ & Source of link $e$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\mathit{tgt}(e)$ & Destination of link $e$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{lightgray}\hline
$\ensuremath{\SDP_{\mathit{CGR}}}(\mathit{r},\mathit{ts}) $ & Bundle's delivery prob. through partial route $\mathit{r}$ \\ \arrayrulecolor{black}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\minisection{States}. Each state in {RUCoP}\xspace contains information of the number of copies present on each node in the network at a given time slot.
For example, in the network of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute}, the initial state would be $s_{t_0}=[S^n A^0 B^0 C^0 D^0 E^0|t_0]$ denoting that $s_{t_0}$ has $n$ copies of the bundle at time $0$, the start time of $t_0$.
A state $s_{t_3}=[S^s A^a B^b C^c D^d E^e|t_3]$ at the beginning of $t_3$ would represent a successful delivery of data to $D$ as long as $d>=1$, meaning at least one copy of the data arrived at $D$ at the end of the time horizon.
Since it is assumed copies cannot be created or deleted, $s+a+b+c+d+e=n$ in all states.
\minisection{Transitions}. Transitions between states in {RUCoP}\xspace are composed by actions, which can be of two types: (\textit{i}) \textit{transmission transitions} imply a node perform a non-deterministic transmission through one (single-hop) or more edges (multi-hop) in $G$, and (\textit{ii}) \textit{store transitions} model the case where a node decides to keep the bundle in memory during the time slot.
Since state transitions imply a routing action on the nodes, the terms transitions and actions are used interchangeably in {RUCoP}\xspace.
\minisection{Tree Construction}.
To build the state and transition tree, RUCoP starts from the desirable \textit{successful states} where data was delivered to the destination.
Next, it considers states from the previous time slot that can lead to the current state, whether by transmitting data through a path or by keeping it in storage.
In order to determine which state of the previous time slot can arrive to the current state, a set of transmissions transition are constructed.
Finally, between these transitions, the one which has the highest delivery probability is chosen and noted.
The process repeats until the \textit{initial state} is reached.
In order to determine the probability of a given transition, all cases of failures and successful link establishments are considered: \begin{enuminline}
\item when a contact fails, data remains stored in the transmitting node where new transmission transitions can be considered after $f_{\mathit{dd}}$, and
\item when a link is established, the data is transmitted through it, and it can be sent again after $\varsigma$.
\end{enuminline}
For example, the {RUCoP}\xspace model in Fig.~\ref{fig:rucop1} corresponds to the network of~Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute}, when a single copy is sent.
The successful state $[S^0 A^0 B^0 C^0 D^1 E^0|t_3]$ is at the last time slot $t_3$, which can be reached either by receiving data through $C \rightarrow E \rightarrow D$ (multi-hop transmission) or by having data already stored at $D$ since $t_2$.
In turn, these intermediate states can only be reached if a $C \rightarrow D$ transition or a $B \rightarrow D$ transition takes place on $t_1$.
It can be observed that, if $C \rightarrow D$ fails, $C$ can detect the failure ($f_{\mathit{dd}}=1$) and store the data for further transmission transitions.
However, if the contact $B \rightarrow D$ fails, data will remain in $B$ leading to state $[S^0 A^0 B^1 C^0 D^0 E^0|t_2]$, from which the successful state cannot be reached (i.e., delivery cannot occur).
This is represented by the grey dotted arrow outgoing the red dot.
A similar (but more involved) situation happens in transitions $S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B$ and $S \rightarrow B$ outgoing the initial state: if the $S \rightarrow A$, $A \rightarrow B$ or $S \rightarrow B$ contacts fail, data will remain in $S$ leading to state $[S^1 A^0 B^0 C^0 D^0 E^0|t_1]$ or in $A$ leading to state $[S^0 A^1 B^0 C^0 D^0 E^0|t_1]$.
Both of these states are failure consequences of transitions $S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B$ and $S \rightarrow B$, which have no possibility of reaching the successful state (greyed-out arrows in the figure).
In this simple example, all non-deterministic transmission transitions (red dots in the figure), except $C \rightarrow D$, lead to states unable to reach the successful state as long as some contact in the transition fails.
Indeed, constructing the tree backwards avoids exploring such states.
It is interesting to note that if detection delay would have been $f_{\mathit{dd}}=2$ in $C \rightarrow D$ at $t_1$, the dashed line indicating failure path would lead to $[S^0 A^0 B^0 C^1 D^0 E^0|t_3]$, which is also unable to reach the successful state.
In other words, by the time when $C$ detects the failure, the contact $C \rightarrow E$ would have already passed.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{img/fig-rucop-1a-new.pdf}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace MDP tree based on the network of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} for 1 copy.}
\label{fig:rucop1}
\end{figure}
\minisection{Successful delivery probability.}
While constructing the tree, {RUCoP}\xspace keeps track of the successful delivery probability.
Indeed, $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}=1$ at the successful states, and is updated as the tree is built backwards in time following the Bellman equations.
For each non-deterministic transmission transition, the probability of arriving to the successful state is computed.
$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$ is updated with the highest probability.
Once the initial state is reached, the $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$ will capture the maximum delivery probability possible.
By navigating the tree top-down, the most reliable routing decisions (i.e., policy) can be obtained by choosing transitions that lead to states with the best $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$ metric.
In the example, $S$ should route the data to $C$ at $t_0$ for an $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}=0.219$, and $C$ should try to send data to $D$ at $t_1$ for an $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}=1$, or to $E$ at $t_2$ in case of failure.
\minisection{Multiple copies.}
The proposed {RUCoP}\xspace expression is specifically designed to model the state of the network with multiple copies.
Naturally, modeling multiple copies notably increases the number of transitions and states in the MDP. For example, when two instances of the bundle are considered, transmission transitions can involve the transmission of either one or two bundles of data, and transmission failures might occur in any of the used links.
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:rucop2}, six successful states are possible and should be considered with two copies on the example network.
For instance, node $S$ can choose to transmit one copy via $A$ and one via $C$ to maximize the delivery chances.
However, for larger networks with several copies, constructing the model requires of the following formal expression of the {RUCoP}\xspace algorithm.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{img/fig-rucop-2a-new.pdf}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace MDP tree based on the network of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} for $2$ copies.}
\label{fig:rucop2}
\end{figure}
\minisection{The algorithm:}
For simplicity, we present the algorithm limited to uncertain time
varying graphs where the edge delay is insignificant and the edge
failure detection delay is always one time slot (i.e. $\varsigma(e,t)=0$
and $f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)=1$ for all edge $e\in E$ and time slot $t\in \mathcal{T}$).
At the end of this section, we hint the required modifications of the algorithm to deal with the general treatment of these delays.
Algorithm \ref{Alg:ru} lists the formal steps required to construct
and solve the {RUCoP}\xspace MDP for these type of networks with a maximum of
$\mathit{num\_copies}$ number of copies.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Uncertain time varying graph $\mathcal{G}$, $\mathit{num\_copies}$, Target
\ENSURE Explored states $\mathcal{S}$, Routing table $\mathit{Tr}$, Successful delivery probability $\mathit{Pr}$
\STATE determine \textit{successful states} $\mathcal{S}_{t_{end}}$ for $\mathit{num\_copies}$
\STATE $\mathcal{S} \gets \mathcal{S}_{t_{end}}$
\FORALL {$t_i \in \mathcal{T}$, starting from $t_{end-1}$}
\STATE $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}} \gets \varnothing$
\FORALL {state $s \in \mathcal{S}_{t_{i+1}}$}
\STATE determine \textit{carrier nodes} $\setCN_{t_{i}}$
\FORALL {node $c \in \setCN_{t_{i}}$}
\STATE $\mathcal{P}_c \gets \{c\}\cup\bigcup_{c'\in\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)} \mathit{path}_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c',c)$
\STATE $\mathcal{R}_c \gets \big\{ {R\subseteq \{0,\ldots\mathit{cp}(c)\}\times\mathcal{P}_c} \mid \ {\sum_{(k,\rho)\in R} k = \mathit{cp}(c)}\big\}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $\mathit{Tr}(s) \gets \big\{ \bigcup_{c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}} R_c \mid \forall {c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}}: R_c \in \mathcal{R}_c\big\}$%
\FORALL{$R \in \mathit{Tr}(s)$}
\STATE $s' \gets \textit{get\_previous\_state}(s, R)$
\STATE $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}} \gets \mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}\cup\{s'\}$
\STATE $\mathit{pr}_R \gets \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(R,s',t_{i})$
\IF{$\mathit{Pr}(s')$ is undefined or $\mathit{Pr}(s') < \mathit{pr}_R$}
\STATE $\mathit{Pr}(s') \gets \mathit{pr}_R$
\STATE $\textit{best\_action}(s') \gets R$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE $\mathcal{S} \gets \mathcal{S} \cup \mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\mathcal{S}$, $\mathit{Tr}$, $\mathit{Pr}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{The {RUCoP}\xspace algorithm} \label{Alg:ru}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE net, num\_copies, sources, target, $\varsigma$, $f_{\mathit{dd}}$
\ENSURE a MDP
\STATE determine \textit{successful states} $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{end}}$
\FORALL {$\mathcal{T}_i \in \mathcal{T}$, starting from $\mathcal{T}_{end-1}$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets \{\}$
\FORALL {state $\mathcal{S} \in [\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i+1}}$}
\STATE determine \textit{carrier nodes} $[\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$
\FORALL {node $\mathcal{C} \in [\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$}
\FORALL {node $\mathcal{N} \in pred^*([\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}^{SP}_{\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{C}}] \gets \{1,..,cp(\mathcal{C})\} * path^{\mathcal{T}_{i} \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_{i+1}}_{\mathcal{N} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}}(\varsigma)$
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}^{MP}_{\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{C}}] \gets (\bigcup^{\leq cp(\mathcal{C})}_{k \in [1:cp(\mathcal{C})]} \binom{\mathcal{R}^{MP}}{k}) \cup \{\epsilon\}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}}] \gets \prod^{\leq cp(\mathcal{C})}_{n \in pred^*(\mathcal{C})} \mathcal{R}^{MP}_{n, \mathcal{C}}$
\ENDFOR
\FORALL{$\mathcal{A} \in \prod^{\leq num\_copies}_{\mathcal{C} \in [\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}, \mathcal{N} \in pred^*([\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})} \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}} $}
\STATE $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets get\_previous\_state(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A})$
\IF{$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) < \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}, \varsigma, f_{\mathit{dd}}) $}
\STATE $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) = \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}, \varsigma, f_{\mathit{dd}})$
\STATE $best\_action(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) = \mathcal{A}$
\ENDIF
\STATE
$[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace Algorithm} \label{Alg:ru}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{{RUCoP}\xspace Algorithm}
Algorithm \ref{Alg:ru} lists the formal steps required to construct the {RUCoP}\xspace MDP for any network with arbitrary number of copies.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE net, num\_copies, sources, target
\ENSURE a MDP
\STATE determine \textit{successful states} $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{end}}$
\FORALL {$\mathcal{T}_i \in \mathcal{T}$, starting from $\mathcal{T}_{end-1}$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets \{\}$
\FORALL {state $\mathcal{S} \in [\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i+1}}$}
\STATE determine \textit{carrier nodes} $[\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}] \gets \{\}$
\FORALL {node $\mathcal{C} \in [\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}_{single}] \gets \{ \mathcal{R}_{empty} \}$
\FORALL {node $\mathcal{N} \in \mathcal{S}$ except $\mathcal{C}$}
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}_{single}] += SSR(\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{C}, \mathcal{T}_{i}, copies(\mathcal{C}))$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $[\mathcal{R}] \gets MSR([\mathcal{R}_{single}], copies(\mathcal{C}))$
\ENDFOR
\FORALL{action $\mathcal{A} \in \prod_{i \in I} [\mathcal{R}]$}
\STATE $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets get\_previous\_state(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A})$
\IF{$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) < \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) $}
\STATE $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) = \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})$
\STATE $best\_action(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}) = \mathcal{A}$
\ENDIF
\STATE
$[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}} \gets \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace Algorithm} \label{Alg:ru}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
Initially, a set of all possible \textit{successful states} $\mathcal{S}_{t_{\mathit{end}}}$ are generated (line 1) and added to the set of explored states (line 2).
A state is successful if at least one copy is in the target node and exactly $\mathit{num\_copies}$ are distributed among all nodes.
{RUCoP}\xspace builds the MDP backwards from this set with the goal of arriving to the initial state.
To this end, all reachable states $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ within each $t_i$ in $\mathcal{T}$ are determined starting from an empty set (line 4 and loop starting at line 5).
$\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ is subsequently populated with all states that are able to reach some state in $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i+1}}$ by means of actions involving bundle transmissions, data storage or a combination of them when multiple copies are presented.
Thus, for each state $s \in \mathcal{S}_{t_{i+1}}$, the loop proceeds in two parts. The first one (lines 6-11) determines the set of actions $\mathit{Tr}(s)$ that successfully lead to state $s$. The second one (lines 12-20) calculates the predecessor states for each of these actions which are then included in the set of states $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ of the preceding time slot and for which its successful delivery probability (SDP) is calculated.
To obtain $\mathit{Tr}(s)$, the set of \textit{carrier nodes}
$\setCN_{t_{i}}$ in $s$ is first determined (line 6). A
carrier node is a node holding at least one copy of the bundle.
An action in $\mathit{Tr}(s)$ is a set of \emph{rules}. A rule is a tuple $(k, \rho)$ where
$\rho$ is a valid single-hop or multiple-hop path (or route) in the underlying
digraph $G$ for the time slot $t_{i}$ ($G_{t_{i}}$), and
$k$ is the number of copies transmitted through this path; thus,
$k\leq \mathit{cp}(c)$, where $\mathit{cp}(c)$ is the number of copies the target
carrier node $c$ has in its buffer.
For each carrier node $c\in \setCN_{t_{i}}$, the set
$\mathcal{P}_c$ of paths leading to $c$ in the current contact digraph
$G_{t_{i}}$ is determined. This is calculated in line~8 where:
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\roman*)]
\item%
$\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)$ is the set of all nodes
in $G_{t_{i}}$ reaching $c$ in at least one hop, and
\item%
$\mathit{path}_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c',c)$ is the set of all paths in
$G_{t_{i}}$ starting in node $c'$ and ending in $c$ containing all
distinct vertices.
\end{enumerate*}
In addition, $\mathcal{P}_c$ always contains the trivial path
$c$ which is intended to represent that data remains stored
in the node $c$ for the current time slot.
Notice that the different copies may arrive at node $c$ through
multiple paths. Thus $\mathcal{R}_c$ contains the set of all
\emph{compatible} sets of rules that indicate how the copies arrive to
$c$ (line~9). By compatible, we mean that the numbers of copies
delivered by the rules in such set should add up to exactly $\mathit{cp}(c)$,
i.e., $R\in\mathcal{R}_c$ whenever $\sum_{(k,\rho)\in R} k = \mathit{cp}(c)$.
Finally (line~11), an action $R\in\mathit{Tr}(s)$ is a set of rules so that,
for each carrying node $c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}$, the subset of
all rules in $R$ leading to $c$ is compatible (i.e.,
$R\cap(\mathbb{N}\times\mathcal{P}_c)\in\mathcal{R}_c$).
A rule $R$ never delivers more than $\mathit{num\_copies}$ in
total. This is guaranteed by the fact that
$\sum_{c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}}\mathit{cp}(c) \leq \mathit{num\_copies}$.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\setlength\dashlinedash{0.3pt}%
\setlength\dashlinegap{1.1pt}%
\centering
\begin{tabular}{!{\!\!\!\!}c!{\!\!\!\!\!\!}>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{.88\linewidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\centering $s = [S^0 A^0 B^2 C^1 E^0 D^0 | t_1]$} \\[.7ex]\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\parbox{16ex}{\centering\scriptsize Carrier nodes, $G_{t_{0}}$,\par and pred. nodes.}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{%
\begin{minipage}[c]{.45\linewidth}
$\begin{aligned}
&\setCN_{t_{0}}=\{B,C\}&\hspace{2.5em}G_{t_{0}}\\[.5ex]
&\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{0}}\!\!\!\!}(B) = \{S,A\}\\
&\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{0}}\!\!\!\!}(C) = \{S\}
\end{aligned}$
\end{minipage}
\includegraphics[align=c,width=.2\linewidth]{img/fig-graphT0.pdf}
}\\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
$\mathcal{P}_B$ & $B$, $A\rightarrow B$, $S\rightarrow B$, $S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B$ \\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hdashline
$\mathcal{R}_B$ & ${\{(2,B)\}}$, ${\{(2,A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B)\}}$, ${\{(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B)\}}$ \\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
$\mathcal{P}_C$ & ${C}$, ${S\rightarrow C}$\\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hdashline
$\mathcal{R}_C$ & ${\{(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$\\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
$\mathit{Tr}(s)$ &
${\{(2,B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(2,A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$, ${\{(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,C)\}}$,\par
${\{(2,B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(2,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(2,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$, ${\{(1,S\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow A\rightarrow B),(1,S\rightarrow C)\}}$\\\arrayrulecolor{gray}\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Nodes, rules and transition example in {RUCoP}\xspace \prd{Cambiar el dibujo del grafo para que no est\'e subrayado (o subrayar lo que corresponda)}}
\label{fig:rules}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/fig-rules-1-new.pdf}
\caption{Nodes, rules and transition example in {RUCoP}\xspace}
\label{fig:rules}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the exposed concepts, Fig.~\ref{fig:rules} lists carrier
and predecessor nodes, paths, rules and transition for state
$s = [S^0 A^0 B^2 C^1 E^0 D^0 | t_1]$ corresponding to the network in
Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} when 3 copies are allowed. Since $B$ carries
two copies, each compatible set of rules leading to $B$ may have up to
two rules. The resulting transition includes all the possible
transmissions of the copies succesfully reaching the evaluated state.
Each transition $R \in \mathit{Tr}(s)$ is considered individually to determine
its corresponding previous state $s'$ (line 13) which is added to the
set of previous sates $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ (line 14). Notice that $s'$
may already be present in $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$ if it is the source of a
previously analysed transition $\hat{R} \in \mathit{Tr}(\hat{s})$ for some
previously selected state $\hat{s}\in\mathcal{S}_{t_{i+1}}$.
In line 15, the probability induced by transition $R$ is calculated
calling function $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$ (which we will shortly discuss).
If this is the first time state $s'$ is visited (hence its successful deliver probability $\mathit{Pr}(s')$ is not yet defined) or its previously
assigned probability is smaller than the newly found $\mathit{pr}_R$
(line 16) $\mathit{Pr}(s')$ is set to the new maximum $\mathit{pr}_R$ (line
17) and indicated that this is achieved through transition $R$ (line
18). (This is implementing the maximum of the Bellman equations.)
Finally, all states explored at time slot $t_{i}$ are added to the set of of explored states $\mathcal{S}$ (line 21).
The next iteration will explore the new set of states $\mathcal{S}_{t_{i}}$
and so forth until $t_0$ is reached.
If the initial state $s_{t_0}$ --where all copies are present at the
source node-- is part of the set of explored states $\mathcal{S}$, then there is a series
of actions (stored in array $\textit{best\_action}$) that lead to a
successful delivery of the data with an optimal SDP equal to
$\mathit{Pr}(s_{t_0})$. If the initial state $s_{t_0}$ is not present in
$\mathcal{S}$, then $\mathit{Pr}(s_{t_0})$ is undefined and the SDP for the
model is $0$, implying no routing decision can be successful in
delivering the bundle of data to the intended destination.
\begin{comment}
A set of \textit{carrier nodes} $[\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$ is then determined for each state at time slot $\mathcal{T}_{i}$ (line 5).
A carrier node is a node holding at least one copy of the bundle.
For each carrier node, all possible actions leading to it are enumerated.
In particular, bundles can arrive at $\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$ because of a transmission via a route at time period $[\mathcal{T}_{i} :\mathcal{T}_{i+1}]$ or at a previous time slot.
In order to consider all possible transmission combinations, we define rules.
A rule $\mathcal{R}$ is a tuple $(copies, path)$ where:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{copies} is the number of copies transmitted in this route, i.e., less or equal to the number of copies the carrier node has in its buffer ($cp(\mathcal{C})$), and
\item \textbf{path} is a valid single-hop or multiple-hop path in the underlying digraph $G=(V,E)$ for the time slot $\mathcal{T}_{i+1}$.
\end{itemize}
Rules are the building blocks of {RUCoP}\xspace transitions, which are constructed by combining one or more rules.
Rules are computed as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Single-sender single-path rules:} The set of predecessor nodes which have a simple path to $\mathcal{C}$ at $\mathcal{T}_i$ ($pr^*([\mathcal{C}]_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})$) are computed for each carrier node $\mathcal{C}$ (line 7).
For each sender node, a set of single acyclic paths ($[\mathcal{R}^{SP}]$) are determined (line 8).
Single path rules comprises direct transmissions from $\mathcal{N}$ to $\mathcal{C}$ for $1$ up to $cp(\mathcal{C})$ copies.
\item \textbf{Single-sender multiple-path rules:} Multiple-path rules ($[\mathcal{R}^{MP}]$) model the case where a node sends copies to the carrier node through one or a sequence of several single paths.
Thus, $[\mathcal{R}^{MP}]$ is constructed by combining paths in $[\mathcal{R}^{SP}]$ considering tuples which involve at most $cp(\mathcal{C})$ copies (line 9).
The empty rule $\epsilon$ is also added to model the case where node $\mathcal{N}$ sends no bundles to $\mathcal{C}$ (i.e., a store transition).
\item \textbf{Multiple-sender multiple-path rules:} Once $[\mathcal{R}^{MP}]$ are computed for all predecessor nodes $\mathcal{N}$ of $\mathcal{C}$, they are joined into the multiple-sender rules set $[\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}}]$ (line 11).
The multiple-sender rules combines all possible routing decisions from different nodes to $\mathcal{C}$ such that $cp(\mathcal{C})$ are finally present in the carrier node at $\mathcal{T}_i$.
\end{enumerate}
Once all feasible rules for each $\mathcal{C}$ are computed in $[\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}}]$, they are combined for all $\mathcal{C}$ in the sate $\mathcal{S}$ into transitions.
The Cartesian product between the multiple-nodes rules for each carrier node is thus considered.
Only those rules that involve a number of copies less or equal to the number of copies available in the network are evaluated.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/fig-rules-1.pdf}
\caption{Nodes, rules and transition example in {RUCoP}\xspace}
\label{fig:rules}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the exposed concepts, Fig.~\ref{fig:rules} lists carrier and predecessor nodes, rules and transition for state $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_1}= [S^0 A^0 B^2 C^1 E^0 D^0 | \mathcal{T}_1]$ corresponding to the network in Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute} when 3 copies are allowed.
Since $B$ carries two copies, more rules are used to describe single and multiple path possibilities.
The resulting transition includes all possible copies transmission possibilities reaching the evaluated state.
Each transition $\mathcal{A}$ is considered individually to determine its corresponding previous state $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$ (line 14).
$f_{\mathit{dd}}$ plays a role here as the failure detection delay can transit to states in different time slots.
The SDP of the transition is computed next.
Since different transitions can depart from the same previous state, its existing \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}, if any, is
compared ($\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}})$) (line 15).
If the current transition increases the SDP in $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$, then the new SDP is noted and $\mathcal{A}$ becomes the best transition for that state (line 16, 17).
$\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}$ is finally added to the previous sates set $[\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_{i}}]$ (line 19), where each state includes its best SDP and its best corresponding transition.
The next iteration will explore these new states set and so forth until $\mathcal{T}_0$ is reached.
If the initial state $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_0}$ where all copies are present at the source node is part of the set $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_0}$, then there is series of actions that lead to a successful delivery of the data with an optimal SDP equal to $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_0})$.
Such series of actions can be derived by navigating the model top-down.
If the initial state $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_0}$ is not present in $[\mathcal{S}]_{\mathcal{T}_0}$, then the SDP for the model is $0$ implying no routing decision can be successful in delivering the bundle of data to the intended destination.
\end{comment}
\minisection{Calculating SDP.}
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:sdp} shows how SDP is computed for a transition
$R$ leaving a state $s$.
We let $\mathit{contacts}(R)$ be a set containing every link involved
in some path in $R$, and iterate for every possible combination of
link failures (line 2). Thus, a failure set $\mathit{fs} \in
\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(\mathit{contacts}(R))$ stands for a set of links that failed
to be established whereas $\mathit{contacts}(R) - \mathit{fs}$ are the
links that successfully transmitted the data.
Depending on $\mathit{fs}$, a transition comprising several hops can
leave the bundle in different nodes in the path and thus lead to
different states. The state $\mathit{to\_state}$ to which the network
would evolve to if links in $\mathit{fs}$ failed is computed (line 3).
Notice that $\mathit{to\_state}$ may not be a successfully delivering
state in which case $\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathit{to\_state})$ will not be defined and
the probability of delivering of this particular combination of
failing links is 0. The conditional statement of line 4 takes this
into account. Thus, if $\mathit{to\_state}$ is a successful delivering
state, the probability $\mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}}$ of this failure set
to happen is calculated (line 5) and the contribution to the total
probability of successfully delivering the data when links in
$\mathit{fs}$ fail is added up (line 6).
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Transition $R$, state $s$, current time slot $t$
\ENSURE SDP of current action
\STATE $\mathit{pr}_R \gets 0$
\FORALL{$\mathit{fs} \in \raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(\mathit{contacts}(R))$}
\STATE $\mathit{to\_state} \gets \mathit{state\_after\_failures}(R, s, \mathit{fs})$
\IF{$\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathit{to\_state})$ is defined}
\STATE $\mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}} \gets \left(\prod_{e \in \mathit{contacts}(R) {-} \mathit{fs}} 1 {-} p_f(e,t)\right) * \left(\prod_{e \in \mathit{fs}} p_f(e,t)\right)$
\STATE $\mathit{pr}_R \gets \mathit{pr}_R + \mathit{pr}_{\mathit{fs}} * \ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}(\mathit{to\_state})$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\mathit{pr}_R$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Successful Delivery Probability ($\ensuremath{\mathit{SDP}}$)} \label{Alg:sdp}
\end{algorithm}
Fig.~\ref{fig:sdp} illustrates the calculation of the SDP for transition $\{(1, S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B), (1, S \rightarrow C)\}$ which is a transition from $[S^2 A^0 B^0 C^0 E^0 D^0 | t_0]$ (the initial state) to $[S^0 A^0 B^1 C^1 E^0 D^0 | t_1]$ when 2 copies are allowed and successfully transmitted.
In other words, when no failure is observed ($\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}=\emptyset$), copies are successfully transmitted to $B$ and other to $C$ with a probability of $p=5^3=0.125$.
However, different failures can lead to $5$ possible alternative states with an accumulated probability of $1-0.125$.
Two of these have an undefined SDP, implying they have no further possibility of delivering the data to the destination.
This particular transition is the one with the highest SDP for $[S^2 A^0 B^0 C^0 E^0 D^0 | t_0]$ so that it stands for the optimal decision for forwarding two copies from $S$ to $D$ in the example network.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/fig-sdp-1-new.pdf}
\caption{{RUCoP}\xspace updates for transition $\{(1, S \rightarrow A \rightarrow B), (1, S \rightarrow C)\}$ in-going state $[S^0 A^0 B^1 C^1 E^0 D^0 | t_1]$
}
\label{fig:sdp}
\end{figure}
\minisection{Complexity analysis.}
First of all, notice that, if $N_c = {|\mathit{pred}^+_{G_{t_{i}}\!\!\!\!}(c)|}$, then
${|\mathcal{P}_c|} \ \leq \ {N_c!\cdot\sum_{i=0}^{N_c}\frac{1}{i!}} \ < \ {e N_c!}$
and hence
${|\mathcal{R}_c|} \ \leq \ \binom{{|\mathcal{P}_c|}+{\mathit{cp}(c)}}{\mathit{cp}(c)} \ < \ \binom{{e N_c!}+{\mathit{cp}(c)}}{|\mathit{cp}(c)}$.
From this, we have that
\[{|\mathit{Tr}(s)|} \ = \ {\prod_{c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}} {|\mathcal{R}_c|}}
\ < \ {\prod_{c\in\setCN_{t_{i}}} \binom{{e N_c!}+{\mathit{cp}(c)}}{\mathit{cp}(c)}}
\ \leq \ {\binom{{e N!}+{K}}{K}}^K.\]
The last inequality follows from taking the worst case values, knowing
that $\mathit{cp}(c)\leq\mathit{num\_copies}$ and
${|\setCN_{t_{i}}|}\leq\mathit{num\_copies}$ (there can never be more
carrier nodes than allowed copies), and letting
$N=\max_{t\in\mathcal{T}}\max_{c\in\setCN_{t}} N_c$ and
$K=\mathit{num\_copies}$.
The calculation of $\mathcal{P}_c$ is done by a search algorithm of
complexity $\bigO{N_c!}$, and the construction of $\mathcal{R}_c$ and
$\mathit{Tr}(s)$ are by enumeration. Thus, the complexity of lines 5-10 in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} is $\bigO{{\binom{{e N!}+{K}}{K}}^K}$.
\begin{comment}
Stirling's approximation for $n\geq 1$:
\[\sqrt{2\pi n}\left(\frac{n}{e}\right)^n \leq n! \leq e\sqrt{n}\left(\frac{n}{e}\right)^n\]
Then, for $K\geq 1$
\begin{align*}
{|\mathit{Tr}(s)|}
& \ \leq \ \left(\frac{e}{2\pi} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{{e N!}+{K}}{K e N!}} \cdot \frac{({e N!}+{K})^{{e N!}+{K}}}{K^K(e N!)^{e N!}}\right)^K \\
& \ \leq \ \left(\frac{e}{2\pi} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{1}{K}+\frac{1}{e N!}} \cdot \frac{({e N!}+{K})^{{e N!}+{K}}}{K^K(e N!)^{e N!}}\right)^K \\
& \ \leq \ \left(\frac{({e N!}+{K})^{{e N!}+{K}}}{K^K(e N!)^{e N!}}\right)^K \\
& \ \leq \ \frac{({e N!}+{K})^{{e N! K}+{K^2}}}{K^{K^2}(e N!)^{e N! K}} \\
& \ \leq \ \frac{\left({e^2\sqrt{N}\left(\frac{N}{e}\right)^N}+{K}\right)^{{e^2\sqrt{N}\left(\frac{N}{e}\right)^N K}+{K^2}}}{K^{K^2}\left(e \sqrt{2\pi N}\left(\frac{N}{e}\right)^N\right)^{e \sqrt{2\pi N}\left(\frac{N}{e}\right)^N K}}
\end{align*}
\end{comment}
Focusing now in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:sdp}, notice that
$\mathit{contacts}(R)$ can contain, in the worst case, all edges
present in $G_{t_i}$;
therefore $|\mathit{contacts}(R)|\leq N_c^2 \leq N^2$.
Calculation in line 5 involves a multiplication of
$|\mathit{contacts}(R)|$ terms. Hence, taking into account that the
loop repeats $|\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(\mathit{contacts}(R))|$ times, the complexity
of this algorithm is $\bigO{N^2 2^N}$.
From the previous observation, we see that the body of loop in lines
4-20 in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} is
$\bigO{N^2 2^N {\binom{{e N!}+{K}}{K}}^K}$.
By observing that that $|\mathcal{S}_{t_i}| = \binom{{|V|}+K}{K}$, we can
finally conclude that the complexity of Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} is:
\begin{center}
$\bigO{N^2\cdot 2^N\cdot {\binom{{e N!}+{K}}{K}}^K\cdot \binom{{|V|}+K}{K}\cdot {|\mathcal{T}|}}$
\end{center}
Where $V$ is the set of all nodes in the network and
$\mathcal{T}$ is the time span under consideration.
We remark that, although in the worst case $N={|V|}$, we normally
expect $N$ ---the maximum number of nodes reaching a carrier node in a
single time slot--- to be significantly smaller than the number of
nodes in $V$.
Taking into account Stirling's aproximation to factorials, we finally
notice that the algorithm is in 2-EXPTIME.
However, in practice, we manage to have a satisfactory performance in practical use cases as it can be seen in Section~\ref{sec:discussion}.
\minisection{Link and failure detection delays.}
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} is presented for networks with insignificant
link delays and one time slot failure detection delay in all cases.
In the general case, for networks where $\varsigma(e,t)>0$ or
$f_{\mathit{dd}}(e,t)>1$, for some link $e\in E$ and time slot $t\in\mathcal{T}$,
additional bookkeeping is necessary. In particular, it is not
possible to only count copies of bundles. In this case, it will be
necessary to distinguish each copy and annotate it with the time slot
in which it is available for transmission (either because of the delay
after transmission, or because of the delay after failure).
This will have to be carefully considered, especially, when
calculating $\mathit{path}_{G_{t_{i}}}(c,c')$ (line 7 in
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru})
or the target state in
$\mathit{state\_after\_failures}(R,s,\mathit{fs})$ (line 3 in
Algorithm~\ref{Alg:sdp}).
In addition, this modification will have an impact on the (already
high) complexity of the algorithm.
\subsection{{L-RUCoP}\xspace}
\label{sec:iru}
{RUCoP}\xspace is based on a global view of the system: decisions are taken based on the current state of the network.
This implies that distributed nodes need to know where all copies are in the network at any moment, including remote and potentially disconnected nodes.
Although optimal, this is impossible to achieve in highly partitioned DTNs where delays and disruptions force nodes to decide based on partial local knowledge~\cite{eddy1996hidden,tcs/CheungLSV06,tcs/GiroDF14}.
A simple example of this phenomenon is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:realizability}.
Two decisions are possible at node $A$ in $t_2$, it can \textit{store} the copy or forward it to $C$.
However, which is optimal, might depend on weather the other copy is on $B$ or $C$ at $t_2$ (and also on ${p_f}_4$ and ${p_f}_5$).
Nonetheless, because $A$ was out of reach of $B$ and $C$, or because the contact $A-C$ is unidirectional or highly delayed, node $A$ may not be able to know which is the global status of the system nor which is the optimal action in $t_2$.
The aim of this section is to propose a derivation of {RUCoP}\xspace that can be implementable in DTNs where knowledge is restricted to each node's local view.
We coin this practical approach \textit{local} {RUCoP}\xspace ({L-RUCoP}\xspace).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{img/fig-relizability-new-pf.pdf}
\caption{An example where local knowledge on $A$ is not enough to determine the global status of the system.}
\label{fig:realizability}
\end{figure}
{L-RUCoP}\xspace takes routing decisions on each local node $n$ using a pre-filled routing matrix $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(t_s,c,t_i)$. In this entry, $t_s$ indicates the ``safe'' time slot and it is normally the next one after the copies have been received, $c$ is the current number of copies that $n$ holds, and $t_i\geq t_s$ is the current time slot.
$\mathit{LTr}_{n}(t_s,c,t_s)$ will contain the best decision $n$ can take assuming no knowledge of the network. This is the same as if assuming that $n$ holds all copies and no other copy is in the system. Therefore $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(t_s,c,t_s)$ contains exactly all routing decisions made by {RUCoP}\xspace for the state in which $n$ contains all $c$ copies and no copies are in the other nodes.
Nonetheless, if $n$ decides to keep some copies $\mathit{rc}<c$ and only send $c-\mathit{rc}$ copies, in the following time slots $n$ has certain knowledge of the previously distributed copies that may be handy to improve the decision on the routing of the remaining $\mathit{rc}$ copies.
We illustrate this peculiarity using the contact plan in Fig.~\ref{fig:realizability} assuming that ${p_f}_1={p_f}_2=0.1$, ${p_f}_3={p_f}_4=0.5$ and ${p_f}_5=0.9$.
The optimizing route for $\mathit{LTr}_{A}(t_2,1,t_2)$, in which $A$ has no knowledge of the past, is to deliver the only copy through node $C$ with a probability of success of $0.25$ (the probability of success if delivering later directly to $D$ is $0.1$).
However, if $A$ had delivered a copy at time slot $t_0$ and preserved a second copy, the optimizing route for $\mathit{LTr}_{A}(t_0,1,t_2)$ would be to keep the copy and deliver it later through $D$ (with probability $0.4645$, against $0.4525$ if the second copy is delivered through $C$ instead).
{L-RUCoP}\xspace considers this peculiarity to optimize the decisions. This means that populating the matrix requires $N$ different executions of {RUCoP}\xspace.
Since nodes in DTN networks may not have powerful on-board computers, a centralized node, such as the mission operation and control (MOC) center in the case of satellite networks, should be responsible for computing $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(t_s,c,t_i)$ and providing it to the network nodes in advance.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE number of copies $N$, target node $T$
\ENSURE A routing table $\mathit{LTr}_n$ for each node $n$
\FORALL {$c \leq N$}
\STATE $(S_c, \mathit{Tr}_c, \mathit{Pr}_c) \gets {RUCoP}\xspace(G, c, T)$
\ENDFOR
\FORALL {node $n$, time slot $\mathit{ts}$, and $c \leq N$}
\STATE $s \gets \mathit{Safe\_state}(n,c,\mathit{ts})$
\IF {$s \in S_c$}
\STATE {$\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts}) \gets \{ {(k,r) \in \mathit{Tr}_c(s)} \mid {\mathit{first}(r) = n} \}$}
\STATE $\mathit{ts}' \gets \mathit{ts}$
\STATE $\mathit{rc}$ $\gets$ $(\exists$ $(k,n) \in LT_r(n,\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts}')$$)?$ $k : 0$
\WHILE{$\mathit{rc} > 0$}
\STATE $s' \gets \mathit{Post}(\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}'))$
\STATE $\mathit{ts}' = \mathit{ts}' + 1$
\IF {$s' \in S_{\mathit{rc}}$}
\STATE $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}') \gets \{(k,r) \in {\mathit{Tr}_{\mathit{rc}}(s')} \mid {\mathit{first}(r) = n} \}$
\ELSE
\STATE \algorithmicbreak
\ENDIF
\STATE $\mathit{rc} \gets (\exists$ $(k,n) \in \mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')) ?$ $k : 0$
\ENDWHILE
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\mathit{LTr}_n$, for all node $n$.
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{{L-RUCoP}\xspace Route table construction} \label{Alg:ltr}
\end{algorithm}
The construction of the {L-RUCoP}\xspace matrix is detailed in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ltr}.
First, {RUCoP}\xspace is executed for all possible $c \leq N$ copies, storing the resulting states, transitions and delivery probabilities $(S_c, \mathit{Tr}_c, \mathit{Pr}_c)$ (lines 1-2).
Notice that at this point all possible optimizing decisions have been calculated. So, what remains of the algorithm, is to construct all tables $\mathit{LTr}_{n}$ by properly searching on the results calculated with {RUCoP}\xspace.
Thus the algorithm nests two loops. The outer loop (lines 4-21) iterates on every node $n$, time slot $\mathit{ts}$, and number of copies $c\leq N$ in order to first calculate the ``safe'' decision $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts})$. If needed, it then iterates on the inner loop (lines 10-19) to populate the table entries $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$ on the following time slots $\mathit{ts}'>\mathit{ts}$ for the distribution of the copies that have been held by the node.
So, the first step of the outer loop is to define the state $s$ in which the node $n$ has all copies $c$ in time slot $\mathit{ts}$ (line 5) and no other copy is in the network. Thus $\mathit{Safe\_state}(n,c,\mathit{ts}) = [A_0, B_0, ..., n_c, ... | \mathit{ts}]$. This is the ``safe'' state in which $n$ has no knowledge of the network.
If this state exists in $S_c$ (i.e. the corresponding {RUCoP}\xspace found a likely successful route to the target node), node $n$ has a route to target and its routing decisions (calculated through $\mathit{Tr}_c(s)$) are saved in $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts})$ (line 7).
At this point, the number of copies $\mathit{rc}$ that are not distributed in this routing action is calculated (line 9) and the current time slot $\mathit{ts}'$ is set to $\mathit{ts}$ (line 8). If some copy remains in the node, the inner loop takes action (line 10).
Firstly, the state $s'$ known by node $n$ after taking the last routing decision (namely, $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$) is calculated (line 11).
More precisely $\mathit{Post}(\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}'))$ delivers the state at time slot $\mathit{ts}'+1$, in which node $n$ contains the copies remaining after routing action $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$, any node $n'$ that is in direct contact with $n$ --according to $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},\mathit{rc},\mathit{ts}')$-- contains exactly the number of copies that $n$ delivered to it, and any other node does not contain any copy.
Also, the next time slot is calculated (line 12).
If state $s'$ exists in $S_{\mathit{rc}}$ (i.e. the corresponding {RUCoP}\xspace found a likely successful route to the target node), the routing decision is saved (lines 14). Instead, if $s'$ was not marked as explored by {RUCoP}\xspace, then no path to the successful state is possible from $s'$, the action for that table entry is left undefined (line 16) and the inner loop is finished.
While there is a successful route to the target node, the number of remaining copies $\mathit{rc}$ for the next step are calculated (line 18) and the inner loop repeats until no further copies $\mathit{rc}$ remains in $n$.
It is worth to recall that $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts})$ is always the \textit{safe entry} to look up for the local node.
This means that whenever new copies arrive, or a routing decision fails to be accomplished in node $n$, it should take the current time slot $\mathit{ts}$ as a safe place and look up the table at entry $\mathit{LTr}_{n}(\mathit{ts},c,\mathit{ts})$ (assuming $c$ is the current number of copies held by $n$).
Because of this fact of returning to the ``safe entry'' each time of uncertainty, in which the node assumes no copies are present in remote nodes, {L-RUCoP}\xspace accounts for a pessimistic-case knowledge from the local node perspective.
Nevertheless, we show in Section~\ref{sec:analysis} that {L-RUCoP}\xspace is a valuable routing approach for uncertain contact plan implementable in realistic DTN nodes constrained to localized knowledge.
\subsection{{RUCoP}\xspace-enhanced CGR}
\label{sec:rucgr}
To easily exploit the {RUCoP}\xspace method in existing DTN protocol stacks with minimal modifications, we also propose an alternative CGR formulation (a single-copy DTN routing scheme).
We base the approach on a {RUCoP}\xspace-based SDP metric to achieve reliably delivery of bundles over an uncertain contact plan.
CGR is a Dijkstra-based distributed routine that runs on each DTN node to determine the best routes to a given destination based on a pre-provisioned contact plan (the interested reader can refer to~\cite{Araniti2015},~\cite{FRAIRE2021102884} and~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi} for an in-depth description of CGR).
We propose {CGR-UCoP}\xspace as a simple means of extending CGR to operate with uncertain contact plans based on the outcomes of {RUCoP}\xspace. The idea is that {CGR-UCoP}\xspace selects the route that optimizes the successful delivery probability (SDP) instead of optimizing the time to destination as it is normally done in CGR.
In {CGR-UCoP}\xspace, we let CGR calculate the list of possible routes to a given destination using its modified Dijkstra contact plan search.
In other words, route computation is left unchanged from legacy CGR.
Also, the resulting route list for each destination is constructed and consulted on forwarding time by the DTN node.
However, instead of choosing the best route from the list based on the best delivery time metric, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace decides considering a custom SDP-based metric.
{CGR-UCoP}\xspace metric is built around the $\mathit{Pr}$ table constructed in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru} for only 1 copy.
More precisely, for each node $n$ and time slot $\mathit{ts}$, we take $\mathit{Pr}_n(\mathit{ts})=\mathit{Pr}(\mathit{Safe\_state}(n,1,\mathit{ts}))$ ($\mathit{Safe\_state}$ is defined as in Sec.~\ref{sec:iru}).
That is $\mathit{Pr}_n(\mathit{ts})$ is the probability of successfully delivering a single copy from node $n$ at time $\mathit{ts}$.
Similarly to {L-RUCoP}\xspace, the values of $\mathit{Pr}_n(t_s)$ can be pre-computed and provisioned to the DTN nodes together with the contact plan required by CGR to operate.
For the calculations, we assume that, after running CGR, a node $n$ is left with a table $\mathit{Rl}_n:\mathcal{T}\to\raisebox{.15\baselineskip}{\ensuremath{\wp}}(E^*)$ that, given a time slot $\mathit{ts}$, returns a set of partial routes $\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$. Each $\mathit{r}\in\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$ is a sequence of contacts --recall that each contact is an edge $e\in E$ of the uncertain timed-varying graph-- representing a partial route to destination, more precisely, the fragment of the route that starts in node $n$ at time slot $\mathit{ts}$ and contains all hops that take place only during the same time slot.
Thus, for instance, considering the graph of Fig.~\ref{fig:reroute}, $\mathit{r} = (S\to A)\,(A\to B)$ is a possible route in $\mathit{Rl}_S(t_0)$, but $(S\to A)\,(A\to B)\,(B\to D)$ is not, as it expands through two time slots ($t_0$ and $t_1$), nor is $(S\to A)$, since it does not contains all the hops in time slot $t_0$. We let $\mathit{r}[i]$ indicate the $i$th contact in the sequence and $|\mathit{r}|$ the length of $\mathit{r}$ (in the example $\mathit{r}[0]={S\to A}$ and $|\mathit{r}|=2$).
In addition, $\mathit{src}(e)$ and $\mathit{tgt}(e)$ indicate the source and target of contact $e$ respectively.
Based on $\mathit{Pr}$, a SDP for a partial route $\mathit{r}\in\mathit{Rl}_n(\mathit{ts})$ can be computed as follows.
\begin{align*}
\makebox[2.3em][l]{$\ensuremath{\SDP_{\mathit{CGR}}}(\mathit{r},\mathit{ts}) = {}$} & \\
&
\left(\prod_{k=0}^{|\mathit{r}|-1} (1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts}) \right) \cdot \mathit{Pr}_{\mathit{tgt}(\mathit{r}[|\mathit{r}|-1])}({\mathit{ts}} + \varsigma(\mathit{r}[|\mathit{r}|-1],\mathit{ts})) \\[1ex]
+ \ &
\sum_{k=0}^{|\mathit{r}|-1} \left( \prod_{i=0}^{k-1} (1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[i],\mathit{ts})) \right) \cdot p_f(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts})\\[-2ex]
&
\phantom{\sum_{k=0}^{|\mathit{r}|-1} \left( \prod_{i=0}^{k-1} (1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[i],\mathit{ts})) \right)}{}\cdot \mathit{Pr}_{\mathit{src}(\mathit{r}[k])}({\mathit{ts}} + f_{\mathit{dd}}(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts}))
\end{align*}
The first summand of the equation corresponds to the successful transmission of the message through all hops in $\mathit{r}$. This probability is estimated as the product of the probability of successfully transmitting in each contact --the probability of success in the $i$th hop is $(1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[k]))$-- times the likelihood (according to {RUCoP}\xspace) that the message is succesfully transmitted to destination from the last node of the partial route $\mathit{r}$ (i.e. $\mathit{Pr}_{\mathit{tgt}(\mathit{r}[|\mathit{r}|-1])}({\mathit{ts}} + \varsigma)$). Notice that this last probability should be considered at the moment that the message is available in the node, which can only be after the transmission delay $\varsigma(\mathit{r}[|\mathit{r}|-1],\mathit{ts})$.
The second summand estimates the probability of successfully transmitting the message given that some hop in $\mathit{r}$ failed to transmit at time slot $\mathit{ts}$. The $k$th summand here corresponds to the likelihood of successfully transmitting given that the hop $k$ is the first to fail. This is calculated as the product of the probability of succsesfully transmitting in the first $k-1$ hops (i.e. $\left( \prod_{i=0}^{k-1} (1 - p_f(\mathit{r}[i],\mathit{ts})) \right)$~), times the probability of failing in the $k$th hop ($p_f(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts})$), times the likelihood (according to {RUCoP}\xspace) that the message is succesfully transmitted to destination from the node that failed to transmit in the $k$th hop (i.e. $\mathit{Pr}_{\mathit{src}(\mathit{r}[k])}({\mathit{ts}} + f_{\mathit{dd}}(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts}))$).
Notice this last probability should be considered at the moment that such node detects that the communication has failed, i.e. at ${\mathit{ts}} + f_{\mathit{dd}}(\mathit{r}[k],\mathit{ts})$.
The resulting metric $\ensuremath{\SDP_{\mathit{CGR}}}$ indicates the delivery probability of each route in $Rl_n(t_s)$ computed by CGR, which can be used to decide on a reliable proximate node to forward the bundle with a simple modification to existing implementations.
It is worth noting that {RUCoP}\xspace might have explored more routes (potentially more reliable) than those in $Rl_n(t_s)$, the construction of which is guided by best delivery time as per CGR's internal Dijkstra searches.
Nevertheless, in Section~\ref{sec:analysis} we show that the {RUCoP}\xspace-based SDP metric outperforms baseline CGR and approximates the theoretical outcome of {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace in random and realistic application scenarios.
\section{Result Analysis}
\label{sec:analysis}
In this section, we propose a benchmark ecosystem to evaluate the proposed routing schemes for DTNs under uncertain contact plans, and use it to analyze the network performance when applying {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace.
\subsection{Benchmark}
A benchmark for DTNs under uncertain contact plans needs to comprise all possible routing solutions that can be considered for such scenarios.
In particular, CGR, sought for fully scheduled DTNs and S\&W, sought for fully unpredictable DTNs sit at the edges of the uncertain DTNs classification.
Other intermediate schemes present in the literature are also considered.
Table~\ref{tab:routing} summarizes and compares the routing schemes present in the benchmark.
We briefly recapitulate them as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Upper bound reference:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{CGR-FA}: CGR-FA is an oracle-based fault-aware (FA) scheme.
It leverages the same single-copy implementation than CGR, but uses a contact plan where contacts that will fail are removed.
By being able to know where and when faults will occur, CGR-FA is used as a theoretical upper bound providing the best achievable performance (delivery ratio and energy consumption).
\end{itemize}
\item Single-copy, certain contact plan:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{CGR}: Current implementation of CGR~\cite{FRAIRE2021102884} in ION v3.5.0~\cite{Burleigh2007} which forwards a bundle using the first contact of the route which has the \textit{best delivery time} among all to the given destination.
CGR assumes all contacts in the contact plan will occur as planned.
\end{itemize}
\item Single-copy, uncertain contact plan:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{CGR-HOP}: A variant of CGR which forwards a bundle on the first contact or hop of the route which has the \textit{least hop count} among all to the given destination.
As discussed in~\cite{Madoery:Congestion}, reducing the hops increases the delivery probability in uncertain contact plans, at the expense of delivery delay.
\item \textbf{{CGR-UCoP}\xspace}: The {RUCoP}\xspace-enhanced CGR formulation presented in Section~\ref{sec:rucgr} that enables a straightforward implementation to leverage {RUCoP}\xspace model features in DTN nodes based on ION protocol stack.
\end{itemize}
\item Multi-copy, uncertain contact plan:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{{RUCoP}\xspace}: Static routing rules are sent to each node in the network.
These routes are computed using the {RUCoP}\xspace model in Algorithm~\ref{Alg:ru}.
To determine the current state and decide on the subsequent action, nodes have access to a global view of the copy distribution on the network, which is not necessarily feasible in reality.
The benchmark considers {RUCoP}\xspace with 1, 2, 3 and 4 copies.
\item \textbf{{L-RUCoP}\xspace}: Static routing rules are sent to each node in the network by means of the $\mathit{LTr}$ table.
The table comprises a set of specific routing decisions, based on {RUCoP}\xspace model computed for each node, destination and number of copies.
For each bundle, nodes decide routing based on the number of local copies. The benchmark considers {L-RUCoP}\xspace with 1, 2, 3 and 4 copies.
\item \textbf{CGR-2CP}: Another variant of CGR where two-copies (2CP) are generated at the source~\cite{Madoery:Congestion}.
Copies are forwarded via both the best delivery time and the least hop count routes, when different.
CGR-2CP provides equal or better delivery ratio than CGR-HOP with improved delivery delay.
\end{itemize}
\item Multi-copy, no contact plan knowledge:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{S\&W}: Spray-and-wait routing provides similar performance metrics than flooding with less overhead~\cite{Spyropoulos05sprayandwait}.
The traffic source spreads a limited number of copies to the first contacted neighbors and then wait until one of those copies reaches the destination. We evaluate S\&W with 2, 3 and 4 copies.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Routing Schemes in the Benchmark}
\label{tab:routing}
\begin{tabular}{C{2cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.1cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|}
\cline{2-9}
& CGR FA & RUCoP & L RUCoP & CGR UCoP & CGR & CGR HOP & CGR 2CP & S\&W \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Contact plan} & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Encoded probability} & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No & No & No & No \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Encoded failures (oracle)} & Yes & No & No & No & No & No & No & No \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Implementable (local view)} & No & No & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Copies} & 1 & 1,2,3,4 & 1,2,3,4 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2,3,4 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|C{2cm}|}{Main optimization metric} & Delivery & Delivery & Delivery & Delivery & Delay & Delivery & Delivery \& delay & Delivery \& delay \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\end{comment}
\newcommand*\rot{\rotatebox{90}}
\newcommand*\OK{\ding{51}}
\begin{table} \centering
\begin{tabular}{@{} cr*{6}c }
& & \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\[2ex]
\rowcolor{blue!30} \cellcolor{white}
& & \rot{Contact plan} & \rot{\shortstack[l]{Encoded\\probability}} & \rot{\shortstack[l]{Encoded failures\:\: \\ (oracle)}} & \rot{\shortstack[l]{Implementable\\(local view)}}
& \rot{Copies} & \rot{\shortstack[l]{Main\\optimization\\metric}} \\
\cmidrule{2-8}
\rowcolor{black!15} \cellcolor{white}
& CGR-FA & Yes & Yes & Yes & No & 1 & Delivery \\
& RUCoP & Yes & Yes & No & No & 1-4 & Delivery \\
\rowcolor{black!15} \cellcolor{white}
& L-RUCoP & Yes & Yes & No & Yes & 1-4 & Delivery \\
& CGR-UCoP & Yes & Yes & No & Yes & 1 & Delivery \\
\rowcolor{black!15} \cellcolor{white}
& CGR & Yes & No & No & Yes & 1 & Delay \\
& CGR-HOP & Yes & No & No & Yes & 1 & Delivery \\
\rowcolor{black!15} \cellcolor{white}
& CGR-2CP & Yes & No & No & Yes & 2 & Delivery \& Delay \\
\rot{\rlap{~Routing Algorithms}}
& S\&W & No & No & No & Yes & 2-4 & Delivery \& Delay \\
\cmidrule[1pt]{2-8}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Routing Schemes in the Benchmark}
\label{tab:routing}
\end{table}
For each routing scheme, the benchmark considers and evaluates the following routing metrics.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Delivery Ratio:} number of bundles successfully delivered over number of bundles generated, excluding copies.
This is the main metric of the benchmark.
\item \textbf{Delivery Delay:} mean delay per bundle successfully delivered to the destination.
Non delivered bundles are not considered in the metric; thus, this metric should be considered after the delivery ratio.
\item \textbf{Energy Efficiency:} number of bundles successfully delivered over the total number of transmissions in the network.
Also observed after the delivery ratio, as good efficiency might come at the expense of poor delivery.
\end{itemize}
We analyze the results obtained from two benchmark scenarios: random networks and ring-road networks (RRN).
The former renders a highly connected network with several route paths, while the latter comprises two realistic and simple topologies where satellites can contact ground spots (RRN-A and RRN-B).
In all cases, bundles sizes are set small enough to avoid congestion biases.
Also, channels are configured as error-free (i.e., no packet drop) in order to focus the analysis only on the uncertainty phenomena.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Random Networks:} Composed of 10 random topologies with 8 nodes and a duration of 100 seconds.
Time is fragmented in episodes of 10 seconds.
In each episode, the connectivity between nodes (i.e., presence of contacts) is decided based on a contact density parameter of 0.2, similar to~\cite{Madoery2018}.
An all-to-all traffic pattern is assumed.
Each routing algorithm is simulated 100 times on each of the 10 networks and then averaged.
\item \textbf{RRN-A with ISL:} The RRN-A is based on a realistic low-Earth orbit Walker constellation of 16 satellites proposed and described in~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi}.
Satellites act as data-mules by receiving data from 22 isolated ground terminals, store it and deliver it to a ground station placed in Argentina.
This is an all-to-one traffic pattern.
In this case, satellites are equipped with Inter-Satellite Links (ISLs) implying contacts are also possible in-orbit~\cite{Fraire2017-Hindawi}.
Routes can thus involve multiple hops between satellites and ground terminals.
The scenario is propagated for 24 hours and sliced into 1440 time slots, each of 60 seconds.
Within a time slot, a contact is considered feasible if a communication opportunity of more than 30 seconds exists.
This corresponds to a fine-grained model.
\item \textbf{RRN-B without ISL:} A different Walker constellation topology of 12 satellites on polar orbits where no close-distance crossing is present.
Not having ISL implies the routes to a target ground spot destination use at most one data-mule satellite.
In this case, the routing decision is taken by a centralized mission control for data flowing from Internet to the isolated terminals.
This is a one-to-one traffic pattern where routing implies deciding which ground station will be used to upload the data to which satellite.
Two ground stations are configured as gateways in Antarctica and Svalbard.
This scenario considers a coarse-grain model: time slots are defined in such a way that contacts start and terminate within the time slot duration.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{img/walker.pdf}
\caption{RRN satellite constellation topologies, parameters and orbital tracks. On the left, RRN-A with ISL shows the 22 ground nodes (sources of data) as well as the target ground station in Argentina (many-to-one traffic). On the right, RRN-B without ISL shows the two ground station that can be used as gateways to reach a single target spot (one-to-one traffic).}
\label{fig:walker}
\end{figure*}
It is worth mentioning that orbital paths\footnote{STK scenarios, visualizations, orbital parameters and ground locations as well as resulting contact plans for the proposed benchmark are publicly available at \url{https://sites.google.com/unc.edu.ar/dtsn-scenarios}} are calculated from STK~\cite{stk} and encoded into contact plans with contact plan designer~\cite{cpd-designer}.
For the sake of simplicity, contact failure probabilities $p_f$ are configured homogeneously in all links, ranging between [0,1].
Indeed, $p_f$ s is the independent variable in the benchmark.
As a result, it is expected that certain contact plan routing provide good metrics when $p_f \approx 1$, while non contact plan based solutions on $p_f \approx 0$.
The hypothesis is that uncertain contact plan approaches outperform both in intermediate values of $p_f$.
By running a large routing simulation campaign using DtnSim~\cite{Fraire:2017:DtnSim}, we are able to determine on which ranges of $p_f$ the hypothesis holds.
\subsection{Results}
The benchmark results\footnote{The {RUCoP}\xspace implementation in Python3 as well as the scripts used to obtain the results presented in this sections are publicly available at \url{https://bitbucket.org/fraverta/experiments-paper-ieee-tmc-2020}.} are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:results}.
To facilitate the comparison with state-of-the-art solutions, metrics are plotted with respect to CGR.
CGR-FA is plotted as maximum theoretical bound in dotted lines.
Because the RRN satellite networks offer simpler (and less) routes (i.e., less hop count) than the random networks, the potential improvement evidenced by CGR-FA in these scenarios is significant towards cases with higher failure probabilities (right hand-side of the curves).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,trim={3cm 0.8cm 3cm 2cm},clip]{img/results-all2.pdf}
\caption{Routing for DTNs under uncertain contact plan benchmark. From left to right, the different scenarios: random networks, RRN-A, and RRN-B. From top to bottom, the different metrics: delivery ratio, delivery delay, energy efficiency. Delivery delay and energy efficiency have to be considered after delivery ratio, as they are computed from delivered bundles only. Curves includes CGR-FA (oracle), {RUCoP}\xspace (1 to 4 copies), {L-RUCoP}\xspace (1 to 4 copies), {CGR-UCoP}\xspace (adapted CGR), CGR-2CP (two-copies), CGR-HOP (lowest hop count metric), and S\&W (2 to 4 copies).}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Delivery Ratio}
When contact failure probabilities are close to $0$, the contact plan occurs as expected (i.e., no uncertainties).
In this context, and for all studied scenarios, {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace provide the same delivery ratio performance than CGR.
Being based on CGR calculations, CGR-2CP and CGR-HOP also provide the same delivery ratio metric.
On the other hand, S\&W algorithms offer limited relative performance in these cases as they have no consideration of the topological knowledge imprinted in the contact plan.
As the probability of failure increases, the delivery ratio diverges for most techniques.
In all scenarios, and for each number of copies, {RUCoP}\xspace model provides the best delivery ratio results, improving as the number of allowed copies increases.
This improvement becomes more evident for larger $p_f$.
{L-RUCoP}\xspace follows {RUCoP}\xspace closely, with a delta of performance explained by the fact of solely relaying on (a pessimistic) local node's knowledge.
Also, as expected, S\&W improves the delivery ratio on scenarios with higher uncertainty.
Depending on the number of copies, S\&W schemes can even outperform CGR baseline in particular cases, as already indicated in~\cite{Madoery2018}.
In random networks, S\&W provides good two-copies results, in comparison with CGR-2CP; however, the latter behaves better in simpler networks such as RRN (delivery ratio for S\&W-2 in RRN-A and B is always worst than CGR baseline and thus not plotted).
Nevertheless, {L-RUCoP}\xspace offers the best single-copy implementable routing solution, closely followed by {CGR-UCoP}\xspace, both improving CGR delivery ratio in cases with medium and high failure probabilities.
Moreover, in practical RRN scenarios, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace also provides better performance than S\&W with two copies, and even better than S\&W-3 in RRN with ISL.
Indeed, {L-RUCoP}\xspace with one copy provides the same outcomes than {RUCoP}\xspace-1, and remarkably, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace (also single-copy) almost always delivers the same performance than both (notice cross markers of {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace are behind {CGR-UCoP}\xspace in most of the plots).
This is compelling evidence that the practical applicability of {CGR-UCoP}\xspace can provide great value at minimum implementation costs.
In particular, under high uncertainty, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace outperforms CGR by 9\% in random networks, 22\% in RRN-A with ISL and 25\% in RRN-B without ISL.
\subsubsection{Delivery Delay}
Although not specifically optimized for delivery delay, {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace models exhibit a reasonable performance with respect to CGR in this metric, especially in random networks.
This can be explained by the fact that {RUCoP}\xspace-based models consider all possible paths and can determine the optimal one, which is not always the case of CGR as already discussed in~\cite{FRAIRE201831}.
As $p_f$ increases, the delivery delay of {RUCoP}\xspace decreases with respect to CGR, but with a much larger deliver ratio. That is, the few bundles that arrive with CGR do so in a shorter time on routes whose contacts do not present failures, while {RUCoP}\xspace is able to deal with failures and deliver a greater number of bundles, some of which take longer to arrive thereby increasing the average delay value.
On the implementable side, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace delivery delay performance approaches CGR as the failure probabilities increases.
In realistic RRN scenarios, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace is consistently better than S\&W routing as well as CGR-HOP which honors low hops and potentially higher latency routes (delivery delay for CGR-HOP is the lowest of all schemes not reaching the scale of RRN-A and B plots).
Notably, CGR-2CP offers very similar performances than plain CGR as one of the two copies follows the same lowest delivery delay route than CGR.
\subsubsection{Energy efficiency}
On the energy efficiency side, we care about the transmission effort required to deliver the bundles.
Naturally, single copies schemes offer the least effort, especially CGR-HOP which also minimises the overall hops and thus, transmissions.
On the other hand, multiple copy solutions including {RUCoP}\xspace-4, {L-RUCoP}\xspace-4 and S\&W-4 demand the largest energy effort, being the latter consistently better, at the expense of a lower delivery ratio.
Remarkably, and being a single copy scheme, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace always offer the same or better energy efficiency than CGR, and is only outperformed by the less performing CGR-HOP and by S\&W-2 in some cases.
To wrap up, {RUCoP}\xspace model proved to approach the ideal fault-aware case of CGR-FA by leveraging the presented MDP formulation, especially with larger number of copies.
While {RUCoP}\xspace model can serve as a routing solution with global view, {L-RUCoP}\xspace obtains similar results based on a reduced local view in practical DTNs, and implemented in existing protocol stacks by means of {CGR-UCoP}\xspace.
Indeed, {CGR-UCoP}\xspace has shown that the consideration of the adapted SDP calculation of {RUCoP}\xspace enables a very appealing performance over the whole failure probability range in DTNs under uncertain contact plan.
\subsection{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
To properly frame the benefits and applicability of {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace models and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace algorithm, we discuss some considerations.
\minisection{Multiple Senders:} Although {RUCoP}\xspace model, as presented in Section~\ref{sec:model}, takes one sender and one destination as arguments, multiple senders can be considered in a single MDP if they seek to reach the same destination.
Indeed, this was already accounted for in the RRN-A case (all-to-one traffic shape), where the same {RUCoP}\xspace was solved for each of the 22 senders.
Indeed, a policy was derived for each data flow from a single execution of the MDP.
This can be achieved because the MDP tree for each case is exactly the same except the initial state at $\mathcal{T}_0$.
In general, this approach can be generalized as long as different data flows do not compete for a same limited channel resource (i.e., congestion).
\minisection{Congestion:} In general, congestion is an open research issue in DTN~\cite{silva2015survey}.
In this context, {RUCoP}\xspace-based models have been sought for and evaluated in scenarios where congestion is not present.
This means that when a route is determined for a bundle, it is assumed that there will be enough capacity to allocate such data transmission (i.e., sizes of the bundles is by far smaller than the contact capacity).
While this can be the case for unsaturated networks, congested networks would need to rely on simulations analysis that validates if the {RUCoP}\xspace routing assumptions holds.
\minisection{Scalability:} Table~\ref{tab:scalability} summarizes the scalability metrics of the evaluated scenarios when using {RUCoP}\xspace.
In particular, the execution time on an Intel i7 processor with 16 GB of RAM running an Ubuntu 19.10 was measured for a Python3 implementation of the {RUCoP}\xspace routine.
The explored states and evaluated transitions were listed to observe their increment with larger scenarios and required copies.
Results show that {RUCoP}\xspace is well suited to solve realistic cases in reasonable time.
Indeed, less than an hour is required for the more complex case of RRN-A with ISL and four copies of the data.
As already explained, a coarse model of the network offers significant gain in processing time, at the expense of less accurate results.
Compared with the computation time required by {RUCoP}\xspace, calculating {L-RUCoP}\xspace routing matrix demands a reduced overhead.
The specific processing time for each of the case studies is reported in the {L-RUCoP}\xspace Time[sec] column, in Table~\ref{tab:scalability}.
In particular, the time required for computing {L-RUCoP}\xspace-2 for the RRN-A scenario is the sum of those for {RUCoP}\xspace-1 and {RUCoP}\xspace-2 (i.e., $ 258 + 291 = 549$ seconds), plus the cost of building the {L-RUCoP}\xspace routing matrix (37.49 seconds), adding up for a total of $586.49$ seconds.
As {RUCoP}\xspace computation can be done in parallel, the time can be significantly reduced.
\begin{table}
\label{tab:scalability}
\caption{Scalability Metrics}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Copies & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|l|}{\textbf{Random Networks}} \\ \hline
Time {[}sec{]} & 2 & 6 & 107 & 2416 \\ \hline
States & 74 & 318 & 1056 & 2915 \\ \hline
Transitions & 391 & 9491 & 179797 & 2804864 \\ \hline
{{L-RUCoP}\xspace Time[sec]} & +0.15 & +0.42 & +0.85 & +1.51 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|l|}{\textbf{RRN-A with ISL (fine grain)}} \\ \hline
Time {[}sec{]} & 258 & 291 & 657 & 3290 \\ \hline
States & 6091 & 76428 & 646152 & 4126765 \\ \hline
Transitions & 6973 & 99742 & 969861 & 7147805 \\ \hline
{{L-RUCoP}\xspace Time[sec]} & +12.92 & +37.49 & +107.19 & +426.96 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|l|}{\textbf{RRN-B without ISL (coarse grain)}} \\ \hline
Time {[}sec{]} & 18 & 21 & 38 & 134 \\ \hline
States & 898 & 8568 & 49774 & 220745 \\ \hline
Transitions & 1020 & 11133 & 73566 & 369689 \\ \hline
{{L-RUCoP}\xspace Time [sec]} & +1.75 & +4.38 & +9.02 & +21.16 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs) classification has biased the research of routing algorithms to fit either fully scheduled or dynamically-learned probabilistic use cases.
In this paper, we have uncovered that routing under uncertain contact planning deserves a different classification.
Uncertain DTNs have not only applicable relevance but also can serve as a more generic routing approach for many practical DTNs.
A first Markov Decision Process coined {RUCoP}\xspace was introduced for arbitrary number of copies in uncertain DTNs.
{RUCoP}\xspace provides a theoretical upper bound for the data delivery ratio when a global vision of the system is possible.
{RUCoP}\xspace enabled the derivation of {L-RUCoP}\xspace when knowledge is restricted to a local view, and single-copy {CGR-UCoP}\xspace where the outcomes of the MDP model can drive routing decisions of the popular CGR routing algorithm.
To evaluate {RUCoP}\xspace, {L-RUCoP}\xspace and {CGR-UCoP}\xspace, we have proposed an appealing benchmark comprising random and realistic case studies as well as candidate routing solutions.
Results showed that {RUCoP}\xspace and {L-RUCoP}\xspace models approach the ideal case as the number of copies increases.
On the other hand, single-copy {CGR-UCoP}\xspace has also provided outstanding results under uncertain contact plans, outperforming both CGR (scheduled routing) by up to 25\% in realistic satellite DTNs with uncertain links.
Future work involves the comparison with the simulation results reported in~\cite{d2020sampling} as well as further research on multi-objective optimizations comprising delivery delay and route reliability for {CGR-UCoP}\xspace, which will be implemented and proposed for NASA's ION protocol stack.
Succeeding in such endeavor would settle {CGR-UCoP}\xspace as the de-facto routing scheme for DTNs with uncertain contact plans.
\section*{Acknowledgement}This research has received support from the ERC Advanced Grant 695614 (POWVER), the DFG grant 389792660, as part of TRR 248 (\url{https://perspicuous-computing.science}), the Agencia I$+$D$+$i grant PICT-2017-3894 (RAFTSys), PICT-2017-1335, and the SeCyT-UNC grant 33620180100354CB (ARES).
Part of this work has been developed while Dr. Juan Fraire was visiting Politecnico di Torino.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\mathcal K^n$ be the \emph{set of convex bodies} (i.e. convex and compact sets) \emph{in $\R^n$} and $\mathcal K^n_0$ be the subset of $\mathcal K^n$ formed by \emph{centrally symmetric sets}.
For any $K,C\in\mathcal K^n$, let $R(K,C)$ be the \emph{circumradius} of $K$ with
respect to $C$, i.e.~the smallest value $\lambda\geq 0$ such that a translate of $K$
is contained in $\lambda C$, and $r(K,C)$ be the \emph{inradius} of $K$ with respect to $C$, i.e.~the largest value $\lambda\geq 0$ such that a translate of $K$ contains $\lambda C$. The second set $C$ is usually fulldimensional and therefore called the \emph{gauge} the functionals are based on.
Finally, let $D(K,C)$ be the \emph{diameter} of $K$ with respect to $C$, i.e.~twice the maximal circumradius $R(\{x,y\},C)$ for some $x,y\in K$.\footnote{There are other generalizations of the diameter for general gauges, but this one is the most common.}
The aim of this paper is to describe the range of values that the inradius, circumradius and diameter of $K$ and $C$ may achieve, for some fixed gauges $C$, but also for varying $K$ and $C$.
To do so, consider the mapping
\[
f:\mathcal K^n\times\mathcal K^n\rightarrow[0,1]^2,\quad f(K,C)=\left(\frac{r(K,C)}{R(K,C)},\frac{D(K,C)}{2R(K,C)}\right).
\]
The set $f(\mathcal K^n,C)$ is the well-known Blaschke-Santal\'o diagram for the inradius, circumradius and diameter with respect to $C$, or $(r,D,R)$-diagram for short. This naming honours two important mathematicians. Blaschke on the one side, who considered in 1916 the corresponding diagram for the volume, surface area and mean width of $3$-dimensional convex bodies \cite{Bl16}. Santal\'o \cite{Sa61} on the other side, who described in 1961 several such diagrams,
involving three functionals out of area, perimeter, circumradius, inradius, diameter, and minimum width of planar convex sets, and who completely described $f(\CK^2,\B_2)$, where $\B_2 = \{x\in\R^n : \|x\|_2 \leq 1\}$ denotes the \emph{euclidean unit ball}. To do so Santal\'o proved the validity of the inequality
\[
\begin{split}
2R(K,\mathbb B_2)(2R(K,\mathbb B_2)+\sqrt{4R(K,\mathbb B_2)^2-D(K,\mathbb B_2)^2})r(K,\mathbb B_2) & \\
\geq D(K,\mathbb B_2)^2\sqrt{4R(K,\mathbb B_2)^2-D(K,\mathbb B_2)^2} &
\end{split}
\]
for all $K\in\mathcal K^2$ and observed that, together with the well-known inequalities
\[
\begin{split}
D(K,\B_2) & \leq 2R(K,\B_2) \\
r(K,\B_2)+R(K,\B_2) & \leq D(K,\B_2) \\
\sqrt{2(n+1)}R(K,\B_2) & \leq \sqrt{n} D(K,\B_2)
\end{split}
\]
fully described the diagram $f(\mathcal K^2,\B_2)$ (see Figure \ref{fig:EuclideanDiagram}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{DiagramEuclidean.png}
\caption{The (r,D,R)-diagram $f(\mathcal K^2,\B_2)$.}
\label{fig:EuclideanDiagram}
\end{figure}
When investigating such diagrams one typically discovers that lots of special classes of convex sets describe the boundaries and that they do helps us to understand even more about their speciality.
Centrally symmetric, parallelotopes, constant width set, complete or reduced sets, or simplices are just examples of bodies filling different boundaries of those diagrams.
After Santal\'o's paper, several authors gave full descriptions of $2$-dimensional diagrams for planar sets \cite{BoHCSa03, BuBuFi, BuPr20, DeHePr, Ft20, FtHe, FtLa21, HC00, HC02, HCSG00, HCT, LuZu21}, see also \cite{AnFr, AnHe, BeBuPr}, for higher dimensional
sets \cite{HCPSSG03, HCSaGo}, or even $3$-dimensional diagrams (see \cite{BrGM17} and the incomplete description in \cite{TiKe}). But all these diagrams have been considered for euclidean spaces only.
However, many functionals can be naturally extended to Minkowski (or Banach) spaces, or even further to generalized Minkowski spaces, as we have done above in the case of the circumradius, inradius and diameter.
In our view, the most significant
result of this paper is twofold, and we split it into two theorems, so that two aspects can be better understood. The first one fully describes the Blaschke-Santal\'o diagram $f(\CK^2,\CK^2)$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:dominating_diagram}
Let $K,C \in \CK^2$. Then
\[
\begin{split}
D(K,C) & \leq 2R(K,C)\\
4r(K,C) + 2R(K,C) & \leq 3 D(K,C)\\
D(K,C)\left(2R(K,C)-D(K,C)\right) & \leq 4r(K,C)D(K,C).
\end{split}
\]
Moreover, those three inequalities completely describe the boundary of $f(\CK^2,\CK^2)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{DiagramTriangle.png}
\caption{The (r,D,R)-diagram $f(\CK^2,\CK^2)$.}
\label{fig:TriangleDiagram}
\end{figure}
Notice that the first inequality is basic and well-known, while the third is completely new. The second is the 2-dimensional version of a new inequality that holds true for arbitrary dimensions, which is almost a direct consequence from a result in \cite{BrGM17_2}.
\begin{thm} \label{cor:nr+R<=n+1D/2}
Let $K,C\in\mathcal K^n$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nr+R<=n+1D/2}
nr(K,C)+R(K,C)\leq\frac{n+1}{2}D(K,C).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
Besides showing the validity of the two new inequalities to prove Theorem \ref{thm:dominating_diagram}, we need to see that the boundaries they describe are filled. This is done by the second aspect of our main result.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:BS_diag_simplex}
$f(\mathcal K^2,\mathcal K^2)=f(\mathcal K^2,S)$ for every triangle $S$.
\end{thm}
Notice that Theorem \ref{thm:BS_diag_simplex}
shows that the boundary of $f(\CK^2,\CK^2)$ is completely described from investigating a single diagram, choosing a triangle as the gauge $C$.
Having in mind that $f(\mathcal K^2,S)$ contains every other planar $(r,D,R)$-diagram, if $S$ is a triangle, one may wonder whether the same holds true in the case of Minkowski spaces: does there exist $C_0\in\mathcal K^2_0$ such that
$f(\mathcal K^2,\mathcal K^2_0)=f(\mathcal K^2,C_0)$?
We will show
that the right candidate (up to affine transformations) to this covering property would be a \emph{regular hexagon} $H$.
However, it finally turns out that the answer to this question
in negative, which is a consequence of the following result, which in particular implies that $f(\CK^2,H)$ cannot cover $f(\CK^2,\B_2)$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:hexagons}
Let $K\in\mathcal K^2$ and $H\in\mathcal K^2_0$ be such that $H$ is a regular hexagon. If $D(K,H)<2R(K,H)$,
then $r(K,H) \geq R(K,H)/4$.
\end{thm}
Let us mention at this point that it is well known that $D(K,C)=2R(K,C)$ whenever both, $K,C$ are symmetric. Thus, replacing also $\mathcal K^n$ above by $\mathcal K^n_0$ in the first argument gives $f(\mathcal K^n_0,\mathcal K^n_0)=f(\mathcal K^n_0,C) = \conv\left(\set{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right),\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}\right)$ for all $C \in \CK^n_0$.
However, the next result shows that
if we do not restrict the first argument this unusual $1$-dimensional behaviour
only occurs when the gauge $C$ is a parallelotope.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:squares}
Let $C\in\CK^n$. Then $\conv\left(\set{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right),\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}\right) \subset f(\CK^n,C)$ and equality holds if and only if $C$ is a parallelotope.
\end{thm}
Essentially, this is a direct corollary from the well known characterization that parallelotopes are exactly the class of sets with Helly dimension 1 and the theorem even stays true when replacing the inradius by any of the functionals area, perimeter, or (minimal) width. Anyway, since we are not aware of a published proof of the above fact, we will close this gap here.
Theorems \ref{thm:dominating_diagram}, \ref{thm:hexagons}, and \ref{thm:squares} show that Blaschke-Santal\'o diagrams of some $k$-gons, (regular) triangles, regular hexagons and squares) encode extreme behaviours. In the cases of fulldimensional diagrams
they share many common properties. For instance, restricting $K\in\mathcal K^2$ to triangles whenever $C$ is either the euclidean ball $\B_2$ \cite{Ju01}, a triangle \cite{BrKo13}, or a regular hexagon \cite{BrGM17_3}, the supremum over the choices of $K$ of the ratio of the circumradius $R(K,C)$ and the diameter $D(K,C)$ (the so called \emph{Jung constant} of the gauge $C$) is attained if and only if $K$ is an \emph{equilateral} triangle, i.e.~a triangle whose edges all have the same length with respect to $C$. Even so it is easy to argue that the leftmost point in the Jung-boundary must be reached by a triangle it is not always equilateral, as the regular pentagon $C$ shows.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:pentagons}
Let $K,P\in\mathcal K^2$ such that $P$ is a regular pentagon. Then
\[
R(K,P) \leq \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}D(K,P).
\]
Moreover, there exist triangles $T$ and $T'$ attaining equality above, such that $T$ is an isosceles triangle, with exactly two diametrical edges, whereas $T'$ is an equilateral one.
\end{thm}
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:preliminaries}, we explain the notations and preliminary results needed along the paper, accompanied by two technical Lemmas.
In Section \ref{sec:parallelotopes} we prove Theorem \ref{thm:squares} using a characterization of parallelotopes and the fact that the intersection of $(r,D,R)$-diagrams equals the diagram of any single parallelotope.
Section \ref{sec:proofsMainResults} treats the main result of the paper, namely, the inequalities exposed in Theorems \ref{thm:dominating_diagram} and \ref{cor:nr+R<=n+1D/2}, and the fact that the union of all $(r,D,R)$-diagrams in the planar case equals the diagram of any single triangle in Theorem \ref{thm:BS_diag_simplex}.
Finally in Section \ref{sec:456}, we show that when restricting to centrally symmetric containers the union of diagrams is no longer given by a single diagram, where the regular hexagon plays a crucial role (\cf~Theorem \ref{thm:hexagons}). Moreover, we also show that the $(r,D,R)$-diagram of the regular pentagon has a Jung-extreme triangle which is not equilateral (\cf~Theorem \ref{thm:pentagons}).
\section{Notation and preliminary results}\label{sec:preliminaries}
For every $K,C\in\mathcal K^n$ let $K+C=\{x+y:x\in K,\,y\in C\}$ be the \emph{Minkowski sum} of $K$ and $C$ and for every $\lambda \in \R$ let $\lambda K=\{\lambda x :x \in K\}$ be the $\lambda$-dilatation of $K$. We use $-K :=(-1)K$ for short.
For every $X\subset\R^n$, let $\conv(X)$, $\aff(X)$ and $\pos(X)$ be the \emph{convex, affine}, and \emph{positive hull} of $X$, respectively. Moreover, for any $x,y\in\R^n$, let $[x,y]:=\conv(\{x,y\})$ be the \emph{line segment} with endpoints $x$ and $y$.
The circumradius is homogeneous of degree $1$ and monotonically increasing on its first entry, whereas it is homogeneous of degree $-1$ and monotonically decreasing on its second entry, i.e.~for every $K_1,K_2,C_1,C_2\in\mathcal K^n$ with $K_1\subset K_2$, $C_2\subset C_1$, and $\lambda>0$, we have
\[
R(K_1,C_1) \subset R(K_2,C_1) \subset R(K_2,C_2)
\quad \text{and} \quad
R(\lambda K_1,C_1)=R(K_1,\frac1\lambda C_1)=\lambda R(K_1,C_1).
\]
Notice that those and the remaining properties of the circumradius are inherited by the inradius and the diameter. This can easily be seen due to the fact that $r(K,C)=R(C,K)^{-1}$ and $D(K,C)=2\max_{x,y\in K}R(\{x,y\},C)$ \cite{BrKo15}.
Notice also that $D(K,C)=D([x,y],C)$ for some \emph{extreme points} $x,y$ of $K$, i.e.~such that no line segment containing $x$ or $y$ on its interior can be contained in $K$ \cite{GrKl}.
For every $K \in \mathcal K^n$, let $\bd(K)$ be the \emph{boundary} of $K$ and if $p\in\bd(K)$ let $N(K,p)$ be the (outer) \emph{normal cone} of $K$ at $p$, i.e.~$N(K,p)=\{u\in\R^n : u^T(x-p) \leq 0 \text{ for all } x \in K\}$.
Moreover, for every $u\in\R^n$ let $h(K,u)$ be the \emph{support function} of $K$ at $u$, defined by $h(K,u) := \sup\{x^Tu : x\in K\}$.
Using the support function, it is well known that the diameter can also be expressed by \[
D(K,C)=2\sup_{u\in\R^n \setminus \set{0}} \frac{h(K-K,u)}{h(C-C,u)}
\]
for every $K,C\in\mathcal K^n$ \cite{BrKo15}.
We say that $K\subset^{opt}C$ if $K\subset C$ and $K\not\subset c+\lambda C$
for any $\lambda\in(0,1)$ and $c\in\R^n$. The situation in which $K\subset^{opt}C$ is characterized by a touching condition between a finite amount of boundary points of $K$ and $C$ \cite[Theorem 2.3]{BrKo13}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:opt_cont_criterion}
Let $K,C \in \CK^n$ with $K \subset C$. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $R(K,C)=1$.
\item There exist $p^1,\dots,p^k\in K\cap\bd(C)$, for some $k\in\{2,\dots,n+1\}$,
and $u^j\in N(C,p^j)$, $j\in[k]$, such that $0\in\conv(\{u^j:j\in[k]\})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
In particular, this means that the circumradius is affine invariant, i.e.~for every affine transformation $A$ and $K,C\in\mathcal K^n$ we have $R(A(K),A(C))=R(K,C)$. The same holds for the inradius and diameter.
For the next lemma, one should recognize that using Caratheodory's Theorem we can assume that the points $p^i$ as well as the outer normals $u^i$ in Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} can be chosen affinely independent.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:opt_two_simplices}
Let $K,C \in\CK^n$ be such that $K \subset^{opt} C$. Then
there exist an $\ell$-dimensional simplex $T \in \CK^n$ and
a generalized prism $S \in \CK^n$ with $\ell$-dimensional simplicial base,
such that $T\subset K \subset C\subset S$ for some $\ell \in [n]$, fulfilling
\[
R(T,S)=1,\quad r(T,S) \leq r(K,C),\quad\text{and}\quad D(T,S) \leq D(K,C).
\]
Moreover, if $C=-C$, then we obtain the same conclusion within the chain of inclusions
$T\subset K\subset C\subset S\cap(-S)$, i.e. replacing $S$ by $S\cap(-S)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $K \subset^{opt} C$ we know from Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} that there exist $p^1,\dots,p^k \in K\cap\bd(C)$, $k \in\set{2,\dots,n+1}$, and $u^j\in N(C,p^j)$, $j \in [k]$, such that $0 \in \conv(\set{u^1,\dots,u^k})$.
We immediately obtain the claimed result from defining $\ell := k-1$,
$T:=\conv(\set{p^1,\dots,p^k})$, and $S:=\bigcap_{j=1}^k\set{x\in\R^n : (u^j)^Tx \leq (u^j)^Tp^j}$.
Moreover, if $C=-C$ then $C\subset S$ directly implies $C\subset -S$, too, and therefore $C\subset S\cap(-S)$.
\end{proof}
Just combining the definition of the diameter and the monotonicity of the circumradius we directly deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:D<=2R}
D(K,C) \leq 2\,R(K,C).
\end{equation}
Equality in \eqref{eq:D<=2R} holds, for instance, whenever $K=(1-\lambda)[x,y]+\lambda C$, for some $x,y\in\mathbb R^n$ and $\lambda\in[0,1]$. Seeking for a reverse inequality to the one above, led to the \emph{Jung constants}
\[
j_C=\sup\{R(K,C)/D(K,C):K\in\mathcal K^n\},
\]
referring to Jung who showed that
$j_{\mathbb B_2}=\sqrt{n/(2(n+1))}$ \cite{Ju01}. Bohnenblust proved
that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Bohnenblust}
j_C\leq n/(n+1)
\end{equation}
whenever $C\in\mathcal K^n_0$ \cite{Bo38}. Moreover,
one has $R(K,C)=n/(n+1)D(K,C)$ if and only if $K$ is an $n$-dimensional \emph{simplex},
i.e.~the convex hull of $n+1$ affinely independent points, with barycenter $0$
and $C$ fulfills
\begin{equation}\label{eq:equalityBohnenblust}
K-K \subset D(K,C)C \subset (n+1)(K\cap(-K))
\end{equation}
(see \cite[Corollary 2.9]{BrGM17_3}). More generally, we also know that $j_C\leq n/2$, with $2R(K,C)=nD(K,C)$ if $K=-C$ is a fulldimensional simplex \cite{BrKo13}.
Maybe, the first non trivial inequality relating all three functionals was the so called \emph{concentricity inequality}
(proven in \cite{Sa61} for the euclidean plane, in \cite{Vr81} for general euclidean spaces, and in \cite{MoPaPh} in the general case),
which states that for any $K\in\mathcal K^n$ and $C\in\mathcal K^n_0$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r+R<=D}
r(K,C)+R(K,C) \leq D(K,C).
\end{equation}
For every $C\in\CK^n$, the \emph{asymmetry measure of Minkowski} $s(C)$, or \emph{Minkowski asymmetry} for short, is the smallest $\lambda \ge 0$ such that $\lambda C$ contains some translate of $-C$, i.e.~$s(C)=R(-C,C)$ (see \cite{Gr36}).
It is well known that $s(C) \ge 1$, with equality if and only if $C \in\CK^n_0$, and $s(C) \le n$, with equality if and only if $C$ is a fulldimensional simplex.
Making use of the Minkowski asymmetry the concentricity inequality has been generalized for arbitrary $C\in\CK^n$ \cite{BrGM17_2}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sr+R<=s+1D/2}
s(C)r(K,C)+R(K,C) \leq \frac{s(C)+1}{2}D(K,C).
\end{equation}
In particular, when $s(C)=n$, equality holds for sets of the form $K=(1-\lambda)(-C)+\lambda C$, $\lambda\in[0,1]$ (and, more generally, for constant width sets with respect to $C$
In the Euclidean case it is shown in \cite[Lemma 2.1]{BrGM17}) that $f(\CK^n,\B_n)$ is star-shaped with respect to the upper-right vertex $f(\B_n,\B_n)=(1,1)^T$. For practical purposes this means that these diagrams can be fully described by simply explaining the sets mapped onto its boundaries.
The next lemma shows that the star-shapedness is still true when replacing $\B_n$ by an arbitrary $C\in\CK^n$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:starshaped}
Let $K,C\in\mathcal K^n$.
Then
\[
f((1-\lambda)K+\lambda C,C)=(1-\lambda)f(K,C)+\lambda f(C,C),
\]
for every $\lambda\in[0,1]$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We start noticing that because of the translation and dilatatation invariance of $f$ we may assume without loss of generality that $K\subset^{opt}C$ and doing so we have
$(1-\lambda)K+\lambda C \subset (1-\lambda)C+\lambda C = C$.
Using Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion}, there exist $p^1,\dots,p^k \in K \cap \bd(C)$ and $u^j\in N(C,p^j)$, $j\in[k]$ for some $k \in\{2,\dots,n+1\}$, such that $0 \in \conv(\set{u^1,\dots u^k})$.
Now, since $p^j = (1-\lambda)p^j+\lambda p^j \in ((1-\lambda)K + \lambda C) \cap \bd(C)$ we can again conclude from Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} that $R((1-\lambda)K+\lambda C,C)=1$, for every $\lambda\in[0,1]$.
The same argument give us $r((1-\lambda)K+\lambda C,C)=(1-\lambda)r(K,C)+\lambda$ and
$D((1-\lambda)K+\lambda C,C)=(1-\lambda)D(K,C)+2\lambda$. Thus
\[
\begin{split}
f((1-\lambda)K+\lambda C,C) & =\left((1-\lambda)r(K,C)+\lambda,(1-\lambda)\frac{D(K,C)}{2}+\lambda\right) \\
& = (1-\lambda)f(K,C)+\lambda (1,1),
\end{split}
\]
concluding the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{The Helly-dimension and its meaning for the minimal diagram}\label{sec:parallelotopes}
The \emph{Helly dimension} $\him(C)$ of a set $C\in\mathcal K^n$ is defined as the smallest positive number $k\in\N$ such that whenever we consider a set of indices $I\subset\N$ with the property $\bigcap_{i\in J}(x_i+C) \neq \emptyset$ for all $J\subset I$ with $|J|\leq k+1$ and $x_i\in\R^n$, it already follows that $\cap_{i\in I}(x_i+C)\neq \emptyset$ (for more details on the Helly-dimension see \cite{BaKaPa, SzNa}). We say that a point $p\in\bd(C)$, $C\in\mathcal K^n$, is \emph{regular} or \emph{smooth} if $\dim(N(C,p))=1$.
In \cite[Ch. IV]{BoMaSo} it is proven that the Helly dimension is equivalent to
the \emph{minimal dependence} $\mathrm{md}(C)$, which is the largest number $k\in\N$ such that there exist regular points $p^j\in \bd(C)$, $j\in[k+1]$, and
vectors $u^j\in N(C,p^j)$, $j\in[k+1]$, such that $0\in\conv(\{u^j:j\in[k+1]\})$ and such that for every
$I\subset[k+1]$, $|I|\leq k$, the vectors $\{u^j:j\in I\}$ are linearly independent.
Finally, notice that Sz\"okefalvi-Nagy \cite{SzNa} proved that if $C\in\CK^n$ then $\him(C)=1$ if and only if $C$ is a parallelotope.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:parallelotopes}
Let $C\in\CK^n$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $C$ is a parallelotope.
\item[(ii)] $D(K,C)=2R(K,C)$ for every $K\in\CK^n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us first mention that we make use of the fact $\him(C) = \mathrm{md}(C) =1$ if and only if $C$ is a parallelotope and essentially prove that $(ii)$ implies $\mathrm{md}(C)=1$, while $C$ being parallelotope implies $(ii)$.
We start proving \enquote{(ii) $\Rightarrow$ (i)} and assume that $k=\mathrm{md}(C)>1$. That means there exist smooth boundary points $p^1,\dots,p^{k+1}$ of $C$ and $u^j \in N(C,p^j)$, $j \in [k+1]$, such that $0 \in \conv(\set{u^1,\dots,u^{k+1}})$ and since $\mathrm{md}(C) = k$ we know that $\{u^{j_1},\dots,u^{j_k}\}$ is linearly independent for every choice $1\leq j_1<\cdots<j_k\leq k+1$.
Now, let $K=\conv(\set{p^1,\dots,p^{k+1}})\in\CK^n$ and notice that by Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} we have $K\subset^{opt} C$.
Using (ii) and assuming without loss of generality that $p^1,p^2$ is a diametrical pair of $K$, we conclude $2=2R(K,C)=D(K,C)=D([p^1,p^2],C)$. Hence we have $R([p^1,p^2]C)=1$ and therefore $[p^1,p^2] \subset^{opt} C$.
Using the smoothness of $p^1,p^2$ and Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} again, we conclude $0 \in \conv(\set{u^1,u^2})$, which shows $\mathrm{md}(C)=k=1$.
We now show \enquote{(i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii)} and remember that (i) implies that $C$ is a parallelotope.
After suitable translations and dilatations of $K$ and $C$ we may assume $C=\bigcap_{i=1}^n\set{x\in\R^n:|(v^i)^Tx| \leq 1}$ for some
linearly independent vectors $v^1,\dots,v^n\in\R^n$ as well as $K \subset^{opt} C$. By Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} there exist
$p^1,\dots,p^{n+1}\in K\cap\bd(C)$ and $u^j\in N(C,p^j)$, $j \in [n+1]$, such that $0 \in \conv(\set{u^1,\dots,u^{n+1})}$.
To fulfill the latter the points $p^1,\dots,p^{n+1}$ have to touch a pair of opposing facets of $C$. Otherwise (after changing signs of the $v^i$, if necessary)
we would have $(v^i)^Tp^j =1$ for all $j \in [n+1]$ and $i \in [n]$, which directly implies $u^j \in \pos(\set{v^1,\dots,v^n})$ for all $j \in [n+1]$, contradicting $0 \in \conv(\set{u^1,\dots,u^{n+1})}$.
Thus, we may assume $(v^1)^Tp^1=-1$ and $(v^1)^Tp^2=1$. However, this implies by Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} that
$[p^1,p^2] \subset^{opt} C$
and therefore $D(K,C) \ge 2R([p^1,p^2],C) = 2R(K,C) \ge D(K,C)$, which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:squares}]
The first part is a direct consequence of $f(K,C) = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ if $K$ is a segment and $f(C,C) = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ in combination with Lemma \ref{lem:starshaped}, while the second part follows directly from Lemma \ref{lem:parallelotopes}.
\end{proof}
\section{The maximal diagram -- proof of the main result}
\label{sec:proofsMainResults}
We start noticing that Theorem \ref{cor:nr+R<=n+1D/2} is a direct consequence of \eqref{eq:sr+R<=s+1D/2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{cor:nr+R<=n+1D/2}]
Let $g(x):=ax/(x+1)+b/(x+1)$ for some $0\leq a\leq b$ and $x\geq 1$. Since
$g'(x)=(a-b)/(x+1)^2\leq 0$ we see that $g$ is non increasing.
Now, using \eqref{eq:sr+R<=s+1D/2}, the fact that $0 \leq r(K,C) \leq R(K,C)$, and that $s(C) \leq n$, we conclude that
\[
\frac{n}{n+1}r(K,C)+\frac{1}{n+1}R(K,C)
\leq \frac{s(C)}{s(C)+1}r(K,C)+\frac{1}{s(C)+1}R(K,C)
\leq \frac{D(K,C)}{2}.
\]
\end{proof}
Now, it only remains to prove the validity and tightness of the third inequality in Theorem \ref{thm:dominating_diagram}. To do so we should first recognize that by dividing through the circumradius $R(K,C)$ this inequality can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:New_Ineq_isosceles_triangle}
\frac{r(K,C)}{R(K,C)} \geq \frac{D(K,C)}{2R(K,C)}\left(1-\frac{D(K,C)}{2R(K,C)}\right)
\end{equation}
or simply $D(K,C)(2-D(K,C)) \le 4r(K,C)$ in case $R(K,C)=1$.
First we show that certain triangles attain equality in that inequality.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Isosceles_Extreme_Triangle}
Let $S=\conv(\{p^1,p^2,p^3\}) \in\mathcal K^2$ be an equilateral triangle,
with $\|p^i\|=1$, $i=1,2,3$, and $(p^i)^Tp^j=-1/2$, $1\leq i<j\leq 3$. Moreover, let
\[
T = \conv\left(\left\{ \frac12(p^1+p^2), \frac{D}{2}p^1+\left(1-\frac{D}{2}\right)p^3,\frac{D}{2}p^2+\left(1-\frac{D}{2}\right)p^3\right\}\right),
\]
for some $D\in[1,2]$. Then $R(T,S)=1$, $D(T,S)=D$, and
\[
r(T,S)=\frac{D(T,S)}{2}\left(1-\frac{D(T,S)}{2}\right).
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First of all, recognize that if $D=2$ then $T=[p^1,p^2]$, which directly means that
$D(T,S)=2R(T,S)=2$ and $r(T,S)=0$, proving the claim in that case.
Hence we may suppose $D<2$. In this case each vertex of $T$ touches
each of the edges of $S$ in their relative interior, which by Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} directly implies $R(T,S)=1$.
Now, observe that since $D \ge 1$ we have
\[
\frac{D}{2}p^i+\left(1-\frac{D}{2}\right)p^3 \in \left[p^i,\frac12(p^i+p^3)\right],
\]
for $i=1,2$,
hence implying that
\[
\begin{split}
D\left(\left\{\frac{D}{2}p^i+\left(1-\frac{D}{2}\right)p^3,\frac12(p^1+p^2)\right\},S\right) &
\leq D\left(\mathrm{conv}\left(\left\{p^i,\frac12(p^i+p^3),\frac12(p^1+p^2)\right\}\right),S\right) \\
& = D\left(\left\{p^i,\frac12(p^1+p^2)\right\},S\right) \\
& = \frac{D(\{p^1,p^2\},S)}{2} = 1\\
& \leq D = D\left(\left\{\frac{D}{2}p^j+\left(1-\frac{D}{2}\right)p^3:j=1,2\right\},S\right)
\end{split}
\]
for both $i=1,2$, thus showing that $D(T,S)=D$.
We now compute the vertices $z^i:=c+r(T,S)p^i$, $i=1,2,3$, of $c+r(T,S)S$ such that $c+r(T,S)S \subset T$, for some $c\in\mathbb R^2$.
Without loss of generality, we may assume $p^1=(\sqrt{3}/2,-1/2)^T$, $p^2=(-\sqrt{3}/2,-1/2)^T$, and $p^3=(0,1)^T$.
The symmetry of $T$ and $S$ with respect to the vertical line passing through the origin implies that
\[
\begin{split}
z^3 & =\frac12\left(\frac D2\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},-\frac12\right)^T+\left(1-\frac{D}{2}\right)(0,1)^T\right)+\frac12\left(\frac D2\left(-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},-\frac12\right)^T+\left(1-\frac{D}{2}\right)(0,1)^T\right) \\
& = \left(0,1-\frac{3D}{4}\right)^T.
\end{split}
\]
Let $t\geq 0$ be such that
\[
z^1=z^3+t(p^1-p^3)=\left(0,1-\frac{3D}{4}\right)^T+t\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},-\frac32\right)^T=
\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}t}{2},1-\frac{3D}{4}-\frac{3t}{2}\right)^T.
\]
In particular, we get
\[
r(T,S)=\frac{t\|p^1-p^3\|}{\|p^1-p^3\|}=t.
\]
Notice, the line containing the vertices $(D/2)(\sqrt{3}/2,-1/2)^T+(1-D/2)(0,1)^T$
and $(0,-1/2)^T$ of $T$ is described (in $(x,y)$ coordinates) by the equation
\[
y = \frac{1-\frac{3D}{4}+\frac12}{\frac{\sqrt{3}D}{4}}x - \frac12 = \frac{6-3D}{\sqrt{3}D}x - \frac12.
\]
Since $z^1$ has to fulfill this equation, we obtain
\[
1 - \frac{3D}{4} - \frac{3t}{2} = \frac{(6-3D)t}{2D} - \frac{1}{2}1 - \frac{3D}{4} - \frac{3t}{2} = \frac{(6-3D)t}{2D} - \frac{1}{2}
\]
which shows $r(T,S)=t=D(2-D)/4$, concluding the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:New_ineq_isos_triangles_Triang}
Let $T,S\in\CK^2$ be both triangles. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:triangles_and_triangles}
\frac{r(T,S)}{R(T,S)} \geq \frac{D(T,S)}{2R(T,S)}\left(1-\frac{D(T,S)}{2R(T,S)}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using the affine invariance of the radii, and since affine transformations of simplices are simplices, we can assume
without loss of generality that $S$ is an equilateral triangle centered at the origin.
In particular, let $S=\conv(\{p^1,p^2,p^3\})$ and $T=\conv(\{q^1,q^2,q^3\})$, for some $p^i,q^i\in\R^2$ with $\|p^i\|=1$, $i=1,2,3$.
Remember that $r(T,S)$, $D(T,S)$, and $R(T,S)$ are all homogeneous of degree $1$ on $T$. Hence \eqref{eq:triangles_and_triangles} holds true for
$T$ if and only if \eqref{eq:triangles_and_triangles} holds true for
$T/R(T,S)$. Thus we may assume that $R(T,S)=1$ and moreover, using an additional translation if necessary, that $T \subset^{opt} S$.
Using Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} this again allows us to assume that each $q^i$ belongs to the edge of $S$ opposing $p^i$, $i=1,2,3$.
Furthermore, since $D(T,S)$ is attained by two extreme points, we can suppose that $D(T,S)=D([q^1,q^2],S)$. Finally, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\|q^2-p^1\|\leq\|q^1-p^2\|$.
Keeping the equilaterality of $S$ in mind this directly implies that if we choose $t \in \R^2$, such that $t+[q^1,q^2]\subset^{opt}R([q^1,q^2],S)S$ then $t+q^2 = R([q^1,q^2],S)p^1$.
Using this as well as the fact that $-p^1$ is an outer normal of the edge $[p^2,p^3]$ of $S$ we see that there exists a pair of parallel lines orthogonal to $p^1$ that supports $t+[q^1,q^2]$ as well as $R([q^1,q^2],S)S$ which in particular implies
\[
2\frac{h([q^1-q^2,q^2-q^1],p^1)}{h(S-S,p^1)}=D([q^1,q^2],S)=D(T,S).
\]
In particular, $T \subset \set{x \in S : (p^1)^Tx \leq (p^1)^Tq^2}$ and, using the symmetry of $S$ with respect to the line through 0 in direction of $p^3$,
it must also be true that $T \subset \set{x\in S: x^Tp^2 \leq (p^1)^Tq^2}$. Otherwise the width of $T$ in direction of $p^2$ would be greater than in direction of $p^1$, contradicting that the latter is the maximal width.
\begin{figure} \label{fig:transform-T}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width= 10cm]{Setting_Proof3.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Points $q^i$, $i\in[3]$, over the edges of the triangle $S=\mathrm{conv}(\{p^1,p^2,p^3\})$, and the point $\bar q^1$ which
replaces $q^1$ at the end of the first step of the proof.}
\end{figure}
For the next step, let $c\in\R^2$ be such that $c+r(T,S)S \subset T$. The idea now is that we replace $q^1$ by the only point $\bar q^1$ in $[p^2,p^3]$ such that $[\bar q^1,q^2]$ becomes parallel to $[p^1,p^2]$.
Using the intercept theorem we obtain $D([\bar q^1,q^2],S)=D([q^1,q^2],S)$ as well as $(p^1)^Tq^2 = (p^2)^T \bar q^1 \ge (p^2)^Tq^3$ and therefore
$D([\bar q^1,q^3],S) \leq D([q^1,q^3],S)$. Moreover, since $q^3 \in T \subset \set{x \in S : (p^1)^Tx \leq (p^1)^Tq^2}$ we have $(p^1)^Tq^3 \le (p^1)^Tq^2$. Hence
\[
d(\bar q^1,\aff(q^2,q^3)) \leq d(q^1,\aff(q^2,q^3)),
\]
where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the Euclidean distance.
Let $L:=\aff([c+r(T,S)p^2,c+r(T,S)p^3])$ and $\bar T := \conv(\set{\bar q^1,q^2,q^3})$. The inequality above shows that the length of the segment $T\cap L$ is not shorter than the length of the segment $\bar T \cap L$.
Moreover, since the distance from $q^3$ to $L$ is not longer than the distance from $q^2$ to $L$, we can conclude that we cannot find a triangle $\bar c+\rho S$ contained in $\bar T$ with $\rho > r(T,S)$ (and $\rho = r(T,S)$ can only happen if $q^1=\bar q^1$ or if $[q^2,q^3]$ is parallel to $[p^2,p^3]$). Thus, we have shown that $D(\bar T,S) = D(T,S)$ and $r(\bar T,S) \leq r(T,S)$, and evidently, we also have $R(\bar T,S)=1$.
Finally, if we consider any triangle $\widetilde{T} := \conv(\{q^1,q^2,\widetilde{q}^3\})$ with $\widetilde{q}^3$ in $[p^1,p^2]$, such that
$\|\widetilde{q}^3-p^1\| \geq \|q^2-p^1\|$ and $\|\widetilde{q}^3-p^2\| \geq \|q^1-p^2\|$ we have $D(\widetilde{T},S)=D(T,S)$ for the same reasons than above and surely we also have $R(\widetilde{T},S)=1$ again. Moreover, in case of $[q^1,q^2]$ parallel to $[p^1,p^2]$ we obtain again from the intercept theorem that
$r(\widetilde{T},S) = r(T,S)$.
Thus we may select $\widetilde{q}^3 := \frac12(p^1+p^2)$ and obtain from the above
that the inradius of any triangle $T$ of circumradius $1$ and diameter $D$ (all with respect to $S$), is at least as big as the inradius of the final triangle $\widetilde{T}$ and it is an isosceles triangle by the choice of $q^3$. Thus we are in the situation described in Lemma \ref{lem:Isosceles_Extreme_Triangle}. Hence
\[
r(T,S) \geq r(\widetilde{T},S) = \frac{D(\widetilde{T},S)}{2}\left(1-\frac{D(\widetilde{T},S)}{2}\right)
= \frac{D(T,S)}{2}\left(1-\frac{D(T,S)}{2}\right),
\]
concluding the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorems \ref{thm:dominating_diagram} and \ref{thm:BS_diag_simplex}]
Since we already know the general validity of \eqref{eq:nr+R<=n+1D/2} and \eqref{eq:D<=2R}, we start proving the general validity of \eqref{eq:New_Ineq_isosceles_triangle}:
After a suitable dilatation, we can assume that $R(K,C)=1$ and in case $D(K,C)=2$, the inequality is obviously true. Thus we may assume $D(K,C)<2$ in the following.
Let $T,S \subset\CK^2$ be as given in Lemma \ref{lem:opt_two_simplices}, such that $R(T,S)=1$, $r(T,S)\leq r(K,C)$, and $D(T,S)\leq D(K,C)$. Recognize that $T$ is a segment and $S$ a rectangle if $\ell = 1$ and since they are both symmetric we immediately obtain $D(K,C)=2$, contradicting our assumption.
Thus, we must have $\ell=2$, i.e., $T$ and $S$ are both triangles.
For the sake of contradiction, let us assume that
\[
r(K,C)< \frac{D(K,C)}{2}\left(1-\frac{D(K,C)}{2}\right).
\]
Let $g(y)=(y/2)(1-y/2)$, $y\in(1,2)$, and notice that $g'(y)=(2-2y)/4<0$.
Thus $g(y)$ is a strictly decreasing function whenever $y\in(1,2)$.
Hence we would obtain
\[
r(T,S)\leq r(K,C) < \frac{D(K,C)}{2}\left(1-\frac{D(K,C)}{2}\right) \leq \frac{D(T,S)}{2}\left(1-\frac{D(T,S)}{2}\right),
\]
contradicting Lemma \ref{lem:New_ineq_isos_triangles_Triang}.
To finish the proof we know show that the boundaries described by the three inequalities are filled. First, notice that $(1-\lambda)[x,y]+\lambda S$, $x,y\in\R^2$,
attains equality in \eqref{eq:D<=2R} for all $\lambda\in[0,1]$ and in particular, the line segment $[x,y]$ and $S$ are the extreme cases $\lambda \in \set{0,1}$.
Second, we have $(1-\lambda)(-S)+\lambda S$, $\lambda\in[0,1]$, attains equality in \eqref{eq:nr+R<=n+1D/2}, where the extreme cases are the triangle $S$ and its reverse $-S$.
Finally, the family of triangles $T$ from Lemma \ref{lem:Isosceles_Extreme_Triangle}, for some $D\in[1,2]$,
attains equality in \eqref{eq:triangles_and_triangles} and their extreme cases are a line segment $[x,y]$ (when $D=2$) and the triangle $-S$ (when $D=1$).
This means that the points described by the equality cases of those three inequalities form a simple closed curve which contains $f(\CK^2,S)$ and for each boundary point, there is a convex body $K$ mapped onto it via $f(K,S)$.
Moreover, let $T$ be such that $f(T,S)$ belongs to the boundary induced by Lemma \ref{lem:New_ineq_isos_triangles_Triang}.
Due to the homogeneity of the first entry of $r$ and $D$ we have that
\[
f(T,S)=\left(\frac{r(T,S)}{R(T,S)},\frac{D(T,S)}{2R(T,S)}\right) =
\left(r\left(\frac{T}{R(T,S)},S\right),\frac12D\left(\frac{T}{R(T,S)}\right)\right)=f\left(\frac{T}{R(T,S)},S\right).
\]
Hence we can replace $T$ by $T/R(T,S)$ and therefore assume that $R(T,S)=1$.
Finally, since $f(T,S)$ is linear in the first entry with respect to the Minkowski addition of $T$ and $S$ (see Lemma \ref{lem:starshaped})
and \eqref{eq:D<=2R} and the inequality in Theorem \ref{cor:nr+R<=n+1D/2} are linear with endpoint at $S$, thus the region contained between these three boundaries \emph{coincides} with the diagram $f(\mathcal K^2,S)$, since it is completely covered by the values
\[
f((1-\lambda)T+\lambda S,S)=(1-\lambda)f(T,S)+\lambda(1,1)^T,\quad \lambda\in[0,1],
\]
for every $D\in[1,2]$, which concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dominating_diagram}.
Theorem \ref{thm:BS_diag_simplex} now is a straightforward consequence of the fact that all the inequalities in Theorem \ref{thm:dominating_diagram} are already best possible if we choose $S$ to be a triangle.
\end{proof}
\section{Importance of $k$-gons in the planar case}\label{sec:456}
From the previous sections we learned that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:union_diagrams_general_case}
\bigcup_{C\in\CK^2} f(\CK^2,C) = f(\CK^2,\CK^2)=f(\CK^2,S) \quad \text{and} \bigcap_{C \in \CK^2} f(\CK^2,C) = f(\CK^2,P)
\quad \end{equation}
for some triangle $S$ and some parallelogram $P$.
In view of the first
in combination with Lemma \ref{lem:opt_two_simplices} one may naturally conjecture that
$\bigcup_{C\in\mathcal K_0^2} f(\mathcal K^2,C) = f(\mathcal K^2,C_0)$,
for some $C_0\in\CK^2_0$. However,
the symmetric case is a bit different as Theorem \ref{thm:hexagons} shows.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:hexagons}]
After a suitable translation and dilatation of $K$, let $K\subset^{opt} H$ Now, by Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion} there exist $p^i\in K\cap \bd(H)$ and $u^i\in N(H,p^i)$ such that $0 \in \conv(\set{u^1,u^2,u^3})$ and
since $D(K,H)<2R(K,H)$ we must have that the points $p^i$ belong to non-consecutive edge of $H$.
We now show that $r(K,H)\geq R(K,H)/4$. To do so, let $q^1,\dots,q^6$ be the vertices of $H$ in clockwise order.
Moreover, let us suppose that each $p^1$ belongs to $[q^2,q^3]$, $p^2$ to $[q^4,q^5]$, and $p^3$ to $[q^6,q^1]$.
Notice that the length of
\[
\conv(\{q^1,q^2,\frac{1}{2}(q^4+q^5)\}) \cap [q^3,q^6]
\]
is half of the length of $[q^1,q^2]$. The same holds when considering the triangle of vertices
$q^3,q^4,\frac12(q^6+q^1)$ and segment $[q^2,q^5]$ or the triangle of vertices $q^5,q^6,\frac12(q^2+q^3)$ and segment
$[q^1,q^4]$. Therefore, those three triangles optimally contain a factor $\frac14$ dilatation of $C$.
Now, assume that $c_1+r_1H\subset^{opt} K$, for some $c_1\in H$ and $r_1< \frac14$. In particular,
this means that $c+rH \subset^{opt}\conv(\set{p^1,p^2,p^3})$, for some $r< 1/4$ and $c\in H$.
Moreover, since $D(K,H)<2R(K,H)$ we may assume without loss of generality, $p^1 \in (q^2,q^3), p^2 \in (q^4,q^5)$, and $p^3 \in (q^1,q^6)$ and because of the symmetry group of $H$ that $c=tq^4 + su^1$, for some $t,s \geq 0$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{HexagonProof.png}
\caption{Trying to build a triangle (with vertices $p^1,p^2,p^3$) optimally contained within a hexagon $H$, such that it optimally contains itself a homothet of $H$ rescaled by a factor less than $1/4$.
}
\label{fig:HexagonProof}
\end{figure}
Now, let $L_2$ and $L_3$ be line segments supporting $c+rH$ with one endpoint at $p^2$ and $p^3$, respectively, such that $c+rH$ and $q^6$ are on the same halfspace induced by $L_2$, while $c+rH$ and $q^5$ are on the same halfspace induced by $L_3$ (\cf~Figure \ref{fig:HexagonProof}).
Notice that $c+rH$ cannot be contained in the halfspace determined by $[q^3,q^6]$
as otherwise, $L_2$ would not hit the boundary of $H$ again within $(q^2,q^3)$, contradicting that $c+rH$ is the inball of $\conv(\set{p^1,p^2,p^3})$.
The same reason implies that $c+rH$ cannot be contained in the halfspace determined by $[q^2,q^5]$.
In the remainder of the proof we want to show that $L_2$ and $L_3$ cannot both go through the same point $p^1 \in (q^2,q^3)$, a contradiction again.
Let $L_2'$ and $L_3'$ be line segments supporting $rH$ with endpoints at $q^6$ and $q^5$, respectively, such that $q^5$ and $rH$ belong to the same halfspace induced by $L_2'$, while $q^6$ and $rH$ belong to the same halfspace induced by $L_3'$. Since $r<1/4$ this means that $L_2'$ intersects the boundary of $H$ at a point closer to $q^4$ (in terms of walking along the boundary of $H$) than $L_3'$.
This last property will stay true on each of the next geometric steps of the proof.
Now, notice that replacing $rH$ by $tq^4+rH$ and changing $L_2'$ and $L_3'$ accordingly, the two lines support $tq^4+rH$ at $tq^4+rq^1$ and $tq^4+rq^4$, respectively. Since $[q^4,q^1]$ is parallel to $[q^5,q^6]$, we still have that $L_2'$ intersects the boundary of $H$ at a point closer to $q^4$ than $L_3'$.
Again, replacing $tq^4+rH$ by $tq^4+su^1+rH = c+rH$, and changing $L_2'$ and $L_3'$ correspondingly, moves the intersection point of $L_2'$ with the boundary of $H$ even closer to $q^4$ and the one of $L_3'$ even further away from $q^4$.
Finally, replacing $L_2'$ by $L_2$ and $L_3'$ by $L_3$ again moves the intersection point with the boundary of $H$ of the former closer to $q^4$ and the intersection point of the latter further away from $q^4$.
Since at the beginning $L_2'$ and $L_3'$ could not intersect at a common boundary point of $H$, we can conclude they can neither at the end. Hence $L_2$ and $L_3$ cannot intersect at any point of the boundary of $H$, arriving at the desired contradiction.
Thus we must have $r(K,H) \geq R(K,H)/4$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Notice that if $H$ is a regular hexagon, then \eqref{eq:D<=2R} and \eqref{eq:r+R<=D} induce boundaries of the diagram $f(\CK^2,H)$. Moreover, assuming that $H=\conv(\set{q^1,\dots,q^6})$,
we conjecture that the family of isosceles triangles
\[
T_\lambda:=\conv(\set{(1-\lambda)q^1+\lambda q^2,(1-\lambda)q^4+\lambda q^3,\frac12(q^5+q^6)})
\]
induces the left boundary of the diagram $f(\CK^2,H)$. Doing a detailed computation one can check that
$f(T_\lambda,H)=((\lambda+1)(2-\lambda)/(4+\lambda),(1+\lambda)/2)$, or explicitly, that $r(T_\lambda,H)=D(T_\lambda,H)(3-D(T_\lambda,H))/(3+D(T_\lambda,H))$ (\cf~Figure \ref{fig:hexagon}).
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{DiagramHexagon2.png}
\caption{The diagram $f(\mathcal K^2,H)$, $H$ regular hexagon.}
\label{fig:hexagon}
\end{figure}
On the one hand, Theorem \ref{thm:hexagons}, together with the fact that there exist equilateral triangles $T$ such that $f(T,\B_2) = (x,y)$ with $y<1$ and $x$ arbitrary close to 0, shows that the union $f(\CK^2,\CK^2_0) = \bigcup_{C \in \CK^2_0} f(\CK^2,C)$ \emph{cannot} be covered by $f(\CK^2,H)$, $H$ a regular hexagon. On the other hand, the equality case of \eqref{eq:Bohnenblust} shows that $(1/2,3/4)^T \in f(\CK^2,C)$, $C\in\CK^2_0$, if and only if $C$ is an affine transformation of a regular hexagon. Hence $f(\CK^2,\CK^2_0)$ cannot be given by a single symmetric container.
\begin{rem}\label{rem:union_hexagons}
With a bit more effort, we can also prove, by means of a new geometric property (that we will show in a forthcoming paper)
together with Lemma \ref{lem:opt_two_simplices}, the non-obvious fact that
\[f(\CK^2,\CK^2_0)=\bigcup_{S\text{ a triangle}}f(\CK^2,S\cap(-S)).\]
\end{rem}
We now turn to the case in which the diagram is considered with respect to a regular pentagon.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:pentagons}]
Let $p^1,\dots,p^5$ be the vertices of a regular pentagon $P$ with $\|p^i\|=1$, $i=1,\dots,5$, and $p^{ij}=(p^i+p^j)/2$, $1\leq i<j\leq 5$.
We start noticing that $-P\subset s(P)P$, where we clearly have that
$s(P)=\|p^1\|/\|p^{34}\|=\sqrt{5}-1$. Notice also that since the diameter of a triangle is attained along an edge,
selecting $T := \conv(\set{p^{34},p^{15},p^{12}})$ we obtain
\[
D([p^{15},p^{12}],P)<D([p^{34},p^{15}],P)=D(-\frac{P}{s(P)},P)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{5}-1}=\frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2},
\]
and so $D(T,P)=(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$.
Moreover, an analogous geometric argument shows that for any $x \in [p^5,p^{15}]$ we have $D([x,p^{34}],P)=(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$ too.
Now, let $K\in\CK^2$. After a suitable dilatation and translation, we may assume that $K \subset^{opt} P$. Using Proposition \ref{prop:opt_cont_criterion}, there exist $q^1,q^2,q^3 \in K \cap \bd(P)$ such that, after reordering if needed, $q^1 \in [p^3,p^4]$, $q^2 \in [p^1,p^5]$, and $q^3 \in [p^1,p^2]$.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $q^1$ is closer to $p^3$ than to $p^4$. Moreover, let $x\in[p^1,p^5]$. Then
\[
\begin{split}
D([x,q^1],P) & \geq 2\frac{h([x-q^1,q^1-x],p^3)}{h(P-P,p^3)} \\
& \geq 2\frac{h([x-p^{34},p^{34}-x],p^3)}{h(P-P,p^3)} \\
& \geq 2\frac{h([p^{15}-p^{34},p^{34}-p^{15}],p^3)}{h(P-P,p^3)} \ge \frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2},
\end{split}
\]
This shows that $D(K,P) \geq D([q^2,q^1],P) \geq (\sqrt{5}+1)/2$, i.e.
\[
\frac{D(K,P)}{R(K,P)} \geq \frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2} = \frac{D(T,P)}{R(T,P)},
\]
concluding that $j_P=(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$.
In order to finish the proof, let
\[
T_\lambda:=\conv(\set{(1-\lambda)p^5+\lambda p^1,(1-\lambda)p^2+\lambda p^1,p^{34}}),
\]
$\lambda\in[0,1/2]$ (which means $T=T_{\frac 12})$. From the computations above, we know that
\[
D([(1-\lambda)p^5+\lambda p^1,p^{34}],P)=D([(1-\lambda)p^2+\lambda p^1,p^{34}],P)=\frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2},
\]
for every $\lambda\in[0,1/2]$. Moreover,
since
\[
D([(1-\lambda)p^5+\lambda p^1,(1-\lambda)p^2+\lambda p^1],P)
\left\{\begin{array}{lr}
<\frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2} & \text{if } \lambda=1/2,\\
=2 & \text{if }\lambda=0,
\end{array}\right.
\]
by continuity there exists $\lambda_0\in(0,1/2)$ such that $D([(1-\lambda_0)p^5+\lambda_0 p^1,(1-\lambda_0)p^2+\lambda_0 p^1],P)
=(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$.
Such $\lambda_0$ fulfills in particular that $\|p_{34}-p^{15}\|=\|(1-\lambda_0)p^5+\lambda_0 p^1-(1-\lambda_0)p^2-\lambda_0p^1\|$, i.e.
$(1-\lambda_0)\|p^5-p^2\|=\|p^{34}-p^{15}\|$ and thus
\[
1-\lambda_0=\frac{\|p^{34}-p^{15}\|}{\|p^5-p^2\|}=\frac{\|p^{34}-p^{15}\|}{\|p^3-p^1\|}=\frac{D(T_1,P)}{2}=\frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{4},
\]
from which $\lambda_0=(3-\sqrt{5})/4$. For such $\lambda_0$, define $T':=T_{\lambda_0}$. Then all three edges of $T'$ are diametrical, which means $T'$ is equilateral and $R(T',P)/D(T',P) = j_P$, which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Notice that using the notation of Theorem \ref{thm:pentagons},
$s(P)=\sqrt{5}-1$ together with \eqref{eq:sr+R<=s+1D/2} gives
\begin{equation} \label{eq:right-pentagon}
(\sqrt{5}-1)r(K,P)+R(K,P)\leq\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}D(K,P)
\end{equation}
for every $K\in\CK^2$ and equality holds in the above inequality for $(1-\lambda)(-P)+\lambda P$, $\lambda\in[0,1]$ and especially for $K=-P$ we have equality in \eqref{eq:sr+R<=s+1D/2} for a set, which also achieves the Jung-constant $j_P$.
Moreover, we conjecture that the family filling the left boundary of the diagram $f(\CK^2,P)$
is given by the isosceles triangles
\[
T_\lambda
:=
\conv(\{(1-\lambda)p^1+\lambda p^2,(1-\lambda)p^1+\lambda p^5,p^{34}\})
,
\]
for $\lambda\in[0,1/2]$. After a lengthy computation, their image equals
$f(T_\lambda,P)=(\lambda(1+\lambda\frac{\sqrt{5}-3}{2}),1+\lambda\frac{\sqrt{5}-3}{2})^T$.
Explicitly, $r(T_\lambda,P)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{5}-3}(D(T_\lambda,P)/2-1)D(T_\lambda,P)/2$.
Gathering this information, the Jung-constant of $P$ given in Theorem \ref{thm:pentagons}, \eqref{eq:D<=2R}, and \eqref{eq:right-pentagon}, we obtain the (in one boundary conjectured) diagram $f(\CK^2,P)$ (\cf~Figure \ref{fig:pentagon}).
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{DiagramPentagon2.png}
\caption{The diagram $f(\CK^2,P)$, with $P$ a regular pentagon, and the set $f(\CK^2,\CK^2)$. The two bold points indicate the coordinates of the isosceles triangle $T$ (left one) and the equilateral $T'$ (right).}
\label{fig:pentagon}
\end{figure}
\begin{rem}
Let us denote by $\CC^k$ and $\CC^k_0$ the families of all $k$-gons and all symmetric $k$-gons, respectively. Then we can find sequences $(C_m)_{m \in \N}$ in $\CC^k$ or in $\CC^k_0$ such that $C_m \rightarrow S$ or $C_m \rightarrow S\cap(-S)$, ($m\rightarrow \infty$), respectively, for some triangle $S$ and with respect to the Hausdorff metric. Doing so the continuity of the radii functionals together with Theorems \ref{thm:BS_diag_simplex} and \ref{thm:dominating_diagram} (see also Remark \ref{rem:union_hexagons}) would immediately imply that
\[
f(\CK^2,\CK^2)=\overline{\bigcup_{C\in\mathcal C^k}f(\CK^2,C)}
\quad and \quad f(\CK^2,\CK_0^2)=\overline{\bigcup_{C\in\mathcal C^k_0}f(\CK^2,C)},
\]
for every $k\geq 3$ or $k\geq 6$, respectively.
Moreover, in case $k \ge 4$ we could choose the sequence $(C_m)_{m \in \N}$ such that it converges against a parallelogram thus showing together with Theorem \ref{thm:squares} that
\[\overline{\bigcap_{C\in\CC^k}f(\CK^2,C)} = \conv\left(\set{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right),\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}\right)\]
\end{rem}
|
\section{Introduction}
The gravitational potential influences the rate at which time passes.
This means that a hypothetical measurement of the age of a massive object like the Sun or the Earth would yield different results depending on whether performed at the surface or near the center.
In this connection, clearly, issues such as the initial assembly of cosmic dust to form the protoplanet eventually leading to the Earth is not what is alluded to when considering the age. Rather, the age is understood as e.g.\ the 'aging' of radioactive elements in the Earth, i.e.\ that fewer radioactive decays of a particular specimen have taken place in the Earth center than on its surface.
Furthermore, arguments based on symmetry will convince most skeptics, including those from 'the general public', that there is no gravitational force at the Earth center. Consequently, such an effect cannot be due to the force itself, but may instead be due to the 'accumulated action of gravity' (a layman expression for the gravitational potential energy being the radial integral of the force).
Thus, there is also a good deal of pedagogical value in this observation.
In a series of lectures presented at Caltech in 1962-63, Feynman is reported to have shared this fascinating insight with the audience using the formulation "...since the center of the earth should be a day or two younger than the surface!"~\cite{Hatf03}. This thought experiment is just one among a plethora of fascinating observations about the physical world provided by Richard Feynman.
Although this time difference has been quoted in a few papers, either the lecturer or the transcribers had it wrong; it should have been given as 'years' instead of 'days'.
In this paper, we first present a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation which compares to what may have been given in the lecture series.
We then present a more elaborate analysis which brings along a number of instructive points.
We believe that this correction only makes the observation of age difference due to gravity even more intriguing.
We stress that this paper is by no means an attempt at besmearing the reputation of neither Feynman nor any of the authors who trustingly replicated his statement (including one of the authors of the present paper, UIU).
Instead the, admittedly small, mistake is used as a pedagogical point much like the example 'the human failings of genius' that Ohanian has used in his book about Einstein's mistakes \cite{Ohan08}.
Realising that even geniuses make mistakes may make the scientist more inclined towards critically examining any postulate on his/her own.
\section{The center of the Earth is younger than its surface}
\subsection{Homogeneous Earth}
We initially suppose that the object under consideration is a sphere with radius $R$ and mass $M$, homogeneously distributed.
Its gravitational potential as a function of distance $r$ to its center is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi&=&-G\cfrac{M}{r}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r\geq R\\
\Phi&=&-G\cfrac{M(3R^2-r^2)}{2R^3}~~~~~~r\leq R
\label{earth_time1}
\end{eqnarray}
such that the potential on its surface is $\Phi(R)=-GM/R$ and the potential in its center is $\Phi(0)=-3GM/2R$.
The difference between the gravitational potential at the center and at the surface is then
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Phi=\Phi(R)-\Phi(0)=\cfrac{1}{2}G\cfrac{M}{R}.
\label{earth_time4}
\end{equation}
A difference in gravitational potential implies a time dilation at the point with the lower potential.
This is given by the standard 'gravitational redshift'
\begin{equation}
\omega=\omega_0(1-\cfrac{\Delta\Phi}{c^2}),
\label{work_height6}
\end{equation}
which here relates the (angular) frequencies at the center, $\omega$, and at the surface $\omega_0$. Being the inverse of the period, the frequency is indirectly a measure of how quickly time passes. It is customary to use the symbol $\omega$ in this connection, and we emphasise that this variable has nothing to do with the Earth rotation.
We combine equation \eqref{work_height6} with the result for $\Delta\Phi$ in equation \eqref{earth_time4} and use that $\Delta\omega=\omega-\omega_0$,
\begin{equation}
\Delta\omega=-\cfrac{1}{2}G\omega_0\cfrac{M}{Rc^2}
\label{earth_time5}
\end{equation}
We note that this treatment is based on equation \eqref{work_height6} which "...refers only to identically constructed clocks located at different distances from the center of mass of a gravitating body along the lines of force. All that is required is that the clocks obey the weak equivalence principle [...] and the special theory of relativity." \cite{Nobi13}.
See Ref.~\cite{RSChristensen} for a recent, instructive example that can be easily performed in the undergraduate laboratory to display one aspect of the equivalence principle.
For the case of the Earth, upon rewriting and setting the surface acceleration $GM_e/R_e^2=g=9.82$ m/s$^2$, with $R_e$ being the Earth radius, equation \eqref{earth_time5} becomes
\begin{equation}
\cfrac{\Delta\omega}{\omega_0}=-\cfrac{1}{2}\cfrac{R_eg}{c^2},
\label{earth_time6}
\end{equation}
such that the Earth mass $M_e$ and the gravitational constant $G$ are not needed explicitly.
For the sake of a back-of-the-envelope calculation we may exploit that $c/g\simeq1$ year (within 3\%, although there is no direct connection between the motion of the Earth around the Sun and $c$). The Earth age is $T_e=4.54\cdot10^9$ years and its average radius is $R_e=$ 6371 km so that $R_e/2c$ is approximately 10 ms. A year is approximately $\pi\cdot10^7$ s. Clearly, the use here of $\pi$ is a mnemonic device, not an expression of precision, although it is precise to about half a percent (one could use $3$ instead of $\pi$ which, however, is imprecise to 5 percent). Thus the difference between the age of the Earth surface and its center becomes approximately $4.5\cdot10^9\cdot10^{-2}/\pi\cdot10^7\simeq1.4$ years, with the center being youngest.
This is the \emph{type} of 'back-of-the-envelope' calculation that one could imagine that Feynman had in mind when he expressed his "...since the center of the earth should be a day [which thus should have read 'year'] or two younger than the surface!" \cite{Hatf03}. Where the mistake actually entered in the lecture and transcription process is unlikely to ever be ascertained, and its exact origin is not important for the following discussion.
With tabulated values for $M_e,~G,~R_e,~c$ and $T_e$ a more precise number for the homogeneous Earth is obtained:
\begin{equation}
\Delta T_{eh}=T_e\cfrac{1}{2}G\cfrac{M_e}{R_ec^2}=1.58~\mathrm{years},
\label{earth_time7}
\end{equation}
with the center being youngest.
\subsection{Realistic Earth}
Rather than assuming a homogeneous Earth, we now turn to a more realistic density distribution.
This yields a significantly different result and reveals some insights to the origin of the time difference.
A rather precise description, but not the only one available, of the Earth density profile is tabulated in the so-called 'Preliminary Reference Earth Model' (PREM)~\cite{Dzie81}.
Very recently, the PREM has been applied to give a detailed description of the Earth 'gravity tunnel' problem \cite{Klot15}.
We shall consider a spherically symmetric Earth with a density only dependent on radius, $\rho (r)$, as given by the PREM, see Figure \ref{fig:Density}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Density.pdf}
\caption{The density of the Earth as a function of distance to the Earth center for two different models. The blue line shows the PREM of the Earth density and the red curve is the constant density in the approximation of a homogeneous Earth with mass $M_e$.}
\label{fig:Density}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The gravitational potential caused by this sphere is then given by
\begin{align}
\Phi(r) = -\int_{\infty}^{r}\vec{f}_{\textrm{grav}}\cdot \vec{dr'},
\end{align}
where $\vec f_{\textrm{grav}}=\vec F_{\textrm{grav}}/m$ is the mass specific force, or acceleration $\vec a_{\textrm{grav}}$, due to gravity, with $\vec F_{\textrm{grav}}$ being the gravitational force (which is why $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential and not the gravitational potential \emph{energy}). The gravitational potential energy is equal to the work done by taking a test particle of mass $m$ from infinity to a distance $r$ away from the center of the Earth.
We split the expression in two parts:
\begin{align}
\Phi(r) =& -\int_{R}^{r}\vec{f}_{\textrm{grav}}\cdot \vec{dr'} - \int_{\infty}^{R}\vec{f}_{\textrm{grav}}\cdot \vec{dr'},
\end{align}
with the first term being the work per unit mass done inside the object - in this case the Earth - and the last term the work per unit mass done moving the test particle from infinity to the Earth surface.
The gravitational acceleration at a distance, $r$, outside a sphere of mass $M$ is $\vec a_{\textrm{grav}}=\vec f_{\textrm{grav}}=-\hat{r}GM/r^{2}$, the sign showing that it is directed towards the center.
Inside the sphere, when $r < R$, only the mass closer than $r$ to the center matters. We denote this by
\begin{align}
M(r) = \int_0^r 4\pi r'^2 \rho(r')dr'.
\label{M_r}
\end{align}
Now we can write the sum specifically for $r < R$ as
\begin{align}
\Phi(r) =& \int_{R}^{r} G\frac{M(r')}{r'^2} dr' -G\cfrac{M}{R}
\label{Phi_r}
\end{align}
where the last term is the potential at the surface of the object.
The integrand in the first term is the gravitational acceleration as a function of $r$.
When evaluated at the surface, $r=R_e$, the result is the normal gravitational acceleration, $g$.
This can be seen on Figure \ref{fig:Acceleration} where the acceleration felt at different distances to the Earth center is shown. Due to the mass distribution 'kink' seen in Figure \ref{fig:Density} at a radius of about 3500 km, the acceleration becomes almost constantly equal to its surface value from this radius, outwards.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Acceleration.pdf}
\caption{The size of the gravitational acceleration as a function of distance to the Earth center. It reaches the familiar value of $9.82$ m/s$^2$ at the surface. The analytical curve is given by the simple scaling $g\cdot r/R_e$ by assuming a homogeneous mass distribution.}
\label{fig:Acceleration}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Using the PREM density distribution $\rho(r')$ in eq.\ \eqref{M_r} as an input to eq.\ \eqref{Phi_r}, the more elaborate result for the age difference of the Earth center and the surface is
\begin{equation}
\Delta T_e=2.49~\mathrm{years},
\label{earth_time7b}
\end{equation}
with the center being youngest.
As a, perhaps, intriguing side-effect, we show the time difference as a function of radius, see Figure \ref{fig:TvariationE}.
As expected, the two theories predict similar time differences near the surface of the Earth. Closer to the center, the PREM yields a larger result than the homogeneous distribution.
This is because $M(r)_{\mathrm{PREM}}>M(r)_{\mathrm{Homog.}}$ for small $r$. In fact, assuming for simplicity that the object of radius $R$ consists of a region of high density for $0\leq r\leq r_0$ and zero density for $r_0< r\leq R$, respecting that the total mass equals $M$, and with $r_0=k_0R$, $0<k_0\leq1$, the potential difference between center and surface becomes
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Phi=(\cfrac{3}{k_0}-2)\Delta\Phi_h,
\label{DPhi_hom}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\Phi_h$ is that of the homogeneous distribution. Thus, the factor $3/k_0-2$ yields the increase in time difference compared to the homogeneous model. So for the Earth, where this approximation is rather crude, we may set $r_0$ to be 3480 km as seen from the PREM curve in Figure \ref{fig:Density}, i.e.\ $k_0\simeq3480~\mathrm{km}/6371~\mathrm{km}\simeq0.55$ such that $\Delta\Phi\simeq3.5\Delta\Phi_h$ somewhat above the factor 1.7 obtained by the numerical method, as expected from the crudeness of this approximation.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TvariationEarth2x.pdf}
\caption{The figure shows the time difference between a point inside the Earth and the surface (center) of the Earth. The blue curve is calculated with PREM and the red curve using a homogeneous mass distribution.}
\label{fig:TvariationE}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We end this section by showing that the time dilation due to the rotational speed of the surface of the Earth makes a negligible contribution. The surface speed is given from the period of rotation as $v_s=R_e 2\pi/T_s\simeq464$ m$/$s where $T_s=86.164,099$ s is the stellar day (the Earth rotation period with respect to the 'fixed' stars). Since the time dilation in special relativity is given from the Lorentz factor $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}\simeq1+v^2/2c^2$ as $\Delta T=Tv^2/2c^2$ we get with $T_e$ that $\Delta T_s\simeq5\cdot10^{-3}$ years, which can be neglected in the present discussion.
\section{The case of the Sun}
Clearly, the calculations performed in connection with the Earth can be performed for essentially any other cosmic object with known mass and radius, at least in the limit of a homogeneous mass distribution. However, we limit the additional cases to our cosmic neighbourhood, i.e.\ to that of the Sun, in order to demonstrate the applicability of eq.\ \eqref{DPhi_hom}. For the Sun, in analogy with the PREM which is based on seismic data, we choose the so-called 'Model S' for its density distribution, a model in good agreement with helioseismic data \cite{Chri96}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SunDensity.pdf}
\caption{The density of the Sun as a function of distance to the Sun center for two different models. The blue line shows the 'Model S' of the Sun density, obtained from helioseismic data \cite{Chri96}, and the red curve is the uniform density Sun.}
\label{fig:DensitySun}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the homogeneous case, the age difference between the Sun center and surface, which can be rewritten as $\Delta T=T_s v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2/4c^2$ with $v_{\mathrm{esc}}=\sqrt{2GM/R}$ being the surface escape velocity, is
\begin{equation}
\Delta T_{sh}=4.8\cdot10^3~\mathrm{years},
\label{sun_time1}
\end{equation}
whereas with the 'Model S' solar model it becomes
\begin{equation}
\Delta T_{s}=3.9\cdot10^4~\mathrm{years},
\label{sun_time2}
\end{equation}
see Figure \ref{fig:TvariationS}.
The factor of $8.0$ difference between these two numbers is substantially larger than that between the same two numbers for the Earth.
This is a result of the Earth being relatively homogeneous while for the Sun, a significantly larger part of its mass is located close to its center.
Using eq.\ \eqref{DPhi_hom} and approximating $k_0\simeq2.5/7$ from the density distribution, the Model S curve in Figure \ref{fig:DensitySun}, we get a factor $8.4$, a much better approximation than for the case of the Earth.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TvariationSun2x.pdf}
\caption{The figure shows the time difference between a point inside the Sun and the surface (center) of the Sun. The blue curve is calculated with the 'Model S' density model for the Sun and the red curve using a homogeneous mass distribution.}
\label{fig:TvariationS}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
As a final discussion we address the question: why did famous, respectable and clever physicists publish Feynman's claim (although not verbatim, actually) that "[Feynman] concluded that the center of the Earth should be 'a day or two younger than its surface'" \cite{Okun99}, or "[Feynman] concludes that the center of the Earth should be by a day or two younger than its surface" \cite{Okun99b} and reversely "'atoms at the surface of the earth are a couple of days older than at its center'", in the latter case even with the comment "this was confirmed by airplane experiments in 1970s" \cite{Okun02}?
And why did other, equally talented physicists not correct \emph{that} particular mistake in the foreword to the transcribed lectures, in spite of quite extensive discussions, spanning 24 pages, of among other things a few misconceptions etc. \cite{Pres95}? Not to mention the transcribers - postdocs with Feynman - who, along the way, probably have corrected a few mistakes here and there? Or the editor, who also provided introductory notes on quantum gravity \cite{Hatf03b}? Why did one of us (UIU), repeat the same mistake in a science book for the layman \cite{Ugge14}?
This, of course, was not because any of these physicists were unable to check the original claim, or found it particularly laborious to do so. Instead, it seems likely that they knew that the qualitative effect had to be there, and simply trusted that Feynman and his transcribers had got the number right. This is here considered an example of 'proof by ethos' \cite{Faye14}.
The term 'proof by ethos' refers to cases where a scientist's status in the community is so high that everybody else takes this person's calculations or results for granted. In other words, nobody questions the validity of that scientist's claim because of the particular ethos that is associated with that person. The result is accepted merely by trust.
Indeed, the proof by ethos is not really a proof as it does not follow logically from a set of premises. But it is a proof in the sense that it is persuasive, and tells us something about how scientists work in practice when they accept a calculation or an experimental result. Scientists must to a large extent rely on the validation of other fellow's work, and it happens to be a psychological default condition among many (scientists), that if a famous peer has publicly announced a result, it is accepted at face value. This seems also to be the situation in the case of the flawed estimate of the relativistic age of the Earth's core.
In science, one route to becoming famous is being right on some important topics.
However, just because someone has become famous, this person is evidently not necessarily right on all matters.
Feynman himself would most likely have agreed with this and he would probably not have fallen for his own miscalculation:
For a long time, his own theory of beta decay was at odds with the then prevalent, but false, understanding of existing experimental results.
Upon finally realizing and correcting this community-wide misunderstanding Feynman wrote: "Since then I never pay any attention to "experts". I calculate everything myself."~\cite{Surely}.
And when faced with a mistake of his own, he put it even more bluntly: "What it says in the book [I have written] is absolutely wrong!" \cite{Hey99}.\\
In spite of the small numerical mistake, Feynman's observation that the center of the Earth is younger than its surface is a fascinating demonstration of time dilation in relativity, and as such a very illustrative example for use in the classroom.
|
\section{Introduction}
The problem of defining the energy of gravitating systems is its localization. There is no proper local description of gravitational energy. This was shown by Noether a hundred years ago \cite{Noether}. This phenomenon is physically understood in terms of the equivalence principle, and it is simply a basic fact about the local flatness of Riemannian geometry which implies that one can always find a coordinate system such that at any selected point the connection coefficients vanish. The connection coefficients are analogous to the gravitational force.
In the early days, many efforts were made to construct some gravitational energy density, they led to various pseudotensors. Because of the fundamental property of gravity, two ambiguities arise: (i) there are many possible expressions and (ii) they are non-covariant (i.e. coordinate dependent) \cite{CNT1}. Later, the idea of \emph{quasi-local} was used, and there are several proposals on defining quasi-local quantities \cite{Sz}. Chang et.al found that different pseudotensor expressions are related to different boundary conditions associated with the Hamiltonian boundary expression \cite{CNC}. One may treat gravitational energy from the Hamiltonian point of view as well as from pseudotensor. The advantage of using the Hamiltonian formalism is that the Noether conserved current is the Hamiltonian density, which is the canonical generator of a local spacetime translation \cite{CNT1}, and it implies that different conserved quantities correspond to different displacement vector fields \cite{CNT4}.
Although the Hamiltonian point of view gives a clear understanding of the conservation and symmetry, the fundamental ambiguities are still there: (i) many possible boundary conditions of the Hamiltonian boundary term (i.e.\ Hamiltonian boundary expressions) and (ii) the choice of the reference (which is related to the coordinate choice of the pseudotensor expression).
In this article, we analyze the expression favored by CNT (\cite{CNT4}, eq.(57) which is related to the fixed coframe $\vartheta^{\alpha}$ on the boundary as the boundary condition):
\begin{equation}
E(N,\Omega)=\int_{\Omega}\mathcal{H}(N)=\oint_{S}\mathfrak{B}(N),
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is a spacelike region with a closed 2-boundary $S$,
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{B}(N)=\frac{1}{2\kappa}(\Delta\omega^{a}{}_{b}\wedge i_{N}\eta_{a}{}^{b}+\overline{D}_{b}N^{a}\Delta\eta_{a}{}^{b}),
\end{equation}
$\eta_{a}{}^{b}$ will be defined below. Here $\kappa=8\pi G/c^4$, $G$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant and usually we take $c=G=1$; $\Delta \alpha:=\alpha-\bar{\alpha}$ is the difference of the variables in the physical spactime and the reference spacetime.
The CNT proposal developed a manifestly 4D covariant Hamiltonian formalism which can be applied on a wide class of geometric gravity theories, including GR, and it does not necessary depend on 3+1 decomposition. It covers not only energy but also other quasi-local quantities. Here we focus only on the quasi-local energy which corresponds to the timelike vector field $N$ on $S$. The vector field $N$ is called a displacement vector field in \cite{CNT4}. It is required to be identified to a timelike Killing vector field in the reference space-time.
Let $(M^4,g)$ be a spacetime (oriented and time-oriented) which is considered as the physical spacetime and $(\overline M^4,\overline g)$ be another spacetime (oriented and time-oriented) which is considered as the reference spacetime. Let $S^2$ be a closed spacelike surface in $M$ and $N$ be a future-directed timelike vector field on $S$. We call a smooth embedding $\varphi:U\to \overline M$ of an open neighborhood $U$ of $S$ into $\overline M$ that preserves the orientation and the time orientation a reference. Then, the CNT quasi-local energy of $S$ with respect to $N$ and the reference $\varphi$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
E(S,N,\varphi)=\frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{S}\iota^*[(\omega^a{}_{b}-\overline\omega^a{}_b)\wedge i_N\eta_{a}{}^b+\overline{D}_{b}N^{a}(\eta_{a}{}^{b}-\overline\eta_{a}{}^{b})].\label{ECNT}
\end{equation}
Here, $\omega^a{}_b$ and $\overline \omega^a{}_b$ are the connection forms of the Levi-Civita connections for $g$ and $\varphi^*\overline g$ respectively, $\iota:S\to M$ is the natural inclusion map, and
\begin{equation}
\eta_a{}^b=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-\det g}g^{b\beta}\epsilon_{a\beta\mu\nu}dx^\mu\wedge dx^\nu,
\end{equation}
the covariant derivative $\overline D_{a}$ and the 2-form $\overline\eta_{a}^{\ b}$ correspond to $\varphi^*\overline g$.
Usually, the reference spacetime is chosen to be the Minkowski spacetime, dS spacetime or AdS spacetime. The main difficulty for the CNT quasi-local energy comes from the choice of canonical references so that desired properties are satisfied. In this paper, we follow the strategy of choosing reference by 4D isometric matching\footnote{The first author would like to thank Dr.\ Szabados for helpful discussions on this topic when he visited NCU at 2011. At that time, Wu et.\ al began to use CNT expression investigate the spherical symmetric cases by matching the 4-coframes \cite[\S 4 p.2411]{Wu}.} mentioned in \cite{NCLS,SCLN2,SCLN3}, and analyze the critical value of quasi-local energy. This method of finding reference is to determine a coordinate transformation such that the whole 10 metric components of the physical spacetime and the reference spacetime are identical right on the quasi-local 2-surface. It can be realized based on the 2-surface isometric embedding into the reference spacetime. Epp defined the ``invariant quasilocal energy'' by considering the 2-surface isometric embedding into the Minkowski spacetime \cite{Epp}. Wang and Yau consider 2-surface isometric embedding into Minkowski spacetime and proved the positivity of quasi-local mass by fixing the canonical gauge \cite{WaYa,W}. For a more complete survey of the topic, see \cite{Sz}.
A 4D isometric matching reference $\varphi$ is a reference satisfying
\begin{equation}
\varphi^*\overline g=g \mbox{ on $S$}.
\end{equation}
A basic problem about the existence of 4D isometric matching references arises here. By a rather standard argument using the exponential map, we can show that any isometric embedding of $S$ into $\overline M$ can be extended to a 4D isometric matching reference (see Lemma \ref{lem-ref}). When $\overline M$ is the Minkowski spactime, isometric embedding of $S$ into $\overline M$ was discussed in \cite{WaYa}, \cite{Epp}(with a further restriction) and \cite{Br,BLY,Sz} (into the light cone).
Let $\varphi$ be a 4D isometric matching reference, since $\eta_a{}^b$ depnds only on the metric, so the second term in \eqref{ECNT} vanishes and the CNT quasi-local energy \eqref{ECNT} with respect to $\varphi$ becomes\footnote{In the coordinate system such that the reference connection vanishes, it is reduced to the Freud superpotential \cite{Freud}.}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-CNT-E-1}
E(S,N,\varphi)=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_S \iota^*[(\omega^a{}_b-\overline\omega^a{}_b)\wedge i_N\eta_{a}{}^b].
\end{equation}
Although a 4D isometric matching reference must be defined in a neighborhood of $S$ by definition, it is not hard to see that the CNT quasi-local energy depends only on the 1-jet of a 4D isometric matching reference $\varphi$ on $S$ (see Lemma \ref{lem-1-jet}). That is to say, if $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ are two 4D isometric matching references such that $\varphi_1=\varphi_2$ and $d\varphi_1=d\varphi_2$ on $S$, then
\begin{equation}
E(S,N,\varphi_1)=E(S,N,\varphi_2).
\end{equation}
By the fact that CNT quasi-local energy depends only on the 1-jet of the 4D isometric matching reference and the extension of an isometric embedding to a 4D isometric matching reference (see Lemma \ref{lem-ref}), we can simply consider a 4D isometric matching reference as a pair $(\varphi, \psi)$ where $\varphi:S\to \overline M$ is an isometric embedding and $\psi:T_{S}^\perp{M}\to \varphi^*T_{\overline S}^\perp\overline M$ is a linear isometry of vector bundles. Here $T_S^{\perp}M$ and $T_{\overline S}^\perp \overline M$ mean the normal bundle of $S$ and $\overline S$ respectively. $\varphi$ can be considered as the embedding freedom and $\psi$ as the boost freedom of the observer in \cite{LT}.
In this paper, we find that the CNT quasi-local energy with respect to a 4D isometric matching reference is closely related to the WY mass. Indeed, a saddle critical value of the CNT quasi-local energy turns out to agree with the WY energy. As a byproduct, we generalize a previous result of Tam and the first author \cite{LT} to a much more general setting. Our result is as follows:
\begin{thm}\label{thm-CNT-BY}
Let $(M^4,g)$ and $(\overline M^4,\overline g)$ be two oriented and time-oriented spacetimes, $S^2$ be an oriented closed spacelike surface in $M^4$ and $N$ be a future-directed timelike vector field on $S$. Let $\varphi$ be a 4D isometric matching reference. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-CNT}
\begin{split}
&E(S,N,\varphi)\\
=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\overline S}\left(-\|\overline N^\perp\|\vv<\overline H,\overline X>+\frac{1}{\|\overline N^\perp\|}\vv<\overline\nabla_{\overline N^\top}\overline X,\overline N^\perp>\right)dV_{\overline S}\\
&-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_S\left(-\|N^\perp\|\vv<H,X>+\frac{1}{\|N^\perp\|}\vv<\nabla_{N^{\top}}X,N^\perp>\right)dV_S
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $H$ and $\overline H$ are the mean curvature vectors of $S$ and $\overline S=\varphi(S)$ in $M$ and $\overline M$ respectively. Here $N^\perp$ is the orthogonal projection of $N$ into $T_S^\perp M$, $N^\top=N-N^\perp$, and $X$ is the unit vector field on $S$ such that $X\in T_S^\perp M$ and $X\perp N$. We also assume that the composition of $N^\perp, X$ and the orientation of $S$ is the same as the orientation of $M$. Moreover, $\overline X=\varphi_*X$, $\overline N^\perp=\varphi_*N^\perp$ and $\overline N^\top=\varphi_*N^\top$. In particular, if $N$ is orthogonal to $S$, then
\begin{equation}
E(S,N,\varphi)=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{S}\|N\|\left(-\vv<\overline H,\overline X>+\vv<H,X>\right)dV_S.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
The right hand side of \eqref{eqn-CNT} is similar to equation (6) in Wang and Yau \cite{WYPRL}.
\end{rem}
For $S$ enclosing a spacelike domain $\Omega$ with $S$ embedded into $\mathbb{R}^3$, the Brown-York mass \cite{BY} was defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{m}_{\mathrm{BY}}(\Omega)=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{S}(k_0-k)dV_S,
\end{equation}
where $k$ and $k_0$ are the mean curvature (with respect to unit outward normal) of $S$ and the embedding of $S$ respectively. Comparing this to the result above, we have the following corollary:
\begin{cor}\label{cor-CNT-BY}
Let $M,S,N$ be the same as above and $(\overline M,\overline g)$ be the Minkowski spacetime. Moreover, suppose that $S$ encloses a space-like domain $\Omega$ and $N$ is also orthogonal to $\Omega$. Then, for any 4D isometric matching reference $\varphi$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\varphi_*N=\frac{\partial}{\partial T}$ and
\item $\varphi(S)\subset\mathbb{R}^3$,
\end{enumerate}
we have $E(S,N,\varphi)=\mathfrak{m}_{\mathrm{BY}}(\Omega)$. Here, the natural coordinate of $\overline M$ is written as $(T,X,Y,Z)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
The orientation of $S$ is chosen so that $N$, the outward normal of $S$ and the orientation of $S$ form the orientation of $M$.
\end{rem}
Recall that the dS spacetime and AdS spacetime are $\mathbb{R}\times \hat M$ with $\hat M$ be the sphere and hyperbolic space respectively, equipped with the Lorentz metric:
\begin{equation}
g=-V^2dT^2+\hat g
\end{equation}
where $\hat g$ is the standard metric on $\hat M$ and $V$ is the static potential on $\hat M$ (see \cite{CH}). Note that $\frac{\partial}{\partial T}$ is a future directed time-like Killing vector field on the dS spacetime and AdS spacetime with length $|V|$. So, we have the following corollary when the reference is chosen to be the dS spacetime or AdS spacetime corresponding to Corollary \ref{cor-CNT-BY} where the reference is chosen to be the Minkowski spacetime.
\begin{cor}\label{cor-CNT-BY_dSAdS}
Let $M,S,N$ be the same as above and $(\overline M,\overline g)$ be the dS or AdS spacetime. Moreover, suppose that $S$ encloses a space-like domain $\Omega$ and $N$ is also orthogonal to $\Omega$. Then, for any 4D isometric matching reference $\varphi$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\varphi_*N=\frac{\partial}{\partial T}$ and
\item $\varphi(S)\subset \hat M$ ,
\end{enumerate}
we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-CNT-ds-ads}
E(S,N,\varphi)=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{S}|V|(k_0-k)dV_S.
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
Note that the expression \eqref{eqn-CNT-ds-ads} was first studied in \cite{ST,WY} which gives a substitution for Brown-York mass with dS or AdS references. Quasi-local energy with dS and AdS references was also studied in \cite{CWY2}.
Let $\varphi_0:S\to \mathbb{R}^{1,3}$ be an isometric embedding and $\tau$ be the time component of the embedding and suppose the mean curvature vector $H$ of $S$ in $M$ is spacelike. Recall that the Wang-Yau \cite{WaYa} quasi-local energy $E_{\mathrm{WY}}(S,\tau)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-WY}
\begin{split}
E_{\mathrm{WY}}(S,\tau)=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\overline S}\left(-\sqrt{1+\|\nabla\tau\|^2}\vv<\overline H,\overline e_1>+\vv<\overline \nabla_{-\nabla\tau}\overline e_1,\overline e_0>\right)dV_{\overline S}\\
&-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{S}\left(-\sqrt{1+\|\nabla\tau\|^2}\vv<H, e_1>+\vv< \nabla_{-\nabla\tau}e_1,e_0>\right)dV_S.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here $e_0$ is a future-directed time-like vector such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-e-0}
\vv<H,e_0>=-\frac{\Delta\tau}{\sqrt{1+\|\nabla\tau\|^2}},
\end{equation}
$e_1$ is orthogonal to $e_0$ and $S$, and pointed outside if $S$ encloses a domain $\Omega$. $\overline e_1$ is pointing outside and orthogonal to $\overline S$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial T}$. $\overline e_0$ is a future-directed time-like vector that is orthogonal to $\overline S$ and $\overline e_1$. Then, the WY mass of $S$ is defined as \begin{equation}
\mathfrak{m}_{\mathrm{WY}}(S)=\inf_{\mbox{$\tau$ admissible}}E_{\mathrm{WY}}(S,\tau).
\end{equation}
Here $\nabla \tau$ and $\Delta\tau$ mean the gradient and Laplacian of $\tau$ with respect to the induced metric on $S$. For the definition of admissible, see \cite{WaYa}.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-N-0-1}
N_0=\sqrt{1+\|\nabla \tau\|^2}e_0-\nabla\tau
\end{equation}
and
$\varphi$ be a 4D isometric matching extension of $\varphi_0$ (see Lemma \ref{lem-ref}) such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-N-0}
\varphi_*N_0=\frac{\partial}{\partial T}.
\end{equation}
By comparing \eqref{eqn-CNT} with \eqref{eqn-WY}, one can see that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn-CNT-WY}
E(S,N_0,\varphi)=E_{\mathrm{WY}}(S,\tau).
\end{equation}
Moreover, by the computation in \cite[p.925]{WaYa},
\begin{equation}
E(S,N_0,\varphi)=\max_{\psi_*N=\frac{\partial}{\partial T},\psi|_S=\varphi_0 }E(S,N,\psi).
\end{equation}
This means that the WY quasi-local mass value can be obtained from a min-max procedure from the CNT quasi-local energy. Therefore, if the WY quasi-local mass is achieved by an isometric embedding $\varphi_0$, then the corresponding pair $(N_0,\varphi)$ is actually a saddle critical point of the CNT quasi-local energy in the space of references:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal R_0=\{(N,\psi)\ |\ \mbox{$\psi$: a 4D isometric matching reference with $\psi_*N=\frac{\partial}{\partial T}$} \}.
\end{equation*}
Consider the physical spacetime $(M,g)$ being axially symmetric and Kerr-like:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-kerr-like}
g=Fdt^2+2Gdtd\phi+Hd\phi^2+R^2dr^2+\Sigma^2d\theta^2,
\end{equation}
where the components $F,G,H,R,\Sigma$ are functions of $r$, $\theta$ only. Let
$$\Omega=\{(t,r,\theta,\phi)\ |\ t=t_0,r\leq r_0 \}$$ and $$S=\{(t,r,\theta,\phi)\ |\ t=t_0,r=r_0 \}.$$
Suppose that the 4D isometric matching reference $\varphi$ is axially symmetric:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-axis-embedding}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}T=T(t,r,\theta)\\
X=\rho(t,r,\theta)\cos(\phi+\Phi(t,r,\theta))\\
Y=\rho(t,r,\theta)\sin(\phi+\Phi(t,r,\theta))\\
Z=Z(t,r,\theta).
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Then, the 4D isometric matching equation is indeed explicitly solvable (See \cite{SCLN2}). Set
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-x-y}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}x(\theta)=T_r(t_0,r_0,\theta)\\
y(\theta)=T_\theta(t_0,r_0,\theta)
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
N=(\varphi^{-1})_*\frac{\partial}{\partial T}.
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-CNT-x-y}
E(x,y):=E(S,N, \varphi)=\frac{1}{4}\int_0^{\pi}\mathfrak{B}(x,y)d\theta
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-CNT-B}
\begin{split}
\mathfrak{B}(x,y)=&-\frac{\alpha(H\Sigma^2)_r}{2\sqrt H R^2\Sigma^2}-\sqrt H\left(\frac{H_{\theta\theta}-2l}{\beta}+\frac{R_\theta xy}{R\alpha}-\frac{xy^3\beta+H_\theta\alpha\Sigma^2}{l\alpha\beta\Sigma}\Sigma_\theta\right)\\
&+\frac{\sqrt Hyx_\theta}{\alpha}+\frac{\sqrt Hy(H_\theta\alpha-xy\beta)}{l\alpha\beta}y_\theta,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-a-b-l}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}\alpha=\sqrt{x^2\Sigma^2+R^2l}\\
\beta=\sqrt{-H_\theta^2+4Hl}\\
l=y^2+\Sigma^2.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Here we call $x$ the boost freedom and $y$ the embedding freedom. Note that
$$H(0)=H(\pi)=G(0)=G(\pi)=0$$
and
$$x'(0)=x'(\pi)=y(0)=y(\pi)=0$$
by the smoothness of the metric $g$ and the function $T$ (as a smooth function on $S$) (See \eqref{eqn-kerr-like} and \eqref{eqn-axis-embedding}).
The Euler-Lagrange equation of $E(x,y)$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-critical}
\left\{
\begin{split}
y_\theta=&-\frac{(\Sigma^2H)_r}{2HR^2}x-\frac{\Sigma H_\theta-2H\Sigma_\theta}{2H\Sigma}y\\
x_\theta=&\frac{R_\theta}{R}x+\left(\frac{(\Sigma^2H)_r}{2H\Sigma^2}-\frac{\alpha\beta+xyH_\theta}{2Hl}\right)y.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
\eqref{eqn-critical} has an obvious solution $x\equiv y\equiv 0$. In \cite{LT}, Tam and the first author considered the solutions of \eqref{eqn-critical} in the case of the Minkowski, Schwarschild and Kerr spacetimes. They also compared the CNT quasi-local energy with the Brown-York mass when $x=y=0$. Indeed, they showed that
\begin{equation}
E(0,0)=\mathfrak{m}_{\mathrm{BY}}(\Omega).
\end{equation}
It is not difficult to see that this is a special case of Corollary \ref{cor-CNT-BY}.
Motivated by the relation of WY mass and CNT quasi-local energy, we compute the second variation of $E(x,y)$ at the obvious critical point $x=y=0$ and find that, for most of the cases, $(x,y)=(0,0)$ is a saddle point (see Theorem \ref{thm-saddle} ). In particular, this is true for the Minkowski, Schwarschild and Kerr spacetimes.
By direct computation (see the Appendix), the first equation of \eqref{eqn-critical} corresponds to
\begin{equation}
N_0=(\varphi^{-1})_*\frac{\partial}{\partial T}.
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}
E(y):=E(x,y)
\end{equation}
with $x$ decided by $y$ from the first equation of \eqref{eqn-critical}. Then, by the uniqueness of isometric embedding into $\mathbb{R}^3$ and the relation \eqref{eqn-CNT-WY}, we know that
\begin{equation}
E(y)=E_{\mathrm{WY}}(S, \tau),
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ depends only on $\theta$ and $y=\frac{d\tau}{d\theta}$.
In \cite{CWY,MT,MTX}, the authors considered minimizing of properties of the critical points of the WY quasi-local energy. By their results, it is clear that $y=0$ is a local minimum of $E(y)$ for the Schwarschild spacetime when $r>2m$ and for the Kerr spacetime when $r$ is large enough. This implies that $(0,0)$ is a saddle critical point of $E(x,y)$ for the Schwarschild spacetime when $r>2m$ and for the Kerr spacetime when $r$ is large enough.
Furthermore, in \cite{CWY}, under some curvature assumptions, when the induced metric on $S$ is axially symmetric, Chen, Wang and Yau showed that if $\tau=0$ is a critical point of the WY quasi-local energy, then $\tau=0$ is a global minimum among all axially symmetric $\tau$. This implies that
\begin{equation}
E(y)\geq E(0,0)
\end{equation}
for the Schwarzschild spacetime when $r>2m$ and for the Kerr spacetime when $r$ is large enough. It is very likely that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathfrak{m}_{\mathrm{WY}}(S)&=E(0,0)\\
&=\mathfrak{m}_{\mathrm{BY}}(S)\\
&=\frac{1}{4}\int_0^\pi\left(-\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{ R}+\frac{\Sigma\left(1-\frac{H_{\theta\theta}}{2\Sigma^2}\right)}{\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}+\frac{H_\theta\Sigma_\theta}{2\Sigma^2\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}\right)d\theta
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for the Kerr spacetime.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we prove Theorem \ref{thm-CNT-BY}. In Section 3, we compute the second variation of $E(x,y)$ at the obvious critical point $(x,y)=(0,0)$ and show that it is a saddle point for most of the cases including the Minkowski, Schwarschild and Kerr spacetimes.
{\bf Acknowledgements.} The authors would like to thank Professor Nester for carefully reading the manuscript of this paper, many helpful suggestions and sharing ideas, Professor Tam for helpful suggestions, and Professor Mu-Tao Wang for his comments that help to clarify our understanding.
\section{CNT quasi-local energy and Wang-Yau mass}
We first prove that any isometric embedding can be extended to a 4D isometric reference. The argument is rather standard and it may be trivial for experts. However, for completeness of the paper, we also include the proof.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-ref}
Let $(M^4,g)$ and $(\overline M^4,\overline g)$ be two oriented and time-oriented spacetimes, $S^2$ be an oriented closed spacelike surface in $M$, and $\varphi_0:S\to \overline M$ be an isometric embedding. Moreover, let $N$ and $\overline N$ be unit future-directed timelike normal vector fields on $S$ and $\overline S:=\varphi_0(S)$ respectively, and $X$ and $\overline X$ be unit normal vector fields on $S$ and $\overline S$ that are also orthogonal to $N$ and $\overline N$ respectively. We also assume that the compositions of $N,X$, orientation of $S$ and $\overline N$, $\overline X$, orientation of $\overline S$ (induced from $S$ by $\varphi_0$) are the same as the orientations of $M$ and $\overline M$ respectively. Then, there is a 4D isometric matching reference $\varphi$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\varphi|_{S}=\varphi_0$;
\item $\varphi_* N=\overline N$ on $\overline S$;
\item $\varphi_* X=\overline X$ on $\overline S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Define the reference $\varphi$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-exp}
\varphi(\exp_p(rN_p+sX_p))=\exp_{\overline p}(r\overline N_{\overline p}+s\overline X_{\overline p})
\end{equation}
for any $p\in S$ and $r,s\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon)$ where $\epsilon>0$ is small enough and $\overline p=\varphi_0(p)$. Let $Y_p,Z_p$ be an orthornormal basis of $T_pS$ and
$$\overline Y_{\overline p}={\varphi_0}_{*p}Y_p,\ \overline Z_{\overline p}={\varphi_0}_{*p}Z_p.$$
Then, $(N_p,X_p,Y_p,Z_p)$ and $(\overline N_{\overline p}, \overline X_{\overline p}, \overline Y_{\overline p}, \overline Z_{\overline p})$ are orthnormal bases for $T_pM$ and $T_{\overline p}\overline M$ respectively. By \eqref{eqn-exp}, it is clear that $\varphi|_S=\varphi_0$ and
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{*p}(N_p)=\overline N_{\overline p},\ \varphi_{*p}(X_p)=\overline X_{\overline p},\ \varphi_{*p}(Y_p)=\overline Y_{\overline p},\ \varphi_{*p}(Z_p)=\overline Z_{\overline p}.
\end{equation}
This means that $\varphi^*\overline g=g$ on $S$.
\end{proof}
Next, we prove that the CNT quasi-local energy with respect to 4D isometric matching references depends only on the 1-jet of the reference.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-1-jet}
Let $(M,g),(\overline M,\overline g)$, $S$ and $N$ be the same as in the Lemma \ref{lem-ref}.
Let $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ be two 4D isometric matching references such that
$$\varphi_1=\varphi_2\ \mbox{and}\ d\varphi_1=d\varphi_2$$
on $S$. Then,
\begin{equation}
E(S,N,\varphi_1)=E(S,N,\varphi_2).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3$ be a local orthonormal frame of $(M,g)$ such that $e_2,e_3$ are tangential to $S$ and let $\omega^0,\omega^1,\omega^2,\omega^3$ be its dual frame. By \eqref{eqn-CNT-E-1}, we only need to verify that,
$$\iota^*\overline \omega^a{}_b=\iota^*\tilde\omega^a{}_b,$$
where $\overline\omega$ and $\tilde \omega$ are the connection forms of $\varphi_1^*\overline g$ and $\varphi_2^*\overline g$ respectively. Indeed,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\iota^*\overline \omega^a{}_b\\
=&\overline\Gamma_{2b}^a\omega^2+\overline\Gamma_{3b}^a\omega^3\\
=&\vv<\overline\nabla_{e_2}e_b,\eta_{aa}e_a>_{\varphi_1^*\overline g}\omega^2+\vv<\overline\nabla_{e_3}e_b,\eta_{aa}e_a>_{\varphi_1^*\overline g}\omega^3\\
=&\vv<\overline\nabla_{d\varphi_1(e_2)}d\varphi_1(e_b),\eta_{aa}d\varphi_1(e_a)>_{\overline g}\circ\varphi_1\omega^2\\
&+\vv<\overline\nabla_{d\varphi_1(e_3)}d\varphi_1(e_b),\eta_{aa}d\varphi_1(e_a)>_{\overline g}\circ\varphi_1\omega^3\\
=&\vv<\overline\nabla_{d\varphi_2(e_2)}d\varphi_2(e_b),\eta_{aa}d\varphi_2(e_a)>_{\overline g}\circ\varphi_2\omega^2\\
&+\vv<\overline\nabla_{d\varphi_2(e_3)}d\varphi_2(e_b),\eta_{aa}d\varphi_2(e_a)>_{\overline g}\circ\varphi_2\omega^3\\
=&\iota^*\tilde \omega^a{}_b.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
Finally, we come to prove Theorem \ref{thm-CNT-BY}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-CNT-BY}]Let $e_0=\frac{N^\perp}{\|N^\perp\|}$, and $e_1=X$. Let $e_2,e_3$ be a local orthonormal frame of $S$ and extend $e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3$ to a local orthonormal frame of $M$. Let $\omega^0,\omega^1,\omega^2,\omega^3$ be the dual frame of $e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3$. Since $N\perp e_1$, suppose that
\begin{equation}
N=N^0e_0+N^2e_2+N^3e_3.
\end{equation}
It is clear that $N^0=\|N^\perp\|$ and $N^\top=N^2e_3+N^3e_3$.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-eta}
\begin{split}
&\iota^*i_N\eta_{a}{}^b\\
=&N^{\mu}\eta^{b\beta}\epsilon_{a\beta\mu2}\omega^2+N^{\mu}\eta^{b\beta}\epsilon_{a\beta\mu3}\omega^3\\
=&N^0({\epsilon}_{ab02}\omega^2+{\epsilon}_{ab03}\omega^3)+\eta^{bb}{\epsilon}_{ab23}(-N^3\omega^2+N^2\omega^3).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{S}\iota^*(\omega^a{}_b-\overline\omega^a{}_b)\wedge N^0({\epsilon}_{ab02}\omega^2+{\epsilon}_{ab03}\omega^3)\\
=&\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{S}N^0[(\Gamma_{2b}^a-\overline\Gamma_{2b}^a)\omega^2+(\Gamma_{3b}^a-\overline\Gamma_{3b}^a)\omega^3]\wedge (\epsilon_{ab02}\omega^2+\epsilon_{ab03}\omega^3)\\
=&\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{S}N^0(\Gamma_{22}^1+\Gamma_{33}^1-\overline \Gamma_{22}^{1}-\overline\Gamma_{33}^{1})\omega^2\wedge\omega^3\\
&-\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{S}N^0(\Gamma_{21}^2+\Gamma_{31}^3-\overline \Gamma_{21}^{2}-\overline\Gamma_{31}^{3})\omega^2\wedge\omega^3,\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and on $S$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-Gamma-22}
\Gamma_{22}^1+\Gamma_{33}^1=\vv<\nabla_{e_2}e_2+\nabla_{e_3}e_3,e_1>=\vv<H,X>,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-Gamma-21}
\Gamma_{21}^2+\Gamma_{31}^{3}=\vv<\nabla_{e_2}e_1,e_2>+\vv<\nabla_{e_3}e_1,e_3>=-\vv<H,X>.
\end{equation}
Moreover, on $S$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-o-Gamma-22}
\begin{split}
&\overline \Gamma_{22}^{1}+\overline\Gamma_{33}^{1}\\
=&\vv<\overline\nabla_{e_2}e_2,e_1>_{\varphi^*\overline g}+\vv<\overline\nabla_{e_3}e_3,e_1>_{\varphi^*\overline g}\\
=&\vv<\overline \nabla_{\varphi_*e_2}\varphi_*e_2,\varphi_*e_1>_{\overline g}+\vv<\overline \nabla_{\varphi_*e_3}\varphi_*e_3,\varphi_*e_1>_{\overline g}\\
=&\vv<\overline H,\overline X>_{\overline g}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-o-Gamma-21}
\begin{split}
&\overline \Gamma_{21}^{2}+\overline\Gamma_{31}^{3}\\
=&\vv<\overline\nabla_{e_2}e_1,e_2>_{\varphi^*\overline g}+\vv<\overline\nabla_{e_3}e_1,e_3>_{\varphi^*\overline g}\\
=&\vv<\overline \nabla_{\varphi_*e_2}\varphi_*e_1,\varphi_*e_2>_{\overline g}+\vv<\overline \nabla_{\varphi_*e_3}\varphi_*e_1,\varphi_*e_3>_{\overline g}\\
=&-\vv<\overline H,\overline X>_{\overline g}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
So,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-energy-1}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{S}\iota^*(\omega^a{}_b-\overline\omega^a{}_b)\wedge N^0({\epsilon}_{ab02}\omega^2+{\epsilon}_{ab03}\omega^3)\\
=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{S}\|N^\perp\|\left(-\vv<\overline H,\overline X>+\vv<H,X>\right)dV_S.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-energy-2}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_S\iota^*(\omega^a{}_b-\overline\omega^a{}_b)\wedge\eta^{bb}{\epsilon}_{ab23}(-N^3\omega^2+N^2\omega^3)\\
=&\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_S\iota^*[\omega^0{}_1+\omega^1{}_0-(\overline\omega^0{}_1+\overline\omega^1{}_0)]\wedge(-N^3\omega^2+N^2\omega^3)\\
=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_S\iota^*(\omega^0{}_1-\overline\omega^0{}_1)\wedge(-N^3\omega^2+N^2\omega^3)\\
=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_S[(N^2\Gamma_{21}^0+N^3\Gamma_{31}^0)-(N^2\overline\Gamma_{21}^0+N^3\overline\Gamma_{31}^0)]\omega^2\wedge\omega^3\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we have used the fact $\omega^0{}_1=\omega^1{}_0$ and $\iota^*\overline\omega^0{}_1=i^*\overline\omega^1{}_0$. Similarly as in \eqref{eqn-Gamma-22} and \eqref{eqn-o-Gamma-22}, it is not hard to see that
\begin{equation}
N^2\Gamma_{21}^0+N^3\Gamma_{31}^0=-\vv<\nabla_{N^2e_2+N^3e^3}e_1,e_0>=-\frac{1}{\|N^\perp\|}\vv<\nabla_{N^\top}X,N^\perp>
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
N^2\overline\Gamma_{21}^0+N^3\overline\Gamma_{31}^0=-\vv<\overline\nabla_{N^2e_2+N^3e^3}e_1,e_0>_{\varphi^*\overline g}=-\frac{1}{\|N^\perp\|}\vv<\overline \nabla_{\overline N^\top}\overline X,\overline N^\perp>.
\end{equation}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-energy-3}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_S\iota^*(\omega^a{}_b-\overline\omega^a{}_b)\wedge\eta^{bb}{\epsilon}_{ab23}(-N^3\omega^2+N^2\omega^3)\\
=&\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_S\frac{1}{\|N^\perp\|}\left(\vv<\overline \nabla_{\overline N^\top}\overline X,\overline N^\perp>-\vv<\nabla_{ N^\top}X,N^\perp>\right)dV_S.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{eqn-energy-1} and \eqref{eqn-energy-3}, we obtain \eqref{eqn-CNT} and hence Theorem \ref{thm-CNT-BY}.
\end{proof}
\section{Second variation of $E(x,y)$ at $x=y=0$}
In this section, we compute the second variation of the CNT quasi-local energy $E(x,y)$ for axially symmetric Kerr-like metrics at the obvious critical point $(x,y)=(0,0)$ as introduced in the first section. Throughout this section, we adopt the notations used there.
First, we have the following second variation of $\mathfrak{B}(x,y)$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-2nd-B}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-2nd-B}
\begin{split}
&\mathfrak{B}({\epsilon} Ru,{\epsilon} \Sigma v)\\
=&-\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{ R}+\frac{\Sigma\left(1-\frac{H_{\theta\theta}}{2\Sigma^2}\right)}{\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}+\frac{H_\theta\Sigma_\theta}{2\Sigma^2\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}+\\
&\Bigg(-\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{2 R}(u^2+v^2)+\Sigma\left(\frac{1-\frac{1-\frac{H_{\theta\theta}}{2\Sigma^2}}{2\left(1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}\right)}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}-\frac{H_\theta\Sigma_\theta}{4\Sigma^3\left(1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}\right)^{3/2}}\right)v^2\\
&+\sqrt H u_\theta v+\frac{H_\theta vv_\theta}{2\Sigma \sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}\Bigg){\epsilon}^2+O({\epsilon}^3).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x=Rz$ and $y=\Sigma w$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-a-b-l-2}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}\alpha=R\Sigma\sqrt{z^2+w^2+1}\\
\beta=2\sqrt H\Sigma\sqrt{w^2+1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}\\
l=\Sigma^2(w^2+1).
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Substituting these into \eqref{eqn-CNT-B}, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{\Sigma}\mathfrak{B}(x,y)\\
=&-\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{\Sigma R}\sqrt{z^2+w^2+1}+\frac{(w^2+1)-\frac{H_{\theta\theta}}{2\Sigma^2}}{\sqrt{w^2+1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}+\frac{H_\theta\Sigma_\theta}{2\Sigma^3\sqrt{w^2+1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}\\
&+\frac{\sqrt Hz_\theta w}{\Sigma\sqrt{z^2+w^2+1}}+\frac{H_\theta ww_\theta}{2\Sigma^2 (w^2+1)\sqrt{w^2+1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}-\frac{\sqrt Hzw^2w_\theta}{\Sigma(w^2+1)\sqrt{z^2+w^2+1}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By setting $z={\epsilon} u$ and $w={\epsilon} v$ in the last identity and computing the Taylor expansion of each term with respect to ${\epsilon}$ up to second order, we obtain the conclusion.
\end{proof}
Next, we compute the second variation of $E(x,y)$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-2nd-E}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-2nd-E}
\begin{split}
&E({\epsilon} Ru,{\epsilon}\Sigma v)\\
=&\frac{1}{4}\int_0^\pi\left(-\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{ R}+\frac{\Sigma\left(1-\frac{H_{\theta\theta}}{2\Sigma^2}\right)}{\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}+\frac{H_\theta\Sigma_\theta}{2\Sigma^2\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}\right)d\theta+\\
&\frac{{\epsilon}^2}{4}\int_0^\pi\left(-\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{2 R}(u^2+v^2)+\frac{\Sigma\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}{2} v^2+\sqrt H u_\theta v\right)d\theta+O({\epsilon}^3).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The conclusion is directly followed by taking the integration of \eqref{eqn-2nd-B}, applying integration by parts to the term
\begin{equation}
\int_0^\pi\frac{H_\theta vv_\theta}{2\Sigma \sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}d\theta=\int_0^\pi\frac{H_\theta (v^2)_\theta}{4\Sigma \sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}d\theta,
\end{equation}
and then simplify the coefficient of $v^2$.
\end{proof}
To take care of the term $\sqrt H u_\theta v$ in \eqref{eqn-2nd-E}, setting $u=-f(\theta)\cos\theta$ and $v=f(\theta)\sin\theta$ in \eqref{eqn-2nd-E}, and integrating by parts, we have the following
\begin{lem}\label{lem-2nd-E-f}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-2nd-E-f}
\begin{split}
&E(-{\epsilon} R f\cos\theta,{\epsilon} Rf\sin\theta)\\
=&\frac{1}{4}\int_0^\pi\left(-\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{ R}+\frac{\Sigma\left(1-\frac{H_{\theta\theta}}{2\Sigma^2}\right)}{\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}+\frac{H_\theta\Sigma_\theta}{2\Sigma^2\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}\right)d\theta+\frac{{\epsilon}^2}{4}\int_0^\pi Kf^2d\theta+O({\epsilon}^3)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn-K}
K=-\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{2R}+\frac{\Sigma\sqrt{1-\frac{H_\theta^2}{4H\Sigma^2}}}{2}\sin^2\theta+\frac{H_\theta}{4\sqrt H}\cos\theta\sin\theta +\frac{\sqrt{H}}{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\int_0^\pi \sqrt H u_\theta vd\theta\\
=&\int_0^\pi\sqrt{H}(-f_\theta\cos\theta+f\sin\theta)f\sin\theta d\theta\\
=&\int_0^\pi \sqrt H \sin^2\theta f^2d\theta-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\pi \sqrt H\cos\theta\sin\theta (f^2)_\theta
d\theta\\
=&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\pi \sqrt H f^2d\theta+\frac{1}{4}\int_0^\pi \frac{H_\theta}{\sqrt H}\cos\theta\sin\theta f^2d\theta\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Substituting this into \eqref{eqn-2nd-E}, we get the conclusion.
\end{proof}
By combing Lemma \ref{lem-2nd-E} and Lemma \ref{lem-2nd-E-f}, we have the following result.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-saddle}
If the mean curvature of $S$ along the radial outer normal is positive, and there is some point $\theta_0\in [0,\pi]$ such that $K(\theta_0)>0$, then $(x,y)=(0,0)$ is a saddle critical point of $E(x,y)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By direct computation, the mean curvature of $S$ along the spacelike radial outer normal $\hat{\mathbf{r}}=(1/R)\partial_{r}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{k}
{k}=-(H^{-1}\vv<\nabla_{\partial_{\varphi}}\partial_{\varphi},\hat{\mathbf{r}}>
+\Sigma^{-2}\vv<\nabla_{\partial_{\theta}}\partial_{\theta},\hat{\mathbf{r}}>)=\frac{(\sqrt{H}\Sigma)_{r}}{\sqrt{H}R\Sigma}.
\end{equation}
So ${k}>0$ implies $(\sqrt{H}\Sigma)_{r}>0$. Then, by \eqref{eqn-2nd-E}, we know that
\begin{equation}
\delta^2E_{(0,0)}(R u,0)=-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\pi\frac{(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r}{ R}u^2d\theta<0
\end{equation}
when $u$ is nonzero.
On the other hand, suppose that $K>0$ in a neighborhood $[a,b]$ of $\theta_0$, let $f$ be smooth function on $[0,\pi]$ such that $f= 1$ in a neighborhood of $\theta_0$ and $f=0$ outside $[a,b]$. Then, by \eqref{eqn-2nd-E-f},
\begin{equation}
\delta^2E_{(0,0)}(-Rf\cos\theta ,\Sigma f\sin\theta)=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\pi Kf^2d\theta>0.
\end{equation}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
By applying Theorem \ref{thm-saddle} to the Schwarschild and Kerr spacetimes, we have the following conclusion.
\begin{cor}
When the physical spacetime is the Schwarschild or Kerr spacetime, the obvious critical point $(x,y)=(0,0)$ of $E(x,y)$ is a saddle point.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} For the Kerr spacetime,
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}H\Sigma^2=\sin^2\theta((r^2+a^2)^2-\Delta a^2\sin^2\theta)\\
R^2\Delta=\Sigma^2=r^2+a^2\cos^2\theta\\
\Delta=r^2-2mr+a^2
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
with $0<a\leq m\leq r$. The Schwarschild spacetime corresponds to $a=0$ and $m>0$.
It is not hard to check that $(\sqrt H\Sigma)_r>0$ for Schwarschild and Kerr spacetimes. On the other hand, by direct computation, we have
\begin{equation}
H_\theta\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)=0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\Sigma(\pi/2)=r,\ \sqrt H(\pi/2)=r\left(1+\frac{a^2}{r^2}+\frac{2ma^2}{r^3}\right)^{1/2},\\
&R(\pi/2)=\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)^{-1/2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Substituting these into \eqref{eqn-K}, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&K(\pi/2)\\
\geq&r\left(-\left(1+\frac{a^2}{r^2}+\frac{2ma^2}{r^3}\right)^{1/2}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)^{1/2}+\frac{1+\left(1+\frac{a^2}{r^2}+\frac{2ma^2}{r^3}\right)^{1/2}}{2}\right)\\
\geq &r\left(-\left(1+\frac{a^2}{r^2}+\frac{2m}{r}\right)^{1/2}\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)^{1/2}+1\right)\\
=&r\left(-\left(\left(1+\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)^2-\frac{4m^2}{r^2}\right)^{1/2}+1\right)\\
\geq&r\left(-\left(1-\frac{m^2}{r^2}\right)^{1/2}+1\right)\\
>&0
\end{split}
\end{equation}
when $m>0$. Then, the conclusion follows by Theorem \ref{thm-saddle}.
\end{proof}
For the Minkowski spacetime, since $K\equiv 0$, we have to deal with it independently.
\begin{cor}
When the physical spacetime is the Minkowski spacetime, the obvious critical point $(x,y)=(0,0)$ of $E(x,y)$ is a saddle point.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For the Minkowski spacetime, we have $H=r^2\sin^2\theta$, $\Sigma=r$ and $R=1$. By Lemma \ref{lem-2nd-E},
\begin{equation}
\delta^2{E}_{(0,0)}(u,rv)=\frac{r}{2}\int_0^\pi \left(-u^2-\frac{1}{2}v^2+u_\theta v\right)\sin\theta d\theta.
\end{equation}
It is clear that
\begin{equation}
\delta^2E_{(0,0)}(1,0)<0.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, by direct computation,
\begin{equation}
\delta^2E_{(0,0)}\left(-\frac{2}{3}\cos^2\theta,r\sin\theta\cos\theta\right)=\frac{r}{45}>0.
\end{equation}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Appendix: The choice $N=N_{0}$ and critical equation}
Consider the displacement $N$ is $N_{0}$:
\begin{equation}
N=N_{0}=\sqrt{1+\parallel\nabla\tau\parallel^2}e_{0}-\nabla\tau
\end{equation}
where $N^{\top}=-\nabla\tau$ is tangent to the $S$ with metric $\sigma=\Sigma^2d\theta^2+Hd\phi^2$, so that
\begin{equation}
-\nabla\tau=-\frac{\tau_{\theta}}{\Sigma^2}\partial_{\theta}-\frac{\tau_{\varphi}}{H}\partial_{\varphi}=-\frac{\tau_{\theta}}{\Sigma^2}\partial_{\theta}
\end{equation}
for the choice $\tau$ depends only on $\theta$ as the previous setting $y=\tau_{\theta}$. The Laplacian of $\tau$ w.r.t.\ $\sigma$ is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Delta\tau&=\sigma^{AB}\nabla_{A}\nabla_{B}\tau=\sigma^{AB}(\partial_{A}\partial_{B}\tau-\Gamma^{C}{}_{AB}\partial_{C}\tau)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\Sigma^{2}}\tau_{\theta\theta}+\frac{\Sigma H_{\theta}-2H\Sigma_{\theta}}{2H\Sigma^3}\tau_{\theta}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{y_{\theta}}{\Sigma^2}+\frac{\Sigma H_{\theta}-2H\Sigma_{\theta}}{2H\Sigma^3}y.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Recall the displacement vector $N=N^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$ determined by 4D isometric matching with the components \cite{SCLN2}
\begin{equation}
N^t=\frac{\sqrt{H}\alpha}{\sqrt{-g}},\quad N^r=-\frac{x}{R^2},\quad N^\theta=-\frac{y}{\Sigma^2},\quad N^\varphi=\frac{-G\alpha}{\sqrt{-g}\sqrt{H}},
\end{equation}
read for $N^{\top}=N^{\theta}\partial_{\theta}$. According to the spacelike mean curvature vector of $S$ in Kerr spacetime is $h=-(k/R)\partial_{r}$, from \eqref{eqn-e-0} and \eqref{k} we have
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{1+\Vert\nabla\tau\Vert^2}\langle h,e_{0}\rangle=\langle h,N\rangle=\frac{k}{R}x=-\Delta\tau
\end{equation}
which is the first equation of \eqref{eqn-critical}. The choice $N=N_{0}$ satisfies the critical equation that means the solution $x$ is determined by $y(\theta)$ which is the only free choice for $N=N_{0}$.
|
\section{Introduction}
The market for display ads on the internet is worth billions of dollars and continues to rise.
Not surprisingly, there are multiple ways of selling display advertisements.
Traditionally, publishers signed
long-term contracts with their advertisers, fixing the number of {\em impressions}, i.e. assigned ad slots views,
as well as their price. In the last few years, however, spot markets, so called {\em Ad Exchanges}~\cite{Muthukrishnan2009}, have been developed,
with Amazon, Ebay,
and Yahoo (to just name a few) all offering their own ad exchange. Thus, every time a user requests to download a
page from a publisher, the publisher needs to decide
(a) which of the ad impressions on this page should be
assigned to which contracted advertiser, and
(b) which should be sold at the ad exchange and at which {\em reserve price}\footnote{The reserve price is the minimum required price at which an impression is sold at an ad auction. If no offer is at or above the reserve price, the impression is not sold.}.
Ad exchanges are interesting for publishers as
(1) basically an unlimited number of ad impressions can be sold at ad exchanges, and
(2) if the publishers have additional information about the user,
they might sell an impression at a much higher price at the ad exchange
than they could receive from their contracted advertisers.
As ad impressions that did not receive a bid at or above the reserve price at the ad exchange can still be
assigned to contracted advertisers, a revenue-maximizing publisher can
offer {\em every} ad impression first at an ad exchange at a ``high enough'' reserve price and then afterwards assign the still unsold impressions to contracted advertisers.
The question for the advertiser becomes, thus, (i) what reserve price to choose, and (ii) to which advertisers to assign the unsold impressions. We model this setting as
an online problem and achieve the following two results: If the revenue achievable by the ad exchange for each ad impression is known,
we give a constant competitive algorithm. Then we show how to
convert this algorithm into a second algorithm that works in the setting where the revenue achievable from the ad exchange is not known. Assume that the auction
executed at the ad exchange fulfills the following property $P$: \emph{If an ad impression is sold at the ad exchange, then the revenue achieved is independent of the reserve price chosen by the publisher.} Thus, the reserve price influences only {\em whether} the ad impression is sold, {\em not} the price that is achieved.
For example, a first price auction with reserve prices fulfills this condition. If the auction at the ad exchange fulfills this condition, then our second algorithm is constant competitive when compared with the optimum offline algorithm.
When modeling contracted advertisers we use the {\em model with free disposal} introduced in~\cite{FeldmanKMMP09}: Each advertiser $a$ comes with a number $n_a$ and the revenue that an algorithm receives from $a$
consists of the $n_a$ {\em most valuable} ad impressions assigned to $a$.
Additional impressions assigned to $a$ do not generate any revenue.
More formally we define the following
\emph{Online Ad Assignment Problem with Free Disposal and an Ad Exchange.}
There is a set of contracted advertisers $A$ and an ad exchange $\alpha$. Each advertiser $a$ comes with a number
$n_a$ of ad impressions such that $a$ pays only for the $n_a$ {\em most valuable} ad impressions assigned to $a$, or for all
assigned ad impressions if fewer than $n_a$ are assigned to $a$. To simplify the notation we set $n_{\alpha} = \infty$.
Now a finite sequence ${\cal S} = S_0, S_1, \dots $ of sets $S_l$ with
$l = 0, 1, \dots$, of
ad impressions arrives in order. When $S_l$ arrives, the weights $w_{i,a}$ for each $i \in S_l$ and $a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}$ are revealed and
the online algorithm has to assign
each $i \in S_l$ {\em before} further sets $S_{l+1}, S_{l+2}$, etc.~arrive. Let $\A : I \rightarrow A \cup \{\alpha\}$ be an
{\em assignment} of impressions to advertisers. An assignment is {\em valid} if no two impressions in the same set
$S_l$ are assigned to the same advertiser $a \in A$.
Let $I_{\A}(a)$ be the set of the $n_a$ highest weighted impressions assigned to advertiser $a$ by $\A$.
Then the {\em revenue} $R(\A)$ of $\A$ is $\sum_{a\in A \cup \{\alpha\}} \sum_{i \in I_{\A}(a)} w_{i,a}$.
The goal of the algorithm is to produce a valid assignment $\A$ with maximum revenue $R(\A)$.
The {\em competitive ratio} of an online algorithm is the minimum over all sequences ${\cal S}$ of the ratio of
the revenue achieved by the online algorithm on ${\cal S}$ and the revenue achieved by the optimal offline algorithm on ${\cal S}$, where
the latter algorithm is given all of ${\cal S}$ {\em before} it makes the first decision.
Feldman et al.~\cite{FeldmanKMMP09} studied a special case of our problem, namely the
setting {\em without an ad exchange} and where each set $S_l$ has size one, i.e. where the impressions arrive consecutively.
For that setting they gave a primal-dual based $0.5$ competitive algorithm whose competitive ratio converges to $(1 - 1/e)$ ratio when {\em all}
the $n_a$ values go to infinity. More precisely let $n_A = \min_{a \in A} n_a$. Then their algorithm is
$1-(\frac{n_A}{n_A+1})^{n_A}$-competitive.
They also showed that this ratio is tight when considering deterministic algorithms~\cite{FeldmanKMMP09}.
Let $R_a$ for an advertiser $a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}$ be the revenue that the optimal algorithm receives from $a$.
We extend their results in several ways.
(1) We consider a setting with one advertiser, called ad exchange,
that has infinite capacity\footnote{It is straightforward to extend the algorithm and its analysis to multiple ad exchanges.}.
Moreover, we allow multiple ad slots on a page, with the condition that no two can be assigned to the same
advertiser, i.e.\ for us $|S_l|$ can be larger than 1.
(2) The revenue of our algorithm depends {\em directly} on the $n_a$ value, not on $n_A$. More precisely,
if no ad exchange exists, our algorithm receives a revenue of at least $\sum_a (1-(\frac{n_a}{n_a+1})^{n_a}) R_a$.
When an ad exchange is added, our algorithm achieves a revenue of at least $R_{\alpha} + \sum_a (1-(\frac{n_a}{n_a+1})^{n_a}) R_a$.
(3) We show how to modify our algorithm for the setting where $w_{i,\alpha}$ is unknown for all $i$.
In this setting our algorithm computes a reserve price and sends {\em every} impression first to the ad exchange.
The reserve price is set such that if the auction executed at the ad exchange
fulfills property $P$ then the above revenue bounds continue to hold, i.e. it achieves a revenue of at least $R_{\alpha} + \sum_a (1-(\frac{n_a}{n_a+1})^{n_a}) R_a$.
\paragraph{Techniques}
Our algorithm is a modification of the standard primal-dual algorithms in~\cite{FeldmanKMMP09}
but it is itself not a standard primal-dual algorithms as it does not construct a feasible primal and dual solution to
a {\em single} LP. Instead
in the analysis we use several primal and dual LPs, one for each advertiser $a$ and
use the dual solutions to upper bound $R_a$.
However, the corresponding primal feasible solution is {\em not} directly related
to the revenue the algorithm achieves from $a$. Instead, the solution constructed by the algorithm is a feasible solution for a primal program
that is the combination of all individual LPs. This property is strong enough to give the claimed bounds.
The crucial new ideas in our algorithms are (i)
the observation that when deciding to whom an ad slot
is assigned the publisher should be biased towards advertiser with large $n_a$
and in particular towards the ad exchange and
(ii) that based on the structure of the algorithm it can be easily modified to compute an reserve price for
the auction in the ad exchange if the $w_{i,\alpha}$ values are unknown.
\paragraph{Further Related Work}
We describe prior work on the question whether the publisher should assign an impression to a contracted advertiser or an ad exchange.
In~\cite{BalseiroFMM14} a scenario is studied, where the $w_{i,a}$ follow a joint distribution and no disposal is allowed.
Gosh et al.~\cite{Ghosh2009} assume that for each impression $i$ the $w_{i,\alpha}$ values follow a
known distribution and the contracted advertisers have a quality value depending on $w_{i,\alpha}$.
They study the trade-off between the quality of the impressions assigned to the advertisers and
revenue from the ad exchange.
The work in~\cite{Alaei2009}, like our work, does not make Bayesian assumptions but studies online algorithms in
the worst case setting. The main difference to our work
is that there the contracted advertisers also arrive online and that there is no free disposal.
Finally, Devanur et al.~\cite{DevanurHKMY13} extend \cite{FeldmanKMMP09} to the scenario with multiple ad slots on a page and
constraints on ads being assigned together, but they neither consider ad-exchanges nor consider the different capacities $n_a$
in the competitive ratio.
\paragraph{Structure of the paper}
In Section~\ref{sec:capone} we discuss why the algorithm from~\cite{FeldmanKMMP09}
is not satisfying in our setting and present a simple online algorithm
for the 1-slot case, which we improve in Section~\ref{sec:main}
to achieve a revenue of at least $R_{\alpha} + \sum_a (1-(\frac{n_a}{n_a+1})^{n_a}) R_a$.
In Section~\ref{sec:multislot} we generalize this algorithm to the multi-slot setting.
Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:extensions} we show how to adapt it if the $w_{i,\alpha}$ values are unknown.
\section{A Simple 1-Slot Online Algorithm}\label{sec:capone}
In Sections \ref{sec:capone} and \ref{sec:main} we consider algorithms for the
1-slot setting, i.e., where each $S_l$ just contains a single impression $i$.
Given an instance of such an online ad assignment problem we can build an equivalent instance
where all capacities $n_a=1$.
Simply replace each advertiser $a$ by $n_a$ copies $a_1, \dots a_{n_a}$ with the capacities $1$ and
for each impression $i$ set $w_{i,a_p} = w_{i,a}$ for all $1 \le p \le n_a$.
Thus in this section we assume $n_a=1$ for each $a \in A$.
Then we formulate the offline problem as an integer linear program (ILP),
where the variable $x_{i,a}$ is set to $1$ if $i$ is assigned to advertiser $a$ and to 0, otherwise.
\begin{align*}
\text{\textbf{Primal:} } \max&\ \sum_{i,a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} w_{i,a}\ x_{i,a}\\[5pt]
\sum_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} x_{i,a}&\leq 1 \quad \forall i\\
\sum_{i} x_{i,a} &\leq 1 \quad \forall a \in A
\end{align*}
The first type of constraints ensures that each impression is assigned to at most one advertiser, while the second
type of constraints ensures that each $a \in A$ is assigned at most one impression.
It has the following dual LP.
\begin{align*}
\text{\textbf{Dual:} } \min&\ \sum_{i} z_i + \sum_{a \in A} \beta_a\\
z_i+ \beta_a &\geq w_{i,a} \quad \forall i,\forall a \in A\\
z_i &\geq w_{i,\alpha} \quad \forall i
\end{align*}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{}
\label{alg:1}
\smallskip
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize $\beta_a=0$, $\beta_{\alpha}=0$
\item When impression $i$ arrives
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $j=\argmax[a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}]\{w_{i,a}-\beta_a\}$.
\item if $j=\alpha$ then set $x_{i,\alpha}=1$ and $z_i=w_{i,\alpha}$.
\item if $j\in A$ then set $x_{i,j}=1$, $\forall\ i'\not=i:\ x_{i',j}=0$, $z_i=w_{i,j}-\beta_j$ and $\beta_j=w_{i,j}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}\vspace{-6pt}
\end{algorithm}
For notational convenience we assume an additional variable $\beta_\alpha$ which remains $0$ for the whole algorithm.
We next consider a straight forward generalization of the online algorithm in~\cite{FeldmanKMMP09}, called Algorithm~\ref{alg:1},
to our setting.
This algorithm constructs a feasible integral solution for the Primal LP, corresponding to an ad assignment,
and a feasible solution for the dual LP that is used to upper bound the revenue of the optimal assignment.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:1} constructs feasible solutions for both the Primal and the Dual:
when impression $i$ is assigned to advertiser $j$ then $x_{i,j}$ is set to 1, $\beta_j$ is set to $w_{i,j}$, and $z_i$ is set to $\max_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}}\{w_{i,a}-\beta_a\}$.
Note that the loss in revenue of Algorithm~\ref{alg:1} compared to the optimal assignment
{\em exclusively} comes from the impression assigned to advertisers in $A$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:1}
Let $\A$ be an ad assignment computed by Algorithm~\ref{alg:1}, then
$
R(OPT) \leq R_\alpha(\A) + 2 \cdot R_A(\A)
$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In the following we will use that $R(\A)$ equals the value of the primal solution and
that the value of the dual solution is an upper bound on $R(OPT)$.
We prove the claim by induction on the assigned impressions.
Clearly the base case where no impression is assigned is fine.
Now consider an arbitrary $i$ to be assigned and notice that, by (1.), $\beta_a$ is such that $\beta_a=0$ if
no impression was assigned to $a$.
Otherwise, by (2c), $\beta_a=w_{i',a}$ where $i'$ is the highest weighted impression assigned to $a$.
We simultaneously consider the increase of the primal and the dual solution when adding a new impression~$i$.
If Algorithm~\ref{alg:1} assigns $i$ to an $a\in A$ this is by rule $(c)$.
Let $\beta^n_a$, $\beta^o_a$ be the new and old value of $\beta_a$.
The statement $x_{i,a}=1$, $\forall\ i'\not=i:\ x_{i',a}=0$ increases the revenue $R(\A)$ by
$w_{i,a}-\beta^o_a$, as $\beta^o_a$ is the value $w_{i',a}$ of the impression $i'$ we have to drop.
On the other side the statement $z_i=w_{i,a}-\beta^o_a$ increases the objective of the Dual by the same amount.
Additionally the objective of the Dual is affected by updating $\beta_a$ with $\beta^n_a=w_{i,a}$.
This additionally increases the objective of the Dual by $\beta^n_a-\beta^o_a=w_{i,a}-\beta^o_a$.
Thus, if $i$ is assigned to an $a \in A$, the increase of the objective of the Dual is twice the increase of the objective of the primal,
the revenue $R(\A)$.
If Algorithm~\ref{alg:1} assigns $i$ to $\alpha$ this is by rule $(b)$.
By $x_{i,\alpha}=1$ we increase the revenue by $w_{i,\alpha}$ and by setting $z_i=w_{i,\alpha}$
we increase the objective of the Dual by the same amount.
Hence, as in case (b) the $\beta_a$ are not affected,
we obtain that $R(OPT) \leq R_\alpha(\A) + 2 \cdot R_A(\A)$.
\end{proof}
However, the Algorithm~\ref{alg:1} does not guarantee that impressions are sent to ad exchange when the optimal algorithm does.
Thus the optimal offline assignment might send many impressions to the ad exchange,
while the online assignment of the above algorithm does not and thus might only be an $1/2$ approximation
(Proposition~\ref{prop:1} guarantees that it is not worse.).
Such a situation is given in Example~\ref{example:1}.
\begin{example}\label{example:1}
Consider $A=\{a\}$ with $n_a=1$ and impressions $1 \leq i \leq n$ with
$w_{i,\alpha}=1-\epsilon$ and $w_{i,a}=i$.
Then the revenue $R(\A)$ of Algorithm~\ref{alg:1} after $n$ impressions is $n$,
while the optimal assignment achieves $n+(n-1)(1-\epsilon)$, where $(n-1)(1-\epsilon)$ is achieved by the ad exchange.
For $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ and $n \rightarrow \infty$ the ratio $R(\A)/R(OPT)$ is $1/2$
although half of the revenue in the optimal assignment $OPT$ comes from the ad exchange.
\qee
\end{example}
Thus the algorithm from~\cite{FeldmanKMMP09} is only $1/2$-competitive, even when an ad exchange, i.e., an advertiser with infinite
capacity, is added.
Given an ad assignment $\A$ let
$R_\alpha(\A)$ denote the revenue the assignment gets from impressions assigned to the ad exchange and let
$R_A(\A)$ denote the revenue the assignment gets from impressions assigned to contracted advertisers.
Thus we have $R(\A)=R_\alpha(\A)+R_A(\A)$. Additionally, we use $OPT$ to denote the optimal assignment.
We present next Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}, an online algorithm that
receives as revenue at least $R_{\alpha}(OPT) + (1/2) R_a(OPT)$, which is already an improvement over Algorithm~\ref{alg:1}.
It is based on the observation that {\em assigning an impression that should be sent to the ad exchange to an advertiser in $A$
is worse than sending an impression that should go to an advertiser in $A$ to the ad exchange.}
Thus, the algorithm is biased towards the ad exchange.
Specifically the algorithm assigns an impression to an advertiser $a\in A$
only if it gives at least double the revenue on $a$ than on $\alpha$.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{}
\label{alg:2}
\smallskip
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize $\beta_a=0$ for all $a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}$
\item When impression $i$ arrives
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $j=\argmax[a \in A]\{w_{i,a}-\beta_a\}$.
\item if $(w_{i,j}-\beta_j) > 2 \cdot w_{i,\alpha}$ then assign $i$ to $j$ and set $\beta_j=w_{i,j}$.
\item if $(w_{i,j}-\beta_j) \leq 2 \cdot w_{i,\alpha}$ then assign $i$ to $\alpha$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}\vspace{-6pt}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:1}
Let $\A$ be the ad assignment computed by Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} then
$
R(\A) \geq R_\alpha(OPT) + 1/2 \cdot R_A(OPT)
$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:1}}
Let $I^A_{OPT}$, resp. $I^\alpha_{OPT}$, be the impressions assigned to $A$, resp. $\alpha$, by the optimal (offline) assignment OPT.
\footnote{In case there are several optimal assignments we pick an arbitrary one.}
We give an LP $P_A$ for the advertisers $A$ and impressions $I^A_{OPT}$ and its dual $D_A$
such that any feasible solution for $D_A$ gives an upper bound $d_A$ for $R_A(OPT)$.
\vspace{-10pt}
\par\noindent
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\begin{align*}
\text{\textbf{Primal $P_A$:} } \max&\ \hspace{-15pt} \sum_{i \in I^A_{OPT},a \in A} \hspace{-15pt} w_{i,a}\ x_{i,a}\\[5pt]
\sum_{a \in A } x_{i,a}&\leq 1 \quad \forall i\!\in\!I^A_{OPT}\\
\sum_{i \in I^A_{OPT}} x_{i,a} &\leq 1 \quad \forall a\!\in\!A
\end{align*}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{10pt}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\begin{align*}
\text{\textbf{Dual $D_A$:}}\,\min&\ \sum_{i \in I^A_{OPT}} z_i + \sum_{a \in A} \beta_a\\[5pt]
z_i+ \beta_a \geq w_{i,a}& \quad \forall i\!\in\!I^A_{OPT}\ \forall a\!\in\!A\\
\end{align*}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{7pt}
\noindent
Note that the summation in $P_A$ and the constraints in $D_A$ are
only over impressions in $I^A_{OPT}$.
The objective value of the optimal solution of $D_A$,
is an upper bound for the objective of $P_A$, and thus also for $R_A(OPT)$.
However, there is no direct relationship between $R_A(\A)$ and the objective of $P_A$ for $\A$,
as $\A$ might also assign impressions from $I^\alpha_{OPT}$ to $A$.
To upper bound $R_A(OPT)$ we construct a \emph{feasible solution for $D_A$}.
We do this in a iterative fashion, that is whenever Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} assigns an impression $i \in I^A_{OPT}$
we update the feasible solution for $D_A$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] For the $\beta_a$ variables we use the values currently set by the Algorithm~\ref{alg:2};
\item[(ii)] For the variable $z_i$ we set $z_i=w_{i,j}-\beta^o_j$, where $\beta^o_a$ is the value of $\beta_a$ before $i$ is assigned.
\end{enumerate}
As $w_{i,j}-\beta^o_j=max_{a \in A}\{w_{i,a}-\beta_a\}$, all the constraints for $i$ are satisfied.
Hence, doing this for all $i \in I^A_{OPT}$ gives a feasible solution for $D_A$ and its objective $d_A$ fulfills $d_A \geq R_A(OPT)$.\smallskip
To show that the claim holds after each assignment of an impression $i$
we investigate assigning one expression $i$ and study the effect to both the
upper bound and the revenue we achieve.
To this end we introduce some notation:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Delta d_A(i)$ is the increase of the objective $d_A$ when the
algorithm assigns impression $i$, i.e.,
the change in $d_A$ caused by the change in the $\beta$-values and the assignment of the new $z_i$ value (if $i \in I^A_{OPT}$).
\item $\Delta d_\alpha(i)=w_{i,\alpha}$ if $i \in I^\alpha_{OPT}$ and $\Delta d_\alpha(i)=0$ otherwise.
\item $\Delta R(\A,i)$ is the increase of the revenue when assigning $i$.
\item $\beta^n_a$, resp.\ $\beta^o_a$, to denote the value of $\beta_a$ after, resp.\ before $i$ is assigned
\end{itemize}
Note that by the definitions
(a) $\sum_{i \in I} \Delta d_A(i)=d_A$,
(b) $\sum_{i \in I} \Delta d_\alpha(i)= R_\alpha(OPT)$ and
(c) $\sum_{i \in I} \Delta R(\A,i)= R(\A)$.
We will also exploit the fact that $\beta_a$ is such that $\beta_a=0$ if no impression was assigned to $a$ and otherwise
$\beta_a=w_{i',a}$, where $i'$ is the impression currently assigned to $a$.
Next, to relate the increase of the upper bound with the gain of revenue, we distinguish whether one assigns an impression $i \in I^\alpha_{OPT}$ or an impression $i \in I^A_{OPT}$
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem1:lem1}
$\Delta R(\A,i) \geq \Delta d_\alpha(i) + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$, for $i \in I^A_{OPT}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $i \in I^A_{OPT}$, by definition, we have $\Delta d_\alpha(i)=0$.
Thus, we actually have to show that $\Delta R(\A,i) \geq 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} assigns $i$ to an $j\in A$ recall that we
set $z_i=w_{i,j}-\beta^o_j$ and the algorithm sets $\beta^n_j=w_{i,j}$.
Thus $\Delta d_A(i)=2\cdot(w_{i,j}-\beta^o_j)$ and
$\Delta R(\A,i)$ is given by $w_{i,j}$ minus the value of the impression we have to drop (if any), given by $\beta^0_a$.
As this values is stored in $\beta^o_j$ we get $\Delta R(\A,i)=w_{i,j}-\beta^o_j$ and thus $\Delta R(\A,i) \geq 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$.
\item If Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} assigns $i$ to $\alpha$ (although $OPT$ does not),
we know from Step 2c that $(w_{i,j}-\beta_j) \leq 2 w_{i,\alpha}$,
where $j =\argmax[a \in A]\{w_{i,a}-\beta_a\}$.
As we set $z_i=w_{i,j}-\beta^o_j$ and the algorithm keeps all $\beta_a$ unchanged
we get $\Delta d_A(i)= w_{i,j}-\beta^o_j$ and as we assign $i$ to $\alpha$ we have $\Delta R(\A,i)=w_{i,\alpha}$.
Thus $\Delta R(\A,i) = w_{i,\alpha} \geq 1/2 \cdot (w_{i,j}-\beta_j) = 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$.
\end{enumerate}
Hence,
$\Delta R(\A,i) \geq 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)= \Delta d_\alpha(i) + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem1:lem2}
$\Delta R(\A,i) \geq \Delta d_\alpha(i) + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$, for $i \in I^\alpha_{OPT}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $i \in I^\alpha_{OPT}$, by definition, $\Delta d_\alpha(i)=w_{i,\alpha}$.
Recall that no $z$-value is affected in this case.
We have to show that $\Delta R(\A,i) \geq w_{i,\alpha} + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} assigns $i$ to the ad exchange then the $\beta_a$ are not changed.
Thus $\Delta d_A(i)=0$ and
$\Delta R(\A,i)$ is simply $w_{i,\alpha}$. Hence, $\Delta R(\A,i) = w_{i,\alpha} \geq w_{i,\alpha} + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$.
\item If Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} assigns $i$ to an $a \in A$ we have $(w_{i,a}-\beta^o_a) > 2 w_{i,\alpha}$
and the algorithm sets $\beta^n_a=w_{i,a}$.
Thus $\Delta d_A(i)=w_{i,a}-\beta^o_a$.
Furthermore, $\Delta R(\A,i)$ is given by $w_{i,a}$ minus the value of the impression we have to drop (if any), given by $\beta^0_a$.
Thus $\Delta R(\A,i)= (w_{i,a}-\beta^o_a) =1/2 \cdot (w_{i,a}-\beta^o_a)+1/2 \cdot(w_{i,a}-\beta^o_a) \geq w_{i,\alpha} + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$.
\end{enumerate}
Hence,
$\Delta R(\A,i) \geq w_{i,\alpha} + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)= \Delta d_\alpha(i) + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i)$.
\end{proof}
When combining Lemma~\ref{theorem1:lem1} and Lemma~\ref{theorem1:lem2} we obtain
that for each $i\in I$:
$$
\Delta R(\A,i) \geq \Delta d_\alpha(i) + 1/2 \cdot \Delta d_A(i).
$$
Finally, when summing over all impression $i \in I$ and using the above inequality we obtain the claim.
\begin{align*}
R(\A)\!=\!\sum_{i \in I} \Delta R(\A,i) \geq \sum_{i \in I} \left( \Delta d_\alpha(i)\!+\!\frac{\Delta d_A(i)}{2}\right)\,
\geq R_\alpha(OPT)\!+ \frac{R_A(OPT)}{2}.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:1}.
\section{An Online 1-Slot Algorithm Exploiting High Capacities}\label{sec:main}
In this section we generalize the result from Section~\ref{sec:capone} to the setting where each advertiser $a\in A$
has an individual limit $n_a$ for the number of ad impressions he is willing to pay for
and we present Algorithm~\ref{alg:3} that achieves an improvement in revenue for advertisers $a$ with large $n_a$.
\vspace{7pt}
\noindent
In Algorithm~\ref{alg:3} we consider variables $\beta_a$ which, for $a \in A$, are always set s.t.
\begin{equation}\label{equ:beta}
\beta_a = \frac{1}{n_a (e_{n_a}-1)} \sum_{j=1}^{n_a} w_j \left( 1+\frac{1}{n_a} \right)^{j-1}
\end{equation}
where the $w_j$'s are the weights of the impressions assigned to $a$ in non-increasing order
and $e_{n_a}=(1+1/{n_a})^{n_a}$.
That is, $\beta_a$ stores a weighted mean of the $n_a$ most valuable impressions assigned to $a$.
Again we keep $\beta_\alpha\!=\!0$ in the whole algorithm.
Next we consider how assigning a new impression to $a$ affects $\beta_a$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:beta}
Consider a new impression $i$ being assigned to advertiser $a$.
Let $\beta_a^o$, resp.\ $\beta_a^n$ denote the value of $\beta_a$ before, resp.\ after $i$ was assigned
and $v$ the value of the impression dropped from $\beta_a$ ($0$ if no impression is dropped), then
\[
\beta_a^n - \beta_a^o\leq \frac{\beta_a^o}{n_a} - \frac{v \cdot e_{n_a}}{n_a (e_{n_a}-1)} + \frac{w_{i,a}}{n_a (e_{n_a}-1)}.
\]
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lem:beta} was already shown in~\cite{FeldmanKMMP09} but to keep the paper self-explanatory we provide a proof.
\begin{proof}
Assume that $w_{i,a}$ is the impression with the k-th highest value.
\begin{align*}
\beta_a^n &=\!\frac{1}{n_a (e_{n_a}\hspace{-3pt}\!-\!1)}
\left[ \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} w_j \left(\!1\!+\!\frac{1}{n_a} \right)^{j\!-\!1} \hspace{-12pt} +
w_{i,a}\left(\!1\!+\!\frac{1}{n_a}\right)^{k\!-\!1} \hspace{-5pt} +
\sum_{j=k}^{n_a-1} w_j \left(\!1\!+\!\frac{1}{n_a} \right)^{j}
\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq \!\frac{1}{n_a (e_{n_a}\hspace{-3pt}\!-\!1)}
\left[ w_{i,a} + \sum_{j=1}^{n_a-1} w_j \left(\!1\!+\!\frac{1}{n_a} \right)^{j}
\right]
\end{align*}
To obtain the inequality we exploited that $w_j\!>\!w_{i,a}$ for $j\!<\!k$ and that
$\left( 1 + {1}/{n_a} \right)^{j-1} < \left( 1+{1}/{n_a} \right)^{j'-1}$ for $j<j'$.
We proceed with standard transformations.
\begin{align*}
\beta_a^n &\leq \!\frac{1}{n_a (e_{n_a}\hspace{-3pt}\!-\!1)}
\left[ w_{i,a} + \sum_{j=1}^{n_a-1} w_j \left(\!1\!+\!\frac{1}{n_a} \right)^{j}
\right]\\
&= \!\frac{w_{i,a}}{n_a (e_{n_a}\hspace{-3pt}\!-\!1)}+ \!\frac{1}{n_a (e_{n_a}\hspace{-3pt}\!-\!1)} \sum_{j=1}^{n_a-1} w_j \left(\!1\!+\!\frac{1}{n_a} \right)^{j}\\
&=\!\frac{w_{i,a}}{n_a (e_{n_a}\hspace{-3pt}\!-\!1)}+ \left(1+\frac{1}{n_a}\right)\beta_a^o - \frac{v \cdot e_{n_a}}{n_a (e_{n_a}-1)}
\end{align*}
From the last statement we obtain
$\beta_a^n - \beta_a^o\leq \frac{\beta_a^o}{n_a} - \frac{v \cdot e_{n_a}}{n_a (e_{n_a}-1)} + \frac{w_{i,a}}{n_a (e_{n_a}-1)}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{}
\label{alg:3}
\smallskip
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize $\beta_a=0$ for all $a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}$
\item When impression $i$ arrives
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $x=\argmax[a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}]\{c_a\cdot(w_{i,a}-\beta_a)\}$
\item assign $i$ to $x$ and update $\beta_x$ according to (\ref{equ:beta})
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
where weights $c_a$ are defined as
$
c_a=\begin{cases}
1-\frac{1}{e_{n_a}} & a\in A\\
1 & a=\alpha
\end{cases}
$
\end{algorithm}
Notice that in Algorithm~\ref{alg:3} for each $a \in A$ we have that $1/2 \leq c_a < 1 - 1/e$, i.e.\
for $n_a=1$ we have $c_a=1/2$ and $c_a$ grows with $n_a$ and converges to $1 - 1/e$.
The idea is to bias the algorithm towards advertisers with larger $n_a$ and in particular towards the
ad-exchange.
We use $R_a(\A)$ for $a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}$ to denote
the revenue the assignment $\A$ gets from advertiser $a$.
Thus, $R(\A) = \sum_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} R_a(\A)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Let $\A$ be the assignment computed by Algorithm~\ref{alg:3}
then
$
R(\A) \geq \sum_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} c_a \cdot R_a(OPT)
$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:main} will be a direct consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:multislot}, which we will prove in the next section.
Finally let us briefly discuss whether the constants $c_a$ are chosen optimally.
From a result in~\cite{KalyanasundaramP96} on online algorithms for $b$-matchings it follows immediately
that the constants $c_a$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} are optimal for deterministic algorithms.
Moreover, in \cite{MehtaSVV07} it is shown that even randomized algorithms cannot achieve a better competitive ratio than $(1-1/e)$~\footnote{In \cite{MehtaSVV07} the authors study the Adwords problem but in \cite{FeldmanKMMP09} it is argued that
the given example can be also be interpreted as Online Ad Assignment problem.}.
So for large values of $n_a$ even randomized algorithms cannot improve over Algorithm~\ref{alg:3}.
\section{A Multi-Slot Online Algorithm}\label{sec:multislot}
\newcommand{\ax}[0]{\mathbf{a}}
\newcommand{\bx}[0]{\mathbf{b}}
In practice publishers often have several ad slots at a single page and want to avoid to show multiple ads from the same
advertiser on the same page to avoid annoying their users.
This can be modeled as follows: A sequence ${\cal S} = S_0, S_1, \dots$ of
{\em sets} of impressions arrive in an online manner. Each set $S$ has be assigned
(a) before any future sets have arrived, and
(b) such that
non two impressions in $S$ are assigned to the same advertiser in $A$.
Note that we allow multiple impressions from $S$ to be assigned to the ad exchange
as we expect the ad exchange to return different advertisers for them.
Let the set of all impressions $I = \sum_{S \in {\cal S}} S$.
With Algorithm~\ref{alg:4} we present an online algorithm for this setting with the same competitive ratio as
Algorithm~\ref{alg:3}. Note, however, that, unlike Algorithm~\ref{alg:3}, it is compared to the optimal offline solution that respects the above restriction.
More formally,
we call a function $\ax:S \rightarrow A \cup \{\alpha\}$ assigning impressions $S$ to advertisers \emph{valid}
if there are no $i,i'\in S$, $i\not=i'$, $a\in A$ such that $\ax(i)=\ax(i')=a$.
Our Algorithm~\ref{alg:4} generates a valid assignment and is compared to the revenue of the {\em valid} assignment generated by the optimal offline algorithm.
Notice that the computation of ${\arg\!\max}$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg:4} is a weighted bipartite matching problem and
thus can be computed efficiently.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{}
\label{alg:4}
\smallskip
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize $\beta_a=0$ for all $a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}$
\item When impressions $S=\{i_1,\dots,i_l\}$ arrive
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $\displaystyle \bx=\argmax[\text{valid}\ \ax]\left\{ \sum _{i\in S} c_{\ax(i)} \cdot(w_{i,\ax(i)}-\beta_{\ax(i)})\right\}$
\item assign each $i$ to $\bx(i)$ and, if $\bx(i)\in A$, update $\beta_{\bx(i)}$ according to (\ref{equ:beta}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
where weights $c_a$ are defined as
$
c_a=\begin{cases}
1-\frac{1}{e_{n_a}} & a\in A\\
1 & a=\alpha
\end{cases}
$
\end{algorithm}
Recall that $R_a(OPT)$ for $a \in A \cup \{\alpha \}$ is the revenue that an optimal assignment generates from advertiser $a$.
We show the following performance bound.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:multislot}
Let $\A$ be the assignment computed by Algorithm~\ref{alg:4}
and OPT the optimal multi-slot ad assignment,
then
$
R(\A) \geq \sum_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} c_a \cdot R_a(OPT)
$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:multislot} generalizes ideas from the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:1}.
One of the main difference is that we now have to deal with several sets $I^a_{OPT}$ instead of just one set $I^A_{OPT}$ and thus also with several LPs.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:multislot}}
First we give a linear program $P_a$ and its dual $D_a$ for each $a \in A$ such that the final objective value of
any feasible solution of $D_a$ is an upper bound of $R_a(OPT)$.
Note, that
there is no direct relationship between the final objective values of the $P_a$'s and the revenue of the algorithm.
However, we are able to construct a feasible solution for each $D_a$ with objective value $d_a$ such that
the revenue $R(\A)$ of the algorithm is at least $\sum_{a \in A \cup {\alpha}}c_{a} \cdot d_{a}$.
Together with the observation that $d_a \geq R_a(OPT)$ and a bound $d_\alpha$ on $R_\alpha(OPT)$ this proves the theorem.
Let $I^a_{OPT}$ be the impressions assigned to $a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}$ by the optimal (offline) assignment OPT.
We consider the following LPs for each $a \in A$.
\vspace{-10pt}
\par\noindent
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\begin{align*}
\text{\textbf{Primal $P_a$:} } \max& \ \sum_{i \in I^a_{OPT}} w_{i,a}\ x_{i,a}\\[5pt]
x_{i,a} & \leq 1 \quad \forall i \in I^a_{OPT}\\
\sum_{i \in I^a_{OPT}} x_{i,a} &\leq n_a
\end{align*}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{10pt}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\begin{align*}
\text{\textbf{Dual $D_a$:} } \min&\ \sum_{i \in I^a_{OPT}} z_i + n_a \beta_a\\[5pt]
z_i+ \beta_a &\geq w_{i,a} \quad \forall i \in I^a_{OPT}
\end{align*}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{7pt}
\noindent
Note that the summation in the primal and the constraints in the Dual are only over the
impressions {\em in $I^a_{OPT}$}, i.e., the impressions assigned to $a$ by OPT.
The objective value of the optimal solution for $D_a$
is an upper bound for the objective of $P_a$, and thus also for $R_a(OPT)$.
This implies that any feasible solution of $D_a$, also the one we construct next, gives an upper bound for $R_a(OPT)$.
As there might be impressions assigned to $a$ by the algorithm that do {\em not} belong to $I^a_{OPT}$,
the objective value of $P_a$ is, however, not necessarily related to $R_a(\A)$.
Next, we give a \emph{feasible solution for $D_a$} for all $a \in A$, as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] For the $\beta_a$ variables we use the values currently set by the Algorithm~\ref{alg:4};
\item[(ii)] Let $\ax$ be the assignment of the impressions in $S$ by the optimal solution.
For each $i \in I$, we set $z_i=w_{i,\ax(i)}-\beta_{\ax(i)}$ exactly when the algorithm assigns $i$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that this results in a feasible dual solution for {\em all} $a$ as each $i$ belongs to exactly one set $I^{\ax(i)}_{OPT}$ and $z_i$ is chosen
exactly so as to make
the solution of $D_{\ax(i)}$ feasible, together with the current $\beta_{\ax(i)}$ values. As $\beta_{\ax(i)}$ only increases in the
course of the algorithm the solution remains feasible at the end of the algorithm.
Let $d_a$ be the value of this feasible solution for $D_a$ for some $a\in A$ then we have $d_a \ge R_a(OPT)$.
To show that the claim holds after each assignment of a set of impressions $S$
we investigate assigning one such set and study the effect to both the upper bound and the revenue we achieve.
To this end we introduce some notation:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Delta d_a(S)$ be the increase of the objective value $d_a$ when the algorithms assigns $S$,
i.e., the change in $d_a$ caused by the change in the $\beta_a$-values
\emph{and} the assignment of the $z_i$-values for all $i \in S \cap I^A_{OPT}$.
\item $\Delta d_\alpha(S)=\sum_{i \in S \cap I^\alpha_{OPT}} w_{i,\alpha}$.
\item $\Delta R(\A,S)$ is the increase of revenue when $S$ is assigned.
\end{itemize}
Note that by the definitions
(a) $\sum_{S \in {\cal S}} \Delta d_a(S) = d_a$,
(b) $\sum_{S \in {\cal S}} \Delta d_\alpha(S) = d_\alpha$ and
(c) $\sum_{S \in {\cal S}} \Delta R(\A,S)= R(\A)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:multislot}
$\displaystyle \Delta R(\A,S) \ge \sum_{a \in A \cup {\alpha}}c_{a} \cdot \Delta d_{a}(S)$, for all $S \in {\cal S}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To simplify the notation let $\Delta d(S) = \sum_{a \in A \cup {\alpha}}c_{a} \cdot \Delta d_{a}(S)$.\smallskip
\emph{First consider $\Delta R(\A,S)$}:
For $a\in A$ let $v_a$ be the value of the $n_a$-th valuable impression assigned to $a$
(the impression we would ``drop'' by assigning a new one),
and let $v_\alpha=0$.
If $i$ is assigned to $\alpha$ then the gain in revenue is $w_{i,\bx(i)}$ which equals $w_{i,\bx(i)}-v_{\bx(i)}$.
If $i$ is assigned to $a \in A$ then the gain in revenue is the difference between the revenue of the new impression and
the impression we have to drop, i.e., again $w_{i,\bx(i)}-v_{\bx(i)}$. Thus for $S$ altogether it holds
\begin{equation*}
\Delta R(\A,S)= \sum_{i \in S} (w_{i,\bx(i)}-v_{\bx(i)})
\end{equation*}\smallskip
\emph{Now consider $\Delta d(S)$:}
Recall that $\ax$ is the assignment of the optimal solution for the impressions $S$
and let $\bx$ be the assignment from Algorithm~\ref{alg:4}.
For all $a \in A$ let $\beta_a^o$, $\beta_a^n$ denote the value of $\beta_a$ right {\em before}, resp.~right {\em after} this assignment.
Recall that for $a = \alpha$, it holds that $\beta_a =0$ throughout the algorithm.
Now note that
\begin{equation*}
\Delta d(S) = \sum_{i \in S}\left( c_{\ax(i)} \cdot (w_{i,\ax(i)}-\beta^o_{\ax(i)}) + c_{\bx(i)} \cdot n_{\bx(i)} \cdot (\beta^n_{\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)})\right),
\end{equation*}
where the first term comes from the new variables $z_i$ which we set to $(w_{i,\ax(i)}-\beta^o_{\ax(i)})$, and
the second term comes from the updates of $\beta_a$.
By the choice of $\bx$ in the algorithm we get
\begin{align*}
\Delta d(S) &\leq \sum_{i \in S} \left( c_{\bx(i)} \cdot (w_{i,\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)}) + c_{\bx(i)} \cdot n_{\bx(i)} \cdot (\beta^n_{\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)})\right)\\
&=\sum_{i \in S} c_{\bx(i)} \cdot \left((w_{i,\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)}) + n_{\bx(i)} \cdot (\beta^n_{\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)})\right).
\end{align*}
Next we bound the contribution of each $i \in S$ separately
by analyzing two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\bx(i)=\alpha$ then we know that $\beta^o_{\bx(i)}=\beta^n_{\bx(i)}=v_{\bx(i)}=0$ and $c_{\bx(i)}=1$ . Thus
\begin{equation*}
c_{\bx(i)} \cdot \left( (w_{i,\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)}) + c_{\bx(i)} \cdot n_{\bx(i)} \cdot (\beta^n_{\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)})\right)
= (w_{i,\bx(i)}-v_{\bx(i)}).
\end{equation*}
\item If $\bx(i)\in A$ then we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:beta} to bound $(\beta^n_{\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)})$ as follows
\begin{align*}
c_{\bx(i)} \cdot \left( (w_{i,\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)}) + n_{\bx(i)} \cdot (\beta^n_{\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)})\right) &\leq\\
c_{\bx(i)} \cdot \left( (w_{i,\bx(i)}-\beta^o_{\bx(i)}) + \beta^o_{\bx(i)} - \frac{v_{\bx(i)} \cdot e_{n_{\bx(i)}}}{e_{n_{\bx(i)}}-1}+\frac{w_{i,\bx(i)}}{e_{n_{\bx(i)}}-1}\right) &=\\
c_{\bx(i)} \cdot \left( \frac{w_{i,\bx(i)}\cdot e_{n_{\bx(i)}}}{e_{n_{\bx(i)}}-1} - \frac{v_{\bx(i)} \cdot e_{n_{\bx(i)}}}{e_{n_{\bx(i)}}-1}\right)=(w_{i,\bx(i)}-v_{\bx(i)})
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
In the last step we used that by definition $c_a=1-{1}/{e_{n_a}}$ for $a \in A$.
By the above we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\Delta d(S) \leq \sum_{i \in S}(w_{i,\bx(i)}-v_{\bx(i)}) =\Delta R(\A, S).\qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
Now consider that the set of impression is given by a series $(S_j)_{0\leq j \leq n}$ of pairwise disjoint sets of impressions
that show up simultaneously.
Exploiting Lemma~\ref{lem:multislot} we get:
\begin{align*}
R(\A) =& \sum_{j=0}^n\Delta R(\A, S_j) \geq \sum_{j=0}^n\Delta d(S_j)=\\
& \sum_{j=0}^n \sum_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} c_{a} \cdot \Delta d_{a}(S_j) \geq \sum_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} c_a \cdot R_a(OPT)
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:multislot}.
\section{An Algorithm for Computing Reserve Prices}
\label{sec:extensions}
In our model we assumed the publisher knows exactly how much revenue he can get from the ad exchange,
i.e., the $w_{i,\alpha}$ values are given for all $i \in I$.
The critical reader may interpose that this is not the fact in the real world
or in the ad exchange model proposed in~\cite{Muthukrishnan2009}.
Instead whenever sending an impression to the ad exchange an auction
is run.
However, the publisher can set a reserve price and if all the bids are below the reserve price then
he can still assign it to one of the contracted advertisers.
One nice property of Algorithms \ref{alg:2} \& \ref{alg:3} is that
they allow to compute the minimal price we have to extract from the ad exchange such that
it is better to assign an impression to the ad exchange
than to a contracted advertiser.
This price is given by $\max_{a\in A}\left\{c_a\cdot (w_{i,a}-\beta_a)\right\}$.
It follows that this price is also a natural choice for the reserve price.
Assume the auction executed at the ad exchange fulfills the following \emph{property
(P): If an ad impression is sold at the ad exchange, then the revenue achieved is independent of the reserve price chosen by the publisher.}
Thus, the reserve price influences only {whether} the ad impression is sold, {not} the price that is achieved.
Then Theorem~\ref{thm:multislot} applies, i.e., the revenue of the algorithm is at least
$\sum_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} c_a \cdot R_a(OPT)$, even though the algorithm is not given the $w_{i,\alpha}$
values and it is compared to an optimal algorithm that does.
The reason is that the algorithm makes exactly the same decisions and receives exactly the same revenue as
Algorithm~\ref{thm:multislot} that is given the $w_{i,\alpha}$ values.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:reserveprice}
Let $\A$ be the assignment computed by the Algorithm described above, i.e., without knowledge of the $w_{i,\alpha}$ values.
If the auction at the ad exchange fulfills property P, then
$
R(\A) \geq \sum_{a \in A \cup \{\alpha\}} c_a \cdot R_a(OPT)
$.
\end{theorem}
However, this technique does not work for Algorithm \ref{alg:4}.
When a set of impressions $S$ is assigned the right reserve price for an impression $i \in S$ depends
on the assignment of the other impressions in $S$. In particular the optimal reserve price for one impression
might depend on the outcome of an auction for another item in the same set.
We leave integrating reserve prices in the multi-slot setting as an open question for future research.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council
under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant
Agreement no.\ 340506 and from
the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) through project ICT10-002.
The authors are grateful to Claire Kenyon and Moses Charikar for useful discussions on formulating the model.
A preliminary version of this paper has appeared in the proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Approximation and Online Algorithms~\cite{DvorakH14}.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
State-of-the-art experimental techniques
allow the experimentalist today to directly study a plethora of minimal models that have been developed in a solid-state physics context \cite{review}. Bose-Einstein condensates loaded into optical lattices, which realize spatially periodic structures, are used, e.g., to implement many-body models such as the celebrated Bose-Hubbard model (BHM) in one, two or even three dimensions. Other possible realizations of lattice systems with controllable couplings and interactions are based on arrays of optical cavities \cite{Oarray,2Doptic} or superconducting circuits \cite{Sarray}, for instance.
Already in 2003 and 2004, the spectral statistics of one-dimensional BHM were studied \cite{kol2003,kol2004}. Later extended models were also investigated, see e.g. \cite{Toma2007,BW2008,lubi2011,carlos2013,carlos2014}, which essentially confirmed these results. Recently, a semiclassical theory has been developed to understand the chaotic behavior of one-dimensional BHMs and to put the results mentioned above onto a firmer ground \cite{remy}. The knowledge of the spectral characteristics in a many-body system can be exploited to understand, engineer and control the system's dynamics, making such models and their experimental realizations interesting for the study of quantum thermalization and non-equilibrium transport phenomena, see e.g. \cite{kol2003,fine,carlos2014,therma1,therma2,schlagheck_therm}.
In this paper, we want to extend the spectral analysis to the case of two-dimensional BHMs with strong interparticle interactions. The dynamics of two-dimensional tight-binding systems was studied before in the noninteracting case \cite{kol2D-noINTER}, or in the specific case of a four mode interacting system \cite{2D-withINTER}. Analyzing different minimal models of up to a 3x3 square lattice, we will see how the geometry of the lattice and the number of permitted couplings (i.e. the number of bonds) determines the spectral properties of the systems. We restrict to such small numbers of lattice sites but treat particles numbers $N=6\ldots20$, such that the size of the total Hilbert space is sufficiently large for obtaining good statistics. This still allows for a full diagonalization of the many-body quantum problem and the scanning of a broad parameter space.
The next section presents our class of models and the studied lattices. It introduces all the spectral measures we computed as well. Section \ref{sec:3} reports our main results, showing the transition from regular to chaotic spectral statistics in dependence on the lattices structures and the system parameters. Section \ref{sec:con} concludes the paper discussing also experimental ramifications of our work.
\section{Two-dimensional Bose-Hubbard-Models}
\label{sec:2}
The most general form of the types of Hamiltonians we are studying is
\begin{align}
H= & \sum_{\bf R} \left( \epsilon_{\bf R} n_{\bf R}
+ \tfrac{U}{2} n_{\bf R}(n_{\bf R}-1) \right) \nonumber \\
- & \sum_{\bf R, R'} J_{\bf R, R'} (a^\dag_{\bf R} a_{\bf R'} + a^\dag_{\bf R'} a_{\bf R})
\label{eq:bhm}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\linewidth]{fig1}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:1} Sketch of the lattice geometries used here. We study three basic settings of a 2x2 (a), a 2x3 (b) and a 3x3 lattice (c). The minimal bonds are always present (solid lines), while the additional diagonal bonds (green dotted and red dashed lines) are gradually added. In (b) and (c) we allow also for periodic boundary conditions (represented by the blue dot-dashed lines).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig2}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:2} Symmetries of our 2x3 lattice system - $P_{ij}$ denotes the transposition (exchange of the occupation numbers) of the corresponding sites: (a) without diagonals, two discrete symmetries: The exchange of the upper and lower row $P_{14} \cdot P_{25} \cdot P_{36}$ and the exchange $P_{13} \cdot P_{46}$. Since each of theses symmetries is self-inverse and therefore has the 2 eigenvalues $\pm 1$, the corresponding Hamiltonian decomposes in $2 \times 2$ subblocks. (b) with two diagonals, only a point-symmetry $P_{16} \cdot P_{25} \cdot P_{34}$ giving rise to two subblocks. (c) This case has most symmetries: each of the permutations $P_{14} $, $ P_{25} $, and $ P_{36}$ is a symmetry on its own, allowing a decomposition into $2 \times 2 \times 2$ blocks. There exists another symmetry $P_{13} \cdot P_{46}$, which commutes with $P_{25}$ but not with the other two. It therefore only decomposes the blocks corresponding to equal eigenvalues for $P_{14}$ and $P_{36}$. Since these are 4 of our 8 subblocks, we end up with 12 subblocks after the whole decomposition.
}
\end{figure*}
Here the vector ${\bf R} =(i,j)$ describes one point in the two-dimensional plane of a quadratic lattice, with the indices running from $i=1,\ldots,L$ and $j=1,\ldots,M$. The matrix of on-site energies $\epsilon_{\bf R}$ is assumed to be identical to zero. $a_{\bf R}$ and $a^\dag_{\bf R}$ are the annihilation and creation operators, respectively, and $n_{\bf R}=a^\dag_{\bf R}a_{\bf R}$ is the number operator. The specific geometries we investigate in the following are sketched in Fig. \ref{fig:1}. For all connected bonds the tunneling coupling $J_{\bf R, R'}=J=const.$, otherwise it is zero.
The particle number $N$ is chosen accordingly to the number of lattice sites $L\cdot M$ such that the total dimension $d$ of the many-particle Fock space is
\begin{equation}
d= {N+L\cdot M-1\choose N} \,.
\label{eq:fock-dim}
\end{equation}
Typical dimensions of the systems studied here are $d=1.8 \ldots 5.5 \times 10^3$, which provide us with sufficient statistics over the eigenvalues at numerically easily affordable computation times.
\subsection{\label{sec:level}Symmetries and unfolding}
When doing spectral statistics with Hubbard models, we must consider the symmetries of the systems, see e.g. \cite{kol2003,Toma2007,lubi2009}. Typical symmetries are translation invariance in the presence of period boundary conditions, mirror symmetries and parity. Which symmetries are simultaneously present depends on the form of the lattice and the number of bonds. In the case of the 2x3 lattice sketched in Fig. \ref{fig:1}(b), for instance, we have the symmetries discussed in detail in Fig. \ref{fig:2}. The four symmetry reduced subspaces shown in Fig. \ref{fig:2}(a) have dimensions ranging between $d_S=728 \ldots 784$, and in (b) we have $d_S=1491$ and $1512$ for the two subspaces respectively. In Fig. \ref{fig:2}(c) the dimensions of the subspaces vary between $d_S=88 \ldots 434$. The larger variation of the dimensions in the latter case is due to the fact that some subspaces decompose further than others. The reason for this is the presence of an additional symmetry not commuting with all the other ones. Note that in the cases where diagonal bonds are present, the periodic boundary conditions also involve diagonal bonds such that translational invariance is respected.
With the right choice of the basis, the Hamiltonian of Eq. \eqref{eq:bhm} can be written in block-diagonal form corresponding to the irreducible representation that takes care of all symmetries which simultaneously commute with the Hamiltonian. Then we can focus our analysis on just one of these blocks so that level crossing due to states from different symmetry sectors are excluded. For large problems, this reduces the numerical complexity by about the number of independent blocks. For achieving optimal statistics we can analyse the individual blocks separately and then we collect in one plot all data thus obtained.
Before analyzing the eigenvalues of a symmetry reduced block, we must unfold the spectrum such that global trends in the spectrum are taken out. The effect of the unfolding procedure is that we can directly study the local spectral fluctuations which are crucial in any comparison with random matrix theory, see e.g. \cite{RMT} for details. The unfolding procedure we use is described as follows. After normalizing the spectral range to the interval $[0,1]$, we take the differences between consecutive energies $S_n=E_{n+1}-E_n$ and divide them by a local average: $s_n= S_n/\braket{S}_{W}$ where $\braket{\cdot}_W$ averages over the window $W=[n-l,n+l]$. The window size is typically $ l=5\ldots 25$ . We use in practice a smoothed energy level density, obtained by replacing the delta-functions in its definition by gaussian peaks of a width $\sigma$. Then the parameter $\sigma$ can be optimized such that we obtain good statistics without loss of relevant spectral information.
\subsection{\label{sec:res}Spectral measures}
After reducing the system into block-diagonal form, finding the eigenvalues by diagonalizing and unfolding the such obtained spectra, we analyze them using several methods which we are describing now. It is well known that symmetry-reduced (sub)systems can show regular, mixed and chaotic signatures which manifest in their spectral distributions \cite{RMT}. Typically, one compares them to the predictions coming from the theory of random matrices (RMT) \cite{RMT}. This is also what we do here. The standard measure for short-range spectral correlations is the distribution of the distances $s$ of nearest neighbor levels. For regular (pseudo-)random spectra, one expects a Poisson distribution
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm Pois}(s)=e^{-s}\,.
\label{eq:Pstat}
\end{equation}
Fully chaotic spectra do not allow for level crossings which are suppressed by level couplings. The corresponding distribution for our type of systems is the Wigner-Dyson one for time-invariant systems without spin (GOE):
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm WD}(s)=\tfrac{s\pi}{2}e^{-\frac{\pi}{4}s^2}\,.
\label{eq:WDstat}
\end{equation}
For mixed systems, an interpolating distribution is usually seen. One of the standard candidates is the so called Brody distribution with the Brody parameter $\beta$
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm B}(s)=a(1+\beta)s^\beta e^{-as^{1+\beta}}\,,
\label{eq:Brody}
\end{equation}
where $a\equiv \Gamma(\frac{2+\beta}{1+\beta})^{1+\beta}$.
The unfolding procedure mentioned in subsection \ref{sec:level} guarantees a mean level spacing $\braket{s}=1$. Hence, the numerical data is readily fitted with the normalized distributions above. We tested also the measure $P(r)$ introduced in \cite{rmass}. It is based on the ratio of consecutive nearest neighbor spacings $s_n$ and $s_{n-1}$, defined by
\begin{equation}
0< r_n = \frac{{\rm min}(s_n, s_{n-1}) } { {\rm max}(s_{n},s_{n-1})} < 1\,.
\label{eq:rmass}
\end{equation}
This measure has the advantage that no unfolding is needed (because of the ratios of consecutive distances) and, therefore, statistical fluctuations are better controlled. The limiting case for Poisson spectra \cite{rmass} is
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm Pois}(r)=\frac{2}{(1-r)^2}\,,
\label{eq:Pr}
\end{equation}
and for GOE Wigner-Dyson spectra \cite{bogo}
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm WD}(r) \sim \frac{27}{4}\frac{r+r^2}{(1+r+r^2)^{5/2}}\,.
\label{eq:PWD}
\end{equation}
To test also the long-range correlations in the spectra we analyze in parallel to the short-range measures mentioned above the number variance of levels defined by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma^2(L)= \bigg \langle \left( N(E,E+L) - L )\right)^2 \bigg \rangle_{E}\,,
\label{eq:sigma}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{fig3}
\caption{Spectral analysis of 2D BHMs using the measures $P(r)$ (left panels: (a), (c), (e)) and $P(s)$ (right panels: (b), (d), (f)). Each panel exemplifies one regular (blue/black dotted lines) and one chaotic case (red/gray solid lines).The lattices structures are 2x2 (upper panels, $N=20$ with $U/J=2.42$ for regular and $U/J=0.87$ for chaotic case), 2x3 (middle panels, $N=10$, $U/J=15.0$ and $U/J=1.51$), and 3x3 (lower panels, $N=6$, $U/J=1000$ and $U/J=1.71$), all with open (Dirichlet) boundary conditions and without diagonal couplings. The RMT predictions are shown by the dashed lines by comparison, c.f. Eq. \eqref{eq:Pstat}-\eqref{eq:WDstat} (left) and \eqref{eq:Pr}-\eqref{eq:PWD} (right). The transition from regular to chaotic statistics is clearly visible. In the shown case it is controlled by the system parameter $U/J$.
In panel (b), for the regular case, we do not have a fully regular spectrum for this parameter $U/J$. This fact is indicated by a Brody parameter $\beta \approx 0.3$ significantly larger than zero, c.f. Eq. \eqref{eq:Brody}.
}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
where $\braket{\cdot}_{E}$ denotes the average over the studied energy interval. $N(E,E+L)$ is the number of unfolded levels with the interval $[E,E+L]$.
RMT predicts \cite{RMT}
\begin{equation}
\Sigma^2_{\rm Pois}(L)=L
\label{eq:sigma_reg}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Sigma^2_{\rm WD}(L)=\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\left(\ln(2\pi L)+\gamma + 1 - \frac{\pi ^2}{8}\right) + \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{L})\,,
\label{eq:sigma_chaos}
\end{equation}
respectively. $\gamma \approx 0.57722$ is the Euler constant.
Finally, in order to scan over a wide range of parameters, it turned out that it is useful to quantify the spectral correlations by a single number (i.e. averaged over an entire spectrum). We use here a $\chi^2$ test to measure the distance from the obtained numerical data to the theoretical predictions from the
Eqs. \eqref{eq:Pstat} and \eqref{eq:WDstat}, respectively:
\begin{equation}
\chi^2_{*} \equiv \log_{10}\bigg\{\int_0^\infty ds \quad \bigg(P_{*}(s)-P_{\text{numerical}}(s)\bigg)^2 \bigg\}.
\end{equation}
Here * stands for Poisson (Pois) or Wigner-Dyson (WD) respectively.
Moreover, we define the new measure based on the number variance:
\begin{equation}
L_{\rm rel}(q) \equiv \max\{L:\frac{|\Sigma^2(L)-\Sigma^2_{\rm WD}(L)|}{\Sigma^2_{\rm WD}(L)} < q\} \, .
\label{eq:CL}
\end{equation}
This correlation length characterizes up to which $L$ the numerical $\Sigma^2(L)$ follows the predictions for quantum chaos. Since the Poissonian case corresponds to a totally uncorrelated spectrum, we can indeed interpret it as a measure of the correlation length in the spectrum. The 'typical' choice $q=1$ is justified by the fact that due to the unfolding procedure the energy scale of distances is normalized to unity.
\section{Spectral analysis}
\label{sec:3}
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig4}
\caption{$\chi^2$ statistical tests for the regular-to-chaotic transition for a 2x3 lattice at $N=10$. Small $\chi^2_{\rm Pois}$ and $\chi^2_{\rm WD}$ values indicate a good correspondence with $P_{\rm Pois}(s)$ or $P_{\rm Pois}(s)$, respectively. (a,b) show results for no diagonal coupling in Fig. \ref{fig:1}, (c,d) for the red dashed diagonal couplings, and (e,f) for a maximal number of diagonal couplings at open (a,c,e) and periodic (b,d,f) boundary conditions.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
A first overview over the spectral behavior of the systems is presented in Fig. \ref{fig:3}. Only open (Dirichlet) boundary conditions are applied in theses cases. Please note that the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:bhm} effectively has just one parameter since we may divide by $J$ for instance. Hence we denote the control parameter here by $U/J$. The transition from regular to chaotic statistics is clearly visible and controlled by $U/J$ at fixed particle number $N$ and at fixed lattice structure. Because of the unfolding, the definition of the parameter $r$, see Eq. \eqref{eq:rmass}, and since $U/J$ is dimensionless all plotted quantities are dimensionless in the following.
For the next plot we pick the structure of the 2x3 lattice as a paradigm for the other geometries. Figure \ref{fig:4} shows the relative deviations of the numerically obtained distributions $P(s)$ from the regular and chaotic expectations, respectively. The data is for fixed particle number $N=10$, for a large window of $U/J$ and various configurations of bonds and different boundary conditions. We observe that the spectral characteristics are controlled by the number of bonds to the nearest neighbors.
Figure \ref{fig:4} highlights, in particular, that the systems are much more regular when periodic boundary conditions are applied, i.e. when more bonds are effectively present. Moreover, the panels (a-c) in Fig. \ref{fig:4} confirm the expectation of most chaoticity in the region around $U/J \approx 1$ at average atom numbers per site of order one \cite{kol2003,kol2004,Toma2007,BW2008,lubi2011,carlos2013,carlos2014}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\linewidth]{fig5}
\caption{$\Sigma^2$ measure for the three cases: (a) 2x2 lattice $N=20$; (b) 2x3 lattice $N=10$; (c) 3x3 lattice $N=6$.
The control parameter $U/J$ is chosen to minimize $\chi^2_{WD}$. Displayed in each panel are data for:
lattice without diagonal coupling (triangles) with $U/J=0.87$ (a), $U/J=1.57$ (b) and $U/J=1.71$ (c) --
with one diagonal per plaquette, i.e. per square unit cell, (squares) at $U/J=0.955$ (a), $U/J=0.88$ and (c) $U/J=1.92$ --
maximal number of bonds at open boundary conditions (filled circles) at $U/J=1.385$ (a), $U/J=1.67$ (b) and $U/J=1.65$ (c) --
and periodic boundary conditions without diagonals (filled diamonds) at $U/J=0.79$ (b) and $U/J=3.3$ (c).
In (a) also a regular case with no diagonal bonds and $U/J=6.136$ (crosses) is presented for comparison.
}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}
After the short-range correlations, we analyze also the long-range correlations. Figure \ref{fig:5} collects numerical results in particular for quantum chaotic spectra. The various plots show data for the three lattices sketched in Fig. \ref{fig:1}, again for different numbers of nearest-neighbor bonds.
Here the systems with connectivity in Fig. \ref{fig:5} (a) and in addition with periodic boundary conditions in (b) and (c) are also worst approximated by the chaotic prediction from RMT.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig6}
\caption{Overview over the $\chi^2$ tests (left axes) and the analysis of long-range correlations with $L_{\rm rel}(q=1)$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:CL} (right axes). Lattices structures: 2x2 with $N=20$ (upper panels), 2x3 with $N=10$ (middle panels), and 3x3 with $N=6$ (lower panels). The left panels are for the minimal couplings without any diagonal bonds in Fig. \ref{fig:1}. The central column shows the cases of one diagonal bond (upper) and four diagonals with open boundary conditions (middle and lower panel). For the lower middle panel this corresponds to the red dashed lines in Fig \ref{fig:1}(c). The right panels are for two diagonals in the case 2x2 (upper), and no diagonals with periodic boundary conditions (middle and lower panel).}
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure*}
Our systems--represented by the Hamiltonian of \eqref{eq:bhm} and the geometries sketched in Fig. \ref{fig:1}--allow for a large variety of possible choices of parameters ($N$ and $U/J$) and bond numbers (including the choice of boundary conditions). Fig. \ref{fig:6} collects most of the possible cases for fixed $N$ at a given lattice structure. The individual plots show scans over a wide range of $U/J$. The different lines present the $\chi^2$ tests for the correspondence with the chaotic $P_{\rm WD}(s)$ (blue dotted) and the regular $P_{\rm Pois}(s)$ (red dashed). Also our newly introduced measure $L_{\rm rel}(q=1)$ is shown by the black solid lines. In all cases, we find a more or less broad chaotic region, for which $UN/J \sim 1$, a well known condition for strong mode coupling in the one-dimensional BHM \cite{kol2003,kol2004,Toma2007,BW2008,lubi2011,carlos2013,carlos2014,remy}. Both measures $\chi^2$ and $L(q)$ agree in indicating the most chaotic regions; and again the correspondence is optimal for the cases shown in the leftmost panels in Fig. \ref{fig:6}. This nicely corroborates the results of Fig. \ref{fig:5}. The chaotic regions are the less broad the more bonds are present in the structures. This fact is in agreement with the well-known expectation that mean-field approaches typically work best when all sites are coupled to as many nearest neighbors as possible, see, e.g., Ref. \cite{franz} in the context of generalized one-dimensional BHMs.
\section{\label{sec:con}Discussion and conclusions}
In this paper we analyzed the spectra of a class of small two-dimensional BHMs, scanning a broad range of parameters and lattices structures.
We found a transition from regular-to-chaotic behavior in almost all cases which is controlled by the system parameters $U/J$ and $N$ as well as by the number of coupled bonds in the models. Our work naturally extends studies of the one-dimensional BHM \cite{kol2003,kol2004,Toma2007,BW2008,lubi2011,carlos2013,carlos2014,remy,schlagheck_therm} and related Hubbard models for fermonic particles \cite{1-2DFermi}.
Minimal systems as investigated here could be realized experimentally by coupled one-dimensional chains of BHMs, see, e.g., Ref. \cite{2Dchains} for recent experiments in this direction, or by optical two-dimensional lattices, see a similar theoretical proposal in Ref. \cite{2Doptic}. Such experimental implementations could study quantum chaos of simple but strongly interacting indistinguishable bosons, complementary to recent scattering experiments with more complex ultracold erbium atoms \cite{QC-cold}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
SW acknowledges financial support by the FIL program of Parma University. We thank R\'emy Dubertrand for valuable discussions.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Software for autonomous robotic assistants interacts concurrently with physical devices (sensors and actuators) and environments comprising people, different types of terrain, and other robots.
Demonstrating that autonomous robotic assistants are ultimately fit for purpose in the real world will open the doors for their acceptance in our society~\cite{ROMAN14}.
Testing robotic software in simulation offers the possibility of reducing costly and time consuming lab experiments, to make sure that the code meets safety and functional requirements.
In addition, testing in simulation provides a degree of realism and detail that is difficult to retain when abstracting models for formal verification.
The fundamental challenge of testing robotic software is in producing realistic and interesting tests, considering that the software interacts with a complex, changing, and hard to predict environment, through sensors and actuators, that influence its execution.
Realistic and meaningful testing of robotic software means producing data inputs that are valid, whilst also emulating the interactions with the real life system, e.g.\ in terms of timing, order, and causality.
These tests would also need to explore (cover) the software as much as possible, along with scenarios from combinations of the software and its environment~\cite{Alexander2015}.
A simple method to generate tests is by randomly (pseudorandomly in practice to ensure repeatability) exploring the state space of inputs or event sequences for abstract tests.
Intelligent sampling via carefully chosen probability distributions can be implemented to maximize coverage and fault detection~\cite{Gaudel2011}.
Constraints are introduced to bias test generation towards reaching more coverage faster~\cite{Kim2006,Mossige2014}.
Model-based approaches explore requirement or test models to achieve biasing automatically and systematically, e.g.\ with model checking guided by temporal logic properties representing realistic use cases~\cite{CDV2015,TAROS2016}.
Constructing models and exploring them automatically reduces the need to write constraints by hand.
In previous work~\cite{CDV2015}, we proposed the use of coverage-driven verification testbenches for real robotic software in the context of human-robot interaction (HRI).
Integrating comprehensive testing capabilities into popular robotics software development frameworks increases quality and compliance assurance at design time, and thus brings developers closer to achieve demonstrably safe robots.
We implemented these testbenches in the Robot Operating System\footnote{http://www.ros.org/} (ROS) framework, and the Gazebo\footnote{http://gazebosim.org/} 3-D physics simulator, via the following components: a driver, self-checkers (assertion monitors executed in parallel with the robot's code), a coverage collector (based on code, assertion and cross-product coverage models), and a test generator~\cite{CDV2015,TAROS2016}.
The test generation process makes use of pseudorandom, constrained, and model-based methods to produce abstract tests (sequences or programs), subsequently ``concretized'' by valid parameter instantiation.
Examples of the testbenches in ROS-Gazebo are available online.\footnote{https://github.com/robosafe}
Our previous model-based test generation techniques were based on model
checking probabilistic timed automata (PTA) with respect to reachability
temporal logic properties~\cite{CDV2015,TAROS2016}. Although these have been
very effective in guiding test generation to achieve high levels of coverage,
both, the PTA models, often at very high abstraction levels, as well as suitable
properties are required, which limits the approach in practice.
This motivated us to search for different models; models that more closely match the
behaviour of the actual code, models that are intuitive and that reflect
the autonomy and agency present in the HRI domain.
The BDI agent architecture, proposed by the philosopher Michael Bratman to
model human reasoning, offers exactly that. Using BDI, an agent's view of the
world, including its environment, other agents and itself, is captured in `beliefs'. BDI agents can activate plans
(`intentions'), guarded by their beliefs to achieve goals
(`desires')~\cite{Agentspeakbook}.
BDI multi agent systems can be implemented through different frameworks, including Jason\footnote{http://jason.sourceforge.net/wp/} in the AgentSpeak language.
For each agent and in a continuous loop, plans are selected (added to the intentions) and executed in response to `events' such as the creation of beliefs or goals, by other agents or internally.
BDI agents provide a reasoning mechanism, agency, rationality and causality. We stipulate that they can be used to model the interactions between robots and humans in a realistic manner, and that these models can be exploited for test generation.
Our BDI agents become active components in the verification process; {\em verification agents} that are controlled through their beliefs, desires and intentions.
The overall hypothesis of this paper is centred on the usefulness of BDI agents for model-based test generation for the purpose of testing code of robotic assistants in HRI, giving rise to the following research questions:
\begin{enumerate}[label={\bf Q\arabic{enumi}}.]
\item Are Belief-Desire-Intention agents suitable to model the interactions between robots and other entities in HRI scenarios?
\vspace*{-2mm}
\item How can we generate effective tests from BDI models, i.e.\ how can we control BDI models to ensure they are being fully explored?
\vspace*{-2mm}
\item Machine learning techniques, e.g.\ reinforcement learning (RL)~\cite{Veanes2006,Jia2015}, have been shown to increase the optimality of test suites automatically. Can we automate BDI model-based test generation through machine learning using coverage feedback?
\end{enumerate}
In this paper we use a human-robot cooperative table assembly task as a case
study.
We demonstrate how BDI models can be developed for the code under test,
relevant sensors and the human co-worker, all represented as BDI agents.
We then generate interactive tests from the resulting multi agent system.
These tests naturally incorporate the agency present in the environment of the
robotic code under test, in particular the rationality and decision making of
the simulated human.
To explore the BDI model, we propose to manipulate the beliefs of the
verification agents.
This provides an intuitive method to direct test generation, and we compared
different belief manipulation techniques, including manual and
coverage-directed, to determine their feasibility, benefits and drawbacks.
We implemented an RL algorithm, Q-learning, with a reward function on agent
coverage (covered plans). This allowed us to generate tests that reach high
percentages of code coverage fully automatically, much like existing
machine-learning based coverage-directed test generation
techniques~\cite{CDG2012}.
Our results demonstrate that BDI agents are effective models for
test generation, delivering realistic stimulation of robotic code in simulation.
We also show that adding machine learning with coverage feedback produces an
effective and varied test suite in a fully automated manner, with tests that
show greater diversity compared to tests obtained using manual or pseudorandom
exploration of the BDI model.
\section{Related Work}\label{sc:relatedwork}
Both runtime errors and functional temporal logic properties of code have been verified through model checking and automatic theorem proving.
Nonetheless, tools are available only for (subsets of) languages such as C (e.g., CBMC\footnote{http://www.cprover.org/cbmc/}), or Ada SPARK (e.g., GNATprove\footnote{http://www.open-do.org/projects/hi-lite/gnatprove/}), which do not suit Python code or other popular robotic frameworks such as ROS.
Different kinds of models have been employed to represent robotic software in model-based test generation, including Markov chains~\cite{SiamiNiamin2010}, UML class diagrams~\cite{Zheng2007,Pare2015}, finite-state machines~\cite{Arney2010}, model programs~\cite{Ernits2008}, hybrid automata~\cite{Tan2004}, and coloured Petri Nets~\cite{Lill2013}.
None of these models represent causal reasoning and planning, as BDI agents do.
As far as we can tell, this is the first work proposing the use of BDI agents for model-based test generation.
Other types of verification agents (programs that plan what to do next) have been used for test generation before, e.g., in~\cite{GeethaDevasena2012} to traverse UML scenario models and branch models of the code; in~\cite{Nguyenthesis} to test other agents traversing models of data and an UML testing goal model.
Machine learning methods, such as RL, have been employed to aid model-based test generation.
For example, a model program (rules) was explored with RL to compute optimal test-trace graphs in~\cite{Veanes2006}, which helped to gain more code coverage compared to random exploration by pruning the search space.
Ant colonies and RL have been combined to find and learn good event sequences to test graphical user interfaces (GUIs)~\cite{Carino2015}.
In this paper, we explored the use of RL to increase the level of automation in the test generation process.
By using RL to learn which (abstract) tests increase the coverage of a BDI
model, we can identify the tests most likely to increase code coverage when
executed on the code under test.
This is a new variant of learning-based coverage-directed test generation~\cite{CDG2012}.
\section{Case Study}\label{sc:casestudy}
\subsection{Cooperative Table Manufacture}
To assemble a table in a cooperative manner, a person requests legs through voice commands, and a humanoid torso with arms (BERT2~\cite{lenz2010bert2}) hands them over if it has decided the person is ready to receive them.
Four legs must be handed over to complete one table.
The robot decides if a human is ready to take a leg through the combination of three sensors $(g,p,l)\in G \times P \times L$:
a ``gaze'' sensor that tracks whether the human head is looking at the leg;
a ``pressure'' sensor that detects a change in the position of the robot's hand fingers indicating that the human is pulling on the leg; and
a ``location'' sensor that tracks whether the human hand is on the leg.
Each sensor reading is classified into $G=P=L=\{\bar{1},1\}$, where $1$ indicates the human is ready, and $\bar{1}$ represents any other sensor reading.
If the human is deemed ready, $GPL=(1,1,1)$, the robot should decide to release the leg. Otherwise, the robot should not release the leg and discard it (send back to a re-supply cycle).
The sensor readings can be erroneous when the legs wobble in the robot's hand (pressure error), or when occlusions occur (location and gaze errors).
Only if the robot decides the human is ready to hold the leg, $GPL=(1,1,1)$, the robot should release the leg.
The robot is programmed to time out while waiting for either a voice command from the human, or the sensor readings, according to specified time thresholds, to avoid livelocks.
This workflow is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:workflow}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{flow.pdf}
\caption{Cooperative table manufacture task workflow}
\label{fig:workflow}
\end{figure}
The robotic software for the assembly task consists of a ROS `node' in Python with 264 statements.
This code reads the output from the sensors, calls a third-party kinematic trajectory planner (MoveIt!\footnote{http://moveit.ros.org/}) to get a leg from a fixed location and then hold it in front of the human also in a fixed location, and finally decides whether to release the leg or not.
The code was structured into a finite-state machine (FSM), via SMACH modules~\cite{SMACH}, to facilitate its modelling into BDI agents.
We chose to verify a representative set of requirements for this collaborative task, adapted from~\cite{CDV2015}, as follows:
\begin{enumerate}[label=R\arabic*.]
\item If the gaze, pressure and location sense the human is ready, then a leg shall be released.
\vspace*{-2mm}
\item If the gaze, pressure or location sense the human is not ready, then a leg shall not be released.
\vspace*{-2mm}
\item The robot shall not close its hand when the human hand is too close, according to the safety standard ISO~13482:2014 (robotic assistants).
\vspace*{-2mm}
\item The robot shall start and work in restricted joint speed (less than 0.25 rad/s, ISO~10218-1:2011 for collaborative industrial robots, Section 3.23), to prevent dangerous unintended contacts (ISO~13482:2014, Section 3.19.4).
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Simulator Components}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.01\columnwidth]{testgen.pdf}
\caption{Testbench in ROS-Gazebo comprising: two-tiered test generator (yellow), driver (blue), self-checker (green), coverage collector (orange), code under test (white), other software and the simulator (gray). Semi-automated feedback loop to increase coverage in dashed lines.}
\label{fig:testbench}
\end{figure}
The ROS-Gazebo simulator, available online\footnote{https://github.com/robosafe/table}, comprises:
\begin{myitemize}
\item The robot's control code, instrumented with code coverage metrics, via the `coverage' module\footnote{http://coverage.readthedocs.org/en/coverage-4.1b2/}, which produce detailed reports in html format.
\item A Python module (also a ROS `node' structured as an FSM) enacting the human in the simulator, according to the tests, to stimulate the robotic software.
\item Gazebo physical models of the robot, human head and hand, and table legs, to simulate motion actions in ``real-time'' according to the robot's control code, and the actions of the simulated human.
\item Sensor models for ``gaze'', ``pressure'', ``location'', and voice recognition, implemented as Python ROS `nodes'.
\item A driver to distribute test sequences to the corresponding simulation components, i.e.\ routing the sensor inputs and inputs for the human simulation component.
\item Assertion monitors for requirements R1 to R4. These were formalized as temporal logic properties, translated into FSMs~\cite{CDV2015} and implemented as Python modules (using individual ROS `nodes') that run parallel to the robotic software. The monitors produce reports of their coverage (assertion coverage), i.e.\ the number of times they have been triggered per simulation run.
\item Coverage collection for the code and assertion results on each simulation run, through automated scripts.
\item A two-tiered test generator; the first stage employs model-based
techniques to produce abstract tests and the second stage concretizes these, e.g.\ by assigning actual values to parameters, including timing.
\end{myitemize}
Figure~\ref{fig:testbench} shows the testbench components in ROS-Gazebo.
\section{Model-Based Test Generation \\with BDI Agents}\label{sc:testgen}
\begin{figure}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|l}
\cline{1-2}
\verb+tell+ &\verb+leg+ &Human voice A1 for 5s\\
\verb+receivesignal+ & &Human waits for max. 60s\\
\verb+tell+ & \verb+humanReady+ &Human voice A2 for 2s\\
\verb+set_param+ & \verb+gaze=1+ & Move head from: offset $[0.1,0.2]$,\\
& & distance $[0.5,0.6]$, angle $[15,40)$ \\
\cline{1-2}
\end{tabular}
\caption{An abstract test sequence for the human to stimulate the robot's code (LHS), and its concretization: sampling from defined ranges (RHS).}
\label{fig:test}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Foundations}
Robotic software is expected to process data inputs of different types at the
same time or asynchronously, coming from sensors, actuator feedback, and
different pieces of code running concurrently.
In response, data output is produced, e.g.\ to control actuators and
communication interfaces. The test environment must react to this output in an
appropriate manner in order to stimulate the robotic software it interacts
with.
The orchestration of such complex, reactive data generation and timely driving
of stimulus is significantly more demanding than generating timings for a
single stream of data~\cite{Mossige2014}, or simple controller
inputs~\cite{Kim2006}.
To simplify test generation, we proposed a two-tiered
approach~\cite{CDV2015,TAROS2016}.
First, sequences of `actions' are generated from traversing high-level models,
producing abstract tests that define order and causality, thus indicating
which input channels need to be stimulated with which data when.
Typically, these models are highly abstract to manage model complexity and the
computational complexity involved in model traversal.
Then, concrete data, i.e.\ parameter instantiation, and timing are chosen for
each element in the sequence, using search-based or random approaches as
in~\cite{Gaudel2011}. These are constrained to remain within valid data and
timing ranges.
The resulting tests aim to stimulate simulated entities such as humans. Their
actions stimulate sensors and actuators within the simulation, which in turn will
stimulate the robotic code under test.
An example of an abstract-concrete test for the table assembly task is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:test}, adapted from~\cite{CDV2015,TAROS2016}.
Figure~\ref{fig:testbench} shows the two-tiered test generation process. The
test generator is connected via a driver to the simulated entities
that act within the robot's environment. These stimulate the software under
test, e.g.\ the control code in the table assembly task, and other testbench
components in ROS-Gazebo. Further details on this setup are contained
in~\cite{TAROS2016}.
Our research seeks to establish whether BDI agents are suitable abstract models
for the first stage of model-based test generation in Fig.~\ref{fig:testbench}.
\subsection{BDI-based Test Generation}\label{ssc:bdiagents}
BDI models need to be constructed for the software under test and all other components of the simulation that interact with the real robot in a task.
The code is modelled as a BDI agent, capturing the high-level decision making present in software for autonomous robots; see~\cite{Dennis2016} for a recent example.
To facilitate modelling, it is useful that the robotic software under test is encoded as an FSM, e.g.\ using the SMACH module for Python, or an equivalent library in C++.
The FSM structure provides an abstraction for the code, grouping it into identifiable blocks, i.e\ `states'.
A variety of interpreters and implementations are available for BDI agents.
In Jason, a framework implemented in Java, multi agent systems are constructed in AgentSpeak, an agent language with a syntax similar to Prolog~\cite{Agentspeakbook}.
A BDI agent comprises a set of initial beliefs, a set of initial goals, and a set of plans guarded by a combination of goals, beliefs, and first-order statements about these.
Consequently, the robot's code is translated into a set of plans $P_R$. The plans' `actions' represent the functionality of the code's FSM `states', triggered by a combination of beliefs and goals.
Beliefs represent sensor inputs (subscribing to topics or requesting services
in ROS) and internal state variables; these lead to different plans in the BDI
agents which cover different paths in the code under test.
After executing a plan, a new goal is created to control which plans can be activated next, following the same control flow as the code.
An example of a BDI agent modelling the robot's code for our case study is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:agents}.
BDI models represent agency through the triggering of sequences of plans that follow an interaction protocol as a consequence of changes in the beliefs (e.g., from reading sensor outputs) and the introduction of goals.
The sequences of plans are fully traceable by following the goals and beliefs that activated them.
If an agent intends to execute a plan, different events, internal or external, might cause it to change its intentions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single,,numbers=left,numbersep=2pt,xleftmargin=0.25cm]
//Initial beliefs
//Initial goals
!reset.
//Plans
+!reset : true <- add_time(20);.print("Robot is resetting");
!waiting.
+!waiting : not leg <- .print("Waiting"); !waiting.
+!waiting : leg <- add_time(40);.print("You asked for leg");
-leg[source(human)]; !grabLeg.
...
\end{Verbatim}
\caption{Extract of the BDI agent modelling the robotic software under test in the AgentSpeak language for the Jason framework}
\label{fig:agents}
\end{figure}
The human and other components in the simulated HRI environment are also encoded as BDI agents, with plans $P_S$ and a set of beliefs $\mathcal{B}$ (of size $|\mathcal{B}|$, the number of beliefs) about the HRI protocol. We will use these to control the verification agents, to indirectly control the robot's code agent.
To achieve the overall control of the multi agent system, we introduce a `meta' verification agent.
This agent selects a set of beliefs from $\mathcal{B}$ and communicates these to the human and other simulated agents, to trigger a specific set of plans $p \in P_S$.
Enacting these plans will trigger changes that can be observed by the robot's code agent (new beliefs), which will trigger plans and create new goals, leading the robot towards a path of actions indirectly, $p \in P_R$.
Consequently, the execution of the multi agent system with an initial set of beliefs introduced by the `meta' agent produces a `trace' in the model, which is formatted into an abstract test, as shown in the left-hand side of Fig.~\ref{fig:test}.
The total BDI multi agent system\footnote{Available online: https://github.com/robosafe/bdi-models} is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:feedbackornot}.
An interesting question for the implementation of `meta' verification agents is, how to choose which beliefs to use from the set $\mathcal{B}$, for each run of the multi agent system.
The number of all the different $N$ belief subsets $B_n \subset \mathcal{B}$, $n=1,\ldots,N$, can be quite large even for small sets $\mathcal{B}$. Moreover, not many of these subsets will produce different and interesting tests.
We considered and compared selecting $N'$ subsets, so that $N' \ll N$, by \textit{(a)} choosing subsets that are likely to produce abstract tests that will cover most of the plans in the agents by hand based on domain knowledge; \textit{(b)} selecting subsets randomly (using a pseudorandom number generator); and \textit{(c)} using RL with feedback from measuring coverage of the agent plans to compute coverage-optimal subsets.
These options are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:feedbackornot}.
Coupling the BDI exploration with coverage feedback gives rise to coverage-directed test generation~\cite{CDG2012}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.96\columnwidth]{BDImodelv2.pdf}
\caption{BDI multi agent system model for test generation. The `meta' verification agent controls the human and other agents, which control the robot's code agent. The belief subsets for each system run are chosen by hand, randomly, or learned from model coverage feedback.}
\label{fig:feedbackornot}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Reinforcement Learning}
RL is an unsupervised machine learning approach; i.e.\ no training is needed.
A Markov decision process (MDP) is an RL task that satisfies the Markov property, defined by a probability of reaching each next possible state $s'$ from any given state $s$ by taking action $a$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:probs}
\mathcal{P}^{a}_{ss'} = Pr \{s_{t+1}=s' \arrowvert s_t=s,a_t=a \},
\end{equation}
and an expected value of the next reward,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rewards}
\mathcal{R}^{a}_{ss'} = E \lbrace r_{t+1} \arrowvert s_t=s, a_t=a, s_{t+1}=s' \rbrace,
\end{equation}
for a time step $t$~\cite{RLbook}.
The value of taking action $a$ in state $s$ is defined as the expected reward starting from $s$ and taking action $a$, and then following a policy $\pi$, i.e.\ a sequence of actions according to the state of the world, $s \xrightarrow{a} s' \xrightarrow{a'} s'' \ldots$,
\begin{equation}
Q^{\pi}(s,a) = E_{\pi} \left\{ \sum^{\infty}_{k=0} \gamma^{k}r_{t+k+1}| s_t=s,a_t=a \right\},
\end{equation}
where $0<\gamma\leq 1$ is a discount factor that weights the impact of future rewards.
Over time, the agent learns which actions maximize its discounted future rewards (i.e.\ an optimal policy $\pi^*$)~\cite{RLbook}.
In Q-learning, an RL variant, the values of state-action pairs (the action-value function $Q(s,a)$) are computed iteratively through the exploration of the MDP model, until they converge.
The `best' state-action pairs (from $\max_{a\in \mathcal{A}} Q(s,a)$) become a deterministic optimal policy.
In our setup, the actions, $a$, are the selected beliefs, $b \in \mathcal{B}$, to be added to subsets $B_n$, $n=1,\ldots,N'$, and the states, $s$, are the triggered plans, $p \in P_R \cup P_S$.
A belief is selected with a probability $\mathcal{P}^{b}_{pp'}$ (from Eqn.~\ref{eq:probs}), and a reward $r_{t+1}$ (from Eqn.~\ref{eq:rewards}) is obtained according to the level of coverage of agent plans.
From the Q-learning Q-value formulation~\cite{RLbook}, the action-state value is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
Q(p,b) = & (1-\alpha ) Q(p,b) + \alpha \left[ r_{t+1} \right. \nonumber \\ &+ \left. \gamma \max_{b' \in \mathcal{B}} Q(p',b') \right],
\end{eqnarray}
with $\alpha$ a learning rate that decreases over time. These Q-values are stored and updated in a table of size $|\mathcal{B}|\times|\mathcal{B}|$.
The probability distributions of the next belief choices start as uniform in the learning process, but get updated as the Q-values change according to a Boltzmann or soft max distribution,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}^{b}_{pp'}= \frac{e^{\frac{Q(p,b)}{kT}}}{\sum_{b' \in \mathcal{B}} e^{\frac{Q(p,b')}{kT}}},
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the `temperature'.
After several cycles of exploration and learning, the Q-values will converge, i.e.\ the maximal difference, for any table cell, between the previous ($j-1$) and current iterations ($j$) will be almost zero.
Consequently, the learning can be stopped and an optimal policy $\pi^*$ is computed from the Q-values table.
This policy defines the $N'$ optimal subsets of beliefs $B_n$, $n=1,\ldots,N'$, in terms of coverage of the agents.
Fig.~\ref{fig:pseudocode2} shows the Q-learning algorithm adapted for BDI-based test generation.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Initialize the $Q(p,b)$ table arbitrarily
\WHILE{$\max \lbrace |Q(p,b)_{j}-Q(p,b)_{j-1}|\rbrace <0.0001$}
\STATE Choose a belief $b$ according to $\mathcal{P}^{b}{pp'}$
\STATE Run BDI model and collect coverage
\STATE Get reward/punishment $r_{t+1}$ from $\mathcal{R}^{b}{pp'}$
\STATE Update $Q(p,b)$ in table
\STATE Update probabilities of belief selection $\mathcal{P}^{b}{pp'}$
\ENDWHILE
\STATE Get optimal policy $\pi^*=\{B_1 \subset \mathcal{B},\ldots,B_{N'} \subset \mathcal{B}\}$ to form the test suite after running the multi agent system with each subset
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Q-learning algorithm adapted for BDI-based test generation}
\label{fig:pseudocode2}
\end{figure}
Achieving full automation with RL requires coverage feedback loops.
Directed methods, such as specifying belief subsets by hand, or randomly sampling, might appear simpler to implement.
However, achieving meaningful, diverse, and coverage effective tests calls for considerable manual input to constrain and guide the exploration.
For example, in our case study we have $|\mathcal{B}|=38$, i.e.\ $2^{38}$ possible belief subsets, where $|\mathcal{B}|$ includes requesting 1 to 4 legs from the robot (4 beliefs); becoming bored or not (2 beliefs); and setting up combinations of gaze, pressure and location parameters for the 1 to 4 legs ($8 \times 4=32$ beliefs).
Most of these belief sets are not effective in exploring the leg handover code, as the interaction protocol requires particular sequences of actions to be completed within time bounds.
In more complex scenarios, manually discovering which belief sets are effective may no longer be feasible and a fully automated systematic process becomes a necessity.
\section{Experiments and Results}\label{sc:results}
We applied the proposed BDI-based test generation approach to the table assembly simulator in ROS-Gazebo to verify the control code of the robot introduced in Section~\ref{sc:casestudy}.
Three BDI model exploration methods were evaluated: \textit{(a)} manual selection of belief subsets, \textit{(b)} random selection; and \textit{(c)} RL with coverage feedback.
We used coverage data from the coverage collector (code statements and assertions) in the testbench in ROS-Gazebo to evaluate the exploration methods, and we compared these results against pseudorandomly assembling abstract tests~\cite{Bird1983}.
\subsection{Setup}
Firstly, we produced 130 abstract tests from specifying $N'=130$ subsets of beliefs by hand.
We expected these belief sets to cover: \textit{(i)} the request of 4, 3, 2, 1 or no legs per test; \textit{(ii)} the human getting bored or not; and \textit{(iii)} $GPL=(1,1,1)$ or $GPL \neq (1,1,1)$, all reflected in the produced abstract tests.
We concretized 128 abstract tests into one test each. The remaining two abstract tests were concretized into five tests each.
Secondly, we produced $N'=100$ subsets of beliefs, from dividing the possible 38 beliefs into six groups to target \textit{(i--iii)}, and then sampling beliefs through a pseudorandom number generator.
This process produced 100 abstract tests, concretized into one test each.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{qconvergence.pdf}
\caption{Computed $\max \lbrace |Q(p,b)_{j}-Q(p,b)_{j-1}|\rbrace$ for 1000 iterations in the RL algorithm}
\label{fig:qconvergence}
\end{figure}
Thirdly, we used RL, which, in approximately 300 iterations (3 hours), reached convergence of the Q-values. We then allowed it to run for a further 700 iterations (a total of 9 hours) to demonstrate the convergence, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:qconvergence}.
The RL-based exploration of belief sets was constrained to start with the selection of 1 to 4 legs.
Coverage was collected for the rewards, considering 48 plans in the `human' agent, and 12 in the `robot-code' agent.
A fixed rate $\gamma=0.1$ was employed, along with a decreasing rate $\alpha=0.1(0.9)^j$, on each iteration $j$. The rewards consisted of +100 for maximum measured coverage, and +5 or +1 for nearly maximum measured coverage, for each agent (`human' and `robot-code', respectively). Punishments of \mbox{-100} were applied when good coverage was not achieved. A $kT=10$ was applied to the Boltzmann probability distributions.
We extracted the best and second best belief subsets as the optimal policy $\pi^*$, from which 134 abstract tests were produced by running the multi agent system with each. We concretized each abstract test once and
expected to cover \textit{(i--iii)} as a result of the learning.
Finally, as a baseline for comparison, we assembled 100 abstract tests pseudorandomly, sampling from the 10 possible commands in the human's code. These were concretized into 100 tests.
Considering that the protocol for a successful table assembly requires a very specific sequence of actions, we expected these tests to reach very low coverage.
We used ROS Indigo and Gazebo 2.2.5 for the simulator and testbench implementation. Tests ran on a PC with Intel i5-3230M 2.60 GHz CPU, 8 GB of RAM, and Ubuntu 14.04. The BDI-based test generation was implemented in Jason 1.4.2.
Each test ran for a maximum of 300 seconds.
Each BDI multi agent run lasted less than 5 seconds to produce each abstract test.
All the abstract test sequences, coverage reports and simulation log files are available online.\footnote{https://github.com/robosafe/bdi_tests_results}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{codecoverage.pdf}
\caption{Code coverage percentages per test, ordered increasingly, obtained from different BDI exploration methods in model-based test generation, and pseudorandom test generation}
\label{fig:codecover}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Code Coverage Results}
Fig.~\ref{fig:codecover} shows the code coverage reached by each test, in an ascending order.
Code coverage indicates the depth to which the HRI protocol was explored.
High coverage corresponds to scenarios in the table assembly protocol that are hard to reach, without any bias, as they depend on complex sequences of interactions.
All three BDI exploration methods produced tests that reached the highest coverage possible.
RL reached high coverage automatically, without having to provide additional constraints or knowledge on which tests might be more effective, although the learning process took 3 hours to complete.
To speed up this process, RL could be used to optimize pre-computed test sets instead of learning from zero, or more knowledge could be added to help the learning through the reward function or by providing additional constraints for belief selection.
The number of steps in the graph indicates the coverage of different decision points, which reflects test diversity.
Pseudorandom exploration produced tests with less diversity compared to the other two; i.e.\ some code branches were not reached.
Constraints would be needed to achieve greater diversity, at the cost of more manual effort.
The tests generated from manually specifying belief subsets are similar to directed tests, with associated high levels of manual effort, low levels of test variety, and hence poor software and state exploration as well as limited capacity to detect requirement violations.
As expected, we obtained low coverage and diversity results for the pseudorandom generated tests, as, without any constraints, the HRI protocol is difficult to complete.
\subsection{Assertion Coverage Results}
Table~\ref{assertions} shows the assertion coverage results, containing the number of tests where the requirement was satisfied (Passed), not satisfied (Failed), or not checked (NC)--i.e.\ the code did not trigger the monitor.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Assertion coverage with different BDI exploration methods and pseudorandom tests}
\tiny
\begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline
Req.&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{BDI by hand}& \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{BDI pseudorandom}& \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{BDI RL}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Pseurorandom}\\
& \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Passed} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Failed} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{NC} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Passed} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Failed} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{NC} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Passed} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Failed} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{NC} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Passed} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Failed} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{NC} \\
\hline
R1 & 90/138 & 1/138 & 47/138 & 7/100 & 0/100 & 93/100 & 24/134 & 0/134 & 110/134 & 1/100 & 0/100 & 99/100\\
R2 & 100/138 & 0/138 & 38/138 & 73/100 & 0/100 & 27/100 & 94/134 & 0/134 & 40/134 & 18/100 & 0/100 & 82/100\\
R3 & 138/138 & 12/138 & 0/138 & 89/100 & 10/100 & 1/100 & 121/134 & 11/134 & 2/134 & 16/100 & 20/100 & 64/100\\
R4 & 138/138 & 0/138 & 0/138 & 100/100 & 0/100 & 0/100 & 134/134 & 0/134 & 0/134 & 100/100 & 0/100 & 0/100\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{assertions}
\end{table*}
Reqs.\ R2 and R4 were satisfied in all the tests.
The assertion results for Req.\ R4 demonstrated that the code does not interfere with the kinematic planner's configuration, and thus dangerous unavoidable collisions between the person and the robot's hand are being prevented.
In contrast, Req.\ R1 was not satisfied due to a slow leg release (i.e.\ it took longer than the specified time threshold).
Req.\ R3 was not satisfied.
This identified a need for further crush prevention mechanisms to be added into the code to improve safety.
While the BDI methods triggered the assertion monitors of all the requirements, the pseudorandom generated tests were less effective, causing fewer checks.
\subsection{Discussion}
We answered {\bf Q1} through the description of our BDI models in Section~\ref{ssc:bdiagents}.
The agency of the interacting entities is represented through the reasoning and planning cycles of the multi agent system, following their beliefs and goals.
BDI models can be constructed for autonomous robots with sophisticated artificial intelligence, and our approach shows how such models can be exploited for intelligent testing.
We answered {\bf Q2} through examining three BDI model exploration methods,
each with a different strategy for belief selection, including manual, pseudorandom and coverage-directed using RL.
These produced a variety of tests able to find previously unknown issues in the
code, whilst exploring and covering different decision points effectively.
Clear differences exist between the BDI exploration methods in terms of manual effort.
RL automatically produced effective tests in terms of diverse coverage
criteria, code exploration, and detection of requirement violations (through
assertion coverage).
Moreover, RL was able to generate tests that achieved exploration goals \textit{(i--iii)} automatically, which answers {\bf Q3}.
The level of automation achieved by integrating machine learning into the test generation process is expected to save considerable engineering effort in practice.
{\em Scalability.} Our two-tiered approach tackles the complexity of the test generation problem in the HRI domain by decomposing the tests into an abstract sequence and a parameter instantiation phase.
The main disadvantage of model-based approaches is the manual effort required in the modelling.
In principle, the BDI models could be built first, and then the robot's code
could be generated from them.
Alternatively, code modularity (e.g., using SMACH) facilitates the modelling by providing abstractions.
In our example, the code was structured as an FSM, which led to 12 plans in the corresponding BDI agent, a reduction of 20 times the size of the code when counting statements.
The size of the BDI agents can be further reduced using abstractions, where, for example, plans can be simplified by composing simple actions into abstract ones.
{\em Performance.} The performance of the RL algorithm can be influenced through the rates $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, and by defining different reward functions.
Furthermore, learning performance can be improved by providing pre-computed belief sets as a warm start for the learning process. This is at the cost of trading the exploration of the model for exploitation of (potentially few) belief subsets that achieve high coverage~\cite{RLbook}.
In addition to improving scalability, increasing the level of abstraction in the BDI model also improves the performance of the test generation.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sc:conclusion}
We presented an agent-based testing approach for robotic software that is used in HRI.
Our approach stimulates the robotic code in simulation using a model of the entities the robot interacts with in its environment, including humans.
We proposed the use of BDI agents to model the protocol between the interacting entities, including the robot's code, using a two-tiered model-based test generation process from abstract action sequences to concrete parameter instantiation.
BDI agents allow modelling agency and reasoning, thus providing an intelligent mechanism to generate realistic tests with timing and individual complex data generation engines for stimulating robotic software that has high levels of concurrency and complex internal and external interactions.
We have demonstrated that BDI meta agents can manipulate the interacting agents' beliefs explicitly, affording control over the exploration of a multi agent model.
We expect that the concept of BDI verification agents can be extended to other domains, such as microelectronics design verification.
To increase the effectiveness of the BDI verification agents in terms of
coverage closure and test diversity, we have proposed the use of RL, exploiting
a coverage feedback loop that systematically explores the BDI agents to construct the
most effective test suite.
This method overcomes the need for manually controlling test generation, which
is necessary in other test generation methods, e.g.\ writing properties is
required for model-based test generation approaches that exploit model
checking, and writing constraints is required to control conventional
pseudorandom test generation, whether model-based or
not~\cite{CDV2015,TAROS2016}.
We demonstrated the effectiveness and benefits of our BDI-based test generation approach on a cooperative table manufacture scenario, using a ROS-Gazebo simulator and an automated testbench, as described in Section~\ref{sc:casestudy}.
All underlying data on the simulator, test generation methods and results are openly available from the links to Github, provided as footnotes, in this paper.
In summary, the RL-based BDI approach clearly outperforms existing approaches in terms of coverage, test diversity and the level of automation that can be achieved.
\section{Future Work}
We are now investigating different strategies to control the BDI agents, such as combinations of beliefs and goals, in order to gain a deeper understanding of how to design an optimal verification agent.
We are also investigating what impact the addition of previous coverage knowledge to the RL process has, expecting a significant speed-up.
Ultimately, we aim to move our BDI-based test generation approach online, directly integrating the verification agents into the environment the robotic code interacts with during simulation.
This should allow us to obtain feedback at runtime, such as code and assertion
coverage of the robotic code, and to react to the observable behaviour of the robotic code in
direct interaction at runtime with the aim to automate coverage closure.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the EPSRC grants EP/K006320/1 and EP/K006223/1, as part of the project ``Trustworthy Robotic Assistants''.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Our sampling scheme and algorithm} \label{sec:algo}
We start by explaining our sampling scheme, followed by our algorithm for identifying $\univsupp,\bivsupp$.
Our algorithm proceeds in two phases -- we first estimate $\bivsupp$ and then $\univsupp$. Its theoretical properties for the
\emph{noiseless} query setting are described in Section \ref{sec:noiseless_query_res}. Section \ref{sec:noise_impact} then analyzes how the sampling
conditions can be adapted to handle the \emph{noisy} query setting.
\subsection{Sampling scheme for estimating $\bivsupp$}
Our main idea for estimating $\bivsupp$ is to estimate the off-diagonal entries of the Hessian of $f$, at appropriately chosen points.
The motivation is the observation that for any
$\lpair \in {[\dimn] \choose 2}$:
$$\partial_l \partial_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}} f = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_l \partial_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}} \phi_{\lpair} & \mbox{if } \lpair \in \bivsupp, \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ To this end, consider the Taylor expansion of
the gradient $\ensuremath{\nabla} f$, at $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$, along the direction $\mathbf v^{\prime} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$,
with step size $\ensuremath{\mu_1}$. Since $f$ is $C^3$ smooth, we have for $\zeta_q = \mathbf x + \theta_q \mathbf v^{\prime}$,
for some $\theta_q \in (0,\ensuremath{\mu_1})$, $q = 1,\dots,\dimn$:
\begin{align} \label{eq:grad_tay_exp_f}
&\frac{\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}) - \ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)}{\ensuremath{\mu_1}} \nonumber \\ &= \ensuremath{\nabla^2} f(\mathbf x) \mathbf v^{\prime} + \frac{\ensuremath{\mu_1}}{2} \ensuremath{\begin{pmatrix.
\end{align}
We see from \eqref{eq:grad_tay_exp_f} that the $l^{th}$ entry of $(\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}) - \ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x))/\ensuremath{\mu_1}$,
corresponds to a ``noisy'' linear measurement of the $l^{th}$ row of $\ensuremath{\nabla^2} f(\mathbf x)$ with $\mathbf v^{\prime}$. The noise corresponds
to the third order Taylor remainder terms of $f$.
Denoting the $l^{\text{th}}$ row of $\ensuremath{\nabla^2} f(\mathbf x)$ by
$\ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_l f(\mathbf x) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$, we make the following crucial observation:
if $l \in \bivsuppvar$ then $\ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_l f(\mathbf x)$ has at most $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}$ non-zero \emph{off-diagonal} entries,
implying that it is $(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)$ sparse. This follows on account of the structure of $f$ \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep}.
Furthermore, if $l \in \univsupp$ then $\ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_l f(\mathbf x)$ has at most
one non zero entry (namely the diagonal entry), while if $l \notin \totsupp$, then $\ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_l f(\mathbf x) \equiv 0$.
\paragraph{Compressive sensing based estimation.} Assuming for now that we have access to an oracle that provides
us with gradient estimates of $f$,
this suggests the following idea. We can obtain random linear measurements, for \emph{each row}
of $\ensuremath{\nabla^2} f(\mathbf x)$ via gradient differences, as in \eqref{eq:grad_tay_exp_f}. As each row is
sparse, it is known from compressive sensing (CS) \cite{Candes2006,Donoho2006}
that it can be recovered with only a few
measurements.
Inspired by this observation, consider an oracle that provides us with the estimates:
$\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}}{f}(\mathbf x), \{\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}}{f}(\mathbf x+\ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}_j)\}_{j=1}^{\numdirecp}$ where
$\mathbf v^{\prime}_j$ belong to the set:
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\calV^{\prime}} := \{\mathbf v^{\prime}_j \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn} : \ensuremath{v^{\prime}}_{j,q} &= \pm1/\sqrt{\numdirecp} \ \text{w.p.} \ 1/2 \ \text{each};
\nonumber \\ j&=1,\dots,\numdirecp \ \text{and} \ q=1,\dots,{\dimn}\}.
\end{align*}
Let $\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x) = \ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x) + \mathbf w(\mathbf x)$, where $\mathbf w(\mathbf x) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$ denotes the
gradient estimation noise. Denoting $\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}^{\prime} = [\mathbf v^{\prime}_1 \dots \mathbf v^{\prime}_{\numdirecp}]^T$,
we obtain $\dimn$ linear systems, by employing \eqref{eq:grad_tay_exp_f} at each $\mathbf v^{\prime}_j \in \ensuremath{\calV^{\prime}}$:
\begin{align} \label{eq:hessrow_est_linfin}
\mathbf y_q = \ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}^{\prime} \ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_q f(\mathbf x) + \ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}} + \ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}; \quad q=1,\dots,\dimn.
\end{align}
$\mathbf y_q \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\numdirecp}$ represents the measurement vector for the $q^{\text{th}}$ row,
with $$(\mathbf y_q)_j = ((\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}_j) - \est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x))_q)/\ensuremath{\mu_1}$$ while
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}, \ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\numdirecp}$ represent noise with
$(\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}})_j = (\ensuremath{\mu_1}/2) {\mathbf v^{\prime}_j}^{T} \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta_{q,j}) \mathbf v^{\prime}_j$ and
$(\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}})_j = (w_q(\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}_j) - w_q(\mathbf x))/\ensuremath{\mu_1}.$
Given the measurement vector $\mathbf y_q$, we can then obtain the estimate $\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} \partial_q f(\mathbf x)$
individually for each $q = 1,\dots,\dimn$, via $\ell_1$ minimization \cite{Candes2006,Donoho2006,Wojta2012}.
\paragraph{Estimating sufficiently many Hessian's.} Having estimated \emph{each row} of $\ensuremath{\nabla^2} f$ at some fixed $\mathbf x$,
we have at hand an estimate of the set: $\{\partial_i \partial_{j} f(\mathbf x) : (i,j) \in {[\dimn] \choose 2} \}$.
Our next goal is to repeat the process, at sufficiently many $\mathbf x$'s within $[-1,1]^{\dimn}$.
We will denote the set of such points as $\ensuremath{\chi}$.
This will then enable us to sample each underlying $\partial_l \partial_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}} \phi_{\lpair}$ within
its respective critical interval, as defined in Assumption \ref{assum:pair_iden}. Roughly speaking,
since $\abs{\partial_l \partial_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}} \phi_{\lpair}}$ is ``suitably large'' in such an interval,
we will consequently be able to detect each $\lpair \in \bivsupp$, via a thresholding procedure. To this end,
we make use of a family of hash functions, defined as follows.
\begin{definition} \label{def:thash_fam}
For some $t \in \mathbb{N}$ and $j=1,2,\dots$, let $h_j : [\dimn] \rightarrow \set{1,2,\dots,t}$.
Then, the set $\ensuremath{\calH_{t}^{d}} = \set{\ensuremath{h}_1,\ensuremath{h}_2,\dots}$ is a $(\dimn,t)$-hash family if for
any distinct $i_1,\dots,i_t \in [\dimn]$, $\exists$ $\ensuremath{h} \in \ensuremath{\calH_{t}^{d}}$ such that $h$ is an
injection when restricted to $i_1,i_2,\dots,i_t$.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[][]{\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figs/hess_samp_illus}\label{fig:hess_samp}} \hspace{7mm}
\subfloat[][]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{figs/hash_samp_illus}\label{fig:hash_samp}}
\caption{\small (a) $\ensuremath{\nabla^2} f(\mathbf x)$ estimated using: $\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}}f(\mathbf x)$ (at red disk) and
neighborhood gradient estimates (at blue disks)
(b) Geometric picture: $\dimn = 3$, $\ensuremath{h} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_2^3$ with $\ensuremath{h}(1) = \ensuremath{h}(3) \neq \ensuremath{h}(2)$.
Red disks are points in $\ensuremath{\chi}(\ensuremath{h})$. }
\end{figure}
Hash functions are widely used in theoretical computer science, such as in finding juntas \cite{Mossel03}.
There exists a simple probabilistic method for constructing such a
family, so that for any constant $C > 1$, $\abs{\ensuremath{\calH_{t}^{d}}} \leq (C + 1)t e^t \log \dimn$ with high
probability (w.h.p)\footnote{With probability $1-O(d^{-c})$ for some constant $c > 0$.} \cite{Devore2011}.
For our purposes, we consider the family $\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}$ so that for any distinct $i,j$, there exists
$\ensuremath{h} \in \ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}$ such that $\ensuremath{h}(i) \neq \ensuremath{h}(j)$.
For any $\ensuremath{h} \in \ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}$, let us now denote the vectors $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1(\ensuremath{h}), \ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2(\ensuremath{h}) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$ where
$$ (\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_i(\ensuremath{h}))_q =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{if } h(q) = i, \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.
$$
for $i=1,2$ and $q=1,\dots,\dimn$.
Given at hand $\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}$, we construct our set $\ensuremath{\chi}$ using the
procedure\footnote{Such sets were used in \cite{Devore2011} for a more general problem involving
functions that are intrinsically $\totsparsity$ variate.} in \cite{Devore2011}.
Specifically, for some $\ensuremath{m_{x}} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{+}$, we construct for each $h \in \ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}$ the set:
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\chi}(\ensuremath{h}) := \Bigg\{&\mathbf x(\ensuremath{h}) \in [-1,1]^{\dimn}: \mathbf x(\ensuremath{h}) = \sum_{i=1}^{2} c_i \ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_i(\ensuremath{h}); \nonumber \\ &c_1,c_2 \in
\left\{-1,-\frac{\ensuremath{m_{x}}-1}{\ensuremath{m_{x}}},\dots,\frac{\ensuremath{m_{x}}-1}{\ensuremath{m_{x}}}, 1\right\}\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
\end{small}
Then, we obtain $\ensuremath{\chi} = \cup_{h \in \ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}} \ensuremath{\chi}(h)$ as the set of points at
which we will recover $\ensuremath{\nabla^2} f$. Observe that $\ensuremath{\chi}$ has the property of discretizing \emph{any}
$2$-dimensional canonical subspace, within $[-1,1]^{\dimn}$ with
$\abs{\ensuremath{\chi}} \leq (2\ensuremath{m_{x}}+1)^2 \abs{\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}} = O(\log \dimn)$.
\paragraph{Estimating sparse gradients.} Note that $\ensuremath{\nabla}{f}$ is at most $\totsparsity$ sparse,
due to the structure of $f$. We now describe the oracle that we use,
for estimating sparse gradients. As $f$ is $\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}^3$ smooth, therefore the third order
Taylor's expansion of $f$ at $\mathbf x$, along $\mathbf v,-\mathbf v \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$, with step size
$\ensuremath{\mu} > 0$, and $\zeta = \mathbf x + \theta \mathbf v$,
$\zeta^{\prime} = \mathbf x - \theta^{\prime} \mathbf v$; $\theta,\theta^{\prime} \in (0,\ensuremath{\mu})$ leads to
\begin{align} \label{eq:taylor_exp_f}
&\frac{f(\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu}\mathbf v) - f(\mathbf x - \ensuremath{\mu}\mathbf v)}{2\ensuremath{\mu}} \nonumber \\ &= \dotprod{\mathbf v}{\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)}
+ (\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta) - \ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta^{\prime}))/(2\ensuremath{\mu}).
\end{align}
\eqref{eq:taylor_exp_f} corresponds to a noisy-linear measurement of $\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)$, with $\mathbf v$.
The ``noise'' here arises on account of the third order terms
$\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta),\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta^{\prime}) = O(\ensuremath{\mu}^3)$, in the Taylor expansion.
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}$ denote the set of measurement vectors:
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}} := \{v_j \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn} : v_{j,q} &= \pm 1/\sqrt{\numdirec} \ \text{w.p.} \ 1/2 \ \text{each};
\nonumber \\ j&=1,\dots,\numdirec \ \text{and} \ q=1,\dots,{\dimn}\}.
\end{align*}
Employing \eqref{eq:taylor_exp_f} at each $\mathbf v_j \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}$, we obtain:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cs_form}
\mathbf y = \ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x) + \ensuremath{\vecn}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\mathbf y \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\numdirec}$ denotes the measurement vector with
$(\mathbf y)_j = (f(\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu}\mathbf v_j) - f(\mathbf x - \ensuremath{\mu}\mathbf v_j))/(2\ensuremath{\mu})$.
Also, $\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}} = [\mathbf v_1 \dots \mathbf v_{\numdirec}]^T \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\numdirec \times {\dimn}}$ denotes the
measurement matrix and $\ensuremath{\vecn} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\numdirec}$
denotes the noise terms. We then estimate $\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)$ via standard $\ell_1$
minimization\footnote{Can be solved efficiently using interior point methods \cite{Nesterov94}} \cite{Candes2006,Donoho2006,Wojta2012}.
Estimating sparse gradients via CS, has been considered previously in \cite{Fornasier2010, Tyagi14_nips},
albeit using \emph{second order} Taylor expansions, for different function models.
\subsection{Sampling scheme for estimating $\univsupp$}
Having obtained an estimate $\est{\bivsupp}$ of $\bivsupp$ we now proceed to estimate $\univsupp$.
Let $\est{\bivsuppvar}$ denote the set of variables in $\est{\bivsupp}$ and
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} := [\dimn] \setminus \est{\bivsuppvar}$. Assuming $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$,
we are now left with a SPAM on the \emph{reduced} variable set $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$. Consequently, we employ the
sampling scheme of \cite{Tyagi14_nips},
wherein the gradient of $f$ is estimated at equispaced points, along a diagonal of $[-1,1]^{\dimn}$.
For $\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{+}$, this set is defined as:
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\chi}_{\text{diag}} := \Bigg\{\mathbf x &= (x \ x \ \cdots \ x) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}: \nonumber \\ x &\in \left\{-1,-\frac{\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}-1}{\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}},\dots,\frac{\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}-1}{\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}},1\right\}\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\abs{\ensuremath{\chi}_{\text{diag}}} = 2\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}+1$. The motivation for estimating $\ensuremath{\nabla} f$ at $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\chi}_{\text{diag}}$ is
that we obtain estimates of $\partial_p \phi_p$ at equispaced points within $[-1,1]$, for $p \in \univsupp$. With a sufficiently fine discretization,
we would ``hit'' the critical regions associated with each $\partial_p \phi_p$, as defined in Assumption \ref{assum:actvar_iden}.
By applying a thresholding operation, we would then be able to identify each $p \in \univsupp$.
To this end, consider the set of sampling directions:
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\calV^{\prime\prime}} := \{\mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn} : \ensuremath{v^{\prime\prime}}_{j,q} &= \pm 1/\sqrt{\numdirecpp} \ \text{w.p.} \ 1/2 \ \text{each};
\nonumber \\ j&=1,\dots,\numdirecpp \ \text{and} \ q=1,\dots,{\dimn}\},
\end{align*}
and let $\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} > 0$ denote the step size. For each $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\chi}_{\text{diag}}$, we will query $f$ at
points: $(\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} \mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}, (\mathbf x - \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} \mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$; $\mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j \in \ensuremath{\calV^{\prime\prime}}$, \emph{restricted} to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$.
Then, as described earlier, we can form a linear system consisting of $\numdirecpp$ equations, and solve it via $\ell_1$ minimization
to obtain the gradient estimate.
The complete procedure for estimating $\univsupp,\bivsupp$, is described formally in Algorithm \ref{algo:gen_overlap}.
\begin{algorithm*}[!ht]
\caption{Algorithm for estimating $\univsupp,\bivsupp$} \label{algo:gen_overlap}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Input:} $\numdirec,\numdirecp, \ensuremath{m_{x}}, \ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{+}$; $\ensuremath{\mu}, \ensuremath{\mu_1}, \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} > 0$;
$\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}} > 0, \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}} > 0$.
\State \textbf{Initialization:} $\est{\univsupp}, \est{\bivsupp} = \emptyset$.
\State \textbf{Output:} Estimates $\est{\bivsupp}$, $ \est{\univsupp}$. \\
\hrulefill
\State Construct $(\dimn,2)$-hash family $\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}$ and sets $\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}^{\prime}$. \label{algover:s2_step_1}
\For{$\ensuremath{h} \in \ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}$}
\State Construct the set $\ensuremath{\chi}(\ensuremath{h})$.
\For {$i = 1,\dots,(2\ensuremath{m_{x}}+1)^2$ and $\mathbf x_i \in \ensuremath{\chi}(\ensuremath{h})$} \label{algover:s2_step_2}
\State $(\mathbf y_i)_j = \frac{f(\mathbf x_i + \ensuremath{\mu} \mathbf v_j)-f(\mathbf x_i - \ensuremath{\mu} \mathbf v_j)}{2\ensuremath{\mu}}$; $j=1,\dots,\numdirec$; $\mathbf v_j \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}$. \label{algover:s2_query_1}
\State $\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x_i) := \argmin{\mathbf y_i = \ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}\mathbf z} \norm{\mathbf z}_1$. \label{algover:s2_grad_base}
\For{$p = 1,\dots,\numdirecp$}
\State $(\mathbf y_{i,p})_j = \frac{f(\mathbf x_i + \ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}_p + \ensuremath{\mu} \mathbf v_j)-f(\mathbf x_i + \ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}_p - \ensuremath{\mu} \mathbf v_j)}{2\ensuremath{\mu}}$; \label{algover:s2_query_2}
$j=1,\dots,\numdirec$; $\mathbf v^{\prime}_p \in \ensuremath{\calV^{\prime}}$. \hfill \textsc{Estimation of } $\bivsupp$
\State $\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x_i + \ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}_p) := \argmin{\mathbf y_{i,p} = \ensuremath{\mathbf{V}} \mathbf z} \norm{\mathbf z}_1$.\label{algover:s2_grad_1}
\EndFor
\For{$q = 1,\dots,\dimn$}
\State $(\mathbf y_q)_j = \frac{(\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x_i + \ensuremath{\mu_1}\mathbf v^{\prime}_j) - \est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x_i))_q}{\ensuremath{\mu_1}}$;
$j=1,\dots,\numdirecp$. \label{algover:s2_grad_2}
\State $\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} \partial_q f(\mathbf x_i) := \argmin{\mathbf y_q = \ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}^{\prime} \mathbf z} \norm{\mathbf z}_1$. \label{algover:s2_grad_hess_row}
\State $\est{\bivsupp} = \est{\bivsupp} \cup \set{(q,q^{\prime}) : q^{\prime} \in \set{q+1,\dots,d} \ \& \ \abs{(\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} \partial_q f(\mathbf x_i))_{q^{\prime}}} > \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}}$.
\EndFor
\EndFor
\EndFor \\
\hrulefill
\State Construct the sets $\ensuremath{\chi}_{\text{diag}}, \ensuremath{\calV^{\prime\prime}}$ and initialize $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} := [\dimn] \setminus \est{\bivsuppvar}$.
\For {$i=1,\dots,(2\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}+1)$ and $\mathbf x_i \in \ensuremath{\chi}_{\text{diag}}$} \label{algover:s1_step}
\State $(\mathbf y_i)_j = \frac{f((\mathbf x_i + \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} \mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})-f((\mathbf x_i - \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} \mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})}{2\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}$;
$j=1,\dots,\numdirecpp$; $\mathbf v_j \in \ensuremath{\calV^{\prime\prime}}$. \label{algover:s1_grad}
\State $(\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f((\mathbf x_i)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}} := \argmin{\mathbf y_i = (\ensuremath{\mathbf{V^{\prime\prime}}})_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}(\mathbf z)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}} \norm{(\mathbf z)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}_1$. \hfill
\textsc{Estimation of } $\univsupp$
\State $\est{\univsupp} = \est{\univsupp} \cup \set{q \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} : \abs{((\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f((\mathbf x_i)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})_q} > \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}}}.$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm*}
\section{Model uniqueness} \label{sec:anova_uniq_rep}
We show here that the model representation \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep} is a unique representation for $f$ of the form \eqref{eq:gspam_form}.
We first note that any measurable $f:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn} \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, admits a unique ANOVA decomposition (cf., \cite{Gu02}) of the form:
\begin{equation}
f(x_1,\dots,x_{\dimn}) = c + \sum_{\alpha} f_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha}) + \sum_{\alpha < \beta} f_{\alpha\beta} + \sum_{\alpha < \beta < \gamma} f_{\alpha\beta\gamma} + \cdots
\end{equation}
Indeed, for any probability measure $\mu_{\alpha}$ on $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$; $\alpha = 1,\dots,\dimn$,
let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}$ denote the averaging operator, defined as
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}(f)(\mathbf x) := \int_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}} f(x_1,\dots,x_{\dimn}) d\mu_{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Then the components of the model can be written as : $c = (\prod_{\alpha} \ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha}) f$,
$f_{\alpha} = ((I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha})\prod_{\beta \neq \alpha} \ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta}) f$,
$f_{\alpha\beta} = ((I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha})(I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta})\prod_{\gamma \neq \alpha,\beta}\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\gamma}) f$, and so on.
For our purpose, $\mu_{\alpha}$ is considered to be the uniform probability measure on $[-1,1]$.
This is because we are interested in estimating $f$ within $[-1,1]^{\dimn}$. Given this, we now find the ANOVA decomposition of
$f$ defined in \eqref{eq:gspam_form}.
As a sanity check, let us verify that $f_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \equiv 0$ for all $\alpha < \beta < \gamma$.
Indeed if $p \in \univsupp$, then at least two of $\alpha < \beta < \gamma$ will not be equal to $p$. Similarly for any $\lpair \in \bivsupp$,
at least one of $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ will not be equal to $l$ and $\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}$. This implies $f_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \equiv 0$.
The same reasoning easily applies for high order components of the ANOVA decomposition.
That $c = \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}[f] = \sum_{p \in \univsupp} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\phi_p] + \sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\phi_{\lpair}]$ is readily seen.
Next, we have that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:first_ord_univ}
(I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha})\prod_{\beta \neq \alpha} \ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta} \phi_p = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
0 \quad ; & \alpha \neq p, \\
\phi_p - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\phi_p] \quad ; & \alpha = p
\end{array} \right\}; \quad p \in \univsupp.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:first_ord_biv}
(I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha})\prod_{\beta \neq \alpha} \ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta} \phi_{\lpair} = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}[\phi_{\lpair}] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\phi_{\lpair}] \quad ; & \alpha = l, \\
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[\phi_{\lpair}] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\phi_{\lpair}] \quad ; & \alpha = \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}, \\
0 \quad ; & \alpha \neq l,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},
\end{array} \right\}; \quad \lpair \in \bivsupp.
\end{equation}
\eqref{eq:first_ord_univ}, \eqref{eq:first_ord_biv} give us the first order components of $\phi_p, \phi_{\lpair}$ respectively.
One can next verify, using the same arguments as earlier, that for any $\alpha < \beta$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sec_ord_univ}
(I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha})(I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta})\prod_{\gamma \neq \alpha,\beta} \ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\gamma} \phi_p = 0; \quad \forall p \in \univsupp.
\end{equation}
Lastly, we have for any $\alpha < \beta$ that the corresponding second order component of $\phi_{\lpair}$ is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sec_ord_biv}
(I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\alpha})(I-\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\beta})\prod_{\gamma \neq \alpha,\beta} \ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}_{\gamma} \phi_{\lpair} = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\phi_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_l[\phi_{\lpair}] \\ - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}[\phi_{\lpair}] + \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\phi_{\lpair}] \quad ; & \alpha = l, \beta = \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}, \\
0 \quad ; & \text{otherwise}
\end{array} \right\}; \quad \lpair \in \bivsupp.
\end{equation}
We now make the following observations regarding the variables in $\univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each $l \in \univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar$ such that: $\degree(l) = 1$, and $\lpair \in \bivsupp$, we can simply merge $\phi_l$
with $\phi_{\lpair}$. Thus $l$ is no longer in $\univsupp$.
\item For each $l \in \univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar$ such that: $\degree(l) > 1$, we can add the first order component for $\phi_l$
with the total first order component corresponding to all $\phi_{\lpair}$'s and $\phi_{\lpairi}$'s.
Hence again, $l$ will no longer be in $\univsupp$.
\end{enumerate}
Therefore all $q \in \univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar$ can essentially be merged with $\bivsupp$. Keeping this re-arrangement
in mind, we can to begin with, assume in \eqref{eq:gspam_form} that $\univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar = \emptyset$.
Then with the help of \eqref{eq:first_ord_univ}, \eqref{eq:first_ord_biv}, \eqref{eq:sec_ord_univ}, \eqref{eq:sec_ord_biv},
we have that any $f$ of the form \eqref{eq:gspam_form} (with $\univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar = \emptyset$), can be uniquely written as:
\begin{equation}
f(x_1,\dots,x_d) = c + \sum_{p \in \univsupp}\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{p} (x_p) + \sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp} \ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair} \xlpair +
\sum_{q \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(q) > 1} \ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{q} (x_q); \quad \univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar = \emptyset,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
c &= \sum_{p \in \univsupp} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\phi_p] + \sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\phi_{\lpair}], \label{eq:mod_mean} \\
\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{p} &= \phi_p - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\phi_p]; \quad \forall p \in \univsupp, \label{eq:mod_s1}
\end{align}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mod_s2_biv}
\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair} = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\phi_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\phi_{\lpair}] ; & \degree(l), \degree(l^{\prime}) = 1, \\
\phi_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[\phi_{\lpair}] ; & \degree(l) = 1, \degree(l^{\prime}) > 1, \\
\phi_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l^{\prime}}[\phi_{\lpair}] ; & \degree(l) > 1, \degree(l^{\prime}) = 1, \\
\phi_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[\phi_{\lpair}] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l^{\prime}}[\phi_{\lpair}] + \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\phi_{\lpair}] ; & \degree(l) > 1, \degree(l^{\prime}) > 1,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\text{and} \quad \ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{q} &= \sum_{q^{\prime}: (q,q^{\prime}) \in \bivsupp} (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{q^{\prime}}[\phi_{(q,q^{\prime})}] -
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(q,q^{\prime})}[\phi_{(q,q^{\prime})}]) \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{q^{\prime}: (q^{\prime},q) \in \bivsupp} (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{q^{\prime}}[\phi_{(q^{\prime},q)}] -
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(q^{\prime},q)}[\phi_{(q^{\prime},q)}]); \quad \forall q \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(q) > 1. \label{eq:mod_s2_uni}
\end{align}
\section{Learning individual components of model} \label{sec:est_comp}
Recall from \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep} the unique representation of the model:
\begin{equation}
f(x_1,\dots,x_d) = c + \sum_{p \in \univsupp}\phi_{p} (x_p) + \sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp} \phi_{\lpair} \xlpair + \sum_{q \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(q) > 1} \phi_{q} (x_q),
\end{equation}
where $\univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar = \emptyset$. Having estimated the sets $\univsupp$ and $\bivsupp$,
we now show how the individual univariate and bivariate functions in the model can be estimated.
We will see this for the settings of noiseless, as well as noisy (arbitrary, bounded noise and stochastic noies) point queries.
\subsection{Noiseless queries}
In this scenario, we obtain the exact value $f(\mathbf x)$ at each query $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$.
Let us first see how each $\phi_p$; $p \in \univsupp$ can be estimated.
For some $-1 = t_1 < t_2 < \dots < t_n = -1 $, consider the set
\begin{equation} \label{eq:univ_est_set}
\ensuremath{\chi}_p := \left\{\mathbf x_i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}: (\mathbf x_i)_j = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
t_i ; & j = p, \\
0 ; & j \neq p
\end{array} \right\} ; 1 \leq i \leq n; 1 \leq j \leq \dimn\right\}; \quad p \in \univsupp.
\end{equation}
We obtain the samples $\set{f(\mathbf x_i)}_{i=1}^{n}$; $\mathbf x_i \in \ensuremath{\chi}_p$. Here $f(\mathbf x_i) = \phi_p(t_i) + C$ with $C$ being a constant that
depends on the other components in the model. Given the samples, one can then employ spline based ``quasi interpolant operators'' \cite{deBoor78},
to obtain an estimate $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p :[-1,1] \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, to $\phi_p + C$.
Construction of such operators can be found for instance in \cite{deBoor78} (see also \cite{Gyorfi2002}).
One can suitably choose the $t_i$'s and construct quasi interpolants that approximate any $C^m$
smooth univariate function with optimal $L_{\infty}[-1,1]$ error rate $O(n^{-m})$ \cite{deBoor78, Gyorfi2002}.
Having obtained $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p$, we then define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:univ_est}
\est{\phi}_p := \ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p -\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p]; \quad p \in \univsupp,
\end{equation}
to be the estimate of $\phi_p$. The bivariate components corresponding to each $\lpair \in \bivsupp$
can be estimated in a similar manner as above. To this end, for some
strictly increasing sequences: $(-1 = \ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_2,\dots,\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_{n_1} = 1)$, $(-1 = t_1,t_2,\dots,t_{n_1} = 1)$,
consider the set
\begin{equation} \label{eq:biv_est_set}
\ensuremath{\chi}_{\lpair} := \left\{\mathbf x_{i,j} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}: (\mathbf x_{i,j})_q = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i ; & q = l, \\
t_j ; & q = l^{\prime}, \\
0 ; & q \neq l,l^{\prime}
\end{array} \right\} ; 1 \leq i,j \leq n_1; 1 \leq q \leq \dimn \right\}; \quad \lpair \in \bivsupp.
\end{equation}
We then obtain the samples $\set{f(\mathbf x_{i,j})}_{i,j=1}^{n_1}$; $\mathbf x_{i,j} \in \ensuremath{\chi}_{\lpair}$ where
\begin{align} \label{eq:biv_part_fn_exp}
f(\mathbf x_{i,j}) &= \phi_{\lpair}(\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i,t_j) + \sum_{\substack{l_1:(l,l_1) \in \bivsupp \\ l_1 \neq \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}} \phi_{(l,l_1)} (\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i,0) + \sum_{\substack{l_1:(l_1,l) \in \bivsupp \\ l_1 \neq \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}}
\phi_{(l_1,l)} (0,\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i) \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\substack{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1:(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1) \in \bivsupp \\ \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1 \neq l}} \phi_{(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1)} (t_j,0) + \sum_{\substack{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1:(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}) \in \bivsupp \\ \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1 \neq l}} \phi_{(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}})} (0,t_j) +
\phi_l(\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i) + \phi_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}(t_j) + C, \\
&= g_{\lpair}(\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i,t_j) + C,
\end{align}
with $C$ being a constant. \eqref{eq:biv_part_fn_exp} is a general expression -- if for example $\degree(l) = 1$, then
the terms $\phi_l,\phi_{(l,l_1)},\phi_{(l_1,l)}$ will be zero.
Given this, we can again obtain estimates $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}:[-1,1]^2 \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ to $g_{\lpair} + C$,
via spline based quasi interpolants.
Let us denote $n = n_1^2$ to be the total number of samples of $f$. For an appropriate choice of $(\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i,t_j)$'s,
one can construct bivariate quasi interpolants that approximate any $C^m$ smooth bivariate function, with optimal
$L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2$ error rate $O(n^{-m/2})$ \cite{deBoor78, Gyorfi2002}.
Subsequently, we define the final estimates $\est{\phi}_{\lpair}$ to $\phi_{\lpair}$ as follows.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:biv_est}
\est{\phi}_{\lpair} := \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] ; & \degree(l), \degree(l^{\prime}) = 1, \\
\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] ; & \degree(l) = 1, \degree(l^{\prime}) > 1, \\
\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l^{\prime}}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] ; & \degree(l) > 1, \degree(l^{\prime}) = 1, \\
\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l^{\prime}}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] + \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] ; & \degree(l) > 1, \degree(l^{\prime}) > 1.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Lastly, we require to estimate the univariate's : $\phi_l$ for each $l \in \bivsuppvar$ such that $\degree(l) > 1$.
As above, for some strictly increasing sequences: $(-1 = \ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_2,\dots,\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_{n_1} = 1)$, $(-1 = t_1,t_2,\dots,t_{n_1} = 1)$,
consider the set
\begin{equation} \label{eq:biv_univ_est_set}
\ensuremath{\chi}_{l} := \Biggl\{\mathbf x_{i,j} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}: (\mathbf x_{i,j})_q = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i ; & q = l, \\
t_j ; & q \neq l \ \& \ q \in \bivsuppvar, \\
0; & q \notin \bivsuppvar,
\end{array} \right\} ; \\ 1 \leq i,j \leq n_1; 1 \leq q \leq \dimn \Biggr\}; \quad l \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(l) > 1.
\end{equation}
We obtain $\set{f(\mathbf x_{i,j})}_{i,j=1}^{n_1}$; $\mathbf x_{i,j} \in \ensuremath{\chi}_{l}$ where this time
\begin{align}
f(\mathbf x_{i,j}) &= \phi_l(\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i) + \sum_{\degree(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}) > 1, \ensuremath{l^{\prime}} \neq l} \phi_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}(t_j) + \sum_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}:\lpair \in \bivsupp} \phi_{\lpair}(\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i,t_j) \\
&+ \sum_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}:\lpairi \in \bivsupp} \phi_{\lpairi}(t_j,\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i) + \sum_{\qpair \in \bivsupp : q,\ensuremath{q^{\prime}} \neq l} \phi_{\qpair}(t_j,t_j) + C \\
&= g_l(\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i,t_j) + C
\end{align}
for a constant, $C$. Denoting $n = n_1^2$ to be the total number of samples of $f$, we can again obtain an estimate
$\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l(x_l,x)$ to $g_l(x_l,x) + C$, with $L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2$ error rate $O(n^{-3/2})$.
Then with $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l$ at hand, we define the estimate $\est{\phi}_l: [-1,1] \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:biv_univ_est}
\est{\phi}_l := \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_x[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l]; \quad l \in \bivsuppvar : \degree(l) > 1.
\end{equation}
The following proposition formally describes the error rates for the aforementioned estimates.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:no_nois_est_comp}
For $C^3$ smooth components $\phi_p, \phi_{\lpair},\phi_{l}$, let $\est{\phi}_p$, $\est{\phi}_{\lpair}, \est{\phi}_{l}$
be the respective estimates as defined in \eqref{eq:univ_est}, \eqref{eq:biv_est} and \eqref{eq:biv_univ_est} respectively.
Also, let $n$ denote the number of queries (of $f$) made per component. We then have that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\norm{\est{\phi}_p - \phi_p}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} = O(n^{-3}); \forall p \in \univsupp$,
\item $\norm{\est{\phi}_{\lpair} - \phi_{\lpair}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2} = O(n^{-3/2}); \forall \lpair \in \bivsupp$, and
\item $\norm{\est{\phi}_{l} - \phi_{l}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} = O(n^{-3/2}); \forall l \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(l) > 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbf{p \in \univsupp}$.
We have for $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p$ that $\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p - (\phi_p + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} = O(n^{-3})$.
Denoting $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p(x_p) - (\phi_p(x_p) + C) = z_p(x_p)$, this means $\abs{z_p(x_p)} = O(n^{-3})$, $\forall x_p \in [-1,1]$.
Now $\abs{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p - (\phi_p + C)]} = \abs{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p] - C} = \abs{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[z_p]} \leq \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\abs{z_p}] = O(n^{-3})$.
Lastly, we have that:
\begin{align}
\norm{\est{\phi}_p - \phi_p}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} &= \norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p] - \phi_p}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} \\
&= \norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p - (\phi_p + C) - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p] - C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} \\ &= O(n^{-3}).
\end{align}
\item $\mathbf{\lpair \in \bivsupp}$.
We only consider the case where $\degree(l), \degree(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}) > 1$ as proofs for the other cases are similar.
Now for $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}$ we have that $\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair} - (g_{\lpair} + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2} = O(n^{-3/2})$.
Denoting $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}\xlpair - (g_{\lpair}\xlpair + C) = z_{\lpair} \xlpair$, this means
$\abs{z_{\lpair}\xlpair} = O(n^{-3/2})$, $\forall \xlpair \in [-1,1]^2$.
Consequently, one can easily verify that:
\begin{align}
\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_l[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_l[g_{\lpair}] + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} = O(n^{-3/2}), \label{eq:temp5}\\
\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}[g_{\lpair}] + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} = O(n^{-3/2}), \label{eq:temp6}\\
\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[g_{\lpair}] + C)}_{L_{\infty}} = O(n^{-3/2}). \label{eq:temp7}
\end{align}
Now note that using the form for $g_{\lpair}$ from \eqref{eq:biv_part_fn_exp}, we have that
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[g_{\lpair}] &= \sum_{\substack{l_1:(l,l_1) \in \bivsupp \\ l_1 \neq \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[\phi_{(l,l_1)} (x_l,0)] + \sum_{\substack{l_1:(l_1,l) \in \bivsupp \\ l_1 \neq \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_l[\phi_{(l_1,l)} (0,x_l)] + \sum_{\substack{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1:(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1) \in \bivsupp \\ \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1 \neq l}} \phi_{(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1)} (x_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}},0) \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\substack{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1:(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}) \in \bivsupp \\ \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1 \neq l}} \phi_{(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}})} (0,x_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}) +
\phi_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}(x_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}) + C, \quad \text{and} \label{eq:temp1} \\
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}[g_{\lpair}] &= \sum_{\substack{l_1:(l,l_1) \in \bivsupp \\ l_1 \neq \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}} \phi_{(l,l_1)} (x_l,0) + \sum_{\substack{l_1:(l_1,l) \in \bivsupp \\ l_1 \neq \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}}
\phi_{(l_1,l)} (0,x_l)
+ \sum_{\substack{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1:(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1) \in \bivsupp \\ \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1 \neq l}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}} [\phi_{(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1)} (x_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}},0)] \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\substack{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1:(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}) \in \bivsupp \\ \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1 \neq l}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}\phi_{(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}})} (0,x_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}) +
\phi_l(x_l) + C, \quad \text{and} \label{eq:temp2} \\
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[g_{\lpair}] &= \sum_{\substack{l_1:(l,l_1) \in \bivsupp \\ l_1 \neq \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[\phi_{(l,l_1)} (x_l,0)] + \sum_{\substack{l_1:(l_1,l) \in \bivsupp \\ l_1 \neq \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_l[\phi_{(l_1,l)} (0,x_l)] \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\substack{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1:(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1) \in \bivsupp \\ \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1 \neq l}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}} [\phi_{(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}},\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1)} (x_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}},0)]
+ \sum_{\substack{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1:(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}) \in \bivsupp \\ \ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1 \neq l}} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}\phi_{(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}_1,\ensuremath{l^{\prime}})} (0,x_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}) + C. \label{eq:temp3}
\end{align}
We then have from \eqref{eq:biv_part_fn_exp}, \eqref{eq:temp1}, \eqref{eq:temp2}, \eqref{eq:temp3} that
\begin{equation}
g_{\lpair} - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[g_{\lpair}] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}[g_{\lpair}] + \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[g_{\lpair}] = \phi_{\lpair}. \label{eq:temp4}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:temp5}, \eqref{eq:temp6}, \eqref{eq:temp7}, \eqref{eq:temp4}, and \eqref{eq:biv_est} it then follows that:
\begin{align}
\norm{\est{\phi}_{\lpair} - \phi_{\lpair}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2} = O(n^{-3/2}).
\end{align}
\item $\mathbf{l \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(l) > 1}$.
In this case, for $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l : [-1,1]^2 \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, we have that
$\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l -(g_l + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2} = O(n^{-3/2})$, with
\begin{align}
g_{l}(x_l,x) = \phi_l(x_l) &+ \sum_{\degree(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}) > 1, \ensuremath{l^{\prime}} \neq l} \phi_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}(x) + \sum_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}:\lpair \in \bivsupp} \phi_{\lpair}(x_l,x) \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}:\lpairi \in \bivsupp} \phi_{\lpairi}(x,x_l) + \sum_{\qpair \in \bivsupp : q,\ensuremath{q^{\prime}} \neq l} \phi_{\qpair}(x,x). \label{eq:temp11}
\end{align}
From \eqref{eq:temp11}, we see that:
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[g_l(x_l,x)] &= \phi_l(x_l) + \sum_{\qpair \in \bivsupp : q,\ensuremath{q^{\prime}} \neq l} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_x[\phi_{\qpair}(x,x)], \\
\text{and} \quad \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[g_l(x_l,x)] &= \sum_{\qpair \in \bivsupp : q,\ensuremath{q^{\prime}} \neq l} \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[\phi_{\qpair}(x,x)].
\end{align}
Hence clearly, $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[g_l(x_l,x)] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[g_l(x_l,x)] = \phi_l(x_l)$. One can also easily verify that
\begin{align}
\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[g_l] + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} &= O(n^{-3/2}), \\
\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[g_l] + C)}_{L_{\infty}} &= O(n^{-3/2}).
\end{align}
Therefore it follows that
\begin{align}
\norm{\est{\phi}_{l} - \phi_{l}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}
&= \norm{(\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l]) - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[g_l] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[g_l])}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} \\
&\leq \norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[g_l] + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} + \norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[g_l] + C)}_{L_{\infty}} \\
&= O(n^{-3/2}).
\end{align}
This completes the proof.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Noisy queries}
We now look at the case where for each query $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^d$, we obtain a noisy value $f(\mathbf x) + \exnoisep$.
\paragraph{Arbitrary bounded noise.} We begin with the scenario where $\exnoisep_i$ is arbitrary and bounded
with $\abs{\exnoisep_i} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}; \ \forall i$. Since the noise is arbitrary in nature, therefore we simply proceed
\emph{as in the noiseless case}, i.e., by approximating each component via a quasi-interpolant. As the magnitude of the noise is bounded
by $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}$, it results in an additional $O(\ensuremath{\varepsilon})$ term in the approximation error rates of Proposition \ref{prop:no_nois_est_comp}.
To see this for the univariate case, let us denote $Q: C(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}) \rightarrow \ensuremath{{\calH}}$ to be a quasi-interpolant operator.
This a linear operator, with $C(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}})$ denoting the space of continuous functions defined over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\ensuremath{{\calH}}$ denoting a univariate
spline space. Consider $u \in C^m[-1,1]$ for some positive integer $m$, and let $g:[-1,1] \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ be an arbitrary continuous function with
$\norm{g}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}$. Denote $\est{u} = u + g$ to be the ``corrupted'' version of $u$,
and let $n$ be the number of samples of $\est{u}$ used by $Q$. We then have by linearity of $Q$ that:
\begin{equation}
\norm{Q(\est{u}) - u}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} = \norm{Q(u) + Q(g) - u}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} \leq
\underbrace{\norm{Q(u) - u}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}}_{= O(n^{-m})} + \norm{Q}\underbrace{\norm{g}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}}_{\leq \norm{Q}\ensuremath{\varepsilon}},
\end{equation}
with $\norm{Q}$ being the operator norm of $Q$. One can construct $Q$ with $\norm{Q}$
bounded\savefootnote{foot:quasinterp_ref}{For instance, see Theorems $14.4, 15.2$ in \cite{Gyorfi2002}}
from above by a constant depending only on $m$. The above argument can be extended easily to the multivariate case. We state this for the bivariate
case for completeness. Denote $Q_1: C(\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2) \rightarrow \ensuremath{{\calH}}$ to be a quasi-interpolant operator, with $\ensuremath{{\calH}}$ denoting a bivariate spline space.
Consider $u_1 \in C^m[-1,1]^2$ for some positive integer $m$, and let $g_1:[-1,1] \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ be an arbitrary continuous function with
$\norm{g_1}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}$. Let $\est{u}_1 = u_1 + g_1$ and let $n$ be the number of samples of $\est{u_1}$ used by $Q_1$.
We then have by linearity of $Q_1$ that:
\begin{equation}
\norm{Q_1(\est{u_1}) - u_1}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2} = \norm{Q_1(u_1) + Q_1(g_1) - u_1}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2} \leq
\underbrace{\norm{Q_1(u_1) - u_1}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2}}_{= O(n^{-m/2})} + \norm{Q_1}\underbrace{\norm{g_1}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2}}_{\leq \norm{Q_1}\ensuremath{\varepsilon}},
\end{equation}
with $\norm{Q_1}$ being the operator norm of $Q_1$. As for the univariate case, one can construct $Q_1$ with $\norm{Q_1}$
bounded\repeatfootnote{foot:quasinterp_ref} from above by a constant depending only on $m$.
Let us define our final estimates $\est{\phi}_p$, $\est{\phi}_{\lpair}$ and $\est{\phi}_{l}$ as in
\eqref{eq:univ_est}, \eqref{eq:biv_est} and \eqref{eq:biv_univ_est}, respectively.
The following proposition formally states the error bounds, for this particular noise model.
\begin{proposition}[Arbitrary bounded noise] \label{prop:arb_nois_est_comp}
For $C^3$ smooth components $\phi_p, \phi_{\lpair},\phi_{l}$, let $\est{\phi}_p$, $\est{\phi}_{\lpair}, \est{\phi}_{l}$
be the respective estimates as defined in \eqref{eq:univ_est}, \eqref{eq:biv_est} and \eqref{eq:biv_univ_est} respectively.
Also, let $n$ denote the number of noisy queries (of $f$) made per component with the external noise magnitude being bounded
by $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}$. We then have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\norm{\est{\phi}_p - \phi_p}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} = O(n^{-3}) + O(\ensuremath{\varepsilon}); \forall p \in \univsupp$,
\item $\norm{\est{\phi}_{\lpair} - \phi_{\lpair}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2} = O(n^{-3/2}) + O(\ensuremath{\varepsilon}); \forall \lpair \in \bivsupp$, and
\item $\norm{\est{\phi}_{l} - \phi_{l}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]} = O(n^{-3/2}) + O(\ensuremath{\varepsilon}); \forall l \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(l) > 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
The proof is similar to that of Proposition \ref{prop:no_nois_est_comp} and hence skipped.
\paragraph{Stochastic noise.} We now consider the setting where $\exnoisep_i \sim \ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}(0,\sigma^2)$
are i.i.d Gaussian random variables. Similar to the noiseless case,
estimating the individual components again involves sampling $f$ along the
subspaces corresponding to $\univsupp$, $\bivsupp$. Due to the presence of stochastic noise however,
we now make use of \emph{nonparametric regression} techniques to compute the estimates.
While there exist a number of methods that could be used for this
purpose (cf. \cite{tsyba08}), we only discuss a specific one for clarity of exposition.
To elaborate, we again construct the sets defined in \eqref{eq:univ_est_set},\eqref{eq:biv_est_set} and\eqref{eq:biv_univ_est_set}.
In particular, we uniformly discretize the domains
$[-1,1]$ and $[-1,1]^2$, by choosing the respective $t_i$'s and $(\ensuremath{t^{\prime}}_i,t_j)$'s accordingly.
This is the so called ``fixed design'' setting in nonparametric statistics.
Upon collecting the samples $\set{f(\mathbf x_i) + \exnoisep_i}_{i=1}^{n}$ one can then derive estimates $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p$, $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}, \ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l$, to
$\phi_p + C$, $g_{\lpair} + C$ and $g_l + C$ respectively, by using \emph{local polynomial
estimators} (cf. \cite{tsyba08, Fan96} and references within).
It is known that these estimators achieve the (minimax optimal) $L_{\infty}$ error rate:
$\Omega((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{m}{2m+\dimn}})$, for estimating $d$-variate, $C^m$ smooth functions over compact
domains\footnote{See \cite{tsyba08} for $\dimn=1$, and \cite{Nemi00} for $\dimn \geq 1$}.
Translated to our setting, we then have that the functions: $\phi_p + C$, $g_{\lpair} + C$ and $g_l + C$ are estimated at the rates:
$O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{7}})$ and $O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}})$ respectively.
Denoting the above intermediate estimates by $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{p}$, $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}$, $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l$, we define our final estimates
$\est{\phi}_p$, $\est{\phi}_{\lpair}$ and $\est{\phi}_{l}$ as in
\eqref{eq:univ_est}, \eqref{eq:biv_est} and \eqref{eq:biv_univ_est}, respectively.
The following Proposition describes the error rates of these estimates.
\begin{proposition}[i.i.d Gaussian noise] \label{prop:gauss_nois_est_comp}
For $C^3$ smooth components $\phi_p, \phi_{\lpair},\phi_{l}$, let $\est{\phi}_p$, $\est{\phi}_{\lpair}, \est{\phi}_{l}$
be the respective estimates as defined in \eqref{eq:univ_est}, \eqref{eq:biv_est} and \eqref{eq:biv_univ_est} respectively.
Let $n$ denote the number of noisy queries (of $f$) made per component, with noise samples $\exnoisep_1,\exnoisep_2,\dots,\exnoisep_n$
being i.i.d Gaussian. Furthermore, let $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\cdot]$ denote expectation w.r.t the
joint distribution of $\exnoisep_1,\exnoisep_2,\dots,\exnoisep_n$. We then have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\norm{\est{\phi}_p - \phi_p}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{7}}); \forall p \in \univsupp$,
\item $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\norm{\est{\phi}_{\lpair} - \phi_{\lpair}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}}); \forall \lpair \in \bivsupp$, and
\item $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\norm{\est{\phi}_{l} - \phi_{l}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}}); \forall l \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(l) > 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Although the proof is again very similar to that of Proposition \ref{prop:no_nois_est_comp}, there
are some technical differences. Hence we provide a brief sketch of the proof, avoiding details already
highlighted in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:no_nois_est_comp}.
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbf{p \in \univsupp}$.
We have for $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p$ that $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p - (\phi_p + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{7}})$.
Denoting $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p(x_p) - (\phi_p(x_p) + C) = b_p(x_p)$, this means $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\abs{b_p(x_p)}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{7}})$.
Now,
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\abs{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_p - (\phi_p + C)]}] = \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\abs{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[b_p]}] \leq \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{z}[\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\abs{b_p}]] =
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{p}[\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\abs{b_p(x_p)}]] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{7}}).
\end{equation}
The penultimate equality above involves swapping the order of expectations, which is possible by Tonelli's
theorem (since $\abs{b_p} > 0$). Then using triangle inequality, it follows that
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\norm{\est{\phi}_p - \phi_p}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{7}})$.
\item $\mathbf{\lpair \in \bivsupp}$.
We only consider the case where $\degree(l), \degree(\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}) > 1$ as proofs for the cases are similar.
For $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}$, we have that
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair} - (g_{\lpair} + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}})$.
Denoting $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}\xlpair - (g_{\lpair}\xlpair + C) = b_{\lpair} \xlpair$, this means
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\abs{b_{\lpair}\xlpair}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}})$, $\forall \xlpair \in [-1,1]^2$.
Using Tonelli's theorem as earlier, one can next verify that:
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_l[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_l[g_{\lpair}] + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}}), \label{eq:gauss_temp5} \\
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}[g_{\lpair}] + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}}), \label{eq:gauss_temp6} \\
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\abs{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_{\lpair}] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[g_{\lpair}] + C)}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}}). \label{eq:gauss_temp7}
\end{align}
As in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:no_nois_est_comp}, we obtain from \eqref{eq:gauss_temp5}, \eqref{eq:gauss_temp6},
\eqref{eq:gauss_temp7}, \eqref{eq:temp4}, \eqref{eq:biv_est} (via triangle inequality):
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\norm{\est{\phi}_{\lpair} - \phi_{\lpair}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}}).
\end{align}
\item $\mathbf{l \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(l) > 1}$.
In this case, for $\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l : [-1,1]^2 \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, we have that
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l - (g_l + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]^2}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}})$, with
$g_l(x_l,x)$ as defined in \eqref{eq:temp11}. Using Tonelli's theorem as earlier, one can verify that
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[g_l] + C)}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}] &= O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}}), \\
\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\abs{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[\ensuremath{\tilde{\phi}}_l] - (\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[g_l] + C)}] &= O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}}).
\end{align}
Then using the fact $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{x}[g_l(x_l,x)] - \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{(l,x)}[g_l(x_l,x)] = \phi_l(x_l)$,
we obtain via triangle inequality the bound:
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_z[\norm{\est{\phi}_{l} - \phi_{l}}_{L_{\infty}[-1,1]}] = O((n^{-1} \log n)^{\frac{3}{8}})$. This completes the proof.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding remarks} \label{sec:concl_rems}
We proposed a sampling scheme for learning a generalized SPAM
and provided finite sample bounds
for recovering the underlying structure of such models. We also considered the setting where the point queries are corrupted
with noise and analyzed sampling conditions for the same. It would be interesting to improve the sampling bounds that we obtained,
and under similar assumptions. We leave this for future work.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements.} This research was supported in part by SNSF grant CRSII$2$\_$147633$.
\section{Simulation results} \label{sec:sims}
\paragraph{Dependence on $\dimn$.} We first consider the following experimental setup: $\univsupp =
\left\{1, 2 \right\}$ and $\bivsupp = \{(3, 4), (4, 5)\}$,
which implies $\univsparsity = 2$, $\bivsparsity = 2$, $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}} = 2$ and $\totsparsity = 5$.
We consider two models: \vspace{-4mm}
\begin{itemize}
\item [$(i)$] $f_1(\mathbf x) = 2x_1 - 3x_2^2 + 4x_3x_4 - 5x_4x_5$, \vspace{-2mm}
\item [$(ii)$] $f_2(\mathbf x) = 10 \sin(\pi \cdot x_1) + 5 e^{-2x_2} + 10\sin(\pi \cdot x_3 x_4) + 5 e^{-2x_4 x_5}$.
\end{itemize} \vspace{-5mm}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\columnwidth]{figs/Demo5a_PT_left} \hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\columnwidth]{figs/QT_fixedk_fixedrho_vard_varsigma_case1} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.52\columnwidth]{figs/Demo3a_PT_left} \hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\columnwidth]{figs/QT_fixedk_fixedrho_vard_varsigma_case2}
\end{center} \vspace{-3mm}
\caption{\small First (resp. second) row is for $f_1$ (resp. $f_2$). Left panel depicts
the success probability of identifying \empty{exactly} $\univsupp,\bivsupp$, in the noiseless case.
$x$-axis represent the constant $\widetilde{C}$. The right panel depicts
total queries vs. $\dimn$ for exact recovery, with $\widetilde{C} = 5.6$ and various noise settings.
All results are over $5$ independent Monte Carlo trials.} \label{exp:f1_f2_plots}
\end{figure}
We begin with the relatively simple model $f_1$, for which the problem parameters are set to:
$\ensuremath{\lambda}_1 = 0.3$, $\ensuremath{\lambda}_2 = 1$, $\ensuremath{D}_1 = 2$, $\ensuremath{D}_2 = 3$, $\ensuremath{B}_3 = 6$.
We obtain $\ensuremath{m_{x}} = 1$, $\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}} = 4$. We use the same constant $\widetilde{C}$
when we set $\numdirec := \widetilde{C} \totsparsity \log\left(\dimn/\totsparsity\right)$,
$\numdirecp := \widetilde{C} \ensuremath{\rho_{m}} \log(\dimn/\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}),$ and
$\numdirecpp := \widetilde{C} (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \log(\frac{\abs{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}{\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}})$.
For the construction of the hash functions, we set the size to $|\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}| = C^{\prime} \log d$ with $C^{\prime} = 1.7$,
leading to $|\mathcal{H}_2^d| \in [8, 12]$ for $10^2 \leq d \leq 10^3$.
We choose step sizes: $\ensuremath{\mu}, \ensuremath{\mu_1}, \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}$ and thresholds: $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}, \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}}$
as in Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois}. As CS solver, we use the ALPS
algorithm \cite{kyrillidis2011recipes}, an efficient first-order method.
For the noisy setting, we consider the function values to be corrupted with i.i.d. Gaussian noise.
The noise variance values considered are: $\sigma^2 \in \left\{10^{-4}, 10^{-3}, 10^{-2}\right\}$ for which we choose
resampling factors: $(N_1,N_2) \in \set{(50,20), (85,36), (90,40)}$.
We see in Fig. \ref{exp:f1_f2_plots}, that for $\widetilde{C} \approx 5.6$ the probability of successful identification (noiseless case)
undergoes a phase transition and becomes close to $1$, for different values of $\dimn$. This validates
Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}. Fixing $\widetilde{C} = 5.6$, we then see that with the total number of queries
growing slowly with $\dimn$, we have successful identification. For the noisy case, the total number of queries is roughly
$10^2$ times that in the noiseless setting, however the scaling with $\dimn$ is similar to the noiseless case.
We next consider the relatively harder model: $f_2$, where the problem parameters are set to:
$\ensuremath{\lambda}_1 = \ensuremath{\lambda}_2 = 0.3$, $\ensuremath{D}_1 = 8$, $\ensuremath{D}_2 = 4$, $\ensuremath{B}_3 = 35$ and,
$\ensuremath{m_{x}} = \ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}} = 4$. We see in Fig. \ref{exp:f1_f2_plots}, a phase transition (noiseless case) at
$\widetilde{C} = 5.6$ thus validating Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}. For noisy cases, we consider
$\sigma^2$ as before, and $(N_1,N_2) \in \set{(60,30), (90,40), (95,43)}$. The number of queries is
seen to be slightly larger than that for $f_1$.
\paragraph{Dependence on $\totsparsity$.} We now demonstrate the scaling of the total number of queries versus
the sparsity $\totsparsity$ for identification of $\univsupp,\bivsupp$. Consider the model
$f_3(\mathbf x) = \sum_{i = 1}^T (\alpha_1 \mathbf x_{(i-1)5 + 1} - \alpha_2\mathbf x_{(i-1)5 + 2} ^2
+ \alpha_3 \mathbf x_{(i-1)5 + 3} \mathbf x_{(i-1)5 + 4} - \alpha_4 \mathbf x_{(i-1)5 + 4} \mathbf x_{(i-1)5 + 5})$
}
where $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$ for $d = 500$. Here, $\alpha_i \in [2, 5], \forall i$; \textit{i.e.},
we randomly selected $\alpha_i$'s within range and kept the values fixed for all $5$ Monte Carlo iterations.
Note that $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}} = 2$ and the sparsity $\totsparsity = 5T$; we consider $T \in \left\{1, 2, \dots, 10\right\}$.
We set $\ensuremath{\lambda}_1 = 0.3$, $\ensuremath{\lambda}_2 = 1$, $\ensuremath{D}_1 = 2$, $\ensuremath{D}_2 = 3$, $\ensuremath{B}_3 = 6$ and $\widetilde{C} = 5.6$.
For the noisy cases, we consider $\sigma^2$ as before, and choose the same values for $(N_1,N_2)$ as for $f_1$.
In Figure \ref{fig:exp_k} we see that the number of queries scales as $\sim \totsparsity \log(\dimn/\totsparsity)$, and
is roughly $10^2$ more in the noisy case as compared to the noiseless setting.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{figs/QT_fixedd_fixedrho_vark_varsigma_case1}
\end{center} \vspace{-3mm}
\caption{\small Total number of queries versus $\totsparsity$ for $f_3$.
This is shown for both noiseless and noisy cases (i.i.d Gaussian).}
\label{fig:exp_k}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Dependence on $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}$.}
We now demonstrate the scaling of the total queries versus
the maximum degree $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}$ for identification of $\univsupp,\bivsupp$. Consider the model
$f_4(\mathbf x) = \alpha_1 \mathbf x_{1} - \alpha_2\mathbf x_{2}^2 + \sum_{i = 1}^{T} (\alpha_{3,i} \mathbf x_{3} \mathbf x_{i+3})
+ \sum_{i=1}^{5} (\alpha_{4,i}\mathbf x_{2+2i}\mathbf x_{3+2i}).$
}
We choose $d = 500$, $\widetilde{C} = 6$, $\alpha_i \in [2,\dots, 5], \forall i$ (as earlier) and set
$\ensuremath{\lambda}_1 = 0.3$, $\ensuremath{\lambda}_2 = 1$, $\ensuremath{D}_1 = 2$, $\ensuremath{D}_2 = 3$, $\ensuremath{B}_3 = 6$.
For $T \geq 2$, we have $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}} = T$; we choose $T \in \set{2,3,\dots,10}$.
Also note that $\totsparsity = 13$ throughout. For the noisy cases, we consider $\sigma^2$ as before, and choose
$(N_1,N_2) \in \set{(70,40), (90,50), (100,70)}$. In Figure \ref{fig:exp_rho},
we see that the number of queries scales as $\sim \ensuremath{\rho_{m}} \log(\dimn/\ensuremath{\rho_{m}})$, and
is roughly $10^2$ more in the noisy case as compared to the noiseless setting.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{figs/QT_fixedd_varrho_vark_varsigma_case1}
\end{center} \vspace{-3mm}
\caption{\small Total number of queries versus $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}$
for $f_4$.
This is shown for both noiseless and noisy cases (i.i.d Gaussian).}
\label{fig:exp_rho}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Many scientific problems involve estimating an unknown function $f$, defined over a
compact subset of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$, with $\dimn$ large. Such problems arise for instance,
in modeling complex physical processes \cite{Muller2008,Maathuis09,Wainwright09}. Information
about $f$ is typically available in the form of point values $(x_i,f(x_i))_{i=1}^{n}$, which
are then used for learning $f$. It is well known that the problem suffers from the curse of dimensionality, if only smoothness
assumptions are placed on $f$. For example, if $f$ is $C^s$ smooth, then for uniformly approximating
$f$ within error $\delta \in (0,1)$, one needs $n = \Omega(\delta^{-\dimn/s})$ samples \cite{Traub1988}.
A popular line of work in recent times considers the setting where $f$ possesses an intrinsic
low dimensional structure, \textit{i.e.}, depends on only a small subset of $\dimn$ variables.
There exist algorithms for estimating such $f$ (tailored to the underlying structural assumption),
along with attractive theoretical guarantees that do not suffer from the curse of dimensionality;
see \cite{Devore2011,Cohen2010,Tyagi2012_nips,Fornasier2010}. One such assumption leads to the
class of sparse additive models (SPAMs), wherein:
$$f(x_1, \dots, x_d) = \sum_{l \in \totsupp} \phi_l(x_l),$$ for some unknown
$\totsupp \subset \set{1,\dots,\dimn}$ with $\abs{\totsupp} = \totsparsity \ll \dimn$. There exist several
algorithms for learning these models; we refer to \cite{Ravi2009,Meier2009,Huang2010,Raskutti2012,Tyagi14_nips}
and references therein.
In this paper, we focus on a generalized SPAM model, where $f$ can also contain a small number of \emph{second order
interaction terms}, \textit{i.e.},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro_gspam_form}
f(x_1,\dots,x_d) = \sum_{p \in \univsupp}\phi_{p} (x_p) + \sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp}\phi_{\lpair} \xlpair;
\end{equation}
$\univsupp \subset [\dimn], \bivsupp \subset {[d] \choose 2},$ with $\abs{\univsupp} \ll \dimn,\abs{\bivsupp} \ll \dimn^2$.
There exist relatively few results for learning models of the form \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form}, with the existing work being in the regression
framework \cite{Lin2006, Rad2010, Storlie2011}. Here, $(x_i,f(x_i))_{i=1}^{n}$ are typically samples
from an unknown probability measure $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}$.
We consider the setting where we have the
freedom to query $f$ at any desired set of points. We propose a strategy for querying $f$, along with an
efficient recovery algorithm, which leads to much stronger guarantees, compared to those known in the regression setting.
In particular, we provide the first \emph{finite sample bounds} for exactly recovering sets $\univsupp$ and $\bivsupp$.
Subsequently, we \emph{uniformly} estimate the individual components: $\phi_p, \phi_{\lpair}$ via additional queries
of $f$ along the subspaces corresponding to $\univsupp,\bivsupp$.
\paragraph{Contributions.} We make the following contributions for learning models of the form \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form}.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm]
\item[$(i)$] Firstly, we provide a randomized algorithm which provably recovers
$\univsupp, \bivsupp$ \emph{exactly}, with $O(\totsparsity \ensuremath{\rho_{m}} (\log \dimn)^3)$ noiseless point queries.
Here, $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}$ denotes the maximum number of occurrences of a variable in $\bivsupp$, and captures the
underlying \emph{complexity} of the interactions.
\item[$(ii)$] An important tool in our analysis is a compressive sensing based sampling scheme,
for recovering each row of a sparse Hessian matrix, for functions that also possess sparse gradients.
This might be of independent interest.
\item[$(iii)$] We theoretically analyze the impact of additive noise in the point queries on the performance of our algorithm,
for two noise models: arbitrary bounded noise and independent, identically distributed (i.i.d.) noise. In particular, for additive Gaussian noise,
we show that with $O(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}^5 \totsparsity^2 (\log \dimn)^4)$ noisy point queries, our algorithm recovers $\univsupp, \bivsupp$ exactly.
We also provide simulation results on synthetic data that validate our theoretical findings.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Notation.} For any vector $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$, we denote its $\ell_p$-norm by $\norm{\mathbf x}_p
:= \left ( \sum_{l=1}^\dimn \abs{x_i}^p \right )^{1/p}$. For a set $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$, $(\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}$ denotes the
restriction of $\mathbf x$ onto $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$, \textit{i.e.}, $((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}})_l = x_l$ if $l \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$ and $0$ otherwise.
For a function $g: \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ of $m$ variables,
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[g]$, $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[g], \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}[g]$ denote expectation with respect to uniform distributions over
$x_p, (x_l, x_{l^{\prime}})$ and $(x_1,\dots,x_m)$, respectively.
For any compact $\Omega \subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\norm{g}_{L_{\infty} (\Omega)}$ denotes the $L_{\infty}$ norm of $g$ in $\Omega$.
The partial derivative operator $\partial/\partial x_i$ is denoted by $\partial_i$.
For instance, $\partial_1^2 \partial_2 g$ denotes $\partial^3 g/\partial x_1^2 \partial x_2$.
\section{Impact of noise} \label{sec:noise_impact}
We now consider the case where the point queries are corrupted with external noise. This means that at query $\mathbf x$,
we observe $f(\mathbf x) + \exnoisep$, where $\exnoisep \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ denotes external noise.
In order to estimate $\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)$,
we obtain the samples : $f(\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu} \mathbf v_j) + \exnoisep_{j,1}$ and $f(\mathbf x - \ensuremath{\mu} \mathbf v_j) + \exnoisep_{j,2}$;
$j = 1,\dots,\numdirec$.
This changes \eqref{eq:cs_form} to the linear system $\mathbf y = \ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x) + \ensuremath{\vecn} + \exnoisevec$, where
$\exnoise_{j} = (\exnoisep_{j,1} - \exnoisep_{j,2})/(2\ensuremath{\mu})$.
Hence, the step-size $\ensuremath{\mu}$ needs to be chosen carefully now
-- a small value would blow up the external noise component, while a large value would increase perturbation
due to the higher order Taylor's terms.
\paragraph{Arbitrary bounded noise.} In this scenario, we assume the external noise to be arbitrary and bounded, meaning
that $\abs{\exnoisep} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}$, for some finite $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} \geq 0$. If $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}$ is too large,
then we would expect recovery
of $\univsupp, \bivsupp$ to be impossible as the structure of $f$ would be destroyed.
We show in Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois}
that if $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1 = O\left(\nicefrac{\ensuremath{D}_2^{3}}{(\ensuremath{B}_3^2 \ensuremath{\rho_{m}}^{2} \sqrt{\totsparsity})}\right)$,
then Algorithm \ref{algo:gen_overlap} recovers $\bivsupp$ with
appropriate choice of sampling parameters. Furthermore, assuming $\bivsupp$ is recovered exactly,
and provided $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}$ additionally
satisfies $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_2 = O\left(\nicefrac{\ensuremath{D}_1^{3/2}}{\sqrt{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}})\ensuremath{B}_3}}\right)$,
then the algorithm also recovers $\univsupp$ exactly.
In contrast to Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}, the step size $\ensuremath{\mu}$ cannot be chosen arbitrarily small now,
due to external noise.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois}
Let $\ensuremath{m_{x}}, \ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}, \numdirec, \numdirecp, \numdirecpp$ be as defined in
Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}. Say $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1 = O\left(\frac{\ensuremath{D}_2^{3}}{\ensuremath{B}_3^2 \ensuremath{\rho_{m}}^{2} \sqrt{\totsparsity}}\right).$
Denoting $b^{\prime} = 2C_1\sqrt{\numdirec\numdirecp}$, $\exists 0 < A_1 < A_2$ and $0 < A_3 < A_4$ so that for $\ensuremath{\mu} \in (A_1,A_2)$,
$\ensuremath{\mu_1} \in (A_3, A_4)$ and $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}} = C_2 (a\ensuremath{\mu_1}+ \frac{b \ensuremath{\mu}^2}{\ensuremath{\mu_1}} + \frac{b^{\prime}\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}{\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\mu_1}}),$
we have $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$ w.h.p.
Given $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$,
denote $a_1 = \nicefrac{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \ensuremath{B}_3}{(6\numdirecpp)}$, $b_1 = \sqrt{\numdirecpp}$
and say $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_2 = O\left(\frac{\ensuremath{D}_1^{3/2}}{\sqrt{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}})\ensuremath{B}_3}}\right).$
$\exists 0<A_5<A_6$ so that $\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} \in (A_5,A_6)$, $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}} = C_3(a_1 {\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2 + \frac{b_1\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}{\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}})$
implies $\est{\univsupp} = \univsupp$ w.h.p.
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Stochastic noise.} We now assume the point queries to be corrupted with i.i.d. Gaussian noise, so that $\exnoisep \sim \ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}(0,\sigma^2)$
with variance $\sigma^2$. We consider resampling each point query a sufficient number of times, and averaging the
values. During the $\bivsupp$ estimation phase,
we resample each query $N_1$ times so that $\exnoisep \sim \ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}(0,\sigma^2/N_1)$.
For any $0 < \ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1$, if $N_1$ is suitably large, then we can uniformly bound $\abs{\exnoisep} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}$ -- via standard tail
bounds for Gaussians -- over all noise samples, with high probability.
Consequently, we can use the result of Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois} for estimating $\bivsupp$.
The same reasoning applies to Step \ref{algover:s1_grad}, \textit{i.e.}, the $\univsupp$ estimation phase,
where we resample each query $N_2$ times.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:gen_overlap_gaussnois}
Let $\ensuremath{m_{x}}, \ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}, \numdirec, \numdirecp, \numdirecpp$ be as defined in
Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}. For any $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1$, $0 < p_1 < 1$,
say we resample each query in Steps \ref{algover:s2_query_1}, \ref{algover:s2_query_2},
$N_1 > \frac{\sigma^2}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}^2} \log (\frac{\sqrt{2} \sigma}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon} p_1}\numdirec(\numdirecp+1)(2\ensuremath{m_{x}}+1)^2\abs{\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}})$
times, and take the average. For $\ensuremath{\mu}, \ensuremath{\mu_1}, \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}$ as in Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois},
we have $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$ with probability at least $1 -p_1 - o(1)$.
Given $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$, with $\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_2$, $0 < p_2 < 1$,
say we resample each query in Step \ref{algover:s1_grad},
$N_2 > \frac{\sigma^2}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}}}^2} \log(\frac{\sqrt{2} \sigma (2\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}+1)\numdirecpp}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}} p_2})$ times, and take the average.
Then for $\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}, \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}}$ as in Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois} (with $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}$ replaced by $\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}}$),
we have $\est{\univsupp} = \univsupp$ with probability at least $1 - p_2 - o(1)$.
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Query complexity.} In the case of arbitrary, but bounded noise, the query complexity remains the same as for the noiseless case.
In case of i.i.d. Gaussian noise, for estimating $\bivsupp$, we have $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} = O(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}^{-2} \totsparsity^{-1/2})$.
Choosing $p_1 = \dimn^{-\delta}$
for any constant $\delta > 0$ gives us $N_1 = O(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}^4 \totsparsity \log \dimn)$.
This means that with $O(N_1 \totsparsity\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}(\log \dimn)^3 \abs{\ensuremath{\chi}}) = O(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}^5 \totsparsity^2 (\log \dimn)^4 \ensuremath{\lambda}_2^{-2})$
queries, $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$ holds w.h.p.
Next, for estimating $\univsupp$, we have $\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}} = O((\totsparsity - \abs{\bivsuppvar})^{-1/2})$.
Choosing $p_2 = ((\dimn - \abs{\bivsuppvar})^{-\delta})$
for any constant $\delta > 0$, we get $N_2 = O((\totsparsity - \abs{\bivsuppvar}) \log (\dimn - \abs{\bivsuppvar}))$.
This means the query complexity for estimating $\univsupp$ is
$O(N_2 \ensuremath{\lambda}_1^{-1} (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \log (\dimn - \abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}})) =
O(\ensuremath{\lambda}_1^{-1} (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}})^2 (\log (\dimn - \abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}))^2)$.
Therefore, the overall query complexity of Algorithm \ref{algo:gen_overlap}
for estimating $\univsupp, \bivsupp$ is $O(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}^5 \totsparsity^2 (\log \dimn)^4 \ensuremath{\lambda}_2^{-2})$.
\begin{remark}
We saw above that $O(\totsparsity^2 (\log \dimn)^2)$ samples are sufficient for estimating $\univsupp$
in presence of i.i.d Gaussian noise. This improves the corresponding bound in \cite{Tyagi14_nips}
by a $O(\totsparsity)$ factor, and is due to the less strict condition on $\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}$.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Recovering the components of the model.}
Having identified $\univsupp, \bivsupp$, we can estimate the
underlying components in \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep}, via standard nonparametric regression for ANOVA type models
\cite{stone94}. Alternately, for each component, we could also sample $f$ along the subspace
corresponding to the component and then perform regression, to obtain its estimate with
\emph{uniform} error bounds. This is shown formally in the appendix.
\section{Problem statement}{\label{sec:problem}}
We are interested in the problem of approximating functions $f:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn} \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$
from point queries. For some unknown sets $\univsupp \subset [\dimn], \bivsupp \subset {[\dimn] \choose 2}$,
the function $f$ is assumed to have the following form.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gspam_form}
f(x_1,\dots,x_d) = \sum_{p \in \univsupp}\phi_{p} (x_p) + \sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp}\phi_{\lpair} \xlpair.
\end{equation}
Here, $\phi_{\lpair}$ is considered to be ``truly bivariate'' meaning that $\partial_l \partial_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}} \phi_{\lpair} \not\equiv 0$.
The set of all variables that occur in $\bivsupp$, is denoted by $\bivsuppvar$.
For each $l \in \bivsuppvar$, we refer to $\degree(l)$ as the \emph{degree} of $l$, \textit{i.e.},
the number of occurrences of $l$ in $\bivsupp$, formally defined as:
\begin{equation*}
\degree(l) := \abs{\set{l^{\prime} \in \bivsuppvar : \lpair \in \bivsupp \ \text{or} \ \lpairi \in \bivsupp}}; \quad l \in \bivsuppvar.
\end{equation*}
The largest such degree is denoted by $\ensuremath{\rho_{m}} := \max\limits_{l \in \bivsuppvar} \degree(l).$
Our goal is to query $f$ at suitably chosen points in its domain, in order to estimate it within the compact
region\footnote{One could more generally consider the region $[\alpha, \beta]^\dimn$ and transform the variables to
$[-1,1]^\dimn$ via scaling and transformation.}
$[-1,1]^{\dimn}$. To this end, note that representation \eqref{eq:gspam_form} is
not unique\footnote{Firstly, we could add constants to
each $\phi_l, \phi_{\lpair}$, which sum up to zero. Furthermore, for each $l \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(l) > 1$, or
$l \in \univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar : \degree(l) = 1$, we could add
univariates that sum to zero.}. This is avoided by re-writing \eqref{eq:gspam_form} in the following unique
ANOVA form \cite{Gu02}:
\begin{align} \label{eq:unique_mod_rep}
f(x_1,\dots,x_d) &= c + \sum_{p \in \univsupp}\phi_{p} (x_p) + \sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp} \phi_{\lpair} \xlpair \nonumber \\ &+
\sum_{q \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(q) > 1} \phi_{q} (x_q),
\end{align}
where $\univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar = \emptyset.$ Here, $c = \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}[f]$ and
$\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_p[\phi_p] = \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{\lpair}[\phi_{\lpair}] = 0$; $\forall p \in \univsupp, \lpair \in \bivsupp$,
with expectations being over uniform distributions with respect to variable range $[-1,1]$.
In addition, $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_{l}[\phi_{\lpair}] = 0$ if $\degree(l) = 1$. The univariate $\phi_q$ corresponding to
$q \in \bivsuppvar$ with $\degree(q) > 1$,
represents the net marginal effect of the variable and has $\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_q[\phi_q] = 0$.
We note that $\univsupp, \bivsuppvar$ are disjoint in \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep}
as each $p \in \univsupp \cap \bivsuppvar$ can be merged with their bivariate counterparts, uniquely.
The uniqueness of \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep} is shown formally in the appendix.
We assume the setting $\abs{\univsupp} = \univsparsity \ll \dimn$, $\abs{\bivsupp} = \bivsparsity \ll \dimn^2$.
The set of \emph{all} active variables \textit{i.e.}, $\univsupp \cup \bivsuppvar$ is denoted by $\totsupp$, with
$\totsparsity: = \abs{\totsupp} = \univsparsity + \abs{\bivsuppvar}$ being
the \emph{total sparsity} of the problem.
Due to the special structure of $f$ in \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep}, we note that if $\univsupp, \bivsupp$ were
known beforehand, then one can estimate $f$ via standard results from approximation theory or from
regression\footnote{This is discussed later.}.
Hence, our primary focus in the paper is to recover $\univsupp, \bivsupp$.
Our main assumptions for this problem are listed below.
\begin{assumption}
$f$ can be queried from the slight enlargement: $[-(1+r),(1+r)]^d$, for some small $r > 0$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{assum:smooth}
Each $\phi_{\lpair},\phi_p$ is three times continuously differentiable,
within $[-(1+r),(1+r)]^2$ and $[-(1+r),(1+r)]$ respectively. Since these domains are compact,
there exist constants $\ensuremath{B}_m\geq 0$ ($m=0,1,2,3$) so that:
\begin{align*}
\norm{\partial_l^{m_1} \partial_{l^{\prime}}^{m_2} \phi_{\lpair}}_{L_{\infty}[-(1+r),(1+r)]^2} \leq \ensuremath{B}_m; \ m_1 + m_2 = m,
\end{align*} where $\lpair \in \bivsupp,$ and
\begin{align*}
\norm{\partial_p^{m} \phi_{p}}_{L_{\infty}[-(1+r),(1+r)]} \leq \ensuremath{B}_m,
\end{align*} where $p \in \univsupp \ \text{or}, \ p \in \bivsuppvar \text{ and } \ \degree(p) > 1.$
\end{assumption}
Our next assumption is for identifying $\univsupp$.
\begin{assumption} \label{assum:actvar_iden}
For some constants $\ensuremath{D}_1, \ensuremath{\lambda}_1 > 0$,
we assume that for each $p \in \univsupp$, $\exists$ connected $\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}_p \subset [-1,1]$,
of Lebesgue measure at least $\ensuremath{\lambda}_1 > 0$, such that $\abs{\partial_p \phi_p(x_p)} > \ensuremath{D}_1$, $\forall x_p \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}_p$.
This assumption is in a sense necessary. If say $\partial_p \phi_{p}$ was zero throughout $[-1,1]$, then it implies that $\phi_{p} \equiv 0$,
since each $\phi_p$ has zero mean in \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep}.
\end{assumption}
Our last assumption concerns the identification of $\bivsupp$.
\begin{assumption} \label{assum:pair_iden}
For some constants $\ensuremath{D}_2, \ensuremath{\lambda}_2 > 0$, we assume that
for each $\lpair \in \bivsupp$, $\exists$ connected $\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}_{l}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}_{l^{\prime}} \subset [-1,1]$, each interval of
Lebesgue measure at least $\ensuremath{\lambda}_2 > 0$, such that
$\abs{\partial_l \partial_{l^{\prime}} \phi_{\lpair} \xlpair} > \ensuremath{D}_2, \ \forall \xlpair \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}_{l} \times \ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}_{l^{\prime}}$.
\end{assumption}
Given the above, our problem specific parameters are: $(i)$ $\ensuremath{B}_i$; $i=0,..,3$,
$(ii)$ $\ensuremath{D}_j,\ensuremath{\lambda}_j$; $j=1,2$ and, $(iii)$ $\totsparsity, \ensuremath{\rho_{m}}$.
We do not assume $\univsparsity, \bivsparsity$ to be known, but instead assume that $\totsparsity$ is known.
Furthermore it suffices to use estimates for the problem
parameters instead of exact values: In particular, we can use upper bounds for: $\totsparsity, \ensuremath{\rho_{m}}$, $\ensuremath{B}_i$; $i=0,..,3$ and lower bounds for:
$\ensuremath{D}_j,\ensuremath{\lambda}_j$; $j=1,2$.
\section{Proofs}{\label{sec:proof}}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}} \label{subsec:proof_thm_genover}
The proof makes use of the following key theorem from \cite{Fornasier2010}, for stable approximation via $\ell_1$ minimization:
$\triangle(\mathbf y) = \argmin{\mathbf y = \ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}\mathbf z}\norm{\mathbf z}_1$. While the first part is standard (see for example
\cite{Baraniuk2008_simple}),
the second result was stated in \cite{Fornasier2010} as a specialization of Theorem 1.2
from \cite{Wojta2012} to the case of Bernoulli measurement matrices.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Wojta2012,Fornasier2010}] \label{thm:sparse_recon_bound}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}$ be a $\numdirec \times \dimn$ random matrix with all entries being Bernoulli i.i.d random variables scaled with $1/\sqrt{\numdirec}$.
Then the following results hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $0 < \ensuremath{\kappa} < 1$. Then there are two positive constants $c_1,c_2 > 0$, such that the matrix $\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}$ has the Restricted Isometry Property
\begin{equation}
(1-\ensuremath{\kappa}) \norm{\mathbf w}_2^2 \leq \norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}\mathbf w}_2^2 \leq (1+\ensuremath{\kappa}) \norm{\mathbf w}_2^2 \label{eq:RIP}
\end{equation}
for all $\mathbf w \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$ such that $\#$supp($\mathbf w$) $\leq c_2 \numdirec / \log(\dimn/\numdirec)$ with probability at least $1-e^{-c_1 \numdirec}$.
\item Let us suppose $\dimn > (\log 6)^2 \numdirec$. Then there are positive constants $C, c_1^{\prime}, c_2^{\prime} > 0$ such that
with probability at least $1 - e^{-c_1^{\prime} \numdirec} - e^{-\sqrt{\numdirec\dimn}}$ the matrix $\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}$ has the following property.
For every $\mathbf w \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$, $\ensuremath{\vecn} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\numdirec}$ and every natural number
$\totsparsity \leq c_2^{\prime} \numdirec / \log(\dimn/\numdirec)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\norm{\triangle(\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}\mathbf w + \ensuremath{\vecn}) - \mathbf w}_2 \leq C \left(\totsparsity^{-1/2} \sigma_{\totsparsity}(\mathbf w)_{1} +
\max\set{\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_2, \sqrt{\log \dimn}\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty}}\right), \label{eq:sparse_recon_err}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_{\totsparsity}(\mathbf w)_{1} := \inf\set{\norm{\mathbf w - \mathbf z}_1 : \#\text{supp}(\mathbf z) \leq \totsparsity}
\end{equation*}
is the best $\totsparsity$-term approximation of $\mathbf w$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The proof of the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:sparse_recon_bound} requires \eqref{eq:RIP} to hold, which is the case in our setting with high probability.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:l1min_samp_bd}
Since $\numdirec \geq K$ is necessary, note that $K \leq c_2^{\prime} \numdirec / \log(d/\numdirec)$ is satisfied if
$\numdirec > (1 / c_2^{\prime}) K \log(d/K)$. Also note that $K \log (d/K) > \log d$ in the
regime\footnote{More precisely, if $d > K^{\frac{K}{K-1}}$.} $K \ll d$.
\end{remark}
We can now prove Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}.
The proof is divided into the following steps.
\paragraph{Bounding the $\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}$ term.}
Since $\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)$ is at most $\totsparsity$ sparse, therefore
for any $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$ we immediately have from Theorem \ref{thm:sparse_recon_bound}, \eqref{eq:sparse_recon_err}, the following.
$\exists C_1, c_4^{\prime}> 0, c_1^{\prime} \geq 1$ such that for
$c_1^{\prime} \totsparsity \log(\frac{\dimn}{\totsparsity}) < \numdirec < \frac{\dimn}{(\log 6)^2}$ we have
with probability at least $1 - e^{-c_4^{\prime}\numdirec} - e^{-\sqrt{\numdirec\dimn}}$ that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:grad_est_bd_gen}
\norm{\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x) - \ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)}_2 \leq C_1 \max\set{\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_2, \sqrt{\log \dimn}\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty}}.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\ensuremath{\vecn} = [\ensuremath{n}_1 \dots \ensuremath{n}_{\numdirec}]$
where $\ensuremath{n}_j = \frac{\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta_{j}) - \ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta^{\prime}_{j})}{2\ensuremath{\mu}}$,
for some $\zeta_j,\zeta^{\prime}_j \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$.
Here $\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta)$ denotes the third order Taylor remainder terms of $f$. By taking the structure of $f$ into account,
we can uniformly bound
$\abs{\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta_j)}$ as follows (so the same bound holds for $\abs{\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta^{\prime}_j)}$).
Let us define $\numdegree := \abs{\set{q \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(q) > 1}}$,
to be the number of variables in $\bivsuppvar$, with degree greater than one.
\begin{align}
\abs{\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta_j)} &= \frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^3}{6} |\sum_{p \in \univsupp} \partial_p^3 \phi_p(\zeta_{j,p}) v_p^3 +
\sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp} ( \partial_l^3 \phi_{\lpair}(\zeta_{j,l}, \zeta_{j,{l^{\prime}}}) v_l^3 + \partial_{l^{\prime}}^3
\phi_{\lpair}(\zeta_{j,l}, \zeta_{j,{l^{\prime}}}) v_{l^{\prime}}^3) \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\lpair \in \bivsupp} (3\partial_l \partial_{l^{\prime}}^2 \phi_{\lpair}(\zeta_{j,l}, \zeta_{j,{l^{\prime}}}) v_l v_{l^{\prime}}^2 +
3\partial_l^2 \partial_{l^{\prime}} \phi_{\lpair}(\zeta_{j,l}, \zeta_{j,{l^{\prime}}}) v_l^2 v_{l^{\prime}}) \nonumber\\
&+ \sum_{q \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(q)>1} \partial_q^3 \phi_q(\zeta_{j,q}) v_q^3| \\
&\leq \frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^3}{6} \left(\frac{\univsparsity \ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirec^{3/2}} +
\frac{2\bivsparsity\ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirec^{3/2}} + \frac{\alpha\ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirec^{3/2}} + \frac{6\bivsparsity\ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirec^{3/2}} \right) \\
&= \frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^3}{6}\frac{(\univsparsity + \alpha + 8\bivsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirec^{3/2}}. \label{eq:temp_bd_1}
\end{align}
Using the fact $2\bivsparsity = \sum_{l \in \bivsuppvar: \degree(l) > 1} \degree(l) + (\abs{\bivsuppvar} - \numdegree)$, we can observe that
$2\bivsparsity \leq \ensuremath{\rho_{m}}\numdegree + (\abs{\bivsuppvar} - \numdegree) = \abs{\bivsuppvar} + (\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}-1)\numdegree$. Plugging this in
\eqref{eq:temp_bd_1}, and using the fact $\alpha \leq \totsparsity$ (since we do not assume $\alpha$ to be known), we obtain
\begin{align}
\abs{\ensuremath{R}_3(\zeta_j)} &\leq \frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^3}{6}\frac{(\univsparsity + \numdegree + 4\abs{\bivsuppvar} + 4(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}-1)\numdegree)\ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirec^{3/2}} \\
&\leq \frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^3(4\totsparsity + (4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}-3)\numdegree)\ensuremath{B}_3}{6\numdirec^{3/2}}
\leq \frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^3((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{6\numdirec^{3/2}}.
\end{align}
This in turn implies that $\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty} \leq \frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^2((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{6\numdirec^{3/2}}$.
Using the fact $\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{2} \leq \sqrt{\numdirec}\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty}$, we thus obtain for the stated choice of $\numdirec$ (cf. Remark \ref{rem:l1min_samp_bd}) that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:grad_est_over_bd}
\norm{\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x) - \ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)}_2 \leq \frac{C_1\ensuremath{\mu}^2((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{6\numdirec},
\quad \forall \mathbf x \in [-(1+r),1+r]^{\dimn}.
\end{equation}
Recall that $[-(1+r),1+r]^{\dimn}, r > 0$, denotes the enlargement around $[-1,1]^{\dimn}$, in which the smoothness
properties of $\phi_p, \phi_{\lpair}$ are defined in Section \ref{sec:problem}.
Since $\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x) = \ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x) + \mathbf w(\mathbf x)$, therefore $\norm{\mathbf w(\mathbf x)}_{\infty} \leq \norm{\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x) - \ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)}_2$.
Using the definition of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\numdirecp}$ from \eqref{eq:hessrow_est_linfin}, we then have that
$\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_{\infty} \leq \frac{C_1\ensuremath{\mu}^2((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{3\numdirec\ensuremath{\mu_1}}$.
\paragraph{Bounding the $\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}$ term.}
We will bound $\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}}_{\infty}$. To this end, we see from \eqref{eq:hessrow_est_linfin} that it
suffices to uniformly bound $\abs{{\mathbf v^{\prime}}^{T} \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta) \mathbf v^{\prime}}$,
over all: $q \in \univsupp \cup \bivsuppvar$, $\mathbf v^{\prime} \in \ensuremath{\calV^{\prime}}$, $\zeta \in [-(1+r),(1+r)]^{\dimn}$. Note that
\begin{equation}
{\mathbf v^{\prime}}^T \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta) \mathbf v^{\prime} = \sum_{l=1}^{\dimn} {v_l^{\prime}}^2 (\ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f (\zeta))_{l,l} +
\sum_{i \neq j = 1}^{\dimn} v_i^{\prime}v_j^{\prime} (\ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f (\zeta))_{i,j}.
\end{equation}
We have the following three cases, depending on the type of $q$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbf{q \in \univsupp.}$
\begin{equation}
{\mathbf v^{\prime}}^T \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta) \mathbf v^{\prime} = {v^{\prime}_{q}}^2 \partial_q^3 \phi_q(\zeta_q) \Rightarrow
\abs{{\mathbf v^{\prime}}^T \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta) \mathbf v^{\prime}} \leq \frac{\ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirecp}.
\end{equation}
\item $\mathbf{\qpair \in \bivsupp}$, $\mathbf{\degree(q) = 1.}$
\begin{align}
{\mathbf v^{\prime}}^T \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta) \mathbf v^{\prime} &= {v^{\prime}_{q}}^2 \partial_q^3 \phi_{\qpair}(\zeta_q,\zeta_{q^{\prime}}) +
{v^{\prime}_{q^{\prime}}}^2 \partial_{q^{\prime}}^2 \partial_q \phi_{\qpair}(\zeta_q,\zeta_{q^{\prime}}) \\
&+
2 v^{\prime}_{q} v^{\prime}_{q^{\prime}} \partial_{q^{\prime}} \partial_q^2 \phi_{\qpair}(\zeta_q,\zeta_{q^{\prime}}), \\
\Rightarrow \abs{{\mathbf v^{\prime}}^T \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta) \mathbf v^{\prime}} &\leq \frac{4\ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirecp}.
\end{align}
\item $\mathbf{q \in \bivsuppvar}$, $\mathbf{\degree(q) > 1.}$
\begin{align}
{\mathbf v^{\prime}}^T \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta) \mathbf v^{\prime} &= {v^{\prime}_{q}}^2(\partial_q^3 \phi_q(\zeta_q) +
\sum_{\qpair \in \bivsupp} \partial_q^3 \phi_{\qpair}(\zeta_{q},\zeta_{q^{\prime}}) \nonumber \\ &+
\sum_{\qpairi \in \bivsupp} \partial_q^3 \phi_{\qpairi}(\zeta_{q^{\prime}},\zeta_{q}))
+ \sum_{\qpair \in \bivsupp} {v^{\prime}_{q^{\prime}}}^2 \partial_{q^{\prime}}^2 \partial_q \phi_{\qpair}(\zeta_{q},\zeta_{q^{\prime}}) \nonumber \\ &+
\sum_{\qpairi \in \bivsupp} {v^{\prime}_{q^{\prime}}}^2 \partial_{q^{\prime}}^2 \partial_q \phi_{\qpairi}(\zeta_{q^{\prime}},\zeta_{q})
+ 2\sum_{\qpair \in \bivsupp} v^{\prime}_{q} v^{\prime}_{q^{\prime}} \partial_{q^{\prime}} \partial_q^2 \phi_{\qpair}(\zeta_{q},\zeta_{q^{\prime}}) \nonumber \\ &+
2\sum_{\qpairi \in \bivsupp} v^{\prime}_{q} v^{\prime}_{q^{\prime}} \partial_{q^{\prime}} \partial_q^2 \phi_{\qpairi}(\zeta_{q^{\prime}},\zeta_{q}), \\
\Rightarrow \abs{{\mathbf v^{\prime}}^T \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta) \mathbf v^{\prime}} &\leq \frac{1}{\numdirecp}((\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\ensuremath{B}_3 + \ensuremath{\rho_{m}}\ensuremath{B}_3 + 2\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}\ensuremath{B}_3)
= \frac{(4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\ensuremath{B}_3}{\numdirecp}.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
We can now uniformly bound $\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}}_{\infty}$ as follows.
\begin{equation}
\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}}_{\infty} := \max_{j=1,\dots,\numdirecp} \frac{\ensuremath{\mu_1}}{2} \abs{{{\mathbf v^{\prime}_j}^T \ensuremath{\nabla^2} \partial_q f(\zeta_j) \mathbf v^{\prime}_j}}
\leq \frac{\ensuremath{\mu_1}(4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\ensuremath{B}_3}{2\numdirecp}.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Estimating $\bivsupp$.}
We now proceed towards estimating $\bivsupp$. To this end, we estimate $\ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_q f(\mathbf x)$ for each $q=1,\dots,\dimn$ and $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\chi}$.
Since $\ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_q f(\mathbf x)$ is at most $(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)$-sparse, therefore Theorem \ref{thm:sparse_recon_bound}, \eqref{eq:sparse_recon_err},
immediately yield the following.
$\exists C_2, c_5^{\prime}> 0, c_2^{\prime} \geq 1$ such that for
$c_2^{\prime} \ensuremath{\rho_{m}} \log(\frac{\dimn}{\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}}) < \numdirecp < \frac{\dimn}{(\log 6)^2}$ we have
with probability at least $1 - e^{-c_5^{\prime}\numdirecp} - e^{-\sqrt{\numdirecp\dimn}}$ that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hessrow_est_bd_gen}
\norm{\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} \partial_q f(\mathbf x) - \ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_q f(\mathbf x)}_2 \leq C_2 \max\set{\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}+\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_2, \sqrt{\log \dimn}\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}+\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_{\infty}}.
\end{equation}
Since $\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}+\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_{\infty} \leq \norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}}_{\infty} + \norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_{\infty}$,
therefore using the bounds on $\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}}_{\infty},\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_{\infty}$ and noting that
$\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}+\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_2 \leq \sqrt{\numdirecp}\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}+\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_{\infty}$, we obtain for the stated choice of $\numdirecp$ (cf. Remark \ref{rem:l1min_samp_bd}) that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hessrow_est_bd_gen_1}
\norm{\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} \partial_q f(\mathbf x) - \ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_q f(\mathbf x)}_2 \leq \underbrace{C_2\left(\frac{\ensuremath{\mu_1}(4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\ensuremath{B}_3}{2\sqrt{\numdirecp}}
+ \frac{C_1\sqrt{\numdirecp}\ensuremath{\mu}^2((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{3\numdirec\ensuremath{\mu_1}} \right)}_{\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}}.
\end{equation}
for $q=1,\dots,\dimn$, and $\forall \mathbf x \in [-1,1]^{\dimn}$. We next note that \eqref{eq:hessrow_est_bd_gen_1} trivially leads to the bound
\begin{equation}
\est{\partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}}} f(\mathbf x) \in [\partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}} f(\mathbf x) -\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}, \partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}} f(\mathbf x) + \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}]; \quad
q,q^{\prime} = 1,\dots,\dimn.
\end{equation}
Now if $q \notin \bivsuppvar$ then clearly $\est{\partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}}} f(\mathbf x) \in [-\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}, \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}]$; $\forall \mathbf x \in [-1,1]^{\dimn}, q \neq q^{\prime}$.
On the other hand, if $\qpair \in \bivsupp$ then
\begin{equation}
\est{\partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}}} f(\mathbf x) \in [\partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}} \phi_{\qpair}(x_q,x_{q^{\prime}}) -\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}, \partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}} \phi_{\qpair}(x_q,x_{q^{\prime}}) + \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}].
\end{equation}
If furthermore $\ensuremath{m_{x}} \geq \ensuremath{\lambda}_2^{-1}$, then due to the construction of $\ensuremath{\chi}$, $\exists \mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\chi}$ so that
$\abs{\est{\partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}}} f(\mathbf x)} \geq \ensuremath{D}_2 - \ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}$. Hence if $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}} < \ensuremath{D}_2/2$ holds,
the we would have $\abs{\est{\partial_q\partial_{q^{\prime}}} f(\mathbf x)} > \ensuremath{D}_2/2$, leading to the identification of $\qpair$.
Since this is true for each $\qpair \in \bivsupp$, hence it follows that $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$. Now, $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}} < \ensuremath{D}_2/2$ is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\underbrace{\frac{(4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\ensuremath{B}_3}{2\sqrt{\numdirecp}}}_{a} \ensuremath{\mu_1}
+ \underbrace{\left(\frac{C_1\sqrt{\numdirecp}((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{3\numdirec}\right)}_{b}\frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^2}{\ensuremath{\mu_1}} &< \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2}{2C_2} \\
\Leftrightarrow a \ensuremath{\mu_1}^2 - \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2}{2C_2}\ensuremath{\mu_1} + b\ensuremath{\mu}^2 &< 0 \\
\Leftrightarrow \ensuremath{\mu_1} \in ((\ensuremath{D}_2/(4aC_2)) - \sqrt{(\ensuremath{D}_2/(4aC_2))^2 - (b\ensuremath{\mu}^2/a)} , (\ensuremath{D}_2/(4aC_2)) &+ \sqrt{(\ensuremath{D}_2/(4aC_2))^2 - (b\ensuremath{\mu}^2/a)} ).
\label{eq:hessstep_bd_gen_overlap}
\end{align}
Lastly, we see that the bounds in \eqref{eq:hessstep_bd_gen_overlap} are valid if:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gradstep_bd_gen_over}
\ensuremath{\mu}^2 < \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2^2}{16 a b C_2^2} = \frac{3 \ensuremath{D}_2^2 \numdirec}{8C_1 C_2^2 \ensuremath{B}_3^2(4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)}.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Estimating $\univsupp$.}
With $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} := [\dimn] \setminus \est{\bivsuppvar}$, we have via Taylor's expansion of $f$ at $j=1,\dots,\numdirecpp$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:taylor_exp_f_2}
\frac{f((\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}\mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}) - f((\mathbf x - \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}\mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})}{2\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}} = \dotprod{(\mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}{(\ensuremath{\nabla} f((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}
+ \underbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{R}_3((\zeta_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}) - \ensuremath{R}_3((\zeta_j^{\prime})_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})}{2\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}}_{\ensuremath{n}_j}.
\end{equation}
\eqref{eq:taylor_exp_f_2} corresponds to linear measurements of the $(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}})$ sparse vector: $(\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$.
Note that we effectively perform $\ell_1$ minimization over $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\abs{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}$.
Therefore for any $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\dimn}$ we immediately have from Theorem \ref{thm:sparse_recon_bound}, \eqref{eq:sparse_recon_err}, the following.
$\exists C_3, c_6^{\prime}> 0, c_3^{\prime} \geq 1$ such that for
$c_3^{\prime} (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \log(\frac{\abs{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}{\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}}) < \numdirecpp < \frac{\abs{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}{(\log 6)^2}$, we have
with probability at least $1 - e^{-c_6^{\prime}\numdirecpp} - e^{-\sqrt{\numdirecpp\abs{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}}$ that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:grad_est_bd_gen_1}
\norm{(\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}} - (\ensuremath{\nabla} f((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}_2 \leq C_3 \max\set{\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_2, \sqrt{\log \abs{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}} \norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf n = [n_1 \cdots n_{\numdirecpp}]$. We now uniformly bound $\ensuremath{R}_3((\zeta_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})$ for all $j=1,\dots,\numdirecpp$ and $\zeta_j \in [-(1+r),1+r]^{\dimn}$ as follows.
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{R}_3((\zeta_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}) = \frac{{\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^3}{6}\sum_{p \in \univsupp \cap \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}} \partial_p^3 \phi_p(\zeta_{j,p}){\ensuremath{v^{\prime\prime}}_{j,p}}^3 \quad
\Rightarrow \abs{\ensuremath{R}_3((\zeta_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})} \leq \frac{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) {\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^3\ensuremath{B}_3}{6 \numdirecpp^{3/2}}.
\end{align}
This in turn implies that $\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty} \leq \frac{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) {\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2\ensuremath{B}_3}{6 \numdirecpp^{3/2}}$ and
$\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_2 \leq \sqrt{\numdirecpp}\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty} \leq \frac{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) {\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2\ensuremath{B}_3}{6 \numdirecpp}$.
Plugging these bounds in \eqref{eq:grad_est_bd_gen_1}, we obtain for the stated choice of $\numdirecpp$ (cf. Remark \ref{rem:l1min_samp_bd}) that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:grad_est_bd_gen_2}
\norm{(\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}} - (\ensuremath{\nabla} f((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}_2 \leq
\underbrace{\frac{C_3 (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) {\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2\ensuremath{B}_3}{6 \numdirecpp}}_{\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}}} ; \quad \mathbf x \in [-1,1]^{\dimn}.
\end{equation}
Finally, using the same arguments as before, we have that $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}} < \ensuremath{D}_1/2$ or equivalently
${\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2 < \frac{3\numdirecpp \ensuremath{D}_1}{C_3 (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \ensuremath{B}_3}$ is sufficient to recover $\univsupp$. This
completes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois}} \label{subsec:proof_thm_genover_arbnoise}
We prove a more detailed version of Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois}, stated below.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:gen_overlap_arbnois_det}
Assuming notation in Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}, let $\ensuremath{m_{x}}, \ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}, \numdirec, \numdirecp, \numdirecpp$ be as defined in
Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap}. Say $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1 = \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2^{3}}{192\sqrt{3} C_1 C_2^3 \sqrt{a^3 b \numdirecp \numdirec}}$.
Denoting $\theta_1 = \cos^{-1}(-\ensuremath{\varepsilon} / \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1)$, $b^{\prime} = 2C_1\sqrt{\numdirec\numdirecp}$,
we have for
$\ensuremath{\mu} \in (\sqrt{4{a^{\prime}}^2 a/(3b)}\cos(\theta_1/3 - 2\pi/3) , \sqrt{4{a^{\prime}}^2 a/(3b)}\cos(\theta_1/3))$ and
$\ensuremath{\mu_1} \in (a^{\prime} - \sqrt{{a^{\prime}}^2 - \left((b\ensuremath{\mu}^2 + b^{\prime} \ensuremath{\varepsilon})/a\right)}$,
$a^{\prime} + \sqrt{{a^{\prime}}^2 - \left((b\ensuremath{\mu}^2 + b^{\prime} \ensuremath{\varepsilon})/a\right)})$
that $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}} = C_2 \left(a\ensuremath{\mu_1}+ \frac{b \ensuremath{\mu}^2}{\ensuremath{\mu_1}} + \frac{b^{\prime}\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}{\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\mu_1}}\right)$
implies $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$ with high probability. Given $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$,
denote $a_1 = \frac{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \ensuremath{B}_3}{6\numdirecpp}$, $b_1 = \sqrt{\numdirecpp}$
and say $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_2 = \frac{\ensuremath{D}_1^{3/2}}{3\sqrt{6 a_1 C_3^3 b_1^2}}$.
For $\theta_2 = \cos^{-1}(-\ensuremath{\varepsilon} / \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_2)$,
let $\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} \in (2\sqrt{\ensuremath{D}_1/(6 a_1 C_3)} \cos(\theta_2/3 - 2\pi/3), 2\sqrt{\ensuremath{D}_1/(6 a_1 C_3)} \cos(\theta_2/3))$.
Then $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}} = C_3(a_1 {\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2 + \frac{b_1\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}{\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}})$
implies $\est{\univsupp} = \univsupp$ with high probability.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We begin by establishing the conditions pertaining to the estimation of $\bivsupp$. Then
we prove the conditions for estimation of $\univsupp$.
\paragraph{Estimation of $\bivsupp$.} We first note that the linear system \eqref{eq:cs_form}
now has the form: $\mathbf y = \ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x) + \ensuremath{\vecn} + \exnoisevec$ where
$\exnoise_{j} = (\exnoisep_{j,1} - \exnoisep_{j,2})/(2\ensuremath{\mu})$ represents the external noise
component, for $j=1,\dots,\numdirec$. Observe that $\norm{\exnoisevec}_{\infty} \leq \ensuremath{\varepsilon}/\ensuremath{\mu}$.
Using the bounds on $\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty}, \norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{2}$ from Section \ref{subsec:proof_thm_genover},
we then observe that \eqref{eq:grad_est_over_bd} changes to:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:grad_est_over_bd_arbnois}
\norm{\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f(\mathbf x) - \ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)}_2 \leq C_1\left(\frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^2((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{6\numdirec} + \frac{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirec}}{\ensuremath{\mu}}\right),
\quad \forall \mathbf x \in [-(1+r),1+r]^{\dimn}.
\end{equation}
As a result, we then have that
\begin{equation}
\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,2}}}}_{\infty} \leq C_1\left(\frac{\ensuremath{\mu}^2((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{3\numdirec\ensuremath{\mu_1}} + \frac{2\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirec}}{\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\mu_1}}\right).
\end{equation}
Now note that the bound on $\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}}_{\infty}$ is unchanged from Section \ref{subsec:proof_thm_genover} i.e.,
$\norm{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\eta_{q,1}}}}_{\infty} \leq \frac{\ensuremath{\mu_1}(4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\ensuremath{B}_3}{2\numdirecp}$. As a consequence, we see that
\eqref{eq:hessrow_est_bd_gen_1} changes to:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hessrow_est_bd_gen_arbnois}
\norm{\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} \partial_q f(\mathbf x) - \ensuremath{\nabla} \partial_q f(\mathbf x)}_2 \leq \underbrace{C_2\left(\frac{\ensuremath{\mu_1}(4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\ensuremath{B}_3}{2\sqrt{\numdirecp}}
+ C_1\frac{\sqrt{\numdirecp}\ensuremath{\mu}^2((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{3\numdirec\ensuremath{\mu_1}} + \frac{2C_1\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirec\numdirecp}}{\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\mu_1}}\right)}_{\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}}}.
\end{equation}
With $a$ and $b$ as stated in the Theorem, we then see that $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}} < \ensuremath{D}_2/2$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
a\ensuremath{\mu_1}^2 - \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2}{2C_2}\ensuremath{\mu_1} + \left(b\ensuremath{\mu}^2 + \frac{2C_1\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirec\numdirecp}}{\ensuremath{\mu}}\right) < 0.
\end{equation}
which in turn is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mu_1} \in \left(\frac{\ensuremath{D}_2}{4aC_2} - \sqrt{\left(\frac{\ensuremath{D}_2}{4aC_2}\right)^2 -
\left(\frac{b\ensuremath{\mu}^3 + 2C_1\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirec\numdirecp}}{a\ensuremath{\mu}}\right)} ,
\frac{\ensuremath{D}_2}{4aC_2} + \sqrt{\left(\frac{\ensuremath{D}_2}{4aC_2}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{b\ensuremath{\mu}^3 + 2C_1\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirec\numdirecp}}{a\ensuremath{\mu}}\right)}\right).
\end{equation}
For the above bound to be valid, we require
\begin{align}
\frac{b\ensuremath{\mu}^2}{a} + \frac{2C_1\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirec\numdirecp}}{a\ensuremath{\mu}} &< \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2^2}{16a^2C_2^2}, \\
\Leftrightarrow \ensuremath{\mu}^3 - \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2^2}{16abC_2^2}\ensuremath{\mu} + \frac{2C_1\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirec\numdirecp}}{b} &< 0 \label{eq:cub_gradstep}
\end{align}
to hold. \eqref{eq:cub_gradstep} is a cubic inequality. A cubic equation of the form: $y^3 + py + q = 0$, has $3$ distinct real roots
if its discriminant $\frac{p^3}{27} + \frac{q^2}{4} < 0$. Note that for this to be possible, $p$ must be negative, which is the case in \eqref{eq:cub_gradstep}.
Applying this to \eqref{eq:cub_gradstep} leads to the condition:
$\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2^{3}}{192\sqrt{3} C_1 C_2^3 \sqrt{a^3 b \numdirecp \numdirec}} = \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1$.
Furthermore, the $3$ distinct real roots are given by:
\begin{equation}
y_1 = 2\sqrt{-p/3}\cos(\theta/3), \ y_2 = -2\sqrt{-p/3}\cos(\theta/3 + \pi/3), \ y_3 = -2\sqrt{-p/3}\cos(\theta/3 - \pi/3) \label{eq:cub_roots}
\end{equation}
where $\theta = \cos^{-1}\left(\frac{-q/2}{\sqrt{-p^3/27}}\right)$. Applying this to \eqref{eq:cub_gradstep}
then leads to $\theta_1 = \cos^{-1}(-\ensuremath{\varepsilon}/\ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1)$.
For $0 < \ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_1$ we have $\pi/2 < \theta_1 < \pi$ which implies $0 < y_2 < y_1$ and $y_3 < 0$. In particular
if $q > 0$, then one can verify that $y^3 + py + q < 0$ holds if $y \in (y_2,y_1)$.
Applying this to \eqref{eq:cub_gradstep}, we consequently obtain:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mu} \in \left(\sqrt{\frac{\ensuremath{D}_2^2}{12 a b C_2^2}}\cos(\theta_1/3 - 2\pi/3) , \sqrt{\frac{\ensuremath{D}_2^2}{12 a b C_2^2}}\cos(\theta_1/3)\right).
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Estimation of $\univsupp$.} We now prove the conditions for estimation of $\univsupp$.
First note that \eqref{eq:taylor_exp_f_2} now changes to:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:taylor_exp_f_3}
\frac{f((\mathbf x + \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}\mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}) - f((\mathbf x - \ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}\mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})}{2\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}} = \dotprod{(\mathbf v^{\prime\prime}_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}{(\ensuremath{\nabla} f((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}
+ \underbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{R}_3((\zeta_j)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}) - \ensuremath{R}_3((\zeta_j^{\prime})_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})}{2\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}}_{\ensuremath{n}_j} + \underbrace{\frac{\exnoisep_{j,1} - \exnoisep_{j,2}}{2\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}}_{\exnoise_j},
\end{equation}
for $j=1,\dots,\numdirecpp$. Denoting $\exnoisevec = [\exnoise_1 \cdots \exnoise_{\numdirecpp}]$, we have $\norm{\exnoisevec}_{\infty} \leq \ensuremath{\varepsilon}/\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}$.
As the bounds on $\norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{2}, \norm{\ensuremath{\vecn}}_{\infty}$ are unchanged, therefore \eqref{eq:grad_est_bd_gen_3} now changes to:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:grad_est_bd_gen_3}
\norm{(\est{\ensuremath{\nabla}} f((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}} - (\ensuremath{\nabla} f((\mathbf x)_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}))_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}_2 \leq
\underbrace{C_3 \left(\frac{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) {\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2\ensuremath{B}_3}{6 \numdirecpp} + \frac{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\numdirecpp}}{\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}\right)}_{\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}}} ; \quad \mathbf x \in [-1,1]^{\dimn}.
\end{equation}
Denoting $a_1 = \frac{(\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \ensuremath{B}_3}{6\numdirecpp}$, $b_1 = \sqrt{\numdirecpp}$, we then see from
\eqref{eq:grad_est_bd_gen_3} that the condition $\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}} < \ensuremath{D}_1/2$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:s1_noise_cub}
{\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^3 - \frac{\ensuremath{D}_1}{2 a_1 C_3}\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} + \frac{b_1 \ensuremath{\varepsilon}}{a_1} < 0.
\end{equation}
As discussed earlier for estimation of $\bivsupp$, the cubic equation corresponding to \eqref{eq:s1_noise_cub} has
$3$ distinct real roots if its discriminant is negative. This then
leads to the condition $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} < \frac{\ensuremath{D}_1^{3/2}}{3\sqrt{6 a_1 C_3^3 b_1^2}} = \ensuremath{\varepsilon}_2$.
Then by using the expressions for the roots of the cubic from \eqref{eq:cub_roots}, one can verify
that \eqref{eq:s1_noise_cub} holds if
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}} \in (2\sqrt{\ensuremath{D}_1/(6 a_1 C_3)} \cos(\theta_2/3 - 2\pi/3), 2\sqrt{\ensuremath{D}_1/(6 a_1 C_3)} \cos(\theta_2/3))
\end{equation}
with $\theta_2 = \cos^{-1}(-\ensuremath{\varepsilon}/\ensuremath{\varepsilon}_2)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:gen_overlap_gaussnois}} \label{subsec:proof_thm_genover_gauss}
We first derive conditions for estimating $\bivsupp$, and then for $\univsupp$.
\paragraph{Estimating $\bivsupp$.} Upon resampling $N_1$ times and averaging, we have for the
noise vector $\mathbf z \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{\numdirec}$ where
\begin{equation}
\mathbf z = \left[\frac{(\exnoisep_{1,1} - \exnoisep_{1,2})}{2\ensuremath{\mu}} \cdots \frac{(\exnoisep_{\numdirec,1} - \exnoisep_{\numdirec,2})}{2\ensuremath{\mu}} \right],
\end{equation}
that $\exnoisep_{j,1}, \exnoisep_{j,2} \sim \ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}(0,\sigma^2/N_1)$ are i.i.d. Note that it is in fact sufficient to guarantee that
$\abs{\exnoisep_{j,1} - \exnoisep_{j,2}} < 2\ensuremath{\varepsilon}$ holds $\forall j=1,\dots,\numdirec$, and across all points where
$\ensuremath{\nabla} f$ is estimated. Indeed, we can then simply use the proof in Section \ref{subsec:proof_thm_genover_arbnoise},
for the setting of arbitrary bounded noise.
To this end, note that $\exnoisep_{j,1}-\exnoisep_{j,2} \sim \ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}(0,\frac{2\sigma^2}{N_1})$.
It can be shown for $X \sim \ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}(0,1)$ that:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}(\abs{X} > t) \leq \frac{2 e^{-t^2/2}}{t}, \quad \forall t > 0.
\end{equation}
Since $\exnoisep_{j,1}-\exnoisep_{j,2} = \sigma\sqrt{\frac{2}{N_1}} X$ therefore for any $\ensuremath{\varepsilon} > 0$ we have that:
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}(\abs{\exnoisep_{j,1} - \exnoisep_{j,2}} > 2\ensuremath{\varepsilon}) &= \ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}\left(\abs{X} > \frac{2\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}{\sigma}\sqrt{\frac{N_1}{2}}\right) \\
&\leq \frac{\sigma}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{N_1}} \exp\left(-\frac{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}^2 N_1}{\sigma^2}\right) \\
&\leq \frac{\sqrt{2}\sigma}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}} \exp\left(-\frac{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}^2 N_1}{\sigma^2}\right).
\end{align}
Now to estimate $\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)$ we have $\numdirec$ many ``difference'' terms: $\exnoisep_{j,1} - \exnoisep_{j,2}$. We additionally estimate
$\numdirecp$ many gradients at each $\mathbf x$ implying a total of $\numdirec(\numdirecp + 1)$ difference terms. As this is done for each
$\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\chi}$, therefore we have a total of $\numdirec(\numdirecp + 1)(2\ensuremath{m_{x}}+1)^2\abs{\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}}$ many difference terms.
Taking a union bound over all of them, we have for any $p_1 \in (0,1), \ensuremath{\varepsilon} > 0$
that the choice $N_1 > \frac{\sigma^2}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}^2} \log (\frac{\sqrt{2} \sigma}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon} p_1}\numdirec(\numdirecp+1)(2\ensuremath{m_{x}}+1)^2\abs{\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}})$
implies that the magnitudes of all difference terms are bounded by $2\ensuremath{\varepsilon}$, with probability at least
$1-p_1$. Thereafter, we can simply follow the proof in Section \ref{subsec:proof_thm_genover_arbnoise},
for estimating $\bivsupp$ in the presence of arbitrary bounded noise.
\paragraph{Estimating $\univsupp$.} In this case, we resample each query $N_2$ times and average -- therefore the variance of the noise
terms gets scaled by $N_2$. We now have $\abs{\ensuremath{\chi}_{\text{diag}}} \numdirecpp = (2\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}+1) \numdirecpp$ many ``difference'' terms corresponding to Gaussian noise. Therefore, taking a union bound over all of them, we have for any $p_2 \in (0,1), \ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}} > 0$
that the choice $N_2 > \frac{\sigma^2}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}}}^2} \log(\frac{\sqrt{2} \sigma (2\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}}+1)\numdirecpp}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}} p_2})$
implies that the magnitudes of all difference terms are bounded by $2\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}}$, with probability at least
$1-p_2$. Thereafter, we can simply follow the proof in Section \ref{subsec:proof_thm_genover_arbnoise},
for estimating $\univsupp$ in the presence of arbitrary bounded noise. The only change there would be to replace $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}$ by $\ensuremath{\varepsilon^{\prime}}$.
\section{Related work}
\paragraph{Learning SPAMs.} We begin with an overview of results for learning SPAMs, in the regression setting.
\cite{Lin2006} proposed the COSSO algorithm, that extends the Lasso to the reproducing kernel Hilbert space
(RKHS) setting. \cite{Yuan07anova} generalizes the non negative garrote to the nonparametric setting.
\cite{Koltch08, Ravi2009, Meier2009} consider least squares methods, regularized by sparsity inducing penalty terms, for learning such models.
\cite{Raskutti2012,Koltch2010} propose a convex program for estimating $f$ (in the RKHS setting) that achieves the minimax optimal
error rates. \cite{Huang2010} proposes a method based on the adaptive group Lasso.
These methods are designed for learning SPAMs and cannot handle models of the form \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form}.
\paragraph{Learning generalized SPAMs.} There exist fewer results for generalized SPAMs of the form \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form},
in the regression setting. The COSSO algorithm \cite{Lin2006} can handle \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form},
however its convergence rates are shown only for the
case of no interactions. \cite{Rad2010} proposes the VANISH
algorithm -- a least squares method with sparsity constraints.
It is shown to be sparsistent, \textit{i.e.}, it asymptotically recovers $\univsupp,\bivsupp$ for $n \rightarrow \infty$.
They also show a consistency result for estimating $f$, similar to \cite{Ravi2009}.
\cite{Storlie2011} proposes the ACOSSO method, an adaptive version of the COSSO algorithm,
which can also handle \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form}.
They derive convergence rates and sparsistency results for their method, albeit for the case of no interactions.
\cite{Dala2014} studies a generalization of \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form} that allows for the presence of
a sparse number of $m$-wise interaction terms for some additional sparsity parameter $m$.
While they derive\footnote{In the Gaussian white noise model, which is known to be asymptically equivalent to the regression model as $n \rightarrow \infty$.}
non-asymptotic $L_2$ error rates for estimating $f$, they do not guarantee unique identification of
the interaction terms for any value of $m$.
A special case of \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form} -- where $\phi_p$'s are linear and each $\phi_{\lpair}$ is of the form $x_l x_{\ensuremath{l^{\prime}}}$ --
has been studied considerably. Within this setting, there exist algorithms that recover $\univsupp,\bivsupp$, along with
convergence rates for estimating $f$, but only in the limit of large $n$ \cite{Choi2010,Rad2010,Bien2013}.
\cite{Nazer2010} generalized this to the setting of sparse multilinear systems -- albeit in the noiseless setting --
and derived non-asymptotic sampling bounds for identifying the interaction terms.
However finite sample bounds for the non-linear model \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form} are not known in general.
\paragraph{Learning generic low-dimensional function models.} There exists related work in approximation theory --
which is also the setting considered in this paper -- wherein one assumes
freedom to query $f$ at any desired set of points within its domain.
\cite{Devore2011} considers functions depending on an unknown subset $\totsupp$ ($\abs{\totsupp} = \totsparsity$)
of the variables -- a more general model than \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form}.
They provide a choice of query points of size $O(c^k \totsparsity \log d)$ for some constant $c > 1$,
and algorithms that recover $\totsupp$ w.h.p. \cite{karin2011}
derives a simpler algorithm with sample complexity
$O((C_1^{4}/\alpha^4) \totsparsity (\log \dimn)^2)$ for recovering $\totsupp$ w.h.p.,
where $C_1,\alpha$ depend\footnote{$C_1 = \max_{i \in \totsupp} \norm{\partial_i f}_{\infty}$ and
$\alpha = \min_{i \in \totsupp} \norm{\partial_i f}_1$} on smoothness of $f$. For general $\totsparsity$-variate $f$:
$\alpha = c^{-\totsparsity}$ for some constant $c > 1$, while for our model \eqref{eq:intro_gspam_form}: $C_1 = O(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}})$.
This model was also studied in \cite{Comming2011,Comming2012} in the regression setting -- they proposed an estimator that
recovers $\totsupp$ w.h.p, with sample complexity $O(c^{\totsparsity} \totsparsity \log d)$.
\cite{Fornasier2010,Tyagi2012_nips} generalize this model to functions $f$ of the form
$f(\mathbf x) = g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}\mathbf x)$, for unknown $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{k \times d}$. They derive algorithms that approximately
recover the row-span of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ w.h.p, with sample complexities typically polynomial in $\dimn$.
While the above methods could possibly recover $\totsupp$, they are not designed for identifying \emph{interactions} among the variables.
Specifically, their sample complexities exhibit a worse dependence on $\totsparsity, \ensuremath{\rho_{m}}$ and/or $d$.
\cite{Tyagi14_nips} provides a sampling scheme that specifically learns SPAMs, with sample complexities
$O(\totsparsity \log d)$, $O(\totsparsity^3 (\log \dimn)^2)$, in the absence/presence of Gaussian noise, respectively.
\section{Theoretical guarantees for noiseless case} \label{sec:noiseless_query_res}
Next, we provide sufficient conditions on our sampling parameters that guarantee exact recovery
of $\univsupp, \bivsupp$, in the noiseless query setting.
This is stated in the following Theorem. All proofs are deferred to the appendix.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:gen_overlap}
$\exists$ positive constants $\{c_i^{\prime}\}_{i=1}^{3}, \{C_i\}_{i=1}^{3}$ so that if: $\ensuremath{m_{x}} \geq \ensuremath{\lambda}_2^{-1},$
$\numdirec > c_1^{\prime} \totsparsity \log\left(\dimn/\totsparsity\right),$ and
$\numdirecp > c_2^{\prime} \ensuremath{\rho_{m}} \log(\dimn/\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}),$ then the following holds.
Denoting $a = \frac{(4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\ensuremath{B}_3}{2\sqrt{\numdirecp}}$,
$b = \frac{C_1\sqrt{\numdirecp}((4\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}+1)\totsparsity)\ensuremath{B}_3}{3\numdirec}$,
$a^{\prime} = \frac{\ensuremath{D}_2}{4aC_2}$, let $\ensuremath{\mu}, \ensuremath{\mu_1}$ satisfy:
$\ensuremath{\mu}^2 < ({a^{\prime}}^2 a)/b$ and $$\quad \ensuremath{\mu_1} \in (a^{\prime} - \sqrt{{a^{\prime}}^2 - (b\ensuremath{\mu}^2/a)},
a^{\prime} + \sqrt{{a^{\prime}}^2 - (b\ensuremath{\mu}^2/a)}).$$
We then have for
$\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime}} = C_2 (a\ensuremath{\mu_1} + \frac{b\ensuremath{\mu}^2}{\ensuremath{\mu_1}})$,
that $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$ w.h.p.
Provided $\est{\bivsupp} = \bivsupp$, if $\ensuremath{m^{\prime}_{x}} \geq \ensuremath{\lambda}_1^{-1},$
$\numdirecpp > c_3^{\prime} (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \log(\frac{\abs{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}}{\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}})$ and
${\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2 < \frac{3\numdirecpp \ensuremath{D}_1}{C_3 (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \ensuremath{B}_3},$ then
$\ensuremath{\tau^{\prime\prime}} = \frac{C_3 (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) {\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}}^2 \ensuremath{B}_3}{6\numdirecpp}$, implies
$\est{\univsupp} = \univsupp$ w.h.p.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We note that the condition on $\ensuremath{\mu^{\prime}}$ is less strict than in \cite{Tyagi14_nips} for identifying
$\univsupp$. This is because in \cite{Tyagi14_nips}, the gradient is estimated via a forward difference procedure,
while we perform a central difference procedure in \eqref{eq:taylor_exp_f}.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Query complexity.} Estimating $\ensuremath{\nabla} f(\mathbf x)$ at some fixed $\mathbf x$ requires
$2\numdirec = O(\totsparsity\log \dimn)$ queries. Estimating $\ensuremath{\nabla^2} f(\mathbf x)$ involves computing an
additional $\numdirecp = O(\ensuremath{\rho_{m}} \log \dimn)$ gradient vectors in a neighborhood of
$\mathbf x$ -- implying $O(\numdirec\numdirecp) = O(\totsparsity\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}(\log \dimn)^2)$ point queries.
This consequently implies a total query complexity of
$O(\totsparsity\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}(\log \dimn)^2 \abs{\ensuremath{\chi}}) = O(\ensuremath{\lambda}_2^{-2}\totsparsity\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}(\log \dimn)^3)$,
for estimating $\bivsupp$.
We make an additional $O(\ensuremath{\lambda}_1^{-1} (\totsparsity-\abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}) \log (\dimn - \abs{\est{\bivsuppvar}}))$ queries of $f$,
in order to estimate $\univsupp$. Therefore, the overall query complexity for estimating
$\univsupp,\bivsupp$ is $O(\ensuremath{\lambda}_2^{-2}\totsparsity\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}(\log \dimn)^3)$.
$\ensuremath{\calH_{2}^{d}}$ can be constructed in $\text{poly}(d)$ time. For each $\mathbf x \in \ensuremath{\chi}$, we first solve $\numdirecp + 1$
linear programs (Steps \ref{algover:s2_grad_base}, \ref{algover:s2_grad_1}), each solvable in $\text{poly}(\numdirec, d)$ time.
We then solve $d$ linear programs (Step \ref{algover:s2_grad_hess_row}), with each taking $\text{poly}(\numdirecp, d)$ time.
This is done at $\abs{\ensuremath{\chi}} = O(\ensuremath{\lambda}_2^{-2} \log d)$ points, hence the
overall \emph{computation cost} for estimation of $\bivsupp$ (and later $\univsupp$) is polynomial in: the number of queries, and $d$.
Lastly, we note that \cite{Bandeira12} also estimates sparse Hessians via CS, albeit for the function optimization problem.
Their scheme entails a sample complexity\footnote{See \cite[Corollary $4.1$]{Bandeira12}} of
$O(\totsparsity\ensuremath{\rho_{m}} (\log(\totsparsity\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}))^2 (\log d)^2)$ for estimating $\ensuremath{\nabla^2} f(\mathbf x)$;
this is worse by a $O((\log(\totsparsity\ensuremath{\rho_{m}}))^2)$ term compared to our method.
\paragraph{Recovering the components of the model.} Having estimated $\univsupp, \bivsupp$,
we can now estimate each underlying component in \eqref{eq:unique_mod_rep} by sampling $f$ along the
\emph{subspace} corresponding to the component. Using these samples, one can then construct via standard techniques,
a spline based quasi interpolant \cite{deBoor78} that \emph{uniformly} approximates
the component. This is shown formally in the appendix.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Problem of Stabilization and Main Result}
Consider the Cauchy problem of the damped wave equation on a compact Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ without boundary.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}
\begin{cases}
(\partial_{t}^{2}-\Delta+a\partial_{t}) u=0 & \mathrm{in\ }\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{R}\times M),\\
(u,\partial_{t} u)_{t=0}=(u_{0},u_{1}) & \in H^{1}(M)\times L^{2}(M).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Here $\Delta=\Delta{g}$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the metric~$g$. The function~$a\in L^{\infty}(M)$ is non-negative, and $a\partial_{t} u$ is called the damping term, as it causes decay in energy (defined below). There is a unique solution $ u \in C^{1}(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(M))\cap C(\mathbb{R},H^{1}(M))$ to~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation} by the theorem of Hille-Yosida. The energy defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def-energy}
E(u,T)=\frac{1}{2}\|{\nabla u(T)}\|_{L^{2}(M)}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\|{\partial_{t} u(T)}\|_{L^{2}(M)}^{2}
\end{equation}
decays monotonically as $T$ increases, due to the non-negativity of $a$
and the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:energy-identity}
E(u,T)=E(u,0)-\int_{0}^{T}\int_{M}a(x)|\partial_{t} u(t,x)|^{2}\,\d x\,\d t.
\end{equation}
A natural question to ask is whether, as a consequence of the damping effect,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{T\to+\infty} E(u,T) = 0
\end{equation*}
for every solution~$ u $ to~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}. If this is true, we say that~$ a $ \textit{weakly stabilizes}~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}. When such a stabilization is uniform for all solutions, or more precisely, if for some function $f:\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}\to\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ with $\lim_{T\to+\infty} f(T)=0$ and every solution~$u$ to~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}, we have for all $ T \ge 0 $,
\begin{equation*}
E(u,T)\le E(u,0)\times f(T),
\end{equation*}
then we say that~$ a $ \textit{strongly stabilizes}~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}. It is well known that whenever the strong stabilization holds, the function~$ f $ could be chosen of the form
\begin{equation*}
f(T) = C e^{-\beta T}, \quad C > 0,\ \beta > 0,
\end{equation*}
so that we have in fact a uniform exponential decay of energy (see for example~\cite{B-G} for an elementary proof).
When $a\in C(M)$, Rauch-Taylor gave in~\cite{R-T} a sufficient condition (a \emph{geometric control condition}, to be stated as condition (2) in the following Theorem~\ref{thm:GCC-and-Energy-Decay-of-DW}) for strong stabilization, followed by Bardos-Lebeau-Rauch~\cite{B-L-R}, who showed that this is in fact an equivalent condition (even for the similar problem of stabilization on manifolds with boundaries, which will not be elaborated here).
\begin{thm}[Bardos-Lebeau-Rauch]
\label{thm:GCC-and-Energy-Decay-of-DW}
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold without boundary, and $0\le a\in C(M)$, then the following two statements are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ a $ strongly stabilizes~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation};
\item All geodesics of $M$ enter the open set $\{a>0\}$. That is, for $ x \in M $, let $\gamma$ be a geodesic starting from $x$ (i.e.~$\gamma(0)=x$), then for some $ t \ge 0 $, $\gamma(t)\in\{a>0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:GCC-and-Energy-Decay-of-DW} in~\cite{B-L-R} used the propagation theorem developed by Melrose-Sj\"{o}strand~\cite{Melrose-Sjostrand}. Lebeau~\cite{Lebeau} managed to use microlocal defect measures (which is due to Gérard~\cite{Gerard-MDM} and Tartar~\cite{Tartar-H-Measures}, see also \cite{Burq-Bourbaki}) and an argument by contradiction to give a new and much simpler proof. However, when $a\in L^{\infty}(M)$, it remains an open problem to give an equivalent condition for strong stabilization, even though the following necessary condition and sufficient condition are known to be classical, which follow by analyzing the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:GCC-and-Energy-Decay-of-DW}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Necessary-Sufficient-Condition-for-Stability}
Let $ (M,g) $ be a compact Riemannian manifold without boundary, and let $0 \le a\in L^{\infty}(M)$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $ a $ strongly stabilizes~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}, then all geodesics of~$M$ intersect with~$\mathrm{supp}\, a$;
\item if all geodesics of $M$ enter the open set
$ U(a)=\bigcup_{\epsilon>0}\mathrm{Int}\{x:a(x)>\epsilon\}, $
then $ a $ strongly stabilizes~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
When $ a \in C(M) $, condition~(2) is also necessary because in this case $ U(a) = \{a>0\} $, and we conclude by Theorem~\ref{thm:GCC-and-Energy-Decay-of-DW}. However, for general $ a \in L^\infty(M) $, these two conditions are not sharp. Typical examples are as follows. Let $M=\S^{2}=\{x^2+y^2+z^2 = 1\}$, define the equator $ \Gamma = \S^2 \cap \{z=0\} $ and the hemispheres $ \S^2_\pm = \S^2 \cap \{\pm z > 0\} $. Let $0\le a\in C(\S^2)$ be zero exactly on the equator, while~$a>0$ elsewhere. Theorem~\ref{thm:GCC-and-Energy-Decay-of-DW} says that~$ a $ does not strongly stabilize~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}, for the equator~$ \Gamma $, as a geodesic, does not enter $ \{a>0\} = \S^2_+ \cup \S^2_- $, even though all geodesics enter $ \mathrm{supp}\, a = \S^2 $. On the other hand, let $a=1_{\S_{+}^{2}}$ be the indicator function of the upper hemisphere, then the equator does not enter $U(a)=\mathrm{Int}\, \S_{+}^{2}$.
However, the following unpublished result due to Gilles Lebeau shows that~$ a $ indeed strongly stabilizes~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}.
\begin{thm}[Lebeau, unpublished]\label{thm:Lebeau}
For $ d \ge 1 $, let $ \S^d = \{x = (x_1,\ldots,x_{d+1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{d+1} : x_1^2 + \cdots x_{d+1}^2= 1 \} $ be the $ d $-dimensional unit sphere, which inherits the Riemannian metric from~$ \mathbb{R}^{d+1} $. Let $ \S^d_+ = \S^d \cap \{x_{d+1} > 0\} $ denote the upper hemisphere, then $a(x)=1_{\S^d_{+}}(x)$ strongly stabilizes~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}.
\end{thm}
We will first give a simple proof of this theorem (see Section~\ref{sec:Stabilization-S^d-Lebeau}) using the spectral distribution of the spherical Laplacian, and the symmetries of spherical harmonics. Then we extend this result, on dimension 2, to Zoll surfaces of revolution.
\begin{defn}
A Zoll manifold is a Riemannian manifold whose geodesic flow is periodic. A Zoll surface of revolution is a 2 dimensional Zoll manifold, on which the group $\S^1$ acts smoothly, faithfully, and isometrically.
\end{defn}
We refer to Besse~\cite{Besse} for an introduction of Zoll manifold. Some fundamental geometric properties and examples are stated below. In particular $\S^{d}$ ($ d \ge 1 $) are Zoll manifolds, and~$ \S^2 $ is a Zoll surface of revolution. The geometry of a Zoll surface of revolution resembles much that of $ \S^2 $, which makes it natural for the generalization of Theorem~\ref{thm:Lebeau}. (However, on general Zoll manifolds, such resemblance is not yet clear to the author.) Indeed, we will use the following two aspects of resemblance for our generalization.
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item Local Geometry: On Zoll surfaces of revolution, the geometric objects such as the equator, and the upper and lower hemi-surfaces are well defined. Moreover, the local geometry near the equator is similar to that near a great circle of~$ \S^2 $.
On a general Zoll manifold, such resemblance is not clear to the knowledge of the author. That is why we will restrict ourselves to Zoll surfaces of revolution.
\item Global geometry: Spectral distribution of the Laplacian-Beltrami operator. See Proposition~\ref{prop:spectral-zoll}. This works for Zoll manifolds of arbitrary dimension, and states that the Laplacian spectrum on Zoll manifolds of dimension~$ d $ is similar to that of the spherical Laplacian on~$ \S^d $.
\end{itemize}
It is worth comparing to the work of Burq-Gérard~\cite{B-G-Stabilization-Wave-Tori} of a similar stabilization problem on tori, where only the local geometry is consulted.
\begin{prop}[Duistermaat-Guillemin~\cite{D-G-Zoll}]
\label{prop:spectral-zoll}
Let $ \Delta $ be the Laplacian-Beltrami operator on a Zoll manifold of dimension~$ d $, then
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{Spec}(-\Delta)\subset \bigsqcup_{n\ge 0} I_{n},
\end{equation*}
where~$ \{I_n\}_{n\ge 0} $ is a family of mutually disjointed intervals, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:interval-spectrum-zoll}
I_{n} \subset {}\big](n+\beta/4)^{2}-A,(n+\beta/4)^{2}+A\big[{}
\end{equation}
for some $ \beta > 0 $, $ A > 0 $.
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
\label{remark:spectral-zoll-dim-2}
When~$ d=2 $, we have~$ \beta = 2 $. See Proposition~4.35 of~\cite{Besse}.
\end{rem}
\begin{ex}
In particular, let $\Delta_d$ denote the spherical Laplacian on $ \S^d $, then (see Lemma~\ref{LEM::Spherical-Harmonics})
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{Spec}(-\Delta_{d})=\big\{(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2})^{2}-\tfrac{(d-1)^{2}}{4}:n\in\mathbb{N}\big\}.
\end{equation*}
We simple let $\beta/4=(d-1)/2$, and let $A$ be strictly larger than $(d-1)^{2}/4$.
\end{ex}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\label{fig:zoll-surface-of-revolution}
\caption{Zoll surface of revolution}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [<-,dashed] (0,5) -- (0,4.5) node [above left] {$ N $} -- (0,0.5) node [below right] {$ S $} -- (0,0);
\draw [fill] (0,4.5) circle [radius=1.5pt] (0,0.5) circle [radius=1.5pt] (2,1.5) circle [radius=1.5pt] (1,3.72) circle [radius=1.5pt];
\draw plot [smooth cycle, tension = 0.7] coordinates {(0,4.5) (2,1.5) (0,0.5) (-2,1.5)};
\draw [<->,dashed] (2,1.5) node [right] {$ (\ell_0,\varphi) $} -- (0,1.5);
\draw (-2,1.5) arc (180:360:2 and 0.4);
\draw [dashed] (2,1.5) arc (0:180:2 and 0.4);
\draw (1,1.75) node [above] {$ r(\ell_0) = 1 $} (1,3.72) node [above right] {$ (\ell,\varphi) $} (-1,1.2) node [below] {$ \Gamma $};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
Let~$ \Sigma $ denote a Zoll surface of revolution, we state some local geometries of~$ \Sigma $. More details could be found in~\cite{Besse}. For an intuitive understanding, see Figure~\ref{fig:zoll-surface-of-revolution}. It is known that~$ \Sigma $ is automatically diffeomorphic to~$\S^{2}$, and there exists exactly two distinct points, respectively called the north pole and the south pole, denoted by~$N$ and~$S$, which are invariant under the actions of~$\S^{1}$. We then parametrize the surfaces by coordinates
\begin{equation*}
(\ell,\varphi) \in [0,\mathrm{dist}(N,S)] \times \S^1,
\end{equation*}
where $\ell$ is the arc-length parameter of one (and consequently every) geodesic from~$N$ to~$S$, and~$\varphi$ is the rotational angle corresponding to the actions of~$\S^{1}$, so that the Riemannian metric on~$ \Sigma $ is of the form
\begin{equation*}
g=\d \ell^{2}+r(\ell)^{2}\d\varphi^{2},
\end{equation*}
where~$r(\ell)$ is the distance from the point~$(\ell,\varphi)$ to the axis of rotation. By Lemma~4.9 of~\cite{Besse}, there exists a unique~$\ell_{0}$ such that~$r(\ell)$ attains its maximum at~$\ell=\ell_{0}$. There is no loss of generality by assuming that $ r(\ell_0) = 1 $. Moreover we have $r'(\ell_{0})=0$, $r''(\ell_{0})<0$.
The curve $\Gamma=\{(\ell_0,\varphi) : \varphi \in \S^1\}$ defines a closed geodesic of period~$ 2\pi $ (because $ r(\ell_0) = 1 $) called the \textit{equator}, while the regions $\Sigma^{+}=\{(\ell,\varphi) : \ell>\ell_{0}\}$ and $\Sigma^{-}=\{(\ell,\varphi) : \ell<\ell_{0}\}$ are called the \textit{upper and lower hemi-surfaces} respectively. Similarly to~$ \S^2 $, all geodesics on~$ \Sigma $ enter~$ \Sigma^+ $ except for the equator~$ \Gamma $.
\begin{rem}
\label{remark:local-geometry-equator}
If we denote $ c = - r''(\ell_0) / 2 > 0 $, then
\begin{equation*}
r(\ell) = 1 - c (\ell -\ell_0)^2 + O((\ell -\ell_0)^3).
\end{equation*}
This local geometry will be essential in performing a microlocal analysis near~$ \Gamma $ that proves our main theorem (Theorem~\ref{thm:Stability-Zoll-non-GCC}). In particular, if $ \Sigma = \S^2 $, then we take $ r(\ell) = \cos \ell $, such that $ (\ell,\varphi) \in [-\pi/2,\pi/2] \times \S^1 $ parametrizes~$ \S^2 $. In this case $ \ell_0 = 0 $, and
\begin{equation*}
r(\ell) = \cos \ell = 1 - \frac{1}{2} \ell^2 + O(\ell^3).
\end{equation*}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\label{remark:criteria-zoll}
Using the change of variable $r(\ell)=\sin\theta$, to describe a Zoll surface of revolution, it is equivalent to give a Riemannian metric to~$ \S^2 $. By an abuse of notation, we still use~$ g $ to denote the metric on $ \S^d $ obtained by this isometry. If we parametrize~$ \S^2 $ by~$(\theta,\varphi)$, where~$\theta$ is the latitude while~$\varphi$ is the longitude of~$\S^{2}$, then by Corollary~4.16 of~\cite{Besse}, $(\S^{2},g)$ is a Zoll surface of revolution if and only if
\begin{equation*}
g=(1+h(\cos\theta))^{2}\d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta\d\varphi^{2},
\end{equation*}
for some smooth odd function $h$ from $[-1,1]$ to $(-1,1)$ with $h(1)=h(-1)=0$.
\end{rem}
Now we state the main result of this paper.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Stability-Zoll-non-GCC}
Let $\Sigma$ be a Zoll surface of revolution, then $a=1_{\Sigma^{+}}$ strongly stabilizes~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
As a direct consequence of our proof, in order for~$ a $ to strongly stabilize~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}, it suffices for~$ a $ to be bounded from below by a positive constant in a half-neighborhood of the equator. To be precise, this means that there exists some $ \varepsilon > 0 $, $ \delta > 0 $, such that
\begin{equation*}
a(\ell,\varphi) \ge \delta \cdot 1_{\ell_0 < \ell < \ell_0+\varepsilon}(\ell,\varphi).
\end{equation*}
However, we will only prove the case when $ a=1_{\Sigma^{+}} $ for simplicity.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Stabilization of Damped Waves on $\S^{d}$}
\label{sec:Stabilization-S^d-Lebeau}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:Lebeau}. First we recall the following classical result, due to J.-L.~Lions~\cite{Lions}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Stability=Observability}
Let $ (M,g) $ be a compact Riemannian manifold without boundary, and let $ 0 \le a \in L^\infty(M) $, then the following two statements are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ a $ strongly stabilizes~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}.
\item For some $T>0$, $C>0$, and for every solution~$ u $ to the Cauchy problem of the undamped wave equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:undamped-wave-eq}
\begin{cases}
(\partial_{t}^{2}-\Delta)u=0, & \mathrm{in\ }\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{R}\times M);\\
(u,\partial_{t} u)_{t=0}=(u_{0},u_{1}), & \in H^{1}(M)\times L^{2}(M),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
the following observability inequality holds,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ineq-observability}
E(u,0)\le C\int_{0}^{T}\int_{M}a|\partial_{t} u|^{2}\d x\,\d t.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
Therefore it remains to establish this observability inequality. Coming back to~$ \S^d $, we recall some basic properties of the spherical Laplacian and spherical harmonics (see for example Chapter~IV, Section~2 of~\cite{S-W}).
\begin{lem}
\label{LEM::Spherical-Harmonics} Let $\Delta_{d}$ denote the
spherical Laplacian on $\S^{d}$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathrm{Spec}(-\Delta_{d})=\big\{\lambda_{n}^{2}=n(n+d-1)=(n+\frac{d-1}{2})^{2}-\frac{(d-1)^{2}}{4}:n\in\mathbb{N}\big\}$.
\item The eigenspace~$E_{n}$ to~$ -\Delta_d $ of eigenvalue~$ \lambda^2_n $ consists of spherical harmonics of degree $n$, which are restrictions to $\S^{d}$ of harmonic polynomials of $d+1$ variables, homogeneous of degree $n$. In particular, if $u\in E_{n}$, then $u(-x)=(-1)^{n}u(x)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
As a consequence, each $ u \in H^s(\S^d) $ with $ s \in \mathbb{R} $ admits a unique decomposition in distributional sense of the following form,
\begin{equation*}
u = \sum_{n \ge 0} u_n, \quad \mathrm{with\ } u_n \in E_n.
\end{equation*}
This allows us to specify the~$ H^s(\S^d) $ norm in terms of this decomposition by setting
\begin{equation*}
\|u\|_{H^s}^2 = \|(1 + \Delta)^{s/2} u\|_{L^2}^2 = \sum_{n \ge 0} \langle \lambda_n \rangle^{2s} \|u_n\|_{L^2}^2, \quad \mathrm{with\ } \langle \lambda_n \rangle = \sqrt{1 + \lambda_n^2}.
\end{equation*}
We then introduce a new differential operator as a perturbation of~$ -\Delta_d $,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def-L-S^d}
\L=-\Delta_{d}+\tfrac{(d-1)^{2}}{4}.
\end{equation}
The advantage of~$ \L $ to~$ -\Delta_d $ is that the spectrum of~$ \L $ consists of \textit{exact} squares of arithmetic sequence, $ \mathrm{Spec}(\L) = \{(n+\frac{d-1}{2})^{2} : n\in\mathbb{N}\} $, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Spectral-Perturbated-Spherical-Laplacian}
\mathrm{Spec}(\sqrt{\L})=\big\{n+\tfrac{d-1}{2}:n\in\mathbb{N}\big\}.
\end{equation}
Solving the following Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation-L-S^d}
\begin{cases}
(\partial_{t}^{2}+\L)u=0, & \mathrm{in\ }\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{R}\times\S^{d});\\
(u,\partial_{t} u)_{t=0}=\left(u_{0},u_{1}\right), & \in H^{1}(\S^{d})\times L^2(\S^{d}),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
by using Fourier series,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solution-L-Fourier}
\begin{split}
u(t) & = \cos(t\sqrt{\L}) u_0 + \sqrt{\L}^{-1} \sin(t\sqrt{\L}) u_1 \\
& = \begin{cases}
\sum_{n\ge 0}\big(e^{it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}u_{n}^{+}+e^{-it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}u_{n}^{-}\big), & d\ge 2, \\
u_{0}^{0}+u_{0}^{1}t+\sum_{n\ge 1}\big(e^{itn}u_{n}^{+}+e^{-itn}u_{n}^{-}\big), & d=1,
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we write $u_{0}=\sum_{n\ge 0}u_{n}^{0},\ u_{1}=\sum_{n\ge 0}u_{n}^{1}$, with $u^{i}_{n}\in E_{n}$, and by an explicit calculation, we have for $n\ge 0$ when $d\ge 2$ and $n\ge 1$ when $d=1$,
\begin{equation*}
u_{n}^{+}+u_{n}^{-}=u_{n}^{0},\quad i(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2})(u_{n}^{+}-u_{n}^{-})=u_{n}^{1}.
\end{equation*}
If we assume $ (u_0,u_1) \in H^s \times H^{s-1} $ for some $ s \in \mathbb{R} $, then this expression gives an a priori bound for $ \|u\|_{L^\infty_\mathrm{loc} H^s} $. Indeed, for $ d \ge 2 $ ($ d = 1 $ is similar), by the characterization of the~$ H^s $ norm, and the triangular inequality,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:estimate-a-priori-wave}
\begin{split}
\|u(t)\|_{H^s}^2
& = \sum_{n \ge 0} \langle \lambda_n \rangle^{2s} \|e^{it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}u_{n}^{+}+e^{-it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}u_{n}^{-}\|_{L^2}^2 \\
& = \sum_{n \ge 0} \langle \lambda_n \rangle^{2s} \|\cos\big(t(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2})\big) u^0_n + (n+\tfrac{d-1}{2})^{-1} \sin\big(t(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2})\big) u^1_n\|_{L^2}^2 \\
& \lesssim \sum_{n \ge 0} \langle \lambda_n \rangle^{2s} \|u^0_n\|_{L^2}^2 + \sum_{n \ge 0} \langle \lambda_n \rangle^{2s} (n+\tfrac{d-1}{2})^{-2} \|u^1_n\|_{L^2}^2 \\
& \lesssim \|u_0\|_{H^s}^2 + \|u_1\|_{H^{s-1}}^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
When $ d \ge 2 $, we obtain $ \|u\|_{L^\infty H^s} \lesssim \|u_0\|_{H^s} + \|u_1\|_{H^{s-1}} $, while for $ d = 1 $, the same estimate holds after replacing $ \|u\|_{L^\infty H^s} $ with $ \|u\|_{L^\infty_\mathrm{loc} H^s} $, due to the linear growth in time of the term~$ u_0^1 t $.
Observe that in the expression of the solution, the family of factors $\{e^{\pm it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ are orthogonal in $L^2([0,2\pi])$. This fact makes the observability of~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} easier to prove, due to the following two reduction lemmas.
\begin{defn}
We say that $ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:equation-L-S^d} if for some constants $ T > 0 $, $ C > 0 $ and every solution~$ u $ to~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}, the observability inequality~\eqref{eq:ineq-observability} holds.
We say that $ a $ observes the spherical harmonics, if for some $C>0$, and every spherical harmonic $v \in \cup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} E_{n}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ineq-observability-spherical-harmonics}
\|a^{1/2}v\|_{L^2(\S^{d})}\ge C \|v\|_{L^2(\S^{d})}
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:observability-reduction-to-perturbed-wave-S^d}
For $ M = \S^d $, let $ 0 \le a \in L^\infty(\S^d) $, if~$ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:equation-L-S^d}, then~$ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $u$ solve~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}. We decompose $u=v+w$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
(\partial_{t}^{2}+\L)v=0, & (v,\partial_{t} v)_{t=0}=(u_{0},u_{1});\\
(\partial_{t}^{2}+\L)w=\frac{(d-1)^{2}}{4} u, & (w,\partial_{t} w)_{t=0}=(0,0).
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Now that $ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:equation-L-S^d}, for some $ T > 0 $,
\begin{align*}
E(u,0)=E(v,0) & \lesssim \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\S^{d}}a|\partial_{t} v|^{2}\d x\,\d t
\lesssim\int_{0}^{T}\int_{\S^{d}}a|\partial_{t} u|^{2}\d x\,\d t
+ \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\S^{d}}a|\partial_{t} w|^{2}\d x\,\d t.
\end{align*}
By Duhamel's formula, $ \partial_{t} w(t) = \frac{(d-1)^{2}}{4} \int_{0}^{t}\cos\big((t-s)\sqrt{\L}\big)u(s)\,\d s$. Then we use the boundedness $ \| \cos(t\sqrt{\L}) \|_{L^2\to L^2} \le 1 $, and the a priori estimate~\eqref{eq:estimate-a-priori-wave}, to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\|\partial_{t} w(t)\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
\lesssim\int_{0}^{T}\|u(s)\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\d s
\lesssim \|(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^{2}\times H^{-1}}^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Combine the inequalities above, we obtain a weak observability,
\begin{equation*}
E(u,0)\lesssim \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\S^{d}}a|\partial_{t} u|^{2}\d x\,\d t + \|(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^{2}\times H^{-1}}^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Then it is a classical argument of uniqueness-compactness due to Bardos-Lebeau-Rauch~\cite{B-L-R} which allows us to remove the compact remainder term $\|(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^{2}\times H^{-1}}^{2}$ and obtain the (strong) observability. This amounts to prove by contradiction and extract a subsequence of solutions of~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} which violates the observability, but converges strongly in the energy norm due to the compactness given by the weak observability. This gives us a solution to~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} with non vanishing energy (the energy is now conserved in time because there is no damping term in~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}), say $ v $, such that $ a \partial_{t} v = 0 $. Then we conclude by showing that, for~$ a \not\equiv 0 $, such solution does not exist (the only solution to~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} with $ a \partial_{t} v = 0 $ must be constant, and hence with zero energy). For more details, see the proof of Lemma~\ref{LEM::Reduction-Step-2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Observability-Spherical-Harmonics}
If~$ a $ observes the spherical harmonics, then~$ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:equation-L-S^d}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We only prove the lemma for~$ d \ge 2 $, the proof for~$ d = 1 $ is almost the same.
We set $T=2\pi$, and use Fubini's theorem, the explicit formula for solutions~\eqref{eq:solution-L-Fourier}, the orthogonality of the family $\{e^{\pm it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $L^2([0,2\pi])$, the observability~\eqref{eq:ineq-observability-spherical-harmonics}, and the characterization of Sobolev norms by spherical harmonics,
\begin{align*}
& \phantom{{}={}} \int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{\S^d} a|\partial_{t} u|^{2}\d x\,\d t \\
& = \int_{\S^{d}} a(x) \int_{0}^{2\pi} \Big| \sum_{n\ge 0}\big(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2}\big)\big(e^{it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}u_{n}^{+}(x)-e^{-it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}u_{n}^{-}(x)\big) \Big|^{2}\d t\,\d x \\
& = \int_{\S^d}a(x)\sum_{n\ge 0}\big(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2}\big)^{2}\big(|u^{+}_{n}(x)|^{2}+|u^{-}_{n}(x)|^{2}\big)\,\d x \\
& \gtrsim \int_{\S^d}\sum_{n\ge 0}\big(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2}\big)^{2}\big(|u^{+}_{n}(x)|^{2}+|u^{-}_{n}(x)|^{2}\big)\,\d x \\
& \gtrsim \int_{\S^d}\sum_{n\ge 0}\big(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2}\big)^{2}\big(|u^{+}_{n}(x)+u^-(x)|^{2}+|u^+(x)-u^{-}_{n}(x)|^{2}\big)\,\d x \\
& \gtrsim \int_{\S^d}\sum_{n\ge 0} \big(n+\tfrac{d-1}{2}\big)^{2} |u^0_n(x)|^2
+ \int_{\S^d}\sum_{n\ge 0} |u^1_n(x)|^2 \d x \\
& \ge E(u,0).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Then we finish the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Lebeau} by showing that~$ a(x) = 1_{\S^d_+}(x) $ observes the spherical harmonics.
\begin{prop}
On $ \S^d $, $ a(x) = 1_{\S^d_+}(x) $ observes the spherical harmonics.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This comes easily from the symmetry properties of spherical harmonics stated in Lemma~\ref{LEM::Spherical-Harmonics}. Indeed, if $v\in E_{n}$, then $ v(-x) = (-1)^n v(x) $ implies that
\begin{equation*}
\|v\|_{L^2(\S^d_+)} = \|v\|_{L^2(S^d_-)},
\end{equation*}
whence the observability
\begin{equation*}
\|a^{1/2}v\|_{L^2(\S^d)}=\|v\|_{L^2(\S^d_{+})}=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\|v\|_{L^2(\S^d)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Strategy of Proof}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Lebeau}}
We first analyse the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Lebeau} presented above, which consists of the following 4~steps.
\paragraph{\textbf{Step 1}}
Reduce the strong stabilization of the damped wave equation~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation} to the observability~\eqref{eq:ineq-observability} of the undamped wave equation~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}. This is a classical argument.
\paragraph{\textbf{Step 2}}
Reduce the observability of the undamped wave equation~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} to the observability of the perturbed wave equation~\eqref{eq:equation-L-S^d}. This perturbation uses essentially the fact that the spectrum of the spherical Laplacian is distributed near squares of an arithmetic sequence $ \{(n+\frac{d-1}{2})^2\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} $. In fact, the spectrum is exactly of distance~$ \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} $ away from this sequence. Therefore, by adding to~$ -\Delta_d $ the constant~$ \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} $, we obtain an operator~$ \L $, the spectrum of whose square root is exactly the arithmetic sequence $ \{n+\frac{d-1}{2}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} $.
\paragraph{\textbf{Step 3}}
Reduce the observability of the perturbed wave equation~\eqref{eq:equation-L-S^d} to the observability of spherical harmonics, that is~\eqref{eq:ineq-observability-spherical-harmonics}.
To do so, we solve~\eqref{eq:equation-L-S^d} explicitly with Fourier series (that is, decomposition in spherical harmonics), and use the orthogonality of the time factors
\begin{equation*}
\{e^{\pm it\lambda}\}_{\lambda \in \mathrm{Spec}(\sqrt{\L})} = \{e^{\pm it(n+\frac{d-1}{2})}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\end{equation*}
in~$ L^2([0,2\pi]) $ to decouple the space and time variables. In this way, the time variable can be omitted, and we are left only to consider the spherical harmonics.
\paragraph{\textbf{Step 4}}
Prove the observability of spherical harmonics. We use the symmetry of spherical harmonics to show that the $ L^2 $~norm of a spherical harmonic is equally distributed on upper and lower hemispheres.
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Stability-Zoll-non-GCC}}
We will follow this strategy to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:Stability-Zoll-non-GCC}, but with the following modifications.
\paragraph{\textbf{Step 1}}
Same as above.
\paragraph{\textbf{Step 2}}
The only (slight) difference is the definition of the perturbed wave equation, because the perturbation~$ \L $ of the Laplacian-Beltrami operator~$ -\Delta $ on a Zoll surface of revolution~$ \Sigma $ can not be so simply defined as~\eqref{eq:def-L-S^d}. To define~$ \L $ in this situation, we recall Proposition~\ref{prop:spectral-zoll} and Remark~\ref{remark:spectral-zoll-dim-2}. For~$ \lambda \ge 0 $ such that~$ \lambda^2 \in \mathrm{Spec}(-\Delta) $, we let~$ E_\lambda $ denote the (minus) Laplacian eigenspace of eigenvalue~$ \lambda^2 $, and set for $ n \ge 0 $ the linear space
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{E}_n = \bigoplus_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} E_\lambda.
\end{equation*}
Then~$ \L $ is defined by prescribing its action on each~$ \tilde{E}_n $,
\begin{equation*}
\L|_{\tilde{E}_{n}}=(n+1/2)^2\,\mathrm{Id}_{\tilde{E}_{n}}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore $ \tilde{E}_n $ are eigenspaces of~$ \L $, whose elements will be called $ \L $-eigenfunctions, and
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{Spec}(\sqrt{\L}) \subset \{ n + 1/2 : n \in \mathbb{N} \}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, by~\eqref{eq:interval-spectrum-zoll}, if we set~$ K = \Delta + \L $, then $ \|K\|_{\tilde{E}_n\to\tilde{E}_n} \le A $, where $ \tilde{E}_n $ is equipped with the $ L^2(\Sigma) $ norm. Consequently, by the orthogonal direct sum decomposition $ L^2(\Sigma) = \oplus_{n \ge 0} \tilde{E}_n $, we show that~$ K $ is a bounded operator on $ L^2(\Sigma) $,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:K-norm}
\|K\|_{L^2(\Sigma) \to L^2(\Sigma)} \le A,
\end{equation}
which plays the same role as the constant~$ \frac{(d-1)^2}{4} $ in the spherical case. Then the same argument shows that the observability for~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} can be deduced from the observability of the following perturbed wave equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation-L-zoll}
\begin{cases}
(\partial_{t}^{2}+\L)u=0, & \mathrm{in\ }\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma);\\
(u,\partial_{t} u)_{t=0}=\left(u_{0},u_{1}\right), & \in H^{1}(\Sigma)\times L^2(\Sigma).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{\textbf{Step 3}}
Reduce the observability of~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll} to the observability of $ \L $-eigenfunctions, that is to say, for some~$ C>0 $, and every $ u \in \cup_{n\ge 0} \tilde{E}_n $,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:observability-L-eigenfunction}
\|a^{1/2} u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} \ge C \|u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}.
\end{equation}
Recall that in our case, $ a(x) = 1_{\Sigma^+}(x) $. To do this, we use the orthogonality of the time factors $ \{e^{\pm it(n+1/2)}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} $ in $ L^2([0,2\pi]) $, which comes with luck from the fact that $ \beta = 2 $ on dimension~$ 2 $ (recall Remark~\ref{remark:spectral-zoll-dim-2}), so that $ n + \beta/4 = n + 1/2 $. However, this fact is not necessary, for we can always use Ingham's inequality (see the original work of Ingham~\cite{Ingham}, see also~\cite{Zuazua} for its application in the theory of control).
\paragraph{\textbf{Step 4}}
Prove the observability of $\L$-eigenfunctions~\eqref{eq:observability-L-eigenfunction}. Unfortunately, the simple proof for the observability of spherical harmonics does not apply, because neither the $\L$-eigenfunctions nor the Laplacian eigenfunctions on~$ \Sigma $ share such strong symmetries as the spherical harmonics. However, we observe that, by the definition of~$ \L $, the $ \L $-eigenfunctions are quasi-modes. Indeed, let $ u \in \tilde{E}_n $, normalized in $ L^2 $~norm, that is, $ \|u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} = 1 $; introduce the semiclassical parameter $ h = (n + 1/2)^{-1} $, then by~\eqref{eq:K-norm}
\begin{equation*}
(-h^2 \Delta + 1) u = - h^2 K u = O(h^2)_{L^2}.
\end{equation*}
This suggests a proof by contradiction and analyzing the semiclassical defect measures (see Gérard~\cite{Gerard-Semiclassical-Measure}, Gérard-Leichtnam~\cite{G-L}, Lions-Paul~\cite{Lions-Wigner}, see also~\cite{Burq-Bourbaki}) of a sequence of $ \L $-eigenfunctions, which violates the observability, that is, $ \|1_{\Sigma^+}u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} = o(1) $. Such argument is originally due to G.~Lebeau, dating back to his work~\cite{Lebeau} which uses the propagation of (classical) defect measures; see for example~\cite{Burq-1,Zworski} for the semiclassical setting.
A classical argument shows that such semiclassical defect measure, say~$ \mu $, is supported on the unit cotangent bundle $ S^*\Sigma $, vanishes on~$ T^*\Sigma^+ $, and is invariant by the (co-)geodesic flow. Therefore~$ \mu $ carries no mass on the union of geodesics which enter~$ \Sigma^+ $. Recall that on~$ \Sigma $, every geodesic enter~$ \Sigma^+ $ within the period of the geodesic flow (which is, in our case, $ 2\pi $, by the normalization $ r(\ell_0) = 1$), except for a rogue one, the equator~$ \Gamma $. We are thus unable to close the routine argument as the $ \L $-eigenfunctions may concentrate on~$ \Gamma $ (a simple example is $ \Sigma = \S^2 $, where the spherical harmonics $ u_n(x,y,z) = (x + iy)^n $ will concentrate on the equator~$ z = 0 $ as $ n \to \infty $); but to conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{supp}\, \mu \subset S^*\Sigma \cap \{\ell = \ell_0, \xi = 0 \} = \{(\ell_0,\varphi,0,\pm 1) : \varphi \in \S^1 \}.
\end{equation*}
To deal with this problem, we take a closer look at the concentration behavior near the equator. It suffices to show that the speed of concentration from each side of the equator is comparable, so that the $ L^2 $ norm of this sequence of $ \L $-eigenfunctions must be comparably distributed on each side as well, which contradicts to our hypothesis that the observability from the upper hemi-surface is violated by this sequence. Such idea is achieved by some proper scalings of the latitude coordinate~$ \ell $, and is closely related to the \textit{second microlocalization} along the equator, as illustrated by~\cite{B-G-Stabilization-Wave-Tori}. It is explicitly carried out as follows:
\begin{enumerate}[nosep,leftmargin=*]
\item First, to simplify some calculations, we will work on an isothermal coordinate on~$ \Sigma $. There exists an strictly increasing $ f \in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}) $ such that
\begin{equation*}
f'(x) = r(f(x)), \quad f(0) = \ell_0.
\end{equation*}
Then under the change of variable $ \ell = f(x) $, the north pole~$ N $, the south pole~$ S $ and the equator~$ \Gamma $ now respectively corresponds to~$ x = -\infty $, $ x = \infty $ and $ x = 0 $. Denoting for simplicity $ \rho = f' $, the metric~$ g $ now writes under the coordinates~$ (x,\varphi) $ as
\begin{equation*}
g = \rho(x) (\d x^2 + \d\varphi^2) = \big(1 - cx^2 + O(x^3)\big) (\d x^2 + \d\varphi^2),
\end{equation*}
where the positive constant~$ c $ is the same as in Remark~\ref{remark:local-geometry-equator}; and the Laplacian-Beltrami operator writes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Laplacian-x-varphi}
\Delta = \rho(x)^{-1} (\partial_x^2 + \partial_\varphi^2) = \big( 1 + cx^2 + O(x^3) \big) (\partial_x^2 + \partial_\varphi^2).
\end{equation}
We also remark that under these coordinates,
\begin{equation*}
L^2(M) \simeq L^2(\rho^2\d x,\mathbb{R}) \otimes L^2(\d\varphi,\S^1).
\end{equation*}
\item On a general compact surface of revolution, $ -\Delta $ is invariant under rotation, and commutes with the infinitesimal generator of rotation, that is, $ D_\varphi = \frac{1}{i} \partial_\varphi $. We expect each Laplacian eigenspace to be a direct sum of $ D_\varphi $-eigenspaces. Indeed, on~$ \Sigma $, for $ \lambda^2 \in \mathrm{Spec}(-\Delta) $, the following decomposition holds,
\begin{equation*}
E_\lambda = \bigoplus_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} e^{ik\varphi} A_{\lambda,k},
\end{equation*}
where $ A_{\lambda,k} $ consists of smooth functions of variable~$ x $, such that, whenever $ w \in A_{\lambda,k} $, we have $ w \in L^2(\rho^2 \d x,\mathbb{R}) $; and $ u(\varphi,x) = e^{ik\varphi} w(x) \in L^2(M) $ is a common eigenfunction of~$ -\Delta $ and~$ D_\varphi $,
\begin{equation*}
-\Delta u = \lambda^2 u, \quad D_\varphi u = k u.
\end{equation*}
By~\eqref{eq:Laplacian-x-varphi}, we have a second order differential equation for~$ w $,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation-w-intro}
-\partial_x^2 w + k^2 w = \lambda^2\rho^2 w = \lambda^2 (1 - cx^2 + O(x^3)) w.
\end{equation}
It is known that the Laplacian eigenfunctions are smooth, in particular at the poles~$ N $ and~$ S $. This gives a boundary condition for~$ w $,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{|x| \to \infty} \partial_x^n w(x) = 0, \quad \mathrm{when} \quad k \ne 0, n \in \mathbb{N}.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, up to a multiplicative constant, there exists at most one solution to~\eqref{eq:equation-w-intro}, which means
\begin{equation*}
\dim A_{\lambda,k} \le 1, \quad \mathrm{if\ } k \ne 0.
\end{equation*}
The case $ k = 0 $ poses no problem because as we have seen, $ \mathrm{supp}\, \mu \subset \{\theta = 1\} $, therefore the terms with $ 1 - h^2 k^2 \to 0 $ (therefore $ k \sim h^{-1} \to \infty $) contribute to almost all of the total mass. Now we set
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{A}_{n,k} = \bigoplus_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} A_{\lambda,k},
\end{equation*}
and obtain the decomposition for $ \L $-eigenspaces,
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{E}_n = \bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} e^{ik\varphi} \tilde{A}_{n,k}.
\end{equation*}
\item Due to the orthogonality of the family $ \{e^{ik\varphi}\}_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} $ in $ L^2(\d\varphi,\S^1) $, we are left to prove the following observability, that for any sequence $ \{\tilde{w}_{n,k} \in \tilde{A}_{n,k} \}_{n \in \mathbb{N},k \in \mathbb{Z}} $, where the indexes appearing in the sequence satisfy $ 1 - h^2 k^2 = o(1) $ as $ n \to \infty $ (recall that $ h = (n+1/2)^{-1} $; such a sequence will be called \textit{admissible}, see Definition~\ref{def:admissible}), there exits some $ C > 0 $, such that for any $ \tilde{w}_{n,k} \in \tilde{A}_{n,k} $ in the sequence, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:observability-w_n_k}
\|1_{x > 0} \tilde{w}_{n,k}\|_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)} \ge C \|\tilde{w}_{n,k}\|_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)}.
\end{equation}
The weight $ \rho^2 $ is of no importance as $ \tilde{w}_{n,k} $ concentrates on $ x = 0 $ (For a rigorous argument, we will use an Lithner-Agmon type estimate). In order to prove~\eqref{eq:observability-w_n_k}, we observe that~$ \tilde{w}_{n,k} $ satisfies a 1-dimensional stationary semiclassical Schr\"{o}dinger equation,
\begin{equation*}
(-h^2 \partial_x^2 + V) \tilde{w}_{n,k} = E \tilde{w}_{n,k} + O(h^2)_{L^2\to L^2} \tilde{w}_{n,k},
\end{equation*}
where $ V = 1 - \rho^2 = c x^2 + O(x^3) $ near $ x = 0 $, and $ E = 1 - h^2 k^2 $. Then we argue by contradiction and extract a sequence $ k = k(n) $ and set $ \tilde{w}_n = \tilde{w}_{n,k} $ which violates the observability, and treat separately two cases, $ E = O(h) $ and $ E \gg h $ (we can show that $ E \gtrsim -h^2 $).
\begin{enumerate}[nosep,leftmargin=*]
\item If $ E = O(h) $, then we use the scaling $ z = c^{1/4} h^{-1/2} x $ to obtain a classical Schr\"{o}dinger equation,
\begin{equation*}
(-\partial_z^2 + z^2 + O(h^{1/2})) \tilde{w}_{n} = (F + o(1)) \tilde{w}_{n},
\end{equation*}
for some $ 0 \le F \in \mathbb{R} $, and shows that $ \tilde{w}_{n} $ is close to an eigenfunction of the harmonic oscillator $ -\partial_z^2 + z^2 $, which is either an even functions or an odd function, whose mass are thus equally distributed on each side of the origin $ z=0 $.
\item If $ E \gg h $, then we use another scaling $ z = c^{1/2} E^{-1/2} $, $ \hat{h} = c^{1/2} E^{-1} h $, and obtain a semiclassical Schr\"{o}dinger equation, with a semiclassical parameter~$ \hat{h} = o(1) $,
\begin{equation*}
(-\hat{h} \partial_z^2 + z^2 + o(1)) \tilde{w}_{n} = \tilde{w}_{n} + o(\hat{h})_{L^2\to L^2} \tilde{w}_{n}.
\end{equation*}
The ($ \hat{h} $-)semiclassical measure of $ \tilde{w}_{n} $ will be supported on the circle
\begin{equation*}
\{ (z,\zeta) \in T^*\mathbb{R}_z : z^2 + \zeta^2 = 1\},
\end{equation*}
and is invariant by rotation (which is induced by the Hamiltonian flow generated by the principal symbol $ z^2 + \zeta^2 $). So the mass of~$ \tilde{w}_n $ are also asymptotically equally distributed on each side of the origin~$ z=0 $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Acknowledgement} This work which started as as a Mémoire of Master 2 of Université Paris-Sud, is finished under the guidance of Nicolas Burq, to whom the author owes great gratitude. The author would also express gratitude to Gilles Lebeau, who gave originally the proof of the spherical cases, based on which is this work only possible. Finally the author would like to thank the referees whose careful reading and useful comments lead to a significant improvement in the presentation of the paper.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Stability-Zoll-non-GCC}}
\subsection{Geometry of Zoll Surfaces of Revolution}
\label{sub:Geometry-of-Zoll's-Surfaces}
Let~$ \Sigma $ be a Zoll surface of revolution, we recall some of its basic geometric properties, referring to the monograph of Besse~\cite{Besse}.
\subsubsection{Coordinates and Geodesics}
$ \Sigma $ is diffeomorphic to $\S^{2}$, and admits a parametrization by local coordinates described as follows. Recall that~$\S^1$ acts smoothly, faithfully, and isometrically on~$ \Sigma $, leaving exactly two points fixed, which are called the \textit{north pole} and the \textit{south pole}, denoted respectively by~$N$ and~$S$. Fix a geodesic~$\gamma_{0}$ from~$N$ to~$S$, parametrized by arc length. We assume that the total length of~$ \gamma_0 $ is equal to~$ \pi $, after a proper normalization. Then as~$\varphi $ varies in~$\S^{1}$, $\gamma_{\varphi}=\varphi\gamma_{0}$ varies among all geodesics joining~$N$ and~$S$, which are called the \textit{meridians}. The coordinates on $U=\Sigma\backslash\{N,S\}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
U \ni \gamma_{\varphi}(\ell) \mapsto (\ell,\varphi) \in {}]0,\pi[{} \times \S^{1}.
\end{equation*}
The coordinate patches near~$N$ and~$S$ are respectively $U_{N}=\{N\}\cup\{(\ell,\varphi):0\le \ell<\pi\}$, and $U_{S}=\{S\}\cup\{(\ell,\varphi):0<\ell\le\pi\}$. They are diffeomorphic
to the 2-dimensional open ball $B(0,\pi)$ via the usual polar coordinates. The Riemannian metric on~$U$ has the form
\begin{equation*}
g=\d \ell^{2}+r(\ell)^{2}\d\varphi^{2},
\end{equation*}
where $ r(\ell) $ is the distance from the axis of rotation (recall Figure~\ref{fig:zoll-surface-of-revolution}). Then~$ \Sigma $ being a Zoll surface of revolution means that the criteria stated in Remark~\ref{remark:criteria-zoll} is satisfied.
There is a well defined differential operator $D_{\varphi}$ on $\Sigma$. It is the differential operator with respect to the the vector fields~$X$ on~$\Sigma$ defined as follows: To each point $m=(\ell,\varphi)\in\Sigma\backslash\{N,S\}$, we associate the unit tangent vector $Y(m)\in T_{m}\Sigma$, tangent to the \textit{parallel}~$\S^1 m$ (that is, the orbit of the point~$ m $ generated by the actions of~$ \S^1 $), with direction given by the positive orientation of~$\S^{1}$. Letting $X(m)=r(\ell)Y(m)$, $X(N)=0$, $X(S)=0$, then~$ X $ defines a smooth tangent vector field on~$ \Sigma $. For $u\in C^{\infty}(\Sigma)$, we define
\begin{equation*}
D_{\varphi}u=\frac{1}{i}\langle\mathrm{d}u,X\rangle.
\end{equation*}
On $U$, we simply have $D_{\varphi}=\frac{1}{i}\partial_{\varphi}$, with $\partial_{\varphi}$ being the differentiation with respect to~$\varphi$. Therefore $D_{\varphi}$ is symmetric and commutes with $\Delta$, at least in a formal way,
\begin{equation*}
[\Delta,D_{\varphi}]=0.
\end{equation*}
Then we state a proposition concerning the geodesics of~$ \Sigma $.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Geometry-Zoll-Surface-Revolution}
Let~$ \Sigma $ be a Zoll surface of revolution, and let~$ r $ be prescribed as above.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Then $r:[0,\pi]\to[0,1]$ is smooth, with $r(0)=r(\pi)=0,\ r'(0)=1,\ r'(\pi)=-1,\ r''(0)=r''(\pi)=0$. There exists a unique $\ell_{0}\in {}]0,\pi[{}$ such that $r(\ell_{0})=1$. Furthermore, $r'(\ell_{0})=0$, $r''(\ell_{0})<0$. The curve $\Gamma = \{(\ell_0,\varphi) : \varphi \in \S^1 \}$ is a geodesic called the equator.
\item Apart from the equator, every geodesic is contained between a pair of parallels $\{\ell=\ell_1\}$ and $\{\ell=\ell_2\}$ for some $ \ell_1 < \ell_0 < \ell_2 $, and contacts each of
the parallel exactly once.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{cor}
From this proposition, every geodesic of~$\Sigma$ except for the equator~$\Gamma$ enters the upper hemi-surface $\Sigma^{+}=\{\ell>\ell_{0}\}$.
\end{cor}
To simplify later calculations, we will work on an isothermal coordinate defined on~$ U $ as follows. Let $ f \in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}) $ be the solution to the following first order ordinary differential equation,
\begin{equation*}
f'(x)=r(f(x)),\quad f(0)=\ell_0.
\end{equation*}
It is not difficult to see that (we refer to~\cite{Arnold})
\begin{equation*}
L<f<R,\quad \lim_{x\to-\infty}f(x)=0,\quad \lim_{x\to\infty} f(x)=\pi.
\end{equation*}
Therefore $f$ defines a diffeomorphism $\mathbb{R}\simeq{}]0,\pi[{}$, with the equator now being $ \Gamma = \{ x = 0 \} $. Set $ x = f^{-1}(\ell) $, then the coordinates $(x,\varphi)$ are isothermal, indeed,
\begin{equation*}
g=f'(x)^{2}\mathrm{d}x^{2}+r(f(x))^{2}\mathrm{d}\varphi^{2}
=\rho(x)^{2}(\mathrm{d}x^{2}+\mathrm{d}\varphi^{2}),
\end{equation*}
where $\rho(x):=r(f(x))=f'(x)$. We have $\rho \in {}]0,1]$, and $\rho(x)<1$ except for $x=0$, where $\rho(0)=1,\ \rho'(0)=0,\ \rho''(0)<0$. We also have, under these coordinates,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Ltwo-decomposition-Sigma}
L^2(\Sigma) = L^2(\rho^2 \d x,\mathbb{R}) \otimes L^2(\d\varphi,\S^1),
\end{equation}
and the Laplacian-Beltrami operator takes a simple form,
\begin{equation}
\label{Laplacian-Isothermal}
\Delta=\frac{1}{\rho(x)^{2}}(\partial_{x}^{2}+\partial_{\varphi}^{2}).
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Laplacian Spectrum and Eigenfunctions}
\label{sub:Laplacian-Eigenfunctions-on-Surfaces-of-Revolution}
Recall that for some $ A > 0 $,
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{Spec}(-\Delta) \subset \bigsqcup_{n \ge 0} I_n,
\quad \mathrm{with\ } I_{n} \subset {}](n+1/2)^{2}-A,(n+1/2)^{2}+A[{}.
\end{equation*}
For~$ \lambda \ge 0 $ such that~$ \lambda^2 \in \mathrm{Spec}(-\Delta) $, we let~$ E_\lambda $ denote the (minus) Laplacian eigenspace of the eigenvalue~$ \lambda^2 $, and set for $ n \ge 0 $ the linear space
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{E}_n = \bigoplus_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} E_\lambda.
\end{equation*}
We define a linear (unbounded) operator~$ \L $ by a compact perturbation of~$ -\Delta $ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{Spec}(\L) \subset \{(n+1/2)^2 : n \in \mathbb{N} \}.
\end{equation*}
Indeed, let $ \Pi_n : L^2(\Sigma) \to \tilde{E}_n $ denote the orthogonal projection, then we formally define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def-L}
\L = \sum_{n \ge 0} (n+1/2)^2 \Pi_n.
\end{equation}
Next we study the structure of~$ E_\lambda $. Since $-\Delta$ commutes with $D_{\varphi}$, it is natural to expect an orthogonal decomposition of~$ E_\lambda $ into $ D_\varphi $ eigenspaces. The following proposition is inspired by Beekmann~\cite{Beekmann}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Laplacian-Eigenfunction-Evolution-Surface}
On each~$ E_\lambda $, we have a direct sum decomposition,
\begin{equation*}
E_\lambda = \bigoplus_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} e^{ik\varphi} A_{\lambda,k},
\end{equation*}
where $ A_{\lambda,k} \subset C^\infty(\mathbb{R}) $ is the solution space to
\begin{equation}
\label{1D-Laplacian-Regular}
-\partial_{x}^{2}w+k^{2}w=\lambda^{2}\rho^{2}w,
\end{equation}
with boundary conditions $ \lim_{|x| \to \infty} \partial_x^n w(x) = 0 $ for $ n \in \mathbb{N} $ and $ k \ne 0 $. In particular,
\begin{equation*}
\dim A_{\lambda,k} \le 1, \quad \mathrm{if} \quad k \ne 0.
\end{equation*}
If $ u(x,\varphi) = e^{ik\varphi} w(x) \in e^{ik\varphi} A_{\lambda,k} $, then
\begin{equation*}
-\Delta u = \lambda^2 u, \quad D_\varphi u = k u.
\end{equation*}
That is, $ e^{ik\varphi} A_{\lambda,k} $ are eigenspaces of~$ D_\varphi $, and the decomposition is thus orthogonal.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The group action of~$\S^{1}$ on~$\Sigma$ induces naturally a group action on function spaces by $\varphi f=f\comp\varphi^{-1}$. Now that~$\S^{1}$ commutes with~$ -\Delta $, $E_{\lambda}$ is stable under~$\S^{1}$. It is known that the irreducible complex representations
of $\S^{1}$ are all one-dimensional of the form
\begin{equation*}
\tau_k : \S^{1}\to U(1)\ \varphi\mapsto e^{ik\varphi},\quad k\in\mathbb{Z}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore~$ E_\lambda $ can be decomposed into $ \tau_k $-invariant subspaces, consisting of functions $ u(x,\varphi) $ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
u(x,\varphi)=\varphi^{-1}u(x,0)=e^{-ik\varphi}u(x,0),
\end{equation*}
which also shows that $ D_\varphi u = k u $.
To obtain the equation satisfied by $ w \in A_{\lambda,k} $, it suffices to plug $ u(x,\varphi) = e^{ik\varphi} w(x) $ into the equation $ -\Delta u = \lambda^2 u $. The boundary condition for $ k \ne 0 $ comes evidently from the continuity of~$ D_\varphi^n u = k^n u $ at~$ N $ and~$ S $. To show that $ \dim A_{\lambda,k} \le 1 $, let~$w_{1}$ and~$w_{2}$ be two solutions to~\eqref{1D-Laplacian-Regular}, then their Wronskian $W(w_{1},w_{2})$, which is a constant by a direct calculation, vanishes at infinity by the boundary conditions. So these two solutions are linearly dependent.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:rotation-number-less-than-energy}
If $ 0 \ne |k| \ge \lambda $, then~$ A_{\lambda,k} = \{0\} $.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $ w \in A_{\lambda,k} $ with $ 0 \ne |k| \ge \lambda $, then for $ n \in \mathbb{N} $,
\begin{equation*}
-\partial_{x}^{2}w+k^{2}w=\lambda^{2}\rho^{2}w,\quad \lim_{|x|\to\infty} \partial_x^n w(x)=0.
\end{equation*}
We will show that $w\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}) \subset C(\mathbb{R}) $ (see Corollary \ref{cor:Solution-Approximate}), so it is legitimate to take~$L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$ inner product between~$w$ and the equation to get
\begin{equation*}
0 \le \|\partial_x w\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}^{2}
=(- \partial_x^2 w,w)_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}
=\int_{\mathbb{R}}(\lambda^{2}\rho^{2}(x)-k^{2})|w(x)|^{2}\d x.
\end{equation*}
However, $0\le\rho\le1$, and that $\rho(x)<1$ except for $x=0$, we see that $\lambda^{2}\rho(x)^{2}-k^{2}<0$ except for $x=0$. Therefore $w(x)\equiv 0$ since it is continuous.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:orthogonality-A(lamnbda,k)}
For $ k \in \mathbb{Z} $, and $ \lambda_1 \ne \lambda_2 $,
\begin{equation*}
A_{\lambda_1,k} \perp A_{\lambda_2,k} \quad \mathrm{with\ respect\ to\ } L^2(\rho^2\d x,\mathbb{R}).
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For $ w_i \in A_{\lambda_i,k} $ with $ i=1,2 $, set $ u_i(x,\varphi) = e^{ik\varphi}w_i(x) $, then by~\eqref{eq:Ltwo-decomposition-Sigma},
\begin{equation*}
0 = (u_1,u_2)_{L^2(\Sigma)} = (e^{ik\varphi}w_1,e^{ik\varphi}w_2)_{L^2(\rho^2 \d x,\mathbb{R}) \otimes L^2(\d\varphi,\S^1)} =2\pi (w_1,w_2)_{L^2(\rho^2 \d x,\mathbb{R})}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
For $ n \in \mathbb{N} $, we set
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{A}_{n,k} = \bigoplus_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} A_{\lambda,k},
\end{equation*}
then it is an orthogonal direct sum with respect to $ L^2(\rho^2 \d x,\mathbb{R}) $. And we have
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{E}_n = \bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} e^{ik\varphi} \tilde{A}_{n,k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{rem}
\subsection{Reduction to Observability of $ \L $-Eigenfunctions}
Since~$ \Sigma $ has no boundary, the energy of a solution~$ u $ to~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation} does not control its zero frequency. In order to deal with this problem, we introduce the quotient Sobolev spaces
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{H}^{s}(\Sigma)=H^{s}(\Sigma)/\mathbb{C}=\{[u]=u+\mathbb{C}:u\in H^{s}(\Sigma)\},
\end{equation*}
equipped with the quotient norms. We set in particular,
\begin{equation*}
\|{[u]}\|_{\mathcal{H}^{1}(\Sigma)} = \|\nabla u\|_{L^{2}(\Sigma)},
\end{equation*}
so that, for $ u \in C(\mathbb{R},H^1(\Sigma)) \cap C^1(\mathbb{R},L^2(\Sigma)) $,
\begin{equation*}
E(u,t) = \frac{1}{2} \|(u(t),\partial_{t} u(t))\|_{\mathcal{H}^1 \times L^2}^2.
\end{equation*}
By the theorem of Hille-Yosida, we have
\begin{prop}
Define the quotient Laplacian by $[\Delta][u]=[\Delta u]$ for $[u]\in D([\Delta])=\{[u]\in\mathcal{H}^{1}(\Sigma):\Delta u\in L^{2}(\Sigma)\}$. Set
\begin{equation*}
[A]=\begin{pmatrix}0 & -[\mathrm{Id}]\\
-j\circ[\Delta] & a
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
with $D([A])=D([\Delta])\times H^{1}(\Sigma)$ where $[\mathrm{Id}]:H^{1}(\Sigma)\to\mathcal{H}^{1}(\Sigma)$ is the canonical projection, while $j:\mathcal{H}^{0}(\Sigma)\to L^{2}(\Sigma)$ associates each $[w]\in\mathcal{H}^{0}(\Sigma)$ a representative~$w$ such that $\int_{\Sigma}w\,\d x=0$. Then for all $([u_{0}],u_{1})\in\mathcal{H}^{1}(\Sigma)\times L^{2}(\Sigma)$, there exists a unique solution $([u],v)\in C(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{H}^{1}(\Sigma))\times C^{1}(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(\Sigma))$ of the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation-quotient-wave}
\begin{cases}
\partial_{t}\binom{[u]}{v}+[A]\binom{[u]}{v}=0,\\
([u],v)_{t=0}=([u_{0}],u_{1}).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Moreover, if~$u$ is the solution of~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation} with initial data $(u_{0},u_{1})$, then $([u],\partial_{t} u)$ is the solution to~\eqref{eq:equation-quotient-wave}.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Weak-Stability-Property-Criterion}
If $0 \le a \in L^\infty(\Sigma) $ and $ a \not\equiv 0 $, then~$ a $ weakly stabilizes~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The idea of the proof comes from~\cite{B-G}. By a density argument, it suffices to suppose that $(u_{0},u_{1})\in D(A)$, so that $([u_{0}],u_{1})\in D([A])$. Let~$u$ denote the corresponding solution to~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}. Observe that $E(u,t)=\frac{1}{2}\|([u],\partial_{t} u)\|_{\mathcal{H}}^{2}$ is non-increasing, and that~$ [A] $ commutes with the evolution of~\eqref{eq:equation-quotient-wave},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Bounded-in-D(A)}
\begin{split}
\Big\|\binom{[u]}{\partial_{t} u}\Big\|_{[A]} :=\Big\|\binom{[u]}{\partial_{t} u}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}+\Big\|[A]\binom{[u]}{\partial_{t} u}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}
\le\Big\|\binom{[u_{0}]}{u_{1}}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}+\Big\| A\binom{[u_{0}]}{u_{1}}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}<\infty.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We claim that $(D([A]),\|\cdot\|_{[A]})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{H}$ is compact. Indeed, if $\binom{[u]_{n}}{v_{n}}$ is bounded in~$D([A])$, then $u_{n}$, $\Delta u_{n}$, $v_{n}$, $\nabla v_{n}$ are bounded in~$L^{2}(\Sigma)$. Up to a subsequence, $u_{n}-\int_{M}u_{n}\to u_{0}$ in~$H^{1}(\Sigma)$, so $[u_{n}]\to[u_{0}]$ in~$\mathcal{H}^{1}(\Sigma)$, and $v_{n}\to v_{0}$ in $L^{2}(\Sigma)$. By~\eqref{eq:Bounded-in-D(A)}, there exists a sequence $t_{k}\to+\infty$ such that $([u(t_{k})],\partial_{t} u(t_{k}))\rightharpoonup([v_{0}],v_1)$ weakly in~$D([A])$; and strongly in $\mathcal{H}^{1}(M)$ by compactness. Let~$v$ be the solution to~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation} with initial data $(v_{0},v_{1})$, where~$v_{0}$ is the representative of~$[v_{0}]$ such that $\int_{\Sigma} v_{0}\d x = 0$, then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
E(v,t)
& =\Big\|\binom{[v(t)]}{\partial_{t} v}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}
=\Big\| e^{-t[A]}\binom{[v_{0}]}{v_{1}}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}
=\Big\| e^{-t[A]}\lim_{k\to\infty}e^{-t_{k}[A]}\binom{[u_{0}]}{u_{1}}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}\\
& =\Big\|\lim_{k\to\infty}e^{-(t+t_{k})[A]}\binom{[u_{0}]}{u_{1}}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}
=\Big\|\binom{[v_{0}]}{v_{1}}\Big\|_{\mathcal{H}}=E(v,0).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
So $v$ satisfies the undamped wave equation~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} as well.
We decompose the initial data as $ v_{0}=\sum_{\lambda}v_{\lambda}^{0}$ ,$ v_{1}=\sum_{\lambda} v_{\lambda}^{1} $, where $ \lambda $ varies in $ \mathrm{Spec}(\sqrt{-\Delta}) $ and $ v^i_\lambda \in E_{\lambda} $. Then $ v^0_0 = 0 $, and
\begin{equation*}
v(t) = \cos(t\sqrt{-\Delta}) v_0 + \sqrt{-\Delta}^{-1}\sin(t\sqrt{-\Delta}) v_1
= v^1_0t+\sum_{\lambda \ne 0}\big(e^{it\lambda}v_\lambda^{+}+e^{-it\lambda}v_\lambda^{-}\big),
\end{equation*}
where for $ \lambda \ne 0 $,
\begin{equation*}
v_\lambda^{+} + v_\lambda^{-}=v_\lambda^{0},
\quad
i\lambda (v_\lambda^{+}-v_\lambda^{-})=v_\lambda^{1}.
\end{equation*}
Now fix $\lambda'\ne 0$, and set $w_{\lambda'}(T,x)=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\partial_{t} v(t,x)e^{-it\lambda'}\d t$. The fact that $a\partial_{t} v=0$ implies $aw_{\lambda'}=0$. An explicit calculation shows
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
w_{\lambda'}(T)
=i\lambda'v_{\lambda'}^{+} +\sum_{\lambda \ne \lambda'} \frac{i\lambda}{iT(\lambda-\lambda')} \big(e^{iT(\lambda-\lambda')}-1\big) v_\lambda^{+}
-\sum_{\lambda} \frac{i\lambda}{iT(\lambda+\lambda')} \big(e^{-iT(\lambda+\lambda')}-1\big)v_\lambda^{-}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This implies that, as $T\to\infty$, $w_{\lambda'}(T)\to i\lambda'v_{\lambda'}^{+}$ in~$L^{2}(\Sigma)$. Since $aw_{\lambda'}=0$ and $\lambda' \ne 0$, we must have $av_{\lambda'}^{+}=0$. Therefore $v_{\lambda'}^{+}=0$ because as a classical result, the nodal set $\{v^{+}_{\lambda'}=0\}$ is of zero measure. The same argument shows that $v_{\lambda'}^{-}=0$ for $\lambda' \ne 0$. And similarly, since $\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\partial_{t} v(t,x)\d t=v^1_0$, we have $ T \to \infty $, $0 \equiv a v^1_0 $, whence $v^1_0=0$. Therefore $v \equiv 0$, and $E(u,t_{k})\to E(v,0)=0$.
\end{proof}
Let~$ \L $ be defined by~\eqref{eq:def-L}. Recall the undamped wave equation~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}
\begin{equation}\tag{\ref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}}
\begin{cases}
(\partial_{t}^{2}-\Delta)u=0, & \mathrm{in\ }\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma);\\
(u,\partial_{t} u)_{t=0}=(u_{0},u_{1}), & \in H^{1}(\Sigma)\times L^{2}(\Sigma),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and the perturbed wave equation~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll},
\begin{equation}\tag{\ref{eq:equation-L-zoll}}
\begin{cases}
(\partial_{t}^{2}+\L)u=0, & \mathrm{in\ }\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma);\\
(u,\partial_{t} u)_{t=0}=\left(u_{0},u_{1}\right), & \in H^{1}(\Sigma)\times L^2(\Sigma).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{defn}
Let $ 0 \le a \in L^\infty(\Sigma) $, we say that~$ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} (resp.~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll}), if for some constant $ C > 0 $, $ T > 0 $, and every solution~$ u $ to~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} (resp.~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll}), the observability~\eqref{eq:ineq-observability} holds.
We say that~$ a $ observes $ \L $-eigenfunctions, if for some constant $ C > 0 $ and every $ \L $-eigenfunction $ u \in \cup_n \tilde{E}_n $, the observability~\eqref{eq:observability-L-eigenfunction} holds.
\end{defn}
We will reduce the observability of~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} to the observability of~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll}, and then to the observability of $ \L $-eigenfunctions. We first state some preliminaries as those used in proving Theorem~\ref{thm:Lebeau}. For $ u \in H^s(\Sigma) $ with $ s \in \mathbb{R} $, there exists a unique decomposition into sums of $ \L $-eigenfunctions,
\begin{equation*}
u = \sum_{n \ge 0} u_n, \quad \mathrm{with\ } u_n \in \tilde{E}_n.
\end{equation*}
Then we specify the~$ H^s(\Sigma) $ norm of~$ u $ by setting
\begin{equation*}
\|u\|_{H^s(\Sigma)}^2 = \sum_{n \ge 0} (n + 1/2)^{2s} \|u_n\|_{L^2}^2.
\end{equation*}
If we decompose the initial data $ u_i = \sum_{n \ge 0} u^i_n $, $ (i=0,1) $, with $ u^i_n \in \tilde{E}_n $, then the solution to~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll} is
\begin{equation*}
u(t) = \cos(t\sqrt{\L}) u_0 + \sqrt{\L}^{-1} \sin(t\sqrt{\L}) u_1
= \sum_{n \ge 0} \big( e^{it(n+1/2)} u^+_n + e^{-it(n+1/2)} u^-_n \big),
\end{equation*}
where for $ n \ge 0 $
\begin{equation*}
u^+_n + u^-_n = u^0_n, \quad i(n+1/2) (u^+_n - u^-_n) = u^1_n,
\end{equation*}
and satisfies the a priori estimate $ \|u\|_{L^\infty H^s(\Sigma)} \lesssim \|(u_0,u_1)\|_{H^s(\Sigma) \times H^{s-1}(\Sigma)} $.
\begin{lem}
\label{LEM::Reduction-Step-2}
Let $ 0 \le a \in L^\infty(\Sigma) $, if~$ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll}, then~$ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is a mimic of that of Lemma~\ref{lem:observability-reduction-to-perturbed-wave-S^d}. Write $ K = \Delta + \L $, then by the definition of~$ \L $, $ K $ is bounded on~$ L^2(\Sigma) $, with $ \|K\|_{L^2\to L^2} \le A $. Let $u$ be the solution to~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}, with initial data $ (u_0,u_1) $. There is no harm in assuming that $\int_{\Sigma} u_{0}\,\d x=0$. Decompose $u=w+v$ with
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
(\partial_{t}^{2}+\L)v=0, & (v,\partial_{t} v)_{t=0}=(u_{0},u_{1});\\
(\partial_{t}^{2}+\L)w=Ku, & (w,\partial_{t} w)_{t=0}=(0,0).
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Now that~$ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll},
\begin{equation*}
E(u,0) = E(v,0)
\lesssim \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\Sigma} a|\partial_{t} v|^{2}\d x\,\d t
\lesssim \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\Sigma} a|\partial_{t} u|^{2}\d x\,\d t
+ \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\Sigma} a|\partial_{t} w|^{2}\d x\,\d t.
\end{equation*}
By Duhamel's formula, $ \partial_{t} w(t) =\int_{0}^{t}\cos((t-s)\sqrt{\L})Ku(s)\,\d s $; and we have
\begin{equation*}
\|\partial_{t} w(t)\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
\lesssim \int_{0}^{T}\|u(s)\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\d s
\lesssim \|(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^{2}\times H^{-1}}^{2}
\lesssim \|([u_{0}],u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^{0}\times H^{-1}}^{2}.,
\end{equation*}
where the last inequality is because~$ u_0 $ has no zero frequency. Combine the estimates above, we obtain a weak observability, with a compact remainder term on the right hand side
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2} \|([u_{0}],u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^{1}\times L^{2}}^{2}
=E(u,0)
\lesssim \int_{0}^{T}\int_{M}a|\partial_{t} u|^{2}\d x\,\d t
+ \|([u_{0}],u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^{0}\times H^{-1}}^{2}.
\end{equation*}
To remove the remainder term and prove the (strong) observability, we appeal to the uniqueness-compactness argument originally due to Bardos-Lebeau-Rauch~\cite{B-L-R}. It is an argument by contradiction that carries out as follows. Suppose that the observability of~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq} does not hold, then there exists a sequence of initial data $(u_{0}^{n},u_{1}^{n})\in H^{1}(\Sigma)\times L^{2}(\Sigma)$ such that, $ \int_{\Sigma} u^n_0\,\d x = 0 $, and as $ n\to\infty $
\begin{equation*}
E(u^{n},0)=\frac{1}{2}\|([u_{0}^{n}],u_{1}^{n})\|_{\mathcal{H}^{1}\times L^{2}}^{2}=1,
\quad \int_{0}^{n}\int_{\Sigma} a|\partial_{t} u^{n}|^{2}\d x\,\d t = o(1).
\end{equation*}
where~$u^{n}$ are the corresponding solutions~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}. By Rellich's compact injection theorem, up to a subsequence, we assume that, for some $([u_{0}],u_{1})\in\mathcal{H}^{1}\times L^{2}$,
\begin{enumerate}[nosep]
\item $ ([u_{0}^{n}],u_{1}^{n}) \rightharpoonup ([u_{0}],u_{1}) $ weakly in $ \mathcal{H}^{1}(\Sigma) \times L^{2}(\Sigma) $;
\item $ ([u_{0}^{n}],u_{1}^{n}) \to ([u_{0}],u_{1}) $ strongly in $ \mathcal{H}^{0}(\Sigma) \times H^{-1}(\Sigma) $.
\end{enumerate}
Passing $n\to\infty$ in the weak observability,
\begin{equation*}
1=E(u^{n},0)
\le o(1)+\|([u_{0}^{n}],u_{1}^{n})\|_{\mathcal{H}^{0}\times H^{-1}}^{2}
\to \|([u_{0}],u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^{0}\times H^{-1}}^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we will get a contradiction by showing that the right hand side vanishes.
To show this, we observe that $E(u^{n},t) = E(u^{n},0) = \frac{1}{2} \|([u_{0}^{n}],u_{1}^{n})\|_{\mathcal{H}^{1}\times L^{2}}^{2}$ is uniformly bounded in~$t$ and~$n$. Therefore~$[u^{n}]$ is bounded in~$L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{H}^{1}(\Sigma))$ and~$\partial_{t} u^{n}$ is bounded in~$L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(\Sigma))$. Moreover $\int_{\Sigma}u^{n}(t,x)\,\d x$ is bounded in $L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}_{t})$ (and is of order $O(t)$). Consequently~$u^{n}$ is bounded in $L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},H^{1}(\Sigma))$. The theorem of Ascoli and the compact injection theorem of Rellich show that, up to a subsequence, there exists a $(u,v)\in C(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(\Sigma))\times L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(\Sigma))$, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $u^{n}\to u$ strongly in $L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(\Sigma))$ ;
\item $u^{n} \rightharpoonup u$ respect to the weak-$\ast$ topology of $L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},H^{1}(\Sigma))$;
\item $\partial_{t} u^{n}\rightharpoonup v$ with respect to the weak-$\ast$ topology
of $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(\Sigma))$.
\end{enumerate}
Pass to the limit in the sense of distribution, we see that~$u$ satisfies~\eqref{eq:undamped-wave-eq}, with in particular $v=\partial_{t} u$. Therefore $\partial_{t}(\partial_{t} u^{n})=\Delta u^{n}$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},H^{-1}(\Sigma))$, so that $\partial_{t} u\in C(\mathbb{R},H^{-1}(\Sigma))$, and $u\in C(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(\Sigma))\cap C^{1}(\mathbb{R},H^{-1}(\Sigma))$. However, since $(u_{0},u_{1})\in H^{1}(\Sigma)\times L^{2}(\Sigma)$, there exists a solution in the $C(\mathbb{R},H^{1}(\Sigma))\cap C^{1}(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(\Sigma))$. By the uniqueness of the solution in $C(\mathbb{R},L^{2}(M))\cap C^{1}(\mathbb{R},H^{-1}(M))$, these two solutions must coincide. Therefore, it is legitimate to talk about the energy of~$u$, which is conserved $E(u,t)\equiv E(u,0)$.
On the other hand, since $a\partial_{t} u=0$ in~$\mathcal{D}'(\Sigma)$, $u$ should also satisfy the damped wave equation~\eqref{eq:Damped-Wave-Equation}. Then Proposition~\ref{prop:Weak-Stability-Property-Criterion} shows that the energy $E(u,t)$ must decay to zero as $t\to+\infty$. Hence $E(u,0)=0$, i.e.~$([u_{0}],u_{1})=(0,0)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
Let $ 0 \le a \in L^\infty(\Sigma) $, if~$ a $ observes $ \L $-eigenfunctions, then~$ a $ observes~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that a solution to~\eqref{eq:equation-L-zoll} is of the form
\begin{equation*}
u(t) = \sum_{n \ge 0} \big( e^{it(n+1/2)} u^+_n + e^{-it(n+1/2)} u^-_n \big),
\end{equation*}
where $ u^\pm_n \in \tilde{E}_n $. Now that~$ a $ observes $ \L $-eigenfunctions, which implies
\begin{equation*}
\|a^{1/2} u^\pm_n\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} \gtrsim \|u^\pm_n\|_{L^2(\Sigma)},
\end{equation*}
we have, by the orthogonality of $ \{e^{\pm i(n+1/2)t}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} $ in $ L^2([0,2\pi]) $, and a similar argument to that of Lemma~\ref{lem:Observability-Spherical-Harmonics},
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{\Sigma} a|\partial_{t} u|^{2}\d x\,\d t & =\int_{\Sigma} a(x) \int_{0}^{2\pi} \Big|\sum_{n \ge 0} (n+1/2) (e^{it(n+ 1/2)}u_{n}^{+} - e^{-it(n+1/2)} u_{n}^{-})\Big|^{2}\d t\,\d x\\
& = 2\pi \int_{\Sigma} a(x) \sum_{n \ge 0} \big|(n+1/2)u_{n}^{+}|^{2}+|(n+1/2)u_{n}^{-}\big|^{2}\d x\\
& = 2\pi \sum_{n \ge 0} (n+1/2)^2 \int_{\Sigma} a(x) \big(|u_{n}^{+}|^{2} + |u_{n}^{-}|^{2}\big) \d x \\
& \gtrsim \sum_{n \ge 0} (n+1/2)^2 \int_{\Sigma} \big(|u_{n}^{+}|^{2} + |u_{n}^{-}|^{2}\big) \d x \\
& \gtrsim E(u,0).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Observability of $ \L $-Eigenfunctions}
This sections aims to prove the observability of $ \L $-eigenfunctions, which concludes Theorem~\ref{thm:Stability-Zoll-non-GCC}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:observability-L-eigenfunction}
Let~$ \Sigma $ be a Zoll surface of revolution, then $ a(x) = 1_{\Sigma^+}(x) $ observes $ \L $-eigenfunctions.
\end{prop}
We prove this proposition with an argument by contradiction. If the observability of $ \L $-eigenfunctions does not hold, then there exists a sequence of $ \L $-eigenfunctions $ u_{n_m} \in \tilde{E}_{n_m} $ such that, as $ m \to \infty $,
\begin{equation*}
\|u_{n_m}\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} = 1, \quad \|1_{\Sigma^+} u_{n_m}\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} = o(1).
\end{equation*}
If $ \{n_m\}_{m \ge 0} $ is bounded, then $ \tilde{E} := \oplus_{m \ge 0} \tilde{E}_{n_m} $ is a finite dimensional vector subspace of~$ L^2(\Sigma) $, consisting only of low frequencies, on which the estimate holds, for any $ N > 0 $,
\begin{equation*}
\|u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} \lesssim \|u\|_{H^{-N}(\Sigma)}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $ (\tilde{E},\|\cdot\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}) $ is relatively compact, and the bounded sequence~$ \{u_{n_m}\}_{m \ge 0} $ admits a limit point $ u \in \tilde{E} $, that is, $ u_{n_m} \to u $ in~$ L^2(\Sigma) $, and hence $ 1_{\Sigma^+} u_{n_m} \to 1_{\Sigma^+} u $ in~$ L^2(\Sigma) $. Consequently,
\begin{equation*}
\|u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} = 1, \quad \|1_{\Sigma^+} u\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} = 0.
\end{equation*}
However this is impossible, for~$ u $ is a finite sum of Laplacian eigenfunctions, which does not vanish only on a set of zero measure.
We are left to consider the case where~$ \{n_m\}_{m \ge 0} $ is unbounded. Up to a subsequence, we may assume that~$ n_m $ increases to~$ \infty $. For simplicity of notation, we drop the~$ m $ subindex, and write $ n = n_m $, and introduce the semiclassical parameter
\begin{equation*}
h = (n + 1/2)^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
We then write $ u(h) = u_{n} $, which satisfies $ \L u(h) = h^{-2} u(h) $, and consequently
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation-Helmholtz-u(h)}
(- h^2 \Delta -1) u(h) = - h^2 K u(h) = O(h^2)_{L^2(\Sigma)}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Concentration of $\L$-Eigenfunctions}
\label{sub:Concentration-Eigenfunction}
We study the semiclassical measures of the sequence~$ u(h) $ and show that it concentrates on the equator. This argument is rather standard, we refer to, for example~\cite{Burq-1}, see also~\cite{Zworski}. We recall the definition of the semiclassical measure and some of its basic properties in Appendix~\ref{sec:SDM}.
We extract a subsequence if necessary, and assume in addition that~$ u(h) $ is pure (see Remark~\ref{remark:pure} for the definition).
\begin{prop}
Let~$ \mu $ be the $ h $-semiclassical measure of~$ u(h) $, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:u(h)-semiclassical-measure-concentration}
\mathrm{supp}\,\mu
\subset S^{*}\Sigma\cap\{x = 0, \xi = 0\}
=\big\{(0,\varphi,0,\pm1):\varphi\in \S^{1}\big\}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $ u(h) $ satisfies the equation $ (- h^2 \Delta -1) u(h) = O(h^2)_{L^2(\Sigma)} $. The principal symbol of $ -h^2 \Delta - 1 $ (in the semiclassical sense) is $ p(x,\xi) = g^{-1}_x(\xi,\xi) - 1$, where~$ g^{-1} $ is the inverse matrix of~$ g $. By Theorem~\ref{thm:prop-sm},
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{supp}\, \mu \subset T^*M \cap \{p(x,\xi) = 0\} = S^*M,
\quad H_p \mu = 0.
\end{equation*}
Now that~$ H_p $ generates the (co)-geodesic flow on~$ S^*M $, we see that~$ \mu $ is invariant by the geodesic flow. Moreover, our hypothesis $ \|1_{\Sigma^+} u(h)\| = o(1)_{L^2(\Sigma)} $ implies that
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{supp}\, \mu \cap T^*\Sigma^+ = \emptyset.
\end{equation*}
Recall that all geodesics enter~$ \Sigma^+ $, except for the equator,
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{supp}\, \mu \subset S^*M \backslash \bigcup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} e^{tH_p} S^*\Sigma^+ = S^{*}\Sigma\cap\{x = 0, \xi = 0\}.
\end{equation*}
We conclude by a direct calculation, using $ g|_{\Gamma} = \d x^2 + \d\varphi^2 $.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $\epsilon>0$, and $\chi_{\epsilon}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ be such that $ 1_{[-\epsilon,\epsilon]} \le \chi_\epsilon \le 1_{[-2\epsilon,2\epsilon]} $. Then
\begin{equation*}
u(h) = \chi_{\epsilon}(1-h^{2}D_{\varphi}^{2}) u(h) + o(1)_{L^2(\Sigma)},
\end{equation*}
where $ \chi_\epsilon(1-h^2D_\varphi^2) $ is defined by functional calculus, and is thus of (semiclassical) principal symbol $ \chi_\epsilon(1-\theta^2) $ (see for example~\cite{D-S}).
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $ v(h) = u(h) - \chi_{\epsilon}(1-h^{2}D_{\varphi}^{2}) u(h) $, which is pure. Now that~$ D_\varphi $ commute with~$ -\Delta $, by~\eqref{eq:equation-Helmholtz-u(h)} we see that~$ v(h) $ satisfies $ (-h^{2}\Delta-1)v(h) = O(h^{2})_{L^{2}} $.
Therefore~$ v(h) $ is $ h $-oscillating by Example~\ref{example:h-oscillating}. And by Proposition~\ref{prop:h-oscillating-imply-Ltwo-convergence}, to conclude, it suffices to show that the semiclassical measure~$ \nu $ of $ v(h) $ vanishes. Indeed, $ \nu = \big( 1 - \chi_{\epsilon}(1-\theta^2) \big)^2 \mu = 0 $, since~$ \mu $ is supported in $ 1 - \theta^2 = 0 $.
\end{proof}
As a consequence, in particular, for any $ \epsilon > 0 $, when~$ h $ is sufficiently small,
\begin{equation*}
\| u(h) - \chi_{\epsilon}(1-h^{2}D_{\varphi}^{2}) u(h) \|_{L^2(\Sigma)} \le \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
Fixing a sequence of $ \epsilon \to 0 $, we can find a sequence of~$ h = h_\epsilon \to 0$, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:decomposition-u(h)-L-eigenfunction}
u(h) = \sum_{k \in Z_n(\epsilon)} e^{ik\varphi} \tilde{w}_{n,k} + O(\epsilon)_{L^2(\Sigma)},
\end{equation}
where $ Z_n(\epsilon) = \{k \in \mathbb{Z} : |1-h^2k^2| \le \epsilon \} $, and $ \tilde{w}_{n,k} \in \tilde{A}_{n,k} $.
For later convenience, we introduce the notion of admissible sequences.
\begin{defn}
\label{def:admissible}
A 4-tuple $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ is called admissible if
\begin{enumerate}[nosep]
\item $ \epsilon > 0 $, $ h = (n+1/2)^{-1} $ for some $ n \in \mathbb{N} $;
\item $ k \in Z_n(\epsilon) $, $ \tilde{w} \in \tilde{A}_{n,k} $.
\end{enumerate}
A sequence of 4-tuple $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ (where by an abuse of notation, we omit the index of the sequence for simplicity) is called admissible if
\begin{enumerate}[nosep]
\item each term of the sequence is an admissible 4-tuple;
\item $ \epsilon \to 0 $, $ h \to 0 $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\subsubsection{Reduction to Observability of 1-D Stationary Schr\"{o}dinger Equation} \label{sub:Reduction-to-1-D-Harmonic-Oscillator}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:observability-schrodinger}
There exists $ \epsilon_0 > 0 $, $ h_0 > 0 $ and $ C > 0 $, such that for $ 0 < \epsilon < \epsilon_0 $, $ 0 < h < h_0 $, if a 4-tuple $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ is admissible, then we have the following observability,
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{x>0} \tilde{w}\|_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)} \ge C \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
If this proposition is proven, then we can finish the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:observability-L-eigenfunction}, and thus prove Theorem~\ref{thm:Stability-Zoll-non-GCC}. Indeed, we use the decomposition~\eqref{eq:decomposition-u(h)-L-eigenfunction}, \eqref{eq:Ltwo-decomposition-Sigma}, and the orthogonality of $ \{e^{ik\varphi}\}_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} $ in~$ L^2(\d\varphi,S^1) $, when $ \epsilon $ and $ h = h_\epsilon $ are sufficiently small,
\begin{align*}
\|1_{\Sigma^+}u(h)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2
& \gtrsim \big\|1_{\Sigma^+} \sum_{k \in Z_n(\epsilon)} e^{ik\varphi} \tilde{w}_{n,k} \big\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2 - \epsilon^2 \\
& \gtrsim \int_{\mathbb{R}} 1_{x>0} \int_{\S^1} \big| \sum_{k \in Z_n(\epsilon)} e^{ik\varphi} \tilde{w}_{n,k} \big|^2 \,\d\varphi \,\rho^2\d x - \epsilon^2 \\
& \gtrsim \int_{\mathbb{R}} 1_{x>0} \sum_{k \in Z_n(\epsilon)} |\tilde{w}_{n,k}|^2 \rho^2\d x - \epsilon^2 \\
& \gtrsim \int_{\mathbb{R}} \sum_{k \in Z_n(\epsilon)} |\tilde{w}_{n,k}|^2 \rho^2\d x - \epsilon^2 \\
& \gtrsim \int_{\mathbb{R}} \int_{\S^1} \big| \sum_{k \in Z_n(\epsilon)} e^{ik\varphi} \tilde{w}_{n,k} \big|^2 \,\d\varphi \,\rho^2\d x - \epsilon^2 \\
& \gtrsim \big\|\sum_{k \in Z_n(\epsilon)} e^{ik\varphi} \tilde{w}_{n,k} \big\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2 - \epsilon^2 \\
& \gtrsim \|u(h)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)}^2 - \epsilon^2 \\
& \gtrsim 1 - \epsilon^2,
\end{align*}
which contradicts to our hypothesis that $ \|1_{\Sigma^+} u(h)\|_{L^2(\Sigma)} = o(1) $ as $ h \to 0 $.
Before proving Proposition~\ref{prop:observability-schrodinger}, we observe that if~$ \tilde{w} \in \tilde{A}_{n,k} $, then~$ \tilde{w} $ satisfies a one dimensional semiclassical stationary Schr\"{o}dinger equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation-w-A(n,k)}
(-h^{2}\partial_{x}^{2}+V)\tilde{w} = E \tilde{w} + O(h^2)_{L^2\to L^2} \tilde{w},
\end{equation}
where the potential $ V = 1-\rho^{2} $ satisfies $0\le V<1=\lim_{|x|\to\infty}V(x)$, and
\begin{equation*}
V = cx^2 + O(x^3) \quad \mathrm{near\ } x=0,
\end{equation*}
recalling that $ c = -r''(\ell_0)/2 > 0 $; while the energy
\begin{equation*}
E = 1 - h^2 k^2,
\end{equation*}
satisfies by Corollary~\ref{cor:rotation-number-less-than-energy} and Proposition~\ref{prop:spectral-zoll} the estimate
\begin{equation*}
E = 1 - \lambda^{-2} k^2 + h^2 (\lambda^2 - h^{-2}) \lambda^{-2}k^2 \gtrsim -h^2.
\end{equation*}
To obtain~\eqref{eq:equation-w-A(n,k)}, we write $ \tilde{w} = \sum_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} w_{\lambda,k} $ with $ w_{\lambda,k} \in A_{\lambda,k} $, then by Proposition~\ref{prop:Geometry-Zoll-Surface-Revolution}, $ w_{\lambda,k} $ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation-w(lambda,k)}
(-h^2 \partial_x^2 + V) w_{\lambda,k}
= E w_{\lambda,k} + h^2 (\lambda^2 - h^{-2})\rho^2 w_{\lambda,k}
= E w_{\lambda,k} + O(h^2) \rho^2 w_{\lambda,k}.
\end{equation}
It remains to sum up $ w_{\lambda,k} $, and use the orthogonality by Corollary~\ref{cor:orthogonality-A(lamnbda,k)} to obtain the estimate for the remainder term (be careful that the constant~$ O(h^2) $ varies for different $ w_{\lambda,k} $, and cannot be moved to the front of the summation)
\begin{align*}
\big\| \sum_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} O(h^2) \rho^2 w_{\lambda,k} \big\|_{L^2}^2
& \le \|\rho\|_{L^\infty}^2 \big\| \sum_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} O(h^2) w_{\lambda,k} \big\|_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)}^2
\lesssim \sum_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} \|O(h^2) w_{\lambda,k} \|^2_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)} \\
& \lesssim h^4 \sum_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} \|w_{\lambda,k} \|^2_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)}
\lesssim h^4 \big\| \sum_{\lambda^2 \in I_n} w_{\lambda,k} \big\|_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)}^2
\lesssim h^4 \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2}^2
\end{align*}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:observability-schrodinger}]
A first consequence of~\eqref{eq:equation-w-A(n,k)} is that, by an Lithner-Agmon type estimate, $ \tilde{w} $ decays exponentially at infinity, so that the weight~$ \rho^2 $ can be dropped (which will be done by Corollary~\ref{cor:Use-Lithner-Agmon-Lose-Weight}), and we are left to prove the observability,
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{x>0} \tilde{w}\|_{L^2} \gtrsim \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2}.
\end{equation*}
Then we proceed with an argument by contradiction. Suppose that this observability is not true, then we can find an admissible sequence of $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ which violates the observability in the sense that
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{x>0} \tilde{w}\|_{L^2} / \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2} = o(1).
\end{equation*}
Now that $ \tilde{w} $ satisfies~\eqref{eq:equation-w-A(n,k)}, and as we have seen, since $ k \in Z_n(\epsilon) $, the energy~$ E $ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
-h^2 \lesssim E \le \epsilon = o(1),
\end{equation*}
we may assume that, up to a subsequence, either $ E = O(h) $, or $ E \gg h $. We will show that, by Proposition~\ref{prop:E=O(h)} and Proposition~\ref{prop:E-gg-h}, neither of these two cases is possible. This contradiction then finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Some Lithner-Agmon Type Estimates}
\label{sec:Lithner-Agmon-Estimates}
In this section we prove some estimates of Lither-Agmon Type, originally due to Lither~\cite{Lithner} and Agmon~\cite{Agmon}. The argument we used here comes from~\cite{D-S,Helffer}.
Let
\begin{equation*}
P(\tau)=-h(\tau)^{2}\partial_x^2 + V(x;\tau)
\end{equation*}
be a Schr\"{o}dinger operator on~$\mathbb{R}$, where the parameter~$h(\tau)$ and the potential~$V(\cdot;\tau) \in C(\mathbb{R}) \cap L^\infty(\mathbb{R}) $ both depend on $\tau\to 0$. We will consider the following two cases:
\begin{enumerate}[nosep]
\item $h(\tau) \equiv 1$ does not depend on $\tau$, then we get a classical Schr\"{o}dinger operator;
\item $h(\tau) \equiv \tau \to 0$, and we get a semiclassical Schr\"{o}dinger operator.
\end{enumerate}
We will estimate the solution $ u $ to the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equation-Schrodinger-Lithner-Agmon}
P(\tau)u=E(\tau)u+f(\tau),
\end{equation}
where $ E(\tau) \in \mathbb{R} $, $ f \in C(\mathbb{R}) \cap L^2(\mathbb{R}) $. To do this, we define the Lithner-Agmon distance, for $ x_1, x_2 \in \mathbb{R} $,
\begin{equation*}
d(x_{1},x_{2};\tau)=\Big|\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\left(V(x;\tau)-E(\tau)\right)_{+}^{1/2}\d x\Big|.
\end{equation*}
For $\varepsilon > 0$, $ R > 0 $, let
\begin{equation*}
\Phi^{\varepsilon}(x;\tau)=(1-\varepsilon)d(x,0;\tau),
\quad
\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}(x;\tau)=\chi_{R}(\Phi^{\varepsilon}(x;\tau)),
\end{equation*}
where $\chi_{R}(t)=1_{t\le R}(t)t+1_{t>R}(t)R$.
We make the following assumption.
\paragraph{\textbf{Assumption}}
For all $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $\tau_{\varepsilon}>0$, $\delta_{\varepsilon}>0$, $R_{\varepsilon}>0$, $C_{\varepsilon}>0$, such that for $0<\tau<\tau_{\varepsilon}$, if $|x|\ge R_{\varepsilon}$, then $V(x;\tau)\ge E(\tau)+\delta_{\varepsilon}$; if $|x|\le R_{\varepsilon}$, then $|V(x;\tau)-E(\tau)|<C_{\varepsilon}$, and $\Phi^{\varepsilon}(x;\tau)\le\varepsilon$.
This assumption implies that $\Phi^{\varepsilon}(x;\tau)\to\infty$ as $|x|\to\infty$, uniformly for~$\tau$ sufficiently small. Therefore $\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}$ is constant, equaling to~$R$, for~$|x|$ sufficiently large.
We will drop the parameter~$ \tau $ for simplicity. The following proposition comes from~\cite{D-S}.
\begin{prop}
Let $u\in C_{c}^{2}(\mathbb{R})$ and let $\Phi\in\mathrm{Lip}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb{R})$ be real valued, then the following identity holds.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Lithner-Agmon-Identity}
h^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|(e^{\Phi/h}u)'|^{2}\d x
+\int_{\mathbb{R}}(V-|\Phi'|^{2})e^{2\Phi/h}|u|^{2}\d x
=\Re\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{2\Phi/h}Pu\bar{u}\,\d x.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
Suppose now that the phase~$\Phi$ is constant for~$|x|$ large, and suppose $ u \in C^2(\mathbb{R}) \cap D(P) $ with $ D(P)=\big\{ w\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}):Vw\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}), w''\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R})\big\} $. Set $u_{R}(x)=\chi(x/R)u(x)$, with $\chi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$. Therefore $u_{R}\in C_{c}^{2}(\mathbb{R})$, and the previous proposition applies.
\begin{equation*}
h^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|(e^{\Phi/h}u_{R})'|^{2}\d x +\int_{\mathbb{R}}(V-|\Phi'|^{2})e^{2\Phi/h}|u_{R}|^{2}\d x
=\Re\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{2\Phi/h}Pu_{R}\overline{u_{R}}\d x.
\end{equation*}
By the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, $u_{R}\to u$ and $Vu_{R}\to Vu$ both strongly in~$L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$ as $ R\to \infty $. Now that $ u \in D(P) $, $Pu_{R}\to Pu$ in~$L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$. Now that~$ \Phi $ being constant for large~$ |x| $, we can pass to the limit on each side of the identity above, and prove the following corollary.
\begin{cor}
If $u\in C^2(\mathbb{R}) \cap D(P)$, and~$\Phi$ is constant for large~$|x|$, then the identity~\eqref{eq:Lithner-Agmon-Identity} holds.
\end{cor}
Now let~$ u \in C(\mathbb{R}) \cap L^2(\mathbb{R}) $ be a solution to~\eqref{eq:equation-Schrodinger-Lithner-Agmon}, then $ u \in C^2(\mathbb{R}) \cap D(P) $, and the corollary applies,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Lithner-Agmon-Identity-epsilon-R-for-Eigenfunction}
\begin{split}
h^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|(e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}u)'|^{2}\d x & +\int_{\mathbb{R}}(V-E-|(\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon})'|^{2}) e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}|u|^{2}\d x \\
& = \Re\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}f\bar{u}\,\d x
\le A_\varepsilon \|e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}u\|_{L^2}^{2}+C_{\varepsilon}\|e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}f\|_{L^2}^{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $ A_\varepsilon = (1-(1-\varepsilon)^{2})\delta_{\varepsilon} $.
For $0<\tau<\tau_{\varepsilon}$ and $|x|\ge R_{\varepsilon}$, by the definition of~$ \Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon} $,
\begin{equation*}
V(x)-E-|(\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon})'|^{2} \ge(1-(1-\varepsilon)^{2})(V(x)-E)
\ge(1-(1-\varepsilon)^{2})\delta_{\varepsilon} = A_\varepsilon.
\end{equation*}
Separating domain the integrals in~\eqref{eq:Lithner-Agmon-Identity-epsilon-R-for-Eigenfunction} into two parts, $|x|\ge R_{\varepsilon}$ and $|x|<R_{\varepsilon}$, we get
\begin{align*}
h^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|(e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}u)'|^{2}\d x
& +A_\varepsilon \int_{|x|\ge R_{\varepsilon}}e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}|u|^{2}\d x
-C_{\varepsilon}\|e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}f\|_{L^2}^{2}\\
& \le \big(\|V(x)-E+(\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon})'\|_{L^{\infty}(|x|\le R_{\varepsilon})}+A_\varepsilon\big)
\int_{|x|\le R_{\varepsilon}}e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}\left|u\right|^{2}\d x\\
& \le C_{\varepsilon}\int_{|x|\le R_{\varepsilon}}e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}\left|u\right|^{2}\d x.
\end{align*}
Adding $A_\varepsilon \int_{|x|\le R_{\varepsilon}} e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}|u|^{2}\d x$ to each side of the inequality, we get
\begin{align*}
h^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|(e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}u)'|^{2}\d x&+ A_\varepsilon \int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}|u|^{2}\d x -C_{\varepsilon}\|e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}f\|_{L^2}^{2}\\
& \le C_\varepsilon\int_{|x|\le R_{\varepsilon}} e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}|u|^{2}\d x
\le C_\varepsilon\sup_{|x|\le R_{\varepsilon}} (e^{2\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h})\|u\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
\le C_\varepsilon e^{2\varepsilon/h}\|u\|_{L^{2}}^{2}.
\end{align*}
This proves the following proposition.
\begin{prop}[Inhomogeneous Lithner-Agmon Estimate]
\label{prop:Lithner-Agmon-Estimate-Inhomogeneous}
Under the assumptions above, for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $\tau_{\varepsilon}>0$ and $C_\varepsilon>0$, such that for $0<\tau<\tau_{\varepsilon}$, and $R>0$, the following estimate holds
\begin{equation*}
\| h(e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}u)'\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
+\| e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}u\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
\le C_\varepsilon\big(e^{2\varepsilon/h} \|u\|_{L^2}^2 + \|e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}f\|_{L^2}^{2}\big).
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
The following two corollaries are important.
\begin{cor}[Homogeneous Lithner-Agmon Estimate]
\label{prop:Lithner-Agmon-Estimate-Homogeneous}
If $f=0$, then we obtain the usual (homogeneous) Lithner-Agmon estimate,
\begin{equation*}
\| h(e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}u)'\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
+\| e^{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}/h}u\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
\le C_\varepsilon e^{2\varepsilon/h}\|u\|_{L^2}^2.
\end{equation*}
Observe that, the right hand side of this estimate does not depend on~$R$, we are thus allowed to let $R\to\infty$, and get a finer estimate,
\begin{equation*}
\| h(e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}/h}u)'\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
+\| e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}/h}u\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
\le C_\varepsilon e^{2\varepsilon/h}\|u\|_{L^2}^2.
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
\label{Lithner-Agmon-Estimate-Inhomogeneous-Decay-in-Classical-Forbidden-Region}
Let $\chi\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ be supported in the interior of $\{x\in\mathbb{R}:\Phi^{\varepsilon}_{R}(x)=R\}$, such that $0\le \chi\le 1$, then
\begin{equation}
\|\chi h u'\|_{L^2}^{2}+\|\chi u\|_{L^2}^{2}\le C_\varepsilon\big(e^{-2(R-\varepsilon)/h}\|u\|_{L^2}^{2}+\|f\|_{L^2}^{2}\big).
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
For any $\delta>0$, we could modify the phase function $\Phi^{\varepsilon}_{R}$ to some $\tilde{\Phi}_{R}$, so that $\tilde{\Phi}_{R}\equiv R$ for $|x|\ge R_{\varepsilon}+\delta$, while $\tilde{\Phi}_{R}=\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}$ for $|x|\le R_{\varepsilon}$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
This is a classical estimate by reversing the operator $-h^{2}\partial_{x}^{2}+V(x)$ in the classical forbidden region, when $V$ is independent of $\tau\equiv h$. For our application in Section~\ref{sub:E-gg-h}, where the potential is~$V_{E}$, it is believed that such a semiclassical analysis suffices. However, we decide to use the approach above for simplicity to avoid technique problems caused by the behavior of $V_{E}$ at faraway from the origin.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
Simply notice that
\begin{equation*}
\chi(e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}_{R}/h}u)'=e^{R/h}\chi u',
\quad \chi e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}_{R}/h}u=e^{R/h}\chi u,
\quad \|e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}_{R}/h}f\|_{L^2}\le e^{R/h}\|f\|_{L^2}.
\end{equation*}
The rest of the proof is a straightforward application of the previous proposition.
\end{proof}
We want to apply the discussion above to an admissible 4-tuple $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ for sufficiently small~$ \epsilon $ and~$ h $. So that $\tau = h$, $P=-h^{2}\partial_{x}^{2}+V$, and $E=o(1)$, and $f = O(h^2)_{L^2\to L^2} \tilde{w}$. We are left to verify that $\tilde{w}\in D(P)$. This requires the following proposition from~\cite{Olver}.
\begin{prop}
Let $ I=(a_{-},a_{+}) \subset \mathbb{R} $ be a finite or infinite interval, let $f\in C^{2}(\bar{I})$ be real valued and positive, and let $g \in C(\bar{I})$ be a continuous and complex valued. Let
\begin{equation*}
F(x)=\int\big\{ f^{-1/4}(f^{-1/4})''-gf^{-1/2}\big\}\,\d x
\end{equation*}
be a primitive function of the integrand. Then in $I$ the differential
equation
\begin{equation*}
u''=(f+g)u
\end{equation*}
has twice continuously differentiable solutions of the form
\begin{equation*}
u_{\pm}(x)=f^{-1/4}(x)\exp\Big\{\pm\int f^{1/2}(x)\d x\Big\}\left(1+\varepsilon_{\pm}(x)\right)
\end{equation*}
with estimates
\begin{equation*}
\max\big\{ \left|\varepsilon_{\pm}(x)\right|,
\frac{1}{2}f^{-1/2}(x)\left|\varepsilon'_{\pm}(x)\right|\big\}
\le\exp\big\{\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{V}_{a_{\pm},x}(F)\big\}-1
\end{equation*}
provided the total variation $\mathcal{V}_{a_{\pm},x}(F)$ of~$F$ on the interval $(a_{\pm},x)$ being finite. If $g$ is real, then the solutions are real.
\end{prop}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:Solution-Approximate}
Let $ w \in A_{\lambda,k} $, with $ \lambda > 0 $, $ k \ne 0 $, then on the interval $(R_{0},\infty)$, $w$ is, up to a multiplicative constant, of the form
\begin{equation*}
w(x)
=[V(x)-E]^{-1/4}\exp\Big\{-h\int_{0}^{x}[V(t)-E]^{1/2}\d t\Big\}(1+\varepsilon(x))
\end{equation*}
with estimates $|\varepsilon(y)|+|\varepsilon'(y)|=O(h)$.
We can do the same on $(-\infty,-R_{0})$, and consequently~$w\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R})$. Since $V\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$, we deduce that $w\in D(P)$. Now that~$ \tilde{w} $ is a finite sum of such~$ w_{\lambda,k} $, we deduce that $ \tilde{w} \in H^1(\mathbb{R}) $.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Apply the previous proposition with $f=h^{-2}\left(V-E\right)$ and
$g=0.$ Then
\[
F(x)=h\int_{c}^{x}\left[V(t)-E\right]^{-1/4}\partial_{t}^{2}\left[V(t)-E\right]^{-1/4}\d t,
\]
from which, for $x>R_{0}$,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{V}_{x,\infty}(F)
& \le Ch\delta^{-5/2}\big(\|{r'}\|_{L^{\infty}}^{2}+\|{r''}\|_{L^{\infty}}\big)\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho^{2}(t)\,\d t =O(h)
\end{align*}
since $V(x)=1-\rho^{2}(x)=1-r^{2}\left(f(x)\right)$, $f'(x)=r\left(f(x)\right)$, and that
\begin{equation*}
\int\rho^{2}(t)\,\d t
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\d\varphi\int_\mathbb{R}\rho^{2}(x)\,\d x
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\mathrm{vol}(M)<\infty.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:Use-Lithner-Agmon-Lose-Weight}
There exists $ \epsilon_0 > 0 $, $ h_0 > 0 $, $ C > 0 $, such that for $ 0 < \epsilon < \epsilon_0 $, $ 0 < h < h_0 $, if $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ is an admissible 4-tuple, then
\begin{equation*}
C^{-1}\|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2} \le \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2(\rho^{2}\d x)} \le C \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2};
\end{equation*}
Suppose there exists $ \epsilon_0 > 0 $, $ h_0 > 0 $, $ C > 0 $, such that for $ 0 < \epsilon < \epsilon_0 $, $ 0 < h < h_0 $, if $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ is an admissible 4-tuple, then
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{x>0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}} \ge C \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}},
\end{equation*}
then there exists $ \epsilon'_0 > 0 $, $ h'_0 > 0 $, $ C' > 0 $, such that for $ 0 < \epsilon < \epsilon'_0 $, $ 0 < h < h'_0 $, if $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ is an admissible 4-tuple, then
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{x>0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}(\rho^2\d x)} \ge C' \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}(\rho^2\d x)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
There is no harm in assuming $ \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2} = 1 $, and apply Corollary~\ref{Lithner-Agmon-Estimate-Inhomogeneous-Decay-in-Classical-Forbidden-Region} with
\begin{equation*}
f = O(h^2)_{L^2\to L^2} \tilde{w} = O(h^2).
\end{equation*}
To do this, we fix $0<\varepsilon<1$ (please do not get confused with~$ \epsilon $), and fix $R>2\varepsilon$, then for some $R_{0}>0$, $\chi=1_{|x|>R_{0}}$ is supported in $\{\Phi_{R}^{\varepsilon}=R\}$. Then Corollary~\ref{Lithner-Agmon-Estimate-Inhomogeneous-Decay-in-Classical-Forbidden-Region} implies that, for some constant $ C_\varepsilon > 0 $,
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{|x|>R_0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^2(\rho^2\d x)} \le \|1_{|x|>R_0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^2} \le C_\varepsilon h^2
\end{equation*}
Let $ \delta = \inf_{|x|<R_{0}} \rho(x) > 0 $, then
\begin{align*}
1 = \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2}
& \ge \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2(\rho^{2}\d x)}
\ge \|1_{|x|<R_{0}} \tilde{w}\|_{L^2(\rho^{2}\d x)}
\ge \delta^{-1} \|1_{|x|<R_{0}}\tilde{w}\|_{L^2} \\
& \ge \delta^{-1} (1-\|1_{|x|>R_{0}}\tilde{w}\|_{L^2})
\ge \delta^{-1} (1- C_\varepsilon h^2)
\ge \frac{1}{2} \delta^{-1},
\end{align*}
when $ h $ is sufficiently small. This proves the first statement. To prove the second statement,
\begin{align*}
\|1_{x>0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}(\rho^2\d x)}/\|\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}(\rho^2\d x)}
& \ge \|1_{R_0>x>0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}(\rho^2\d x)} / \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}} \\
& \ge \delta^{-1} \|1_{R_0>x>0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}} / \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}} \\
& \ge \delta^{-1} \big(\|1_{x>0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}} - \|1_{x>R_0}\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}} \big) / \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^{2}} \\
& \ge \delta^{-1} (C - C_\varepsilon h^2) \\
& \ge \frac{1}{2} \delta^{-1} C,
\end{align*}
when $ h $ is sufficiently small.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Case $E=O(h)$}
\label{sub:E=O(h)}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:E=O(h)}
Let $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ be an admissible sequence such that $ E = O(h) $, then for some $ C > 0 $ and $ \epsilon $, $ h $ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{x>0} \tilde{w}\|_{L^2} \ge C \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first study Laplacian eigenfunctions, rather than $ \L $-eigenfunctions for simplicity, for the latter are finite sums of the former. To do this, we let $ \lambda^2 \in I_n $, $ k \in Z_n(\epsilon) $, and $ w \in A_{\lambda,k} $. Recall that~$ w $ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
(-h^2\partial_x^2 + V) w = E w + O(h^2)_{L^\infty} w.
\end{equation*}
Up to a subsequence, we may assume that $ c^{-1/2} h^{-1} E = F + o(1) $ for some $ F \ge 0 $, and use the following scaling,
\begin{equation*}
z = c^{1/4} h^{-1/2} x, \quad V_h(z) = c^{-1/2}h^{-1} V(x),
\end{equation*}
and work under the coordinate~$ z $, and with the measure~$ \d z $. We normalize~$ w $ so that $ \|w\|_{L^2} = 1 $, and observe that it satisfies the equation
\begin{equation*}
(-\partial_z^2 + V_h) w = F w + o(1)_{L^\infty} w.
\end{equation*}
Notice that $ V_h(z) = z^2 + h^{1/2} O(z^3) $ for $ |z| \lesssim h^{-1/2} $, we apply Proposition~\ref{prop:Lithner-Agmon-Estimate-Homogeneous} with
\begin{equation*}
\tau(h) \equiv 1, \quad P(\tau) = -\partial_z^2 + V_h(z),
\quad \Phi^{\varepsilon}(z)=(1-\varepsilon)\Big|\int_{0}^{z}\big(V_{h}(t)-F-o(1)_{L^\infty}\big)_{+}^{1/2}\d t\Big|,
\end{equation*}
and get
\begin{equation*}
\|(e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}}w)'\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
+\| e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}}w\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
\le C_\varepsilon\|w\|_{L^{2}}^{2},
\end{equation*}
which implies
\begin{equation*}
\| e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}}w\|_{L^{2}}
+\|h^{1/2} e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}} w'\|_{L^{2}}
\le C_\varepsilon\|w\|_{L^{2}}.
\end{equation*}
Indeed,
\begin{align*}
\|h^{1/2} e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}} w'\|_{L^{2}}
&\le \|h^{1/2}(e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}}w)'\|_{L^{2}}
+\|h^{1/2}(\Phi^{\varepsilon})'e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}}w\|_{L^{2}}\\
& \le h^{1/2} C_\varepsilon \|w\|_{L^{2}}
+(1-\varepsilon)(\|V\|_{L^{\infty}}+O(h))^{1/2}\|e^{\Phi^{\varepsilon}}w\|_{L^{2}}\\
& \le C_\varepsilon\|w\|_{L^{2}}.
\end{align*}
Since $\Phi^{\varepsilon}(z)\ge\alpha(|z|-M)$ for some $\alpha > 0$, $ M>0$ and is uniform for all small $\varepsilon$, $h$, we then have
\begin{equation*}
\|w\|_{L^{2}(|z|\ge R)}+\|h^{1/2}\partial_{z}w\|_{L^{2}(|z|\ge R)}=O(e^{-\alpha R})\|w\|_{L^{2}}.
\end{equation*}
Fix some $0<\delta<1/6$, and let $w_\chi=\chi(h^{\delta}z)w(z)$ where $\chi\in C^{\infty}_{0}$ is a cut-off function equaling to 1 near the origin. Therefore
\begin{equation*}
w
=w_\chi + O(h^{-1/2}e^{-\alpha h^{-\delta}})_{H^{1}}
=w_\chi + O(h^{\infty})_{H^1}.
\end{equation*}
Observing that on the support of $w_\chi$, $V_{h}(z) = z^{2} + O(h^{1/2-3\delta})$, we have,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Equation-for-w-tilde}
\begin{split}
(-\partial_{z}^{2}+z^{2}-F) w_\chi
& = o(1)_{L^{\infty}} w + [\partial_{z}^{2},\chi(h^{\delta}z)] w \\
& =o(1)_{L^{\infty}} w + 2h^{\delta}\chi'(h^{\delta}z) w' + h^{2\delta}\chi''(h^{\delta}z) w \\
& =o(1)_{L^{2}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let $\left\{ v_{i}\right\} _{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the complete set of normalized
eigenfunctions of the classical harmonic oscillator, $-\partial_{z}^{2}+z^{2}$, that is, $ \|v_i\|_{L^2} = 1 $, and
\begin{equation*}
(-\partial_{z}^{2}+z^{2})v_{i}=(2i+1)v_{i}.
\end{equation*}
We know that $ v_i(z) = c_i H_i(z) e^{-z^2/2} $, where~$ c_i $ is a constant of normalization, and~$ H_i $ is the $ i^{\mathrm{th}} $~Hermite polynomial. We will only use the fact that $ H_i $ is either an odd function (when $ i $ is odd), or an even function (when $ i $ is even).
We write $ w_\chi = \sum \alpha_{i}v_{i}$, and have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L2-norm-for-w-tilde}
\sum_{i\ge0}|\alpha_{i}|^{2}=\|w_\chi\|_{L^{2}}^{2}=\|w\|_{L^{2}}^{2}+o(1)=1+o(1).
\end{equation}
By (\ref{eq:Equation-for-w-tilde}),
\begin{equation*}
o(1)_{L^{2}}
=(-\partial_{z}^{2}+z^{2}-F) w_\chi
=\sum_{i\ge0}(2i+1-F)\alpha_{i}v_{i},
\end{equation*}
which gives
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i\ge0}(2i+1-F)^{2}|\alpha_{i}|^{2}=o(1).
\label{eq:Consequence-of-Eq-for-w-tilde}
\end{equation}
Let $i_{0} \in \mathbb{N} $ be such that $|2i_{0}+1-F|$ attains the minimum among all $|2i+1-F_{0}|$. Then for any integer $i\ne i_{0}$, $|2i+1-F_{0}|\ge|i-i_{0}|$, and hence,
\begin{equation*}
\big\|\sum_{i\ne i_{0}}\alpha_{i}v_{i}\big\|_{L^{2}}^{2}
=\sum_{i\ne i_{0}}\left|\alpha_{i}\right|^{2}=o(1).
\end{equation*}
Combining with~\eqref{eq:L2-norm-for-w-tilde}, we have $ \alpha_{i_{0}}=1+o(1) $. And by consequence,
\begin{equation*}
w
= w_\chi + o(1)_{L^2}
=\alpha_{i_{0}}v_{i_{0}}+\sum_{i\ne i_{0}}\alpha_{i}v_{i} + o(1)_{L^2}
=\alpha_{i_{0}}v_{i_{0}}+o(1)_{L^2}
=v_{i_{0}}+o(1)_{L^2}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, we have by~\eqref{eq:Consequence-of-Eq-for-w-tilde}, that $(2i_{0}+1-F)\left|\alpha_{i_{0}}\right|^{2}=o(1)$, which implies
\begin{equation*}
F=2i_{0}+1.
\end{equation*}
In particular~$ i_0 $ depends only on~$ F $, not on~$ \lambda $. As a consequence, we claim that, for this admissible subsequence, which satisfies $ E = O(h) $, when $ \epsilon $ and $ h $ are sufficiently small, there can be at most one $ \lambda^2 \in I_n $, such that $ A_{\lambda,k} \ne \{0\} $. Therefore, $ \tilde{A}_{n,k} = A_{\lambda,k} $. So if $ \tilde{w} \in \tilde{A}_{n,k} $, then $ \tilde{w} = v_{i_0} + o(1)_{L^2} $. This concludes the proof, since~$ v_{i_0} $ is either an odd function, or an even function, whose $ L^2 $ norm is thus equally distributed on each side of the origin.
To prove the claim, we argue by contradiction and use the orthogonality given by Corollary~\ref{cor:orthogonality-A(lamnbda,k)}. Indeed, suppose we can find for arbitrary small~$ \epsilon $ and~$ h $ two distinct $ \lambda_1 $, $ \lambda_2 $ such that $ \lambda_i^2 \in I_n $, $ (i=1,2) $, and that $ A_{\lambda_i,k} \ne \{0\} $, then we can choose $ w_i \in A_{\lambda_i,k} $, such that $ \|w_i\|_{L^2} = 1 $. By the analysis above, we see that $ w_i = v_{i_0} + o(1)_{L^2} $. Using the orthogonality of~$ w_1 $ and~$ w_2 $ with respect to $ L^2(\rho^2\d z) $,
\begin{equation*}
0 = (w_1,w_2)_{L^2(\rho^2\d z)} = (v_{i_0},v_{i_0})_{L^2(\rho^2\d z)} + o(1) \to (v_{i_0},v_{i_0})_{L^2(\rho^2\d z)} \ne 0,
\end{equation*}
we obtain a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Case $E \gg h$}
\label{sub:E-gg-h}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:E-gg-h}
Let $ (\epsilon,h,k,\tilde{w}) $ be an admissible sequence such that $ E \gg h $, then for some $ C > 0 $, and $ \epsilon $, $ h $ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{x>0} \tilde{w}\|_{L^2} \ge C \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We use the scaling
\begin{equation*}
z=c^{1/2} E^{-1/2}x,
\quad \hat{h}=c^{1/2} E^{-1} h,
\quad V_{E}(z)=E^{-1}V(x),
\end{equation*}
and work under the~$ z $ coordinate and the measure~$ \d z $. We normalize~$ \tilde{w} $ by $ \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2} = 1 $, and observe that it satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Harmonic-Oscillator-E-gg-h}
(-\hat{h}^{2}\partial_{z}^{2}+V_{E}) \tilde{w}
= \tilde{w} + O(h^2/E) \rho^2 \tilde{w}
= \tilde{w} + o(\hat{h})_{L^2}.
\end{equation}
Let $\chi\in C^\infty_{c}(\mathbb{R})$ be equal to~1 in a neighbourhood of $|z|\le 1$, and $0\le\chi\le 1$, then we apply Corollary~\ref{Lithner-Agmon-Estimate-Inhomogeneous-Decay-in-Classical-Forbidden-Region} and the remark after it,
\begin{equation*}
\|(1-\chi) \hat{h} \tilde{w}'\|_{L^2}^{2} + \|(1-\chi) \tilde{w}\|_{L^2}^{2}
= O(\hat{h}^{\infty}) \|\tilde{w}\|_{L^2}^{2} + o(h^{2}) = o(\hat{h}^{2}),
\end{equation*}
which implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:chi-tilde-w=1}
\|\chi \tilde{w} \|_{L^2} = 1 + o(\hat{h}).
\end{equation}
In order to conclude, it suffices to prove that, for some $ \delta > 0 $, and~$ \hat{h} $ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:observability-E-gg-h-z}
\|1_{z>0} \chi\tilde{w}\|_{L^2} \ge \delta.
\end{equation}
Let $\tilde{\chi}\in C^{\infty}_{c}(\mathbb{R})$ be such that $\chi\tilde{\chi}=\chi$, then $\chi \tilde{w}$ satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Harmonic-Oscillator-E-gg-h-truncation}
\begin{split}
(-\hat{h}^{2}\partial_{z}^{2}+\tilde{\chi}V_{E})(\chi \tilde{w})
& = \chi \tilde{w} +o(\hat{h})_{L^2} + [\hat{h}^{2}\partial_{z}^{2},\chi] \tilde{w} \\
& = \chi \tilde{w} + o(\hat{h})_{L^2} + 2\hat{h}^{2}\chi'\tilde{w}'+\hat{h}^{2}\chi''\tilde{w}
= \chi \tilde{w} + o(\hat{h})_{L^2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The bottom line comes from the the inhomogeneous Lithner-Agmon estimate and the fact that $\mathrm{supp}\,\chi'\cup\mathrm{supp}\,\chi''\subset\{|z|>1\}$. This equation first implies that $ \chi \tilde{w} $ is $ \hat{h} $-oscillating (see Example~\ref{example:h-oscillating}), whose $ \hat{h} $-semiclassical measure~$ \mu $ will thus not vanish, for we have~\eqref{eq:chi-tilde-w=1}. Now that $ \chi \tilde{w} $ is supported in $ \mathrm{supp}\, \chi $, we have evidently,
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{supp}\, \mu \subset \mathrm{supp}\, \chi \times \mathbb{R}_{\zeta}.
\end{equation*}
By the fact that $ \tilde{\chi}(z) V_E(z) \to \tilde{\chi}(z) z^2 $ in~$ C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}) $, and Corollary~\ref{cor:Semiclassical-Measure-Modified}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{supp}\, \mu \subset \{(z,\zeta) : \zeta^2 + \tilde{\chi}(z) z^2 = 1 \}.
\end{equation*}
Combing the results above,
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{supp}\, \mu \subset \mathrm{supp}\, \chi \times \mathbb{R}_{\zeta} \cap \{(z,\zeta) : \zeta^2 + \tilde{\chi}(z) z^2 = 1 \} \subset \{(z,\zeta) : \zeta^2 + z^2 = 1\},
\end{equation*}
because $ \tilde{\chi} = 1 $ on $ \mathrm{supp}\, \chi $. Moreover $ \mu $ is invariant by the Hamiltonian flow generated by the Hamiltonian vector field
\begin{equation*}
H_{\zeta^2+\tilde{\chi}(z)z^2} = (-2\zeta,2\tilde{\chi}(z)z + \tilde{\chi}'(z)z^2),
\end{equation*}
which, when restricted to $ \mathrm{supp}\, \mu $, is $ (-2\zeta,2z) $, and generates the rotation of the circle $ \zeta^2 + z^2 = 1 $. Therefore~\eqref{eq:observability-E-gg-h-z} must be satisfied, because otherwise $ \mu|_{z>0} = 0 $, and by the invariance under flow, $ \mu = 0 $, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the current interesting research areas in semi-Riemannian geometry is the theory of null (or lighlike) submanifolds. An intrinsic approach to the theory of null submanifols was advanced by D. N. Kupeli \cite{kup}, yet an extrinsic counterpart had to wait for Duggal-Bejancu \cite{db}, and later by Duggal-Sahin \cite{ds2}. Since then, many researchers have labored to extend their theories with evidence from these few selected papers: \cite{dj}, \cite{ds2}, \cite{ds3}, \cite{ds4}, \cite{dh}, \cite{ma1}, \cite{ma2}, \cite{ma22} and other references therein. The rapid increase in research on this topic, since 1996, is inspired by the numerous applications of the theory to mathematical physics, particularly in general relativity. More precisely, in general relativity, null submanifolds represent different models of black hole horizons (see \cite{db} and \cite{ds2} for details).
In \cite{ds3}, the authors initiated the study of generalized CR (GCR)-null submanifolds of an indefinite Sasakian manifold, which are \textit{tangent} to the structure vector field, $\xi$, of the almost contact structure $(\overline{\phi}, \xi, \eta)$. Moreover, when $\xi$ is tangent to the submanifold, C. Calin \cite{ca} proved that it belongs to its screen distribution. This assumption is widely accepted and it has been applied in many papers on null contact geometry, for instance \cite{ds1}, \cite{ds2}, \cite{ds3}, \cite{ma1}, \cite{ma2} and \cite{ma22}. It is worthy mentioning that $\xi$ is a \textit{global vector field} defined on the entire tangent bundle of the ambient almost contact manifold. Thus, restricting it to the screen distribution is only one of those cases in which it can be placed. In the study of Riemannian CR-submanifolds of Sasakian manifolds, Yano-Kon \cite[page 48]{yano} proved that making $\xi$ a normal vector field in such scenario leads to an anti-invariant submanifold, and hence $\xi$ was kept tangent to the CR-submanifold. Their proof leans against the fact that; the shape operator on such CR-submanifold is naturally \textit{symmetric} with respect to the induced Riemannian metric $g$. On the other hand, the shape operators of any $r$-null submanifold are generally \textit{not} symmetric with respect to the induced degenerate metric $g$ (see \cite{db} and \cite{ds2} for details).
In an attempt to generalize $\xi$, we introduced a special class of CR-null submanifold of a nearly Sasakian manifold, known as \textit{quasi generalized CR (QGCR)}-null submanifold \cite{ms}, for which the classical GCR-null submanifolds \cite{ds2} forms part. Among other benefits, generalizing $\xi$ leads to QGCR-null submanifolds of lower dimensions and with quite different geometric properties compared to respective GCR-null submanifolds.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the geometry of distributions on ascreen QGCR-null submanifolds of indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifolds. The paper is organized as follows; In Section \ref{Preli}, we present the basic notions of null submanifolds and nearly cosymplectic manifolds. More details can be found in \cite{mo}, \cite{bl1}, \cite{bl2}, \cite{be}, \cite{endo} and \cite{diaz}. In Section \ref{AlmostGe}, we review the basic notions of QGCR-null submanifolds and we give an example of ascreen QGCR-null submanifold. In Section \ref{existence}, we discuss totally umbilical, totally geodesic and irrotational ascreen QGCR-null submanifolds of an indefinte nearly cosymplectic space form $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$. Finally, in Section \ref{mixed} we investigate the geodesity of the distributions $D$ and $\widehat{D}$.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{Preli}
Let $M^{m}$ be a codimension $n$ submanifold of a semi Riemannian manifold $(\overline{M},\overline{g})$ of constant index $\nu$, $1\le \nu\le m+n$, where both $m,n\ge 1$. Then, $M$ is said to be a \textit{null submanifold} of $\overline{M}$ if the tangent and normal bundles of $M$ have a non-trivial intersection. This intersection defines a smooth distribution on $M$, called the \textit{radical} distribution \cite{db}. More precisely, consider $p\in M$, one defines the orthogonal complement $T_{p} M^{\perp}$ of the tangent space $T_{p} M$ by
$$
T_{p} M^{\perp} = \{X\in T_{p} M: \overline{g}(X, Y)=0,\; \forall \, Y\in T_{p} M)\}.
$$
If we denote the radical distribution on $M$ by $\mathrm{Rad} \, T_{p} M$, then
$\mathrm{Rad} \, T_{p} M = \mathrm{Rad}\, T_{p} M^{\perp} = T_{p} M \cap T_{p} M^{\perp}$. The submanifold $M$ of $\overline{M}$ is said to be $r$-\textit{null submanifold} (one supposes that the index of $\overline{M}$ is $\nu \ge r$), if the mapping
$
\mathrm{Rad} \, T M: p\in M \longrightarrow\mathrm{Rad}\, T_{p} M
$
defines a \textit{smooth distribution} on $M$ of rank $r > 0$.
In this paper, an $r$-null submanifold will simply be called a \textit{null submanifold} and $g=\overline{g}|_{TM}$ is a \textit{null metric}, unless we need to specify $r$.
Let $S(T M)$ be a screen distribution which is a semi-Riemannian complementary distribution of $\mathrm{Rad}\,T M$ in $T M$, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq05}
T M = \mathrm{Rad}\,T M \perp S(T M).
\end{equation}
Consider a screen transversal bundle $S(TM^\perp)$, which is semi-Riemannian and complementary to $\mathrm{Rad}\, TM$ in $TM^\perp$. For any local basis $\{E_{1},\cdots,E_{r}\}$ of $\mathrm{Rad}\,TM$, there exists a local null frame $\{N_{1},\cdots, N_{r}\}\subset S(T M^\perp)$ in $S(T M )^\perp$ such that $g(E_i , N_j ) = \delta_{ij}$ and $\overline{g}(N_{i},N_{j})=0$. It follows that there exists a null transversal vector bundle $l\mathrm{tr}(TM)$ locally spanned by $\{N_{1},\cdots,N_{r}\}$ (see details in \cite{db} and \cite{ds2}). If $\mathrm{tr}(TM)$ denotes the complementary (but not orthogonal) vector bundle to $TM$ in $T\overline{M}$. Then,
\begin{align}\label{eq04}
&\mathrm{tr}(TM)=l\mathrm{tr}(TM)\perp S(TM^\perp),\\\label{eq08}
&T\overline{M}= S(TM)\perp S(TM^\perp)\perp\{\mathrm{Rad}\, TM\oplus l\mathrm{tr}(TM)\} .
\end{align}
It is important to note that the screen distribution $S(TM)$ is not unique, and is canonically isomorphic to the factor vector bundle $TM/ \mathrm{Rad}\, TM$ \cite{kup}.
Given a null submanifold $M$, then the following classifications of $M$ are well-known \cite{db}: i). $M$ is $r$-null if $1\leq r< min\{m,n\}$; ii). $M$ is co-isotropic if $1\leq r=n<m$, $S(TM^\perp)=\{0\}$; iii). $M$ is isotropic if $1\leq r=m<n$, $S(TM)=\{0\}$; iv). $M$ is totally null if $r=n=m$, $S(TM)=S(TM^\perp)=\{0\}$.
Where necessary, the following range of indices will be used;
\begin{equation*}
i,j,k\in\{1,\ldots, r\}, \hspace{.2cm}\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in\{r+1,\ldots, n\}.
\end{equation*}
Consider a local quasi-orthonormal fields of frames of $\overline{M}$ along $M$ as
\begin{equation*}
\{ E_1,\cdots, E_r,N_1,\cdots, N_r,X_{r+1},\cdots,X_{m},W_{1+r},\cdots, W_{n}\},
\end{equation*}
where
$\{X_{r+1},\cdots,X_{m}\}$ and $\{W_{1+r},\ldots, W_n\}$ are respectively orthonormal bases of $\Gamma(S(TM)|_{U})$ and $\Gamma(S(TM^{\perp})|_{U})$.
Throughout the paper we consider $\Gamma(\Xi)$ to be a set of smooth sections of the vector bundle $\Xi$.
Let $P$ be the projection morphism of $TM$ on to $S(TM)$. Then, the Gauss-Weingartein equations of an $r$-null submanifold $M$ and $S(TM)$ are the following (see \cite{db} and \cite{ds2} for detailed explanations);
\begin{align}
& \overline{\nabla}_X Y=\nabla_X Y+\sum_{i=1}^r h_i^l(X,Y)N_i+\sum_{\alpha=r+1}^n h_\alpha^s(X,Y)W_\alpha,\label{eq11} \\
& \overline{\nabla}_X N_i=-A_{N_i} X+\sum_{j=1}^r \tau_{ij}(X) N_j+\sum_{\alpha=r+1}^n \rho_{i\alpha}(X)W_\alpha,\label{eq31}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
& \overline{\nabla}_X W_\alpha=-A_{W_\alpha} X+\sum_{i=1}^r \varphi_{\alpha i}(X) N_i+\sum_{\beta=r+1}^n \sigma_{\alpha\beta}(X)W_\beta,\label{eq32}\\
& \nabla_X P Y=\nabla_X^* PY+\sum_{i=1}^r h_i^*(X, P Y)E_i,\\
& \nabla_X E_i=-A_{E_i}^* X-\sum_{j=1}^r \tau_{ji}(X) E_j,\;\;\;\; \forall\; X,Y\in \Gamma(TM)\label{eq50},
\end{align}
where $\nabla$ and $\nabla^*$ are the induced connections on $TM$ and $S(TM)$ respectively, $h_i^l$ and $h_\alpha^s$ are symmetric bilinear forms known as \textit{local null} and \textit{screen fundamental} forms of $TM$ respectively. Furthermore, $h_i^*$ are the \textit{second fundamental forms} of $S(TM)$. $A_{N_i}$, $A_{E_i}^*$ and $A_{W_\alpha}$ are linear operators on $TM$ while $\tau_{ij}$, $\rho_{i\alpha}$, $\varphi_{\alpha i}$ and $\sigma_{\alpha\beta}$ are 1-forms on $TM$. Note that the \textit{second fundamental tensor} of $M$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{h1}
h(X,Y)=\sum_{i=1}^{r} h_{i}^{l}(X,Y)N_{i}+\sum_{\alpha=r+1}^n h_{\alpha}^{s}(X,Y)W_{\alpha},
\end{equation}
for any $X,Y\in \Gamma(TM)$. The connection $\nabla^{*}$ is a metric connection on $S(TM)$ while $\nabla$ is generally not a metric connection and is given by
\begin{equation*}
(\nabla_X g)(Y,Z)=\sum_{i=1}^r\{h_i^l(X,Y)\lambda_i(Z)+h_i^l(X,Z)\lambda_i(Y)\},
\end{equation*}
for any $X,Y\in \Gamma(TM)$ and $\lambda_i$ are 1-forms given by
$\lambda_i(X)=\overline{g}(X,N_i)$, for all $X\in \Gamma(TM).$
By using (\ref{eq11}), (\ref{eq31}) and (\ref{eq32}), the curvature tensors $\bar{R}$, $R$ of $\bar{M}$ and $M$, respectively are related as, for any $X,Y,Z,W\in \Gamma(TM)$,
\begin{align}\label{s8}
\overline{R}(X,W,Z,Y)&=\overline{g}(R(X,W)Z,Y)+\overline{g}(A_{h^l(X,Z)}W,Y)\nonumber\\
&-\overline{g}(A_{h^l(W,Z)}X,Y)+\overline{g}(A_{h^s(X,Z)}W,Y)\nonumber\\
&-\overline{g}(A_{h^s(W,Z)}X,Y)+\overline{g}((\nabla_X h^l)(W,Z),Y)\nonumber\\
&-\overline{g}((\nabla_W h^l)(X,Z),Y)+\overline{g}(D^l(X,h^s(W,Z)),Y)\nonumber\\
&-\overline{g}(D^l(W,h^s(X,Z)),Y)+\overline{g}((\nabla_X h^s)(W,Z),Y)\nonumber\\
&-\overline{g}((\nabla_W h^s)(X,Z),Y)+\overline{g}(D^s(X,h^l(W,Z)),Y)\nonumber\\
&-\overline{g}(D^s(W,h^l(X,Z)),Y).
\end{align}
A null submanifold $(M,g)$ of an indefinite manifold $(\overline{M},\overline{g})$ is said to be totally umbilical in $\overline{M}$ \cite{ds2} if there is a smooth transversal vector field $\mathcal{H}\in \Gamma(\mathrm{tr}(TM))$, called the transversal curvature vector of $M$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq17}
h = g\otimes \mathcal{H}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, it is easy to see that $M$ is totally umbilical in $\overline{M}$, if and only if on each coordinate neighborhood $U$ there exist smooth vector fields $\mathscr{H}^l\in\Gamma(l\mathrm{tr}(TM))$ and $\mathscr{H}^s\in\Gamma(S(TM^\perp))$ and smooth functions $\mathscr{H}_i^l\in F(l\mathrm{tr}(TM))$ and $\mathscr{H}_\alpha^s\in F(S(TM^\perp))$ such that,
\begin{align}
h^l(X,Y) & =\mathscr{H}^l g(X,Y),\;\;\; h^s(X,Y)=\mathscr{H}^s g(X,Y),\nonumber\\
h_i^l(X,Y) & =\mathscr{H}_i^l g(X,Y),\;\;\;h_\alpha^s(X,Y)=\mathscr{H}_\alpha^s g(X,Y)\label{s191},
\end{align}
for all $X,Y\in\Gamma(TM)$.
Let now consider $\overline{M}$ to be a $(2n + 1)$-dimensional manifold endowed with an almost contact structure $(\overline{\phi}, \xi, \eta)$, i.e. $\overline{\phi}$ is a tensor field of type $(1, 1)$, $\xi$ is a vector field, and $\eta$ is a 1-form satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{equa1}
\overline{\phi}^{2} = -\mathbb{I} + \eta
\otimes\xi,\;\;\eta(\xi)= 1 ,\;\;\eta\circ\overline{\phi} =
0 \;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\overline{\phi}(\xi) = 0.
\end{equation}
Then $(\overline{\phi}, \xi, \eta,\,\overline{g})$ is called an \textit{indefinite almost contact metric structure} on $\overline{M}$ if $(\overline{\phi}, \xi, \eta)$ is an almost contact structure on $\overline{M}$ and $\overline{g}$ is a semi-Riemannian metric on $\overline{M}$ such that \cite{bl2}, for any vector field $\overline{X}$, $\overline{Y}$ on $\overline{M}$,
\begin{equation}\label{equa2}
\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{X}, \overline{\phi}\,\overline{Y}) = \overline{g}(\overline{X}, \overline{Y}) - \eta(\overline{X})\,\eta(\overline{Y}),\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\eta(\overline{X}) = \overline{g}(\xi,\overline{X}).
\end{equation}
An indefinite almost contact metric manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{\phi}, \xi, \eta, \overline{g})$ is said to \textit{nearly cosymplectic} if
\begin{equation}\label{eqz}
(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{X}} \overline{\phi})\overline{Y}+(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{Y}} \overline{\phi})\overline{X}=0, \;\;\forall\, \overline{X}, \overline{Y}\in\Gamma(T\overline{M}),
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\nabla}$ is the Levi-Civita connection for $\overline{g}$. Taking $\overline{Y}=\xi$ in (\ref{eqz}), we get
\begin{equation}\label{v10}
\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{X}} \xi =-\overline{H}\,\overline{X},\;\; \forall\,\overline{X}\in\Gamma{(T\overline{M})}.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that one can verify the following properties of $\overline{H}$;
\begin{align}
& \overline{H}\,\overline{\phi} + \overline{\phi}\,\overline{H}=0,\;\;\overline{H}\xi=0,\;\;\eta\circ \overline{H}=0,\;\;(\overline{\nabla}_{X}\overline{\phi})\xi=\overline{\phi}\,\overline{H}X, \nonumber\\
\mbox{and}\;\;& \overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{X}, \overline{Y})=-\overline{g}(\overline{X}, \overline{H}\,\overline{Y})\;\;\;\; (\mbox{i.e.}\;\; \overline{H} \;\;\mbox{is skew-symmetric}),
\end{align}
for all $\overline{X},\overline{Y}\in \Gamma(T\overline{M})$. Let $\Omega$ denote the fundamental 2-form of $\overline{M}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\overline{X}, \overline{Y}) = \overline{g}(\overline{X}, \overline{\phi}\,\overline{Y}),\;\;\overline{X},\;\overline{Y}\in\Gamma(T \overline{M})
\end{equation}
then,the 1-form $\eta$ and tensor $\overline{H}$ are related as follows;
\begin{lemma}\label{LN}
Let $(\overline{M}, \overline{\phi}, \xi, \eta,\,\overline{g})$ be an indefinite nearly cosymplectic. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{RelaOmegaETa}
d\eta(\overline{X}, \overline{Y}) = \overline{g}( \overline{X}, \overline{H}\,\overline{Y}),\;\;\forall\,\overline{X}, \overline{Y}\in\Gamma(T \overline{M}).
\end{equation}
Moreover, $\overline{M}$ is cosymplectic if and only if $\overline{H}$ vanishes identically on $\overline{M}$.
\end{lemma}
Notice that, for all $\overline{X}$, $\overline{Y}$, $\overline{Z}\in\Gamma(T \overline{M})$,
\begin{equation}
\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{Z}}\overline{\phi})\overline{X}, \overline{Y}) = - \overline{g}( \overline{X}, (\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{Z}}\overline{\phi})\overline{Y}),
\end{equation}
which means that the tensor $\overline{\nabla}\,\overline{\phi}$ is skew-symmetric. The following lemma is fundamental to the sequel.
\begin{lemma}\label{lems2}
Let $\overline{M}$ be a nearly cosymplectic manifold, then
\begin{align}\label{s1}
(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{X}}\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi}\, \overline{Y}& = -\overline{\phi}(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{X}}\overline{\phi})\overline{Y} - \overline{g}(\overline{Y},\overline{H}\,\overline{X})\xi
- \eta(\overline{Y})\overline{H}\,\overline{X}, \\\label{s2}
(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{\phi}\,\overline{X}}\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi}\, \overline{Y}& = -(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{X}}\overline{\phi})\overline{Y} - \eta(\overline{X})\overline{\phi} \overline{H}\,\overline{Y} + \eta(\overline{Y})\overline{\phi}\overline{H}\,\overline{X},
\end{align}
for all $\overline{X},\overline{Y}\in \Gamma(T\overline{M})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from a straightforward calculation.
\end{proof}
\section{Quasi generalized CR-null submanifolds}\label{AlmostGe}
We recall some basic notions on QGCR-null submanifolds (see \cite{ms} for details).
The structure vector field $\xi$ of an indefinite almost contact manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$ can be written according to decomposition (\ref{eq08}) as follows;
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\xi=\xi_S+\sum_{i=1}^ra_i E_i+\sum_{i=1}^rb_i N_i+\sum_{\alpha=r+1}^nc_\alpha W_\alpha,
\end{equation}
where $\xi_S$ is a smooth vector field of $S(TM)$ while $a_i=\eta(N_i)$, $b_i=\eta(E_i)$ and $c_\alpha=\epsilon_\alpha\eta(W_\alpha)$ all smooth functions on $\overline{M}$. Here $\epsilon_\alpha=\overline{g}(W_\alpha,W_\alpha)$.
We adopt the definition of quasi generalized CR (QGCR)-lightlike submanifolds given in \cite{ms} for indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifolds.
\begin{definition} \label{def2}{\rm Let $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ be a null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$. We say that $M$ is quasi generalized CR (QGCR)-null submanifold of $\overline{M}$ if the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)] there exist two distributions $D_1$ and $D_2$ of $\textrm{Rad}\,TM$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq03}
\mathrm{Rad}\, TM = D_1\oplus D_2, \;\;\overline{\phi} D_1=D_1, \;\;\overline{\phi} D_2\subset S(TM),
\end{equation}
\item [(ii)] there exist vector bundles $D_0$ and $\overline{D}$ over $S(TM)$ such that
\begin{align}
& S(TM)=\{\overline{\phi} D_2 \oplus \overline{D}\}\perp D_0,\\
\mbox{with}\;\;\; &\overline{\phi}D_{0} \subseteq D_{0},\;\; \overline{D}= \overline{\phi} \, \mathcal{S}\oplus \overline{\phi} \,\mathcal{L}, \label{s81}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
where $D_0$ is a non-degenerate distribution on $M$, $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are respectively vector subbundles of $l\mathrm{tr}(TM)$ and $S(TM^{\perp})$.
}
\end{definition}
If $D_{1}\neq \{0\}$, $D_0\neq \{0\}$, $D_2\neq \{0\}$ and $\mathcal{S}\neq \{0\}$, then $M$ is called a \textit{proper QGCR-null submanifold}.
A proof of the following Proposition uses similar arguments as in \cite{ms};
\begin{proposition}
A QGCR-null submanifold $M$ of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $\overline{M}$ tangent to the structure vector field $\xi$ is a GCR-null submanifold.
\end{proposition}
Using (\ref{eq05}), the tangent bundle of any QGCR-null submanifold, $TM$, can be decomposed as
\begin{equation}
TM =D \oplus \widehat{D}, \;\; \mbox{with}\;\;D =D_0\perp D_{1}\;\mbox{and}\;\widehat{D}=\{D_{2}\perp\overline{\phi} D_{2}\} \oplus\overline{D}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Unlike for a GCR-null submanifold, in a QGCR-null submanifold, $D$ is invariant with respect to $\overline{\phi}$ while $\widehat{D}$ is not generally anti-invariant.
Throughout this paper, we suppose that $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ is a proper QGCR-null submanifold. From the above definition, we can easily deduce the following;
\begin{enumerate}
\item condition (i) implies that $\dim(\mathrm{Rad}\, TM)=s\ge 3$,
\item condition (ii) implies that $\dim(D)\ge 4l\ge 4$ and $\dim(D_2)= \dim(\mathcal{L})$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{definition}[\cite{dh1}]\label{def3} {\rm
A null submanifold $M$ of a semi-Riemannian manifold $\overline{M}$ is said to be ascreen if the structure vector field, $\xi$, belongs to $\mathrm{Rad}\, TM \oplus l\mathrm{tr}(T M)$.
}
\end{definition}
From Definition \ref{def3}, Lemma 3.6 and Theorem 3.7 of \cite{ms}, we have
\begin{theorem}\label{asc}
Let $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ be an ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $\overline{M}$, then $\xi\in\Gamma(D_{2}\oplus\mathcal{L})$. If $M$
is a 3-null QGCR submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$, then $M$ is ascreen null submanifold if and only if $\overline{\phi}\mathcal{L}=\overline{\phi} D_{2}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from straightforward calculation as in \cite{ms}.
\end{proof}
It is crucial to note the following aspects with ascreen QGCR-null submanifold: item (2) of Definition \ref{def2} implies that $\dim(D)\ge 4l\ge 4$ and $\dim(D_2)=\dim(\mathcal{L})$. Thus $\dim(M)\ge 7$ and $\dim(\overline{M})\ge 11$, and any 7-dimensional ascreen QGCR-null submanifold is 3-null.
In what follows, we construct an ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of a special nearly cosymplectic manifold with $\overline{H}=0$ (i.e., $\overline{M}$ is a cosymplectic manifold). Thus, let $(\mathbb{R}_{q}^{2m+1}, \overline{\phi}_{0} ,\xi, \eta, \overline{g})$ denote the manifold $\mathbb{R}_{q}^{2m+1}$ with its usual cosymplectic structure given by
\begin{align*}
&\eta = dz,\quad\xi=\partial z,\\
&\overline{g} =\eta\otimes\eta-\sum_{i=1}^{\frac{q}{2}}(dx^i\otimes dx^i+dy^i\otimes dy^i)+\sum_{i=q+1}^{m}(dx^i\otimes dx^i+dy^i\otimes dy^i),\\
&\phi_0 (\sum_{i=1}^m(X_i\partial x^i+Y_i\partial y^i)+Z\partial z )=\sum_{i=1}^m(Y_i\partial x^i-X_i\partial y^i),
\end{align*}
where $(x^{i} , y^{i} , z)$ are Cartesian coordinates and $\partial t_{k} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t^{k}}$, for $t\in\mathbb{R}^{2m+1}$.
Now, we use the above structure to construct the following example;
\begin{example}\label{exa1}
{\rm
Let $\overline{M}=(\mathbb{R}_4^{11}, \overline{g})$ be a semi-Euclidean space, with $\overline{g}$ is of signature $(-,-,+,+,+, - , -,+,+,+,+)$ with respect to the canonical basis
\begin{equation*}
(\partial x_{1},\partial x_{2},\partial x_3,\partial x_4,\partial x_5,\partial y_1,\partial y_2,\partial y_3,\partial y_4,\partial y_{5},\partial z).
\end{equation*}
Let $(M,g)$ be a submanifold of $\overline{M}$ given by
\begin{equation*}
x^1=y^4,\;\; y^1=-x^4,\;\; z= x^2\sin\theta + y^2\cos\theta \;\;\mbox{and}\;\; y^5=(x^5)^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation*}
where $\theta\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$. By direct calculations, we can see that the vector fields
\begin{align*}
E_1 & =\partial x_4+\partial y_1,\;\;\; E_2=\partial x_1-\partial y_4,\\
E_3 & =\sin\theta \partial x_2 +\cos\theta \partial y_2+\partial z, \; \;\; X_1=2y^5\partial x_5+\partial y_5,\\
X_2 & =-\cos\theta \partial x_2 +\sin\theta \partial y_2,\;\;\; X_3=\partial y_3,\; X_4=\partial x_3,
\end{align*}
form a local frame of $TM$. Then $\mathrm{Rad} \, TM$ is spanned by $\{E_1, E_2, E_3\}$, and therefore, $M$ is 3-null. Further, $\overline{\phi}_0 E_1=E_2$, therefore we set $D_1=\mbox{Span}\{E_1,E_2\}$. Also $\overline{\phi}_0 E_3=-X_2$ and thus $D_2=\mathrm{Span}\{E_3\}$. It is easy to see that $\overline{\phi}_0 X_3=X_4$, so we set $D_0=\mathrm{Span}\{X_3,X_4\}$. On the other hand, following direct calculations, we have
\begin{align}
N_1 & =\frac{1}{2}(\partial x_4-\partial y_1),\;\; \; N_2=\frac{1}{2}(-\partial x_1-\partial y_4),\nonumber\\
N_3 & =\frac{1}{2}(-\sin\theta \partial x_2 -\cos\theta \partial y_2+\partial z),\;\; \; W=\partial x_5-2y^5\partial y_5, \nonumber
\end{align}
from which $l\mathrm{tr}(TM)=\mathrm{Span}\{N_1,N_2,N_3\}$ and
$S(TM^\perp)=\mathrm{Span}\{W\}$. Clearly, $\overline{\phi}_0 N_2=-N_1$.
Further, $\overline{\phi}_0 N_3=\frac{1}{2} X_2$ and thus
$\mathcal{L}=\mbox{Span}\{N_3\}$. Notice that
$\overline{\phi}_0N_3=-\frac{1}{2}\overline{\phi}_0 E_3$ and therefore
$\overline{\phi}_0\mathcal{L}=\overline{\phi}_0 D_2$. Also, $\overline{\phi}_0
W=-X_1$ and therefore $\mathcal{S}=\mbox{Span}\{W\}$. Finally, we calculate
$\xi$ as follows; Using Theorem \ref{asc} we have $\xi=a E_3+b N_3$. Applying
$\overline{\phi}_0$ to this equation we obtain $a\overline{\phi}_0
E_3+b\overline{\phi}_0 N_3=0$. Now, substituting for $\overline{\phi}_0 E_3$ and
$\overline{\phi}_0 N_3$ in this equation we get $2a=b$, from which we get
$\xi=\frac{1}{2}(E_3+2N_3)$. Since $\overline{\phi}_0\xi=0$ and
$\overline{g}(\xi,\xi)=1$, we conclude that $(M,g)$ is an ascreen QGCR-null
submanifold of $\overline{M}$.}
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}
There exist no co-isotropic, isotropic or totally null proper QGCR-null submanifolds of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold.
\end{proposition}
\section{Umbilical and Geodesic ascreen QGCR-null submanifolds}\label{existence}
In this section, we prove two main theorems concerning totally umbilical, totally geodesic and irrotational ascreen QGCR-null submanifolds of $\overline{M}$. An indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $\overline{M}$ is called an \textit{indefinite nearly cosymplectic space form}, denoted by $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$, if it has the constant $\overline{\phi}$-sectional curvature $\overline{c}$. The curvature tensor $\overline{R}$ of the indefinite nearly cosymplectic space form $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$ is given by \cite{endo}:
\begin{align}\label{s9}
4\overline{R}(\overline{X},\overline{W},\overline{Z},\overline{Y})& = \overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{W}}\overline{\phi})\overline{Z},(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{X}}\overline{\phi})\overline{Y})-\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{W}}\overline{\phi})\overline{Y},(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{X}}\overline{\phi})\overline{Z})\nonumber\\
& -2\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{W}}\overline{\phi})\overline{X},(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{Y}}\overline{\phi})\overline{Z})+\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{W},\overline{Z})\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{X},\overline{Y})\nonumber\\
& -\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{W},\overline{Y})\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{X},\overline{Z})-2\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{W},\overline{X})\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{Y},\overline{Z})\nonumber\\
& -\eta(\overline{W})\eta(\overline{Y})\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{X},\overline{H}\,\overline{Z})+\eta(\overline{W})\eta(\overline{Z})\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{X},\overline{H}\,\overline{Y})\nonumber\\
& +\eta(\overline{X})\eta(\overline{Y})\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{W},\overline{H}\,\overline{Z})-\eta(\overline{X})\eta(\overline{Z})\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{W},\overline{H}\,\overline{Y})\nonumber\\
&+\overline{c}\{\overline{g}(\overline{X},\overline{Y})\overline{g}(\overline{Z},\overline{W})-\overline{g}(\overline{Z},\overline{X})\overline{g}(\overline{Y},\overline{W})\nonumber\\
&+\eta(\overline{Z})\eta(\overline{X})\overline{g}(\overline{Y},\overline{W})-\eta(\overline{Y})\eta(\overline{X})\overline{g}(\overline{Z},\overline{W})\nonumber\\
&+\eta(\overline{Y})\eta(\overline{W})\overline{g}(\overline{Z},\overline{X})-\eta(\overline{Z})\eta(\overline{W})\overline{g}(\overline{Y},\overline{X})\nonumber\\
&+\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{Y},\overline{X})\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{Z},\overline{W})-\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{Z},\overline{X})\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\, \overline{Y},\overline{W})\nonumber\\
&-2\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{Z},\overline{Y})\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{X},\overline{W})\},
\end{align}
for all $\overline{X},\overline{Y},\overline{Z},\overline{W}\in\Gamma(T\overline{M})$.
Notice that $D_0$ and $\overline{\phi}\mathcal{S}$ are orthogonal and non-degenerate subbundles of $TM$ and that when $M$ is ascreen QGCR-null submanifold, we observe that
\begin{equation}\label{M11}
\eta(X)=\eta(Z)=0,\quad \forall\,X\in\Gamma(D_0),\quad Z\in\Gamma(\overline{\phi}\mathcal{S}).
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}\label{cos}
Let $(M,g,S(TM)$, $S(TM^\perp))$ be a totally umbilical or totally geodesic ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic space form $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$, of pointwise constant $\overline{\phi}$-sectional curvature $\overline{c}$, such that $D_{0}$ and $\overline{\phi}\mathcal{S}$ are space-like and parallel distributions with respect to $\nabla$. Then, $\overline{c}\ge 0$. Equality occurs when $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$ is an indefinite cosymplectic space form.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $X$ and $Z$ be vector fields in $D_{0}$ and $\overline{\phi}\mathcal{S}$, respectively. Replacing $\overline{W}$ with $\overline{\phi} X$ and $\overline{Y}$ with $\overline{\phi}Z$ in (\ref{s9}), we get
\begin{align}\label{s10}
4 \overline{R}(X,&\overline{\phi}X,Z,\overline{\phi} Z) = \overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{\phi} X}\overline{\phi})Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi} Z)\nonumber\\
&-\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{ \overline{\phi}X}\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi}Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z)-2\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{ \overline{\phi}X}\overline{\phi})X,(\overline{\nabla}_{ \overline{\phi}Z}\overline{\phi})Z)\nonumber\\
&+\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi} X,Z)\overline{g}(\overline{H}X,\overline{\phi}Z)-\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi} X, \overline{\phi}Z)\overline{g}(\overline{H}X,Z)\nonumber\\
&-2\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi}X,X)\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi} Z,Z)-2\overline{c}g( \overline{\phi}Z,\overline{\phi}Z)g(\overline{\phi} X, \overline{\phi}X).
\end{align}
Considering the first three terms on the right hand side of (\ref{s10}), we have
\begin{align}\label{s11}
\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{\phi} X}\overline{\phi})Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi} Z)=& -\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{Z}\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi} X,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi}) \overline{\phi}Z).
\end{align}
Applying (\ref{s1}) of Lemma \ref{lems2} on (\ref{s11}) we derive
\begin{align}\label{s14}
&\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{ \overline{\phi}X}\overline{\phi})Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi} Z)= -\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{Z}\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi}X,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi} Z)\nonumber\\
&=\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z)-\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}Z,\overline{H}X)^2+\overline{g} (Z,\overline{H}X)^2.
\end{align}
In a similar way, using (\ref{s2}) of Lemma \ref{lems2}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{s12}
-\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{ \overline{\phi}X}\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi}Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z)=\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{s13}
-2\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{ \overline{\phi}X}\overline{\phi})X,(\overline{\nabla}_{\overline{\phi} Z}\overline{\phi})Z)=0
\end{equation}
Now substituting (\ref{s14}), (\ref{s12}) and (\ref{s13}) in (\ref{s10}), we get
\begin{align*}
&4 \overline{R}(X,\overline{\phi}X,Z,\overline{\phi} Z) = 2\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z)-\overline{g} (\overline{\phi}Z,\overline{H}X)^2\nonumber\\
&+\overline{g} (Z,\overline{H}X)^2+\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi} X,Z)\overline{g}(\overline{H}X,\overline{\phi}Z)-\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi} X, \overline{\phi}Z)\overline{g}(\overline{H}X,Z)\nonumber\\
&-2\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi}X,X)\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi} Z,Z)-2\overline{c}g( \overline{\phi}Z,\overline{\phi}Z)g(\overline{\phi} X, \overline{\phi}X),
\end{align*}
from which we obtain
\begin{align}\label{s74}
2\overline{R}(X,\overline{\phi} X,Z, \overline{\phi}Z) &=\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z,(\overline{\nabla}_X\overline{\phi})Z)+\overline{g} (Z,\overline{H}X)^2\nonumber\\
&-\overline{c}g(Z,Z)g(X,X).
\end{align}
Then using the facts $D_{0}$ and $\overline{\phi}\mathcal{S}$ are space-like and parallel with respect to $\nabla$, we have
$$
(\overline{\nabla}_{Z}\overline{\phi})X = (\nabla_{Z}\overline{\phi})X\in\Gamma(D_{0}),
$$
and (\ref{s74}) reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{M30}
2\overline{R}(X,\overline{\phi} X,Z,\overline{\phi}Z)=||(\nabla_{Z}\overline{\phi})X||^{2}+\overline{g}(Z,\overline{H}X)^{2}-\overline{c}||X||^{2}||Z||^{2},
\end{equation}
where $||.||$ denotes the norm on $D_{0}\perp \overline{\phi}\mathcal{S}$ with respect to $g$.
On the other hand, if we set $\overline{W}=\overline{\phi} X$ and $\overline{Y}=\overline{\phi} Z$ in (\ref{s8}), we have
\begin{align}\label{s17}
&\overline{R}(X,\overline{\phi}X,Z,\overline{\phi} Z)\nonumber\\
&=\;\overline{g}((\nabla_X h^s)(\overline{\phi} X,Z),\overline{\phi} Z)-\overline{g}((\nabla_{ \overline{\phi}X} h^s)(X,Z),\overline{\phi} Z),
\end{align}
where,
\begin{equation}\label{s18}
(\nabla_X h^s)(\overline{\phi} X,Z)=\nabla_X^sh^s(\overline{\phi} X,Z)-h^s(\nabla_X \overline{\phi}X,Z)-h^s( \overline{\phi}X,\nabla_X Z).
\end{equation}
By the fact that $M$ is totally umbilical in $\overline{M}$, we have $h^s(\overline{\phi} X,Z)=0$. Thus using (\ref{s191}), equation (\ref{s18}) becomes
\begin{align}\label{s19}
(\nabla_X h^s)(\overline{\phi} X,Z)&=-h^s(\nabla_X\overline{\phi} X,Z)-h^s(\overline{\phi} X,\nabla_X Z)\nonumber\\
=&-g(\nabla_X\overline{\phi} X,Z)\mathscr{H}^s-g(\overline{\phi} X,\nabla_X Z)\mathscr{H}^s.
\end{align}
Differentiating $\overline{g}(\overline{\phi} X,Z)=0$ covariantly with respect to $X$ and then applying (\ref{eq11}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{s21}
g(\nabla_X \overline{\phi}X,Z)+g(\overline{\phi} X,\nabla_X Z)=0.
\end{equation}
Substituting (\ref{s21}) in (\ref{s19}), gives
\begin{equation}\label{s22}
(\nabla_X h^s)(\overline{\phi} X,Z)=0.
\end{equation}
Similarly,
\begin{equation}\label{s23}
(\nabla_{ \overline{\phi}X} h^s)(X,Z)=0.
\end{equation}
Then, substituting (\ref{s22}) and (\ref{s23}) in (\ref{s17}), we get
\begin{equation}\label{s25}
\overline{R}(X,\overline{\phi} X,Z,\overline{\phi} Z)=0.
\end{equation}
Substituting (\ref{s25}) in (\ref{M30}), gives
\begin{equation}\label{s30}
\overline{c}||X||^{2}||Z||^{2}=||(\nabla_{Z}\overline{\phi})X||^{2}+\overline{g}(Z,\overline{H}X)^{2}\ge 0,
\end{equation}
which implies that $\overline{c}\ge 0$. When the ambient manifold is cosymplectic, then $\nabla\overline{\phi}=0$ and $d\eta=0$ \cite{bl2} and in this case $\overline{c}=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{exa2}
\rm{
Let $M$ be an ascreen QGCR-null submanifold in Example \ref{exa1} Applying (\ref{eq11}) and Koszul's formula (see \cite{db}) to Example \ref{exa1} we obtain
\begin{align}\label{M1}
&h_{i}^{l}(X,Y)=0\quad\forall\, X,Y\in\Gamma(TM),\quad \mbox{where}\quad i=1,2,3,\nonumber\\
& \epsilon_{4}h_{4}^{s}(X_{1},X_{1})=2\quad \mbox{and}\quad h_{4}^{s}(X,Y)=0,\quad\forall\,X\neq X_{1},Y\neq X_{1}.
\end{align}
Using (\ref{h1}), (\ref{M1}) and $\epsilon_{4}=\overline{g}(W,W)=1+4(y^{5})^2$, we also derive
\begin{equation}\label{M2}
h(X_{1},X_{1})=\frac{2}{1+4(y^{5})^{2}}W.
\end{equation}
We remark that $M$ is not totally geodesic. From (\ref{M2}) and (\ref{eq17}) we note that $M$ is totally umbilical with
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{2}{(1+4(y^{5})^{2})^{2}}W.
\end{equation*}
By straightforward calculations we also have
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_{X_{1}}X_{1}=4y^{5}X_{1}\quad\mbox{and} \quad \nabla_{X_{i}}X_{j}=0\quad \forall\,i,j\neq1.
\end{equation*}
Thus, $D_{0}$ and $\overline{\phi}\mathcal{S}$ are parallel distributions with respect to $\nabla$. Hence, $M$ satisfies Theorem \ref{cos} and $\overline{c}=0$.}
\end{example}
\begin{corollary}
Let $(M,g,S(TM)$, $S(TM^\perp))$ be a totally umbilical or totally geodesic ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite cosymplectic space form $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$ of pointwise constant $\overline{\phi}$-sectional curvature $\overline{c}$. Then, $\overline{c}=0$.
\end{corollary}
A null submanifold $M$ of a semi-Riemannian manifold $(\overline{M},\overline{g})$ is called irrotational \cite{ds2} if $\overline{\nabla}_{X}E\in\Gamma(TM)$, for any $E\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \, TM))$ and $X\in\Gamma(TM)$. Equivalently, $M$ is irrotational if
\begin{equation}\label{ms40}
h^{l}(X,E)= h^{s}(X,E)=0,
\end{equation}
for all $X\in\Gamma(TM)$ and $ E\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \,TM)$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $(M,g,S(TM)$, $S(TM^\perp))$ be an irrotational ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic space form $\overline{M}(c)$ of pointwise constant $\overline{\phi}$-sectional curvature $\overline{c}$. Then, $\overline{c}\le 0$ or $\overline{c}\ge 0$. Equality holds when $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$ is an indefinite cosymplectic space form.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By setting $\overline{Y}=\overline{Z}=E$, $\overline{X}$ and $\overline{W}=\overline{\phi}E$ in (\ref{s8}), we get
\begin{align}\label{ms41}
& \overline{R}(X,\overline{\phi}E,E,E) =\overline{g}((\nabla_X h^l)(\overline{\phi}E,E),E)-\overline{g}((\nabla_{\overline{\phi}E} h^l)(X,E),E)\nonumber\\
&+\overline{g}((\nabla_X h^s)(\overline{\phi}E,E),E)-\overline{g}((\nabla_{\overline{\phi}E} h^s)(X,E),E)
\end{align}
for any $X\in \Gamma(TM)$ and $E\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \,TM)$. Then, using the fact that $M$ is irrotational, (\ref{ms41}) reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{ms42}
\overline{R}(X,\overline{\phi}E,E,E)=0,\;\;\forall\;X\in\Gamma(TM).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, setting $\overline{Y}=\overline{W}=E$ and $\overline{Z}=\overline{\phi}E$ in (\ref{s9}) and simplifying , we get
\begin{align}\label{ms43}
&\overline{R}(X,E,\overline{\phi} E,E) =-3\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{E}\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi} E,(\overline{\nabla}_{E}\overline{\phi})X)\nonumber\\
&-\eta(E)^{2}\overline{g}(\overline{H}X,\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi}E)+4\overline{c}\eta(E)^{2}\overline{g}(X,\overline{\phi} E).
\end{align}
Now, using (\ref{ms42}) and (\ref{ms43}), we get
\begin{align}\label{ms44}
&4\overline{c}\eta(E)^{2}\overline{g}(X,\overline{\phi} E)\nonumber\\
&=3\overline{g}((\overline{\nabla}_{E}\overline{\phi})\overline{\phi} E,(\overline{\nabla}_{E}\overline{\phi})X)+\eta(E)^{2}\overline{g}(\overline{H}X,\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi}E).
\end{align}
Replacing $X$ with $\overline{\phi}E$ in (\ref{ms44}) and the using (\ref{s1}) of Lemma \ref{lems2} to the resulting equation gives
\begin{equation}\label{ms45}
\overline{c}\eta(E)^{2}\overline{g}(\overline{\phi} E,\overline{\phi} E)=\eta(E)^{2}\overline{g}(\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi} E,\overline{H}\,\overline{\phi}E).
\end{equation}
Since $M$ is ascreen QGCR-null submanifold, there exists $E\in\Gamma(D_{2})$ such that $\eta(E)=b\neq0$, and thus (\ref{ms45}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}\label{ms455}
\overline{c}=-\frac{1}{b^{2}}\overline{g}(\overline{H} E,\overline{H}E)=\frac{1}{b^{2}}d\eta(E,\overline{H} E).
\end{equation}
We observe that $\overline{c}=0$ if either $d\eta=0$ (i.e., $\overline{M}(c)$ is cosymplectic space form \cite{bl2}) or $\overline{H} E$ is a null vector field. The second case implies that $\overline{H} E$ belongs to $\mathrm{Rad} \,TM$ or $l\mathrm{tr}(TM)$. If $\overline{H} E\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \,TM)$, then there exists a non zero smooth function $\kappa$ such that $\overline{H} E=\kappa E$, for some arbitrary $E\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \,TM)$. Taking the $\overline{g}$-product of $\overline{H}E=\kappa E$ with $\xi$ leads to $0=\kappa\eta(E)$, from which $\eta(E)=0$. Since $M$ is ascreen QGCR-null submanifold, then, there is $E\in\Gamma(D_{2})$ such that $\eta(E)\neq0$, hence a contradiction. Similar reasoning can be applied if $\overline{H} E\in\Gamma(l\mathrm{tr}(TM))$. Therefore, $\overline{c}=0$ only if $\overline{H}E=0$ (i.e., $d\eta=0$) which occurs when $\overline{M}(c)$ is cosymplectic space form \cite{bl2}. It turns out that $\overline{c}\le 0$ or $\overline{c}\ge 0$ depending on whether $\overline{H}E$ is space-like or time-like vector field respectively.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let $(M,g,S(TM)$, $S(TM^\perp))$ be an irrotational ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite cosymplectic space form $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$ of pointwise constant $\overline{\phi}$-sectional curvature $\overline{c}$. Then, $\overline{c}=0$.
\end{corollary}
It is easy to see from (\ref{M2}) that $h^{l}(X,E)= h^{s}(X,E)=0$ and hence $M$ given in Example \ref{exa2} is an irrotational ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite cosymplectic space form $\overline{M}(\overline{c})$. As is proved in that example $\overline{c}=0$.
\section{Mixed totally geodesic QGCR-null submanifolds}\label{mixed}
\begin{definition}{\rm
A QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$ is called \textit{mixed totally geodesic} QGCR-null submanifold if its second fundamental form, $h$, satisfies $h(X,Y)=0$, for any $X\in\Gamma(D)$ and $Y\in\Gamma(\widehat{D})$.
}
\end{definition}
We will need the following lemma in the next theorem.
\begin{lemma}\label{lems7}
Let $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ be any 3-null proper ascreen QG CR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$. Then,
$$2\eta(E)\eta(N)=1,
$$
for any $E\in\Gamma(D_{2})$ and $N\in\Gamma(\mathcal{L})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from straightforward calculations using $\overline{g}(\xi,\xi)=1$ and $\xi=\eta(N)E+\eta(E)N$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ be a 3-null proper ascreen QG CR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$. Then, $M$ is mixed totally geodesic if and only if $h_{\alpha}^{s}(X,Y)=0$ and $A_{E_{i}}^* X=0$, for all $X\in\Gamma(D)$, $Y\in\Gamma(\widehat{D})$, $W_{\alpha}\in\Gamma(S(TM^{\perp}))$ and $E_i\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \, TM)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the defintion of ascreen QGCR-null submanifold, $M$ is mixed geodesic if
\begin{equation}\label{t1}
\overline{g}(h(X,Y),W_{\alpha})=\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E_{i})=0,
\end{equation}
for all $X\in\Gamma(D)$, $Y\in\Gamma(\widehat{D})$, $W_{\alpha}\in\Gamma(S(TM^{\perp}))$ and $E_i\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \, TM)$. Now, by virtue of (\ref{h1}) and the first equation of (\ref{t1}), we have
\begin{equation*}
0=\overline{g}(h(X,Y),W_{\alpha})=\epsilon_{\alpha}h_{\alpha}^{s}(X,Y),
\end{equation*}
from which $h_{\alpha}^{s}(X,Y)=0$, since $\epsilon_{\alpha}\neq0$. On the other hand, using the second equation of (\ref{t1}), (\ref{eq11}) and (\ref{eq50}) we derive
\begin{equation}\label{ms23}
\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E_{i})=\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_{X} Y,E_{i})=-\overline{g}(Y,\overline{\nabla}_{X} E_{i})=g(Y,A_{E_{i}}^* X)=0.
\end{equation}
Since $D=D_{0}\perp D_{1}$ and $\widehat{D}=\{D_{2}\perp\overline{\phi} D_{2}\} \oplus\overline{D}$, we observe that $A_{E_{i}}^* X\notin\Gamma(\overline{\phi} D_{2})$ or $\overline{\phi} \mathcal{L}$. In fact, let suppose that $A_{E_{i}}^* X\notin\Gamma(\overline{\phi} D_{2})$, then there exists a non-vanishing smooth function $\ell$ such that $A_{E_{i}}^* X=\ell \overline{\phi} E$, for $E\in\Gamma(D_{2})$. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{ms24}
0=g(Y,A_{E_{i}}^* X)=\ell g(Y,\overline{\phi} E),\;\;\forall\;Y\in\Gamma(\widehat{D}).
\end{equation}
Taking $Y=\overline{\phi}N$ in (\ref{ms24}), where $N\in\Gamma(\mathcal{L})$ and using Lemma \ref{lems7}, we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber
0=g(Y,A_{E_{i}}^* X)=\ell g(\overline{\phi}N,\overline{\phi} E)=\ell(1-\eta(E)\eta(N))=\frac{1}{2}\ell,
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction, since $\ell\neq0$. Hence $A_{E_{i}}^* X\notin\Gamma(\overline{\phi} D_{2}\oplus\overline{\phi} \mathcal{L})$. Moreover, $A_{E_{i}}^* X\notin\Gamma(\overline{\phi} \mathcal{S})$ since if $A_{E_{i}}^* X\in\Gamma(\overline{\phi} \mathcal{S})$, then there is a non-vanishing smooth function $\omega$ such that $A_{E_{i}}^* X=\omega\overline{\phi}W_{\alpha}$. Taking the $\overline{g}$-product of this equation with respect to $Y=\overline{\phi}W_{\alpha}$ and using the fact that $\eta(W_{\alpha})=0$, we get
\begin{equation}\nonumber
0=g(Y,A_{E_{i}}^* X)=\omega\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}W_{\alpha},\overline{\phi}W_{\alpha})=\omega\overline{g} (W_{\alpha},W_{\alpha})=\omega\epsilon_{\alpha},
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction, since $\epsilon_{\alpha}\neq0$ and $\omega\neq0$. Hence, $A_{E_{i}}^* X\notin\Gamma(\{\overline{\phi} D_{2}\oplus\overline{\phi} \mathcal{L}\}\perp \overline{\phi}\mathcal{S})$, which implies that $A_{E_{i}}^* X\in\Gamma(D_{0})$. Since $A_{E_{i}}^* X\in\Gamma(D_{0})$, then the non-degeneracy of $D_{0}$ implies that there exists some $Z\in\Gamma(D_{0})$ such that $g(A_{E_{i}}^* X, Z)\neq 0$. But using (\ref{eq50})and (\ref{eq11}), together with the fact that $M$ is mixed geodesic we derive
\begin{equation}\label{ms25}
g(A_{E_{i}}^* X, Z)=-g(\nabla_{X}E_{i},Z)=\overline{g}(E_{i},\overline{\nabla}_{X}Z)=\overline{g}(E_{i},\nabla_{X}Z)=0,
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction. Thus $A_{E_{i}}^* X\notin\Gamma(\{\overline{\phi} D_{2}\oplus\overline{\phi} \mathcal{L}\}\perp \overline{\phi}\mathcal{S}\perp D_{0})$, i.e., $A_{E_{i}}^* X=0$. The converse is obvious.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ be a proper ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$. Then, if $M$ is mixed totally geodesic then $h_{i}^{l}(X,E_{i})=0$ and $\varphi_{\alpha i}(X)=0$, for all $X\in\Gamma(D)$ and $E_{i}\in\Gamma(D_{2})$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{definition}{\rm
A QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$ is called $D$-totally geodesic QGCR-null submanifold if its second fundamental form $h$ satisfies
$$
h(X,Y)=0,\;\;\forall X,\,Y\in\Gamma(D).
$$
}
\end{definition}
Since $M$ is ascreen QGCR-null submanifold, we have $\overline{g}(X,\xi)=0$, for all $X\in\Gamma(D)$. Applying $\overline{\nabla}_{Y}$ to $\overline{g}(X,\xi)=0$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{ms30}
\eta(\overline{\nabla}_{Y}X)=-\overline{g}(X,\overline{\nabla}_{Y}\xi)=\overline{g}(X,\overline{H}Y).
\end{equation}
Interchanging $X$ and $Y$ in (\ref{ms30}), and then adding the resulting equation to (\ref{ms30}), gives
\begin{equation}\label{lems11}
\eta(\overline{\nabla}_{X}Y)+\eta(\overline{\nabla}_{Y}X)=\overline{g}(Y,\overline{H}X)+\overline{g}(X,\overline{H}Y)=0.
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}
Let $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ be a proper ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$. Then, $M$ is $D$-totally geodesic if and only if $\overline{\phi}h^{l}(X,\overline{\phi}E)$ and $\overline{\phi}h^{s}(X,\overline{\phi}W)$ respectively have no components along $l\mathrm{tr}(TM)$ and $S(TM^\perp)$, while both $\nabla_{X} \overline{\phi} E$ and $\nabla_{X} \overline{\phi} W\notin\Gamma(D_{0})$ for all $X\in\Gamma(D)$, $E\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \, TM)$ and $W\in\Gamma(\mathcal{S})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of ascreen QGCR-null submanifold, $M$ is $D$ geodesic if and only if $\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)=\overline{g}(h(X,Y),W)=0$, for all $X,Y\in\Gamma(D)$, $W_{\alpha}\in\Gamma(S(TM^{\perp}))$ and $E\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Rad} \, TM)$.
Using (\ref{eq11}) and (\ref{equa2}), we derive
\begin{align*}
\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E) &=\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_{X}Y,E)=\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{\nabla}_{X}Y,\overline{\phi}E)-\overline{g}(Y,\overline{\nabla}_{X}\xi)\overline{g}(E,\xi),
\end{align*}
from which when we apply (\ref{v10}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{ms31}
\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)=\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{\nabla}_{X}Y,\overline{\phi}E)+\overline{g}(Y,\overline{H}X)\overline{g}(E,\xi).
\end{equation}
Interchanging $X$ and $Y$ in (\ref{ms31}) and considering the fact that $h$ is symmetric we get
\begin{equation}\label{ms32}
\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)=\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{\nabla}_{Y}X,\overline{\phi}E)+\overline{g}(X,\overline{H}Y)\overline{g}(E,\xi).
\end{equation}
Summing (\ref{ms31}) and (\ref{ms32}), and then applying (\ref{lems11}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{ms33}
2\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)=\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{\nabla}_{X}Y,\overline{\phi}E)+\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}\,\overline{\nabla}_{Y}X,\overline{\phi}E).
\end{equation}
Now, applying the nearly cosymplectic condition in (\ref{eqz}) to (\ref{ms33}), leads to
\begin{equation}\label{ms34}
2\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)=\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_{X}\overline{\phi}Y,\overline{\phi}E)+\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_{Y}\overline{\phi}X,\overline{\phi}E).
\end{equation}
From (\ref{ms34}) and (\ref{eq11}) we derive
\begin{align}\label{ms35}
2\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)&=\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_{X}\overline{\phi}Y,\overline{\phi}E)+\overline{g}(\overline{\nabla}_{Y}\overline{\phi}X,\overline{\phi}E)\nonumber\\
&-\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}Y,h(X,\overline{\phi}E))-\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}X,h(Y,\overline{\phi}E))
\end{align}
If we let $X,Y\in\Gamma(D_{1})$ in (\ref{ms35}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{ms36}
2\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)=\overline{g}(Y,\overline{\phi}h(X,\overline{\phi}E))+\overline{g}(X,\overline{\phi}h(Y,\overline{\phi}E)).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, for $X,Y\in\Gamma(D_{0})$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{ms37}
2\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)=-\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}Y,\nabla_{X}\overline{\phi}E)-\overline{g}(\overline{\phi}X,\nabla_{Y}\overline{\phi}E).
\end{equation}
It is easy to see from (\ref{ms36}) and (\ref{ms36}) that if $\overline{\phi}h(X,\overline{\phi}E)\notin\Gamma(l\mathrm{tr}(TM))$ and $\nabla_{X}\overline{\phi}E\notin\Gamma(D_{0})$, then $\overline{g}(h(X,Y),E)=0$. The other assertions follows in the same way. The converse is obvious.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ be a proper ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$. If $M$ is $D$-totally geodesic then $\nabla_{X}^{*} \overline{\phi} E$, $\nabla_{X}^{*} \overline{\phi} W\notin\Gamma(D_{0})$, for all $X\in\Gamma(D)$, $E\in\Gamma(D_{2})$ and $W\in\Gamma(\mathcal{S})$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
Let $(M,g,S(TM),S(TM^\perp))$ be a proper ascreen QGCR-null submanifold of an indefinite nearly cosymplectic manifold $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$. If $M$ is $D$-totally geodesic, then $D$ defines a totally geodesic folliation in $M$.
\end{corollary}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
S. Ssekajja extends his sincere gratitude to the African Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS) and the Simon Foundation through the RGSM-Network project, for their financial support during this research.
|
\section{Introduction}
The primal-dual method lies at the heart of the design
of algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems.
The basic idea, contained in the ``Hungarian Method''~\cite{Kuh55}, was extended and formalized by Dantzig et al.~\cite{DFF56} as a general framework for linear programming, and thus it became applicable to a large variety of problems.
Few decades later, Bar-Yehuda et al.~\cite{BYE81} were the first to apply the primal-dual method to the design of approximation algorithms. Subsequently,
this paradigm was applied to obtain approximation algorithms for a wide collection of NP-hard problems~\cite{GoemansW92,GW97}.
When the primal-dual method is applied to approximation algorithms, an approximate solution to the problem and
a feasible solution to the dual of an LP relaxation are constructed simultaneously, and the
performance guarantee is proved by comparing the values of both solutions.
The primal-dual method was also extended to
online problems~\cite{BuchbinderN09}. Here,
the input
is revealed only in parts, and an online algorithm is required to respond to
each new input upon its arrival (without being able to see the future).
The algorithm's performance is compared against the benchmark of an optimal omniscient algorithm that can view the entire input sequence in advance.
In this paper, we focus on dynamic algorithms for optimization problems. In the dynamic setting, the input of a problem is being changed via a sequence of updates, and after each update one is interested in maintaining the solution to the problem much faster than recomputing it from scratch. We remark that the dynamic and the online setting are completely different: in the dynamic scenario one is concerned more with guaranteeing fast (worst-case or amortized) update times rather than comparing the algorithms' performance against optimal offline algorithms.
As a main contribution of this paper, we develop a dynamic version of the primal-dual method, thus opening up a completely new area of application of the primal-dual paradigm to the design of dynamic algorithms.
With some careful insights, our recent algorithms for dynamic matching and dynamic vertex cover~\cite{BHI15} can be reinterpreted in this new framework. In this paper,
we show how to apply the new dynamic primal-dual framework to the design of
two other optimization problems: the dynamic set-cover and the dynamic $b$-matching. Before proceeding any further, we formally define these problems.
\begin{definition}[Set-Cover]
\label{main:def:set-cover}
We are given a universe $\mathcal{U}$ of at most $m$ elements, and a collection $\mathcal{S}$ of $n$ sets $S \subseteq \mathcal{U}$. Each set $S \in \mathcal{S}$ has a (polynomially bounded by $n$) ``cost'' $c_S > 0$. The goal is to select a subset $\mathcal{S}' \subseteq \mathcal{S}$ such that each element in $\mathcal{U}$ is covered by some set $S \in \mathcal{S}'$ and the total cost $\sum_{S \in \mathcal{S}'} c(S)$ is minimized.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Dynamic Set-Cover]
\label{main:def:dynamic:set-cover}
Consider a dynamic version of the problem specified in Definition~\ref{main:def:set-cover}, where the collection $\mathcal{S}$, the costs $\{c_S\}, S \in \mathcal{S}$, the upper bound $f$ on the maximum frequency $\max_{u \in \mathcal{U}} |\{ S \in \mathcal{S} : u \in S\}|$, and the upper bound $m$ on the maximum size of the universe $\mathcal{U}$ remain fixed. The universe $\mathcal{U}$, on the other hand, keeps changing dynamically. In the beginning, we have $\mathcal{U} = \emptyset$. At each time-step, either an element $u$ is inserted into the universe $\mathcal{U}$ and we get to know which sets in $\mathcal{S}$ contain $u$, or some element is deleted from the universe. The goal is to maintain an approximately optimal solution to the set-cover problem in this dynamic setting.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[$b$-Matching]
\label{main:def:b-matching}
We are given an input graph $G = (V, E)$ with $|V| = n$ nodes, where each node $v \in V$ has a capacity $c_v \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$.
A $b$-matching is a subset $E' \subseteq E$ of edges such that each node $v$ has at most $c_v$ edges incident to it in $E'$. The goal is to select the $b$-matching of maximum cardinality.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Dynamic $b$-Matching]
\label{main:def:dynamic:b-matching}
Consider a dynamic version of the problem specified in Definition~\ref{main:def:b-matching}, where the node set $V$ and the capacities $\{c_v\}, v \in V$ remain fixed. The edge set $E$, on the other hand, keeps changing dynamically. In the beginning, we have $E = \emptyset$. At each time-step, either a new edge is inserted into the graph or some existing edge is deleted from the graph. The goal is to maintain an approximately optimal solution to the $b$-matching problem in this dynamic setting.
\end{definition}
As stated in~\cite{BuchbinderN09,Vazirani01},
the set-cover problem has played a pivotal role both for approximation and for online algorithms, and thus it seems a natural problem to consider in our dynamic setting. Our definition of dynamic set-cover is inspired by the standard formulation of the online set-cover problem~\cite{BuchbinderN09}, where the elements arrive online. There exists algorithms for online set cover that achieve a competitive ratio of $O(\log n \log m)$~\cite{BuchbinderN09}, and it is also known that this bound is asymptotically tight~\cite{Korman}.
\paragraph{Our Techniques.}
Roughly speaking, our dynamic version of the primal-dual method works as follows. We start with a feasible primal solution and an infeasible dual solution for the problem at hand. Next, we consider the following process:
gradually increase all the primal variables at the same rate, and whenever a primal constraint becomes tight, stop the growth of all the primal variables involved in that constraint, and update accordingly the corresponding dual variable. This primal growth process is used to define a suitable data structure based on a hierarchical partition. A level in this partition is a set of the dual variables whose corresponding primal constraints became (approximately) tight at the same time-instant. To solve the dynamic problem, we maintain the data structure, the hierarchical partition and the corresponding primal-dual solution dynamically using a simple greedy procedure.
This is sufficient for solving the dynamic set-cover problem. For the dynamic $b$-matching problem, we need some additional ideas. We first
get a fractional solution to the problem using the previous technique. To obtain an integral solution,
we perform randomized rounding on the fractional solution
in a dynamic setting. This is done
by sampling the edges with probabilities that are determined by the fractional solution.
\paragraph{Our Results.}
Our new dynamic primal-dual framework yields efficient dynamic algorithms for both the dynamic set-cover problem and the dynamic $b$-matching problem.
In particular,
for the dynamic set-cover problem
we maintain a $O(f^2)$-approximately optimal solution in $O(f \cdot \log (m+n))$ amortized update time (see Theorem~\ref{main:cor:set-cover} in Section~\ref{sec:set-cover}). On the other hand,
for the dynamic $b$-matching problem, we maintain a $O(1)$-approximation in $O(\log^3 n)$ amortized time per update (see Theorem~\ref{th:sample:main} in Section~\ref{sec:bmatching}). Further, we can show that an edge insertion/deletion in the input graph, on average, leads to $O(\log^2 n)$ changes in the set of matched edges maintained by our algorithm.
\paragraph{Related Work.}
The design of dynamic algorithms is one of the classic areas in theoretical computer science with a countless
number of applications.
Dynamic graph algorithms have received special attention, and there have been many efficient algorithms for several dynamic graph problems, including dynamic connectivity, minimum spanning trees, transitive closure, shortest paths and matching problems (see, e.g., the survey in~\cite{EGI09}).
The $b$-matching problem contains as a special case matching problems, for which many dynamic algorithms are known~\cite{BaswanaGS11,BHI15,GuptaP13,NeimanS13,OnakR10}.
Unfortunately, none of the results on dynamic matching extends to the dynamic $b$-matching problem. To the best of our knowledge, no previous result was known for dynamic set-cover problem.
In the static setting, a simple greedy algorithm for the set-cover problem gives $O(\log n)$ approximation~\cite{johnson}, whereas a primal-dual algorithm gives $f$-approximation~\cite{BYE81}. Both the algorithms run in $O(f \cdot (m+n))$-time. On the other hand, there exists some constant $c > 0$ such that obtaining a $c \log n$-approximation to the set cover problem in polynomial time will imply $P = NP$~\cite{Feige-setcover}. Similarly, under the Unique-Games conjecture, one cannot obtain a better than $f$-approximation to the set cover problem in polynomial time~\cite{unique-games}.
For the maximum $b$-matching problem, the best known exact algorithm runs in $O(m n \log n)$-time~\cite{Gabow} in the static setting, where $n$ (resp. $m$) is the number of nodes (resp. edges) in the graph. Very recently, Ahn and Guha~\cite{bmatching} presented another static algorithm that runs in $O(m \cdot \text{poly} (\delta^{-1}, \log n))$-time and returns a $(1+\delta)$-approximation for maximum $b$-matching, for any $\delta > 0$.
\paragraph{Roadmap for the rest of the paper.} We first define a problem called ``fractional hypergraph $b$-matching'' (see Definitions~\ref{main:def:fractional:bmatching} and~\ref{main:def:dynamic:fractional:bmatching}). In Section~\ref{main:sec:set-cover}, we show how to maintain a fractional hypergraph $b$-matching in a dynamic setting. In Section~\ref{sec:set-cover}, we use our result from Section~\ref{main:sec:set-cover} to design a dynamic algorithm for set cover. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:bmatching} we present our result for dynamic $b$-matching.
\begin{definition}[Fractional Hypergraph $b$-Matching]
\label{main:def:fractional:bmatching}
We are given an input hypergraph $G = (V, E)$ with $|V| = n$ nodes and {\em at most} $m \geq |E|$ edges. Let $\mathcal{E}_v \subseteq E$ denote the set of edges incident upon a node $v \in V$, and let $\mathcal{V}_e = \{ v \in V : e \in \mathcal{E}_v\}$ denote the set of nodes an edge $e \in E$ is incident upon. Let $c_v > 0$ denote the ``capacity'' of a node $v \in V$, and let $\mu \geq 1$ denote the ``multiplicity'' of an edge. We assume that the $\mu$ and the $c_v$ values are polynomially bounded by $n$. Our goal is to assign a ``weight'' $x(e) \in [0, \mu]$ to each edge $e \in E$ in such a way that (a) $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) \leq c_v$ for all nodes $v \in V$, and (b) the sum of the weights of all the edges is maximized.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Dynamic Fractional Hypergraph $b$-Matching]
\label{main:def:dynamic:fractional:bmatching}
Consider a dynamic version of the problem specified in Definition~\ref{main:def:fractional:bmatching}, where the node-set $V$, the capacities $\{c_v\}, v \in V$, the upper bound $f$ on the maximum frequency $\max_{e \in E} |\mathcal{V}_e|$, and the upper bound $m$ on the maximum number of edges remain fixed. The edge-set $E$, on the other hand, keeps changing dynamically. In the beginning, we have $E = \emptyset$. At each time-step, either an edge is inserted into the graph or an edge is deleted from the graph. The goal is to maintain an approximately optimal solution to the problem in this dynamic setting.
\end{definition}
\section{Maintaining a Fractional Hypergraph $b$-Matching in a Dynamic Setting}
\label{main:sec:set-cover}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
We first define a linear program for fractional hypergraph $b$-matching (Definition~\ref{main:def:fractional:bmatching}). Next, we define the concept of a ``$\lambda$-maximal'' solution of this LP (Definition~\ref{main:def:maximal}) and prove the approximation guarantee for such a solution (Theorem~\ref{main:th:maximal}).
Our main result is summarized in Theorem~\ref{main:th:main:result} and Corollary~\ref{main:cor:th:result}.
Below, we write a linear program for a fractional hypergraph $b$-matching.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{{\bf Primal LP:}} \qquad \mbox{Maximize } \qquad \sum_{e \in E} x(e) \label{main:lp:match-1} \label{lp:match-1} \\
\mbox{ subject to:} \qquad \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) \leq c_v \qquad & \forall v \in V. \label{main:eq:match-1} \label{eq:match-1} \\
0 \leq x(e) \leq \mu \qquad & \forall \text e \in E.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{{\bf Dual LP:}} \qquad \mbox{Minimize } \qquad \sum_{v \in V} c_v \cdot y(v) + \sum_{e \in E} \mu \cdot z(e) \label{main:dual:match-1} \label{dual:match-1} \\
\text{ subject to:} \qquad z(e) + \sum_{v \in \mathcal{V}_e} y(v) \geq 1\qquad & \forall e \in E. \label{main:eq:dual:match-1} \label{eq:dual:match-1} \\
y(v), z(e) \geq 0 \qquad & \forall v \in V, e \in E.
\end{eqnarray}
We next define the concept of a ``$\lambda$-maximal'' solution.
\begin{definition}
\label{main:def:maximal}
\label{def:maximal}
A feasible solution to LP~(\ref{main:lp:match-1}) is $\lambda$-maximal (for $\lambda \geq 1$) iff for every edge $e \in E$ with $x(e) < \mu$, there is some node $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$ such that $\sum_{e' \in \mathcal{E}_{v}} x(e') \geq c_v/\lambda$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
\label{main:th:maximal}
\label{th:maximal}
Let $f \geq \max_{e \in E} |\mathcal{V}_e|$ be an upper bound on the maximum possible ``frequency'' of an edge. Let OPT be the optimal objective value of LP~(\ref{main:lp:match-1}). Any $\lambda$-maximal solution to LP~(\ref{main:lp:match-1}) has an objective value that is at least $\text{OPT}/(\lambda f+1)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{ x^*(e) \}$ be a $\lambda$-maximal solution to the primal LP. Construct a dual solution $\{y^*(v), z^*(e)\},$ as follows. For every $v \in V$, set $y^*(v) = 1$ if $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x^*(e) \geq c_v/\lambda$, and $y^*(v) = 0$ otherwise. For every $e \in E$, set $z^*(e) = 1$ if $x^*(e) = \mu$ and $z^*(e) = 0$ otherwise.
Consider the dual constraint corresponding to any edge $e' \in E$. Since the primal solution $\{x^*(e)\}$ is $\lambda$-maximal, either $x^*(e) = \mu$ or there is some $v' \in \mathcal{V}_{e'}$ for which $y^*(v') = 1$. In the former case we have $z^*(e) = 1$, whereas in the latter case we have $y^*(v') = 1$. Hence, the dual constraint under consideration is satisfied. This shows that the values $\{y^*(v), z^*(e)\},$ constitute a feasible dual solution. Next, we infer that:
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \sum_{v \in V} c_v \cdot y^*(v) + \sum_{e \in E} \mu \cdot z^*(e) \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{v \in V : y^*(v) = 1} c_v + \sum_{e \in E : z^*(e) = 1} \mu \label{eq:newlp:1} \\
& \leq & \sum_{v \in V : y^*(v) = 1} \lambda \cdot \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x^*(e) + \sum_{e \in E : z^*(e) = 1} x^*(e) \label{eq:newlp:2} \\
& \leq & \sum_{v \in V} \lambda \cdot \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x^*(e) + \sum_{e \in E} x^*(e) \nonumber \\
& \leq & \lambda \cdot f \cdot \sum_{e \in E} x^*(e) + \sum_{e \in E} x^*(e) \label{eq:newlp:3} \\
& = & (\lambda f + 1) \cdot \sum_{e \in E} x^*(e) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~\ref{eq:newlp:1} holds since $y^*(v) \in \{0,1\}$ for all $v \in V$ and $z^*(e) \in \{0,1\}$ for all $e \in E$. Equation~\ref{eq:newlp:2} holds since $y^*(v) = 1$ only if $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x^*(e) \geq c_v /\lambda$, and since $x^*(e) = \mu$ for all $e \in E$ with $z^*(e) = 1$. Equation~\ref{eq:newlp:3} holds since each edge can be incident upon at most $f$ nodes.
Thus, we have constructed a feasible dual solution whose objective is at most $(\lambda f+1)$-times the objective of the $\lambda$-maximal primal solution. The theorem now follows from weak duality.
\end{proof}
Our main result is summarized below. For the rest of Section~\ref{main:sec:set-cover}, we focus on proving Theorem~\ref{main:th:main:result}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{main:th:main:result}
\label{th:main:result}
We can maintain a $(f+1 +\epsilon f)$-maximal solution to the dynamic fractional hypergraph $b$-matching problem in $O(f \cdot \log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ amortized update time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
\label{main:cor:th:result}
We can maintain an $O(f^2)$-approximate solution to the dynamic hypergraph $b$-matching problem in $O(f \log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ amortized update time.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Follows from Theorem~\ref{main:th:maximal} and Theorem~\ref{main:th:main:result}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The ($\alpha,\beta$)-partition and its properties.}
\label{sec:vc:partition}
For the time being, we restrict ourselves to the static setting. Inspired by the primal-dual method for set-cover, we consider the following algorithm for the fractional hypergraph $b$-matching problem.
\begin{itemize}
\item Consider an initial primal solution with $x(e) \leftarrow 0$ for all $e \in E$, and define $F \leftarrow E$.
\item {\sc While} there is some primal constraint that is not tight:
\begin{itemize}
\item Keep increasing the primal variables $\{x(e)\}, e \in F$, uniformly at the same rate till some primal constraint becomes tight. At that instant, ``freeze'' all the primal variables involved in that constraint and delete them from the set $F$, and set the corresponding dual variable to one.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\noindent In Figure~\ref{main:fig:primaldual}, we define a variant of the above procedure that happens to be easier to maintain in a dynamic setting. The main idea is to discretize the continuous primal growth process. Define $c_{\min} = \min_{v \in V} c_v$, and without any loss of generality, assume that $c_{\min} > 0$. Fix two parameters $\alpha, \beta > 1$, and define $L = \lceil \log_{\beta} (m \mu \alpha/c_{\min}) \rceil$.
\begin{Claim}
\label{main:cl:discrete}
If we set $x(e) \leftarrow \mu \cdot \beta^{-L}$ for all $e \in E$, then we get a feasible primal solution.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, $x(e) \leq \mu$ for all $e \in E$. Now, consider any node $v \in V$. We have $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) = |\mathcal{E}_v| \cdot \mu \cdot \beta^{-L} \leq |\mathcal{E}| \cdot \mu \cdot \beta^{-L} \leq m \cdot \mu \cdot \beta^{-L} \leq m \cdot \mu \cdot (c_{\min}/(m\mu \alpha)) = c_{\min}/\alpha < c_v$. Hence, all the primal constraints are satisfied.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\framebox{
\begin{minipage}{5.5in}
\begin{tabbing}
01. \ \ \ \ \= Set $x(e) \leftarrow \mu \cdot \beta^{-L}$ for all $e \in E$, and define $c^*_v = c_v/(f \alpha \beta)$ for all $v \in V$. \\
02. \> Set $V_{L} \leftarrow \{ v \in V : \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) \geq c^*_v\}$, and $E_L \leftarrow \bigcup_{v \in V_L} \mathcal{E}_v$. \\
03. \> {\sc For} $i = L-1$ to $1$: \\
04. \> \ \ \ \ \ \ \= Set $x(e) \leftarrow x(e) \cdot \beta$ for all $e \in E \setminus \bigcup_{k=i+1}^L E_i$. \\
05. \> \> Set $V_{i} \leftarrow \left\{ v \in V \setminus \bigcup_{k=i+1}^L V_k : \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) \geq c^*_v\right\}$. \\
06. \> \> Set $E_i \leftarrow \bigcup_{v \in V_i} \mathcal{E}_v$. \\
07. \> Set $V_0 \leftarrow V \setminus \bigcup_{k=1}^L V_i$, and $E_0 \leftarrow \bigcup_{v \in V_0} \mathcal{E}_v$. \\
08. \> Set $x(e) \leftarrow x(e) \cdot \beta$ for all $e \in E_0$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
}}
\caption{\label{main:fig:primaldual} DISCRETE-PRIMAL-DUAL().}
\end{figure}
Our new algorithm is described in Figure~\ref{main:fig:primaldual}. We initialize our primal solution by setting $x(e) \leftarrow \mu \beta^{-L}$ for every edge $e \in E$, as per Claim~\ref{main:cl:discrete}.
We call a node $v$ {\em nearly-tight} if its corresponding primal constraint is tight within a factor of $f\alpha\beta$, and {\em slack} otherwise.
Furthermore, we call an edge {\em nearly-tight} if it is incident upon some nearly tight node, and {\em slack} otherwise. Let $V_L \subseteq V$ and $E_L \subseteq E$ respectively denote the sets of nearly tight nodes and edges, immediately after the initialization step. The algorithm then performs $L-1$ iterations.
At iteration $i \in \{L-1, \ldots, 1\}$, the algorithm increases the weight $x(e)$ of every slack edge $e$ by a factor of $\beta$. Since the total weight received by every slack node $v$ (from its incident edges) never exceeds $c_v/(f\alpha\beta)$, this weight-increase step does not violate any primal constraint. The algorithm then defines $V_i$ (resp. $E_i$) to be the set of new nodes (resp. edges) that become nearly-tight due to this weight-increase step.
Finally, the algorithm defines $V_0$ (resp. $E_0$) to be the set of nodes (resp. edges) that are slack at the end of iteration $i = 1$. It terminates after increasing the weight of every edge in $E_0$ by a factor of $\beta$.
When the algorithm terminates, it is easy to check that $x(e) = \mu \cdot \beta^{-i}$ for every edge $e \in E_i$, $i \in \{0, \ldots, L\}$.
We also have
$c^*_v \leq \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) \leq \beta \cdot c^*_v$ for every node $v \in \bigcup_{k=1}^L V_k$, and $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) \leq \beta \cdot c^*_v$ for every node $v \in V_0$. Furthermore, at the end of the algorithm, every edge $e \in E \setminus E_0$ is nearly-tight, and every edge $e \in E_0$ has weight $x(e) = \mu$. We, therefore, reach the following conclusion.
\begin{Claim}
\label{main:cl:primaldual}
The algorithm described in Figure~\ref{main:fig:primaldual} returns an $(f\alpha\beta)$-maximal solution to the fractional hypergraph $b$-matching problem
with the additional property that $c^*_v \leq \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) \leq \beta \cdot c^*_v$ for every node $v \in \bigcup_{k=1}^L V_k$, and $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e) \leq \beta \cdot c^*_v$ for every node $v \in V_0$.
\end{Claim}
Our goal is to make a variant of the procedure in Figure~\ref{main:fig:primaldual} work in a dynamic setting. Towards this end, we introduce the concept of an $(\alpha, \beta)$-partition (see Definition~\ref{def:vc:partition}) satisfying a certain invariant (see Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1}). The reader is encouraged to notice the similarities between this construct and the output of the procedure in Figure~\ref{main:fig:primaldual}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:vc:partition}
An {\em $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition} of the graph $G$ partitions its node-set $V$ into subsets $V_0 \ldots V_L$, where $L = \lceil\log_{\beta} (m \mu \alpha/c_{\min})\rceil$ and $\alpha, \beta > 1$. For $i \in \{0, \ldots, L\}$, we identify the subset $V_i$ as the $i^{th}$ ``level'' of this partition, and
call $i$ the {\em level} $\ell(v)$ of a node $v$.
We also define the level of each edge $e \in E$ as $\ell(e) = \max_{v \in \mathcal{V}_e} \left\{\ell(v) \right\}$, and assign a ``weight'' $w(e) = \mu \cdot \beta^{-\ell(e)}$ to the edge $e$.
\end{definition}
Given an $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition,
let $\mathcal{E}_v(i) \subseteq \mathcal{E}_v$ denote the set of edges incident to $v$ that are in the $i^{th}$ level, and
let $\mathcal{E}_v(i,j) \subseteq \mathcal{E}_v$ denote the set of edges incident to $v$ whose levels are in the range $[i,j]$.
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_v(i) = \{ e \in \mathcal{E}_v : \ell(e) = i\} \ \ \forall v \in V; i \in \{0,\ldots,L\} \label{eq:symbol:2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_v(i,j) = \bigcup_{k = i}^j \mathcal{E}_v(k) \ \ \forall v \in V; i,j \in \{0,\ldots,L\}, i \leq j. \label{eq:symbol:3}
\end{equation}
Similarly, we define the notations $D_v$ and $D_v(i,j)$.
\begin{equation}
D_v = |\mathcal{E}_v| \label{eq:symbol:4}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D_v(i) = |\mathcal{E}_v(i)| \label{eq:symbol:5}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D_v(i,j) = |\mathcal{E}_v(i,j)| \label{eq:symbol:6}
\end{equation}
Given an $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition, let $W_v = \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} w(e)$ denote the total weight a node $v \in V$ receives from the edges incident to it. We also define the notation $W_v(i)$. It gives the total weight the node $v$ would receive from the edges incident to it, {\em if the node $v$ itself were to go to the $i^{th}$ level}. Thus, we have $W_v = W_v(\ell(v))$. Since the weight of an edge $e$ in the hierarchical partition is given by $w(e) = \mu \cdot \beta^{-\ell(e)}$, we derive the following equations for all nodes $v \in V$.
\begin{equation}
W_v = \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \mu \cdot \beta^{-\ell(e)}. \label{eq:symbol:7}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_v(i) = \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \mu \cdot \beta^{-\max(\ell(e),i)} \ \ \forall i \in \{0,\ldots,L\}. \label{eq:symbol:8}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:partition}
An $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition satisfies the following conditions for all nodes $v \in V$.
\begin{equation}
W_v(L) \leq c_{\min}/\alpha \label{eq:lm:partition:1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_v(L) \leq \cdots \leq W_v(i) \leq \cdots \leq W_v(0) \label{eq:lm:partition:2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
W_v(i) \leq \beta \cdot W_v(i+1) \ \ \forall i \in \{0,\ldots,L-1\}. \label{eq:lm:partition:3}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix any $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition and any node $v \in V$. We prove the first part of the lemma as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
W_v(L) = \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \mu \cdot \beta^{-\max(\ell(e),L)}
= \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \mu \cdot \beta^{-L} \leq m \mu \cdot \beta^{-L} \leq m \mu \cdot \beta^{-\log_{\beta}(m \mu \alpha/c_{\min})} = c_{\min}/\alpha.
\end{eqnarray*}
We now fix any level $i \in \{0,\ldots, L-1\}$ and show that the $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition satisfies equation~\ref{eq:lm:partition:2}.
\begin{eqnarray*}
W_v(i+1) = \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \mu \cdot \beta^{-\max(\ell(e),i+1)}
\leq \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \mu \cdot \beta^{-\max(\ell(e),i)} = W_v(i).
\end{eqnarray*}
Finally, we prove equation~\ref{eq:lm:partition:3}.
\begin{eqnarray*}
W_v(i) = \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \mu \cdot \beta^{-\max(\ell(e),i)} =\mu \cdot \beta \cdot \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \beta^{-1-\max(\ell(e),i)} \\
\leq \mu \cdot \beta \cdot \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \beta^{-\max(\ell(e),i+1)} = \beta \cdot W_v(i+1)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Fix any node $v \in V$, and focus on the value of $W_v(i)$ as we go down from the highest level $i = L$ to the lowest level $i = 0$. Lemma~\ref{lm:partition} states that $W_v(i) \leq c_{\min}/\alpha$ when $i = L$, that $W_v(i)$ keeps increasing as we go down the levels one after another, and that $W_v(i)$ increases by at most a factor of $\beta$ between consecutive levels.
\medskip
We will maintain a specific type of $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition, where each node is assigned to a level in a way that satisfies
the following Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1}. This invariant is a relaxation of the bounds on
$\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} x(e)$ for every node $v$ stated in Claim~\ref{main:cl:primaldual}.
\begin{invariant}
\label{inv:vc:1}
Define $c^*_v = c_v/(f \alpha \beta)$. For every node $v \in V \setminus V_0$, it holds that
$c^*_v \leq W_v \leq f \alpha \beta \cdot c^*_v$ and for every node $v \in V_0$ it holds that
$W_v \leq f \alpha \beta \cdot c^*_v$.
\end{invariant}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:vc:structure}
Consider an $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition that satisfies Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1}. The edge-weights $\{w(e)\}, e\in E,$ give an $(f \alpha \beta)$-maximal solution to LP~(\ref{lp:match-1}).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1}, we have $W_v \leq (f\alpha \beta) \cdot c^*_v = c_v$ for every node $v \in V$. Next, note that $w(e) \leq \mu$ for every edge $e \in E$. Thus, the weights $\{w(e)\}, e\in E,$ define a feasible solution to LP~(\ref{lp:match-1}).
We claim that for every edge $e \in E$ with $w(e) < \mu$, there is some node $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$ for which $W_v \geq c_v/(f \alpha \beta)$.
This will imply that the weights $\{w(e)\}, e \in E,$ form an $(f \alpha\beta)$-maximal feasible solution to the primal LP.
To prove the claim, consider any edge $e \in E$ with $w(e) < \mu$. Since $w(e) = \mu \beta^{-\ell(e)}$, this implies that $\ell(e) > 0$. Let $v \in \arg \max_{u \in \mathcal{V}_e} \left\{ \ell(u) \right\}$. Note that $\ell(e) = \ell(v)$. This implies that $\ell(v) > 0$. Hence, by Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1}, we have $W_v \geq c^*_v = c_v/(f \alpha \beta)$. This concludes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The algorithm: Handling the insertion/deletion of an edge.}
\label{sec:vc:algo}
We now show how to maintain an $(\alpha, \beta)$-partition under edge insertions and deletions.
A node is called {\em dirty} if it violates Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1}, and {\em clean} otherwise.
At the beginning of the algorithm the edge-set $E$ is empty, and, thus, every node is initially clean and at level zero. Now consider the time instant just prior to the $t^{th}$ update. By induction hypothesis, at this instant every node is clean. Then the $t^{th}$ update takes place, which inserts (resp. deletes) an edge $e$ in $E$ with weight $w(e) = \mu \beta^{-\ell(e)}$. This increases (resp. decreases) the weights $\{W_v\}, v \in \mathcal{V}_e$. Due to this change, the nodes $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$ might become dirty. To recover from this, we call the subroutine in Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty}, which works as follows
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\framebox{
\begin{minipage}{5.5in}
\begin{tabbing}
01. \= {\sc While} there exists a dirty node $v$ \\
02. \> \ \ \ \ \= {\sc If} $W_v > f \alpha \beta c^*_v$, {\sc Then} \\
\> \> \qquad // {\em If true, then by equation~\ref{eq:lm:partition:1}, we have $\ell(v) < L$.} \\
03. \> \> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \= Increment the level of $v$ by setting $\ell(v) \leftarrow \ell(v)+1$. \\
04. \> \> {\sc Else if} ($W_v < c^*_v$ and $\ell(v) > 0$), {\sc Then} \\
05. \> \> \> Decrement the level of $v$ by setting $\ell(v) \leftarrow \ell(v)-1$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
}}
\caption{\label{fig:vc:dirty} RECOVER().}
\end{figure}
Consider any node $v \in V$ and suppose that $W_v > f \alpha \beta c^*_v = c_v \geq c_{\min}$. In this event, the algorithm increments the level of the node.
since $\alpha > 1$, equation~\ref{eq:lm:partition:1} implies that $W_v(L) < W_v(\ell(v))$ and, hence, we have $L > \ell(v)$. In other words, when the procedure described in Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty} decides to increment the level of a dirty node $v$ (Step 02), we know for sure that the current level of $v$ is strictly less than $L$ (the highest level in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-partition).
Next, consider an edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v$. If we change $\ell(v)$, then this may change the weight $w(e)$, and this in turn may change the weights $\{W_z\}, z \in \mathcal{V}_e$. Thus, a single iteration of the {\sc While} loop in Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty} may lead to some clean nodes becoming dirty, and some other dirty nodes becoming clean. If and when the {\sc While} loop terminates, however, we are guaranteed that every node is clean and that Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1} holds.
\subsection{Data structures.}
\label{sec:vc:datastructures}
We now describe the relevant data structures that will be used by our algorithm.
\begin{itemize}
\item We maintain for each node $v \in V$:
\begin{itemize}
\item A counter $\text{{\sc Level}}[v]$ to keep track of the current level of $v$. Thus, we set $\text{{\sc Level}}[v] \leftarrow \ell(v)$.
\item A counter $\text{{\sc Weight}}[v]$ to keep track of the weight of $v$. Thus, we set $\text{{\sc Weight}}[v] \leftarrow W_v$.
\item For every level $i > \text{{\sc Level}}[v]$, we store the set of edges $\mathcal{E}_v(i)$ in the form of a doubly linked list $\text{{\sc Incident-Edges}}_v[i]$. For every level $i \leq \text{{\sc Level}}[v]$, the list $\text{{\sc Incident-Edges}}_v[i]$ is empty.
\item For level $i = \text{{\sc Level}}[v]$, we store the set of edges $\mathcal{E}_v(0,i)$ in the form of a doubly linked list $\text{{\sc Incident-Edges}}_v[0,i]$. For every level $i \neq \text{{\sc Level}}[v]$, the list $\text{{\sc Incident-Edges}}_v[0,i]$ is empty.
\end{itemize}
\item When the graph gets updated due to an edge insertion/deletion, we may discover that a node violates Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1}. Recall that such a node is called {\em dirty}, and we store the set of such nodes as a doubly linked list $\text{{\sc Dirty-nodes}}$. For every node $v \in V$, we maintain a bit $\text{{\sc Status}}[v] \in \{\text{dirty}, \text{clean}\}$ that indicates if the node is dirty or not. Every dirty node stores a pointer to its position in the list $\text{{\sc Dirty-nodes}}$.
\item The collection of linked lists $\bigcup_{i=0}^L \left\{ \text{\sc Incident-Edges}_v[0,i], \text{{\sc Incident-Edges}}_v[i]\right\}$ is denoted by the phrase {\em ``incidence lists of $v$''}. For every edge $e \in E$, we maintain a counter $\text{{\sc Level}}[e]$ to keep track of $\ell(e)$. Furthermore, for every edge $e \in E$, we maintain $|\mathcal{V}_e|$ bidirectional pointers corresponding to the nodes in $\mathcal{V}_e$. The pointer corresponding to a node $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$ points to the position of $e$ in the incidence lists of $v$.
Using these pointers, we can update the incidence lists of the relevant nodes when the edge $e$ is inserted into (resp. deleted from) the graph, or when some node $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$ increases (resp. decreases) its level by one.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Bounding the amortized update time.}
\label{sec:vc:updatetime}
We devote this section to the proof of the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:main:updatetime}
Fix any $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, $\alpha = 1+1/f+3\epsilon$ and $\beta = 1+\epsilon$. Starting from an empty graph, we can maintain an $(\alpha, \beta)$ partition in $G$ satisfying Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:1} in $O(f \log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ amortized update time.
\end{theorem}
The main idea is as follows. After an edge insertion or deletion
the data structure can be updated in time $O(1)$, plus the time to adjust the levels of the nodes, i.e., the time for procedure
RECOVER. To bound the latter quantity we note that each time the level of an edge $e \in E$ changes, we have to update at most $f$ lists (one corresponding to each node $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$). Hence, the time taken to update the lists is given by $f \cdot \delta_l$, where $\delta_l$ is the number of times the procedure in Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty} changes the level of an edge. Below, we show that $\delta_l \leq t \cdot O(L/\epsilon) = t \cdot O(\log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ after $t$ edge insertions/deletions in $G$ starting from an empty graph. This gives the required $O(f \delta_l/t) = O(f \log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ bound on the amortized update time.
Hence, to complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main:updatetime}, we need to give an amortized bound on {\em the number of times we have to change the level (or, equivalently, the weight) of an already existing edge}. During a single iteration of the WHILE loop in Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty}, this number is exactly $D_v(0,i)$ when node $v$ goes from level $i$ to level $i+1$, and at most $D_v(0,i)$ when node $v$ goes from level $i$ to level $i-1$.
Specifically, we devote the rest of this section to the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:runtime}, which implies that on average we change the weights of $O(L/\epsilon) = O(\log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ edges per update in $G$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:runtime}
Set $\alpha \leftarrow 1+1/f+3\epsilon$ and $\beta \leftarrow 1+\epsilon$. In the beginning, when $G$ is an empty graph, initialize a counter $\text{\sc Count} \leftarrow 0$. Subsequently, each time we change the weight of an already existing edge in the hierarchical partition, set $\text{{\sc Count}} \leftarrow \text{{\sc Count}} + 1$. Then $\text{{\sc Count}} = O(t L/\epsilon)$ just after we handle the $t^{th}$ update in $G$.
\end{theorem}
\iffalse
The proof in Section~\ref{sec:vc:analysis} uses a carefully chosen potential function. As the formal analysis is quite involved, some high level intuitions are in order. Below, we give a brief overview of our approach. To highlight the main ideas, in contrast with Theorem~\ref{th:runtime}, we assume that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are some sufficiently large constants.
Define the level of an edge $(y,z)$ to be $\ell(y,z) = \max(\ell(y),\ell(z))$, and note that the weight $w(y,z)$ decreases (resp. increases) iff the edge's level $\ell(y,z)$ goes up (resp. down).
There is a potential associated with both nodes and edges. Note that we use the terms ``tokens'' and ``potential'' interchangeably.
Each edge $e$ has exactly $2 (L - \ell(e))$ tokens. These tokens are assigned as follows.
Whenever a new edge is inserted, it receives $2 (L - \ell(e))$ tokens. When $e$ moves up a level, it gives one token to each endpoint. Whenever
$e$ is deleted, it gives one token to each endpoint. Whenever $e$ moves down a level because one endpoint, say $u$, moves down a level, $e$ receives two tokens from $u$.
Initially and whenever a node moves a level higher, it has no tokens.
{\em Whenever a node $u$ moves up a level}, only its adjacent edges to the same or lower levels have to be updated as their level changes. The level of all other edges is unchanged. Recall that each such edge gives 1 token to $u$, which in turn uses this token to pay for updating the edge.
{\em Whenever a node $u$ moves down a level}, say from $k$ to $k-1$, it has at most $\beta^k$ adjacent edges at level $k$ or below. These are all the edges whose level needs to be updated (which costs a token) and whose potential needs to be increased by two tokens. In this case we show that $u$ has enough tokens, (i) to pay for the work involved in the update, (ii) to give two tokens to each of the at most $\beta^k$ adjacent edges, {\em and} (iii)
to still have a sufficient number of tokens for being on level $k-1$.
{\em Whenever the level of a node $v$ is not modified but its weight $W_v$ decreases} because the weight of the adjacent edge $(u,v)$ decreases, the level of $(u,v)$ must have increased and $(u,v)$ gives one token to $v$ (the other one goes to $u$). Note that this implies that a change in $W_v$ by at most $\beta^{-\ell(v)}$ increases the potential of $v$ by 1, i.e., the ``conversion rate'' between weight changes and token changes is
$\beta^{\ell(v)}$.
{\em Whenever the level of $v$ does not change but its weight $W_v$ increases} as the level of $(u,v)$ has decreased, no tokens are transferred between
$v$ and $(u,v)$. (Technically the potential of $v$ might fall slightly but the change might be so small that we ignore it.) Formally we achieve
these potential function changes by setting the potential of every node in $V_0$ to 0 and for every
other node to $\beta^{\ell(v)} \cdot \max(0, \alpha - W_v)$.
Thus, the crucial Claim is that a node $v$ that moves down to level $k-1$ has accumulated a sufficent number of tokens,
i.e., at least $X:= 3\beta^k +
\beta^{k-1} \max(0, \alpha - W_v(k-1))$ tokens.
{\em Case 1:} Assume first that $v$'s immediately preceding level was on level $k-1$, i.e. that $v$ just had moved up from level $k-1$.
Recall that, by the definition of the potential function,
$v$ had {\em no} tokens when it moved up from level $k-1$. However, in this case we know that $W_v$ was least $\alpha \beta$ and, thus, after adjusting the weight of its adjacent edges to the level change, $W_v$ is still at least $\alpha$ after the level change. Node $v$ only drops to level $k-1$ if $W_v<1$, i.e.,
while being on level $k$ its weight must have dropped by at least $\alpha - 1$. By the above ``conversion rate'' between weight and tokens this means that $v$ must have received at least $ \beta^k (\alpha-1)$ tokens while it was on level $k$, which at least $X$ for large enough $\alpha$.
{\em Case 2:} Assume next that node $v$ was at level $k+1$ immediately before level $k$. Right after dropping from level
$k+1$ node $v$ owned $\beta^{k} (\alpha - W_v(k))$ tokens. As $v$ has not changed levels since, it did not have to give any tokens to edges
and did not have to pay for any updates of its adjacent edges. Instead it might have received some tokens from inserted or deleted adjacent edges.
Thus, it still ownes at least $\beta^{k} (\alpha - W_v(k))$ tokens. As $W_v(k) \le W_v(k-1)$ and $W_v(k) < 1$ when $v$ drops to
level $k-1$, this number of tokens is at least $X$ for $\beta \ge 2$ and $\alpha \ge 3 \beta + 1$.
To summarize, whenever an edge is inserted it receives a sufficient number of tokens to pay the cost of future upwards level changes, but also to give a token to its ``lower'' endpoint every time its level increases. These tokens accumulated at the ``lower'' endpoints are sufficient to pay for level decreases of these endpoints because (a) nodes move up to a level when their weight on the new level is at least $\alpha > 1$ but only move down when their weight falls below 1 and (b) the weight of edges on the same and lower levels drops by a factor of $\beta$ between two adjacent levels. Thus
$ \beta^{k}(\alpha-1)$ many edge deletions or edge weight decreases of edges adjacent to node $v$
are necessary to cause $v$ to drop from level $k$ to level $k-1$ (each giving one token to $v$), while there are only $\beta^{k-1}$ many edges on levels
below $k$ that need to be updated when $v$ drops. Thus, the cost of $v$'s level drop is $\beta^{k-1}$ and the new potential needed for $v$ on level $k-1$ is
$ \beta^{k-1} (\alpha - 1)$, but $v$ has collected at least $ \beta^{k}(\alpha-1)$ tokens, which, by suitable choice of
$\beta$ and $\alpha$, is sufficient.
\fi
Recall that the level of an edge $e$ is defined as $\ell(e) = \max_{v \in \mathcal{V}_e}(\ell(v))$.
Consider the following thought experiment. We have a {\em bank account}, and initially, when there are no edges in the graph, the bank account has a balance of zero dollars. For each subsequent edge insertion/deletion, at most $3L/\epsilon$ dollars are deposited to the bank account; and every time our algorithm changes the level of an already existing edge, one dollar is withdrawn from it. We show that the bank account never runs out of money, and this implies that $\text{{\sc Count}} = O(t L/\epsilon)$ after $t$ edge insertions/deletions starting from an empty graph.
Let $\mathcal{B}$ denote the total amount of money (or potential) in the bank account at the present moment. We keep track of $\mathcal{B}$ by distributing an $\epsilon$-fraction of it among the nodes and the current set of edges in the graph.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vc:potential:0}
\mathcal{B} = (1/\epsilon) \cdot \left(\sum_{e \in E} \Phi(e) + \sum_{v \in V} \Psi(v)\right)
\end{equation}
In the above equation, the amount of money (or potential) associated with an edge $e \in E$ is given by $\Phi(e)$, and the amount of money (or potential) associated with a node $v \in V$ is given by $\Psi(v)$. At every point in time, the potentials $\{\Phi(e), \Psi(v)\}$ will be determined by two invariants. But, before stating the invariants, we need to define the concepts of ``active'' and ``passive'' nodes.
\iffalse
We call a node $v \in V$ {\em passive} if we have $\mathcal{E}_v = \emptyset$ throughout the duration of a time interval that starts at the beginning of the algorithm (when $E = \emptyset$) and ends at the present moment. Let $V_{passive} \subseteq V$ denote the set of all nodes that are currently passive.
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{invariant}
\label{inv:vc:potential:node}
For every node $v \in V$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Psi(v) = \begin{cases}
\epsilon \cdot (L- \ell(v)) + \left(\beta^{\ell(v)+1}/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right) \cdot \max\left(0,f \alpha c^*_v - W_v\right) & \text{ if } v \notin V_{\text{passive}}; \\
0 & \text{ if } v \in V_{\text{passive}}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{invariant}
\fi
\begin{definition}
\label{def:kappa}
Consider any node $v \in V$. In the beginning, there is no edge incident upon the node $v$, and we initialize a counter $\kappa_v \leftarrow 0$. Subsequently, whenever an edge-insertion occurs in the graph, if the inserted edge is incident upon $v$, then we set $\kappa_v \leftarrow \kappa_v + 1$. At any given time-step, we say that a node $v \in V$ is {\em active} if $\mu \kappa_v \geq c_v$ and
{\em passive} otherwise.
\end{definition}
It is easy to check that if a node is active at time-step $t$, then it will remain active at every time-step $t' > t$. A further interesting consequence of the above definition is that a passive node is always at level zero, as shown in the lemma below.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:kappa}
At any given time-step, if a node $v \in V$ is passive, then we have $\ell(v) = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove this by induction. Let $\ell^{(t)}(v)$ and $\kappa_v^{(t)}$ respectively denote the level of the node $v$ and the value of the counter $\kappa_v$ at time-step $t$. Further, let $W_v^{(t)}$ denote the value of $W_v$ at time-step $t$. Initially, at time-step $t = 0$, the graph is empty, we have $W_v^{(0)} = 0$, and hence $\ell^{(0)}(v) = 0$. Now, by induction hypothesis, suppose that at time-step $t$ the node $v$ is passive and $\ell^{(t)}(v) = 0$, and, furthermore, suppose that the node $v$ remains passive at time-step $(t+1)$. Given this hypothesis, we claim that $\ell^{(t+1)}(v) = 0$. The lemma will follow if we can prove the claim.
To prove the claim, note that since the node $v$ is passive at time-step $(t+1)$, we have $\kappa_v^{(t+1)} \mu < c_v = f \alpha \beta c_v^*$. Since the node $v$ has at most $\kappa_v^{(t+1)}$ edges incident to it at time-step $(t+1)$, and since each of these edges has weight at most $\mu$, we have $W_v^{(t+1)} \leq \kappa_v^{(t+1)} \mu < f \alpha \beta c_v^*$. Now, recall Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty}. Since $\ell^{(t)}(v) = 0$ and since $W_v^{(t+1)} < f \alpha \beta c_v^*$, the node $v$ can never become dirty during the execution of the procedure in Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty} after the edge insertion/deletion that occurs at time-step $(t+1)$. Thus, the node $v$ will not change its level, and we will have $\ell^{(t+1)}(v) = 0$. This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to state the invariants that define edge and node potentials.
\begin{invariant}
\label{inv:vc:potential:edge}
For every edge $e \in E$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*} \Phi(e) = (1+\epsilon) \cdot \left(L - \ell(e)\right) \end{eqnarray*}
\end{invariant}
\begin{invariant}
\label{inv:vc:potential:node}
Recall Definition~\ref{def:kappa}. For every node $v \in V$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Psi(v) = \begin{cases}
\left(\beta^{\ell(v)+1}/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right) \cdot \max\left(0,f \alpha \cdot c^*_v - W_v\right) & \text{ if } v \text{ is active}; \\
\left(\beta/(f (\beta-1)\right) \cdot \kappa_v & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{invariant}
When the algorithm starts, the graph has zero edges, and all the nodes $v \in V$ are passive and at level $0$ with $W_v = 0$ and $\kappa_v = 0 < c_v/\mu$. At that moment, Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:potential:node} sets $\Psi(v) = 0$ for all nodes $v \in V$. Consequently, equation~\ref{eq:vc:potential:0} implies that $\mathcal{B} = 0$. Theorem~\ref{th:runtime}, therefore, will follow if we can prove the next two lemmas. Their proofs appear in Section~\ref{subsec:vc:update} and Section~\ref{subsec:analyze:FIX} respectively.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:update:special}
Consider the insertion (resp. deletion) of an edge $e$ in $E$. It creates (resp. destroys) the weight $w(e) = \mu \cdot \beta^{-\ell(e)}$, creates (resp. destroys) the potential $\Phi(e)$, and changes the potentials $\{\Psi(v)\}, v \in \mathcal{V}_e$. Due to these changes, the total potential $\mathcal{B}$ increases by at most $3L/\epsilon$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:main:special}
During every single iteration of the {\sc While} loop in Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty}, the total increase in {\sc Count} is no more than the net decrease in the potential $\mathcal{B}$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:update:special}.}
\label{subsec:vc:update}
\noindent {\bf Edge-insertion.}
Suppose that an edge $e$ is inserted into the graph at time-step $t$. Then the potential $\Phi(e)$ is created and gets a value of at most $(1+\epsilon)L$ units. Now, fix any node $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$, and consider three possible cases.
\bigskip
\noindent {\em Case 1.} The node $v$ was passive at time-step $(t-1)$ and remains passive at time-step $t$. In this case, due to the edge-insertion, the potential $\Psi(v)$ increases by $\beta/(f(\beta-1))$.
\bigskip
\noindent {\em Case 2.} The node $v$ was passive at time-step $(t-1)$ and becomes active at time-step $t$. In this case, we must have: $c_v - \mu \leq \mu \kappa_v^{(t-1)} < c_v \leq \mu \kappa_v^{(t)}$. By Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:potential:node}, just before the insertion of the edge $e$ we had:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi(v) & = & \left\{\beta/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right\} \cdot \mu \kappa_v^{(t-1)} \nonumber \\
& \geq & \left\{\beta/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right\} \cdot (c_v - \mu) \label{eq:veryverynew1}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the node $v$ was passive at time-step $(t-1)$, by Lemma~\ref{lm:kappa} we infer that $\ell^{(t-1)}(v) = 0$.
Hence, by Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:potential:node}, just after the insertion of the edge $e$ we get:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi(v) & = & \left\{\beta/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right\} \cdot \max\left(0,f \alpha \cdot c^*_v - W_v\right) \nonumber \\
& \leq & \left\{\beta/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right\} \cdot (f \alpha c^*_v) \nonumber \\
& \leq & \left\{\beta/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right\} \cdot c_v \label{eq:veryverynew2}
\end{eqnarray}
By equations~\ref{eq:veryverynew1},~\ref{eq:veryverynew2}, the potential $\Psi(v)$ increases by at most $\left\{\beta/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right\} \cdot (c_v - (c_v - \mu)) = \left\{\beta/(f(\beta-1))\right\}$.
\bigskip
\noindent {\em Case 3.} The node $v$ was active at time-step $(t-1)$. In this case, clearly the node $v$ remains active at time-step $t$, the weight $W_v$ increases, and hence the potential $\Psi(v)$ can only decrease.
\bigskip
\noindent From the above discussion, we conclude that the potential $\Psi(v)$ increases by at most $\beta/(f(\beta-1))$ for every node $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$. Since $|\mathcal{V}_e| \leq f$, this accounts for a net increase of at most $f \cdot \beta/(f(\beta-1)) = \beta/(\beta-1) = \beta/\epsilon \leq L/\epsilon$. Finally, recall that the potential $\Phi(e)$ is created and gets a value of at most $(1+\epsilon) L \leq 2L/\epsilon$ units. Thus, the net increase in the potential $\mathcal{B}$ is at most $L/\epsilon + 2L/\epsilon = 3L/\epsilon$.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Edge-deletion.}
If an edge $e$ is deleted from $E$, then the potential $\Phi(e)$ is destroyed. The weight $W_v$ of each node $v \in \mathcal{V}_e$ decreases by at most $\mu \cdot \beta^{-\ell(v)}$. Furthermore, no passive node becomes active due to this edge-deletion, and, in particular, the counter $\kappa_v$ remains unchanged for every node $v \in V$. Hence, each of the potentials $\{\Psi(v)\}, v \in \mathcal{V}_e,$ increases by at most $\beta^{\ell(v)+1}/(f \mu (\beta -1)) \cdot \mu \beta^{-\ell(v)} = \beta/(f (\beta-1)) = ((1+1/\epsilon)/f) \le 2L/(\epsilon f)$.
The potentials of the remaining nodes and edges do not change. Since $|\mathcal{V}_e| \leq f$, by equation~\ref{eq:vc:potential:0}, the net increase in $\mathcal{B}$ is at most $2 L/\epsilon \leq 3 L/\epsilon$.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:main:special}.}
\label{subsec:analyze:FIX}
Throughout this section, fix a single iteration of the {\sc While} loop in Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty} and suppose that it changes the level of a dirty node $v$ by one unit. We use the superscript $0$ (resp. $1$) on a symbol to denote its state at the time instant immediately prior to (resp. after) that specific iteration of the {\sc While} loop. Further, we preface a symbol with $\delta$ to denote the net decrease in its value due to that iteration. For example, consider the potential $\mathcal{B}$. We have $\mathcal{B} = \mathcal{B}^0$ immediately before the iteration begins, and $\mathcal{B} = \mathcal{B}^1$ immediately after iteration ends. We also have $\delta \mathcal{B} = \mathcal{B}^0 - \mathcal{B}^1$.
\iffalse
We will prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:vc:analyze:FIX:main}
We have $\delta \mathcal{B} > 0$ and $\delta \mathcal{B} = \Omega(C)$, where $C$ denotes the runtime of FIX($v$). In other words, the money withdrawn from the bank account during the execution of FIX($v$) is sufficient to pay for the computation performed by FIX($v$).
\end{theorem}
\fi
A change in the level of node $v$ does not affect the potentials of the edges $e \in E \setminus \mathcal{E}_v$. This observation, coupled with equation~\ref{eq:vc:potential:0}, gives us the following guarantee.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vc:change:1}
\delta \mathcal{B} = (1/\epsilon) \cdot \left( \delta \Psi(v) + \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \delta \Phi(e) + \sum_{u \in V \setminus \{v\}} \delta \Psi(u) \right)
\end{equation}
\iffalse
A change in the level of node $v$ does not affect the (a) the incident structure of the node $v$, and (b) the level and the overall degree of any node $u \neq v$. Thus, we get the following equalities.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}_v^0(i) & = & \mathcal{E}_v^1(i) \ \ \text{ for all } i \in \{0, \ldots, L\}. \label{eq:nochange:1} \\
\ell^0(u) & = & \ell^1(u) \ \ \ \text{ for all } u \in V \setminus \{v\}. \label{eq:nochange:2} \\
D^0_u & = & D^1_u \ \ \text{ for all } u \in V \setminus \{v\}. \label{eq:nochange:3}
\end{eqnarray}
Accordingly, to ease notation we do not put any superscript on the following symbols, as the quantities they refer to remain the same throughout the duration of the iteration of the {\sc While} loop we are concerned about.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{E}_v, D_v. & \\
\mathcal{E}_v(i), W_v(i) & \text{ for all } i \in \{0, \ldots, L\}. \\
\mathcal{E}_v(i,j), D_v(i,j) & \text{ for all } i,j \in \{0,\ldots, L\}, i \leq j. \\
\ell(u), D_u & \text{ for all } u \in V \setminus \{v\}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
\fi
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Remark.} Since the node $v$ is changing its level, it must be active. Hence, by Invariant~\ref{inv:vc:potential:node}, we must have $\Psi(v) = \beta^{\ell(v) + 1}/(f \mu (\beta-1)) \cdot \max(0, f \alpha c^*_v - W_v)$. We will use this observation multiple times throughout the rest of this section.
\bigskip
We divide the proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:main:special} into two possible cases, depending upon whether the concerned iteration of the {\sc While} loop increments or decrements the level of $v$. The main approach to the proof remains the same in each case. We first give an upper bound on the increase in $\text{{\sc Count}}$ due to the iteration. Next, we separately lower bound each of the following quantities: $\delta \Psi(v)$, $\delta \Phi(e)$ for all $e \in \mathcal{E}_v$, and $\delta \Psi(u)$ for all $u \in V \setminus \{v\}$. Finally, applying equation~\ref{eq:vc:change:1}, we derive that $\delta \mathcal{B}$ is sufficiently large to pay for the increase in $\text{{\sc Count}}$.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Remark.} Note that $\ell^0(u) = \ell^1(u)$ for all nodes $u \in V \setminus \{v\}$, and $\mathcal{E}^0_u = \mathcal{E}^1_u$ for all nodes $u \in V$. Thus, we will use the symbols $\ell(u)$ and $\mathcal{E}_u$ without any ambiguity for all such nodes.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Case 1: The level of the node $v$ increases from $k$ to $(k+1)$.}
\label{sec:FIX:case2}
\begin{Claim}
\label{cl:verynew:1}
We have $\ell^0(e) = k$ and $\ell^1(e) = k+1$ for every edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v^{0}(0,k)$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Consider edge $e \in \mathcal{E}^0_v(0,k)$. Since $e \in \mathcal{E}^0_v(0,k)$, we have $\ell^0(e) \leq k$. Since $\ell^0(v) = k$ and $e \in \mathcal{E}_v$, we must have $\ell^0(e) = k$. Finally, since $\ell^1(u) = \ell^0(u)$ for all nodes $u \in V \setminus \{v\}$, we conclude that $\ell^1(e) = \ell^1(v) = k+1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{cl:verynew:2}
We have $\ell^0(e) = \ell^1(e)$ for every edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v^{0}(k+1, L)$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Consider any edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(k+1, L)$. Since $\ell^0(e) \geq k+1$ and $\ell^0(v) = k$, there must be some node $u \in V \setminus \{v\}$ such that $\ell^0(u) \geq k+1$, $e \in \mathcal{E}_u$ and $\ell^0(e) = \ell^0(u)$. Since $\ell^1(u) = \ell^0(u) \geq k+1$ and $\ell^1(v) = k+1$, we infer that $\ell^1(e) = \ell^1(u) = \ell^0(e)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:FIX:case2:1}
We have $\text{{\sc Count}}^1 - \text{{\sc Count}}^0 = D_v^0(0,k)$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
When the node $v$ changes its level from $k$ to $(k+1)$, this only affects the levels of those edges that are at level $k$ or below.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:FIX:case2:2}
We have $\delta \Psi(v) = 0$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Since the node $v$ increases its level from $k$ to $(k+1)$, Step 02 (Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty}) guarantees that $W_v^0 = W_v^0(k) > f \alpha \beta \cdot c^*_v$. Next, from Lemma~\ref{lm:partition} we infer that $W_v^1 = W_v^0(k+1) \geq \beta^{-1} \cdot W_v^0(k) > f \alpha c^*_v$. Since both $W_v^0, W_v^1 > f \alpha c^*_v$, we get:
$\Psi^0(v) = \Psi^1(v) = 0$. It follows that $\delta \Psi(v) = \Psi^0(v) - \Psi^1(v) = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:FIX:case2:3}
For every edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta \Phi(e) =
\begin{cases}
(1+\epsilon) & \text{ if } e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k); \\
0 & \text{ if } e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(k+1,L).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
If $e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)$, then we have $\ell^0(e) = k$ and $\ell^1(e) = k+1$ (see Claim~\ref{cl:verynew:1}). Hence, we have $\Phi^0(e) = (1+\epsilon) \cdot (L - k)$ and $\Phi^1(e) = (1+\epsilon) \cdot (L-k-1)$. It follows that $\delta \Phi(e) = \Phi^0(e) - \Phi^1(e) = (1+\epsilon)$.
In contrast, if $e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(k+1,L)$, then Claim~\ref{cl:verynew:2} implies that $\ell^0(e) = \ell^1(e) = l$ (say). Accordingly, we have $\Phi^0(e) = \Phi^1(e) = (1+\epsilon) \cdot (L - l)$. Hence, we get $\delta \Phi(e) = \Phi^0(e) - \Phi^1(e) = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:FIX:case2:4}
For every node $u \in V \setminus \{v\}$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta \Psi(u) \geq
-(1/f) \cdot | \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k) |
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Consider any node $u \in V \setminus \{v\}$. If the node $u$ is passive, then we have $\delta \Psi(u) = 0$, and the claim is trivially true. Thus, for the rest of the proof we assume that the node $u$ is active.
Clearly, we have $\ell^0(e) = \ell^1(e)$ for each edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_u \setminus \mathcal{E}_v$. Hence, we get $\delta w(e) = 0$ for each edge $\mathcal{E}_u \setminus \mathcal{E}_v$. Next, by Claim~\ref{cl:verynew:2}, we have $\ell^0(e) = \ell^1(e)$ for each edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}^0_v(k+1, L)$. Thus, we get $\delta w(e) = 0$ for each edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}^0_v(k+1,L)$. We therefore conclude that:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta W_u & = & \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_u \setminus \mathcal{E}_v} \delta w(e) + \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}^0_v(k+1,L)} \delta w(e) + \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)} \delta w(e) \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)} \delta w(e) \nonumber \\
& = & |\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)| \cdot \mu \cdot (\beta^{-k} - \beta^{-(k+1)}) \nonumber \\
& = & |\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)| \cdot \mu \cdot (\beta-1)/\beta^{k+1} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Using this observation, we infer that:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \Psi(u) & \geq & - \left(\beta^{\ell(u)+1}/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right) \cdot \delta W_u \nonumber \\
& = & - \left(\beta^{\ell(u)+1}/(f \mu (\beta-1))\right) \cdot |\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)| \cdot \mu \cdot (\beta-1)/\beta^{k+1} \nonumber \\
& \geq & -\beta^{\ell(u)-k} \cdot (1/f) \cdot |\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)| \nonumber \\
& \geq & - (1/f) \cdot |\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)| \label{eq:verynew11}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~\ref{eq:verynew11} holds since either $|\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)| = 0$, or there is an edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)$. In the former case, equation~\ref{eq:verynew11} is trivially true. In the latter case, by Claim~\ref{cl:verynew:1} we have $\ell^0(e) = k$, and since $\ell^0(e) \geq \ell(u)$, we infer that $\ell(u) \leq k$ and $\beta^{\ell(u) - k} \leq 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:FIX:case2:5}
We have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{u \in V \setminus \{v\}} \delta \Psi(u) \geq - D_v^0(0,k)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
We have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{u \in V \setminus \{v\}} \delta \Psi(u) & = & \sum_{u \in V \setminus \{v\} : \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k) \neq \emptyset} \delta \Psi(u) \label{eq:1}\\
& \geq & \sum_{u \in V \setminus \{v\} : \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k) \neq \emptyset} - (1/f) \cdot |\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)| \label{eq:2}\\
& \geq & \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)} f \cdot (-1/f) \label{eq:3} \\
& = & - D_v^0(0,k) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Equations~\ref{eq:1} and~\ref{eq:2} follow from Claim~\ref{lm:FIX:case2:4}. Equation~\ref{eq:3} follows from a simple counting argument and the fact that the maximum frequency of an edge is $f$.
\end{proof}
\noindent From Claims~\ref{lm:FIX:case2:2},~\ref{lm:FIX:case2:3},~\ref{lm:FIX:case2:5} and equation~\ref{eq:vc:change:1}, we derive the following bound.
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \mathcal{B} & = & (1/\epsilon) \cdot \left(\delta \Psi(v) + \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \delta \Phi(e) + \sum_{u \in V \setminus \{v\}} \delta \Psi(u)\right) \nonumber \\
& \geq & (1/\epsilon) \cdot \left(0 + (1+\epsilon) \cdot D_v^0(0,k) - D_v^0(0,k) \right) \nonumber \\
& = & D_v^0(0,k) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, Claim~\ref{lm:FIX:case2:1} implies that the net decrease in the potential $\mathcal{B}$ in no less than the increase in $\text{{\sc Count}}$. This proves Lemma~\ref{lm:main:special} for Case 1.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Case 2: The level of the node $v$ decreases from $k$ to $k-1$.}
\label{sec:FIX:case3}
\begin{Claim}
\label{cl:verynew:3}
For every edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)$, we have $\ell^0(e) = k$ and $w^0(e) = \mu \beta^{-k}$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Consider any edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)$. Using the same argument as in the proof of Claim~\ref{cl:verynew:1}, we can show that $\ell^0(e) = k$. Since $\ell^0(e) = k$, we must have $w^0(e) = \mu \beta^{-k}$.
\end{proof}
The next claim bounds the degree $D_v^0(0,k)$ of node $v$, which we then use in the following claim to bound the increase in
$ \text{{\sc Count}}$.
\begin{Claim}
\label{cl:FIX:case3:degree}
We have $W_v^0 = W_v^0(k) < c^*_v$, and, furthermore, $D_v^0(0,k) \leq \beta^k c^*_v/\mu$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Since the node $v$ decreases its level from $k$ to $(k-1)$, Step~04 (Figure~\ref{fig:vc:dirty}) ensures that $W_v^0 = W_v^0(k) < c^*_v$. Claim~\ref{cl:verynew:3} implies that $w^0(e) = \mu \beta^{-k}$ for all $e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)$. We conclude that:
$$c^*_v > W_v^0 \geq \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)} w^0(e) = \mu \beta^{-k} \cdot D_v^0(0,k).$$ Thus, we get $D_v^0(0,k) \leq c^*_v \beta^k/\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:case3:runtime}
We have $\text{{\sc Count}}^1 - \text{{\sc Count}}^0 \leq c^*_v \beta^k/\mu$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
The node $v$ decreases its level from $k$ to $k-1$. Due to this event, the level of an edge changes only if it belongs to $\mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)$. Thus, we have $\text{{\sc Count}}^1 - \text{{\sc Count}}^0 \leq D_v^0(0,k) \leq c^*_v \beta^k/\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:FIX:case3:node:u}
For all $u \in V \setminus \{v\}$, we have $\delta \Psi(u) \geq 0$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Fix any node $u \in V \setminus \{v\}$. If the node $u$ is passive, then we have $\delta \Psi(u) = 0$, and the claim is trivially true. Thus, for the rest of the proof we assume that the node $u$ is active.
If $\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k) = \emptyset$, then we have $W^0_u = W^1_u$, and hence, $\delta \Psi(u) = 0$. Else we have $\mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k) \neq \emptyset$. In this case, as the level of the node $v$ decreases from $k$ to $k-1$, we infer that $w^0(e) \leq w^1(e)$ for all $e \in \mathcal{E}_u \cap \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)$, and, accordingly, we get $W_u^0 \leq W_u^1$. This implies that $\Psi^0(u) \geq \Psi^1(u)$. Thus, we have $\delta \Psi(u) = \Psi^0(u) - \Psi^1(u) \geq 0$.
\end{proof}
We now partition the edge-set $\mathcal{E}_v$ into two subsets, $X$ and $Y$, according to the level of the other endpoint.
$$X = \left\{ e \in \mathcal{E}_v : \max_{u \in \mathcal{V}_e \setminus \{v\}} \left\{ \ell(u) \right\} < k\right\} \text{ and } Y = \mathcal{E}_v \setminus X.$$
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:FIX:case3:edge}
For every edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta \Phi(e) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if } e \in Y; \\
-(1+\epsilon) & \text{ if } e \in X.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Fix any edge $e \in \mathcal{E}_v$. We consider two possible scenarios.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have $e \in Y$. As the level of the node $v$ decreases from $k$ to $k-1$, we infer that $\ell^0(e) = \ell^1(e)$, and accordingly, $\Phi^0(e) = \Phi^1(e)$. Hence, we get $\delta \Phi(e) = \Phi^0(e) - \Phi^1(e) = 0$.
\item We have $e \in X$. Since the level of node $v$ decreases from $k$ to $k-1$, we infer that $\ell^0(e) = k$ and $\ell^1(e) = k-1$, and accordingly, $\Phi^0(e) = (1+\epsilon) \cdot (L - k)$ and $\Phi^1(e) = (1+\epsilon) \cdot (L-k+1)$. Hence, we get $\delta \Phi(e) = \Phi^0(e) - \Phi^1(e) = -(1+\epsilon)$.
\end{enumerate}
This concludes the proof of the Claim.
\end{proof}
Next, we partition $W_v^0$ into two parts: $x$ and $y$. The first part denotes the contributions towards $W_v^0$ by the edges $e \in X$, while the second part denotes the contribution towards $W_v^0$ by the edges $e \in Y$. Note that $X \subseteq \mathcal{E}_v^0(0,k)$, which implies that $x = \sum_{e \in X} w^0(e) = \mu \beta^{-k} \cdot |X|$. Thus, we get the following equations.
\begin{eqnarray}
W_v^0 = x+ y < c^*_v \label{eq:part:1} \\
x = \mu \beta^{-k} \cdot |X| \label{eq:part:2} \\
y = \sum_{e \in Y} w^0(e) \label{eq:part:3}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~\ref{eq:part:1} holds due to Claim~\ref{cl:FIX:case3:degree}.
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:FIX:case3:edge:sum}
We have $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \delta \Phi(e) = -(1+\epsilon) \cdot x \cdot \beta^k/\mu$.
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Claim~\ref{lm:FIX:case3:edge} implies that $\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \delta \Phi(e) = -(1+\epsilon) \cdot |X|$. Applying equation~\ref{eq:part:2}, we infer that $|X| = x \cdot \beta^k/\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Claim}
\label{lm:new:1}
We have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta \Psi(v) = (f \alpha c^*_v - x-y) \cdot \frac{\beta^{k+1}}{f \mu (\beta-1)}
- \max\left(0,f \alpha c^*_v - \beta x - y\right) \cdot \frac{\beta^{k}}{f \mu (\beta-1)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{Claim}
\begin{proof}
Equation~\ref{eq:part:1} states that $W_v^0 = x+y < c^*_v$. Since $\ell^0(v) = k$, we get:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FIX:case3:deltav:1}
\Psi^0(v) = (f \alpha c^*_v - x - y) \cdot \frac{\beta^{k+1}}{f \mu (\beta-1)}
\end{equation}
As the node $v$ decreases its level from $k$ to $k-1$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
w^1(e) = \begin{cases}
\beta \cdot w^0(e) & \text{ if } e \in X; \\
w^0(e) & \text{ if } u \in Y
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
Accordingly, we have $W_v^1 = \beta \cdot x + y$, which implies the following equation.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FIX:case3:deltav:2}
\Psi^1(v) = \max(0,f \alpha c^*_v - \beta x -y) \cdot \frac{\beta^{k}}{f\mu(\beta-1)}
\end{equation}
Since $\delta \Psi(v) = \Psi^0(v) - \Psi^1(v)$, the Claim follows from equations~\ref{eq:FIX:case3:deltav:1} and~\ref{eq:FIX:case3:deltav:2}.
\end{proof}
\noindent We now consider two possible scenarios depending upon the value of $(f \alpha c^*_v - \beta x - y)$. We show that in each case $\delta \mathcal{B} \geq c^*_v \beta^k/\mu$. This, along with Claim~\ref{lm:case3:runtime}, implies that $\delta \mathcal{B} \geq \text{{\sc Count}}^1 - \text{{\sc Count}}^0$. This proves Lemma~\ref{lm:main:special} for Case 2.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that $(f \alpha c^*_v - \beta x - y) < 0$. From Claims~\ref{lm:FIX:case3:node:u},~\ref{lm:FIX:case3:edge:sum},~\ref{lm:new:1} and equation~\ref{eq:vc:change:1}, we derive:
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon \cdot \delta \mathcal{B} & = & \sum_{u \in V \setminus \{v\}} \delta \Psi(u) + \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \delta \Phi(e) + \Psi(v) \nonumber \\
& \geq & - (1+\epsilon) \cdot x \cdot \frac{\beta^k}{\mu} + (f \alpha c^*_v - x - y) \cdot \frac{\beta^{k+1}}{f\mu(\beta-1)} \nonumber \\
& \geq & - (1+\epsilon) \cdot c^*_v \cdot \frac{\beta^k}{\mu} + (f \alpha -1) c^*_v \cdot \frac{\beta^{k+1}}{f\mu(\beta-1)} \label{eq:very:1} \\
& = & \frac{c^*_v \beta^k}{\mu} \left\{ - (1+\epsilon) + (\alpha - 1/f) \cdot \frac{\beta}{(\beta-1)} \right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{c^*_v \beta^k}{\mu} \left\{ - (1+\epsilon) + (1+3\epsilon) \cdot \frac{(1+\epsilon)}{\epsilon} \right\} \label{eq:very:2} \\
& \geq & \epsilon \cdot c^*_v \cdot \frac{\beta^k}{\mu} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~\ref{eq:very:1} follows from equation~\ref{eq:part:1}. Equation~\ref{eq:very:2} holds since $\alpha = 1+1/f + 3\epsilon$ and $\beta = 1+\epsilon$. \\
\item Suppose that $(f \alpha c^*_v - \beta x - y) \geq 0$. From Claims~\ref{lm:FIX:case3:node:u},~\ref{lm:FIX:case3:edge:sum},~\ref{lm:new:1} and equation~\ref{eq:vc:change:1}, we derive:
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \epsilon \cdot \delta \mathcal{B} = \sum_{u \in V \setminus \{v\}} \delta \Psi(u) + \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_v} \delta \Phi(u,v) + \Psi(v) \nonumber \\
& & \geq - (1+\epsilon) \cdot x \cdot \frac{\beta^k}{\mu} + (f \alpha c^*_v - x - y) \cdot \frac{\beta^{k+1}}{f\mu(\beta-1)} - (f \alpha c^*_v - \beta x - y) \cdot \frac{\beta^{k}}{f\mu(\beta-1)} \nonumber \\
& & = \frac{\beta^k}{\mu(\beta-1)} \cdot \big\{(f\alpha c^*_v - x - y) \cdot \frac{\beta}{f} - (f\alpha c^*_v -\beta x -y) \cdot \frac{1}{f} - (1+\epsilon) \cdot x \cdot (\beta-1) \big\} \nonumber \\
& & = \frac{\beta^k}{\mu(\beta-1)} \cdot \big\{\alpha c^*_v \beta -\alpha c^*_v - \frac{(\beta x + \beta y - \beta x - y)}{f} - (1+\epsilon) \cdot x \cdot (\beta-1) \big\} \nonumber \\
& & = \frac{\beta^k}{\mu(\beta-1)} \cdot \big\{\alpha c^*_v \cdot (\beta -1) - \frac{y( \beta - 1)}{f} - (1+\epsilon) \cdot x \cdot (\beta-1) \big\} \nonumber \\
& & = \frac{\beta^k}{\mu} \cdot \big\{\alpha c^*_v - \frac{y}{f} - (1 + \epsilon) \cdot x\big\} \nonumber \\
& & \geq \frac{\beta^k}{\mu} \cdot \big\{\alpha c^*_v - \beta (y + x)\big\} \label{eq:verynew:1} \\
& & \geq \frac{\beta^k}{\mu} \cdot (\alpha - \beta) \cdot c^*_v \label{eq:verynew:2} \\
& & \geq \epsilon \cdot c^*_v \cdot \frac{\beta^k}{\mu} \label{eq:verynew:3}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~\ref{eq:verynew:1} holds since $\beta = 1 + \epsilon$ and $ f \geq 1$. Equation~\ref{eq:verynew:2} follows from Equation~\ref{eq:part:1}. Equation~\ref{eq:verynew:3} holds since $\alpha = 1 + 1/f + 3\epsilon$ and $\beta = 1+\epsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Maintaining a Set-Cover in a Dynamic Setting}
\label{sec:set-cover}
We first show the link between the fractional hypergraph $b$-matching and set-cover.
\begin{lemma}
\label{main:lm:set-cover}
The dual LP~(\ref{main:dual:match-1}) is an LP-relaxation of the set-cover problem (Definition~\ref{main:def:set-cover}).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given an instance of the set-cover problem, we create an instance of the hypergraph $b$-matching problem as follows. For each element $u \in \mathcal{U}$ create an edge $e(u) \in E$, and for each set $S \in \mathcal{S}$, create a node $v(S) \in V$ with cost $c_{v(S)} = c_S$. Ensure that an element $u$ belongs to a set $S$ iff $e(u) \in \mathcal{E}_{v(S)}$. Finally, set $\mu = \max_{v \in V} c_v +1$.
Since $\mu > \max_{v \in V} c_v$, it can be shown that an optimal solution to the dual LP~(\ref{main:dual:match-1}) will set $z(e) = 0$ for every edge $e \in E$. Thus, we can remove the variables $\{z(e)\}$ from the constraints and the objective function of LP~(\ref{main:dual:match-1}) to get a new LP with the same optimal objective value. This new LP is an LP-relaxation for the set-cover problem.
\end{proof}
We now present the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}
\label{main:cor:set-cover}
We can maintain an $(f^2 + f + \epsilon f^2)$-approximately optimal solution to the dynamic set cover problem in $O(f \cdot \log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ amortized update time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We map the set cover instance to a fractional hypergraph $b$-matching instance as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{main:lm:set-cover}. By Theorem~\ref{main:th:main:result}, in $O(f \log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ amortized update time, we can maintain a feasible solution $\{x^*(e)\}$ to LP~(\ref{main:lp:match-1}) that is $\lambda$-maximal, where $\lambda = f+1+\epsilon f$.
Consider a collection of sets $\mathcal{S}^* = \{ S \in \mathcal{S} : \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_{v(S)}} x^*(e) \geq c_{v(S)}/\lambda\}$. Since we can maintain the fractional solution $\{x^*(e)\}$ in $O(f \log (m+n)/\epsilon^2)$ amortized update time, we can also maintain $\mathcal{S}^*$ without incurring any additional overhead in the update time. Now, using complementary slackness conditions, we can show that each element $e \in \mathcal{U}$ is covered by some $S \in \mathcal{S}^*$, and the sum $\sum_{S \in \mathcal{S}^*} c_S$ is at most $(\lambda f)$-times the size of the primal solution $\{x^*(e)\}$. The corollary follows from LP duality.
\end{proof}
\section{Maintaining a $b$-Matching in a Dynamic Setting}
\label{sec:bmatching}
We will present a dynamic algorithm for maintaining an $O(1)$-approximation to the maximum $b$-matching (see Definitions~\ref{main:def:b-matching},~\ref{main:def:dynamic:b-matching}). Our main result is summarized in Theorem~\ref{th:sample:main}. We use the following approach. First, we note that the fractional $b$-matching problem is a special case of the fractional hypergraph $b$-matching problem (see Definition~\ref{main:def:fractional:bmatching}) with $f = 2$ (for each edge is incident upon exactly two nodes). Hence, by Theorems~\ref{main:th:maximal} and~\ref{main:th:main:result}, we can maintain a $O(f^2) = O(1)$ approximate ``fractional'' solution to the maximum $b$-matching problem in $O(f \log (m+n)) = O(\log n)$ amortized update time. Next, we perform randomized rounding on this fractional solution in the dynamic setting, whereby we select each edge in the solution with some probability that is determined by its fractional value. This leads to Theorem~\ref{th:sample:main}.
\paragraph{Notations.} Let $G = (V, E)$ be the input graph to the $b$-matching problem. Given any subset of edges $E' \subseteq E$ and any node $v \in V$, let $\mathcal{N}(v, E') = \{ u \in V : (u,v) \in E'\}$ denote the set of neighbors of $v$ with respect to the edge-set $E'$, and let $\text{deg}(v, E') = |\mathcal{N}(v, E')|$. Next, consider any ``weight'' function $w : E' \rightarrow \mathbf{R}^+$ that assigns a weight $w(e)$ to every edge $e \in E'$. For every node $v \in V$, we define $W_v = \sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E)} w(u,v)$. Finally, for every subset of edges $E' \subseteq E$, we define $w(E') = \sum_{e \in E'} w(e)$.
\medskip
Recall that in the $b$-matching problem, we are given an ``input graph'' $G = (V, E)$ with $|V| = n$ nodes, where each node $v \in V$ has a ``capacity'' $c_v \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. We want to select a subset $E' \subseteq E$ of edges of maximum size such that each node $v$ has at most $c_v$ edges incident to it in $E'$. We will also be interested in ``fractional'' $b$-matchings. In the fractional $b$-matching problem, we want to assign a weight $w(e) \in [0,1]$ to every edge $e \in E$ such that $\sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E)} w(u,v) \leq c_v$ for every node $v \in V$, and the sum of the edge-weights $w(E)$ is maximized. In the dynamic version of these problems, the node-set $V$ remains fixed, and at each time-step the edge-set $E$ gets updated due to an edge insertion or deletion. We now show how to efficiently maintain an $O(1)$-approximate fractional $b$-matching in the dynamic setting.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:sample:b-matching}
Fix a constant $\epsilon \in (0,1/4)$, and let $\lambda = 4$, and $\gamma = 1+4\epsilon$. In $O(\log n)$ amortized update time, we can maintain a fractional $b$-matching $w : E \rightarrow [0,1]$ in $G = (V,E)$ such that:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{main:eq:w:1}
W_v \leq c_v/\gamma \text{ for all nodes } v \in V. \label{eq:w:1} \\
w(u,v) = 1 \text{ for each edge } (u,v) \in E \text{ with } W_u, W_v < c_v/\lambda. \label{eq:w:2}
\end{eqnarray}
Further, the size of the optimal $b$-matching in $G$ is $O(1)$ times the sum $\sum_{e \in E} w(e)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that the fractional $b$-matching problem is a special case of fractional hypergraph $b$-matching where $\mu = 1$, $m = n^2$, and $f = 2$.
We scale down the capacity of each node $v \in V$ by a factor of $\gamma$, by defining $\tilde{c}_v = c_v/\gamma$ for all $v \in V$. Next, we apply Theorem~\ref{th:main:result} on the input simple graph $G = (V, E)$ with $\mu = 1$, $m = n^2$, $f = 2$, and the reduced capacities $\{\tilde{c}_v\}, v \in V$. Let $\{w(e)\}, e\in E,$ be the resulting $(f+1+\epsilon f)$-maximal matching (see Definition~\ref{def:maximal}). Since $\epsilon < 1/3$ and $f = 2$, we have $\lambda \geq f+1+\epsilon f$. Since $\epsilon$ is a constant, the amortized update time for maintaining the fractional $b$-matching becomes $O(f \cdot \log (m+n)/\epsilon^2) = O(\log n)$. Finally, by Theorem~\ref{th:maximal}, the fractional $b$-matching $\{w(e)\}$ is an $(\lambda f +1) = 9$-approximate optimal $b$-matching in $G$ in the presence of the reduced capacities $\{\tilde{c}_v\}$. But scaling down the capacities reduces the objective of LP~(\ref{lp:match-1}) by at most a factor of $\gamma$. Hence, the size of the optimal $b$-matching in $G$ is at most $9\gamma = O(1)$ times the sum $\sum_{e \in E} w(e)$. This concludes the proof.
\ \end{proof}
Set $\lambda = 4$, $\gamma = 1+4\epsilon$ and $\epsilon \in (0,1/4)$ for the rest of this section. We will show how to dynamically convert the fractional $b$-matching $\{w(e)\}$ from Theorem~\ref{th:sample:b-matching} into an integral $b$-matching, by losing a constant factor in the approximation ratio. The main idea is to randomly sample the edges $e \in E$ based on their $w(e)$ values. But, first we introduce the following notations.
Say that a node $v \in V$ is ``nearly-tight'' if $W_v \geq c_v/\lambda$ and ``slack'' otherwise. Let $T$ denote the set of all nearly-tight nodes. We also partition of the node-set $V$ into two subsets: $B \subseteq V$ and $S = V \setminus B$. Each node $v \in B$ is called ``big'' and has $\text{deg}(v, E) \geq c \log n$, for some large constant $c > 1$. Each node $v \in S$ is called ``small'' and has $\text{deg}(v, E) < c \log n$. Define $E_B = \{ (u,v) \in E : \text{either } u \in B \text{ or } v \in B\}$ to be the subset of edges with at least one endpoint in $B$, and let $E_{S} = \{ (u,v) \in E : \text{either } u \in S \text{ or } v \in S \}$ be the subset of edges with at least one endpoint in $S$. We define the subgraphs $G_B = (V, E_B)$ and $G_S = (V, E_S)$.
\begin{observation}
\label{ob:clarify}
We have $\mathcal{N}(v, E) = \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)$ for all big nodes $v \in B$, and $\mathcal{N}(u, E) = \mathcal{N}(u, E_S)$ for all small nodes $u \in S$.
\end{observation}
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Overview of our approach.} Our algorithm maintains the following structures.
\begin{itemize}
\item A fractional $b$-matching as per Theorem~\ref{th:sample:b-matching}.
\item A random subset $H_B \subseteq E_B$, and a weight function $w^B : H_B \rightarrow [0,1]$ in the subgraph $G_B(H) = (V, H_B)$, as per Definition~\ref{def:H_B}.
\item A random subset $H_S \subseteq E_S$, and a weight function $w^S : H_S \rightarrow [0,1]$ in the subgraph $G_S(H) = (V, H_S)$, as per Definition~\ref{def:H_S}.
\item A maximal $b$-matching $M_S \subseteq H_S$ in the subgraph $G_S(H)$, that is, for every edge $(u,v) \in H_S \setminus M_S$, there is a node $q \in \{u,v\}$ such that $\text{deg}(q, M_S) = c_q$.
\item The set of edges $E^* = \{ e \in E : w(e) = 1\}$.
\end{itemize}
The rest of this section is organized as follows. In Lemmas~\ref{cor:sample:E_B} (resp. Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_S}), we prove some properties of the random set $H_B$ (resp. $H_S$) and the weight function $w^B$ (resp. $w^S$). In Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:runtime}, we show that the edge-sets $H_B, H_S, M_S$ and $E^*$ can be maintained in a dynamic setting in $O(\log^3 n)$ amortized update time. In Theorem~\ref{th:sample:main}, we prove our main result, by showing that one of the edge-sets $H_B, M_S, E^*$ is an $O(1)$-approximation to the optimal $b$-matching with high probability.
\medskip
\noindent The proofs of Lemmas~\ref{cor:sample:E_B},~\ref{cor:sample:E_S} and~\ref{cor:sample:runtime} appear in Sections~\ref{sec:cor:sample:E_B},~\ref{sec:cor:sample:E_S} and~\ref{sec:cor:sample:runtime} respectively.
\renewcommand{\mathcal{E}}{\mathbf{E}}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:H_B}
The random set $H_B \subseteq E_B$ and the weight function $w^B : H_B \rightarrow [0,1]$ are defined so as to fulfill the following conditions.
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{With probability one, we have } \text{deg}(v, H_B) \leq c_v \text{ for every small node } v \in S. \label{eq:w^B:1} \\
\Pr[e \in H_B] = w(e) \text{ for every edge } e \in E_B. \label{eq:w^B:2} \\
\forall v \in B, \text{ the events } \{ [(u,v) \in H_B] \}, u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B), \text{ are mutually independent. } \label{eq:w^B:3} \\
\text{For each edge } e \in H_B, \text{ we have } w^B(e) = 1 \label{eq:w^B:4}
\end{eqnarray}
We define $Z_B(e) \in \{0, 1\}$ to be an indicator random variable that is set to one if $e \in H_B$ and zero otherwise.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:H_S}
The random set $H_S \subseteq E_S$ and the weight function $w^S : H_S \rightarrow [0,1]$ are defined so as to fulfill the following conditions.
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pr[e \in H_S] = p_e = \min(1, w(e) \cdot (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon)) \ \ \forall e \in E_S. \label{eq:w^S:1} \\
\text{The events } \{ [e \in H_S] \}, e \in E_S, \text{ are mutually independent. } \label{eq:w^S:2} \\
\text{For each edge } e \in H_S, \text{we have } w^S(e) = \begin{cases} w(e) & \text{ if } p_e \geq 1; \\
\epsilon/(c \lambda \log n) & \text{ if } p_e < 1. \\
\end{cases} \label{eq:w^S:3}
\end{eqnarray}
We define $Z_S(e) \in \{0, 1\}$ to be an indicator random variable that is set to one if $e \in H_S$ and zero otherwise.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{cor:sample:E_B}
For every node $v \in V$, define $W^B_v = \sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, H_B)} w^B(u,v)$. Then the following conditions hold with high probability.
\begin{itemize}
\item For every node $v \in V$, we have $W^B_v \leq c_v$.
\item For every node $v \in B \cap T$, we have $W^B_v \geq (1-\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\lambda)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{cor:sample:E_S}
For every node $v \in V$, define $W^S_v = \sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v)$. The following conditions hold with high probability.
\begin{itemize}
\item For each node $v \in V$, we have $W^S_v \leq c_v$.
\item For each node $v \in S$, we have $\text{deg}(v, H_S) = O(\log^2 n)$.
\item For each node $v \in S \cap T$, we have $W^S_v \geq (1-\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\lambda)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{cor:sample:runtime}
With high probability, we can maintain the random sets of edges $H_B$ and $H_S$, a maximal $b$-matching $M_S$ in the random subgraph $G_S(H) = (V, H_S)$, and the set of edges $E^*$ in $O(\log^3 n)$-amortized update time.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:sample:main}
With high probability, we can maintain a $O(1)$-approximate $b$-matching in the input graph $G = (V, E)$ in $O(\log^3 n)$ amortized update time.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:sample:main}}
We maintain the random sets of edges $H_B$ and $H_S$, a maximal $b$-matching $M_S$ in the subgraph $G_S(H) = (V, H_S)$, and the set of edges $E^* = \{ e \in E : w(e) = 1\}$ as per Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:runtime}. This requires $O(\log^3 n)$ amortized update time with high probability. The theorem will follow from Theorem~\ref{th:sample:b-matching}, Lemma~\ref{lm:sample:main:1} and Lemma~\ref{lm:sample:main:3}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sample:main:1}
With high probability, each of the edge-sets $H_B, M_S$ and $E^*$ is a valid $b$-matching in $G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $w^B(e) = 1$ for every edge $e \in H_B$ (see Definition~\ref{def:H_B}), Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_B} implies that the edge-set $H_B$ is a $b$-matching in $G$ with high probability.
Next, by definition, the edge-set $M_S$ is a $b$-matching in $G_S(H) = (V, H_S)$. Since $H_S \subseteq E$, the edge-set $M_S$ is also a $b$-matching in $G$.
Finally, since $w : E \rightarrow [0,1]$ is a fractional $b$-matching in $G$, the set of edges $E^*$ is also a $b$-matching in $G$.
\
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sample:main:2}
We have $w(E^*) + \sum_{v \in B \cap T} W_v + \sum_{v \in S \cap T} W_v \geq w(E)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider any edge $(u,v) \in E$. If $u \notin T$ and $v \notin T$, then by equation~\ref{eq:w:2}, we must have $(u,v) \in E^*$. In contrast, if there is some node $x \in \{u, v \}$ such that $x \in T$, then we must have either $x \in B \cap T$ or $x \in S \cap T$.
In other words, every edge $(u,v)$ satisfies this property: Either $(u, v) \in E^*$, or it is incident upon some node in $B \cap T$, or it is incident upon some node $S \cap T$. Thus, each edge $e \in E$ contributes at least $w(e)$ to the sum $w(E^*) + \sum_{v \in B \cap T} W_v + \sum_{v \in S \cap T} W_v$. The lemma follows.
\ \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sample:main:3}
We have $w(E) \leq O(1) \cdot \max(|E^*|, |H_B|, |M_S|)$ with high probability.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $w(E^*) = |E^*|$. We consider three possible cases, based on Lemma~\ref{lm:sample:main:2}.
\medskip
\noindent {\em Case 1.} $w(E^*) \geq (1/3) \cdot w(E)$. In this case, clearly $w(E) \leq 3 \cdot \max(|E^*|, |H_B|, |M_S|)$.
\medskip
\noindent {\em Case 2.} $\sum_{v \in B \cap T} W_v \geq (1/3) \cdot w(E)$. In this case, we condition on the event under which Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_B} holds. Thus, we get:
\begin{eqnarray*}
w(E) & \leq & \sum_{v \in B \cap T} 3 \cdot W_v \leq \sum_{v \in B \cap T} 3 \cdot c_v \leq \sum_{v \in B \cap T} (3 \lambda /(1-\epsilon)) \cdot W^B_v \\
& \leq & (3 \lambda /(1-\epsilon)) \cdot \sum_{e \in H_B} 2 \cdot w^B(e) = (6\lambda/(1-\epsilon)) \cdot |H_B|
\end{eqnarray*}
\medskip
\noindent {\em Case 3.} $\sum_{v \in S \cap T} W_v \geq (1/3) \cdot w(E)$. In this case, we condition on the event under which Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_S} holds. Thus, we get:
\begin{eqnarray*}
w(E) & \leq & \sum_{v \in S \cap T} 3 \cdot W_v \leq \sum_{v \in S \cap T} 3 \cdot c_v \leq \sum_{v \in S \cap T} (3 \lambda /(1-\epsilon)) \cdot W^S_v \\
& \leq & (3 \lambda /(1-\epsilon)) \cdot \sum_{e \in H_S} 2 \cdot w^S(e) = (6\lambda/(1-\epsilon)) \cdot \sum_{e \in H_S} w^S(e) \\
& \leq & (12 \lambda/(1-\epsilon)) \cdot |M_S|.
\end{eqnarray*}
The last inequality holds since $M_S$ is a maximal $b$-matching in $G_S(H) = (V, H_S)$, and since every maximal $b$-matching is a $2$-approximation to the maximum fractional $b$-matching (this follows from LP duality). Accordingly, we have $\sum_{e \in H_S} w^S(e) \leq 2 \cdot |M_S|$.
\ \end{proof}
Since $\lambda, \epsilon$ are constants, this concludes the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:sample:main}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_B}}
\label{sec:cor:sample:E_B}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sample:E_B:lowerbound}
With high probability, we have $W^B_v \geq (1-\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\lambda)$ for every node $v \in B \cap T$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix any node $v \in B \cap T$. Note that $\mathcal{N}(v, E_B) = \mathcal{N}(v, E)$, $W_v \geq c_v/\lambda$, and $c_v \geq c \lambda \log n/\epsilon$. Linearity of expectation, in conjunction with equations~\ref{eq:w^B:2},~\ref{eq:w^B:4} and Observation~\ref{ob:clarify} imply that we have $\mathcal{E}[W^B_v] = \sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)} \mathcal{E}[Z_B(u,v)] = \sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)} w(u,v) = \sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E)} w(u,v) = W_v \geq c_v/\lambda \geq c \log n/\epsilon$. Thus, applying Chernoff bound, we infer that $\mathcal{E}[W^B_v] \geq (1-\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\lambda)$ with high probability. The lemma follows if we take a union bound over all nodes $v \in B \cap T$.
\ \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sample:E_B:upperbound}
With high probability, we have $W^B_v \leq c_v$ for every node $v \in V$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider any node $v \in V$. If $v \in S$, then we have $W^B_v \leq c_v$ with probability one (see equations~\ref{eq:w^B:1},~\ref{eq:w^B:4}).
For the rest of the proof, suppose that $v \in B$. Applying an argument similar to the one used in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:sample:E_B:lowerbound}, we infer that $\mathcal{E}[W^B_v] = W_v \leq c_v/\gamma$. The last inequality holds due to equation~\ref{eq:w:1}. Since $\gamma > (1+\epsilon)$ and $c_v \geq c \lambda \log n/\epsilon$, applying Chernoff bound we derive that $W^B_v \leq c_v$ with high probability.
Thus, for each node $v \in V$, we have $W^B_v \leq c_v$ with high probability. The lemma now follows if we take a union bound over all nodes $v \in B$.
\ \end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_B} now follows from Lemmas~\ref{lm:sample:E_B:lowerbound} and~\ref{lm:sample:E_B:upperbound}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_S}}
\label{sec:cor:sample:E_S}
\subsubsection{High Level Overview}
In order to highlight the main idea, we assume that $p_e < 1$ for every edge $e \in E_S$. First, consider any small node $v \in S$. Since $\mathcal{N}(v, E_S) = \mathcal{N}(v, E)$, from equations~\ref{eq:w:1},~\ref{eq:w^S:1},~\ref{eq:w^S:3} and linearity of expectation, we infer that $\mathcal{E}[\text{deg}(v, H_S)] = (c\lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot W_v \leq (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/(1+\epsilon))$. Since $c_v \in [1, c \log n]$, from equation~\ref{eq:w^S:2} and Chernoff bound we infer that $\text{deg}(v, H_S) \leq (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot c_v = O(\log^2 n)$ with high probability. Next, note that $W_v^S = \text{deg}(v, H_S) \cdot (\epsilon/(c\lambda \log n))$. Hence, we also get $W_v^S \leq c_v$ with high probability. Next, suppose that $v \in S \cap T$. In this case, we have $\mathcal{E}[\text{deg}(v, H_S)] = (c\lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot W_v \geq (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\lambda)$. Again, since this expectation is sufficiently large, applying Chernoff bound we get $\text{deg}(v, H_S) \geq (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot (1-\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\lambda)$ with high probability. It follows that $W_v^S = (\epsilon/(c \lambda \log n)) \cdot \text{deg}(v, H_S) \geq (1-\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\lambda)$ with high probability.
Finally, applying a similar argument we can show that for every big node $v \in B$, we have $W_v^S \leq c_v$ with high probability.
\subsubsection{Full Details}
For every node $v \in V$, we partition the node-set $\mathcal{N}(v, E_S)$ into two subsets -- $X(v)$ and $Y(v)$ -- as defined below.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:def:Xv}
X(v) = \{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_S) : p_{(u,v)} = 1\} \\
Y(v) = \{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_S) : p_{(u,v)} < 1\} \label{eq:def:Yv}
\end{eqnarray}
Next, for every node $v \in V$, we define:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:def:deltaX}
\delta_X(v) = \sum_{u \in X(v)} w(u,v) \\
\delta_Y(v) = \sum_{u \in Y(v)} w(u,v) \label{eq:def:deltaY}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\mathcal{N}(v, E_S) \subseteq \mathcal{N}(v, E)$ for every node $v \in V$, by equation~\ref{eq:w:1} we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sampling:small:1}
\sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_S)} w(u,v) = \delta_X(v) + \delta_Y(v) \leq c_v/\gamma
\end{equation}
Since $X(v) \subseteq \mathcal{N}(v, E_S)$ and $w^S(u,v) = w(u,v)$ for every node $u \in X(v)$, we get:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sampling:small:2}
\sum_{u \in X(v)} w^S(u,v) = \delta_X(v).
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sampling:small:1}
For every node $v \in V$, if $\delta_Y(v) \leq \epsilon/\lambda$, then with high probability, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
|Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)| & \leq & (1+\epsilon) \cdot c \log n; \text{ and } \\
\sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) & \leq & 2 \epsilon/\lambda.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that for every node $u \in Y(v)$, we have defined $Z_S(u,v) \in \{0,1\}$ to be an indicator random variable that is set to one if $(u,v) \in H_S$ and zero otherwise. Clearly, we have $\mathcal{E}[Z_S(u,v)] = (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot w(u,v)$ for all $u \in Y(v)$. Applying linearity of expectation, we get:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}\left[|Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)|\right] = E\left[\sum_{u \in Y(v)} Z_S(u,v)\right] & = & (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot \sum_{u \in Y(v)} w(u,v) \\
& = & (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot \delta_Y(v) \leq c \log n.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\mathcal{E}\left[|Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)|\right] \leq c \log n$, applying Chernoff bound we infer that $|Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)| \leq (1+\epsilon)c \log n$ with high probability.
Finally, note that each node $u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)$ has $w^S(u,v) = \epsilon/(c \lambda \log n)$. This implies that $\sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) = \epsilon/(c \lambda \log n) \cdot |Y(v) \cap H_S|$. Since $|Y(v) \cap H_S| \leq (1+\epsilon) c \log n$ with high probability, we get: $\sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) \leq (1+\epsilon) \epsilon/\lambda \leq 2 \epsilon/\lambda$ with high probability. This concludes the proof of the lemma. \
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sampling:small:2}
For every node $v \in V$, if $\delta_Y(v) \geq \epsilon/\lambda$, then with high probability, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
(c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot \frac{\delta_Y(v)}{(1+\epsilon)} \leq |Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, E_S)| \leq (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot (1+\epsilon) \delta_Y(v); \text{ and } \\
\frac{\delta_Y(v)}{(1+\epsilon)} \leq \sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) \leq (1+\epsilon) \delta_Y(v).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mu = E[|Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)|]$. Applying an argument as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:sampling:small:1}, we get: $\mu = (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot \delta_Y(v) \geq c \log n$. Hence, applying Chernoff bound, we infer that $\mu/(1+\epsilon) \leq |Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)| \leq (1+\epsilon) \mu$ with high probability. This proves the first part of the lemma.
To prove the second part of the lemma, we simply note that, as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:sampling:small:1}, we have $\sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) = (\epsilon/(c \lambda \log n)) \cdot |Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)|$. \
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sampling:small:maxdeg}
For every node $v \in V$, we have $\text{deg}(v, H_S) = O\left((\log n /\epsilon) \cdot c_v\right)$ with high probability.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix any node $v \in V$. Note that $X(v) \subseteq \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)$ and $w(u,v) = w^S(u,v) \geq \epsilon/(c \lambda \log n)$ for every node $u \in X(v)$. By equation~\ref{eq:sampling:small:2}, we have $\sum_{u \in X(v)} w^S(u,v) = \delta_X(v)$ for every node $v \in V$. Thus, we get:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sampling:small:maxdeg}
|X(v)| \leq (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) \cdot \delta_X(v) = O\left( (\log n/\epsilon) \cdot \delta_X(v) \right)
\end{equation}
Lemmas~\ref{lm:sampling:small:1} and~\ref{lm:sampling:small:2} imply that with high probability, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
|Y(v) \cap H_S| & \leq & \max\left(c\log n, (c \lambda \log n/\epsilon) (1+\epsilon) \delta_Y(v)\right) \nonumber \\
& = & O\left((\log n/\epsilon) \cdot \delta_Y(v)\right) \label{eq:sampling:small:maxdeg:1}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\text{deg}(v, H_S) = |X(v)| + |Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)|$, the lemma follows if we add equations~\ref{eq:sampling:small:maxdeg} and~\ref{eq:sampling:small:maxdeg:1}, and recall that $\delta_X(v) + \delta_Y(v) \leq c_v$ (see equation~\ref{eq:sampling:small:1}).
\ \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sampling:small:weight}
For every node $v \in V$, we have $W^S_v \leq c_v$ with high probability.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Lemmas~\ref{lm:sampling:small:1} and~\ref{lm:sampling:small:2} imply that with high probability, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:lm:sampling:small:weight:1}
\sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) \leq \max\left(2\epsilon/\lambda , (1+\epsilon) \delta_Y(v)\right)
\end{eqnarray}
Since the node-set $\mathcal{N}(v, H_S)$ is partitioned into $X(v)$ and $Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)$, we get:
\begin{eqnarray}
W^S_v & = & \sum_{u \in X(v)} w^S(u,v) + \sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) \nonumber \\
& \leq & (1+\epsilon) \cdot \delta_X(v) + \max(2 \epsilon/\lambda, (1+\epsilon) \delta_Y(v)) \label{eq:new:1} \\
& \leq & (1+\epsilon) \cdot (\delta_X(v) + \delta_Y(v)) + 2 \epsilon/\lambda \nonumber \\
& \leq & (1+\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\gamma) + (2 \epsilon/\lambda) \cdot c_v \label{eq:new:2} \\
& \leq & (1+\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\gamma) + 2\epsilon \cdot (c_v/\gamma) \label{eq:new:3} \\
& \leq & c_v \label{eq:new:4}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~\ref{eq:new:1} follows from equations~\ref{eq:sampling:small:2} and~\ref{eq:lm:sampling:small:weight:1}, and it holds with high probability. Equation~\ref{eq:new:2} follows from equation~\ref{eq:sampling:small:1} and the fact that $c_v \geq 1$. Equation~\ref{eq:new:3} holds since $\gamma < \lambda$ (see Theorem~\ref{th:sample:b-matching}). Equation~\ref{eq:new:4} holds since $\gamma > 1+3\epsilon$ (see Theorem~\ref{th:sample:b-matching}).
\ \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:sampling:small:matching}
For every node $v \in S \cap T$, we have $W^S_v \geq (1-\epsilon) \cdot \left(c_v/\lambda\right)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix any node $v \in S \cap T$. Since $v \in S$, we have $\mathcal{N}(v, E) = \mathcal{N}(v, E_S)$. Since $v \in T$, we have $W_v = \sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_S)} w(u,v) \geq c_v/\lambda$. Since $\sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_S)} w(u,v) = \delta_X(v) + \delta_Y(v)$, we get:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sampling:small:matching:1}
\delta_X(v) + \delta_Y(v) \geq c_v/\lambda
\end{equation}
We also recall that by equation~\ref{eq:sampling:small:2} we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sampling:small:matching:2}
\sum_{u \in X(v)} w^S(u,v) = \delta_X(v)
\end{equation}
We now consider two possible cases, based on the value of $\delta_Y(v)$.
\medskip
\noindent {\em Case 1.} We have $\delta_Y(v) \leq \epsilon /\lambda$. Since $c_v \geq 1$, in this case, we have $\delta_X(v) \geq c_v/\lambda - \delta_Y(v) \geq c_v(1-\epsilon)/\lambda$. By equation~\ref{eq:sampling:small:matching:2}, we infer that $W^S_v \geq \sum_{u \in X(v)} w^S(u,v) = \delta_X(v) \geq c_v(1-\epsilon)/\lambda$. This concludes the proof of the lemma for Case 1.
\medskip
\noindent {\em Case 2.} We have $\delta_Y(v) > \epsilon /\lambda$. In this case, Lemma~\ref{lm:sampling:small:2} implies that with high probability we have: $\sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) \geq \delta_Y(v)/(1+\epsilon)$. Since the node-set $\mathcal{N}(v, H_S)$ is partitioned into $X(v)$ and $Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)$, we get:
\begin{eqnarray*}
W^S(u,v) = \sum_{u \in X(v)} w^S(u,v) + \sum_{u \in Y(v) \cap \mathcal{N}(v, H_S)} w^S(u,v) \geq \delta_X(v) + \delta_Y(v)/(1+\epsilon) \\
\geq (\delta_X(v) + \delta_Y(v))/(1+\epsilon) \geq (c_v/\lambda) \cdot (1/(1+\epsilon)) \geq (1-\epsilon) \cdot (c_v/\lambda)
\end{eqnarray*}
This concludes the proof of the lemma for Case 2.
\ \end{proof}
\noindent Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_S} follows from Lemmas~\ref{lm:sampling:small:maxdeg},~\ref{lm:sampling:small:weight},~\ref{lm:sampling:small:matching}, and the fact that $c_v = O(\log n)$ for all $v \in S$.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:runtime}}
\label{sec:cor:sample:runtime}
We maintain the fractional $b$-matching $\{w(e)\}$ as per Theorem~\ref{th:sample:b-matching}. This requires $O(\log n)$ amortized update time, and starting from an empty graph, $t$ edge insertions/deletions in $G$ lead to $O(t \log n)$ many changes in the edge-weights $\{w(e)\}$. Thus, we can easily maintain the edge-set $E^* = \{e \in E : w(e) = 1\}$ in $O(\log n)$ amortized update time. Specifically, we store the edge-set $E^*$ as a doubly linked list. For every edge $(u,v) \in E^*$, we maintain a pointer that points to the position of $(u,v)$ in this linked list. For every edge $(u,v) \in E \setminus E^*$, the corresponding pointer is set to NULL. An edge $(u,v)$ is inserted into/deleted from the set $E^*$ only when its weight $w(e)$ is changed. Thus, maintaining the linked list for $E^*$ does not incur any additional overhead in the update time.
Next, we show to maintain the edge-set $H_S$ by independently sampling each edge $e \in E_S$ with probability $p_e$. This probability is completely determined by the weight $w(e)$. So we need to resample the edge each time its weight changes. Thus, the amortized update time for maintaining $H_S$ is also $O(\log n)$. Similar to the case of the edge-set $E^*$, we store the edge-set $H_S$ as a doubly linked list.
Next, we show how to maintain the maximal $b$-matching $M_S$ in $H_S$. Every edge $e \in H_S$ has at least one endpoint in $S$, and each node $v \in S$ has $\text{deg}(v, H_S) = O(\log^2 n)$ with high probability (see Lemma~\ref{cor:sample:E_S}). Exploiting this fact, for each node $v \in B$, we can maintain the set of its free (unmatched) neighbors $F_v(S) = \{ u \in \mathcal{N}(v, H_S) : u \text{ is unmatched in } M_S \}$ in $O(\log^2 n)$ amortized time per update in $H_S$, with high probability. This is done as follows. Since $v \in B$, the onus of maintaining the set $F_v(S)$ falls squarely upon the nodes in $\mathcal{N}(v, H_S) \subseteq S$. Specifically, each small node $u \in S$ maintains a ``status-bit'' indicating if it is free or not. Whenever a matched small node $u$ changes its status-bit, it communicates this information to its neighbors in $\mathcal{N}(u, H_S) \cap B$ in $O(\text{deg}(u, H_S)) = O(\log^2 n)$ time. Using the lists $\{F_v(S)\}, v \in B,$ and the status-bits of the small nodes, after each edge insertion/deletion in $H_S$, we can update the maximal $b$-matching $M_S$ in $O(\log^2 n)$ worst case time, with high probability. Since each edge insertion/deletion in $G$, on average, leads to $O(\log n)$ edge insertions/deletions in $H_S$, we spend $O(\log^3 n)$ amortized update time, with high probability, for maintaining the matching $M_S$.
Finally, we show how to maintain the set $H_B$. The edges $(u,v) \in E_B$ with both endpoints $u, v \in B$ are sampled independently with probability $w(u,v)$. This requires $O(\log n)$ amortized update time. Next, each small node $v \in S$ randomly selects some neighbors $u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)$ and adds the corresponding edges $(u,v)$ to the set $H_B$, ensuring that $\Pr[(u,v) \in H_B] = w(u,v)$ for all $u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)$ and that $\text{deg}(v, H_B) \leq c_v$. The random choices made by the different small nodes are mutually independent, which implies equation~\ref{eq:w^B:3}. But, for a given node $v \in S$ the random variables $\{Z_B(u,v)\}, u \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B),$ are completely correlated. They are determined as follows.
In the beginning, we pick a number $\eta_v$ uniformly at random from the interval $[0,1)$, and, in a predefined manner, label the set of big nodes as $B = \{v_1, \ldots, v_{|B|}\}$. For each $i \in \{1, \ldots, |B|\}$, we define $a_i(v) = w(v, v_i)$ if $v_i \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)$ and zero otherwise. We also define $A_i(v) = \sum_{j=1}^i a_{j}(v)$ for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, |B|\}$ and set $A_0(v) = 0$. At any given point in time, we define $\mathcal{N}(v, H_B) = \{v_i \in B : A_{i-1}(v) \leq k + \eta_v < A_i(v) \text{ for some nonnegative integer } k < c_v\}$. Under this scheme, for every node $v_i \in B$, we have $\Pr[v_i \in \mathcal{N}(v, H_B)] = A_i(v) - A_{i-1}(v) = a_i(v)$. Thus, we get $\Pr[v_i \in \mathcal{N}(v, H_B)] = w(v, v_i)$ for all $v_i \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)$, and $\Pr[v_i \in \mathcal{N}(v, H_B)] = 0$ for all $v_i \neq \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)$. Also note that $\text{deg}(v, H_B) \leq \lceil \sum_{v_i \in \mathcal{N}(v, E_B)} w(v, v_i) \rceil \leq \lceil W_v \rceil \leq \lceil c_v/(\gamma) \rceil \leq c_v$. Hence, equations~\ref{eq:w^B:1},~\ref{eq:w^B:2} are satisfied. We maintain the sums $\{A_i(v)\}, i,$ and the set $\mathcal{N}(v, H_B)$ using a balanced binary tree data structure, as described below.
We store the ordered sequence of $|B|$ numbers $a_1(v), \ldots, a_{|B|}(v)$ in the leaves of a
balanced binary tree from left to right. Let $x_i$ denote the leaf node that stores the value $a_i(v)$. Further, at each internal node $x$ of the balanced binary tree, we store the sum $S_x = \sum_{i : x_i \in T(x)} a_i(v)$, where $T(x)$ denotes the set of nodes in the subtree rooted at $x$. This data structure can support the following operations.
INCREMENT$(i, \delta)$: This asks us to set $a_i(v) \leftarrow a_i(v) + \delta$, where $\delta$ is any real number. To perform this update, we first change the value stored at the leaf node $x_i$. Then starting from the node $x_i$, we traverse up to the root of the tree. At each internal node $x$ in this path from $x_i$ to the root, we set $S_x \leftarrow S_x + \delta$. The $S_x$ values at every other internal node remains unchanged. Since the tree has depth $O(\log n)$, the total time required to update the data structure is also $O(\log n)$.
RETURN-INDEX$(y)$: Given a number $0 \leq y < c_v$, this asks us to return an index $i$ (if it exists) such that $A_{i-1}(v) \leq y < A_i(v)$. We can answer this query in $O(\log n)$ time by doing binary search. Specifically, we perform the following operations. We initialize a counter $C \leftarrow 0$ and start our binary search at the root of the tree. At an intermediate stage of the binary search, we are at some internal node $x$ and we know that $y < C + S_x$. Let $x(l)$ and $x(r)$ respectively be the left and right child of $x$. Note that $S_x = S_{x(l)} + S_{x(r)}$. If $y < C + S_{x(l)}$, then we move to the node $x(l)$. Otherwise, we set $C \leftarrow C + S_{x(l)}$ and move to the node $x(r)$. We continue this process until we reach a leaf node, which gives us the required answer. The total time taken by the procedure is $O(\log n)$.
We use the above data structure to maintain the sets $\mathcal{N}(v, H_B), v \in S$. Whenever the weight of an edge $(u,v)$, $v \in S$, changes, we can update the set $\mathcal{N}(v, H_B)$ by making one call to the INCREMENT$(i, \delta)$, and $c_v$ calls to RETURN-INDEX$(y)$, one for each $y = k + \eta_v$, where $k < c_v$ is a nonnegative integer. Since $c_v = O(\log n)$, the total time required is $O(\log^2 n)$ per change in the edge-weights $\{w(e)\}$.
Since each edge insertion/deletion in $G$, on average, leads to $O(\log n)$ changes in the edge-weights $\{w(e)\}$, the overall amortized update time for maintaining the edge-set $H_B$ is $O(\log^3 n)$.
Similar to the edge-sets $E^*$ and $H_S$, we store the edge-set $H_B$ as a doubly linked list. Each edge $(u,v) \in H_B$ maintains a pointer to its position in this list. Each edge $(u,v) \in E \setminus H_B$ sets the corresponding pointer to NULL. It is easy to check that this does not incur any additional overhead in the update time.
This concludes the proof of the lemma.
\section{Conclusion and Open Problems}
In this paper, we introduced a dynamic version of the primal-dual method. Applying this framework, we obtained the first nontrivial dynamic algorithms for the set cover and $b$-matching problems. Specifically, we presented a dynamic algorithm for set cover that maintains a $O(f^2)$-approximation in $O(f \cdot \log (m+n))$ update time, where $f$ is the maximum frequency of an element, $m$ is the number of sets and $n$ is the number of elements. On the other hand, for the $b$-matching problem, we presented a dynamic algorithm that maintains a $O(1)$-approximation in $O(\log^3 n)$ update time. Our work leaves several interesting open questions. We conclude the paper by stating a couple of such problems.
\begin{itemize}
\item Recall that in the static setting the set cover problem admits $O(\min (f, \log n))$-approximation in $O(f \cdot (m+n))$-time. Can we match this approximation guarantee in the dynamic setting in $O(f \cdot \text{poly} \log (m+n))$ update time? As a first step, it will be interesting to design a dynamic algorithm for fractional hypergraph $b$-matching that maintains a $O(f)$-approximation and has an update time of $O(f \cdot \text{poly} \log (m+n))$.
\item Are there other well known problems (such as facility location, Steiner tree etc.) that can be solved in the dynamic setting using the primal-dual framework?
\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
A long-standing goal of the solar interior physics is to reproduce active regions, composed mainly of the sunspots, self-consistently from
magnetic fluxes generated in the solar interior. We now approach the subject from two different theoretical perspectives: one focuses on
emergence and organization processes of the magnetic flux in the uppermost part of the convection zone (CZ), and the other explores
the flux generation and maintenance processes, i.e., the dynamo process, operating deeper down.
Several leading-edge numerical studies, which focus on the uppermost part of the solar CZ, have succeeded to simulate spontaneous
formations of concentrated magnetic structures reminiscent of active regions \citep[e.g.,][]{cheung+10,stein+12,rempel+14,kapyla+15}.
In these studies, the solar surface convection and its nonlinear interaction with the magnetic field were simulated in a more or less realistic
manner with the steep density gradient just below the photosphere and/or the radiative transfer with the ionization in Cartesian domains.
However, since some sort of the large-scale seed magnetic field has been assumed inconsistently as initial or boundary condition, the dynamo
mechanism and its connection to the formation process of the active region were beyond the scope of these studies.
A growing body of evidence is accumulating to demonstrate that solar-like cyclic large-scale magnetic field is organized in global
spherical-shell convections \citep[e.g.,][]{ghizaru+10,kapyla+12,masada+13,yadav+15,augustson+15}. Despite some differences in the
numerical setup and method, there is a common outcome of the convective dynamo in these studies: diffuse magnetic flux extending over
the CZ and/or the tachocline instead of magnetic flux tubes expected in the standard solar dynamo paradigm \citep[e.g.,][and references
therein]{charbonneau10}. Although the flux emergence like event from distributed magnetic flux has been occasionally observed in some
models \citep[][]{nelson+13,fan+14}, its universality or feasibility in the Sun is still a matter of considerable debate.
There is still a large gap between the dynamo in the interior and the active region formation at the surface. Our study in this Letter would
be a first step aiming to bridge the gap between them. By advancing our previous works of weakly-stratified MHD convection
\citep[][hereafter MS14a,b]{masada+14a,masada+14b}, we perform convective dynamo simulation in a strongly-stratified atmosphere
resembling the solar interior in Cartesian geometry. The spontaneous formation of large-scale magnetic structures in the CZ surface
self-consistently from the large-scale convective dynamo is reported.
\section{Numerical setup}
Convective dynamo system is solved numerically in Cartesian domain. Our model covers only the CZ of depth $d_{\rm cz}$
($0 \le z \le d_{\rm cz}$) with omitting a stably-stratified layer below it, where $x$- and $y$-axes are taken to be horizontal and
$z$-axis is pointing downward. We set the width of the domain to be $W = 4d_{\rm cz}$.
We solve the fully-compressible MHD equations in the rotating frame of reference with a constant angular velocity of
${\bm \Omega} = -\Omega_0 {\bm e}_z$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} & = & - \nabla\cdot (\rho {\bm u}) \;, \label{eq1} \\
\frac{{\mathcal{D} }{\bm u}}{\mathcal{D} t} & = & - \frac{\nabla P}{\rho}
+ \frac{{\bm J}\times{\bm B} }{\rho} - 2{\bm \Omega}\times{\bm u} + \frac{\nabla \cdot {\bm \Pi}}{\rho} + {\bm g} \;, \ \ \ \ \label{eq2} \\
\frac{\mathcal{D}\epsilon }{\mathcal{D} t} & = & - \frac{P\nabla\cdot {\bm u}}{\rho} + \mathcal{Q}_{\rm heat} \;, \label{eq3} \\
\frac{\partial {\bm B} }{\partial t} & = & \nabla \times ({\bm u} \times {\bm B} - \eta_0 {\bm J})\;, \label{eq4}
\end{eqnarray}
with the viscous stress ${\bm \Pi}$ and the heating term $\mathcal{Q}_{\rm heat}$ of
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{ij} &=& 2\rho\nu_0S_{ij} = \rho\nu_0\left( \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i} - \frac{2}{3}\delta_{ij}\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_i} \right) \;, \label{eq5} \\
\mathcal{Q}_{\rm heat} &=& \frac{\gamma\nabla\cdot(\kappa_0 \nabla\epsilon)}{\rho} + 2\nu_0 \bm{S}^2 + \frac{\mu_0\eta_0\bm{J}^2}{\rho}\;, \label{eq6}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{D}/\mathcal{D}t$ is the total derivative, $\epsilon = c_{\rm V} T$ is the specific internal energy,
${\bm J} = \nabla \times {\bm B}/\mu_0$ is the current density with the vacuum permeability $\mu_0$, and ${\bm g} = g_0 {\bm e}_z$ is the
gravity of the constant $g_0$. The viscosity, magnetic diffusivity, and thermal conductivity are represented by $\nu_0$, $\eta_0$, and
$\kappa_0$, respectively. A perfect gas law $P = (\gamma -1)\rho \epsilon$ with $\gamma = 5/3$ is assumed.
The initial hydrostatic state is polytropic stratification given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \epsilon_0 + \frac{g_0z}{(\gamma-1)(m + 1)}\;, \ \ \ {\rm and} \ \ \ \rho = \rho_0 (\epsilon/\epsilon_0)^m \;,
\end{equation}
with the initial surface internal energy $\epsilon_0$, surface density $\rho_0$, and the polytropic index $m = 1.49$,
providing the super-adiabaticity of $\delta\ \equiv \nabla - \nabla_{\rm ad}\ = 1.6 \times 10^{-3}$, where
$\nabla_{\rm ad} = 1-1/\gamma$ and $\nabla = (\partial \ln T/\partial \ln P)$.
Normalization quantities are defined by setting $d_{\rm cz}/2 = g_0= \rho_0 = \mu_0 = c_p = 1$.
The normalized pressure scale-height at the surface, defined by $\xi = H_p/d_{\rm cz} = (\gamma-1)\epsilon_0/(g_0d_{\rm cz})$, controls
the stratification level and is chosen here as $\xi = 0.01$, yielding a strong stratification with the density contrast between top and
bottom CZs about $700$.
Figure 1a shows the initial profiles of the density (solid) and temperature (dashed) of our model. The
density profile in the range $0.71 \le r/R_\odot \le 0.991$ of the standard solar model is also shown in
such a way as to fit the computational domain (dash-dotted) \citep[Model S:][]{CD+96}.
Our model has a stratification almost encompassing the solar CZ except its uppermost part.
All the variables are assumed to be horizontally periodic. Stress-free boundary conditions are used in the vertical
direction for the velocity. Perfect conductor and vertical field conditions are used for the magnetic field at the bottom and top
boundaries. A constant energy flux which drives the thermal convection is imposed on the bottom boundary, while the specific
internal energy is fixed at the top boundary.
The fundamental equations are solved by the second-order Godunov-type finite-difference scheme that employs an approximate MHD
Riemann solver \citep{sano+98}. The magnetic field evolves with the Consistent MoC-CT method \citep{evans+88,clarke96}.
Non-dimensional parameters ${\rm Pr} =20$, ${\rm Pm} =2$, ${\rm Ra} = 6\times10^7$, angular velocity of $\Omega_0 = 0.5$ and
the spatial resolution of ($N_x, N_y, N_z$) $=$ $(256,256,256)$ are adopted, where the Prandtl, magnetic Prandtl, and Rayleigh
numbers are defined by
\begin{equation}
{\rm Pr} = \frac{\nu_0}{(\kappa_0/\rho c_p )} \;,\ {\rm Pm} = \frac{\nu_0}{\eta_0}\;, \ {\rm Ra} = \frac{g_0 d_{\rm cz}^4}{\chi_0 \nu_0}\frac{\delta}{H_{p}} \;,
\end{equation}
where $\rho$, $\delta$, and $H_p$ are evaluated at $z = d_{\rm cz}/2$.
In the following, the volume-, horizontal-, $x$- and $y$- averages are denoted by single angular brackets with subscripts ``\rm v", ``\rm h", ``\rm x"
and ``\rm y", respectively. The time-average of each spatial mean is denoted by additional angular brackets. The
relative importance of convection to the rotation is measured by the Rossby number ${\rm Ro} = (u_{\rm cv}k_f)/(2\Omega_0)$, where
$u_{\rm cv} \equiv \sqrt{\langle \langle u_z^2 \rangle_{\rm v} \rangle}$ is the mean convective velocity, and $k_f = 2\pi/d_{\rm cz}$.
The global convective turn-over time and the equipartition field strength are defined by
$\tau_{\rm cv} \equiv 1/(u_{\rm cv}k_f)$ and $B_{\rm eq} (z) \equiv \sqrt{\langle \mu_0 \rho {\bm u}^2 \rangle_{\rm h}} $.
Note that $B_{\rm eq}(z)$ is evaluated from the local convective energy and thus has a depth-dependence.
Since the sound speed in the deep CZ becomes very large in the strongly-stratified model and imposes a strict limit on the time-step,
a long thermal relaxation time is required in our fully-compressible simulation. To alleviate it, we first construct a progenitor model, in
which the convection reaches a fully-developed state and the system becomes thermally-relaxed, by evolving a non-rotating
hydrodynamic run for $800\tau_{\rm cv}$.
Shown in Figure 1b and 1c are the vertical profile of $\langle\langle u_z^2 \rangle\rangle_{\rm h}^{1/2}$ (dashed) and the distributions
of $u_z$ in the $x$-$y$ plane at $z/d_{\rm cz} = 0.04,\ 0.23,\ 0.78$ in the equilibrated state of the progenitor model. The black (orange)
tone denotes down-(up-)flows. The multi-scale convection with the strong up-down asymmetry, i.e., the slower and broader upflow cell
surrounded by networks of the faster and narrower downflow lanes, is developed in the progenitor model \citep[e.g.,][]{spruit+90,miesch05}. The
dynamo run is started by adding the rotation and a seed weak horizontal field to the progenitor model.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{f1a.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{f1b.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{f1c.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{(a) Vertical profiles of the initial density (solid) and temperature (dashed) of the simulation model, and the density profile of the
CZ of the standard solar model (dash-dotted). Normalization units are their surface values. (b) Vertical profiles of $\langle\langle u_z^2
\rangle\rangle_{\rm h}^{1/2}$ for the progenitor (dashed) and dynamo (solid) runs. (c) The horizontal distributions of the $u_z$ at
$z/d_{\rm cz} = 0.04,\ 0.23,\ 0.78$ of the progenitor (upper) and dynamo (lower) runs. }
\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\begin{minipage}{0.35\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm,clip]{f2a.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.35\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10.5cm,clip]{f2b.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a) The temporal evolution of $\epsilon_{\rm K}$ (solid), $\epsilon_{\rm Mt}$ (dashed) and $\epsilon_{\rm Mm}$ (dash-dotted).
(b) Time-depth diagrams of $\langle B_x \rangle_{\rm h}/B_{\rm eq}(z)$ and $\langle B_y \rangle_{\rm h}/B_{\rm eq}(z)$. }
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
\section{Simulation Results}
\subsection{Basic Properties of Convection and Dynamo}
The temporal evolutions of $\epsilon_{\rm K} \equiv \langle \rho\bm{u}^2/2 \rangle_{\rm v}$,
$\epsilon_{\rm Mt} \equiv \langle \bm{B}^2/2\mu_0 \rangle_{\rm v}$ and
$\epsilon_{\rm Mm} \equiv (\langle B_x \rangle_{\rm v}^2 + \langle B_y \rangle_{\rm v}^2)/2\mu_0$ (the energy of mean magnetic
components) are shown by solid, dashed and dash-dotted lines in Figure 2a. The evolution of the $\epsilon_{\rm K}$ of the progenitor run
before starting the dynamo run is also shown. Note that, from the horizontal symmetry and ${\rm div} \bm{B} = 0$,
$\langle B_z\rangle_{\rm h}$ and $\langle B_z\rangle_{\rm v}$ are zero independent of time.
After a short relaxation time, the convective kinetic energy reaches a quasi-steady state at $t \simeq 50\tau_{\rm cv}$. The magnetic
energy is gradually amplified by the convection and is saturated at $t \simeq 120\tau_{\rm cv}$. The mean values evaluated there are
$u_{\rm cv} = 5.9\times 10^{-3}$ and $B_{\rm eq,v} \equiv \sqrt{\langle\langle \mu_0 \rho {\bm u}^2 \rangle\rangle_{\rm v}}
= 7.2\times 10^{-2}$, providing $\tau_{\rm cv} = 54$ and ${\rm Ro} = 0.02$.
The vertical profile of $\langle\langle u_z^2 \rangle\rangle_{\rm h}^{1/2}$ (solid) and the distributions of the $u_z$ on the horizontal
planes in the dynamo-saturated stage are also shown in Figure 1b and 1c. Since the rotation gives rise to the Coriolis force
acting on the convective motion, the convective cell shrinks and thus the scale separation becomes larger in the rotating system.
Since the mean kinetic helicity, which is a prerequisite for exciting the large-scale dynamo, arises as a natural consequence
of the rotation, the dynamo-generated magnetic field also affects the convective motion shown in Figure 1c.
Figure 2b shows the time-depth diagrams of $\langle B_x \rangle_{\rm h}$ and $\langle B_y \rangle_{\rm h}$ normalized by
$B_{\rm eq} (z)$. Note that the turbulent magnetic component is eliminated by taking horizontal average. It is found that the oscillatory large-scale
horizontal magnetic component is spontaneously organized in the bulk of the CZ. It has a peak with the super-equipartition strength in the mid-part
of the CZ and propagates from there to the top and base of the CZ. Since there exists a phase difference of $\pi/2$ between
$\langle B_x \rangle_{\rm h}$ and $\langle B_y \rangle_{\rm h}$, the mean horizontal magnetic flux, defined by
$B_h \equiv \sqrt{\langle B_x \rangle_{\rm h}^2 + \langle B_y \rangle_{\rm h}^2}$, has a quasi-steady vertical profile.
The large-scale dynamo observed here in the strongly-stratified model has physical properties similar to those in the weakly-stratified
convective dynamo simulations \citep[e.g.,][MS14a]{kapyla+13}. Because of the horizontal symmetry and thus no differential rotation
in our system, the turbulent electro-motive force would be solely responsible for the dynamo (see MS14b for a mean-field $\alpha^2$-dynamo
model which can quantitatively reproduce the DNS results). Our intriguing finding in this Letter, which have not been observed in the
weakly-stratified model with the similar boundary conditions, is spontaneous formation of large-scale magnetic structures
in the CZ surface, which will be reported in the following.
\subsection{Spontaneous Formation of Surface Magnetic Structure}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=17cm,clip]{f3.pdf}
\caption{(a) A series of snapshots for the horizontal distribution of the $B_z$ at $z/d_{\rm cz} = 0.04$ and vertical distribution of the
$\langle B_z \rangle_{\rm y}/B_{\rm eq}(z)$ or $\langle B_z \rangle_x/B_{\rm eq}(z)$. (b) The temporal evolution of 2D Fourier
spectrum of the $B_z^2$ in the upper CZ, where $k_c = 2\pi/W$.}
\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
A series of snapshots where the distribution of the $B_z$ at different time on the horizontal cutting plane at $z/d_{\rm cz} = 0.04$ is shown
in the top panel of Figure 3a. The darker (lighter) tone denotes positive (negative) $B_z$. While the $B_z$ has a small-scale tangled structure
with the typical size comparable to the convective cell in the initial evolutionary stage [(a1)--(a2)], it evolves as time passes to organize the large-scale
structure with the spatial-scale much larger than the convective cell [(a3)--(a4)]. The surface magnetic structure has the dynamically-important
strength comparable to $B_{\rm eq}(z)$ and is recurrently-appeared in the dynamo-saturated stage [(a5)], implying that it should be a
consequence of the strongly-stratified MHD convection rather than a transiently-formed structure.
The one-sided horizontal average ($x$- or $y$-average) of the $B_z$ may be helpful to clearly demonstrate its
depth-dependence because the horizontal average of it, i.e., $\langle B_z \rangle_{\rm h}$, is zero in our setup. Shown in
lower panel of Figure 3a is a corresponding time series of snapshots for the distributions of the $\langle B_z \rangle_{\rm y}$
[(a1)--(a4)] or $\langle B_z \rangle_{\rm x}$ [(a5)] in units of $B_{\rm eq} (z)$. The blue (red) tone represents the positive (negative) value.
The initial small-scale vertical magnetic structure gradually evolves to the larger scale in the upper CZ. While it prevails in the mid-part of the
CZ in the dynamo-saturated stage, the core of the large-scale $B_z$ structure stays in around the CZ surface.
Figure 3b shows the temporal evolution of two-dimensional (2D) Fourier spectrum of the $B_z^2$ in the upper CZ. Here the spectrum at each
depth is projected onto a one-dimensional wavenumber $k^2 = k_x^2 + k_y^2$ and then is averaged over the normalized depth from $0.0$
to $0.25$. The energy-containing scale of the $B_z$ becomes larger with the time and finally reaches the possible largest scale in the
upper CZ, confirming the existence of the large-scale $B_z$ structure in the upper CZ. Since the large-scale vertical magnetic
component cannot be generated solely by the $\alpha^2$-type dynamo only with the vertical helicity variation (see, MS14b), some additional
mechanism should play a role in organizing it in this simulation.
\subsection{What Makes Surface Magnetic Structure Organized ?}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{f4a.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.9cm,clip]{f4b.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a) The growth rate of the Parker instability evaluated from the simulation result. (b) The comparison between the growth time of
the fastest-growing mode of the Parker instability ($\tau_{\rm pk,m}$) and the local convective turn-over time ($\tau_{\rm cv,l}$)
as a function of the depth.}
\label{fig5}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
The so-called negative magnetic pressure instability (NEMPI) has been proposed as a mechanism for the self-assembly of
the magnetic flux near the CZ surface \citep[e.g.,][]{kleeorin+96,brandenburg+10}. Although its presence has been confirmed numerically
in the forced MHD turbulence \citep[][]{brandenburg+11,brandenburg+13,mitra+14,jabbari+14,warnecke+13}, it would not play a
significant role in organizing the surface magnetic structure in our simulation. This is because the relatively-rapid rotation with ${\rm Ro} =0.02$
is assumed here, but according to \citet{lasoda+12}, ${\rm Ro} \gtrsim 5 $ is required for exciting the NEMPI. Here possible two alternatives
are discussed as a cause of the magnetic structure formation: one is the Parker instability \citep[][]{parker79} and the other is the flux
expulsion accompanied with the strong downflow \citep[e.g.,][]{weiss66, kitiashvili+10, stein+12, kapyla+15}.
Figure 4a shows the growth rate of the Parker instability obtained from the WKB dispersion equation
\begin{eqnarray}
(c_\star^2 + v_{A}^2 )\gamma^4 & + & v_{A}^2\left[ 2(c_\star^2 + v_A^2)k_h^2 + g_0 \frac{D}{Dz}\ln\left(\frac{B_h}{\rho}\right)\right] \gamma^2 \\ \nonumber
& + & k_h^2v_A^4\left( k_h^2 c_\star^2 + g_0\frac{D}{Dz}\ln B_h \right) = 0 \;,
\end{eqnarray}
\citep[e.g.,][]{gilman70}, where $\gamma$ is the growth rate, $k_h$ is the horizontal wavenumber, $B_h$ is the horizontal magnetic flux,
$c_\star \equiv \sqrt{P/\rho} $, and $v_{A} \equiv B_h/\sqrt{\mu_0 \rho}$. For deriving the depth-dependent growth rate, we adopt
$P = \langle P \rangle_{\rm h}$, $\rho = \langle \rho \rangle_{\rm h}$ and $B_h = \sqrt{\langle B_x \rangle_{\rm h}^2 + \langle B_y \rangle_{\rm h}^2}$
evaluated from the simulation model. The different line-type denotes the growth rate at the different depth. The vertical and horizontal axes are
normalized by $1/\tau_{\rm cv}$ and $k_c = 2\pi/W$. Note that the instability is inhibited in the range $k/k_c < 1$ due to the box-width constraint.
The dynamo-maintained magnetic flux is unstable to the Parker instability in the span $0 \le z/d_{\rm cz} \lesssim 0.4$. Since the
typical growth time of it is comparable to or a bit smaller than $\tau_{\rm cv}$, it has a sufficient time to grow during the simulation.
However, the most unstable mode has a smaller wavelength in comparison with the box-width, implying the difficulty to explain the dominance of the
box-sized surface magnetic structure in our simulation.
Additionally to the mismatch of the magnetic spatial-scales, the growth of the Parker instability itself may be inhibited by vigorous
convective motions. In Figure 4b, the growth time of the most unstable mode of the Parker instability (solid: $\tau_{\rm pk,max}$) and the local
convective turn-over time defined by $\tau_{\rm cv, l} (z) = H_{\rm \rho} (z)/\langle u_{z}^2 \rangle_{\rm h}^{1/2}$ (dashed) are compared as a
function of the depth, where $H_{\rho} \equiv {\rm d}z/{\rm d}\ln\langle\rho\rangle_{\rm h}$. In the upper CZ, the condition
$\tau_{\rm cv, l} \ll \tau_{\rm pk,max}$ is always satisfied. Since, in such a situation, the small-scale convective motion violently disturbs the
coherency of the magnetic flux, we would have to say that the Parker instability would not be responsible for the large-scale structure
formation observed in our simulation.
Next, the large-scale flow and its association with the surface magnetic structure are analyzed. For casting light on the
large-scale pattern, the small-scale structures with $k/k_c \gtrsim 8$ are eliminated by applying Fourier filtering \citep[e.g.,][]{warnecke+15,jabbari+16}.
A series of snapshots where $\langle B_z \rangle_{k_8}$ and $\langle u_z \rangle_{k_8}$ on the horizontal plane at $z/d_{\rm cz} = 0.04$ are shown in
Figure 5a, where $\langle \cdot \rangle_{k_8}$ denotes Fourier filtering. The over-plotted arrows are the velocity vectors composed of
$\langle u_x \rangle_{k_8}$ and $\langle u_y \rangle_{k_8}$. Additionally, 2D spectra of $B_h^2$, $B_z^2$, $\rho v_h^2$ and $\rho v_z^2$
in the upper CZ are also shown in Figure 5b. The spectrum at each depth is spatially-averaged over the normalized depth from $0.0$ to
$0.25$ and is temporally-averaged over $10\tau_{\rm cv}$ around the corresponding reference time.
It is prominent that, in the dynamo-saturated stage, the bipolar ``band-like" structure elongated along the direction of the
horizontal magnetic flux is predominant (see Fig.2b). Although the faster horizontal flow and stronger downflow can be found in/around the
region with the stronger $B_z$ before the dynamo-saturation (left column), large-scale flow pattern is not necessarily associated with the
magnetic structure in the dynamo-saturated stage (middle and right columns). In addition, we can find from the spectra that the energy
contained in the large-scale magnetic components is much larger than that of the large-scale flow in the upper CZ. This would suggest
that the large-scale flows are not the cause, but a consequence of the large-scale magnetic structures in the upper CZ.
Overall our analyses indicate that there should be an as-yet-unknown mechanism for the self-organization of large-scale
magnetic structures, which would be inherent in the strongly-stratified atmosphere. The band-like magnetic structure observed in our
simulation is similar to that observed in the large-scale dynamo by the forced turbulence in a strongly-stratified atmosphere
\citep[][]{mitra+14,jabbari+16}. This may imply that the surface magnetic structure formation is a common universal
feature of the strongly-stratified MHD turbulence regardless of its details.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm,clip]{f5.pdf}
\caption{
(a) A series of snapshots of $\langle B_z \rangle_{k_8}$ and $\langle u_z \rangle_{k_8}$ on the horizontal plane at $z/d_{\rm cz} = 0.04$.
The over-plotted arrows are the velocity vectors. (b) 2D spectra of $B_h^2$, $B_z^2$, $\rho v_h^2$ and $\rho v_z^2$ in the upper CZ
at around the reference time $t_r$. }
\label{fig5}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Summary}
In this Letter, we studied numerically MHD convections in the strongly-stratified atmosphere resembling the solar interior.
The large-scale dynamo observed in our simulation had physical properties similar to those observed in the weakly-stratified model (see
MS14ab): the oscillatory large-scale horizontal magnetic component with the dynamically-important strength was spontaneously organized
in the bulk of the CZ. Its spatio-temporal evolution strongly suggests that the $\alpha^2$-type mechanism would be responsible for the MHD
dynamo in our system.
Our intriguing finding, which have not been observed in the weakly-stratified model, was the spontaneous formation of the large-scale
$B_z$ structure in the CZ surface. Small-scale tangled components of the $B_z$ which was seen in the earlier evolutionary stage gradually
evolved to the large-scale organized structure with the size much larger than convective cell as time passes in the upper CZ. In the
dynamo-saturated stage, the bipolar ``band-like" $B_z$ structure was predominant and was recurrently-appeared. Since the possible
candidates, such as the NEMPI, Parker instability, and flux expulsion due to the strong downflow, had difficulties to explain the surface
magnetic structure formation, our results may suggest the existence of an as-yet-unrecognized mechanism inducing the spontaneous
formation of the large-scale magnetic structure in the strongly-stratified convective atmosphere.
The large-scale dynamo observed here maintains the quasi-steady magnetic flux and thus is different from the actual solar dynamo with a
quasi-periodic flux modulation. Furthermore, since we adopt the faster rotation than that achieved in the actual Sun and ignore the global
effects, such as differential rotation and meridional flows, our model still remains a long way from the solar interior. However, despite a lack
of some solar elements, it would be interesting that the relatively shallow root of the surface magnetic structure, implied from our simulation,
seems to be compatible with some observations of the magnetic patches on the solar surface \citep[e.g.,][]{brandenburg05,hara09}.
Understanding the self-organization mechanism of the surface magnetic structure observed in our study should deepen our knowledge
of the solar magnetism and is a priority target of our future work.
\acknowledgments
We acknowledge an anonymous referee for constructive comments. Computations were carried out on XC30 at NAOJ. This work
was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant number 15K17611 and the joint research project of the Institute of Laser Engineering,
Osaka University.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Several extensions of the standard model (SM)
predict the existence of heavy, short-lived states that decay to the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} final state,
and motivate the search for lepton flavour violating (LFV) signatures in interactions involving charged leptons.
This paper reports a search for phenomena beyond the SM in the invariant mass spectrum of \Pe{}\Pgm{}{}
pairs. The analysis is based on
data with an integrated
luminosity of 19.7\fbinv collected in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$ with the CMS detector
at the CERN LHC~\cite{Evans:2008zzb}. The results are interpreted in terms of three theoretically predicted objects:
a $\Pgt$ sneutrino ($\ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace$) lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) in R-parity violating (RPV) supersymmetry (SUSY) \cite{Barbier:2004ez},
interfering LFV \zp{} and \ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}{} bosons
\cite{Frere:2004yu}, and quantum black holes (QBHs) \cite{Meade:2007sz,Calmet:2008dg,Gingrich:2009hj}.
In RPV SUSY, lepton number can be violated at tree level in interactions between fermions and sfermions, and the \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace may be the LSP~\cite{Bernhardt:2008jz}.
For the resonant \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace signal, the following trilinear RPV part of the superpotential is considered:
${W_{\mathrm{RPV}}= \frac{1}{2} \lambda_{ijk}L_{i} L_{j} \bar{E}_{k} + \lambda'_{ijk} L_{i} Q_{j} \bar{D}_{k}}$\ifthenelse{\boolean{cms@external}}{, where $i$, $j$, and $k \in \{1,2,3\}$}{ ($i,j,k \in {1,2,3}$), where $i$, $j$, and $k$} are generation indices, $L$ and $Q$ are the $SU(2)_{L}$ doublet superfields of the leptons and quarks, and $\bar{E}$ and $\bar{D}$ are the
$SU(2)_{L}$ singlet superfields of the charged leptons and down-like quarks.
We assume that all RPV couplings vanish, except for \ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace, and consider a SUSY mass hierarchy with a \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace LSP.
In this model, the \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace can be produced resonantly in $\Pp\Pp$ collisions via the \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace coupling and it can decay either into an \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair
via the \ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace couplings, or into a \cPqd{}\cPaqd{} pair via the \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace coupling.
In this analysis we consider only the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} final state and, for simplicity, we assume ${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace}$.
The LFV \zp{}\xspace{} signal is based on a model with two extra dimensions \cite{Frere:2003yv,Frere:2004yu}, where the three generations of the SM arise from a single generation in higher-dimensional space-time.
Flavour changing processes are introduced through the Kaluza-Klein modes of gauge fields that are not localised on a brane.
In four-dimensional space-time, an effective Lagrangian can be obtained that contains two complex vector fields \zp{} and \ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}{}.
These vector fields generate transitions between the families in which the generation number changes by unity, such as the process\ifthenelse{\boolean{cms@external}}{
$${\cPqd + \cPaqs \rightarrow \zp{}\xspace/\ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime} \rightarrow \Pe^{-} + \Pgm^{+}}$$
}
{
${\cPqd + \cPaqs \rightarrow \zp{}\xspace/\ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime} \rightarrow \Pe^{-} + \Pgm^{+}}\ \ $
}and its charge conjugate. The structure of the terms in the Lagrangian for the production and decay of the
\zp{} and \ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}{} bosons
is analogous to that describing the interactions
of the $\PZ$ boson and the photon with quarks and charged leptons, respectively. The coupling strengths
\ensuremath{\mbox{g}_{12}} \xspace and \ensuremath{\mbox{e}_{12}} \xspace are related to their SM counterparts through
a multiplicative coupling modifier~\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace.
For simplicity, the masses $M_{\zp{}}$ and $M_{\ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}{}}$ are assumed to be equal, and the model is referred to as the
LFV $\zp{}$ model. It is characterized by the two independent parameters $M_{\zp{}}$ and \ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace.
Theories that have a fundamental Planck scale of the order of a TeV~\cite{RandallSundrum,Randall:1999vf,ADD,ArkaniHamed:1998nn,XcalmetHsuReeb}
offer the possibility of producing microscopic black holes~\cite{Banks:1999gd,Dimopoulos:2001hw,Giddings:2001bu} at the LHC.
In contrast to semiclassical, thermal black holes, which would decay to high-multiplicity final states, QBHs are non-thermal objects expected to decay predominantly to pairs of particles.
We consider the production of a ${\mbox{spin-}0}$, colourless, neutral QBH in a model with lepton flavour violation,
in which the cross section for QBH production is extrapolated from semiclassical black holes and depends on the threshold mass $M_{\mathrm{th}}$ for QBH production and
the number of extra dimensions $n$. For ${n=0}$, it corresponds to a 3+1-dimensional model with low-scale quantum gravity, where a renormalization of Newton's constant leads to a Planck scale
at the TeV scale~\cite{XcalmetHsuReeb,Xcalmet2010,Xcalmet2014}; ${n=1}$ corresponds to the Randall--Sundrum~(RS) brane world model~\cite{RandallSundrum,Randall:1999vf}; and ${n>1}$ to the {Arkani-Hamed--Dimopoulos--Dvali~(ADD)} mo\-del \cite{ADD,ArkaniHamed:1998nn}. We consider flat-space black holes
(black holes that are spherical both in the brane and in the bulk dimensions) and, in the case of RS-type black holes ($n=1$), consider only the regime
in which almost flat five-dimensional space is an applicable metric. This is the case for $r_S \ll 1/(ke^{-kr_c})$, where $r_S$ is the Schwarzschild
radius, $k$ denotes the Anti-de Sitter curvature, and $r_c$ is the size of the extra dimension.
The threshold $M_{\mathrm{th}}$ is assumed to be at the Planck scale
in the definition of the Particle Data Group~\cite{Agashe:2014kda}
for ${n=0}$ and
${n>1}$, whereas for ${n=1}$ both the PDG and RS definitions \cite{Meade:2007sz} are adopted. In this model, the branching fraction of QBH decays to the
\ensuremath{\Pe^{\pm}\Pgm^{\mp}}\xspace final state is 1.1\%, which is twice that of the dimuon or dielectron decay modes, making the \ensuremath{\Pe^{\pm}\Pgm^{\mp}}\xspace signature the most promising leptonic decay channel.
While the resonant \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace and LFV \zp{}\xspace{} signals result in a narrow peak in the invariant mass spectrum of the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair, the mass distribution
of the QBH signal is characterized by an edge at the threshold for QBH production, and a monotonically decreasing tail.
Direct searches for resonances in the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} invariant mass spectrum with interpretations in terms of \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace production have been carried out by the CDF \cite{CDF_emu} and D0 \cite{D0_emu} collaborations at the
Fermilab Tevatron and most recently by the
ATLAS collaboration~\cite{ATLAS_emu} using $\Pp\Pp$ collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of $8\TeV$ at the LHC. For couplings $\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=0.07$ and $\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace=0.11$, the most stringent of these limits stems from the search performed by the ATLAS collaboration, excluding at 95\%~confidence level (CL) a \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace below a mass of
$2.0\TeV$.
Low-energy muon conversion experiments~\cite{Bertl:2006up} yield strong limits as a function of the \Pgt{} sneutrino mass on the product of the two RPV couplings of
${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace<3.3 \times 10^{-7} \, \left(\ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace/1\TeV\right)^{2}}$ at 90\% CL \cite{PhysRevD.91.055018}.
In the case of the \zp{}\xspace{} signal, searches for ${\Klong \rightarrow \Pe{}\Pgm{}}$ decays constrain the coupling modifier \ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace.
For the choice $M_{\zp{}}=M_{\ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}{}}$, a bound of $\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace\lesssim M_{\zp{}}/100\TeV$ is obtained at 90\% CL~\cite{Frere:2003ye,Frere:2004yu}.
There have been searches for QBHs decaying hadronically, by the CMS~\cite{CMSQBHST,Khachatryan:2015sja,Khachatryan:2110669} and ATLAS~\cite{Aad:2014aqa,ATLAS:2015nsi} collaborations,
and in the photon plus jet, lepton plus jet, dimuon, and dielectron final states, by the ATLAS collaboration \cite{Aad:2013cva,Aad:2015ywd,Aad:2013gma,Aad:2014cka}.
This is the first search for QBH decays into the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} final state.
{\tolerance=1200
The search for the phenomena beyond the SM described above is carried out for invariant masses of the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair of ${M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}} \geq 200\GeV}$,
which is the relevant region in light of existing constraints from other direct searches.
Using the same event selection, the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{}~invariant mass spectrum is searched for two different signal shapes:
the shape associated with a narrow resonance that may be interpreted in terms of any model involving a resonance decaying promptly into an electron and a muon, and the more model-specific QBH signal shape.
With a
relative \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} invariant mass resolution ranging from 1.6\%
at ${M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=200\GeV}$ to 6\% at ${M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=3\TeV}$, the CMS detector is a powerful tool for searches for new physics in the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{}~invariant mass spectrum.
}
\section{The CMS detector} \label{sec:cms}
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6\unit{m} internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8\unit{T}.
Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections.
Extensive forward calorimetry complements the coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.
The silicon tracker consists of 1440 silicon pixel and 15\,148 silicon strip detector modules and measures charged particles within the pseudorapidity range ${\abs{\eta}< 2.5}$.
The ECAL consists of 75\,848 lead tungstate crystals and provides coverage for ${\abs{ \eta }< 1.479}$ in a barrel region and ${1.479 <\abs{ \eta } < 3.0}$ in two endcap regions.
Muons are measured in the range ${\abs{\eta}< 2.4}$, with detection planes using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive plate chambers.
A two-level trigger system is used by the CMS experiment.
The first level is composed of custom hardware processors and uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select interesting events and to reduce the event rate from
the initial bunch crossing frequency of 20\unit{MHz} to a maximum of 100\unit{kHz}.
The high-level trigger processor farm further decreases the event rate to 400\unit{Hz} before data storage.
A detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref.~\cite{Chatrchyan:2008zzk}.
\section{Event selection}
\label{sec:selection}
The search is designed in a model-independent way by requiring only one prompt, isolated muon and one prompt, isolated electron in the event selection. This minimal selection allows for
a reinterpretation of the results in terms of models with more complex event topologies than the single \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair present in the signals considered in this paper.
The data sample is selected using a single-muon trigger with a minimum transverse momentum (\pt) requirement of ${\pt > 40\GeV{}}$. In order
to allow the trigger to remain unprescaled, the pseudorapidity of the muons is constrained
to values ${|\eta|<2.1}$.
Offline, each event is required to have a
reconstructed $\Pp\Pp$ collision vertex with at least four associated tracks, located
less than 2\cm from the centre of the detector in the plane
transverse to the beam and less than 24\cm from it in the direction along the
beam. The primary vertex is defined as the vertex with the largest sum of squared transverse momenta of its associated tracks.
The reconstruction and identification of electrons and muons is carried out using standard CMS algorithms,
described in more detail
in Refs.~\cite{MUO-10-004-PAS,Khachatryan:2015hwa,EWK-10-002-PAS,CMS-dilep-2011,Khachatryan:2014fba}.
Reconstruction of the muon track starts from two tracks, one built in the silicon tracker and one built in the muon system.
Hits used to reconstruct the tracks in the two systems are then used to reconstruct a track spanning over the entire detector~\cite{MUO-10-004-PAS}.
Muon candidates are required to have a transverse momentum of ${\pt > 45 \GeV}$ with a measured
uncertainty of ${\delta(\pt)/\pt < 0.3}$ and must fall into the acceptance of the
trigger of ${|\eta|<2.1}$.
The candidate's track must have transverse and longitudinal impact parameters with respect
to the primary vertex position of less than 0.2\cm and 0.5\cm, respectively.
At least one hit in the pixel detector, six or more hits in silicon-strip
tracker layers, and matched segments in at least two muon detector planes are required to be associated with the reconstructed track.
In order to suppress backgrounds from muons within jets, the scalar $\pt$ sum of all other tracks within a
cone of size 0.3 in ${\Delta R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}}$ (where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle in radians)
around the muon candidate's track is required to be less than 10\% of
the candidate's $\pt$.
{\tolerance=1200
In the electron reconstruction, ECAL clusters are mat\-ched to silicon pixel detector hits, which are then used as seeds for the reconstruction of tracks in the tracker.
Electron candidates are built from clusters with associated tracks and must lie within the barrel or
endcap acceptance regions, with pseudorapidities of $|\eta|<$ 1.442 and
1.56 $<|\eta|<$ 2.5, respectively, with a transverse energy $\ET >35\GeV$.
The transverse energy is defined as the magnitude of the projection on the plane perpendicular to the beam of the electron momentum
vector normalized to the electron energy measured in the ECAL.
Misidentification of jets as electrons is suppressed by requiring that the scalar sum of the
$\pt$ of all other tracks in a cone of size 0.3 in ${\Delta R}$ around the
electron candidate's track is less than 5\GeV{}.
In addition, the sum of the $\ET$ of calorimeter energy deposits in the
same cone that are not associated with the electron candidate must be less than 3\% of the candidate's $\ET$ (plus a small $\eta$-dependent offset).
To minimise the impact of additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same bunch
crossing (pileup) on the selection efficiency, the calorimeter isolation is corrected for the average energy density in the event ~\cite{Cacciari:2007fd}.
Further reduction of electron misidentification is achieved by requiring the transverse profile of the energy deposition in the ECAL to be consistent
with the expected electron profile, and the sum of HCAL energy deposits in a cone of size 0.15 in $\Delta
R$ to be less than 5\% of the electron's ECAL energy.
The transverse impact parameter of the electron candidate's track with respect to the primary vertex must not exceed 0.02\unit{cm} and 0.05\unit{cm}, for barrel and endcap candidates,
respectively, and the track must not have more than one missing hit in the layers of the pixel detector it crossed.}
The trigger efficiency has been measured using the ``tag-and-probe''
technique in dimuon events from Z decays described in ~\cite{EWK-10-002-PAS,MUO-10-004-PAS,CMS-dilep-2011}. The trigger efficiency for muons that pass the selection requirements is
${92.9\%}$ within ${|\eta| < 0.9}$,
${83.1\%}$ within ${0.9 < |\eta| < 1.2}$, and
${80.3\%}$ within ${1.2 < |\eta| < 2.1}$.
The muon identification efficiency, including the isolation requirement, is
measured with the tag-and-probe technique applied to muons from $\Z$ boson decays using tracks in the inner silicon tracker as probes.
The same efficiency of ${95 \pm 1 \%}$ (syst) is obtained in the three pseudorapidity regions ${|\eta| < 0.9}$, ${0.9 < |\eta| < 1.2}$, and ${1.2 < |\eta| < 2.1}$,
with corresponding efficiency ratios between data and the simulation of
$0.990 \pm 0.005$ (syst),
$0.992 \pm 0.005$ (syst), and
$0.995 \pm 0.005$ (syst).
A $\pt$ range up to $300\GeV$ has been probed with the tag-and-probe method and the muon identification efficiencies
remain constant within the statistical precision, as do the corresponding efficiency ratios between data and simulation.
The evolution of the muon reconstruction and identification efficiencies
and the muon trigger efficiency for muon $\pt>300\GeV$ is based on simulation.
Using dielectron events from $\Z$ boson decays~\cite{Khachatryan:2015hwa}, the total efficiency to reconstruct
and select electrons with $\pt^{\mathrm{e}}>100\GeV$ is found to be ${88 \pm 2}$\%~(syst) in the barrel region and ${84 \pm 4\%}$~(syst) in
the endcaps. According to Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, the variation of these efficiencies with electron \pt is less than $\pm$1\% in the
barrel and $\pm$2\% in the endcaps.
The corresponding efficiency ratios for $\pt^{\mathrm{e}}>100\GeV$ between
data and simulation are $0.985 \pm 0.014$ (syst)
in the barrel and $0.981 \pm 0.004$ (syst)
in the endcaps. These efficiencies and efficiency ratios have been measured up to an electron \pt of 1\TeV in the barrel and 500\GeV in the endcap regions.
In the event selection, at least one isolated muon and one isolated electron that both pass the identification criteria
described above are required.
After the application of all efficiency scale factors that correct the simulation to the efficiencies measured in data, the combined dilepton reconstruction and identification efficiency for
RPV $\ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace$ signal events within the detector acceptance is expected to be $80.6$\% at ${\ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace=200\GeV}$ and the full selection efficiency including the trigger requirement is 71.2\%.
The MC simulation predicts that this efficiency is constant within 3\% for masses between 200 \GeV and 3 \TeV.
The electron and the muon are not required to have opposite charge, in order to avoid a loss in signal efficiency due to
possible electron charge misidentification at high electron $\pt$.
Since highly energetic muons can produce bremsstrahlung resulting in an associated supercluster in the
calorimeter in the direction of the muon's inner
track, they can be misidentified as electrons.
Therefore, an electron candidate is rejected if there is a muon with $\pt$ greater
than $5\GeV$ within $\Delta R <0.1$ of the candidate.
Only one \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair per event is considered. For about $1\%$ of the events
passing the event selection there is more than one \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair in the event, in which case the pair with the highest invariant
mass is selected.
{
\section{Signal simulation} \label{sec:theory}
The RPV and QBH signal samples are generated with the \CALCHEP~(v. 3.4.1) event generator~\cite{Belyaev:2012qa}. A cross section calculation at next-to-leading order~(NLO)
in perturbative QCD is used for the RPV signal~\cite{RPV_res_slepton_NLO}, in which
the factorization and renormalization scales are set to \ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace and the CTEQ6M~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} set of parton distribution functions (PDF) is used.
The invariant mass distributions of reconstructed \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pairs from simulated QBH signal samples are presented in Fig.~\ref{Fig:QBH_signal_comparison} for different signal masses and
numbers of extra dimensions. A more detailed description of the implemented QBH model including the
dependence of the $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}$ spectrum from QBH decays on the model parameters is presented in Ref.~\cite{Belyaev_Xcalmet}.
The LFV \zp{}\xspace{} signal events are produced with the \MADGRAPH~(v. 5.1.5.9) generator~\cite{Alwall:2011uj}.
The effects of the interference resulting from the $M_{\zp{}}=M_{\ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}{}}$ mass degeneracy on the cross section and signal acceptance are taken into account, and
the coupling parameters of the model are taken to be the same as in Ref.~\cite{Frere:2004yu}.
All signal samples use the CTEQ6L1 \cite{Pumplin:2002vw} PDF, \PYTHIA~(v. 6.426) \cite{Sjostrand:2006za} for hadronization with the underlying event tune Z2*,
and are processed through a simulation of the full CMS detector based on \GEANTfour~(v. 9.4) \cite{Agostinelli:2002hh}.
The \PYTHIA Z2* tune is derived from the Z1 tune~\cite{Field:2010bc}, which uses the CTEQ5L PDF set, whereas Z2* adopts CTEQ6L.
The total acceptance times efficiency for each of the three signal models considered in this analysis is determined using MC simulation with selection efficiencies corrected to the values measured in data.
The signal acceptance, as defined by the selection on the lepton $\pt$ and $\eta$ applied to the generated leptons
in the signal simulation, and the product of acceptance and selection efficiency, are shown in Tables \ref{tab:accEff_numbers_resonance}
and \ref{tab:accEff_numbers_QBH}, evaluated for selected signal masses. The acceptance of the
RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace model is that of a generic spin-0 resonance. In the case of the LFV \zp{}\xspace{} model, the acceptance is more model-specific
due to the interference between the \zp{} and the \ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}{}. This interference shapes the $\eta$ distributions of the leptons in the final state, which leads to a smaller acceptance
compared to a generic spin-1 resonance.
Table~\ref{tab:accEff} lists the parameterizations of the acceptance times efficiency as a function of signal mass for the RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace and LFV \zp{}\xspace{} resonance signals, resulting from fits in the mass range
from $200\GeV$ to $2.5\TeV$.
These parameterizations are used later in the statistical
interpretation of the resonance search.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Figure_001}
\caption{Invariant mass distributions of reconstructed \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pairs from simulated QBH signal events that pass the event selection, normalized to unit area. The steps at the threshold masses ${M_{\mathrm{th}}}$ are smeared out by the detector resolution.}
\label{Fig:QBH_signal_comparison}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\centering
\topcaption{
Signal acceptance ($A$) and the product of acceptance and efficiency~($A \epsilon$) for different signal masses, for the RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace and LFV \zp{}\xspace{} models. The acceptance is
defined as the fraction of signal events in the simulation passing the selection on lepton $\pt$ and $\eta$ applied to the generated leptons.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c | c c c}
\hline
\ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace (\TeVns) & $A$ & $A \epsilon$ & $M_{\zp{}}$ (\TeVns) & $A$
& $A \epsilon$
\\\hline
$0.2$ & $0.59$ & $0.42$ & $0.25$ & $0.57$ & $0.39$ \\
$0.5$ & $0.80$ & $0.58$ & $0.5$ & $0.72$ & $0.51$ \\
$1.0$ & $0.89$ & $0.64$ & $1.0$ & $0.83$ & $0.59$ \\
$1.5$ & $0.91$ & $0.65$ & $1.5$ & $0.87$ & $0.61$ \\
$2.0$ & $0.92$ & $0.65$ & $2.0$ & $0.89$ & $0.62$
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:accEff_numbers_resonance}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\centering
\topcaption{
Signal acceptance ($A$) and the product of acceptance and efficiency~($A \epsilon$) for different threshold masses~$M_{\mathrm{th}}$, for the QBH models
with $n=0$ and $n=6$ extra dimensions. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events in the simulation passing the selection on lepton $\pt$ and $\eta$ applied to the generated leptons.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c | c c c}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{ $n=0$ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ $n=6$ } \\\hline
$M_{\mathrm{th}}$ (\TeVns) & $A$ & $A \epsilon$ & $M_{\mathrm{th}}$ (\TeVns) & $A$
& $A \epsilon$ \\
\hline
$0.5$ & $0.85$ & $0.61$ & $0.5$ & $0.82$ & $0.60$ \\
$1.0$ & $0.90$ & $0.63$ & $1.0$ & $0.89$ & $0.64$ \\
$2.0$ & $0.93$ & $0.64$ & $2.0$ & $0.93$ & $0.65$ \\
$3.0$ & $0.94$ & $0.63$ & $3.0$ & $0.94$ & $0.64$ \\
$4.0$ & $0.94$ & $0.62$ & $4.0$ & $0.94$ & $0.63$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:accEff_numbers_QBH}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\centering
\topcaption{
Parametrization of the product of signal acceptance and efficiency~($A \epsilon$) as a function of signal mass $M$, for the RPV $\ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace$ and LFV \zp{}\xspace{} models. The value of $M$ is expressed in units of \GeV{}.}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\hline
Model &Functional form of $A \epsilon$ \\
\hline
RPV $\ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace$ & $0.76 - 86.9/(61.4 + M) - 3.3 \times 10^{-5}~M$\\
LFV \zp{}\xspace{} & $0.74 - 141.3/(165.6 + M) - 2.7 \times 10^{-5}~M$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:accEff}
\end{table}
}
\section{Background estimation}
\label{sec:bkg}
The SM backgrounds contributing to the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} final state can be divided into two classes of events. The first class comprises events with at least two prompt, isolated leptons.
The second class consists of events with either jets or photons that are misidentified as isolated leptons, and events with jets containing non-prompt leptons.
This second class of background is referred to as "non-prompt background" in this paper.
The expected SM background from processes with two prompt leptons is obtained from MC simulations.
It consists mostly of events from \ttbar{} production and \PW{}\PW{}{} production; the former process is dominant at lower masses and the latter becomes equally
important above $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}\sim 1\TeV$.
Other background processes estimated from MC simulation are the additional diboson processes \PW{}\cPZ{}{} and \cPZ{}\cPZ{}{}, single top \cPqt{}\PW{}{} production, and Drell--Yan (DY) \Pgt{}\Pgt{}{} events
with subsequent decay of the \Pgt{}\Pgt{}{} pair into an electron and a muon. The \ttbar{}, \cPqt{}\PW{}{}, and \PW{}\PW{}{} simulated samples are generated using
\POWHEG~(v. 1.0)~\cite{Nason:2004rx,Frixione:2007vw,Alioli:2010xd}
with the CT10 PDF~\cite{CT10_PDF}, and the DY, \PW{}\cPZ{}{}, and \cPZ{}\cPZ{}{} background samples are generated using the {\MADGRAPH~(v.~5.1.3.30)} event generator
with the CTEQ6L1 PDF. All background samples use \PYTHIA~(v.~6.426) for hadronization with the underlying event tune $\mbox{Z2}^{*}$. The generated events are processed through a full
simulation of the CMS detector based on \GEANTfour~(v.~9.4). Pileup interactions are included in the simulation and event-dependent weights are applied in order to
reproduce the number of $\Pp\Pp$ interactions expected for the measured instantaneous luminosity. After this procedure, the distribution of the number of vertices per event observed
in data is well described by the simulation.
The simulated samples are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $19.7~\mbox{fb}^{-1}$.
The cross sections are calculated to next-to-next-to-leading order~(NNLO) accuracy in perturbative QCD for \ttbar{} \cite{ttbar_NNLO_xsec} and DY \cite{Li:2012wna} and to NLO
accuracy for the \cPqt{}\PW{}{}~\cite{Kidonakis_single_top_app_NNLO}, \PW{}\PW{}{}, \PW{}\cPZ{}{}, and \cPZ{}\cPZ{}{}~\cite{Campbell:2010ff} processes.
The main sources of non-prompt background in the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} selection arise from \PW{}+jet and \PW{}\cPgg{}{} production with a jet or photon that are misidentified as an electron.
The \Z{}+jet, QCD multijet, and \ttbar{} processes yield subleading contributions to the background with non-prompt leptons.
The $\PW\gamma$ background is estimated from simulation based on the {\MADGRAPH~(v.~5.1.3.30)} event generator.
A background estimation based on control samples in data, using the jet-to-electron misidentification rate (MR)
method explained below, is used to determine
the $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}$ distributions from \PW{}+jet and QCD multijet production.
The measurement of the jet-to-electron misidentification rate has been carried out in the context of Ref.~\cite{Khachatryan:2014fba}.
It starts from a sample collected using a prescaled
single electromagnetic cluster trigger, in which the presence of an electron
candidate with relaxed electron identification criteria is required.
The events of the sample must have no more than one reconstructed electron with ${E_{\mathrm{T}} > 10\GeV}$, in order to suppress the contribution from \Z{} decays.
The misidentification measurement can be biased by selecting genuine electrons from \PW{}+jet events or converted photons
from \Pgg{}+jet events.
Processes that can give a single electron, such as \ttbar, \cPqt{}\PW{}{}, \PW{}\PW{}{}, \PW{}\cPZ{}{}, $\Z\rightarrow \Pgt{}\Pgt{}$,
and $\Z\rightarrow \Pe\Pe$\, where, if a second electron is produced, it
fails to be reconstructed, give another less significant source of contamination.
Simulated samples are used to correct for this contamination and its effect on the MR.
After these corrections, the electron MR, measured in bins of $E_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\eta$, is the number of electrons passing the full selection over the
number of electron candidates in the sample.
Using the measured electron MR, the \PW{}+jet and QCD multijet contributions can be estimated from a
sample with a muon passing the single-muon trigger and the full muon selection, and an electron candidate satisfying the relaxed selection requirements but failing the full electron selection.
Each event in the sample is weighted by the factor $\mathrm{MR}/(1-\mathrm{MR})$
to determine the overall contribution of the jet backgrounds.
Contributions from processes other than \PW{}+jet and QCD multijet are subtracted from the sample to which the MR is applied, to avoid double counting.
This subtraction is based on MC simulated background samples.
A systematic uncertainty of 30\% is applied to the jet background estimate, based on cross-checks and closure tests.
An uncertainty of 50\% is assigned to the background estimate for the \PW{}\cPgg{}{} process, which is taken from simulation at leading order (LO) in perturbative QCD.
{
\section{Results}\label{Sec:invariant_mass_results}
After the event selection, 28~925 events are observed in data. The \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} invariant mass distribution is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:inv_mass_all}, together with the corresponding
cumulative distribution.
A comparison of the observed and expected event yields is given in Table~\ref{Tab:N_selected_events}.
The dominant background process is \ttbar{}, which contributes 69\% of the total background yield after selection,
followed by \PW{}\PW{}{} production, contributing 11\%.
The two selected leptons carry opposite measured electric charge in 26~840
events and carry the same charge in 2085 events.
According to the background estimation, $2100\pm360$ events with same-charge \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pairs are expected, most of which stem from the \PW{}+jet process,
followed by \ttbar{} and diboson production \PW{}\cPZ{}{}/\cPZ{}\cPZ{}{}.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Figure_002-a}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Figure_002-b}
\caption{The invariant mass distribution of selected \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pairs (left), and the corresponding cumulative distribution,
where all events above the mass value on the $x$-axis are summed (right). The points with error bars represent the data and the stacked histograms represent the expectations from SM processes.
The label 'Jets' refers to the estimate of the \PW{}+jet and QCD multijet backgrounds from data. The ratio of the data to the background for each bin is shown at the bottom.
The horizontal lines on the data points indicate the bin width.}
\label{Fig:inv_mass_all}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[htp!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}}{\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\phantom{00}}}{\ensuremath{\phantom{00}}}
\topcaption{The number of observed events compared to the background expectation in five invariant mass ranges and in the full invariant mass range.
The yields obtained from simulations
are normalized according to their expected cross sections. The background label 'Jets' refers to the estimate of the \PW{}+jet and QCD multijet backgrounds from data.}
\label{Tab:N_selected_events}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c c c c c}
\hline
& \multirow{2}{*}{Total} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Invariant mass ranges in units of \GeV{}} \\
& & ${<}200$ & $200$--$400$ & $400$--$600$ & $600$--$1000$ & ${>}1000$ \\ \hline
\ttbar{} & $ 20100 \pm 1800\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $15800 \pm 1400\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $ 4050\pm 450\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $260 \pm 44\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $ 30 \pm 7\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $0.9 \pm 0.4$ \\
\PW{}\PW{}{} & $ 3150 \pm 260\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $2400 \pm 200\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $670 \pm 64\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $68 \pm 8\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $ 13 \pm 2\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $0.9 \pm 0.2$ \\
\cPqt{}\PW{}{} & $ 2000 \pm 160\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $ 1550 \pm 120\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $ 430 \pm 40\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $ 30 \pm 3\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $ \phantom{0.}4 \pm 0.5 $ & ${<}0.2$ \\
$\mbox{Jets}$ & $ 1570 \pm 470\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $1250 \pm 400\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $280 \pm 83\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $30 \pm 9\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $ 5 \pm 2 $ & $0.6 \pm 0.3$ \\
DY & $ 960 \pm 100 $ & $910 \pm 100$ & $40 \pm 15$ & $5 \pm 5$ & ${<}1$ & ${<}0.1$ \\
\PW{}\cPZ{}{}/\cPZ{}\cPZ{}{} & $ 940 \pm 80\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $ 670 \pm 60\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $ 240 \pm 20\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $ 27 \pm 3\ensuremath{\phantom{0}} $ & $ \phantom{0.}5 \pm 0.6 $ & $ 0.3 \pm 0.1$ \\
\PW{}\cPgg{}{} & $ 480 \pm 240 $ & $360 \pm 180$ & $100 \pm 50\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $12 \pm 6\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $ \phantom{0.}3 \pm 1.5 $ & $0.6 \pm 0.3$ \\ \hline
Total bkg & $29200 \pm 2300\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $22900 \pm 1800\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $5800 \pm 560\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $430 \pm 53\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $60 \pm 9\ensuremath{\phantom{0}}$ & $3.5 \pm 0.6$ \\ \hline
Data & $28925$ & $22736$ & $5675$ & $448$ & $65$ & $1$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
The systematic uncertainties assigned to backgrounds obtained from simulation include the integrated luminosity (2.6\%)~\cite{CMS-PAS-LUM-13-001} and the acceptance times
efficiency (5\%).
The latter is based on the uncertainties in the various efficiency scale factors that correct the simulation to the efficiencies measured in data.
According to simulation, the evolution of the lepton selection efficiencies from the \Z{} pole,
where they are measured, to high lepton $\pt$ is covered within this uncertainty.
The uncertainty in the muon momentum scale is 5\% per \TeV{}.
Electron energy scale uncertainties are 0.6\% in the barrel and 1.5\% in the endcap.
These momentum and energy scale uncertainties cumulatively lead to an uncertainty in the total background yield of 2\% at $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=500\GeV$ and 3.5\% at $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=1\TeV$.
Uncertainties in the electron \ET and muon \pt resolutions have a negligible impact on the total background yield.
The uncertainty associated with the choice of PDF in the background simulation is evaluated according
to the PDF4LHC prescription~\cite{PDF4LHC,Botje:2011sn} and translates into an uncertainty in the background yield ranging from 5\% at $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=200\GeV$ to 9\% at $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=1 \TeV$.
Among the uncertainties in the cross sections used for the normalization of the various simulated background samples, the 5\% uncertainty in the NNLO QCD cross section of the
dominant \ttbar{} background~\cite{ttbar_NNLO_xsec} is the most relevant.
Further uncertainties associated with the modelling of the shape of the $\Pe{}\Pgm{}$ invariant mass distribution are taken into account for the two leading backgrounds: \ttbar{}
(higher-order corrections on the top-$\pt$ description discussed in~\cite{Kidonakis:2014pja})
and \PW{}\PW{}{} (scale uncertainties studied with the \POWHEG generator). These lead to an uncertainty in the total background yield of up to 13\% at $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=1\TeV$.
A further systematic uncertainty arises from the limited sizes of the simulated background samples at high invariant mass,
where the background expectation is small.
Taking all systematic uncertainties into account, the resulting uncertainty in the background yield ranges from 9\% at $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=200\GeV$ to 18\% at $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}=1\TeV$.
As shown in the cumulative invariant mass distribution in Fig.~\ref{Fig:inv_mass_all}, we observe a deficit in data compared to the background expectation for $M_{\Pe{}\Pgm{}}\geq700\GeV$.
In this invariant mass region, 17~events are observed and the background estimate yields $27\pm4$~(syst) events. Combining the systematic and statistical uncertainties, the local significance of
this discrepancy is below 2$\sigma$.
}
{
No significant excess with respect to the expectation is found in the measured \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} invariant mass distribution,
and we set limits on the product of signal cross section and branching fraction for signal mass hypotheses above $200\GeV$. Two types of signal shapes are considered for the limit setting:
a narrow resonance and the broader \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} invariant mass spectrum from QBH decays.
The RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace and \zp{}\xspace{} signals both result in a narrow resonance. For coupling values not excluded by existing searches,
the intrinsic widths of these signals are small compared to the detector resolution. Therefore, Gaussian functions are used to model the signal shapes.
For each probed resonance
signal mass, the two parameters, acceptance times efficiency (Table \ref{tab:accEff}) and invariant mass resolution,
define the signal shape used for limit setting.
The invariant mass resolution is derived from fits of Gaussian distributions to the \Pe{}\Pgm{}{}~invariant mass spectra from MC simulated signal samples
and ranges from 1.6\% at a resonance mass of ${M_{\text{res}}=200\GeV}$
to 6\% at ${M_{\text{res}}=3\TeV}$.
For high values of \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair invariant mass, it is dominated by the resolution on the measurement of the muon $\pt$,
which ranges from about 2\% at ${\pt=200\GeV}$ to 6\% at ${\pt=500\GeV}$ and
10\% at ${\pt=1\TeV}$. These values are obtained from MC simulations and agree within the uncertainties with measurements
using cosmic ray muons.
This model of the narrow resonance allows for a scan of the invariant mass spectrum with a fine spacing of the
signal mass hypothesis that corresponds to the invariant mass resolution.
Unlike the \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace and \zp{}\xspace{} signals, the QBH signal
exhibits a broader shape with a sharp edge at the threshold mass $M_{\mathrm{th}}$ and a tail towards higher masses
(Fig. \ref{Fig:QBH_signal_comparison}).
The QBH signal shapes are obtained directly from simulated samples.
The systematic uncertainties in the signal entering the limit calculation
are the 2.6\% uncertainty in the integrated luminosity, the 5\%
uncertainty in the product of acceptance and efficiency,
and the relative uncertainty in the mass resolution, which ranges from 2\% at ${M_{\text{res}}=200\GeV}$ to 40\% at ${M_{\text{res}}=3\TeV}$.
The uncertainty in the signal acceptance times efficiency is dominated by the uncertainty in the trigger, lepton reconstruction, and identification efficiencies, and includes the
subleading PDF uncertainty in the signal acceptance.
Upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the product of cross section and branching fraction are determined using a binned likelihood Bayesian approach with a positive, uniform prior for the signal cross section \cite{ATLAS:2011tau}.
The signal and background shapes enter the likelihood with a binning of 1\GeV, well below the invariant mass resolution for masses above 200 GeV.
For the resonant signals \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace and \zp{}\xspace{}, search regions in the invariant mass spectrum are defined as ${\pm} 6$ times the invariant mass resolution evaluated at the hypothetical resonance mass.
Only events in these search regions enter the binned likelihood in the limit calculation.
The impact of a further broadening of the signal window size on the median expected limit has been found to be negligible within the uncertainties.
For mass hypotheses above 800\GeV, the upper bound of the search region is dropped.
In the case of the QBH signal,
the search region is defined by a lower bound at ${M_{\mathrm{th}}-6\sigma_M}$, where $\sigma_M$ is the invariant mass resolution, and there is no upper bound.
The nuisance parameters associated with the systematic uncertainties are modelled with log-normal distributions, and a Markov Chain MC method is used for integration.
For each mass hypothesis considered, the posterior probability density function is derived as a function of the signal cross section
times branching fraction and yields the 95\% CL upper limit on this parameter of interest.
The $95\%$ CL limits on the signal cross section times branching fraction for the RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace resonance signal are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:limit_RPV_resonance_cross_section} (left).
The signal cross section shown is calculated at NLO in perturbative QCD with the RPV couplings set to $\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace=0.01$ and $\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace=0.01$. For these couplings,
a lower mass limit of 1.28\TeV is obtained. At this mass, the observed limit on the cross section times branching fraction is 0.25\unit{fb}.
For a comparison with earlier searches at hadron colliders \cite{CDF_emu,ATLAS_emu},
the two coupling benchmarks $\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace=0.07$, $\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace=0.11$ and $\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace=0.05$, $\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace=0.10$ are considered.
For RPV couplings $\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace=0.07$ and $\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace=0.11$, we set a mass limit of 2.30$\TeV$,
and improve the lower bound of 2.0$\TeV$ previously set~\cite{ATLAS_emu}.
The lower bound on the signal mass for $\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace=0.05$ and $\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace=0.10$ is 2.16$\TeV$.
In the narrow width approximation, the cross section times branching fraction scales with the RPV couplings as:
\begin{equation}
\ifthenelse{\boolean{cms@external}}{
\begin{split}
\sigma \mathcal{B} \sim & \\ \left(\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace\right)^2 &[\left(\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace\right)^2+\left(\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace\right)^2]/(3\left(\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace\right)^2+[\left(\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace\right)^2+\left(\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace\right)^2]). \nonumber
\end{split}
}
{
\sigma \mathcal{B}~\sim\left(\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace\right)^2[\left(\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace\right)^2+\left(\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace\right)^2]/(3\left(\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace\right)^2+[\left(\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace\right)^2+\left(\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace\right)^2]). \nonumber
}
\end{equation}
Using this relation and the observed upper cross section bounds,
we derive the limit contour in
the ${(\ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace,~\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace)}$ parameter plane as a function of a fixed value of $\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace$.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Figure_003-a}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Figure_003-b}
\caption{Left: The $95\%$ CL upper limit on the product of signal cross section and branching fraction for the RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace signal as a function of the mass of the resonance \ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace.
Right: The 95\% CL limit contours for the RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace signal in the (\ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace,~\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace) parameter plane. The values of the parameter
$\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace$ are fixed to $0.07$ (red dashed and dotted), $0.05$ (green small-dashed), $0.01$ (blue dashed), and $0.007$ (black solid). The regions above the curves are excluded.
}
\label{Fig:limit_RPV_resonance_cross_section}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Figure_004-a}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Figure_004-b}
\caption{Left: The $95\%$ CL exclusion limit on the product of signal cross section and branching fraction for the \zp{}\xspace{} signal as a function of the mass $M_{\zp}$.
Right: The 95\% CL limit contour for the \zp{}\xspace{} signal in the ($M_{\zp}$,~\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace) parameter plane.}
\label{Fig:limit_zprime}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Figure_005}
\caption{The $95\%$ CL exclusion limit on the product of signal cross section and branching fraction for the QBH signal as a function of the threshold mass $M_{\mathrm{th}}$. The limits have been calculated using the
signal shape of the QBH model without extra dimensions ($n=0$). For signal masses ${M_{\mathrm{th}}\geq 1\TeV}$, the change in the QBH signal shape for different
numbers of extra dimensions has a negligible impact on the limit.}
\label{Fig:limit_QBH}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
For the results presented in Fig. \ref{Fig:limit_RPV_resonance_cross_section} (right), values of the couplings \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace and ${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace}$ up to 0.2 and 0.07 are considered, respectively.
The ratio of decay width to mass of the \Pgt{} sneutrino is less than 0.5\% for these coupling values and finite-width effects are small. Searches for resonant
dijet production~\cite{Khachatryan:2015sja,Aad:2014aqa} that cover the \Pgt{} sneutrino decay to a \cPqd{}\cPaqd{} pair via the coupling \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace do not
exclude this region of parameter space. In the model considered here with resonant production of the
\ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace, we do not reach the sensitivity of muon conversion experiments, which lead to a bound on the coupling product of
${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace<3.3 \times 10^{-7} (\ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace/1\TeV )^{2}}$
at 90\% CL, assuming ${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace}$. For comparison,
with a signal mass of ${\ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace=1\TeV}$ and the assumption
${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace}$, we obtain a limit of
${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace<4.1 \times 10^{-5}}$
at 90\% CL.
We present results in terms of the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of the \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace that do not depend on a specific production mechanism of the sneutrino.
The $95\%$ CL limits on the signal cross section times branching fraction for the \zp{}\xspace{} signal, which exhibits a different acceptance from the spin-0 resonance in the RPV model,
are presented in Fig.~\ref{Fig:limit_zprime}~(left).
For the coupling modifier $\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace=0.05$, a lower bound on the signal mass ${M_{\zp{}}=M_{\ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}{}}}$ of 1.29\TeV is obtained.
Figure~\ref{Fig:limit_zprime}~(right) shows the corresponding limit contour in the ${(M_{\zp},~\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace)}$ parameter plane.
Since this resonance is produced dominantly in the ${\cPqd\cPaqs}$ initial state, the bound from searches for muon conversion is not as strong as for the RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace signal,
but searches for ${\Klong \rightarrow \Pe{}\Pgm{}}$ decays yield a stringent exclusion limit
of ${\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace\lesssim M_{\zp{}}/100\TeV}$ at 90\% CL. This can be compared to our bound of ${\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace=0.031}$ at 90\% CL for ${M_{\zp{}}=M_{\ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}}=1\TeV}$.
In the QBH search, we set limits on the mass threshold for QBH production, $M_{\mathrm{th}}$, in models with $n=0$ to $n=6$ extra dimensions. The $95\%$ CL limits
on the signal cross section times branching fraction for the QBH signal are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:limit_QBH}.
For $n=0$ in a model with a Planck scale at the TeV scale from a renormalization of the gravitational constant, we exclude QBH production below a threshold mass $M_{\mathrm{th}}$ of 1.99\TeV.
For $n=1$, two signal cross sections are considered with the Schwarzschild radius evaluated in the RS and PDG conventions. The resulting limits on $M_{\mathrm{th}}$
are 2.36\TeV and 2.81\TeV, respectively.
For ADD-type black holes with $n>1$, we obtain lower bounds on $M_{\mathrm{th}}$ ranging from 3.15\TeV for $n=2$ to 3.63\TeV for $n=6$.
A summary of the 95\% CL lower mass limits set for all signal models is presented in Table~\ref{tab:massLimits}.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\centering
\topcaption{
The ${95\%}$ CL observed and expected lower bounds on the signal masses of \Pgt{} sneutrinos in RPV SUSY, resonances in the LFV \zp{}\xspace model, and QBHs, each with subsequent decay into an \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair.
For the QBH signal with $n=1$, two signal cross sections are considered with
the Schwarzschild radius evaluated in either the Randall-Sundrum~(RS) or the Particle Data Group~(PDG) convention.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Signal model} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ Lower limit signal mass (TeV) } \\
& observed & expected \\\hline
RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace ($\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace = \ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace = \ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace =0.01$) & 1.28 & 1.24 \\
RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace ($\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace = \ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace = 0.05~,~\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace =0.10$) & 2.16 & 2.16 \\
RPV \ensuremath{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}\xspace ($\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace = \ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace = 0.07~,~\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace =0.11$) & 2.30 & 2.30 \\ \hline
LFV \zp{}\xspace ($\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace=0.05$) & 1.29 & 1.25 \\ \hline
QBH \quad $n=0$ & 1.99 & 1.99 \\
\hspace{0.72cm} QBH \quad $n=1$ (RS) & 2.36 & 2.36 \\
\hspace{1.08cm} QBH \quad $n=1$ (PDG) & 2.81 & 2.81 \\
QBH \quad $n=2$ & 3.15 & 3.15 \\
QBH \quad $n=3$ & 3.34 & 3.34 \\
QBH \quad $n=4$ & 3.46 & 3.46 \\
QBH \quad $n=5$ & 3.55 & 3.55 \\
QBH \quad $n=6$ & 3.63 & 3.63 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:massLimits}
\end{table*}
}
\section{Summary}
{\tolerance=1200
A search has been reported for heavy states decaying prom\-ptly into an electron and a muon using 19.7\fbinv
of proton-proton collision data recorded with the CMS detector
at the LHC at a centre-of-mass energy of $8\TeV$. Agreement is observed between the data and the standard model expectation
with new limits set on resonant production of \Pgt{} sneutrinos in R-parity violating supersymmetry with subsequent decay into \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pairs.
For couplings ${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace=0.01}$ and ${\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace=0.01}$, \Pgt{} sneutrino lightest supersymmetric particles for masses \ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace below ${1.28\TeV}$ are excluded at 95\% CL.
For couplings ${\ensuremath{\lambda_{132}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\lambda_{231}}\xspace=0.07}$ and ${\ensuremath{\lambda'_{311}}\xspace = 0.11}$, masses \ensuremath{M_{\tilde{\nu}_{\Pgt}}}\xspace below ${2.30\TeV}$ are excluded.
These are the most stringent limits from direct searches at high-energy colliders.
For the \zp{}\xspace{} signal model, a lower mass limit of $M_{\zp}=M_{\ensuremath{\cPgg{}^\prime}}={1.29\TeV}$ is set at 95\% CL for the coupling modifier $\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace=0.05$.
This direct search for resonant production of an \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair at the TeV scale does not reach the sensitivity of dedicated low-energy experiments, but complements such indirect searches and
can readily be interpreted in terms of different signals of new physics involving a heavy state that decays promptly into an electron and a muon.
Lower bounds are set on the mass threshold for the production of
quantum black holes with subsequent decay into an \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} pair in models with zero to six extra dimensions,
assuming the threshold mass to be at the Planck scale, ranging from ${M_{\mathrm{th}}=1.99\TeV~(n=0)}$ to ${3.63\TeV~(n=6)}$.
These are the first limits on quantum black holes decaying into \Pe{}\Pgm{}{} final states.
}
\newpage
\begin{acknowledgments}
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); MoER, ERC IUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and EPLANET (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation \`a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans l'Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund; the Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland); the OPUS programme of the National Science Center (Poland); MIUR project 20108T4XTM (Italy); the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand); the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); and the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845.
\end{acknowledgments}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{SectIntro}
In a series of papers culminating in \cite{BermanBiRat} Berman introduce a thermodynamic framework for complex Monge-Amp\`ere equations. In particular, he shows how the Monge-Amp\`ere measures of solutions to complex Monge-Amp\`ere equations can be seen as limits of canonically defined ($\beta$-deformations of) determinantal point processes. Inspired by this we will introduce a thermodynamic framework for real Monge-Amp\`ere equations on the real torus $X=\mathbb{R}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n$. Using certain families of functions analogous to theta functions on Abelian varieties we construct permanental point processes on $X$. Our first result is that, as long as the Monge-Amp\`ere equation admits a unique solution, the point processes defined by the statistic mechanical framework converges in law towards the Monge-Amp\`ere measure of this unique solution. Equivalently, and in the language of thermodynamics, under absence of first order phase transitions the microscopic setting admits a macroscopic limit that is determined by the Monge-Amp\`ere equation.
The real torus should be seen as one of several settings where strong connections between complex geometry, real Monge-Amp\`ere equations and optimal transport are manifested (the related case of toric manifolds is treated in \cite{Berman}). We will exploit these connections to produce semi-explicit approximations of optimal transport maps on $X$ (see Corollary~\ref{CorrOptTrans}). As such, this work ties in with the seminal works by McCann \cite{McCann} and Cordero-Erasquin \cite{Cordero} on optimal transport on Riemannian manifolds.
Moreover, motivated by the difficult problem of singular K\"ahler-Einstein metrics of (almost everywhere) positive curvature on complex varieties we propose a corresponding real Monge-Amp\`ere equation on $X$ (see equation \eqref{MAEqSpec} below). The assumption of no first order phase transition always holds for positive temperature. However, a reflection of the fact that the related complex geometric problem is one of \emph{positive} curvature is that the statistical mechanic setting for \eqref{MAEqSpec} is of \emph{negative} temperature. As a second result, by proving a uniqueness theorem for Monge-Amp\`ere equations of independent interest (see Theorem~\ref{ThmFUniq}), we rule out first order phase transitions down to the critical temperature of $-1$. In a future paper we hope to address the question of uniqueness for temperatures smaller than $-1$, which might be seen as the analog of the problem studied in \cite{LinWang}.
\subsection{Setup}
Let $dx$ be the standard volume measure on $X$ induced from $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $\beta$ be a real constant and $\mu_0$ a probability measure on $X$, absolutely continuous and with smooth, strictly positive density with respect to $dx$. Given the data $(\mu_0,\beta)$ we will consider the real Monge-Amp\`ere equation on $X$ given by
\begin{equation} \MA(\phi) = e^{\beta \phi}d\mu_0. \label{MAEqGen}\end{equation}
Here $\MA$ is the Monge-Amp\`ere operator defined by
\begin{equation} \phi\mapsto \det(\phi_{ij}+\delta_{ij}) dx. \label{MAOp} \end{equation}
where $(\phi_{ij})$ is the Hessian of $\phi$ with respect to the coordinates on $X$ induced from $\mathbb{R}^n$ and
$\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. As usual we demand of a solution $\phi:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that it is twice differentiable and quasi-convex in the sense that $(\phi_{ij}+\delta_{ij})$ is a positive definite matrix.
We will pay specific attention to the case when $\mu_0$ is chosen as the measure
$$ \gamma = \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n} e^{-|x-m|^2/2}dx. $$
We get the equation
\begin{equation} \MA(\phi) = e^{\beta \phi}\gamma. \label{MAEqSpec} \end{equation}
As mentioned above this equation has an interpretation in terms of complex geometry. For $\beta=-1$, \eqref{MAEqSpec} arises as the "push forward" of a twisted K\"ahler-Einstein equation on the Abelian variety $\mathbb{C}^n/4\pi\mathbb{Z}^n+i\mathbb{Z}^n$. A more detailed exposition of this relation will follow in Section \ref{SectionEqPush}.
\subsection{Construction of the Point Processes}\label{SectPointProc}
The point processes we will study arise as the so called "$\beta$-deformations" of certain \emph{permanental point processes} (see \cite{HoughEtAl} for a survey). Let's first recall the general setup of a permanental point process with $N$ particles. We begin by fixing a set of $N$ \emph{wave functions} on $X$
$$ S^{(N)} = \{\Psi^{(N)}_1, \ldots, \Psi^{(N)}_N\}. $$
This defines a matrix valued function on $X^N$
$$ (x_1,\ldots,x_N)\rightarrow (\Psi_i(x_j)). $$
Recall that the permanent of a matrix $A=a_{ij}$ is the quantity
$$ \sum_{\sigma}\prod_i a_{i, \sigma(i)} $$
where the sum is taken over all permutations of the set $\{1\ldots, N\}$. Together with the background measure $\mu_0$ this defines a symmetric probability measure on $X^N$
\begin{equation} \perm(\Psi^{(N)}_i(x_j)) d\mu_0^{\otimes N}/Z_N, \label{EqPerm} \end{equation}
where $Z_N$ is a constant ensuring the total mass is one. This is a \emph{pure} permanental point process. We will define, for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$, a set of $N=N_k$ wave functions and, for a given $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$, study the so called $\beta$-deformations of \eqref{EqPerm}
\begin{equation} \mu_{\beta}^{(N)} = \left(\perm(\Psi_i(x_j)\right)^{\beta/k} d\mu_0^{\otimes N}/Z_{\beta,N} \label{EqBetaPerm} \end{equation}
where, as above, $Z_{\beta,N}$ is a constant ensuring the total mass is one. We will now define the sets of wave functions. Note that $\mu_\beta^{(N)}$ does not depend on the order of the element in $S^{(N)}$. For each positive integer $k$, let
$$ S^{(N)} = \{\Psi_p^{(N)}: p\in \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{Z}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n \} $$
where
$$ \Psi_p^{(N)}(x) = \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} e^{-k|x-m|^2/2}dx. $$
Before we move on we should make a comment on the notation. We get $N=N_k=k^n$. Throughout the text, in formulas where both $N$ and $k$ occur, the relation $N=k^n$ will always be assumed.
Finally, we will make two remarks on the definitions. In \cite{NegeleOrland} permanental point processes are used to model a bosonian many particle system in quantum mechanics. In that interpretation $\Psi_i^{(N)}$ defines a 1-particle wave function and the permanent above is the corresponding $N$-particle wave function defined by $\Psi_{1}^{(N)},\ldots, \Psi_{N}^{(N)}$. Secondly, we will explain in Section \ref{SectionDetPerm} how the wave functions arises as the "push forward" of $\theta$-functions on $\mathbb{C}^n/(4\pi\mathbb{Z}^n+i\mathbb{Z}^n)$.
\subsection{Main Results}
Denote the space of probability measures on $X$ by $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ and consider the map $\delta^{(N)}:X^N\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_1(X)$
$$ \delta^{(N)}(x) = \delta^{(N)}(x_1,\ldots, x_N) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{x_i}. $$
Let $x=(x_1,\ldots, x_N)\in X^N$ be the random variable with law $\mu_{\beta}^{(N)}$. Its image under $\delta^{(N)}$, $\delta^{(N)}(x)$, is the \emph{empirical measure}. This is a random measure with law given by the push-forward measure
\begin{equation} \Gamma_\beta^{(N)} = \left(\delta^{(N)}\right)_* \mu^{(N)}_ {\beta} \in \mathcal{M}_1(\mathcal{M}_1(X)) \label{PFMeasures} \end{equation}
Our results concern the weak* limit of $\Gamma_\beta^{(N)}$ as $N\rightarrow \infty$. In particular we will show, in some cases, that the limit is a dirac measure concentrated at a certain $\mu_*\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ related to \eqref{MAEqGen} or \eqref{MAEqSpec}. Loosely speaking, this means $\mu_*$ can be approximated by sampling larger and larger point sets on $X$ according to $\mu_\beta^{(N)}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{MainThmGen}
Let $\mu_0\in\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous and have smooth, strictly positive density with respect to $dx$. Let $\Gamma^{(N)}$ be defined as above and let $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$.
Assume also that \eqref{MAEqGen} admits a unique solution, $\phi_*$.
Then
\begin{equation} \Gamma^{(N)}_\beta \rightarrow \delta_{\mu_*} \label{EqMainThmGen}\end{equation}
in the weak* topology of $\mathcal{M}_1(\mathcal{M}_1(X))$, where $\mu_* = MA(\phi_*)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{RemBetaPos}
The assumption that \eqref{MAEqGen} admits a unique solutions is always satisfied when $\beta>0$. This follows from standard arguments (see Theorem \ref{ThmUniqPos}). However, the case $\beta<0$ is a lot more subtle. In our second result we show that, in the special case $\mu_0=\gamma$, the assumption holds for certain negative values of $\beta$ as well.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{ThmFUniq}
Assume $\mu_0=\gamma$ and $\beta\in [-1,0)$. Then equation \eqref{MAEqSpec} admits a unique solution.
\end{theorem}
Note that if $\beta\not=0$ and $\mu_* = MA(\phi_*)dx$ where $\phi_*$ is a solution to \eqref{MAEqGen}, then $\phi_*$ can be recovered from $\mu_*$ as
$\phi_* = \frac{1}{\beta}\log \rho$
where $\rho$ is the density of $\mu_*$ with respect $\mu_0$.
In fact we get the following corollary of Theorem \ref{MainThmGen}.
\begin{corollary}\label{CorrGen}
Let $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous and have smooth, strictly positive density with respect to $dx$. Let $\beta\not=0$. Assume also that \eqref{MAEqGen} admits a unique solution, $\phi_*$. Let $\phi_N:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be the function defined by
$$ \phi_N(x_1) = \frac{1}{\beta}\log \int_{X^{N-1}}\left(\perm(\Psi^{(N)}_{p_i}(x_j)\right)^{\beta/k} d\mu^{\otimes (N-1)}(x_2,\ldots,x_n)/Z_{\beta,N}. $$
Then $\phi_N$ converges uniformly to $\phi^*$.
\end{corollary}
If we put $\beta=0$ in \eqref{MAEqGen} we get the inhomogenous Monge-Amp\`ere equation. Solutions then determine Optimal Transport maps on $X$. Now, although Corollary \ref{CorrGen} doesn't cover the case $\beta=0$, by considering $\mu_{\beta_N}^{(N)}$ for the sequence of constants $\beta_N=1/N$ we will be able to produce explicit approximations of optimal transport maps. However, when working with optimal transport it is natural to consider a more general setting than the one proposed for equation \eqref{MAEqGen}. Because of this we will not state this corollary here but postpone it to Section \ref{SectApprox}.
\subsection{Outline}\label{SectOutline}
\paragraph{Convergence in Theorem \ref{MainThmGen} and a Large Deviation Principle}
Theorem~\ref{MainThmGen} will follow from a \emph{large deviation principle} for the sequence $\Gamma^{(N)}$ (see Theorem~\ref{MainThmLDP}). This large deviation principle provides a quantitative description of the convergence in Theorem~\ref{MainThmGen}, recording the speed of convergence in a \emph{rate function} $G:\mathcal{M}_1(X) \rightarrow [0,\infty)$, satisfying $\inf G = 0$ and a \emph{rate} $\{r_N\}\subset \mathbb{R}$ such that $r_N\rightarrow \infty$ as $N\rightarrow \infty$. We will give a formal definition of large deviation principles in Section \ref{SectionLDP}. Roughly speaking, a large deviation principle with rate function $G$ and rate $r_N$ holds if, for $U\subset \mathcal{M}_1(X)$, the probability $\Gamma(U)$ behaves as
$$ e^{-r_N \inf_U G} $$
as $N\rightarrow \infty$.
This means $\Gamma^{(N)}$, for large $N$, is concentrated where $G$ is small. In particular, if $G$ admits a unique minimizer, $\mu_*$, (where $G=0$) then it follows that $\Gamma^{(N)}$ converges in the weak* topology to $\delta_{\mu_*}$.
\paragraph{Proof of the Large Deviation Principle}
It turns out that the rate function above is related to the Wasserstein metric of optimal transport. In Section \ref{SectOT} we will recall some basic facts about optimal transport. In particular, we explain how Kantorovich' duality principle gives an explicit formula for the Legendre transform of the squared Wasserstein distance from a fixed measure. The proof of Theorem \ref{MainThmLDP} is given in Section \ref{SectionLDP} and it is divided into two parts of which the first part uses this explicit formula. In the first part, given in Section \ref{SectBetaInf}, we take a sequence of constants $\beta_N$ such that $\beta_N\rightarrow \infty$ and study the family $\{\Gamma_{\beta_N}^{(N)}\}$. In the thermodynamic interpretation this means we are studying the zero temperature limit of the system. Using the formula given by Kantorovich duality and the G\"artner-Ellis theorem, relating the moment generating functions of $\Gamma^{(N)}_{\beta_N}$ to the Legendre transform of a rate function, we prove a large deviation principle for this family (see Theorem \ref{ThmBetaInf}). In the second part of the proof we show how the large deviation principle in Theorem \ref{MainThmLDP} can be deduced from this. This is based on essentially well known arguments. However, for completeness we give a proof of this in Section \ref{SectGenCase}. It turns out that the crucial point is the equicontinuity and uniform boundedness of the (normalized) energy functions
$$ -\frac{1}{kN}\log\perm(\Psi^{(N)}_i(x_j)). $$
These properties will follow from equicontinuity properties and bounds on the wave functions $\Psi^{(N)}_i$ and we give a proof of these properties in Section \ref{SectProofLDP}.
\paragraph{Connection to the Monge-Amp\`ere Equation}
The final ingredients in the proof of Theorem \ref{MainThmGen} are given in Section \ref{SectLemmaF} and Section \ref{SectDual} (essentially by Lemma \ref{LemmaF} and Theorem \ref{LemmaDual}). These sections connect the large deviation principle above with the Monge-Amp\`ere equation \eqref{MAEqGen}. Note that, as $\inf G=0$, $G$ admits a unique point where $G=0$ if and only if $G$ admits a unique minimizer. We apply a variational approach to \eqref{MAEqGen}. Uniqueness and existence of solutions is studied by means of a certain energy functional on $C(X)$ whose stationary points corresponds to weak solutions of \eqref{MAEqGen}. The rate function above, $G$, is closely related to this energy functional. This relation encodes the fact that minimizers of $G$ arise as the Monge-Amp\`ere measures of solutions to \eqref{MAEqGen}. Moreover, it follows from this relation that $G$ admits a unique minimizer if the energy functional does, which is true if and only if \eqref{MAEqGen} admits a unique solution.
\paragraph{Theorem \ref{ThmFUniq}}
Existence of weak solutions will follow from the variational approach and compactness properties of the space of quasi convex functions on $X$ (see Section \ref{SectExistence}) and regularity will follow from results by Cafarelli explained in Lemma \ref{LemmaRegularity}. These type of existence results for Monge-Amp\`ere equations on affine manifolds was originally proven by Caffarelli and Viaclovsky \cite{CaffarelliViaclovsky} on the one hand and Cheng and Yau \cite{ChengYau} on the other. However, we will provide an alternative proof based on the variational principle above. Uniqueness, which is the main new contribution in this chapter is proved in Section \ref{SectStrictConv}. Here we look at the space of quasi-convex functions equipped with an affine structure different from the standard one. It will then follow from the Prekopa inequality that the energy functional associated to \eqref{MAEqSpec} is strictly convex with respect to this affine structure, hence admits no more than one minimizer. This is an extension of an argument used in \cite{BermanBerndtsson} to prove uniqueness of K\"ahler-Einstein metrics on toric Fano manifolds. Curiously, there doesn't seem to be any direct argument for this using the Prekopa theorem on Riemannian manifolds (see \cite{CorderoEtAl}). Instead, we need to lift the problem to the covering space $\mathbb{R}^n$ and use that $\gamma$ is the push forward of a measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ with strong log-concavity properties.
\paragraph{Geometric Motivation}
In Section \ref{SectGeo} we explain the connections to the point processes on compact K\"ahler manifolds introduced by Berman in \cite{BermanBiRat}. More precisely, we explain the connection with a complex Monge-Amp\`ere equations on $\mathbb{C}^n/4\pi\mathbb{Z}^n+i\mathbb{Z}^n$ and how the wave functions and permanental point processes defined here are connected to theta-functions and determinantal point processes on $\mathbb{C}^n/4\pi\mathbb{Z}^n+i\mathbb{Z}^n$. Finally, in Section \ref{SectApprox} we show how the connection to optimal transport can be used to get explicit approximations of optimal transport maps on $X$.
We end this section with a comment. While some parts of Section~\ref{SectionLDP} might be well known to readers with a probabilistic background and, likewise, some parts of Section~\ref{SectRate} might be familiar to readers with a background in geometry or optimal transport we nevertheless want to provide a paper that is accessible to readers from all three of these fields. This should (at least partly) explain the length of the paper.
\section{Preliminaries: Optimal Transport on Real Tori}\label{SectOT}
In this section we will recall some basic theory of optimal transport. The content of the chapter is well known. Early contributors to the theory are Cordera-Erasquin \cite{Cordero} who established a a theory of optimal transport on real tori and McCann \cite{McCann} who took it to the very general setting of Riemannian manifolds. The reason for this is the close relation between optimal transport and real Monge-Amp\`ere equations. The most important part is Corollary \ref{CorrDXi}. There we explain how Kantorovich' duality theorem give a variational approach to real Monge-Amp\`ere equations and an explicit formula for the Legendre transform of the functional $\mu\rightarrow W^2(\mu,dx)$, where $W^2(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Wasserstein metric, a distance function on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ defined in terms of optimal transport and which turn up in the rate function describing the behaviour of the point process $\Gamma^{(N)}$ as $N\rightarrow \infty$.
\subsection{Kantorovich' Problem of Optimal Transport}
We will use Kantorovich' formulation (as opposed to Monge's formulation) of the optimal transport problem. The given data is a smooth manifold $Y$, a \emph{cost function} $c:Y\times Y\rightarrow [0,\infty)$, a \emph{source measure}, $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(Y)$ and a \emph{target measure}, $\nu\in \mathcal{M}_1(Y)$. Kantorovich problem of optimal transport is the problem of minimizing the functional
$$ C(\gamma) = \int_{Y\times Y} c(x,y) d\gamma(x,y) $$
over the set of \emph{transport plans}, $\Pi(\mu,dx)$, consisting of measures $\gamma\in \mathcal{M}_1(Y\times Y)$ such that the first and second marginals of $\gamma$ equal $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively. The optimal transport distance between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is the quantity
\begin{equation} \inf_{\gamma\in\Pi(\mu,dx)} C(\gamma). \label{EqTotalCost} \end{equation}
In our case $Y=X$, $\nu=dx$ and $c = d(\cdot,\cdot)^2/2$ where $d$ is the distance function on $X$ induced from $\mathbb{R}^n$. In other words, if $x,y\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\pi:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow X$ is the quotient map, then
$$ c(\pi x,\pi y) = \frac{d(\pi x,\pi y)^2}{2} = \frac{\inf_{m\in Z^n} |x-y-m|^2}{2}.$$
With this choice of cost function, \eqref{EqTotalCost} is often referred to as the (squared) Wasserstein distance, $W^2(\mu,dx)$, between $\mu$ and $dx$.
\subsection{The $c$-Transform and $c$-Convex Functions}\label{SectPX}
A cost function in optimal transport defines a $c$-transform, closely related to Legendre transform on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $C(X)$ be the space of continuous functions on $X$. For $\phi\in C(X)$ the $c$-transform of $\phi$ is
\begin{eqnarray} \phi^c(y)=\sup_{x\in X} -c(x,y)-\phi(x) = \sup_{x\in X} -\frac{d(x,y)^2}{2}-\phi(x) \label{CTransf} \end{eqnarray}
Note that if $\phi$ is a smooth function on $X$ such that $(\phi_{ij}+\delta_{ij})$ is positive definite, then there is a natural way of associating to $\phi$ a convex function on $\mathbb{R}^n$, namely
\begin{equation} \Phi(x) = \phi(\pi x)+\frac{x^2}{2}. \label{EqPhi} \end{equation}
Let $C(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be the space of continuous functions on $\mathbb{R}^n$ and if $\Phi\in C(X)$ let $\Phi^*$ denote the Legendre transform of $\Phi$. The map from $C(X)$ to $C(\mathbb{R}^n)$ given by $\phi\mapsto \Phi$, relates $c$-transform on $X$ to Legendre transform on $\mathbb{R}^n$ in the sense that
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaLegCom}
Let $\phi\in C(X)$ and
$$ \Phi(x) = \phi(\pi x) + \frac{x^2}{2}. $$
Then
$$ \Phi^*(y) = \phi^c(\pi y) + \frac{y^2}{2}. $$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray} \sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^n} -\frac{|x-y|^2}{2} - \phi(\pi x) & = & \sup_{x\in [0,1]^n, m\in \mathbb{Z}^n} -\frac{|x-y-m|^2}{2} - \phi(\pi x) \nonumber \\
& = & \sup_{x\in [0,1]^n} -\inf_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n} \frac{|x-y-m|^2}{2} -\phi(\pi x) \nonumber \\
& = & \sup_{x\in X} -\frac{d(x,\pi y)^2}{2} - \phi(x) \nonumber \\
& = & \phi^c(\pi y). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This means
\begin{eqnarray} \Phi^*(y) & = & \sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^n} \bracket{x}{y} - \Phi(x) \nonumber \\
& = & \sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^n} -\frac{|x-y|^2}{2} - \phi(\pi x) +\frac{y^2}{2} \nonumber \\
& = & \phi^c(\pi y) + \frac{y^2}{2}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
It follows that $\phi\in C(X)$ satisfies $(\phi^c)^c=\phi$ if and only if $\Phi$ is convex. The property $(\phi^c)^c=\phi$ is often referred to as $c$-convexity and we will denote the set of functions in $C(X)$ that satisfy this $P(X)$. Since $\Phi^*$ is convex for any $\Phi\in C(\mathbb{R}^n)$ we get that $\phi^c\in P(X)$, for any $\phi\in C(X)$. Moreover, also from the theory of convex functions on $\mathbb{R}^n$, we get that the projection $\phi\mapsto (\phi^c)^c$ of $C(X)$ onto $P(X)$ is monotone in the sense that $(\phi^c)^c(x) \leq \phi(x)$ for all $x\in X$.
Let $P(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be the set of convex functions on $\mathbb{R}^n$. It is easy to verify that the image of $P(X)$ in $P(\mathbb{R}^n)$ under the map $\phi\mapsto \Phi$ (where $\Phi$ is given by \eqref{EqPhi}) is given by the set
\begin{eqnarray} P_{\mathbb{Z}^n}(\mathbb{R}^n) & = & \{ \Phi\in P(\mathbb{R}^n): \Phi(x+m)-\frac{|x+m|^2}{2} = \Phi(x)-\frac{x^2}{2} \forall m\in \mathbb{Z}^n \} \nonumber \\
& = & \{ \Phi\in P(\mathbb{R}^n): \Phi(x+m) = \Phi(x)+\bracket{x}{m}+\frac{m^2}{2} \forall m\in \mathbb{Z}^n \} \nonumber \\
& & \label{DefCvx}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, let $\phi\in P(X)$ and $\Phi$ be the image of $\phi$ in $P_{\mathbb{Z}^n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Then $\Phi$ is differentiable at a point $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ if and only if $\phi$ is differentiable at $\pi x$. Since a convex function on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is differentiable almost everywhere we get that any $\phi\in P(X)$ is differentiable almost everywhere (with respect to $dx$). Further, it follows from \eqref{DefCvx} that $\Phi$ is differentiable at $x$ and $\nabla\Phi(x)=y$ if and only if $\Phi$ is differentiable at $x+m$ and $\nabla\Phi(x+m) = y+m$. This means the map $\nabla \Phi:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$, where it is defined, factors through to a map $X\rightarrow X$. This map is the so called $c$-gradient map in optimal transport, denoted $\nabla^c \phi$. It satisfies the formula
$$ \nabla^c\phi(\pi x) = \pi \nabla \Phi(x). $$ Further, $\Phi$ is differentiable at $x$ and $\Phi(x)=y$ if and only if $y$ is the unique point in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that
\begin{equation} \Phi(x) + \Phi^*(y) = \bracket{x}{y}. \label{EqGradDef1} \end{equation}
This holds if and only if
\begin{equation} \phi(\pi x) + \phi^c(\pi y) = -\frac{d(\pi x,\pi y)^2}{2}. \label{EqGradDef2} \end{equation}
We conclude that $\phi$ is differentiable and $\nabla^c \phi(\pi x)=\pi y$ if and only if $\pi y$ is the unique point in $X$ such that \eqref{EqGradDef2} holds. In fact, this is the usual definition of the $c$-gradient and one of its strengths is that it becomes immediately apparent that if $\phi$ is differentiable at $x$ and $\phi^c$ is differentiable at $y=\nabla^c\phi(x)$, then $\nabla^c\phi^c(y)=x$.
The definition of the Monge-Amp\`ere operator in \eqref{MAOp} makes sense for twice differentiable functions. We will now provide an extension of this operator to $P(X)$.
\begin{definition}\label{DefWeakOp}
Let $\phi\in P(X)$. We define the Monge-Amp\`ere measure, $\MA(\phi)$, of $\phi$ as
$$ \MA(\phi)= (\nabla^c\phi^c)_* dx. $$
Consequently, we refer to functions in $P(X)$ satisfying
$$(\nabla^c\phi^c)_* dx = \mu$$
as weak solutions to
\begin{equation}
\MA(\phi) = \mu \label{MAEqInHom}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Now, the following lemma will serve as a direct justification of Definition~\ref{DefWeakOp} and we will see in Theorem \ref{ThmKantDual} that it fits nicely into the theory of optimal transport. Moreover, weak solutions to \eqref{MAEqGen} in terms of Definition~\ref{DefWeakOp} is the natural analog of so called Alexandrov solutions to Monge-Amp\`ere equations on $\mathbb{R}^n$ (see Section~\ref{SectRegularity}). In fact, we will see in Lemma \ref{LemmaEqLift} that the map $\phi\mapsto \Phi$ where $\Phi$ is given by \eqref{EqPhi} gives a direct link between these two types of solutions.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaMASmooth}
Assume $\phi$ is smooth and $(\phi_{ij}+\delta_{ij})$ is strictly positive definite. Then
$$ \det( \phi_{ij} +\delta_{ij}) dx = (\nabla^c\phi^c)_* dx. $$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all, we claim that $\nabla^c\phi^c:X \rightarrow X$ is one-to-one. To see this, assume that $\nabla^c\phi^c(x_1)=\nabla^c\phi^c(x_2)$ for $x_1,x_2\in X$. Let $\tilde x_1, \tilde x_2\in\mathbb{R}^n$ be lifts of $x_1$ and $x_2$ respectively and $\Phi^*$ be the image of $\phi^*$ in $P_{\mathbb{Z}^n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. We get
$$ \nabla\Phi^*(\tilde x_1) = \nabla\Phi^*(\tilde x_2) + m. $$
By \eqref{DefCvx} we get $\nabla\Phi^*(\tilde x_1)=\nabla\Phi^*(\tilde x_2+m)$. But since $\phi$, and hence $\Phi$, is smooth $\Phi^*$ must be strictly convex. This means $\tilde x_1=\tilde x_2 + m$ and $x_1=x_2$, proving the claim.
The previous claim implies, since $\pi\circ \nabla\Phi^*=\nabla^c\phi^c\circ \pi$, that $\pi$ maps $\nabla\Phi^*([0,1)^n)$ diffeomorphically to $X$. Further,
\begin{equation} \det( \phi_{ij} +\delta_{ij})\circ \pi = \det(\Phi_{ij}) = \frac{1}{\det(\Phi^*_{ij})} \label{EqJacDet} \end{equation}
and the numerator of the right hand side of \eqref{EqJacDet} is the Jacobian determinant of the map $\nabla\Phi^*:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$. Let $h\in C(X)$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_X h \det(\phi_{ij}+\delta_{ij}) dx & = & \int_{\nabla\Phi^*([0,1)^n)} \frac{h \circ \pi}{\det(\Phi^*_{ij})} dx = \int_{[0,1)^n} h\circ \pi \circ \nabla\Phi^* dx \nonumber \\
& = & \int_{[0,1)^n} h\circ \nabla^c\phi^c \circ \pi dx = \int_X h\circ \nabla^c\phi^c dx. \label{EqChVar}
\end{eqnarray}
which proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Kantorovich Duality}
We now return to the problem of optimal transport. Although it has very satisfactory solutions providing existence and characterization of minimizers under great generality, we will only give part of that picture here. For us, the important feature of the problem of optimal transport is its dual formulation. Introducing the functional $\xi$ on $C(X)$ defined by
$$ \xi(\phi) = \int_X \phi^c dx $$
we get a functional $J$ on $C(X)$
$$ J(\phi)= -\int_X \phi d\mu - \xi(\phi). $$
This functional describes the dual formulation of the problem of optimal transport in the sense that $W^2(\mu,dx)$ can be recovered as the supremum of $J$ over $C(X)$. Moreover, the maximizers of $J$ are weak solutions to a certain Monge-Amp\`ere equation. This is recorded in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Kantorovich},\cite{KnottSmith},\cite{Brenier}]\label{ThmKantDual}
Let $\mu\in\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous with respect to $dx$. Let $c=d^2/2$ where $d$ is the distance function on $X$ induced from $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then
\begin{equation} W^2(\mu,dx) = \inf_{\gamma\in \Pi(\mu,dx)} I(\gamma) = \sup_{\phi\in C(X)} J(\phi). \label{KantDualEq} \end{equation}
and there is $\phi_\mu\in P(X)$ such that
\begin{equation} \sup_{\phi\in C(X)} J(\phi) = J(\phi_\mu). \label{DualOpt} \end{equation}
Moreover,
\begin{equation} \MA(\phi_\mu) =\mu. \label{PushForward} \end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Equation \ref{KantDualEq} is called Kantorovich' duality \cite{Kantorovich} and property \eqref{PushForward} is the Knott-Smith criterion which, in the context of Monge's problem of optimal transport, was discovered independently by Knott and Smith in 1984 \cite{KnottSmith} and by Brenier in 1987 \cite{Brenier}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ThmKantDual}]
The theorem is essentially given by Theorem 5.10 in \cite{VillaniOldNew}. As $X$ is a smooth manifold that can be endowed with a complete metric, $X$ is indeed a Polish space. Further, $d$ is continuous and bounded on $X$. Putting $\gamma'=\mu\times dx$ gives
$$\inf_{\gamma\in \P(\mu,dx)} I(\gamma) \leq I(\gamma')< \infty$$
hence the assumptions in 5.10.i, 5.10.ii and 5.10.iii in \cite{VillaniOldNew} holds. In particular we get that \eqref{KantDualEq} holds and that there is an optimal transport plan $\gamma\in\Pi(\mu,dx)$ and $\phi_\gamma\in P(X)$ such that $\gamma$ is concentrated on the set
\begin{equation} \{(x,y)\in X\times X: \phi_\gamma(x)+\phi_\gamma^c(y) = -c(x,y) \}. \label{DomGamma} \end{equation}
Let $\phi_\mu=\phi_\gamma$. To see that $\eqref{DualOpt}$ holds, note that, since the first and second marginals of $\gamma$ are $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively,
\begin{eqnarray} W^2(\mu,dx) & = & \int_{X\times X} c \gamma = -\int_{X\times X} \left(\phi_\mu(x) + \phi_\mu^c(y)\right) \gamma \nonumber \\
& = & -\int_X \phi_\mu(x)d\mu -\int_X \phi^c_\mu(y) dx. \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
To see that \eqref{PushForward} holds note that $\phi_\mu^c\in P(X)$ is differentiable almost everywhere with respect to $dx$. Let $A\subset X$ be a measurable set and $\dom\nabla^c\phi_\mu^c\subset X$ be the set where $\phi_\mu^c$ is differentiable. We have
$$\gamma(X\times \dom \nabla^c\phi_\mu^c)=dx(\dom \nabla^c\phi_\mu^c) = 1.$$
As $\gamma$ is concentrated on \eqref{DomGamma} we get that $\gamma$ is concentrated on the set
$$ \{(x,y): y\in \dom \nabla^c\phi_\mu^c, x=\nabla^c\phi_\mu^c(y) \}. $$
This means
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{(\nabla^c\phi_\mu^c)^{-1}(A)} dx & = & \int_{X\times (\nabla^c\phi_\mu^c)^{-1}(A)} d\gamma = \int_{A\times (\nabla^c\phi_\mu^c)^{-1}(A)} d\gamma \nonumber \\
& = & \int_{A\times X} d\gamma = \int_A d\mu, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
in other words $(\nabla^c\phi_\mu^c)_*dx=\mu$, which proves \eqref{PushForward}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Variational Approach to Real Monge-Amp\`ere Equations}
We will now reformulate the statement of Theorem \ref{ThmKantDual} in terms of the Legendre transform and Gateaux differentiability of the functional $\xi$. Recall that if $A$ is a functional on $C(X)$, then the \emph{Legendre} transform of $A$ is a functional on the dual vector space of $C(X)$, the space of finite signed measures on $X$, $\mathcal{M}(X)$. This functional is given by
$$ B(\mu)=\sup_{\phi\in C(X)} \int_Y \phi d\mu - A(\phi). $$
Recall also that if $A$ is convex, then $A$ is Gateaux differentiable at a point $\phi$ and has Gateaux differential $\mu$ if $\mu$ is the unique point in $\mathcal{M}(X)$ such that
$$ B(\mu) = \int_Y \phi d\mu - A(\phi). $$
A priory $W^2(\cdot,dx)$ is defined on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$. However, we may extend the definition to all of $\mathcal{M}(X)$ by putting $W(\mu,dx)=+\infty$ for any $\mu\notin \mathcal{M}_1(X)$.
We begin with the following lemma
\begin{lemma}\label{XiConv}
The functional $\xi$ is convex on $C(X)$. Moreover, let
$\phi_0,\phi_1\in C(X)$ and
$$ \phi_t=t\phi_1+(1-t)\phi_0. $$
Then, if $\xi(\phi_t)$ is affine in $t$,
$$ \nabla^c\phi_0^c = \nabla^c\phi_1^c $$
almost everywhere with respect to $dx$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all, for any $y\in X$, the quantity
\begin{equation} \phi_t^c(y) = \sup_{x\in X} -c(x,y) - \phi_t(x) \label{PhiC} \end{equation}
is a supremum of functions that are affine in $t$, hence it is convex in $t$. This implies $\xi(\phi_t)$ is convex in $t$.
Now, assume $\xi(\phi_t)$ is affine in $t$. This implies \eqref{PhiC} is affine in $t$ for almost all $y$. Assume $y$ is a point such that $\nabla^c\phi^c_0(y)$, $\nabla^c\phi_{1/2}^c(y)$ and $\nabla^c\phi^c_1(y)$ are defined and \eqref{PhiC} is affine. Let $x_{1/2}=\nabla^c\phi_{1/2}^c(y)$. This means
$$ \phi^c_{1/2}(y) = -c(x_{1/2},y) - \phi_{1/2}(x_{1/2}). $$
By construction
$$ \phi^c_{t}(y) \geq -c(x_{1/2},y) - \phi_{t}(x_{1/2}) $$
for any $t\in [0,1]$. As $\phi^c_{t}$ and $-c(x_{1/2},y) - \phi_{t}(x_{1/2})$ are affine functions (in $t$) that coincide in one point in the interior of their domains, this inequality implies that they coincide. This means $\nabla^c\phi_0^c(y) = \nabla^c\phi_{1/2}^c(y) = \nabla^c\phi_1^c(y)$.
As $\nabla^c\phi^c_0$, $\nabla^c\phi_{1/2}^c$ and $\nabla^c\phi_1^c$ are defined almost everywhere, this proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
This allow us to draw the following conclusions from Theorem \ref{ThmKantDual}
\begin{corollary}\label{CorrDXi}
The functional on $\mathcal{M}(X)$ defined by $\mu\mapsto W^2(-\mu,dx)$ is the Legendre transform of $\xi$. Moreover, for any $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ there is $\phi$ such that
$$ W^2(\mu,dx) + \xi(\phi) = -\int_X\phi d\mu. $$
Finally, $\xi$ is Gateaux differentiable on $C(X)$ and
\begin{equation} d\xi|_\phi = -\MA(\phi). \label{DXi} \end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The first statement is, as long as $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$, a direct consequence of \eqref{KantDualEq}. If $\mu\notin\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ then putting $\phi_C=\phi+C$ for some $\phi\in C(X)$ and $C\in \mathbb{R}$ gives $(\phi_C)^c=\phi^c-C$ and
$$ - \int_X \phi_C d\mu - \xi(\phi_C) = -\int_X \phi d\mu - \xi(\phi) + C(1-\mu(X)). $$
Letting $C\rightarrow \infty$ if $\mu(X)<1$ and $C\rightarrow -\infty$ if $\mu(X)>1$ gives
$$ \sup_{\phi\in C(X)} \phi d\mu - \xi(\phi) = +\infty, $$
proving the first statement. The second statement is also a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{ThmKantDual}. We will now prove that $\xi$ is Gateaux differentiable and that \eqref{DXi} holds. Let $\phi\in C(X)$. We claim that there is $\mu\in \mathcal{M}(X)$ such that
\begin{equation} \xi(\phi) + W^2(\mu,dx) = -\int \phi d\mu, \label{DXiEq1}\end{equation}
in other words $\mu$ is a supporting hyperplane of $\xi$ at $\phi$. To see this, note that since $W^2(-\cdot,dx)$ is the Legendre transform of $\xi$ we get that $W^2(\cdot,dx)$ is lower semi-continuous and
\begin{equation} \xi(\phi) + W^2(\mu,dx) \geq -\int \phi d\mu \label{XIWInEq}\end{equation}
for all $\mu\in \mathcal{M}(X)$. By lemma~\ref{XiConv}, $\xi$ is convex on $C(X)$. By the involutive property of Legendre transform
$$ \xi(\phi) = \sup_{\mu\in \mathcal{M}(X)} -\int_X \phi d\mu - W^2(\mu,dx). $$
Let $\{\mu_i\} \subset \mathcal{M}(X)$ be a sequence such that
$$ -\int_X \phi d\mu_i - W^2(\mu_i,dx) \rightarrow \xi(\phi). $$
We may assume, since $W^2(\mu_i,dx)= \infty$ if $\mu_i\notin \mathcal{M}_1(X)$, that $\mu_i\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ for all $i$. Since $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ is compact we may take a subsequence $\{\mu_{i_k}\}$ converging to some $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$. By the lower semi-continuity of $W^2(\cdot,dx)$ we get
$$ - \int_X\phi\mu -W^2(\mu,dx) \geq \liminf_{k\rightarrow \infty} -\int_X\phi_0 \mu_{i_k} -W^2(\mu_{i_k},dx) = \xi(\phi_0). $$
which, together with \eqref{XIWInEq}, proves the claim. We will now prove that this implies
\begin{equation} (\nabla^c\phi^c)_* dx = \mu. \label{DXiEq2} \end{equation}
As this relation determines $\mu$ we get that $\mu$ must be the unique supporting hyperplane at $\phi$. This implies $\xi$ is Gateaux differentiable at $\phi$ and $d\xi_\phi = \mu$, proving the second statement in the corollary.
Now, to see that \eqref{DXiEq2} holds, note that \eqref{DXiEq1} implies $W^2(\mu,dx)<\infty$ and hence $\mu\in M_1(X)$. By Theorem \ref{ThmKantDual} there is a function $\phi_\mu\in P(X)$ such that $\MA(\phi_\mu) = \mu$ and
$$ W^2(\mu,dx) + \xi(\phi_\mu) = -\int \phi_\mu d\mu. $$
This means $\mu$ is a supporting hyperplane of $\xi$ both at $\phi$ and at $\phi_\mu$. This implies $\xi(t\phi + (1-t)\phi_\mu)$ is affine. By Lemma~\ref{XiConv}, $\nabla^c\phi^c$ and $\nabla^c\phi_\mu^c$ coincide almost everywhere with respect to $dx$ and hence \eqref{DXiEq2} holds.
\end{proof}
\section{A Large Deviation Principle}\label{SectionLDP}
This section is devoted to Theorem~\ref{MainThmLDP} which will be the key part in the proof of Theorem \ref{MainThmGen}. Before we state Theorem~\ref{MainThmLDP} we will recall the definition of the relative entropy function.
\begin{definition}
Assume $\mu,\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}(X)$ and, if $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$, let $\mu/\mu_0$ denote the density of $\mu$ with respect to $\mu_0$. The \emph{relative entropy} of $\mu$ with respect to $\mu_0$ is
$$ Ent_{\mu_0}(\mu) = \begin{cases} \int_X \mu \log \frac{\mu}{\mu_0} & \textnormal{if $\mu$ is a probability measure and absolutely} \\
& \textnormal{continuous with respect to $\mu_0$} \\
+\infty & \textnormal{otherwise,} \end{cases} $$
\end{definition}
We recall the basic property that $Ent_{\mu_0}(\mu)\geq 0$ with equality if and only if $\mu=\mu_0$.
\begin{theorem}\label{MainThmLDP}
Let $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous and have positive density with respect to $dx$. Let $\beta \in \mathbb{R} $. Assume $\Gamma_\beta^{(N)}$ is defined as in section~\ref{SectPointProc}. Then
$$ \left\{\Gamma^{(N)}_\beta\right\} $$
satisfy a \emph{Large Deviation Principle} with rate $r_N=N$ and rate function
$$ G(\mu) = \beta W^2(\mu,dx) + Ent_{\mu_0}(\mu) + C_{\mu_0, \beta} $$
where $W^2(\mu,dx)$ is the squared Wasserstein 2-distance between $dx$ and $\mu_0$ (defined in the previous section) and $C_{\mu_0,\beta}$ is a constant ensuring $\inf_{\mathcal{M}_1(X)} G = 0$.
\end{theorem}
Before we move on we will recall the definition of a Large Deviation Principle.
\begin{definition}\label{DefLDP}
Let $\chi$ be a topological space, $\{\Gamma_N\}$ a sequence of probability measures on $\chi$, $G$ a lower semi continuous function on $\chi$ and $r_N$ a sequence of numbers such that $r_N \rightarrow \infty$. Then $\{\Gamma_N\}$ satisfies a \emph{large deviation principle} with rate function $G$ and rate $r_N$ if, for all measurable $E \subset \chi$,
$$ -\inf_{E^\circ} G \leq \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{r_N}\log \Gamma_N(E) \leq \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{r_N} \log \Gamma_N(E)\leq -\inf_{\bar E} G $$
where $E^\circ$ and $\bar E$ are the interior and the closure of $E$.
\end{definition}
In our case $\chi=\mathcal{M}_1(X)$. As we may endow $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ with the Wasserstein 1-metric, metricizing the topology of weak* convergence on $\chi$, we may think of $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ as a metric space. Further, by Prohorov's Theorem, $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ is compact. In this setting there is an alternative, and well known, criteria for when a large deviation principle exist.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaLDP}
Let $\chi$ be a compact metric space, $\{\Gamma_N\}$ a sequence of probability measures on $\chi$, $G$ a function on $\chi$ and $r_N$ a sequence of numbers such that $r_N \rightarrow \infty$. Let $B_d(\mu)$ denote the open ball in $\chi$ with center $\mu$ and radius $d$. Then $\{\Gamma_N\}$ satisfies a \emph{large deviation principle} with rate function $G$ and rate $r_N$ if and only if, for all $\mu\in \chi$
\begin{eqnarray}
G(\mu) & = & \lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{r_N} \log \Gamma_N(B_\delta(\mu)) \nonumber \\
& = & \lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{r_N} \log \Gamma_N(B_\delta(\mu)) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{B}$ be the basis of the topology on $\chi$ given by
$$ \mathcal{B} = \{B_d(\mu): d>0, \mu\in \chi\}. $$
By Theorem 4.1.11, Theorem 4.1.18 and Lemma 1.2.18 (recall that $\chi$ is compact by assumption) in \cite{DemboZeitouni}, $\{\Gamma_N\}$ satisfies a large deviation principle with rate function $G$ and rate $r_N$ if and only if
\begin{eqnarray}
G(\mu) & = & \sup_{B\in \mathcal{B} : \mu\in B} \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{r_N} \log \Gamma_N(B_\delta(\mu)) \nonumber \\
& = & \sup_{B\in \mathcal{B}: \mu\in B} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{r_N} \log \Gamma_N(B_\delta(\mu)). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now, if $\mu\in B\in \mathcal{B}$ then $B_d(\mu)\subset B$ for $d$ small enough. This means, since
\begin{equation} \lim_{d\rightarrow 0} \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{r_N} \log \Gamma_N(B_\delta(\mu)) \label{LDPEquiv1} \end{equation}
is increasing as $d\rightarrow 0$, that
\begin{equation} \eqref{LDPEquiv1} \geq \sup_{B\in \mathcal{B}: \mu\in B} \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{r_N} \log \Gamma_N(B_\delta(\mu)). \label{LDPEquiv2} \end{equation}
Since, for any $d>0$, $B_d(\mu)$ is a candidate for the supremum in the right hand side of \eqref{LDPEquiv2} we get that equality must hold in \eqref{LDPEquiv2}. The same argument goes through with $\limsup$ replaced by $\liminf$. This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
Finally we recall the well known
\begin{theorem}[Sanov's theorem, see for example 6.2.10 in \cite{DemboZeitouni}]
Let $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$. Then the family
$$ \left\{\left(\delta^{(N)}\right)_* \mu_0^{\otimes N}\right\} $$
satisfies a large deviation principle with rate $r_N=N$ and rate function $Ent_{\mu_0}$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{The Zero Temperature Case and the G\"artner-Theorem}\label{SectBetaInf}
Recall that $N=k^n$. For each $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$ we get a family of probability measures $\{\Gamma^{(N)}_\beta\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$. Theorem~\ref{MainThmGen} and Theorem~\ref{MainThmLDP} are both concerned with the behavior of these families. In this section we will consider the family $\{\Gamma^{(N)}_k\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$. We will prove a large deviation principle for this family (see Theorem~\ref{ThmBetaInf}) which, in Section~\ref{SectGenCase}, will be used to prove Theorem \ref{MainThmLDP}.
\begin{theorem}\label{ThmBetaInf}
Let $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous and have positive density with respect to $dx$. Assume $\Gamma_\beta^{(N)}$ is defined as in section~\ref{SectPointProc}. Then
$$ \{\Gamma^{(N)}_k\} $$
satisfies a large deviation principle with rate $r_N=kN$ and rate function
$$ G(\mu) = W^2(\cdot,dx). $$
\end{theorem}
Recall that if $\Gamma$ is a probability measure on a topological vector space $\chi$, then the moment generating function of $\Gamma$ is the functional on the dual vector space $\chi^*$ given by
$$ Z_\Gamma(\phi) = \int_\chi e^{-\bracket{\phi}{\mu}}d\Gamma(\mu) $$
where $\bracket{\cdot}{\cdot}$ is the pairing of $\chi$ and $\chi^*$.
The significance of this for our purposes lies in the G\"artner-Ellis theorem. Before we state this theorem, recall that a sequence of (Borel) probability measures $\{\Gamma_N\}$ on a space $\chi$ is \emph{exponentially tight} if for each $\epsilon\in\mathbb{R}$ there is a compact $K_\epsilon\subseteq \chi$ such that for all $N$
\begin{equation} \limsup_{\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N}\log \Gamma_N(\chi\setminus K_\epsilon) \leq \epsilon. \label{ExpTight} \end{equation}
In our case, when $\chi$ is compact, this is automatically satisfied since choosing $K_\epsilon=\chi$ for any $\epsilon$ gives that the left hand side of \eqref{ExpTight} is $-\infty$ for all $N$.
\begin{theorem}[The G\"artner-Ellis Theorem. See for example Corollary 4.5.27 in \cite{DemboZeitouni}]
Let $\chi$ be a locally convex topological vector space, $\{\Gamma_N\}$ an exponentially tight sequence of probability measures on $\chi$ and $r_N$ a sequence such that $r_N\rightarrow \infty$. Let $Z_{\Gamma_N}$ be the moment generating function of $\Gamma_N$ and assume
$$ F(\phi) = \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{r_N}\log Z_{\Gamma_N}(r_N \phi) $$
exist, is finite valued, lower semi continuous and Gateaux differentiable. Then $\Gamma_N$ satisfies a large deviation principle with rate $r_N$ and rate function given by the Legendre transform of $F$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{ThmBetaInf} will follow from the G\"artner-Ellis theorem and the crucial point will be the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaHNXi}
Let $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous and have positive density with respect to $dx$. Assume $\Gamma_\beta^{(N)}$ is defined as in section~\ref{SectPointProc}. Then
$$ \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{kN}\log Z_{\Gamma^{(N)}}(kN\phi) = \xi(-\phi). $$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that if $\mu_N$ is a measure on $X^N$ and $F$ is a function on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$, then, since $\Gamma^{(N)}=(\delta^{(N)})_*\mu_{\beta_N}^{(N)}$,
$$\int_{\mathcal{M}_1(X)} F(\mu) \Gamma^{(N)} = \int_{X^N} F\left(\delta^{(N)}(x)\right) d\mu^{(N)}_{\beta_N}.$$
Moreover,
$$ \bracket{kN \phi}{\delta^{(N)}(x)} = kN\int_X \phi \frac{1}{N} \sum \delta_{x_i} = k\sum \phi(x_i). $$
This means
$$ Z_{\Gamma^{(N)}}(kN\phi) = \int_{\mathcal{M}_1(X)} e^{\bracket{r_N\phi}{\mu}} \Gamma^{(N)} = \int_{X^N} e^{k\sum \phi(x_i) } d\mu_{\beta_N}^{(N)}. $$
Using the symmetries in the explicit form of $\mu_{\beta_N}^{(N)}$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{\Gamma^{(N)}}(kN\phi)
& = & \int_{X^N} \sum_{\sigma}\prod_i \Psi^{(N)}_{p_i}(x_{\sigma(i)}) e^{k\phi(x_{\sigma(i)})} d\mu_0^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{\sigma}\int_{\sigma^{-1}(X^N)} \prod_i \Psi^{(N)}_{p_i}(x_i) e^{k\phi(x_i)} d\mu_0^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & N! \int_{X^N} \prod_i \Psi^{(N)}_{p_i}(x_i) e^{k\phi(x_i)} d\mu_0^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & N! \prod_i \int_{X} \Psi^{(N)}_{p_i}(x) e^{k\phi(x)} d\mu_0 \label{EqTheorem0TempLimit}
\end{eqnarray}
Introducing the notation
$$ c^{(N)}_{p} = -\frac{1}{k}\log \Psi^{(N)}_{p} $$
we get
\begin{equation} Z_{\Gamma^{(N)}}(kN\phi) = N! \prod_{p\in \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{Z}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n} \int_{X} e^{k(-c^{(N)}_p+\phi)} d\mu_0. \label{EqZN2} \end{equation}
Now, we claim that
\begin{equation} c^{(N)}_p\rightarrow d(x,p)^2/2 \label{CNConv} \end{equation}
uniformly in $p$ and $x$.
To see this, note first that
$$d(x,p)^2 = \inf_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} |x-m|^2$$
and
\begin{eqnarray}
c_p^{(N)}(x) & = & -\frac{1}{k} \log \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} e^{-k|x-m|^2/2} \nonumber \\
& \leq & -\frac{1}{k} \log \sup_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} e^{-k|x-m|^2/2} = \inf_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} |x-m|^2/2. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, by the exponential decay of $e^{-|x-m|^2}$ there is a large constant, $C$, (independent of $x$ and $p$) such that
$$ \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} e^{-k|x-m|^2/2} \leq C\sup e^{-k|x-m|^2/2} $$
and
\begin{eqnarray}
c_p^{(N)}(x) & = & -\frac{1}{k} \log \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} e^{-k|x-m|^2/2} \geq -\frac{1}{k} \log \left(C\sup_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} e^{-k|x-m|^2/2}\right) \nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{\log C}{k} + \inf_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} |x-m|^2/2. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This proves the claim. We claim further that
\begin{equation} \frac{1}{k}\log \int_X e^{k(-c_p^{(N)}+\phi)} d\mu_0 \rightarrow (-\phi)^c(p) \label{PhiCClaim} \end{equation}
uniformly in $p$.
To see this, note first that \eqref{CNConv} together with the fact that the family $\{d(\cdot,p)^2/2: p\in X\}$ is equi-continuous implies that
$$\{c_p^{(N)}:k\in \mathbb{N},p\in X\}$$
is equi-continuous. This means for any $\epsilon>0$ there is $d>0$ such that for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and $p,x_*\in X$
\begin{equation} |c^{(N)}_p(x) - \phi(x) - (c_p^{(N)}(x_*) - \phi(x_*))|\leq \epsilon \label{ThmBetaInfEq1} \end{equation}
as long as $x\in B_d(x_*)$.
Further, as $\mu_0$ has full support, is absolutely continuous and has smooth density with respect to $dx$ there is a large constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation} C\mu_0(B_d(x_*)) \geq 1 \label{ThmBetaInfEq2} \end{equation}
for all $x_*\in X$. We get trivially
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{1}{k}\log \int_X e^{k(-c^{(N)}_{p}+\phi)} d\mu_0 & \leq & \frac{1}{k}\log \sup_{x\in X} e^{k(-c^{(N)}_{p}+\phi)} \nonumber \\
& = & \sup -c^{(N)}_p(x) +\phi(x) \label{ThmBetaInfEq3}
\end{eqnarray}
For each $N$, let $x^{(N)}_*$ satisfy
$$-c^{(N)}_p(x^{(N)}_*) +\phi(x^{(N)}_*) = \sup_{x\in X} -c^{(N)}_p(x) +\phi(x). $$
Using \eqref{ThmBetaInfEq1} and \eqref{ThmBetaInfEq2} gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{k}\log \int_X e^{k(-c^{(N)}_p+\phi)} d\mu_0 & \geq & \frac{1}{k}\log \int_{B_\delta(x_*^{(N)})} e^{k(\sup_{x\in X} -c^{(N)}_p+\phi-\epsilon)} d\mu_0 \nonumber \\
& = &\frac{1}{k}\log \int_{B_\delta(x_*^{(N)})} d\mu_0 + \sup_{x\in X}-c^{(N)}_p(x) + \phi(x)-\epsilon \nonumber \\
& \geq & \frac{1}{k}\log \frac{1}{C} \int_X d\mu_0 +\sup_{x\in X}-c^{(N)}_p(x) + \phi(x)-\epsilon. \label{ThmBetaInfEq4}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, letting $k,N\rightarrow \infty$ and $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ in \eqref{ThmBetaInfEq3} and \eqref{ThmBetaInfEq4} proves \eqref{PhiCClaim}. Recalling equation \eqref{EqZN2}, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{1}{kN}\log Z_{\Gamma^{(N)}}(kN\phi) & = & \frac{1}{kN} \log N! \prod_{p\in \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{Z}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n} \int_{X} e^{k(-c^{(N)}_p+\phi)} d\mu_0 \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\log N!}{kN}+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{p\in \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{Z}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n} \frac{1}{k}\log \int_{X} e^{k(-c^{(N)}_p +\phi)} d\mu_0 \label{LogZN}
\end{eqnarray}
By Sterling's formula, $\log N! \leq N\log N+O(\log N)$. This means, since $N=k^n$, that
the first term in \eqref{LogZN} is bounded by $(\log k^n)/k+O(\log k^n)/k^{n+1}$ which vanishes as $k\rightarrow \infty$. Finally, using \eqref{PhiCClaim} we get, since $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{p\in \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{Z}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n} \delta_p\rightarrow dx$ in the weak* topology, that the second term converges to
$$\int (-\phi)^c(p) dx = \xi(-\phi). $$
This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
When proving Theorem~\ref{ThmBetaInf} we will also need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaXiCont}
The functional $\xi$ is continuous on $C(X)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will prove that for any $\phi_0,\phi_1\in C(X)$
\begin{equation} \sup_X |\phi_0^c-\phi_1^c| \leq \sup_X |\phi_1-\phi_0|. \label{PhiPhiC} \end{equation}
Once this is established the lemma follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
To see that \eqref{PhiPhiC} holds, let $y\in X$. By compactness and continuity there is $x_y\in X$ such that
$$ \phi_0^c(y) = \sup_{x\in X} -c(x,y) +\phi_0(x) = -c(x_y,y)-\phi_0(x_y). $$
By construction
$$ \phi_1^c(y) = \sup_{x\in X} -c(x,y) +\phi_1(x) \geq -c(x_y,y)-\phi_1(x_y). $$
We get
$$ \phi_0^c(y)-\phi_1^c(y) \leq \phi_1(x_y)-\phi_0(x_y) \leq \sup_X |\phi_1-\phi_0|. $$
By interchanging the roles of $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ we get
$$ \phi_1^c(y)-\phi_0^c(y) \leq \sup_X |\phi_1-\phi_0| $$
and hence that \eqref{PhiPhiC} holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ThmBetaInf}]
We want to apply the G\"artner-Ellis theorem. As $\chi = M_1(X)$ is compact, tightness of $\Gamma^{(N)}$ holds automatically. By Lemma \ref{LemmaHNXi}
$$ \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{r_N} \log \Lambda_{\Gamma^{(N)}_k}(r_N\phi)=\xi(-\phi). $$
Further, $\xi$ is finite valued since $\phi^c$ is continuous, and hence bounded, for any $\phi\in C(X)$. By Lemma~\ref{LemmaXiCont}, $\xi$ is continuous. Finally, by Corollary~\ref{CorrDXi}, $\xi$ is Gateaux differentiable. As $W^2(-\cdot,dx)$ is the Legendre transform of $\xi$, and hence $W^2(\cdot,dx)$ is the Legendre transform of $\xi(-\cdot)$, the theorem follows from the G\" artner-Ellis theorem.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A Thermodynamic Interpretation and Reduction to the Zero Temperature Case}\label{SectGenCase}
The proof of Theorem \ref{MainThmLDP} is based on a result on large deviation principles for Gibbs measures. Because of this we explain in this section how $\{\mu_\beta^{(N)}\}$ can be seen as the Gibbs measures of certain thermodynamic systems. If we introduce the $N$-particle Hamiltonian
$$ H^{(N)}(x_1, \ldots, x_N) = -\frac{1}{k}\log \perm(\Psi_{p_i}(x_j)) $$
we may write $\mu^{(N)}_\beta$ on the form
$$ \mu_\beta^{(N)} = e^{-\beta H^{(N)}}d\mu_0^{\otimes N}. $$
This means $\mu_\beta^{(N)}$ admits a thermodynamic interpretation as the \emph{Gibbs measure}, or \emph{canonical ensemble}, of the system determined by the Hamiltonian $H^{(N)}$ and the background measure $\mu_0$. In this interpretation $\mu_\beta^{(N)}$ is the equilibrium state of the system when the temperature is assumed fixed at $Temp=1/\beta$ and Theorem \ref{ThmBetaInf} is describing the zero-temperature limit. Theorem~\ref{MainThmLDP} will follow from Theorem~\ref{ThmBetaInf} and a theorem on equi-continuous and uniformly bounded Hamiltonians. To state that theorem we need to define what it means for the family $\{\frac{H^{(N)}}{N}\}$ to be equi-continuous. Let $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ be the distance function induced by the standard Riemannian metric on $X$. This defines distance functions, $d^{(N)}(\cdot,\cdot)$, on $X^N$ given by
\begin{equation} d^{(N)}(x,y) = d^{(N)}(x_1,\ldots, x_N,y_1,\ldots,y_N) = \frac{1}{N}\inf_{\sigma}\sum_i d(x_i,y_{\sigma(i)}) \label{DistDef} \end{equation}
where the infimum is taken over all permutations $\sigma$ of the set $\{1,\ldots, N\}$. We will say that the family of functions $\frac{H^{(N)}}{N}$ on $X^N$ is (uniformly) equi-continuous if for every $\epsilon>0$ there is $d>0$ such that for all $N$
\begin{equation} \left|\frac{1}{N}H^{(N)}(x)-\frac{1}{N}H^{(N)}(y)\right|\leq \epsilon \label{EquiContEq} \end{equation}
whenever $d^{(N)}(x,y)\leq d$.
Before we move on to state the Theorem~\ref{ThmRedToZeroTemp} we prove the following well known lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_N)\in X^N$ and $y=(y_1,\ldots, y_N)\in X^N$. Then \eqref{DistDef}
is the optimal transport cost
with respect to the cost function $d(\cdot,\cdot)$, of transporting the measure $\delta^{(N)}(x) = \frac{1}{N}\sum \delta_{x_i}$ to the measure $\delta^{(N)}(y)=\frac{1}{N}\sum \delta_{y_i}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We need to prove that
\begin{equation} \eqref{DistDef} = \inf_\gamma \int_{X\times X} d(x,y) \gamma \label{DistCost} \end{equation}
where the infimum is taken over all $\gamma\in \mathcal{M}_1(X\times X)$ with first and second marginal given by $\delta^{(N)}(x)$ and $\delta^{(N)}(y)$ respectively. We will refer to any $\gamma\in \mathcal{M}_1(X\times X)$ satisfying this as a feasible transport plan. The conditions on the marginals imply that any feasible transport plan is supported on the intersection of the sets $\{x_i\}\times X$ and $X\times \{y_i\}$, in other words on the set $\{x_i\}\times\{y_i\}$. We conclude that the set of feasible transport plans is given by
\begin{equation} \left\{\sum_{i,j} a_{ij} \delta_{(x_i,y_j)}: a_{ij}\geq 0, \sum_i a_{ij} = 1/N, \sum_j a_{ij} = 1/N\right\}, \label{Polytope} \end{equation}
in other words a polytope in $\mathcal{M}_1(X\times X)$. It follows that the infimum in \eqref{DistCost} is attained on one or more of the vertices of \eqref{Polytope}. Moreover, any permutation, $\sigma$, of $N$ elements induce a feasible transport plan
$$ \gamma_\sigma = \frac{1}{N}\sum_i \delta_{(x_i,y_{\sigma(i)})} $$
with transport cost
$$ \int_{X\times X} d(x,y) \gamma_\sigma = \frac{1}{N}\sum_i d(x_i,y_{\sigma(i)}). $$
It is easy to verify that any vertex of \eqref{Polytope} occur as $\gamma_\sigma$ for some permutation $\sigma$. This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
Note that this lemma implies that if we equip $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ with the Wasserstein 1-metric, which metricizes the weak* topology on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$, then the distance function defined in \eqref{DistDef} makes the embeddings $$\delta^{(N)}:X^N\hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}_1(X)$$
isometric embeddings.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{EllisEtAl}]\label{ThmRedToZeroTemp}
Assume $X$ is a compact manifold, $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$, $\{\frac{H^{(N)}}{N}\}$ is a uniformly bounded and equi-continuous family of functions on $X^N$ and $\beta_N$ is a sequence of numbers tending to infinity. Assume also that
$$ \left(\delta^{(N)}\right)_* e^{-\beta_N H^{(N)}}d\mu_0^{\otimes N} $$
satisfies a Large Deviation Principle with rate $N\beta_N$ and rate function $E$. Then, for any $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$,
$$ \left(\delta^{(N)}\right)_* e^{-\beta H^{(N)}}d\mu_0^{\otimes N} $$
satisfies a Large Deviation Principle with rate $N$ and rate function $\beta E + Ent_{\mu_0}$.
\end{theorem}
For completeness, we will include a proof of Theorem~\ref{ThmRedToZeroTemp} here. It will be based on the following
\begin{proposition}[\cite{EllisEtAl}]\label{TheoremThmRedToZeroTempHamConv}
Assume $X$ is a compact manifold, $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$, $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$, $\{\frac{H^{(N)}}{N}\}$ is a family of functions on $X^N$. Assume also that there is a functional $E$ on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ satisfying
\begin{equation} \sup_{X^N} \left|\frac{H^{(N)}}{N} - E\circ \delta^{(N)}\right| \rightarrow 0 \label{ThmRedToZeroTempHamConvEq}\end{equation}
as $N\rightarrow \infty$. Then
$$ \left(\delta^{(N)}\right)_* e^{-\beta H^{(N)}}\mu_0^{\otimes N} $$
satisfies a Large Deviation Principle with rate $N$ and rate function $\beta E + Ent_{\mu_0}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ and $B_d(\mu)$ be the ball of (Wasserstein-1) radius $d$ centred at $\mu$ and
$$ B^{(N)}_d(\mu) = (\delta^{(N)})^{-1}(B_d(\mu)) \subset X^N. $$
Using \eqref{ThmRedToZeroTempHamConvEq} we get
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \lim_{d\rightarrow 0} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{N}(\delta^{(N)})_*e^{-\beta H^{(N)}}\mu_0^{\otimes N}(B_d(\mu)) \nonumber \\
& = & \lim_{d\rightarrow 0} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{N}\log\int_{B^{(N)}_d(\mu)} e^{-\beta H^{N}(x)}d\mu_0^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & \lim_{d\rightarrow 0} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{N}\log\int_{B^{(N)}_d(\mu)} e^{-\beta N (E\circ \delta^{(N)}(x)+o(1))}d\mu_0^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & \beta E(\mu) + \lim_{d\rightarrow 0} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{N}\log\int_{B^{(N)}_d(\mu)} d\mu_0^{\otimes N}. \label{EqLDP}
\end{eqnarray}
and similarily with $\liminf$ replaced by $\limsup$ (here $o(1)\rightarrow 0$ uniformly in $x$ as $N\rightarrow \infty$). By Sanov's theorem $(\delta^{(N)})_*\mu_0^{\otimes N}$ satisfies a large deviation principle with rate $N$ and rate function $Ent_{\mu_0}$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{LemmaLDP}, the second term in \eqref{EqLDP} is $Ent_\gamma(\mu)$. Using Lemma~\ref{LemmaLDP} again, this proves the proposition.
\end{proof}
It turns out that in the compact setting, under the assumptions of uniform boundedness and equi-continuity, the assumption of convergence in Proposition \ref{TheoremThmRedToZeroTempHamConv} always holds for some functional $U$ on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaHamiltonianConv}
Assume $X$ is a compact manifold, $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ and $\{\frac{H^{(N)}}{N}\}$ is a uniformly bounded and equi-continuous family of functions on $X^N$. Then there is a function $U$ on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ such that, after possibly passing to a subsequence,
\begin{equation} \sup_{X^N} |\frac{H^{(N)}(x)}{N}-U\circ \delta^{(N)}(x)| \rightarrow 0 \label{EqLemmaAbstractConvergence} \end{equation}
as $N\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the embeddings $\delta^{(N)}:X^n\hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ the functions $H^{(N)}$ define a sequence of functionals, $\mathcal{H}^{(N)}$, defined on the subspaces $\delta^{(N)}(X^N)\subset \mathcal{M}_1(X)$. By a standard procedure (we will explain it below) it is possible to define an equi-continuous family of extensions, $\{U^{(N)}\}$, of $\frac{\mathcal{H}^{(N)}}{N}$ on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$. By Arzel\`a-Ascoli theorem $U^{(N)}$, after possibly passing to a subsequence, will converge to a functional $U$ satisfying \eqref{EqLemmaAbstractConvergence}.
We may define the extensions $U^{(N)}$ in the following way: Note that by assumption the functions $\frac{H^{(N)}}{N}$ all satisfy the same modulus of continuity, $\omega$. We define $U^{(N)}:\mathcal{M}_1(X)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as
$$ U^{(N)}(\mu)=\inf_{\nu\in \delta^{(N)}(X^N)} \frac{\mathcal{H}^{(N)}(\nu)}{N}+\omega(d(\mu,\nu)) $$
where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Wasserstein 1-distance on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$. It follows from the definition of moduli of continuity that $U^{(N)}=\frac{\mathcal{H}^{(N)}}{N}$ on $\delta^{(N)}(X^N)$. As $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ is compact we may take $\omega$ to be sub-additive. It follows that the function $\omega(d(\mu,\cdot))$ satisfies $\omega$ as modulus of continuity. This means $U^{(N)}$, being a supremum of functions satisfying $\omega$, also satisfy $\omega$. In particular the family $\{U^{(N)}\}$ is equi-continuous.
\end{proof}
We can now prove Theorem \ref{ThmRedToZeroTemp}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ThmRedToZeroTemp}]
As above, let $B^{(N)}_d(\mu) = (\delta^{(N)})^{-1} (B_d(\mu)) \subset X^N$, where $B_d(\mu)$ is the ball in $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ centered at $\mu$ with radius $d$. By the assumed Large Deviation Principle and Lemma \ref{LemmaLDP}, for any $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$,
$$ E(\mu) = \lim_{d\rightarrow 0} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} - \frac{1}{N\beta_N}\log \int_{B^{(N)}_d(\mu)} e^{-\beta_N H^N}\mu_0^{\otimes N}. $$
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{LemmaHamiltonianConv} there is a function $U$ on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ such that, after possibly passing to a subsequence, \eqref{EqLemmaAbstractConvergence} holds. This means
\begin{eqnarray}
E(\mu) & = & \lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{N\beta_N}\log\int_{B^{(N)}_d(\mu)} e^{-N\beta_N (U\circ \delta^{(N)}+o(1))}d\mu_0^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & U(\mu) + \lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \liminf_{N\rightarrow \infty} -\frac{1}{N\beta_N}\log\int_{B^{(N)}_d(\mu)} d\mu_0^{\otimes N} \label{EqRed} \\
& = & U(\mu). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the second term in \eqref{EqRed} is zero by Sanov's theorem. This means $E=U$ and the theorem now follows from Proposition \ref{TheoremThmRedToZeroTempHamConv}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{MainThmLDP}}\label{SectProofLDP}
To use Theorem \ref{ThmRedToZeroTemp} we need to verify that the family $\{H^{(N)}\}$ is equi-continuous. We will use the following two lemmas
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaLips}
The functions in $P(X)$ are Lipschitz with the Lipschitz constant $L=1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As the diameter of $X$ is 1 we get that the set
$$\{d(\cdot,y)^2/2:y\in X\}$$
is Lipschitz with the Lipschitz constant $L=1$. Now, assume $\phi\in P(X)$ and $x_1,x_2\in X$. By definition
$$ \phi(x) = \sup_{y\in X} -d(x,y)^2/2 -\phi^c(y). $$
for all $x$. By compactness and continuity there is $y_1$ such that
$$ \phi(x_1) = -d(x_1,y_1)^2/2 - \phi^c(y_1). $$
We have
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(x_2) & \geq & -d(x_2,y_1)^2/2 - \phi^c(y_1) = \phi(x_1) -(d(x_2,y_1)^2/2-d(x_1,y_1)^2/2) \nonumber \\
& \geq & \phi(x_1) - d(x_1,x_2). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
By interchanging the roles of $x_1$ and $x_2$ we get
$$ \phi(x_1) \geq \phi(x_2) - d(x_1,x_2) $$
and hence
$$ |\phi(x_1)-\phi(x_2)| \leq d(x_1,x_2). \qedhere $$
\end{proof}
We say that a function, $\Phi$, on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is \emph{$\lambda$-convex} if $\Phi-\lambda\frac{x^2}{2}$ is convex.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaLogConv}
Assume $\Phi_\alpha$ is a family of functions on $\mathbb{R}^n$ parametrized over some set $A$. Assume that for all $\alpha\in A$, $\Phi_\alpha$ is $\lambda$-convex. Let $\sigma$ be a probability measure on $A$. Then
$$ \log \int e^{\Phi_\alpha} d\sigma(\alpha) $$
is $\lambda$-convex.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume first $\lambda=0$. By the convexity of $\Phi_\alpha$ in $x$ and H\"older's inequality we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_A e^{\Phi_\alpha(tx_1+(1-t)x_0)} d\sigma(\alpha) & \leq & \int_A e^{t\Phi_\alpha(x_1)+(1-t)\Phi_\alpha(x_0)} d\sigma(\alpha) \nonumber \\
& \leq & \left(\int_A e^{\Phi_\alpha(x_1)}d\sigma(\alpha)\right)^t\left(\int_A e^{\Phi_\alpha(x_0)}d\sigma(\alpha)\right)^{(1-t)} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and hence, taking the logarithm of both sides of this inequality,
\begin{eqnarray} & \log\int_A e^{\Phi_\alpha(tx_1+(1-t)x_0)} d\sigma(\alpha) &\nonumber \\
\leq & t\log\int_A e^{\Phi_\alpha(x_1)}d\sigma(\alpha)+(1-t)\log\int_X e^{\Phi_\alpha(x_0)}d\sigma(\alpha). & \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For the general case, note that
$$ \log\int_A e^{\Phi_\alpha(x)} d\sigma(\alpha) - \lambda\frac{x^2}{2} = \log\int_A e^{\Phi_\alpha(x)-\lambda x^2/2} d\sigma(\alpha) $$
which is convex by the case considered above.
\end{proof}
We get
\begin{corollary}\label{CorHNLip}
The normalized energy functions
$$\{H^{(N)}/N: k\in \mathbb{N}\}$$
is an equi-continuous family (in the sense of \eqref{EquiContEq}).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We claim that
\begin{equation} c^{(N)}_p = \frac{1}{k}\log \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p} e^{-k|x-m|^2/2} \in P(X) \label{CorHnLipEq} \end{equation}
for all $p\in X$ and $k\in \mathbb{N}$. To prove the claim it suffices to prove that \eqref{CorHnLipEq} is $-1$-convex. This follows from Lemma \ref{LemmaLogConv} as $-|x-m|^2/2$ is $-1$-convex for all $m\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Further, fixing all but one variable we get a function on $X$ given by
\begin{eqnarray} x & \mapsto & H^{(N)}(x_1,\ldots x_{i-1}, x, x_{i+1},\ldots, x_n) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{k}\log \sum_\sigma e^{-kc^{(N)}_{p_{\sigma(i)}}(x)}\prod_{j \not= i} e^{-kc^{(N)}_{p_{\sigma(j)}}(x_j)} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{LemmaLogConv} this function is in $P(X)$. By Lemma \ref{LemmaLips} it satisfies the Lipschitz constant $1$. This means, if $x=(x_1,\ldots x_N)$ and $y=(y_1,\ldots, y_N)$ are points in $X^N$, that
\begin{eqnarray}
& |\frac{1}{N}H^{(N)}(x_1, \ldots, x_N) - \frac{1}{N}H^{(N)}(y_1, \ldots, y_N)| & \nonumber \\
\leq & \frac{1}{N}\sum_i \left|H^{(N)}(x_1, \ldots, x_{i-1}, y_i,\ldots y_N) - H^{(N)}(x_1, \ldots, x_i, y_{i+1},\ldots y_N)\right| \nonumber \\
\leq & \sum_i d(x_i,y_i). & \label{CorHNLipEq1}
\end{eqnarray}
As $H^{(N)}$ is symmetric we may reorder $\{x_i\}$ so that
$$ \sum_i d(x_i,y_i) = \inf_{\sigma} \sum_i d(x_i,y_{\sigma(i)}) $$
and hence the right hand side of \eqref{CorHNLipEq1} equals $d^{(N)}(x,y)$. This implies $H^{(N)}/N$ is equi-continuous in the sense of \eqref{EquiContEq}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{MainThmLDP}]
By Theorem~\ref{ThmBetaInf} and Theorem~\ref{ThmRedToZeroTemp} we only need to verify that the family $\{H^{(N)}/N\}$ is uniformly bounded and equi-continuous. The latter was proved in Corollary \ref{CorHNLip}. To see that $\{H^{(N)}/N\}$ is uniformly bounded recall that in the proof of Theorem \ref{ThmBetaInf} we proved that $-\frac{1}{k}\log \Psi^{(N)}_p(x)\rightarrow d(x,p)/2$ uniformly in $x$ and $p$. Since $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is bounded on $X\times X$ we get that there is constants $c,C\in \mathbb{R}$ such that, for all but finitely many $N$,
\begin{equation} c\leq \frac{1}{k}\log \Psi^{(N)}_p(x) \leq C \label{PsiBound} \end{equation}
for all $x,p$. As the functions $\{\frac{1}{k}\log \Psi^{(N)}_p\}$ are bounded on $X$ and there is only finitely many functions for each $N$, we may choose $c$ and $C$ such that \eqref{PsiBound} holds for all $N$. We get
$$ H^{(N)}(x)/N = \frac{1}{kN} \log \sum_{\sigma} \prod_i e^{\log \Psi_{p_i}(x)} \leq \frac{1}{kN} \log \sum_{\sigma} \prod_i e^{kC} = \frac{\log N!}{kN} + C $$
and
$$ H^{(N)}(x)/N = \frac{1}{kN} \log \sum_{\sigma} \prod_i e^{\log \Psi_{p_i}(x)} \geq \frac{1}{kN} \log \prod_i e^{kc} = c $$
for all $N$ and $x\in X^N$.
This proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{The Rate Function and its relation to Monge Amp\`ere equations}\label{SectRate}
In this section we will show how the rate function, $G$, in Theorem \ref{MainThmLDP} is related to Monge-Amp\`ere equations. More precisely, we will establish a variational approach to equation \eqref{MAEqGen} and then show that, under a certain condition, the minimizers of the $G$ are the Monge-Amp\`ere measures of solutions to $\eqref{MAEqGen}$ (see Lemma~\ref{LemmaDual}). This will allow us to finish the proof of Theorem \ref{MainThmGen}.
\subsection{The Variational Approach to Equation \eqref{MAEqGen}}\label{SectLemmaF}
In the variational approach to equation \eqref{MAEqGen} it is convenient to consider its normalized version:
\begin{equation} \MA(\phi) = \frac{e^{\beta \phi} \mu_0}{\int_X e^{\beta \phi} d\mu_0}. \label{MAEqNorm} \end{equation}
We see that this equation is invariant under the action of $\mathbb{R}$ on $P(X)$ given by
\begin{equation} C \mapsto (\phi \mapsto \phi + C). \label{EqRAction} \end{equation}
Now, we will say that an equation admits a unique solution modulo $\mathbb{R}$ if, for any two solutions $\phi_1,\phi_2\in C(X)$, $\phi_1-\phi_2$ is constant. It is easy to verify that \eqref{MAEqGen} admits a unique solution if and only if \eqref{MAEqNorm} admits a unique solution modulo $\mathbb{R}$. We will consider a certain energy functional (the analog of the Ding functional in complex geometry) whose stationary points correspond to weak solutions of \eqref{MAEqGen}. For given data $(\mu_0,\beta)$ this energy functional has the form
$$ F(\phi) = \xi(\phi) + \frac{1}{\beta}I_{\mu_0}( \beta\phi). $$
where $I_{\mu_0}$ is defined as
$$ I_{\mu_0}(\phi) = \log \int_X e^{\phi}\mu_0. $$
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaF}
Let $\beta\not=0$. The functional $I_{\mu_0}$ is Gateaux differentiable and
$$ dI_{\mu_0}|_{\phi} = \frac{e^{\phi}\mu_0}{\int_X e^{\phi}d\mu_0}. $$
Consequently, $F$ is Gatueux differentiable and $\phi$ is a stationary point of $F$ if and only if $\phi$ is a weak solution (in the sense of Section \ref{SectPX}) to \eqref{MAEqGen}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $v\in C(X)$. As $v$ is bounded an application of the dominated convergence theorem gives
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} I(\phi+tv) & = & \frac{\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\int_X e^{\phi+tv} d\mu_0}{\int_X e^{\phi} d\mu_0} \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\int_X \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} e^{\phi+tv} d\mu_0}{\int_X e^{\phi} d\mu_0} \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\int_X v e^{\phi} d\mu_0}{\int_X e^{\phi} d\mu_0}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
proving the first two statements of the lemma. By Corollary~\ref{CorrDXi}, $\xi$ is differentiable and $d\xi|_\phi = -\MA(\phi)$. This means $F$ is Gateaux differentiable and
$$ dF|_\phi = -\MA(\phi)+\frac{e^{\phi}\mu_0}{\int_X e^{\phi}d\mu_0} $$
proving the last statements of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Minimizers of the Gibbs Free Energy}\label{SectDual}
We will use the following well know property of the relative entropy function in the proof of Lemma~\ref{LemmaDual}.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaI}
Let $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ and $\phi\in C(X)$. Then
\begin{equation} I_{\mu_0}(\phi) + Ent_{\mu_0}(\mu) \geq \int_X \phi d\mu \label{EntIneq} \end{equation}
with equality if and only if $\mu=dI_{\mu_0}|_\phi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume first that $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu_0$ and $\mu_0$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$. By Jensen's inequality
\begin{eqnarray} I_{\mu_0}(\phi) & = & \log \int_X e^{\phi} \frac{\mu_0}{\mu} d\mu \nonumber \\
& \geq & \int_X \phi d\mu - \int_X \log\frac{\mu}{\mu_0}d\mu \nonumber \\
& = & \int_X \phi d\mu - Ent_{\mu_0}(\mu) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with equality if and only if $e^{\phi} \frac{\mu_0}{\mu}$ is constant, or, equivalently, $\mu$ is proportional to $e^{\phi}\mu_0$. As $\mu$ is a probability measure this means
$$ \mu = \frac{e^\phi \mu_0}{\int_X e^\phi d\mu_0} = dI|_\phi $$
proving the lemma in this special case.
If $\mu$ is not absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu_0$ then $Ent_{\mu_0}(\mu)=+\infty$ and the equality holds trivially. Finally, when $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu_0$ but $\mu_0$ is not absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$, then replacing $\mu_0$ by $\chi\mu_0$, where $\chi$ is the characteristic function of the support of $\mu$ doesn't change the right hand side of \eqref{EntIneq}. Since
$$ I_{\mu_0}(\phi) \geq \log\int e^{\phi} \chi d\mu_0 $$
this reduces this case to the case when $\mu_0$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$.
\end{proof}
We can now prove Lemma~\ref{LemmaDual}.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaDual}
Assume $\beta\not= 0$, $F$ admits a unique minimizer modulo $\mathbb{R}$ and $\phi_*$ is a minimizer of $F$. Then
\begin{equation} \mu_* = \MA(\phi_*) \label{MuMin} \end{equation}
is the unique minimizer of the rate function
$$ G(\mu) = \beta W^2(\mu,dx) + Ent_{\mu_0}(\mu) + C_{\mu_0,\beta} $$
defined in Theorem \ref{MainThmLDP}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
Note that $\phi_1-\phi_2=C$ implies $\phi^c_1-\phi_2^c=-C$ and hence
$$\MA(\phi_1)=(\nabla^c\phi_1^c)_* dx = (\nabla^c \phi_2^c)_*dx = \MA(\phi_2).$$
This means that, under the assumptions of Lemma~\ref{LemmaDual}, $\mu_*$ is uniquely determined by \eqref{MuMin}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{LemmaDual}]
Note that by Corollary \ref{CorrDXi} and Lemma \ref{LemmaI} we have, for all $\mu\in M_1(X)$ and $\phi\in C(X)$, the two inequalities
\begin{eqnarray}
W^2(\mu,dx)+\xi(\phi) & \geq & -\int \phi d\mu \label{LemmaDualEq1}\\
Ent_{\mu_0}(\mu) + I_{\mu_0}(\phi) & \geq & \int \phi d\mu \label{LemmaDualEq2}
\end{eqnarray}
where equality in \eqref{LemmaDualEq1} is characterized by
\begin{equation} d\xi|_\phi = -MA(\phi) = -\mu \label{EqInWXi} \end{equation}
and equality in \eqref{LemmaDualEq2} is characterized by $dI|_\phi = \mu.$
We will start with the case $\beta>0$. Let $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ and $\phi_*$ be the minimizer of $F$. Applying \eqref{LemmaDualEq1} to the pair $\mu$ and $\phi_*$ and \eqref{LemmaDualEq2} to the pair $\mu$ and $\beta\phi_*$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
G(\mu) & = & \beta W^2(\mu,dx) + Ent(\mu) \nonumber \\
& \geq & -\beta\int \phi_* d\mu -\beta\xi(\phi_*) + \int \beta \phi_* d\mu - I(\beta\phi_*) \label{LemmaDualEq4} \nonumber \\
& = & -\beta\left(\xi(\phi_*) + \frac{1}{\beta}I(\beta\phi_*)\right) = -\beta F(\phi_*) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with equality if and only if $d\xi|_{\phi_*} = -MA(\phi_*) = -\mu$ and $\mu=dI|_{\phi_*}$ which, since $d\xi|_{\phi_*} + dI|_{\phi_*} = 0$, is true if and only if $\mu=\MA(\phi_*)$.
For the case $\beta<0$, let $\mu\in\mathcal{M}_1(X)$. By Corollary~\ref{CorrDXi} we may take $\phi$ to satisfy equality in \eqref{LemmaDualEq1} and hence \eqref{EqInWXi}. A similar application of \eqref{LemmaDualEq1} and \eqref{LemmaDualEq2} as above, keeping in mind that we have equality in \eqref{LemmaDualEq1}, give
\begin{eqnarray}
G(\mu) & = & \beta W^2(\mu,dx) + Ent(\mu) \nonumber \\
& \geq & -\beta\int \phi d\mu -\beta\xi(\phi) + \int \beta \phi d\mu - I(\beta\phi) \label{LemmaDualEq6} \\
& = & -\beta\left(\xi(\phi) + \frac{1}{\beta}I(\beta\phi)\right) = -\beta F(\phi) \geq -\beta F(\phi_*). \label{LemmaDualEq5}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, equality in \eqref{LemmaDualEq5} holds if and only if $\phi=\phi_*$. But that means $d I|_\phi = -d\xi|_\phi = \mu$, hence we have equality in \eqref{LemmaDualEq6} as well. This implies $G(\mu)\geq-\beta F(\phi_*)$ with equality if and only if $\mu=\MA(\phi_*)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{MainThmGen} and Corollary \ref{CorrGen}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MainThmGen}]
Let $\phi_*$ be the unique solution to \eqref{MAEqGen}. It follows that \eqref{MAEqNorm} admits a unique solution modulo $\mathbb{R}$ and that $\phi_*$ is a solution to \eqref{MAEqNorm}. Now, we will use two results from the next chapter. Namely that any stationary point of $F$ is a \emph{smooth} solution to \eqref{MAEqNorm} (see Section \ref{SectRegularity}) and that $F$ always admit a minimizer (see Section \ref{SectExistence}). Under our assumptions, this implies $F$ admits a unique minimizer modulo $\mathbb{R}$ and that $\phi_*$ is a minimizer of $F$. Using Lemma \ref{LemmaDual} we get that $G$ admits the unique minimizer $\mu_*$ satisfying $\mu_*=\MA(\phi_*)$.
We want to prove that $\Gamma^{(N)}\rightarrow \delta_{\mu_*}$ in the weak* topology on $\mathcal{M}_1(\mathcal{M}_1(X))$. By the Portmanteau Theorem it suffices to verify that
\begin{equation} \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty} \Gamma^{(N)}(F) \leq \delta_{\mu_*}(F) \label{MainThmGenEq1} \end{equation}
for all closed $F\subset \mathcal{M}_1(X)$. If $\mu_*\in F$ then \eqref{MainThmGenEq1} holds trivially. Assume $\mu_*\notin F$. Recall that $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ is compact. This means the closed subset $F$ is compact. Since $G$ is lower semi-continuous there is $\mu_F\in F$ such that $\inf_F G = G(\mu_F)$. As $\mu_*\notin F$ is the unique point where $G = \inf G = 0$ we get that $G(\mu_F)=\inf_F G >0$. By the large deviation principle in Theorem \ref{MainThmLDP}
$$ \limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{r_N} \log \Gamma^{(N)}(F) \leq -\inf_F G < 0. $$
As $r_N\rightarrow \infty$ we get that $\limsup \log \Gamma^{(N)}(F) = -\infty$ and $\limsup \Gamma^{(N)}(F)=0$. This proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{CorrGen}]
Equation \eqref{EqMainThmGen} implies the first marginals of $\mu_\beta^{(N)}$,
$$ \int_{X^{N-1}}\mu^{(N)}_\beta, $$
converges to $\mu_*$ in the weak* topology of $M_1(X)$ (see Proposition 2.2 in \cite{Sznitman}). Now, $e^{\beta \phi_N}$ is the density with respect to $\mu_0$ of the first marginal of $\mu_\beta^{(N)}$.
We claim that the collection $\{\phi^{(N)}: k\in \mathbb{N}\}$ is equi-continuous and uniformly bounded. To see this, note that by Lemma \ref{LemmaLogConv}, $\phi^{(N)}$ is $-1$-convex and hence in $P(X)$. By Lemma \ref{LemmaLips} the functions $\{\phi^{(N)}, k\in \mathbb{N}\}$ satisfy the Lipschitz constant $L=1$. As
$$ \int_X e^{\beta\phi_N} \mu_0 = \int_{X^N} \mu_\beta^{(N)} = 1 $$
for all $N$, this means there are constants $c,C\in \mathbb{R}$, independent of $N$, such that $c\leq \phi_N\leq C$. This proves the claim. By the Arzel\`a-Ascoli theorem there is some function $\phi_\infty\in C(X)$ such that
$$\phi_N\rightarrow \phi_\infty$$
uniformly. As
$$ e^{\beta \phi_N}\mu_0 = \int_{X^{N-1}}\mu^{(N)}_\beta \rightarrow \mu_* = e^{\beta\phi_*}\mu_0 $$
in the weak* topology of $M_1(X)$ we get that $\phi_\infty = \phi_*$ almost everywhere with respect to $\mu_0$. As $\mu_0$ has full support and $\phi_\infty,\phi\in C(X)$, this means $\phi_\infty = \phi_*$.
\end{proof}
\section{Existence and Uniqueness of Solutions}\label{SectGibbsEnergy}
In this section we will treat questions of existence and uniqueness of solutions to \eqref{MAEqGen} for different data $(\mu_0,\beta)$. First of all we will prove that, for any data $(\mu_0,\beta\not=0)$, \eqref{MAEqGen} admit a weak solution. We will then explain how to reduce the problem of regularity to the case considered in \cite{BermanBerndtsson}, where the authors use Caffarelli's interior regularity theory for Monge-Amp\`ere equations. In the last part of the section we treat uniqueness. We first prove the claim made in Remark~\ref{RemBetaPos}, namely that as long as $\beta>0$ equation \eqref{MAEqGen} admits at most one solution. Finally we prove Theorem \ref{ThmFUniq} regarding $\beta\in [-1,0)$ and $\mu_0=\gamma$.
\subsection{Existence of Weak Solutions}\label{SectExistence}
First of all, Lemma \ref{LemmaLips} implies $P(X)$ satisfies the following (relative) compactness property:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaPComp}
Let $\{\phi_k\}$ be a sequence of functions in $P(X)$ such that $\inf_X \phi_k = 0$ for all $k$, then there is $\phi\in C(X)$ such that, after passing to a subsequence, $\phi_k\rightarrow \phi$ uniformly.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By lemma \ref{LemmaLips}, $\{\phi_k\}$ are Lipschitz with a uniform Lipschitz constant. As $X$ has finite diameter and $\inf_X \phi_k = 0$ for all $k$ this means $\{\phi_k\}$ is also uniformly bounded, hence the lemma follows from the Arzel\`a-Ascoli theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaFP}
Let $\phi\in C(X)$ and
$$ F(\phi) = \xi(\phi) + \frac{1}{\beta}I_{\mu_0}( \beta\phi). $$
Then
\begin{equation} F\left((\phi^c)^c\right) \leq F(\phi). \label{EqFP1} \end{equation}
Moreover, if $\mu_0$ has full support, then equality holds in \eqref{EqFP1} if and only if $\phi\in P(X)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $\phi^c\in P(X)$, and hence $((\phi^c)^c)^c = \phi^c$ for all $\phi\in C(X)$. Also, $(\phi^c)^c\leq \phi$ for all $\phi\in C(X)$. This means $\xi(\phi)=\xi((\phi^c)^c)$ and
\begin{equation} I_{\mu_0}((\phi^c)^c) = \frac{1}{\beta}\log\int_X e^{\beta(\phi^c)^c} d\mu_0 \leq \frac{1}{\beta}\log\int_X e^{\beta\phi} d\mu_0 = I_{\mu_0}(\phi). \label{EqFP2} \end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation} F\left((\phi^c\right)^c)\leq F(\phi). \label{EqFP3} \end{equation}
Assume $\mu_0$ has full support. Then, if $\phi\notin P(X)$ and hence $(\phi^c)^c(x)< \phi(x)$ for some $x\in X$, then, as both $(\phi^c)^c$ and $\phi$ are continuous and $\mu_0$ has full support, strict inequality holds in \eqref{EqFP2} and \eqref{EqFP3}. This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaExistence}
Let $\beta\in \mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$. Then $F$ admits a minimizer. In other words, \eqref{MAEqGen} admits a weak solution.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that
$$ F(\phi) = \xi(\phi) + \frac{1}{\beta}I(\beta\phi). $$
By the Dominated Convergence Theorem $\frac{1}{\beta}I(\beta\phi)$ is continuous in $\phi$. By Lemma~\ref{LemmaXiCont}, $\xi$ is continuous. This means $F$ is continuous. Let $\phi_k$ be a sequence such that $F(\phi_k)\rightarrow \inf F$. By Lemma \ref{LemmaFP} we may assume $\phi_k\in P(X)$ for all $k$. As $F$ is invariant under the action of $\mathbb{R}$ given in \eqref{EqRAction} we may assume $\phi_k$ satisfies $\inf \phi_k=0$ for all $k$. By Lemma \ref{LemmaPComp}, after possibly passing to a subsequence, $\phi_k\rightarrow \phi$ for some $\phi\in C(X)$. By continuity $F(\phi) = \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}F(\phi_k) = \inf F$, hence $\phi$ is a minimizer of $F$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Regularity}\label{SectRegularity}
In a numbers of papers (see \cite{Caffarelli1}, \cite{Caffarelli2}, \cite{Caffarelli4}) Caffarelli developed a regularity theory for various types of weak solutions to Monge-Amp\`ere equations. In particular, Caffarelli's theory applies to so called \emph{Alexandrov solutions}. Recall that if $f$ is a smooth function on $\mathbb{R}^n$, then a convex function $\Phi$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is an Alexandrov solution to the equation
$$ \det(\Phi_{ij}) = f $$
if, for any borel measurable $E\subset \Omega$,
$$ \int_E f dx = \int_{\partial \Phi(E)} dx $$
where $\partial\Phi(E)$ is the image of $E$ under the multivalued gradient mapping, in other words
$$ \partial\Phi(E) = \{ y\in \mathbb{R}^n: \Phi(x) + \Phi^*(y) = \bracket{x}{y} \textnormal{ for some } x\in E\}. $$
We have the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaEqLift}
Assume $\mu_0$ is absolutely continuous with density $f$ with respect to dx, $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$ and
\begin{equation} \MA(\phi) = e^{\beta\phi} \mu_0. \label{RegMAEq} \end{equation}
in the sense of Definition~\ref{DefWeakOp}. Then $\Phi = \phi\circ \pi + x^2/2$ is an Alexandrov solution to the equation
\begin{equation} \det(\Phi_{ij}) = e^{\beta(\Phi-x^2/2)} f\circ\pi \label{MAEqGenLift} \end{equation}
on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Moreover, $\Phi$ is proper.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume $E$ is a Borel measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$. To prove the first point in the lemma we need to prove
$$ \int_E e^{\beta(\Phi-x^2/2)}f\circ \pi dx = \int_{\partial\Phi(E)} dx. $$
Let $C_0=[0,1)^n\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\{C_i\}$ be a collection of disjoint translates of $C_0$ such that $E\subset \cup C_i$. Let $E_i=E\cap C_i$. We have
$$ \int_E e^{\beta(\Phi-x^2/2)}f\circ \pi dx = \sum_i \int_{E_i} e^{\beta(\Phi-x^2/2)}f\circ \pi dx = \sum_i \int_{\pi(E_i)} e^{\beta\phi} f dx $$
and by \eqref{RegMAEq}
$$ \sum_i \int_{\pi(E_i)} e^{\beta\phi} f dx = \sum_i \int_{(\nabla^c\phi^c)^{-1}(\pi(E_i))} dx. $$
Now, we claim that $\pi$ maps $(\nabla\Phi^*)^{-1}(E_i)$ bijectively onto
$$(\nabla^c\phi^c)^{-1}(\pi(E_i))$$
for all $i$. To see this note that if $y\in (\nabla\Phi^*)^{-1}(E_i)$, then
$$\nabla^c\phi^c\circ \pi(y) = \pi \circ\nabla\Phi^*(y) \in \pi(E_i), $$
hence $\pi(y)\in (\nabla^c\phi^c)^{-1}(\pi(E_i))$. On the other hand, if $y\in (\nabla^c\phi^c)^{-1}(\pi(E_i))$, let $\tilde x$ be the unique lift of $\nabla^c\phi^c(y)$ in $E_i$. Moreover, let $\tilde y$ be a lift of $y$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Since $\nabla^c\phi^c(y)=x$ we have $\nabla\Phi^*(\tilde y) = \tilde x + m_0$ for some $m_0\in \mathbb{Z}^n$. We have that
$$\pi^{-1}(y)=\{\tilde y+m: m\in \mathbb{Z}^n\}$$
and by \eqref{DefCvx}
$$ \nabla\Phi^*(\tilde y+m) = \nabla\Phi^*(\tilde y)+m=\tilde x + m_0+m. $$
We conclude that $\nabla\Phi^*(\tilde y+m)\in E_i$ if and only if $m=-m_0$ and then $\nabla\Phi^*(\tilde y+m)=\tilde x$. This means $\pi$ maps $(\nabla\Phi^*)^{-1}(E_i)$ bijectively onto $(\nabla^c\phi^c)^{-1}(\pi(E_i))$ as claimed. We get
$$ \sum_i \int_{(\nabla^c\phi^c)^{-1}(\pi(E_i))} dx = \sum_i\int_{(\nabla\Phi^*)^{-1}(E_i)} dx = \int_{(\nabla\Phi^*)^{-1}(E)} dx $$
where the second inequality holds since the sets $(\nabla\Phi^*)^{-1}(E_i)$ are disjoint. Now, let $\dom\nabla\Phi^*$ be the set where $\nabla\Phi^*$ is defined. We have
\begin{eqnarray} \dom\nabla\Phi^*\cap \partial \Phi(E) & = & \{y\in \mathbb{R}^n: \nabla\Phi^*(y) = x \textnormal{ for some } x\in E\} \nonumber \\
& = & (\nabla\Phi^*)^{-1}(E). \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
Since $\Omega\setminus \dom\nabla\Phi^*$ is a zero-set with respect to $dx$ we have
$$ \int_{(\nabla\Phi^*)^{-1}(E)} dx = \int_{\partial\Phi(E)} dx $$
which proves the first part of the lemma.
To see that $\Phi$ is proper, note that since $\phi$ is continuous it is bounded on $X$. Let $C=\inf_X\phi$. We get
$$ \Phi(x) = \phi(\pi x) + \frac{x^2}{2} \geq C-1+|x|. \qedhere $$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaRegularity}
Assume $\mu_0$ is absolutely continuous with smooth density with respect to $dx$ and $\phi\in P(X)$ satisfies \eqref{MAEqGen} in the sense of Definition \ref{DefWeakOp}. Then $\phi$ is smooth.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We refer to \cite{BermanBerndtsson} (more precisely, step three in the proof of Theorem 1.1) where the authors explain why, by Caffarelli's regularity theory, proper Alexandrov solutions on $\mathbb{R}^n$ to the equation
\begin{equation} \det(\Phi_{ij}) = F(\Phi,x), \label{EqBoRob} \end{equation}
where $F$ is smooth, are smooth. Strictly speaking the authors use an additional assumption of ''finite energy'', but the only way this is used is to guarantee properness of $\Phi$. By Lemma \ref{LemmaEqLift}, $\Phi=\phi\circ \pi + x^2/2$ is proper and satisfies \eqref{MAEqGenLift} in the Alexandrov sense. As \eqref{MAEqGenLift} is indeed a special case of \eqref{EqBoRob} this proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Uniqueness}\label{SectStrictConv}
We first prove the claim made in Remark~\ref{RemBetaPos}.
\begin{theorem}\label{ThmUniqPos}
Let $\mu_0\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous with smooth density with respect to $dx$ and $\beta>0$. Then \eqref{MAEqGen} admits a unique solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{LemmaExistence} and Lemma \ref{LemmaRegularity} there always exist a solution to $\eqref{MAEqGen}$. To prove uniqueness it suffices to prove that the normalized equation \eqref{MAEqNorm} admits a unique solution modulo $\mathbb{R}$, in other words that $F$ admits a unique minimizer modulo $\mathbb{R}$. Assume then $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ satisfies
\begin{equation} F(\phi_0) = F(\phi_1) = \inf_{C(X)} F. \label{FInf} \end{equation}
Let $\phi_t=t\phi_1+(1-t)\phi_0$. Applying Lemma~\ref{LemmaLogConv} with $A=X$ and $\Phi_\alpha(x)=\phi_x(\alpha)$ gives that
$$ I_{\mu_0}(\phi_t) = \log\int_X e^{\phi_t} d\mu_0 $$
is convex in $t$. Now, $\xi(\phi_t)$ is convex in $t$ by Lemma \ref{XiConv}.
This means $F(\phi_t)$ is convex and hence, by \eqref{FInf}, constant in $t$. It follows that $I_{\mu_0}(\phi_t)$ is affine in $t$. However, if we let $v=\frac{d}{dt}\phi_t = \phi_1-\phi_0$, then
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d^2}{dt^2} I_{\mu_0}(\phi_t) & = & \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\int_X v e^{\phi_t} d\mu_0}{\int_X e^{\phi_t}d\mu_0}\right) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\int_X v^2 e^{\phi_t}d\mu_0\int_X e^{\phi_t}d\mu_0 - \left(\int_X v e^{\phi_t}d\mu_0\right)^2}{\left(\int_X e^{\phi_t}d\mu_0\right)^2} \label{EqDDI}
\end{eqnarray}
Further, if we let $\nu_t$ be the probability measure
$$\nu_t = \frac{e^{\phi_t}d\mu_0}{\int_X e^{\phi_t}d\mu_0}$$
and $\hat v$ be the constant
$$ \hat v = \int_X v \nu_t $$
then
$$ \eqref{EqDDI} = \int_X v^2 \nu_t - \hat v^2 = \int_X v^2 \nu_t - 2\hat v \int_X v \nu_t + \hat v^2 = \int_X (v-\hat v)^2 \nu_t. $$
In particular, since $I_{\mu_0}(\phi_t)$ is affine in $t$ we get that $v=\hat v$, hence that $\phi_1-\phi_0$ is constant. This proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
We now turn to the proof of Theorem~\ref{ThmFUniq}. We will use
\begin{theorem}[The Prekopa Inequality \cite{Borell}, \cite{Dubuc},\cite{Prekopa}]
Let $\phi:[0,1]\times \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a convex function. Define
$$ \hat\phi(t) = -\log \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} e^{-\phi(t,x)} dx. $$
Then, for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$
$$ \hat\phi(t) \leq t\hat\phi(1) + (1-t)\hat\phi(0) $$
with equality if and only if there is $v\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $C\in \mathbb{R}$ such that
$$ \phi(t,x) = \phi(0,x-tv)+tC. $$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ThmFUniq}]
By Lemma \ref{LemmaExistence} and Lemma \ref{LemmaRegularity} there always exist a solution to $\eqref{MAEqSpec}$. Similarily as in the proof of Theorem \ref{ThmUniqPos}, to prove uniqueness it suffices to prove that $F$ admits a unique minimizer modulo $\mathbb{R}$. Assume $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ satisfies
$$ F(\phi_0) = F(\phi_1) = \inf_{C(X)} F. $$
By Lemma \ref{LemmaFP} any minimizer of $F$ is in $P(X)$, hence $(\phi_0^c)^c = \phi_0$ and $(\phi_1^c)^c = \phi_1$. This means the following equation defines a curve in $C(X)$ connecting $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$:
\begin{equation} \phi_t = \left( t(\phi_1)^c + (1-t)(\phi_0)^c \right)^c. \label{EqGeodesics} \end{equation}
Note that, as $P(X)$ is convex and $\phi^c_0,\phi^c_1\in P(X)$ we get $t\phi_1^c+(1-t)\phi_0^c\in P(X)$ and
\begin{equation} F(\phi_t) = \int_X t\phi_1^c+(1-t)\phi_0^c dx + \frac{1}{\beta} \log \int_X e^{\beta \phi_t} d\gamma. \end{equation}
The first term of this is affine in $t$. The second term is given by
\begin{equation} \frac{1}{\beta} \log \int_X e^{\beta \phi_t} \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n} e^{|x-m|^2/2} dx = \frac{1}{\beta} \log \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} e^{\beta \phi_t\circ \pi-x^2/2} dx. \label{EqF} \end{equation}
Let $\Phi_t = \phi_t\circ\pi + x^2/2$. By Lemma~\ref{LemmaLegCom}, since $\phi_t$ is the $c$-transform $t\phi_1^c+(1-t)\phi_0^c$, we have
\begin{equation} \Phi_t(x) = \sup_{y\in \mathbb{R}^n} \bracket{x}{y} - \left(t\phi_1^c+(1-t)\phi_0^c\right)\circ\pi(y)-\frac{y^2}{2}. \label{EqProof2} \end{equation}
As
$$\bracket{x}{y} - \left(t\phi_1^c+(1-t)\phi_0^c\right)\circ\pi(y)-\frac{y^2}{2}$$
is affine in $(t,x)$ we get that \eqref{EqProof2} is convex in $(t,x)$. It follows that, as long as $\beta\in [-1,0)$, the exponent in \eqref{EqF},
\begin{eqnarray} \beta \phi_t\circ \pi(x)-x^2/2 & = & \beta (\phi_t\circ\pi(x) + x^2/2) - (\beta+1) x^2/2 \nonumber \\
& = & \beta\Phi_t(x) - (\beta+1)x^2/2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
is concave in $(t,x)$. We may then apply the Prekopa inequality to deduce that $\eqref{EqF}$ and hence $F(\phi_t)$ is convex in $t$. In particular, as $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ are minimizers of $F$, this means $F(\phi_t)=F(\phi_0)=F(\phi_1)$ for all $t\in [0,1]$. This imples \eqref{EqF} is affine in $t$. By the equality case in the Prekopa inequality
$$ \beta\phi_1\circ\pi(x)-x^2/2 = \beta\phi_0\circ\pi(x-v)-(x-v)^2/2 +C $$
for some $C\in \mathbb{R}$ and $v\in \mathbb{R}^n$. By noting that $\phi_1\circ\pi$ and $\phi_0\circ\pi(\cdot-v)$, and hence
$$ \beta\phi_1\circ\pi-\beta\phi_0\circ\pi(\cdot-v) = \bracket{\cdot}{v} +v^2/2 + C, $$
should descend to a function on $X$ (in other words, they should be invariant under the action of $\mathbb{Z}^n$), we get that $v=0$. This means $\phi_1=\phi_0+C$ which proves Theorem \ref{ThmFUniq}.
\end{proof}
\section{Geometric Motivation}\label{SectGeo}
The original motivation for this project comes from the paper on statistical mechanics and birational geometry by Berman \cite{BermanBiRat}. Berman introduces a thermodynamic approach to produce solutions to the complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation
\begin{equation} \MA_\mathbb{C}(u) = e^{\beta u} \mu_0 \label{CxMAEq} \end{equation}
on a compact K\"ahler manifold $M$. The Monge-Amp\`ere operator in \eqref{CxMAEq} is defined as
\begin{equation} (i\partial\bar\partial u + \omega_0)^n \label{CxMAOp} \end{equation}
where $n$ is the complex dimension of $M$ and $\omega_0$ is a fixed K\"ahler-form on $M$ representing the Chern class of a line bundle $L$ over $M$. A solution, $u$, should be a real valued twice differentiable function on $M$ satisfying $i\partial\bar\partial u + \omega_0>0$. As Berman's thermodynamic approach to this equation has served as an inspiration for us, we outline it here.
The metric, $\omega_0$ determines, up to a constant, a metric on $L$. For each $k>0$, let $N=N_k=H^0(M,L)$. By assumption on $\omega_0$, $L$ is ample and hence $N_k\rightarrow \infty$ as $k\rightarrow \infty$. Let $s_1,\ldots s_N$ be a basis of $H^0(M,L)$. Locally we may identify this basis with a collection of functions $f_1,\ldots f_N$. The map
$$ (x_1,\ldots,x_N) \mapsto \det(f_i(x_j)) $$
determines a section, $\det(s_1,\ldots,s_N)$, of the induced line bundle $L^{\boxtimes N_k}$ over $M_N$. The metric on $L$ induces a metric, $\norm{\cdot}$, on this line bundle and
\begin{equation} \norm{\det(s_1,\ldots,s_N)}^{2\beta/k} \mu_0 \label{CxPP} \end{equation}
determines a symmetric measure on $M^N$. Note that changing the basis of $H^0(M,L)$ will give the same result up to a multiplicative constant. As long as this measure has finite volume we may normalize it to get a symmetric probability measure on $M^N$.
Now, Berman shows that if $\beta>0$ and the singularities of $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}$ are controlled in a certain way, then the point processes defined by \eqref{CxPP} converge to the Monge-Amp\`ere measure of a solution to \eqref{CxMAEq}. However, it should be stressed that when $\beta<0$ there is no guarantee that \eqref{CxPP} has finite volume and can be normalized to a probability measure. This turns out to be a subtle property and in one of the most famous versions of equation \eqref{CxMAEq}, when $M$ is a Fano manifold and $\omega_0$, $\mu$ and $\beta$ are chosen so that solutions to \eqref{CxMAEq} define K\"ahler-Einstein metrics of positive curvature, this reduces to a property of the manifold $M$ which is conjectured to be equivalent to the existence of K\"ahler-Einstein metrics on $M$ (see \cite{Kento} for some progress on this). We will explain in Section~\ref{SectionEqPush} how equation \eqref{MAEqSpec} can be seen as the ''push forward'' to a real setting of a complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation whose solution define K\"ahler-Einstein metrics of almost everywhere positive curvature. In that sense, the present project can be seen as an attempt to study one side of this complex geometric problem.
\subsection{Equation \eqref{MAEqSpec} as the "Push Forward" of a Complex Monge-Amp\`ere Equation}\label{SectionEqPush}
Let $M=\mathbb{C}^n/(4\pi\mathbb{Z}^n+i\mathbb{Z}^n)$ and $\theta$ be the function on $\mathbb{C}^n$ defined as
$$ \theta(z)=\sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n} e^{-m^2/4+izm/2}. $$
This is the classical $\theta$-function and it satisfies the following transformation properties:
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta(z+4\pi) & = & \theta(z) \nonumber \\
\theta(z+i) & = & \theta(z)e^{iz/2-1/4}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, the zero set of $\theta$ defines the \emph{theta divisor}, $D$, on $M$ and, using certain trivializations of the line bundle associated to $D$, $\theta$ descends to a holomorphic section of this line bundle. This means $\tau = i\partial\bar\partial \log |\theta|^2$ is a well-defined (1,1)-current on $M$ and we may consider the twisted K\"ahler-Einstein equation
\begin{equation} \Ric (\omega) + \tau = \omega \label{EqTKEPos} \end{equation}
on $M$, where $\Ric(\omega)$ denotes the Ricci curvature of $\omega$. The current $\tau$ is supported on $D$ so away from $D$ this equation define metrics of constant positive Ricci curvature. Now, there is a standard procedure to rewrite \eqref{EqTKEPos} into a scalar equation of type \eqref{CxMAEq}. This process involves choosing a reference form $\omega_0$ in the cohomology class of $\tau$ and fixing a Ricci-potential of $\omega_0$, $F$, such that
$$i\partial \bar\partial F = \Ric(\omega_0)+\tau-\omega_0. $$
Choosing $\omega_0=\sum_i idz_i\wedge d\bar z_i$ and $F=-y^2/2+\log |\theta|^2$ gives the equation
\begin{equation} \MA_\mathbb{C}(u) = e^{-u-y^2/2}|\theta|^2\omega_0^n. \label{CxMAEqSpec} \end{equation}
In other words, we arrive at equation \eqref{CxMAEq} with the choices
$$\mu_\mathbb{C} = |\theta^2|e^{-y^2/2} \omega_0^n$$
and
$\beta=-1$. Now, let $z=x+iy$ be the standard coordinates on $M$ induced from $\mathbb{C}^n$. Let $\rho:M\rightarrow X$ be the map $z\mapsto y$. If $\phi$ is a twice differentiable function on $X$ such that $(\phi_{ij}+\delta_{ij})$ is strictly positive definite, then $u(z) := \phi(y)$ defines a (rotationally invariant) twice differentiable function on $M$ satisfying $i\partial\bar\partial u +\omega_0>0$. Moreover,
\begin{equation} \rho_* \MA_\mathbb{C}(u) = \MA(\phi) \label{CxReMA} \end{equation}
where $\MA(u)$ is the complex Monge-Amp\`ere measure on $M$ defined in \eqref{CxMAOp} and $\MA(\phi)$ is the real Monge-Amp\`ere measure on $X$ defined in \eqref{MAOp}. Further, at the end of the next sextion we will prove
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaThetaPush}
\begin{equation} \rho_* \left(e^{-y^2/2}|\theta|^2\omega_0^n\right) = \gamma \label{EqThetaPush} \end{equation}
where $dy$ is the uniform measure on $X$.
\end{lemma}
Since $u$ is rotationally invariant we get that
$$ \rho_* \left(\MA_\mathbb{C}(u)-e^{-u-y^2/2}|\theta|^2\omega_0^n\right) = \MA(\phi)-e^{-\phi}\gamma $$
and this is the relation that makes us refer to equation \eqref{MAEqSpec} as the ''push forward'' of equation \eqref{CxMAEqSpec}.
\subsection{Permanental Point Processes as the Push Forward of Determinantal Point Processes}\label{SectionDetPerm}
Here we will establish a connection between the permanental point processes defined in Section \ref{SectPointProc} and the determinantal point processes defined in Bermans framework. The connection is a consequence of a certain formula that relates integrals of determinants to permanents. This formula might be of independent interest and is given in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaDetPerm}
Let $(E,\mu)$ be a measure space. Let $N\in \mathbb{N}$ and
$$\{F_{jk}: j=1\ldots N, k=1\ldots N \}$$
be a collection of complex valued functions on $E$, square integrable with respect to $\mu$, such that, for each $j$
$$ \int_E F_{jk}\overline{F_{jl}} d\mu = 0 $$
if $k\not=l$. Then
$$ \perm\left(\int_E |F_{jk}|^2d\mu \right) = \int_{E^N}|\det(F_{jk}(x_j))|^2d\mu^{\otimes N}. $$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Now,
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \int_{E^N}|\det(F_{jk}(x_j))|^2 d\mu^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & \int_{E^N}\det(F_{jk}(x_j))\overline{\det(F_{jk}(x_j))}d\mu^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & \int_{E^N} \left(\sum_\sigma (-1)^\sigma\prod_j F_{j\sigma(k)}(x_j)\right)\overline{\left(\sum_{\sigma'} (-1)^{\sigma'}\prod_j F_{j\sigma'(k)}(x_j)\right)}d\mu^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'} (-1)^{\sigma+\sigma'} \prod_j \int_E F_{j\sigma(k)}\overline{F_{j\sigma'(k)}} d\mu \label{IntDet}
\end{eqnarray}
By the orthogonality assumption on $\{F_{jk}\}_k$, the only contribution comes from terms where $\sigma=\sigma'$. We get
$$ \eqref{IntDet} = \sum_\sigma \prod_j \int_E |F_{j\sigma(k)}|^2 d\mu = \perm\left(\int_E |F_{jk}|^2d\mu\right). \qedhere $$
\end{proof}
Before we examine its consequences for permanental point processes we illustrate two other applications. The first is given by a quick proof of the following well known formula related to Gram Determinants (see for example \cite{Deift}):
\begin{corollary}
Let $(E,\mu)$ be a measure space and
$$f_1,\ldots,f_N\in L^2(\mu).$$
Then
\begin{equation} \det\left(\int_Ef_j\overline{f_k}d\mu\right) = \frac{1}{N!}\int_{E^N} \left|\det \left(f_k(x_j)\right)\right|^2 d\mu^{\otimes N}. \label{DeiftFormula} \end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Note that if $A$ is an invertible $N\times N$ matrix with determinant $1$, then replacing $\{f_1,\ldots, f_n\}$ by $\{\tilde f_1,\ldots,\tilde f_N\}$ where $\tilde f_i$ is defined by
$$(\tilde f_1,\ldots,\tilde f_N) = (f_1,\ldots,f_N)A$$
doesn't affect the formula \eqref{DeiftFormula}. This means we may assume $f_1,\ldots,f_N$ satisfy
$$ \int_E f_j\overline{f_k}d\mu = 0 $$
if $j\not=k$.
For each $j,k\in \{1,\ldots,N\}$, let $F_{jk}=f_k$. We get that
$$ \det\left(\int_Ef_j \overline{f_k} d\mu\right) = \prod_k \int_E|f_k|^2d\mu = \frac{1}{N!}\perm\left(\int_E|F_{jk}|^2 d\mu\right) $$
and, applying Lemma~\ref{LemmaDetPerm}, that
\begin{eqnarray}
\det\left(\int_Ef_j \overline{f_k} d\mu\right) & = & \frac{1}{N!}\perm\left(\int_E|F_{jk}|^2 d\mu\right) = \frac{1}{N!}\int_{E^N}\left|\det\left(F_{jk}(x_j)\right)\right|^2d\mu^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{N!}\int_{E^N} \left|\det \left(f_k(x_j)\right)\right|^2 d\mu^{\otimes N} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
proving the corollary.
\end{proof}
The second application of Lemma~\ref{LemmaDetPerm} is given by the following formula for the permanent of a matrix of non-negative real numbers.
\begin{corollary}
Let $(a_{jk})$ be an $N\times N$-matrix of non-negative real numbers. Then
$$ \perm(a_{jk}) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^N}\int_{[0,2\pi]^N} \left|\det \left(\sqrt{a_{jk}}e^{ikx_j}\right)\right|^2 dx_1\cdots dx_N. $$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $F_{jk}=\sqrt{a_{jk}}e^{ikx}.$
Then, for each $j$,
$$ \int_{[0,2\pi]} F_{jk}\overline{F_{jl}} dx = \int_{[0,2\pi]}a_{jk}e^{i(k-l)x}dx = \begin{cases} 2\pi a_{jk} & \textnormal{ if } l=k \\ 0 & \textnormal{ otherwise.} \end{cases} $$
Applying Lemma~\ref{LemmaDetPerm} gives
\begin{eqnarray} \perm(a_{jk}) & = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^N}\perm \int_{[0,2\pi]} |F_{jk}|^2 dx \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^N}\int_{[0,2\pi]^N} \left|\det\left(F_{jk}(x_j)\right)\right|^2 dx_1\ldots dx_N \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^N}\int_{[0,2\pi]^N} \left|\det \left(\sqrt{a_{jk}}e^{ikx_j}\right)\right|^2 dx_1\cdots dx_N. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which proves the corollary.
\end{proof}
To see how Lemma~\ref{LemmaDetPerm} connects permanental point processes to determinantal point processes, we will now look a bit closer on the point processes defined by Bermans framework when applied to the complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation in Section~\ref{SectionEqPush}. First of all, $\omega_0=\sum_i idz_i\wedge d\bar z_i $ represents the curvature class of the theta divisor $D$ on $M$. Elements in $H^0(M,kD)$ may be represented by theta functions and a basis at level $k\in \mathbb{N}$ is given by the set
\begin{equation} \{\theta^{(k)}_p: p\in \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{Z}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n\} \label{EqThetaColl} \end{equation}
where
$$ \theta^{(k)}_p = \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p}e^{-km^2/4+izkm/2}. $$
With respect to these trivializations the norm of $\theta_p^{(k)}$ with respect to the metric on $kD$ with curvature form $k\omega_0$ may be written
$$ \norm{\theta^{(k)}_p}^2 = |\theta^{(k)}_p|^2 e^{-ky^2/2}. $$
Enumeration the points in $\frac{1}{k}\mathbb{Z}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n$, $\{p_1,\ldots, p_N\}$ and using the standard coordinates $(z_1,\ldots, z_N)=(x_1+iy_1,\ldots,x_N+iy_N)$ on $M^N$ allow us to write the determinant in \eqref{CxPP} as
$$ \left|\det\left(\theta^{(k)}_{p_l}(z_j)e^{-y_j^2/4}\right)_{jl}\right|^2. $$
Now, recall that the real Monge-Amp\`ere measure on $X$ may be recovered as the push forward under the projection map, $\rho:M\rightarrow X$, of the complex Monge-Amp\`ere measure on $M$ (see equation \eqref{CxReMA}). Similarly, Lemma~\ref{LemmaDetPerm} will allow us to explicitly calculate the push forward of the measure
$$ |\det(\theta^{(k)}_{p_i}(z_j)e^{-y_j^2/4})|^2 \omega_0^n $$
on $M^N$ under the map $\rho^{\times N}:M^N \rightarrow X^N$. We get the following lemma, which is the key point of this section. It shows that the permanental point processes defined in Section~\ref{SectPointProc} are the natural analog of the determinantal point processes defined by Bermans framework for complex Monge-Amp\`ere equations.
\begin{lemma}\label{LemmaDetPush}
Let $dy$ be the uniform measure on $X$. Then
\begin{equation} \left(\rho^{\times N}\right)_* |\det(\theta^{(k)}_{p_l}(z_j)e^{-y_j^2/4})|^2 \omega_0^n = \perm \left(\Psi^{(N)}_{p_l}(y_j)\right)dy. \label{EqDetPush} \end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $y=(y_1,\ldots,y_N)\in X^N$. The point $y\in X^N$ defines a real torus, $T_y$, in $M^N$
$$ T_y=\left(\rho^{\times N}\right)^{-1}(y) = \left\{x+iy: x\in (\mathbb{R}^n /4\pi\mathbb{Z}^n)^N\right\}. $$
If we let $dx$ be the measure on $T_y$ induced by $(\mathbb{R}^n)^N$, then the density at $y$ of the left hand side of \eqref{EqDetPush} with respect to $dy$ is given by the integral
\begin{equation} \int_{T_y} |\det(\theta^{(k)}_{p_l}(z_j))e^{-y_j^2/4}|^2 dx. \label{FibInt} \end{equation}
For each $j,l\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, let $F_{jl}:T_y\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be defined by
\begin{eqnarray} F_{jl}(x) & = & \theta_{p_l}(x+iy_j)e^{-y_j^2/4} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p_l}e^{-km^2/4+i(x+iy_j)km/2-y_j^2/4} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p_l}e^{-k(m-y_j)^2/4+ikmx/2} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now, when computing the integral
\begin{eqnarray} & & \int_{T_y} F_{jl}\overline{F_{jl'}} dx \nonumber \\
& = & \int_{T_y} \sum_{\substack{m \in \mathbb{Z}^n+p_l \\ m'\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p_{l'}}} e^{-k(m-y_j)^2/4 -k(m'-y_j)^2/4 + ik(m-m')x/2} dx \label{IntTheta}
\end{eqnarray}
the only contribution comes from the terms where $m-m'=0$. If $l\not= l'$, then there are no such terms, in other words $\eqref{IntTheta}=0$. If $l=l'$ we are left with
$$\eqref{IntTheta} = (4\pi)^N \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}+p_l} e^{-k|y_j-m|^2/2} = (4\pi)^N\Psi^{(N)}_{p_l}(y_j). $$
Applying Lemma~\ref{LemmaDetPerm} gives
$$ \eqref{FibInt} = \int_{T_y} \left|\det\left(F_{jl}(x_j)\right)\right|^2 dx = \perm \left(\int |F_{jl}|^2 dx\right) = \perm \left(\Psi_{p_l}(y_j)\right) $$
proving the lemma.
\end{proof}
Finally, we show that Lemma~\ref{LemmaThetaPush} is a special case of this.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{LemmaThetaPush}]
Note that $\theta = \theta_0^{(1)}$ and
$$\gamma = \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n} e^{-|y-m]^2/2} dy = \Psi_0^{(1)} dy.$$
This means \eqref{EqThetaPush} is the special case of \eqref{EqDetPush} given by $N=k=1$. Hence the lemma follows from Lemma~\ref{LemmaDetPush}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Approximations of Optimal Transport Maps}\label{SectApprox}
As mentioned in the introduction the point processes defined here can be used to produce explicit approximations of optimal transport maps. In optimal transport it is natural to consider a larger class of Monge-Amp\`ere operators. Let $\nu_0\in\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous with respect to $dx$. Then $\nu_0$ defines a Monge-Amp\`ere operator $\MA_{\nu_0}$ on $P(X)$ as
$$ \MA_{\nu_0}(\phi) = (\nabla^c \phi^c)_* \nu_0. $$
Solutions, $\phi_*$, to the inhomogenous Monge-Amp\`ere equation
\begin{equation} \MA_{\nu_0}(\phi)=\mu_0 \label{MAEqIH} \end{equation}
determine optimal transport maps on $X$ in the sense that $T=\nabla^c \phi_*$ is the optimal \emph{transport map} in the sense of Brenier (see \cite{Villani}) from the source measure $\mu_0$ to the target measure $\nu_0$.
The fact that the point processes defined in Section \ref{SectPointProc} are related to the standard $\MA=\MA_{dx}$ is a consequence of the fact that
$$ \frac{1}{N}\sum_{p\in \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{Z}^n/\mathbb{Z}^n} \delta_{p}\rightarrow dx $$
in the weak*-topology. Redefining $S^{(N)}$ in the following way will provide the generalisation we want: Let $P^{(N)}$ be a collection of point sets with the property that $|P^{(N)}|=N$ and
$$ \frac{1}{N}\sum_{p\in P^{(N)}} \delta_{p}\rightarrow \nu_0. $$
As in the original definition, associate a wave function, $\Psi^{(N)}_p$, to each point $p\in \cup P^{(N)}$
$$ \Psi^{(K)}_{p_i} = \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}^n+p_i} e^{-|x-m|^2} $$
and, for each $N$, enumerate the points in $P^{(N)}$
$$ P^{(N)} = \{p_1,\ldots, p_N\}. $$
We get
\begin{corollary}\label{CorrOptTrans}
Let $\mu_0, \nu_0\in\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ be absolutely continuous and have smooth, strictly positive densities with respect to $dx$ and $\Psi^{(N)}_{p_i}$ be defined as above. Then
$$ \phi_N := \frac{1}{N}\log \int_{X^{N-1}}\perm\left(\Psi^{(N)}_{p_i}(x_j)\right) d\mu^{\otimes N} $$
converges uniformly to the unique, smooth, strictly convex solution of \eqref{MAEqIH}. Consequently, the associated gradient maps $\nabla^c \phi_N$ converges uniformly to the unique optimal transport map transporting $\mu_0$ to $\nu_0$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{CorrOptTrans}]
First of all, the fact that the optimal transport map is smooth follow from Caffarelli's regularity theory for Monge-Amp\`ere equations. We will not go through the argument as it is similar as in Section \ref{SectRegularity}. Uniqueness is a basic result from optimal transport (see for example Theorem 2.4.7 in \cite{Villani}). Now, to see that the convergence holds, consider the functionals, $\{H^{(N)}\}$, on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ defined by
$$ E^{(N)}(\mu) = \frac{1}{N}\int_{X^N} H^{(N)} d\mu^{\otimes N}. $$
Direct calculations give that they are continuous, convex, Gateaux differentiable and $dE^{(N)}|_{\mu_0} = \Phi^{(N)}$. We claim that
\begin{equation} E^{(N)}(\mu)\rightarrow W^2(\mu,dx) \label{EqCorr1} \end{equation}
for all $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1(X)$. To see this, note that by the proof of Theorem \ref{ThmRedToZeroTemp}
$$ \sup_{X^N}\left|\frac{1}{N}H^{(N)}-W^2(\cdot,dx)\circ \delta^{(N)} \right| \rightarrow 0 $$
as $N\rightarrow \infty$. We get, since $\{\frac{1}{N}H^{(N)}\}$ are uniformly bounded,
\begin{eqnarray} E^{(N)}(\mu) & = & \int_{X^N} W^2(\cdot,dx)\circ \delta^{(N)} d\mu^{\otimes N} +o(1) \nonumber \\
& = & \int_{\mathcal{M}_1(X)} W^2(\cdot,dx) \left(\delta^{(N)}\right)_* \mu^{\otimes N} +o(1).\label{EqCorr3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $o(1)\rightarrow 0$ as $N \rightarrow \infty$. Now, it follows from Sanov's theorem that $(\delta^{(N)})_*\mu^{\otimes N}\rightarrow \delta_{\mu}$ in the weak*-topology on $\mathcal{M}_1(\mathcal{M}_1(X))$. Now, since $X$ has finite diameter we get that the squared distance function on $X$ can be bounded by a a constant times the distance function. As the Wasserstein 1-metric metricizes the weak* topology on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$ this implies that $W^2(\cdot,dx)$ is continuous on $\mathcal{M}_1(X)$. We get that \eqref{EqCorr3} converges to $W^2(\mu,dx)$ as $N\rightarrow \infty$.
Further, $W^2(\cdot,dx)$ is convex. By standard properties of convex functions $dE^{(N)}|_{\mu_0}$ converges to a subgradient of $W^2(\cdot,dx)$ at $\mu_0$. By standard properties of the Legendre Transform this means
\begin{equation} \phi = \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \phi^{(N)} \label{EqCorr2} \end{equation}
satisfies $d\xi|_\phi = MA(\phi) = \mu_0$. This means $\phi$ is smooth and $\nabla^c \phi$ defines the optimal transport map transporting $\mu_0$ to $\nu_0$. Now, let $\Phi_N$ and $\Phi$ be the images in $P_{\mathbb{Z}^n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ of $\phi_N$ and $\phi$ respectively. The convergence in \eqref{EqCorr2} implies $\Phi_N\rightarrow \Phi$ and, by standard properties of convex functions, $\nabla\Phi^{(N)}\rightarrow \nabla \Phi$. This means $\nabla^c\phi_N \rightarrow \nabla^c\phi$ which proves the Corollary.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction.}
In this whole paper, $X$ is a rational surface over the complex number $\mathbb{C}$, with $K_X$ the canonical divisor and $H$ the polarization such that the intersection number $K_X.H<0$. We use the same letter to denote both the line bundles and the corresponding divisor classes, but we write $L_1\otimes L_2$, $L^{-1}$ for line bundles while $L_1+L_2$, $-L$ for the corresponding divisor classes. Denote by $L_1.L_2$ the intersection number of $L_1$ and $L_2$. $L^2:=L.L$
Let $K(X)$ be the Grothendieck group of coherent sheaves over $X$. Define a quadratic form $(u,c)\mapsto \<u,c \>:=\chi(u\otimes c)$ on $K(X)$, where $\chi(-)$ is the holomorphic Euler characteristic and $\chi(u\otimes c)=\chi(\mathcal{F}\otimes^{L}\mathcal{G})$ for any $\mathcal{F}$ of class $u$, $\mathcal{G}$ of class $c$ and $\otimes^L$ the flat tensor.
For two elements $c,u\in K(X)$ orthogonal to each other with respect to $\<,\>$, we have $M_X^H(c)$ and $M_X^H(u)$ the moduli spaces of $H$-semistable sheaves of classes $c$ and $u$ respectively. If there are no strictly semistable sheaves of classes $c$ ($u$, resp.), then over $M_X^H(c)$ ($M_X^H(u)$, resp.) there is a well-defined line bundle $\lambda_c(u)$ ($\lambda_u(c)$, resp.) called determinant line bundle associated to $u$ ($c$, resp.). If there are strictly semistable sheaves of class $u$, one needs more conditions on $c$ to get $\lambda_u(c)$ well-defined (see Ch 8 in \cite{HL}).
Let $c,u\in K(X)$. Assume both moduli spaces $M^X_H(c)$ and $M^X_H(u)$ are non-empty and the determinant line bundles $\lambda_c(u)$ and $\lambda_u(c)$ are well-defined over $M^X_H(c)$ and $M^X_H(u)$, respectively. According to \cite{LPst} (see \cite{LPst} p.9), if the following $(\bigstar)$ is satisfied,
($\bigstar $) \emph{for all $H$-semistable sheaves $\mathcal{F}$ of class $c$ and $H$-semistable sheaves $\mathcal{G}$ of class $u$ on $X$, $\operatorname{Tor}^i(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})=0$ $\forall~i\ge 1$, and $H^2(X,\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal{G})=0$.}
then there is a canonical map
\begin{equation}\label{inmap} SD_{c,u}:H^0(M^X_H(c),\lambda_c(u))^{\vee}\rightarrow H^0(M^X_H(u),\lambda_u(c)).\end{equation}
The strange duality conjecture asserts that $SD_{c,u}$ is an isomorphism.
Strange duality conjecture on curves was at first formulated (in \cite{Bea} and \cite{DT}) and has been proved (see \cite{MO1}, \cite{Bel2}).
Strange duality on surfaces does not have a general formulation so far. There is a special formulation due to Le Potier (see \cite{LPst} or \cite{Da2}).
In this paper we choose $u=u_L:=[\mathcal{O}_X]-[L^{-1}]+\frac{(L.(L+K_X))}2[\mathcal{O}_x]$ with $x$ a single point in $X$, and $c=c^2_2:=2[\mathcal{O}_{X}]-2[\mathcal{O}_x]$. Then ($\bigstar$) is satisfied and $SD_{c,u} $ is well-defined. We prove the following theorem.\begin{thm}[Corollary \ref{ok}]\label{intro}Let $X$ be a Hirzebruch surface $\Sigma_e$ and $L=aG+bF$ with $F$ the fiber class and $G$ the section such that $G^2=-e$. Then the strange duality map $SD_{c_2^2,u_L}$ as in (\ref{inmap}) is an isomorphism for the following cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\min\{a,b\}\leq1$;
\item $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$, $e\neq 1$, $L$ ample;
\item $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$, $e=1$, $b\geq a+[a/2]$ with $[a/2]$ the integral part of $a/2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
Although strange duality on surfaces is a very interesting problem, there are very few cases known. Our result adds to previous work by the author (\cite{Yuan1},\cite{Yuan5}) and others (\cite{Abe}, \cite{Da1}, \cite{Da2}, \cite{GY}, \cite{MO2}, \cite{MO3}, \cite{MO4}).
Especially, in \cite{Yuan5} we proved $SD_{c_2^2,u_L}$ is an isomorphism when $X=\mathbb{P}^2$. The limitation of the method in \cite{Yuan5} is that: we have used Fourier transform on $\mathbb{P}^2$ which does not behave well on other rational surfaces. In this paper we use a new strategy. Actually we show the strange duality map $SD_{c^2_2,u_L}$ is an isomorphism under a list of conditions, and then check that all these conditions are fulfilled for cases in Theorem \ref{intro}. So Theorem \ref{intro} is an application of our main theorem (Theorem \ref{maino}) to Hirzebruch surfaces and there are certainly more applications to other rational surfaces.
The structure of the paper is arranged as follows. In \S~\ref{pre} we give preliminaries, including some useful properties of $M_X^H(c_2^2)$ (in \S~\ref{bas} and \S~\ref{ssos}) and a brief introduction to determinant line bundles and the set-up of strange duality (in \S~\ref{deter}). \S~\ref{mare} is the main part. In \S~\ref{alp} and \S~\ref{ssbeta} we prove the strange duality map is an isomorphism under a list of conditions; in \S~\ref{app} we show the main theorem (Theorem \ref{maino}) applies to cases on Hirzebruch surfaces. Although the argument in \S~\ref{app} takes quite much space, the technique used there is essentially a combination of those in \cite{Yuan4} and \cite{Yuan5}.
\begin{flushleft}\emph{Notations.} Let $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{G}$ be two sheaves.
\begin{itemize}
\item $c_i(\mathcal{F})$ is the i-th Chern class of $\mathcal{F}$;
\item $\chi(\mathcal{F})$ is the Euler characteristic of $\mathcal{F}$;
\item $h^i(\mathcal{F})=dim~H^i(\mathcal{F})$;
\item $\text{ext}^i(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})=dim~\operatorname{Ext}^i(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$, $\text{hom}(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})=dim~\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$ and $\chi(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})=\sum_{i\geq0}(-1)^i\text{ext}^i(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$;
\item $Supp(\mathcal{F})$ or $C_{\mathcal{F}}$ is the support of 1-dimensional sheaf $\mathcal{F}$
\end{itemize}
\end{flushleft}
\textbf{Acknowledgements.}
The author was supported by NSFC grant 11301292.
\section{Preliminaries.}\label{pre}
For any line bundle $L$ on $X$, define $u_L:=[\mathcal{O}_X]-[L^{-1}]+\frac{(L.(L+K_X))}2[\mathcal{O}_x]\in K(X)$ with $x$ a single point in $X$.
It is easy to check $u_{\mathcal{O}_X}=0$ and $u_{L_1}+u_{L_2}=u_{L_1\otimes L_2}$. If $L$ is nontrivially effective, i.e. $L\not\cong\mathcal{O}_X$ and $H^0(L)\neq0$, let $|L|$ be the linear system,
then $u_L$ is the class of 1-dimensional sheaves supported at curves in $|L|$ and of Euler characteristic 0.
For $L$ nontrivially effective, denote by $M(L,0)$ the moduli space $M^H_X(u_L)$.
In fact a sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ of class $u_L$ is semistable (stable, resp.) if and only if $\forall~\mathcal{F}'\subsetneq \mathcal{F}$, $\chi(\mathcal{F}')\leq0$ ($\chi(\mathcal{F}')<0$, resp.). Hence $M(L,0)$ does not depend on the polarization $H$. We ask $M(\mathcal{O}_X,0)$ to be a single point standing for the zero sheaf.
Let $c^r_n=r[\mathcal{O}_{X}]-n[\mathcal{O}_x]\in K(X)$ with $x$ a single point on $X$.
Denote by $W(r,0,n)$ the moduli space $M_X^H(c^r_n)$ (but $W(r,0,n)$ might depend on $H$).
In this paper we mainly focus on $W(2,0,2)$ for $X$ a rational surface
For any $L,r,n$, $u_L$ and $c^r_n$ are orthogonal with respect to the quadratic form $\<,\>$ on $K(X)$.
\subsection{Some basic properties of $W(2,0,2)$.}\label{bas}
\begin{defn}\label{hgen}We say the polarization $H$ is \textbf{$c_2^2$-general}, if for any $\xi\in H^2(X,\mathbb{Z})\cong\operatorname{Pic}(X)$ such that $\xi.H=0$ and $\xi^2\geq -2$, we have $\xi=0$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}\label{bio}Since $K_X.H<0$, $\xi.H=0\Rightarrow \xi^2\leq -2$ for any $\xi\in \operatorname{Pic}(X)$. This is because $H^0(\mathcal{O}_X(\pm\xi))=0$ by $\xi.H=0$ and $H^2(\mathcal{O}_X(\pm\xi))=H^0(\mathcal{O}_X(K_X\mp\xi))^{\vee}=0$ by $(K_X\mp\xi).H<0$, hence $\chi(\mathcal{O}_X(\xi)\oplus\mathcal{O}_X(-\xi))=2+\xi^2\leq0$.
\end{rem}
\begin{lemma}\label{ssl}Let $\mathcal{F}$ be an $H$-semistable sheaf in class $c_2^2$. If $\mathcal{F}$ is not locally free, then it is strictly semistable and S-equivalent to $\mathcal{I}_x\oplus\mathcal{I}_y$ with $x,y$ two single points on $X$. Moreover, if $H$ is $c_2^2$-general, then $\mathcal{F}$ is $H$-stable if and only if $\mathcal{F}$ is locally free.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}First assume $\mathcal{F}$ is not locally free, then its reflexive hull $\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee}$ is locally free of class $c^2_i$ with $i=1$ or 0. $H^2(\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee})\cong H^2(\mathcal{F})\cong\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{F},K_X)^{\vee}=0$ by $K_X.H<0$ and the semistability of $\mathcal{F}$. Hence $dim~H^0(\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee})\geq \chi(\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee})=2-i>0.$ Therefore either $\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee}\cong \mathcal{O}_X^{\oplus2}$ or $\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee}$ lies in the following sequence
\begin{equation}\label{refhu}0\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_X\xrightarrow{\jmath}\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee}\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_x\rightarrow 0,\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{I}_x$ is the ideal sheaf of some single point $x$ on $X$.
If $\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee}$ lies in (\ref{refhu}), then we have
\begin{equation}\label{fref}0\rightarrow\mathcal{F}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee}\xrightarrow{p}\mathcal{T}_1\ra0,\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{T}_1$ is a 0-dimensional sheaf with $\chi(\mathcal{T}_1)=1$ and hence $\mathcal{T}_1\cong\mathcal{O}_y$ for some single point $y\in X$. Compose maps $\jmath$ in (\ref{refhu}) and $p$ in (\ref{fref}), the map $p\circ \jmath:\mathcal{O}_X\rightarrow \mathcal{T}_1$ is not zero because otherwise $\mathcal{O}_X$ would be a subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}$. Therefore $p\circ\jmath$ is surjective with kernel isomorphic to $\mathcal{I}_y$ which is a subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}$ destabilizing $\mathcal{F}$. Hence $\mathcal{F}$ is not stable and S-equivalent to $\mathcal{I}_x\oplus\mathcal{I}_y$.
If $\mathcal{F}^{\vee\vee}\cong\mathcal{O}_X^{\oplus2}$, then we have the following exact sequence
\[0\rightarrow\mathcal{F}\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_X^{\oplus2}\rightarrow\mathcal{T}_2\ra0,\]
where $\mathcal{T}_2$ is a 0-dimensional sheaf with $\chi(\mathcal{T}_2)=2$. We also have
\[0\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_x\rightarrow\mathcal{T}_2\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_y\rightarrow 0,\]
where $x,y$ are two single points on $X$ (it is possible to have $x=y$). Hence we have the following diagram
\[\xymatrix@R=0.4cm@C=0.5cm{&0\ar[d] &0\ar[d] &0\ar[d]&
\\ 0\ar[r]&\mathcal{I}_x\ar[r]\ar[d]&\mathcal{O}_X\ar[r]\ar[d]&\mathcal{O}_x\ar[r]\ar[d]&0\\
0\ar[r]&\mathcal{F}\ar[r]\ar[d]&\mathcal{O}_X^{\oplus2}\ar[r]\ar[d]&\mathcal{T}_2\ar[r]\ar[d]&0\\
0\ar[r]&\mathcal{I}_y\ar[r]\ar[d]&\mathcal{O}_X\ar[r]\ar[d]&\mathcal{O}_y\ar[r]\ar[d]&0\\
&0 &0&0 &
}.\]
Hence $\mathcal{F}$ is $S$-equivalent to $\mathcal{I}_x\oplus\mathcal{I}_y$.
Now assume $H$ is $c^2_2$-general. We only need to show that any semistable bundle $\mathcal{F}$ of class $c_2^2$ is stable. If $\mathcal{F}$ is strictly semistable, then we have the following sequence
\[0\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Z(\xi)\rightarrow \mathcal{F}\rightarrow\mathcal{I}_W(-\xi)\ra0,\]
where $\xi.H=0$ and $\mathcal{I}_Z,\mathcal{I}_W$ are ideal sheaves of 0-dimensional subschemes $Z,W$ of $X$ such that the length $len(Z)=len(W)=1+\xi^2/2\geq 0$. Since $H$ is $c^2_2$-general, $\xi=0$ and $\mathcal{I}_Z$ is a subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}$.
Hence so is $\mathcal{O}_X$ because $\mathcal{F}$ is locally free,
which is a contradiction since $H^0(\mathcal{F})=0$ by semistability. Hence $\mathcal{F}$ is stable. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Denote by $\textbf{S}$ the closed subset of $W(2,0,2)$ consisting of non locally free sheaves, then set-theoretically $\textbf{S}$ is isomorphic to the second symmetric power $X^{(2)}$ of $X$ by Lemma \ref{ssl}. $\textbf{S}$ is of codimension 1 in $W(2,0,2)$. In \S\ref{ssos} we will give a scheme-theoretic structure of $\textbf{S}$ and show that it is a divisor associated to some line bundle.
\begin{rem}\label{ngx}If $H$ is not $c^2_2$-general, then all strictly semistable vector bundle are S-equivalent to $\mathcal{O}_X(\xi)\oplus\mathcal{O}_X(-\xi)$ with $\xi\in \operatorname{Pic}(X)$, $\xi.H=\xi.K_X=0$ and $\xi^2=-2$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Determinant line bundles and strange duality.}\label{deter}~~
To set up the strange duality conjecture, we briefly introduce so-called determinant line bundles on the moduli spaces of semistable sheaves. We refer to Chapter 8 in \cite{HL} for more details.
For a Noetherian scheme $Y$, we denote by $K(Y)$ the Grothendieck groups of coherent sheaves on $Y$ and $K^0(Y)$ be the subgroup of $K(Y)$ generated by locally free sheaves. Then $K^0(X)=K(X)$ since $X$ is smooth and projective.
Let $\mathscr{E}$ be a flat family of coherent sheaves of class $c$ on $X$ parametrized by a noetherian scheme $S$, then $\mathscr{E}\in K^0(X\times S)$.
Let $p:X\times S\to S$, $q:X\times S\to X$ be the projections.
Define $\lambda_\mathscr{E}:K(X)\to \operatorname{Pic}(S)$ to be the composition of the following homomorphisms:
\begin{equation}\label{dlb}
\xymatrix@C=0.3cm{
K(X)=K^0(X) \ar[rr]^{~~q^{*}} && K^0(X\times S) \ar[rr]^{.[\mathscr{E}]} && K^0(X\times
S) \ar[rr]^{~~~R^{\bullet}p_{*}} && K^0(S)\ar[rr]^{det^{-1}} &&
\operatorname{Pic}(S),}\end{equation}
where $q^*$ is the pull-back morphism, $[\mathscr{F}].[\mathscr{G}]:=\sum_i (-1)^i[\operatorname{Tor}^i(\mathscr{F},\mathscr{G})]$,
and $R^{\bullet}p_{*}([\mathscr{F}])=\sum_i(-1)^i[R^ip_{*}\mathscr{F}].$ Proposition 2.1.10 in \cite{HL} assures that $R^{\bullet}p_{*}([\mathscr{F}])\in K^0(S)$ for any $\mathscr{F}$ coherent and $S$-flat .
For any $u\in K(X)$, $\lambda_{\mathscr{E}}(u)\in \operatorname{Pic}(S)$ is called the \textbf{determinant line bundle} associated to $u$ induced by the family $\mathscr{E}$. Notice that the definition we use here is dual to theirs in \cite{HL}.
Let $S=M_X^H(c)$,
then there is in general no such universal family $\mathscr{E}$ over $X\times M^H_X(c)$, and even if it exists, there is ambiguity caused by tensoring with the pull-back of a line bundle on $M^H_X(c)$. Thus to get a well-defined determinant line bundle $\lambda_c(u)$ over $M^H_X(c)$, we need look at the good $GL(V)$-quotient $\Omega(c)\rightarrow M_X^H(c)$ with $\Omega(c)$ an open subset of some Quot-scheme and there is a universal quotient $\widetilde{\mathscr{E}}$ over $X\times \Omega(c)$. $\lambda_c(u)$ is then defined by descending the line bundle $\lambda_{\widetilde{\mathscr{E}}}(u)$ over $\Omega(c)$. $\lambda_{\widetilde{\mathscr{E}}}(u)$ descends if and only if it satisfies the ``descent condition" (see Theorem 4.2.15 in \cite{HL}), which implies that $u$ is orthogonal to $c$ with respect to the quadratic form $\<~,~\>$. Hence the homomorphism $\lambda_c$ is only defined over a subgroup of $K(X)$.
Now we focus on $M(L,0)$ and $W(r,0,n)$. As we have seen, $u_L$ is orthogonal to $c^r_n$ for any $L,r,n$.
Let $\lambda_{c^r_n}(L)$ be the determinant line bundle associated to $u_L$ over (an open subset of) $W(r,0,n)$. We denote simply by $\lambda_r(L)$ if $r=n$. By checking the descent condition we see that $\lambda_2(L)$ is always well-defined over the stable locus $W(2,0,2)^s$ and $\textbf{S}$, hence it is well-defined over all $W(2,0,2)$ if $H$ is $c_2^2$-general. If $H$ is not $c_2^2$-general, then $\lambda_2(L)$ is well-defined over point $[\mathcal{O}_X(-\xi)\oplus\mathcal{O}_X(\xi)]$ if and only if $\xi.L=0$. We denote by $W(r,0,n)^L$ the biggest open subset of $W(r,0,n)$ where $\lambda_{c^r_n}(L)$ is well-defined. Notice that the stable locus $W(r,0,n)^s\subsetW(r,0,n)^L$. By Remark \ref{ngx}, $W(2,0,2)^L=W(2,0,2)^{L\otimes K_X}$.
On the other hand, let $\lambda_{L}(c^r_n)$ be the determinant line bundle associated to $c^r_n$ over $M(L,0)$, then $\lambda_{L}(c^r_n)$ is always well-defined over the whole moduli space. We have the following proposition which is analogous to Theorem 2.1 in \cite{Da2}.
\begin{prop}\label{glob}(1) There is a canonical section, unique up to scalars, $\sigma_{c^r_n,u_L}\in H^0(W(r,0,n)^L\timesM(L,0),\lambda_{c^r_n}(L)\boxtimes\lambda_L(c^r_n))$ whose zero set is
$$\mathtt{D}_{c^r_n,u_L}:=\big\{([\mathcal{F}],[\mathcal{G}])\in W(r,0,n)^L\times M(L,0) \bigm| h^0(X,\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal{G})=h^1(X,\mathcal{F}\otimes\mathcal{G})\ne 0\big\}.$$
(2) The section $\sigma_{c^r_n,u_L}$ defines a linear map up to scalars
\begin{equation}
\label{SDmap}
SD_{c^r_n,u_L}:H^0(W(r,0,n)^L,\lambda_{c^r_n}(L))^\vee \to H^0(M(L,0),\lambda_L(c^r_n)).
\end{equation}
(3) Denote by $\sigma_{\mathcal{F}}$ the restriction of $\sigma_{c^r_n,u_L}$ to $\{\mathcal{F}\}\timesM(L,0)$. $\sigma_{\mathcal{F}}$ only depends on the S-equivalence class of $\mathcal{F}$.
(4) If $\sigma_{c^r_n,u_L}$ is not identically zero, then by assigning $\mathcal{F}$ to $\sigma_{\mathcal{F}}$ we get a rational map $\Phi: W(r,0,n)^L\rightarrow\mathbb{P}(H^0(M(L,0),\lambda_L(c^r_n)))$. Similarly we have a rational map $\Psi:M(L,0)\rightarrow\mathbb{P}(H^0(W(r,0,n)^L,\lambda_{c^r_n}(L)))$. Moreover If the image of $\Phi$ is not contained in a hyperplan, then $SD_{c^r_n,u_L}$ is injective; if the image of $\Psi$ is not contained in a hyperplan, then $SD_{c^r_n,u_L}$ is surjective.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}The proof of Theorem 2.1 in \cite{Da2} also applies to our case although the surface may not be $\mathbb{P}^2$. For statement (3) and (4), one can also see Lemma 6.13 and Proposition 6.17 in \cite{GY}.
\end{proof}
The map $SD_{c^r_n,u_L}$ in (\ref{SDmap}) is call the \textbf{strange duality map}, and Le Potier's strange duality is as follows (also see Conjecture 2.2 in \cite{Da2})
\begin{con/que}If both $W(r,0,n)^L$ and $M(L,0)$ are non-empty, then is $SD_{c^r_n,u_L}$ an isomorphism?
\end{con/que}
We denote by $\Theta_L$ the determinant line bundle associated to $c^1_0=[\mathcal{O}_{X}]$ on $M(L,0)$.
Then $\Theta_L$ defines a divisor $D_{\Theta_L}$ which consists of sheaves with non trivial global sections. Since $\lambda_L$ is a group homomorphism, by Proposition 2.8 in \cite{LP2}, we have that $\lambda_L(c^r_n)\cong\Theta_L^{\otimes r}\otimes\pi^{*}\mathcal{O}_{|L|}(n)=:\Theta^r_L(n)$ where $\pi:M(L,0)\rightarrow|L|$ sends each sheaf to its support.
In this paper we study the following strange duality map for $X$ a rational surface
\begin{equation}\label{sdmt}
SD_{2,L}:H^0(W(2,0,2)^L,\lambda_2(L))^{\vee}\rightarrow H^0(M(L,0),\Theta_L^2(2)).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Scheme-theoretic structure of $\textbf{S}$ on $W(2,0,2)$.}\label{ssos}
~~
$\textbf{S}$ consists of non locally free sheaves in $W(2,0,2)$. Recall we have a good quotient $\rho:\Omega_2\rightarrowW(2,0,2)$. Let $\widetilde{\textbf{S}}=\rho^{-1}(\textbf{S}).
Set-theoretically $\textbf{S}\cong X^{(2)}$. Let $\Delta\subset X^{(2)}$ be the singular locus and $\Delta\cong X$. Define $\textbf{S}^o=\textbf{S}-\Delta$,
$W(2,0,2)^o=W(2,0,2)^L-\Delta$, $\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o}=\rho^{-1}(\textbf{S}^o)$ and $\Omega^o_2=\rho^{-1}(W(2,0,2)^o)$. Let $\mathscr{F}$ ($\mathscr{F}^o$, resp.) be the universal quotient over $X\times\Omega_2$ ($X\times\Omega_2^o$, resp.).
We then have the following proposition due to Abe (see Section 3.4 and Section 5.2 Proposition 3.7 and Proposition 5.2 in \cite{Abe})
\begin{prop}\label{stts}(1) The second Fitting ideal $\mathtt{Fitt}_2(\mathscr{F}^o)$ of $\mathscr{F}^o$ defines a smooth closed subscheme $\widehat{\textbf{S}^o}$ of $X\times\Omega_2^o$ supported at the set
$$\{(x,[q:\mathcal{O}_X(-mH)\otimes V\twoheadrightarrow\mathcal{F}])|dim_{k(x)}\mathcal{F}_x\otimes k(x)>2\}\subset X\times\Omega_2^o.$$
i.e. $\widehat{\textbf{S}^o}$ consists of points $(x,[q:\mathcal{O}_X(-mH)\twoheadrightarrow\mathcal{F}])$ such that $\mathcal{F}_x$ is not free.
(2) We have a surjective map $p_{\Omega}:\widehat{\textbf{S}^o}\rightarrow\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o}$ induced by the projection $p_{\Omega}:X\times\Omega_2\rightarrow\Omega_2$. We give a scheme structure of $\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o}$ by letting its defining ideal be the kernel of $\mathcal{O}_{\Omega_2^o}\rightarrow p_{\Omega*}\mathcal{O}_{\widehat{\textbf{S}^o}}$. Then $\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o}$ is a normal crossing divisor in $\Omega_2^o$ with $\widehat{\textbf{S}^o}\rightarrow\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o}$ the normalization.
(3) The line bundle associated to the divisor $\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o}$ on $\Omega_2^o$ is $\lambda_{\mathscr{F}^o}(u_{K_X^{-1}})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}Sheaves in $\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o}$ are all quasi-bundles (see Definition 2.1 in \cite{Abe}), hence Abe's argument in Section 3.4 in \cite{Abe} gives Statement (1) and (2). Notice that our notations are slightly different from his.
For Statement (3), by Proposition 5.2 in \cite{Abe} we know that $\mathcal{O}_{\Omega_2^o}(\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o})\cong \lambda_{\mathscr{F}^o}([K_X])^{-1}\otimes \lambda_{\mathscr{F}^o}([\mathcal{O}_X])^{-1}$.
We can see that $\lambda_{\mathscr{F}^o}(u_{K_X^{-1}})\cong \lambda_{\mathscr{F}^o}([K_X])^{-1}\otimes\lambda_{\mathscr{F}^o}([\mathcal{O}_X])$. But $\lambda_{\mathscr{F}^o}([\mathcal{O}_X])\cong\mathcal{O}_{\Omega_2^o}$ since
$H^i(\mathcal{F})=0$ for $i=0,1,2$ and $\mathcal{F}$ semistable of class $c_2^2$. Hence the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{store}Let $\textbf{S}$ have the scheme-theoretic structure as the closure of $\textbf{S}^o$ in $W(2,0,2)$. Then $\textbf{S}$ is a divisor associated to the line bundle $\lambda_2(K_X^{-1})$ on $W(2,0,2)$. Moreover $\textbf{S}$ is an integral scheme.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}By Proposition \ref{stts}, $\textbf{S}^o$ is a divisor associated to $\lambda_2(K_X^{-1})$ restricted on $W(2,0,2)^o$. $\textbf{S}$ is the closure of $\textbf{S}^o$ in $W(2,0,2)^L$.
Since $K_X.H<0$, $W(2,0,2)$ is normal, Cohen-Macaulay and of pure dimension 5, hence the section given by $\textbf{S}^o$ extends to a section of $\lambda_2(K_X^{-1})$ on $W(2,0,2)^L$ with divisor $\textbf{S}$.
We have a morphism $\varphi:X^{(2)}\rightarrow\textbf{S}$ sending $(x,y)$ to $\mathcal{I}_x\oplus\mathcal{I}_y$, which is bijective. Hence $\textbf{S}$ is irreducible. $\widetilde{\textbf{S}^o}$ is reduced, hence so are $\textbf{S}^o$ and $\textbf{S}$. Thus $\textbf{S}$ is an integral scheme.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{slow}For any line bundle $L$, the map $H^0(\textbf{S},\lambda_2(L)|_{\textbf{S}})\xrightarrow{\varphi^{*}} H^0(X^{(2)},\varphi^{*}\lambda_2(L))$ induced by $\lambda_2(L)|_{\textbf{S}}\rightarrow \varphi_{*}\varphi^{*}\lambda_2(L)$ is injective. Moreover $H^0(X^{(2)},\varphi^{*}\lambda_2(L))\cong (H^0(X,L)^{\otimes 2})^{\mathfrak{S}_2}\cong S^2H^0(X,L)$ where $\mathfrak{S}_n$ is the n-th symmetric group.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Let $\Delta\subset X^2$ be the diagonal, and $\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}$ is the ideal sheaf of $\Delta$ in $X^2$. Let $pr_{i,j}$ be the projection from $X^n$ to the product $X^2$ of the i-th and j-th factors. Then $pr_{1,2}^{*}\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}\oplus pr_{1,3}^{*}\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}$ gives a family of ideal sheaves on $X^3$ and induces a morphism $\widetilde{\varphi}:X^2\rightarrow W(2,0,2)$ with image $\textbf{S}$. $\widetilde{\varphi}$ is $\mathfrak{S}_2$-invariant, hence factors through $X^2\rightarrow X^{(2)}$ and gives the map $\varphi:X^{(2)}\rightarrow\textbf{S}$. The morphism $\varphi$ is bijective and $\textbf{S}$ is reduced, hence the map $\varphi^{\natural}:\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{S}}\rightarrow \varphi_{*}\mathcal{O}_{X^{(2)}}$ is injective. Hence so is the map $\lambda_2(L)|_{\textbf{S}}\rightarrow \varphi_{*}\varphi^{*}\lambda_2(L)$ and therefore $H^0(\textbf{S},\lambda_2(L)|_{\textbf{S}})\xrightarrow{\varphi^{*}} H^0(X^{(2)},\varphi^{*}\lambda_2(L))$ is injective.
Obviously $H^0(X^{(2)},\varphi^{*}\lambda_2(L))\cong (H^0(X^2,\widetilde{\varphi}^{*}\lambda_2(L)))^{\mathfrak{S}_2}$. It will suffice to show that $H^0(X^2,\widetilde{\varphi}^{*}\lambda_2(L))\cong H^0(X,L)^{\otimes 2}$. By the basic properties (see Lemma 8.1.2 and Theorem 8.1.5 in \cite{HL}) of the determinant line bundle, we have $\widetilde{\varphi}^{*}\lambda_2(L)\cong\lambda_{pr_{1,2}^{*}\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}\oplus pr_{1,3}^{*}\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}}(u_L)\cong \lambda_{pr_{1,2}^{*}\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}}(u_L)\otimes \lambda_{pr_{1,3}^{*}\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}}(u_L)\cong \lambda_{\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}}(L)^{\boxtimes 2}$. Obviously $\lambda_{\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}}(L)\cong L$, thus $H^0(X^2,\widetilde{\varphi}^{*}\lambda_2(L))\cong H^0(X,\lambda_{\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}}(L))^{\otimes 2}\cong H^0(X,L)^{\otimes 2}$. Hence the lemma.
\end{proof}
The line bundle $L^{\boxtimes n}$ on $X^n$ is $\mathfrak{S}_n$-linearized and descends to a line bundle on $X^{(n)}$, which we denote by $L_{(n)}$.
So $\varphi^{*}\lambda_2(L)\cong L_{(2)}$ on $X^{(2)}$. Denote also by $L_{(n)}$ the pullback of $L_{(n)}$ to $X^{[n]}$ via the Hilbert-Chow morphism, where $X^{[n]}$ is the Hilbert scheme of $n$-points on $X$.
\section{Main result on $SD_{2,L}$.}\label{mare}
Let $L$ be a nontrivially effective line bundle. Recall that $SD_{2,L}$ is the following strange duality map as in (\ref{sdmt}):
\[SD_{2,L}:H^0(W(2,0,2)^L,\lambda_2(L))^{\vee}\rightarrow H^0(M(L,0),\Theta_L^2(2)).\]
In this section, we show that under certain conditions $SD_{2,L}$ is an isomorphism (see Theorem \ref{maino}).
On $M(L,0)$ and $W(2,0,2)^L$ we have the following two exact sequences respectively.
\begin{equation}\label{zes}0\rightarrow\Theta_L(2)\rightarrow\Theta_L^2(2)\rightarrow\Theta_L^2(2)|_{D_{\Theta_L}}\rightarrow 0;\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{ses}0\rightarrow \lambda_2(L\otimes K_X)\rightarrow\lambda_2(L)\rightarrow\lambda_2(L)|_{\textbf{S}}\ra0.\end{equation}
Notice that $W(2,0,2)^{L\otimes K_X}=W(2,0,2)^L$ and (\ref{ses}) is because of Corollary \ref{store}.
\begin{lemma}
By taking the global sections of (\ref{zes}) and the dual of global sections of (\ref{ses}), we have the following commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{sddim}\xymatrix{&H^0(\textbf{S},\lambda_2(L)|_{\textbf{S}})^{\vee}\ar[r]^{~~~~g_2^{\vee}}\ar[d]_{\alpha_{\textbf{S}}}& H^0(\lambda_2(L))^{\vee}\ar[r]^{f_2^{\vee}~~~~}
\ar[d]^{SD_{2,L}}& H^0(\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))^{\vee}\ar[r]\ar[d]^{\beta_D} &0\\
0\ar[r]& H^0(\Theta_L(2))\ar[r]_{f_L} & H^0(\Theta^2_L(2))\ar[r]_{g_L~~~~~~} &H^0(D_{\Theta_L},\Theta^2(2)|_{D_{\Theta_L}})}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}We only need to show that $g_L\circ SD_{2,L}\circ g_2^{\vee}=0$. By the definition of $SD_{2,L}$, it is enough to show that the section $\sigma_{c_2^2,L}$ defined in
Proposition \ref{glob} is identically zero on $\textbf{S}\times D_{\Theta_L}$. Easy to see that $H^0((\mathcal{I}_x\oplus\mathcal{I}_y)\otimes\mathcal{G})\neq0$ for all $\mathcal{G}\inM(L,0)$ such that $H^0(\mathcal{G})\neq 0$,
hence $\textbf{S}\times D_{\Theta_L}\subset\mathtt{D}_{c_2^2,u_L}$ and $\sigma_{c_2^2,L}$ is identically zero on $\textbf{S}\times D_{\Theta_L}$. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{On the map $\alpha_{\textbf{S}}$.} \label{alp}~
We introduce the following condition.
\begin{cond}[$\textbf{CA}$]The strange duality map
\begin{equation}\label{rank1}SD_{c^1_2,u_L}:H^0(W(1,0,n),\lambda_{c^1_2}(L))^{\vee}\rightarrow H^0(M(L,0),\Theta_L(2))\end{equation}
is an isomorphism.
\end{cond}
\begin{rem}\label{rone}For any $n\geq 1$, $W(1,0,n)\cong X^{[n]}$ and $\lambda_{c^1_n}(L)\cong L_{(n)}$.
It is well-known that $H^0(X^{[n]},L_{(n)})=S^nH^0(X,L)$ for all $n$ and $L$(see Lemma 5.1 in \cite{EGL}).
Therefore $\textbf{CA}$ implies $ H^0(|L|,\mathcal{O}_{|L|}(2))\cong H^0(|L|,\pi_{*}\Theta_L\otimes\mathcal{O}_{|L|}(2))$, in particular we have $h^0(M(L,0),\Theta_L)=h^0(|L|,\pi_{*}\Theta_L)=1$
and $D_{\Theta_L}$ is the unique divisor associated to $\Theta_L$.
\end{rem}
\begin{lemma}\label{alpha}If $\textbf{CA}$ is satisfied, then the map $\alpha_{\textbf{S}}$ in (\ref{sddim}) is an isomorphism. In particular, $g_2^{\vee}$ is injective.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}By Lemma \ref{slow} we have a surjective map
\[\varphi^{*\vee}:H^0(X^{(2)},L_2)^{\vee}\twoheadrightarrow H^0(\textbf{S},\lambda_2(L)|_{\textbf{S}})^{\vee}.\]
By Proposition 1.2 in \cite{EGL}, we have $HC_2^{*\vee}:H^0(X^{[2]},L_2)^{\vee}\xrightarrow{\cong}H^0(X^{(2)},L_2)^{\vee}$ where $HC_2:X^{[2]}\rightarrow X^{(2)}$ is the Hilbert-Chow morphism.
To prove the lemma, by $\textbf{CA}$ it is enough to show $\alpha_{\textbf{S}}\circ \varphi^{*\vee}\circ HC_2^{*\vee}=SD_{c^1_2,u_L}$ or equivalently
$SD_{2,L}\circ g_2^{\vee}\circ\varphi^{*\vee}\circ HC_2^{*\vee}=f_L\circ SD_{c^1_2,u_L}$.
We have a Cartesian diagram
\begin{equation}\label{HC}\xymatrix{\widehat{X^2}\ar[r]^{\widehat{HC}}\ar[d]_{\widehat{\mu}}&X^2\ar[d]^{\mu}\\ X^{[2]}\ar[r]_{HC}& X^{(2)}},
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is a $\mathfrak{S}_2$-quotient and $\widehat{X^2}$ is the blow-up of $X^2$ along the diagonal $\Delta$. Then we only need to show
\begin{equation}\label{compare}\widehat{SD}_L:=SD_{2,L}\circ g_2^{\vee}\circ\varphi^{*\vee}\circ HC_2^{*\vee}\circ \widehat{\mu}^{*\vee}=f_L\circ SD_{c^1_2,u_L}\circ\widehat{\mu}^{*\vee}=:\widehat{SD}_R.\end{equation}
There are two flat families on $X\times\widehat{X^2}$ of sheaves of class $c_2^2$: $\mathscr{F}^1:=\widehat{HC}_X^{*}(pr^{*}_{1,2}\mathcal{I}_{\Delta}\oplus pr^{*}_{1,3}\mathcal{I}_{\Delta})$ and $\mathscr{F}^2:=\widehat{\mu}_X^{*}\mathscr{I}_2\oplus q^{*}\mathcal{O}_X$, where $\widehat{HC}_X:=Id_X\times\widehat{HC}: X\times\widehat{X^2}\rightarrow X^3$, $\widehat{\mu}_X:=Id_X\times\widehat{\mu}$, $q:X\times\widehat{X^2}\rightarrow X$ and $\mathscr{I}_2$ is the universal ideal sheaf on $X\times X^{[2]}$.
$\mathscr{F}^i$ induces a section $\sigma_i$ of $\widehat{\mu}^{*}\lambda_{c^1_n}(L)\boxtimes \lambda_{L}(c_2^2)\cong \widehat{\mu}^{*}L_n\boxtimes \Theta_L^2(2)$ on $\widehat{X^2}\timesM(L,0).$
The zero set of $\sigma_i$ is $\mathtt{D}_i:=\{(\underline{x},\mathcal{G})|H^0(\mathscr{F}^i_{\underline{x}}\otimes\mathcal{G})\neq 0\}$.
By the definition of $SD_{c^r_n,u_L}$, we see that $\widehat{SD}_L$ is defined by the global section $\sigma_1$. On the other hand, the map $f_L$ is defined by multiplying an element in $H^0(\Theta_L)$ defininig the divisor $D_{\Theta_L}$. Therefore $\widehat{SD}_R$ is defined by the global section $\sigma_2$. Hence to show (\ref{compare}), we only need to show $\mathtt{D}_i$ coincide as divisors for $i=1,2$.
Let $\mathcal{C}\subset X\times|L|$ be the universal curve. Then $\mathcal{C}$ is a divisor in $X\times|L|$. $p_{i,|L|}:=p_i\times Id_{|L|}:X^2\times|L|\rightarrow X\times|L|$ with $p_i$ the projection to the i-th factor.
Denote by $p_M:\widehat{X^2}\timesM(L,0)\rightarrowM(L,0)$ the projection to $M(L,0)$. Then easy to see that $\mathtt{D}_1=\mathtt{D}_2=2p_{M}^{*}D_{\Theta_L}+\widehat{HC}^{*}p_{1,|L|}^{*}\mathcal{C}+\widehat{HC}^{*}p_{2,|L|}^{*}\mathcal{C}$. Hence the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{empty}If $\textbf{CA}$ is satisfied and moreover $D_{\Theta_L}=\emptyset$ and $H^0(L\otimes K_X^{\otimes n})=0$ for all $n\geq 1$, then the map $SD_{2,L}$ is an isomorphism.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}By Lemma \ref{alpha}, we only need to show that $H^0(\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))=0$. But $H^0(\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X^{\otimes n})|_{\textbf{S}})=0$ since $H^0(L\otimes K_X^{\otimes n})=0$ for all $n\geq 1$. Hence $H^0(\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))\cong H^0(\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X^{\otimes n}))$ for all $n\geq 1$ and hence $H^0(\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))=0$ because $\lambda_2(K_X^{-1})$ is effective.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{gzero}Assume $K_X^{-1}$ is effective, then for any curve $C\in|K_X^{-1}|$, either $\mathcal{O}_C$ is semistable or $C$ contains an integral subscheme with genus $>1$. Therefore we have $D_{\Theta_L}=\emptyset\Rightarrow H^0(L\otimes K_X^{\otimes n})=0$ for all $n\geq 1$. This is because otherwise there must be a semistable sheaf of class $u_L$
having nonzero global sections.
Moreover by Proposition 4.1.1 and Corollary 4.3.2 in \cite{Yuan1}, we see that if every curve in $|L|$ does not contain any 1-dimensional subscheme with positive genus and $K_X^{-1}$ is effective, then Corollary \ref{empty} applies and the strange duality map $SD_{2,L}$ is an isomorphism.
\end{rem}
We have a useful lemma as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{dnempty}If $D_{\Theta_L}\neq \emptyset$, then $L\otimes K_X$ is effective.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Let $\mathcal{F}\in D_{\Theta_L}$, then $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F},K_X)\cong H^1(\mathcal{F})^{\vee}\neq 0$. Hence there is a non split extension
\[0\rightarrow K_X\rightarrow \widetilde{I}\rightarrow \mathcal{F}\ra0.\]
If for every proper quotient $\mathcal{F}\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}''$ (i.e. $\mathcal{F}\not\cong \mathcal{F}''$) we have $h^1(\mathcal{F}'')=0$, then $\widetilde{I}$ has to be torsion-free and hence isomorphism to $\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)$ with $Z$ a 0-dimensional subscheme of $X$. On the other hand $h^0(\widetilde{I})=h^0(\mathcal{F})\neq 0$, therefore $H^0(L\otimes K_X)\neq 0$.
If there is a proper quotient $\mathcal{F}_1$ of $\mathcal{F}$ such that $h^1(\mathcal{F}_1)\neq 0$, then we can assume that for every proper quotient $\mathcal{F}''_{1}$ of $\mathcal{F}_1$ we have $h^1(\mathcal{F}''_1)=0$. Denote by $L_1$ the determinant of $\mathcal{F}_1$, then by previous argument $H^0(L_1\otimes K_X)\neq 0$ and hence $H^0(L\otimes K_X)\neq 0$ because $L\otimes L_1^{-1}$ is effective.
\end{proof}
\subsection{On the map $\beta_D$.}\label{ssbeta}~~
In this subsection we assume $D_{\Theta_L}\neq \emptyset$, then by Lemma \ref{dnempty} $L\otimes K_X$ is effective.
We want to prove that under certain conditions the map $\beta_D$ is an isomorphism. The main technique and notations are analogous to \cite{Yuan5}.
Let $\ell:=L.(L+K_X)/2=\chi(L\otimes K_X)-1$ and $H_{\ell}$ be the Hilbert scheme of $\ell$-points on $X$ which also parametrizes all ideal sheaves $\mathcal{I}_Z$ with colength $\ell$, i.e. $len(Z)=\ell$.
If $\ell=0$, we say $H_0$ is a simple point corresponding to the structure sheaf $\mathcal{O}_X$. Denote by $\mathscr{I}_{\ell}$ the universal ideal sheaf over $X\times H_{\ell}$.
From now on by abuse of notation, we always denote by $p$ the projection $X\times M\rightarrow M$ and $q$ the projection $X\times M\rightarrow X$ for any moduli space $M$. If we have $Y_1\times\cdots\times Y_n$ with $n\geq2$, denote by $p_{ij}~(i<j)$ the projection to $Y_i\times Y_j$.
Let $Q_1:=Quot_{X\times H_{\ell}/H_{\ell}}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^{*}(L\otimes K_X),u_L)$ and $Q_2:=Quot_{X\times H_{\ell}/H_{\ell}}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^{*}(L\otimes K_X),u_{L\otimes K_X})$ be the two relative Quot-schemes over $H_{\ell}$ parametrizing quotients of class $u_L$ and $u_{L\otimes K_X}$ respectively. Let $\rho_i:Q_i\rightarrow H_{\ell}$ be the projection. Each point $[f_1:\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}_L]\in Q_1$ ($[f_2:\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}]\in Q_2$, resp.) over $\mathcal{I}_Z\in H_{\ell}$ must have the kernel $K_X$ ($\mathcal{O}_{X}$, resp.).
Since $L\otimes K_X$ is effective and $X$ is rational, $H^2(L\otimes K_X)=0$. Hence $h^0(L\otimes K_X)\geq \chi(L\otimes K_X)$. Therefore, for any ideal sheaf $\mathcal{I}_Z$ with colenght $\ell$, we have $h^0(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X))\geq 1$ and hence $\rho_2$ is always surjective. If moreover $L.K_X\leq0$, then $H^0(\mathcal{I}_Z(L))\neq 0$ and $\rho_1$ is also surjective.
We write down the following two exact sequences.
\begin{equation}\label{dd}0\rightarrow K_X\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\rightarrow \mathcal{F}_L\ra0;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{ddt}0\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{X}\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\rightarrow \mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Notice that if $\mathcal{F}_L$ (resp. $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$) is semi-stable, then (the class of) $\mathcal{F}_L$ (resp. (the class of) $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$) is contained in $D_{\Theta_L}$ (resp. $M(L\otimes K_X,0)$).
Let
$$D_{\Theta_L}^o:=\left\{\mathcal{F}_L\in D_{\Theta_L}\left|\begin{array}{l}h^1(\mathcal{F}_L)=1,~ h^1(\mathcal{F}_L(-K_X))=0,\\
and~Supp(\mathcal{F}_L)~is~integral.
\end{array}\right.\right\},$$
$$Q_1^o:=\left\{[f_1:\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}_L]\in Q_1\left|\begin{array}{l}h^1(\mathcal{F}_L)=1,~ h^1(\mathcal{F}_L(-K_X))=0,\\
and~Supp(\mathcal{F}_L)~is~integral.
\end{array}\right.\right\},$$
$$M(L\otimes K_X,0)^o:=\left\{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\inM(L\otimes K_X,0)\left|\begin{array}{l}
h^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))=0,~and\\
Supp(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})~is~integral.
\end{array}\right.\right\},$$
$$Q_2^o:=\left\{[f_2:\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}]\in Q_2\left|\begin{array}{l
h^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))=0,~and\\
Supp(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})~is~integral.
\end{array}\right.\right\}.$$
Let $\mathcal{G}_r^r$ with $r\geq 1$ be a locally free sheaf of class $c_r^r$ on $X$. We define a line bundle $\mathcal{L}^r:=(det(R^{\bullet}p_{*}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^{*}\mathcal{G}_r^r(L\otimes K_X))))^{\vee}$ over $H_{\ell}$.
Then we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{change}There are classifying maps $g_1: Q_1^o\rightarrow D_{\Theta_L}^o$ and $g_2: Q_2^o\rightarrow M(L\otimes K_X,0)^o$, where $g_1$ is an isomorphism and $g_2$ is a projective bundle.
Moreover
$g_1^{*}\Theta^r_L(r)\cong \rho_1^{*}\mathcal{L}^r|_{Q_1^o}$ and $g_2^{*}\Theta^r_{L\otimes K_X}(r)\cong\rho_2^{*}\mathcal{L}^r|_{Q_2^o}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}The proof is analogous to \cite{Yuan5}. See Lemma 4.8, Equation (4.9), (4.10), (4.12) and (4.14) in \cite{Yuan5}.
\end{proof}
Let $H_{\ell}^o:=\rho_1(Q_1^o)\cup\rho_2(Q_2^o)$. We introduce some conditions as follows.
\begin{cond}[$\textbf{CB}$]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$] $D_{\Theta_L}^o$ is dense open in $D_{\Theta_L}$;
\item[$(2)$
$M(L\otimes K_X,0)$ is of pure dimension and satisfies the ``condition $S_2$ of Serre", and the complement of $M(L\otimes K_X,0)^o$ is of codimension $\geq 2$; %
\item[$(3)$] $(\rho_1)_*\mathcal{O}_{Q_1^o}\cong\mathcal{O}_{H^o_{\ell}}$;
\item[$(4)$] $Q_2^o$ is nonempty and dense open in $\rho_2^{-1}(\rho_2(Q_2^o))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cond}
\begin{rem}\label{serre}We say a scheme $Y$ satisfies ``condition $S_2$ of Serre" if $\forall ~y\in Y$ the local ring $\mathcal{O}_y$ has the property that for every prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}\subset\mathcal{O}_y$ of height $\geq2$, we have $\textbf{depth} ~\mathcal{O}_{y,\mathfrak{p}}\geq 2$ (also see Ch II Theorem 8.22A in \cite{Ha}). $\textbf{CB}$-(2) implies that for every line bundle $\mathcal{H}$ over $M(L\otimes K_X,0)$, the restriction map $H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0),\mathcal{H})\hookrightarrow H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0)^o,\mathcal{H})$ is an isomorphism.
\end{rem}
\begin{lemma}\label{injm}If $\textbf{CB}$ is satisfied,
then we have an injective map for all $r>0$
\[j_r: H^0(D_{\Theta_L},\Theta_L^r(r)|_{D_{\Theta_L}})\hookrightarrow H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0),\Theta^r_{L\otimes K_X}(r)).\]
Moreover, $j_2\circ\beta_D=SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}$.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By $\textbf{CB}$-(1) we have an injection
\begin{equation}\label{map1}H^0(D_{\Theta_L},\Theta^r_L(r)|_{D_{\Theta_L}})\hookrightarrow H^0(D_{\Theta_L}^o,\Theta^r_L(r)|_{D^o_{\Theta_L}}).\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{change} and $\textbf{CB}$-(3) we have
\begin{equation}\label{map2
H^0(D^o_{\Theta_L},\Theta^r_L(r)|_{D^o_{\Theta_L}})\xrightarrow{\cong} H^0(Q_1^o,\rho_1^{*}\mathcal{L}^r|_{Q_1^o})\xrightarrow{\cong} H^0(H^o_{\ell},\mathcal{L}^r|_{H_{\ell}^o}).\end{equation}
On the other hand $\rho_2$ is projective and surjective, hence there is a natural injection $\mathcal{O}_{H_{\ell}}\hookrightarrow (\rho_2)_*\mathcal{O}_{Q_2}$.
Hence by $\textbf{CB}$-(4) we have the following injections
\begin{equation}\label{map3}H^0(H^o_{\ell},\mathcal{L}^r|_{H^o_{\ell}})\hookrightarrow H^0(\rho_2(Q_2^o),\mathcal{L}^r|_{\rho_2(Q_2^o)})\hookrightarrow
H^0(\rho_2^{-1}(\rho_2(Q_2^o)),\rho_2^{*}\mathcal{L}^r)\hookrightarrow H^0(Q_2^o,\rho_2^{*}\mathcal{L}^r)\end{equation}
Finally by Lemma \ref{change} and $\textbf{CB}$-(2) we have
\begin{equation}\label{map4}H^0(Q_2^o,\rho_2^{*}\mathcal{L}^r)\xrightarrow{\cong}H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0)^o,\Theta^r_{L\otimes K_X}(r))\xrightarrow{\cong}H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0),\Theta^r_{L\otimes K_X}(r)).
\end{equation}
The map $j_r$ is obtained by composing all the maps successively in (\ref{map1}), (\ref{map2}), (\ref{map3}) and (\ref{map4}).
Now we prove $j_r\circ \beta_D=SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}$. Notice that $\chi(\mathcal{E}\otimes \mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X))=h^2(\mathcal{E}\otimes \mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X))=0$ for all $\mathcal{E}\inW(2,0,2) $ and $\mathcal{I}_Z\in H_{\ell}$. We then have a determinant line bundle $\lambda_2(\ell)$ (resp. $\lambda_{H_{\ell}}(c_2^2)$ ) over $W(2,0,2)^L$ (resp. $H_{\ell}$) associated to $[\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)]$ with $\mathcal{I}_Z\in H_{\ell}$ (resp. $[\mathcal{E}]$ with $\mathcal{E}\inW(2,0,2)$). Obviously $\lambda_{H_{\ell}}(c_2^2)=\mathcal{L}^2$. Moreover there is a section $\sigma_{2,\ell}$ of $H^0(W(2,0,2)^L\times H_{\ell},\lambda_2(\ell)\boxtimes\mathcal{L}^2)$ vanishing at the points $(\mathcal{E},\mathcal{I}_Z)$ such that $H^0(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K))\neq 0$. By (\ref{dd}), $\lambda_2(L)\cong \lambda_2(\ell)\otimes \lambda_2([K_X])^{-1}\cong \lambda_2(\ell)\otimes\lambda_2(K_X^{-1})$. Hence $\lambda_2(\ell)\cong\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X)$.
The section $\sigma_{2,\ell}$ induces a morphism $H^0(W(2,0,2)^L,\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))^{\vee}\xrightarrow{SD_{2,\ell}} H^0(H_{\ell},\mathcal{L}^2)$. Composing $SD_{2,\ell}$ with the inclusion $H^0(H_{\ell},\mathcal{L}^2)\hookrightarrow H^0(H_{\ell}^o,\mathcal{L}^2)$, we get
$H^0(W(2,0,2)^L,\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))^{\vee}\xrightarrow{SD^o_{2,\ell}} H^0(H^o_{\ell},\mathcal{L}^2)$. Composing maps in (\ref{map3}) and (\ref{map4}) and we get
$H^0(H_{\ell}^o,\mathcal{L}^2)\xrightarrow{(g_2)_{*}\circ\rho^{*}_2} H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0),\Theta^2_{L\otimes K_X}(2))$.
We first show that the following diagram commutes.
\begin{equation}\label{lkcom}\xymatrix{H^0(W(2,0,2)^L,\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))^{\vee}\ar[r]^{~~~~~~~SD^o_{2,\ell}}\ar[rd]_{SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}}& H^0(H^o_{\ell},\mathcal{L}^2)\ar[d]^{(g_2)_{*}\circ\rho^{*}_2}\\
&H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0),\Theta^2_{L\otimes K_X}(2)).}
\end{equation}
Recall that on $X\times Q^o_2$ there is an exact sequence
\[0\rightarrow \mathscr{R}_2\rightarrow(id_X\times\rho_2^*)\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*(L\otimes K_X)\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\rightarrow 0,\]
where $\mathscr{I}_{\ell}$ is the universal sheaf over $X\times H_{\ell}$ and $\mathscr{R}_2=p^{*}\mathcal{R}_2$ with $\mathcal{R}_2$ a line bundle over $Q^o_2$. For simplicity let $\widetilde{\mathscr{I}_2}:=(id_X\times\rho_2^*)\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*(L\otimes K_X)$.
Recall the good $PGL(V)$-quotient $\rho:\Omega_2\rightarrow W(2,0,2)$ such that there is a universal sheaf $\mathscr{E}$ over $X\times \Omega_2$.
Let $\Omega_2^L:=\rho^{-1}(W(2,0,2)^L)$. The map $H^0(\Omega^L_2,\rho^{*}\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))^{\vee}\xrightarrow{~~\rho^{*\vee}}H^0(W(2,0,2)^L,\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))^{\vee}$ is surjective and hence to show that (\ref{lkcom}) commutes it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{qlkc}SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}\circ \rho^{*\vee}=(g_2)_{*}\circ \rho_2^*\circ SD_{2,\ell}\circ\rho^{*\vee}.\end{equation}
Over $X\times \Omega^L_2\times Q^o_2$ we have
\[0\rightarrow p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{R}_2\rightarrow p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\widetilde{\mathscr{I}_2}\rightarrow p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\rightarrow 0.\]
By Lemma 2.1.20 in \cite{HL}, we have the following commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{lkeq}\xymatrix@R=0.6cm@C=0.5cm{&&0&0&0&\\&0\ar[r]&p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{R}_2\ar[u]\ar[r]&p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\widetilde{\mathscr{I}_2}\ar[r]\ar[u]& p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\ar[r]\ar[u]&0\\
0\ar[r]&\mathscr{C}_2\ar[r]&\mathscr{B}'_2\ar[u]\ar[r]&\mathscr{A}_2\ar[u]\ar[r]&p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\ar[r]\ar[u]^{=}&0\\
&&\mathscr{B}_2\ar[u]\ar[r]^{=}&\mathscr{B}_2\ar[u]&&\\&&0\ar[u]&\mathscr{C}_2\ar[u]&&\\&&&0\ar[u]&&,}\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{A}_2$, $\mathscr{B}'_2$, $\mathscr{B}_2$ and $\mathscr{C}_2$ are locally free such that $R^ip_{*}(\cdot)=0$ for all $i<2$ and $R^2p_{*}(\cdot)$ locally free over $\Omega^L_2\times Q^o_2$. We have the following commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{lkpd}\xymatrix{R^2p_*\mathscr{C}_2\ar[r]&R^2p_{*}\mathscr{B}'_2\ar[r]^{\nu'_2}& R^2p_{*}\mathscr{A}_2\\ R^2p_*\mathscr{C}_2\ar[u]^{=}\ar[r]&R^2p_{*}\mathscr{B}_2\ar[u]^{\eta_2}\ar[r]^{\nu_2}& R^2p_{*}\mathscr{A}_2\ar[u]_{=}.}\end{equation}
$\nu'_2$ and $\nu_2$ are surjective because $H^2(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\otimes\mathcal{E})=H^2(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\otimes\mathcal{E})=0$ for every $[\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}]\in Q^o_2$ and $\mathcal{E}\in \Omega^L_2$. $\eta_2$ is an isomorphism because $\mathscr{R}_2$ is a pullback of a line bundle on $Q^o_2$ and $H^1(\mathcal{E})=H^2(\mathcal{E})=0$ for all $\mathcal{E}\in\Omega^L_2$. Denote by $\mathcal{K}_2$ and $\mathcal{K}'_2$ the kernels of $\nu_2$ and $\nu'_2$ respectively. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{lkd}\xymatrix{R^2p_*\mathscr{C}_2\ar[r]^{~~~\xi_{L\otimes K_X}}&\mathcal{K}'_2\\ R^2p_*\mathscr{C}_2\ar[u]^{=}\ar[r]_{~~~\xi_{\ell}^2}&\mathcal{K}_2\ar[u]^{\cong}_{\eta_2}.}\end{equation}
The section $det(\xi_{L\otimes K_X})$ induces the map $g_2^*\circ SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}\circ \rho^{*\vee}$ while the section $det(\xi_{\ell}^2)$ induces the map $\rho_2^*\circ SD^o_{2,\ell}\circ \rho^{*\vee}$.
By (\ref{lkd}) we have $det(\xi_{L\otimes K_X})=det(\eta_2)\cdot det(\xi_{\ell}^2)$ and hence $det(\xi_{L\otimes K_X})$ and $det(\xi_{\ell}^2)$ are the same section up to scalars since $\eta_2$ is an isomorphism. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{qlkv}g_2^*\circ SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}\circ \rho^{*\vee}=\rho_2^*\circ SD^o_{2,\ell}\circ \rho^{*\vee}.\end{equation}
(\ref{qlkv}) implies (\ref{qlkc}) because $g_2$ is a projective bundle and the map $H^0(Q_2^o,g_2^*\Theta_{L\otimes K_X}^r(r))\xrightarrow{(g_2)_*} H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0)^o,\Theta_{L\times K_X}^r(r))$ is an isomorphism with inverse map $g_2^*$.
Now we have that (\ref{lkcom}) commutes. To show $j_r\circ \beta_D=SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}$, it suffices to show that the following diagram commutes.
\begin{equation}\label{lcom}\xymatrix@C=1.5cm{H^0(\Omega^L_2,\lambda_2(L\otimes K_X))^{\vee}\ar[r]^{~~~~~~~SD^o_{2,\ell}\circ \rho^{*\vee}}& H^0(H^o_e,\mathcal{L}^2)\\
H^0(\Omega^L_2,\lambda_2(L))^{\vee}\ar[u]^{f_{2,\Omega}^{\vee}}\ar[r]_{g_L\circ SD_{2,L}\circ \rho^{*\vee}~~}&H^0(D_{\Theta_L},\Theta^2_{L}(2)|_{D_{\Theta_L}})\ar[u]_{(\rho_1)_{*}\circ g_1^*}.}
\end{equation}
In other words, it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{qlc}(\rho_1)_{*}\circ g_1^*\circ g_L\circ SD_{2,L}\circ \rho^{*\vee}=SD^o_{2,\ell}\circ \rho^{*\vee}\circ f_{2,\Omega}^{\vee}.
\end{equation}
Recall that on $X\times Q^o_1$ there is an exact sequence
\[0\rightarrow \mathscr{R}_1\rightarrow(id_X\times\rho_1^*)\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*(L\otimes K_X)\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{L}\rightarrow 0,\]
where $\mathscr{I}_{\ell}$ is the universal sheaf over $X\times H_{\ell}$ and $\mathscr{R}_1=p^{*}\mathcal{R}_1\otimes q^*K_X$ with $\mathcal{R}_1$ a line bundle (actually the relative tautological bundle $\mathcal{O}_{\rho_1}(-1)$) over $Q^o_1$. Let $\widetilde{\mathscr{I}_1}:=(id_X\times\rho_1^*)\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*(L\otimes K_X)$.
Over $X\times \Omega^L_2\times Q^o_1$ we have
\[0\rightarrow p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{R}_1\rightarrow p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\widetilde{\mathscr{I}_1}\rightarrow p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{F}_{L}\rightarrow 0.\]
Analogously, we have the following commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{leq}\xymatrix@R=0.6cm@C=0.5cm{&&0&0&0&\\&0\ar[r]&p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{R}_1\ar[u]\ar[r]&p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\widetilde{\mathscr{I}_1}\ar[r]\ar[u]& p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{F}_{L}\ar[r]\ar[u]&0\\
0\ar[r]&\mathscr{C}_1\ar[r]&\mathscr{B}'_1\ar[u]\ar[r]&\mathscr{A}_1\ar[u]\ar[r]&p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\otimes p_{13}^*\mathscr{F}_{L}\ar[r]\ar[u]^{=}&0\\
&&\mathscr{B}_1\ar[u]\ar[r]^{=}&\mathscr{B}_1\ar[u]&&\\&&0\ar[u]&\mathscr{C}_1\ar[u]&&\\&&&0\ar[u]&&,}\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{A}_1$, $\mathscr{B}'_1$, $\mathscr{B}_1$ and $\mathscr{C}_1$ are locally free such that $R^ip_{*}(\cdot)=0$ for all $i<2$ and $R^2p_{*}(\cdot)$ locally free over $\Omega^L_2\times Q^o_1$. We have the following commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{lpd}\xymatrix{R^2p_*\mathscr{C}_1\ar[r]&R^2p_{*}\mathscr{B}'_1\ar[r]^{\nu'_1}& R^2p_{*}\mathscr{A}_1\\ R^2p_*\mathscr{C}_1\ar[u]^{=}\ar[r]&R^2p_{*}\mathscr{B}_1\ar[u]^{\eta_1}\ar[r]^{\nu_1}& R^2p_{*}\mathscr{A}_1\ar[u]_{=}.}\end{equation}
$\nu'_1$ and $\nu_1$ are surjective because $H^2(\mathcal{F}_{L}\otimes\mathcal{E})=H^2(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\otimes\mathcal{E})=0$ for every $[\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow\mathcal{F}_{L}]\in Q^o_1$ and $\mathcal{E}\in \Omega^L_2$. $\eta_1$ is a morphism between two vector bundles with same rank with cokernel $R^2p_{*}(p_{12}^*\mathscr{E}\times p_{13}^*\mathscr{R}_1)$. Since $\mathscr{R}_1\cong p^{*}\mathcal{R}_1\otimes q^*K_X$ with $\mathcal{R}_1$ a line bundle over $Q_1^o$, $det(\eta_1)$ is the pullback to $\Omega^L_2\times Q_1^o$ of the section of $\lambda_2([K_X]^{-1})\cong \lambda_2(K_X^{-1})$ defining the subscheme $\widetilde{\textbf{S}}$.
Denote by $\mathcal{K}_1$ and $\mathcal{K}'_1$ the kernels of $\nu_1$ and $\nu'_1$ respectively. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{ld}\xymatrix{R^2p_*\mathscr{C}_1\ar[r]^{~~~\xi_{L}}&\mathcal{K}'_1\\ R^2p_*\mathscr{C}_1\ar[u]^{=}\ar[r]_{~~~\xi_{\ell}^1}&\mathcal{K}_1\ar[u]_{\eta_1}.}\end{equation}
The section $det(\xi_{L})$ induces the map $g_1^*\circ g_L\circ SD_{2,L}\circ \rho^{*\vee}$, the section $det(\xi_{\ell}^1)$ induces the map $\rho_1^*\circ SD^o_{2,\ell}\circ \rho^{*\vee}$ and multiplying the section $det(\eta_1)$ induces the map $f_{2,\Omega}^{\vee}$.
By (\ref{ld}) we have $det(\xi_{L})=det(\eta_1)\cdot det(\xi_{\ell}^1)$ and hence
\begin{equation}\label{qlv}g_1^*\circ g_L\circ SD_{2,L}\circ \rho^{*\vee}=\rho_1^{*}\circ SD^o_{2,\ell}\circ \rho^{*\vee}\circ f_{2,\Omega}^{\vee}.
\end{equation}
(\ref{qlv}) implies (\ref{qlc}) because by $\textbf{CB}$-(3) the map $H^0(Q_1^o,\rho_1^*\mathcal{L}^r)\xrightarrow{(\rho_1)_*} H^0(H^o_{\ell},\mathcal{L}^r)$ is an isomorphism with inverse map $\rho_1^*$.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Now we want to modify $\textbf{CB}$.
Define
$$|L\otimes K_X|':=\left\{C\in|L\otimes K_X|\left|\begin{array}{l} For~every~integral~subscheme~C_1\subset C, \\we~have~ deg(K_X|_{C_1})<0
\end{array}\right.\right\},$$
$$M(L\otimes K_X,0)':=\left\{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\inM(L\otimes K_X,0)\left|\begin{array}{l
h^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))=0,~and\\
Supp(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})\in |L\otimes K_X|'.
\end{array}\right.\right\}.$$
$$Q_2':=\left\{[f_2:\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}]\in Q_2\left|\begin{array}{l
\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}~is~semistable,\\ h^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))=0,~and\\
Supp(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})\in |L\otimes K_X|'.
\end{array}\right.\right\}.$$
Let $f_M:\Omega_{L\otimes K_X}\rightarrow M(L,0)
$ be the good $PGL(V_{L\otimes K_X})$-quotient with $V_{L\otimes K_X}$ some vector space and $\Omega_{L\otimes K_X}$ an open subscheme of some Quot-scheme. Let
$\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}:= f_M^{-1}(M(L\otimes K_X,0)')$. Notice that $\operatorname{Ext}^2(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})=0$ for $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$ semistable with $Supp(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})\in |L\otimes K_X|'$.
Hence $\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}$ is smooth of pure dimension the expected dimension
Denote by $\mathscr{Q}_{L\otimes K_X}$ the universal quotient over $\Omega_{L\otimes K_X}$. Analogous to \cite{Yuan5}, define $\mathcal{V}':=\mathscr{E}xt_p^1(\mathscr{Q}_{L\otimes K_X}|_{\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}},q^{*}\mathcal{O}_X)$ which is locally free of rank $-(L+K_X).K_X$ on $\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}$.
Let $P'_2\subset\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')$ parametrizing torsion free extensions of $\mathscr{Q}_{\mathfrak{s}}$ by $\mathcal{O}_X$ for all $\mathfrak{s}\in \Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}$. Then the classifying map $f'_{Q_2}: P'_2\rightarrow Q'_2$ is a principal $PGL(V_{L\otimes K_X})$-bundle (see Lemma 4.7 in \cite{Yuan5}). We have the following commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{pie}\xymatrix@C=2cm{P_2'\ar[r]^{\sigma'_2}\ar[d]_{f_{Q_2}'} &\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}\ar[d]^{f'_M}\\ Q_2'\ar[r]_{g_2'~~~~~~~~~~~} &M(L\otimes K_X,0)' }.\end{equation}
Let $H_{\ell}':=\rho_1(Q_1^o)\cup\rho_2(Q_2')$. We define $\textbf{CB}'$ by keeping $\textbf{CB}$-(1) and replacing $\textbf{CB}$-(2), (3) and (4) by $(2'a)$, $(2'b)$, $(3)$ and $(4')$ as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(2'a)$]
$M(L\otimes K_X,0)$ is of pure dimension and satisfies the ``condition $S_2$ of Serre", and the complement of $M(L\otimes K_X,0)'$ is of codimension $\geq 2$;
\item[$(2'b)$]
The complement of $P_2'$ in $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')$ is of codimension $\geq 2$; %
\item[$(3')$] $(\rho_1)_{*}\mathcal{O}_{Q_1^o}\cong\mathcal{O}_{H_{\ell}'}$;
\item[$(4')$] $Q'_2$ is nonempty and dense open in $\rho_2^{-1}(\rho_2(Q'_2))$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lemma}\label{zero
If $\textbf{CB}'$ is satisfied, then there is an injective map for all $r>0$
\[j_r: H^0(D_{\Theta_L},\Theta_L^r(r)|_{D_{\Theta_L}})\hookrightarrow H^0(M(L\otimes K_X,0),\Theta^r_{L\otimes K_X}(r)),\]
such that $j_2\circ\beta_D=SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}$.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}The only difference from Lemma \ref{injm} is that the map $g_2'$ is no more a projective bundle.
However it is enough to prove $(g_2')_{*}\mathcal{O}_{Q_2'}\cong \mathcal{O}_{M(L\otimes K_X,0)'}\cong \mathcal{O}_{M(L\otimes K_X,0)}$.
In (\ref{pie}) we have $f'_{Q_2}$ a principal $PGL(V_{L\otimes K_X})$-bundle and $f'_M$ a good $PGL(V_{L\otimes K_X})$-quotient. $\sigma'_2$ is $PGL(V_{L\otimes K_X})$-equivariant and descends to the map $g'_2$.
In order to show $(g'_{2})_{*}\mathcal{O}_{Q'_2}\cong \mathcal{O}_{|L\otimes K_X|'}$, we only need to show that $(\sigma'_{2})_{*}\mathcal{O}_{P'_2}\cong\mathcal{O}_{\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}}$.
We have that $(\sigma_{2})_{*}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')}\cong\mathcal{O}_{\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}}$. $\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}$ is smooth of pure dimension. By $\textbf{CB}'$-$(2'b)$ the complement of $P'_2$ in $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')$ is of codimension $\geq2$ and hence $\jmath_{*}\mathcal{O}_{P'_2}\cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')}$ with $\jmath:P'_2\hookrightarrow \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')$ the embedding. On the other hand $\sigma'_2=\sigma_2\circ \jmath$, hence $(\sigma'_{2})_{*}\mathcal{O}_{P'_2}\cong(\sigma_{2})_{*}( \jmath_{*}\mathcal{O}_{P'_2})\cong(\sigma_{2})_{*}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')}\cong\mathcal{O}_{\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}}$. Hence the lemma
\end{proof}
Notice that $\textbf{CB}$-(2) $\Rightarrow$ $\textbf{CB}'$-$(2'a)$ if $(L+K_X).K_X<0$. Lemma \ref{injm} and Lemma \ref{zero} imply immediately the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{beta}If either $\textbf{CB}$ or $\textbf{CB}'$ is satisfied and $SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}$ is an isomorphism, then the map $\beta_D$ in (\ref{sddim}) is an isomorphism. In particular, $g_L$ is surjective.
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}\label{lek}
If $L\cong K_X^{-1}$ then $\beta_D$ is an isomorphism as long as $\forall~C\in|L|$, $\mathcal{O}_C$ is stable (which is equivalent to say that $C$ contains no subcurve with genus $\geq1$) and there is a stable vector bundle $\mathcal{E}\inW(2,0,2)$. This is because in this case $\beta_D$ is a nonzero map between two vector spaces of 1 dimension, hence an isomorphism. $\beta_D$ is nonzero since $H^0(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_C)=H^1(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_C)=0$ for all $C\in|L|$ ( also see the proof of Proposition 6.25 in \cite{GY}).
\end{rem}
Combining Lemma \ref{alpha} and Proposition \ref{beta} we have the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{maino}Assume $\textbf{CA}$ and either $\textbf{CB}$ or $\textbf{CB}'$ are satisfied, then $SD_{2,L}$ is an isomorphism if $SD_{2,L\otimes K_X}$ is an isomorphism.\end{thm}
\subsection{Application to Hirzebruch surfaces.}\label{app}~~
Theorem \ref{maino} applies to a large number of cases on Hirzebruch surface as stated in the following theorem
\begin{thm}\label{ruled}Let $X=\Sigma_e~(e\geq0):=\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}\oplus\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(e))$. Let $F$ be the fiber class and $G$ the section such that $G^2=-e$ over $X$.
Let $L=aG+bF$. Then
(1) $\textbf{CA}$ is fulfilled for $L$ ample or $\min\{a,b\}\leq1$.
(2) If $2\leq\min\{a,b\}\leq 3$, then $\textbf{CB}'$ is fulfilled for $L$ ample, i.e. $b> ae$ for $e\neq0$; or $a,b>0$ for $e=0$.
(3) If $\min\{a,b\}\geq 4$, then $\textbf{CB}$ is fulfilled for both $L$ and $L\otimes K_X$ ample, i.e. $b> ae, e>1$; or $b> a+1,e=1$; or $a,b\geq4,e=0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{coro}\label{ok}Let $X$ be a Hirzebruch surface $\Sigma_e$ and $L=aG+bF$. Then the strange duality map $SD_{2,L}$ in (\ref{sdmt}) is an isomorphism for the following cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\min\{a,b\}\leq1$;
\item $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$, $e\neq 1$, $L$ ample;
\item $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$, $e=1$, $b\geq a+[a/2]$ with $[a/2]$ the integral part of $a/2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}If $\min\{a,b\}\leq1$, then every curve in $|L|$ contains no subcurve of positive genus and hence done by Corollary \ref{empty} and Remark \ref{zero}.
If $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$ and $e\neq1$, then $L$ is ample $\Rightarrow$ $L\otimes K_X$ is ample. Therefore by Theorem \ref{ruled} and Theorem \ref{maino} we can reduce the problem to $L=G+nF$ (or $F+nG$ for $e=0$), or $nF$ (or $mG$ for $e=0$) while by Corollary \ref{empty} and Remark \ref{zero}, $SD_{2,L}$ is an isomorphism in these cases.
If $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$, $e=1$ and $b\geq a+[a/2]$, then either both $L$ and $L\otimes K_X$ are ample or $L$ ample and $L\otimes K_X=G+F~or~nF$. Therefore analogously we are done by Theorem \ref{ruled}, Theorem \ref{maino}, Corollary \ref{empty} and Remark \ref{zero}.
The corollary is proved.
\end{proof}
To prove Theorem \ref{ruled}, the main task is estimating codimension of some schemes. However we want to use stack language as what we did in \cite{Yuan4} because it makes the argument clearer and simpler. Therefore, we firstly introduce some stacks as follows, the notations of which are slightly different from \cite{Yuan4}.
\begin{defn}\label{ff}Let $\chi$ and $d$ be two integers.
(1) Let $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ be the (Artin) stack parametrizing pure 1-dimensional sheaves $\mathcal{F}$ on $X$ with determinant $L$, Euler characteristic $\chi(\mathcal{F})=\chi$ and satisfying
either $\mathcal{F}$ is semistable or $\forall \mathcal{F}'\subset \mathcal{F}$, $\chi(\mathcal{F}')\leq d$.
(2) Let $\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)$ ($\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)^s$, resp.) be the substack of $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ parametrizing semistable (stable, resp.) sheaves in $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$.
(3) Let $\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ be the substack of $\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)^s$ parametrizing sheaves with integral supports.
(4) Let $\mathcal{M}^{d,R}(L,\chi)$ be the substack of $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ parametrizing sheaves with reducible supports in $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$.
Let $\mathcal{M}^{R}(L,\chi)=\mathcal{M}^{d,R}(L,\chi)\cap\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)^s$.
(5) Let $\mathcal{M}^{d,N}(L,\chi)$ be the substack of $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ parametrizing sheaves with irreducible and non-reduced supports in $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$.
Let $\mathcal{M}^{N}(L,\chi)=\mathcal{M}^{d,N}(L,\chi)\cap\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)^s$.
(6) Let $\mathcal{C}^d(nL',\chi)$ $(n>1)$ be the substack of $\mathcal{M}^d(nL',\chi)$ parametrizing sheaves $\mathcal{F}$ whose supports are of the form $nC$ with $C$ an integral curve in $|L'|$. $\mathcal{C}(nL',\chi)=\mathcal{C}^d(nL',\chi)\cap\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)^s$.
\end{defn}
\begin{lemma}\label{codim}Let $X=\Sigma_e$ and $L=aG+bF$ ample with $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$.
Then for all $\chi$ and $d$, $\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ is smooth of dimension $L^2$,
and the complement of $\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ inside $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ is of codimension $\geq2$, i.e. of dimension $\leq L^2-2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof
Since $L.K_X<0$, $\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ is smooth of dimension $L^2$.
We first estimate the dimension of $\mathcal{C}^d(nL',\chi)$ ($n>1$).
Write $L'=a'G+b'F$. Since $|L'|^{int}\neq\emptyset$, $L'=G$ or $F$; or $b'\geq a'e$, $e>0$; or $a',b'>0$, $e=0$.
\emph{Claim $\clubsuit$.} $\forall~d,\chi$, $dim~\mathcal{C}^d(nL',\chi)\leq n^2L'^2-\min\{7,-nL'.K_X-1,(n-1)L'^2\}\leq n^2L'^2$ for $L'$ nef and $dim~\mathcal{C}^d(nG,\chi)\leq -n^2$ for $e>0$.
We show Claim $\clubsuit$. Let
$$\mathcal{T}_m(L,\chi):=\{\mathcal{F}\in \mathcal{M}(L,\chi) |\exists ~x\in X, such~that~dim_{k(x)}(\mathcal{F}\otimes k(x))\geq m\},$$
where $k(x)$ is the residue field of $x$.
Take a very ample divisor $H=G+(e+1)F$ on $X$. If $L'$ is nef, then $(-jH+K_X).L'<0$ for all $j\geq-1$ and hence $ H^1(\mathscr{E}xt^1(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F})(jH))\cong\operatorname{Ext}^2(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F} (jH))\cong \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F}(K_X-jH))^{\vee}=0$ for all $j\geq-1$ and $\mathcal{F} \in \mathcal{C}(nL',\chi)$. Therefore by Castelnuovo-Mumford criterion $\mathscr{E}xt^1(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F})$ is globally generated. Hence by Le Potier's argument in the proof of Lemma 3.2 in \cite{LP1}, $\mathcal{C}(nL',\chi)\cap\mathcal{T}_m(nL',\chi)$ is of dimension $\leq n^2L'^2-m^2+2$. Combining Proposition 4.1 and Theorem 4.16 in \cite{Yuan4}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{nrdim}dim~\mathcal{C}(nL',\chi)\leq n^2L'^2-\min\{7,n(n-1)L'^2,-nK_X.L'-1\}.\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{C}^d(nL',\chi)\setminus \mathcal{C}(nL',\chi)$. Since $\forall~\mathcal{F}'\subset\mathcal{F}$, $K_X.c_1(\mathcal{F}')<0$, the proof of Proposition 2.7 in \cite{Yuan4} applies and $dim~(\mathcal{C}^d(nL',\chi)\setminus \mathcal{C}(nL',\chi))\leq n^2L'^2-(n-1)L'^2$.
Let $e>0$. For every semistable sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ with support $nG$, the map $\mathcal{F}\xrightarrow{\cdot\delta_G}\mathcal{F}(G)$ is zero because $G^2<0$, where $\delta_G\in H^0(\mathcal{O}_X(G))$ is a function defining the divisor $G$. Hence $\mathcal{F}$ is a sheaf on $G$ and hence a direct sum of $n$ line bundles over $G$. Thus $dim~\mathcal{C}(nG,\chi)\leq-n^2$. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be unstable with support $G$, then take the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of it as follows.
\[0=\mathcal{F}_0\subsetneq \mathcal{F}_1\subsetneq\cdots\subsetneq \mathcal{F}_k=\mathcal{F},\]
with $\mathcal{F}_i/\mathcal{F}_{i-1}\cong\mathcal{O}_G(s_i)^{\oplus n_i}$ such that $s_1>s_2>\cdots >s_{k}$ and $\sum_{i=1}^k n_i=n$. Then $\text{ext}^2(\mathcal{F}_i/\mathcal{F}_{i-1},\mathcal{F}_{i-1})=\text{hom}(\mathcal{F}_{i-1},\mathcal{F}_{i}/\mathcal{F}_{i-1}(K_X))\leq\sum_{j<i}\text{hom}(\mathcal{O}_G(s_j)^{\oplus n_j},\mathcal{O}_G(s_i+(e-2))^{\oplus n_i})\leq \sum_{j<i}(e-2)n_in_j.$
By induction assumption $dim~\mathcal{C}^d(\tilde{n}G,\chi)\leq-\tilde{n}^2$ for all $\tilde{n}<n$, then by analogous argument to the proof of Proposition 2.7 in \cite{Yuan4} we have
\[\begin{array}{l}dim~\mathcal{C}^d(nG,\chi)\\
\leq\displaystyle{\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}n_1,\cdots,n_k>0\\ \sum_{i} n_i=n\end{array}}}}\{-n^2,-(\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}n_i)^2-n_k^2+\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_k/\mathcal{F}_{k-1},\mathcal{F}_{k-1})-\text{hom}(\mathcal{F}_k/\mathcal{F}_{k-1},\mathcal{F}_{k-1})\}\\
=\displaystyle{\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}n_1,\cdots,n_k>0\\ \sum_{i} n_i=n\end{array}}}}\{-n^2,-(\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}n_i)^2-n_k^2-\chi(\mathcal{F}_i/\mathcal{F}_{k-1},\mathcal{F}_{k-1})+\text{ext}^2(\mathcal{F}_k/\mathcal{F}_{k-1},\mathcal{F}_{k-1})\}\\
\leq \displaystyle{\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}n_1,\cdots,n_k>0\\ \sum_{i} n_i=n\end{array}}}}\{-n^2,-(\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}n_i)^2-n_k^2-n_k(\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}n_i)e+(e-2)(\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}n_in_k)\}=-n^2 \end{array}\]
Therefore Claim $\clubsuit$ is proved.
Easy to see $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)\setminus\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)=\mathcal{M}^{d,R}(L,\chi)\cup\mathcal{M}^{d,N}(L,\chi)$ and $\mathcal{M}^{d,N}(L,\chi)=\cup_{nL'=L}\mathcal{C}^d(nL',\chi)$.
Claim $\clubsuit$ implies that $\mathcal{M}^{d,N}(L,\chi)$ is of codimension $\geq 2$ inside $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ for $L$ ample.
Now we only need to show $\mathcal{M}^{d,R}(L,\chi)$ is of dimension $\leq L^2-2$.
Let $\mathcal{G}\in\mathcal{M}^{d,R}(L,\chi)$, then $\mathcal{G}$ admits a filtration as follows.
\[0=\mathcal{G}_0\subsetneq \mathcal{G}_1\subsetneq\cdots\subsetneq \mathcal{G}_l=\mathcal{G},\]
with $\mathcal{S}_i:=\mathcal{G}_i/\mathcal{G}_{i-1}\in\mathcal{C}^{d_i}(n_iL_i,\chi_i)$ such that $\displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^l} n_iL_i=L$, $\displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^l} \chi_i=\chi$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S}_i,\mathcal{S}_j)=\operatorname{Ext}^2(\mathcal{S}_i,\mathcal{S}_j)=0,~\forall~i\neq j$. Hence
$\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{S}_i,\mathcal{S}_j)=-\chi(\mathcal{S}_i,\mathcal{S}_j)=n_in_j(L_i.L_j)$ for all $i>j$, and $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{S}_i,\mathcal{G}_{i-1})=\displaystyle{\sum_{j<i}}\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{S}_i,\mathcal{G}_{i-1})$.
By analogous argument to the proof of Proposition 2.7 in \cite{Yuan4}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{redd}\begin{array}{l}dim~\mathcal{M}^{d,R}(L,\chi)\leq \displaystyle{\max_{\sum n_iL_i=L}} \{\sum_{i}dim~\mathcal{C}^{d_i}(n_iL_i,\chi_i)+\sum_{j<i}n_in_j(L_i.L_j)\}\\
\leq\displaystyle{\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum n_iL_i=L-a_0G\\ L_i ~nef, a_0\leq a\end{array}}} }\{\sum_{i}n^2_iL_i^2+\sum_{j<i}n_in_j(L_i.L_j)-a_0^2+a_0G.(L-a_0G)\}
\\ = \displaystyle{\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum n_iL_i=L-a_0G\\ L_i ~nef, a_0\leq a\end{array}}} }\{L^2-\sum_{j<i}n_in_j(L_i.L_j)-a_0^2-a_0G.L\}\\
=L^2-\displaystyle{\min_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum n_iL_i=L-a_0G\\ L_i ~nef, a_0\leq a\end{array}}} }\{\sum_{j<i}n_in_j(L_i.L_j)+a_0^2+a_0G.L\}
\end{array}\end{equation}
If $a_0\geq 1$, then $\sum_{j<i}n_in_j(L_i.L_j)+a_0^2+a_0G.L\geq a_0^2+a_0(b-ea)\geq 2$. If $a_0=0$ or $e=0$, then $\sum_{j<i}n_in_j(L_i.L_j)\geq 2$ since $\min\{a,b\}\geq 2$ and $L_i$ are all nef. Hence the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{dfo}Let $d$, $\chi$ be two integers. Claim $\clubsuit$ and (\ref{redd}) also provide an estimate of $dim~\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ for all $L$ effective. We can see that $dim~\mathcal{M}^d(nG,\chi)=dim~\mathcal{C}^d(nG,\chi)\leq-n^2$ for $e\neq 0$ and $dim~\mathcal{M}^d(nF,\chi)\leq 0$.
Denote by $|L|^{int}$ the open subset of $|L|$ consisting of all integral curves. If $L$ is nef and big, i.e. $|L|^{int}\neq \emptyset$ and $L\neq F,G$, then $L.K_X<0$ and $dim~\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ is smooth of dimension $L^2$, and moreover by Claim $\clubsuit$ and (\ref{redd}), $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)\setminus\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)\leq L^2-1$. Hence $dim~\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)=dim~\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)^s=L^2$ and $\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)$ is irreducible of expected dimension.
If $|L|^{int}=\emptyset$, $\min\{a,b\}\geq1$ and $-K_X$ is nef, i.e. $e\leq2$; then $\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)^s$ is either empty or of smooth of dimension $L^2$.
If $|L|^{int}=\emptyset$ with $\min\{a,b\}\geq1$, then $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)=\mathcal{M}^{d,R}(L,\chi)$ and we then have
\[dim~\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)\leq \displaystyle{\max_{L-a_0G~nef}}\{(L-a_0G)^2+a_0G(L-a_0G)-a_0^2\}.\]
Let $\mathcal{F}_L$ be stable with $C_{\mathcal{F}_L}=a_0G+C'_{\mathcal{F}_L}$ such that $G$ is not a component of $C'_{\mathcal{F}_L}$, let $\mathcal{F}^G_L$ be $\mathcal{F}_L\otimes \mathcal{O}_{a_0G}$ modulo its torsion. Hence $\mathcal{F}^G_L$ is a quotient of $\mathcal{F}_L$ while $\mathcal{F}^G_L(-C'_{\mathcal{F}_L})$ is a subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}_L$. Hence by stability of $\mathcal{F}_L$, $C'_{\mathcal{F}_L}.G>0$ and $L-a_0G$ must be either ample or $bF$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{empty}dim~\mathcal{M}(L,\chi)^s\leq \displaystyle{\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}L-a_0G~ample\\ or~ a_0=a\end{array}}}}\{(L-a_0G)^2+a_0G(L-a_0G)-a_0^2\}.\end{equation}
\end{rem}
We can choose an atlas $\Omega^d_{L,\chi}\xrightarrow{\psi} \mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ with $\Omega^d_{L,\chi}$ a subscheme of some Quot-scheme. We also can ask $\psi^{-1}(\mathcal{M}(L,\chi))=:\Omega_{L,\chi}\xrightarrow{f_M} M(L,\chi)$ to be a good $PGL(V_{L,\chi})$-quotient with $M(L,\chi)$ the coarse moduli space of semistable sheaves. Analogously we define
$\Omega^{s}_{L,\chi}$, $\Omega^{int}_{L,\chi}$, $\Omega^{d,R}_{L,\chi}$, $\Omega^{d,N}_{L,\chi}$ etc. If $\chi=0$, we write $\Omega^{\bullet}_L$ instead of $\Omega_{L,0}^{\bullet}$.
Since $\psi$ is smooth, the codimension of $\Omega^{\bullet}_{L,\chi}$ inside $\Omega^d_{L,\chi}$ is the same as $\mathcal{M}^{\bullet}(L,\chi)$ inside $\mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$. ``$\bullet$" stands for
``$int$", ``$d,R$", ``$d,N$" etc.
Let $M^{int}(L,\chi):=\pi^{-1}(|L|^{int})$. Then $M^{int}(L,\chi)$ is a flat family of (compactified) Jacobians over $|L|^{int}$, hence it is connected. $\Omega_{L,\chi}^{int}=f_M^{-1}(M^{int}(L,\chi))$ and $\Omega_{L,\chi}^{int}$ is a principal $PGL(V_L)$-bundle over $M^{int}(L,\chi)$ hence also connected.
We have a corollary to Lemma \ref{codim} as follows.
\begin{coro}\label{inno}Let $X=\Sigma_e$ and $L=aG+bF$.
(1) If $\min\{a,b\}\leq1$, then $M(L,0)\cong|L|$ and $\Theta_L\cong\mathcal{O}_{|L|}$.
(2) If $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$ and $L$ is nef for $e\neq 1$, ample for $e=1$, then
$M(L,0)$ is integral and normal; $M(L,0)\setminus M^{int}(L,0)$ is of codimension $\geq2$ inside $M(L,0)$;
and the dualizing sheaf of $M(L,0)$ is locally free and isomorphic to $ \pi^{*}\mathcal{O}_{|L|}(L.K_X)$.
Moreover $\pi_{*}\Theta_L\cong\mathcal{O}_{|L|}$ and $R^i\pi_{*}\Theta_L^r=0$ for all $i,r>0$.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}If $\min\{a,b\}\leq1$, then done by Proposition 4.1.1 in \cite{Yuan1}.
Let $L$ be as in (2). There are nonsingular irreducible curves in $|L|$ and the complement of $|L|^{int}$ in $|L|$ is of codimension $\geq 2$. Since $L.K_X<0$, $M^{int}(L,0)$ is smooth and irreducible of dimension $L^2+1$.
$\Omega_{L}^{int}$ is also smooth, hence irreducible and of expected dimension.
By Lemma \ref{codim}, $\Omega^d_L\setminus\Omega_L^{int}$ is of codimension $\geq 2$ inside $\Omega^d_L$, then $\Omega_L^{int}$ is dense in
$\Omega_L$, hence then $\Omega_L$ is of expected dimension and by deformation theory $\Omega_L$ is a local complete intersection. On the other hand, $\Omega_L$
is smooth in codimension 1, hence normal for local complete intersection. Therefore $M(L,0)$ is integral and normal since $\Omega_L$ is.
To show that $M(L,0)\setminusM^{int}(L,0)$ is of codimension $\geq 2$, we only need to show $M(L,0)\setminusM(L,0)^s$ is of codimension $\geq 2$ with $M(L,0)^s$ the open subset consisting of stable sheaves. By Remark \ref{dfo}, $dim~M(L',0)^s=L'^2+1$ for $L'$ nef and big, $dim~M(F,0)^s=1$, $dim~M(nF,0)^s=0$ for $n>1$, $dim~M(nG,0)=0$ for $e>0$ and finally by (\ref{empty})
for $|L'|^{int}=\emptyset$ and $L'\neq nF,mG,$
$$dim~M(L',0)^s\leq\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}L-a_0G~ample\\ or~ a_0=a\end{array}}}\{(L'-a_0G)^2+1-a_0^2+a_0G.(L'-a_0G)\}.$$
Hence if $e\neq 0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{ssemi}\begin{array}{l}L^2+1-dim~(M(L,0)\setminusM(L,0)^s)=L^2+1-\displaystyle{\max_{\sum L_i=L}} \{\sum_{i}dim~M(L_i,0)^s\}\\
\leq L^2+1-\displaystyle{\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum L_i=L-a_0G\\ L'_i:=L_i-a_iG~nef
\\ a_i\geq0,~ a_0\leq a\end{array}}} }\{\sum_{i}(L_i-a_iG)^2-a_i^2+a_iG.(L_i-a_iG)+\#\{L_i\}\}
\\ \leq\displaystyle{\min_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum L_i=L-a_0G\\ L'_i:=L_i-a_iG~nef, \\ a_i\geq0,~ a_0\leq a\end{array}}} }\{\sum_{j\neq i}(L'_i.L'_j)-\#\{L'_i\}
+\sum_{i\neq 0} a_i^2+\sum_{i\neq0}a_iG.(L'_i+2\sum_{j\neq i}L'_j)\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+2a_0G.L+(a^2_0-(\displaystyle{\sum_{i\neq0}}a_i)^2)e+1\}
\\ \leq\displaystyle{\min_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum L_i=L-a_0G\\ L'_i:=L_i-a_iG~nef, \\ a_i\geq0,~ a_0\leq a\end{array}}} }\{\sum_{j\neq i}(L'_i.L'_j)-\#\{L'_i\}
+\sum_{i\neq 0} a_i^2+\sum_{i\neq0}a_iG.(L-a_0G+\sum_{j\neq i}L'_j)\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+2a_0G.L+a^2_0e+1\}
\\ =\displaystyle{\min_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum L_i=L-a_0G\\ L'_i:=L_i-a_iG~nef, \\ a_i\geq0,~ a_0\leq a\end{array}}} }\{\sum_{j\neq i}(L'_i.L'_j)-\#\{L'_i\}
+\sum_{i\neq 0} a_i^2+\sum_{i\neq0,j\neq i}a_iG.L'_j+(\sum_{i\geq0}a_i)G.L\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+a_0G.L+a_0(\sum_{i\geq0}a_i)e+1\}
\end{array}\end{equation}
We want $dim~(M(L,0)\setminusM(L,0)^s)\leq L^2-1$.
Assume $L'_i=n_iF$ for all $i$, then $\sum_{i\geq 0}a_i=a$. If moreover $a_i=0$ for $i\neq0$, then $a_0=a$ and $-\#\{L'_i\}+2a_0G.L+a_0^2e+1=1+2a(b-ae)-b+a^2e=b(a-1)+a(b-ae)+1\geq 5$ since $a,b\geq 2$ and $b>ae$. If $\exists~a_{k_0}\neq 0$ for $k_0\neq 0$, then $-\#\{L'_i\}
+\sum_{i\neq 0} a_i^2+\sum_{i\neq0,j\neq i}a_iG.L'_j+aG.L+1\geq a(b-ae)+1\geq 3.$
Assume $\exists~ L'_{i_0}\neq nF$, then $L'_{i_0}.L'_j\geq1$ for $L'_j$ nef hence $\sum_{j\neq i}(L'_i.L'_j)\geq 2(\#\{L'_i\}-1)$. If $a_0\geq1$, then $2a_0G.L+a^2_0e\geq 3$ and hence
$\sum_{j\neq i}(L'_i.L'_j)-\#\{L'_i\}+2a_0G.L+a^2_0e+1\geq3$. If $a_0=0$, then $\#\{L'_i\}\geq 2$ and either $\exists~ L'_{i_0},L'_{j_0}$, such that $L'_{i_0}.L_j\geq 1,~L'_{j_0}.L'_j\geq1$ for $L'_j$ nef; or $\exists ~L'_{i_0},$ such that $L'_{i_0}.L'_j\geq2$ for $L'_j$ nef; or $\exists~a_{k_0}\neq 0$ for $k_0\neq 0$. Then we have
$$\sum_{j\neq i}(L'_i.L'_j)+\sum_{i\neq 0} a_i^2+\sum_{i\neq0,j\neq i}a_iG.L'_j+(\sum_{i\geq0}a_i)G.L\geq 2(\#\{L'_i\}-1)+2$$ and
$$\sum_{j\neq i}(L'_i.L'_j)-\#\{L'_i\}+\sum_{i\neq 0} a_i^2+\sum_{i\neq0,j\neq i}a_iG.L'_j+(\sum_{i\geq0}a_i)G.L+1\geq \#\{L_i\}+1\geq 3.$$
If $e=0$, then easy to see
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ezero}dim~(M(L,0)\setminusM(L,0)^s)&=&\max_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum_iL_i=L\\ L_i~nef\end{array}}}\{\sum_{i}L^2_i+\#\{L_i\}\}\nonumber\\
&\leq& L^2-\min_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c}\sum_iL_i=L\\ L_i~nef\end{array}}}\{\sum_{j\neq i}L_iL_j-\#\{L_i\}\} \leq L^2-2.\end{eqnarray}
Therefore the complement of $M(L,0)^s$ inside $M(L,0)$ is of codimension $\geq 3$ and hence $M(L,0)\setminusM^{int}(L,0)$ is of codimension $\geq2$.
Because $\Omega_L\setminus\Omega_L^{int}$ is of codimension $\geq2$ and $|L|$ contains smooth curves, sheaves not locally free on their supports form a subset of codimension $\geq 2$ inside $\Omega_L$, hence Proposition 4.2.11 in \cite{Yuan1} applies and then the dualizing sheaf of $M(L,0)$ is isomorphic to $\pi^{*}\mathcal{O}_{|L|}(L.K_X)$.
Moreover since $M(L,0)$ is normal and integral, and the complement of $|L|^{int}$ inside $|L|$ is of codimension $\geq2$, Theorem 4.3.1 in \cite{Yuan1} and Proposition 4.3 in \cite{Yuan5} apply and we obtain that $\pi_{*}\Theta_L\cong\mathcal{O}_{|L|}$ and $R^i\pi_{*}\Theta_L^r=0$ for all $i,r>0$.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{com}Let $L$ be as in Corollary \ref{inno}. Since $\pi_{*}\Theta_L\cong\mathcal{O}_{|L|}$ and $R^i\pi_{*}\Theta_L^r=0$ for all $i,r>0$, $H^i(\Theta_L(n))=0$ for all $i>0$ and $n\geq 0$. Hence we already know that the map $g_L$ in (\ref{sddim}) is surjective in this case.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Statement (1) of Theorem \ref{ruled}]By Corollary \ref{inno}, the strange duality map $SD_{c_2^1,u_L}$ in (\ref{rank1}) is a map between two vector spaces of same dimension, while $L$ is in case (1) of the theorem. The argument proving Corollary 4.3.2 in \cite{Yuan1} applies and hence $SD_{c_2^1,u_L}$ is an isomorphism. Statement (1) is proved.
\end{proof}
To prove Statement (2) and (3), we need to introduce more stacks.
\begin{defn}For two integers $k>0$ and $i$, we define $\mathcal{M}_{k,i}^{int}(L,\chi)$ to be the (locally closed) substack of $\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ parametrizing sheaves $\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ such that $h^1(\mathcal{F}(-iK_X))=k$ and $h^1(\mathcal{F}(-nK_X))=0,~\forall~ n>i.$ Let $M^{int}_{k,i}(L,\chi)$ be the image of $\mathcal{M}_{k,i}^{int}(L,\chi)$ in $M^{int}(L,\chi)$.
Define $\mathcal{W}_{k,i}^{int}(L,\chi)$ to be the (locally closed) substack of $\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ parametrizing sheaves $\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,\chi)$ with $h^0(\mathcal{F}(-iK_X))=k$ and $h^0(\mathcal{F}(-nK_X))=0,~\forall ~n<i$. Let $W^{int}_{k,i}(L,\chi)$ be the image of $\mathcal{W}_{k,i}^{int}(L,\chi)$ in $M^{int}(L,\chi)$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}\label{bound}Since $L.K_X<0$, for fixed $\chi$, $\mathcal{M}_{k,i}^{int}(L,\chi)$ is empty except for finitely many pairs $(k,i)$. We don't define $\mathcal{M}^d_{k,i}(L,\chi)\subset \mathcal{M}^d(L,\chi)$ because $L$ may not be $K_X$-negative (see Definition 2.1 in \cite{Yuan4}) and the analogous definition may not behave well.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{duke}By sending each sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ to its dual $\mathscr{E} xt^1(\mathcal{F},K_X)$, we get an isomorphism $\mathcal{M}_{k,i}^{int}(L,\chi)\xrightarrow{\cong}\mathcal{W}^{int}_{k,-i}(L,-\chi)$.
\end{rem}
By Proposition 5.5 and Remark 5.6 in \cite{Yuan4}, we have
\begin{prop}\label{dnki}$dim~\mathcal{M}_{k,i}^{int}(L,\chi)\leq L^2+iK_X.L-\chi-k$ and $dim~\mathcal{W}_{k,i}^{int}(L,0)\leq L^2-iK_X.L+\chi-k$. Hence $dim~M_{k,i}^{int}(L,0)\leq L^2+1+iK_X.L-\chi-k$ and $dim~W_{k,i}^{int}(L,0)\leq L^2+1-iK_X.L+\chi-k$.
\end{prop}
\begin{coro}\label{coddz}Let $X=\Sigma_e$ and $L=aG+bF$ ample with $\min\{a,b\}\geq2$.
Let $D_{\Theta_L}^{int}:=D_{\Theta_L}\capM^{int}(L,0)$. Then $dim~D_{\Theta_L}\setminus D_{\Theta_L}^{int}\leq L^2-2$, and $dim~\mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}\setminus \mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}^{int}\leq L^2-3$ with $\mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}$ ($\mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}^{int}$, resp.) the preimage of $D_{\Theta_L}$ ($D_{\Theta_L}^{int}$, resp.) inside $\mathcal{M}(L,0)$.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof
We have shown that $M(L,0)\setminusM(L,0)^s$ is of dimension $\leq L^2-2$. Then we only need to show $dim~(\mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}\setminus \mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}^{int})\leq L^2-3$. Let $\mathcal{C}_{L_1,~L_2}$ with $L_1+L_2=L$ be the stack parametring sheaves $\mathcal{F}\in \mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}$ with supports $C_{\mathcal{F}}=C_{L_1}+C_{L_2}$ such that $C_{L_i}\in |L_i|^{int}$ for $i=1,2$. By (\ref{nrdim}) and (\ref{redd}), we only need to show the stacks $\mathcal{C}_{2G+(b-1)F,~F}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{(a-1)G+(ae+1)F,~G}$ is of dimension $\leq L^2-3$.
Let $\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{C}_{2G+(b-1)F,~F}$. Then we have the following exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{ae2}0\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_1\rightarrow\mathcal{F}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_2\ra0,\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}_2$ is the torsion free part of $\mathcal{F}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{C_F}$ and $\mathcal{F}_1\in\mathcal{M}^{int}(2G+(b-1)F,\chi_1)$ with $\chi_1\leq 0$. Notice that $\mathcal{F}_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_X(F)$ is a quotient of $\mathcal{F}$, hence $\chi_1+2\geq 0$. Also $\mathcal{F}_2\otimes\mathcal{O}_X(-2G-(b-1)F)$ is a subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}$ and hence $\mathcal{F}_2\cong\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}$ or $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(-1)$. Let $\mathcal{C}_{2G+(b-1)F,~F}^0\subset \mathcal{C}_{2G+(b-1)F,~F}$ consist of $\mathcal{F}$ in (\ref{ae2}) with $H^0(\mathcal{F}_1)=0$. $\mathcal{F}_1\in\bigcup_{i\leq0}\mathcal{W}^{int}_{k,i}(2G+(b-1)F,\chi_1)$ if $\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{C}_{2G+(b-1)F,~F}\setminus \mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,~F}$. Therefore
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{l}dim ~\mathcal{C}_{2G+(b-1)F,~F}\setminus \mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,~F}\\
\leq (2G+(b-1)F).F+dim~\displaystyle{\bigcup_{i\leq0}}~\mathcal{W}^{int}_{k,i}(2G+(b-1)F,\chi_1)\\
\leq (2G+(b-1)F)^2-1+\chi_1+2\leq4b-4e-3=L^2-3.\end{array}\end{equation}
Denote by $g_L$ the arithmetic genus of curves in $|L|$. If $\mathcal{F}\in \mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,F}$, then there is a injection $\mathcal{O}_{C_{\mathcal{F}}}\hookrightarrow\mathcal{F}$ with cokernel $\mathcal{O}_{Z_{\mathcal{F}}}$, where $Z_{\mathcal{F}}$ is a 0-dimensional subscheme of $C_{\mathcal{F}}$ with length $g_L-1$. We have $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{O}_{Z},\mathcal{O}_{C})=dim~Aut(\mathcal{O}_{Z})=h^0(\mathcal{O}_Z)=g_L-1$ for all $Z\subset C$. Hence for a fixed curve $C$ and $[Z]\in C^{[g_L-1]}$, there are finitely many possible choices for $\mathcal{F}$ lying in the following sequence
\[0\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_C\rightarrow\mathcal{F}\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_Z\ra0.\]
Hence the fiber of the projection $\mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,F}\rightarrow |2G+(b-1)F|\times|F|$ over a curve $C$ is of dimension no larger than
$$dim~C^{[g_L-1]}+\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{O}_Z,\mathcal{O}_C)-dim~Aut(\mathcal{O}_{C})\times Aut(\mathcal{O}_Z)=dim~C^{[g_L-1]}-1.$$
Therefore
\[\begin{array}{l}dim~\mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,F}\\
\leq dim~|2G+(b-1)F|\times|F|-1+\displaystyle{\max_{\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,F}}}dim~C_{\mathcal{F}}^{[g_L-1]}\\
=3b-3e-1+\displaystyle{\max_{\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,F}}}dim~C_{\mathcal{F}}^{[g_L-1]}\\
=4b-4e-3+(\displaystyle{\max_{\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,F}}}dim~C_{\mathcal{F}}^{[g_L-1]}-(g_L-1))\\
=L^2-3+(\displaystyle{\max_{\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{C}^0_{2G+(b-1)F,F}}}dim~C_{\mathcal{F}}^{[g_L-1]}-(g_L-1)).\end{array}\]
The only thing left to prove is $dim~C_{\mathcal{F}}^{[g_L-1]}\leq g_L-1$ for all $C_{\mathcal{F}}$, and this follows from that $C_{\mathcal{F}}$ only have isolated planner singularities and the result of Iarrobino (Corollary 2 in \cite{Ia}).
Analogously we can show that $dim~\mathcal{C}_{(a-1)G+(ae+1)F,~G}\leq L^2-3$.
The corollary is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Statement (2) and (3) of Theorem \ref{ruled}] The proof has 7 steps and we check all conditions in $\textbf{CB}$ and $\textbf{CB}'$ one by one as follows.
\emph{Step 1: $\textbf{CB}$-(1).}
Since $M(L,0)$ is integral and $D_{\Theta_L}$ is a divisor on it, to show $\textbf{CB}$-(1) it is enough to show $dim~(D_{\Theta_L}\setminus D_{\Theta_L}^o)\leq L^2-1.$ By Corollary \ref{coddz}, it is enough to show $dim~(D^{int}_{\Theta_L}\setminus D_{\Theta_L}^o)\leq L^2-1$. By definition
\[(D^{int}_{\Theta_L}\setminus D_{\Theta_L}^o)\subset \bigcup_{\begin{array}{c}k\geq2,i=0\\~or~i\geq1\end{array}} M_{k,i}^{int}(L,0).\]
Therefore we have $\textbf{CB}$-(1) is fulfilled by Proposition \ref{dnki}.
\emph{Step 2: $\textbf{CB}$-(2).}
Assume $L=aG+bF$ ample with $\min\{a,b\}\geq 4$.
Then Lemma \ref{codim} applies to $L+K_X=(a-2)G+(b-e-2)F$ and $M(L\otimes K_X,0)\setminus M^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0)$ is of codimension $\geq2$. $M(L\otimes K_X,0)$ satisfies the ``condition $S_2$ of Serre" because it is normal by Corollary \ref{inno}. Hence to prove $\textbf{CB}$-(2) is fulfilled, it is enough to show $M^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0)\setminusM(L\otimes K_X,0)^o$ is of dimension $\leq (L+K_X)^2-1$.
Since we have
\[M^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0)\setminusM(L\otimes K_X,0)^{o}=\bigcup_{i\leq -1} W^{int}_{k,i}(L\otimes K_X,0),\]
by Proposition \ref{dnki} we have \[dim~M^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0)\setminusM(L\otimes K_X,0)^{o}\leq (L+K_X)^2+K_X.(L+K_X)\leq (L+K_X)^2-1.\]
Hence $\textbf{CB}$-(2).
\emph{Step 3: $\textbf{CB}$-(3).}
To check that $\textbf{CB}$-(3) holds, it is enough to show the following three statements.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $dim~Q_1^o=2\ell-L.K_X=L^2$;
\item $\rho^{-1}_1(\rho_1(Q_1^o))\setminus Q_1^o$ is of dimension $\leq 2\ell-L.K_X-2=L^2-2$;
\item $H_{\ell}\setminus\rho_1(Q_1^o)$ is of dimension $\leq 2\ell-2=L^2+L.K_X-2$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $s>0,t\geq0$, and define
$$Q_1^{s,t}:=\left\{[f_1:\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}_L]\in Q_1 \left|h^1(\mathcal{F}_L)=s,~h^1(\mathcal{F}_L(-K_X))=t\right.\right\},$$
$$H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}:=\left\{\mathcal{I}_Z\in H_{\ell}\left|h^1(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X))=s-1,~h^1(\mathcal{I}_Z(L))=t.\right.\right\}.$$
Then $Q_1^{s,t}=\rho_1^{-1}(H_{\ell}^{L,s,t})$, $\rho_1(Q_1^o)\subset H_{\ell}^{L,1,0}$ and $\rho^{-1}_1(\rho_1(Q_1^o))\subset Q_1^{1,0}$. For $d$ large enough, we have the classifying map $Q_1^{s,t}\xrightarrow{\phi^{L,s,t}_{L}}\mathcal{M}^d(L,0).$
In particular when $s=1$, $\phi^{L,1,t}_{L}(Q_1^{1,t})\subset\mathcal{M}(L,0)$, hence $\phi^{L,1,t}_{L}(Q_1^{1,t})\subset\mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}$. This is because for every $\mathcal{F}\in\mathcal{M}^d(L,0)$, if $h^0(\mathcal{F}_L)=1$ and there is a torsion free extension of $\mathcal{F}_L$ by $K_X$, then $\forall~\mathcal{F}'\subsetneq \mathcal{F}$, $h^0(\mathcal{F}')\leq1$ and $h^1(\mathcal{F}')\geq1$ hence then $\chi(\mathcal{F}')\leq0$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is semistable.
The fiber of $\phi_{L}^{L,s,t}$ at $\mathcal{F}_{L}$ is contained in $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L},K_X)$, and hence
\[dim~Q_1^{o}=1+dim(\mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}\cap(\mathcal{M}^{int}(L,0)\setminus\bigcup_{k\geq2,i=0~or~i>0}\mathcal{M}^{int}_{k,i}(L,0)))=L^2.\]
\begin{equation}\label{count}dim~(\bigcup_{t\geq0}Q_1^{1,t})\setminus Q_1^o\leq 1+dim~((\mathcal{D}_{\Theta_L}\setminus \mathcal{D}^{int}_{\Theta_L})\cup\bigcup_{i>0}\mathcal{M}^{int}_{k,i}(L,0))\leq L^2-2,\end{equation}
where the last inequality is because of Corollary \ref{coddz} and Proposition \ref{dnki}.
By (\ref{dd}) $Q_1^{s,t}\cong\mathbb{P}(p_{*}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*L)|_{H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}})$, where $p_{*}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*L)$ is a vector bundle of rank $h^0(\mathcal{I}_Z(L))=t+1-L.K_X$ over $H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{q1h}dim~Q_1^{s,t}=dim~H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}+t-L.K_X.\end{equation}
Hence (\ref{count}) impies $dim~(\bigcup_{t\geq0}H_{\ell}^{L,1,t})\setminus\rho_1(Q_1^o)\leq L^2+L.K_X-2$. Hence we only need to show $dim~H_{\ell}\setminus(\bigcup_{t\geq0} H_{\ell}^{L,1,t})\leq 2\ell-2$, i.e. $dim~H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}\leq 2\ell-2$ for all $s\geq2$.
$p_{*}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*(L\otimes K_X))$ is a vector bundle of rank $h^0(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X))=s$ over $H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}$. By (\ref{ddt}) $\mathbb{P}(p_{*}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*(L\otimes K_X))|_{H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}})$ is a locally closed subscheme inside $Q_2$. For $d$ big enough, there is a classifying map
\[\mathbb{P}(p_{*}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*(L\otimes K_X))|_{H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}})\xrightarrow{\phi^{L,s,t}_{L\otimes K_X}}\mathcal{M}^d(L\otimes K_X,0).\]
If $s\geq 2$, then the image of $\phi_{L\otimes K_X}^{L,s,t}$ is contained in
$$(\mathcal{M}^d(L\otimes K_X,0)\setminus\mathcal{M}^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0))\cup\bigcup_{\begin{array}{c}i=0,k=s-1\\or~i<0\end{array}}\mathcal{W}^{int}_{k,i}(L\otimes K_X,0).$$
The fiber of $\phi_{L\otimes K_X}^{L,s,t}$ at $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$ is contained in $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)$.
If $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\in\mathcal{W}_{s-1,0}^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0)$, then $h^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))=0$ and $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)=-(L+K_X).K_X$.
If $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\not\in\mathcal{W}_{s-1,0}^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0)$, then since $-K_X-G$ is very ample, by (\ref{ddt}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{dgf1}h^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))&=&h^0(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X^{\otimes 2}))\nonumber\\ & \leq& h^0(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X\otimes\mathcal{O}_X(-G)))-1
\nonumber\\ &\leq& h^0(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X))-1=s-1.\end{eqnarray}
Hence $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\leq s-1-(L+K_X).K_X$. Hence for $s\geq 2$
\begin{equation}\label{dh1}\begin{array}{l}dim~H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}+s-1 = ~dim~\mathbb{P}(p_{*}(\mathscr{I}_{\ell}\otimes q^*(L\otimes K_X))|_{H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}})\\
\leq \max\{dim~\mathcal{W}^{int}_{s-1,0}(L\otimes K_X,0)-(L+K_X).K_X,~~ s-1-(L+K_X).K_X+\\ ~~~~ dim~(\mathcal{M}^d(L\otimes K_X,0)\setminus\mathcal{M}^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0)\cup\displaystyle{\bigcup_{i<0}}\mathcal{W}^{int}_{k,i}(L\otimes K_X,0))\}\\
\leq\max\{(L+K_X).L-1, ~(L+K_X).L-3+s\}=(L+K_X).L-3+s.\end{array}
\end{equation}
Hence $dim~H_{\ell}^{L,s,t}\leq 2\ell-2$ for all $s\geq2$.
Hence $\textbf{CB}$-(3) is fulfilled.
\emph{Step 4: $\textbf{CB}$-(4).}
$\textbf{CB}$-(4) can be shown analogously: $Q_2^o$ is obviously nonempty and there is a classifying map $Q_2\xrightarrow{\phi^{L\otimes K_X}_{L\otimes K_X}}\mathcal{M}^d(L\otimes K_X,0)$ with fiber over $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$ contained in $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)$. $dim~\rho^{-1}_2(\rho_2(Q_2^o))\setminus Q_2^o\leq dim~Q_2^o-2$ because
\[\begin{array}{l}~~~~dim~\phi^{L\otimes K_X}_{L\otimes K_X} (\rho^{-1}_2(\rho_2(Q_2^o))\setminus Q_2^o)\\ \leq
dim~\mathcal{M}^d(L\otimes K_X,0)\setminus\mathcal{M}^{int}(L\otimes K_X,0)\cup\bigcup_{i\leq -1}\mathcal{W}^{int}_{k,i}(L\otimes K_X,0) \\ \leq (L+K_X)^2-2,\end{array}\]
and $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)=-K_X.(L+K_X)$ for all $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\in \phi^{L\otimes K_X}_{L\otimes K_X} (\rho^{-1}_2(\rho_2(Q_2^o))$.
Statement (3) is proved.
\emph{Step 5: $\textbf{CB}'$-$(3')$ and $\textbf{CB}'$-$(2'a)$.}
Now we prove Statement (2) of the theorem. We need to check conditions in $\textbf{CB}'$ hold. With no loss of generality, we ask $L=aG+bF$ with $b\geq a$. Then in this case $L+K_X=mF$ or $G+nF$ with $n>0$ for $e=0$, and $n\geq 2e-1$ for $e\geq 1$.
Then $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$ is semistable $\Leftrightarrow~H^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})=0$. Hence $H_{\ell}'\subset \bigcup_{t\geq0} H^{L,1,t}_{\ell}$ and by (\ref{count}) we have $\textbf{CB}'$-$(3')$. Notice that (\ref{count}) holds for $L=aG+bF$ ample with $\min\{a,b\}\geq 2$.
Also $M(L\otimes K_X,0)\cong |L\otimes K_X|$ and $M(L\otimes K_X,0)'\cong|L\otimes K_X|'$. Then easy to check $\textbf{CB}'$-$(2'a)$ holds.
\emph{Step 6: $\textbf{CB}'$-$(2'b)$.}
Now we check $\textbf{CB}'$-$(2'b)$. First let $L\otimes K_X=G+nF$ with $|G+nF|^{int}\neq\emptyset$.
Recall the commutative diagram in (\ref{pie})
\begin{equation}\label{rpie}\xymatrix{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}') &P_2'\ar[l]_{~~~~\supseteq}\ar[r]^{\sigma'_2}\ar[d]_{f_{Q_2}'} &\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}\ar[d]^{f'_M}\\ & Q_2'\ar[r]_{g_2'~~~~~~~} &M(L\otimes K_X,0)' }.\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{V}'=\mathscr{E}xt_p^1(\mathscr{Q}_{L\otimes K_X}|_{\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}},q^{*}\mathcal{O}_X)$ with $\mathscr{Q}_{L\otimes K_X}$ the universal quotient over $\Omega_{L\otimes K_X}$. $\mathcal{V}'$ is locally free of rank $-(L+K_X).K_X$ on $\Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}$. $P'_2\subset\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')$ parametrizing torsion free extensions of $\mathscr{Q}_{\mathfrak{s}}$ by $\mathcal{O}_X$ for all $\mathfrak{s}\in \Omega'_{L\otimes K_X}$ and $f'_{Q_2}: P'_2\rightarrow Q'_2$ is the classifying map and also a principal $PGL(V_{L\otimes K_X})$-bundle for some vector space $V_{L\otimes K_X}$.
To show the complement of $P_2'$ inside $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')$ is of codimension $\geq2$, it is enough to show for every $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}\in\mathcal{M}^R(L\otimes K_X,0)$, $H^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))=0$ with support $C_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}=C^1_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}\cup C^2_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}$ such that $C^1_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}\in|F|$ and $C^2_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}\in|G+(n-1)F|^{int}$ , there is a torsion free extension in $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)$. $\forall~\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}\subsetneq\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$, $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)$ can be view as a subspace of $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)$. There is a torsion free extension in $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)< \text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)$, $\forall~\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}\subsetneq\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$.
Now we have that $C_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}=C^1_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}\cup C^2_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}$, $C^i_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}\cong\mathbb{P}^1$ and $deg(K_X|_{C^i_{\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}})<0$, for $i=1,2$. Therefore
$\forall~\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}\subsetneq\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$, either $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)=0$ or $\operatorname{Ext}^2(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)=0$. Hence the map $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\hookrightarrow \operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)$ can not be surjetive. The reason is that $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)=2n+2-e>0$ and $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\neq 0$ since $\chi(\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))<0$.
If $L\otimes K_X=F$, then $\textbf{CB}'$-$(2'b)$ is obvious. Let $|L\otimes K_X|^{int}=\emptyset$, i.e. $L\otimes K_X=nF$ with $n>1$. In this case $|L\otimes K_X|'=|L\otimes K_X|$. $\Omega_{L\otimes K_X}'=\Omega_{L\otimes K_X}$. In order to show $dim~\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{V}')\setminus P_2'\leq dim~P_2'-2$, it is enough to show for every $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$ semistable, $\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\setminus\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)^{tf})$ is of dimension $\leq -K_X.(L+K_X)-3$, where
$\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)^{tf})$ is the subset parametrzing torsion free extensions. We have
\[\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\setminus\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)^{tf}=\bigcup_{\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}\subsetneq\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}}\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\]
Since $L\otimes K_X=nF$, $\forall~\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}\subsetneq\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$, either $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)=0$ or $\operatorname{Ext}^2(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)=0$. Hence we only need to show that $\forall~\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}\subsetneq\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$ such that $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}/\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\neq 0$, $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\geq 2$. It is enough to show $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)\geq 2$ for every $\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}\subsetneq\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$ with $C_{\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}}$ integral. On the other hand $C_{\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}}\cong\mathbb{P}^1$ if integral, and also $deg(K_X|_{C_{\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}}})=-2$. Hence $\text{ext}^1(\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X},\mathcal{O}_X)=h^1(\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))\geq2$ because $\chi(\mathcal{F}'_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))\leq -2$.
\emph{Step 7: $\textbf{CB}'$-$(4')$.}
$\textbf{CB}'$-$(4')$ is the last thing left to check.
$$Q_2':=\left\{[f_2:\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X)\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}]\in Q_2\left|\begin{array}{l
\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}~is~semistable,\\ h^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}(K_X))=0,~and\\
Supp(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})\in |L\otimes K_X|'.
\end{array}\right.\right\}.$$
In this case $\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X}$ is semistable $\Leftrightarrow$ $H^0(\mathcal{F}_{L\otimes K_X})=0$. $h^0(\mathcal{I}_Z(L\otimes K_X))=1$ for all $\mathcal{I}_Z\in\rho_2(Q_2')$, hence $\rho_2|_{Q_2'}$ is bijective and hence an isomorphism, therefore $Q_2'\cong \rho_2^{-1}(\rho_2(Q'_2))$ and $\textbf{CB}'$-$(4')$ holds.
The proof of Theorem \ref{ruled} is finished.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since the publication of Darwiche and Pearl's seminal paper on the topic in the mid 90's \cite{darwiche1997logic}, a substantial body of research has now accumulated on the problem of iterated belief revision--the problem of how to adjust one's corpus of beliefs in response to a temporal sequence of successive additions to its members \cite{booth2006admissible,booth2011revise,boutilier1996iterated,jin2007iterated,nayak2003dynamic,peppas2014panorama}.
In contrast, work on the parallel problem of iterated {\em contraction}--the problem of how to adjust one's corpus in response to a sequence of successive retractions--was only initiated far more recently and remains comparatively underdeveloped \cite{chopra2008iterated,hansson2012global,hild2008measurement,nayak2006taking,nayak2007iterated,ramachandran2012three,rott2009shifting}.
One obvious way to level out this discrepancy would be to introduce a principle that enables us to derive, from constraints on iterated revision, corresponding constraints on iterated contraction. But while there exists a well known and widely accepted postulate connecting {\em single-shot} revision and contraction, the `Harper Identity' \cite{harper1976rational}, there has been no discussion to date of how to extend this principle to the iterated case.\footnote{\normalsize It should be noted that \cite{nayak2006taking} and Ramachandran {\em et al} \cite{ramachandran2012three} do propose a principle that they call the `New Harper Identity'. But while this may be suggestive of an attempted extension of the Harper Identity to the iterated case, the New Harper Identity simply appears to be a representation, in terms of plausibility orderings, of a particular set of postulates for iterated contraction.
\vspace{0.25em}
}
One idea, which we pursue in this paper, is that whereas the Harper Identity says the {\em belief set} resulting from contracting sentence $A$ should be formed by combining {\em (i)} the initial belief set and {\em (ii)} the belief set resulting from revision by $\neg A$, we look for ways to define the {\em plausibility ordering} over worlds resulting from contracting $A$ in terms of {\em (iii)} the initial plausibility ordering, and {\em (iv)} the plausibility ordering resulting from revision by $\neg A$.
In the present paper, we first of all show that the simplest extension of the Harper Identity to iterated belief change is too strong a principle, being inconsistent with basic principles of belief dynamics on pains of triviality (Section 3). This leads us to consider a set of collectively weaker principles, which we show to characterise, in our domain of interest, a family of binary combination operators for total preorders that we call {\em TeamQueue} combinators (Section 4). After recapitulating a number of existing postulates from both iterated revision and contraction, we show how these two lists of postulates can be linked via the use of any TeamQueue combinator (Section 5). Then we prove some more specific results of this type using a particular TeamQueue combinator that we call {\em Synchronous TeamQueue} (Section 6). Finally we conclude and mention some ideas for future work. Proofs of the various propositions and theorems have been relegated to the appendix.
\section{Preliminaries}
We represent the beliefs of an agent by a so-called belief state $\Psi$, which we treat as a primitive. $\Psi$ determines a belief {\em set} $\bel{\Psi}$, a deductively closed set of sentences, drawn from a finitely generated propositional, truth-functional language $L$. The set of classical logical consequences of a sentence $A \in L$ is denoted by $\Cn{A}$. The set of propositional worlds is denoted by $W$, and the set of models of a given sentence $A$ is denoted by $\mods{A}$.
The dynamics of belief states are modelled by two operations--contraction and revision, which respectively return the posterior belief states $\Psi * A$ and $\Psi \contract A$ resulting from an adjustment of the prior belief state $\Psi$ to accommodate, respectively, the inclusion and exclusion of $A$.
We assume that these operations satisfy the so-called AGM postulates \cite{alchourron1985logic}, which enforce a principle of `minimal mutilation' of the initial belief set in meeting the relevant exclusion or inclusion constraint. Regarding revision, we have:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(AGM$\ast$1) \> $\textrm{Cn}([\Psi*A])\subseteq [\Psi*A]$ \\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\ast$2) \> $A\in [\Psi* A]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\ast$3) \> $[\Psi* A]\subseteq\textrm{Cn}([\Psi]\cup\{ A\})$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\ast$4) \> If $\neg A\notin [\Psi]$, then $\textrm{Cn}([\Psi]\cup\{ A\})\subseteq[\Psi* A]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\ast$5) \> If $A$ is consistent, then so too is $[\Psi*A]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\ast$6) \> If $\textrm{Cn}(A)=\textrm{Cn}(B)$, then $[\Psi*A]=[\Psi*B]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\ast$7) \> $[\Psi*(A\wedge B)]\subseteq\textrm{Cn}([\Psi*A]\cup\{B\})$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\ast$8) \> If $\neg B\notin [\Psi*A]$, then $\textrm{Cn}([\Psi*A]\cup\{B\})\subseteq [\Psi*(A\wedge B)]$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Regarding contraction:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(AGM$\contract$1) \> $\textrm{Cn}([\Psi\contract A])\subseteq [\Psi\contract A]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\contract$2) \> $[\Psi\contract A]\subseteq[\Psi]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\contract$3) \> If $A\notin [\Psi]$, then $[\Psi\contract A]=[\Psi]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\contract$4) \> If $A\notin \textrm{Cn}(\varnothing)$, then $A\notin [\Psi\contract A]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\contract$5) \> If $A\in[\Psi]$, then $[\Psi]\subseteq\textrm{Cn}([\Psi\contract A]\cup\{ A\})$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\contract$6) \> If $\textrm{Cn}(A)=\textrm{Cn}(B)$, then $[\Psi\contract A]=[\Psi\contract B]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\contract$7) \> $[\Psi\contract A]\cap[\Psi\contract B]\subseteq [\Psi\contract A\wedge B]$\\[0.1cm]
(AGM$\contract$8) \> If $A\notin [\Psi\contract A\wedge B]$, then $[\Psi\contract A\wedge B]\subseteq[\Psi\contract A]$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
We also assume that they
are linked in the one-step case by the Harper Identity (HI):
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(HI) \> $\bel{\Psi \contract A} =\bel{\Psi} \cap \bel{\Psi * \neg A}$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
We follow a number of authors in making use of a `semantic' representation of the `syntactic' one-step revision and contraction dispositions associated with a particular belief state $\Psi$ in terms of a total preorder ({\em tpo}) $\preceq_{\Psi}$ over the set $W$ of possible worlds. Intuitively $\preceq_\Psi$ orders the worlds according to {\em plausibility} (with more plausible worlds lower down the ordering). Then the set $\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{A}):=\{x\in \mods{A}\mid \forall y\in \mods{A}, x\preceq_\Psi y\}$ of minimal $A$-worlds corresponds to the set of worlds in which all and only the sentences in $[\Psi*A]$ are true, with $\mods{\bel{\Psi}} = \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$ for any $\Psi$ (see, for instance, the representation results in \cite{grove1988two,katsuno1991propositional}). Viewed in this way, the question of iterated belief change becomes a question about the dynamics of $\preceq_\Psi$ under contraction and revision, with HI translating into the constraint $\min(\preceq_{\Psi\contract A}, W) =$ \mbox{$\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$} $\cup \min(\preceq_{\Psi\ast \neg A},W)$. We will denote the set of all tpos over $W$ by $T(W)$. The strict part of $\preceq_{\Psi}$ will be denoted by $\prec_{\Psi}$ and its symmetric part \mbox{by $\sim_{\Psi}$.}
A tpo $\preceq_{\Psi}$ can also be represented by an ordered partition $\langle S_1, S_2, \ldots S_m\rangle$ of $W$, with $x \preceq_{\Psi} y$ iff $r(x, \preceq_{\Psi}) \leq$ \mbox{$r(y, \preceq_{\Psi})$,} where $r(x, \preceq_{\Psi})$ denotes the `rank' of $x$ with respect to $\preceq_{\Psi}$ and is defined by taking $S_{r(x, \preceq_{\Psi})}$ to be the cell in the partition that contains $x$.
\section{A triviality result}
What should an agent believe after performing a contraction followed by a revision? We would like to extend the Harper Identity to cover this case.
In syntactic terms, the most straightforward suggestion would be to simply extend HI to cover not just one's beliefs, but also one's commitments to retain or lose various beliefs upon subsequent revisions:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(EHI) \> $\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B}=\bel{\Psi \ast B} \cap \bel{(\Psi \ast \neg A) \ast B}$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
If $B \equiv \top$ then we obtain HI as a special case. Note that under weak assumptions, EHI can equivalently be restated in terms of contraction only:
\begin{proposition}\label{EHICtoR}
EHI entails
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(EHIC) \> $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] = [\Psi]\cap[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [\Psi*\neg A]\cap [(\Psi * \neg A) *\neg B]$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
and is equivalent to it in the presence of AGM$\ast$3 and the Levi Identity:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(LI) \> $[\Psi*A]=\Cn{[\Psi\contract \neg A] \cup \{A\}}$.\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{-0.5em}
However, as G\"ardenfors' classic triviality result and its subsequent refinements \cite{gardenfors1986belief,rott1989conditionals,etlin2009problem} have taught us, the unqualified extension of principles of belief dynamics to cover conditional beliefs is a risky business. And as it turns out, the above proposal is too strong: it can be shown that, under mild constraints on single shot revision and contraction, it places unacceptable restrictions on the space of permissible belief sets resulting from single revisions:
\begin{proposition}\label{EHICtriv}
In the presence of AGM$\ast$5, AGM$\ast$6 and AGM$\contract$3, EHI (and more specifically, HI, alongside its left-to-right half $\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B}\subseteq\bel{\Psi \ast B} \cap \bel{(\Psi \ast \neg A) \ast B}$) entails that there does not exist a belief state $\Psi$ such that: (i) $[\Psi]=\mbox{Cn}(p\wedge q)$, (ii) $[\Psi*\neg p]=\mbox{Cn}(\neg p\wedge q)$ and (iii) $[\Psi *p\leftrightarrow\neg q]=\mbox{Cn}(p\leftrightarrow\neg q)$, where $p$ and $q$ are propositional atoms.\footnote{ \normalsize The problem that we have just noted for EHI is closely related to the observation that an intersection of two sets of `rational doxastic conditionals' need not itself be rational, which is familiar from the literature on default reasoning \cite{lehmann1992does}.}
\end{proposition}
\noindent The above strategy and its shortcomings can equivalently be recast in semantic terms. Let us call a function $\oplus$ that takes pairs of tpos as inputs and yields a tpo as an output a tpo combination operator, or a `{\em combinator}'. For convenience, we denote $\preceq_1\! \oplus\! \preceq_2$ by `$\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}$'.
In extending the Harper Identity to the iterated case, we are essentially looking for an appropriate combinator $\oplus$ such that:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(COMBI) \> $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}=\preceq_{\Psi}\!\oplus\! \preceq_{\Psi \ast\neg A}$\\
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Now, just as HI corresponds, given COMBI, to the following semantic principle:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$HI) \> $\min(\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}, W) = \min(\preceq_1, W) \cup \min(\preceq_2, W)$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
EHI amounts to
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$EHI) \> For all $S\subseteq W$, $\min(\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}, S)=\min(\preceq_1, S)\cup\min(\preceq_2, S)$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
What our result above effectively demonstrates is that no combinator $\oplus$ satisfies $\oplus$EHI unless we place undesirable restrictions on its domain: $\oplus$EHI is too much to ask for.
We will continue approaching our issue of interest from a predominantly semantic perspective for the remainder of the paper. In the following section, we retreat from $\oplus$EHI to offer an altogether weaker set of minimal postulates for $\oplus$, before taking a look at a concrete family of `Team Queuing' combinators that satisfy them. We first establish a general characterisation of this family before showing that our set of minimal postulates suffices to characterise it in our restricted domain of interest.
\section{Combinators: the bottom line}
Since we are in the business of extending the Harper Identity, we will begin by requiring satisfaction of $\oplus$HI. We call combinators that satisfy this property `{\em basic}' combinators.
In addition, even though EHI is too strong, certain weakenings of it do seem to be compelling. Specifically, it seems appropriate to require that our combination method leads to the following weak lower and upper bound principles:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(LB) \> $\bel{\Psi \ast B} \cap \bel{(\Psi \ast \neg A) \ast B} \subseteq
\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B}$ \\[0.1cm]
(UB) \> $\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B} \subseteq \bel{\Psi \ast B} \cup \bel{(\Psi \ast \neg A) \ast B}$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
We note that the former corresponds to the half of EHI that was {\em not} implicated in our earlier triviality result. Given COMBI, these will be ensured by requiring, respectively, the following upper and lower bounds on $\min(\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}, S)$ for any $S \subseteq W$ (note an upper, resp.\ lower bound on world-sets yields a lower, resp.\ upper bound on belief sets):
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$UB) \> $\min(\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}, S) \subseteq \min(\preceq_1, S) \cup \min(\preceq_2, S)$ \\[0.1cm]
($\oplus$LB) \> Either $\min(\preceq_1, S) \subseteq \min(\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}, S)$ or $\min(\preceq_2, S) \subseteq \min(\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}, S)$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\noindent
$\oplus$UB and $\oplus$LB can be repackaged using only binary comparisons:
\begin{proposition}\label{SWPUandULB}
$\oplus$UB and $\oplus$LB are respectively equivalent to the following:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$SPU+) \> If $x \prec_1 y$ and $z \prec_2 y$ then either $x \prec_{1 \oplus 2} y$ or $z \prec_{1 \oplus 2} y$ \\[0.1em]
($\oplus$WPU+) \> If $x \preceq_1 y$ and $z \preceq_2 y$ then either $x \preceq_{1 \oplus 2} y$ or $z \preceq_{1 \oplus 2} y$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{-0.5em}
$\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+ owe their names to their being respective strengthenings of the following principles of strict and weak preference unanimity, which are analogues of the `weak Pareto' and `Pareto weak preference' principles found in the social choice literature:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$SPU) \> If $x \prec_1 y$ and $x \prec_2 y$ then $x \prec_{1 \oplus 2} y$ \\[0.1cm]
($\oplus$WPU) \> If $x \preceq_1 y$ and $x \preceq_2 y$ then $x \preceq_{1 \oplus 2} y$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\noindent We now consider a concrete family of basic combinators that satisfy both $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+, and, indeed, can be shown to be characterised by precisely these principles in our domain of interest. We call these `TeamQueue' combinators.
The basic idea behind this family--and motivation behind the name given to it--can be grasped by means of the following analogy: A number of couples go shopping for groceries. The supermarket that they frequent is equipped with two tills. For each till, we find a sequence of various groups of people queueing to pay for their items. In order to minimise the time spent in the store, each couple operates by ``team queueing'': each member of the pair joins a group in a different queue and leaves their place to join their partner's group in case this group arrives at the till first. After synchronously processing their first group of customers, the tills may or may not then operate at different and variable speeds. We consider the temporal sequence of sets of couples leaving the store. In our setting, the queues are the two tpos (with lower elements towards the head of the queue) and the couples are pairs of copies of each world.
More formally, we assume, for each ordered pair
\mbox{$\langle\preceq_1, \preceq_2\rangle$} of tpos, a sequence $\langle a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(i)\rangle_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ such that:
\vspace{0.2cm}
\\
\begin{tabular}{@{}ll}
$(a1)$ & $\emptyset \neq a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(i) \subseteq \{ 1, 2\}$ for each $i$,
\vspace{0.05cm}
\\
$(a2)$ & $a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(1) = \{1,2\}$
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\\
$a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(i)$ specifies which queue is to be processed at each step. Then $(a1)$ ensures either one or both are processed, and $(a2)$ says both are processed at the initial stage (which will ensure $\oplus$HI holds for the resulting combinators).
Then we construct the ordered partition $\langle T_1, T_2, \ldots, T_m\rangle$ corresponding to $\preceq_{1\oplus 2}$ inductively as follows:
\[
T_{i} = \bigcup_{j \in a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(i)} \min(\bigcap_{k<i}T_{k}^c, \preceq_j)
\]
(where `$T^c$' denotes the complement of set $T$)
and $m$ is minimal such that $\bigcup_{i\leq m} T_i = W$. With this in hand, we can now offer:
\begin{definition}
$\oplus$ is a {\em TeamQueue combinator} iff, for each ordered pair $\langle\preceq_1, \preceq_2\rangle$ of tpos there exists a sequence $\langle a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(i)\rangle_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ satisfying (a1) and (a2) such that $\preceq_{1\oplus 2}$ is obtained as above.
\end{definition}
It is easily verified that TeamQueue combinators are indeed basic combinators. The following example provides an elementary illustration of the combinator at work:
\begin{example}
Suppose that $W = \{w,x,y,z\}$, that $\preceq_1$ is the tpo represented by the ordered partition $\langle \{z\}, \{w\}, \{x,y\}\rangle$, and that $\preceq_2$ is represented by $\langle\{x,z\}, \{y\}, \{w\}\rangle$.~Let $\oplus $ be a TeamQueue combinator such that $\langle a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(i)\rangle_{i \in \mathbb{N}} = \langle\{1,2\}, \{2\}, \{1\},\ldots\rangle$. Then the ordered partition corresponding to $\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}$ is $\langle T_1, T_2, T_3\rangle = \langle \{x,z\}, \{y\}, \{w\}\rangle$, since
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_1 & = & \bigcup_{j \in \{1,2\}} \min(W, \preceq_j) = \{x,z\} \\
T_2 & = & \min(T_{1}^c, \preceq_2) = \{y\} \\
T_3 & = & \min(T_{1}^c \cap T_{2}^c, \preceq_1) = \{w\}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{example}
As noted above, TeamQueue combinators satisfy both $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+. In fact, one can show that this family can actually be characterised by these two conditions, in the presence of a third:
\begin{theorem}
$\oplus$ is a TeamQueue combinator iff it is a basic combinator that satisfies $\oplus$SPU+, $\oplus$WPU+ and the following `no overtaking' property;
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$NO) \> For $i\neq j$, if $x\prec_i y$ and $z\preceq_j y$, then either $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ or $z\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{theorem}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\noindent
Taken together, the three postulates $\oplus$SPU+, $\oplus$WPU+ and $\oplus$NO say that in $\preceq_{1\oplus 2}$, no world $x$ is allowed to improve its position w.r.t.\ {\em both} input orderings $\preceq_1$ and $\preceq_2$. Indeed each postulate blocks one of the three possible ways in which this `no double improvement' condition could be violated. We note that this condition can be cashed out in terms of the following remarkable property:
\begin{proposition}\label{tri}
$\oplus$ is a TeamQueue combinator iff it is a basic combinator that satisfies the following `trifurcation' property, for all $S\subseteq W$:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$TRI) \> $\min(\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}, S)$ is equal to either $\min(\preceq_1, S)$, $\min(\preceq_2, S)$ or $\min(\preceq_1, S) $\\
\>$\cup \min(\preceq_2, S)$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Given COMBI, $\oplus$TRI yields the claim that $\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B}$ is equal to either $\bel{\Psi \ast B}$, $\bel{(\Psi \ast \neg A) \ast B}$ or $\bel{\Psi \ast B} \cap \bel{(\Psi \ast \neg A) \ast B}$.
To wrap up this section, it should be noted that the results so far have been perfectly domain-general, in the sense that they hold for combinators whose domain corresponded to the entire space of pairs of tpos defined over $W$. Our problem of interest is somewhat narrower in scope, however, since we are interested in the special case in which one of the tpos is obtained from the other by means of a revision. In particular, we assume the first two semantic postulates of \cite{darwiche1997logic}.
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(CR$\ast$1) \> If $x,y \in \mods{A}$ then $x \preceq_{\Psi \ast A} y$ iff $x \preceq y$\\[0.1cm]
(CR$\ast$2) \> If $x,y \in \mods{\neg A}$ then $x \preceq_{\Psi \ast A} y$ iff $x \preceq y$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
In other words, $\preceq_1$ and $\preceq_2$ will always be $\mods{A}$-variants for some sentence $A$, in the following sense:
\begin{definition}
Given $\preceq_1, \preceq_2 \in T(W)$ and $S \subseteq W$, we say $\preceq_1$ and $\preceq_2$ are {\em $S$-variants} iff [$x\preceq_1 y$ iff $x \preceq_2 y$] holds for all $x, y \in (S \times S) \cup (S^c \times S^c)$. We let $V(W)$ denote the set of all $\langle \preceq_1, \preceq_2 \rangle \in T(W) \times T(W)$ such that $\preceq_1, \preceq_2$ are $S$-variants for some $S \subseteq W$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Suppose that $W = \{w,x,y,z\}$, that $\preceq_1$ is the tpo represented by the ordered partition $\langle\{w\}, \{x\}, \{y\}, \{z\}\rangle$, and that $\preceq_2$ is represented by $\langle\{w\}, \{x,y\}, \{z\}\rangle$. Then $\preceq_1$ and $\preceq_2$ are $\{y,z\}$-variants, since (i) $w\prec_1 x$ and $w\prec_2 x$, as well as (ii) $y\prec_1 z$ and $y\prec_2 z$. They are not, however, $\{x,y\}$-variants, since $x\prec_1 y$ but $y\preceq_2 x$.
\end{example}
\noindent This leads to the following domain restriction on $\oplus$:
\vspace{0.2cm}
\\
\begin{tabular}{@{}ll}
($\oplus$DOM) & $\textit{Domain}(\oplus) \subseteq V(W)$
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\\
As it turns out, this constraint allows for a noteworthy simplification of the characterisation of TeamQueue combinators:
\begin{proposition}\label{TQ}
Given $\oplus \textit{DOM}$, $\oplus$ is a TeamQueue combinator iff it is a basic combinator that satisfies $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+.
\end{proposition}
We also note, in passing, that
\begin{proposition}\label{SWPU+andSWPU}
Given $\oplus \textit{DOM}$, $\oplus$ satisfies $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+ iff it satisfies $\oplus$SPU and $\oplus$WPU, respectively.
\end{proposition}
Given Proposition \ref{tri}, the potentially surprising upshot of Proposition \ref{TQ} is that, in our domain of interest, satisfaction of $\oplus$LB and $\oplus$UB entails satisfaction of $\oplus$TRI.
\section{Iterated Contraction via TeamQueue Combination}
A central result of AGM theory says that, under assumption of HI, if $\ast$ satisfies the AGM revision postulates, then $\contract$ automatically satisfies the AGM contraction postulates.
In this section we look at some of the postulates for both iterated revision and contraction that have been proposed in the literature. We show that, if $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}$ is defined from $\preceq$ and $\preceq_{\Psi \ast \neg A}$ using COMBI via a TeamQueue combinator, then satisfaction of some well known sets of postulates for iterated revision leads to satisfaction of other well known sets of postulates for iterated contraction.
The most widely cited postulates for iterated revision are the four DP postulates of \cite{darwiche1997logic}. These, like most of the postulates for iterated belief change, come in two flavours: a {\em semantic} one in terms of requirements on the tpo $\preceq_{\Psi \ast A}$ associated to the revised state $\Psi \ast A$, and a {\em syntactic} one in terms of requirements on the belief set $[(\Psi \ast A) \ast B]$ following a sequence of two revisions. Turning first to the semantic versions, we've already encountered the first two of these postulates--CR$\ast$1 and CR$\ast$2--in the previous section. The other two are
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(CR$\ast$3) \> If $x \in \mods{A}$, $y \in \mods{\neg A}$ and $x \prec y$ then $x \prec_{\Psi \ast A}y$ \\[0.1cm]
(CR$\ast$4) \> If $x \in \mods{A}$, $y \in \mods{\neg A}$ and $x \preceq y$ then $x \preceq_{\Psi \ast A} y$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Each of these has an equivalent corresponding syntactic version as follows:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(C$\ast$1) \> If $A \in \mbox{Cn}(B)$ then $\bel{(\Psi \ast A) \ast B} = \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ \\[0.1cm]
(C$\ast$2) \> If $\neg A \in \mbox{Cn}(B)$ then $\bel{(\Psi \ast A) \ast B} = \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ \\[0.1cm]
(C$\ast$3) \> If $A \in \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ then $A \in \bel{(\Psi \ast A) \ast B}$ \\[0.1cm]
(C$\ast$4) \> If $\neg A \not\in \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ then $\neg A \not\in \bel{(\Psi \ast A) \ast B}$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\noindent Chopra et al \shortcite{chopra2008iterated} proposed a list of `counterparts' to the DP postulates for the case of $\Psi \contract A$. The semantic versions of these were:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(CR$\contract$1) \> If $x,y \in \mods{\neg A}$ then $x \preceq_{\Psi \contract A} y$ iff $x \preceq y$ \\[0.1cm]
(CR$\contract$2) \> If $x,y \in \mods{A}$ then $x \preceq_{\Psi \contract A} y$ iff $x \preceq y$\\[0.1cm]
(CR$\contract$3) \> If $x \in \mods{\neg A}$, $y \in \mods{A}$ and $x \prec y$ then $x \prec_{\Psi \contract A} y$ \\[0.1cm]
(CR$\contract$4) \> If $x \in \mods{\neg A}$, $y \in \mods{A}$ and $x \preceq y$ then $x \preceq_{\Psi \contract A} y$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Chopra et al \shortcite{chopra2008iterated} showed (their Theorem 2) that, in the presence of the AGM postulates (reformulated as in our setting to apply to belief {\em states} rather than just belief {\em sets}) each of these postulates has an equivalent syntactic version as follows:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(C$\contract$1) \> If $\neg A \in \mbox{Cn}(B)$ then $\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B} = \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ \\[0.1cm]
(C$\contract$2) \> If $A \in \mbox{Cn}(B)$ then $\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B} = \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ \\[0.1cm]
(C$\contract$3) \> If $\neg A \in \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ then $\neg A \in \bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B}$ \\[0.1cm]
(C$\contract$4) \> $A \not\in \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ then $A \not\in \bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B}$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
As it turns out, the definition of $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}$ from $\preceq$ and $\preceq_{\Psi \ast \neg A}$ using COMBI via a TeamQueue combinator allows us to show the precise sense in which Chopra {\em et al}'s postulates are `Darwiche-Pearl-like', as they put it:
\begin{proposition}
Let $\oplus$ be a TeamQueue combinator, let $\ast$ be an AGM revision operator and let $\contract$ be such that $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}$ is defined from $\ast$ via COMBI using $\oplus$. Then, for each $i = 1,2,3,4$, if $\ast$ satisfies CR$\ast i$ then $\contract$ satisfies CR$\contract i$.
\end{proposition}
As a corollary, given the AGM postulates, we recover the same result for the syntactic versions as well.
Finally, Nayak {\em et al} \shortcite{nayak2007iterated} have endorsed the following principle of `Principled Factored Intersection', which they show to be satisfied by a number of proposals for iterated contraction:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBL \= BLA\=\kill
(PFI) \> Given $B\in\bel{\Psi\contract A}$\\[0.1cm]
\> (a) \> If $\neg B \rightarrow \neg A\in [(\Psi \contract A) \contract B]$, then $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] =[\Psi \contract A]\cap$\\
\>\>$[\Psi\contract \neg A\rightarrow B]$\\[0.1cm]
\> (b) \> If $\neg B \rightarrow \neg A,\neg B\rightarrow A\notin [(\Psi \contract A) \contract B]$, then $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] =$\\
\>\>$[\Psi \contract A]\cap[\Psi\contract \neg A\rightarrow B]\cap[\Psi\contract A\rightarrow B]$\\[0.1cm]
\> (c) \> If $\neg B\rightarrow A\in [(\Psi \contract A) \contract B]$, then $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] =[\Psi \contract A]\cap$\\
\>\>$[\Psi\contract A\rightarrow B]$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
The rationale for PFI remains rather unclear to date. Indeed, the only justifications provided appear to be (a) that PFI avoids a particular difficulty faced by another constraint that has been proposed in the literature--namely Rott's `Qualified Intersection' principle \cite{rott2001change}--and which can be reformulated in a manner that is superficially rather similar to PFI and (b) that PFI entails a pair of prima facie appealing principles.
Neither of these considerations strike us as being particularly compelling. For one, Rott's Qualified Intersection principle remains itself unclearly motivated. Secondly, plenty of ill-advised principles can be shown to have certain plausible consequences.
The TeamQueue approach, however, allows us to rest the principle on a far firmer foundation. Indeed:
\begin{proposition}
Let $\oplus$ be a TeamQueue combinator, let $\ast$ be an AGM revision operator and let $\contract$ be such that $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}$ is defined from $\ast$ via COMBI using $\oplus$. If $\ast$ satisfies CR$\ast 1$ and CR$\ast 2$ then $\contract$ satisfies PFI.
\end{proposition}
\section{The Synchronous TeamQueue Combinator}
A special case of TeamQueue combinators takes $a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(i) = \{1,2\}$ for all ordered pairs $\langle \preceq_1, \preceq_2 \rangle$ and all $i$. This represents a particularly {\em fair} way of combining tpos. In terms of our supermarket analogy, it corresponds to the situation in which the tills process groups of customers at the same speed.
\begin{definition}
The {\em Synchronous TeamQueue} (STQ) combinator is the TeamQueue combinator for which $a_{\preceq_1, \preceq_2}(i) = \{1,2\}$ for all ordered pairs $\langle \preceq_1, \preceq_2 \rangle$ and all $i$. We will denote the STQ combinator by $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Suppose $W = \{x,y,z,w\}$, that $\preceq_1$ is the tpo represented by the ordered partition $\langle\{z\}, \{w\}, \{x,y\}\rangle$ and $\preceq_2$ is represented by $\langle\{x,z\}, \{y\}, \{w\}\rangle$. Then the ordered partition corresponding to $\preceq_{1\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} 2}$ is $\langle T_1, T_2\rangle = \langle\{x,z\}, \{w,y\}\rangle$.
\end{example}
Roughly, $\preceq_{1\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} 2}$ tries to make each world as low in the ordering as possible, while trying to preserve the information contained in $\preceq_1$ and $\preceq_2$. (The idea is similar to that of the {\em rational closure} construction in default reasoning \cite{lehmann1992does}.)
We remark that $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$ is commutative, i.e., $\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}=\preceq_{2\oplus 1}$.
It can be characterised semantically, in the absence of domain restrictions, as follows:
\begin{theorem}
$\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$ is the only basic combinator that satisfies both $\oplus$SPU+ and the following `Parity' constraint:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$PAR) \> If $x \prec_{1 \oplus 2} y$ then for each $i \in \{1,2\}$ there exists $z$ s.t. $x \sim_{1 \oplus 2} z$ and\\
\> $z \prec_i y$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{theorem}
Note that $\oplus$WPU+ is not listed among the characteristic principles: it is entailed by the conjunction of $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$PAR.
Whilst $\oplus$PAR may not be immediately easy to grasp, it can be given a nice formulation in our setting in terms of the notion of {\em strong belief} \cite{battigalli2002strong,stalnaker1996knowledge}. A sentence $A \in \bel{\Psi}$ is strongly believed in $\Psi$ in case the only way it can be dislodged by the next revision input $B$ is if $B$ is logically {\em inconsistent} with $A$.
That is,
$A$ is strongly believed in $\Psi$ iff {\em (i)} $A \in \bel{\Psi}$, and {\em (ii)} $A \in \bel{\Psi \ast B}$ for all sentences $B$ such that $A \wedge B$ is consistent.
Semantically, a consistent sentence $A$ is strongly believed in $\Psi$ iff every $A$-world is strictly more plausible than every $\neg A$-world, i.e., $x \prec_\Psi y$ for every $x \in \mods{A}$, $y \in \mods{\neg A}$. With this in hand, one can show:
\begin{proposition}
$\oplus$PAR is equivalent to:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBL: \=\kill
($\oplus$SB) \> If $x \prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ for every $x \in S^c$, $y \in S$, then $\min( \preceq_{1},S)\cup\min(\preceq_{2},S)\subseteq$\\
\>$ \min( \preceq_{1\oplus 2},S)$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Given COMBI, $\oplus$SB yields: If $\neg B$ is strongly believed in $\Psi \contract A$ then $\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B}\subseteq \bel{\Psi \ast B} \cap \bel{(\Psi \ast \neg A) \ast B}$. Thus, although we cannot have EHI for all $A,B$, the STQ combinator {\em does} guarantee it to hold for a certain restricted class of pairs of sentences, namely those $A,B$ such that $\neg B$ is strongly believed after removing $A$.
To finish this section, we turn to further behaviour for iterated contraction that can be captured thanks to the further principles satisfied by $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$.
Three popular approaches to supplementing the AGM postulates for revision and the DP postulates can be found in the literature: the `natural' \cite{boutilier1996iterated}, `restrained' \cite{booth2006admissible}, and `lexicographic' \cite{nayak1994iterated} approaches. All of these have the semantic consequence that the prior tpo $\preceq_{\Psi}$ determines the posterior tpo $\preceq_{\Psi\ast A}$.
All three promote the lowest $A$-worlds in $\preceq_\Psi$ to become the lowest overall in $\preceq_{\Psi\ast A}$, but differ on what to do with the rest of the ordering. Natural revision leaves everything else unchanged, restrained revision preserves the strict ordering $\prec_\Psi$ while additionally making every $A$-world $x$ strictly lower than every $\neg A$-world $y$ for which $x \preceq_\Psi y$, and lexicographic revision just makes every $A$-world lower than every $\neg A$-world, while preserving the ordering within each of $\mods{A}$ and $\mods{\neg A}$.
This raises an obvious question, namely: Which principles of iterated contraction does one recover from the natural, restrained and lexicographic revision operators, respectively, if one defines $\contract$ from $\ast$ using $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$? As it turns out, both the natural and the restrained revision operator yield the very same iterated contraction operator, which has been discussed in the literature under the name of `natural contraction' \cite{nayak2007iterated}, and which sets $\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A}) \cup$ \mbox{$\min(\preceq_\Psi, W)$} to be the lowest rank in $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}$ while leaving $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}$ otherwise unchanged from $\preceq_\Psi$.
\begin{proposition}
Let $\ast$ be any revision operator--such as the natural or restrained revision operator--satisfying the following property:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI \= BLAB\=\kill
\> If $x,y\notin\min(\preceq_{\Psi},\mods{A})$ and $x\prec_{\Psi} y$, then$x\prec_{\Psi \ast A} y$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Let $\contract$ be the contraction operator defined from $\ast$ via COMBI using $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$. Then $\contract$ is the natural contraction operator.
\end{proposition}
We do not have a characterisation of the operator that is recovered from lexicographic revision in this manner, which we call the {\em STQ-lex contraction} operator. That is, STQ-lex contraction sets $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A} = \preceq_\Psi \oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} \preceq_{\Psi \ast_L \neg A}$, where $\ast_L$ is lexicographic revision. We can report, however, that it is distinct from both lexicographic and priority contraction, the other two iterated contraction operators discussed in the literature alongside natural contraction \cite{nayak2007iterated}. Roughly, lexicographic contraction works by setting the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ rank $S_i$ of $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}$ to be the union of the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$-lowest $A$-worlds with the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$-lowest $\neg A$-worlds.
\begin{example}
Suppose $W = \{x,y,z,w\}$ and $\preceq_\Psi$ is the tpo represented by $\langle \{x\}, \{y\}, \{z\}, \{w\} \rangle$. Let $\mods{A} = \{x,w\}$, so that $\preceq_{\Psi \ast_L \neg A} = \langle \{y\}, \{z\}, \{x\}, \{w\} \rangle$. Then lexicographic contraction yields $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A} = \langle \{x,y\}, \{z,w\} \rangle$ while STQ-lex contraction yields $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A} = \langle \{x,y\}, \{z\},\{w\} \rangle$.
\end{example}
\noindent
Both lexicographic and priority contraction can, however, still be recovered via the TeamQueue approach. Lexicographic contraction can be recovered from lexicographic revision by combining, not $\preceq_{\Psi}$ and $\preceq_{\Psi\ast_L \neg A}$, but rather $\preceq_{\Psi\ast_L A}$ and $\preceq_{\Psi\ast_L \neg A}$ using $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$. Priority contraction can be recovered from lexicographic revision by combining $\preceq_{\Psi}$ and $\preceq_{\Psi\ast\neg A}$ using a TeamQueue combinator. However, the combinator involved is not $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$ but rather the TeamQueue combinator that is most `biased' towards $\preceq_2$: the combinator for which, for all ordered pairs $\langle\preceq_1,\preceq_2\rangle$, $a_{\preceq_1,\preceq_2}(1) = \{1,2\}$, then $a_{\preceq_1,\preceq_2}(j) = \{2\}$ for all $j>1$.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that the issue of extending the Harper identity to iterated belief change (a) is not a straightforward affair but (b) can be fruitfully approached by combining a pair of total preorders by means of TeamQueue combinator. We have also noted that one particular such combinator, the Synchronic TeamQueue combinator $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$ can be put to work to derive various counterparts for contraction of the three best known iterated revision operators.
Whilst the normative appeal of the characteristic syntactic properties $\oplus$LB and $\oplus$UB of the TeamQueue family of combinators is clear enough, we do not, at this stage, have a clear enough grasp of the normative appeal of the further syntactic requirement $\oplus$SB that characterises $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$. We plan to investigate this issue further in future work.
A second issue that we would like to explore is the question of whether or not it is possible to show that the Darwiche-Pearl postulates are {\em equivalent} to the ones proposed by Chopra {\em et al}, given a suitable further bridge principle taking us from iterated {\em contraction} to iterated {\em revision}. Such a task would first involve providing a compelling generalisation of the Levi Identity mentioned in Proposition \ref{EHICtoR} above.
\setcounter{proposition}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
\section*{Appendix}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}\label{EHICtoR}
EHI entails
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(EHIC) \> $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] = [\Psi]\cap[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [\Psi*\neg A]\cap [(\Psi * \neg A) *\neg B]$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
and is equivalent to it in the presence of AGM$\ast$3 and the Levi Identity
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(LI) \> $[\Psi*A]=\Cn{[\Psi\contract \neg A] \cup \{A\}}$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From EHI to EHIC: By HI, which EHI entails, $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] = [\Psi\contract A] \cap [(\Psi \contract A) * \neg B] = [\Psi] \cap [\Psi*\neg A] \cap [(\Psi \contract A) * \neg B]$. By EHI, we have $[(\Psi \contract A) * \neg B] =[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]$ and hence $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] = [\Psi]\cap[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [\Psi*\neg A]\cap[(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]$ as required.
From EHIC to EHI: By LI, we have $[(\Psi \contract A) * \neg B] =\textrm{Cn}([(\Psi\contract A)\contract B] \cup\{\neg B\})$. By EHIC, we have $[(\Psi\contract A)\contract B]= [\Psi]\cap[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [\Psi*\neg A] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]$. So to recover EHI, we need to show that $\textrm{Cn}([\Psi]\cap[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [\Psi*\neg A] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]\cup\{\neg B\})=[\Psi * \neg B] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]$.
The left-to-right direction, i.e. $\textrm{Cn}([\Psi]\cap[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [\Psi*\neg A] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) *
\neg B]\cup\{\neg B\})\subseteq[\Psi * \neg B] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]$, is immediate. Regarding the right-to-left, assume, for some arbitrary $C$, that $C\in [\Psi * \neg B] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]$. Firstly, it follows by AGM$\ast$3 and the deduction theorem that $\neg B\rightarrow C\in [\Psi]$ and $\neg B\rightarrow C\in [\Psi*\neg A]$. Secondly, it follows by deductive closure of belief sets that $\neg B\rightarrow C\in [\Psi * \neg B] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]$. Therefore $\neg B\rightarrow C\in [\Psi]\cap[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [\Psi*\neg A] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B]$ and hence $C\in \textrm{Cn}([\Psi]\cap[\Psi * \neg B] \cap [\Psi*\neg A] \cap[(\Psi * \neg A) *
\neg B]\cup\{\neg B\})$, as required.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}\label{EHICtriv}
In the presence of AGM$\ast$5, AGM$\ast$6 and AGM$\contract$3, EHI (and more specifically, HI, alongside its left-to-right half $\bel{(\Psi \contract A) \ast B}\subseteq\bel{\Psi \ast B} \cap \bel{(\Psi \ast \neg A) \ast B}$) entails that there does not exist a belief state $\Psi$ such that: (i) $[\Psi]=\mbox{Cn}(p\wedge q)$, (ii) $[\Psi*\neg p]=\mbox{Cn}(\neg p\wedge q)$ and (iii) $[\Psi *p\leftrightarrow\neg q]=\mbox{Cn}(p\leftrightarrow\neg q)$, where $p$ and $q$ are propositional atoms.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We first show that HI and the left-to-right half of EHI jointly entail that $[(\Psi \contract A)\contract B]\subseteq[\Psi * \neg B]$. Indeed, by HI, $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] = [\Psi\contract A] \cap [(\Psi \contract A) * \neg B] \subseteq [(\Psi \contract A) * \neg B]$. By the left-to-right half of EHI, we then have $[(\Psi \contract A) \contract B] \subseteq [\Psi * \neg B] \cap [(\Psi * \neg A) * \neg B] \subseteq [\Psi * \neg B]$ as required.
We now establish that, in the presence of AGM$\ast$5, AGM$\ast$6 and AGM$\contract$3, HI and the left-to-right half of EHI jointly entail the following ``vacuity'' principle:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
(VAC) \> If $A$ is consistent and $B\in[\Psi * A]$, then $[\Psi]\cap[\Psi * A]\subseteq [\Psi * B]$
\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Indeed, assume that $A$ is consistent and that $B\in[\Psi * A]$. Since $ A$ is consistent, so too is $[\Psi * A]$, by AGM$\ast$5, and hence $ \neg B\notin[\Psi * A]$. Since, by HI, we have $[\Psi \contract \neg A]=[\Psi]\cap[\Psi *A]$ (with help from AGM$\ast$6), it follows that $\neg B\notin[\Psi \contract \neg A]$. Given AGM$\contract$3, we then have $[(\Psi \contract \neg A)\contract \neg B]=[\Psi \contract \neg A]$, and, by HI, $[(\Psi \contract \neg A)\contract \neg B]=[\Psi]\cap[\Psi * A]$. By the inclusion $[(\Psi \contract \neg A)\contract \neg B]\subseteq[\Psi * B]$, which we have shown above to be derivable from HI and the left-to-right half of EHI (plus AGM$\ast$6), it then follows that $[\Psi]\cap[\Psi * A]\subseteq [\Psi * B]$, as required.
With this in place, assume VAC and, for reductio, that there exists a belief set satisfying (i) to (iii). It follows from (ii) that $p\leftrightarrow\neg q \in [\Psi * \neg p]$. Given the latter, it then follows from VAC that $[\Psi]\cap[\Psi *\neg p]\subseteq [\Psi * p\leftrightarrow\neg q]$. But by (i) and (ii), $[\Psi]\cap[\Psi *\neg p]=\mbox{Cn}(p\wedge q)\cap\mbox{Cn}(\neg p\wedge q)=\mbox{Cn}(q)$. Hence, by $[\Psi]\cap[\Psi *\neg p]\subseteq [\Psi * p\leftrightarrow\neg q]$, we have $q\in [\Psi * p\leftrightarrow\neg q]$. But (iii) tells us that $[\Psi *p\leftrightarrow\neg q]=\mbox{Cn}(p\leftrightarrow\neg q)$. Contradiction.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}\label{SWPUandULB}
$\oplus$UB and $\oplus$LB are respectively equivalent to
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLII: \=\kill
($\oplus$SPU+) \> If $x \prec_1 y$ and $z \prec_2 y$ then $x \prec_{1 \oplus 2} y$ or $z \prec_{1 \oplus 2} y$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
and
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI:I \=\kill
($\oplus$WPU+) \> If $x \preceq_1 y$ and $z \preceq_2 y$ then either $x \preceq_{1 \oplus 2} y$ or $z \preceq_{1 \oplus 2} y$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{proof}
From $\oplus$UB to $\oplus$SPU+: Suppose that $x\prec_{1} y$ and $z \prec_{2} y$. From the former, we know that $\min(\preceq_{1}, \{x,y,z\})\subseteq \{x,z\}$ and from the latter we know that $\min(\preceq_{2}, \{x,y,z\})\subseteq \{x,z\}$. Thus, by $\oplus$UB, $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, \{x,y,z\})\subseteq \{x,z\}$. From this, it must the case that $y\notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, \{x,y,z\})$, so either $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ or $z\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$, as required.
From $\oplus$SPU+ to $\oplus$UB: Assume for contradiction that there exists an $x$, such that $x\in \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$ but $x\notin \min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$. From the latter, there exist $y,z\in S $, such that $y\prec_{1} x$ and $z\prec_{2} x$. By $\oplus$SPU+, it then follows that either $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$ or $z\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$, contradicting $x\in \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. Thus, $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)\subseteq\min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$, as required.
From $\oplus$LB to $\oplus$WPU+: We derive the contrapositive of $\oplus$WPU+, namely:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] If $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$ and $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} z$, then $y\prec_1 x$ or $y\prec_{2} z$
\end{itemize}
Assume then that $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$ and $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} z$. It follows from this that $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, \{x,y,z\})\subseteq \{y\}$. By $\oplus$LB, we then recover either (i) $\min(\preceq_{1}, \{x,y,z\})\subseteq \{y\}$ or (ii) $\min(\preceq_{2}, \{x,y,z\})\subseteq \{y\}$. Assume (i). It follows that $y\prec_1 x$. Assume (ii). It follows that $y\prec_{2} z$. Hence, either $y\prec_1 x$ or $y\prec_{2} z$, as required.
From $\oplus$WPU+ to $\oplus$LB: Assume for reductio that $\oplus$LB fails, so that there exist an $x$ and a $y$ such that $y\in \min(\preceq_{1}, S)$ and $z\in\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$, but $y,z\notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. From the latter, there exist an $x_1$ and $x_2$ such that $x_1,x_2\in S $, $x_1\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ and $x_2\prec_{1\oplus 2} z$. Since $\preceq_{1\oplus 2}$ is a total preorder, we may assume that there exists an $x$ such that $x\in S $, $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ and $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} z$. By $\oplus$WPU+, we then have either $x\prec_1 y$ or $x\prec_{2} z$, contradicting our assumption that $y\in \min(\preceq_{1}, S)$ and $z\in\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{theorem}\label{TQNO}
$\oplus$ is a TeamQueue combinator iff it is a basic combinator that satisfies $\oplus$SPU+, $\oplus$WPU+ and the following `no overtaking' property;
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$NO) \> If either (i) $x \preceq_1 y$ and $z \prec_2 y$ or (ii) $x \preceq_2 y$ and $z \prec_1 y$, then either \\
\> $x \preceq_{1 \oplus 2} y$ or $z \prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{theorem}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{proof}
We prove that $\oplus$ satisfies $\oplus$SPU+, $\oplus$WPU+ and $\oplus$NO iff it satisfies
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$TRI) \> $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$ is equal to either $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)$, $\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$ or $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)$\\
\> $\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
The desired result then follows from Proposition \ref{tri} below.
We first show that $\oplus$SPU+, $\oplus$WPU+ and $\oplus$NO entail $\oplus$TRI.
We know that $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)\subseteq \min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$ from $\oplus$SPU+. Indeed, assume that $y\in \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$ but, for reductio, that $y\notin \min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$. Then $\exists x,z\in S$ such that $x\prec_1 y$ and $z\prec_2 y$. Then, by $\oplus$SPU+, either $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ or $z\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$. Either way, we get $y\notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. Contradiction. Hence, $y\in \min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$, as required.
Now if the converse holds, i.e.~$\min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S)\subseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$, then we have $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)=\min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$ and we are done. So assume $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S)\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. Then either $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$ or $\min(\preceq_{2}, S)\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. Let's assume $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. We will show that this implies $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)=\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$, which will suffice. (If instead we assume $\min(\preceq_{2}, S)\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$, then the same reasoning will show $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)=\min(\preceq_{1}, S)$, which also suffices.) Since $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$, let $x\in \min(\preceq_{1}, S)$ but $x\notin \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$.
We first derive $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)\subseteq\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$. Let $y\in\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$ and assume for reductio that $y\notin \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$. Then $\exists z\in S$ such that $z\prec_{2} y$. From $y\in\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$, we know that $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} z$. From $x\in \min(\preceq_{1}, S)$, we also know that $x\preceq_{1} y$. From $z\prec_{2} y$, $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} z$ and $x\preceq_{1} y$, we can deduce by $\oplus$NO that $x\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y$, in contradiction with $x\not\in\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. Hence, $y\in \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$, as required.
We now derive $\min(\preceq_{2}, S)\subseteq \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. Let $y\in \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$ and assume, for reductio, that $y\notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. From $x,y\notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$, $\exists z\in S$, such that $z\prec_{1\oplus 2}x$ and $z\prec_{1\oplus 2}y$. Then, from $\oplus$WPU+, we have either $z\prec_{1} x$ or $z\prec_{2} y$. If $z\prec_{1} x$, then we contradict $x\in \min(\preceq_{1}, S)$. If $z\prec_{2} y$, then we contradict $y\in \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$. Either way, we get a contradiction, so $y\in\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$, as required.
Finally, we show that $\oplus$TRI entails $\oplus$SPU+, $\oplus$WPU+ and $\oplus$NO.
Regarding $\oplus$SPU+: From $\oplus$TRI, we know that, $\forall S$, $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)\subseteq \min(\preceq_{1}, S)\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S)$. Now suppose that $x\prec_{1} y$ and $z\prec_{2} y$. Then $y\notin\min(\preceq_{1},\{x,y,z\})\cup \min(\preceq_{2},\{x,y,z\})$. Hence $y\notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2},\{x,y,z\})$, so $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ or $z\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$, as required.
Regarding $\oplus$WPU+: From $\oplus$TRI, we know that, $\forall S$, either $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)\subseteq \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$ or $\min(\preceq_{2}, S)\subseteq \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. This is the property $\oplus$LB and we already proved in Proposition \ref{SWPUandULB} that it entails $\oplus$WPU+.
Regarding $\oplus$NO: From $\oplus$TRI, we know that, $\forall S$, $i\neq j$, either $ \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)\subseteq \min(\preceq_{i}, S) $ or $\min(\preceq_{j}, S)\subseteq \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$. Now assume $x\prec_{i} y$, $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} x$, $z\preceq_{j} y$ and, for reductio, $y \prec_{1\oplus 2} z$. From $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} x$ and $y \prec_{1\oplus 2} z$, we get $y\in\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2},\{x,y,z\})$ but from $x\prec_{i} y$, we get $y\notin\min(\preceq_{i},\{x,y,z\})$. Hence $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2},\{x,y,z\})\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{i},\{x,y,z\})$. From this and the property cited at the beginning of this paragraph, we get $\min(\preceq_{j},\{x,y,z\})\subseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2},\{x,y,z\})$. We also know from $\oplus$TRI that $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2},\{x,y,z\})\subseteq \min(\preceq_{1},\{x,y,z\})\cup \min(\preceq_{2},\{x,y,z\})$. Hence, since $y\in\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2},\{x,y,z\})$ and $y\notin\min(\preceq_{i},\{x,y,z\})$, we get $y\in\min(\preceq_{j},\{x,y,z\})$. Hence, since $z\preceq_{j} y$, $z\in\min(\preceq_{j},\{x,y,z\})$ and so, from $\min(\preceq_{j},\{x,y,z\})\subseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2},\{x,y,z\})$, $z\in\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2},\{x,y,z\})$, contradicting $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} z$. Hence $z \preceq_{1\oplus 2} y$, as required.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}\label{tri}
$\oplus$ is a TeamQueue combinator iff it is a basic combinator that satisfies the following `trifurcation' property:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$TRI) \> $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S)$ is equal to either $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)$, $\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$ or $\min(\preceq_{1}, S)$\\
\> $\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S)$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{proof}
Right-to-left direction: Let $\oplus$ be any combinator that satisfies those properties. We must specify a sequence $a_{\preceq_1,\preceq_2}$ for each ordered pair $\langle\preceq_1,\preceq_2\rangle$ such that (i) $\oplus_a$ satisfies properties (a1) and (a2) and (ii) $\oplus_a=\oplus$.
Assume that $\langle S_1, S_2,\ldots, S_n\rangle$ represents $\preceq_{1\oplus 2}$. Then we specify $a_{\preceq_1,\preceq_2}$ by setting, for all $i$,
\[
j \in a_{\preceq_1,\preceq_2}(i)\
\textrm{iff }
\min(\bigcap_{k < i}S_k^c, \preceq_j)
\subseteq
S_i
(= \min(\bigcap_{k < i}S_k^c, \preceq_{1\oplus 2})
\]
Regarding (i), $\oplus_a$ satisfies (a1) since $\oplus$ satisfies $\oplus$TRI and (a2) since $\oplus$ satisfies $\oplus$HI
Regarding (ii), let $\langle T_1, T_2,\ldots, T_m\rangle$ represent $\preceq_{1\oplus_a 2}$. We prove by induction that $T_i=S_i$. Regarding $i=1$: The result follows from $\oplus$HI. Regarding the inductive step: Assume $T_j=S_j$, $\forall j<i$. We want to show $T_i=S_i$. By construction, $T_i=\bigcup_{j\in a(i)}\min(\preceq_j ,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$. So we need to show $\min(\bigcap_{k < i}S_k^c, \preceq_{1\oplus 2})=\bigcup_{j\in a(i)}\min(\preceq_j ,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$. This follows from $\oplus$TRI.
Left-to-right direction: We show that $\oplus_a$ satisfies each of $\oplus$SPU+, $\oplus$WPU+ and $\oplus$NO.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] Regarding $\oplus$SPU+: We prove the contrapositive. Suppose $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2}x$ and $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} z$. Assume $y\in S_i=\bigcup_{j\in a(i)}\min(\preceq_j ,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)\subseteq\min(\preceq_1 ,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)\cup \min(\preceq_2 ,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$. Assume $y\in\min(\preceq_1 ,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$. Since $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} x$, we know that $x\in \bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c$, hence $y\preceq_{1} x$, as required. Similarly, if $y\in\min(\preceq_2 ,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$, then $y\preceq_{2} z$.
\item[-] Regarding $\oplus$WPU+: We prove the contrapositive. Suppose $y\prec_{1\oplus 2}x$ and $y\prec_{1\oplus 2}z$. Assume $y\in S_i$. Since $y\prec_{1\oplus 2}x$ and $y\prec_{1\oplus 2}z$, we know that $x,z\in \bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c\cap S_i^c$. Now, we know that $S_i$ equals one of $\min(\preceq_1,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$, $\min(\preceq_2,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$ or $\min(\preceq_1,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)\cup\min(\preceq_2,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$. We consider each case in turn:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $S_i=\min(\preceq_1,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$: From $y\in S_i$ and $x\in \bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c\cap S_i^c$, we have $y\prec_1 x$, as required.
\item[(2)] $S_i=\min(\preceq_2,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$: From $y\in S_i$ and $z\in \bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c\cap S_i^c$, we have $y\prec_2 z$, as required.
\item[(3)] $S_i=\min(\preceq_1,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)\cup\min(\preceq_2,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$: Either $y\in\min(\preceq_1,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$, in which case $y\prec_1 x$, or $y\in\min(\preceq_2,\bigcap_{k<i}S_k^c)$, in which case $y\prec_2 z$.
\end{itemize}
\item[-] Regarding $\oplus$NO: We show: If $x\prec_i y$, $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} x$ and $z\preceq_j y$, then $z\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y$, $i\neq j$, $i,j\in\{1,2\}$. Suppose that $x\prec_i y$, $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} x$ and $z\preceq_j y$. We must show that $z\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y$. Assume $y\in S_t$. Then, from $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} x$ and $z\preceq_j y$, we have $x,z\in \bigcap_{k<t}S_t^c$ and furthermore $z\in S_t^c$. We know that $S_t$ equals one of $\min(\preceq_1,\bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)$, $\min(\preceq_2,\bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)$ or $\min(\preceq_1,\bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)\cup\min(\preceq_2,\bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)$. From $x\prec_i y$, we know that $y\notin\min(\preceq_i, \bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)$, hence we must have $y\in\min(\preceq_j, \bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)$. Furthermore, we are left with either $S_t=\min(\preceq_j, \bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)$ or $S_t=\min(\preceq_1,\bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)\cup\min(\preceq_2,\bigcap_{k<t}S_k^c)$. In either case, we must have $y\prec_j z$, as required.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}\label{TQ}
Given $\oplus \textit{DOM}$, $\oplus$ is a TeamQueue combinator iff it satisfies $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We show that, given $\oplus \textit{DOM}$, if $\oplus$ satisfies $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+, then it satisfies $\oplus$NO and hence, by Propositions \ref{TQNO} and \ref{SWPU+andSWPU}, is a TeamQueue combinator.
Suppose $x\prec_i y$, $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} x$ and $z\preceq_j y$, with $i\neq j$. We must show $z\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y$. If we can show $z\preceq_i y$, then we can conclude $z\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y$ from $\oplus$WPU. So suppose for reductio that $y\prec_i z$. From $\oplus$DOM, $\exists S$, such that, $\forall u,v\in S$, $u\preceq_1 v$ iff $u\preceq_2 v$ and $\forall u,v\in S^c$, $u\preceq_1 v$ iff $u\preceq_2 v$. From $z\preceq_j y$ and $y\prec_i z$, it must be the case that $y\in S$ and $z\in S^c$. If $x\in S$, then from $x\prec_i y$, we get $x\prec_j y$ and so $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ from $\oplus$SPU, contradicting $y\preceq_{1 \oplus 2} x$. If $x\in S^c$, then, since $x\prec_i y\prec_i z$ and $z\in S^c$, $x\prec_j z$. So from this and $z\preceq_j y$, we get $x\prec_j y$ and so again $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ from $\oplus$SPU, contradicting $y\preceq_{1 \oplus 2} x$. Hence, it must be that $z\preceq_i y$, as required.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}\label{SWPU+andSWPU}
Given $\oplus \textit{DOM}$, $\oplus$ satisfies $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+ iff it satisfies $\oplus$SPU and $\oplus$WPU, respectively.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We prove this by demonstrating the equivalence, given $\oplus$DOM, of $\oplus$SPU and $\oplus$WPU with $\oplus$UB and $\oplus$LB, respectively, which we have shown (see Proposition \ref{SWPUandULB}) to be equivalent to $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$WPU+, respectively.
Regarding $\oplus$SPU and $\oplus$UB, our proof is direct. Regarding $\oplus$WPU and $\oplus$LB, we first show that $\oplus$WPU is equivalent to the following weakening $\oplus$WLB of $\oplus$LB:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$WLB) \> $\min(\preceq_1, S)\cap \min(\preceq_2, S) \subseteq \min(\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}, S)$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
before showing that $\oplus$WLB is equivalent to $\oplus$LB under the domain restriction $\oplus$DOM.
From $\oplus$UB to $\oplus$SPU: The result follows from the fact that $x\preceq y$ iff $\min(\preceq,\{x,y\})\subseteq \{x\}$.
From $\oplus$SPU to $\oplus$UB: It suffices to show that $\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )\subseteq\min(\preceq_{1}, S )\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S )$. Assume $\oplus$DOM, $\oplus$SPU and that there exists an $x$, such that $x\in \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$ but, for contradiction, that $x\notin \min(\preceq_{1}, S )\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S )$. From the latter, there exist $y_1,y_2\in S $, such that (i) $y_1 \prec_{1} x$ and (ii) $y_2\prec_{2} x$. From the former, (iii) $x\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y_1$ and (iv) $x\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y_2$. From (i) and (iii) on the one hand and (ii) and (iv) on the other, by $\oplus$SPU, we recover (v) $x\preceq_{2} y_1$ and (vi) $x\preceq_{1} y_2$, respectively. The conjunctions of (i) and (vi), i.e.~$y_1 \prec_{1} x \preceq_{1} y_2$, and of (ii) and (v), i.e.~$y_2\prec_{2} x\preceq_{2} y_1$, however, jointly contradict $\oplus$DOM, since the latter entails that there exist no $x, y_1, y_2$ such that $y_1\prec_{1} x\preceq_{1} y_2$ but $y_2\prec_{2} x\preceq_{2} y_1$. Hence $x\in \min(\preceq_{1}, S )\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S )$, as required.
From $\oplus$WPU to $\oplus$WLB: Let $x\in \min(\preceq_1, S)\cap \min(\preceq_2, S)$ and assume for reductio that $x\notin \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2} , S )$. Then there exists $y\in S $ such that $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$. By $\oplus$WPU, either $y\prec_{1} x$ or $y\prec_{2} x$. Assume $y\prec_{1} x$ (the other case is analogous).
Then $x\notin \min(\preceq_1, S)$ and hence $x\notin \min(\preceq_1, S)\cap \min(\preceq_2, S)$. Contradiction. Hence, $x\in \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2} , S )$, as required.
From $\oplus$WLB to $\oplus$WPU: Suppose $x\preceq_{1} y$ and $x\preceq_{2} y$. Then $x\in \min(\preceq_{1}, \{x,y\} )\cap \min(\preceq_{2} , \{x,y\} )$. Assume for reductio that $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$. Then $x\notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, \{x,y\})$, so, from $\oplus$WLB, $x\notin \min(\preceq_{1}, \{x,y\})\cap \min(\preceq_{2}, \{x,y\})$. Contradiction. Hence $x\preceq_{1\oplus 2} y$, as required.
From $\oplus$LB to $\oplus$WLB: Obvious.
From $\oplus$WLB to $\oplus$LB: Assume that $\oplus$LB doesn't hold. Then there exists an $S$ such that $\min(\preceq_{1}, S )\nsubseteq \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$ and $\min(\preceq_{2}, S )\nsubseteq \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$. So there exist $x,y\in S $ such that $x\in\min(\preceq_{1}, S )$, $y\in\min(\preceq_{2}, S )$ and $x, y \notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$. Hence there exists $z\in S$ such that $z\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$ and $z\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$. By $\oplus$WLB, we know from $z\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$ that either $z\prec_{1} x$ or $z\prec_{2} x$. From this and the fact that $x\in\min(\preceq_{1}, S )$, we recover the result that $z\prec_{2} x$. Similarly, we also recover $z\prec_{1} y$. So we obtain the following pattern: $x\preceq_{1} z\prec_{1} y$ and $y\preceq_{2} z\prec_{2} x$. But this is not possible given $\oplus$DOM. Hence $\oplus$LB holds, as required.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}\label{DPtoC}
Let $\oplus$ be a TeamQueue combinator, let $\ast$ be an AGM revision operator and let $\contract$ be such that $\preceq_{\Psi \contract A}$ is defined from $\ast$ using $\oplus$. Then, for each $i = 1,2,3,4$, if $\ast$ satisfies (CR$\ast i$) then $\contract$ satisfies (CR$\contract i$).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From CR$\ast 1$ to CR$\contract 1$: Let $x,y\in\mods{\neg A}$. We must show that $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$ iff $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$. Note that from CR$\ast 1$, we have (1) $x\preceq_{\Psi*\neg A} y$ iff $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$. Regarding the left-to-right direction of the equivalence: Assume (2) $y\prec x$. From (1) and (2), we recover (3) $y\prec_{\Psi*\neg A} x$. From (2) and (3), by $\oplus$SPU, it follows that $y\prec_{\Psi\contract A} x$, as required. Regarding the right-to-left-direction: Assume (4) $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$. From (1) and (4), we recover (5) $x\preceq_{\Psi*\neg A} y$. From (4) and (5), by $\oplus$WPU, it follows that $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$, as required.
From CR$\ast 2$ to CR$\contract 2$: Similar proof as the one given for the derivation of CR$\contract 1$ from CR$\ast 1$.
From CR$\ast 3$ to CR$\contract 3$: Let $x\in\mods{ \neg A}$, $y\in\mods{A}$ and (1) $x\prec_{\Psi} y$. We must show that $x\prec_{\Psi\contract A} y$. From CR$\ast 3$, we recover (2) $x\prec_{\Psi * \neg A} y$. From (1) and (2), by $\oplus$SPU, we then obtain $x\prec_{\Psi\contract A} y$, as required.
From CR$\ast 4$ to CR$\contract 4$: Let $x\in\mods{\neg A}$, $y\in\mods{A}$ and (1) $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$. We must show that $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$. From CR$\ast 4$, we recover (2) $x\preceq_{\Psi * \neg A} y$. From (1) and (2), by $\oplus$WPU, we then obtain $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$, as required.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}
Let $\ast$ be any revision operator satisfying C$\ast$1 and C$\ast$2 and $\contract$ be the contraction operator defined from * using any tpo aggregation function satisfying $\oplus$WPU, $\oplus$SPU and $\oplus$HI. Then $\contract$ satisfies PFI.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\ast$ satisfies CR$\ast 1$ and CR$\ast 2$ and let $\contract$ be the contraction operator defined from $\ast$ using some tpo aggregation function satisfying $\oplus$WPU, $\oplus$SPU and $\oplus$HI. We saw above, in Proposition \ref{DPtoC} that $\contract$ will also satisfy CR$\contract 1$ and CR$\contract 2$. The desired result then immediately follows from the theorem established by Ramachandran {\em et al} (2011, Theorem 1), according to which every contraction function $\contract$ obtained from a revision function $\ast$, such that $\contract$ and $\ast$ satisfy HI, satisfies PFI if it also satisfies CR$\contract 1$ and CR$\contract 2$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{theorem}
$\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$ is the only basic combinator that satisfies both $\oplus$SPU+ and the following `Parity' constraint:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$PAR) \> If $x \prec_{1 \oplus 2} y$ then for each $i \in \{1,2\}$ there exists $z$ s.t. $x \sim_{1 \oplus 2} z$ and \\
\>$z \prec_i y$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{theorem}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{proof}
We need to show that if $\oplus$ satisfies $\oplus$SPU+ and $\oplus$PAR, for any $\preceq_1, \preceq_2$, we have $\preceq_{1\oplus 2}=\preceq_{1\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} 2}$. Assume that $\preceq_{1\oplus 2}=\{S_1, S_2,\ldots, S_m\}$ and $\preceq_{1\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} 2}=\{T_1, T_2,\ldots, T_n\}$, where $S_i$, $T_i$ are the ranks of the relevant tpos, with lower ranks being the most preferred.
We will prove, by induction on $i$, that $S_i=T_i$, $\forall i$. Assume $S_j=T_j$, $\forall j < i$. We must show $S_i=T_i$.
Regarding $S_i\subseteq T_i$: Let $x\in S_i$, so that $x\preceq_{1\oplus 2}y$, $\forall y\in \bigcap_{j<i} S^{\mathsf{c}}_j$. Assume for reductio that $x\notin T_i$. Since $x\in S_i$, we know that $x\in\bigcap_{j<i} S^{\mathsf{c}}_j=\bigcap_{j<i} T^{\mathsf{c}}_j$. Hence, since $x\notin T_i$ and, by construction of $\preceq_{1\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} 2}$, there exists $y_1\in \bigcap_{j<i} T^{\mathsf{c}}_j$ such that $y_1\prec_{1} x$ and there exists $y_2\in \bigcap_{j<i} T^{\mathsf{c}}_j$ such that $y_2\prec_{2} x$. Then, by $\oplus$SPU+, either $y_1\prec_{1\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} 2} x$ or $y_2\prec_{1\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} 2} x$, in both cases contradicting $x\preceq_{1\oplus 2}y$, $\forall y\in \bigcap_{j<i} S^{\mathsf{c}}_j$.Hence $x\in T_i$, as required.
Regarding $T_i\subseteq S_i$: Let $x\in T_i$. Then, by construction of $\preceq_{1\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}} 2}$, we have $x\in\min(\preceq_1, \bigcap_{j<i} T^{\mathsf{c}}_j)\cup \min(\preceq_2, \bigcap_{j<i} T^{\mathsf{c}}_j)$. Assume for reductio that $x\notin S_i$. We know that $x\in \bigcap_{j<i} T^{\mathsf{c}}_j$, so by the inductive hypothesis, $x\in \bigcap_{j<i} S^{\mathsf{c}}_j$. From this and $x\notin S_i$ we know that there exists a $y\in S_i$, such that $y\prec_{1\oplus 2}x$. Then from $\oplus$PAR, there exist a $z_1\in S_i$ such that $z_1\prec_1 x$ and a $z_2\in S_i$ such that $z_2\prec_2 x$. But this contradicts $x\in\min(\preceq_1, \bigcap_{j<i} T^{\mathsf{c}}_j)\cup \min(\preceq_2, \bigcap_{j<i} T^{\mathsf{c}}_j)$. Hence $x\in S_i$, as required.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}
$\oplus$PAR is equivalent to:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \=\kill
($\oplus$SB) \> If $x \prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ for every $x \in S^c$, $y \in S$, then $\min( \preceq_{1},S)\cup\min(\preceq_{2},S)\subseteq $\\
\>$\min( \preceq_{1\oplus 2},S)$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{proof}
From $\oplus$PAR to $\oplus$SB: Assume that $x \prec_{1\oplus 2} y$ for every $x \in S^c$, $y \in S$. It suffices to show that $\min( \preceq_{1}, S )\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S )\subseteq \min( \preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$. So assume $x\in \min( \preceq_{1}, S )\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S )$ but, for contradiction, $x\notin \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$. Then $y\prec_{1\oplus 2} x$ for some $y\in S$. From the latter, by $\oplus$PAR, we know that $z_1\prec_{1}x$ for some $z_1$ such that $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} z_1$ and $z_2\prec_{2}x$ for some $z_2$ such that $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} z_2$. Given our initial assumption, we can deduce from $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} z_1$, $y\preceq_{1\oplus 2} z_2$ and $y\in S$ that $z_1, z_2\in S $. But this, together with $z_1\prec_{1}x$ and $z_2\prec_{2}x$ contradicts $x\in \min( \preceq_{1}, S )\cup\min(\preceq_{2}, S )$. Hence $x\in \min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$, as required.
From $\oplus$SB
to $\oplus$PAR: Suppose $\oplus$PAR does not hold, i.e.~$\exists x,y$, such that $x\prec_{1\oplus 2}y$ and for no $z$ do we have $x\sim_{1\oplus 2}z$ and $z\prec_{1}y$ (similar reasoning will apply if we replace $\prec_{1}$ by $\prec_{2}$ here). We will show that $\oplus$SB fails, i.e.~ that $\exists S\subseteq W$, such that $x \prec_{\Psi_{1\oplus 2}} y$ for every $x \in S^c$, $y \in S$ and $\min(\preceq_{1}, S )\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S )\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$.
Let $S=\{w\mid x\preceq_{1\oplus 2} w\}$ (so that $S^c=\{w\mid w\prec_{1\oplus 2} x\}$).
Clearly $x\in S $ and, from $x\prec_{1\oplus 2} y$, we know that $y\in S $ but $y\notin\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$. Hence, to show $\min(\preceq_{1}, S )\cup \min(\preceq_{2}, S )\nsubseteq\min(\preceq_{1\oplus 2}, S )$ and therefore that $\oplus$SB fails, it suffices to show $y\in\min(\preceq_{1}, S )$. But if $y\notin\min(\preceq_{1}, S )$, then $z\prec_{1}y$ for some $z\in S $, i.e. some $z$, such that $x\preceq_{1\oplus 2} z$. Since $\preceq_{1 \oplus 2}$ is a tpo we may assume $x\sim_{1\oplus 2} z$. This contradicts our initial assumption that for no $z$ do we have $x\sim_{1\oplus 2}z$ and $z\prec_{1}y$ . Hence $y\in\min(\preceq_{1}, S )$, as required.
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}
Let $\ast$ be any revision operator--such as the natural or restrained revision operator--satisfying the following property:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI \= BLAB\=\kill
\> If $x,y\notin\min(\preceq_{\Psi},\mods{A})$ and $x\prec_{\Psi} y$, then $x\prec_{\Psi \ast A} y$\\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Let $\contract$ be the contraction operator defined from $\ast$ using $\oplus_{\mathrm{STQ}}$. Then $\contract$ is the natural contraction operator.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall the definition of natural contraction:
\begin{tabbing}
BLAHBLI: \= BLAB\=\kill
($\contract$NAT) \> $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$ iff\\
\> (a) \> $x\in \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$, or\\
\> (b) \> $x,y\notin \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$ and $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$ \\[-0.25em]
\end{tabbing}
\vspace{-0.5em}
We must show that for any $x, y\in W$ and $A\in L$, $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$ iff $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract_N A} y$. We split into two cases.
Case 1: $x\in \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$. Then, by the definitions of $\contract_N$ and $\contract$, we have both $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$ and $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract_N A} y$, so the desired result holds.
Case 2: $x\notin \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$. Then by definition of $\contract_N$, $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract_N A} y$ iff both $y\notin \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$ and $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$. We now consider each direction of the equivalence to be demonstrated separately.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] From $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract_N A} y$ to $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$: Suppose $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract_N A} y$, and hence that both $y\notin \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$ and $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$. Assume for reductio that $y\prec_{\Psi\contract A} x$. By $\oplus$PAR: if $y\prec_{\Psi\contract A} x$, then there exists $z$ such that $z\sim_{\Psi\contract A} y$ and $z\prec_{\Psi} x$. Hence there exists $z$ such that $z\sim_{\Psi\contract A} y$ and $z\prec_{\Psi} x$. Since $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$, we therefore also have $z\prec_{\Psi} y$. If $z\notin\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})$, then from the postulate mentioned in the proposition, we get $z\prec_{\Psi\ast\neg A} y$ and then $z\prec_{\Psi\contract A} y$. Contradiction. Hence we can assume $z\in\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})$. From $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$, $y\prec_{\Psi\contract A} x$ and $\oplus$WPU, we know that $y\prec_{\Psi\ast\neg A}x$. From this, CR$\ast$2, CR$\ast$4 and $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$, we get $y\in\mods{\neg A}$. Hence, from $z\prec_{\Psi}y$ and CR$\ast$1, we recover $z\prec_{\Psi\ast\neg A} y$ and then $z\prec_{\Psi\contract A} y$ by $\oplus$SPU. Contradiction again. Hence $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$, as required.
\item[-] From $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$ to $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract_N A} y$: Assume that $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$ and, for reductio, that either $y\prec_{\Psi} x$ or $y\in \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$. If the latter holds, then we know that $y\in\min(\preceq_{\Psi\contract A}, W)$, by definition of $\contract$. Hence, from this and $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$, we also deduce that $x\in \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$, contradicting the assumption that $x\notin \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$. So assume that $y\notin \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$ and $y\prec_{\Psi} x$. From the latter and our assumption that $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract A} y$, it follows by $\oplus$SPU that $x\preceq_{\Psi\neg A} y$. But it also follows from $y\notin \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})\cup\min(\preceq_{\Psi}, W)$ and $y\prec_{\Psi} x$ that $x, y\notin \min(\preceq_{\Psi}, \mods{\neg A})$. We then recover, from the property mentioned in the proposition, the result that $x\preceq_{\Psi} y$, contradicting our assumption that $y\prec_{\Psi} x$. Hence, $x\preceq_{\Psi\contract_N A} y$, as required.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\vspace{1em}
\bibliographystyle{named}
|
\section{Introduction}
Consider a classical constrained theory \cite{Dirac, HT92, ABook, ABrackets},
with configurations $Q^{\sfA}$,
conjugate momenta $P_{\sfA}$,
classical brackets $\mbox{\bf |[ } \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ,} \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ]|}$
and constraints ${\cal C}_{\sfC}$.
{\it Observables} \cite{DiracObs, Dirac, HT92, Kuchar92, I93, Kuchar93, ABeables} are then objects forming zero brackets with the constraints,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} {\cal C}_{\sfC} \mbox{\bf ,} \, O_{\sfO} \mbox{\bf ]|} \mbox{ `=' } 0 \mbox{ } .
\label{Basic-Obs}
\end{equation}
There are multiple such notions due to `zero', `brackets' and `the constraints' taking a variety of different precise meanings \cite{ABeables}.
Some such notions of observables can be more physically useful than just any functions (or functionals) of $Q^{\sfA}$ and $P_{\sfA}$.
This is because of their greater physical content; moreover, at least some versions of such notions of observables would be expected to contain physical information only.
At the very least this property is required in phrasing final answers to physical questions about a theory.
\mbox{ }
\noindent The zero can for instance be the usual notion of zero -- alias {\it strongly zero} in this context --
or Dirac's notion \cite{Dirac} of {\it weakly zero}, denoted $\approx$, meaning zero up to terms linear in constraints.
The bracket can for instance, at the classical level, be the usual Poisson bracket; we restrict attention to this case in the rest of this Article.
The constraints can include all the constraints, or a subset thereof.
Three particular cases of this which are well-known enter the current article.\footnote{See e.g. \cite{Bergmann61, BK72, PSS10} for the further distinct Bergmann concept of observables.}
\mbox{ }
\noindent 1) {\it Classical Dirac observables} \cite{DiracObs, Dirac, HT92} are quantities $D_{\sfD}$ that
(usually weakly Poisson) brackets-commute with {\sl all} of a given theory's first-class constraints,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} {\cal C}_{\sfC} \mbox{\bf ,} \, D_{\sfD} \mbox{\bf ]|} \approx 0 \mbox{ } .
\label{C-D}
\end{equation}
Various interpretations proposed for these entities gave further colourful names for these,
such as `evolving constants of the motion' \cite{Rov91a} and `perennials' \cite{Kuchar93, Kuchar99, BF08, Kouletsis08}.
The names `true' and `complete' observables have also been used in similar contexts \cite{Rov91a, Rov02b, Thiemann}.
Conceptually, these are `{\it maximally constrained}' observables;
the current Article will also give mathematical cause to call these `{\it zeroth observables}'.
\mbox{ }
\noindent 2) `{\it Unconstrained observables}' $U_{\sfU}$, on the other hand have no constraint-related restrictions.
`{\it Unital observables}' is also a mathematical name for these for reasons which will become clear as this article develops.
`Partial observables' \cite{RovelliBook, Ditt, Dittrich, Tambornino} are a well-known particular notion of unconstrained observables
(though these play no further part in the current article).
\mbox{ }
\noindent 3) Kucha\v{r} introduced \cite{Kuchar93} a further notion of observables, which subsequently indeed came to be termed {\it Kucha\v{r} observables}.
These are quantities $K_{\sfK}$ which (again usually weakly Poisson) brackets-commute with all of a given theory's first-class linear constraints,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} {\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn_{\sfN} \mbox{\bf ,} \, K_{\sfK} \mbox{\bf ]|} \approx 0 \mbox{ } .
\label{FLIN-K}
\end{equation}
\noindent Using Kucha\v{r} observables reflects treating first-class quadratic constraints, ${\cal Q}\muu\mbox{a}\md$,
distinctly from first-class linear ones ${\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn_{\sfN}$ \cite{Kuchar92, Kuchar93, Kuchar99, Kouletsis08, BF08}.
The Problem of Time literature \cite{Kuchar92, I93, BF08, APoT, APoT2, FileR, APoT3, ABook} is replete with reasons why this may be desirable;
moreover also Kucha\v{r} observables are more straightforward to find than Dirac ones.
Indeed, the {\it Problem of Observables} -- that it is hard to construct a sufficiently large set of these to describe all physical quantities, especially for Gravitational Theory --
is one of the many facets of the Problem of Time.
Kucha\v{r} observables are more straightforward to construct than Dirac ones, and classical ones are more straightforward to construct than quantum ones.
The Problem of Observables remains little understood.
Strategies proposed in this regard include the following.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Strategy 1) Insist upon constructing Dirac observables, $D_{\sfD}$.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Strategy 2) Make use of unconstrained observables, $U_{\sfU}$ \cite{RovelliBook, Ditt, Dittrich, Tambornino}.
\mbox{ }
\noindent In Strategy 2) case one is disregarding all the information content of the constraints.
However, on some occasions Strategy 2) is used as a stepping stone to constructing Dirac-type observables.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Strategy 3) Consider Kucha\v{r} observables, $K_{\sfK}$, to suffice.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Some examples are also useful at this stage.
In unconstrained theories, all three notions coincide.
In theories whose sole constraint is first-class quadratic, unconstrained and Kucha\v{r} observables are coincident, trivial and distinct from Dirac observables, which are nontrivial.
This applies to minisuperspace models and to some of the simplest relational mechanics \cite{FileR, AConfig} models.
In Electromagnetism and Yang--Mills Theory, on the other hand, all the constraints are first-class linear,
so Dirac and Kucha\v{r} observables coincide and are distinct from unconstrained observables.
Finally, in more advanced relational mechanics theories \cite{AMech} and in GR, there are first-class linear constraints and a first-class quadratic constraint.
Here, none of the above three notions of observables coincide.
In particular, for GR the first-class linear constraints are the vector-valued GR momentum constraint ${\cal M}_i$,
whereas the first-class quadratic constraint is the scalar-valued GR Hamiltonian constraint ${\cal H}$.
The Kucha\v{r} observables then obey
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf \{} {\cal M}_{i} \mbox{\bf ,} \, K_{\sfK} \mbox{\bf \}} \approx 0 \mbox{ } ,
\label{K_GR}
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{\bf \{} \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ,} \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf \}}$ is specifically the Poisson bracket.
For relational mechanics, ${\cal E}$ which has the mathematical form of a quadratic energy constraint takes over the role of ${\cal H}$.
Here many examples' Kucha\v{r} observables are known explicitly \cite{ABeables2}: they are shapes, or shapes and scales, for various different notions of shape \cite{AMech},
and conjugate quantities.
For Electromagnetism, the Kucha\v{r} observables' forms are also well-understood \cite{ABeables}, however for GR they remain only formally understood \cite{ABeables2}.
{ \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Latt-1.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{ \footnotesize{a) The incipient position on constraint algebraic structures.
b) With Dirac's conjecture proving to be false, more thought in general needs to be put in as regards whether the intermediate algebraic structure is first-class linear or gauge.
The arrows in the upper half indicate inclusion of further generators, in ways allowed by the integrability relations between these.
The arrows in the lower half indicate inclusion of further relations.
$Assoc$ is the map by which notions of observables are associated to sets of constraints.} }
\label{Latt-1} \end{figure} }
\noindent The next consideration of note is Dirac's conjecture, by which first-class linear constraints would always coincide with gauge constraints.
Unfortunately, this is false \cite{HT92, BF08}.
Due to this, a fourth notion of observable is unearthed: the $\lFrg$-observables $G_{\sfZ}$ which commute with all of a theory's gauge constraints:
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} G_{\sfZ} \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal G}\mbox{a}\muu\mbox{g}\mbox{e}_{\sfG} \mbox{\bf ]|} \approx 0 \mbox{ } ;
\end{equation}
$\lFrg$ is that Gauge Theory's underlying gauge group.
Of course, for some theories ${\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn_{\sfN}$ and ${\cal G}\mbox{a}\muu\mbox{g}\mbox{e}_{\sfG}$ coincide, in which case $K_{\sfK}$ and $G_{\sfZ}$ coincide as well;
e.g. this is the case in relational mechanics, Electromagnetism and Yang--Mills Theory.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Strategy 4) is then to consider $\lFrg$-observables observables to suffice.
\mbox{ }
\noindent The next development follows from perceiving that a notion of observables being meaningful
is contingent on the subset of constraints it commutes with a fortiori closing as a subalgebraic structure \cite{ABeables} (Lemma 1 of Appendix \ref{Observables}).
In particular, in some cases the ${\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn_{\sfN}$ do not close, and thus indeed the notion of Kucha\v{r} observables $K_{\sfK}$ does not exist for that theory.
In Problem of Time considerations, this means that many approaches to the Problem of Observables can only be addressed once the Constraint Closure Problem has been resolved \cite{ABook}.
I.e. one needs the constraints algebraic structure prior to consideration of associated observables algebraic structures.
It is also required that the notion of bracket involved in defining the $O_{\sfO}$ matches that under which the ${\cal C}_{\sfC}$ close.
Additionally, by Appendix \ref{Observables}'s Lemma 2, the $O_{\sfO}$ themselves form a closed algebraic structure.
[It is, moreover, interesting that observables algebraic structures exhibit some conceptual similarities with theory of Casimirs: Appendix \ref{Associated},
which proved to be a central ingredient in understanding (much simpler) algebraic structures: Lie groups and their reps.]
\mbox{ }
\noindent Along the above lines, focus shifts from Kucha\v{r} observables to the observables associated with whichever closed subalgebraic structures
each theory's constraint algebraic structure happens to possess.
I term these A-observables, where the `A' stands for `algebraic substructure'.
The subalgebraic structures of a gives algebraic structure then turn out to form a bounded lattice (Appendix \ref{Lattices}) under the inclusion operation.
The association by `forms zero brackets with' then produces in a further lattice, now of notions of observables.
This pair of bounded lattice structures form the current Article's main underlying result.
Fig \ref{Latt-1} gives preliminary versions of this involving $U_{\sfU}$, $D_{\sfD}$, $K_{\sfK}$ and $G_{\sfZ}$.
The current Article illustrates this with nontrivial examples of notions of A-observable arising in relational mechanics, slightly inhomogeneous cosmology and Supergravity,
in Secs 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
We conclude in Sec 4 with a more general account of the lattice of constraint subalgebraic structures and of the associated lattice of notions of A-observables.
Discussion of the Article's range of algebraic concepts is difered to a multi-part Appendix.
\section{Relational mechanics examples}
The constraint algebraic structures for these are outlined Appendix \ref{CAS}.
Some of the constraint subalgebras are then given in Fig \ref{Latt-2}, alongside the associated notions of A-observables.
{ \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Latt-2.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{ \footnotesize{Constraint subalgebraic structures for a range of relational mechanics models,
with corresponding notions of A-observables.
a) is for Euclidean relational mechanics, including the quadratic energy constraint ${\cal E}$, which forms its own separate subalgebraic structure, as per Appendix \ref{CAS}.
I term the corresponding notion of observables {\it chronos observables} due to the ties between ${\cal E}$ and time provision in whole-universe models \cite{APoT3, ABook}.
Because ${\cal E}$ combines in the same trivial manner in each of the subsequent examples, it is dropped from the presentation of the rest of these.
b) is similarity relational mechanics, c) is affine relational mechanics and d) is conformal relational mechanics; consult Appendix \ref{CAS} for the
nomenclature used, and \cite{AMech} for a more detailed presentation.
- denotes differences (relative particle separation vectors, or possibly particle cluster separation ones), $\cdot$ denotes dot product quantities, $\/$ denotes ratios;
these furthermore combine when multiple constraints apply, as indicated.
Upon passing to the affine case, cross products $\mbox{\scriptsize{\bf $\mbox{ } \times \mbox{ }$}}$ supplant dot products, whereas upon passing to the conformal case, local angle quantities $\angle$ appear.
Note in this case that the lattice morphism is not 1 to 1, since angles are already ratios and combinations of dot products. } }
\label{Latt-2} \end{figure} }
\section{Slightly inhomogeneous cosmology example}
In this model \cite{HallHaw, SIC, SIC-2} $\bupSigma = \mathbb{S}^3$, and one splits modewise
(each mode corresponds to collection of $\mathbb{S}^3$-harmonics labels) and into scalar, vector and tensor (SVT) parts.
This splits ${\cal H}$ into $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}{\cal H}$, $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize V}}{\cal H}$ and $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize T}}{\cal H}$ pieces,
and ${\cal M}_i$ into $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}{\cal M}$ and $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize V}}{\cal M}$ pieces.
Modewise and SVT-wise splits give decoupled equations at the unreduced level, to lowest nontrivial perturbative order.
\mbox{ }
\noindent It then turns out that \cite{SIC, SIC-2} taking out $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}{\cal M}$ and $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize V}}{\cal M}$ fails to take out all of the $Diff(\mathbb{S}^3)$ information left in the model.
\noindent The amount by which it fails to do so depends on whether one is considering the single minimally coupled scalar field matter version \cite{HallHaw, SIC}
or the vacuum version \cite{SIC-2}.
In the vacuum case, it is out by 1 configuration space degree of freedom, whereas it is out by 2 in the scalar field case.
The vacuum case also has a more decoupled partly reduced system,
by which it is clear \cite{SIC-2} that removing $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize V}}{\cal H}$ suffices to take one down to $Diff(\mathbb{S}^3)$ invariance,
i.e. to this model's counterpart of $Superspace(\mathbb{S}^3) = \mbox{Riem}(\mathbb{S}^3)/Diff(\mathbb{S}^3)$.
It is this vacuum case that the current Article considers in detail; the scalar field counterpart remains only partly understood.
In this vacuum case, then, the constraint algebraic structure is as in Fig \ref{Latt-3}.a) and the corresponding notions of observables are as in Fig \ref{Latt-3}.b).
{ \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Latt-3.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{ \footnotesize{A range of interesting notions of constraint subalgebraic structure and of A-observables for
slightly inhomogeneous cosmology.} }
\label{Latt-3} \end{figure} }
\noindent Firstly, note that Kucha\v{r} observables and $\lFrg$-observables -- for $\lFrg = Diff(\mathbb{S}^3)$ -- are distinct in this example.
I also term the latter Superspace observables.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Secondly, note that there are additional notions of A-observables, for which I suggest the names S-Kucha\v{r} observables and V-Kucha\v{r} observables,
meaning commutation with just $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}{\cal M}$ and just $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize V}}{\cal M}$ respectively.
Taking out just $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize V}}{\cal M}$ has a scalar field case parallel which underlies Wada's even more partial reduction in \cite{Wada85};
he then proceeded to reduce out $\mbox{}^{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}{\cal M}$ as well \cite{Wada}.
\section{Supergravity example}
Introducing a local Lorentz frame formulation to accommodate the model's fermionic species
causes a local Lorentz frame constraint ${\cal J}$ (and its conjugate) to appear.\footnote{In the current Article's schematic presentation, I drop the spinorial indices.
See e.g. \cite{DEath, VM10} for more details.}
\mbox{ }
\noindent The canonical formulation of Supergravity then has the expected ${\cal H}$, ${\cal M}_i$ and ${\cal J}$ constraints alongside a specifically supersymmetric constraint ${\cal S}$.
All we need to know for this Article about ${\cal J}$ and ${\cal S}$ are that each of these constraints is linear in the momenta,
and the schematic form of the subsequent constraint brackets, as per Appendix \ref{CAS}.
The particular feature this Article concentrates upon is that in Supergravity a subset of the linear constraints -- the supersymmetry constraints --
have the Supergravity counterpart of the quadratic $\scH$ as {\sl their} integrability; this follows from eq (\ref{S-S->H}).
This means that Kucha\v{r} observables are not well-defined for Supergravity, since the quadratic ${\cal H}$ now arises as an integrability of the linear ${\cal S}$.
Eq (\ref{S-S->H}) forms the second integrability of the `two-way' pair, to the first integrability being of form (\ref{Dirac-Algebroid}).
\mbox{ }
\noindent Some constraint subalgebraic structures of note are then provided in Fig \ref{Latt-3}.
In particular, the non-supersymmetric linear constraint combination of ${\cal J}$ and ${\cal M}_i$ closes, as does the GR-like combination of ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal M}_i$,
and the non-supersymmetric combination of ${\cal J}$, ${\cal M}_i$ and ${\cal H}$.
I term the corresponding notions of A-observables non-supersymmetric Kucha\v{r} , GR-likes and non-supersymmetric Dirac \cite{AMech}.
{ \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Latt-4.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{ \footnotesize{A range of interesting notions of constraint subalgebraic structure and of A-observables for Supergravity.} }
\label{Latt-4} \end{figure} }
\vspace{3in}
\section{Conclusion: lattice of A-observables notions}
There is a notion of observables associated with each constraint subalgebraic structure that a given theory's constraint algebraic structure happens to possess.
I term these, collectively, A-observables (Fig \ref{Latt-5}).
Both the constraint subalgebraic structures of a given theory's constraint algebraic structure, and the theory's notion of A-observables form bounded lattice structures.
The Dirac observables $D_{\sfD}$ correspond to the zero of the latter lattice,
arising from considering the whole constraint algebraic structure, which is the unit of the former lattice.
On the other hand, the unconstrained observables $U_{\sfU}$ correspond to the unit of the latter lattice,
arising from considering the trivial subalgebraic structure (id), which is the zero of the former lattice.
Once this context has been framed, it is clear that the notion Kucha\v{r} observables -- commuting with first-class linear constraints -- is only one some occasions well-defined.
This becomes seen, rather, as an early example of nontrivial A-observable (i.e. neither unconstrained nor Dirac),
which is realized in some theories -- such as GR -- but not others -- such as Supergravity.
Thus approaches to Quantum Gravity which depend on the Quadratic to linear distinction between constraints, and the subsequent notion of Kucha\v{r} observables, can be fragile to change of theory.
This is to be contrasted with how $D_{\sfD}$ and $U_{\sfU}$ are defined for {\sl all} theories.
{ \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Latt-5.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{ \footnotesize{The logical conclusion of the small linear ordering of notions of observables
in Fig 1.a) is the lattice of A-observables.} }
\label{Latt-5} \end{figure} }
\noindent Moreover, other interesting closed subalgebraic structures arise, each with an associated notion of A-observable.
In the current Article, we have discussed a number of such, and coined names for them.
\mbox{ }
\noindent A) Frame observables, non-supersymmetric Kucha\v{r} observables, GR-like observables and non-supersymmetric Dirac observables in the case of Supergravity.
\noindent B) Superspace observables as distinct from Kucha\v{r} observables in slightly inhomogeneous cosmology, alongside scalar-only and vector-only Kucha\v{r} observables.
\noindent C) A wide range of geometrically meaningful A-observables in the context of relational theories of mechanics.
\mbox{ }
\noindent The Introduction's list of strategies toward dealing with the Problem of Observables can then be updated to include the following.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Strategy 5) Conceive in terms of the lattice of notions of A-observables $A_{\sfO}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} A_{\sfO} \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal C}_{\sfW} \mbox{\bf ]|} `=' 0 \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
for ${\cal C}_{\sfW}$ whichever (closed) subalgebraic structure of the constraint algebraic structure.
This strategy covers
\mbox{ }
\noindent 1) making whichever such choice.
\noindent 2) The possibility of having further selection principles among the various candidate theories
whose constraint algebraic structures admit a variety of nontrivial proper subalgebraic structures.
\noindent 3) Using one or more notions of A-observables as intermediate stages in computing more restrictive types of observables.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Note moreover that the Dirac observables strategy is both {\sl always available} and {\sl requires no choice or further selection principle}.
This is a direct consequence of taking the whole constraint algebraic structure, as follows.
The same two maxims also apply at the opposite extreme of the lattice of subalgebraic structures: the unconstrained observables.
\mbox{ }
\noindent I end by pointing out two future research directions.
\mbox{ }
\noindent 1) Increase the scope of the examples used to include more supersymmetric relational mechanics as well as superconformal supergravity.
\noindent 2) Quantum mechanical counterparts and quantization process from classical to quantum versions remain to be presented \cite{ABrackets}.
\mbox{ }
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}
I thank those close to me.
I thank the fqXi and DAMTP for travel money and hosting in 2014-2015 (slightly inhomogeneous cosmology) and 2015-2016 (Supergravity).
I also thank Jeremy Butterfield, Chris Isham, Malcolm MacCallum, Don Page, Enrique Alvarez, John Barrow, Marc Lachieze-Rey and Reza Tavakol for discussions or helping me with my career.
\begin{appendices}
\section{Algebraic structures}\label{Appendix}
\subsection{Lie groups and Lie algebras}\label{Lie}
\noindent {\it Lie groups} $\lFrg$ \cite{Gilmore} are simultaneously groups and differentiable manifolds;
additionally their composition and inverse operations are differentiable.
Working with the corresponding infinitesimal `tangent space' around $\lFrg$'s identity element -- the Lie algebra $\Frg$ --
is more straightforward due to vector spaces' tractability, while very little information is lost in doing so.
For instance, the representations of $\Frg$ determine those of $\lFrg$.
\mbox{ }
\noindent More formally, a {\it Lie algebra} is a vector space equipped with a product (bilinear map)
$\mbox{\bf |[} \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ,} \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ]|}: \Frg \times \Frg \longrightarrow \mbox{\Frg}$ that is antisymmetric
and obeys the Leibniz (product) rule and the {\it Jacobi identity}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} g_1 \mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{\bf |[} g_2 \mbox{\bf ,} \, g_3 \mbox{\bf ]|} \, \mbox{\bf ]|} + \mbox{cycles} = 0
\label{Jacobi-id}
\end{equation}
$\forall \, g_1, g_2, g_3 \, \in \, \Frg$.
This an example of {\it algebraic structure}: equipping a set with one or more further product operations.
Particular subcases of Lie brackets include the familiar Poisson brackets and quantum commutators.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Moreover, a Lie algebra's generators (Lie group generating infinitesimal elements) $\tau_{\sfp}$ obey
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} \tau_{\sfp} \mbox{\bf ,} \, \tau_{\sfq} \mbox{\bf ]|} = {C^{\sfr}}_{\sfp\sfq}\tau_{\sfr} \mbox{ } ,
\label{Str-Const}
\end{equation}
where ${C^{\sfr}}_{\sfp\sfq}$ are the {\it structure constants} of that Lie algebra.\footnote{If functions occur in this role instead,
then one has strayed into mathematics more complicated than that of Lie algebras; see Appendix \ref{Algebroids} if interested.}
It readily follows that
the structure constants with all indices lowered are totally antisymmetric, and also obey
\begin{equation}
{C^{\sfo}}_{[\sfp\sfq}{C^{\sfr}}_{\sfs]\sfo} = 0 \mbox{ } .
\label{firstJac}
\end{equation}
Next suppose that a hypothesis is made about some subset $\Frk$ of the generators, $k_{\sfk}$, being significant.
These are linear and quadratic constraints in the context of constraints in Gravitational Theory.
Denote the rest of the generators -- which form $\Frh$ -- by $h_{\sfh}$.
On now needs to check to what extent the algebraic structure in question actually complies with this assignation of significance.
Such checks place limitations on how generalizable some intuitions and concepts which hold for simple examples of algebraic structures are.
In general, the split algebraic structure is of the form
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} k_{\sfk} \mbox{\bf ,} \, k_{\sfk^{\prime}} \mbox{\bf ]|} = {C^{\sfk^{\prime\prime}}}_{\sfk\sfk^{\prime}}k_{\sfk^{\prime\prime}}
+ {C^{\sfh}}_{\sfk\sfk^{\prime}} h_{\sfh} \mbox{ } ,
\label{Lie-Split-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} k_{\sfk} \mbox{\bf ,} \, h_{\sfh} \mbox{\bf ]|} = {C^{\sfk^{\prime}}}_{\sfk\sfh}k_{\sfk^{\prime}}
+ {C^{\sfh^{\prime}}}_{\sfk\sfh}h_{\sfh^{\prime}} \mbox{ } ,
\label{Lie-Split-2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} h_{\sfh} \mbox{\bf ,} \, h_{\sfh^{\prime}} \mbox{\bf ]|} = {C^{\sfk}}_{\sfh\sfh^{\prime}} k_{\sfk}
+ {C^{\sfh^{\prime\prime}}}_{\sfh\sfh^{\prime}}h_{\sfh^{\prime\prime}} \mbox{ } .
\label{Lie-Split-3}
\end{equation}
Denote the second to fifth right-hand-side terms by 1) to 4).
1) and 4) being zero are clearly subalgebra closure conditions.
2) and 3) are `interactions between' $\Frh$ and $\Frk$.
The following cases of this are then realized in this Article.
\mbox{ }
\noindent I) {\it Direct product} If 1) to 4) are zero, then $\Frg = \Frk \times \Frh$: the {\it direct product group}:
the Cartesian product of the sets of $\Frk$ and $\Frh$, with group operation $(h_1, k_1) \circ (h_2, k_2) = (h_1 \circ h_2, k_1 \circ k_2)$.
In this case, one can trivially make use of the Representation Theory of $\Frk$ and $\Frh$ to build that of $\Frk \times \Frh$.
\mbox{ }
\noindent II) {\it Semi-direct product} If 2) alone is nonzero, then $\Frg = \Frk \rtimes \Frh$.
Now, $\lFrg = \FrN \rtimes \FrH$ is given by $(n_1, h_1) \circ (n_2, h_2) = (n_1 \circ \varphi_{h_1}(n_2), h_1\circ h_2)$ for $\langle \FrN, \circ \rangle \lhd \lFrg$,
$\langle \FrH, \circ \rangle$ a subgroup of $\lFrg$
and $\varphi:\FrH \rightarrow \mbox{Aut}(\FrN)$ a group homomorphism.
In this case, {\it Mackey Theory} -- an advanced type of induced representations method -- \cite{Serre, Mackey, I84}
can be used to construct the Representation Theory of semidirect product groups.
\mbox{ }
\noindent III) `{\it Thomas integrability}'. If 1) is nonzero, then $\Frk$ is not a subalgebra: attempting to close it leads to some $k_{\sfk}$ are discovered to be integrabilities.
I denote this by $\Frk \, \mbox{\textcircled{$\rightarrow$}} \, \Frh$.
A simple example of this occurs in splitting the Lorentz group's generators up into rotations and boosts:
the group-theoretic underpinning \cite{Gilmore} of Thomas precession
Schematically, decompose the familiar Lorentz algebra bracket into
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[}J \mbox{\bf ,} \, J\mbox{\bf ]|} \sim J \mbox{ } , \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
\mbox{\bf |[}J \mbox{\bf ,} \, K\mbox{\bf ]|} \sim K \mbox{ } , \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
\mbox{\bf |[}K \mbox{\bf ,} \, K\mbox{\bf ]|} \sim K + J \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
the key bracket being the last one by which the boosts are not a subalgebra.
Thomas precession then refers to the rotation arising thus from a combination of boosts.
\mbox{ }
\noindent IV) `{\it Two-way integrability}'. If 1) and 4) are nonzero,
neither $\Frk$ nor $\Frh$ are subalgebras, due to their imposing integrabilities on each other.
I denote this by $\Frk \, \mbox{\textcircled{$\leftrightarrow$}} \, \Frh$.
In this case, any wishes for $\Frk$ to play a significant role by itself are almost certainly dashed by the actual mathematics of the algebraic structure in question.
\mbox{ }
\noindent III) and IV) have much more diversity of structure than I) and II), and no known systematic means of approaching the corresponding Representation Theory.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Finally note that Sec's coarse-level treatment of Lie groups readily extends to Lie superalgebras as well \cite{AMech}.
\subsection{Classical constraint algebraic structures}\label{CAS}
One enters the set of constraints in one's possession into the brackets in use to form a constraint algebraic structure.
This may enlarge one's set of constraints, or cause of one to adopt a distinct bracket.
If inconsistency is evaded, the eventual output is an algebraic structure for all of a theory's constraints, symbolically
\noindent \begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} \scC_{\sfF} \mbox{\bf ,} \, \scC_{\sfF^{\prime}}\mbox{\bf ]|}_{\mbox{\scriptsize f}\mbox{\scriptsize i}\sn\mbox{\scriptsize a}\sll} = {C^{\sfF^{\prime\prime}}}_{\sfF\sfF^{\prime}}\scC_{\sfF^{\prime\prime}} \mbox{ } .
\end{equation}
In some cases, the ${C^{\sfF^{\prime\prime}}}_{\sfF\sfF^{\prime}}$ are a Lie algebra's structure constants,
whereas in other cases -- in particular for GR, they are a Lie algebroid's structure functions.
See Appendix \ref{Algebroids} for a bit more about algebroids.
For now, we note that the preceding Sec's split classification extends to algebroids as well.
All of the above carries over to supersymmetric versions as well.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Examples of II) Relational mechanics provide a number of examples of semi-direct product constraint algebras.
There are versions with constraints in correspondence with each of the following:
the Euclidean group $Eucl(d) = Tr(d) \rtimes Rot(d)$,
the similarity group $Sim(d) = Tr(d) \rtimes \{ Rot(d) \times Dil \}$,
the equiareal, (or equivoluminal or higher-$d$ counterpart) group $Equi(d) = Tr(d) \rtimes SL(d, \mathbb{R})$, and
the affine group $Aff(d) = Tr(d) \rtimes GL(d, \mathbb{R})$.
$Tr(d)$ correspond to the zero total momentum constraint $\underline{\cal P} = \sum_I \underline{P}_I = 0$,
$Rot(d)$ to the zero total angular momentum constraint $\underline{\cal L} = \sum_I \underline{Q}^I \mbox{\scriptsize{\bf $\mbox{ } \times \mbox{ }$}} \underline{P}_I$ (or arbitrary-$d$ generalization thereof), and
$Dil$ to the zero total dilational momentum constraint ${\cal D} = \sum_I \underline{Q}^I \cdot \underline{P}_I$.
[We are here using $I$ as an index running over the particle labels.]
$SL(d, \mathbb{R})$ corresponds to $\underline{\cal L}$ alongside zero total shear momentum constraints
and zero total `Procrustes stretch' ($d$-volume preserving stretch) momentum constraints \cite{AMech}, whereas
$GL(d, \mathbb{R})$ corresponds to all of these alongside ${\cal D}$.
\mbox{ }
\noindent In each case, a suitably compatible form of quadratic energy constraint ${\cal E}$ can be adjoined, but the preceding structures persist as subalgebras of first-class linear constraints.
I.e.
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf \{} {\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn \mbox{\bf \}} \sim {\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn \mbox{ } , \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf \{} {\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal E} \mbox{\bf \}} \sim 0 \mbox{ } , \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf \{} {\cal E} \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal E} \mbox{\bf \}} \sim 0 \mbox{ } .
\end{equation}
The first bracket indicates a closed subalgebra,
the second that ${\cal E}$ is a good ${\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn$ object (a scalar),
and the third indicates that ${\cal E}$ forms its own subalgebra rather than implying any of the ${\cal F}\ml\mbox{i}\mn$ as integrabilities.
Thus adjunction of ${\cal E}$ is a first example of I)
\noindent Further examples of I) include a further relational mechanics --
a theory \cite{FileR} with $Rot(d) \times Dil$ invariance which models the absense of absolute axes of rotation and absolute scale whilst retaining an absolute origin --
provides an example of direct product constraint algebra of $\underline{\cal L}$ and ${\cal D}$.
Of course, the Standard Model also involves a direct product Lie group $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$, so $\times$ is well-exemplified within conventional Gauge Theory.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Examples of III) at the level of constraint algebraic structures include (as outlined in \cite{AMech}) the relational mechanics that are based on each of
the conformal group $Conf(d)$ and on all of the supersymmetric counterparts of the groups in Example II).
The key bracket here is an integrability of the form
\noindent\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} {\cal K} \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal P} \mbox{\bf ]|} \sim {\cal M} + {\cal D} \mbox{ } ,
\label{K-P}
\end{equation}
by which the conformal algebra is $({\cal P}, {\cal K}) \mbox{\textcircled{$\rightarrow$}} ({\cal M}, {\cal D})$ Thomas.
I.e. a translation and a special conformal transformation compose to give both a rotation (`conformal precession') {\sl and} an overall expansion.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Then another salient Example of III) is the Dirac algebroid formed by the constraints of GR \cite{Dirac51, Dirac, Tei73, BojoBook}, schematically
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf \{} {\cal M}_i \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal M}_i \mbox{\bf \}} \sim {\cal M}_i \mbox{ } , \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf \{} {\cal M}_i \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal H} \mbox{\bf \}} \sim {\cal H} \mbox{ } , \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf \{} {\cal H} \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal H} \mbox{\bf \}} \sim {\cal M} \mbox{ } .
\label{Dirac-Algebroid}
\end{equation}
It is the last of these brackets which contains structure functions, with Teitelboim pointing to the interpretational complications of this \cite{Tei73}.
Moreover, the physics of the problem in hand requires this enlargement and complication of algebraic structure,
to model the myriad of possible foliations of spacetime by spatial hypersurfaces.
Also note that the first of these brackets shows that the momentum constraint ${\cal M}_i$ closes by itself al a subalgebraic structure;
these are first-class linear constraints corresponding to $Diff(\bupSigma)$.
It is, moreover a bona fide (if infinite-$d$) Lie algebra, of the spatial diffeomorphisms $Diff(\bupSigma)$ on the corresponding topological manifold $\bupSigma$.
Finally, the second of these brackets means that ${\cal H}$ is a good $Diff(\bupSigma)$ object: a scalar density.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Example of IV) The constraint superalgebroid of Supergravity.
At the level of algebraic structures, each of supersymmetry and split space-time GR can be separately envisaged as Thomas-type effects.
Upon considering both at once, these integrabilities furthermore go in opposite directions, so the more complicated `two-way' integrability case arises.
The schematic form of the key new relation for Supergravity is\footnote{One needs to generalize the Poisson brackets
to accommodate mixtures of bosonic and fermionic species \cite{Casalbuoni}.
Also the sugra, unlike the unconstrained fermion use, involves a Dirac bracket \cite{Dirac, HT92} here rather than a Poisson bracket.}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf \{} {\cal S} \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal S} \mbox{\bf \}} \sim {\cal H} \mbox{ } ( \mbox{ } + {\cal M} + {\cal J} \mbox{ } ) \mbox{ } .
\label{S-S->H}
\end{equation}
The integrability pointing in the opposite direction remains of the schematic GR form (\ref{Dirac-Algebroid}).
More details of this superalgebroid can be found at e.g. \cite{DEath, VM10}.
\subsection{Lie algebroids}\label{Algebroids}
\noindent {\it Lie algebroids} are defined as follows \cite{Algebroid1, Algebroid2}.
\mbox{ }
\noindent 1) Consider a smooth manifold $\bFrM$, and define a vector bundle $\bFrj$ over this.
\noindent 2) Then define a Lie algebra structure on the corresponding space of sections of $\bFrj$: $\FrS\mbox{ec}(\bFrj)$.
\noindent 3) The {\it anchor map} is a bundle map $A: \bFrj \rightarrow \FrT(\bFrM)$ such that
\noindent i) $A: \FrS\mbox{ec}(\bFrM) \rightarrow \mbox{Vec}(\bFrM)$ (of vectors) is a Lie algebra homomorphism corresponding to the commutator Lie bracket.
\noindent ii) For $f \in {\cal C}^{\infty}(\bFrM)$, $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2 \in Sec(\bFrM)$ the derivation rule
$\mbox{\bf |[}\Gamma_1 \mbox{\bf ,}\, f \Gamma_2 \mbox{\bf ]|} = f \mbox{\bf |[}\Gamma_1 \mbox{\bf ,}\, \Gamma_2 \mbox{\bf ]|} + (A(\Gamma_1)f)\Gamma_2$ holds.
\mbox{ }
\noindent The algebroid--groupoid interrelation is now more complicated than its algebra--group counterpart.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Example 1) In the case over just a one-point space, one returns to the standard Lie algebra.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Example 2) Tangent bundles, tie to foliations and thus to specific case below.
Here the identity map of $\FrT(\bFrM)$ is the anchor map, and the reps are vector bundles over $\bFrM$ with flat connections.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Example 3) Lie algebroids arising in the symplectic context are covered in particular in \cite{Algebroid1}.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Example 4) The Dirac alias deformation algebroid \cite{HKT}, as per Appendix \ref{CAS}.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Finally note that a {\it representation in the context of algebroids} \cite{GS08} consists of two parts.
\mbox{ }
\noindent 1) a vector bundle $\bFrj$ over $\bFrM$.
\noindent 2) A $\mathbb{R}$-bilinear map $\FrS\mbox{ec}(\bFrM) \times \FrS\mbox{ec}(\bFrj) \rightarrow \FrS\mbox{ec}(\bFrM): a \otimes s \mapsto D_a s$,
for a suitable notion of derivative $D_a$ \cite{ELW}.
\mbox{ }
\noindent The latter is such that for any $a, b \in \FrS\mbox{ec}(\bFrM)$, $s \in \FrS\mbox{ec}(\bFrj)$ and $f \in {\cal C}^{\infty}(\bFrM)$,
$D_{fa}s = f D_a s$, $D_a\{fs\} = f D_a s + \{\rho(a)f\}s$ and $D_a\{D_b s\} - D_b\{D_a s\} = D_{\mbox{\bf \scriptsize |[}a \mbox{\bf \scriptsize ,} b \mbox{\bf \scriptsize ]|} } s$.
\mbox{ }
\noindent See e.g. \cite{GS08, Broid-Rep-2} for some Representation Theory methods which extend as far as this case.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Superalgebroids are treated in outline in e.g. \cite{Superalgebroids};
the above outline readily continues to carry over upon replacing `Lie algebra' by `Lie superalgebra';
Supergravity's constraint superalgebroid is probably Theoretical Physics' most salient example of superalgebroid.
\subsection{Associated algebras}\label{Associated}
`Associated algebras' is meant in this Article in the following sense.
for $T_{\sfp}$ the generators of an algebraic brackets structure $\Frg$ with bracket operation $\mbox{\bf |[} \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ]|}$,
\noindent \begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[}T_{\sfp}\mbox{\bf ,} \, V_{\sfV}\mbox{\bf ]|} = 0
\label{Assoc-Type}
\end{equation}
produces an associated algebra with respect to the same bracket operation.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Example 1) The case in which the $V_{\sfV}$ themselves are formed from the generators themselves is well-known.
In this case, the association amounts to producing the centre $Z(\Fru)$ of the {\it universal enveloping algebra} $\Fru$ of $\Frg$.
This is named thus due to its encapsulation of features universal to all representations of the $\Frg$ in question.
In this case, the resulting $V_{\sfV}$ are known as {\it Casimirs} \cite{AMP2, BojoBook}.
These play a prominent role in Representation Theory, with $SU(2)$'s total angular momentum operator $J^2$ being the best-known such.
In this example of association procedure, each given Lie algebra leads to a corresponding algebra of Casimirs.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Example 2) is the Article's main example of observables algebraic structures associated with constraint algebraic structures.
\subsection{Classical observables lemmas}\label{Observables}
\noindent {\bf Lemma 1}. Notions of observables can only be meaningfully associated with closed constraint algebraic (sub)structures \cite{ABeables}.
\noindent \underline{Proof}.
Suppose $O_{\sfO}$ commutes solely with a set of ${\cal C}_{\sfC}$ which is not closed:
it does not include some of the $\mbox{\bf |[} {\cal C}_{\sfC}\mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal C}_{\sfC^{\prime}} \mbox{\bf ]|}$.
However, the Jacobi identity with one $B$ and two ${\cal C}$ as entries and making two uses of (\ref{Basic-Obs}) gives
\noindent\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[}O_{\sfO}\mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{\bf |[}{\cal C}_{\sfF} \mbox{\bf ,} \, {\cal C}_{\sfC^{\prime}} \mbox{\bf ]|} \, \mbox{\bf ]|} = -
\mbox{\bf |[}{\cal C}_{\sfF}\mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{\bf |[}{\cal C}_{\sfF^{\prime}}\mbox{\bf , } O_{\sfO} \mbox{\bf ]|} \, \mbox{\bf ]|} -
\mbox{\bf |[}{\cal C}_{\sfF^{\prime}}\mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{\bf |[}O_{\sfO}\mbox{\bf , } {\cal C}_{\sfF} \mbox{\bf ]|} \, \mbox{\bf ]|} \approx 0 \mbox{ } :
\label{CCB}
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction.
Thus such a $\mbox{\bf |[}C_{\sfC} \mbox{\bf ,} \, C_{\sfC^{\prime}} \mbox{\bf ]|}$ in fact has to be included among the quantities $O_{\sfO}$ commutes with. $\Box$
\mbox{ }
\noindent {\bf Lemma 2}. The $O_{\sfO}$ themselves close under whichever $\mbox{\bf |[} \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{ } \mbox{\bf ]|}$ is used to define them.
\noindent \underline{Proof} Take the Jacobi identity with two $B$ and one ${\cal C}$ as entries
\noindent\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[}{\cal C}_{\sfF}\mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{\bf |[}O_{\sfO} \mbox{\bf ,} \, O_{\sfO^{\prime}} \mbox{\bf ]|} \, \mbox{\bf ]|} = -
\mbox{\bf |[}O_{\sfO}\mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{\bf |[}O_{\sfO^{\prime}}\mbox{\bf , } {\cal C}_{\sfF} \mbox{\bf ]|} \, \mbox{\bf ]|} -
\mbox{\bf |[}O_{\sfO^{\prime}}\mbox{\bf ,} \, \mbox{\bf |[}{\cal C}_{\sfF}\mbox{\bf , } O_{\sfO} \mbox{\bf ]|} \, \mbox{\bf ]|} \mbox{ } `=' 0 \mbox{ } ,
\label{BBC}
\end{equation}
and make two uses of (\ref{Basic-Obs}), one obtains that $\mbox{\bf |[}O_{\sfO}\mbox{\bf ,} \, O_{\sfO^{\prime}}\mbox{\bf ]|}$ obeys (\ref{Basic-Obs}) as well. $\Box$
\mbox{ }
\noindent Note moreover that observables algebraic structure $\bFrb$ can be an algebra
\noindent\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} O_{\sfO} \mbox{\bf ,} \, O_{\sfO^{\prime}} \mbox{\bf ]|} = {C^{\sfB^{\prime\prime}}}_{\sfB\sfB^{\prime}}\mbox{\scriptsize ${\cal O}$}_{\sfO^{\prime\prime}} \mbox{ } ,
\label{observables-Algebra}
\end{equation}
or an algebroid
\noindent\begin{equation}
\mbox{\bf |[} O_{\sfO} \mbox{\bf ,} \, O_{\sfO^{\prime}} \mbox{\bf ]|} = {C^{\sfB^{\prime\prime}}}_{\sfB\sfB^{\prime}}(\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath$P$}, \mbox{\boldmath$Q$})\mbox{\scriptsize ${\cal O}$}_{\sfO^{\prime\prime}} \mbox{ } .
\label{observables-Algebroid}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Lattices in outline}\label{Lattices}
\noindent A {\it poset} ({\it partially ordered set}) is a set $\FrX$ alongside an ordering relation $\preceq$ which is reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive.
This is less stringent than the more familiar total ordering, for which every two elements have to be related; this permits a linear ranking representation, by which
total orderings are also known as {\it chains}.
Posets' elements need not all be related, by which posets in general contain multiple branching chains.
This is representable using a {\it Hasse diagram}; all the figures in the current paper are based on Hasse diagrams.
\mbox{ }
\noindent A {\it lattice} $\FrL$ is a poset in which each pair of elements has a join (alias least upper bound) and a meet (alias greatest lower bound).
\mbox{ }
\noindent An element 1 of $\FrL$ is a {\it unit} if $\forall \, l \, \in \, \FrL$, $l \preceq 1$,
and an element 0 of $\FrL$ is a {\it null element} if $\forall \, l \, \in \, \FrL$, $O \preceq l$.
A lattice possessing these is called a {\it bounded lattice}; this applies to all examples in the current Article.
\mbox{ }
\noindent A {\it poset morphism} is an order-preserving map between posets, and a {\it lattice morphism} is an order-, join- and meet-preserving map between lattices.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Subset inclusion $\subseteq$ is one common realization of $\preceq$.
This carries over to the case of sets with further structures, in which case one is dealing with subspace inclusion.
In this setting, intersection of two subspaces plays the role of meet and smallest subspace containing a pair of spaces that of their join.
E.g. for subgroups of a group $\lFrg$, the intersection of two subgroups is also a subgroup, and the join of two subgroups is defined as the subgroup generated by their union.
0 = id: the trivial group, and 1 = $\lFrg$ itself.
Constraint subalgebraic structures of an algebraic structure $\FrC$ follow suit in this regard, with 0 = id: the trivial algebra, and 1 = $\FrC$ itself.
On the other hand, for observables subalgebraic structures of an observables algebraic structure $\FrO$ associated a with constraint algebraic structure $\FrC$,
each constraint present in the latter induces an extra relation in the former.
Hence the association map $Assoc$ is an order-reversing lattice morphism $\FrC \longrightarrow \FrO$.
This can be recast as order-preserving by use of $\supseteq$ in place of $\subseteq$.
$\FrO$ still possesses a 0 and a 1, with, by the order-reversing, $1_{\FrO} = Assoc(0_{\FrC}) = Assoc(id)$ the space $\FrU$ of unconstrained observables $U_{\sfU}$ and
$0_{\FrO} = Assoc(1_{\FrC}) = Assoc(\FrC)$ the space $\FrD$ maximally constrained --i.e. Dirac -- observables $D_{\sfD}$.
Hence the lattice of observables is also a bounded lattice.
\mbox{ }
\noindent Note that $Assoc$ maps all constraint subalgebraic structures to observables algebraic substructures, since one can always pose the problem of what functions
commute with a given constraint subalgebraic structure.
Adding constraints can never increase the freedom in the observables algebraic structure, but on occasion it may have no effect if the constraint being added imposes
no further restriction on the allowed functional form of the observables.
E.g. an angle quantity is already a ratio and a combination of dot products.
I.e. $Assoc$ is capable of being many to one, as occurs in the example of conformal relational mechanics.
In such a case, $Assoc$ is a coarse-graining of the ordering information in moving between the two lattices;
also note that in all the other examples considered in this article, $Assoc$ is 1 : 1 and fully preserving of the ordering information.
\mbox{ }
\noindent See \cite{IshamBook} for a bit more about lattices with basic and theoretical physics examples, and \cite{Cohn2} for somewhat more theory.
With many conceptually and technically interesting properties of lattices having been worked out, it will be very interesting to see which of these apply to lattices of A-observables.
\end{appendices}
|
\section{Introduction}
Protoplanetary disks are formed as natural by-products of star formation processes. While extensive observations and theoretical studies have been carried out, formation and evolution of the disks still remain the subject of active investigation.
Obviously, the most important factor here is distribution and transport of the angular momentum in star forming clouds. In particular, distribution of the angular momentum in infalling envelopes is very important because it will control future evolution of circumstellar disks, and also because it can retain some information about the initial conditions of star formation processes.
Extensive observations have been performed to retrieve the dynamical information within star forming clouds.
Various molecular lines are used depending on densities and scales of interest.
Compiling those results, apparently there is a universal trend in the rotation profiles.
\cite{ohashi97} have found the relations between the trend of the rotation profiles and dynamics of the gravitational collapse of molecular cloud cores.
In the large scale, typically $R\protect\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\:\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}\:$} 5000\, {\rm AU}$, the specific angular momentum $\mathbf{j}\equiv \mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{v}$ increases as the radius increases like $j \propto R^{1.6}$ \citep[e.g. ][]{goodman93}.
This distribution likely reflects the initial conditions of the molecular cloud cores, possibly the turbulent velocity fields following the Larson's law \citep{lrs81}.
On the other hand, rotating protoplanetary disks with Keplerian rotation have been observed in the small scales ($R\protect\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\:\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}\:$} 100\, {\rm AU}$) around the central young stellar objects \citep[e.g.][]{tobin12}.
While the envelopes still maintain some information about the initial conditions, the disks with the Keplerian rotation have experienced angular momentum transport and forgotten the initial conditions.
In the intermediate scales between the Keplerian disks and molecular clouds, where the gas in the envelope is infalling, interestingly the specific angular momentum distribution appears almost flat ($j \propto R^0$, Fig. 6 of \cite{ohashi97} ).
\cite{ohashi97} have pointed out that this can be interpreted as a consequence of ``conservation of angular momentum'' in the infalling envelope \cite[see also][]{2013EAS....62...25B,2014prpl.conf..173L}.
In this scale, the specific angular momentum is indeed conserved because the infall speed is much larger than the rotation speed, or in other words, the dynamical (free-fall) time scale is much shorter than that of angular momentum transport.
Although the conservation of the angular momentum itself is physically plausible, it is not sufficient to explain the flat distribution because the conservation of angular momentum only means that the specific angular momentum of a gas element is conserved in time, i.e. $\frac{dj}{dt}=0$.
On the other hand, the flat distribution of specific angular momentum means that the specific angular momentum of each gas element in the intermediate region is almost the same.
In order to make the angular momentum distribution spatially uniform, this argument additionally requires that the initial specific angular momentum distribution must be uniform; $\left.\frac{dj}{dR}\right|_{t=0}=0$ or $j = Rv_\phi$ is constant. This is, however, quite unlikely as it is contradictory to observations indicating larger velocity dispersions in larger scales.
Moreover, this flat profile is virtually universal in many observed star forming clouds.
Therefore, we need a robust physical mechanism to explain this appearance, which is independent from or only weakly depends on specific initial conditions.
Gravitational collapse of rotating clouds is investigated by numerous previous studies.
\citet{1981Icar...48..353C} investigated the formation and evolution of circumstellar disks approximating the gravitational collapse of molecular clouds as spherical collapse in an outer region and ballistic trajectories in an inner region.
\citet{1984ApJ...286..529T} extended the self-similar solution of the inside-out collapse of a singular isothermal sphere \citep{1977ApJ...214..488S} to include the effect of rotation. Numerical simulations of gravitational collapse of rotating clouds are also investigated and self-similar behaviors are found \citep{1984PThPh..72.1118N,1997ApJ...478..569M}.
\citet{1998ApJ...493..342S} obtained a self-similar solution of gravitational collapse of rotating a thin disk and discussed the evolution of the disks before and after the protostar formation.
\citet{2011ApJ...742...57Y} and \cite{2013ApJ...772...22Y} compared the analytic models of gravitational collapse of rotating clouds with the observed angular velocity distributions
These studies adopted isothermal spheres with rigid-body rotation as initial conditions and assumed that the time evolution of the clouds were given by the inside-out collapse.
In this work, we develop an analytic model of unmagnetized infalling envelope that reproduces the results of numerical simulations in order to investigate the time evolution of infalling envelope.
This model does not use the singular isothermal sphere but can be used for general spherically symmetric initial density profile.
In this paper, we discuss the origin of these rotational profiles in star forming clouds.
In particular, we show that while the angular momentum is conserved at the intermediate scale, the flat distribution is a consequence of elongation due to the velocity gradient in infalling envelopes.
This model can be used for estimating the ages of protostars solely from the rotation profiles, and we apply it to well-studied young stellar objects.
This paper is organized as follows. In \S2 we construct an analytic model of the angular momentum distribution in collapsing clouds. We demonstrate its validity in comparison with numerical simulations in \S3 and provide case studies for well-studied young stellar objects with circumstellar disks such as L1527 IRS, TMC-1A and B335 in \S4. \S5 and \S6 are devoted to discussion and conclusions.
\section{Analytic Model}
\label{analytic_model}
In this section, we construct an analytic model of infalling envelopes. The goal is to provide a simple but useful model explaining the angular momentum distributions in observations and numerical simulations.
Before the gas element gets close to its centrifugal radius, it falls almost radially. Therefore, the effect of rotation is not dynamically important and is negligible in the outer region
\footnote{ It is straightforward to include the effect of centrifugal force in our calculation. Using an analytic model with centrifugal force, we test how much the infalling motion of the envelope is affected by the centrifugal force. We confirm that it becomes important only in the inner region near the centrifugal radius (typically $r<100\,$AU).}
\cite[cf.][]{1981Icar...48..353C}.
In reality, highly non-linear angular momentum transport by self-gravity or magnetic fields dominates the evolution in that small-scale, which anyway is very difficult to handle analytically. Thus we only discuss the infalling envelope here. We exclude the region near the central object from our model assuming that a circumstellar disk with a Keplerian rotation profile is formed there.
In this situation, we can assume that the accretion flow is spherically symmetric; the gravitational force is approximated to be $\sim \frac{GM_r}{r^2}$ where $M_r$ is the enclosed mass within the radius $r$, and the specific angular momentum $\mathbf{j}\equiv \mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{v}$ is conserved and passively advected. Note that $M_r$ is constant on the gas element's frame in this treatment; $M_{r(t)}=M_{r(t=0)}$, so hereafter we omit the subscript. Also, we assume that the gas collapses isothermally, i.e. $p=\rho c_s^2$ where $c_s$ is the sound speed and is constant. Then, the equation of motion of the gas element for the radial velocity $v_r$ becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dv_r}{dt}&=&-\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial r}-\frac{GM}{r^2}\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{p}{r\rho}\frac{\partial \ln p}{\partial \ln r}-\frac{GM}{r^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\frac{\partial \ln \rho}{\partial \ln r}$ is order of unity; for example, it is $-2$ when the density profile is close to the Larson-Penston solution, $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ in the outer region \citep{lrs69,pen69}. We approximate this value is constant in time but depends on the initial radius of the gas element; $\frac{\partial \ln \rho}{\partial \ln r} = \frac{\partial \ln \rho_{\rm i}}{\partial \ln r_{\rm i}} \equiv \beta (r_i)$. Under this assumption, the pressure force is proportional to $r^{-1}$; $\frac{\partial p}{\partial r}\sim \beta p/r$.
Since the gravitational force is proportional to $r^{-2}$, the ratio of the pressure force to the gravitational force decreases as the radius of the gas element decreases. In other words, the gas pressure becomes less important as the gravitational collapse proceeds. Therefore, we estimate $\beta(r_{\rm i})$ by using initial density distribution to reproduce the initial pressure force \cite[]{2013ApJ...770...71T}. Because this gas pressure decreases the infall velocity, the infall velocity is smaller than the free-fall velocity. Using $\beta(r_{\rm i})$ estimated from initial density distribution, we can calculate the motion of the gas element locally including the effect of the gas pressure without knowing the density distribution, and greatly simplify the equation of motion:
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1}{\includegraphics{figure1.eps}}
\caption{The radial profiles of the specific angular momentum in the mid-plane, initial radius, infall velocity and gas density from top to bottom. Only $R > 100 $ AU is plotted because of the limitation of the model. In the figure of the infall velocity, we also plot the free-fall velocity $v_{\rm ff} = \sqrt{2GM_{\rm r}/r}$ at $t= 2\times 10^5$ yr. We adopt $f=1.4$ and $f=10$ for the left and right panels, respectively. Red dotted lines show the initial profiles of specific angular momentum, initial radius and gas density. The initial density profiles are given by the Bonnor-Ebert sphere density profile increased by factor of $f$. }
\label{ana}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dv_r}{dt}&=&-\frac{\beta c_s^2}{r}-\frac{GM}{r^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we introduce another non-dimensional value $f$ which is proportional to the ratio between the gravitational potential to the thermal energy density at the initial radius; $f (r_i)\equiv -\frac{GM}{r_{i}\beta c_s^2}$. Note that $f(r_i)$ is usually positive because $\beta$ is typically negative in a collapsing cloud. Also, $f(r_i)$ is constant in time but spatially not uniform in general, and it is determined by the initial condition.
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dv_r}{dt}&=&\frac{GM}{f r_ir}-\frac{GM}{r^2}\nonumber\\
&=&GM\left(\frac{1}{f r_i r}-\frac{1}{r^2}\right).\label{eq:dvrdt}
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating this equation after multiplying $v_r \equiv \frac{dr}{dt}$ yields:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2&=&GM\int_{r_i}^r\left(\frac{1}{f r_ir}-\frac{1}{r^2}\right)dr\nonumber\\
&=&GM\left[\frac{1}{f r_i}\ln\left(\frac{r}{r_i}\right)+\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{r_i}\right].\\\nonumber\\
\frac{dr}{dt}&=&-\left[2GM\left\{\frac{1}{f r_i}\ln\left(\frac{r}{r_i}\right)+\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{r_i}\right\}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}\\
Here we have taken the negative sign because we are interested in a collapsing solution. We define a new dimensionless radius $x\equiv \frac{r}{r_i}$ and then integrate this equation.
\begin{eqnarray}
t&=&-\sqrt{\frac{r_i^3}{2GM}}\int_1^x\frac{dx}{\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x+x^{-1}-1}}\nonumber\\
&=&\sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi G \bar{\rho}_{r_i}}}\int_x^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x+x^{-1}-1}} \nonumber,\\
&=&\frac{2}{\pi}t_{\rm ff}\int_x^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x+x^{-1}-1}} \label{pos},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{\rho}_{r_i}=\frac{3M_{r_i}}{4\pi r_i^3}$ is the mean gas density within $r_i$ and $t_{\rm ff}=\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{r_i^3}{2GM}}$ is the free-fall time. This equation gives the location of a gas element, $r = xr_{\rm ini}$, as a function of time and initial radius.
Using this equation, we can calculate distribution of the specific angular momentum given an initial condition. Because $j$ is conserved, it is simply transported by the motion of the gas element; $j(r(t),t)=j(r(0),0)$.
For later use, we calculate how long it takes for a gas element at an initial radius $r_i$ to reach the center of the cloud. This time $t_{\rm c}$ can be calculated from Equation (\ref{pos}) by taking the limit of $x\rightarrow 0$. This time depends only on $f$ if it is normalized by the free-fall time $t_{\rm ff}$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{t_{\rm c}}{t_{\rm ff}}(f)=\frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x+x^{-1}-1}}.\label{tc}
\end{eqnarray}
When $f$ is large and the pressure force is not significant, the right hand side of Equation (\ref{tc}) is unity, and the time that a gas element takes to reach the center is given by the free-fall time.
Evolution of the density distribution can be also calculated from Equation~(\ref{pos}). Since the mass within a shell of thickness $dr$, $dM= 4\pi \rho r^2 dr$, is constant, we can calculate the density distribution from the following equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho=\rho_{\rm ini}\left(\frac{r_{\rm ini}}{r}\right)^2\frac{dr_{\rm ini}}{dr}.\label{eq:rho}
\end{eqnarray}
$r$ and $dr$ are obtained from Equation~(\ref{pos}).
Using Equation (\ref{eq:rho}) and the $r$ derivative of Equation (\ref{pos}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(x) = \left[\frac{3}{2}
\left(\frac{1}{ \bar{\rho}_{r_i}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{\rm ini}}
\right)
x^2\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x + x^{-1} -1} \right.\nonumber \\
\times\left.\int_1^x\frac{dx}{\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x + x^{-1} -1}}
+ \frac{x^3}{\rho_{\rm ini}}\right]^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
where we assume that $f$ is spatially uniform.
Hereafter we use a model that $f$ is spatially constant, which is explained as follows.
For example, let us consider a super-critical Bonnor-Ebert \citep[][hereafter BE]{bonnor,ebert} sphere with solid-body rotation as the initial condition. This initial condition is often used in numerical simulations to model an isolated dense molecular cloud core. First we construct a critical BE sphere with a central density of $n_c = 3 \times 10^5 \, {\rm cm^{-3}}$, a temperature of $T = 10$ K, a radius of $R=17,400 \, {\rm AU}$ and an angular velocity of $\Omega = 4.8\times 10^{-14} \, {\rm s^{-1}}$. Because the BE sphere is an equilibrium state, it does not collapse immediately. To make it gravitationally unstable, we increase the whole density of BE sphere by $40\%$ ($f=1.4$). This method has been often used in calculations for the gravitational collapse of cloud cores \cite[e.g.][]{1977ApJ...218..834H, 2010ApJ...724.1006M}
The evolution of the profiles in the disk mid-plane (the plane that perpendicular to the rotation axis, where the specific angular momentum of the gas element is $r_{\rm i}^2 \Omega$) are shown in the left panels of Figure~\ref{ana}.
Because we consider that the angular momentum is transported purely passively, this model cannot account for a rotationally supported disk and is valid only in the region beyond the centrifugal radius.
To show the dependence of the analytic model on the parameter $f$, the evolution of the radial profiles of the specific angular momentum in the mid-plane, initial radius, infall velocity and gas density with $f=10$ are shown in the right panels of Figure~\ref{ana}.
The other parameters are the same as those used for the previous calculation whose results are shown in left panels of Fig.~\ref{ana}. The nature of all profiles is the same as the nature of the profiles shown in left panels in Fig.~\ref{ana}, except the timescale of the gravitational collapse.
For larger $f$, the collapse timescale becomes shorter because the gas pressure is less significant and the free-fall times is shorter due to the higher initial density.
The model successfully reproduces the tendency observed in star forming clouds.
While the outer region of the infalling envelope maintains the initial angular momentum distribution, the specific angular momentum looks almost constant in the inner region.
While the specific angular momentum is indeed conserved in this model, what actually is crucial is the radial velocity gradient in the infalling envelope.
The gas element originally located at a smaller radius attains higher radial velocity than one at a greater radius due to the stronger gravity.
This property is common in any run-away collapse solution including the Larson-Penston solution.
This radial velocity gradient elongates the infalling envelope radially.
It is clearly visible in the plot of the initial radius of Fig \ref{ana} that the gas elements in the inner region originally come from similar initial radii.
Because the specific angular momentum of gas elements is conserved,
the elongation of the infalling envelope elongates the initial angular distribution and makes it look flat.
Therefore the region with constant specific angular momentum can be formed simply as a consequence of strong elongation in a run-away collapse of a cloud, regardless of the initial angular momentum distribution.
This flat specific angular momentum distribution also appears in the self-similar solutions of the gravitational collapse of rotating spherical clouds \citep{1984ApJ...286..529T} and flattened disks \citep{1998ApJ...493..342S}.
The flat region elongates and the specific angular momentum in this region gets higher as time passes by, which can be used as an indicator of the age of the system. The advantage of this method is that it only uses the kinetic information which can be easily acquired, and does not rely on the stellar evolution model. We demonstrate this in Section \ref{comparison} in comparison with observations.
\section{Numerical Simulation}
\label{simulation}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figure2.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the hydrodynamic simulation and the analytic solution at $t=10^5$ yr $1.3 \times 10^5$ yr, $1.5 \times 10^5$ yr and $ 2.0 \times 10^5 $ yr(from left to right), the specific angular momentum, infall velocity and gas density from top to bottom. The solid lines are the analytic models. The distributions in the disk mid-plane in simulation are plotted with the dashed lines, while the dotted lines show the distributions along the rotational ($z$) axis. The red dashed lines show the analytic models with a correction factor. We adopt f=1.4 for both the hydrodynamic simulation and the analytic solution.}
\label{sim}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In order to demonstrate the validity and limitation of the analytic model, we compare it with a hydrodynamic simulation. We perform a three-dimensional nested-grid hydrodynamic simulation with self-gravity \citep{mcd05b,mcd05a,tomida13,2015ApJ...801..117T}. For hydrodynamic part, the second-order accurate MUSCL scheme and Roe's Riemann solver are used. Self-gravity is solved with the Multi-grid solver developed by \citet{mh03}.
The basic equations are as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (\rho \bm{ v})&=&0,\\
\rho\frac{\partial \bm{v}}{\partial t} + \rho(\bm{v} \cdot \nabla ) \bm{v} &=& -\nabla P -\rho\nabla \phi.
\end{eqnarray}
The gravitational potential is composed of two parts:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi &= &\phi_{\rm gas} + \phi_{\rm ps},\\
\nabla^2 \phi_{\rm gas}&=&4\pi G \rho,\\
\phi_{\rm ps}&=&-\frac{GM_{\rm sink}}{r},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{\rm sink}$ is the mass of the sink particle described below, and $\phi_{\rm ps}$ and $\phi_{\rm gas}$ are the gravitational potential due to the sink particle and the gas.
In order to mimic the thermal evolution, the following barotropic approximation is used:
\begin{eqnarray}
T={\rm max}\left(10, 10\times \left(\frac{\rho}{\rho_{cr}}\right)^{\gamma-1} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{cr} = 1.0\times 10^{-13}\, {\rm g \, cm^{-3}}$ is the critical density that the gas becomes adiabatic, and the effective adiabatic index $\gamma$ is $5/3$.
In order to follow the long-term evolution, we introduce a sink particle.
The calculation is started without the sink particle.
The sink particle is placed at the centre of the cloud core when the density within radius $r_{\rm sink}=$1 AU becomes greater than the threshold density $\rho_{\rm sink}=3.8\times 10^{-12}\, {\rm g\, cm^{-3}}$. The gas exceeding the threshold density
in the region $r<r_{\rm sink}$ is removed, and the mass of the removed gas added to the mass of the sink particle $M_{\rm sink}$.
Note that, however, the details of the simulation are not of crucial importance because we only discuss the structure of the infalling envelope.
The initial condition is the same as in the previous section, a super-critical BE-like sphere (the central density is $n_c = 3 \times 10^5 \, {\rm cm^{-3}}$, a temperature is $T = 10$ K, a radius is $R=17,400 \, {\rm AU}$, an angular velocity of $\Omega = 4.8\times 10^{-14} \, {\rm s^{-1}}$, and the density is increased by $40\%$ ($f=1.4$)).
All the variables at the surface of the BE sphere is fixed to the initial values to model a dense molecular cloud core confined in a static interstellar medium.
The results at $t= 10^5$ yr, $1.3 \times 10^5$ yr, $ 1.5\times 10^5$ yr, and $2.0\times 10^5$ yr are shown in Figure~\ref{sim} along with the analytic solution.
The blue dotted and dashed lines show the results of the numerical simulation and thin black lines show the results of the analytic model.
At $t=10^5 $ yr, the analytic model and the numerical simulation show the different distributions.
This is because the protostar is not formed in the numerical simulation, although it is already formed in the analytic model.
The density and velocity distributions before and after the protostar formation are completely different: the former are similar to the Larson-Penston solution \cite[]{lrs69, pen69} and the latter are similar to the Shu solution \cite[]{1977ApJ...214..488S}.
This result suggests that the analytic model tends to underestimate the infall time of the envelope (Equation (\ref{pos})) and the protostar formation time.
The underestimation of the infall time comes from the modeling of the pressure.
In our model, the ratio of pressure gradient to gravitational forces decreases monotonically as the gas collapses toward the center.
However, the numerical simulation shows that the ratio increases with time at first in the inner region where the included mass is smaller than about the Jeans mass.
This means that the analytic model underestimates the pressure gradient force acting on the inner region, and this results in the underestimation of the infall time.
To avoid the underestimation of the infall time before the protostar formation, we introduce a correction factor into Equation (\ref{pos}).
The corrected infall time is given as follows,
\begin{equation}
t=A(M)\sqrt{\frac{r_i^3}{2GM}}\int_x^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x+x^{-1}-1}},
\label{eq:correctedtime}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A(M) = 1+0.4\exp\left(-\frac{2M}{M_{\rm J}}\right),
\label{eq:correctionfactor}
\end{equation}
where $M_{\rm J}$ is the Jeans mass defined by the central density.
The correction factor $A(M)$ increases the infall time for $M \lesssim M_{\rm J}$.
The results of the corrected models are shown by the red dashed lines in Figure \ref{sim}.
The corrected model can reproduce the numerical simulation at $t=10^5$ yr. The results of the model at the other times also reproduce the simulation better than that of the previous model.
We use the model with the correction factor $A(M)$ in the following sections.
Note that our model can reproduce the pressure gradient force for the outer region where the included mass is larger than about the Jeans mass.
Thus, for the later stage of the collapse, the results of the model without the correction factor are similar to those of the numerical simulation formation.
Even at $t = 1.3 \times 10^5 $ yr, the specific angular momentum and infall velocity of the numerical simulation and the analytic model without the correction factor agree with each other well, within a factor of 2.2.
In the simulation, Rotationally-supported circumstellar disks with a radius of $R\sim 50$ AU at $t=1.3\times 10^5 $ yr, $R\sim 100$ AU at $t=1.5\times 10^5$ yr, and $R\sim 900$ AU at $t=2.0 \times 10^5$ yr are formed.
The analytic solution is not applicable to this region because the effect of the centrifugal force is not included in the model.
The analytic solution reproduces the distribution along the rotational axis ($z$, dotted lines) better because the angular momentum is passively transported and has no dynamical effect in the analytic model.
\section{Estimates of Protostar Ages}
\label{comparison}
In this section, we discuss how to apply our model to real observations of circumstellar disks around young stellar objects. In particular, we demonstrate that our model can provide an independent estimate of the age of the system.
Hereafter, we focus on the dynamics of infalling envelope in the mid-plane.
In order to apply our theoretical model, we first need to estimate
the initial density distribution. Because we cannot observe the
initial conditions, we assume a super-critical BE-like sphere as in
Section~2, with parameters $f = 1.4$ and $T = 10$ K.
The uncertainty associated with $f$ is discussed later in Section \ref{discussion}. The initial density distribution, which is proportional to that of BE sphere, is approximately given by
\begin{equation}
\rho(r) = \rho_{\rm c}\left(1+\frac{\xi^2}{\xi_{\rm c}^2}\right)^{-3/2},\label{eq:rho_r}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\rm c}$ is the central density, $\xi$ is a normalized radial coordinate,
\begin{equation}
\xi = \left(\frac{4\pi G \rho_c}{fc_{\rm s}^2}\right)^{1/2}r,\label{eq:def_xi}
\end{equation}
and $\xi_c=\sqrt{26/3}$ \cite[]{TomidaPhD,2012PASJ...64..116K}\footnote{The total mass of this mass distribution diverges as $r\rightarrow \infty$, therefore this profile must be used within a finite radius.}. Then we need to estimate the initial central density of the cloud $\rho_c$ from the observed values.
For this purpose, we use two observed values: the mass of the central protostar $M_*$ and the specific angular momentum $j_e$ in the inner envelope where $j_e$ looks spatially constant. $M_*$ can be determined using the rotation profile in the Keplerian disk. In the inner envelope, we can safely assume that the enclosed mass within this region is dominated by the central protostar, i.e. $M_r\sim M_*$ where $j(r)\sim j_e$.
Because the specific angular momentum is almost conserved in the envelope, we can determine the initial location of the gas in the inner envelope using the specific angular momentum if we know its initial distribution. Observations indeed suggest that the distribution is more or less universal \citep{ohashi97,2013EAS....62...25B}:
\begin{equation}
j_i (r)= 0.4\left(\frac{r}{1 [\rm pc]}\right)^{1.6} [\rm km\, pc\,s^{-1} ].\label{eq:j_c}
\end{equation}
From this equation, the initial radius of the gas element whose specific angular momentum is $j_{\rm e}$ is
\begin{equation}
r_{\rm e,i} = \left({\frac{j_{\rm e}}{0.4 {\rm [km \ pc\ s^{-1}]}}}\right)^{1/1.6} [\rm pc]\label{eq:r_ei}.
\end{equation}
By integrating Equation (\ref{eq:rho_r}), we obtain the enclosed mass within the radius $r_{e,i} = \xi_{\rm e,i}c_{\rm s}\sqrt{f/(4\pi G \rho_{\rm c})}$, which is equal to $M_*$. The relation between $\xi_{\rm e,i}$ and $M_{\rm *}$ is given by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\xi_{\rm c}^3}{\xi_{\rm e,i}}\left[ \ln\left(\frac{\xi_{\rm e,i}}{\xi_{\rm c}} + \sqrt{1+
\frac{\xi_{\rm e,i}^2}{\xi_{\rm c} ^2}}\right) -
\frac{\xi_{\rm e,i}}{\sqrt{\xi_{\rm e,i}^2+\xi_{\rm c}^2 }}\right] = \frac{GM_*}{fc_{\rm s}^2 r_{\rm e,i}}.
\label{eq:xi}
\end{equation}
Solving Equation (\ref{eq:xi}) \footnote{Note that the Maximum value of the left hand side of Equation (\ref{eq:xi}) is about 2.5.
If the protostar mass $M_{\rm *}$ is large and/or the specific angular momentum of the infalling envelope $j_{\rm e}$ is small ($r_{\rm e,i}$ is small), then we cannot solve Equation (\ref{eq:xi}).
In this case, the assumption of initial rotation profile $j_{\rm c}$ (Equation (\ref{eq:j_c})) or density enhanced parameter $f$ might be inappropriate. The simplest solution to this problem is increasing $f$.} for $\xi_{\rm e,i}$ and substituting it into Equation (\ref{eq:def_xi}), we obtain the initial central density,
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm c} = \frac{f \xi_{\rm e,i}^2 c_{\rm s}^2 }{4\pi G r^2_{\rm e,i}}.\label{eq:rho_c}
\end{equation}
Thus all the parameters of the model are determined. Now we can apply our theoretical model proposed in Section~\ref{analytic_model} to estimate the ages of protostars. The current age of the system measured from the beginning of the collapse can be estimated by
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm sys}= A(M_*)\sqrt{ \frac{r_{\rm e,i}^3}{2GM_*} }\int^1_0\frac{dx}{\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x +
x^{-1} -1} },
\label{eq:tsys}
\end{equation}
while the epoch of the formation of the protostar can be calculated by \begin{equation}
t_{\rm pro}= 1.4\sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi G \rho_c}}\int_0^1\frac{dx}
{\sqrt{f^{-1}\ln x +x^{-1} -1}}.
\label{eq:tpro}
\end{equation}
Then, the age of the protostar is $t_{\rm age} \equiv t_{\rm sys} -t_{\rm pro}$.
Figure \ref{fig:tage} shows the protostar age obtained by this analytic model for various $M_{\rm *}$ and $j_{\rm e}$, where we adopt $f=1.4$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1}{\includegraphics{figure3.eps}}
\caption{Protostar age obtained from the analytic model { with $f=1.4$}. Horizontal axis is protostar mass and vertical axis is specific angular momentum in the constant specific angular momentum region.
The solid white lines show $t_{\rm age}=3\times 10^3, \ 10^4, \ 3 \times 10^4, \ 10^5,\ 3\times 10^5$ yr from bottom to top.
In the white region, Equation (\ref{eq:xi}) has no real solution.
}
\label{fig:tage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The solid white lines show $t_{\rm age}=3\times 10^3, \ 10^4, \ 3 \times 10^4, \ 10^5,\ {\rm and}\ 3\times 10^5$ yr from bottom to top.
The white region in Figure \ref{fig:tage} shows the region where we cannot solve Equation (\ref{eq:xi}).
The protostar age given in Figure \ref{fig:tage} is approximately fitted by
\begin{eqnarray}
t_{\rm age} = 7.0\times 10^5
\left(\frac{M_*}{M_{\rm \odot}}\right)^{0.5}
\left(\frac{j_e}{1\ [\rm km\ pc\ s^{-1}]}\right)^{0.31}\nonumber\\
+7.2\times 10^{-9}\left(\frac{M_*}{M_{\rm \odot}}\right)^{8.4}
\left(\frac{j_e}{1\ [\rm km\ pc\ s^{-1}]}\right)^{-4.6}
[\rm yr].
\end{eqnarray}
The difference of the estimated age obtained from this fitting formula and the age shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tage} is less than 10\%.
\subsection{L1527}
Here we take L1527 IRS as a well-studied example.
L1527 is considered as a class 0 object.
Recent observations with ALMA \cite[]{2014ApJ...796..131O} indicated that the gas in the intermediate region ($10^2 \, {\rm AU}\protect\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\:\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}\:$} r \protect\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\:\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}\:$} 10^3\, {\rm AU}$) has a uniform specific angular momentum, $j_{\rm e}\sim 6.1 \times 10^{-4} \, {\rm pc \, km \, s^{-1}}$.
The observations showed that the rotational profile in the innermost region might indicate the existence of a circumstellar disk with a Keplerian rotation profile. In \cite{2014ApJ...796..131O}, they estimated the size of the disk is about (or smaller than) $60\, {\rm AU}$ and the mass of the central object is about $M_{*}\sim 0.3 M_\odot$.
We also assume that the gas temperature of the cloud is $10\, {\rm K}$.
Applying our model to this observation, the gas elements in the intermediate region originally come from $r_{\rm e,i} \sim 3.6\times 10^3 \, {\rm AU}$.
From Equations (\ref{eq:xi}) and (\ref{eq:rho_c}), the central density of the initial molecular cloud is $\rho_{\rm c} \sim 1.8\times 10^{-18} \, {\rm g\, cm^{-3}}$.
We obtain $t_{\rm pro}\sim 1.1\times 10^5$ yr, $t_{\rm sys} \sim 1.5\times 10^5 $ yr and the protostar age $t_{\rm age} \sim 3.7\times 10^4$ yr from Equations (\ref{eq:tsys}) and (\ref{eq:tpro}).
This result implies that this object is still very young, which is consistent with observational facts, especially its small circumstellar disk.
Note that, although this estimate is not very sensitive to the value of $f$ unless $f$ is very close to unity, there still is an uncertainty of a factor of 2 (see Section \ref{discussion}).
These observations still have significant uncertainty even with ALMA, because the base lines available in Cycle-0 observations were limited and therefore the observations suffer from significant missing fluxes in the large scale ($r > 500 \, {\rm AU}$). The argument presented in this section should be considered as a demonstration how to use our model to estimate ages of protostars. More systematic and high-quality observations are highly demanded, and our model will be useful to study the dynamics of protostar formation by comparing the model with data obtained from such future observations.
\subsection{TMC-1A (L1534)}
Another well-studied is TMC-1A. This object is more evolved than L1527 IRS, and is classified as a Class I object \cite[cf.][]{2013ApJ...772...22Y}.
The rotation velocity distribution of TMC-1A is given by \citet{2015arXiv150807013A}.
The radius of the Keplerian disk is about 100 AU and the central star mass is estimated as 0.68$M_{\rm \odot}$.
The specific angular momentum of the inner edge of the infall envelope (or outer edge of the disk) is $1.2\times 10^{-3} \ {\rm km \ pc\ s^{-1}}$.
From Equation (\ref{eq:r_ei}), the initial radius of the envelope is
$\sim 5.5\times 10^3$ AU.
From Equations (\ref{eq:xi}) and (\ref{eq:rho_c}), the initial central density of the cloud is $\rho_{\rm c} \sim 2.4\times 10^{-18} {\rm g\ cm^{-3}}$.
As a result, estimated ages are $t_{\rm pro}\sim 9.8\times 10^4$ yr, $t_{\rm sys} \sim 1.8\times 10^5 $ yr and $t_{\rm age} \sim 7.8\times 10^4$ yr from Equations (\ref{eq:tsys}) and (\ref{eq:tpro}).
\subsection{B335}
Recently \cite{2015ApJ...812..129Y} reported non-detection of circumstellar disks down to
~10 AU scale for B335. They suggested that this object is extremely young and/or strongly
affected by magnetic fields.
The observed specific angular momentum is $\sim 4.3\times 10^{-5} \ {\rm km\ pc\ s^{-1}}$ at 100 AU.
Similar specific angular momentum $\sim (3 \-- 5) \times 10^{-5} \ {\rm km\ pc \ s^{-1}}$ is obtained at 10 AU.
Thus, we adopt the specific angular momentum $\sim 4.3\times 10^{-5} \ {\rm km\ pc \ s^{-1}}$ as a constant specific angular momentum of the envelope.
The central star mass is $\sim 0.05 M_{\rm \odot}$.
The large-scale rotation velocity of B335 is obtained from single-dish
observations \cite[]{1999ApJ...518..334S,2011ApJ...742...57Y,2013ApJ...765...85K}.
Based on these observations, the initial rotational velocity of B335 is assumed to be a rigid-body rotation with an angular velocity of $0.8\ {\rm km \ s^{-1} \ pc^{-1}}$.
From Equation (\ref{eq:r_ei}), the initial radius of the envelope is
$\sim 1.5\times 10^3$ AU.
From Equations (\ref{eq:xi}) and (\ref{eq:rho_c}), the initial central density of the cloud is $\rho_{\rm c} \sim 2.5\times 10^{-18} {\rm g\ cm^{-3}}$.
Thus, Equations (\ref{eq:tsys}) and (\ref{eq:tpro}) yield $t_{\rm pro}\sim 9.6\times 10^4$ yr, $t_{\rm sys} \sim 1.1\times 10^5 $ yr and $t_{\rm age} \sim 9.6\times 10^3$ yr.
Thus, our model suggests that this object is indeed extremely young, although we cannot account for the effects of magnetic fields.
\subsection{Comparison with the Outflow Time Scale}
For young Class-0 objects, the molecular outflows are often used to estimate the ages, simply dividing the spatial extent by the characteristic speed of the outflows.
The maximum velocity or the average velocity are often used in the literature for the characteristic speed, but it is not trivial to determine which one is more appropriate for estimating the age of the system. When the maximum velocity is considered, this results in shorter dynamical time-scales.
For L1527 IRS, \cite{nar12} derived the dynamical time scale of the outflow based on the average velocity, which is about $3 \times 10^4 \, {\rm yr}$. This is in a good agreement with our estimate.
\cite{1996ApJ...471..308C} estimated the dyanmical time scale of TMC-1A to be 3,700 years, while it is estimated to be $1-2 \times 10^4 \, {\rm yr}$ using the average velocity \citep{nar12}. These are both much younger than our estimate, but it is possibly because the outflow is so faint that only a portion of that is detected, or because the outflow becomes not prominent as it interacts with the ISM. In either way, the age estimate based on the outflow should be considered as a lower limit.
For B335, \cite{1988ApJ...327L..69H} \cite[see also][]{2015ApJ...812..129Y} estimated its age to be about $1.3 - 3.3 \times 10^4 \, {\rm yr}$ using the average velocity of $\sim 13 \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$. Although the age is much longer than our estimate, indeed very fast components up to $\sim 160 {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$ are detected toward this object \cite[]{2010ApJ...710.1786Y}. Therefore we suspect that the use of the average velocity results in overestimating the age of this object. Also it should be noted that this object is close to edge-on configuration and therefore the inclination error can significantly affect the velocity. Another possible interpretation is that this system is strongly magnetized and angular momentum is removed very efficiently. In this case, our model should result in underestimating the age.
\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}
\subsection{Dependence on $f$}
In this work, we introduce $f$ as a parameter of the gravitational instability of initial molecular clouds.
This parameter gives the ratio between the pressure force and gravitational force (Equation (\ref{eq:dvrdt})).
Although the infall time depends on $f$ (see Equation (\ref{pos})),we assume $f =1.4 $ for comparison with the observations.
Figure \ref{alpha_dependence} shows the ratio of the infall time to free-fall time as a function of $f$ given by Equation (\ref{tc}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1}{\includegraphics{figure4.eps}}
\caption{
Ratio of the infall time to free-fall time as a function of $f$ given by Equation (\ref{tc}).
}
\label{alpha_dependence}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This ratio is much larger than unity around $f \sim 1$
and asymptotically converges to unity as $f$ increases.
The ratio is smaller than 2 for $f \gtrsim 1.2$.
The uncertainty associated with the parameter $f$, hence, is smaller than a factor of 2 as long as the realistic $f$ is not very close to unity.
Observations of molecular clouds suggest that $f$ is higher than unity.
\citet{2005MNRAS.360.1506K} have fitted the observed density profiles of molecular clouds by BE sphere and found that the effective temperature that gives the best fit of the density profile is different from the observed temperature.
The ratio of these two temperatures, which indicates the relation between the actual gravitational force and thermal pressure, can be used to infer $f$.
The density profile of the BE sphere is almost constant inside the radius $r_{\rm c}$,
\begin{equation}
r_{\rm c} = \sqrt{\frac{c_{\rm s}^2}{4\pi G \rho_{\rm c}}},
\label{eq:r_c}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\rm c}$ is the central density.
The radius $r_{\rm c}$ increases as the temperature increases.
For the clouds observed by \citet{2005MNRAS.360.1506K}, $r_{\rm c}$ is too small when we use the temperature obtained from the observation, $T_{\rm obs} \sim 10$ K. The effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$ exceeds $T_{\rm obs}$ by a factor of $\sim 2 \-- 8$.
On the other hand, with the density distribution we adopt in this work, density is almost constant inside the radius $\sqrt{c_{\rm s}^2f/4\pi G \rho_{\rm c}}$. Thus, we can fit the observed density profile when we adopt $T=T_{\rm obs} \sim 10$ K and $f >1$.
The relation of $f$, $T_{\rm obs}$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ is
$f = T_{\rm eff}/T_{\rm obs}$.
Since \citet{2005MNRAS.360.1506K} have obtained $2\lesssim T_{\rm eff}/{T_{\rm obs}} \lesssim 8$,
observations of the cloud cores suggest that the parameter $f$ is typically higher than unity and the uncertainty associated with $f$ is smaller than two.
\subsection{Effect of the external region of BE sphere}
As described above, observations of molecular cloud cores indicate that the density profile is well fitted by that of the BE spheres \cite[e.g.][]{2001Natur.409..159A,2005MNRAS.360.1506K}.
Thus, we develop the analytic model for the gravitational collapse of a molecular cloud core whose density profile is similar to that of BE sphere.
In general, star forming cloud cores are not isolated but embedded in molecular clouds.
Recent observations have revealed that the cloud cores are in the filamentary clouds \cite[]{2010A&A...518L.102A}.
In this work, we do not take into account the effect of the external region of molecular cloud cores on the gravitational collapse.
Because the timescale of the gravitational collapse at the center of the molecular cloud is shorter than the timescale at the outer region, the external region is not expected to affect the collapse at the center in the early phase of star formation.
For example, the model with $f=1.4$ used in Section \ref{analytic_model} has the free-fall time of $5.4\times 10^4$ yr at the center.
On the other hand, at 10000 au which is the typical size of a molecular cloud core, it is $1.5\times 10^5$ yr.
Therefore, the external region is not expected to affect the gravitational collapse and the structure of the envelope when the protostar age is smaller than about $10^5$ yr.
\cite{2003ApJ...592..188B} and \cite{2004IAUS..221..201H} have pointed out that even when the observed column density profile of the cloud core is well fitted by that of the BE sphere, the actual density distribution of the core can be different from that of the BE sphere.
When the initial condition significantly deviates from the BE sphere adopted here (for example, when the gravitational collapse of the core starts because of cloud-cloud collision or when the cloud core contains strong turbulence), our simple analytic model cannot be applied.
Also, when the initial angular momentum distribution has a discontinuity (e.g., when gas with a completely different angular momentum flows into the cloud core), such a discontinuous structure will remain in the infalling envelope because it cannot be smoothed out by elongation.
The investigation of such a complex structure of infalling envelope is beyond the scope of this study.
\subsection{Initial rotation velocity}
There is another uncertainty associated with the initial specific angular momentum distribution.
In Section \ref{comparison}, we use the relation between the radius of the molecular clouds and their rotation velocity obtained from the observations of many NH$_3$ cores \cite[]{ohashi97} as the initial rotation profile (Equation (\ref{eq:j_c})).
This is not the spatially-resolved rotation velocity distribution of a single molecular cloud.
L1544 is one of the molecular clouds for which the spatially resolved rotation velocity profile has been obtained from observations \cite[]{1999ApJ...518L..41O}.
The specific angular momentum of L1544 is fitted by rigid rotation as follows:
\begin{equation}
j_{\rm c} \sim 1.2 \left(\frac{r}{1\ [\rm pc]}\right)^2 [\rm km \ pc \ s^{-1}]\label{eq:rot_l1544}
\end{equation}
When we adopt this as the initial specific angular momentum distribution of L1527, the estimated age is $t_{\rm age} \sim 4.2 \times 10^4$ yr. This age is similar to the age obtained in Section \ref{comparison} ($3.7\times 10^4$ yr).
When we apply Equation (\ref{eq:rot_l1544}) as the initial specific angular distribution of TMC-1A, we obtain $t_{\rm age} \sim 7.9 \times 10^4$ yr. This age is also similar to the age obtained in Section \ref{comparison} ($7.8 \times 10^4$ yr).
It is technically possible to use the observed large-scale velocity gradient of each molecular cloud cores as the initial rotation profile.
For example, the large-scale ($\sim 0.1$ pc) velocity gradient of L1527 obtained from ${\rm N_2H^+}$ observation with the IRAM 30m single-dish telescope by \citet{tobin11}
is about $2.2 \,{\rm km \, s^{-1} \, pc^{-1}}$.
However, interestingly enough, this large-scale velocity gradient is often mis-aligned or even counter-rotating to the rotation in the smaller scale, probably reflecting the nature of turbulence in the interstellar media \cite[]{lrs81}.
Nevertheless, we can consider this as the characteristic specific angular momentum distribution of L1527.
In this case, the protostar age of L1527 is $t_{\rm age}\sim 3.7\times 10^4$ yr.
This is in good agreement with the age obtained in Section \ref{comparison}.
The age of L1527 estimated in this work and the dynamical age obtained in \cite{nar12} is summarized in Table \ref{AgesL1527}.
The results are apparently not very sensitive to the initial rotation in each object, because the initial rotation is more or less universal.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption[]{
Protostar ages of L1527 estimated in this work and the dynamical age obtained in \cite{nar12}.
}
\label{AgesL1527}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}\hline\hline
&& Age [yr]\\ \hline
Initial specific angular momentum $[\rm km\ pc\ s^{-1}]$ &
$0.4\left(\frac{r}{1[\rm pc]}\right)^{1.6}$& $3.7\times 10^4$\\
& $1.2\left(\frac{r}{1[\rm pc]}\right)^2$& $4.2\times 10^4$\\
&$2.2\left(\frac{r}{1[\rm pc]}\right)^2$& $3.7\times 10^4$\\
\hline
Dynamical age \cite[]{nar12}&& $3\times 10^4$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Effect of magnetic field}
In this work, we neglect effects of magnetic field for simplicity.
The effect of the magnetic field on the star formation is actively investigated using numerical simulations \cite[e.g.][]{2011PASJ...63..555M, 2014MNRAS.438.2278M, 2011ApJ...738..180L,2015ApJ...810L..26T,2016MNRAS.457.1037W}.
When the magnetic field in clouds is strong enough, there are two important effects of the magnetic field on the infalling envelope.
One is that the infall velocity decreases due to magnetic force.
The infall velocity of L1527 estimated from the observation is smaller than free-fall velocity estimated from the central star mass \cite[]{2014ApJ...796..131O}.
This difference may be caused by the magnetic fields.
When the infall velocity decreases due to the magnetic pressure, our analytic model underestimates $t_{\rm sys}$ and $t_{\rm pro}$.
The other is the angular momentum transfer of the infalling envelope by magnetic braking.
The angular momentum of the infalling envelope in the midplane is transferred to the upper region due to the magnetic braking.
As a result, the observed angular momentum is smaller than the initial angular momentum, and we underestimate the initial radius of the infalling envelope if we assume the conservation of the angular momentum in the infalling envelope.
Thus, our analytic model should give the lower limit of $t_{\rm sys}$ and $t_{\rm pro}$.
To estimate the protostar age in the strongly magnetized clouds, we need to extend our model to take into account the effect of the magnetic field.
\section{Conclusions}
We propose a simple analytic model to describe the structure and evolution of collapsing clouds. Although this model is so simple that it considers only gravity and gas pressure with an approximated treatment in quasi spherically symmetric configuration, it can successfully reproduce the result of the hydrodynamic simulation and provide a reasonable fit to observational data. While this model includes neither the effects of rotation nor magnetic fields, it is still applicable to the outer region where the rotation velocity is still small and magnetic braking is not significant.
We showed that the region with constant specific angular momentum can be formed as a consequence of strong elongation in a run-away collapse of a cloud, regardless of the initial angular momentum distribution.
We have also provided a simple method to estimate the ages of protostars based on our model, using information of the rotational profile only. This information can be obtained from easily accessible molecular line observations.
We applied our model to L1527, TMC-1A and B335, and obtained the protostar ages of, $3.7\times 10^4$ yr, $7.8\times 10^4$ yr, and $9.6\times 10^3$ yr, respectively.
Our model will be useful to study the dynamics in the infalling envelope of young stellar objects and related circumstellar disk formation, especially for the present and future observation with ALMA.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to the anonymous referee for useful comments which helped improve the manuscript.
TZS and KT are supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowship for Young Scientists. The numerical simulation in \S3 was performed using NEC SX-9 at the Center for Computational Astrophysics of National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
This research also used computational resources of the HPCI system provided by the Cyberscience Center, Tohoku University, the Cybermedia Center, Osaka University, the Earth simulator, JAMSTEC through the HPCI System Research Project
(Project ID:hp160079).
|
\section{}
\begin{abstract}
In this paper, we focus on model reduction of biomolecular systems with multiple time-scales, modeled using the Linear Noise Approximation. Considering systems where the Linear Noise Approximation can be written in singular perturbation form, with $\epsilon$ as the singular perturbation parameter, we obtain a reduced order model that approximates the slow variable dynamics of the original system. In particular, we show that, on a finite time-interval, the first and second moments of the reduced system are within an $O(\epsilon)$-neighborhood of the first and second moments of the slow variable dynamics of the original system. The approach is illustrated on an example of a biomolecular system that exhibits time-scale separation.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
\normalsize
Time-scale separation is a ubiquitous feature in biomolecular systems, which enables the separation of the system dynamics into `slow' and `fast'. This property is widely used in biological applications to reduce the complexity in dynamical models. In deterministic systems, where the dynamics are modeled using ordinary differential equations, the process of obtaining a reduced model is well defined by singular perturbation and averaging techniques \cite{khalil, pavliotis}. However, employing time-scale separation to obtain a reduced order model remains an ongoing area of research for stochastic models of biological systems \cite{kim2014validity}.
Biological systems are inherently stochastic due to randomness in chemical reactions \cite{andrews2009stochastic, mcquarrie1967stochastic}. Thus, different stochastic models have been developed to capture the randomness in the system dynamics, especially at low population numbers. The chemical Master equation is a prominent stochastic model which considers the species counts as a set of discrete states and provides a description for the time-evolution of their probability density functions \cite{gardiner1985handbook, kampen}. However, analyzing the chemical Master equation directly proves to be a challenge due to the lack of analytical tools to analyze its behavior. Therefore, several approximations of the Master equation have been developed, which provide good descriptions of the system dynamics under certain assumptions. The chemical Langevin equation (CLE) is one such approximation, where the dynamics of the chemical species are described as a set of stochastic differential equations \cite{gillespie}. The Fokker-Plank equation is another method equivalent to the CLE, which considers the species counts as continuous variables and provides a description of the time evolution of their probability density functions \cite{gardiner1985handbook}. The Linear Noise Approximation (LNA) is another approximation, where the system dynamics are portrayed as stochastic fluctuations about a deterministic trajectory, assuming that the system volume is sufficiently large such that the fluctuations are small relative to the average species counts \cite{kampen, elf2003fast}.
In our previous work, we considered a class of stochastic differential equations in singular perturbation form, which captures the case of multiple scale chemical Langevin equation with linear propensity functions. We obtained a reduced order model for which the error between the moment dynamics were of $O(\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon$ is the singular perturbation parameter \cite{herathACC2015, AUCC2015, herathACC2016}. In this work, we consider systems with nonlinear propensity functions, modeled using the Linear Noise Approximation.
There have been several works that obtain reduced order models for systems modeled using LNA, under different approaches for time-scale separation. One such model is derived by Pahlajani et. al, in \cite{pahlajani2011stochastic}, where the slow and fast variables are identified by categorizing the chemical reactions as slow and fast. In \cite{thomas2012rigorous, thomas2012slow}, Thomas et. al, derive a reduced order model by considering the case where the species are separated using the decay rate of their transients, according to the quasi-steady-state approximation for chemical kinetics. It is also shown that, imposing the time-scale separation conditions arising from slow and fast reactions, on their model, leads to the same reduced model obtained in \cite{pahlajani2011stochastic}.
In these previous works, the error between the original system and the reduced system has been studied numerically and has not been analytically quantified. The work by Sootla and Anderson in \cite{sootla2014CDC} gives a projection-based model order reduction method for systems modeled by the Linear Noise Approximation. This work is extended in \cite{sootla2015structured} by the same authors, where they also provide an error quantification in mean square sense for the reduced order model derived in \cite{thomas2012rigorous} under quasi-steady state assumptions. However, to provide an error bound the authors explicitly use the Lipschitz continuity of the diffusion term, which is not Lipschitz continuous in general.
In this paper, we consider biomolecular systems modeled using the Linear Noise Approximation where system dynamics are represented by a set of ordinary differential equations that give the deterministic trajectory and a set of stochastic differential equations that describe the stochastic fluctuations about the deterministic trajectory. We consider the case where the system dynamics evolve on well separated time-scales with slow and fast reactions, and the LNA can be written in singular perturbation form with $\epsilon$ as the singular perturbation parameter, as in \cite{pahlajani2011stochastic}. We define a reduced order model and prove that the first and second moments of the reduced system are within an $O(\epsilon)$-neighborhood of the first and second moments of the original system. Our results do not rely on Lipschitz continuity assumptions on the diffusion term of the LNA.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{model}, we describe the model considered. In Section \ref{pre_results}, we define the reduced system and derive the moment dynamics for the original and reduced systems. In Section \ref{main_results}, we prove the main convergence results. Section \ref{examples} illustrates our approach with an example and Section \ref{conclusion} includes the concluding remarks.
\section{System Model}
\label{model}
\subsection{Linear Noise Approximation}
Consider a biomolecular system with $n$ species interacting through $m$ reactions in a given volume $\Omega$. The Chemical Master Equation (CME) describes the evolution of the probability distribution for the species counts to be in state ${Y} = (Y_1, \ldots, Y_N)$, by the ordinary differential equation
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial P(Y,t)}{\partial t} = \sum_{i = 1}^{m} [{a}_i(Y - v_i, t) P(Y - v_i, t) - {a}_i(Y, t) P(Y, t)],
\end{align}
where ${a}_i(Y,t)$ is the microscopic reaction rate with ${a}_i(Y,t) dt$ being the probability that a reaction $i$ will take place in an infinitesimal time step $dt$ and $v_i$ the change in state produced by reaction $i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, m$ \cite{gillespie2007stochastic}.
The Linear Noise Approximation (LNA) is an approximation to the CME obtained under the assumption that the system volume $\Omega$ and the number of molecules in the system are large \cite{kampen}. To derive the LNA it is assumed that $Y = \Omega y + \sqrt{\Omega} \xi$, where $y$ is a deterministic quantity and $\xi$ is a stochastic variable accounting for the stochastic fluctuations. Then by expanding the chemical Master equation in a Taylor series and equating the terms of order $\Omega^{1/2}$ and $\Omega^{0}$, it is shown that $y$ is the macroscopic concentration and $\xi$ is a Gaussian process whose dynamics are given by \cite{kampen, elf2003fast}
\begin{align}
\label{LNA_intro1} \dot{y} &= f(y,t),\\
\label{LNA_intro2} \dot{\xi} &= A(y,t) \xi + \sigma(y,t) \Gamma,
\end{align}
where $\Gamma$ is an $m$-dimensional white noise process, $f(y,t) = \sum_{i = 1}^m v_i \tilde{a}_i(y,t)$, $A(y,t) = \frac{\partial f(y,t)}{\partial y}$ and $\sigma(y,t) = [v_1 \sqrt{\tilde{a}_1(y,t)}, \ldots, v_m \sqrt{\tilde{a}_m(y,t)}]$. $\tilde{a}_i(y,t)$ is the macroscopic reaction rate which can be approximated by $\tilde{a}_i(y,t) = \frac{1}{\Omega}{a}_i(\Omega y,t)$ at the limit of $\Omega \to \infty$ and $Y \to \infty$ such that the concentration $y = Y/\Omega$ remains constant \cite{gillespie2009deterministic}.
\subsection{Singularly Perturbed System}
We consider the case where the biomolecular system in (\ref{LNA_intro1}) - (\ref{LNA_intro2}) exhibits time-scale separation, with $m_s$ slow reactions and $m_f$ fast reactions where $m_s + m_f = m$. This allows the use of a small parameter $\epsilon$ to decompose the reaction rate vector as $\tilde{a}(y,t) = [\hat{a}_s(y,t), (1/\epsilon)\hat{a}_f(y,t)]^T$ where $\hat{a}_s(y,t) \in \mathbb{R}^{m_s} $ represents the reaction rates for the slow reactions and $(1/\epsilon)\hat{a}_f(y,t) \in \mathbb{R}^{m_f}$ represents the reaction rates for the fast reactions. The corresponding $v_i$ vectors representing the change of state by each reaction $i$ could be represented as $v = [v_1, \ldots, v_{m_s}, v_{m_s + 1}, \ldots, v_{m_s + m_f}]$ for $m_s$ slow and $m_f$ fast reactions.
However, such a decomposition does not guarantee that the individual species in the system will evolve on well-separated time-scales. Therefore, a coordinate transformation may be necessary to identify the slow and fast variables in the system as seen in deterministic systems \cite{jayanthi2011retroactivity} and chemical Langevin models \cite{contou2011model}. Thus, we make the following claim.
\begin{claim}
Assume there is an invertible matrix $A = [A_x, A_z]^T$ with $A_x \in \mathbb{R}^{n_s \times n}$ and $A_z \in \mathbb{R}^{n_f \times n}$, such that the change of variables $x = A_xy$, $z= A_zy$, allows the deterministic dynamics in (\ref{LNA_intro1}) to be written in the singular perturbation form
\begin{align}
\label{sys_ori1_cl} \dot{x} &= f_x(x,z,t),\\
\label{sys_ori2_cl} \epsilon \dot{z} &= f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon).
\end{align}
Then, the change of variables $\psi_x = A_x\xi$, $\psi_z= A_z\xi$ takes the dynamics of the stochastic fluctuations given in (\ref{LNA_intro2}), in to the singular perturbation form
\begin{align}
\label{sys_ori3_cl} \dot{\psi_x} &= A_{1}(x,z,t) \psi_x + A_2(x,z,t) \psi_z + \sigma_x(x,z,t) \Gamma_x,\\
\label{sys_ori4_cl} \epsilon \dot{\psi_z} &= B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_x + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_z + \sigma_z(x,z,t, \epsilon) \Gamma_z,
\end{align}
where $\Gamma_x$ is an $m_s$-dimensional white noise process, $\Gamma_z = [\Gamma_x, \Gamma_f]^T, $ where $\Gamma_f$ is an $m_f$-dimensional white noise process and
\small
\begin{align*}
&A_{1}(x,z,t) = \frac{\partial f_x(x,z,t)}{\partial x}, \\
&A_{2}(x,z,t) = \frac{\partial f_x(x,z,t)}{\partial z}, \\
&B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) = \frac{\partial f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)}{\partial x}, \\
&B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) = \frac{\partial f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)}{\partial z}, \\
&\sigma_x(x,z,t) = A_x\left [v_1\sqrt{\hat{a}{_s}_1(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_{m_s}\sqrt{\hat{a}{_s}_{m_s}(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\right],\\
&\sigma_z(x,z,t, \epsilon) = \left[\hspace{-0.5em}\begin{array}{l} \epsilon A_z\left [v_1\sqrt{\hat{a}{_s}_1(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_{m_s}\sqrt{\hat{a}{_s}_{m_s}(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\right] \\ A_z \bigg [v_{m_s +1} \sqrt{ \epsilon \hat{a}{_f}_1(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, \\ \hspace{11.5em}v_{{m_s +m_f}}\sqrt{ \epsilon \hat{a}{_f}_{m_f}(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\bigg] \end{array} \hspace{-0.75em} \right]^T.
\end{align*}
\normalsize
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A-1.\\
\end{proof}
\end{claim}
Based on the result of Claim 1, in this work we consider the Linear Noise Approximation represented in the singular perturbation form:
\begin{align}
\label{sys_ori1} \dot{x} &= f_x(x,z,t), \hspace{10em} x(0) = x_0,\\
\label{sys_ori2} \epsilon \dot{z} &= f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon), \hspace{9.4em} z(0) = z_0, \\
\label{sys_ori3} \dot{\psi_x} &= A_{1}(x,z,t) \psi_x + A_2(x,z,t) \psi_z + \sigma_x(x,z,t) \Gamma_x, \qquad \psi_x(0) = {\psi_x}_0,\\
\label{sys_ori4} \epsilon \dot{\psi_z} &= B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_x + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_z + \sigma_z(x,z,t, \epsilon) \Gamma_z, \ \psi_z(0) = {\psi_z}_0,
\end{align}
where
$x \in D_x \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_s}$, $\psi_x \in D_{\psi_x} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_s}$ are the slow variables and $z \in D_z \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_f}$, $\psi_z \in D_{\psi_z} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_f}$ are the fast variables. $\Gamma_x$ is an $m_s$-dimensional white noise process. Then, $\Gamma_z = [\Gamma_x, \Gamma_f]^T, $ where $\Gamma_f$ is an $m_f$-dimensional white noise process.
We refer to the system (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}) as the original system and obtain a reduced order model when $\epsilon = 0$. To this end, we make the following assumptions on system (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}) for $x \in D_x \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_s}$, $z \in D_z \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_f}$ and $t \in [0, t_1]$.
\begin{assumption}
\label{a1} \rm{ The functions $f_x(x, z, t)$, $f_z(x, z, t, \epsilon)$ are twice continuously differentiable. The Jacobian $\frac{\partial f_z(x, z, t, 0) }{\partial z}$ has continuous first and second partial derivatives with respect to its arguments.}
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{a2} \rm{The matrix-valued functions $\sigma_x(x, z, t)\sigma_x(x, z, t)^T$, $\sigma_z(x, z, t, \epsilon)[\sigma_x(x, z, t) \ 0]^T$ and $\sigma_z(x, z, t, \epsilon)\sigma_z(x, z, t, \epsilon)^T$ are continuously differentiable. Furthermore, we have that $\sigma_z(x, z, t, 0) = 0$ and $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)^T}{\epsilon} = \sigma(x,z,t)$ where $\sigma(x,z,t)$ is bounded for given $x, z, t$ and $\frac{\partial \sigma(x,z,t)}{\partial z}$ is continuous.}
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{a3}
\rm{There exists an isolated real root $z = \gamma_1(x,t)$, for the equation $f_z(x,z,t,0) = 0$, for which, the matrix $\frac{\partial f_z(x, z, t, 0)}{\partial z} \big|_{z=\gamma_1(x,t)}$ is Hurwitz, uniformly in $x$ and $t$. Furthermore, we have that the first partial derivative of $\gamma_1(x,t)$ is continuous with respect to its arguments. Also, the initial condition $z_0$ is in the region of attraction of the equilibrium point $z = \gamma_1(x_0,0)$ for the system $\frac{dz}{d \tau} = f_z(x_0,z,0,0)$.}
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{a4}
\rm{The system $\dot{\bar{x}} = f_x(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t)$ has a unique solution $\bar{x} \in S$ where $S$ is a compact subset of $D_x$ for $t \in [0, t_1]$.}
\end{assumption}
\section{Preliminary Results}
\label{pre_results}
\subsection{Reduced System}
The reduced system is defined by setting $\epsilon = 0$ in the original system (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}), which yields
\begin{align}
\label{sys_red_deri1} f_z(x,z,t,0) &= 0 ,\\
\label{sys_red_deri2} B_1(x,z,t,0) \psi_x + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_z &= 0.
\end{align}
Let $z = \gamma_1({x},t)$ be an isolated root of equation (\ref{sys_red_deri1}), which satisfies Assumption \ref{a3}. Then, we have that $\psi_z = -B_2({x},\gamma_1({x},t),t,0)^{-1}B_1({x},\gamma_1({x},t),t,0) \psi_x $ is the unique solution of equation (\ref{sys_red_deri2}). Let $ \gamma_2({x}, t) = -B_2({x},\gamma_1({x},t),t,0)^{-1}B_1({x},\gamma_1({x},t),t,0)$. Then, substituting $z = \gamma_1({x},t)$ and $\psi_z = \gamma_2({x}, t)\psi_x$ in equations (\ref{sys_ori1}) and (\ref{sys_ori3}), we obtain the reduced system
\begin{align}
\label{sys_red1} \dot{\bar{x}} &= f_x(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t), \hspace{8.1em} \bar{x}(0) = x_0,\\
\label{sys_red2} \hspace{-2em} \dot{\bar{\psi}}_x &= {A}(\bar{x},t)\bar{\psi}_x + \sigma_x(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t) \Gamma_x, \hspace{1em} \bar{\psi}_x(0) = {\psi_x}_0,
\end{align}
where\\
$ {A}(\bar{x},t) $ $=$ $ A_1(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t)\bar{\psi}_x $ $+$ $ A_2(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t)\gamma_2(\bar{x}, t)$.
Next, we derive the first and second moment dynamics of the variable $\bar{\psi}_x$ in the reduced system. To this end, we make the following claim:
\begin{claim}
The first and second moment dynamics for the variable $\bar{\psi}_x$ of the reduced system (\ref{sys_red1}) - (\ref{sys_red2}) can be written in the form
\begin{align}
\label{mo_red1} \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x]}{dt} &= {A}(\bar{x},t) \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x] , \hspace{3.5em} \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x(0)] = {\psi_x}_0, \\
\notag \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x\bar{\psi}_x^T] }{dt} &= {A}(\bar{x},t) \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x\bar{\psi}_x^T] + \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x\bar{\psi}_x^T] {A}(\bar{x},t)^T + \sigma_x(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t) ,t)\sigma_x(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t),t)^T, \\& \label{mo_red2} \hspace{18.5em} \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x(0)\bar{\psi}_x(0)^T] = {\psi_x}_0{\psi_x}_0^T.
\end{align}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Similar to \cite{bence}, the first and second moment dynamics of $\bar{\psi}_x$ in (\ref{sys_red2}) can be written as
\begin{align*}
\frac{d \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x]}{dt} &= \mathbb{E}[{A}(\bar{x},t)\bar{\psi}_x], \\
\notag \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x\bar{\psi}_x^T] }{dt} &= \mathbb{E}[{A}(\bar{x},t) \bar{\psi}_x\bar{\psi}_x^T] + \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x(\bar{\psi}_x^T {A}(\bar{x},t)^T)] + \sigma_x(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t) ,t)\sigma_x(\bar{x},\gamma_1(\bar{x},t),t),t)^T.
\end{align*}
Since the dynamics of $\bar{x}$ given by (\ref{sys_red1}) are deterministic, using the linearity of the expectation operator we can write the moment dynamics of the reduced system as (\ref{mo_red1}) - (\ref{mo_red2}).
\end{proof}
Next, we proceed to derive the moment dynamics for $\psi_x$ and $\psi_z$ in the original system (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}) given by the following claim.
\begin{claim}
\label{Le_sp}
The first and second moment dynamics for the variables $\psi_x$ and $\psi_z$ of the original system (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}) can be written in the form
\begin{align}
\label{mo_ori1} &\frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_{x}]}{dt} = A_1(x,z,t) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] + A_2(x,z,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z], \\
\notag &\frac{d\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T]}{dt} = A_1(x,z,t) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] + A_2(x,z,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_x^T] + \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] A_1(x,z,t)^T \\& + (\mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_x^T])^T A_2(x,z,t)^T \label{mo_ori_mid1} + \sigma_x(x,z,t)\sigma_x(x,z,t)^T, \\
\label{mo_ori_mid2} &\epsilon\frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_{z}]}{dt} = B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z], \\% \hspace{6em} \mathbb{E}[{\psi}_z(0)] = {\psi_z}_0, \\
\notag &\epsilon\frac{d\mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T]}{dt} = \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T] A_1(x,z,t)^T \notag + \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_z^T] A_2(x,z,t)^T + B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] \\& \label{mo_ori_mid3} + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T] + \sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)[\sigma_x(x,z,t) \ 0]^T, \\
\notag &\epsilon\frac{d\mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_z^T]}{dt} = B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_z^T] + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_z^T] + \mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T] B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon)^T \\& \label{mo_ori2} + \mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_z^T] B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon)^T + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)^T,
\end{align}
\normalsize
where $x$ and $z$ are the solutions of the equations (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori2}), and the initial conditions are given by $ \mathbb{E}[{\psi}_x(0)] = {\psi_x}_0,$ $\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T(0)] = {\psi_x}_0{\psi_x}_0^T$, $\mathbb{E}[{\psi}_z(0)] = {\psi_z}_0$, $ \mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_x^T(0)] = {\psi_z}_0{\psi_x}_0^T,$ $\mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_z^T(0)] = {\psi_z}_0{\psi_z}_0^T$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The equations (\ref{sys_ori3}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}) can be written in the form
\begin{align*}
\dot{\psi}_x &= A_1(x,z,t) \psi_x + A_2(x,z,t) \psi_z + [\sigma_x(x,z,t) \ 0] \Gamma_z,\\
\epsilon \dot{\psi}_z &= B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_x + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_z +\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon) \Gamma_z,
\end{align*}
where $[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma_x(x,z,t) & 0\end{array}] \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times (m_s + m_f)}$.
Then, using the fact that the $x$ and $z$ are deterministic and the linearity of the expectation operator, the dynamics for the first moments can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{mo1} \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_{x}]}{dt} &= A_1(x,z,t) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] + A_2(x,z,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z] ,\\
\frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_{z}]}{dt} &= \frac{1}{\epsilon}B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] + \frac{1}{\epsilon}B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z].
\end{align}
Similarly, using Proposition III.1 in \cite{bence}, the second moment dynamics can be written as
\begin{align}
\notag & \frac{d}{dt} \mathbb{E} \left[\begin{array}{cc} \psi_x\psi_x^T & \psi_x\psi_z^T \\ \psi_z \psi_x^T & \psi_z\psi_z^T\end{array}\right] =\\&
\notag \bigg[ \arraycolsep=3.5pt \def1.2} \begin{array}{c{1.2} \begin{array}{c} \psi_x(A_1(x,z,t) \psi_x + A_2(x,z,t) \psi_z)^T \\
\psi_z(A_1(x,z,t) \psi_x + A_2(x,z,t) \psi_z)^T \end{array} \arraycolsep=3.5pt \def1.2} \begin{array}{c{1.2} \begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{\epsilon} \psi_x(B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_x + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_z)^T\\ \frac{1}{\epsilon}\psi_z(B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_x + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_z)^T \end{array} \bigg] \\& \notag + \bigg[\arraycolsep=3.5pt \def
1.2} \begin{array}{c{1.2} \begin{array}{c} (A_1(x,z,t) \psi_x + A_2(x,z,t) \psi_z)\psi_x^T \\ \frac{1}{\epsilon}(B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_x + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_z)\psi_x^T \end{array} \arraycolsep=3.5pt \def1.2} \begin{array}{c{1.2} \begin{array}{c} (A_1(x,z,t) \psi_x + A_2(x,z,t) \psi_z)\psi_z^T \\ \frac{1}{\epsilon}(B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_x + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon) \psi_z)\psi_z^T \end{array} \bigg] \\& \label{sec_mo}
+ \bigg[ \arraycolsep=3.5pt \def1.2} \begin{array}{c{1.2} \begin{array}{c} \sigma_x(x,z,t)\sigma_x(x,z,t)^T \\ \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma_x(x,z,t) & 0\end{array}]^T\end{array}
\arraycolsep=3.5pt \def1.2} \begin{array}{c{1.2} \begin{array}{c} \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma_x(x,z,t) & 0\end{array}]\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)^T \\ \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)\sigma_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)^T \end{array}\bigg].
\end{align}
Employing the linearity of the expectation operator, we can sum the corresponding entries of the matrices in equation (\ref{sec_mo}), and multiply by $\epsilon$ to write the moment equations (\ref{mo1}) - (\ref{sec_mo}) in the form of (\ref{mo_ori1}) - (\ref{mo_ori2}). Note that, since $\mathbb{E}[\psi_x\psi_z^T] = (\mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_x^T])^T$, we have eliminated the dynamics of the variable $\mathbb{E}[\psi_x\psi_z^T]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{claim_mo_ori}
Setting $\epsilon = 0$ in the system of moment dynamics (\ref{mo_ori1}) - (\ref{mo_ori2}) and the dynamics of $x$ and $z$ given by (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori2}), yields the moment dynamics of the reduced system (\ref{mo_red1}) - (\ref{mo_red2}) where the dynamics of $\bar{x}$ are given by (\ref{sys_red1}).
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Setting $\epsilon = 0$ in equations (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori2}) and (\ref{mo_ori_mid2}) - (\ref{mo_ori_mid3}), yields
\begin{align}
\label{z_0} 0 &= f_z(x,z,t,0),\\
\label{psi_x0} 0 &= B_1(x,z,t,0) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] + B_2(x,z,t,0)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z] , \\
\label{psi_z0} 0 &= B_1(x,z,t,0) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] + B_2(x,z,t,0)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T].
\end{align}
By definition of the reduced system, we have that $z = \gamma_1(x,t)$ is an isolated root for equation (\ref{z_0}). Then, under Assumption \ref{a3}, we have that the unique solutions for the equations (\ref{psi_x0}) and (\ref{psi_z0})
are given by
\begin{align}
\notag \mathbb{E}[\psi_z] &= -B_2(x, \gamma_1(x,t),t,0)^{-1}(B_1(x, \gamma_1(x,t),t,0)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x]) \\& \label{sol_psi_z} = \gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x], \\
\notag \mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T] &= -B_2(x, \gamma_1(x,t),t,0)^{-1}(B_1(x, \gamma_1(x,t),t,0) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T]) \\& \label{sol_psi_zx} = \gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T].
\end{align}
Substituting $z = \gamma_1({x},t)$ and equations (\ref{sol_psi_z}) - (\ref{sol_psi_zx}), in (\ref{sys_ori1}) and (\ref{mo_ori1}) - (\ref{mo_ori2}) results in
\begin{align}
\label{sys_ori1_pr} \dot{x} &= f_x(x,\gamma_1(x,t),t),\\
\label{mo_ori1_pr} \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_{x}]}{dt} &= A_1(x,\gamma_1({x},t),t) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] + A_2(x,\gamma_1({x},t),t)\gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x], \\
\notag \frac{d\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T]}{dt} &= A_1(x,\gamma_1({x},t),t) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] + A_2(x,\gamma_1({x},t),t) \gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] \\& + \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] A_1(x,z,t)^T + (\gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T])^T A_2(x,\gamma_1({x},t),t)^T \\& \label{mo_ori_mid1_pr} + \sigma_x(x,\gamma_1({x},t),t)\sigma_x(x,\gamma_1({x},t),t)^T.
\end{align}
It follows that equation (\ref{sys_ori1_pr}) is equivalent to the reduced system given by (\ref{sys_red1}) and since we have that $ {A}({x},t) = A_1({x},\gamma_1({x},t),t)\bar{\psi}_x + A_2({x},\gamma_1({x},t),t)\gamma_2({x}, t)$, the system (\ref{mo_ori1_pr}) - (\ref{mo_ori_mid1_pr}) is equivalent to the moment dynamics of the reduced system given by (\ref{mo_red1}) - (\ref{mo_red2}).
\end{proof}
\section{Main Results}
\label{main_results}
\begin{lemma}
Consider the original system in (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}), the reduced system in (\ref{sys_red1}) - (\ref{sys_red2}), and the moment dynamics for the original and reduced systems in (\ref{mo_ori1}) - (\ref{mo_ori2}), (\ref{mo_red1}) - (\ref{mo_red2}) respectively. We have that, under Assumptions 1 - 3, the commutative diagram in Fig. \ref{comm} holds.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\hspace{0.5em}
\vspace{-1em}
\def\svgwidth{450pt}
\footnotesize
\centering
\input{comdiagram9_old.pdf_tex}\vspace{14em}
\vspace{-8em}
\caption{\small{Commutative Diagram.}}
\label{comm}
\end{figure*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from Claim 1, Claim 2 and Claim 3.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Consider the original system (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}), the reduced system in (\ref{sys_red1}) - (\ref{sys_red2}) and the moment dynamics for the original and reduced systems in (\ref{mo_ori1}) - (\ref{mo_ori2}), (\ref{mo_red1}) - (\ref{mo_red2}) respectively. Then, under Assumptions \ref{a1} - \ref{a4}, there exists $\epsilon^* \ge 0$ such that for $0 < \epsilon < \epsilon^*$, we have
\begin{align}
\label{thm1_res1} &\| x(t) - \bar{x}(t) \|= O(\epsilon), \ t \in [0, t_1], \\
\label{thm1_res2} &\| \mathbb{E}[\psi_x(t)] - \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x(t)] \| = O(\epsilon), \\
\label{thm1_res2} &\| \mathbb{E}[{\psi}_x(t){\psi}_x(t)^T] - \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x(t)\bar{\psi}_x(t)^T] \| = O(\epsilon).
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma 1, we see that setting $\epsilon = 0$ in the moment dynamics of the original system (\ref{mo_ori1}) - (\ref{mo_ori2}) and in the dynamics of $x$ and $z$ given by (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori2}), yields the moment dynamics of the reduced system (\ref{mo_red1}) - (\ref{mo_red2}) where the dynamics of $\bar{x}$ are given by (\ref{sys_red1}). Therefore to prove Theorem 1, we apply Tikhonov's theorem \cite{khalil} to the system of moment dynamics of the original system given by (\ref{mo_ori1}) - (\ref{mo_ori2}) together with the dynamics of $x$ and $z$ given by (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori2}). In order to apply Tikhonov's theorem, we first prove that the assumptions of the Tikhonov's theorem are satisfied. To this end, let us define the boundary layer variables
\begin{align}
b_1 &= z - \gamma_1(x,t), \\
b_2 &= \mathbb{E}[\psi_z] - \gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x], \\
b_3 &= \mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T] - \gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T].
\end{align}
The dynamics of the boundary layer variables are given by
\begin{align*}
\frac{db_1}{dt} &= \frac{dz}{dt} - \frac{d\gamma_1(x,t)}{dt},\\
\frac{db_{2}}{dt} &= \frac{d\mathbb{E}[{\psi_z}]}{dt} - \frac{d\gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x]}{dt},\\
\frac{db_{3}}{dt} &= \frac{d\mathbb{E}[{\psi_z}\psi_x]}{dt} - \frac{d\gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T]}{dt}.
\end{align*}
Denote by $\tau = t/\epsilon$ the time variable in the fast time-scale. Then, expanding using the chain rule, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{db_1}{d\tau} &= \epsilon\frac{dz}{dt} - \epsilon\frac{\partial \gamma_1(x,t)}{\partial t} - \epsilon\frac{\partial \gamma_1(x,t)}{\partial x} \frac{dx}{dt},\\
\frac{db_{2}}{d\tau} &= \epsilon\frac{d\mathbb{E}[{\psi_z}]}{dt} - \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_x] \frac{\partial \gamma_2(x,t)}{\partial t} - \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_x ] \frac{\partial \gamma_2(x,t)}{\partial x}\frac{dx}{dt} - \epsilon \gamma_2(x,t) \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_x ] }{d t} ,\\
\frac{db_{3}}{d\tau} &= \epsilon\frac{d\mathbb{E}[{\psi_z}\psi_x^T]}{dt} - \epsilon \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] \frac{\partial \gamma_2(x,t)}{\partial t} - \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] \frac{\partial \gamma_2(x,t)}{\partial x}\frac{dx}{dt} - \epsilon\gamma_2(x,t) \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] }{d t} .
\end{align*}
Substituting from equations (\ref{sys_ori2}), (\ref{mo_ori_mid2}) and (\ref{mo_ori2}) yields
\begin{align}
\label{boundary_proof1} \frac{db_1}{d\tau} &= f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon) - \epsilon\frac{\partial \gamma_1(x,t)}{\partial t} - \epsilon\frac{\partial \gamma_1(x,t)}{\partial x} \frac{dx}{dt},\\
\notag \frac{db_{2}}{d\tau} &= B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z] \\& \notag - \epsilon \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] \frac{\partial \gamma_2(x,t)}{\partial t} - \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_x ] \frac{\partial \gamma_2(x,t)}{\partial x}\frac{dx}{dt} - \epsilon \gamma_2(x,t) \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_x ] }{d t} ,\\
\notag \frac{db_{3}}{d\tau} &= \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T] A_1(x,z,t)^T + \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_z\psi_z^T] A_2(x,z,t)^T + B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] \\& \notag + B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon)\mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T] + \sigma_z(x,z,t, \epsilon)[\sigma_x(x,z,t) \ 0]^T - \epsilon\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] \frac{\partial \gamma_2(x,t)}{\partial t} \\&\label{boundary_proof2} - \epsilon \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] \frac{\partial \gamma_2(x,t)}{\partial x}\frac{dx}{dt} - \epsilon \gamma_2(x,t) \frac{d \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] }{d t}.
\end{align}
where we take $z = b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t)$ and $\mathbb{E}[\psi_z] = b_2 + \gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x]$, and $\mathbb{E}[\psi_z \psi_x^T] = b_3 + \gamma_2(x,t) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T]$. Since, from Assumption $\ref{a3}$, $\gamma_1(x,t)$ is a continuously differentiable functions in its arguments, we have that $\frac{\partial \gamma_1(x,t)}{\partial t}$, $\frac{\partial \gamma_1(x,t)}{dx}$ are bounded in a finite time interval $t \in [0, t_1]$. Since $\gamma_2({x}, t) = -B_2({x},\gamma_1({x},t),t,0)^{-1}B_1({x},\gamma_1({x},t),t,0)$, and $B_1$ and $B_2$ are continuously differentiable from Assumption \ref{a1}, we have that $\frac{\partial \gamma_{2}(x, t)}{\partial x}$ and $\frac{\partial \gamma_{2}(x, t)}{\partial t}$ are bounded in a finite time interval $t \in [0, t_1]$.
Then, the boundary layer system obtained by setting $\epsilon = 0$ in (\ref{boundary_proof1}) - (\ref{boundary_proof2}) is given by
\begin{align}
\label{boundary_1} \frac{db_1}{d\tau} &= f_z(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t), t, 0),\\
\notag \frac{db_{2}}{d\tau} &= B_1(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t),t,0) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x] + B_2(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t),t,0)( b_2 + \gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x]) \\& \label{boundary_3} =: g_1(b_1,b_2, x,t),\\
\notag \frac{db_{3}}{d\tau} &= B_1(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t),t,0) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T] + B_2(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t),t,0)(b_3 + \gamma_2(x,t) \mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T]) \\& \label{boundary_2} =: g_2(b_1,b_3, x,t).
\end{align}
To prove that the origin of the boundary layer system is exponentially stable, we consider the dynamics of the vectors $e_i = [b_1, b_2, b_{3i}]$ where $b_{3i}$ represent the columns of the matrix $b_3$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n$. Similarly, denote the columns of the matrix $g_{2}(b_1,b_3, x,t)$ by $g_{2i}(b_1,b_3, x,t)$ representing the dynamics for each $b_{3i}$. Linearizing the system (\ref{boundary_1}) - (\ref{boundary_2}) around the origin, we obtain the dynamics for $\tilde{e}_i = e_i - 0$ as
\begin{align}
\frac{d\tilde{e}_i}{d\tau} &= \left[\begin{array}{ccc} J_{11} & 0 & 0 \\ J_{21} & J_{22} & 0\\ J_{31} & 0 & J_{33}\end{array} \right] \tilde{e}_i, \ \qquad i = \{ 1, \ldots, n \},
\end{align}
where $J_{11} = \frac{\partial f_z(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t), t, 0)}{\partial b_1}\big|_{b_1=0}$, $J_{21} = \frac{\partial g_1(b_1,b_2,x,t)}{\partial b_1}\big|_{e_i=0} $, $J_{22} = B_2(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t) , t, 0)\big|_{b_1=0} $, $J_{31} = \frac{\partial g_{2i}(b_1,b_3, x,t)}{\partial b_1}\big|_{e_i=0}$, and $J_{33} = B_2(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t) , t, 0)\big|_{b_1=0}$.
Since the eigenvalues of a block triangular matrix are given by the union of eigenvalues of the diagonal blocks, we consider the eigenvalues of $\frac{\partial f_z(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t), t, 0)}{\partial b_1}\big|_{b_1=0}$ and $ B_2(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t) , t, 0)\big|_{b_1=0}$. Under Assumption \ref{a3}, we have that the matrix $\frac{\partial f_z(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t), t, 0)}{\partial b_1}\big|_{b_1=0} = \frac{\partial f_z(x, z, t, 0)}{\partial z} \frac{d z}{d b_1}\big|_{z = \gamma_1(x,t)} = \frac{\partial f_z(x, z, t, 0)}{\partial z} \big|_{z = \gamma_1(x,t)} $ is Hurwitz. From the definition of the original system (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori4}), we have $B_2(x, z , t, \epsilon) = \frac{\partial f_z(x, z, t, \epsilon)}{\partial z} $. Therefore, $ B_2(x, b_1 + \gamma_1(x,t) , t, 0)\big|_{b_1=0} = \frac{\partial f_z(x, z, t, 0)}{\partial z} \big|_{z=\gamma_1(x,t)}$, which is Hurwitz under Assumption \ref{a3}. Thus, the boundary layer system is exponentially stable.
From Assumptions \ref{a1} and \ref{a2} we have that the functions $f_x(x,z,t)$, $f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)$, $A_1(x,z,t)$, $A_2(x,z,t)$, $B_1(x,z,t,\epsilon)$, $B_2(x,z,t,\epsilon)$, $\sigma_x(x, z, t)\sigma_x(x, z, t)^T$, $\sigma_z(x, z, t, \epsilon)[\sigma_x(x, z, t) \ 0]^T$ and $\sigma_z(x, z, t, \epsilon)\sigma_z(x, z, t, \epsilon)^T$ and their first partial derivatives are continuously differentiable. From Assumption \ref{a1} we have that the $\frac{\partial f_z(x,z,t,0)}{\partial z}$, $\frac{\partial B_1(x,z,t,0)}{\partial z}$, $\frac{\partial B_2(x,z,t,0)}{\partial z}$ have continuous first partial derivatives with respect to their arguments. From Assumptions \ref{a1} and \ref{a3} we have that the $\gamma_1(x,t)$, $\gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x]$, $\gamma_2(x,t)\mathbb{E}[\psi_x \psi_x^T]$ have continuous first partial derivatives with respect to their arguments. From Assumption \ref{a4} we have that the reduced system (\ref{sys_red1}) has a unique bounded solution for $t \in [0, t_1]$. Since the moment equations (\ref{mo_red1}) - (\ref{mo_red2}) are linear in $\mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x]$ and $\mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x\bar{\psi}_x^T]$ there exists a unique solution to (\ref{mo_red1}) - (\ref{mo_red2}) for $t \in [0, t_1]$. From Assumption \ref{a3} we have that the initial condition $z_0$ is in the region of attraction of the equilibrium point $\gamma_1(x_0, 0)$, and thus the initial condition $z_0 - \gamma_1(x_0,0)$ for the boundary layer system $b_1$ with the frozen variables $x = x_0$, $t = 0$, is in the region of attraction of the equilibrium point $b_1 = 0$. Then, since the system (\ref{boundary_3}) - (\ref{boundary_2}) is linear in the variables $b_2$ and $b_3$, it follows from Assumption 3 that $z_0 - \gamma_1(x_0,0)$, ${\psi_z}_0 - \gamma_2(x_0, 0){\psi_x}_0$, ${\psi_z}_0 {\psi_x}_0^T - \gamma_2(x_0, 0){\psi_x}_0 {\psi_x}_0^T$ for the variables $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$ are in the region of attraction of the equilibrium point at the origin. Thus, the assumptions of the Tikhonov's theorem on a finite time-interval \cite{khalil} are satisfied and applying the theorem to the moment dynamics of the original system in (\ref{mo_ori1}) - (\ref{mo_ori2}) and the dynamics of $x$ and $z$ given by (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori2}), we obtain the result (\ref{thm1_res1}) - (\ref{thm1_res2}).\end{proof}
\textbf{Remark:} From \cite{kampen}, we have that $\psi_x(t)$ and $\bar{\psi_x}(t)$ are multivariate Gaussian processes. Since a Gaussian distribution is fully characterized by their mean and the covariance, and Theorem 1 gives
\begin{align}
lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \mathbb{E}[\psi_x(t)] &= \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x(t)],\\
lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \mathbb{E}[\psi_x(t)\psi_x(t)^T] &= \mathbb{E}[\bar{\psi}_x(t)\bar{\psi}_x(t)^T],
\end{align}
we have that for given $t \in [0, t_1]$, the vector $\psi_x(t)$ converges in distribution to the vector $\bar{\psi}_x(t)$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
\section{Example}
\label{examples}
In this section we demonstrate the application of the model reduction approach on an example of a biolomelcular system. Consider the system in Fig. \ref{example}, where a phosphorylated protein $\rm{X}^*$ binds to a downstream promoter site p which produces the protein G.
Such a setup can be seen commonly occurring in natural biological systems, an example being the two component signaling systems in bacteria \cite{koretke2000evolution}. Moreover, similar setups are also used in synthetic biology to design biological circuits that are robust to the loading effects that appear due to the presence of downstream components \cite{DDV_MSB, Jayanthi_TAC}.
\begin{figure}[th]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.6 \textwidth]{Insulation_new.pdf}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{\small{Protein X is phosphorylated by kinase Z and dephosphorylated by phosphatase Y. Phosphorylated protein $\rm{X}^*$ binds to the downstream promoter p.}}
\label{example}
\end{figure}
The chemical reactions for the system are as follows:
$\mathrm{X} + \mathrm{Z} \xrightarrow{k_1}\mathrm{X^*}+\mathrm{Z}, \
\mathrm{X^*} + \mathrm{Y} \xrightarrow{k_2}\mathrm{X}+\mathrm{Y}, \
\mathrm{X^*} + \mathrm{p} \xrightleftharpoons[k_{\rm{off}}]{k_{\rm{on}}} \mathrm{C},$
$\mathrm{C} \xrightarrow{\beta} \mathrm{C} + \mathrm{G},$\
$\mathrm{G} \xrightarrow{\delta} \phi $.
The protein X is phosphorylated by kinase Z and dephosphorylated by phosphatase Y with the rate constants $k_1$ and $k_2$, respectively. The binding between phosphorylated protein $\rm{X}^*$ and promoter p produces a complex C, where $k_{\rm{on}}$ and $k_{\rm{off}}$ are the binding and unbinding rate constants. Protein G is produced at rate $\beta$, which encapsulates both transcription and translation processes and decays at rate $\delta$, which includes both degradation and dilution. We assume that the total concentration of protein X and promoter p are conserved, giving ${X}_{tot} = {X} + {X}^* + {C}$ and ${p}_{tot} = {p} + {C}$, where the lower-case letters denote the corresponding macroscopic concentrations. Then, the dynamics for the macroscopic concentrations of X$^*$, C and G can be written as
\small
\begin{align}
\label{ex1} \frac{dx^*}{dt} &= k_1Z(t)(X_{tot} - {x^*} - {c}) - k_2Yx^* - k_{\rm{on}}x^*(p_{tot} - c) + k_{\rm{off}}c, \\
\frac{dc}{dt} &= k_{\rm{on}}x^*(p_{tot} - c) - k_{\rm{off}}c, \\
\label{ex2} \frac{dg}{dt} &= \beta c - \delta g.
\end{align}
\normalsize
Binding and unbinding reactions are much faster than phosphorylation/dephosphorylation, and therefore, we can write $k_2Y/k_{\rm{off}} = \epsilon \ll 1$. Taking $k_{d} = k_{\rm{off}}/k_{\rm{on}}$, we have
\small
\begin{align}
\label{ex3} \frac{dx^*}{dt} &= k_1Z(t)(X_{tot} - {x^*} - {c}) - k_2Yx^* - \frac{k_2Y}{\epsilon k_d}x^*(p_{tot} - c) + \frac{k_2Y}{\epsilon}c, \\
\frac{dc}{dt} &= \frac{k_2Y}{\epsilon k_d}x^*(p_{tot} - c) - \frac{k_2Y}{\epsilon}c, \\
\label{ex4} \frac{dg}{dt} &= \beta c - \delta g.
\end{align}\normalsize
The system (\ref{ex3}) - (\ref{ex4}) is in the form of system (\ref{LNA_intro1}), with $y = [x^*, \ c, \ g ]^T$. To take the system in to the singular perturbation form given in (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori2}), we consider the change of variable $v = x^* + c$, which yields
\small
\begin{align}
\label{ex5} \frac{dv}{dt} &= k_1Z(t)( X_{tot} - v) - k_2Y(v - c), \\
\frac{dg}{dt} &= \beta c - \delta g,\\
\label{ex6} \epsilon \frac{dc}{dt} &= \frac{k_2Y}{k_d}(v - c)(p_{tot} - c) - k_2Yc.
\end{align}
\normalsize
This change of coordinates corresponds to having $A_x = [1 \ 1 \ 0, \ 0 \ 0 \ 1]^T$, $A_z = [0 \ 1 \ 0]$, $x = [v, g]^T$ and $z = c$ in Claim 1. Then, the dynamics for the stochastic fluctuations can be written as
\small
\begin{align}
\label{ex7} \frac{d\psi_{v}}{dt} &= (-k_1Z(t) - k_2Y)\psi_{v} + k_2Y \psi_c + \sqrt{k_1Z(t)( X_{tot} - v)} \Gamma_1 - \sqrt{k_2Y(v - c)}\Gamma_2, \\
\frac{d\psi_g}{dt} &= \beta \psi_c - \delta \psi_g + \sqrt{\beta c} \Gamma_3 - \sqrt{\delta g}\Gamma_4,\\
\notag \epsilon \frac{d\psi_c}{dt} &= \frac{k_2Y}{k_d} (p_{tot} - c) \psi_v + \left(- \frac{k_2Y}{k_d}v - \frac{k_2Y}{k_d} p_{tot} + 2 \frac{k_2Y}{k_d} c - k_2 Y\right)\psi_c \\& \label{ex8} + \sqrt{ \epsilon \frac{k_2Y}{k_d}(v - c)(p_{tot} - c)}\Gamma_5 - \sqrt{ \epsilon {k_2Y}c} \Gamma_6.
\end{align}
\normalsize
with $\psi_x = [\psi_v, \psi_g]^T$ and $\psi_x = [\psi_v, \psi_g]^T$. Therefore, the equations (\ref{ex5}) - (\ref{ex8}) are in the form of the original system in (\ref{sys_ori1}) - (\ref{sys_ori2}) with $x = [v, g]^T$ and $z = c$.
It follows that Assumptions \ref{a1} and \ref{a2} are satisfied since the system functions of (\ref{ex5}) - (\ref{ex6}) are polynomials of the state variables. We evaluate $f_z = \frac{k_2Y}{k_d}(v - {z})(p_{tot} - {z}) - k_2Y{z} = 0$, which yields the unique solution $z(v) = \frac{1}{2}(v + p_{tot} + k_d) - \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(v + p_{tot} + k_d)^2 - 4vp_{tot}}$, feasible under the physical constraints $0 \le c \le p_{tot}$. We have that Assumption 3 is satisfied since $\frac{\partial f_z}{\partial z}$ is negative.
Thus, we obtain the reduced system
\small
\begin{align*}
\frac{d\bar{v}}{dt} &= k_1Z(t)(X_{tot} - \bar{v}) - k_2Y(\bar{v} - \bar{c}), \\
\frac{d\bar{g}}{dt} &= \beta \bar{c} - \delta \bar{g},\\
\notag \frac{d\bar{\psi_{v}}}{dt} &= (-k_1Z(t) - k_2Y)\bar{\psi_{v}} + k_2Y \bar{\psi_c} + \sqrt{k_1Z(t)( X_{tot} - \bar{v})} \Gamma_1 - \sqrt{k_2Y(\bar{v} - \bar{c})}\Gamma_2,\\
\frac{d\bar{\psi_g}}{dt} &= \beta \bar{\psi_c} - \delta \bar{\psi_g}+ \sqrt{\beta \bar{c}} \Gamma_3 - \sqrt{\delta \bar{g}}\Gamma_4,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\bar{c} &= \frac{1}{2}(\bar{v} + p_{tot} + k_d) - \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(\bar{v} + p_{tot} + k_d)^2 - 4\bar{v}p_{tot}}, \\
\bar{\psi}_c &= \frac{ (p_{tot} - \bar{c}) \bar{\psi}_v}{ (\bar{v} + p_{tot} - 2\bar{c} + k_d)}.
\end{align*}\normalsize
Fig. \ref{sim} includes the simulation results for the error in second moments of the stochastic fluctuations of $v$ and $g$. We use zero initial conditions for all variables and thus the first moment of the stochastic fluctuations remains zero at all times. The simulations are carried out with the Euler-Maruyama method and the sample means are calculated using $3 \times 10^6$ realizations.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{error.png}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{\small{Errors in the second moments decreases as $\epsilon$ decreases. The parameters used are $Z(t) = 1, \ k_1 = 0.01 , \ k_2 = 0.01, \ k_d = 100 , \ X_{tot} = 200, \ Y = 20, \ p_{tot} = 100, \ \delta = 0.1, \ \beta = 0.1, v(0) = 0$, $c(0) = 0$, $g(0) = 0$, $\psi_v(0) = 0$, $\psi_g(0) = 0$.}}
\label{sim}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
In this work, we obtained a reduced order model for the Linear Noise Approximation of biomolecular systems with separation in time-scales. It was shown that, for a finite time-interval the first and second moments of the reduced system are within an $O(\epsilon)$-neighborhood of the first and second moments of the slow variable dynamics of the original system. This result can be used to approximate the slow variable dynamics of the LNA with a system of reduced dimensions, which will be useful in analysis and simulations of biomolecular systems especially when the system has high dimension. The reduced model that we obtain is equivalent to the reduced order model derived in \cite{pahlajani2011stochastic}. Our results are also consistent with the error analysis that they have performed numerically, where it is approximated that the maximum errors in the mean and the variance over time are of $O(\epsilon)$.
In future work, we aim to extend this analysis to obtain an approximation for the fast variable dynamics.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was funded by AFOSR grant \# FA9550-14-1-0060.
\section*{Appendix}
\textbf{A-1: }Applying the coordinate transformation $x = A_xy$, $z= A_zy$ to equation (\ref{LNA_intro1}), with $\tilde{a}(y,t) = [\hat{a}_s(y,t), (1/\epsilon)\hat{a}_f(y,t)]^T$ and $v = [v_1, \ldots, v_{m_s}, v_{m_s + 1}, \ldots, v_{m_s + m_f}]$, with $y = A^{-1}[x,z]^T$ we have
\small \vspace{-1em}
\begin{align}
\notag \dot{x} &= A_x f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) \\& \notag = A_x \sum_{i = 1}^{m_s} v_i \hat{a}_{si}( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) + A_x \sum_{i = {v_{m_s + 1}}}^{m_s + m_f} v_i (1/\epsilon)\hat{a}_{fi}( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) \\& \label{tr_eq1} = f_x(x,z,t),\\
\notag \dot{z} &= A_z f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) \\& \notag = A_z \sum_{i = 1}^{m_s} v_i \hat{a}_{si}( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) + A_z \sum_{i = {v_{m_s + 1}}}^{m_s + m_f} v_i (1/\epsilon)\hat{a}_{fi}( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) \\& \label{tr_eq2} = \frac{1}{\epsilon}f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon).
\end{align}
\normalsize
Thus, from equation (\ref{tr_eq1}), if follows that $A_xv_i = 0$ for $i = m_s + 1, \ldots, m_s + m_f$.
Applying the coordinate transformation $\psi_x = A_x\xi$, $\psi_z= A_z\xi$, to equation (\ref{LNA_intro2}), we have that
\small \vspace{0em}
\begin{align*}
\dot{\psi_x} &= A_x[A(y,t)\xi] + A_x\sigma(y,t) \Gamma,\\
\dot{\psi_z} &= A_z[A(y,t)\xi] + A_z\sigma(y,t) \Gamma.
\end{align*}
\normalsize
Since $A(y,t) = \frac{\partial f(y,t)}{\partial y}$ and $y = A^{-1}[x,z]^T$, using the chain rule we can write
\small{
\begin{align*}
&\dot{\psi_x}
= A_x\left[\frac{\partial f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{ \partial y} + \frac{\partial f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}{\partial z}\frac{\partial z}{ \partial y}\right]\xi \\& + A_x\left [v_1\sqrt{\tilde{a}_1( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_m\sqrt{\tilde{a}_m( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\right] \Gamma,\\
&\dot{\psi_z} = A_z\left[\frac{\partial f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{ \partial y} + \frac{\partial f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}{\partial z}\frac{\partial z}{ \partial y}\right]\xi \\& + A_z\left [v_1\sqrt{\tilde{a}_1( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_m\sqrt{\tilde{a}_m( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\right] \Gamma.
\end{align*}} \normalsize
Using the linearity of the differentiation operator and the transformation $x = A_xy$, $z= A_zy$, we obtain
\small{
\begin{align*}
& \dot{\psi_x} = \left[\frac{\partial A_x f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}{\partial x}A_x + \frac{\partial A_x f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}{\partial z}A_z\right]\xi \\& + A_x\left [v_1\sqrt{\tilde{a}_1( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_m\sqrt{\tilde{a}_m( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\right] \Gamma,\\
& \dot{\psi_z} = \left[\frac{\partial A_z f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}{\partial x}A_x + \frac{\partial A_z f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}{\partial z}A_z\right]\xi \\& + A_z\left [v_1\sqrt{\tilde{a}_1( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_m\sqrt{\tilde{a}_m( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\right] \Gamma.
\end{align*}} \normalsize
From (\ref{tr_eq1}) - (\ref{tr_eq2}), we have that $ A_x f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) = f_x(x,z,t)$ and $ A_z f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) = \frac{1}{\epsilon}f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)$. Furthermore, substituting for $\tilde{a}( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t) = [\hat{a}_s( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t), (1/\epsilon)\hat{a}_f( A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)]^T$, we have
\small{
\begin{align}
\notag &\dot{\psi_x}
= \frac{\partial f_x(x,z,t)}{\partial x}\psi_x + \frac{\partial f_x(x,z,t)}{\partial z}\psi_z + \\& \notag A_x\left [v_1\sqrt{\hat{a}{_s}_1(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_{m_s}\sqrt{\hat{a}{_s}_{m_s}(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\right] \Gamma_x \\& \label{tr_eq3} + A_x \bigg[v_{{m_s} + 1}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\epsilon}\hat{a}{_{f1}}(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_{m_s + m_f}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\epsilon} \hat{a}{_{fm_f}}(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\bigg] \Gamma_f,\\
\notag &\dot{\psi_z} = \frac{\partial \frac{1}{\epsilon}f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)}{\partial x}\psi_x + \frac{\partial \frac{1}{\epsilon} f_z(x,z,t,\epsilon)}{\partial z}\psi_z + \\& \notag A_z\left [v_1\sqrt{\hat{a}{_s}_1(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_{m_s}\sqrt{\hat{a}{_s}_{m_s}(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\right] \Gamma_x \\& \label{tr_eq4} + A_z\bigg[v_{m_s +1} \sqrt{ \frac{1}{\epsilon} \hat{a}{_f}_1(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}, \ldots, v_{{m_s +m_f}}\sqrt{ \frac{1}{\epsilon} \hat{a}{_f}_{m_f}(A^{-1}[x,z]^T,t)}\bigg] \Gamma_f ,
\end{align}}
\normalsize
where $\Gamma = [\Gamma_x, \Gamma_f]^T$. From (\ref{tr_eq1}) we have that, $A_x v_i = 0$ for $i = m_s+1, \ldots, m_s+m_f$. Then, multiplying (\ref{tr_eq4}) by $\epsilon$, we can write the system (\ref{tr_eq3}) - (\ref{tr_eq4}), in the form of system (\ref{sys_ori3_cl}) - (\ref{sys_ori4_cl}), where $\Gamma_z = [\Gamma_x, \Gamma_f]^T$.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
The transformation mechanism from the face-centred cubic (fcc) to the body-centred cubic/tetragonal (bcc/bct) phase of steel has received widespread attention and the most influential early studies include \cite{Bain,KS,Nishiyama,Wassermann}. In his seminal paper, Bain \cite{Bain} proposed a mechanism that transforms the fcc $\gamma$-phase of iron to its bcc $\alpha$-phase \quo{requiring the least temporary distortion}. His conceived mechanism, although now widely accepted, was not without criticism from his contemporaries. Among the critics were Kurdjumov and Sachs \cite{KS} who conducted X-ray diffraction measurements on $1.4\%$ carbon steel and measured the orientation relationships between austenite and pure bcc $\alpha$-iron as well as between austenite and $1.4\%\, \mathrm C$ $\ensuremath{\alpha}'$-steel.\footnote{Henceforth, we adopt the convention from \cite{Nishiyamabook} of using the symbol ${\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ for the low temperature phase of steels irrespectively of whether it is cubic or tetragonal.} The most important
feature
of their mechanism was the
parallelism between the $\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma$ and the $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ plane as well as the $\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$ and the $\ve {1}{\bar 1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ direction and they explained how these conditions can be satisfied by a combination of three shears. Following their construction step by step one sees that the overall deformation is always one of the Bain strains followed by a rigid body rotation and that the resulting orientation relationship for pure iron differs from the one for $1.4\%\, \mathrm C$ steel (see Tables $2$ in \cite{KS} and \cite{Otte}). In 1934, using the same methods, Nishiyama \cite{Nishiyama} investigated a $\mathrm{Fe}$-$30\% \,\mathrm{Ni}$ single crystal which, like pure iron, undergoes an fcc to bcc transformation. Based on his observations, Nishiyama proposed a different orientation relationship that has the same parallel planes but the direction $\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$ parallel to $\ve {1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$. One year later, Wassermann \cite{
Wassermann} independently postulated the same relationships and also confirmed the earlier results by Kurdjumov and Sachs. Apart from the Nishiyama-Wassermann (\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}) and Kurdjumov-Sachs (\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}) orientation relationships (ORs) several other ORs, e.g. by Pitsch \cite{Pitsch} (\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}) and Greninger-Troiano \cite{GT} (\ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}), have been proposed and they all share the common feature of matching directions and planes in the parent phase to ones in the product phase.
In the present article, we would like to shift this paradigm towards a derivation of orientation relationships based on the transformation strains. Compared to previous approaches (see e.g. \cite{Guo,JonasMeteor,CayronActa}), our approach brings the following novelties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The only necessary inputs are the lattice parameters of the two phases and the knowledge of a plane and a direction that is left unrotated.
\item Each derived strain can be uniquely idenfied with an OR and the parallelism between planes and directions in the two phases follows.
\item The additional knowledge of the actual underlying deformation of the material can e.g. be used to unambiguously determine twin relationships (cf. Section~\ref{SecTwin}) and generally lay the groundwork for mathematical theories of steels based on energy minimisation (see e.g. \cite{Bha,NewPersp}).
\item Our method takes into account the ratio of tetragonality $r=c/a$ of the bct $\ensuremath{\alpha}'$ phase. Thus, the derived strains and orientation relationships also depend on $r$ and can be expressed explicitly as functions of $r$.
\end{enumerate}
For $r=1$, corresponding to bcc, we recover the original \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}, \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}\ ORs. However, for $r>1$, our approach predicts a deviation from the original ORs. We show how this leads to a sharpening of the transformation textures and how it can be used to explain the deviation from the exact parallelism condition in the \ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}\ ORs.
The structure of the paper is as follows: at the end of this section we clarify the notation that will be used throughout. In Section~\ref{SecUnif}, we introduce a unified approach for the derivation of phase transformation models in steels which entails a general method to identify transformation strains with orientation relationships. In Section~\ref{SecDer}, we apply our unified approach to deduce the \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ transformation strains and orientation relationships; we also comment on how the obtained ORs relate to other common descriptions of the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ ORs and show how the additional knowledge of the strains can be used to unambiguously determine twin relationships between \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ variants. At the end of Section~\ref{SecDer}, we illustrate how according to our unified approach the \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ ORs change with increasing ratio of tetragonality $r$ of the $\ensuremath{\alpha}'$ phase. In Section~\ref{SecOtherORs}, we indicate how the same methods can be used to explain and generalise the Pitsch (\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}), Greninger-
Troiano (\ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}) and inverse Greninger-Troiano (\ensuremath{\mathrm{GT'}}) OR models.
\subsection*{Preliminaries}
Let us consider an orthonormal basis $\{\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_1,\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_2,\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_3\}$. By $\ve{a}{b}{c}=\tfrac{a \ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_{1}+ b \ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_{2}+ c \ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_{3}}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2+c^2}}$ we denote a normalised direction expressed in this basis.\footnote{As is commonly asserted in the literature, we make the identification $-a = \bar a$.} Similarly, by $\no{a}{b}{c}$ we denote a normal in the same basis.\footnote{Note that since $\{\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_1,\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_2,\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_3\}$ is an orthonormal basis it coincides with its reciprocal basis, i.e. \ve{a}{b}{c}=\no{a}{b}{c}.} For $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}=\ve{u_1}{u_2}{u_3}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=\ve{v_1}{v_2}{v_3}$ we denote by $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}} \dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ the inner product, by $|\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}|$ the norm and by $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ the cross product. That is $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}\dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=u_1v_1+u_2v_2+u_3v_3$, $|\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}|=\sqrt{\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}\dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}} = (u_2v_3-u_3v_2)\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_1+(u_3v_1-u_1v_3)\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_2+(u_1v_2-u_2v_1)\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}_3$. We also recall the identities
\begin{equation} \label{EqCross}
(\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{u}})\dd (\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}})=(\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}\dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}})(\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}} \dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}})-(\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}} \dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}})(\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}} \dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{m}})
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{Eqcof}
A\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}\times A\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}= \cof A (\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}),
\end{equation}
where $A$ is a $3 \times 3$ matrix. In particular, the matrix of cofactors, $\cof{A}\!$, measures how a vector normal to $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ deforms whenever $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ are deformed by $A$. If $A$ is invertible it holds that $\cof A=A^{-T}\det A $, where as usual $A^{-T}$ denotes the inverse of the transpose.
We end this section by summarising some important properties of rotation matrices, i.e. $3\times 3$ matrices $R$ such that $R^TR={\mathbb{I}}$ and $\det R=1$. Any rotation matrix $R$ can be uniquely identified as a counterclockwise rotation by an angle $\phi$ about a vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}$ and we write $R=R[\phi,\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}]$, where $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}$ is always expressed in the standard basis $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1=(1,0,0)^T$, $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2=(0,1,0)^T$, $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3=(0,0,1)^T$. The magnitude of the angle of rotation is given by $|\phi|=\arccos ((\tr R-1)/2)$, where $\tr R = \sum_{i=1}^{3} R_{ii}$ is the trace of the matrix $R$ and the sign of $\phi$ is given by $\operatorname*{sgn} (\phi)=\operatorname*{sgn}((\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \times R\,\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}})\dd\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}})$, where $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ is any vector that is not parallel to the axis of rotation $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}$. In particular, reversing the sign of the axis $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}} \rightarrow -\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}$ is equivalent to reversing the sign of the angle of rotation $\phi \rightarrow -\phi$. Finally, by $\mathcal{P}^{24}$ we denote the group of rotations that map a cube to itself (see \hyperref[App]{Appendix}) and we call two vectors $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}, \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}'
$ \emph{crystallographically equivalent} iff $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}'=P\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ for some $P\in \mathcal{P}^{24}$.
\section[A unified approach]{A unified approach to phase transformation models in steels}\label{SecUnif}
Since Bain's seminal paper \cite{Bain} (see also \cite{OptLat} for a rigorous mathematical justification) it is well known that the pure stretches required to transform an fcc lattice to a bcc/bct lattice are given by the three Bain strains
\begin{equation}\label{EqBain}
B_1=\begin{pmatrix} \beta & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {\ensuremath{\alpha}}& 0\\ 0 & 0 & {\ensuremath{\alpha}} \end{pmatrix},\, B_2=\begin{pmatrix} {\ensuremath{\alpha}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \ensuremath{\beta} & 0\\ 0 & 0 & {\ensuremath{\alpha}} \end{pmatrix},\, B_3=\begin{pmatrix} {\ensuremath{\alpha}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {\ensuremath{\alpha}} & 0\\ 0 & 0 & \ensuremath{\beta} \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where ${\ensuremath{\alpha}}=\frac{\sqrt{2}a}{a_0}$ and $\ensuremath{\beta}=\frac{c}{a_0}$. Here $a_0$ is the lattice parameter of the fcc phase and $c \geq a$ are the lattice parameters of the bct phase ($a=c$ for bcc). An additional rigid body rotation $R$ does not change the bcc/bct lattice structure and hence any lattice transformation $T$ from fcc to bcc/bct is of the form
\begin{equation*}
T=RB_i \mbox{ for some }i=1,2,3.
\end{equation*}
Now suppose that the transformation $T$ leaves a plane with normal $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and a direction $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ within that plane unrotated, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{EqRel}
\frac{\cof T \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}}{|\cof T\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}|}=R\frac{\cof{B_i} \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}}{|\cof{B_i}\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}|}=\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \mbox{ and } \frac{ T \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}{| T\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}|}=R \frac{ B_i \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}{| B_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}|}=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}.
\end{equation}
Defining $\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_i={\cof{B_i} \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}}/{|\cof{B_i}\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}|}$, $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_i={B_i \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}/{| B_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}|}$, we observe that
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_i\dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_i \propto \cof{B_i} \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \dd B_i \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=B_i^T\cof{B_i} \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}\propto \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=0,\footnote{Recall that $x\propto y$ if there is a constant $c$ such that $x=cy$.}
\end{equation*}
where we have used that $\cof{B_i} \propto B_i^{-T}$ and that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}} \perp \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$. In particular, the pairs $\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_i, \ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_i$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}, \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ are both orthonormal and thus there is a unique rotation $R=R_i$ such that $R_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_i=\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and $R_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_i=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ given by
\begin{align}\label{EqR}
R_i=\begin{pmatrix}
\vline & \vline & \vline \\
\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} & \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}} & \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}\times \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}} \\
\vline & \vline & \vline
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\rule[.5ex]{1.2em}{0.4pt} \hfill \ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_i \hfill \rule[.5ex]{1.2em}{0.4pt} \\
\rule[.5ex]{1.2em}{0.4pt} \hfill \ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_i \hfill \rule[.5ex]{1.2em}{0.4pt} \\
\rule[.5ex]{1.2em}{0.4pt} \hfill \ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_i \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_i \hfill \rule[.5ex]{1.2em}{0.4pt}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
Consequently, for each $i=1,2,3$ there is exactly one transformation strain, $T_i=R_iB_i$, from fcc to bcc/bct that leaves the plane with normal $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and the direction $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ within that plane unrotated.
\subsubsection*{Identifying strains with orientation relationships}
Given the transformation strain $T_i$, we show how to compute the corresponding orientation relationship (OR). For simplicity, we focus on the case $i=2$; the remaining two cases can be treated analogously. From the pure Bain mechanism it is clear that the transformation $B_2$ results in a bcc/bct unit cell with edges along the directions $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1-\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3$, $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1+\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3$ (see Figure~\ref{FigRotBain}). The additional rotation $R_2$ in the transformation $T_2$ then results in a bcc/bct unit cell with edges along the directions
\begin{equation*}
R_2(\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1-\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3), R_2\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2 \mbox{ and } R_2(\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1+\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3),
\end{equation*}
which form the natural basis for the bcc/bct lattice.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup{format =plain}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{BainTex}
\caption{The green vectors $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1-\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1+\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3$ are along the edges of the tetragonal bct cell that is contained in the fcc lattice and the red vectors are obtained through the rotation $R_2$.}\label{FigRotBain}
\end{figure}
Noting that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1-\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3=R[45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2]\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1+\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3=R[45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2]\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3$ we see that the change of basis matrix between fcc and bcc/bct is given by
$
R_2 R[45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2],
$
i.e. $\mathbf{x}=\ve{x_1}{x_2}{x_3}_\gamma=\ve{\hat x_1}{\hat x_2}{\hat x_3}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$, where
\begin{equation}\label{EqTrafo0}
\begin{pmatrix}\hat x_1\\\hat x_2\\\hat x_3\end{pmatrix}=R[-45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2]R_2^T\begin{pmatrix}x_1\\x_2\\x_3\end{pmatrix}=:O_2 \begin{pmatrix}x_1\\x_2\\x_3\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
In particular, through the matrix $O_2=R[-45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2]R_2^T$ one can express the coordinates of the unrotated plane $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and direction $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ in the new bcc/bct (${\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$-) basis and hence determine the \emph{orientation relationship}. In general, the orientation relationship corresponding to $T_i=R_iB_i$ is given through the matrix
\begin{equation}\label{EqGenOr}
O_i=R[-45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_i]R_i^T,
\end{equation}
which we henceforth call the \emph{orientation relationship matrix}. We note that $R[45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_i]=R[90^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_i]R[-45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_i]$ with $R[90^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_i]\in \mathcal{P}^{24}$, i.e. choosing the opposite sign for the $45^\circ$ rotation about $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_i$ simply leads to a crystallographically equivalent normal and direction. In summary, starting from the transformation $T_i$, we obtain the \emph{orientation relationship}
\begin{equation} \label{EqOR}
\no{n_1}{n_2}{n_3}_\gamma \parallel \no{\hat n_1}{\hat n_2}{\hat n_3}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} \mbox{ and } \ve{v_1}{v_2}{v_3}_\gamma \parallel \ve{\hat v_1}{\hat v_2}{\hat v_3}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'},
\end{equation}
where the coordinates $\hat n_i$ and $\hat v_i$ are obtained by using the \emph{orientation relationship matrix} $O_i$ from \eqref{EqGenOr} in \eqref{EqTrafo0}.
Conversely, suppose that an OR of the form \eqref{EqOR} is given with the property that the normal $\no{n_1}{n_2}{n_3}_\gamma$ and the direction $\ve{v_1}{v_2}{v_3}_\gamma$ are left unrotated by the transformation. By the above process, we can compute three possible transformation strains $T_i$ and corresponding OR matrices $O_i$. For each OR matrix $O_i$ we can calculate the bcc/bct coordinates of $\no{n_1}{n_2}{n_3}_\gamma$ and $\ve{v_1}{v_2}{v_3}_\gamma$. For one of the matrices $O_i$, the calculated coordinates must agree, up to crystallographic equivalence, with the given OR and, hence, we may uniquely identify the Bain variant $B_i$, and the corresponding transformation strain $T_i$, that gives rise to the OR. If the coordinates do not agree for any $O_i$, then the OR cannot be compatible with the Bain mechanism.
\subsubsection*{Generating variants through crystallographic equivalence in the $\gamma$ phase}
Given a transformation strain $T$ (or equivalently the corresponding OR matrix $O$) we are able to generate further variants of $T$ through the application of $\mathcal{P}^{24}$ in the reference configuration. To this end, we recall that given the fcc basis $\lbrace \ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2, \ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3\rbrace$, all crystallographically equivalent fcc bases are given by $\lbrace P\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_1,P\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2, P\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3\rbrace$ for $P \in \mathcal{P}^{24}$. Thus, letting $T$ as in \eqref{EqRel} and using the identity $P_i^TP_i={\mathbb{I}}$ we infer that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\cof{(P_iTP_i^T)} P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}}{|\cof {T\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}|}}=P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \mbox{ and } \frac{ (P_iT P_i^T) P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}{| T\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}|}=P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}.
\end{equation*}
That is, for each $i=1,2, \dotsc, 24$, the deformation $P_iTP_i^T$ leaves the plane with normal $P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and the direction $P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ within that plane unrotated and thus describes a \emph{strain variant} of the original transformation strain $T$. Similarly, $P_iOP_i^T$ describes the corresponding \emph{orientation relationship variant}. We note that in general, it may happen (see e.g. the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ model) that $P_iTP_i^T=P_jTP_j^T$ for some $i \neq j$ and thus there can be less than 24 distinct variants for a given transformation strain (or equivalently for a given OR).
\section{The NW and KS models} \label{SecDer}
In this section, we derive the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ models. Both models have the attractive feature of leaving a close-packed $\{1\,1\,1\}_\gamma$ plane and a close-packed $\langle \bar{1}\,1\,0\rangle$ direction within that plane unrotated. Owing to this feature they seem to be the most natural candidates for OR models.
To carry out the derivation we apply our unified approach from Section~\ref{SecUnif} with
\[
\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}=\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma \mbox{ and } \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=\ve{1}{0}{\bar1}_\gamma.
\]
\subsection*{The transformation with stretch component $\mathbf B_2$}
Let us consider the second Bain variant $B_2$. Noting that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ is an eigenvector of $B_2$, we immediately deduce that, by \eqref{EqRel}, $R_2\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ and thus $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ is the axis of rotation. Regarding the
angle of rotation we calculate
\begin{equation*}
\tr R_2=\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_2\dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} + \ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_2 \dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}} + (\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_2 \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_2) \dd (\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}})=2\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_2\dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}+1,
\end{equation*}
where we used that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_2=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ and \eqref{EqCross}. Hence, the angle of rotation is given by
\begin{alignat}{2}
\arccos\left(\frac{\cof{B_2} \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \dd \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}}{|\cof{B_2} \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}|}\right)\operatorname*{sgn}((\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_2 \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}})\dd v
&=\arccos \left(\frac{1+\sqrt{2}r}{ \sqrt{3}\sqrt{1+r^2}}\right)=:\phi(r), \label{EqPhi}
\end{alignat}
where $r=c/a=\sqrt{2}\ensuremath{\beta}/{\ensuremath{\alpha}}$ is the ratio of tetragonality of the bct cell. In particular, for $r=1$ corresponding to a bcc product lattice we obtain $\phi(1)=\arccos\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{6}}\right)\approx 9.7356^\circ$.
Hence, the only transformation from fcc to bcc/bct with stretch component $B_2$ which leaves the plane $\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma$ and the direction $\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$ unrotated is
\begin{equation}\label{EqT3}
T_2=R_2\,B_2=R[\phi(r),\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}]\, B_2.
\end{equation}
Regarding the orientation relationships corresponding to $T_2$, through \eqref{EqT3} and \eqref{EqGenOr}, we infer that
$O_2 = R[-45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2]\,R[-\phi(r),\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}]$ (cf. Figure~\ref{FigRotBain}). Consequently,
\begin{equation}\label{EqNW1nv}
\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma \parallel \no{0}{1}{r}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} \mbox{ and } \ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_\gamma \parallel \ve{ 1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}.
\end{equation}
Note that, as expected, the latter is a closest packed plane in the resulting bct lattice containing the bct direction $\ve{ 1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$.
Thus for $r=1$ (bcc) the transformation $T_2$ gives rise to the OR $\NW1$ (see Table~\ref{TableNWOR}) and henceforth we denote $T_2=T_{\NW1}$. The OR matrix $O_{\NW1}$ between fcc and bcc is given by
\begin{equation*}
O_{\NW1}=R[-45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2]\,R[-9.7356^\circ,\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}]\approx \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.7071 & 0 & -0.7071 \\
0.1196 & 0.9856 & 0.1196 \\
0.6969 & -0.1691 & 0.6969
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation*}
and the corresponding transformation $T_{\NW1}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
T_{\NW1}=R[9.7356^\circ,\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}]\, B_2\approx \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1.1144 & 0.0949 & -0.0081 \\
-0.1342 & 0.7823 & -0.1342 \\
-0.0081 & 0.0949 & 1.1144
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation*}
Next, we characterize the remaining \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ variants. Following our unified approach, they are given by $P_iT_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 1}P_i^T$. Since $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 1}=R[\phi(r),\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}]\, B_2$, $P_2\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}_\gamma=\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$ and $P_2B_2P_2^T=B_2$ we deduce that $P_2T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 1}P_2^T=T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 1}$ and similarly that $P_{2j}T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 1}P_{2j}^T=P_{2j-1}T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 1}P_{2j-1}^T $ for any $j=2,\dotsc,12$. Thus there are only 12 \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ strain variants given by
\begin{equation*}
T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}:= P_{2j-1}T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 1}P_{2j-1}^T = R[\phi(r),P_{2j-1}\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}]\,P_{2j-1}B_2P_{2j-1}^T,
\end{equation*}
for $j=1,2,\dotsc, 12$. In particular, $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}$ has a stretch component $P_{2j-1}B_2P_{2j-1}^T$ followed by a rotation of $\phi(r)$ about $P_{2j-1} \ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$. The corresponding OR matrices are obtained by the same conjugation. That is
\begin{equation*}
O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}=P_{2j-1}O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 1}P_{2j-1}^T=R[-45^\circ,P_{2j-1}\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2]\,R[-\phi(r),P_{2j-1}\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}],
\end{equation*}
for $j=1,2,\dotsc, 12$. Thus, by \eqref{EqNW1nv}, $O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}$ maps the fcc normal $P_{2j-1}\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and fcc vector $P_{2j-1}\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ to the bcc/bct normal $P_{2j-1}\no{0}{1}{r}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ and the bcc/bct direction $P_{2j-1}\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$
(see Table~\ref{TableNWORA} in the Appendix). It is easy to verify that, for $r=1$, the resulting bcc vectors are crystallographically equivalent (through $P_{2j-1}^T$) to the bcc vector $\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ and the bcc normal $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$, giving the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ variants as in Table~\ref{TableNWOR}. We note that the choice of sign for the 45$^\circ$ rotation about $\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2$, as well as the enumeration of $\mathcal{P}^{24}$, has been carefully made so that the OR $\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j$ is obtained through $P_{2j-1}^T$. A choice of the opposite sign and/or a different enumeration of $\mathcal{P}^{24}$, will not alter the result but will lead to bcc/bct coordinates that are crystallographically equivalent to the ones in Table~\ref{TableNWOR} through
different
elements of $\mathcal{P}^{24}$.
\begin{center}
{\singlespacing
\begin{threeparttable}[ht] \captionsetup{format =plain}%
\caption{The NW orientation relationships. The corresponding variants in each row are given by
$T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}=R[\phi(r),\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_j]\, B_j$.}\label{TableNWOR}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}\hline
O.R.\tnote{a} & fcc plane\tnote{b} & bcc plane & fcc direction\tnote{c} & bcc direction& Bain Variant\tnote{d} \\
\hline & & & & \vspace*{-1em} \\
\NW1 & $\no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_{\gamma}$ & $\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $B_2$\\
\NW2 & $\no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{ \bar 1}{1}{0}_{\gamma}$ & $\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ &$B_3$ \\
\NW3 & $\no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{0}{\bar1}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ &$B_1$\\
& & & & \\
\NW4 & $\no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{1}{0}{1}_{\gamma}$& $\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $B_2$\\
\NW5 & $\no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{\bar1}{\bar 1}{0}_{\gamma}$ & $\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ &$B_3$\\
\NW6 & $\no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{0}{1}{\bar1}_{\gamma}$& $\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_1$ \\
& & & & \\
\NW7 & $\no{1}{\bar{1}}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{\bar1}{0}{1}_{\gamma}$ &$ \ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$& $B_2$\\
\NW8 & $\no{1}{\bar{1}}{{1}}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ &$ \ve{1}{1}{0}_{\gamma}$&$ \ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_3$ \\
\NW9 & $\no{1}{\bar{1}}{1}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ &$ \ve{0}{\bar1}{\bar 1}_{\gamma}$ & $\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ &$B_1$ \\
& & & & \\
\NW10 & $\no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{\bar 1}{0}{\bar 1}_{\gamma}$ &$ \ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $B_2$\\
\NW11 & $\no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $\ve{1}{\bar 1}{0}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ &$B_3$\\
\NW12 & $\no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma}$ & $\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ & $ \ve{0}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{0}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a]\hypertarget{fa}{$\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j$}
\item[b] \hypertarget{fb}{$P_{2j-1}\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma$}
\item[c] \hypertarget{fc}{$\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_j=P_{2j-1}\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$}
\item[d] \hypertarget{fd}{$B_j=P_{2j-1}B_2P_{2j-1}^T$}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}}
\end{center}
\subsection*{The transformation with stretch component $\mathbf B_3$}
Similarly, using $B_3$ instead of $B_2$ in \eqref{EqRel} gives rise to a rotation $R_3$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{EqKS1}
R_3\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_3=\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}} \mbox{ and } R_3\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_3=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}.
\end{equation}
Noting that $R_{\NW2}\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}_3=\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ we immediately see that $R_3\,R_{\NW2}^T\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}=\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and
\begin{equation*}
R_3=R[\theta,\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}]\,R_{\NW2}=R[\theta,\ve{1}{1}{1}]\,R[\phi(r),\ve{\bar 1}{ 1}{0}]
\end{equation*}
for some angle $\theta=\theta(r)$. Let us first determine the sign of $\theta(r)$. By
\eqref{EqKS1}, we have that $R[\theta, \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}]\,R_{\NW2}\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_3=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ and thus
$
\operatorname*{sgn} \theta(r)=\operatorname*{sgn} (R_{\NW2}\ensuremath{\mathbf{u}}_3\times \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}})\cdot \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}=1.
$
For the angle itself we deduce from \eqref{EqR} that
\begin{equation}\label{EqTheta}
\theta(r)=\arccos \left(\frac{\tr R[\theta, \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}]-1}{2}\right)= \arccos \left(\frac{\sqrt{3} \sqrt{r^2+1}+1}{2 \sqrt{r^2+2}}\right).
\end{equation}
For $r=1$ (bcc) this angle is given by $\theta(1)=\arccos\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{6}}{2\sqrt{3}}\right)\approx5.2644^\circ$. Hence, the only transformation from fcc to bcc/bct with stretch component $B_3$ which leaves the plane $\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma$ and the direction $\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$ unrotated is
\begin{equation}\label{EqTKS1}
T_3=R_3\,B_3=R[\theta(r), \ve{1}{1}{1}]\,R[\phi(r),\ve{\bar 1 }{ 1}{0}]\, B_3.
\end{equation}
Regarding the corresponding orientation relationships, by \eqref{EqGenOr}, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{EqKS1n}
O_3 = R[45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3]\,R[-\phi(r),\ve{\bar 1 }{ 1}{0}]\,R[-\theta(r), \ve{1}{1}{1}]
\end{equation}
and, consequently,
\begin{equation} \label{EqKS1nv}
\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma \parallel \no{0}{r}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} \mbox{ and } \ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_\gamma \parallel \ve{ 1}{1}{\bar r}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}.
\end{equation}
These correspond to a closest packed plane in the resulting bcc/bct lattice and the close packed direction in that plane. Clearly, for $r=1$ (bcc), the transformation $T_3$ gives rise to the OR $\KS1$ (see Table~\ref{TableKSOR}) and henceforth we denote $T_3=T_{\KS1}$. The OR matrix $O_{\KS1}$ between fcc and bcc is then given by
\begin{align*}
O_{\KS1}&=R[45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3]\,R[-9.7356^\circ,\ve{\bar 1 }{ 1}{0}]\,R[-5.2644^\circ, \ve{1}{1}{1}]\\
&\approx \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.7416 & -0.6667 & -0.0749 \\
0.6498 & 0.7416 &-0.1667 \\
0.1667 & 0.07492 & 0.9832
\end{array}
\right)
\end{align*}
and the transformation strain by
\begin{equation*}
T_{\KS1}=R[5.2644^\circ, \ve{1}{1}{1}]\,R[9.7356^\circ,\ve{\bar 1 }{ 1}{0}]\, B_3\approx \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1.1044 & -0.0728 & 0.1323 \\
0.0595 & 1.1177 & 0.0595\\
-0.1917 & -0.0728 & 0.7803
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation*}
The remaining \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ strain variants are $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j}:=P_jT_{\KS1}P_j^T$ and by \eqref{EqTKS1} they are given by
\begin{equation*}
T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j}=R[\theta(r), P_j\ve{1}{1}{1}]\,R[\phi(r),P_j\ve{\bar 1 }{ 1}{0}]\,P_jB_3P_j^T.
\end{equation*}
In particular, $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j}$ leaves the close packed plane $P_j\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and the close packed direction $P_j\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ within that plane unrotated. The corresponding OR variants are given by $O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j}=P_{j}O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}P_{j}^T$ and $O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j}$ maps the fcc normal $P_{j}\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}$ and fcc direction $P_{j}\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}$ to the bcc/bct normal $P_{j}\no{0}{r}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ and the bcc/bct direction $P_{j}\ve{1}{1}{\bar r}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ (see Table~\ref{TableKSORA} in the Appendix).
\subsection*{The transformation with stretch component $B_1$}
Let us, for example, consider $P=P_2$. Then
\begin{equation*}
P_2\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}=-\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}, \,P_2\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}} \mbox{ and } P_2B_3P_2^T=B_1
\end{equation*}
and thus $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 2}=R[-\theta(r), \ve{1}{1}{1}]\,R[\phi(r),\ve{\bar 1 }{ 1}{0}]\,B_1$ is the only transformation with stretch component $B_1$ that leaves the close packed plane $\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma$ and the close packed direction $\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$ unrotated. It is therefore the third and last solution of \eqref{EqRel}.
Just like in the derivation of the $\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}$ variants, care has been taken so that all odd $\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}(2j-1)$ variants correspond immediately to the entries in Table~\ref{TableKSOR} and the crystallographic equivalence in the bcc/bct lattice is given by $P_{2j-1}^T$. However, unlike the $\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}$ variants, $T_{\KS2}=P_2 T_{\KS1} P_2^T\neq T_{\KS1}$ are distinct and thus the ORs are different. To illustrate this, let us take $O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 2}=P_{2}O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}P_{2}^T$ and investigate its action on the fcc plane with normal $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}=\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma$ and the fcc direction $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=\ve{ 1}{ 0}{\bar 1}_\gamma$. We have
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{ORKS2}
&O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 2}\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}=P_{2}O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}(-\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}})=-P_2 \no{0}{r}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}= \no{1}{ r}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}\\ \nonumber
\mbox{ and } &O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 2}\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=P_{2}O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1} \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}= P_2\ve{1}{1}{\bar r}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}=\ve{ r}{\bar 1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'},
\end{alignat}
which are the closest packed plane and close packed direction in that plane in the resulting bct lattice. If $r=1$ (bcc), noting that $P_3 \no{1}{ r}{0}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}= \no{0}{1}{r}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ and $P_3 \ve{ r}{\bar 1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}=\ve{\bar 1}{r}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ we obtain, up to crystallographic equivalence in the bcc lattice (by $P_3$)\footnote{Nevertheless, $P_3$ is not a lattice invariant rotation for the resulting bct lattice.} the OR associated to $\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 2$ (cf. Table~\ref{TableKSOR}). The ORs for the remaining even $\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}(2j)$ are obtained analogously and the required crystallographic equivalence transformation in the bcc lattice is given by $P_3 P_{2j}^T$. Figure~\ref{FigVarRel} shows the relations between all Bain, \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ variants.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup{format =plain}%
\xymatrix@C=0.2em@R=2pt{
&&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{2} & &&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{4} & &&&&&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{1}\\
&&& \NW3\ar[urrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{3} & &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{1}\ar[urrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{5} & &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{2}\ar[urrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{6}\\
&&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{7} & &&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{9} & &&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{8} \\
&&& \NW6\ar[urrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{10} & &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{4}\ar[urrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{12} & &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{5}\ar[urrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{11} \\
B_1 \ar[uuurrr]\ar[urrr]\ar[rrr]\ar[ddrrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{9} \ar[drrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{13} & B_2 \ar[uuurrr]\ar[urrr]\ar[rrr]\ar[ddrrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{7} \ar[drrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{15} & B_3 \ar[uuurrr]\ar[urrr]\ar[rrr]\ar[ddrrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{8} \ar[drrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{14}\\
&&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{16} & &&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{18} & &&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{17} \\
&&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{12}\ar[drrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{19} & &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{10}\ar[drrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{21} & &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}{11}\ar[drrr] \ar[rrr] &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{20} \\
&&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{22} & &&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{24} & &&& &&& \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}{23}\\
}
\caption{An arrow from a Bain variant $B_k$ to an \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ variant $\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j$ signifies that $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}=R[\phi(r),\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_j]B_k$ (cf. Table~\ref{TableNWOR}). Respectively, an arrow from an \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ variant $\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j$
to a \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ variant $\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} i$ signifies that $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} i}=R[(-1)^{i+1}\theta(r),\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i]T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}$ (cf. Table~\ref{TableKSOR}).}\label{FigVarRel}
\end{figure}
\begin{center}
{\singlespacing
\begin{threeparttable}[ht] \captionsetup{format =plain
\caption{The \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ orientation relationships. The corresponding variants in each row are given by
$T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j}=R[(-1)^{j+1}\theta(r), \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_j]\,R[\phi(r),P_j\ve{\bar 1 }{ 1}{0}]\, B_j$.}\label{TableKSOR}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}\hline
O.R.\tnote{a} & fcc plane\tnote{b} & bcc plane & fcc direction\tnote{c} & bcc direction& Bain Variant\tnote{d} \\
\hline & & & & \vspace*{-1em} \\
$\KS1 $&$ \no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_{\gamma} $&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$B_3$\\
$\KS2 $&$ \no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_{\gamma} $&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ &$B_1$\\
$\KS3 $&$ \no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{ \bar 1}{1}{0}_{\gamma} $&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$B_1 $\\
$\KS4 $&$ \no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{ \bar 1}{1}{0}_{\gamma} $&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$B_2$\\
$\KS5 $&$ \no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{0}{\bar1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$B_2$\\
$\KS6 $&$ \no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{0}{\bar1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_3 $\\
&&&&\\
$\KS7 $&$\no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$ \ve{1}{0}{1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_1$\\
$\KS8 $&$\no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$ \ve{1}{0}{1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_3 $\\
$\KS9 $&$ \no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{\bar1}{\bar 1}{0}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$B_2$\\
$\KS10 $&$ \no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{\bar1}{\bar 1}{0}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_1$\\
$\KS11 $&$ \no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$ \ve{0}{1}{\bar1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_3 $\\
$\KS12 $&$ \no{\bar{1}}{1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{0}{1}{\bar1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_2$\\
&&&&\\
$\KS13 $&$ \no{1}{\bar{1}}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{\bar1}{0}{1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_1$\\
$\KS14 $&$ \no{1}{\bar{1}}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$ \ve{\bar1}{0}{1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_3 $\\
$\KS15 $&$\no{1}{\bar{1}}{{1}}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{1}{1}{0}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_2 $\\
$\KS16 $&$\no{1}{\bar{1}}{{1}}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$ \ve{1}{1}{0}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_1$\\
$\KS17 $&$ \no{1}{\bar{1}}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{0}{\bar1}{\bar 1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_3 $\\
$\KS18 $&$ \no{1}{\bar1}{1}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{0}{\bar1}{\bar 1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_2$\\
&&&&\\
$\KS19 $&$ \no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{\bar 1}{0}{\bar 1}_{\gamma} $&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$B_1$\\
$\KS20 $&$ \no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{\bar 1}{0}{\bar 1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_3 $\\
$\KS21 $&$ \no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{1}{\bar 1}{0}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_2$\\
$\KS22 $&$ \no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$\ve{1}{\bar 1}{0}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_1$\\
$\KS23 $&$\no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$ \ve{0}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_3 $\\
$\KS24 $&$\no{1}{1}{\bar{1}}_{\gamma} $&$\no{0}{1}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'} $&$ \ve{0}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$&$\ve{\bar 1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$&$B_2 $\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a]\hypertarget{ffa}{$\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j$}
\item[b] \hypertarget{ffb}{$\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_j=(-1)^{j+1}P_{j}\no{1}{1}{1}_{\gamma}$}
\item[c] \hypertarget{ffc}{$P_{j}\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1 }_{\gamma}$}
\item[d] \hypertarget{ffd}{$B_j=P_{j}B_3P_{j}^T$}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}}
\end{center}
\subsection{Relation to other descriptions}\label{SecOth}
In the literature (see e.g. \cite{Kallend,Ray,Bunge}) the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ ORs are sometimes described as $\zeta=\arccos\left(\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}-\tfrac{1}{2}\right)\approx 95.264^\circ$ rotations about $\langle hkl\rangle$ where $\ve{h}{k}{l}=[1+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3},\sqrt{2},-1+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}]$ and the \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ ORs as 90$^\circ$ rotations about $\langle 112\rangle$. We show that these descriptions follow, up to crystallographic equivalence, from the above derivation.
Let us start with the OR for $\NW1$. With the choice $P_3=R[120^\circ,\ve{1}{1}{1}]$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
P_3O_{\NW1}=R[\zeta,\ve{h}{k}{l}]\approx R[95.264^\circ, ( 0.85, 0.29,0.44)]
\end{equation*}
and thus $P_{2j-1} P_3O_{\NW1} P_{2j-1}^T=P O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}=R[\zeta,P_{2j-1}\ve{h}{k}{l}]$ for some\footnote{$P=P_3$ for $j\in \lbrace1,2,3\rbrace$, $P=P_{18}$ for $j\in \lbrace4,5,6\rbrace$, $P=P_{24}$ for $j\in \lbrace7,8,9\rbrace$ and $P=P_{12}$ for $j\in \lbrace10,11,12\rbrace$} $P\in \mathcal{P}^{24}$. That is, up to crystallographic equivalence in the bcc lattice, $O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} j}$ is a $\zeta\approx 95.264^\circ$ rotation about $P_{2j-1} \ve{h}{k}{l}$ (see Table~\ref{TableNWOther}).
\begin{table}[h]
\captionsetup{format =plain}%
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
OR & OR matrix && OR & OR matrix \\
\cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
& & & & \vspace*{-1em} \\
\NW1 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{h}{k}{l}]$ && \NW7 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{l}{\bar k}{h}]$\\
\NW2 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{l}{h}{k}]$ && \NW8 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{h}{\bar l}{k}]$\\
\NW3 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{k}{l}{h}]$ && \NW9 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{k}{\bar h}{l}]$\\
& & & \\
\NW4 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{\bar l}{k}{h}]$ && \NW10 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{l}{k}{\bar h}]$\\
\NW5 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{\bar h}{l}{k}]$ && \NW11 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{h}{l}{\bar k}]$\\
\NW6 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{\bar k}{h}{l}]$ && \NW12 & $R[95.264^\circ,\ve{k}{h}{\bar l}]$\\
\cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The OR matrices corresponding to the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ orientation relationships. Here, $\ve{h}{k}{l}=[1+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3},\sqrt{2},-1+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}]\approx (0.85, 0.29,0.44)$.}\label{TableNWOther}
\end{table}
Next, let us consider the OR for $\KS1$. With the choice $P_{10}=R[-120^\circ,\ve{1}{\bar 1}{1}]$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
P_{10}O_{\KS1}=R[90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{2}{\bar 1}]
\end{equation*}
and thus $P_{j} P_{10}O_{\KS1} P_{j}^T=P O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j}=R[90^\circ,P_j\ve{\bar 1}{2}{\bar 1}]$ for some\footnote{$P=P_jP_{10}P_j^T$} $P\in \mathcal{P}^{24}$, i.e. up to crystallographic equivalence in the bcc lattice, $O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} j}$ is a $90^\circ$ rotation about $P_{j} \ve{\bar 1}{2}{\bar 1}$ (see Table~\ref{TableKSOther}).
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\captionsetup{format =plain}%
\begin{tabular}{rlcrl}
\cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
OR & OR matrix && OR & OR matrix \\
\cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
& & & & \vspace*{-1em} \\
\KS1 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{2}{\bar 1}]$ && \KS13 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{\bar 2 }{\bar 1}]$\\
\KS2 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{2}{\bar 1}]$ && \KS14 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{\bar 2 }{\bar 1}]$\\
\KS3 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{\bar 1}{2}]$ && \KS15 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{1 }{2}]$\\
\KS4 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{\bar 1}{2}]$ && \KS16 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{\bar 1}{1 }{2}]$\\
\KS5 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{2 }{\bar1}{\bar1}]$ && \KS17 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{2}{1}{\bar1 }]$\\
\KS6 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{2 }{\bar1}{\bar1}]$ && \KS18 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{2}{1}{\bar1 }]$\\
& & &\\
\KS7 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{1}{2}{\bar1}]$ && \KS19 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{\bar1}{2 }{1}]$\\
\KS8 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{1}{2}{\bar1}]$ && \KS20 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{\bar1}{2 }{1}]$\\
\KS9 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{1}{\bar 1}{2}]$ && \KS21 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{\bar1}{\bar1 }{\bar2}]$\\
\KS10 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{1}{\bar 1}{2}]$ && \KS22 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{\bar1}{\bar1 }{\bar2}]$\\
\KS11 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{ \bar 2}{\bar 1}{\bar 1}]$ && \KS23 & $R[+90^\circ,\ve{2}{\bar1}{1 }]$\\
\KS12 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{ \bar 2}{\bar 1}{\bar 1}]$ && \KS24 & $R[-90^\circ,\ve{2}{\bar1}{1 }]$\\
\cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The OR matrices corresponding to the \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ orientation relationships.}\label{TableKSOther}
\end{table}
\subsection{Twin relationships between KS variants} \label{SecTwin}
The knowledge of the transformation strains allows one to unambiguously identify pairs of \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ variants $\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} k$ and $\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} l$
that are twin related, i.e. variant pairs whose relative deformation is an invariant plane strain. That is
\begin{equation*}\nonumber
T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} k}=T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} l}({\mathbb{I}}+\mathbf \ensuremath{\mathbf{b}}\otimes\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}),
\end{equation*}
where $\ensuremath{\mathbf{b}}\otimes\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}$ is the $3 \times 3$ matrix with components $(\ensuremath{\mathbf{b}}\otimes\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}})_{ij}=b_i m_j$. In particular, this implies that a fully coherent interface of normal $\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}$ can be formed between the two phases. We show that this can only happen between the pairs ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}(2j-1)}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}(2j)}$ and whenever this is the case the lattices on either side of the interface are related by a $180^\circ$ rotation about the common invariant fcc direction $P_{2j-1}\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}=\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_j$ (cf. Table~\ref{TableNWOR}). We start with ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}$ and assume that
\begin{equation}
M_i:=T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} i}-T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}=P_i T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1} P_i^T-T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}=\ensuremath{\mathbf{b}} \otimes \ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}. \label{EqMj}
\end{equation}
Whenever $P_i$ does not leave $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1$ invariant we have $(T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} i}-T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1})\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1 \neq 0$ and $(T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} i}-T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1})P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1\neq 0$ and thus $\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}} \parallel \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1 \times P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1$. Similarly, whenever $P_i$ does not leave $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_1=\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma$ invariant, i.e. $i\geq 7$, we have\footnote{For an invertible matrix $A$, $v$ is an eigenvector of $\cof{A}$ iff it is an eigenvector of $A^T$.} $M_i^T \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_1 \neq 0$ and $M_i^T \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i \neq 0$ and thus $\ensuremath{\mathbf{b}} \parallel \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_1 \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i$, where $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i:=P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_1$. Hence for $i\geq 7$ it holds that
\begin{equation*}\nonumber
M_i^T \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i\propto \ensuremath{\mathbf{m}} \otimes (\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_1 \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i)\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i=\ssp{(\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_1 \times \ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i)}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i}\ensuremath{\mathbf{m}}=0
\end{equation*}
and thus, since $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}_i$ is an eigenvector of $T^T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} i}$, it must also be an eigenvector of $T^T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}$. However, we know that this can only be the case for $i\leq 6$ (cf. Table~\ref{TableKSOR}), a contradiction. For the remaining cases, i.e. $2\leq i\leq 6$, we have
\begin{equation*}\nonumber
M_i P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1 \propto \ensuremath{\mathbf{b}} \ssp{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1 \times P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1}{P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1}=0
\end{equation*}
and thus since $P_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1$ is an eigenvector of $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} i}$ it must also be an eigenvector of $T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}$ which is again, unless $i=2$, a contradiction. Finally,
\begin{equation*}\nonumber
T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 2}-T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}=P_2 T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1} P_2^T-T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}} 1}=\tfrac{2^{1/6}}{\sqrt{3}} \ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1 \otimes \ve{1}{0}{1},
\end{equation*}
where $P_2$ is a $180^\circ$ rotation about the common fcc direction $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}_1$. Through conjugation with $P_{2j-1}$ we obtain that the relative deformations between $T_{\KS2j-1}$ and $T_{\KS2j}=P_{2j-1}T_{\KS2}P_{2j-1}^T$ are also invariant plane strains.
\subsection{The influence of tetragonality on the orientation relationships}\label{SecCarb}
For many compositions of steel the $\ensuremath{\alpha}'$-phase is not cubic ($r=1$) but slightly tetragonal ($r>1$). For instance, the addition of carbon leads to a ratio of tetragonality approximately given by
\begin{equation}\label{EqTet}
r=\frac{c}{a}=1+0.045 \, \mbox{wt}\, \%\, \mathrm C,
\end{equation}
for $\mathrm C$ in the range $0.4$--$2$ wt$\,\%\,\mathrm C$ (see \cite{Roberts,Winchell}).\footnote{Related experiments on $\mathrm{Fe}$-$7\%\, \mathrm{Al}$-$\mathrm C$ in \cite{Wata} showed that the tetragonality does not increase for carbon above $2\%$.} Similarly, the addition of nitrogen instead of carbon leads to a tetragonality ratio of
\begin{equation*}
r=\frac{c}{a}=0.995+0.0383 \, \mbox{wt}\, \% \,\mathrm N,
\end{equation*}
for $\mathrm N$ in the range $0.6$--$2.9$ wt$\,\% \,\mathrm N$ (after Fig. $2.2$ in \cite{Nishiyamabook}). For small carbon content and certain $\mathrm{Fe}$-$\mathrm{Ni}$ alloys, such as the $\mathrm{Fe}$-$30\%\,\mathrm{Ni}$ alloy investigated in \cite{Nishiyama} and \cite{Wassermann}, the $\ensuremath{\alpha}'$-phase is likely to be cubic, however, alloying additional elements such as $\mathrm{Cr, Mn}$ or $\mathrm{Ti}$ leads again to a tetragonal $\ensuremath{\alpha}'$-phase.
Our derivation in Section~\ref{SecDer} takes the tetragonality of the $\ensuremath{\alpha}'$-phase into account and the transformation strains, as well as the ORs, are derived for any ratio of tetragonality $1 \leq r < \sqrt{2}$.\footnote{Note that $r=\sqrt{2}$ corresponds to an fcc lattice and thus there is no phase transformation.} In particular, the angles of rotations $\phi(r)$ and $\theta(r)$ in \eqref{EqPhi} and \eqref{EqTheta} respectively decrease with increasing tetragonality and thus our theory predicts a narrower
distribution of peaks in the pole figures. This prediction agrees very well with \cite{Ray} which summarises that \quo{investigators have shown that the chemical composition of steel has a significant effect on the nature and sharpness of the final transformation texture} and that increasing alloy content (i.e. higher tetragonality) leads to sharper textures (see e.g. \cite[Fig. 11-16]{Ray}).
Figure~\ref{FigCarbon} depicts the changes in the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ ORs for different ratios of tetragonality obtained through \eqref{EqTet} for a carbon content increasing from $0\%$ to $2\%$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\captionsetup{format =plain}%
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{StereographicZoom}
\caption{$\{1 0 0\}$ pole figures showing the change in the ORs with increasing carbon content. Hollow circles, squares and triangles correspond respectively to the fcc to bcc transformations with stretch components $B_1$, $B_2$ and $B_3$. The colours blue, red and green correspond respectively to \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}, \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ and Bain. The solid shapes correspond to increasing carbon content from lighter to darker shading and with values $0.45$, $1.6$ and $2$ wt $\,\%$ $\mathrm C$ respectively.}\label{FigCarbon}
\end{figure}
\section{Other orientation relationship models} \label{SecOtherORs}
In this section, we briefly comment on how our approach can be used to derive the Pitsch (see \cite{Pitsch}), Greninger-Troiano (\ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}) (see \cite{GT}) and inverse Greninger-Troiano \ensuremath{\mathrm{GT'}} (see \cite{InverseGT}) OR models.
\subsection*{The Pitsch model}
Following \cite{Pitsch} the Pitsch ORs (\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}) are given as
\begin{equation}\label{Pitschnv}
\no{1}{1}{0}_\gamma \parallel \no{\bar 1}{\bar 1}{\bar 2}_{\alpha'} \mbox{ and } \ve{0}{0}{1}_\gamma \parallel \ve{1}{\bar 1}{0}_{\alpha'}.\footnote{In \cite{Pitsch} a third parallelism $\ve{1}{\bar 1}{0}_\gamma \parallel \ve{\bar 1}{\bar 1}{1}$ is provided, which is not required for our derivation but, nevertheless, follows from it.}
\end{equation}
Using our unified approach from Section~\ref{SecUnif} with $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}=\no{1}{1}{0}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=\ve{1}{\bar 1}{0}$ we obtain $
T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}} 1}=R[-\psi(r),\ve{0}{0}{1}]B_2$ and $O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}} 1}=R[-45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_2]R[\psi(r),\ve{0}{0}{1}]$, where $\psi(r)=\arccos\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}+r}{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{2+r^2}}\right)$. The remaining eleven Pitsch OR and strain variants are given through conjugation with $\mathcal{P}^{24}$. We note that for $r=1$, $\psi(1)=\phi(1)$, where $\phi(r)$ is given by \eqref{EqPhi} in the derivation of the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ variants, and that $O_{\PT1}=O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} 7}^T$ (similarly $O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}} j}=O_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}} i}^T$ for some $i$). If instead of \eqref{Pitschnv} one uses the parallelisms $\no{0}{1}{0}_\gamma \parallel \no{1}{0}{1}_{\alpha'}$ and $\ve{1}{0}{1}_\gamma \parallel \ve{\bar 1}{1}{1}_{\alpha'}$ (as e.g. in \cite{InverseGT,Nolze}) the resulting strains and ORs are the same. Finally, we remark that occasionally \cite{PitschOdd} is also cited for the Pitsch ORs. However, the measurements in \cite{PitschOdd} are for cementite which has an orthorhombic crystal structure and thus our unified approach from Section~\ref{SecUnif} does not apply directly. Nevertheless, the
underlying mechanism remains applicable if in \eqref{EqRel} one replaces the Bain strain by the respective strain required to transform austenite to cementite.
\subsection*{The Greninger-Troiano and inverse Greninger-Troiano models}
In \cite{GT}, Greninger-Troiano (\ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}) studied a Fe-20\%Ni-0.8\%C crystal with $r=c/a=1.045$ and observed the following approximate parallelisms
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma :\no{1}{0}{1}_{\alpha'} \approx 1^\circ, \, \veve{1}{1}{2}_\gamma: \ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_{\alpha'}\approx 2^\circ \mbox{ and } \veve{1}{1}{0}_\gamma: \ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\alpha'}\approx 2.5^\circ.
\end{equation}
Apart from these original ORs (up to crystallographic equivalence), several authors use slightly different approximate parallelisms as defining features of the Greninger-Troiano (\ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}) orientation relationships. For instance, \cite{Steels, Tsai} report $\nono{1}{1}{1}_\gamma:\nono{0}{1}{1}_{\alpha'} \approx 0.2^\circ$ and $\veve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_\gamma : \veve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\alpha'}\approx 2.7^\circ$ and \cite{InverseGT} uses the parallelisms
\begin{equation} \label{GT}
\nono{1}{1}{1}_\gamma \parallel \nono{0}{1}{1}_{\alpha'} \mbox{ and } \veve{5}{12}{17}_\gamma \parallel \veve{7}{17}{17}_{\alpha'}
\end{equation}
to approximate the \ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}\ ORs. Using the parallelism condition \eqref{GT} our unified approach can capture the slight misorientations as an effect of the increased tetragonality of the bct lattice. With $\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}=\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}=\ve{\bar 5}{17}{\xo{12}}_\gamma$ we obtain $ T_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}} 1}=R[\xi(r),\ve{1}{1}{1}]R[\phi(r),\ve{\bar 1}{1}{0}]B_3$ and $$O_{\GT1}=R[45^\circ,\ensuremath{\mathbf{e}}_3]R[-\phi(r),\ve{\bar 1}{1}{0}]R[-\xi(r),\ve{1}{1}{1}]$$ with $\xi(r)=
\arccos\left(\frac{ 7^2+17^2 \sqrt{3}\sqrt{1 + r^2} }
{\sqrt{2} \sqrt{5^2+12^2+17^2} \sqrt{7^2+17^2 + 17^2 r^2}}\right)$. In particular, we have $\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma \parallel \no{0}{r}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ and $\ve{\xo{12}}{\xo 5}{17}_\gamma \parallel \ve{\xo{7}}{\xo{17}}{17 r}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}$ and thus for the value $r=1.045$ studied in \cite{GT} we obtain $\no{1}{1}{1}_\gamma \parallel \no{0}{1.045}{1}_{\ensuremath{\alpha}'}:\no{0}{1}{1}_{\alpha'} \approx 1.26^\circ$, $\ve{1}{1}{\bar{2}}_\gamma : \ve{0}{1}{\bar 1}_{\alpha'} \approx 2.8^\circ$ and $\ve{1}{0}{\bar 1}_\gamma: \ve{1}{1}{\bar 1}_{\alpha'} \approx
2.9^\circ$.
The inverse \ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}\ introduced in \cite{InverseGT} satisfy the conditions $ \no{\xo{17}}{\bar 7}{17}_\gamma \parallel \no{\bar 5}{\xo{12}}{17}_{\alpha'}$ and $\ve{1}{0}{1}_\gamma \parallel \ve{1}{1}{1}_{\alpha'}$ and as before our unified approach can be used to derive the corresponding strains and ORs. For further details on the \ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}, \ensuremath{\mathrm{GT}}\, \ensuremath{\mathrm{GT'}}\ and also on the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ ORs we refer to the Appendix.
\section{Conclusions}
A unified approach to derive transformation strains and orientation relationship models in steels is presented. An important aspect is the identification of strains with orientation relationships. The unified approach is used to derive the \ensuremath{\mathrm{NW}}, \ensuremath{\mathrm{KS}}\ and other models and extend them naturally to the situation of a tetragonal $\ensuremath{\alpha}'$ phase. The obtained dependence on the ratio of tetragonality seems to be in good qualitative agreement with experiments.\\
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The research of A. M. leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's $7^{\mbox{th}}$ Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant n$^\circ\, 291053$.
\newpage
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.